Some Explanations are In Order…

Greetings SUFA! I know, you are wondering who is this stranger and why is he acting as if he knows us. But it is me. I am still alive. I figured that it was about time that I forced myself to sit down and offer some explanations as to why you haven’t seen very much of me over the last few months. I do honestly feel bad about it. Here I went and created this site and after three years of ranting and arguing, I up and practically disappear on you. There are several realities that have contributed to this and I am hoping to fill you all in on them today. I will also discuss the future of SUFA towards the end so that we can begin figuring out how to handle these new realities. Because what I don’t want to happen is for SUFA to go away. I believe that somehow breaking through the lack of critical thinking barrier that so many Americans are stuck behind is still way too important to give up now.

First there has been work. A lot of work. As many of you know, last year I decided to completely change careers and leave the world of managing in the consumer electronics industry and pursue a new life in the pharmaceutical research industry. Quite a change, for sure, and one that I had no idea if I would be good at or happy doing. But it was time for a change as I had pretty much hit the ceiling as to where I could go where I was. As it turns out, it was absolutely the right thing to do. My options for the future became vastly more numerous, which I would never take for granted.

What I didn’t foresee was the sheer amount of work that was going to go into the career change. I am sure most of you can relate to the concept of being at the top of your game in one industry, but have to completely re-prove yourself in a new one. In my old world, I was the vet, the go-to guy, the one who had all the answers and didn’t have to work hard at being good at what I did. Experience had given me an edge. In the new one, not so much. I was the new guy. And no one took for granted that I was good or hard-working or worth their time, to be honest. I found that I had to start from scratch, something I hadn’t had to do in over a decade.

I am happy to report that I have thus far not made a complete ass of myself in the new world that is my career. A few mistakes here and there. But the reality is that I am from the old mold. You guys know the one: Works hard, strives for quality work, doesn’t shirk responsibility. These young cats competing with me didn’t really have much of a chance with their entitlement mentality. In just 15 months I have been there, I have watched many come and go because they were not given a promotion fast enough to suit them, when the reality was they were nowhere near ready. Am I ready? I don’t know yet. But I haven’t yet done anything to hurt my future, which is a satisfying thing for me.

But the sheer hours that I am working is draining. I don’t mind. I knew I was signing up for a challenge. I just didn’t know the sheer hours required. The end result has been that I most often don’t find the time to research or write like I want to do. It is all I can do to keep up with work and also find time to devote to my lovely wife who deserves much better than she gets.

On top of all this work is the political climate of today. I have to admit that I am frustrated when it comes to politics. I know that many of you are as well. Where to start…

The President – I am not impressed. I think that he is arrogant. I think that he is as dishonest as anyone in Washington. He twists the truth radically. He plays partisan politics and class warfare at a world class level. The class warfare may be what bothers me the most (there may be a post on this coming soon, but no promises as I don’t want to break them). All the while, he is in bed with the 1% just like every other politician. Has the economy started to improve? Perhaps, but it wasn’t his policies that did it, despite what the left claims. And the second most bothersome thing for me currently is his belief that he has the right to do an end-around the system anytime he likes. Can’t get Congress to do his bidding, then he will just claim that they are obstructionist and issue a presidential order. Do I believe that G-Man is right and there won’t be any elections? No, but we are certainly to the point where that kind of prognostication isn’t quite as outlandish as it used to be, aren’t we?

Congress –  Is there anything more amazing than these 535 assholes actually believing that the people are behind them while sporting an approval rating that consistently flirts with single digits. Think about that. One in Ten people in America think they are doing a good job. Yet there they are, controlling everything, getting reelected over and over again. These are the least ethical, most hypocritical, most arrogant people in America. And we have put them in a position where they completely ruin our lives daily with nearly every decision they make. Wake up people, Congress IS the 1%. You can’t rally against the 1% and actually think that Congress is going to do anything about it.

The GOP Candidates – This is really like some sort of sick joke. We have an old man that probably makes the most sense of the group, in terms of preserving liberty, but has zero chance of winning (and he admits it). We have a former governor who has made his way politically by holding no principles, instead switching to whatever is popular at the moment. We have a former Senator who wants to eliminate contraception, is severely homophobic, and who wants to revert to some sort of fundamental “christianity” to save the rest of us heathens. And finally, we have a former Speaker of the House who opposes gay marriage as damaging to the sanctity of marriage, but who had multiple affairs during his two previous marriages, and who could only get 17 members of the House he used to be the Speaker of to endorse him for President. I am guessing that those folks know him pretty well, and none of them think he should be President.

Those are the choices that the GOP has offered America. So we have a choice between four horrible choices on one side and an already selected horrible choice on the other side. There is no good choice for America. That is how it is, and that is how it will remain. This isn’t Americans choosing a person to lead them. This is the elitist leaders giving America the choice between which elitist member gets the spotlight for the next four years.

Young Liberals – Watching the occupy protests has been painful. Thousands of young people who have no clue in life at all, bought into propaganda, and deciding the best way to make their statement is to disrupt the lives of normal Americans, destroy public property, and block avenues of commerce. For any of you who have Facebook accounts and happen to have a plethora of college age kids on your list, you get to see this on a daily basis. Seeing the ridiculous posts made by these kids who really believe that they are “enlightened” makes me weep for our future. Constant charts and graphs that show patently false information have become rampant (I saw one yesterday that showed that Obama had increased the debt 1/10 of the amount Bush increased it, with it’s source listed as US Treasury,  and it was passing like wildfire through the college kids as if it were true).

Old Conservatives – I have to tell you that I am as disgusted with this group as I am with the young liberals. This is not ALL Christians. I am talking about the fringe that call Mormonism a cult, prattle on about the sanctity of marriage, and generally behave as if they have a right to force the rest of America to adopt their religious stances because “God says they are right.” The Westboro Baptist Church crossed the line into lunacy, but some of these others are not really all that far behind them in terms of homophobia and any-other-religion-but-christianityaphobia. Hard core christians have become perhaps the most judgmental people on earth, which is bizarre given what their scriptures say on the subject.

Unions – I know this will throw Charles into a tizzy, but the reality is that the unions in America are some of the most dangerous groups out there. Pure propaganda BS on nearly every topic. Ridiculous rallying against any state that happens to enact a law that doesn’t give the unions some sort of special powers (particularly right to work states). The whole legal action against Boeing having the gall to build a plant in a state that was friendlier to their business is a prime example of the evil that unions have become. Throw in the way Obama has stacked the NLRB and you have a recipe for disaster in America’s workforce. This lie that they are somehow the protector of the American worker stopped being the truth decades ago. Now they are nothing but a hinderance on the American economy.

So what has all this meant? It has caused me to begin to lose faith that this government can turn itself around from its current path of destruction. The two major parties that exist today are simultaneously batshit crazy, 100% manipulative, inherently dishonest, and in bed with big business. To top it all off, they both have no intention of ever making things better for the average American, or in the left’s case, the below average American.

It has left me with so little to write because there simply is so little that I can any longer defend from either side.

We need a change. A real change. We need a Very Damn Small Government. We need individual liberty restored. We need a re-education program for all these folks that believe that communism/socialism/fascism will somehow make this a better country. This isn’t a swipe at the left. I think that the two parties have become little more than different variations on how to enact communism/socialism/fascism.

So what does that mean at SUFA? Well, the reality is that I simply don’t have the time to write like I used to have. That capitalistic society that I value so much just takes so much of my time! But that doesn’t mean that SUFA should go away. To the contrary, I believe that we need to grow it back to what it used to be!

What I am going to do is attempt to write at least one article every week again. Obviously there will be times when it cannot happen, but I can do a lot better than I have over the last few months. I have seen that some of the regulars here at SUFA who have the ability to write here have taken the initiative to keep things going when I haven’t been available. I greatly appreciate you guys doing so.

What I will ask of the SUFA community is to write some articles. Some of you do it already. Others do it on other sites. Others don’t at all. I am not asking for you to become a regular writer, doing it every week. That has proven a tough commitment to make for anyone. But take some time and work on writing about what you want to talk about. Don’t worry about whether you are a great writer. I will help you format and get the wording together. But take those first steps. For those that have already been writing here, keep it up! You have been life savers for me. That especially goes for LOI who has consistently worked to create new material.

And when you aren’t writing an article, get people to come over to SUFA and become part of this community. I think about all those who come here regularly, and I value you all so much. I feel like I have gained so many new friends and allies throughout the country. Whether on the left or on the right or none of the above, I respect you and value what you bring to the table. There isn’t a single one of you that I wouldn’t cherish the opportunity to sit down and have dinner with. I would like to continue to grow that base so that we all have more opinions to learn from and people we can count on. More important, we have to expand the base of those getting some form of education on the concepts of liberty and individual rights.

So I am open to all suggestions, points of view, ideas for SUFA’s future, etc. I don’t have enough time to keep it afloat on my own. But I certainly don’t have any desire to see it fade away either. The stakes are too high.

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    USW,

    I do agree it is hard to write about politics today. I see people who still think that voting will fix things 🙄 , all the while I think they are just in denial. Than, my opinion is more termed that of a conspiracy theorist, which is OK, since most will be proven to be true in the long term. I can’t help people whose minds are closed or filled with dillusions that the very actions that have us in this mess (voting) can fix it in the future. Disclaimer: I am speaking at the Federal level, not the local level. My past articles have shown this.

    While I don’t agree politically with Charlie, we do have much in common, such as the need for a second revolution. It doesn’t need to be violent, but it is way overdue. It’s time to reign in the criminal politicians and those that have corrupted them. ALL OF THEM! 🙂

    • We’re on the same page most of the time, Gman, you’re right.

      Those that have corrupted them … to include: big business & unions … but let’s face it, it’s the money of big business that does the most damage … corporations, etc.

      But they are ALL dirty … both parties … except maybe Bernie Sanders & Ron Paul … maybe.

      • They would not be immune from the Potomac Fever.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie, Greed is a powerful thing, but that isn’t the big problem as I see it. Right now we have a very powerful centralized government, this, is where I see the problem. The power of these positions is addictive, and sadly growing worse. Our Fed Govt have passed some very disturbing laws that provide them with too much power. We the people will never end this problem until we end the centralized government power. Even your Communism ideaology would create the same problem we have today. End centralized government and we the people will prosper, keep it around and we will simply be slaves to their criminal power and greed.

        • Gman, it is a powerful centralized government because that’s EXACTLY what the 1% requires. The government is there to do big business bidding … always was, always will be. Greed is what collapsed the economy time and again … and now the gap is so wide between the 1% and the rest of us, the size of government is a direct result (the way welfare is throwing a bone to the disinfranchised, so is the illusion of a government by the people, for the people. You guys are still drinking the patriotic Kool-Aid on this one. Being $$uccessful in the US&A today requires as much luck as it does hard work … or, as the state’s have shown since getting involved in the gambling business (lotto), as much luck as winning powerball (the new American dream). What is more corrupt than an Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his pecker over the Internet and having the option to resign from his position with full pension and health benefits … of course they’re going to do the bidding of those who own them (lobbyists representing the 1%). You or I try sending pictures of our peckers over the internet (from our jobs) and guess what? We don’t even get to collect unemployment, never mind have a pension and lifetime health.

          That is a drop in the bucket example of relatively minor corruption. The bailout is the best example of a government by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Do you really thinking cutting it’s size would make a difference? Either eliminate it entirely or deal with it … and if we have to deal with it, why not to the benefit of the many rather than the few?

  2. USW……understand thoroughly. I have also been dealing with increased border violence and it is getting worse.

    Note: The entire police force in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juárez was ordered to leave their homes and stay in a hotel for their safety after the recent killing of five officers by a local drug cartel. The gang threatened a week ago to kill one policeman a day unless Police Chief Julian Leyzaola resigns.

    Juárez Mayor Héctor Murguía said Wednesday that the attacks carried out since the warning are a response to toughening police action against drug cartels in the city across from El Paso, Texas.

    The effect it has on Texas is that the border violence is increasing so badly that it is unsafe to walk the streets of our border towns for fear of a stray bullet from across the border. Our citizens cannot play in the parks on the US side for fear of being hit or even pot shot. We see the cartels waving and laughing from the river banks. We see innocent people of Mexico being shot in the back of the head and we can do nothing to prevent it. They, the cartels, have even gone as far as taking megaphones and letting the US know when an execution is about to take place….and what is worse……people on the US side go and watch it. How sick is this and the people watching it are our young people. We try our best to run them off but it is a free country and if they want to watch…they can. Then they cheer when a cartel man pulls the trigger on a woman or child and throws them in to the river. One of my men got into trouble when he applied a carefully selected “butt stroke” to the stomach of a young person that was yelling and taking pictures…..saying” Wait I did not get that…kill another one”.

    This is a testament to our society and I am blaming the left for this one and I expect an argument big time. This mindset is the most despicable thing I have ever seen. It is a DIRECT testament to our entitlement mentality and I believe that. I deal with them and most are on welfare and food stamps and unemployment. Unbelievable. They do not go to school and do not get into trouble……even they are picked up for vagrancy, the ACLU is right there to bail them out…….They beat their own parents……they have a gang mentality. They do not give the military much problem because we do not take it….they run from us….but they really give the police a lot of grief.

    It ties in with what you are saying.

  3. I know this will throw Charles into a tizzy, but the reality is that the unions in America are some of the most dangerous groups out there.

    Actually, no, it wouldn’t. I’m all for unions dumping Mr. Obama AND Mr. Trumpka (if both aren’t corrupt as the day is long, I’m a very skinny man) for their non-action in Wisconsin last year. IN principle, so long as we remain a capitalist, 1% determines our fate country, unions are a must. It’s as simple as that. Want to get rid of unions? Get rid of 1% owning 95% of the country’s wealth (it’d be a start).

    We need a re-education program for all these folks that believe that communism/socialism/fascism will somehow make this a better country.

    Interesting how you’d opt for re-education … Mao was big on that. So were the Khmer Rouge. I was once accused of using the Karl Rove playbook. Careful, USW, you might be veering left here.

    This isn’t a swipe at the left. I think that the two parties have become little more than different variations on how to enact communism/socialism/fascism.

    I see a contradiction here. A paragraph or two earlier you state this: The two major parties that exist today are simultaneously batshit crazy, 100% manipulative, inherently dishonest, and in bed with big business.

    Which is it? The government is there for socialist principles or big business. I think you were right about them “being in bed with big business” … and that is capitalism the way the 1% wants it … and has it. Seems to me the true socialists/communists deserve their turn now … They’d sure get rid of this government in a hurry.

    As to your main thesis: You are a disgruntled voter, etc. We may be on opposing sides of the political spectrum, but I’m with you there, brother. Why the mantra over at my blog remains (taken from a friend and fellow writer, Chris La Tray), Leave the political party. Take the cannoli.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Re-education might be called, like, teaching American History in the schools. What life, fortune and sacred honor might actually mean. The sacrifices actually made by real people of all political stripes to get to where we are today. The progress that has been achieved. The fact that in 6,000 years or so of recorded human history, freedom has only been a benefit to the common man for slightly more than 200, that slavery was the norm in human civilization until 150 years ago. And ultimately, that there are no guarantees in this life that the whole thing won’t just slide back into chaos. Not that I get a hell of a lot of knowing glances in my direction rather than dumb stares when I mention that it was still called the Roman “Republic” four hundred years after it went out of business.

      If that’s re-education, I am all for it though I know that there are those out there who would say it was unfair because I have not emphasized flaws over virtues and have deliberately excluded the contributions of non-western societies and cultures since the enlightenment.

      • SK, not sure I got your drift on this. I don’t remember once ever during my early school days being taught anything other than “Manifest Destiny” as an explanation for American expansion west. Not a single mention of Native Americans other than they were savages and had killed General Custer in an ambush (the devious bastards–sarcasm intended).

        Hopefully some truth has been added to American History schooling since the 1960’s, but I tend to doubt it. I was also taught that the Russians were the great big boogey men waiting to pounce on us with nuclear weapons and that Fidel Castro was part of their incidious plans … never once was I taught about Batista and/or his regime; how they exploited their own people or that our venture into Vietnam was anything more than stopping the spread of the Russian communists … we never did anything wrong (like support dictators around the globe, to include assinating the ones before them to install ones favorable to our interests, etc.) …

        I do remember learning about the formation of unions and why they’d come to be (exploitation of workers) but that came during my college years …

        Our propagando machine is no different than the communist propaganda machine … not an iota.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          So we are no better than….Marxists, Nazi’s and other murdering bastards? If that is what you truly believe, if you really believe that for one moment the world would have been better had the United States never been, then, I can’t help but feeling sorry for you. You are caught in the moral equivalency quagmire.

          Ask yourself, just for a minute had there never been a US, what was YOUR future or your father’s. Mine I’m sure, had my father or grandfather survived been as a landless peasant or as a conscript in some middle European army endlessly at war with it’s neighbors. I really would like an answer on this one.

          You don’t think we have progressed, you don’t think we have created the greatest freedom in the history of man for the most people? That we have the first real constitution guaranteeing citizens rights? That we have created a melting pot that never ever existed before in the history of the world. That we have adopted the best from the immigrants that have come here and weaned out the worst traits .

          Yes, I learned manifest destiny in the 1950’s but I also was taught at what cost. I also learned that what we did was not different than what every other society in history had done and that we had been trying to undo it ever since. . In the arguments of the progressive era, I also learned in High School in the early ’60’s that there was a huge schism in this country in the 1900’s over colonialism and that the patron saint of Progressivism, Theodore Roosevelt was on the wrong side of that. I learned that there were Mexicans who fought with the US expatriates for an independent Texas hence the name Texicans. Castro and the Soviet Union equal Cuban Missile crisis. As a twelve year old I watched live feeds of Castro entering Havana and shared the jubilation of the Cuban people. I even remember seeing Errol Flynn riding on a liberated tank. Less than two years later, Castro became Batista just like Lenin became the Czar. Vietnam, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden….”, John F. Kennedy, that’s all I’m going to say about that one. Remember my friend, that in 1945, the world was ours for the taking. We chose not to and melted down our arsenal. We fed Europe but didn’t have to. We spent our treasure to protect those ungrateful bastards on the west side of the Iron Curtain that we didn’t build. My God have you no knowledge. Hungry in 1956 when I was 10 years old was enough to make me aware of what was happening.

          Were our dictators any better than their dictators, well perhaps they were since they had a tendency to get overthrown by liberalizing just enough to give the other guys a chance. Didn’t see much of that in Vietnam or N. Korea or Eastern Europe.

          When it comes to body count numbers, we lose badly. Hard to compare us to Uncle Joe and Mao or Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, or the Khmer Rouge or the Nazi’s, or the folks in Rwanda or Somalia or Serbia or Kosovo. But, you may be totally right, our propaganda machine must be substantially better than that of the Communists since we actually convinced people to risk their lives to get here. Little did they know that they were coming to such a forlorn, hopeless mess of a country that you depict. No doubt, if they had their druthers they’d likely either return to where they came from or make a run for some fine progressive Communist Country.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            I also like and learned about unions both in School and on my fathers knee but it was with the caveat that they were easily corrupted. I remember my uncle, the WW 2 sniper and former Coal miner telling me that he would have shot John L. Lewis dead in 1946 had he had the chance. So, I’ve learned that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty both on the left and right.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m not sure that that’s what he’s saying.

            I think what he’s saying is that we’re not the innocent perfect angels we pretend to be, and that we are as guilty as everyone else of using propaganda in order to convince ourselves that we’re the good guys and everyone else is evil. So when someone waves the flag and says USA #1 and imagines that we’re pure as the driven snow, he and I tend to get a little miffed at the apparent (willful) ignorance of history.

            The US IS guilty of genocide. It IS guilty of mass murder. It IS guilty of lying on a grand scale. It IS guilty of enslaving entire populations. It IS guilty of rounding up an entire racial demographic and locking them in “camps” in the middle of the desert without adequate resources or any trials. It IS guilty of arresting people following sham trials for “subversive” opinions and beliefs. It IS guilty of giving syphilis to it’s own soldiers, lied to them, denied them treatment, and watches at the disease took it’s course. How is that not absolute evil?

            Yes, at times and in specific ways, we have been every bit as evil as any other dictator, bar none.

            When it comes to body count numbers, we lose badly. Hard to compare us to Uncle Joe and Mao or Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, or the Khmer Rouge or the Nazi’s, or the folks in Rwanda or Somalia or Serbia or Kosovo. No. It’s not. We NUKED Japan. Not once, but twice. Populated industrial centers. How many died at Hiroshima and Nagaski? Low-side estimates were around 150,000. High-side was 246,000. How about Dresden? That’s another 35,000 to 100,000. And that doesn’t include any of the mass-murders (and that is the correct term) of the native Americans during Operation Manifest Destiny or, for that matter, during the forced relocation marches known as the Trail of Tears. Are we in the millions? Maybe if you calculate it over the long-haul. But we’re certainly in contention for the top 10, probably top 5.

            We are every bit as evil and murderous as everyone else. But we, maybe, are better at hiding it from ourselves. We do it abroad, and we do it to minorities who we demonize and fear, so we don’t think of ourselves as the bad guys. Do our numbers pail by comparison the Stalin and/or Hitler.. yes, probably… but by how much? Is it implausible to believe that there were a few million Indians living in the US before we systematically eliminated them and stole their land? But, no, we don’t tell the story that way do we? Then or now. No, we talk about our DESTINY to rule coast to coast. And what about their destiny? Not a peep.. why? Because we want to think of ourselves as the good guys.

            This is not to say that we haven’t done any good in the world, or even that we are NET negative in the greater scheme of things. The former is wrong and I’m not qualified to judge the later. But you can’t ignore our sins and just declare that we’re good and pure. We aren’t.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              God, the revisionists are on speed today. I don’t think that we have ever portrayed ourselves as angels. We acknowledge what we have done wrong and tried to learn from it.

              Who started WW 2? Who firebombed whom first? Warsaw, Nanking, Rotterdam. London anyone? Wow, the Nisei were imprisoned and by Earl Warren and FDR, the progressives too! But you know something, I have never seen the slave labor camps, the gas chambers, the crematoria. Though there are people I respect here on SUFA that have different opinions than me about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I choose to respectfully disagree with them and agree with harry Truman, George C. Marshall, my uncle Pete, my Dad, my uncle John and a few hundred million others. There was just possibly a chance that the Japanese would surrender. The above folks I mentioned determined that it was a chance they were not willing to take. It is always so damn easy to sit back and be detached from Iwo, Okinawa, Saipan and the rest where we got to see the Japanese react to being cornered including civilians. There is something wrong with me in that I can’t be detached. Some of the soldiers and marines who died there were friends of my father and his brothers. They would have come home, prospered, gotten married and had children who would have been contemporaries of mine but that never happened. I can easily imagine what would have happened had the invasion of the home islands happened.

              Our faults, our mistakes, we didn’t hide it, it’s out in the open, always was as I pointed out before, its something we have been trying to make up for ever since. Gee, if you were right, then after 9/11, all the Muslims should have been rounded up. Right? How about that mass round up that’s ongoing for illegal aliens. Hell, we have learned too well the lessons of the past to the point where we might actually endanger ourselves

              Native Americans have always been busy killing each other off long before we got here. Where did the Sioux get the land, the Arapaho, the Mohawks, the Shawnee? From weaker tribes, that’s where and guess what, they had slaves too. One of the lesser know facts of American History is that the last instances of slavery in this country continues AFTER the Civil war in the Indian Territories where the Cherokee were allowed to keep their slaves.

              So, while there is more than a kernel of truth in what you say regarding our faults, there are two truths standing in the way of them being the absolute, as bad as any, evil you portray them. Firstly, we acknowledge they happened (check Japanese History books on the subject of China and WW 2). and Secondly, most of our admitted victims lived, no Gulags, no killing fields, no Dachau’s, no Auschwitz’s.

              I think the good far outweighs the bad and again ask, where would YOU be today, or your father had this country never gone West of the Alleghenies?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Who firebombed whom first? Warsaw, Nanking, Rotterdam. London anyone? So your argument is “they did it first, so it’s ok”?

                Gee, if you were right, then after 9/11, all the Muslims should have been rounded up. Maybe they weren’t rounded up, but would you like to try to tell me that they aren’t currently a persecuted minority? What happened when they tried to build a mosque too close to the WTC? What happened when someone made a show about Muslims who are average American citizens? I don’t have any numbers, but I’d be willing to bet your odds of being “randomly” selected for an airport screening sky rocket if your name is Mohammad.

                Native Americans have always been busy killing each other off long before we got here So your argument is “they did it first, so it’s ok”?

                guess what, they had slaves too. So your argument is “they did it first, so it’s ok”?

                Firstly, we acknowledge they happened Yea.. we’ll admit it.. but we don’t really make a point of teaching them. I was talking to a rather well informed co-worker a while back and he was stunned to learn about the Japanese internment. It just was never taught to him. I thought it might just have been him, but three other co-workers (and these are no intellectual slouches) hadn’t heard of it either or were only vaguely familiar with it. Try this… ask the next three people (under 35) about Manzanar or the Tuskegee Experiment. Tell me what they say.

                and Secondly, most of our admitted victims lived, no Gulags, no killing fields, no Dachau’s, no Auschwitz’s. “Most.”

              • Matt,

                You are judging the past from today’s standards. I don’t think that works too well. Reality, history is written by the victor. Maybe you would re-write WW2 where we didn’t do any firebombing or use “A”-bombs. Maybe Dresden was never hit because their factories producing war materials were located in a major city next to it’s civilian population, that same population that was employed working in those factories. That same population that supported a madman and cheered when he blamed it all on the Jews and said take all that is theirs……

                How do you think an SS historian would write about the America that lost the war? That they were to weak, lacked the courage or conviction to do what was necessary to win. Yes, Americans are clever and useful, in their place, serving the Master Race….

                Genocide? What race or people have we totally exterminated? When have we ever stated that was our desire or intent. I have written about Native Americans and their plight, so claim some understanding from the research. I agree it’s a shameful part of our history, but it damn well is taught in our schools. And if it had been the intent of our ancestors to kill all Indians, they had the means. If it had been the desire of our country, Japan and Germany would be our territory today. And don’t give any credit to the US, say it’s all because we saw how Germany’s treatment after WW1 lead to WW2, so we were nice just to avoid another war later on….And as you nod you head to that, has it clicked you have made up your mind to blame the US no matter what we do? SK did not excuse or deny mistakes made in the past. If you want to judge the US on how it fought it’s wars and how it treated it’s enemies, compare it to how everyone else was/is fighting. Three marines pissed on some dead terrorists. That’s a shame because we are better than that. How many Americans are tortured to death when they are captured?
                Which makes you more upset?

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                OK, let’s try it this way, If you start something, and you introduce it, don’t be surprised if the other guy does it to you. If you demonstrate your savagery, don’t be surprised if the other guy treats you accordingly. That’s it, simple really.

                Muslims, where do I start.Who wanted to see the TV show, you? I really had no knowledge or interest no more than seeing a show on “Macedonian housewives in the Bronx”. The Mosque guys wanted to build a lot more than a Mosque it was a “cultural center too”. Talk about insensitive blockheads. I would have been against it just for the poor judgement involved in the idea. Guess what, they are free to raise the money, buy the building, tear it down, lay the foundation and import construction workers from wherever they want and its my freedom to protest it because it is stupid and insensitive. 90 year old Jewish Great Grandmothers are being strip searched. As a New Yorker, you’ve heard the stories out of JFK and LaGuardia. I seriously doubt that Mohammed is being searched more often than Kyle. Unless you haven’t heard there are in house restrictions done out of ‘sensitivity” despite the fact that not one 9-11 hijacker was named Kyle.

                Ask the next 35 people you meet who was president before and after Eisenhower and see the response you get. We don’t leave it out of our History books as the Japanese do, our students and their teachers just don’t have time for it. Gets in the way of the Super Bowl and American Idol you know. If people don’t know of these things they are stupid or more likely, don’t care. Try teaching middle school kids (or High School) and inquire about their knowledge while you have the text in front of you, the text they were supposed to read last week or last night. Hopeless, just plain hopeless. .

                Yes, most of our “victims” lived, some died of neglect but few (if any) died of execution. Is “because the other guy did it first” a valid argument. Yes and No. It demonstrates the tenor of the times and what was considered acceptable. I think it pretty obvious that had we not adopted the tactics introduced by our enemies and fought a more gentlemanly war if you will in WW 2 we would probably have lost. It has been estimated that we killed at least 10,000 Frenchmen (our allies) in Caen in order to force the Germans out and break out of Normandy. was it worth it? Was there another way? I don’t know, just as I don’t know if I can ever divorce what the Germans and Japanese received as being the whirlwind they sowed. Retribution, justice, probably. Were the Russians perhaps even more intemperate with the Germans, if so, why? In their shoes, could you condemn them?

                The Tuskegee experiment involved civilians who already had syphilis and were observed for nearly 40 years without treatment. they were not given the disease and were not soldiers. In fact, during the war, something like 200 were either drafted or tried to enlist and were then treated for their condition to make them eligible. this was over the objection of the “scientists” of the Public Health Service who did not want to “contaminate” their experiment. This unfortunately was the “scientific method” at the time and still is. Have a life threatening disease? Volunteer for an experimental program and stand a 50-50 chance of receiving a placebo. Apparently nobody complained at Tuskegee until penicillin was developed as a treatment in the ’40’s. Then there was unsuccessful pressure to treat all patients with the new drug and end the experiment. Science won.

            • Hi friend Mathius…….you had me until this….”It’s not. We NUKED Japan. Not once, but twice. Populated industrial centers. How many died at Hiroshima and Nagaski? Low-side estimates were around 150,000. High-side was 246,000. How about Dresden? That’s another 35,000 to 100,000. And that doesn’t include any of the mass-murders (and that is the correct term) of the native Americans during Operation Manifest Destiny or, for that matter, during the forced relocation marches known as the Trail of Tears. Are we in the millions? Maybe if you calculate it over the long-haul. But we’re certainly in contention for the top 10, probably top 5.”

              This would actually make a good topic for another discussion.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Nah, I don’t think you want to go there and try to defend it. Flag would go on and on about the Japanese wanting to surrender or how we “forced” them into war., Matt and Buck would convince you that Chamberlain was right and I don’t mean Joshua. Sometimes you just have to kill the bastards to get their attention.

              • SK

                Flag would go on and on about the Japanese wanting to surrender or how we “forced” them into war.

                Yep, because it is historical fact – I’m surprised that such a thing is foreign to you.

                But:
                Yes to the “surrender” and to the “forced”, no…but made it inevitable, yes.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Notice how he ducked my question about the life he thinks he or his father would have had if there were either no USA or a stunted one?

              • @SK…….well, I could easily argue the Japanese surrender fact….as a matter of issue, they had a very good expose on the History channel the other day of the Japanese surrender “effort” which was none. BF and I would have to get into this in greater detail because he is only party right…..What he is not telling you is that the civilian and military were sending separate signals. The military, and this is also historical fact, was actually in control and they sent fight to the death signals…the civilian side of it,or the Emperor, was sending signals of surrender with wanting to keep Japanese structure intact……this is also historical fact. The Emperor was NOT in control and some of the military generals were NOT obeying the long time Japanese honor culture. The Emperor had no power…….sort of like the King/Queen of England now. BUT…as I stated, I can argue the other side just as effective and use historical fact just like he can….the spin is dependent upon which you want to believe that the United States was the culprit or not.

                The same as the belief that the United States gave Japan no choice but to start a war…this is utterly false and I can point to documents and things the same way BF can….this would be an interesting topic by itself. Perhaps he and I could debate this one day.

              • D13,

                The historical fact, regardless of your spin, is that the US did not entertain any surrender terms – period – whether or not it came from the military and/or civilian government of Japan. Indeed, where it may (or may not) have come from is totally irrelevant.

                The only relevant part was the US was totally deaf to all of it.

    • Interesting how you’d opt for re-education …

      My version of re-education is very different than what was meant by Mao or any of those you mentioned. When I say re-education, I mean getting people to realize the realities that exist as opposed to the vastly liberal or vastly conservative versions of history and versions of the future that politicians and the MSM have provided. People need less propaganda and more honesty about what the situation is.

      I see a contradiction here. A paragraph or two earlier you state this: The two major parties that exist today are simultaneously batshit crazy, 100% manipulative, inherently dishonest, and in bed with big business.

      I don’t see a contradiction. I believe that the right in America is pushing towards fascism while the left is pushing towards a combination of fascism and socialism. I don’t necessarily believe that either side is pushing towards communism so much. I understand you feeling that the true communists deserve a shot. I disagree mostly because I see their flaws up front and because I feel that what they desire is in direct contrast to the ideals that shape what America is supposed to be.

      • Hey, I like it, USW, we discussed without being naasty.

        I’m with you on the last paragraph until this: I feel that what they desire is in direct contrast to the ideals that shape what America is supposed to be.

        I’m still not sure what that is because I cannot buy the Founding Father argument (because it was a creation of wealthy/elites without the input of the little guys destined to do the backbraking work). Now, I don’t mean to sound over dramatic with “backbreaking work” but that is what happened; decisions were made for the many by the few. It is here where I see BF’s point very clearly (no government) but I also know that is not a possibility, which is why I opt for something more akin to a greater good solution (knowing full well the corruption that would be inherent to any government of any ilk).

        I was seriously rooting for your Ravens, brother. What a game that would have been (Ravens-Moonachie Blue) … it was a shame a former Bill blew it for the Ravens (Lee Evans) …

        • I’m still not sure what that is because I cannot buy the Founding Father argument

          I get it. I really do. But the reality for me is that I don’t really give a shit what the rich, white, land owners really believed or really did. America was founded on an IDEA. That idea was a grand thing. Equal rights for all. Government with limited power. Equal opportunity. The reality: the founders screwed the pooch. They spent too much energy setting themselves up to be exactly what they hated in the British aristocracy. But that doesn’t change the idea that the average American cling to. The idea was a great one, and it is still a great one. As such, we should be reaching to find a way to make that idea work, rather than spending our time lambasting the piss-poor implementation the first time around. The fact that the founders flubbed making the idea work as promised doesn’t diminish the quality of the goal itself, any more than the fact that Wes Welker dropped that pass doesn’t diminish the fact that the goal of winning the game was the correct one for the Patriots to strive for.

          To say the founders failed so we should revert to a system that doesn’t strive for equal rights, equal opportunity, and most important, individual liberty is like saying that since the Patriots game plan failed they should revert to next time making their plan to help the Giants win. Does that make sense?

          As for my Ravens. It was heart-breaking. We would have given the Giants a good run. Our defense would have made things far more difficult for Manning. I feel bad for Cundiff, as he has been such a good kicker and that is all they will remember him for in Baltimore. Evans should have caught that damn ball and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation…..

      • Mathius™ says:

        When I say re-education, I mean getting people to realize the realities that exist The realities… as you see them. But what about the realities as I see them? What about the realities as Charlie sees them? Objective reality isn’t black and white. Who are you to determine for me the complex realities? There are simple things, which are empirically true – the Earth circles the sun – and there are things which are open to debate or are not yet settled – how should we govern ourselves. Yet you would declare yourself the winner of the ongoing debate and suggest that what the rest of us need it to be re-educated into seeing things your way?

        • Objective reality isn’t black and white.

          No, but we are not talking about objective reality. We are talking about facts and what really caused x or resulted in y. People should be taught the reality of what happened to native Americans. People should be taught that Lincoln didn’t desire an end to slavery, he desired keeping the union together at ANY cost. People should be taught the realities of the 1%. The truth would probably be bad enough without the distortions and class warfare games that are played today. On that topic, I would like the left to at least admit that a large portion of the poor are that way because they HAVE grown lazy or dependent on a handout. Not all, but a pretty decent chunk of them. I would like the right to admit that that a sizable portion of them are bigoted against homosexuals instead of hiding behind the BS “sanctity of marriage” argument. I am in no way claiming that I am right about everything or that everything should be taught as I believe. What I am saying is let’s lose the emotional rhetoric that has become 90% of political messaging. Let’s lose “we don’t want to hurt any feelings” mentality that pervasively curbs the ability to fix things. Let’s start being real about what is happening here. I think your version of government is wrong. You think mine is wrong. I just want to debate to be based on the facts and not the bullshit that makes up 90% of the debate today.

          • Mathius™ says:

            People should be taught the reality of what happened to native Americans. We massacred them and stole their land. They tried to fight back, but we won (and as a bonus, they had no immunity to our diseases and are highly susceptible to alcoholism). Then we force marched them onto reservations. Also, we defiled their sacred mountain with the faces of our Presidents. But hey, at least they make good money from casinos.

            People should be taught that Lincoln didn’t desire an end to slavery He may have desired to end slavery. But it’s beside the point. He desired to keep the country together and used slavery as a wedge issue to claim the moral high-ground for the union.

            People should be taught the realities of the 1%. They’re rich. The system is rigged in their favor (massively). America has, contrary to popular belief, one of the most rigid class systems in the world. If you are born into the 1%, odds are you’ll die in the 1%. If you aren’t born into the top few percent, odds are terrible that you’ll ever become rich. Justice and influence are for sale, and the media does the bidding of the 1% because the stations themselves are owned by the 1% and all the politicians are also in the 1%. “Job creators” may be at least partially accurate, but it’s certainly not the whole story. The 1% pays lower tax rates than the rest of us, though they still pay far (FAR!) greater nominal amounts. They go to better schools, have better police, cleaner streets, better parks, better libraries, etc. But more important that these, is the fact that they have better OPPORTUNITIES. I do not begrudge the rich their perks (I plan to be amongst them some day). But I see it as obscene that everyone pretends that America is the land of opportunity, when it’s so blatantly rigged against the poor and in favor of the rich.

            I would like the left to at least admit that a large portion of the poor are that way because they HAVE grown lazy or dependent on a handout On behalf of the left, let me be the first to admit that a large unspecified portion of the poor are that way because they HAVE grown lazy or dependent on handouts….. or because they have become disenfranchised with the fact that the system is rigged against them. Not all, but a pretty decent chunk of them.

            I would like the right to admit that that a sizable portion of them are bigoted against homosexuals instead of hiding behind the BS “sanctity of marriage” argument. So would I..

            What I am saying is let’s lose the emotional rhetoric that has become 90% of political messaging. That’s the point of SUFA, I thought..? But I’d object to your suggestion that it has “become” this way.. I’m pretty sure it has been this way since long before you or I were born, and it will be this way long after you’re dead (I plan to live forever, so I will see a day when this ends).

            I think your version of government is wrong. You think mine is wrong. We’re both wrong. There is almost no chance that either of us is exactly right. You got parts right, I got parts right. Hell, even flag probably got some parts right. And, importantly, for some, there is no right answer. I have a problem, primarily, when I try to discuss things with people who know – KNOW – that they have the absolute 100% corner on The Truth, and that I’m wrong regardless of evidence. Sadly, that population seems to be large and growing every day (on both sides).

            • We massacred them and stole their land. They tried to fight back, but we won (and as a bonus, they had no immunity to our diseases and are highly susceptible to alcoholism). Then we force marched them onto reservations. Also, we defiled their sacred mountain with the faces of our Presidents. But hey, at least they make good money from casinos.

              Agreed. Although, let’s be honest, there were many instances of them being the aggressors as well. Does’t change the truth of what you wrote, but I think we should speak the truth on both sides. The Native Americans weren’t saints. It was realistically two sides who were both assholes at times. One side was just far better armed and had better immune systems.

              He may have desired to end slavery. But it’s beside the point. He desired to keep the country together and used slavery as a wedge issue to claim the moral high-ground for the union.

              He plainly said that his only desire was to preserve the union. If that meant expanding slavery he would do it. If it meant ending slavery he would do it. Yet that is not what history classes teach, is it? This was just one of thousands of examples of skewed reality taught as fact.

              They’re rich. The system is rigged in their favor (massively). America has, contrary to popular belief, one of the most rigid class systems in the world. If you are born into the 1%, odds are you’ll die in the 1%. If you aren’t born into the top few percent, odds are terrible that you’ll ever become rich. Justice and influence are for sale, and the media does the bidding of the 1% because the stations themselves are owned by the 1% and all the politicians are also in the 1%. “Job creators” may be at least partially accurate, but it’s certainly not the whole story. The 1% pays lower tax rates than the rest of us, though they still pay far (FAR!) greater nominal amounts. They go to better schools, have better police, cleaner streets, better parks, better libraries, etc. But more important that these, is the fact that they have better OPPORTUNITIES. I do not begrudge the rich their perks (I plan to be amongst them some day). But I see it as obscene that everyone pretends that America is the land of opportunity, when it’s so blatantly rigged against the poor and in favor of the rich.

              I can agree with a lot of that. But there is also the fact that taking 100% of the top 5% money would not fix our debt issues. And the fact that a vast majority of the wealthy are not the “robber barons” and “elitist snobs” that they are all portrayed as. I bet that less than even one thousandth of one percent of them even OWN a monocle. And the 1% isn’t quite what people think it is. To qualify as one of the top 1%, you only have to make $388k, not the millions and millions that are portrayed. Did you know that the average time that it took for someone to become a millionaire who wasn’t born that way is 17.3 working years? And their reward? They are reviled because of the class warfare games played in America.

              Not to mention the lambasting of capitalism despite the fact that in our system, what we would consider poor would be considered living like a king in many other systems.

              Matt… we will never agree completely on this topic. I realize that. I see a lot of what you are saying in your arguments. I don’t know if you see my points or not. Regardless, why can’t the national conversation include the truth on both sides instead of the rhetoric and class warfare BS? And yes that is exactly what SUFA is for, honest conversation…

              On behalf of the left, let me be the first to admit that a large unspecified portion of the poor are that way because they HAVE grown lazy or dependent on handouts….. or because they have become disenfranchised with the fact that the system is rigged against them. Not all, but a pretty decent chunk of them.

              Don’t offer them excuses… “they have become disenfranchised.” Time and time again we see stories of those she refuse to stay down and work their way up. Far more common is the reality that many families that were destitute two generations ago are slowly getting better. I am doing better than my parents, who did better than theirs. You want to provide them opportunities? Give them training, have them work for welfare instead of handing it to them. Our grandparents would have dug ditches before they took a handout. Why are today’s poor too good for that?

              So would I..

              See! We agree on some things!

              But I’d object to your suggestion that it has “become” this way.. I’m pretty sure it has been this way since long before you or I were born, and it will be this way long after you’re dead (I plan to live forever, so I will see a day when this ends).

              Perhaps you are right. But I think it has gotten far worse over the last 30-40 years. Especially the class warfare and dishonest news networks. News didn’t used to be this blatantly skewed towards one side or the other.

              I think your version of government is wrong. You think mine is wrong. We’re both wrong. There is almost no chance that either of us is exactly right. You got parts right, I got parts right. Hell, even flag probably got some parts right. And, importantly, for some, there is no right answer. I have a problem, primarily, when I try to discuss things with people who know – KNOW – that they have the absolute 100% corner on The Truth, and that I’m wrong regardless of evidence. Sadly, that population seems to be large and growing every day (on both sides).

              Agreed. Except for the part about Flag getting some parts right. He is just crazy and computer programs are not entitled to an opinion anyway (just kidding BF!)

              • Mathius™ says:

                We massacred them and stole their land. They tried to fight back, but we won (and as a bonus, they had no immunity to our diseases and are highly susceptible to alcoholism). Then we force marched them onto reservations. Also, we defiled their sacred mountain with the faces of our Presidents. But hey, at least they make good money from casinos.

                Agreed. Although, let’s be honest, there were many instances of them being the aggressors as well. Does’t change the truth of what you wrote, but I think we should speak the truth on both sides. The Native Americans weren’t saints. It was realistically two sides who were both assholes at times. One side was just far better armed and had better immune systems.

                Of course they weren’t saints. They were responsible for a number of atrocities as well. But the important fact is that they were guilty of atrocities against foreign invaders who were stealing their land. Not that that makes it ok by any means, but they were here and we were the aggressors. We attacked them, so we really have no ground to stand on to complain about the way they responded. (“I know I broke into your house to rape your wife and steal your TV, but you really were no saint when you shot me more than I thought necessary.”)

              • Mathius™ says:

                I can agree with a lot of that. But there is also the fact that taking 100% of the top 5% money would not fix our debt issues. True. However, they could safely pay a far larger nominal amount without any real difficulty. Just because the entry point to the 1% is 388k/yr, don’t make the mistake of thinking that’s roughly what they all make (I know you would never make this mistake). The upper portions of the 1% (the 0.1%) are staggeringly wealthy. This is where we find the Mitt Romneys, the Warren Buffets and the Bill Gates. They’re couldn’t fix our debt issues even if you bled them all dry, I agree, but there is no reason their effective rates should be lower than yours or mine.

                And the fact that a vast majority of the wealthy are not the “robber barons” and “elitist snobs” that they are all portrayed as. No, but many are. Have you read this? They’re not doing themselves any favors. Certainly not all 1%-ers are elitist snobs (though I know I am!) or robber barons, but enough are that it’s too easy to paint the whole group that way. I bet that less than even one thousandth of one percent of them even OWN a monocle. I should totally go buy a monocle and wear it around the office. Now where in the world would one go about buying that..

                And their reward? They are reviled because of the class warfare games played in America. Their rewards are also a bigger house, nicer car, better schools, safer communities, and control/influence over the media and politics. Let’s not forget that there are major benefits to being rich, or nobody would bother putting in the time and energy to become rich.

                Not to mention the lambasting of capitalism despite the fact that in our system, what we would consider poor would be considered living like a king in many other systems. This is true, mostly. Our poorest poor are not really any better off than anyone else’s poor. They live in boxes and eat scaps, have no health care, suffer disproportionately from mental illness (chicken/egg problem here), etc. But yet, our lower classes are far above the upper-middle class elsewhere. But that’s not how humans are wired to evaluate their situations. Humans look at things on a relative basis. That is, I am wealthy if I have more money than the people I associate with. If I make 388k/yr, I may be a 1%-er and feel rich if I say in my current home and associate with my current friends, but if I start spending time with other 1%-ers who make 1mm/yr, I’m not going to feel so rich. Just psychology, not that it’s really fair or objective, but it is what it is.

                Now, I don’t lambaste capitalism because of this, and I don’t think many people do. The poor don’t want to get rid of capitalism entirely (or at least most of them don’t), but they want a better shot at winning. They know the system is rigged against them, and they’re ok with it when things are going well. When things are good, even though they drive Hondas instead of Porches, they have enough to eat, they have a home, they have something left over for entertainment, maybe they can even save a little bit here and there. But when things are bad, the skewed system really affects them. They didn’t have the margin for error that the rich do. I could lose my job today (probably for spending too much time on SUFA) and I’d be ok for a year or two before I had to start really worrying. But they can’t. They lose their job and they are S-O-L.. immediately. And they don’t have connections, and they don’t have power, and they don’t have influence. And they know the rich do, and that the rich, who have this largess, are using it to protect their cushy lifestyles while the poor suffer – they don’t think they’re entitled filet minon, but they don’t want to watch you eat filet minon while they have their 7th consecutive dinner of Ramen noodles.

                The rich own everything, all the means of production, all the political power. And they pay games with the economy which are power-plays and ego and greed driven to the 1%-ers, but which are matters of real and dire consequence for everyone else. Everyone on the street knew that MSB’s were a terrible idea. But they wanted to juice the returns, so what happened? They crashed the economy into a wall, oops.. Well they have enough wealth that the crash certainly hurt, but it didn’t kill them. But the 99%-ers were in the passenger seat and they got creamed. And they know it. And they’re sick of it. But as soon as things settle down or get better, you can bet that they’ll settle back into complacency.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Time and time again we see stories of those she refuse to stay down and work their way up. Maybe, but for ever success story, I’m sure there are ten stories where the guy gets beaten down and ultimately gives up. The underdog story isn’t standard – if the underdog succeed more often than not, he wouldn’t be the underdog. In most stories, Rocky fights for his chance to enter the ring and gets then creamed.

                Far more common is the reality that many families that were destitute two generations ago are slowly getting better. I am doing better than my parents, who did better than theirs Rising tides lift all boats. Yes, you are doing better (in absolute terms) than your grandparents. Almost certainly. You have a cell phone and email and a refrigerator and a TV (what a luxury!). But as I said elsewhere, the tendency of humans is not to gauge themselves by any objective standard but by comparison to their acquaintances. You compare yourself to your neighbors in 2012, not your grandparents in the 1950’s.

                You want to provide them opportunities? Give them training, have them work for welfare instead of handing it to them. Our grandparents would have dug ditches before they took a handout. Why are today’s poor too good for that? Hey, look.. something I agree with! I see tons of job openings. The openings suck, minimum wage, no benefits.. but they are jobs. When I lost my job in December of ’08, I started looking for a new one immediately. After two months, I was offered a new one (and here I still am), but if that didn’t happen, I was planning on applying to retail. I needed the income, and while I wanted a dream job (which this assuredly is not), I was going to take whatever job I could get my hands on until then. I’m not too proud to take unemployment if I need it – I pay into the system, that’s what it’s there for – but I think it’s too easy to collect checks and do nothing rather than busting your hump for a few buck more. I support workfare, as I have said many times, if you want unemployment, you should have to pick up litter. Hell, you should have to dig a ditch and then fill it back in – anything so that the you’re working for that check. I also think you shouldn’t be allowed to drink or smoke or go to movies or have cable tv while taking unemployment or welfare – if you have the money for luxuries, I shouldn’t be paying for your food/rent.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              My apologies, you had an abysmal high school history teacher…… But you have still failed to answer my question. Where would you and yours be without the US and all its evil, no doubt premeditated flaws?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I had many excellent teachers, including in history.

                It’s pretty speculative, of course, but most likely, WWI would have been won by the Germans, so there would have been no depression in Germany leading to WWII and the Nazis. My great grandfather would never have come over from Europe to America, and I wouldn’t be here. The world would be better, if it wasn’t worse, it’s hard to gauge. But it sure would be different.

                Then again, WWI might never have occurred, or England would have had more power and could have defended itself better, since it would have been able to draw on the resources of the New World colonies. Without WWI, there wouldn’t be any nukes, though they could have been invented in some other war. Without the US, there would be no Soviet era proxy wars, so no Korean or Vietnam or Afghanistan (the Russian one, or ours) wars. It’s a safe bet China wouldn’t have modernized without the US, so it’s still a sleeping dragon, but Japan is probably an imperial aggressor, probably taking over the western half of the New World and engaging in proxy wars with Europe in the Midwest – maybe over ownership of the Colorado River. Israel doesn’t exist, so the regional dictators have to find a different boogyman to scare their population into submission, so they target the biggest power de jure, probably the UK or Japan. Without an economically devastating cold war, the USSR staggers into the 21st century with control over Alaska, and makes everyone uncomfortable with their huge army.

                Just move the pieces around.. the more things change, the more they stay the same. Is the world better? Worse? You tell me.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Matt

                Without a United States, Europe would have been very different. For example where would all that excess population, Ireland, Poland, Italy, Germany go? What about the inventions that were never made? Without the US model would there have been a French revolution or better yet, would it have succeeded? Would there have been an independent Mexico? Russia, Soviet or otherwise would still have been a problem. Its desire for warm water ports and innate suspicion of the West would have guaranteed that.

                From my own perspective, we were just lower class farmers and ranchers on the border of Russia and Poland. We were neither, we were part of an older ethnic group called the Russ or Ruthanians. During the World wars we were on an invasion route. We went, throughout history from being under Russia to Poland several times. Had the wars happened, hard to figure how we would have survived.

                It is interesting to speculate on the issue of imperialism, would it have ended by itself without the pressure caused by the world wars? Would Japan have opened up the way the US did it or would there have been wars of colonization fought there by the French, England and probably Germany as there were over China? Japan, being pre industrial at the time would have been easy pickings but the occupation would have been a bitch

                Assuming that your great grandpa stayed, and married locally, things would have been a bit different in your family. Knowing what you know about your family history prior to bailing, do you see success, persecution, failure or whatever for whomever Mathius might have turned out to be?

                I always enjoyed this type of speculation. If you can imagine what life was like for your forebears and what it took for them to leave everyone and everything behind to come here, you gain a lot more respect for their grit as well as a better understanding of what they saw in this land.

                As an aside, being raised in a very diverse neighborhood surrounded by 1st and 2nd generation immigrant Jews both from Germany/Austria and Eastern Europe I had heard enough stories of what it was like “beyond the pale”. I was excited to actually see “Fiddler on the Roof” and thought it gave me a much better insight to that immigrant struggle. I pushed the movie so hard that my Dad, Russian Orthodox and American born, actually went to see it. His reaction was not what I had expected. He was annoyed that he had gone and depressed. As near as I can remember, his comment was; “Those are the stories my father told me and that is why he left and never looked back.” So it’s interesting that this Christian Grandfather of mine was so aware of the evil in the place and culture he was born into that he too packed his bags and walked half way across Europe in the footsteps of those despised and displaced Jews. Though he died long before I was born and when my own father was still a boy, I know that his expectations here were never very high other than to live in freedom and in a place where things he witnessed “over there” did not happen. There is another very poignant family story about racial discrimination he and my father saw first hand done by a very active KKK which I thank God they witnessed because it certainly set my dad on the right path and through him me and through me to my children and hopefully through them to my grandchildren.

                Thanks for the response. Wanna think about it some more and do a follow-up?

    • You act as tho socialism and big corporations are mutually exclusive Charlie. The fact is that Mercantilism/socialism is the “new compromise” wherein bog corporate people are protected yet demonized so that the backdoor deals get easier and the overall transfer of power from the majority to the few is greatest, and the socialistic aspects are in place for a combination PR/manipulation and expansion of power by controlling the distribution of wealth. Its not real socialism, and its not real support of business. Its sort of a soft facsism. The ideals of socialism are opposed to the ideals of mercantilism, but they find common ground in consolidation of power and wealth at the top. Socialism has long since proven to be unsustainable in our society without some sort of competitive market. So, business is allowed to continue to try to fund socialism. In the end it will all still fail, but in the mean time the power will stay at the top.

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting article about our economy. Any input would be great from our resident economists 🙂

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-financial-crisis-of-2008-was-just-a-warm-up-act-for-the-economic-horror-show-that-is-coming

  5. Mathius™ says:

    Reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

    I am still watching all of you.

    • How’s your wife doing? Are you gonna find out the sex of the baby or be surprised?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Already found out.. it’s going to be a girl.

        I’m far too neurotic to not find out. I have to paint the room, buy furniture, buy clothing, etc etc.

        My wife’s good.. pregnancy makes her sleep a lot, but to my great surprise, she has been really good about the whole thing. Thanks for asking 🙂

        • Buy her one of those body pillows-she will need it. 🙂

          A little girl-my husband was a little more intimidated by the idea of having a girl-but he got over it.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m not intimidated by the idea.. I just have no idea how to raise a girl. All I know for sure is that I’m going to teach her how to run and throw a ball properly.

        • DON’T BUY ANYTHING!!!!! except furniture. My daughter had 2 showers. She will not have to buy anything for this baby for at least one year. I am dead serious. At both showers the guests were asked to bring a pack of diapers which would then get the guest put into a drawing for a gift. I personally won a grab bag full of measuring cups & spoons note pad and lotions.Cheap stuff but makes up for the cost of the diapers. Made my day.. I needed kitchen stuff and I’m too cheap to buy it. But she ended up with diapers for a solid year..no kidding. Another guest was a mom who gets WIC. I guess you are required to use up the whole stipend you receive. She gave my daughter 57 jars of baby food. Can’t beat that! Take my word for it..do not buy anything til after a shower!

          3 weeks and counting for us 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            I haven’t bought much – just a few outfits. That’s because I’m excited and my wife was eager to pick out something small. However, her mother has been EXTREMELY generous and we have all the furniture, car seats, etc, and at least 40 different complete outfits. This kid won’t need anything for at least a year either – I’m not sure what anyone is going to buy if we have a baby shower.

            But a body pillow (that’s VH!) is a great idea, and I’m going to buy one today for her – I’m sure she’ll love it, but I have absolutely no intention of giving you any credit. 🙂

            Anita, three weeks for you.. congratulations! Boy? Girl? I bet grandkids are the best since you get all the perks of having the baby around without having to wake up to feed it in the middle of the night.. plus you can spoil it rotten and then give it back to the parents.

        • Hey, congrats, brother Mathius … but have I got a movie for you to see. Just watched it on Netflix and will be reviewing in Saturday on my blog. Italisn flick called The Last Kiss (L’ultimo Baccio) … hilarious … about a father-to-be …

        • Grats, Matt! Little girls are great!

          One piece of advice in addition to those above. Buy a sleep sack, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001CWD0NY/ref=asc_df_B001CWD0NY1890094?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=B001CWD0NY. We use it every night!

          Best of luck!

  6. Charlie may not be in a tizzy but I find I am.

    First off-if the republican politicians don’t like the field that are running than maybe some of them should have had the balls to run themselves-since they did not-they should shut up and let the people decide without their gang mentality of insults. As far as Newt-they should know him pretty well-maybe so-he may be a complete jerk-but it might just be that they used him as a scapegoat when the actions they agreed on backfired-such as being blamed for the government shutdown.

    Santorum -gonna take away your contraceptives-he never said anything of the sort-he simply pointed out that they used a false reading of the Constitution to base their decision on and then used this same reasoning to make abortion legal. But believe me the left is gonna use this line of BS to claim the Republicans, OH MY, are after your birth control pills. I’m beginning to wonder if this is why the president feels comfortable stabbing the democrat Catholics in the back with his insurance mandate but then they should have expected it and not supported him-it was pretty clear he had no intention of doing anything else on these issues. I even wonder in my more conspiracy theory mind if the whole Komen vs. PP wasn’t just a ruse to push this totally false claim.

    Now this Mormon business-if we are going to talk about this segment of the Christian faith-lets talk about the left too- first off they are against anyone who is religious running-unless of course their religious views agree with them. so if we are gonna talk the most judgmental people in the world-I think there would be many entrants for the contest. You may of not noticed but the Mormon issue is just starting and it is the left who will push it-I almost fell out of my chair the other day when I read that Romney should open up about his religion, how he was being intimidated and should talk freely about his religion-but yet if a Christian talks freely about his religion he is attacked for doing so-I see a trap.

    And when you are talking about Christians-lets remember that gay marriage isn’t the only moral issue that is involved- it is just the one the left likes to use to override any discussion of all the other important moral principals. Lets take the gang mentality at the border D13 was talking about-it takes a lot to make people this depraved-it might start with economic problems and been made worse with entitlements but it also involves hate, lack of respect for anyone or anything, caring solely about themselves and feeling justified to all this because that is what our society is teaching them-every friggin day.

    As just one example-Lets take abortion-we have the women libers out there screaming a woman has the right to choose-and that the fathers have no say in the matter-then they think the father should be economically responsible if the woman decides to have the baby-Why should he feel responsible for anything? It isn’t just an entitlement mentality that is destroying this country-it is a lack of any moral standards. Like the scanctity of marriage-that would be one of them.

    Good to have you back -USW-hope all the hard work pays off and that you are enjoying the new challenge. 🙂

    • V.H.

      I am sure you will disagree with me here, but the problem the Conservatives have with Gay marriage is that it represents an OBVIOUS Contradiction in their other stated goals. Namely small less intrusive govt and return to Constitutional principles.

      The Constitution gives ZERO authority to Congress over “marriage”. However, the Constitution protects our equal rights, as in those that do not impose upon others.

      You claim “sanctity of marriage”. What is that? And who gets to define it? Why is the marriage of two people who have NO effect on you, as in ZERO, considered “immoral” or attacking “sanctity” of the “promise between two people”?

      Now, because this makes the Conservative look like a hypocrite it becomes EASY fodder for the left and the media. In the end, it makes your arguments against abortion harder to defend. Because the left simply ties the two together.

      You have an argument with abortion. You do not with gay marriage.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        I am at the point where I do not even want to argue the point anymore on gay marriage. the easiest, simplest way to explain it is that the concept/words are oxymoronic. Cannot exist, period! Use of the term is equivalent to talking about soft and cuddly when you hold a puppy. In other words it is nothing more or less than “feel good” words having an impossible meaning. That’s it, end of conversation. Parse it anyway you like but it ain’t marriage.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Ah.. I forgot that section in the Constitution where it says that SK Trynosky is the end-all-be-all arbiter of truth..

          Words evolve. Meanings evolve. To say “it was this way so this is the only way” is stupid and near-sighted. Sorry, but there it is.

          If you asked someone in the 50’s, they’d have said that marriage is between a man and woman of the same race, and that a black man cannot marry a white woman (or vise versa). They would have said it’s against God’s law, they would have said it’s against tradition, they would have said that upity liberals were attempting to destroy and redefine marriage. And it would all be nonsense.

          But you know what.. go ahead and live in your little where you believe that you should be free to do what you want with whoever you want, free of meddling by outsiders, but where simultaneously you are somehow given the power to decide for others what their private relationships are and insist that they define them according to your terms. Makes perfect sense to me.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            I don’t know that the black vs. white argument holds up, fifties or not. I was there, my folks were there, never an issue, certainly never an issue on the meaning of words.

            If you are free to say that words evolve to the extent that they become unrecognizable, I strongly urge you to go back and re-read “1984” by Orwell. You have already arrived there..

            So as I said before, do whatever you want, co-habitate, shear blood, jump the broom, jump off the falls but don’t call it marriage because it ain’t.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Jump the broom.. jump the broom.. how fitting.. Yes, you aren’t “allowed” to get “married” but you I’ll “permit” you to do something analogous.. just as long as you don’t dare call it the same thing as what I have with my wife. Sigh..

              Of course there wasn’t much discussion about calling it something else. If a black man tried to marry a white woman he was lynched. Why bother fighting over what you call it, when you’re more concerned about being killed for it?

              I have read 1984. I fact, I greatly enjoyed the novel. Orwell was a wonderful story teller.

              Of course, in 1984, the government was defining the terms and forcing them on the people as a means of mind control. This wasn’t about organically changing language. Words become unrecognizable all the time from their original meanings. Did you know, for instance, that “fag” was actually a bundle of sticks? And “Dork” was a whale’s penis. I could go on, but what’s the point? Words evolve.

              But you wish to use the government to “lock-in” your preferred definition. You want the government to define the world for the people, rather than the other way around. You want to use the government to make me think the way you do. That seems far more Orwellian to me..

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                “Strike up a lucifer to light your fag, smile boys that’s the style”. Fag=cigarette, faggot,=bundle of sticks, Gay=happy,carefree.

                I remember the Virginia prohibition on black and white “marriage”. It was not that they couldn’t be married since they were a man and a woman, but that they could not “Mix” races. Very similar to the Nuremberg Laws since at one time in Virginia and in Germany the issue of race or religion did not prohibit marriage. Same sex marriage is a newly invented “right” which never had to be outlawed because IT CAN”T EXIST. Now in 1950’s two men or two women even of the same race could not marry because…..drumroll……It was not a marriage!

                Orwell, stories with a moral and a meaning. Hmm… Government defining the terms and forcing them on the people as a form of mind control. I’ll buy that since in the scheme of things in states where gay m……e has been legalized, it has been the Government, (courts, legislatures,Governors) forcing the change rather than the expressed will of the people. Mind control maybe?

                Call it whatever you want, but it ain’t marriage.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You’re still missing it, chief…

                You want to use the government to restrict the freedoms of people. You want to have the government take (positive) action and OPPRESS a minority to conform to your beliefs that marriage is between a man and a women.

                I want to force the government out of the business of defining marriage for private citizens (negative action) and permit people to freely determine for themselves what their relationship it.

                Thus, if you don’t want to consider it a marriage, you don’t have to. But you don’t get to tell them what it is any more than they get to tell you what yours is.

                You are trying to oppress them. I am trying to stop you from oppressing them. If you oppress them, they are imposed upon. If you cannot oppress them, you are not hurt in any way.

                (courts, legislatures,Governors) forcing the change rather than the expressed will of the people. Mind control maybe? They’re not forcing any change. They’re not forcing you do accept homosexuality or to believe it’s marriage. What they’re doing is not letting you exercise a tyranny of the majority.

                Think about it another way. You’re Christian and you believe that yours is the correct and true religion. You believe everyone should be Christian and consider it evil/wrong/immoral for anyone to be anything else. For years the government acted with you to ban the practice of any other religion. But now, slowly, the courts and legislatures are ruling that people can practice other religions. They’re not forcing anything on anyone. What they’re doing is stopping you from forcing them to practice your religion. You shout that Islam is a cult not a religion. But the courts back the Muslims rights to practice. And you shout they have no right since it isn’t a religion. But who are you to decide what is and is not a religion? Who make you king? Why should you get to determine it for them? Nothing is taken from you by letting Muslims practice, nothing is forced on you. How do you justify your opinion that you are now the oppressed one?

                I’m not asking you agree with me (I know you don’t), but is that a clearer way to understand my case?

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Matt, It is not my “belief” that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. To quote Bill Murray in “Stripes”, “That’s a fact Jack!”

                I’m not missing anything, you are. Let’s all accept the fact that anyone can do whatever they want with other consenting adults. Get that? Even me, I accept it, Hell, I have always accepted it. But it is not marriage. That is all I am saying. You continue to obfuscate the issue. You are in sway with Big Brother who tells me what to think and what to feel and what the meaning of words are. Hell you probably even bought the Clinton stuff, “It all depends on what the meaning of is, is.” By changing the meaning of words, the government is most certainly telling me what to think and believe. The interesting thing about the use of the term “marriage” to describe man-woman relationships is that it seems to pre-date law. perhaps if one were to resurrect Tom Jefferson he might include it as self-evident.

                Play with language at your own risk. The whole 2nd amendment argument rests on “militia” and “people” and their individual and related meanings. Language is precise if it can be changed on a whim and I do believe the current debate is a whim, then nothing means anything. Based on your hair color, sex, race, religion, I and some arbitrary court or legislature or ruler could conceivably decide that you are not a citizen nor even a human.

                The majority is not tyrannizing anybody. Last I looked, we pretty much let people alone and have matured the society to the point where we not only tolerate same sex couples (which we did not before) but accept them by creating a new category of legal status in same sex unions or civil partnerships or whatever you prefer to call them except marriage. If you want to change the meaning of a word and what that meaning has been since the beginning of human history then it damn better be something that the people agree on and not something imposed on them.

                Your religion analogy fails me because it is not relevant in THIS society and never really has been. We have always had the freedom to associate and freedom to be an ass in our country.

                So, if you are so damned insistent that “marriage” should be the accepted word, then perhaps you should spearhead the movement for a New Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

          • If you asked someone in the 50′s, they’d have said that marriage is between a man and woman of the same race, and that a black man cannot marry a white woman (or vise versa).

            Excellent point from the father-to-be … but don’t forget to get the right cable program or someday you might have a grandson wearing a dog collar …:)

            • Mathius™ says:

              Not from my daughter.. shes going to be a perfect angel.

              • They are angels until they hit about 12. That’s when they start to figure out that boys don’t have cooties, then you’re in trouble! The best way that I found to handle that was to make sure they understood that they could ask me anything and I would answer them honestly.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I was going to go with locking her in the basement until her hormones calmed down.. but I guess talking to her honestly and judgment-free could work too.

                As for any prospective boys I might have.. well they’re getting locked in the basement from 13-25.

              • Kristian put a smile on my face. Cooties … haven’t heard (or seen) that one in a while. Great point!

                I remember the day my daughter was born … and the day she asked me what I wanted for my birthday (52nd) and I said, “A pot of meatballs.”

                She promptly told me she didn’t have the time to cook them and preferred taking me out to dinner. Being an old goombah, I refused to let my daughter buy me dinner. A two year war ensued … finally patched up at my son’s wedding on 9-11, 2010. Oy friggin’ vey … wait your turn, brother Mathius, for is surely coming …

        • Why isn’t it? Marriage is nothing more than a vow made to someone that you love. I don’t see why it matters if the two people taking the vows are of the same sex or not. Now if they were different species, ok I could understand the uproar. But come on! The life that they choose to lead doesn’t effect you one way or the other. And if it does it’s because you’ve chosen to allow it to. That isn’t their problem, it’s yours. Now that’s simple. Why in the world should it matter to you what they do and how they set up their household? You aren’t paying their bills, you aren’t sleeping in their baed and the best part about all of that? You are responsible in they eyes of whatever God you worship for what they do! That is their responsibility not yours. The only morals that you really need to concern yourself with are your own. Just because you find it morally reprehensible that 2 men or 2 women have chosen to live together in a state of matrimony doesn’t necessarily mean that it is, just that you think it is. And since when is it ok for us to force our moral outlook on others?

          • I’m sorry, you aren’t responsible in the eyes of whatever God you believe in, they are! Dang type-o’s!!

          • Mathius™ says:

            Well said Kristian.. high five!

            • Thanks Mathius!

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Do whatever they want but it still ain’t marriage. Sorry to be so repetitive on this but I have to keep coming back to the fact since you all don’t seem to get that I could care less what people do to themselves, their choice. I do however believe in words and their meaning. Using the term marriage for same sex couples is the same as using up for down or black for white. call it something else, what’s the big deal anyway?

              • Mathius™ says:

                You believe words have the meaning YOU decide they have. Who are you? Why do you get to decide for the rest of us?

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Then to you, there are no absolutes, no rules you feel you must obey, no conventions that you cannot overthrow at your whim. This is either anarchy or a permanent immaturity in keeping with my buddies from the ’60’s who “did their own thing”. .

                Definition is Webster’s, not particularly mine. Websters and the majority get to decide because we have entered into a covenant with each other to live in a society governed by rules. We may not always like those rules but we seem to agree, the majority that is, that living under certain ruls is better than living without them.

                As I said above, if you want the meaning of words to change and we are not referring to cigarettes in England, but substantive words, then by all means lead the charge to convince the majority that you are right. Right now, I throw it back at you, Who are YOU to tell me what the meaning of a word is or can be?”

              • SK, you are right, in a way. To you, it will never be marriage. To them, however, it is. And so what? Who cares what they call it?

                Some people will recognize it as marriage, that does not mean you have to. Some people think bell bottom pants are cool, that does not mean you have to. Saying bell bottom pants are not cool is true….to you (to me to, actually). But that does not mean that this is a universal truth. Marriage is something between the people committing and any they deem important to the commitment (witnesses, family, religion, God, etc.) It is not up to you how others define it, and it is not up to others how you define it. That is why it should not be a matter of law or legal precedent at all. It is fully subjective. Legal matters come into play on in managing contractual matters concerning things like child custody and property ownership. That can be handled seperately and such contracts could be entered into by any number, gender, etc. of adults. No animals or children can enter such contracts. Such contracts would not even require a romantic relationship or bond, it could be a custody and property arrangement between a parent and godparent, for instance. So let them call it marriage, it ain’t hurting you, and you ain’t hurting them, just so long as we get the friggin’ government out of the mix.

      • JAC

        I look at reality, not my hoped for dream. The progressives are using laws to force a societal change not based on the democratic vote of “We the people” but through judicial authority. I’m not going to sit back and allow them to force these changes over the voices of the people because some claim I am committing a contradiction.
        But I agree that the Constitution protects equal rights-which is why I support Civil Unions against my better judgement-where we run into problems is in defining what is equal.

        The progressive party has been using laws for a long time to force compliance by the people and I want the legal ability to fight them. To me this demands a distinction in law between male and female and between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. What this distinction will mean- we will have to debate, but I want that ability to legally debate issues -not just be told that all relationships are equal and to demand a difference based on facts is discriminatory.

        I’m not sure people have really looked at the consequences of accepting gay marriage and heterosexual marriage as equal in all situations-which is what the left is working towards. Adoption, military service, pregnancy, separate bathrooms, values taught at school are just a few things that would suddenly be controlled by accepting this idea.

        Sanctity of marriage-I look at it as given to us by our creator-much as all our other rights were given-but in a secular world I look at it as the responsibility to look at marriage as a commitment, that shouldn’t be gone into lightly, that should at the very least be entered with the idea and commitment, that we are going to make it a lifelong commitment in order to raise and support any children which come from it.

        Two people making a commitment to each other-is their right-Civil Unions are a great way to give them equal rights. But our differences being claimed by law as moot in all situations-no I don’t think so.

        • Mathius™ says:

          But I agree that the Constitution protects equal rights-which is why I support Civil Unions against my better judgement-where we run into problems is in defining what is equal.

          Brown V. Board: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

          Do you consider this ruling to be relevant to the discussion?

          • Yes, I think it is relevant-I look at this and I’m horrified that it was necessary to have such a discussion. But you look at the consequences brought about by the civil rights laws and tell me that they have lead to equal rights.

    • Check this out V..it’s older but I think you’ll agree.

      http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/regurgitating-the-apple-how-modern-liberals-think

      • Mathius™ says:

        How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperi­alism?

        HAHHAHAHA AHAHHA AHHAHA

        I bed Black Flag fell out of his chair when he read that.

        • I didn’t say you would agree.. I said V would agree 😉

        • Mathius

          I agree with the author. Imperialist is one of those words being misused and changed in its use, in order to create a sense among our youth that the USA is no better than the Soviet/Chinese/Japanese/Nazi Imperialists.

          Hyper power?, Hegemonic Power? OK to use these. But “IMPERIALIST”? No freakin way.

          • Mathius™ says:

            the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

            We absolutely have colonies and dependencies. If you want to pretend that Israel is a sovereign nation and not a US colony, that’s your prerogative. So how about Puerto Rico, etc? They aren’t states.. but we own them anyway.

            We absolutely use our power to enforce our rules over other countries. Don’t make me laugh by denying this. The entire planet follows our rules because they’re scared of us or we’ve bribed them. You think South America wants the drug laws it has in place? You think that’s good for those people, or do you think they do it because they know that there will be a “revolution” the second they displease us? Do you think Japan enjoyed having the emperor as second in command to the US commanders for 50 years? You think we’re not “extending [our] authority” over North Korea when we have a massive force on their border and devastate their economy with economy sanctions?

            ::sigh::

            • Mathius

              It is absurd to claim Israel is not a sovereign nation. Acting a little like BF on that one Matt. Just make a claim and declare it absolute truth, immune to rational argument.

              You simply make my point. Hyper power or Hegemonic. But not imperialistic.

              Just because we have “territories” does not make us imperialistic. Remember that every state in the union was a “territory” at one time. Some were even called “Colonies”.

              So please name the “colonies” or “territories” that we ACQUIRED after WWII.

              • Mathius™ says:

                The definition says “extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries.” How much authority or rule do we have over Israel? Maybe not 100% absolute. But I bet that you agree we have a tremendous amount of power and control. We may not be officially in charge, but we’re still the boss when the chips are down 99% of the time. You think they don’t talk to us first when they’re about to launch a major offensive into one of their neighbors? You don’t think they’re terrified of upsetting us?

                So please name the “colonies” or “territories” that we ACQUIRED after WWII. So your argument is that since we haven’t acquired any new territory recently, we’re no longer imperial?

                Oh, and in answer to your question, Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, 14 years after WWII. 😉

            • Mathius

              Don’t start the mushing up of word meaning here.

              RULE or AUTHORITY over is a far different thing than INFLUENCE or POWER.

              WE do not CONTROL Israel, unless it pleases Israel.

              It could be argued that the USA dances more to Israel than the other way around. They are not afraid of “upsetting us”. Not as long as they know the majority of the citizens of the USA are on their side. They spend a lot of money keeping that going.

              Mathius, IF the USA is an Imperialist nation then it would have continued to acquire territory, as in land over which it RULES or has Sovereign CONTROL, after WWII.

              I never said it did not act as an Imperial nation at one time. That is not the argument. The argument from the LEFT is that the USA IS and IMPERIALIST NATION. That is TODAY.

              Hawaii and Alaska were part of the USA before WW II. Please read the test questions more carefully.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Sigh!!! If only he had had my US History teacher in High School it would all have been so clear to him.

      • This is a great article Anita. It really does explain how we react to situations. Good find!

      • Very good article, Anita-I’d have to read it again to say I agree with all of it but from one reading-so far I agree -parts of it sound a lot like me-this just says it a lot better. 🙂

        Note that the only thing I posted which was discussed was gay marriage 🙂 Any other comments will have to wait-been much too long of a day to discuss the rest tonight.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      “Romney should open up about his religion, how he was being intimidated and should talk freely about his religion-but yet if a Christian talks freely about his religion he is attacked for doing so-I see a trap.”

      I agree

  7. 😐

  8. The young liberals section makes me think of the commercials making fun of the kids that want the latest apple phone converting after seeing the truth of another phone.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    You may have heard on the news about a southern California man put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had (by rough estimate) 1-million rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel. My favorite quote from the dimwit television reporter: “Wow! He has about a million machine gun bullets.” The headline referred to it as a “massive weapons cache”.

    By southern California standards someone even owning 100,000 rounds would be called “mentally unstable.”
    Just imagine if he lived elsewhere:

    In Arizona , he’d be called “an avid gun collector”.

    In Arkansas , he’d be called “a novice gun collector”.

    In Utah , he’d be called “moderately well prepared”, but they’d probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

    In Montana , he’d be called “The neighborhood ‘Go-To’ guy”.

    In Idaho , he’d be called “a likely gubernatorial candidate”.

    In Wyoming , he’d be called “an eligible bachelor”.

    And, in Texas , he’d be called “a huntin’ buddy”.

    • I would call him Friend, and then make sure that I never did anything to piss him off!! LOL

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m pretty sure this is just a joke and didn’t really happen.. but I have a question anyway: How in the hell did they get him into custody for psych eval? Seems to me that a guy like that wouldn’t just go quietly.

      • “Seems to me that a guy like that wouldn’t just go quietly.”

        Trolling? or is that thought because you are from California?

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Actually it shows that he was not nuts. We are a pretty peace loving group by and large. Always remember the axiom,”an armed society is a polite society”. The anti-gunners predicted blood in the streets 25 years ago when the first “right to carry” law was passed in Florida. I’ve always found a pretty interesting group at the range literally from all walks of life and generally very friendly.

    • G!

      You got me! I thought it was a great story so did a search, and it looks like that’s all it is, a good story. No news reports popped up, just blogs reciting the same thing.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        HI LOI 🙂

        Yes, just a story! However, Mathius, in his best liberal voice, made a typical liberal assumption. I thought that was a great example of how our youth have been wrongfully indoctrinated by the education system in the country. I’m looking forward to see if he can weasle his way out of this, LOL.

    • With only a million rounds of ammo? Would not even be a hunting buddy but a hobbyist at a gun range.

  10. SK,

    Had to move this down as there was no room to reply up top. You’re right in that same sex unions, since marriage seems to offend you when spoken of in this context, were legislated. But it was done so at the will of the people. Just because they are gay does not mean they aren’t people and it was their will that they be recognized as having the same rights as a heterosexual couple and be able to exercise those rights at their will. That they had to do this to start with I find reprehensible. I have never believed in legislating the bible. I know what it says and I believe what it says, all of it. I can’t quote you chapter and verse but I do know that where it is encouraged that I not hide my faith it also says that I am not to force it on others. Their faith or lack thereof must be their choice, not mine. It is not ok to force my will or my thoughts or my faith on anyone not willing. That would make me a dictator, now wouldn’t it?

    • Mathius™ says:

      That they had to do this to start with I find reprehensible. Amen.

      Kristian, I’ve read the book cover to cover. Old, New, and Koran. And there is one thing I can say for sure. A lot of people focus far more on the hate and on forcing their beliefs on others than they do on the love-thy-brother portions. Kudos to you (again) for focusing on the right parts.

      “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” Matthew 25:40 KJV (and the next paragraph is essential reading as well)… Yet many Christians (and Christians only because Christians happen to be in power – if the Jews were in power, I’m sure they would do the same).. yet many Christians ignore verses like these and have no qualms about oppressing others and denying them freedom, charity, or respect. Sadly.

      • It bothers me no end when people beat other people over the head with their beliefs. You know that old saying, Live and let live? Yeah well, that is and most always has been my motto. It isn’t my place to judge, God never granted me that authority and I pray that He never does. I don’t have the knowledge to judge what is right and wrong for anyone but myself. I don’t know anyone but myself well enough to make those kinds of judgements and some days I don’t know myself well enough to make those kind of judgements because I am always learning something new. That someone would assume that they are better able to make those kind of decisions for me smacks of arrogance and that just pisses me off! How about you ?

      • “many Christians ignore verses like these and have no qualms about oppressing others and denying them freedom, charity, or respect”

        I’m sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. I see this statement over and over again and it’s blatantly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

        If your daughter lies to you, will you correct her?
        If she steals something from you, will you tell her it is wrong?
        If she wants to murder someone, will you stop her?
        Does that mean that you “hate” her or are “oppressing” her or “denying her freedom”? No! Just because I believe that something is right or wrong and I say so does not mean that I don’t love that person! Now, some people take it too far, of course, but you are completely wrong in your general analysis.

        I don’t assume anyone is better than I am. Very few true Christians do. Let’s review a few more verses, shall we?

        “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23
        “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” 2 Timothy 4:2

        If you are a Christian and you love your brother (or sister), why would you refrain from correcting them? If I believe that homosexuality is a sin and I have a gay friend, which is better in the eyes of God, kindly pointing out what the Word of God says, or just letting him sin indiscriminately without repentance? Sure, some people take it too far, but consider how far those on the opposite side take it. Why am I called a “homophobe” because I think homosexuality is wrong? I’m not afraid of gay people. I don’t hate them, but I am consistently told that I do. The difference is that Christians are criticized and gay rights advocates are praised in our culture. Does that jive with you?

        I think your point is that we all too often focus on the negatives and I agree. I would be nowhere without the encouragement of my family and friends, but I also value their admonishments and corrections. If I don’t see my errors, how can I fix them.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          In a truly open minded society seeking knowledge, you would be a welcome addition. Your words and positions would be treated with respect due them. They could stand as a counterpoint to opposite positions so that all could study and make up their own minds. We don’t live there any more.

          I have a real problem with the “judgmental” issue and it has very little to do with homosexuality. There are things that are obviously wrong and I am tired of them being defended by people who say, “if you were in their shoes, you would think differently”. I doubt I would. this whole current argument on bailing out homeowners who made bad decisions partially based on greed is an example. If you really believed that you could pay off an astronomical mortgage with money you secured through a refinance a year later when your house “appreciated” it wasn’t just stupid, it was greedy. Same with using your family’s home as a piggy back for the SUV, the Aspen vacation, Disneyworld or gambling junkets to Vegas. Same thing, greed and now I am told I have to bail you out and not call you out for who you are.

          My biblical quotes are few and far between but I always sort of like the one where Jesus saves the adulteress and tells her: “Go and sin no more.” I think he was most definitely being judgmental to her as well as her accusers. When you try to correct bad behavior, it should be based on love. I can extend my hand and count the five fingers which represent five guys I grew up with who played around with drugs and aren’t here anymore. Lord, I tried, I really did. maybe not hard enough but I did try.

          • Mathius™ says:

            “Go and sin no more.” I think he was most definitely being judgmental to her as well as her accusers. He most certainly was not.

            He absolved her of her sin and treated her as a good and innocent person, a sister and an equal. More to the point, Jesus was extraordinarily clear about the need to refrain from passing judgment. “Let he without sin throw the first stone.” Jesus judged the sin but never the sinner as he knew that we are all human and all fallible and that we can all be tempted into sin from time to time.

            I imagine Jesus would have viewed sinning like falling off the wagon.. dust yourself off, get back on, start the count over again, but everyone else at that meeting knows “there but for the grace of god go I,” so there is no judgment of the person, only of the weakness they all share.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Irrelevant. She was a person in sin. He absolved her and cautioned her to “Go and Sin no More”. He condemned both the act and her conduct but forgave her the transgression with the caution not to go back to her old habits. He chastised the stoners (if you will) by reminding them of their sins and weakness and indirectly condemned them for their sins.

              So, we recognize sin (and sinners) and we and God can love and forgive them but to be forgiven you must both acknowledge the sin (like a 12 step program) and refrain from doing it again. the old Act of Contrition “I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin”.

              Back in grammar school religion class we would, I think, always try to trip up our teachers. The question everybody would ask was, “Well, brother or Sister if Hitler made a firm act of contrition before he died could he go to heaven?” You had to assume he had not offed himself (a big no-no) . The answer usually was that it was relatively impossible to believe that if he had it to do all over again he would not have.

              • Oh boy! Act of Contrition…I haven’t heard those words in 30 years…shame on me! I forgot what the actual prayer was..googled it but none of the samples are the one I learned. I recall exactly the words you posted though!

              • Wait is this it? Oh my God I’m heartily sorry for having offended thee..I firmly resolve….
                Please say yes..I don’t need to go to hell. 🙂

              • After checking with my brother and sisters..I missed a big chunk.. I guess I am going to hell.. I have it down now and will never forget it again. 🙂

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                So Anita, I did some good here. Imagine a smiley face, a big one.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I think your point is that we all too often focus on the negatives and I agree. That was my point.

          Far too many people focus on the hate and not the love.

          I wasn’t necessarily referring to a “polite” pointing out of a disagreement based on scripture. I’m referring to the Westboro “Church” types.

          And there are a lot of them.

          ———–

          Now, as to a reasoned discussion of scripture, because I’m interested in your take, on what passage(s) do you base your opinion that homosexuality is “wrong”?

          And, to save time, let me ask the followup question. If the bible is literal and correct in this, that it is clear and perfect and should be taken at face value without interpretation or mitigation in light of modern realities, how do you account for other issues with the holy books? Specifically, if it is wrong to lay down with a man as you would with a woman, then do you also accept that planting different crops side-by-side is a capital crime? And if one but not the other, how do you account for using your judgment to believe only certain parts while disregarding others, but denying the possibility that your human-judgment is incorrect with reference to that specific passage? Not trying to be hostile, but I tend to find you well reasoned and well versed, so I thought I’d ask.

          In other words, you have to take all of it, none of it, or parts of it. But if you take only parts, how can you be sure you got the right parts?

          • “In other words, you have to take all of it, none of it, or parts of it. But if you take only parts, how can you be sure you got the right parts?”

            I think you hit the nail on the head here. I see many “Christians” saying things like you do and it drives me up the wall. Human beings cannot possibly expect to be able to say “God was right here and wrong there.” So here is my analysis. Please note: I am still young in terms of Biblical knowledge (something I am constantly trying to rectify), so many of my opinions change with time. Nevertheless, I believe that the below is solid.

            I mentioned this a while ago, but there are actually different types of laws in the Bible. They are not stated as such, but a modest effort at analysis can show that laws can be broken into different areas: moral, ritual and civil. I hope these categories are self explanatory.

            Moral laws are timeless and immutable. They are reflections of God’s nature or how He wishes us to behave.
            Ritual laws are (sometimes seemingly arbitrary) statements on how humans much act in order to please or appease God. When an Israelite sinned, he was required to do this and that in order to appease God for that sin.
            Civil laws dictate the day to day interactions of the people of Israel. Planting crops beside each other and so on.

            With the death and resurrection of Jesus, the ritual laws lost much of their meaning. No one is required to sacrifice an animal to appease God’s wrath, because it has already been done by Jesus. Civil laws also lose some meaning because we are no longer required to conform to certain dictates. As an example, if my food is meant to be a certain way in order for me to be ritually clean, then it makes perfect sense to restrict how and where I grow/collect it. In this sense, it is not that “God was wrong” about the ritual or civil laws, it is just that they are no longer necessary.

            Now, the hard part is understanding what goes where! And this is where there is and absolutely should be discussion and analysis. In my opinion, though, if a law is reinforced in the New Testament, it is likely a moral law as Jesus had already performed his miraculous duty.

            Underlying all of this is the necessity of faith. If I am wrong, I pray for God’s forgiveness. If it comes down to me vs. God, I will abandon my opinions without hesitation. All we can do is the best we can do. That said, I think it is folly to simply throw up your hands and do whatever you want, just because you will sin inevitably. That is not the issue. The issue is recognizing your weakness and praying for God’s help and forgiveness.

            Now, back to your question.

            1 Corinthians 6:12-20
            ‘Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”b 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

            18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.’

            Peace!

            • Mathius™ says:

              With the death and resurrection of Jesus, the ritual laws lost much of their meaning. Where is this specified?

              it is just that they are no longer necessary. Hold onto that thought…

              I think it is folly to simply throw up your hands and do whatever you want, just because you will sin inevitably Jesus thought so to. He felt that people WILL sin, but that all he could ask of them is to TRY to do their best to “go and sin no more.”

              vThe body is not meant for sexual immorality, This doesn’t specify homosexuality. In fact, it appears to be specifically referential to prostitution rather than to anything else.

              Now, remember that “no longer necessary” bit.. well here’s where that comes into play. I would argue that the real danger of of a prostitute in ye olden tymes were two fold (A) disease and (B) pregnancy. Having a child with a prostitute by accident is easy to see as something god would dislike. Similarly, disease is something to be avoided at all cost. However, appropriate safety measures can solve both issues with a degree of safety which renders them effectively harmless. So now, might one be able to argue that the law no longer applies? Though it still applied in Jesus’ time, modern medicine to cure diseases, screenings to avoid them, condoms to protect against them, condoms to prevent pregnancy, and birth control, this seems to me that it may no longer be relevant. That, in the old days it was certainly something to be strongly advised against, but that now it is not anymore?

              • Chasing down the rabbit hole?

                “Where is this specified?” As I said, it is not stated in the Bible, I just used my God given reason. Once again, why would I need to sacrifice an animal to atone for my sin now that Jesus has already done so? Maybe my reasoning is poor (wouldn’t be surprising), but it’s the best I can do.

                You misunderstood the point of that quote. Sexual sins are pointed out in this passage as being particularly bad. Disease and pregnancy issues are irrelevant. As a matter of fact, Paul gives a reason of his own (verse 15-16). And in any case, pregnancy is always possible, even with contraception. With the killing of untold babies by abortion, I think sexual immorality is even more immoral nowadays.

                You want specificity:

                Romans 1:26-27
                “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

                It is a dangerous proposition to try to explain away all morality. Maybe you are ok with that, but I certainly think it is a bad thing and not accurate. I could be completely wrong in my analysis. Bottom line, I will side with God’s Word above human reason.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Not to go after you too hard, but allow me to ask one more question.

                Let us assume there is a god. Further, let us assume he divinely inspired the bible, perfect and complete and, even, intended for use exactly as you interpret it.

                Here is a major problem I have: It was transmitted orally for centuries before it was compiled by a Roman committee. This is historical fact. There are several versions (KJV, etc) which all have slightly different takes on what it says and, importantly, how to translate from the ancient languages in which it was written. Then there are other versions which aren’t mainstream, such as Greek Orthodox, etc, which are wildly different in places. Then there are the Apocrypha. So, assuming that it was perfect as originally conceived, how can you know that the things which it purports to say are the things which God originally included and not the insertion of someone orally retelling it or with an agenda or a mistake etc?

                Please take this question in the spirit it was intended, it is not my goal to denigrate your faith or your holy books, but I just have trouble with this issue and am always interested in seeing how people of faith square the circle.

                PS: The Koran accounts for exactly this. It states that the old/new testaments are full of translation errors and errors from oral recitation before they were written, thus any discrepancies (external errors) between the Koran and the bible are the fault of human error losing the divine word. So there is not really any contradiction between the Koran and the (pristine) old/new testaments. Pretty clever way of handling it, I thought. Doesn’t help explain internal contradictions, however.

              • Now, let me be clear. I am not upset by your comments, but you are most certainly denigrating my faith and my holy books. It doesn’t bother me because it is now mainstream to do so, even by “Christians.” The Bible says silly things like ____, so it must not not be true…

                You assume that the words of the Bible have changed over time simply because of the time lapse. That is not proof. I would posit that, being the most important thing in Hebrew culture, with thousands of people memorizing it, the old testament would be pretty darn accurate. Every discovery of ancient texts (dead sea scrolls) show that what is written down is accurate. Now, don’t get me wrong, people can change the words because they misinterpret the meaning (new age translations), but if you stick to a rigorous translation (the lutheran study bible for instance), I really don’t see what the big deal is.

                As a matter of fact, there are clear examples of the Bible’s historical accuracy, even in the face of disagreement by secular sources. In Genesis 40 we are told how Joseph interpreted the dream of Pharaoh’s butler. In this dream grapes are mentioned. But the ancient historian, Herodotus, states that the Egyptians grew no grapes and drank no wine, and many therefore questioned the accuracy of the biblical account. However, paintings discovered on the ancient Egyptian tombs, show the dressing, pruning, and cultivating of the vines, and also the process of extracting the juice of grapes, as well as scenes of drunkenness. There can be little doubt then that Herodotus was wrong and the Bible right.

                You repeatedly mention the “old guys” compiling the Bible, but why does that lesson it? If anything, it strengthens it. Biblical scholars spent a great deal of time and energy discerning what is the Word of God and what is written without divine inspiration. For example, the Apocrypha is usually not included in the Bible because it is either questionable in terms of historical or biblical accuracy or it does not fit with what we know about God and His Word. Does that make sense?

              • Mathius™ says:

                The Bible says silly things like ____, so it must not not be true… Close.. the bible says silly thinks like ____, so it must not be EXACTLY TRUE or EXACTLY LITERAL

                You assume that the words of the Bible have changed over time simply because of the time lapse I would posit that the bible has changed over time because it is demonstably true. We have found old versions which do not line up with the current readings, further there is not 100% agreement over what it says currently, hence the reason we have KJV and NIV, etc. One of them HAS to be wrong. It simply has to be. The differences tend not to be huge, but when you branch out, as I said, to Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, the difference become more pronounced and, again, they can’t all be right.

                the old testament would be pretty darn accurate. The old testament was carried orally for thousands of years before being written down. Human memories are simply not that good. It’s a very long book scroll. Plus, just like the bible, there are differing versions in the ancient texts. I prefer to believe that if there was a divine spark involved that the meat of it was preserved, but I cannot believe that it was word-for-word passed down through 100 generations.

                There can be little doubt then that Herodotus was wrong and the Bible right. I’m sure the bible holds it’s accuracy to its origins in many places. I’m not saying all was lost about it.. only that you can’t be positive about any specific item’s fidelity to the original.

                You repeatedly mention the “old guys” compiling the Bible, but why does that lesson it? If anything, it strengthens it. Biblical scholars spent a great deal of time and energy discerning what is the Word of God and what is written without divine inspiration. For example, the Apocrypha is usually not included in the Bible because it is either questionable in terms of historical or biblical accuracy or it does not fit with what we know about God and His Word. Does that make sense? Yes, it makes perfect sense. But they are still human. And humans are not perfect. They could have meditated their whole lives on the meaning of a single passage and what words to use in the “official” version, but there is still no guarantee that they got it exactly right.

                When compiling the Old Testament (the Torah), the Rabbis sat in a group led by a senior Rabbi (in fact, if memory serves, there were several senior rabbis because it took so long they kept dying)i. They went sentence by sentence, word by word. And they debated every single thing. It took decades to complete. And even then there was no consensus that it was exactly right. So they created the Talmud (The Book of Learning/Instruction). The Talmud is the accompanying document which offers the rabbinical thoughts on meanings and interpretations. Where they disagreed or felt further clarity was required, all dissenting opinions were given expression so that Jews who followed could find their own meaning. I have not read the Talmud cover-to-cover, though perhaps I will some day (it’s pretty dry). But still the rabbis knew there was potential for error, and that made them leery of pronouncing anything they wrote down as flawless or perfect.

                Jews today who question a passage can pull of the Talmud and see what the guys who wrote it down thought about it, where they disagreed, and they can come up with their own opinions.

          • “Far too many people focus on the hate and not the love.”

            Hate has no place in Christianity (apart from hating sin or whatever). Anyone who displays hate in the name of Christianity is doing it wrong (Westboro Church, etc.). Please don’t group us all together. It certainly doesn’t disprove anything about homosexuality.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I certainly don’t lump you all together. I consider your interpretation of Christianity to be miles away from Westboro’s. They’re closer to radical Islam (Wahhabi) than to the version of Christianity you practice.

              Anyone who displays hate in the name of Christianity is doing it wrong .. while I tend to agree with your interpretation over theirs, I’m confused how you can make a statement like this with such certainty. There is plenty to justify the opinion that “God hates X.” You read the book and prioritize the God is Love sections, but that’s your reading. What I’m asking is this: how can you be so sure you’re right and they’re wrong? Wouldn’t they say the same thing about you – that you’re the one doing it wrong?

              • Romans 5:8
                “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

                Romans 3:23
                “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

                No one is exempt. No one is better than anyone else. Why would Jesus die for our sins if God hated us? That is to say, everyone has sinned and will sin. How then can you justify the grace of God through Jesus Christ if God hates us because we sin?

                Matthew 22:36-40
                36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
                37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

                How can we hate people if we are commanded above all else to love?

                I understand your point about people’s own interpretations, but I see these sorts of questions are very clear cut. I get the impression you are of the mentality that nothing is true and everything is relative, so I don’t expect you to agree. This debate has gone on longer than I usually let it. It’s pointless in the end because neither side will give in…

              • SK Trynosky St says:

                JB, Thanks for coming in on this. I will, as is my nature, continue being obnoxious and disliked. Appreciate your contribution.

              • 😉

              • Mathius™ says:

                I get the impression you are of the mentality that nothing is true and everything is relative, so I don’t expect you to agree. This debate has gone on longer than I usually let it. It’s pointless in the end because neither side will give in…

                JB,

                For the record, though of course I do not share your beliefs, there was no agenda in asking these questions. I was not trying to convince you of anything, nor change your beliefs, nor denigrate your faith. I just wanted to get a cleared understanding of where you stand and how you interpret your religion in light of your scripture and it’s history. I wasn’t looking for you to “give in,” but rather for you to show me how you arrived at your opinions.

                So, sorry if it came off as hostile or argumentative in any way. Thank you for your patience on this. I appreciate your answers.

                Regards,
                Mathius

    • Displaced Okie says:

      I have never understood why the government doesn’t just recognize only civil unions for all couples-I figure the state can use that term(civil unions) to do everything they want with laws and tax codes. Another thing I’ve never understood(as you can imagine, this is a pretty long list) is why people feel the need to have the state define something as marriage(in fact I am still a little ticked that I had to get a “marriage” license–marriage license…lol, what kind of free country are we livin’ in, anyway?), I’m pretty sure we got along just fine through most of recorded history without the state defining and regulating who can love each other or live together.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Good answer!!!! pretend you see a smiley face here.

        Another great point, I have recently heard that Lincoln was technically a bastard since his parents had not been formally married. Now this story goes back almost 100 years but he is an icon and I can see it being conveniently forgotten. I wonder if they considered themselves married?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I wonder. If govt was not involved, would this be an argument at all? If the Corporate Whore Media wasn’t involved equally, would it be a subject of discussion?

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Unless you go with Okie above, it would be I’m afraid. Guys like me would constantly bitch and moan and try to explain it logically.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          SK,
          I agree with what you were saying earlier about marriages. My beliefs only recognize “traditional” man- woman marriages performed by a preacher, but those are just my beliefs that and since they only affect me(and my family) I don’t feel that I need for the state to make the rest of the world conform to my beliefs–of course this is pretty much what I got from reading your posts.
          BTW, I know quite a few constitutionalists that think Lincoln was a bastard for reasons completely unrelated to his parents maritial status, lol.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Session was the classic example of “the Law of Unintended Consequences”. In order to prevent a strong centralized government, the South forced a war that created a government at least a hundred times stronger than anything that would have naturally evolved over the next fifty years.

            Two of my really great “what if’s ” in history are what would have happened if Lincoln lived and what would have happened if FDR lived. I wonder about reconstruction and in Roosevelt’s case deconstruction, (not to mention the Soviet Union).

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      It only seems logical to me as a modern man and citizen that if two people of any persuasion want to pledge their fidelity to each other and do it in such a way as to guarantee that each of them should legally become “the next of kin” that they should be allowed to do so. What I or the Bible think about the morality or sinfulness of their lifestyle should have absolutely no bearing on them taking this step.

      Marriage, in addition to being the binding together of a man and woman is also a formal legal contract between the two. Allowing same sex people to forge such contracts is a no-brainer. Creating something that allows for this is logical and right but it cannot be called marriage without a formal re-definition of the term..

      • Mathius™ says:

        You were so close right up until the end. “Formal re-definition of the term”… who defines the formal term, where does one apply for a re-definition? Is the government in charge of the English language officially, or is it the ghost of Miriam and Webster?

        How can something have a “formal re-definition” when there is no formal definition to re-define? No one owns it. It’s a word, like any other word. And words don’t have formal changes made to them. They simply shift over time. Sometimes there’s a shock to the term and it shifts suddenly and takes on a new meaning. Sometimes it falls into disuse and resurfaces later on with an altered meaning. Sometimes it just grows to encompass more than it did originally.

        So are you the committee that hosts the official definitions of all English words, such that to use any word in a new way, I need to write up a draft proposal in triplicate for you?

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          If you want me to be in charge, I will be happy too. Just think of the mischief I could do.

          I fear that it is the lawyer in you or watching too many episodes of “Law and Order”, I see the same thing in my son, the lawyer. I can see that a word, off the top of my head, like “franking” could shift meanings. More formal than “fag” nonetheless, it is obscure enough to be redefined and may very well have been redefined. You are however stretching it a bit on marriage. Marriage is a lot like Air, or Water, or Up or Down. It is , as I have said before probably “self-evident”. Sorry.

          Regarding you leading the charge, the folks who want to pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage are as wrong as you. So, if they think that you can formalize the meaning of a word perhaps you should too.

          Yes, sometimes words do grow to encompass more than they originally did, words like mushrooms.

          Have you thought about an answer yet to what your prospects, or your fathers, would have been in a world without the United States? I’m really interested in comments on this from those who perhaps don’t have the same take on “the bright and shining city on a hill” that I do.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Matt,

            I want to grant, here in advance, that soon, if not already, the standard dictionary definition of Marriage will eliminate the man and woman part. Not because it is right mind you or because of a preponderance of new usage but because of political pressure placed on the publishers by a small, noisy group of activists. The PC crowd if you will. It would become “discriminatory” not to change it. That will not be an organic change but….it will be a form of mind control. Little mush headed youngsters will look it up and think that it was always that way.

            • because of political pressure placed on the publishers by a small, noisy group of activists.

              SK, I think you vastly underestimate the size of that “small, noisy group of activists.” The reality is that in America, those who oppose the right of same sex couple to enter into marriage are actually quickly becoming the small, noisy group. I would say that 90% of the people I talk to support gay couples having the right to marry.

              And here is the why…. you don’t get to define marriage. Neither does the bible. Nor any other religious group. You lost that right the second you decided to use the term marriage as a definition for receiving special status from the government. When that happened, you relegated “marriage” into a civil rights issue. It is no different than “voting”, “employment”, “education”, or “fair and speedy trial”. You brought government into the equation. When you did, you unknowingly mandated that it be equally available to all. You don’t want government to determine the definition of marriage or determine who can and cannot be married? Great! Me too! So let’s eliminate the status of “married” from everything having to do with a man and a woman making a commitment to one another. So long as “marriage” equals “special government status,” you do not have the right to deny any two human beings from entering into it….

              • Parriage any one?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Huzzah!

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                You may very well be right. Perhaps I will adopt the motto of National Review when Buckley founded it., “Our job is to stand athwart history and yell….Stop!”

                I don’t think I ever asked government for any special status. As a matter of fact for a goodly number of years after I was married (’73) I was one of those people who were paying the marriage penalty in taxes. Jointly we paid more than we would have individually. That’s one of those reverse loopholes like taxing you on overtime as if it were straight income. What other great, special benefits do I get that I haven’t thought about and how would they be administered differently under “civil unions”?

                I cannot tell you why I believe all this will have a bad conclusion. It is like so many other seemingly great ideas that have blown up in our faces over the years. Many things, like Eugenics for example make a great deal of sense, that is until you take them to their logical conclusion.

                There is a thing I call, “go along to get along”. In it people are too cowardly to tell the truth because they want to fit in, to get along, not to cause controversy. Having had some obvious physical disabilities as a kid, where the treatment was worse than the disease although the treatment worked,I have never really given a rats ass about fitting in which is why, to quote John Adams , “I am obnoxious and disliked”.

                So you can abolish the distinction if you would like. I am convinced that it will have a deleterious effect on the society. In its own way it will be no different than the other “improvements” in society over the past fifty years which have allegedly enhanced personal freedom at the cost of an out of control illegitimate (do I offend anyone here? hope I do.) birth rate, the creation of a permanent underclass, the spending of the country into penury, and the loss of the social contract with everyone out there giving the 19th Century robber barons a run for the money while “doing their own thing”. But what the hell, Heather needs two Mommies since it’s obviously equal or maybe even better than a Mommy and Daddy. We all KNOW that mind you, 6,000 years of human history notwithstanding. Those stupid old fogies.

              • I wonder why you are using 90% -to the best of my knowledge-whenever this issue has been democratically voted on or at the very least almost all-the people have said NO.

                Now I will agree that whenever you let the government enter into anything they will use that fact to do whatever they please-but I don’t think that means they really have the right to do so. Whoever agreed to government involvement-agreed based on a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman-so unless you agree that government can just arbitrarily change the meaning of a word after the fact-I don’t see what difference it makes.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                I know you are busy but I am still waiting to find out what all those special benefits I get for being married are (I’d like to apply). Maybe I am having a mind freeze or something or the senility is catching up but I will be damned if I can figure out something I get from the government that others either don’t or wouldn’t get by becoming domestic partners.

  11. 8)

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      8) ?????

      I know you are out there lurking Flag, Like a shark waiting to pounce and rip out my throat or perform some other violence on me.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Yes. Breitbart is a hack. No need to follow the link.

      • So Matt, you think we should just plod along, trust our government, nothing to see here? Trust the rosy picture painted by the official military?

        Mmmmmmm, Kool-aid good, mmmmmm

        Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis deliberately broke ranks with the official portrayal of the war after spending a year in the country, issuing a grim assessment and accusing his superiors of covering up the harsh realities that plague the mission.

        “What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by US military leaders about conditions on the ground,” Davis wrote in an article published in Armed Forces Journal, a private newspaper not affiliated with the Pentagon.

        “Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level,” he wrote under the headline, “Truth, Lies And Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down.”

        Local Afghan government officials are failing to serve the Afghan population and their security forces are reluctant to fight insurgents or are colluding with the Taliban, he wrote.

        “How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by US senior leaders in Afghanistan?” he said in his article.

    • TRay……..You must take this with a grain or two of salt, to coin a well used phrase. As a former commander in combat areas, I can relate to what he is saying with respect to his mission. I was frustrated at the fact that indigenous forces were not professional soldiers and were never going to be. I was frustrated at the level of incompetence….not from the US side but from the side of the indigenous population and its “security” forces. So, for him to make a statement that the security forces he dealt with were lame at best is probably a true statement. I have no doubt. But, as a commander, he writes reports and sends it in. That is where his involvement stops. He can make assumptions as to the bigger picture but if he is not involved….that is all they are….assumptions. I have dealt with this on two different occasions. The first occasion was in Vietnam in trying deal with the local Vietnamese in Nha Trang. The local leaders were all in collusion with the local Viet Cong because they had to live their and they did not know how to nor did they want to know how to defend themselves. It was frustrating because the very people we were trying to train, did not want (a) to be trained and (b) would not fend for themselves. They would sell information to the Viet Cong, It was different with the Montgnards where I spent the bulk of my time. The next occasion was when I was assigned to the inept unprofessional organization of the United Nations Peace Keeping Force. Our job was to “keep the peace” and prevent Genocide but we were ordered to stand by and not interfere when genocide occurred. I have posted on here before being order to standby by with superior forces and superior weapons while a village was systematically exterminated and we could do nothing and we were 500 meters away. We watched as bulldozers dug big trenches, lined up the villagers, and the Serbian forces machine gunned them into the ditches and bury the wounded alive. All of this was political after the fall of Yugoslavia. I remember, after the incident, landing in the Olympic Stadium in Sarajevo and seeing the infield covered in plastic body bags because the morgues were full and the temperature at that time of year was well below freezing. I found out later that the bodies had been exhumed and removed for burial elsewhere.

      All this to say, that it is very frustrating as a commander to see all of this and not form opinions. However, and rightly so, we are not allowed to talk to the news media unless cleared through the PR Officer. Sanitized, if you will. I always wrote my reports, in detail, but left political insinuation out of the reports. To offer political recourse while serving……will end a career very fast. But, writing a report in detail and keeping copies, was a way to cover one’s ass. In my reports, I would tell the truth and often that truth was that the local leaders were inept and unprofessional and not to be trusted…..but that is as far as I went because that was all that was required as a commander. I did, however, keep copies of all reports that I wrote in the event that I was ever called anywhere to testify.I have NEVER been asked to sanitize a report at all. My own integrity would not allow that no matter my career. My integrity was more important and everyone knew it.

      So, all through his article, I could see the frustration. The main problem is that the military is the enforcement arm of politics. That is the absurdity, Our military should be used and trained for two types of operations. (1) Defense of the United States by armed force. (2) Offense only in the name of defense and that offense needs to be quick and decisive and no quarter. We are not a police force…as we are being used now.

      He is correct in the description of the local forces but I think he is off base on his analysis of the entire situation. He has drawn conclusions from limited excursion of 12 months. However, since he wrote a book…while still serving….his career is dead. He will be “nuked”…there is no question. I was in Afghanistan for only 7 months but I was part of the initial force that secured one area…..the muscle, so to speak. I was rotated out quickly, so other officers could “get their ticket punched”. But while there, it reminded me of Vietnam. Not the terrain, but the futility of it, I could ascertain that we were not there to win it…..again,

      • d13

        Good morning my Texican friend. Your post reminded me of an old Chief’s comment.

        A man without honor has nothing. He is not a man.

      • D13, thanks for the reply. I suspected the publication was a career ender. If his assessment is even half true, then it begs the question why are we staying. There is nothing to be gained if the locals will not step up to help themselves. It seems strange that they will put all that energy into fighting us but they will not put the same energy into protecting themselves. When we went into Afganistan and Iraq ten years ago, I said it would take two decades since it is more an education process that takes at least one generation for them to understand democracy. People forget that we practiced it for 150 years on this continent before breaking with Britain.

      • Common Man says:

        Colonel Sir;

        Although I am sure there is still lots I don’t know, my son has told me that it was very much the same in Iraq as it relates to functioning more as a police force than as a military force. He has told me on a number of occasions that none of the guys were “defending America” as much as they were looking out for each other. However each day they mounted the Bradley’s and patrolled the neighboring cities, and from June – September of 2005 they did so for 12-14 hours each day for 97 days in a row. He said tempatures from the end of June – July ranged from 130-140. Can’t envision humping all day in that kind of heat.

        He and other guys in his unit have told me that those people don’t have a frigen clue what Democracy is, or had any desire to obtain it. They pretty much just wanted to be left alone, and towards the end for us to go home.

        My son served with the Army’s 3rd Infranty Division and was with the 1st 15th stationed at FOB McKenzie in 2005. He was the squad medic for Alpha company. I believe that was pretty cose to Balad.

        Hope you are well and staying safe

        CM

  12. Thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.

    Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

    The Post analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members and compared them with earmarks members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members. The review also found 16 lawmakers who sent tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards. […]

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/02/07/open-thread-earmarks-means-personal-enrichment#ixzz1lhvKmkxb

  13. Matt, Charlie, BF

    You guys are constantly harping about how the founders overran the Natives & Mexicans and Charlie with his slavery schtick…

    WE GET IT! So the US is a evil ogre in your eyes. But yet you continue to live happily in the swamp.

    QUESTION

    What would you like to see done as we stand now? And could you please, please , please keep your responses in the 21st century?

    • Mathius™ says:

      21st century.. ok:

      We could stop invading countries based on flimsy / cherry-picked evidence about WMD’s.

      We could stop saber rattling with a country which does not pose a threat to us (*cough* Iran *cough*)

      We could reign Israel in a little bit – it’s not in their best interest or ours to have them be so hawkish.

      We could get out of Afghanistan.

      We could get out of Korea.

      We could stop our pissing contest with China – they’re the best friend we have and we act like they’re our enemy.

      We could stop indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists without trials.

      We could stop spying on our own citizens.

      We could stop discriminating against homosexuals and treating them like second-class citizens.

      We could stop discriminating against Muslims and treating them like second-class citizens.

      We could fix discriminatory drug laws which penalize poor-man’s drugs far harsher than rich-man’s drugs.

      We could stop bullying our neighbors into prosecuting a drug war which is wrecking havoc on their internal population.

      We could stop whatever we’re doing comparable to the Tuskegee experiment right now – but it won’t come to light for 50 years, and by then you’ll ignore it as ancient history.

      Want me to go on?

      ————————-

      So the US is a evil ogre in your eyes. But yet you continue to live happily in the swamp. I was born here. I almost moved to Australia, but I met my wife and she wasn’t willing to move away from her parents and I wasn’t willing to move away from her. So I stayed. C’est la vie.

      Yes, the US is a cesspool of dysfunction, corruption, and evil. But so is pretty much everywhere else. Why trade one cesspool for another? I’m smart, I’m educated, and I’m hard working. I’m tall, good looking, white, male, and (nominally) Jewish – the deck is stacked in my favor in the US, but I can’t guarantee that it would be elsewhere. I can make a good life here. Swamp or not, there’s no place like home.

      • Just received an envoy from DPM who asked me to relay a message to you with respect to this portion of your response…..” I’m smart, I’m educated, and I’m hard working. I’m tall, good looking, white, male, and (nominally) Jewish – the deck is stacked in my favor in the US, but I can’t guarantee that it would be elsewhere. I can make a good life here. Swamp or not, there’s no place like home.” Sir Mathius…..it reads….

        AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH?

        There is a post script that adds…..he would deliver it himself but he is clandestinely involved elsewhere…..sends his regards.

        • Mathius™ says:

          If I ever catch that pirate, I’ll be sure to lock him in my basement and keep him there where he belongs.

          And, right, like I don’t know that a “clandestine location” is code for Laguna Madre with Captain Morgan.

      • So we must bat 1000 and the rest of the world gets to bat 250?

      • Admiral Ackbar says:

        “We could stop our pissing contest with China – they’re the best friend we have and we act like they’re our enemy.”

        It might just be me, but I would at least put Canada above China on the best friend list.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well, Admiral,

          I just don’t trust them. The mounties are just lying in wait. IT’S A TRAP!

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            Mathius!! Quiet!

            You do realize that red is not exactly the best camouflage there is, right?
            Stop giving away so many Canadian secrets.

      • Mathius

        How funny. The Man who claims he was born into a cesspool would have preferred to live in Australia.

        A nation built upon corruption and violence, not to mention the near extermination of its indigenous people, conducted in a planned and deliberate manner from the get go.

        But for you THAT cesspool was better than THIS cesspool.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I’m from LA.. I love LA.. fantastic weather year-round, gorgeous women, great beaches, great surfing, a laid-back culture, and the best burgers on the planet. However, my family lives in LA, so there was no way I was staying there after college.

          Australia has fantastic weather year-round, gorgeous women, great beaches, great surfing, a laid-back culture, and I’m sure they have good burgers too. Plus they have kangaroos and koalas, and who doesn’t want a pet kangaroo or koala?

          But I met my wife in college and settled down in New York. Weather sucks half the time (though this winter has been amazing, relatively speaking), beaches suck, no surfing, the culture is A-type, the burger are mediocre, and there are no kangaroos or koalas. But hey, I get Emilius and Fetus, along with the puppy, so I consider it a win, cesspool or not.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            NYC doesn’t have good burgers!? Are you freaking kidding me!??

            LA has the best FAST FOOD burger by far and its a pretty damn good burger in its own right too. But for a real burger, you can’t beat NY. Don’t believe me? Just go to Peter Lugers for lunch and order the chopped steak – you’ll never have a better burger.

            And its not just burgers, NY beats LA on pretty much every front (except surfing, I’ll give you that one, but seriously, who wants to go surfing anyway!?)

            • Mathius™ says:

              I want to go surfing! I do! Me!

              I will try this chopped steak you speak of, but I sincerely doubt it will stand up to In ‘n’ Out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If you enjoy In ‘n’ Out more than Peter Luger chopped steak, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

                Let me know when and I’m there — I love that place!

              • Mathius and Buck

                You two going back and forth about whether NY or LA is best reminds me of two pigs arguing about which one is prettier.

              • Mathius™ says:

                JAC,

                LA is a 10.0
                NY is a 9.5
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                Then there’s the rest of the country.
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                Then there’s Allentown, PA.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, NY may be a 9.5 but that’s only because there is no 10.0.

                LA is somewhere between Allentown and the rest of the country.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Now that’s just hurtful.

              • Hey I like Allentown..they wear tightie whities there…figured I’d beat LOI to this 🙂

    • Darn, you didn’t ask me. (See the crocodile tears)……..

    • Anita

      And could you please, please , please keep your responses in the 21st century?

      So sweet of you.

      “Gee, Let’s rape and pillage and murder… but get over it, already! Today is a new day, let bygones be bygones (until we do it again!)”

      Sorry, Anita, the world does not work that way.

      Americans may be historically ignorant.

      Most other cultures are not and they remember, and remember very well, for a very long time.

      To ignore this aspect of human culture will mean that you and your “we” will be subject to consequences that will be utterly confusing to you, which will tend to cause you and your “we” to act irrationally, which will tend to only make things worse.

      It is, therefore, necessary to re-acquaint one’s self with such history, and act differently and in reverence to it, and not ignore it.

      • Most other cultures are not and they remember, and remember very well, for a very long time

        …and that’s why they are stuck in the ruts . If you get picked on by a bully, do you sit there and sulk or do you get up and move on? Most people will take the events and make THEMSELF. a better person for it. . The USA is ALSO the most giving nation in the world…but we get 0 credit for that.

        • Anita

          That is not exactly true. It is just that the media doesn’t spend much time talking about the good or the “welcome” mat being put out.

          I see them try from time to time, but then the “Hate America” crowd overwhelms them again. And after all, the media is about reporting on “conflict” not those who are happy.

      • BF

        So given that scenario and the reality of your Theory of Hegemonic Power, we have little choice in front of us.

        There is no point of withdrawing because the rest of the world will remember our evil and they will continue to REACT to the HEGEMONY, no matter how far removed in time.

        So I guess that leaves us with INVADE the SOB’s and kill whomever we need to until they start “forgetting”. Maybe we should just “repopulate” those places with Americans and Canadians. Maybe let in a few Brits, French and Germans if needed.

        • BF pretend you don’t see this and I apologize up front…but JAC ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

        • JAC,

          So -as usually lately- you don’t read this:
          understand history and act differently and in reverence to it, and not ignore it.

          You comment says “Nah, it won’t work, so let’s continue being ignorant”.

          Well, if that is your “we” thinking, then also be prepared for things to get a whole lot worse, because that is exactly what the Hegemonic Theory says will happen if you do not change the way things are going.

          • BF

            I am reading all your words just fine.

            It is not MY “we” anything.

            Just pointing out one probable outcome of employing your theories and arguments.

            What my comment says is that IF others don’t forget and thus continue to “react” according to some “action” taken by the US, no matter what current action the US takes, then what is the point of “changing”?

            You forget that one scenario of the US backing off is that the “reaction” will be to continue advancing. Especially since the “righteous” world (that being NOT the USA) has a long memory, making it hard for them to put OLD affronts aside.

            • JAC

              Just pointing out one probable outcome of employing your theories and arguments.

              Hegemony acts.
              Weaker power reacts.

              And as I’ve said already, if the Hegemony does not wish to change its actions, then the consequences of the reactions will not change either.

              IF others don’t forget and thus continue to “react” according to some “action” taken by the US, no matter what current action the US takes, then what is the point of “changing”?

              You point makes no sense – otherwise the French and the Germans would never be friends, etc.

              When one remembers the past it is to learn from it.

              If you do not learn, the past is pointless.

              • BF

                What makes you think the Germans and French are FRIENDS?

                Seems to me the current economic problems in Europe are exposing all the OLD cracks once again.

                You say that Americans do not remember but the other cultures of the world do. So what is it they remember in your view. I know they do have long memories, and have written about it here often, but I question if they learned much from it. As you say, if they do not learn remembering the past is pointless.

                Why do I say this? Thousands of years of virtually continues war in the near east and parts of Europe. And what was the lesson? More war with various people thinking that this time they will be the new Kingdom chosen by their God.

  14. President Barack Obama – in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder – has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks.

    On Monday morning, Obama reviled the “negative” tone of the super PACs, a dominant fundraising source in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But by the evening, word leaked to POLITICO that Obama had offered his support for Priorities USA Action, which thus far has raised a fraction of what GOP-backed groups have raked in.

    Obama’s top campaign staff and even some Cabinet members will appear at super PAC events. The president himself will not address super PAC donors, although there’s nothing to legally prohibit the president, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from expressing their support for the group – as GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has done for his own pet super PAC.

    “We decided to do this because we can’t afford for the work you’re doing in your communities, and the grass-roots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads,” campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters in an email Monday night.

    […]

    Another awkward timing issue: Last week, Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer of New York, announced plans to hold hearings into whether Republican-backed super PACs had violated federal law banning coordination between super PACs and campaigns.

    “It doesn’t pass the smell test to say some of these groups aren’t coordinated,” Schumer told reporters.

    Watch Schumer drop his “investigation” like a hot potato.

    For a candidate who is going to raise a billion dollars anyway, what does he need a Super Pac for? No matter. Just more proof that when it comes to principle, this president lacks the moral courage to stand by his word as he has shown time and time again.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/after_railing_against_citizen_united_decision_obama_embraces_super-pacs.html#ixzz1li37iqFq

  15. USW and Mathius

    Re: FACTS and REALITY

    Mathius boils a very complex period of history into the typical America is evil Bull Shit and USW agrees far to quickly.

    “People should be taught the reality of what happened to native Americans. We massacred them and stole their land. They tried to fight back, but we won (and as a bonus, they had no immunity to our diseases and are highly susceptible to alcoholism). Then we force marched them onto reservations. Also, we defiled their sacred mountain with the faces of our Presidents. But hey, at least they make good money from casinos.”

    Gentlemen. The history of what happened between the Europeans and Native Americans is far more complicated than what either of you have posed as the summary. The only one of these statements that can be taken at face value is the defiling of a Sacred Mountain. But even that is not exactly correct as stated. It was NOT sacred to all tribes. And it wasn’t that particular peak, it was the Black Hills in their entirety.

    As for the deficit in Education on this matter it is not in the lack of the two extremes expressed in this thread. It is the lack of context and long line of cause/effect. Because of this we do not gain any true “education” that leads to “understanding”. Our kids just get to pick from the I agree with Manifest Destiny or We Killed them and stole their land dogmas.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Ok, JAC, tell it your way.

      My version works like this: They were living here. We got in some boats and showed up. War ensued. More of us showed up. We did bad stuff. They did bad stuff. They died. We shipped the survivors to reservations and took their land. The End.

      Alright, your turn.

      • Mathius

        Start with this. Google up the “Reservations” of the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Blackfoot, Flathead, Coeur d’Alene, and Nez Perce. Then the Shoshone, and Paiute.

        Now please tell me what the size and location of these “Reservations” is based on?

        Also, ALL Indians were not “forced” to live on Reservations. In fact, many tribes were not given “Reservations” or land of any kind to live on. These are called the “unlanded tribes” as opposed to the “Landed Tribes”.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Don’t give me homework, I’m busy. Make your case.

          • Mathius

            You seem intent on repeating your Kindergarten version of history. It seems that nothing I say will change that.

            The only way for you to start understanding is to do your own homework. I can wait a few days if needed for you to respond.

            While you are on that task, can you tell me WHY Custer and the 7th Cav were anywhere near the Big Horn country in the first place? As in what was his original assignment in Sioux and Cheyenne country?

            • Mathius™ says:

              JAC,

              Does it matter how, exactly, the battle plays out? If I break into your house and try to claim ownership of your living room, steal your stuff, rape your wife, and give your daughter small pox, do I have any right to object to your chosen means of defending yourself? Who did what to whom when and why. Who cares? I invaded your house, you fought back. However you fought back, what right do I have to object? Maybe you opted to use nerve gas, so what? It’s your house, not mine. I had no right to invade and rape/plunder, and you had every right to do what you felt necessary to protect what’s yours.

              You’re focusing on the minutia.. see the forest, not the trees. We showed up, killed most, force-related others, and took what we wanted. Broad strokes.

              While you are on that task, can you tell me WHY Custer and the 7th Cav were anywhere near the Big Horn country in the first place? As in what was his original assignment in Sioux and Cheyenne country? I thought it was something about rounding up Indians who had left their reservations. But who cares why he was there.. if people didn’t like the behavior of the Indians, they should have got off their land. If I don’t like your behavior as I’ve barricaded myself in your living room, I should leave, not attack you more and claim it’s “defense” or “peace keeping” or any such nonsense – I’m the aggressor, so any violence is MY fault.

              • Terry Evans says:

                But Matt…we needed the territory for the “greater Good”!

              • Mathius

                The WHY he was there is important because it shows your assumptions are WRONG.

                The Trail of Tears is hundreds of years long and his has many twists and turns. It was not “lets exterminate the red man” first time and all the time.

                Custer was sent to the Black Hills to ARREST White Men who were trespassing on Sioux Lands. He initially defended the Indians against White raiders.

                Just like your fallacy of an example. It starts with a “break into my house” but that is not how this story started. That is why the TRUE and COMPLETE history needs to be learned. Not the Empires version and not Your or Charlie’s version.

                Next question. What was the cause of the last great war against the Plains Indians? How many years of peaceful coexistence were there before this incident?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Custer was sent to the Black Hills to ARREST White Men who were trespassing on Sioux Lands. He initially defended the Indians against White raiders. Again, who cares?

                I’ve occupied your living room and my buddy tries to occupy your kitchen as well, so I head over into the kitchen to arrest the guy for trespassing, even going so far as to defend you from him. If you and I then get into a fight, is it your fault or mine? I’m still in YOUR HOUSE.

                What was the cause of the last great war against the Plains Indians? How many years of peaceful coexistence were there before this incident? Again, who cares?

                I’ve been squatting in your living room for years, too encamped for you to dislodge. There’s been peace for years now. But then things break out into a fight – I attack you, you attack me, who cares? I’m still in YOUR HOUSE. It’s not my house. I shouldn’t be there. You have every right to attack me. I am still, regardless, the aggressor. Any violence is MY fault.

              • Mathius

                Like I said earlier. As with other issue in the past, there is no amount of information I can give you that will stop you from spouting your Kindergarten version of history.

                And Oh, the IRONY. If it were not for all that EVIL you wouldn’t have ever been born.

              • Mathius™ says:

                And Oh, the IRONY. If it were not for all that EVIL you wouldn’t have ever been born.

                Just because something good comes out of it, doesn’t make the act itself good.

                A child could be conceived in a rape, but that doesn’t make the rape itself any less evil.

                there is no amount of information I can give you that will stop you from spouting your Kindergarten version of history.

                But you have given me nothing. You’ve asked me about shapes of territories and why Custer was where he was. What is your alternative narrative? Did they invite us in, then attack us? Were they the aggressors? Certainly some land was sold (not that the Indians were always told exactly what they were signing meant). And certainly there were peace treaties conferring land (though, to be fair, can a real moral transference be made at the point of a bayonet?). And certainly they violated treaties as well as us. But what is your take? Tell me how we’re not the bad guys. Even if they weren’t angels (and they assuredly weren’t), tell me your non-kindergarten version.

  16. Charlie Stella says:
    February 6, 2012 at 10:22 am

    I know this will throw Charles into a tizzy, but the reality is that the unions in America are some of the most dangerous groups out there.

    Actually, no, it wouldn’t. I’m all for unions dumping Mr. Obama AND Mr. Trumpka (if both aren’t corrupt as the day is long, I’m a very skinny man) for their non-action in Wisconsin last year. IN principle, so long as we remain a capitalist, 1% determines our fate country, unions are a must. It’s as simple as that. Want to get rid of unions? Get rid of 1% owning 95% of the country’s wealth (it’d be a start).

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/02/07/eag_exclusive_teachers_union_staffers_set_sail_on_7day_caribbean_cruise

    Tell us again how the unions are out there protecting the 99%….

  17. Here’s another “Down with the US Constitution” article. (fewer guarantees and harder to change – how dreadful!)

    ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

    Notice how the rhetoric has been amped up against the constitution and other founding documents lately? Then there is O’s comment that the founding father’s are to blame for holding him back?

    • Kathy

      Excellent post, although I think my head may explode at any moment.

      It gives me a deep and nauseous feeling in my stomach to see the comments made by opinion leaders, including a Supreme Court justice.

      Perhaps the questioning at confirmation for Justice should include whether they believe the US Constitution as an outdated and inapplicable model for the world, let alone the USA. Ginsburg should be shipped to China. Enough said on that.

      The comments and the noted global changes reflect the power and advancement of the Progressive/Socialist/Fascist movement in the world. It is not coincidental that the changes occurred in the 80’s and 90’s, just as the “College Educated Idiots” of the 60’s and 70’s began to run the world.

      The reason for the ramp up of rhetoric in the USA is that the refocus caused by the Tea Party is extremely irritating to the Left’s Power base.

      Best to you and yours this find blustery morning.
      JAC

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”

      Nuff said!

  18. and we’re still 9 months out….it’s going to be ugly.

    • , Kathy 🙂

      • Is this some sort of code?

        Racist code?

        Sexist code?

        I am offended, somehow, for something, because – that is my right!

        Seriously – wth does ,Kathy:smile: mean?

    • Anita

      I don’t think we have a word in the English language to describe what we are about to witness.

      Best to you as well this morning.
      Keep smiling….All that really matters is within your view.

      JAC

      • ……and a big Good Day back to you JAC,,still waiting on that porch chat .. 🙂

        • Anita

          I was thinking of that just last week. Wondering whether this would be a good year for a walk about.

          Right now I know I am headed to son’s wedding in Nez Perce country in late June. Then I will head north to spend time in the land of the Flathead and then across the Rocky divide to visit the Blackfeet. Then it will be off to Crow country and the Yellowstone. As for the remainder of the summer I have not settled on it yet. But I’ll keep you posted on the outcome of my travel plans.

          🙂

  19. @ Anita……May I start with Mathius’ response…….

    We could stop invading countries based on flimsy / cherry-picked evidence about WMD’s.
    D13: Yes

    We could stop saber rattling with a country which does not pose a threat to us (*cough* Iran *cough*)
    D13: Yes, if saber rattling means to just shut up.

    We could reign Israel in a little bit – it’s not in their best interest or ours to have them be so hawkish.
    D13: Nope. Leave ’em alone. Stand on their own. Economically as well.

    We could get out of Afghanistan.
    D13: Yes

    We could get out of Korea.
    D13: Not until a formal peace agreement is signed and this cease fire shit is eliminated. Then go home.

    We could stop our pissing contest with China – they’re the best friend we have and we act like they’re our enemy.
    D13: Partially but China is our friend like a scorpion is to a tarantula. China is dangerous.

    We could stop indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists without trials.
    D13: Change the word trial to charge.

    We could stop spying on our own citizens.
    D13: Yes

    We could stop discriminating against homosexuals and treating them like second-class citizens.
    D13: Yes

    We could stop discriminating against Muslims and treating them like second-class citizens.
    D13: Have not seen this at all but if it is happening….yes.

    We could fix discriminatory drug laws which penalize poor-man’s drugs far harsher than rich-man’s drugs.
    D13: Yes

    We could stop bullying our neighbors into prosecuting a drug war which is wrecking havoc on their internal population.
    D13: We are not bullying anybody…to my knowledge. I do not care what happens in Mexico as long as it stays there.

    We could stop whatever we’re doing comparable to the Tuskegee experiment right now – but it won’t come to light for 50 years, and by then you’ll ignore it as ancient history.
    D13: To the extent any of this is still happening….Yes,

    Add some:

    (1) Pull all military from all foreign countries back to our shores.
    (2) Close all military bases in all foreign countries.
    (3) Stop immediately all foreign aid (military and civilian)
    (4) Close the United Nations building and let it go elsewhere and stop funding the UN.
    (5) Free and equal trade with all who wish it……even trade. No imbalance. No deficits.
    (6) Create different defense pacts with TRUE allies. Key word…..DEFENSE.
    (7) Stop being the world;s policeman.
    (8)Stop the discrimination in the tax code. Flat tax for everyone.
    (9) Eliminate the energy department, education department, agriculture department and return it to state control.
    (10) Walk softly…..carry the big stick.
    (11) Term limits for Congresss…10 years max.
    (12) Balanced Budget w/no deficit spending..
    (13) Line Item Veto.

    This will start.

    • Oh…grog for everyone. Much better than a chicken in every pot.

    • Common Man says:

      We should also elliminate Executive Order – period; it is Unconstitutional and instills way to much power. We also need to elliminate the Department of Energy, the Electorial College, elliminate Congressional pensions, elliminate Congresses ability to vote themselves a raise, cut all government salaries to reflect the average civillian wage, limit congressional terms to 2, build a border fence across the Mexican border and last but not least give California back to Mexico.

      I am sure I can think of a bunch more, but this is a start.

      CM

      • Common Man says:

        OH, and although it is not related, the Catholic Church should sue the Federal Government for being forced to dispense contriceptives as a regulation in conjunction with the Healthcare act. God knows the Vadican has more liquid money than our government, and I am sure their lawyers are on a retainer.

        On the other hand I hope the government pushes this all the way up to the election so that the Catholics can all vote for somebody besides Barry obama. Maybe the Pope should put out a decree for Catholics to vote for anybody but Barry. That would help to put the final nail in his political career.

        Just getting tired of this mindless prick running amuck kicking our universial rights to the curb.

        Washington needs an enema.

        CM

        • Mathius™ says:

          If I remember correctly, the law doesn’t require the churches and religious institutions to cover contraceptives, only related institutes whose primary function is not religious. So, for instance, the administrative staff at the church is exempt, but the staff at the YMCA pool, despite being nominally a Christian organization, has to be covered. This seems pretty equitable to me. But I know you’ll disagree. Meanwhile, he gave it a two (three?) year moratorium before it goes into affect.

          • Common Man says:

            Matt;

            I do miss our exchanges, but damn if this work thing doesn’t take up about 75% of my waking hours. The argument lies in the Healthcare bill in general; it is Unconstitutional…period. Therefore any requirements tied to it are also unconstitutional. The Government does not have the authority to tell me, you or any organization what and how to allocate funds. They don’t have any more right to tell the Catholic church or its affiliates how to cover, or not cover their employees than I do to tell you to donate to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals). And if you don’t I tax you accordingly until you do. That is simple tyranny.

            And you seem to have forgotten the basic principle of Government (at least government over the last 80+ years) and that is to develop and inact laws and restrictions on individual freedom and liberty. It is all about control. If they can’t get what they want initially, they go back to the drawing board and piece meal it. Why is you suppose they want to enforce all employers to include contraceptives as part of their unconstitutional law?

            I have learned to ask and investigate the REAL reason for these efforts and 99% of the time it comes down to elliminating or limiting our ability to fend for ourselves. It is not about equality…it is about control and tyranny.

            Evil does nothing to benefit man kind only coral it.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Yup! Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

            This is just the latest claim of Obama somehow infringing on the supposed right of Catholics to impose their beliefs on others. This decision, as you point out, does not force a church to dispense contraceptives; it only requires a religious-affiliated organization whose primary function is NOT religious in nature to meet the same legal requirements as any other organization. That Obama even considered going an alternate route and extending the ‘religious exemption’ to these hospitals and social-service organizations had pissed me off to no end.

            And I believe it is a 1 1/2 year moratorium (1 year from August 2012).

            • Buck

              Typical of the left to see the irony, or the hypocrisy, in their own arguments.

              “This is just the latest claim of Obama somehow infringing on the supposed right of Catholics to impose their beliefs on others.”

              So many fallacies. First, an organization that offers insurance without certain coverage is NOT IMPOSING itself on anyone. It can in fact offer NO insurance. Which is what it will wind up doing. The lack of something is not a use of force or imposing. You confuse negative with positive action.

              Second, Catholics do not claim a right to impose on others. They do claim a right to practice their religion as long as it does not involve “force” upon others. Refer back to Fallacy #1. This would allow them to provide health insurance as long as it does not cover contraception or abortion.

              Third, and herein lies the irony/hypocrisy. Your tongue in cheek is a claim that the Catholics are “imposing their beliefs on others” by PROVIDING a limited health care policy.

              Yet you do not believe that the Progressive’s are “imposing their beliefs on others” by FORCING me to buy insurance I do not want or by FORCING a Religious organization to provide a service that violates its teachings.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Come on JAC, you know that initial statement was tongue in cheek — at least a bit. There is some truth behind that statement based on some of the statements being made by Catholic leaders on this issue.

                But in all seriousness, all this rule is doing is saying that, if you are an employer and you are offering insurance to your employers, you must meet certain minimum requirements. And then, to top that off, the rule allows for a religious exemption….it just doesn’t apply that religious exemption to organizations whose primary function is not religious in nature. The decision by these organizations to not cover contraceptives does involve some type of force on its employees as it harms their ability to obtain affordable health care due to their employer’s religious beliefs. And what’s this talk about covering abortions? Nowhere did I read that abortions had to be covered by these health care plans. Where are you finding this to be the case?

                As for your final point, no, I do see the ACA forcing you to buy insurance as being an imposition on you….albeit a completely justified imposition.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Actually, this is what comes of letting your enemy think you are in his camp. He will eat you alive. There are such things out there as “conditions of employment”. It is a condition of your employment in the Archdiocese of Newark that you will not receive health care for abortion or contraception. You know this when you walk in the door. If you cannot live with that, you are free to walk out. The only possible logical exception I can see would be if a catholic organization took over another organization, public or private and suddenly dropped coverage for these items. That wold be indeed a sticky wicket, what ho.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                True, when you work for the Archdiocese of Newark, you know your employer’s religious beliefs. And, if you are working for the Archdiocese or for St. Michael’s Parish or any other church in Newark, the religious exemption applies and your employer (the church) is not required to offer a health plan that covers contraceptives.

                But when you are one of the thousands (hundreds of thousands (nationwide)? many of whom, by the way, are not Catholic themselves) who work for the Catholic Community Services or St. Michael’s Medical Center, or any other religiously affiliated community service organization/hospital/etc., then you are entitled to the same type of coverage as those working for any other non-religiously affiliated community service/hopsital/etc.

                And once again, please point me to where you are getting this talk of covering abortion. All I have seen is mandatory coverage of birth control and contraceptives.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Nope, it is a violation of the church doctrine and a condition of your employment. If you teach in a Catholic School which includes religion classes, it is not a Church nor does it primarily engage in church related activities. Then where are you? Exemption or not? Whom should it effect, Nuns, lay teachers, the janitor, The school secretary?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            To add, some background info on what’s actually going on with this rule:

            “The new rule simply requires employers and insurers to include prescription contraceptives without cost-sharing, carving out an exemption for religious institutions. It exempts churches that are actually functioning houses of worship from. It exempts religious non-profit organizations whose primary mission is to serve people of faith. Twenty-eight states already have this insurance requirement. It’s just smart policy that makes the lives of millions of Americans just a little bit simpler.”

            And, to add some more, for those who are against abortion, doesn’t it make sense to ensure contraceptives are both affordable and accessible for all women? You know, in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?

          • Matt, Buck,

            Maybe you should follow the link, then go to the one for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, unless you think Obama has told you everything you need to think, from both sides of the issue………

            On today’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, a significant amount of coverage was given to the Obama administration’s federal mandate that religious colleges and hospitals cover contraception in their health insurance plans, regardless of if doing so would violate their church’s teaching. To no surprise, co-host Mika Brzezinski was prepared for the discussion having talked it out with her handlers in the White House.

            Brzezinski admitted that she did not fully understand the issue and was curious to know more. So of course she went to the White House for clarity, rather than say columnist Peggy Noonan who wrote a column that the White House convinced her was “very misleading.”

            Following the White House script, Brzezinski made the points that “there’s a one to two to three-year grace period for religious institutions to work it out,” and that “there are 28 states that have these policies in place.” Host Joe Scarborough dismissed the talking point as “number two that the White House is putting out,” to which Brzezinski casually responded, “Yeah, I know, I had a call with them yesterday.”

            Yet these White House talking points being pushed by Brzezinski don’t turn out to be entirely true. As pointed out by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the federal mandate is much more strict than the mandates in place in 28 states. ObamaCare’s federal mandate closes all avenues that exist in the states for religious institutions to exempt themselves from coverage that directly violates their faith.

            Scarborough attempted to explain to Brzezinski that she was misled, saying “Mika, you talked to the White House yesterday, who is spinning wildly right now. Because they’re in trouble.”

            Perhaps Brzezinski is getting too used to spewing the White House’s talking points, as this is not the first time she has done it. On March 26, 2010, Brzezinski spent an entire minute reading White House talking points on ObamaCare straight from her BlackBerry.

            Perhaps that’s why Joe playfully snarked as he closed out the segment, “You wanna check your BlackBerry and see if the White House is e-mailing you?

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-scher/2012/02/07/mika-brzezinski-defends-anti-catholic-hhs-mandate-rattling-obama-talkin#ixzz1ljyjNfEx

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I sincerely doubt the WH and Obama are going to be in much trouble over this decision in the long run. The majority of Americans (and the majority of Catholics) support this rule. The problem is, at least in the short run, the WH is having a difficult time getting its act together and explaining its decision.

              While it is true that Obama utilized a more narrowly defined religious exemption than some of the states, that fact is insufficient to reach the conclusion that this rule violates the separation of church and state or otherwise infringes on religious freedom.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                You see, us crazy Catholics, well, to be honest we do practice birth control. We know that it is not “Ex Cathedra” . Now maybe we are wrong in doing this but it is our choice to practice it, it is our individual decision and we are willing to accept and deal with the consequences later on. What we do not believe is that the government has any right to override the teachings of our church. We as American Catholics have not forgotten the discrimination practiced against us. We have not forgotten being second class citizens and being referred to as “Papists”. and no damned two bit street hustler like the big O is going to get away with putting us back there. I have absolutely no qualms about referring to him as a two bit street hustler. Every time he turns on the “jive” street talk he reminds me of the dope pushers I had to push out of the way to get to my office on Lenox Avenue in Harlem. Slick all of them.

                We still are discriminated against today for any ethical stand we take and often by the Quislings in our own community like O’Malley, the governor of Maryland, a state that was founded to provide religious liberty to Catholics and named after Mary the Mother of Jesus.

              • Buck, OBJECTION! Witness has not answered the question. Is Obama infringing on the beliefs of Catholics with his mandate?

                “Buck the Wala says:
                February 7, 2012 at 5:56 pm

                Yup! Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

                This is just the latest claim of Obama somehow infringing on the supposed right of Catholics to impose their beliefs on others. This decision, as you point out, does not force a church to dispense contraceptives;”

                They are requiring Catholic hospitals and schools to include contraceptives in any health care plan they provide. How can you state this is not an “infringement”? He’s the president, not the Pope. He does not get to mandate to Catholics! And how would that play to schools? They teach their kids sex outside marriage is a sin, do not believe in the use of contraceptives, but then offer it with their Catholic school endorsed health insurance plan? And it’s not that I agree with the Catholics on this, I don’t! I do agree it’s their right to live by their beliefs and not my or Obama’s right to force this on them.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, they are forcing Catholic organizations to include coverage of contraceptives in their health care plan. Is this imposing on the Catholics’ beliefs? Yes and No – depends on where you draw the line.

                No one is being forced to advocate for the use of contraceptives nor for the actual use of contraceptives. All that is being required is that, for those religious affiliated entities whose primary function is not religious in nature (and who, by the way, employ a large number of non-Catholics) offer the same health care coverage as that required of any other employer.

  20. How about the Ninth Circuit…again! Why even bother voting?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Because the job of the Judicial, in addition to their other duties, it to prevent the tyrrany of the majority. If people voted to outlaw Islam, the courts would strike it down in compliance with the Constitution because you don’t get to vote on whether someone else has a guaranteed right.

      That’s not judicial activism. That’s the courts doing their job. The ban overreached it’s authority and the court stuck it down.

      • Mathius

        Here is part of their reason.

        “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.”

        Now please tell me where in the Constitution is said that our rights are subject to Govt making a compelling case to treat different classes differently.

        The very basis for supporting this decision can be used in exactly the reverse.

        • Mathius™ says:

          That’s probably rooted in the equal rights.. you can treat people differently if there’s a good reason to do so. I’m not a lawyer, ask Buck.

          But I’d argue there’s no good reason to do so in the case of gay marriage marriage. They’re two people and for as far as the government is concerned, there’s no good reason to distinguish based on gender. Ergo it fails.

          People with red hair might be different from people with non-red hair, but that doesn’t make it ok for the government to say red-heads can’t get married, since there’s no compelling reason.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            No time today…or this week so far….

            But in a nutshell, Mathius is correct — there must be equal protection under the laws (14th Amendment) but if the gov’t can demonstrate a compelling interest to discriminate, then its A-OK! (Again, in a very very small nutshell, glossing over all of the major ins and outs here).

          • Mathius

            Read the quote I provided. Now dissect and apply critical thinking.

            Ignore Gay marriage and just apply this “reasoning” to A) The actual wording of the Constitution and B) Any other issue.

            This my young pirate apprentice is how you end up with Freedom for You but not for Me.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Now please tell me where in the Constitution is said that our rights are subject to Govt making a compelling case to treat different classes differently.

              Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

              Amendments overrule state laws.

              The courts have carved out an exception in the Equal Protection Clause that permits unequal treatment where “legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.” Their job is to decide if Prop 8 violated this law or if it fell within this exception. They judged that it did not. That is EXACTLY what they’re there for – to judge.

              • Mathius

                Pay attention. Read my question again.

                The section you cite does not say anything about “EXCEPTIONS”.

                Yes, the COURTS have carved out an exception to our Rights. Where did the PEOPLE give those ass hats that authority?

                So NO, “Their job is to NOT to decide if Prop 8 violated this law or if it fell within this exception.” Their job is to decide if it meets the LAW, PERIOD, End of quote, Nothing else.

                And if you are OK with this, because you got what you wanted this time, don’t complain when I get what I want from those same ass hats.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Fine.. the question is does it violate the law. The answer is yes. The saw says the states have to treat everyone equally, this law did not treat everyone equally. Therefore they overthrew it. Done and done.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Only because they said so. That’s it Matt, you can blindly follow fools into oblivion if you wish to, I wasn’t raised that way. I should always remind you rabid folks that this is not some issue that has been at the forefront of public debate for eons, centuries or even a great number of decades (try two). Prior to that it was a non issue now it has become a go along-get along issue where the courts have found yet another new set of “rights” and have restricted “we the people”. That plus the comments of that senile seditious nutcase on the Supreme Court about the value of our Constitution really call into doubt that this republican democracy can stand much longer. It has become an oligarchy where certain “wise” men and women, appointed for life can tell you what to think. .

        Sometimes I feel that there is a secret gas released every ten years or so that wipes out all memories of everything that has ever happened before.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Anita,

      You do not get to vote to discriminate against a minority. Sorry.

      I remember when the Canadian PM was asked about his move to allow gay marriage a number of years ago — to paraphrase: there are just some things that you do not get to put up to a vote.

      • You may not have the answer but…..why allow a vote to begin with then?

        • Mathius™ says:

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Well said Mr. Booker!

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              In your opinion of course.

            • Good morning counselor…….if this man, whoever he is, would have said that the only issue was the treatment of gays……I would not even blink about it. But he also drew a line…….popular vote is ok in the issues that I disagree with but is not ok in the issues that I support. That is what I got out of it. This line of “bedrock of our system” was bull crap in the way he put it…he may not have meant it that way but that is what I got out of it.

              I have a question for clarification because all of this is arising out of the thoughts of SK and his belief is something that you and others disagree with…..

              A referendum is supposed to be a vote by the people for whatever the subject is…..is majority rule not “one of the bedrocks” of our system?

              What is the difference in a referendum on taxes vs a referendum on defining marriage?

              Now, do not get me wrong here. I do not care a diddly squat if a man or woman wants to marry a horse…..my point is…..why is a referendum (majority vote) ok for a tax issue and NOT ok for say a moral issue? Where is the difference? It appears to me, you are saying that the majority (non wealthy) can dictate on a minority (the rich) but that the majority (non gay) CANNOT dictate on a minority (gay).

              Our family uses two different law firms (never trust just one) and both firms have platoons of barristers. Both firms have constitutional lawyers as well and each reads this 14th Amendment differently. Each reads the equal protection clause differently. I have talked to both. SO I asked the question of both firms……since everything is being debated upon the second class citizen subject and what makes a second class citizen, and the issue of defining marriage or not defining marriage is an issue of second class citizenry, does not the very fact that ANY treatment of ANY person that is “inherently unequal” (Supreme Court wording), then render that person, who is being treated unequal, a second class citizen by definition and, therefore, subject to the equal protection clause? Their collective answer was…..certainly.

              Now, I pose this question, so…taking that definition….why is not the unequal treatment of taxation and the isolation of the wealthy not a 14th Amendment issue? The Statement by the gentleman in this video basically said that it was ok to discriminate against one class through referendum……but not another class through the same process….is that not unequal treatment?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                On a referendum, majority rule, and the ‘bedrocks’ of our system — the bedrock, as I see it, is majority rule with guarantees for minority rights. So yes, the majority gets to rule and vote on laws as they see fit. But they do not get to vote on laws that infringe on the equal rights of the minority.

                On taxation of the wealthy, simply put, the wealthy is not a protected class (in a sense they are also the ‘majority’ in that they exert the most control/influence over our politics). And taxation is not an issue of equal rights.

              • Granted…taxation is not an issue of equal rights….(although it should be)…..but it does create a “class” and while you may argue the (exert the most control and influence over politics”….that is an argument. I think that I could successfully argue that taxation does indeed create a class of minority and that it does not exert control and influence over the less wealthy. Again, that is argument.

                Granted, the wealthy is not a protected class, by definition and I understand that perfectly…..however, you, and others, if I am not mistaken, are creating said class by unequal treatment….you have even used the term, I believe….”poor class” and “wealth class”….I know others have.

                You are quick to jump on, as I expect you to do so, the issue that taxation is not a protected class….but I submit….that when you create one class, you create another.

                One last question before you return to your work and coffee……Why is taxation NOT an issue of equal rights? Why, in this case, is it ok to discriminate?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Simple answer — its not discrimination. It isn’t discirminatory to come up with a tax structure that recognizes individual ability to pay.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok, on second thought, yeah, an argument can be made that it is discriminatory to have one individual pay more than another.

                But then wouldn’t that argument also extend to a flat tax as percentage of income — wealthy individual is still being forced to pay more than poor individual, no?

                Really the answer comes down to the fact that it is not inherently wrong to classify people. People are different, that’s a given. But when the government does it, there are certain safeguards to protect the minority — there must be a compelling governmental interest at stake and the classification/law must be tailored to meet that interest. With taxation, there are two issues — 1) the wealthy is not a protected class giving rise to a high standard of scrutiny and 2) there is a governmental interest in raising revenue and devising a tax structure that recognizes ability to pay.

              • So basically it isn’t okay to discriminate against a minority but it is A-OK to discriminate against the majority.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, not really sure how to discriminate against the majority….

                No, its not ok to discriminate against the majority. But it is the majority that votes on such laws.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Will respond in more detail later, after the root canal (ought to put me in the mood) but ask why are you falling in the trap? With Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships providing all the civil benefits of marriage (please tell me what they are, I keep asking). Why is it necessary to use the term marriage to describe something which historically, culturally and linguistically impossible? Is that, the failure to use the word a violation of equal protection? If some day I fail to use the word to describe the union between Bill and Bob or Cheryl and Carol, will it be a “hate crime”. There is mischief afoot here my friend, . great mischief.

              • “the wealthy is not a protected class giving rise to a high standard of scrutiny”

                Translation………discrimination is ok. Higher standard of scrutiny of one class over another. How perverse.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                SK, why should these two individuals have to use a different term than those two individuals? It is absolutely necessary that couple A have all the same rights as couple B, including the ability to use the now legal term, MARRIAGE, to describe what they have.

                Colonel, as I said above, or below, or somewhere on this board, there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimation. But when the goverenment does it there must be certain safeguards to protect the equal rights of the minority. Hence, protected classes and the need for compelling governmental interests.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                And to you Buck, that rises to a civil right? Holy shit, are we ever doomed.

                In answer to your question, I go back to that old refrain, “because it is not marriage”. Screw around with words at your own peril my lawyer friend.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Gonna say it again Buck, so this, the use of the word marriage is a major civil rights issue? This is what it’s all about, not about full equality, not about legitimized partnerships, but about a word? There is something else going on here, something way below the radar.

              • Mathius™ says:

                SK, it’s simple. Separate is not equal. Period.

                It’s not.

                They want equality. They see no difference between a same-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage and they refuse to allow you to use your opinion on the difference to make them refer to their MARRIAGE as something other than a marriage.

                And, as has been said here many times, if you permit yourself to define for others what their relationship is, then you permit others to define for you what yours is. So, I declare that you are not married, but are rather in a state of monogamous-union. You see, I’ve decided (because I get to decide these things for you) that marriage can only exist where there is an ongoing ability and intention to create children biologically related to both parents and raise them to adulthood. Because you and your wife are too old to make more children and because any children you do have are grown, you no longer fit MY definition. Ergo, you cannot be married. So enjoy your monogamous-union; I’m sorry you can’t call it a marriage anymore. 😦

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Couldn’t have said it better myself.

                But SK, please do tell me, what do you think is so sinister going on here below the radar??

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Right Matt, and that is the definition of the word Militia, all able bodied males between the age of 16 and 64. Too young, too old, female, handicapped, not in. That too is a legal definition. Where’s the outrage?

                Under the radar? The ability to change the meaning of words so that what was legal yesterday is illegal today and of course the opposite. End result, nothing means nothing, everything is ok and chaos reigns. When chaos reigns, whats next? That is the question that needs an answer. Historically there are those waiting in the wings with a plan when that happens. In the past century, the Nazi’s and Bolsheviks had plans, chaos reigned and then what happened?

                Actually my comment above to Matt is quite relevant. We argue over that word, Militia. I go with the original definition, you want it to be the National Guard. I say the Guard did not exist then, you say so what, we have one now. In a million years I could never figure out why people want to deliberately screw up things that work quite well. ” In the name of progress”, is not a good enough excuse.

  21. Black Order says:

  22. Black Order says:

  23. Black Order says:

  24. Black Order says:

  25. Black Order says:

  26. Black Order says:

  27. Mathius

    Once again you make a mistake in your conclusions about the Constitution.

    “The saw says the states have to treat everyone equally, this law did not treat everyone equally.”

    The Constitution DOES NOT require the States to treat “everyone” equally. It requires that the States do two things on this topic.

    1. The State may Not impede, impair or otherwise diminish the “rights and privileges” of any Citizen. But note that it does not specify what those rights or privileges are. Thus making any govt grant of privilege applicable. Meaning that when the Fed Govt conveys a privilege to the citizens of the USA the State can not supersede that.

    It could be claimed that Marriage is NOT an Inalienable Right. After all, Marriage has become a “privilege” granted by Govt. Thus the “equal protection” would apply, IF Congress had been given authority over Marriage. But it was not. We have a Right to live with whom we want and to have children with them and to swear allegiance, love and fidelity, or what ever other swearing one wishes.

    2. The State MUST recognize the laws of other states. So in the case of Gay Marriage, Montana may recognize a Gay Marriage conducted in Massachusetts, but Montana does not have to allow Gay Marriages to occur. This would be consistent with the notion that Marriage is a “privilege” granted by the States.

    By the way, the notion that the Fed or State govts must treat all “groups” or “individuals” the same flies in the face of what our Govt has become. Without the ability to separate and distinguish between citizens/groups the Govt would lose its most powerful tool. The ability to hand out favors to one group over another.

    What you keep trying to argue Matt is the ideal. But that is not what was written and when it was, it was turned over by the politicians and lawyers long ago. While I don’t give two cents about homosexuals getting married, this is once again a deep social issue on which a small group of lawyers have decided they will dictate the outcome. Just as with abortion, it will not serve our country very well to have this dictated by the courts.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      JAC,

      Same question I posed to SK above:

      Do you believe that it is ok to put the equal rights of the minority up to a vote by the majority?

      You argue that gay marriage is a ‘deep social issue on which a small group of lawyers have decided they will dictate the outcome.’ But that’s not exactly what’s happening here — it is a social issue, to be sure, but it is also an equal rights issue. Once the gov’t got in the business of marriage and issuing marriage licenses and granting certain benefits to married couples, it took on the responsibility of ensuring everyone is treated equally. The majority doesn’t get a say in deciding to treat a certain group unequally and that is where the courts are coming in — to ensure the guarantee of equality under the law.

      • So, since the government grants certain benefits to married couples, a flat tax system that applies the same tax across the board with no deductions, and no benefits to married couples, this would be a non issue since lawyers could handle marriage of any type through contracts between consenting parties which would stipulate the terms of their living arrangements, children, etc, and how a possible break up would go.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Just a few thoughts this morning 🙂 1. I don’t care about gay marriage, it doesn’t affect me one way or the other. 2. The whole contraception issue is being blown out of proportion for the wrong reasons. The govt can’t legislate personnal responsibility, and this issue will do little to change any part of society. the religious beliefs should be respected, but it will not change nothing. I do giggle at how the Catholics are reacting, as a teen I knew some “good” Catholic girls in school. I see this whole issue as rediculous and nothing more than Corporate Whore media talking points to rile the masses. If Catholics are against contraceptives, then don’t use them. Indirectly providing them to non-Catholics through medical insurance should mean nothing to them, rediculous BS. However, the govt demanding what services private insurance companies provides is way over the top and beyond their established powers, this is what the argument should be, not the religious aspects of it.

    I think there are much bigger issues than who gets free rubbers for sex or who can and can’t get a marriage license. The day is coming when we will wake up and this BS will seem totally trivial, because the real problems you face are life threatening.

    • Ahhhh….Gman….you are finally on the right track……we call it diversion, in the military……..look at all the hoopla on who wants to jump who’s bones and is it legal….treat me fairly……wah wah wah,,,,,,,,,,meanwhile…….the fiddler is playing, the games go on, and Rome is burning. So, amid the ashes….and the rubble….is a lone voice that says….I won.

      I am reminded of a cartoon drawn by Gahan Wilson once……..it showed a lone soldier standing amid ashes, burning rubble, and dead bodies with a bloody knife in his hand…no one was left…..the caption read….” I think I won”.

  29. @ Buck…….you said above “Yes, they are forcing Catholic organizations to include coverage of contraceptives in their health care plan. Is this imposing on the Catholics’ beliefs? Yes and No – depends on where you draw the line.”

    Forget all the garbage and focus on one part of your sentence……focus on….”Yes, they are forcing”……..does this not scare you at all? Where does freedom of choice lie?

  30. “The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men”: Plato

    Rick Santorum convincingly won three more states. A candidate who will defend the constitution in a time of constitution shredding around every corner, is very refreshing. A candidate who speaks out against obamacare is even more refreshing.
    A candidate who can win the heartland is a candidate that has a chance.
    Does anyone else on this site feel that if we dont vote for the best candidate,whomever that might be to them, we will end up with 4 more yrs of radical appointments and radical legislation being passed by the obama, Soros and ayers triangle through radical communist and marxist czars circumventing appointed congress members?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I do agree with you — if we don’t vote for the best candidate, whomever that might be, then we will end up with 4 years of radical appointments and radical legislation.

      Which is why we all must vote for Obama over Santorum. 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        This must be how the Republicans felt during the Clinton-Obama primary..

        Oooh, it’s fun to watch them beat each other to a pulp.

        That said, I will say this, Santorum may be a terrible candidate in terms of the values he represents (in my opinion!), but he has run a pretty solid campaign. Where Romney is second only to Biden in terms of foot-in-mouth syndrome, and Gingrich is well.. Gingrich, Santrorum has avoided making any serious mistakes that I’ve noticed (though this may be due to having less media attention), and has been fairly consistent straight though. I still would vote for sooner vote for JAC, but it surprises me that he has been such a poor fund raiser and hasn’t until now really made much of a showing given such solid far-right conservative credentials.

        hehehe… Santorum…

        • Actually, I didn’t much enjoy the Clinton-Obama primary either-Clinton was robbed and stabbed in the back by her “party” -these actions just irritate me in general. The “party” isn’t supposed to pick our nominees-money shouldn’t pick our nominees-and outright lies and exaggerations are gonna be our downfall-then add in the unprincipled media and “WE the People” are the losers, no matter our party.

        • The really sad part…as it is being pointed out…is that Santorum wins because of the lack of negative campaigning. NO major funds expended in those states. Just wait until Obama’s billion dollar campaign starts……..

          There is no way Obama wins on credentials.But he wins…on negative campaigning and a billion dollars.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          As the old man used to say to me, the culture has become more coarse. Eventually when it becomes coarse enough, it will just collapse. We are getting closer by the day.

          Nothing, means anything anymore because it can be redefined at a whim and the masses will accept whatever is thrown their way. I think Mathius that you were spot on the other day though you missed the import of what you said, Mind Control. Ahh, the bread and circuses of the modern day. Just as effective as the bread and circuses of old. We have all kind of discovered this week that we live in an awful place with a lousy constitution and it seems that many of you buy it. Wish that I could just be an observer in 20, 30 or 50 years. Not a participant mind you but an observer.

          In a much less civilized time that Santorum humor, would result in a slap across the face and the option to be a craven coward or to face your foe at dawn, but, that was a much less civilized time. Now we are all just craven cowards.

    • Tom

      Really? You think he really stands for the Constitution?

      The man who would ATTACK Iran to “prevent” it from getting a nuke. Where does that authority exist in the document?

      How about the man who voted YES on virtually every smelly program and budget expenditure of Mr. Bush?

      Seems to me that far to many Americans are susceptible to trickery by the slimy politicians.

      FACT: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that comes close to standing up for America, and the Constitution that supports it.

      But he is NOT electable in the Republican party. So you will get something else. Then it will be between you and your conscience when you go to the polls.

      Now REFOCUS on your State elections and make sure the most Libertarian like person gets elected to the State and Federal seats that are open.

  31. A more accurate commercial. There’s even a little something for you, USW, at the very end.

  32. @Buck…… you say “But then wouldn’t that argument also extend to a flat tax as percentage of income — wealthy individual is still being forced to pay more than poor individual, no?”

    D13: Absolutely not.!!!!!!! WHY? you ask (I knew you were going to ask this so I am saving you some valuable capitalist work time…sorry could not resist)….

    Here is where I see the non discriminatory issue. It is equal because all are in the game. NO one is exempt nor should be. AND, it takes away argument of the 49% thing we see in politics. Take all deductions…ALL of them (Yes, as a family and individual, I get hurt more)but take them all away…and everybody pay a flat percentage on all income. No foundations…no tax havens, no mortgage, no interest…..pay your way…everyone…………Oh…….You can come work on the ranch, Buck, because….there will be no need for estate planning then.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      There will still be need for estate planning, just less of a need. And much less of a need for the more sophisticated techniques.

      • Granted….because I forgot the elimination of estate and inheritance taxes. With a flat tax approach…all these other taxes will not be necessary.

        (Side Note: Balance the budget and live within the means).

        • Also, when you apply for the ranch position, it will have to be as an independent contractor. We have eliminated employees to avoid mandates since we won’t get a GM, McDonalds, Federal Employee,and Pelosi exemption from mandates.

  33. I know I could do this all day, with clips then and clips now but won’t waste your or my time. Sometimes though you just have to

    Sigh……

    http://www.therightscoop.com/2007-obama-you-cant-be-against-super-pacs-one-day-and-for-them-the-next/

  34. ‘Breaking Free From the Constraints of the Founding Fathers’

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290402/breaking-free-constraints-founding-fathers-victor-davis-hanson

    “What’s behind the sudden defiant push-back against traditional advocacy of the old self-reliant, arms-bearing citizen as championed by the Constitution? Give credit to Barack Obama and his supporters. They are seizing the moment in a fashion undreamed of by Bill Clinton in 1996 and framing his reelection as a referendum on the entire American system itself.”

    • Someone from this bunch better come up with something good this weekend or we’re really doomed!

      http://cpac2012.conservative.org/program/2012-invited-speakers/

      I see Palin is the keynote speaker..eh..wish it was Rush or Levin or Steyn..also wish this was a little closer to the election.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Hopeless. Nobody is willing to go to the mat. Many times in the past my NYC agency lost court cases or wound up with less than satisfactory court rulings because our attorneys were unwilling (not unable mind you) but unwilling to go for the throat. There were certainly a variety of reasons for this but the bottom line was scum got away with murder and the lawyers went out to dinner with each other.

        Ultimately, after the Repubs all kill each other off, Romney will be the nominee and guys like me will vote for everybody on the ballot except the presidential candidates. We, will then be blamed for the re-election of Obama. Us nasty Neanderthal conservatives did it. But, as was said the other day, why just vote for Obama light and prolong the agony for the country. Romney wins, follows disastrous “moderate” policies, invades a few countries for national security purposes and then loses his reelection to somebody who came from the democratic fever swamps and makes Obama look like George Washington. That’s how Bush Jr. played out. So lets just get it over with as soon as possible and see if it can be salvaged after the collapse or if we all have to move in with the Colonel on his ranch. I always wanted to spend my ’70’s and ’80’s as a share cropper.

        • I don’t see what there is to be afraid of. The country is conservative 2 to 1. Every time a candidate speaks conservative talking points there is great response. GO BIG OR GO HOME! What’s to lose? They’re going to lose anyway if they don’t.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            I think they are afraid of what my Mom told me as a little boy, “Their own shadow”. They all want to be cuddled and loved, especially by ABC, CBS, NBC and “the New York Times”. If these guys had been in Philly back in ’76, we would all be singing, “God save the Queen”.

  35. JAC

    France/Germany not friends…. Hegemony Theory

    The way to resolve Hegemonic conflicts is not by using Hegemonic violence.

    It is by using Hegemonic economics – free trade.

    Today, Japan is an ally of the US – not because the US occupied Japan, but because the US trades with Japan…same as Germany.. same as France and Germany.

    The free market is bringing people together.

    If a hegemonic nation holds to both of the two fundamental principles that govern civilization, all will be – eventually – very well:

    Live and let live.
    Let’s make a deal.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Pirate!

      Where have you been? I really could have used some backup yesterday/today.

    • BF

      I agree, but here is the lesson that is learned from history.

      It all works out UNTIL the first guy/gal comes along and decides they can gain power/control/prestige/legacy by using force upon the others.

      I happen to think that our “friendship” with Germany and Japan was more complex than “trading freely” with them. I do not reject your premise, only its oversimplification of what has occurred and what is possible.

      • JAC

        I do not reject your premise, only its oversimplification of what has occurred and what is possible

        No it is not.

        It is a simplification to a root, core understanding of the basic interactions between Sovereign States.

        You would be claiming “gravity” is an “oversimplification” of how the Universe works.
        But it is not – it is a core BASIS of understanding that allows you to then understand more complex interactions (such as orbits, satellites and the theory of flight – in the case of gravity)

        Same with Hegemonic Theory – it provides a root core base from which one can gain understanding to more complex interactions.

        Simply put, if one is eager to change the attitude and behavior of a weaker power, it solely up to the Hegemonic Power to change its behavior toward the weaker power FIRST

        Applying the same arrogant interference and aggression that has fermented the current response from the weaker power will NOT change the current responses from the weaker power – indeed, it is likely to make them deeper and more rooted.

        If you argue that you wish to see a change in the relationship or attitude of a weaker power, the Hegemonic Power must alter ITS behavior and actions to that weaker power for such a change to occur. Expecting the weaker power to act first is wholly naive – for that would argue the weaker power is stronger then the Hegemonic power – but that is a contradiction of definition.

        • BF

          I am curious as to why you insist on using the term Hegemonic.

          It is far to fuzzy a term in my view for the point you are trying to make. For example, hegemony does not require use of “force” by the stronger entity. It could simply be economic and cultural influence. This in turn opens the door to any bad apple claiming they are going to send suicide bombers against us because their kids are buying to many Levis. Yes that is a goofy analogy but it fits the problem with your use of the term.

          Why not simply rely on Stronger vs Weaker or those who Force behavior vs those being forced?

          Why Hegemonic?

          As for your point: “Expecting the weaker power to act first is wholly naive – for that would argue the weaker power is stronger then the Hegemonic power – but that is a contradiction of definition.”

          It may be naive but it does not mean the weaker is stronger, in terms of power. If could mean that the weaker simply decides to submit or avoid conflict. Remember those were some of the available reactions you outlined.

    • I gotta think this one through for a minute….

  36. ….and people believe Iran is the one threatening …..

    • Pretty map…..lots of dots…….where is the threat?

      • BF please turn your head again…Colonel..I can’t help it! ROFLMAO..you and Jac are in for it now

        • NAh…not really…..BF and I understand each other pretty well. He thinks a military base on a foreign border is a threat. I do not think that way. The mere presence of a military base does nothing…..however….I will acquiesce that if said military base violates borders, runs clandestine operations into said country, and otherwise impedes the natural order of things…..then he has a valid point.

          I would not consider a Russian base on the border of Mexico and the United States a threat. Why should I?

      • D13,

        Imagine replacing Iran with USA
        Imagine replacing dots with Chinese or Russian bases

        Now ask yourself the same question.

        • I know BF…..where you are headed but unless there was something sinister or being done that justified a threat, why would I worry? I might watch them but that does not mean that they are destabilizing anything. The mere presence means nothing to me other than……watching my back door…which I would do anyway.

          Now, if you wish to ask me given the history of putting shah into power (where Iran is concerned) I could see where that is an issue of….hmmm, they did it once, will they do it again…..if the cold war was still in existence..perhaps I would say that.

          There is the equivalent of Russian Bases off the coast of the USA 24/7……are they a threat? I do not consider them a threat that changes my opinion of Russia or what it is trying to do.

          Would you consider, after removing all the bases from the border of Iran….that the US was still a threat? I am betting that you would because of some other reason…..say…..ICBM’s. Or are you talking tactically a threat……Out of curiosity.

          • D13

            There is the equivalent of Russian Bases off the coast of the USA 24/7……are they a threat?

            Yes – however, ICBM do not take territory. Armies do.

  37. Mathius™ says:
    • Wonder if we could get a similar law here to cover conversion of Progressives?

      Until you can display a coherent and traditional American understanding of Freedom, Liberty and Justice you must stay in prison.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, and their roommate can be a big 300 lb monster named Leroy with an overabundance of testosterone 🙂

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Hmmm…and whose ‘traditional American understanding’ would we go by?

  38. Buck the Wala

    This is a good question, and one that many have nibbled at this morning.

    “JAC,

    Same question I posed to SK above:

    Do you believe that it is ok to put the equal rights of the minority up to a vote by the majority?”

    I DO NOT believe this to be OK.

    BUT…………………Yes that is a very big BUT…………………………..

    THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, DEPENDS ON IT BEING OK!!!!

    But here is the part you deliberately avoid with your question.

    PROVE that there is an inalienable RIGHT to getting a “Marriage Certificate” provided by the STATE.

    • Here’s part of an article that was forwarded to me 🙂 that briefly compares CA’s decision with that of MI’s affirmative action decision a while back.

      Three years ago Californians opposed to it thought they were joining the democratic process in a way common in their state for many years. They gathered signatures on petitions, got an initiative on the ballot, and voted on it. Two years later a federal judge ruled not that those Californians had made a wrong decision in voting to prohibit gay marriage, but that they had presumed to decide a question they had no right even to address.

      Similarly, in 2006 the people of Michigan believed that the democratic process encompassed the process of approving or rejecting affirmative action at the ballot box. Federal judges set them straight, too, on the basis of an inspired interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. It turns out that equal protection includes the equal right to seek unequal protection. By incorporating a prohibition on affirmative action into the Michigan state constitution, the court ruled, the people of Michigan had made it impermissibly difficult for minority groups in favor of affirmative action to re-legalize it. Like those in California, the voters of Michigan had addressed a political question in good faith, according to civics-class precepts, only to find out that the question was not within the purview of mere citizens.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Now you can see how much sense Newt is making when he says that you should drag these judges before the legislature to explain their reasoning. This is where clarity, full disclosure and openness should be. How in the name of all that is holy did they come up with this? Was it something from the Zimbabwe constitution that influenced them?

        While I think Andrew Jackson went way too far when he said, “Let them enforce it!” to the courts, I get his drift. It could have been enforced through congress but the obviously agreed with the president.

        • Mathius™ says:

          It seems that you have clearly missed the part where the Judicial Branch is an equal part of the checks and balances system to the Legislative. You see, it is not subordinate to the legislative branch, so they have no right to drag judges anywhere or demand anything. Legislative makes the law, Judicial rules on the law. If the Judicial strikes down the law, the law is void. Period. Don’t like it, pass a better law. Still don’t like it, pass an Amendment. Can’t pass an Amendment? Too bad.

          Think about this in reverse. Imagine that congress passed a law that no one is allowed to criticize congress. Someone sues and the Judicial branch strikes down the law because it violates the first amendment. Congress does not then get to “drag these judges before the legislature to explain their reasoning.” Congress can read the court ruling and go boil their heads. Just because they don’t like the ruling doesn’t give them special powers to bully another branch any more than Congress can drag the President into congress to explain his use of a veto.

          • You speak of checks and balance-what may I seriously ask! is the check on the Judicial Branch-you seem to be saying there aren’t any-other than an Amendment to the Constitution-I will assume. Reason makes this seem improbable.

            • Mathius™ says:

              They have to approve appointments to the high court. There may also be an impeachment process, I’m not sure. But mostly, no, there aren’t many checks on the judicial because the role of the judicial is to check the legislative. Imagine how effective the courts would be at striking down unconstitutional laws if they knew that congress would punish them if they do!

              Really, the power of the legislative branch is to create laws. So if the court defies the legislature, then the legislature’s main recourse it to overrule the court with a higher authority – that is, everyone answers to the Constitution. They worked hard to pass the 14th Amendment. They could have just passed a normal law, in which case they could repeal it easily. But they didn’t.. the put it high up and made it hard to touch and gave it power over everything below it. And there it sits. It would take a serious act of will of Congress to repeal it or to change it or to supersede it, but Congress does have that power – that’s the check right there.. And until or unless they do, it is the binding law of the land and it will be interpreted by the people whose job it is to interpret it – name the judicial branch.

              The legislative branch shouldn’t be mad at the judicial, they should be mad at themselves for creating a situation where a law they don’t have the will to change overrides the laws they would like to implement.

              (help, help! I have a problem with over-eating so I put a lock on the fridge. I gave the key to my friend with instructions not to give it back unless I fill out a request form in triplicate (an annoying and difficult procedure). I don’t have the will to fill out a request form in triplicate and he refuses to give me back the key. I demand the key, and fill out the form once, but he says that’s not good enough. Grr.. I’m so mad at him. I demand he come to me and explain the audacious nature of his decision to enforce my prior dictates. I really want the key, so it must be his fault!) Bah.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Nobody said punish, we only said question. If it is egregious, then impeachment is the way to go and as you know, that is a long and arduous road.

          • so they have no right to drag judges anywhere or demand anything

            Oh! But isn’t the Attorney General of the United States testifying before Congress re: Fast and Furious?

            • Mathius™ says:

              He is, though I’m not 100% sure why. Maybe someone else could answer that for me?

              I would guess that congress isn’t so much interfering with the justice department as it is trying to find out if any laws were broken. That’s different than objecting to a ruling and making the judge account for himself. (just speculation though.. you’d have to ask SUFA’s resident counsel)

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Congress does have subpoena power….and lets not forget their ability to hold hearings for impeachment.

              • This certainly sounds like they have the power to make Judges account for their rulings.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Nope, different context entirely.

                Congress could subpoena a judge to hold impeachment hearings for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. That’s called constitutional checks and balances.They do not get to call in a judge to account for a particular decision. That’s called bullying.

              • That makes sense and I do see that there are many checks within the court system it’s self-higher courts and such-but the end decision is the SC-still seems like there would be something other than the Amendment process. Oh well-maybe I’ll understand all the ends and outs someday.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, there is — Congress can go back and pass a new law that would be constitutional.

                For instance, Congress passes law A, SCOTUS says its unconstitutional because its too vague, Congress passes law B which says pretty much the same thing as law A but is more specific in what it covers.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                I think it is because there is a whole lot of obfuscation going on. Nobody knows nothing and everybody involved seemed to get a promotion. The AG and the Pres deny prior knowledge or as Nixon people would have said “plausible deniability.”

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            The judicial branch according to the federalist papers and Jefferson is not considered as powerful as the other two. If I remember my History/Civics the majority of power is to reside with the legislature. Since the judicial has in my opinion usurped the power of the legislature then, short of a constitutional amendment, the legislature ultimately has no power.

            I was raised with respect for the law but government like business (employer and employees) should operate where there is mutual respect. I don’t see that. We need to re-think where the locomotive went off the tracks.

            The point you miss is that we are getting into a shadow government in two of the three branches. I think that like the C-span coverage of the house and senate there ought to be cameras in the chambers of the Federal courts where you and I and Buck and US and Anita can see where the hell this stuff comes from. I cannot see it having a chilling effect and it is certainly not equivalent to televising jury deliberations. One of the most sacred oaths I ever took, one I cannot forget easily and one that still makes me choke up, said that “I would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hard to believe that to this day, I think I would be willing to die for a piece of paper but not for the Pres, the nine judges or the 535 Turkeys that occupy the legislature.

            You want change? Then do what has to be done, shine a light on the problem and like mold in the basement, it will probably go away by itself.

            • I admit to being confused over what each branch can and can’t do-but it seems obvious that the executive and judicial branch are getting stronger and the branch which is supposed to be the voice of the people is getting weaker-I simply don’t believe that the other two branches have the Constitutional power to do what they are doing-so all it leaves me to believe is that the legislative branch is purposely allowing their power to be usurped.

              • Sorry, on the televised idea-this is probably a good idea but I will admit having listened to a state SC case on some TV channel awhile back-they may as well have been speaking another language.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Yes but folks like Buck and Mathius can listen and inform us. It’s not the arguing of the case it is the private deliberations afterward. We have no clue what they are up to. We can assume great learned debates quoting Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton but in reality thy may be flipping a coin. If they are flipping the coin, I’d like to know. The written opinions to me are worthless since it is awfully easy to excuse and opinion after the fact.

          • Mathius

            The Judicial Branch is not EQUAL.

            It is a branch and part of the check and balance. But it was not intended to be equal in anything. It was the last branch created and its powers were essentially left up to Congress.

            What Congress gives it can take away.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      As I’ve said, once gov’t became involved in the marriage business, they became obligated to treat everyone equally under the law.

      And, sorry, but I refuse to believe the very existence of the USA depends on the ability of the majority to infringe on the equal rights of the minority.

      • Buck the Wala

        WHO created the USA??

        I know a minority wrote the document but WHO ratified it?

        • Buck

          P.S. You didn’t answer my question.

          You presume some “equal right” but you have yet to show that such a “Right” exists.

          The Govt is “unequal” in a myriad of things it grants/gives/takes from the citizens. So WHY is this different?

          New question: Do you claim that all citizens have a RIGHT to be treated the same by the Fed and State Govt?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Marriage became a ‘right’, so to speak, once government became involved in granting marriage licenses and conferring benefits to married couples.

            Do I claim all citizens have a right to be treated the same by the fed and state govt? No, never have claimed such. You know its more complicated than that.

            • Okay, JAC -a little advice-take a big deep breath and maybe even scream- before you answer 🙂

              • V.H.

                Good lord. I think I am speechless. One word is all that is needed………. CONTRADICTION.

                Thanks for the advice. It helped immensely. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Every now and again, I like to take a step back and devise an ‘answer’ to make JAC completely speechless for a few moments. Try it some time; makes your day that much better!

            • Buck

              So when the Govt decided to get involved in TAXING me, I now have a Right to be taxed?

        • PICK ME! I just learned this Monday night from our city council meeting. Our city has approved a resolution making March 4th (1789) our Constitution day.. the day when the minimum 9 STATES ratified the Constitution! What’s my prize? 🙂

  39. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! Not my Spartans! 😦

    Michigan State University requiring student health coverage
    Cost is $940 for the semester
    http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Michigan-State-University-requiring-student-health-coverage/-/1719418/8613314/-/gwr8bpz/-/index.html

    • Anita

      I am a little surprised this is new to Michigan State. Both my oldest attended schools with this requirement. I get an 800 to 900 dollar refund on the “tuition bill” each semester if we provide “proof of private insurance”.

      Now, lets deal with the IRONY of the LEFT once again.

      Those big universities, the bastions of Liberal and Progressive thought, require insurance provided by a private for profit company.

      If they were not HYPOCRITES wouldn’t they just provide health care for FREE?????

      Bwahahahahahaha!

      • I’ve never heard of this before. Sounds like the same thing as forcing healthcare on the country.

        My daughter was on her dad’s insurance til she turned 18..then she had none during her years at MSU. She went to a free clinic on campus ONCE in two years there. $950/semester for that age group is ridiculous. Especially when there will be a large group to keep the premium down! 👿

        • That is a lot of $$$!!! Our kids have always been on our insurance through college so not sure if such is required here.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      This is a University administered program done in conjunction with a private insurance firm. Can u spell K I C K B A C K ?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      That’s always been the case as far as I’m aware. In college I needed insurance; in law school I needed insurance. I could either get it through the school, or independently or through my parents.

      But $940 per semester = $1880 per year isn’t that bad — works out to only $156 per month.

      • That’s hilarious! We had a big article in our local “moderate” paper this weekend on how the lowly state workers are barely getting by now that they have to contribute a miniscule amount to their insurance and pension funds. One such sob story was about a woman that now had to contribute $84/month for her ramped up state insurance and gee, she had to take a bus now rather than drive her car.

        And you think $156 month for students isn’t bad???? Oh my, our local liberal population would not like your logic here!

        (But hey, don’t worry MSU students – you can get some money real cheap from the US govt. for your loans so it’s all “no problem”.)

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You’re missing the point that obtaining insurance through the school is only one option among many.

      • You needed health insurance? I do not remember that……hmmm. Need to check that out in Texas….maybe so.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No offense colonel, but I am a tad younger than you. Things may have been different in your day. 🙂

          • Well, it isn’t necessary in my State-at least not yet. Guess they haven’t decided that the best way to keep students from deciding between college and health insurance is to make the choice for them.

          • Ouch !

            • Buck the Walla Man…..delivers the punch to the mid section……..a TAD younger? 🙂 Thas’ ok…Walla Man…..intemperate youth shall gain knowledge and wisdom in later years.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And here I thought I was being nice by saying a ‘tad’.

              • Buck…you are a lawyer……to you,,,,,TAD could mean anything. No offense intended, Counselor…but I deal with you types almost on a daily basis…so nada is taken for granted. My ol’ pappy told me once…… check your pockets and buttons before and after you go into a lawyers office….

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Good advice for life, really.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Colonel, your pappy wasn’t named Maverick was he?

        • So far…..University of Texas…no TCU…no SMU….no Must be a state thing.

          • Found out more…..Immunizations are required in Texas and there is a list of those but no health insurance required.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Rip off, nothing more, nothing less. And I loved the comment about student loans, Yes, by all means take them, take a lot of them and pay them off until you are in your sixties. The debt the young folks have saddled themselves with is amazing. My kids, who have miniscule debt because they worked through college, got scholarships, used the GI Bill or went locally tell me what their friends pay. Talk about slavery.

              One of these days I am going to research my own Alma mater. With 1/4 less students than the heyday of the ’60’s., they have managed to increase the tuition by 2,700 percent. Room and board are something like $ 15,000 for a ten (really nine) month year for one half of one room. Studio apartments five blocks from the campus rent for a year for $ 1,000 per month with a kitchenette and in many instances a separate bedroom. I have been told to look at the number of non-educators on the payroll, not Willie the janitor or Hilda the housekeeper but the Administrative staff, those folks who come up with gems like requiring health insurance.

  40. @BF……question, my shadowy friend………YOUR definition of free trade,please. (This is in relation to your statement above on hegemonic economics and trade.)

    • d13

      Oh hell, even I can get that one. NO INTERFERENCE BY GOVT.

      MANO E MANO trading.

      • Oh come on JAC…..it is not that simple 🙂 Not when you throw the word hegemony in the mix and then define hegemony as influential or creating dominance over another.

        BF will have a different definition as it pertains to economic hegemony, I am thinking….
        Right now he is going through the ” Wonder where this Colonel is headed now”……thing.

      • HOWEVER….since you brought it up…….Mano y mano…..does that mean even trading or does that mean if I am a better trader than you….it is ok.

        • I suspect that would be-You are responsible for determining the character of whomever you choose to trade with.

        • D13,

          You are never a better trader then me.

          A trade occurs when I get what I desire by giving up something I desire less …with you, who has the same attitude.
          At the end of the trade, we both get what we want.

          Your SUBJECTIVE view that you would have trade MORE for my stuff (and hence, traded less than what you thought was YOUR value of MY stuff) is just that… your subjective opinion.

          There is no merit to anyone else (who is thinking objectively) to you saying “Hell, I woulda paid twice that!” … so? You didn’t!

          But the other guy got what he thought was more valuable then what he had before too!
          He could be saying “Hell, I woulda accepted half of that!”

          ….and you’d both probably be right!

    • D13,

      Free Trade=Voluntary exchange

  41. Not sure where cause and effect comes into this equation based on hegemonic power.

    • V.H.

      Let me summarize the theory. If the USA stops sanctions against Iran, if the USA takes its troops out of the middle east, and if the USA normalizes Trade with Iran……………………..Iran will stop being a pain in our ass.

      I am guessing this does nothing to stop them from being a pain in Israel’s ass. That would require Israel first retreating to the original borders granted by the UN charter. But then what? Iran will make nice with Israel and everybody will be happy.

      There. I hope that helped. 🙂

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Then the Israelis can get back on their boats and sail for Europe as Helen Thomas suggested they do. At that point, Buck and Mathius will work tirelessly and pro bono to recover the property stolen from them by the Germans and Eastern Europeans during the war. The former Israelis will then settle into their new homes and be attacked by Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, Estonians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Letts, Italians, Albanians, Russians, and Austrians who will demand “their” land back.

        “The more things change, the more they stay the same”.

        Go ahead, tell me it won’t happen.

      • It does help but I’ve always found if I do exactly what someone wants me to do-which gives them all the power-they are happy-doesn’t necessarily mean they will stop doing what makes me unhappy.

        But in this case I was referring to trade and the hegemonic theory brought up my D13-my post was just in the wrong place 🙂

      • JAC

        V.H. Let me summarize the theory. If the USA stops sanctions against Iran, if the USA takes its troops out of the middle east, and if the USA normalizes Trade with Iran……………………..Iran will stop being a pain in our ass.

        No, your conclusion is not supported.

        What you can say, is the relationship will change

  42. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    OK all, now lets go for the lowest common denominator here.

    1. What exactly are the extra super special government benefits that married folks get? Assuming there are all these bennies, what would prevent them from being guaranteed through a Domestic partnership or a Civil Union?

    2. Domestic partnerships could and should be available to all. This would include relationships other than 2 people, Polygamy would be acceptable as would economic relationships between relatives, such as an elderly brother and sister who are both widowed.

    3. Can we all agree, after batting this around for the past few days that the entire argument at this point rests on the word Marriage, JUST THE WORD, not the marital act, not the participants, not even any supposed, alleged benefits. This has become apparent to me through the back and forth with our resident counselors, I see both Mathius position and Bucks being that the inability for same sex couples to use the word marriage as being the denial of a civil right. With all the brou-hah-hah over this in the culture, one would think that inability to use that one word, is equivalent to Slavery, Jim Crow, internment camps and putting Indians on a reservation. Giving them a different word is unconstitutional. plain and simple.

    If in fact this is the case, if we can all be honest here, then let me be the first married heterosexual that I know, possessing a valid marriage license from the state of NY who would be willing to have that government document amended to a Domestic partnership, Civil Union or just plain contract. This should actually make everybody happy. Get “married” in a church or at a Las Vegas chapel but NO government document should read the word marriage.

  43. S.K. Trynosky

    Howdy S.K.

    If you hadn’t seen it already, I wanted to share another person’s explanation of the “marriage” issue that I believe reflects the argument you have been trying to make. Your have good company on this one.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_to_win_the_marriage_debate.html

    The other part of this, which I was trying to get at with my comment to Mathius, is the “normative” behavior of a society. Marriage is a “normative” definition that has existed for thousands of years, and in only a few isolated cultures did it mean anything other than a union between a man and woman. Even BEFORE the Churches got involved, let alone Govt.

    Anyhow, I thought you would like to see you are not alone.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Very, very good, appreciate it. Also nice to be on the cutting edge. One would hope that Matt and Buck would read it then re-read it and re-read it until they get it. Never happen of course because, everyone born in the past 40 years or so has been educated in a womb like environment where everything is either always nicey-nicey or should be. Not that all people born before that are different it’s just that the culture is now determined by nicey-nicey because the losers from the ’60’s became the winners and got to set the agenda.

      • It is a very good article especially the last line. SK, I am with you. The word marriage is a centuries old definition that government does not have the right to redefine. The gay crowd has latched onto the word marriage to gain legitimacy more than anything else. They would get everything they want almost immediately if they just drop the term marriage. That is why I suggested parriage above. Or maybe we could come up with gender specific terms such as herriage or hissiage. Be creative but leave marriage alone.

        In any case this is a divisive side issue. We have much bigger problems to deal with.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          But once again, why should a gay couple have to settle for a different word?

          Remember — we are not talking about marriage in the religious sense, officiated by a priest or rabbi or other religious leader. No one is talking of forcing churches to perform nor recognize gay marriage. We are talking strictly of civil marriage — marriage under the law.

          You want to change the legal structure so there is no such thing as civil marriage and everyone (under the law, I’m not talking about religion here)has a civil union or domestic partnership, fine. Be my guest. Good luck with that one though. But so long as there is civil marriage, recognized by the government, granted benefits by the government, you don’t get to decide who can and cannot enter that institution based on sexual orientation.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            What are the benefits??? What are they??? I have been asking for days. Please enumerate and explain to me how, if there are any, they would NOT be provided in CU or DP’s.

            I’m almost willing to bet that the “benefits” are long gone. Sort of when I looked for income averaging in the tax code a few years ago because of a windfall and found it was gone for decades. The ball is in your court my friend. I apologize in advance for my stupidity if I have missed something.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              There are 1,138 benefits of marriage at the federal level alone — http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf; http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html (as the second link demonstrates, many of these benefits do NOT apply to civil unions nor to domestic partnerships.

              Now even if every single statute was amended to provide the exact same benefits to those with a ‘civil union’ or ‘domestic partnership’, I will ask again — why, in the context of civil marriage, should the government be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples? Why should these couples be forced to use a different term?

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                This is great, while I do not see earth shaking benefits there and question the alleged value of some, I could very much see myself working and lobbying for true equality in benefits for all. You can leave DOMA in place and just go for the CU or DP’s and as T-Ray said, get everything you want. Hell, I think we could even get Santorum to go along with it. Some though would be hard to work into polygamy.

                Why use a different term? Easy, because it ain’t marriage.

                As a follow up, I looked at a really old dictionary (1949) and it more or less has what you have, ” The state of being legally wedded”. On the surface, this would of course seem to indicate an openmindedness about marriage in 1949 which is lacking today. However, if I scroll down a bit on the page and go to “marry” the verb, it goes: To wed, to perform the ceremony of uniting a man and a woman in wedlock; to espouse, take as husband or wife: to join closely. Now the last one, I admit could be a little dicey except in construction we use the word “to marry” to indicate when we join two pieces of material, identical or otherwise alongside each other. I think that in ’49, that’s what they meant.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m on board with updating all those laws, but don’t think I’m going to then sit down and say that’s sufficient. If they want to call what they have marriage (again, in the LEGAL sense) then they should be entitled.

                Even in 1949 the definition refers specifically to LEGALLY wedded. This is not a question of religion, but of civil / legal marriage.

                The only way around it, at least in my view, is to get rid of civil/legal marriage altogether — issue any couple that wants it a “Certificate of Civil Union” and be done. Anyone that wants to go to their religious leader and get married is free to do so based on the edicts of their religion.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            But once again, why should a gay couple have to settle for a different word?

            Buck, In the traditional term of marriage, they are different, sorry, but that is just a fact. I agree that everyone should have the same legal rights when they chose to be united, but I don’t think it is truly needed to use a traditional religious term. Maybe, the majority should demand that the States change their terms to civil union, equal for everyone, and our churches can issue a marriage certificate for religious purposes.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I would be fine with that arrangement — civil unions for all; marriage as purely religious — but that’s not the case.

              Marriage is no longer solely a religious term.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck, I have known many gay couples over the years, they are not concerned with the word, just the legal benefits, with most of that being health benefits. All this we want to be called the same crap is total left wing “communist manifesto” bullshit that is propogated by a very small number of leftists and sensationalized by the corporate whore media. It would be easier for the laws to be changed, than to demand the people change.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Then at the very very least lets get to work updating every single statute/rule/guideline/etc. to provide for the exact same benefits. At the federal level, state level, county level, local level, etc.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                I am totally on board. When do we start writing letters?

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Actually we just need to pass for openers one federal law to recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships by that name only and state that this suffices for the purpose of establishing benefits IN THE SAME WAY MARRIAGE DOES.

                Incredibly simple and much harder to argue against, for example, you have me.

          • Marriage is a rite not a right. You are not free to marry your brother, mother, father, two people at once. There are lots of restrictions on marriage. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman with the above caveats. The restrictions were created for reason as they benefited society by reducing birth defects, disputes, and prohibit some men from hording. What benefit to society does gay marriage produce. Again as I stated, the insistence on using the word is to gain legitimacy not legal privileges. In my discussion with patent attorneys they always emphasize that it is a strong argument to quote a dictionary definition of a word in a legal dispute. If that is the standard, then we should not be arbitrarily redefining words. I have no problem is the people or the legislatures decide to legalize gay unions. I do have problem with them using the term marriage and I do have a problem with legislating it from the bench.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Ok then….per Merriam-Webster:

              MARRIAGE:
              1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

              Hey look at that, it includes same-sex couples!

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                What year?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                online version; today.

              • So, SK, because the definitions change for marriage over time, which time do you demand?

                King Solomon had over 200 wives and 600 concubines – why aren’t you in favor of polygamy now? Why don’t you have a concubine?
                Abraham had is first son with is slave-woman, you into that too?

                It wasn’t until 1200AD before the “church” got into “marrying” people.

                And until the 1900’s a woman surrender all her rights if she married – she was essentially property of the husband.

                So to argue that ‘marriage’ has some fixed social value that is anchored on bedrock is merely wrong!

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                See my comment above regarding the ’49 version.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Flag, my wife won’t let me have one.

              • Mathius™ says:

                ::stifles nose bleed::

                Thank you, BF! That was a superbly eloquent argument. I generally hate to admit when someone has come up with a better argument than me, but in this case, my nifty Jack Sparrow hat is off to you.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Flag, that’s why I like it when you pop up. Make me do research and follow up to see if things I vaguely remember or think really happened. Went to the Wiki site and was reminded of a lot that I had forgotten in the past 45 years or so. You just love to cherry pick. Seems the Jews did a religious ceremony for some time before 1200AD. Christians took their lead from the Jews, Luther is the guy who said it should be civil; not religious and of course, how many male wives did Solomon have? Abraham did not have that child with a guy named Barney.

                Issue here revolves entirely around male-female.

          • Buck

            They must accept a different word BECAUSE the word Marriage does not apply. Society at large determines what words mean. For thousands of years and right up until now, the word Marriage means a permanent commitment between men and women to live as husbands and wives.

            So the issue here is by what authority does a GOVT claim the privilege or power to unilaterally change the meaning of the word.

            Lets make it more black and white. You can call yourself an Apple if you like, but you will NEVER be an Apple. A man who “self identifies” as a woman is STILL a man. And the Govt should not be empowered to declare you an Apple or the man a woman.

            You, like many in this debate confuse the issue of a Words historical meaning with Rights or Privileges granted by Govt that do not have anything to do with the word. This is very much the heart of the historical debate over the Govt’s power to overturn or eliminate “Common Law”. It is destructive to civilized society because it causes deep tears in the fabric that may never be mended.

            Now I agree that when Govt stuck its nose in the Marriage business this starts the rotting process. But the solution is not to make the rot even worse. It is to back up and eliminate it all together.

            For example, perhaps the laws should be re-written to eliminate the term “Marriage”. Starting with the License provided by the State. Regardless of sex, the license amounts to nothing more than a Govt granted permit, or Civil Union, for some bizarre purpose that only the Govt seems to understand.

  44. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    The answer G is so obvious because they can’t be married, not without a pre-frontal lobotomy for the other 95% of the population. Your proposed solution, like mine would never be accepted because, as T says above, they want “legitimacy. The next question is why such a hard push? Since the society has more or less agreed to roll over and play dead on CU and DP’s , what’s the big deal? That’s is where it gets interesting and murky.

    Had this been before Homosexuality was removed from the lexicon as a deviation in the ’70’s, I, as an almost psychologist, would have said that it was because gays understood that they were outside the norm and were desperately seeking acceptance. Now due to the maturation of the society if you prefer, or the go along-get along phenomena they have achieved that acceptance they wanted. Let’s be honest 99.999% of Homosexuals at the time of the Stonewall riots would have thought that they died and went to heaven if they had what they have today. But, not only is it always “more” it is also, “you have it and we don’t” or vica versa. There is still a deep seated unease and insecurity among gays that they are not quite right, that there is something wrong. Unfortunately for the rest of the society giving them everything they want will buy no more peace than giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler did. Actually, we are up to Poland, we already gave away Czechoslovakia.

    We all have gay relatives or friends. In my own family, I see a kind of Bizzaro (from Superman) behavior which mimics straight lifestyles but at the same time sanctifies all things gay: flags, Rehoboth beach, Greenwich village, Fire Island, outlandish clothing etc. I know a very few gays whom I would say have it down right and who knows if I know them well enough to even say that. Maybe they are just better at hiding it.

    All this goes against conventional wisdom, but on this issue, conventional wisdom is less than 25 years old.

  45. GMan, Buck et al.

    Re: Marriage only as a religious ceremony: Marriage existed among humans for thousands of years BEFORE any CHURCH involvement. While the “term” may have a religious meaning to some it does not to all.

    Re: Rights obtained by Govt marriage. There are NO Rights that are created by the Govt granting or determining the conditions of a “legal” marriage. There are only Govt provided “privileges”.

    Re: The notion of “Legal Marriage”, this is mostly for Buck. I find this another example of the circular argument of those who support govt laws at their face value. By what authority does the Govt create a “legal definition” of a word that has a separate meaning in common use?

    Re: The New Webster definition. This is EXACTLY what S.K. was talking about in the beginning. Words do change in meaning over time. But what has happened in the USA over the past 40 years is a DELIBERATE effort to change the meaning to meet the political goals of certain groups. I have a Wikipedia reference for marriage that is less than a year old. NOT a single mention of “same sex”, except when mentioning a few rare cultures in history. Now how long before even this source contains the “New” Dictionary version. And if you think this is BS then ask yourself why Webster had to use two separate categories (meaning) to include same sex couples.

    The first word to be hijacked was the word GAY itself. Sorry but I can’t forgive them for that one. I used to feel good when my teachers told my mother that I was a joy to be around because I was such a gay little boy.

  46. SK

    Along the same lines as Marriage.

    Hurray!!! A WIN for SANITY and REASON. At least for now. Wonder what happens if it is appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (from HuffPo)

    “Do whales deserve constitutional protection against slavery? On February 8, a federal judge said ‘no,’ stopping a historic case filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals against SeaWorld for violating the 13th Amendment on slavery. Five orcas were listed as the plaintiffs.

    PETA filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Diego last October, complaining that the whales “were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude.” PETA went on to request that the whales be freed and released to a habitat better suited to their needs.

    On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller dismissed the case, writing in his ruling that “the only reasonable interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to non-persons such as orcas.”

    Before the ruling, PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr told HuffPost that the animal rights group’s argument was based on the belief that “slavery doesn’t depend upon the species of the slave, any more than it depends upon the race, gender or ethnicity of the slave. SeaWorld’s attempts to deny [orcas] the protection solely based on their species is the same kind of prejudice used to justify any enslavement. And prejudice should not be what determines constitutional rights in this country … Because they can suffer from the prohibitive conduct of being enslaved, the 13th Amendment protection against that conduct should be extended to them.””

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      JAC

      I was watching this show the other day about crows. If you give them a worm in a test tube half filled with water so that their beaks cannot reach, they will pick up pebbles and put them in the tube to raise the water level to where they can get the worms. Damn crows are smarter than whales and smarter than a lot of people I know. To think, I used to shoot them. I’m no better than Dr. Mengle.

      You know, in Buck’s lifetime (thankfully not ours), whales will be people along with all other creatures. Zoos will be outlawed as will hunting and eventually meat. Unless the whole stupid society manages to collapse first that is.

      It all comes back to those little prep tests we used to have in kindergarten and 1st grade. Connect the dots and see where they lead. All of this stupid nonsense can be predicted that way . Logic and common sense never enter into it anymore. Spock would go insane.

      In 1965, the “Flintstones” theme song included a final line , “We’ll have a gay old time.” Think they were referring to Fred and Barney or Wilma and Betty? I would probably have to explain that one to my grandchildren today since that will be the only use of “gay” they will probably ever know.

      • SK

        The USA is currently overrun with Crows, and Ravens to a lesser extent. They, like seagulls are causing great “ecological” problems.

        WHY?

        Because these birds got wrapped up in the International Treaties which prohibited killing them, but did not deal with their other predators.

        Once again, the unintended consequences of “well intended” laws.

      • And speaking of seagulls……………

  47. USW,
    I have missed you and this site. My absence has been for similar reasons, and has been more extreme (the absence, not the reasons). I have even allowed my own site to languish into non-existence. I am not sure if I will restart it or not, I am in the process of determining if I still want to be a libertarian, at least the the formal sense.

    Running my own business, helping my gf work hers, and then having the opportunity to help my genius cousin with his new manufacturing startup has been far more gratifying, and time consuming, than blogging here of late. Also, I have been on huffpo a lot, trying to fight a decent battle. I think it is time to return to a place where the majority of commenters are intelligent. I don’t need people to agree with me, I just want an intelligent discussion. 🙂

    At any rate, I do not want to make any promises I cannot keep either, but I will try to put a few articles together to help the cause here, I need to get back to writing. 🙂
    Cheers all, I have missed you

    • Jon

      Good to see you are still alive. We have been worried about you.

      Best to you and yours.
      JAC

      • Thanks JAC, fortunately, the country has not disintegrated to the point where my survival is a worry, tho I have been spending most of my extra time and resources rebuilding and expanding my gear and skills for such a contingency. Good to see you too, I am happy to see so many old friends still around.

    • Hi Jon 🙂 nice to have you back! I am interested in-what makes you say this “I am in the process of determining if I still want to be a libertarian, at least the the formal sense. “

      • Good question V, I might make it an article. 🙂 The short answer, however, is:
        Even tho I still hold to many of the stated philosophies and goals of the LP, I find I am at odds with parties as a concept. Certainly they have strategic usefulness in the current climate of our political system, but they are all a part of “the game”, and the system is designed in such a way as to prevent actual representatives from being elected. Instead, we have political “experts” masquerading as representative of the people. If I were to accept the support of a political party to get into office or get someone I actually support into office, the LP would be a poor choice. Strict, rugged individualism does not lend itself well to party politics, thus they are not a unified party at all. Also, many of our “single issue” voters have chosen singe issues that are easily demonized in the press, such as legalization of drugs.

        I have sort of come to the determination that our republic cannot be fixed by playing the game, it must be fixed by no longer playing it. As such, my ideal candidate is no longer associated with a political party. Based on that and on the performance of the LP specifically, I am questioning whether I want to be known as a large “L” Libertarian, rather than a small “l” libertarian. Philosophically I am closer and closer to BF, but real life application still has me supporting VDLG instead. I suppose I am an anarchist idealist, and a libertarian realist, but any associations with the LP are no longer in play.

  48. Black Flag

    You err once again, at least in what it is that SK and I have been arguing. Well at least my argument. I’ll let SK speak for himself.

    “So to argue that ‘marriage’ has some fixed social value that is anchored on bedrock is merely wrong!”

    It is not that marriage has some fixed “social value” it is that it has had a pretty much “fixed definition”. Union of men and women in some form that equates a long term commitment toward each other and creation of a family.

    The long standing and NORMATIVE definition has allowed marriage of one as well as many…….men and women.

    As I posted earlier, there are only a few examples given in history where “marriage of same sex” was performed or claimed.

    The other key point here is one that I would think right in your wheel house. Govt forcing a change in the meaning of a word.

  49. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I am far to late for this debate, yet again, so I will just copy and paste an earlier post I made from last April >

    “One thing that irks me has been the topic of Gay marriage. People in support of gay marriage say it hurts no-one. People vote to make it illegal, (me). How did I ever get in position to be voting for or against gay marriage in the first place? There never was any such thing as ‘gay’ marriage. Gay *marriage* to my way of thinking is as bizzare as Man/Goat marriage. Ther is no such thing. Is night day? People are free to call it whatever they want, but don’t try to force me to recognize it as ‘marriage’. Civil unions, Fine with me, but not ‘marriage’, ain’t no such thing. Sorry, I just can’t seem to enlighten myself.”

    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/victimless-crime/

    Gotta Run, Later
    PS: The world has gone Nuts! 🙂 But you knew that, didn’t you ………..

%d bloggers like this: