My President?

Ok, I’m a WASP.  Most of you know me as the racist, sexist homophobic LOI, but surprisingly I have some LIBERAL friends.  And Oh what a contrast there is on my facebook page.  I haven’t responded yet, and may not anytime.  My first thought was negative, second, third, fifth, well, I have few positive thoughts about our Commander-in-Chief.  But when I finally stepped back, I have to admit what appears to be a janitor getting a fist bump from THE President, well that is kinda cool.  For him.  The janitor.  And maybe for African-Americans as a whole.  Here it is MLK’s day.  How many years did it seem having a black man for president was strange fiction just like putting a man on the moon?  But then we did reach the moon, so whats another good analogy?

Moving on, we’ve been to the moon and elected Obama.  It never was an issue to me about his skin color, but I was not raised facing racism.  I wasn’t ever the minority.  As I grew up, the whole black/white thing just wasn’t important to me.  My friends were all colors and we didn’t pay attention to it among ourselves.  And it makes me wonder what my friend is thinking, why they are so proud of our president for a fist bump?  I don’t go on facebook often, so I might have missed any negative posts they made, but I’d bet they have never posted anything negative about Obama.   Aren’t we supposed to be critical about those we elect to serve us?  I know I’ve said some very negative things about Bush and think I was right to do so.
Do liberals get a free pass on their rose color glasses double standard?  My first negative thought on Obama:
Economy/jobs suck!
Attacked Libya?  No congressional approval!
Fix the corruption in WallStreet?  How, by hiring all of them for your administration?
But my mind didn’t wonder long or far as I caught up on the other posts.  Kent had a few interesting articles, but what caught my attention was one from Judy.  Let me ask everyone to form an opinion on this first.  Do you think the US soldiers that were killed at the Ft. Hood shooting should receive the purple heart?.(1)(2)
Since then I’ve asked a few people what they thought on the Ft.  Hood victims.
A liberal thought, “they were at work, so yeh, they should get them”.
A vet thought, “they should get death benefits, but not the purple heart.  Unless they displayed valor in some way”.   I’m not going to say I have the answer here, but it was a terrorist attack.  Call it a domestic, or home grown terrorist but no one buys “workplace shooting” .  Sorry, but that is insulting.
And I am OK with my FaceBook friends having their own thoughts on things.  We don’t have to agree on everything.  But this does make me want to rant.  I know the “My President” person pretty well.  She is a truly beautiful, happily married,  mother of one.  Pretty intelligent and well-informed on most issues, or so I thought.

Yes, OK, he is photogenic.  Is he Presidential?  Shouldn’t that be the question?  I get that you like him and can even see why that might be, but how about the job he’s done?
Has he earned re-election because of his handling of the economy?  Still Bushes fault?  Didn’t he say if we passed the stimulus, he would fix the economy and get us back to work?  He said himself that he would be a one-termer if that failed.  He doesn’t have to explain any of his failures, you do it for him.
Foreign policy?  He hasn’t closed Gitmo, but did get us out of Iraq ( a little later than promised).  Are you happy we attacked Libya?  How have things gone in Egypt with his deft moves?  Syria is shelling it’s own towns.  Libya was a “humanitarian mission”, why is he silent on Syria?
He promised our health costs would drop when ObamaCare was passed.  Mine has gone up about two grand?  I’m not in a union or with McDonald’s, so I missed out on all those exemptions  he was handing out to his buddies.
How many major promises has he broken?  What does it take before you will say he has failed?  Maybe he is a great guy (not to me ) but he’s not a great president.  Not just by my standards, by yours and his standards.  All the criticism you, me and Obama heaped on Bush and the Republicans, judge him by that and he has failed miserably.  He is more unpopular than George Bush with Muslims worldwide!  Could you have ever predicted that happening?
I’ve known people who vote their party line, both Democrat and Republican, and loyalty to a party is something we have all seen.  But if you gush “My President” over this guy, I think you are willfully ignorant.  Blinded by the vision he promises to the reality he has delivered.


  1. Mika Brzezinski’s Valentine’s Day Gift: Kisses for Obama’s Debt Exploding Budget

    It appears there’s nothing MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski loves more than deficits as far as the eye can see.

    On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, the perilously liberal co-host proudly displayed her Valentine’s Day gift – Barack Obama’s debt exploding budget proposal with lipstick kisses all over it

    Read more:

  2. February 14, 2012
    Missing Californians
    Russ Vaughn

    The Sacramento Bee website is reporting that the number of top-income taxpayers in California has declined by a third. In an article in its Capitol Alert section, the Bee says that those Californians with $500,000 and up taxable incomes have declined from almost 150,000 in 2007 to slightly under 100,000 in 2009. The article also notes that the 100,000, representing just over a half percent of the 14.6 million returns, accounted for 18.8 percent of total income reported, but paid 32 percent of all income taxes in 2009.

    If Governor Jerry Brown wonders where a whole bunch of those making up that sizable segment of his top taxpayers disappeared to, he might want to call their new governor, Rick Perry, who may have lost in the primary, but who’s the surefire winner in the contest to snag rich Californians fleeing the tax tyranny and liberal insanity of the no-longer glittering Golden State.

    Read more:

    And does this not apply to America as well? Obama’s plan to reward the poor by taking from the wealthy, how long will that work before they leave or do a John Galt/Ronnie Regan, and with-hold their labor?

  3. A Puritan Descendant says:

    This country need more producers like this young man, Ben Manter. Just out of school and on his way. A young man with focus on the bottom line. More like him and fewer ‘panzies with brief cases’ and we will all be better for it. Now I just need to find where he bought those 1,100 gallon brewery/fermentation tanks. (And I thought my 15 gallon pasteuriser pans were big, Yikes!) This boy has vision and drive! Ben is an increasing rarity in a country where building ones own house with their own two hands is almost no longer an option.

    • Great story! Hope he does well. My concern is some local, state or federal agency will decide it needs government “help”.

      February 14, 2012
      The war on jobs (continued)
      Bill Weckesser

      Politically correct East Lansing has run a green business out of town in a victory of the bureaucrat over the entrepreneur. Last year Dave Thorin launched “Spar-Thai” a bike-taxi service to shuttle folks around Michigan State’s campus. He considered it an eco-friendly and unique service. Now, Mr. Thorin tells the Lansing State Journal that city fees put him under. He says he could handle the $100 per vehicle charge and the annual $200 fee but the $80 per driver application cost was too much for the drivers. The Lansing State Journal:

      “I know I lost a lot and I’m not going to say money is not important … but it hurt a lot more in other ways,” Thorin said. “The idea that you spend a great deal of time and effort and you think it’s going to be of help and make the community better and something a little outside of the box … and to have something as small as a city clerk’s office to squash it is really, really disappointing, more so than the financial side of it.”

      Mr. Thorin was required to pay $30, plus additional fees for drug testing, fingerprinting and other items. In a page out of the European Union business and policy manual, East Lansing’s Clerk nearly tripled the fee to $80 after a study showed that it cost the city more than $30 just to process the paperwork. No word on how much the study cost.

      Read more:

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “My concern is some local, state or federal agency will decide it needs government “help”.”

        Exactly what I am thinking! Just wait until they fine them $15,000.00 + for not wearing a hair net or something, and hand him 17,000 pages of guberment rules he might have failed to read and interpret. I hope he is prepared for some visits. Maybe if he has kids CPS can visit him to make sure he is not some abusive drunk with all that cider on his hands. It is best to be safe for the childrens sake………….

        I am letting it be known. I still won’t post often but when I do, I am taking my muzzle off! I am saying it like it is from now on, GGrrrrrr RRRUFFFF !

  4. February 15, 2012
    BBC: 5,000 unemployed Americans living in tent-city Obamavilles

    Under President Obama the number of U.S. citizens living in deep poverty has exploded. Forty-seven million Americans now live below the poverty line, the highest recorded number in more than 50 years. Tent cities, springing up in parts of Michigan and Florida, are bringing the statistics to life in a new way.

    The BBC found entire families living in tents, either unemployed or earning too little to afford rent. Several years of high unemployment have led roughly 5,000 people to live in these tent camps across America. Most have no toilets. In the community the BBC found, electricity is only available in one communal tent where a stove is kept on for warmth.

    Conditions are unhygienic. Asked about sanitation in the camps, resident Alana Gehringer told the BBC about “black mold.”

    “It was on our pillows, it was on our blankets, we were literally rubbing our faces in it sleeping every night,” she said.

    Residents who run the camps have built up relationships with charities, hospitals and homeless shelters.

    “Last night, for example, we got a call saying they had six that couldn’t make it into the shelter and … they were hoping that we could place them. … So we usually get calls, around nine or 10 a night,” said Brian Durance, one camp organizer. Catholic charities have also contributed laundry services, computers and phones.

    Asked about the rising number of people living in tents near Ann Arbor, Michigan, the state’s lieutenant governor, Brian Calley, commented, “That is absolutely not acceptable, and we have to take steps and policies in order to make sure that those people have the skills they need to be independent, and it won’t happen overnight.”

    Today 13 million Americans are unemployed — three million more than when President Barack Obama was elected. With the exception of 1982, nationwide unemployment is at its post-Great Depression high water mark.

    Read more:

  5. I would just like to see more young people AND older ones as well, do their OWN thinking and stop getting their opinions from the news and internet. We still have a majority who think that just because it is on TV or in print, it must be true. They do not seem to understand that these talking heads may have their own agendas.

    Just because Obama is the first Black President does not make him a good one. I happened to think that folks were too in love with the idea of this and rushed in to elect him before looking to see that he had no experience for the job and had absolutely NO idea how to do it. And he has learned nothing in the past few to justify him being re-elected either.

    He is an arrogant, know-it-all asshole. He will not back off with a bad idea even when it is clear even to fellow Democrats that he is wrong. Instead he treats Congress and the American people like wayward children who don’t know what’s good for them. Like he knows best and we should all bow to his wishes and his greatness.

    Presidential? I don’t think so!!!

    • Agreed except for one thing. I think if we want a shot at someone who really represents us, we have to drop the whole “experience” requirement. I don’t want someone experienced in politics, because that means they have been corrupted. I don’t want someone who knows how to play the game, the game is the problem. We have no time for games. I just want someone with common sense, a decent mind, and enough speaking ability to not come off like a bumbling idiot in office. It is more about philosophy and character than experience and skills. I will take a plumber over a lawyer in office any day.

      • Let me clarify “experience”. This man was elected with experience only as a teacher of a few years and as a politician for a few more. No experience in ANYTHING that would qualify him as President EXCEPT Politician.

        We are electing and re-electing too many people to all offices at every level who have never even been practicing lawyers, much less anywhere in the business sector. Folks who have never held a private sector job.

        That, IMHO, is why he has no clue how to fix the economy. And his experience a a Contitutional Law Professor only taught him how to go around that Document, not how to uphold it.

        I think he should already have been impeached for violation of his oath of office.

  6. gmanfortruth says:



  7. Judy Sabatini says:
  8. Thought of the Day.


    OK, sorry LOI this seems a little off track. But only a little since Cap Gains seems to be an enemy of the State with YOUR president. 🙂

    For this exercise we will assume a Cap Gains rate of 28%, because that was the Reagan era rate and David Stockman is running around trying to sell it. And the Left is eating it up.

    We will also assume an Inflation Rate of 3%. Yes I know, but lets just go with the Govt’s estimate for now.

    Now lets look at the REST OF THE STORY over a 10 year period.

    The future value of $1 in ten years to cover the inflation rate is $1.34. Your dollar must “make” 34 cents in interest just to keep EVEN with the loss of purchasing power. This is your INFLATION BREAK EVEN POINT.

    We all know we have to do better than inflation so lets target a 6% return on our investment.

    The future value of your $1 is now $1.79. Feels good right? Slow down there pardner.

    The Cap Gains Tax on your $0.79 in “profit” is 28%. So you actual AFTER TAX Future Value is now $1.57

    Well that looks OK, you still beat inflation. But by how much?

    $1.57 – $1.34 = $0.23 your profit after taxes and after inflation.

    This amounts to a 2% return on your investment after tax and after inflation.

    NOTE, your goal was 3% and now you have 2%. You lost 1% out of the 3%.

    That is a 33 1/3% LOSS of YOUR target return rate of 3% over inflation.


    MY POINT: Capital Gains rates should be ZERO. The debate should not be over the rate but over What qualifies and How long the assets must be held.

    A Capital Gains tax feeds into the Govts primary means of dealing with debt……..INFLATION.

    A Cap Gains tax increase just creates an incentive for the Govt to inflate forever. Because they capture some of the Rot they induce as well as paying with cheaper money in the future.

    • JAC,

      Great way to break down the numbers but it seems to me many will make up their mind who to blame and not consider the cause. I posted above the gas, bacon, beef price jump. If you have already made up your mind to support the liberal cause, you just keep blaming everything else for the failures. Geithner lectures Europe for their spending, then defends Obama for doing the same thing.

  9. Now one that fits with Your President.

    Many weeks back I couldn’t figure out why all of a sudden the Press seemed interested in the Republican view on “contraception”. At first I thought it was just a question asked of Santorum because of an interview he did explaining the Catholic Church’s, and his PERSONAL, view on the subject.

    In an interview I say with Santorum he was grilled on his statement that the Fed Govt has no authority what so ever on this but the States do. This of course led to the question if he thought they had the authority to BAN contraception. He clearly stated: “Yes. But I don’t think they should nor do I think the people of the various states would allow it.” (My paraphrase quote as I heard the answer but did not write it down at the time)

    Seemed good enough to me. Figured the question was appropriate given video of Santorum speaking on the topic.

    But then came the debates where Stephanopolus asked the question of Romney. He got booed for it if you remember. This really caused my Shit Detector Radar to go off, but I still couldn’t put my finger on it.

    Then of course the rhetoric started on the lefty blogs and some of the DNC emails I get. In summary: “The Republicans are trying to outlaw Contraception”. Now who thinks this silly ploy will stick? Nobody, right?

    Then the big Blow UP over the Insurance mandate comes. The R’s rush to the ramparts to defend religious liberty and individual freedom. But what is the D’s response? “They are trying to outlaw Contraception”. Radar is now humming at full tune.

    Then comes an interview I saw with Dick Morris the other day. Now I don’t want to get into the character or characterizations of this man, and I use that term sparingly. The fact remains that he IS a POLITICAL OPERATIVE who is familiar with and who has employed various schemes, tricks and strategies in various campaigns. He should recognize a rat when he sees it.

    He made a comment that the Dem/Obama strategists have decided to CREATE an issue around Contraception. He pointed to the Santorum interview and debate questions as the first evidence something was up. Especially in light of WHO asked the questions. They are tied to the DNC and the Obama campaign, this includes the Stephanopolus feller.

    He further explained that this is to solidify the Women’s vote against any Republican candidate, except for Paul of course. Because, he said, the Abortion issue is becoming a loser for the Dem party. The numbers are gradually moving against them on this among women. But Contraception is SACRED.

    Now, given the source I felt some careful watching and listening was needed. It only took TWO days to see it unveiled in full force. Including the “Rationale” or “Explanation” that is going to be used in the “narrative”.

    Last night on MSNBC their various news commentary shows, ALL had “Republican attack on Contraception” as a feature story. Apparently they decided to have Maddow create the narrative, which she did in her usual twisted and deliberately obfuscating manner. Then the others simply used “her” analysis as TRUTH.

    What she did was “link” the Personhood initiatives and legislation being considered in various States to a BAN ON CONTRACEPTION. This linkage is created by using some wording used by the Mississippi group and a couple of legislators in Virginia to claim the Personhood Laws would ban Contraception. The truth or real meaning of the words be damned. Of course she is also arguing that Contra….Ception does not mean prevent conception but means to interfere with the entire process of fertilization AND implantation.

    Now that is an argument deserving of intellectual debate. But this is politics so forget that option.

    Next up come the rest of the talking heads and the “analysts” from various OTHER SOURCES. Which of course are other Dem/Obama Press people. Here are some of the comments made.

    “I don’t understand why the Republicans think banning Contraception is a winning position?” Notice here how the actor makes it seem he is asking a real question. But what he is doing is spreading the lie by presenting the position in question form. The fallacy? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Get it???

    “They must be crazy to do this.” Two birds with one stone. Confirmation bias that R’s are crazy is thrown in as a bonus.

    On and on it went, two hours of discussion on this using no less than 6 different people. It is now in its second day. Oh yes, and Mr. Santorum is now being accused of wanting to BAN Contraception. Based on what???? That interview I referenced at the beginning. Both Maddow and O’Donnel played that interview……AND BOTH cut the clip right before he clearly said the States “should not” ban contraception.

    Last week and this I have seen many comments on Huff Po claiming the R’s want to ban contraception.

    Now for an even more obnoxious and related part of this story. This comes from Maddow but I expect it to spread. The Virginia legislature is or has passes what appears to be a very obnoxious bill requiring and internally invasive ultra sound before an abortion can be done. The “narrative” on this of course is that THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO WANTS SMALL GOVT.. Never mind the real legitimate issue of abortion, it is about a woman’s right to privacy with her doctor. Now I agree that is an issue also, but it is obviously a diversion in this case.

    But here is the part where my veins almost exploded. Maddow decided to use the Gov of Virginia as her foil in this. Fine, that is legit if he is supporting the legislation. BUT, what she did was CLAIM that he was the universally understood and accepted FRONT RUNNER, he was the PARTY’s PREFERRED…………VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

    This goes beyond the normal PROPAGANDA of the Left. This is an outright LIE and she knows it. Her basis? Because the Gov has openly campaigned for the job. That is enough for her to tie this all up in a bow and hang it around EVERY REPUBLICAN NECK in the country.

    Don’t think so????? A large part of the discussion on MSNBC last night was NOT just the Presidential race, but how these Republicans who are trying to take over Congress and Women’s Reproductive Rights are also trying to STACK the deck with redistricting.

    So my friends, cinch up your seat belts. It is going to get bumpy. And my money says the Elephants won’t respond to this until it is to late. They will think it ridiculous and their lack of action will allow it to take hold as main stream thought, aka Urban Legend. I’ll bet you a dollar that the Chatter Class on Fox today is still stuck on “Religious Freedom”.

    Of course, this is helped by having the Primary run on and on. Neither the RNC or a single candidate can address the issue by themselves. So this, and other myths will continue to be spread by the machine’s “elite corps of experts”.

    So now I have shared my view on what is happening, why and how. If YOU really don’t want this person re-elected then WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Live Free my friends.

    But remember, freedom requires ACTION.

    • gmanfortruth says:


      Maddow gets little attention and viewership. Those who listen are the idiot liberals who have already been brainwashed, they are a lost cause and not worth the effort. I’m not sure what to think of liberals anymore, as bad as Obama has been they still will vote for him, not to bright if you ask me 🙂

      However, that don’t matter because the whole od DC is bought and paid for and the Corporate Whore Media are puppets for the elite and will continue thier pathetic ways. The elites have already decided who will win the next election, which I believe will not occur till 2014, if then. Wasting time on the current election process is a waste of time and energy. I think you already know what I’m doing about it! 🙂

    • My plan is to vote Ron Paul for the primary, then support whoever the nominee happens to be. I applaud Sarah Palin for encouraging all the candidates to stay in the campaign. The media figured they could shove Romney down our throats..but with Palin’s help, that didn’t work. The longer this goes on the more the candidates have to spell it out. I’m all for selecting someone at the convention.

      I’m also continuing a pattern I started in ’08..if you’re up for re-election, pack your bags. I’m not voting for you. Right now Debbie Stabenaw is in my crosshairs. Her strongest competition is Hoekstra. He’s not getting my vote..he’s establishment too. Everyone needs to start eliminating candidates for Congress. We need to start spreading the word in our own communities the importance of sending fresh air to DC.

    • Jon said above,
      “It is more about philosophy and character than experience and skills.”

      The person who inspired this rant shares Obama’s philosophy. She has therefore excused any and every action that shows his true character. Consider Robin Hood was a thief. He robbed people and threatened them with injury or death. But we are raised with him shown as a hero to be admired. Obama promises to help the poor, but instead rewards the unions and his wealthy supporters while the poverty rate increases. What do you say to someone who puts philosophy before reality? Buck loves the government taking over health care and talks about our wealth as a nation. But the promised savings have instead shown themselves to be significant cost increases for everyone who pays for their healthcare. A real world look at other countries shows their systems to be failing. How many Euro countries have gotten credit downgrades? It doesn’t work to provide “free” anything, not longterm. Economics are indifferent to good intentions.

      If your philosophy is to help the poor, but your handouts paid for by theft cause there to be more poor, at what point do you reject a belief? Wishes don’t buy much. Why do so many keep supporting the wish salesman?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Buck doesn’t love the government taking over health care. (Well, depending on what ‘taking over’ means to you.)

        Buck believes a single payer system is better than the system we currently have. Buck still supports private health care delivery and all decisions to be made between the doctor and patient.

        Oh, and to JAC and D13, Buck would like to continue this debate at a later time as he doesn’t have enough time in the day with the work recently handed to (piled on) him.

        • Obamacare, overregulation cited as reasons small businesses aren’t hiring
          Rick Moran

          Nonsense, says the left. The real reason is that there is a conspiracy against President Obama to keep the economy bad in order to make sure he is defeated in the election.

          Gallup reports that nearly half of small business owners disagree:

          U.S. small-business owners who aren’t hiring — 85% of those surveyed — are most likely to say the reasons they are not doing so include not needing additional employees; worries about weak business conditions, including revenues; cash flow; and the overall U.S. economy. Additionally, nearly half of small-business owners point to potential healthcare costs (48%) and government regulations (46%) as reasons. One in four are not hiring because they worry they may not be in business in 12 months.

          Read more:

  10. Ray Hawkins says:


    I’ve adopted in many ways the idea that trimming the fat from the Federal level will help make us more lean, more manageable, more transparent and responsive, more simple. Push those “things” that are not Constitutionally supported to the States. This assumes of course that our State-level politicians are less politician and more statesman; they are not Federal wanna-be types or plainly too incompetent to get elected to a Federal level position.


  11. More Crony Capitalism Disguised as ‘Green’ Jobs

    By NB Staff | February 15, 2012 | 10:48

    Today’s starter topic: The so-called green jobs industries that President Obama loves to tout so often have already been suspected of being riddled with insider dealings and conflicts of interest. More word of this came out yesterday when the Washington Post revealed (only in a blog post so far) that nearly $4 billion in federal money has gone to companies directly connected to Obama Administration bureaucrats. For all the anger and hysteria promoted by the left over Halliburton, this is starting to seem far worse:

    Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

    Read more:

    True story, may have told this before. Years ago a employee stole a $200, new part, then pawned it for $15. Anyone thinking what idiot only gets $15 for something worth hundreds?
    It cost him nothing, the fifteen was pure profit. Just like giving billions away costs Obama nothing but he gets millions back for zero expense (to himself).

  12. I’ve heard about all of this “paying their fair share” horsebiscuits I can stomach. Since the bottom 50%, and yes, this includes me, don’t pay anything, just exactly how much is their “fair share”???

    How much is Obama and the Dems willing to raise everyone else’s taxes to pay for their big-ass bloated government? And why is it that instead for raising taxes, they just take away the loopholes so that the taxes HAVE to be paid. It doesn’t matter if you raise the tax on milllionaires and billionaires to 95% if you leave in the loopholes so that they wind up paying nothing.

    I may be just a poor country hick, but I know bullshit when I smell it!! This is why Warren Buffet and the others liberal rich dudes say nothing when Obama starts in on this mantra of “fair share”. They know that as long as those loopholes are there, it doen’t matter anyway. People like my cousin and others who fall in that 250,000 to 1 million dollar range are the ones who are going to take it in the back of the head. The small business owners and the JOB CREATORS!

  13. Whoops! He stepped in it now…


    Ya’ll have to watch this……..go Judge Judy….lol

  15. OK you California peeps! How dare you foist this idiot on us! (Whatever happened to her ethics review?)

    • Mathius™ says:

      On behalf of all Californians, I apologize.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Are you as outraged by some of the similar comments made by those on the right calling Obama and the Dems ‘socialists and communists set out to destroy our country’?

      I for one have had it with both.

      • Buck

        But Mr. Obama IS a Socialist and he is out to destroy, er I’m sorry, “Fundamentally Reform” America. Both of these things are REAL.

        Demons, on the other hand are FICTIONAL.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No, Obama is not a socialist. Please try again.

          But can we please stop with the ‘destroying the country’ nonsense? From both sides? Its just plain annoying.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Obama should be charged with High treason, tried, convicted and hanged. Denial of his socialist past and present is rediculous and annoying.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Charged with treason? Based on what, specifically?

              “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason” (18 USC 2381)

          • He’s the one who wants to “fundamentally transform” America. So the first step is to destroy it.

          • Buck

            If you wish I will not call him a Socialist anymore.

            He is a Fascist Progressive in his actions and so I will stick to that. Although I think him a socialist at heart.

            Quite frankly I don’t care if you or anyone is “annoyed” by my claim that he wants to destroy America. I have explained in detail what I mean by that statement. It is TRUE and I will not deter from explaining to anyone and everyone WHY it is TRUE.

            The Man DOES NOT believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. He as swallowed the Socialist/Communist/Utopian Kool Aid of the 1700’s and 1800’s.

            His support of Positive Rights is a direct affront on the principles that created America.

            One can not push to “reform a nation” into an entity which it is not, without destroying what it is now.

            Now I will say that he did not come up with the idea nor is he the first. But that is his GOAL, pure and simple. He may just be lucky enough to be the one who gets the credit.

            OR, he may be the LAST of his kind. That is if I have my way.

        • JAC,

          Sorry, but I think you are wrong. Socialism is where you have government ownership and government control. When you have private ownership with gov. control, that’s Fascism.
          But I think your point is correct no matter what “ism” he truly is, his push to expand central government control over every facet of our lives is not the principals this nation was founded on. The FDA wants to be able to regulate sugar. The EPA wants to decide where you can build a home. The Dept. of Ed will decide where you’re kids go to school and what they are taught. Is he not trying to force us to adopt the same entitlements that are prevalent in Europe? The same countries that are bankrupt by what he holds as the example we need to follow? Call him a Greek wantabee, it may be insulting, but isn’t it true?
          This is America. Truth IS a legal defense.

          • LOI

            Try to remember that you are talking to the guy who wrote the book on Fascism here at SUFA.

            The most accurate designation for Mr. Obama, based on his FULL body of work to date is a FASCIST PROGRESSIVE.

            BUT, you need to remember his LONG RANGE Goals. He wants and supports Govt takeover of Health Care. All his actions are pushing us closer. This was a PROGRESSIVE goal since the late 1800’s. BUT it is a SOCIALIST Goal as well and is Socialism.

            We need to remember that Socialism is also a Family of systems. Fascism was developed as a “Third Way” that abandoned Communism, but NOT Socialism outright. In that sense it falls within the Socialism Family. A Cousin if you will.

            Just as when Capitalism is used in a general sense that includes Mercantilism, Corporatism and all the other “mixed” forms that involve market controls.

            I think Mr. Obama is at heart a Socialist. However, he functions as a Fascist because the Pragmatism of Fascism serves the purpose of making him seem “acceptable”. If he had HIS way, I honestly believe you would see Nationalization of many Industries in this country. Oil and Gas being one of them. Health Care another.

            He has openly stated he believes in Positive Rights. The ONLY way to enforce this theory as best I can tell is to move towards Socialism of some kind. Otherwise you have no way to effectively FORCE the population to support those who want more stuff.

            If we had not suffered the last 100 years of this “mixed” system he would have never been elected. The FREE people of then would have seen him for what he is and not the charlatan that was assigned God Like status by the LEFT.

            • Sorry JAC, just stirring the pot a little. I figured Buck would really unhinge over the best description of Obama being Fascist, not Socialist. Hey, maybe the trains will start running on time if Obama stays in…..

      • How about if we just call Obama unpatriotic? Since that’s how Obama defines it?

  16. Damn that was close. I think we all need to step back for a minute and acknowledge that there is a role for government and we should be very grateful the they are out there watching out for us and protecting us from the dangers that come with this modern world.
    Thank you, President Obama!

    • That’s how they missed those thousands of guns going across the border TO Mejico!!! They were trying to stop those man-killing hair dryers from coming into the U.S.!! 😀

      Oh, and Obama IS a Socialist LOI. He just hasn’t been able to turn the U.S. Socialist. Yet.

      • Esson, Socialists wouldn’t have given Wall Street the free pass Bush & Obama gave them. Not in a million years … there hasn’t been a republican who’s done more for Wall Street than Obama … something tells me you should be happy you have him.

        • Charlie

          That is where you are wrong. A socialist would do ANYTHING if they thought it would further their goal in the long run.

          The Ends Justify the Means is the underlying ethic of all “ism’s” that are rooted in Socialism.

          • JAC, where do you get your facts from? The FACT is, it was a Republican (Bush) who gave a bailout to AIG, then a Democrat to the rest of the pack (Obama to Wall Street).

            Neither is a socialist … or anything close.

            But the FACTS have always stood in your way … why stop now?

        • Wall Street is not the problem. Wall Street, whether you believe it or not, did not crash the economy. Or rather ALL of Wall Street didn’t. Big Government sticking it’s nose in everything from the Car Industry to Mortgages did.

          Bailouts should never have taken place. Besides Charlie, I don’t just hate Obama. I hate ALL the MoFos Republican and Democrat alike. There is no difference between them. They are both big government ASSHATS.

          You should read the article Puritan Descendant posted below. That is my thinking exactly, Though I could never have articulated it so well.

  17. A Puritan Descendant says:
    • Damn. I wish everyone would read that. That is spot on.

      Too bad, as he said, it is too late. The collapse is coming. Maybe not this year or this President, but it IS coming.

    • Common Man says:


      I cannot agree more with you and every word printed. The fact that these non-representing representatives worm their way into political office is absolutely self serving. Let’s face it they obtain increaseing power, expanding influence, lots of money and perks, work very little and as long as they play nice with their peers they are immune to the laws of the land.

      The reality of it is just like the article says…these people are no different than gang bosses and old time mafia don’s. Although I think the Mafia did convey more honor overall.

      Given the magnitude of the current circumstance I too don’t believe we have much of a chance to turn the fishes head…we are better off breaking the line and re-spooling.

      As I have said here at SUFA before; “This government needs an enema!”.


  18. I’m probably more liberal than most here … or is it progressive?

    I don’t think anybody gives Mr. Obama more shit than I do … and on a consistent basis. I do it to the other side of the aisle as well … both versions of the 1%’s government by the 1% for the 1% are pretty much despicable across the board.

    As to the job he’s done … nobody should be rewarded for what he’s done to labor, but he’ll get re-elected (as the SAGE has been telling you fools all along) because a) it doesn’t make a difference which asshat is sitting in the oval office and b) the other version of asshat is a bigger clown act than Obama.

    Now, how ’bout those Cheatriots? The streak remains … no cheating, no super bowl victories!

    Go Bills!

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “Now, how ’bout those Cheatriots? The streak remains … no cheating, no super bowl victories!”

      Now how ’bout those Bills? The streak remains… no talent, no super bowl victories!

      GGrrrr RRuffff!

    • We all, or most of us, know it doesn’t matter Charlie. But that calls for going down without a fight.

      And I don’t know about you or the others, but I’m not gonna just sit on my ass and not at least try to change it.

      Someone different may and probably won’t change anything. But that stupid bastard in office now sure doesn’t deserve another chance to screw things up even further. Maybe, just maybe, with him gone and someone else in the end will come a little slower.

      • Essom, I feel your pain … probably for very different reasons, but I agree. I refuse to reward anyone with either party for the selling out of the American workforce they are ALL involved in (except for maybe Bernie Sanders).

        I’ll vote socialist or communist … I’d vote libertarian, but I don’t see how giving the 1% zero regulations will turn out any differently than it has. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

        • Charlie


          If the Govt were to decouple from controlling business the 1% would lose their CORPORATE PROTECTION Status.

          Their BOD and Officers would be DIRECTLY LIABLE for their actions.

          No more Govt negotiated settlements for FRAUD or THEFT.

          Socialism and communism on the other hand DEPEND on theft, they institutionalize even better than the Mercantilists.

          • If the Govt were to decouple from controlling business the 1% would lose their CORPORATE PROTECTION Status.

            There you go again … decouple the government and what you have left is the 1% completely unrestrained … so what would they do? Form a government, the same way they did back in the day … it would be by them, for them (the way it’s always been). Your UTOPIA looks an awful lot like what American is fast becoming, a banana republic.

        • I would vote Libertarian also, but I do believe in just a Little government. VERY little, but a little.

          It’ll be a cold day on hell before I’d vote Socialist or Communist.

          I am an AMERICAN. I believe in the principles of freedom and liberty.

          • AMERICAN SHMERICAN … you believe in a myth formed by the same propaganda bullshit the socialists and communists use. You’re smoking the same weed from a different wrapper, my friend.

        • “I’ll vote socialist or communist …” That’s been working out so well, murder rate up 4X….
          Every example of communism, socialism, fascism, etc, comes with a body count that should make any sane person weep……..

          • Yet I’m tearless in America … because the body count from this great land of ours is so much smaller, eh?

            Not to mention those we kept/keep in an exploited state.

            Or that we’re falling apart and fast.

  19. Canine Weapon says:

    While the C-5 was turning over its engines, a female crewman gave the G.I.s on board the usual
    information regarding seat belts, emergency exits, etc.

    Finally, she said, ‘Now sit back and enjoy your trip while your captain, Judith Campbell, and crew
    take you safely to Afghanistan ‘

    An old Master Sergeant sitting in the eighth row thought to himself,
    ‘Did I hear her right? Is the captain a woman? ‘

    When the attendant came by he said ‘Did I understand you right? Is the captain a woman?’
    ‘Yes,’! said the attendant, ‘In fact, this entire crew is female.’

    ‘My God,’ he said, ‘I wish I had two double scotch and sodas. I don’t know what to think with only women up there in the cockpit.’

    ‘That’s another thing, Sergeant,’ said the crew member, ‘We No Longer Call It The Cockpit’
    ‘It’s The Box Office.’

  20. Charlie Stella says:
    February 15, 2012 at 10:49 pm • Edit

    Esson, Socialists wouldn’t have given Wall Street the free pass Bush & Obama gave them. Not in a million years … there hasn’t been a republican who’s done more for Wall Street than Obama … something tells me you should be happy you have him.

    And what does the Sage think of these words of wisdom?

    Corruption and cronyism.

    How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

    The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it’s sickening.

    Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it’s easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

    The corruption isn’t confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It’s an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It’s an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      It is sickening — none of this should be allowed.

      Out of curiousity though, in a pure free market system, to you, would insider trading be an illegal activity? Why or why not?

      • In a pure free market the corporation would not exist. As such, investment in a company would involve actual ownership and liability unless said liability is removed via contract, at which point, presumably, ROI would also be very limited. Transferrence or trading of stock, since it involves ownership, would include transferrence of information as well. If a market emerged with liability protected stocks, certain rules would be developed for that market. Even without government directly enforcing them, they would open grounds for suit, which should be the punishment for insider trading anyway. If I make millions in the market with insider trading, what is a couple years in minimum security prison if I get to keep the money? Suits would be the punishment that fit the crime.

        Overall, however, there would not be a Wall Street like we know it today, and investors would not be disconnected people with e-trade accounts just rolling the dice and hoping they guessed right. It would be a world of buyer be warepurchasing of investments, meaning the people doing it are informed by their own efforts, not by mandate.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “Overall, however, there would not be a Wall Street like we know it today…”

          Somehow, I don’t see that as being the case. Why would there be no disconnected people with e-trade accounts? Why would the stock market cease to exist?

          • Because of the lack of corporate structure. The reduced ROI of non-liability, tradeable investments would make them far less attractive to most investors. The percentage of companies that issue traditional stock would be greatly lowered. There may still be a commodities market, but the money market and m1, m2, m3 money supply, and much of the specualitve nature of commodities, futures, and other trading are built within the construct of the Fed, the current banking system, and the Wall Street conglomerate itself. It would all have to be reset initially, and even so, things like money supply would not exist because there would be no fiat currency. Might there still be potential for abuses or losses or corruption? Of course, freedom does not remove bad, it just allows good. The key is that the landscape would be so changed that much of what is done now to manipulate the markets to favor the wealthy could not be done. Removal of the Fed from the equasion would solve a lot of such issues on its own.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hmm…will have to think about this some more. Just don’t see it working out like that. You know the saying – the more things change the more they stay the same.

              • I understand your concerns, I have them too. Its not as though I think freedom and the free market is some instant cure for all ills. I just know that a lot of people, when faced with the idea of no regulations, look at the current system and imagine it, unchanged, but lawless. That is not a realistic manner of looking at things. A LOT would change with the removal of government from the market, such changes are varied and dynamic, you have to really think out of the box to have an idea of the overall impact. I could see markets as you are concerned about emerging, but I do not see them becoming the primary thing traded. Trading itself I think would be reduced versus direct investing. It would have the potential for a return to long-term investing AND business decisions. Currently one of our biggest problems in business that affect product and service quality is that no one is thinking long-term, its all about next quarter. Removal of corporate structure and non-liability trading of unassociated stocks would change the face of the game significantly.

              • Buck

                May I?

                If we go all the way to “FREE” markets then Corporations would NOT exist. Govt designation of identity and “protection” would cease. We would fall back to the OLD common law basis.

                Either YOU own it, or YOU and YOUR PARTNERS own it.

                Now without Corporate status and Govt “approved” issuance of STOCK, what would the “STOCK” market have to trade?

                What E-Trader wants to OWN STOCK if HE/SHE is PERSONALLY LIABLE for any wrong doing of the company?

              • Canine Weapon says:


                That’s a simplistic way of looking at it. While, yes, you can think of stock as ownership of the company (which is exactly what it is), what might be a more accurate way to conceptualize it is ownership of the PROFITS of the company with certain rights. That is, there is no liability to the stock holders for the losses/damages/etc of the company.. the value of their stock simply drops to zero. This, as we all know, is due to the artificial construct of the “corporation” by the government.

                So, in your scenario, the stock holders would just refuse to take official ownership of the company and would go right to the analogue. That is, they would take shares of the profit and retain certain rights, but not actually “own” the company. So, to make this clearer, I start a business called MegaCorp. I own it 100% It’s mine! ALL MINE!! All assets, all liabilities, all equity.

                Great, if something happens and it loses money though, I’m going to have to shell out my own cash. So be it. Now, in today’s world, if I want to raise money by selling equity, I have an IPO, and sell of ownership stakes, stock. In JAC-Land, I could do that, but to doing so would make the buyer a partner and liable for the losses (due to the absent corporate shell). Since inverters don’t want that (or perhaps they do, at a discounted price??), what I can do is sell off a stake in my profits and any assets beyond my liabilities. That is, you “own” a portion of anything which does not have to go to a harmed party or creditor.. anything negative belongs to me, and I would still retain 100% ownership of anything owed in excess of assets. If I can’t cover the defect, and a creditor wants his money, he can’t go after you because you don’t own anything, you own a share of profits which are zero, so you own zero, but you do not own the company, so you have no responsibility to me.

                Just to beat the dead horse, imagine that I give you money in exchange for a piece of your salary in perpetuity. 10% of whatever you earn, and 10% of whatever assets you have. Now, you lose your job. So I get nothing. 10% of zero is zero. But I still own 10% of your house. But you owe money, the bank forecloses on your house. Now you don’t own your house. You have no assets. 10% of your zero assets is zero. But you’re still underwater. You own more money. But the bank can’t come to me for the money. I’m not you. You haven’t sold me any stake in “JAC.” I’m not on the hook – you are.

                Does this make sense?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Well said Canine. And this is more along the lines of what I was thinking – there wouldn’t really be any changes.

                Under a pure free market, companies would still be able to enter into agreements and issue ‘stock’ (i.e., right to profits as you argue) without any attendant liability for the company’s wrongdoing.

                So what changes?

              • Canine (Matt) and Buck

                Go to below.

              • Wouldn’t the original owner who was selling all these rights to profit-still be liable for any illegal goings on-instead of the government declaring the whole business a corporation-where no one is liable.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Wouldn’t the original owner who was selling all these rights to profit-still be liable for any illegal goings on Absolutely. Yup. The original owner is liable.. but not the buyer of the rights.

                -instead of the government declaring the whole business a corporation-where no one is liable. This isn’t completely accurate. Major shareholders and directors of a corporation are protected by what’s called the corporate veil. That is, obligations of the company do not transfer to them through the veil. So if a corporation goes bankrupt, say for example Kodak, who really didn’t do anything wrong/illegal but whose business was just unable to meet it’s obligations, the the shareholders and directors are held harmless and the creditor simply loses his money (ignoring bankruptcy restructuring blah blah blah). This is the nature of a corporation in the United States.. just the way it works.
                HOWEVER, if there is malfeasance, then the creditors may be able to do what’s called “piercing the corporate veil” and then they can hold the directors, the management, and even major shareholders (under certain circumstances) liable as well. So a company such as Enron which knowingly and willfully perpetrated a massive fraud, would fail on it’s debt. But then the creditors would be able to come after the directors, the management, etc. Here, the officers were personally financially liable AND they wound up going to jail.

                Does this make sense? In JAC-Land, there is no corporate veil, so you can imagine that the veil is automatically pierced and the owner(s) are automatically held personally liable.

              • Okay-I shouldn’t have limited the liability to illegal goings on-If one does something illegal than it is possible to pierce the veil-but I was actually thinking more about personal liability for what is owed-under a corporation the original owners become stock holders and are no longer held personally liable-without this government given right-the owners would be personally liable which would, I would think cause them to be much more careful in their practices-and much more careful about selling away interest in the company-liability free-when he knows if the company fails he could lose everything-not just his stock in the company.

              • Mathius™ says:


                I should point out another thing. Imagine you have a business with one partner (50-50). You give it your best shot but your business fails, and you end up short $1,000,000. You, sadly, pony up 500k to your creditor – your half – and go about your life. Your partner, however, doesn’t have the money. He only has 250,000. He gives it to the creditor. Well now.. what happens? You might think that you’re in the clear and your partner is on the hook, but you’d be wrong. You, personally, are on the hook for the 250k, and if you pay it, you can claim that your partner now owes you. But the creditor has to be made whole. So, even though, you took 50% ownership and were entitled to 50% of any gains, you are liable for, now, 75% of the losses.

                This is relevant to JAC’s discussion for a very important reason. Without a corporation, all fractional owners are partners. While they are all responsible proportionally for their share of ownership, they are liable for ALL losses. So, if as non-corporation runs out of money and owes $1 billion, and it has $1 million shares outstanding, everyone is responsible for $1,000.. BUT! some shareholders won’t have $1,000 to pay. And some will refuse to pay. And some will run off to Florida and change their names. And, for every person who doesn’t pay the creditor, you become responsible for more and more money.

                So, conceivably, anyone who takes even a 1% ownership stake in a company could be responsible for the entirety of the default. That is a very dangerous proposition. If you own 1 single share of Enron, and the owners of the rest all flee to Jamaica, you, ma’am, are S-O-L. You are responsible for the whole thing. (In JAC-Land, anyway).

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Another good point.

                I’m not liking JAC-Land all that much….

              • Wait a minute-did you not say in the above response that people could still sell stock-liability free in a free market-based on selling ownership of profit only?

              • Buck-so you prefer that big business under the veil of a corporation-continue to bankrupt business’s and they have NO personal responsibility for the loss-so the government steps in to bail them out.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, In Matt’s example, we are talking about selling ownership interests in JAC-Land. And as Matt points out, your 1% ownership would still make you liable for 100% of liabilities to a third party.

                But I do think that owners will devise other strategies to raise revenue without giving up ownership rights through sales of rights to profits. That’s a separate issue though.

                I do prefer having some limited liability protection. But that doesn’t mean I support absolutley no personal responsibility nor that I would support government bail outs.

              • He said getting rid of corporations would make no difference because people could still not be liable through the sell of Profit only interest in JAC land-and then jumped to what would happen if one wasn’t able to sell rights to profit only in JAC land. At least that is what I read.

    • LOI< thanks for proving my point. I can always count on you.

      Politicians, bought by the 1%, to represent the 1% … so the 1% can some day become the 0.05% …

      Seriously, what was your point?

  21. Interesting Question-MY answer-by remembering that Big government got you in this position. That they are working everyday to put more of us in this exact same postition.

    February 16, 2012
    How Do I Keep My Small Government Ideas When I Now Need to Rely on Big Government?
    Mary Durbin

    I am about to do something I have never, ever had to do: apply for unemployment benefits. When I came back from the Peace Corps — wiser and as broke as when I joined, I made ends meet as a temp slaving away over a hot word processor. When I finished graduate
    school and I was unable to find a job in that so in-demand field of international/intercultural administration, I did temp work again. When I did get my first real job, I only could afford to live in a basement efficiency; I wouldn’t be able to afford a car until almost 6 years later, and then only because of the generosity of my parents who passed on their used Honda.

    I have always looked back at these events with some pride in that I actually worked my way up the ladders of life: school, job, home ownership. It is probably why all the machinations of the Occupy Movement annoy me so much. Even back when I went to college, I figured out that you don’t major in anything ending in “Studies”. If you did, you would spend every interview explaining how studying medieval feminist literature made you the perfect candidate for the job.I am having to apply for unemployment because the company I am working for lost a big contract. This is something that is not unusual in the government contracting world, but it is made worse by the poor economy and looming defense budget cuts. What is even worse is that my husband was recently laid off from his job.

    Weeks ago, I became infuriated by the attacks against Mitt Romney because he laid people off while at Bain. Now shouldn’t I harbor resentment against the owner of my company who must make those same tough decisions? How can I, when I believe he has a right to do so in order to start re-building his business and hopefully be able to hire more people in the future? That’s why they call it a free market. He’s free to make those choices.

    In the past I have disagreed with the decisions to extend unemployment benefits. Will I now become one of those people who will depend on such payments for months or years to come? Will I join Food Stamp Nation? Will the credit card I pull out my wallet now be a shiny new EBT card? I scoffed at the President’s most recent efforts at mortgage assistance. Don’t I now really want the plan to get implemented?

    The possible answers to these questions scare me almost as much as not finding a new job or not being able to pay our mortgage. I am scared that I will fall and be unable get up again on my own and that I will never be able to see a true conservative looking back at me in the mirror.

    I hope that with determination and luck my husband and I will make it through this. I just need to remember:

    My favorite bottle of Chardonnay – $16; a dinner for two at Outback: $50

    Two press level tickets to a Tampa Bay Rays Game: $80

    Keeping my faith in the principles and ideals that made this country great- priceless

    Read more:

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    I would like to make a shout out here & say Happy Birthday to Mr. Flag, & Ms. Richmond Spitfire, hope you both have a wonderful day.

    • Saw your age BF – you are catching up to me old man! Noticed Spitfire’s wasn’t posted – good to keep ’em guessing!

      Best wishes to you both!

      My youngest turns 18 today – YEAH!

  23. “Teen Mom” star Amber Portwood was tossed out of her Indiana home last month for scamming the government and mooching off taxpayer money, law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

    Here’s how it breaks down — according to Amber’s lease agreement, obtained by TMZ, the house she was renting in Anderson, Indiana had been subsidized by the state’s Low Income Rental Housing Tax Credit Program.

    The problem is, in order to enroll in the program — a prerequisite for moving in — the reality star claimed she made roughly $10,000 a year, much less than what she actually earned in 2010: $280,000.

    According to sources, Amber’s massive income rendered her ineligible for subsidized housing, and that’s the reason her landlords evicted her.

    It doesn’t really matter though as Amber’s still locked up in jail, awaiting final approval to enter a court-appointed drug rehab program.

    Read more:

  24. Republican Rep. Allen West decried government “handouts” as the worst form of modern “slavery” during an impassioned floor speech Wednesday evening.

    The freshman Florida congressman, who is black, made the remarks in commemoration of Black History Month. He used his floor speech to detail the Republican Party’s role throughout American history in promoting equal rights and freedom for black Americans.

    He said that commitment did not end after Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

    “Republicans have been on the frontlines of the fight for equal rights and individual manifest destiny since our party’s founding under Lincoln,” he said.

    In modern times, West said, this has meant fighting to prevent black Americans “from being trapped in a permanent underclass through dependence on government handouts.” He said that fight continues despite the welfare reform of the 1990s.

    West said the GOP “firmly believes” in the safety net. “We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock,” he added.

    “For this reason, the Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us. Conversely, the Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic freedom,” West said.

    The topic of whether government benefits harm black communities has been a popular, if controversial, one on the Republican presidential campaign trail. Newt Gingrich in January drew criticism from the NAACP for saying black communities should “demand” paychecks instead of food stamps.

    According to federal government statistics for 2010, the bulk of food stamps recipients are not black. Though race was not reported for a fifth of recipients, federal data for the rest showed 34 percent were white and 22 percent were black.

    West on Wednesday lamented attempts to paint the GOP as the party of the “white upper class,” claiming Republicans fight for “underprivileged communities” by trying to minimize government dependency.

    “What Republicans have long understood is that poor communities are best served when they’re empowered to care for themselves. The more they come to rely on government checks, the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity,” West said.

    Read more:

  25. Mathius and Buck

    Just posted a response and it vanished. Maybe it will reappear so let me do a short point.


    Without Govt protection of liability OWNERSHIP includes liability under common law, and most civil law. This is not law regarding regulation of markets, but property and liability law.

    A company cannot create a class of ownership that absolves or interferes with this Common Law definition.

    So now you tell us. What would Wall Street look like with this NEW reality?

    • Mathius™ says:

      The market would consist of:

      A. (discounted) ownership stake stocks (note, by the way, these could potentially go negative!). These would be identical to current stock.
      B. Profit indexed special purpose vehicles. If you want to get more technical, here is how I would set up MegaCorp. Every quarter, my profits would be siphoned off proportionally into separate companies owned by a third party, not me. So if MegaCorp earned $100 in Q1, I personally earned $100 in Q1. However, I raised money by an analogue-IPO.. that is, I sold 10% of my profitability. As such, at the end of Q1, I take 10% of my earnings and give them to the SPV (more specifically, in your world, to the person representing the SPV). He now has $10 and I have $90. He disburses the $10 to the “stock holders” commensurate with their holdings/share classes/etc. until the SPV no longer has a balance.
      JAC, who bough 1 share, representing 1% of MegaCorp, in turn is entitled 10% of the disbursement of the SPV. Note that the SPV immediately disburses the funds which it receives from MegaCorp (like a sweep account) so as to carry minimal risk that the person fronting the SPV can, himself, incur any liabilities which might impair the ability to pay the stock holders. This, of course, would generate a discount on the stock price, though I imagine a market would emerge for reputable and reliable individuals with good records to act as the SPV for the non-corporations – they would likely take a fee for their service. Wahoo free market.
      Ok, so now MegaCorp runs into trouble. But here’s the thing. That money is gone. It’s not mine. I gave it away. I don’t own it. And JAC doesn’t have any ownership stake in MegaCorp – in fact, he’s never even had any direct interaction with me. The SPV does nothing but take in money and give it out to a specified group as a paid service, so it’s not responsible. The only one liable for losses is me. So if I owe $100 and only have $90, that $10 shortfall is, in no way, attached to the “share holders” because they don’t “own” anything. All they have is a right to a certain percentage of anything I give to the SPV, and since I will no longer be giving the SPV anything, their “shares” are worthless.

      • Mathius

        I am not sure I understand your example, either in its purpose or its construction. WHY man? WHY would you even go through all that?

        So let me reconstruct this my way and you can explain where I am off.

        1. You own MegaCorp. It is a company, meaning it does actual business and makes money, so YOU have a net profit. You have Cash in the bank.

        2. You create some other Company called an SPV1. WHO owns SPV1? Lets say it is Jon.

        3. You transfer your cash to Jon. Jon has Cash, you have nothing in the bank. You own your company with no cash. Jon owns SPV1 and the cash. Jon is one smart SOB. He gets money for doing nothing. You on the other hand…….have no money and have no ownership in SPV1 where your “used to be” money is now located.

        4. Jon and JAC go on a trip to New Zealand fly fishing. We send Matt a Thank You note from Christchurch.

        5. Jon sells shares in SPV1. You transfer more Cash to Jon. Jon and his shareholders now OWN the cash at SPV1. You still own MegaCorp, which has no money. Jon and JAC take the shareholders fly fishing to Siberia and send Matt a Thank You note from S. Korea.

        6. You sell some paper to Charlie that promises to pay him 10% of your “future profits” from MegaCorp. There is no other collateral except your “promise”.

        7. Charlie tries to sell his paper promise to everyone at SUFA in hopes of buying season tickets to the Bills games. Everyone tells him to go pound sand. Charlie is heart broken.

        8. MegaCorp incurs a liability. You are now liable for the debt. SPV1 is NOT liable for YOUR debt. Charlie gets no payments because you have no profit. Charlie has NO way to get his money back. He burns the paper promise to keep warm at a Bills game in December. You have no money so SPV1 gets no money. Jon and JAC go to Henry’s Fork fishing where they can camp for FREE. JAC raises his glass of fine Bourbon in a toast to Matt, “Well it was good while it lasted Jon”.

        • Mathius™ says:

          1. Yup.

          2. Sure.

          3. I only sold off 10% of my equity. So I only send Jon 10% of my profit. I maintain 90%. This is much like paying a (gigantic) regular dividend. (We don’t need to get into it, but it’s possible to configure it in such a way that I could hold onto the money for ongoing operations and such. And we could also give you voting/control rights, without ownership. But this is beside the point.)

          Jon does not go flying off with my money because he is an honest guy and I will hunt him down to the ends of the earth. He has been doing this for years and has established himself as an honest dealer. Maybe he has signed a paper authorizing me to kill him if he fails to pay out the money. Whatever. Point is, he is operating as a legitimate company whose legitimate purpose is to disburse funds on your behalf as an intermediary and for which he takes a legitimate fee. As an aside, there is no reason you couldn’t use 100 such people so that if any one flees, you only take a small loss, or pay them in small increments so never have more than a small about of your disbursement in their account at a given time (I hand you $10, you pay $10, I hand you $10 more..). Think of this as wiring your money to ADP who then pays the payroll for your staff. Yes, ADP could steal the money, but they don’t because that’s bad business and they know you will come after them for the money.

          4. I hire a D13, who hunts you down on raptorback. Your death is particularly ugly. The next people I hire will not make the same mistake. I seize your remaining assets.

          5. Jon is already dead – he is being slowly digested by a raptor. He does no such thing.

          6. There is no collateral in this scenario, though of course, there’s no reason that another SPV couldn’t be set up to hold some of my assets (as if in escrow) against my failure to pay out the profits. And as with all other businesses in JAC-Land, reputability would be vital. If I screw my rights holders, nobody will ever do business with me again.

          7. Charlie is very sad. But at the end of Q2, he gets a check in the mail for $3,637 from SPV2. Buck, having learned from the fate of Jon, is operating as a new SPV. He takes in 10% of the income from Q2 as well as a special “I’m sorry” from MegaCorp and any amount I may have recovered from Jon/SPV1. He then immediately sends it out to the shareholders. Charlie is thrilled with his payout. He buys his tickets, but is then sorely disappointed again when he sees the Bills play.

          8. Charlie has no way to get his money back, because he bought rights – he didn’t stick his money in a back account. He invested, not saved. He took a risk and the risk went south. Sorry. He’s not entitled to anything “back.” I pay back my creditor with as much cash as the company has but it’s not enough. So I begin to liquidate company assets. After selling off the factory, it turns out I have an extra $1,000. Not enough to run my company, so I close up shop. But that 1000 is Q3 profit. I write my final check for $100 to Buck/SPV2 (not Jac/Jon.. they’re now part of a pile of raptor guano), who then sends Charlie a few more bucks. After his fee, of course.. lawyers and their fees…

          Woops.. turns out I miscalculated something and I owe another $2,000. Oh well. The money I sent to Buck is gone. I don’t have any more assets. NOW the creditors are angry. You want your money. So you show up at Buck’s door.

          Buck responds, what do you want from me? I just distribute funds from point A to point B for a fee. I’m not responsible for Mathius! I’m just a company he hired to provide a service.

          So they show up at Charlie’s door. Charlie, high on medicinal marijuana, responds, what do you want from me? I’m not responsible for Mathius! He got himself into this mess.. it’s his problem. I gave him some some money in exchange for a piece of his profits. He has no profits, so I get nothing. That doesn’t make me responsible for his debts. Now, excuse me.. I have to go take some more medication. Pausing to take another swig of PBR, he turns around and slams the door in your face.


          Eventually, you lay in wait and I get another job (now as an employee). The second my first paycheck comes in, you show up at my door and demand your money, plus interest, plus a fee.. And I pay it because I am an honorable man. And some day I want to be in business for myself again and I can only do that if the creditors trust me.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And why wouldn’t individuals enter into ‘stock rights’ type agreements to sell ‘stock’, limited to a right to profits, in order to raise revenue, etc. etc. etc.

      I just don’t see these massive changes you believe would occur.

      • Buck the Wala says:
        February 16, 2012 at 2:02 pm • Edit

        Well said Canine. And this is more along the lines of what I was thinking – there wouldn’t really be any changes.

        Under a pure free market, companies would still be able to enter into agreements and issue ‘stock’ (i.e., right to profits as you argue) without any attendant liability for the company’s wrongdoing.

        So what changes?

        Under a free market remember first it would not be a free-for-all. There are still laws and agreements. You want something from someone, you buy or trade, not just take by force.
        Consider Freddie/Fannie, government forced banks to make loans to people unqualified, even some living off unemployment and food stamps. They created Freddie/Fannie and had them back all these bad loans. It would not and could not happen with private companies. They would not make those loans and had they done so, they would have gone bankrupt. Goldman Sachs keeps getting special exemptions and keeps providing every administration with key “advisors”.

        Free markets brought you Apple and the internet. We see governments wanting to move in and “protect” us, meaning, get their cut and take control. We have talked about health costs and I’ve found it cheaper for me to buy the same insurance in New Jersey or Texas than in Arkansas (our single payer plan, Blue Cross). But I can’t buy from them because government (state) prohibits me.

      • As Matt explained so well, there are limits to the corporate veil, but in the case of Enron, those limits made it so that only the directors were liable, not the owners. Without it, the owners of stock are liable too. Much of what directors do that is messed up is to please owners.

        Now, currently, there are two types of stock, one allows a vote and the other does not. The one that does not is significantly less popular, and offers more limited profits. This would still be the case. There may be demand for it, because of the desire to avoid liability. However, with no say in how the company is run, no way to make demands by an owner that lead to stock profits, there is no undue influence of Wall Street on business operations. Investors want a measure of control, this would not exist if you were using stock insulated from liability. This would help ensure a lower popularity of liability limited stock. More importantly, many companies would not issue it at all, because they would be assuming the liability of the whole company, rather than spreading it among the owners or hiding behind a corporate veil.

        Result = far less stock market trading in the sense we have it now.

        • Or, much greater trading. What if the stock market morphed into Vegas style betting on returns. Liability would be a cost factored in and covered by insurance, the more that’s invested, the greater the coverage. Brokers would offer odds on the different investments they offered. Many investors and brokers would get rich and go bankrupt. Don’t bet/invest more than you can afford to loose.

      • Buck

        I find it ironic that you and Matt are saying this will make little difference when BF and I have gone toe to toe with Financiers on other sites where they claim it would DESTROY the Liquidity of the Equity Market, and drag our economy to a halt.

        Stock is a share in OWNERSHIP, by definition.

        If a Company wants to sell something else and a willing buyer wants to purchase it, go ahead.

        Would others gather around in NY and on computers to buy and sell both stocks and this funny paper? Maybe. If so, then I wish them the best. They are free to develop whatever schemes they want……………..WITHIN THE CONFINES OF COMMON LAW.

        And under Common Law you can’t sell something you don’t own. In fact I am not sure you can sell a promise, but I have no problem with that if you wish.

        Who is going to buy this PROMISE that has no asset value attached?

        Who is going to buy and sell Stocks for fun & profit daily when they could be held LIABLE for the underlying Company’s activity. Once you own it, you are part of the chain of Liability.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You’re confuing my position a bit, entirely due to my inability to put together a coherent though today for whatever reason – woke up on the wrong side of the bed, bad coffee, etc.

          It could go either way — 1) completely kill the economy or 2) the more things change, the more they stay the same. It would probably cause both over time. The way I see it playing out:

          First, it would cause (1) — immediately upon a loss in liability protection there would be a massive move to sell off all stocks which would kill the economy, cause businesses to go belly-up, etc.. But as companies began to grow again (which would inevitably happen), I tend to think more along the lines of (2) — companies may no longer issue stock in its current form (as in ownership) but they will devise plans to sell rights to future profits, which will likely wind up working out in much the same way as what we have now.

          So does this mean you are arguing to completely destory the economy in order to build it back up to almost exactly what we currently have? Doesn’t make much sense in my book.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Life without Wall Street and all the financial BS they deal with would be great for this nation. We don’t need them, they need us.

          • Buck

            I don’t think it would destroy the economy. Except in that all the speculators on Wall Street wouldn’t have the money to spend on toys until the balance is restored.

            Companies do not depend on Wall Street speculators to raise money daily or weekly. Most stocks are traded between investors.

            It seems the only risk is where the value of company held stock has been used as collateral for loans. If the market collapsed a healthy company could buy back its shares…….cheap.

            Then replace them with NOTES or similar debt instruments. Now a market will develop for selling these loans I am sure.

            If a market for paper promises of profits develops then so be it. If the speculators want to play that game let them. But rational people will probably avoid them.

            Part of the problem here is mixing up the idea of Free Markets and that of removing the Corporate Veil. The latter is really a separate issue. Linked only in that a Free Market would have no constraints or “protections” by Govt.

            Buyers and Sellers beware.

            I do wonder what the value of Google, Facebook or Yahoo would be if the Shareholders knew they were “personally” liable for the DEBTS of those companies.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I can’t see it not having dire effects on the economy at least at first.

              Let’s say you own hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars invested in various corporations. Suddenly we went to JAC-Land and all of a sudden you are now liable as an owner of these same corporations. What would you do?

              • Buck

                I would retain my shares in good companies and demand a seat on the BOD to make sure the Company is clean.

                I would demand exchange of my stock for warrants or notes of the remaining. These notes would include collateral against default.

                If they say no, I sell my paper ownership to whom ever will buy it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And when they say no and no one wants to buy?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Or, ok fine, you get a seat on the Bd along with every other stockholder; but of course votes are by number of shares and you will just get outvoted anyway. Still want to retain that stock?

              • Buck

                I would make a Gift of my shares to the Obama Campaign fund.

                Or, I could simply denounce my ownership and burn them at the Bronco/Sparty game next fall.

                NOBODY can FORCE Ownership upon another.

              • Buck

                If the others want to be on the BOD and I am outnumbered then I will sell my shares to them.

                They now have MORE control. They are happy. I go fishin.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “Nobody can force ownership upon another”

                No one is forcing ownership on you; you went out and purchased ownership (stock) in the past. Now the rules are changing and you are personally liable due to your ownership.

                No one wants your stock because no one wants to be personally liable for the actions/debts/etc. of a multinational corporation.

              • Buck

                Lets cut to the chase.

                The claim that the market would collapse is a condemning statement about the market.

                It means that the ONLY thing propping up the value is the sense of NO LIABILITY.

                It means that the confidence in the businesses is small to none, regarding their liabilities.

                Now I would expect that sale of STOCK would decline due to perceived risk of ownership. But I would expect Companies and investors to simply return to traditional means of transacting business.

                Those who retain ownership would hopefully clean up their business decisions, including the impact they have on the lives of others (pollution, etc) as they could be personally liable for damages.

                The only thing Stocks really did was allow for a separate market to develop so that INVESTORS would be liquid. A reduction in STOCK sales will not prevent bubbles. This happened in the past with Warrants, as I recall.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t see it as a condemning state of the market. The market exists because of the ability to sell and buy stock in a company.

                The issue of no liability is not what props up value, but it does help to create this market for stock. The average joe isn’t going to be purchasing stocks, regardless of the value of the company, if any one creditor can come along, bring him in to court and sue him for the milliions the company owes him.

                So I feel the stock market would collapse which would have dire effects on the entire economy. Stockholders will immediately look to sell due to fear of being sued for millions due to their ownership interest. There won’t be a market to sell this stock on as the pool of investors will very rapidly shrink to almost nothing. Stockholders will then look to the company to redeem their shares. Companies don’t generally have cash on hand to pay back all of these investors at a moment’s notice, so the companies go under. Etc. etc. etc.

                What am I missing?

              • You are missing:
                1) Not all companies are in debt. New investor/owners would have some say in whether a company went into debt. If the decision was made (owner was outvoted) then they could sell off to people who thought the debt was a good move.
                2) The average joe will find other ways of investing that are not so open to liability, and would likely be less tied to the near-vegas style investing we have now. In other words, it would get rid of the day traders and the die-rollers, and it would keep the big-time money men from having no liability for pressing the companies they own into short term profit decisions that are bad for the company long term.
                3) I thought the whole point was to collapse Wall Street, or at least remake it. Besides, it has collapsed before. The difference this time is that it wont end up being a mechanism to siphon money to those who already have a lot.
                4) Stock would no longer be anything, it would have to be transitioned, thus there is no forced ownership.
                5) You are still focussing on companies that are on the verge of collapse anyway. Let them fall. Their assets can then be bought up cheap and someone who knows what they are doing, meaning someone without a modern MBA, can start over with a company that actually operates well.
                6) A major upheaval with a long-term solution is preferable to maintaining a F’d up status quo that will eventually hurt even more people in the long run. I am not saying this will be easy and that there will not be winners and losers. Things are just too far gone for easy solutions. I know a lot of people will get hurt, financially ruined, etc. But that is happening now, so whats the dif?

  26. I couldn’t not post this one 🙂

    February 16, 2012
    Coitus welfare
    K.E. Campbell

    Our country is going to hell in a hand basket and what is the federal government focused on? Coitus welfare.

    It might be funny if it weren’t true.

    Two billion dollars annually in taxpayer funding for such purposes apparently is insufficient. What we need are (more) sex subsidies from — or mandated by — mUncle Sam.

    And mere access to a plethora of affordable options isn’t good enough. It has to be “free” (though nothing really is). What else did you expect from the Free Love crowd?

    Frédéric Bastiat famously wrote “the state is but a great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” In the abomination that is Obama-nation perhaps that quotation should be amended to “…by which everyone tries to love at the expense of everyone else.”

    Maybe too a modern-day version of our 35th president’s inaugural address would include something along the lines of “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do to help you do it.”

    Free love, coitus welfare. So much for the liberals wanting the government to stay out of the bedroom.

    Read more:

    • Sad to say that I have become inured to the horseshit in bills passed in Congress at the Taxpayers expense.

      It seems in these days that there is NOTHING that some asshat doesn’t want us to pay for them to do and also no end to the assclown politicians willing to pass a bill to make the rest of us do so.

      Is there no end to this madness? Apparently NOT!

  27. Buck the Wala

    re Corporate Veil.

    Lets remember the goal here and get off the issue of economic impact. This is not a Free Market as in Economic issue. It is about Personal Liability of those who commit crimes, ie fraud, theft, violence, against others.

    The ideas is that by lifting the veil shareholders will either leave or do a better job of controlling managers.

    Now there is an alternative, but this brings more Govt type laws. Simply remove the veil for the BOD and Corporate Officers. Fix laws as needed to allow direct suit in civil or criminal law.

    I am open to any suggestions you may have. The goal is to reduce fraud by eliminating Govt protections that help fuel it. Govt agencies that impose massive fines upon a Company do nothing to address this problem. They in fact divert the penalty to the Shareholders, leaving the bad guys alone.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      No, not ready to move on from economic impact. I still believe that economic impact will be DIRE (I’m liking that word today).

      And it isn’t just about personal liability for those who commit crimes. What about debts of the company? Wouldn’t the owners (ie, all shareholders) be liable for all debts as well?

      Now I’m predicting that, upon removing the corporate veil and imposing personal liability on all owners, every single creditor of a business finds the nearest stockholder (even if such holder only owns 1 share, or 0.001% of the company) and sues him for the entire amount owed to him. CHAOS!

      And did I say DIRE chaos!?

      • Buck

        What company debts??? Wouldn’t the debt liability be placed on the OWNERS or Officers who took out the loan?

      • Buck

        The reason to deal with LIABILITY first is that if there is another reasonable way to accomplish this goal, then we don’t need to remove the veil for Common Stock holders.

        Thus the entire “economic issue” never happens.

      • Buck, conversion would certainly be tumultuous, but doable. Stockholders own stock on corporations. Corporations would be abolished. Thus, there would have to be an equitable means of transitioning. Stockholders would have the options of:
        A) remaining stockholders under the new rules, meaning they accept liability and ownerhship
        B) converting to non-ownership profit shares with limited returns
        C) converting to notes to be paid back.
        D) disowning any ownership or association with the company
        The stockholders would be making these decisions based on the actual health of the companies they are invested in. If the companies are crap, a lot of stockholders will just drop them and take their losses as they are.

  28. Buck

    Re: Your scenario.

    So perhaps lets first address the issue as to why so many Companies would be in DEBT.

    As for the debt collector coming to me, he would have to go to EVERY shareholder. I am not liable for the full debt, only MY share.

    The biggest effect I see here is that Bad or Marginal companies will not be able to raise Capital via stock sales. Perhaps they would die.

    Which begs the question, why shouldn’t they die? Wouldn’t that be better for the Economy in the long run?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      No, as Mathius pointed out, you are liable for the ENTIRE debt. It’s called joint and several liability.

      Of course, you could then bring an action against all other shareholders to return their share to you. But to the debtor, each individual owner would be on the hook for the total amount owed.

  29. I smell Badgers in town! 🙂

  30. Buck


    JAC Land Jury finds me Liable for MY share…………..Serveral. NOT JOINT.

    By what claim do you make it Joint and Several???

    My quick look shows this conclusion used primarily in cases of negligence and where the defendants are better suited to sorting out the individual liability on their own.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      By claim of Common Law.

      Yes, in cases of negligence, but also in other cases. Why should I, as the injured party, be forced to track down all 32,419,392 individual shareholders to recover my $100,000?

      • Buck

        Because you have the list of names and addresses.

        Sorry, but in JAC Land the PEOPLE understand and execute JUSTICE.

        Have a good time meeting with all those share holders.

  31. Buck and Mathius

    Just reviewed everything on Corp discussion. I’m not sure it wasn’t me that got us off track.

    So restart.

    We eliminate Govt designated status for ALL business arrangements. Corporations included.

    People are free to conduct whatever business they want, per the moral/ethic constraint…no force.

    They may register their organizational and contract agreements with the Clerk for a FEE. This fee will give them access to a trial to resolve any disputes.

    Now, as Matt said this would cause ownership of STOCK to be unfavorable due to Liability.

    So he replaced Stock with Future Contracts for Profits.

    Now lets assume we made this change to the USA instead of being in JAC Land.

    So the Wall Street boys would figure this out pretty damn quick and change from Stock to Profit Shares.

    The ACTUAL Persons now conducting business are responsible for their actions. Whether that be debt or personal liability for selling poison orange juice. Their personal liability will depend on how good their Insurance is.

    So what is the problem.

    Why would the economy fail if as you say, a new mechanism for liability free investment would materialize.

    • Now this is what I was thinking when I read Matt’s post-I like the idea of a market-it lets people risk a little money hopefully building a little retirement money and infusing a growing business with needed money. And the main problem seems to be, no one having any real financial responsibility. Why would anything else have to change except not defining stock as a form of actual ownership? The sellers of the stock remain the owners and retain the legal liability.

      • V.H.

        Yes. It was my reading of your comment above that caused me to review the entire thread.

        I started so straight forward yet got so quickly lost in the mud.

        The next issue then is HOW do we transition without imposing an undo risk or loss on existing Shareholders of Corporations?

        Perhaps we require Companies to exchange Stock for Profit Shares on 1:1. Obviously the new Profit Shares do NOT have any voting rights in running the Company.

        Now after all that, I really do wonder what we have accomplished. Other than destroying Make Believe “persons” called Corporations.

        • I think the problem might be determining who is the actual owners -since right now they are all considered stock holders.

          • V.H.

            True, I missed that. There are obviously those who are Stock Holders who also run the show, but how could we force them to remain Stock Holders if they did not want to be liable.

            A company without owners.

            Well then, I guess we could AUCTION off the Company since Nobody owns it.

            That should bring the fleas to the surface.

            • Hee Hee-I bet it would-but I’m sure there is an answer, if we all would work together to find one-instead of at cross purposes-I think we all agree on what the problem is-we just need to figure out how to fix it without the government regulating freedom out the window. But it would work immediately on any newly formed companies or companies that are already established but haven’t applied or whatever they do to be able to sell stock.

          • V.H.

            I should add that I am not as set on killing off Corporations as BF and others.

            If we can address both the Liability issue and the tendency to view them as deep pockets in litigation.

            Otherwise, so what if somebody wants to form a Corporation and sell shares to raise money.

            In a free market it is up to the buyers to assess their risk and act accordingly.

    • Buck, Mathius, and V.H.

      I found somebody who does a better job of explain JAC Land than me.

      This issue has bothered me for some time. I and BF have gone round and round, with each other and then with others. I could never put my finger on why I did not completely agree with the theory that State sanctioned status was responsible for the Corporate Veil, or that it couldn’t be breached.

      Well I suggest you all read this and then we can discuss further. As I presented above, a Free Market would allow Corporations to exist and it would be just fine.

      There is one concept I failed to consider, and I am ashamed to admit I missed it. The notion that the shareholders should be held liable for anything if they did not personally take part. This is the ancient theory of we are guilty for our fathers actions, or the master is responsible for the actions of his slaves. Boy did I miss that one.

  32. We can discuss a free market economy and whether it would be good or bad untill the cows come home, but the fact is we do not have one. Also, we will NEVER have one, in my admittedly ignorant humble opinion.

    The government will never allow us to have a true free market economy because now that they have power over it they will never, and I do mean NEVER, give it up. And you all know it.

    The only way REAL change will ever take place in the market or government is for us to have another revolution and to force change. ANf that could be good or bad, so it won’t happen either.

    Anyone have an arguement with my statement?

    • Not really-but I remain hopeful-I think I might be in denial but it helps keep me sane. 🙂

    • The government will never allow us to have a true free market economy because now that they have power over it they will never, and I do mean NEVER, give it up. And you all know it.

      Once again, the SAGE nails you to the wall with the above quote (shared by so many of you) … You (some of you) admit the government is a puppet of big money (the 1%), yet you also acknowledge it will never allow a free market. Hmmm … so who put that government in place, the socialists? The Communists? Wasn’t it the 1% (you thick-headed ____)?

      Yes, in fact, it was the 1% that created the government and for its own purposes. You can spin that Founding Fathers crapoloa any way you want, but the facts are, monied men were the culprits and remain the culprits … and it had VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE SWEAT OF THEIR BROW HOW THEY CAME TO HAVE THAT MONEY … more facts yous righties can ignore all you want … but it is wonderful hearing your version of the truth … and how money left alone won’t seek to protect itself because the utopian free market will take care of itself …sweet jesus, put some caffeine in that Kool-Aid already.

      • From above,
        Charlie Stella says:
        February 16, 2012 at 10:15 pm • Edit

        LOI< thanks for proving my point. I can always count on you.

        Politicians, bought by the 1%, to represent the 1% … so the 1% can some day become the 0.05% …

        Seriously, what was your point?

        My point, it was great observations by the author and well expressed. Agree or disagree?

        "Once again, the SAGE nails you to the wall with the above quote (shared by so many of you) … You (some of you) admit the government is a puppet of big money (the 1%), yet you also acknowledge it will never allow a free market. Hmmm … so who put that government in place, the socialists? The Communists? Wasn’t it the 1% "

        Sage, when with your infinite wisdom, will you realize there is not any ONE thing that is the answer to the causes of our problems. I think one thing comes pretty close. George Washington warned about the dangers of political parties, then joined one. If a group organizes and acts together, they can always overpower any and every individual. Washington wanted everyone to act as individuals, not form voting blocks to overpower what was supposed to be democracy.

        Government is a puppet and a puppet master. You hate on the 1% but what percent does the unions make up? Big labor is the LARGEST contributor. They hired Obama and are still supporting him. What is starting to oppose them are the true 56%, the non-union workers. Big business is largely union, but small business is the largest employer in the US.
        Small business has been lacking in a voice and organization but have been awakened by the progressive's overreach.

        Blame the 1%, but remember Obama is elected. No one is forced to vote. So how do they win elections? Voting blocks, Democrats and Republicans are the biggest. Then what?
        Big Labor.
        Big entitlement.

        Obama has continued to buy the union votes with his spending, his new budget has billions in it that have to go to union projects as well as education (teachers union). He has continued his efforts to buy the non-working, the entitled. Unemployment is being extended again. I have had people REFUSE a job because they could still draw their unemployment. The won't take a job until that ends. Now who do you think they will vote for and is that not buying their vote? The only thing that is giving us a chance to put a fiscally responsible person in is the entitled as a group are too damned lazy to register and vote. And isn't that funny? The 1%, with all their wealth can't get ten percent of the vote where the entitled ARE 47% of the vote by themselves. Allen West is so right, they are simply willing slaves.

      • February 17, 2012
        Chicago teachers union demanding 30% pay increase over two years
        Rick Moran

        Because of abusive language, on-site comments have been removed. Please go to our Facebook page to comment on this story.

        That message appears at the bottom of Chicago Tribune article reporting that the CTU wants a 30% pay increase over the next two years, plus a reduction in class size, plus additional teachers, plus more time off for conferences and preparation. With all of those demands, and the state of the school system in Chicago, is it any wonder that there would be abusive language directed at these cretins?

        The Chicago Teachers Union is asking for raises amounting to 30 percent over the next two years, the opening salvo in heated contract negotiations with school officials who are implementing a longer school day across Chicago Public Schools next school year.

        Documents obtained by the Tribune show that in the face of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s expansion of the school day, the union has led with an offer seeking a 24 percent raise in the 2012-13 school year and a 5 percent increase the following year, the net effect being 30 percent.

        It may be playing hardball, or it could be, as one education expert described it, an “exorbitant offer” that ignores the district’s growing financial constraints.

        As she left CTU headquarters for contract negotiations Thursday, union President Karen Lewis declined to comment on the details of the proposal.

        “We are not negotiating this in the public,” Lewis said.

        It’s not like they’re doing a bang-up job. The graduation rate for Chicago high school students still hovers around 50%. And secret negotiations when taxpayer money is involved should be refused. The public has every right to know where it’s tax dollars will be spent. It is indicative of the fear of taxpayers felt by the CTU because they are fully aware how they have failed the public in educating their children so egregiously.

        Read more:

    • Party pooper!

  33. Just when you think you’ve heard it all, along comes D W-S with a dose of more BS.
    (Disappointed in Megyn Kelly not challenging her at all – at least in this clip)

    • Ridiculous! I’m surprised the guys haven’t been flailing their arms looking for free Trojans 🙂

    • Something isn’t it-first they step in and say you MUST provide health insurance or pay a large fine-then they say because all employers are FORCED to supply health insurance it’s Unfair if the coverage isn’t the same, so you are going to be forced to provide coverage that actually goes against your principals. But the employer is the one who is taking away their employee’s rights. Are you kidding me. No one’s rights are being honored here-the government is simply deciding what our rights are.

      • I don’t understand why they chose to pick on contraception. Well baby care, for instance is not covered, at least not for my kids. I paid hundreds for each for visits and shots. So why contraception? I don’t get it. PSSHH! Yes I do. Control Baby!

    • I didn’t watch that on Fox because I knew it would just piss me off. She always does when I see her in an interview. She is an ugly, meanspirited, spiteful bitch!

      I should have listened to myself earlier and not watched that. Now I am pissed. I get to go to bed pissed. That’s just great.

      IMO, if you don’t want religious groups imposing their values on you, then don’t work for them. As a matter of fact why WOULD you work for a religious institution and NOT expect them to impose their value on you, or at the very least, set rules for you to follow at work.

      After all, you don’t HAVE to work there.

  34. Quick, go to Drudge….. (You have been warned!!!!)

  35. AACK! Don’t scare me! 🙂

  36. Prime Minister David Cameron, the Tory MP who heads a coalition government in England, is working to partially privatize the NHS, beginning a massive outsourcing of medical services to private health care providers throughout the U.K.

    Britain’s media, in particular the Washington Post–Huffington Post hybrid The Guardian, is publishing near-panic-attacks alerts daily about the conservative plan, which comes as the British government scales back on entitlement spending, hoping to avoid a Greek-style financial meltdown.

    But in the United States, left-wing enthusiasts of socialized medicine don’t seem bothered at the loss of a role model. Many won’t even acknowledge it.

    “I handle media and public relations for the Catholic Health Association,” Fred Caesar told The Daily Caller. “We will pass on commenting.” Caesar is special assistant to the president of the CHA, a vocal advocate of President Obama’s health care overhaul.

    Major U.S. media are also ignoring the story. As Cameron’s own health reform bill gathers momentum and heads for a vote in Parliament, online searches show no coverage at all of Britain’s move in The Washington Post or The New York Times.

    Contrast this with U.K. media, which is pressuring Cameron to drop his plans. Major medical societies — including the Royal College of General Practitioners — and the rest of Britain’s medical establishment is shouting for Cameron to cease and desist.

    The British public has a fear of privatization founded on the idea that doctors “might become dependent on advice from powerful private health companies,” and that the free-market competition laws could replace “public service principles” as the NHS’s central operating principle, The Guardian reported this week.

    Even the Times of London, a liberal broadsheet that is still normally restrained in its commentary, opined that Cameron’s health secretary Andrew Lansley should be “taken out and shot” for moving the bill through the House of Commons.

    Sally Pipes, an American health policy expert who leads the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, told TheDC that President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will likely ignore any changes in U.K. health policy. Their allies in the U.S. media and public policy establishment, she said, would follow suit.

    “They are ideologues,” Pipes said. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”

    Pipes notes that the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and a similar one in Canada, is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease. A few years ago in Canada, she said, her own mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months, despite searing abdominal pain.

    When Pipes’ mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy — which indicated that she had colorectal cancer. It was too late for treatment at that point, though, and she died shortly thereafter.

    “They keep down costs by rationing medicine and medical services,” Pipes explained.

    Read more:

    • What a conservative government trying hard to privatise the NHS, well I sure didn’t see that one coming!!!!!!!!!

      The privatisation of the NHS would be disastrous and will increase costs. I would much rather look to the French or a German model than go anywhere near what the US has become.

  37. CBO: U.S. enduring the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression

    By Alex M. Parker
    February 16, 2012 RSS Feed Print

    After three years with unemployment topping 8 percent, the U.S. has seen the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, the Congressional Budget Office noted in a report issued today.

    And, despite some recent good news on the economic front, the CBO is still predicting that unemployment will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The report also notes that, including those who haven’t sought work in the past four weeks and those who are working part-time but seeking full-time employment, the unemployment rate would be 15 percent.

    • If they change the definition they can probably drop the 15% also.

    • LOI and Naten53

      The method of determining and reporting “Employment” and “Unemployment” has not substantially changed in decades.

      All six categories of employment have been reported in the past. This notion that the Obama Administration has cooked these number by deliberately hiding the U5 or U6 is ridiculous.

      Now with that said, I am hearing of attempts to fudge things here and there. This is done at the state level. But there is no evidence this is due to White House pressure as much as State political or personal viewpoints.

      The Philadelphia Fed released data yesterday that includes a “leading indicator” that has been pretty successful at predicting the unemployment rate for the following 1 to 2 months.

      If accurate and if this relationship holds, unemployment could jump to near 9% next month. 😦

      What is not known is whether this will be a decrease in employed or if it will be an increase in people moving from U5 to U1. Unemployment goes up as people start looking for work, due to economic recovery.

      With the exception of BF’s early warning system, freight/shipping rates, all indicators are in line with my predictions of two years ago and again last year. Stimulating Govt efforts have been aimed at making sure the economy looks good in the summer of 2012.

      For those not watching, there is still STIMULUS money held in some Federal Agencies. The EDICT has come down from the MOUNT. Spend it before the end of July.

      Aint it just great?

  38. Then move!

    “Those are my people over there! Those are my people!” he said.

  39. Good wise crack from the other day.

    Why do Dems want FREE contraception?

    “The Republicans want to prevent the poor from becoming addicted to welfare. The Democrats just want to prevent the poor from existing.”

  40. From the United Nations to Iran:

    You better not disregard our latest overture….should you disregard same…I shall condemn you a 7th time.

  41. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  42. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    Canada might not be in a better economic position than the US, but at least some of our Conservative government officials get it…Keynes is an idiot.

    For all my economically inclined friends at SUFA….A Canadian conservative’s point of view on Keynes.

  43. A Leftist Reply to Freedom and Liberty.

    Following is a response I got to one of my “speeches” about freedom and liberty, and how it relates to charity. I had explained that I would not force them to give to me and I expected the same in return.

    Now for those who don’t think philosophy matters. I want you to think carefully about where you have heard almost this exact response before.

    “Here’s the thing. You are fighting a battle that was lost long, long ago. John Birchism is dead. Long ago the country decided that we’re interpreti¬ng the Constituti¬on broadly, that we aren’t only going to be about the military and the post office. Long ago we decided that federalism is necessary to protect the union and to establish a level of uniform justice in the nation. So you can cry and moan all you want to, and you can pretend that you are some kind of patriot who is standing up for the truth, but the fact is you aren’t. Your vision of the country was rejected decades ago, and if you think you can convince people that your vision of the country is how it is supposed to be – you will never do that. “

    • Afternoon JAC. Those Liberal boneheads are incapable of understanding freedom and liberty. They are perfectly happy with the government controlling every aspect of their lives. They are the kind of folks that Socialism loves to see. Blissfully ignorant until it is too late to reverse course.

      At least their are some who still hold to our dream of freedom and liberty. Even disabled, if it came down to it, I would find a way to survivie, maybe even prosper. After all, I have two big healthy boys and my wife still works.

      By the way. My youngest is the only Sophomore starter on his High School Basball team. He is also in the starting pitching rotation. 90mph fastball. 5 different pitches. And already has colleges starting to look at him. If it sounds like bragging, that’s because it is. He is my son, and I am proud of him and also of his older brother, who taught him a lot of what he knows about baseball. AND, his cousin teaches him and he plays for the Newark Bears baseball team.

      • Esom

        My ol’ Georgia friend. I think they understand freedom and liberty. They just reject for the sake of what they think is a “comfortable life”. If they start to realize something is amiss they rationalize it by changing the meaning of freedom and liberty.

        I loved how this person declared the war is over. Evil wins, accept it and move on.

        You should be proud of that boy. He has a gift, and I sure do hope it lasts. College can be a dangerous place for great talent. Be careful and make sure he goes to a school where the coaches have a reputation for “caring for the health of their pitchers”. That goes for all players.

        I hope to sit with you in the stands someday watching him play and swapping lies from opposite ends of the country.

        Sorry to hear about your miseries and misfortune. But you have it straight and I know you will do well. Besides, now you have more time to rant and rave around the internet. 🙂

        Live Free My Friend

        • Ah JAC, my misieries and misfortunes are nothing in the grand sceme of things. What’s the saying? “Shit Happens!”

          It is a fact of life that I am learning to live with.

          For Kory, it’s a little early to worry about College Baseball for him right now. I’m suprised colleges are even looking him over. They must see something to already be interested. Maybe it’s that 90mph fastball at 16? I think it’s a combination of that and the fact that he is just a natural athlete. He works hard to stay in shape and to make himself better. He also works hard in school because he know he has to be smart to attract a big school like South Carolina and Georgia. He has a good head on his shoulders.

          His cousin plays for the Newark Bears. His name is Eric Mcgee. The only reason for him to not already be ion the bigs is because he had to go to a small school because he has a learning disorder. He had to work extra hard just to get through college. But I don’t think I’ve EVER seen ANYONE hit a ball as far as he can. And he throws 98 but cannot pitch.

          Well enough about baseball, how are you and yours? I hope everything is well with you and yours.

  44. Remember the Democrats again and again demanding big oil pay a “fair” share………

    A study conducted by the Department of Interior revealed that when combining the U.S. tax policy with royalty fees, only Venezuela takes more money from domestic oil producers. The report, released earlier this week, debunks a brief written by the Government Accountability Office.

    Both pieces discuss the results of a fluctuating tax policy. When comparing the GAO’s 40-page brief to the departments 300-page study, it is apparent that the results are notably different.

    The GAO brief concluded that the U.S. government provides an attractive business climate, but it only measured royalties and neglected to measure corporate tax.

    The Department of Interior strongly disagrees with GAO’s findings, writing that the GAO’s attempt to guide tax policy by quantifying a “fair share” tax on oil producers “needs comprehensive reassessment.”

    Nearly 64 percent of the revenue from oil producers in the Gulf of Mexico is marked for either income or royalty tax, according to the study done by the Department of Interior.

    The government’s take in domestic oil revenues varies seasonally. When oil prices are high, the corporate tax is the main source of earnings for the government. When oil prices are low, royalties generate the most revenue.

    Read more:

  45. Judy Sabatini says:
  46. I read all these articles and I just cannot understand how anyone cannot see how dangerous it is-to give the government this much power over our lives!!!!!!!

    February 16, 2012 8:00 P.M.
    The Obamacare Trifecta
    Where is the opposition’s argument against government health-care control?

    By Charles Krauthammer

    Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth-control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation, and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

    The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

    Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise, and hand Obama a major political victory.

    Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth-control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would go to jail rather than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

    A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

    On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

    This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

    Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

    First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals, and charities are not “religious,” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

    Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

    Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

    Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already-inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

    This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies, and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

    In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

    Every presidential challenger says he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

    • I read all these articles and I just cannot understand how anyone cannot see how dangerous it is-to give the government this much power over our lives!!!!!!!

      No more or less dangerous than letting the 1% control your life … you’re angry at the messenger (government) rather than the source. Go figure …

      • Charlie……that is where you are wrong…..the government is not the messenger at all….it is the other half of the source.

        • Greetings from Pluto, Colonel! I fell off my canolli diet wagon and recently gained 5 pounds … life is good.

          But I’m not wrong, sir … if the 1% owns the government, then the government is sending the message the 1% wants us to hear … and it’s a simple one: The way drugs were used in ghettos to keep a population the powers that be didn’t want to handle — the way booze was passed around Indian reservations, etc., we now have electronic toys to keep our chillin’s as brain dead as possible … toss in all the other electronic gadgets that keep them from reading anything more worthwhile than comic books and what you have is a population always to be ruled by those at the very top (just as it’s always been and always will be) … and the government is there to protect their interests and remind us how GREAT we are for doing as we’re told. Make no mistake about who’;s in charge, though, Colonel … it’s the 1%.

          Now I need another canolli …

          • Lets see if I understand your reasoning. Because I have some natural predators out there that MIGHT get me-I should run into the mouse trap(government) because at least they are offering me a piece of cheese.

            • No, VH, you’re NOT getting me … not at all … take THIS government down and give a true people’s party a shot. Why not? Why not take the power from the powerbrokers? Why not try it another way? Why keep playing the same game. I’d love to see no government but that isn’t going to happen … ever. So why not give another form of government a shot?

              • Why not?

                Because my communist friend, it is unethical to take something from someone else simply because you think you can use it better than them. It is immoral to live in a world where it is OK to take something that someone else earned (regardless of your mistaken belief that nothing they have is earned) and give it to someone who clearly didn’t earn it. Did you know that the average time that it has taken for someone to become a millionaire in this country is 17.3 YEARS. That is 17.3 years of working towards that goal, so that someone like you can step in and say “hey you didn’t earn this so I am going to take it and give it to someone else who didn’t earn it because I don’t like you.”

                That is why not. Besides the fact that your version of a potentially successful government has been tried and failed over and over, your version of what should happen is immoral…

          • What you are not getting, is that the goverenment is not owned by the 1%, they are PART of the 1%. And they are the part that makes all the corrupt stuff they do legitimate. Without the law backing them and protecting them, the 1% has limited power in the market. Sure, they still have a lot because of resources, but without regulations, central banks manipulating mentary policy, taxes to drain the up-and-coming in the marketplace, distractions from important things like scandals and gay marriage debates, downright manipulations through supposedly innocuous things like environmental or health concerns, and some good old fashioned bribery, the 1% would not be very safe in their positions of power.

            When you have a powerful enemy, you have to take out his weapons first before you can defeat him. The government is not a messenger, it is the military arm of the 1%. So when we rail against the government and try to reduce its power, we are, in effect, reducing the power of the 1% themselves.

            • The ONLY way to take power from the 1%, my friend (unless you REFUSE to acknowledge it), is to take their money … because in a capitalist society, MONEY = POWER.

              It’s really as simple as that.

              • My friend, it seems to me that those in your line of thinking repeat the mantra that money isnt everything. Only, it seems that to you, it actually is everything. In a capitalist society it is ability and the freedom to use it that holds real power. Sure, if you have wealth already, you have an advantage, but that advantage only intimidates those who dont understand ability, who don’t realize or have confidence in who they are.

                Money has a measure of power, sure, but without the added power of authority it is easily overcome. Government is that authority aspect, and as such it is necessary to the 1%ers you rail against. Take that power away and what is left is just a guy with money that still has to be able to accomplish something to be any sort of power broker.

                If you think that the government is only a servant of the 1% rather than part and party of it, then it is you who wears blinders. As for a “peoples government”, such a thing has not truly existed. The ideas you describe have been tried and they all turned out horribly and more corrupt and evil than our current government. Our early days were on the right track in some ways, but they did not include all of humanity as they supposedly claimed. Still, it was an improvement over any alternatives before or since.

            • This government serves at the 1%’s behest. It always has and always will … capitalism cannot survive with this government and the corruption inherent to a capitalist society. There’s no utopia of competition when 1% holds all the power, pal of mine. You’re wearing blinders to think otherwise.

  47. The SAGE is back! Well, for a few minutes anyway … here’s some Presidential fun & games for yous crazies on the right … and in the middle …

  48. What makes President Doofus think he knows anything about banks to pull this garbage? More meddling in shit he has neither the authority or KNOWLEDGE to screw with.

  49. Does anyone not understand economics anymore? Or has anyone EVER understood it?

    “China reduced the amount of funds that banks must keep in reserve, the second cut in two months as the country tried to increase lending and keep up economic growth. The Associated Press said Saturday the reserve requirement ratio for major commercial banks will be decreased to 20.5% from 21% and off a record high set last summer as consumer prices in the country rose rapidly.”

    On its surface, this does not look innocuous but what is it really? Did China not watch the US housing industry and the failed approach of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under government imposed easing of lending requirements and lowering of reserves? Does anyone not understand what it means when “consumer prices in the country rose rapidly.” When will it become understood that you cannot spend your way out of economic trouble? When will it become understood that borrowing and increasing debt is a recipe for disaster?

    What is the next step for Ch

  50. And more hits keep on coming…..IT is an election year… let us recap something. Boeing wanted to move a plant to South Carolina. President Obama and the hand picked NLRB says NO… is an unfair practice.

    Dateline February 18th………Hmmmm…the administration now touting the move to South Carolina saying the Dreamliner is the new technology and the NLRB now saying that the plant can move.

    Meanwhile, Obama;s job Czar just sent another 12,000 jobs to China..that makes 50,000 jobs from his job czar responsible for creating jobs in America….sending jobs to China? Using slave labor? Child Labor? Come on Charlie…….you need to jump on this.

  51. Small Businesses Weigh In: Should Crowdfunding Be Legal?

    Read more:

    Interesting approach.

    • Sorry D13-went a looking to see what this was all about and by the time I got through-I forgot it was already posted. 🙂

  52. Crowdfunding

    Financial contributions from online investors, sponsors or donors to fund for-profit or non-profit initiatives or enterprises. Crowdfunding is an approach to raising capital for new projects and businesses by soliciting contributions from a large number of stakeholders following three types of crowdfunding models: (1) Donations, Philanthropy and Sponsorship where there is no expected financial return, (2) Lending and (3) Investment in exchange for equity, profit or revenue sharing.

    Small Businesses Weigh In: Should Crowdfunding Be Legal?

    Written By Kate Rogers

    Published February 17, 2012


    Crowdfunding – the practice of startups raising small amounts of money online in order to fund their new businesses — is currently not legal due to securities laws from the 1930s. Supporters argue that legalization would be a positive for the economy, allowing new companies to “go public” online and letting investors buy a stake of these businesses via the Web and social media.

    In November, the House of Representatives passed the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act which would allow startups to sell securities via the Internet. President Obama has shown support for the measure as well, but there are two separate bills regarding the funding method stuck in the Senate. A lot of questions have been raised regarding investor security when it comes to using technology to seed business ideas.

    Read more:

    • Entrepreneurs turn to ‘crowdfunding’: A Louisvillian’s experience using Kickstarter
      9:20 PM, Feb. 18, 2012 |

      Written by
      Chris Otts | | The Courier-Journal

      Even with a device as powerful as the iPhone, it’s not always easy to find the most basic information about Louisville restaurants — like when they’re open and what’s on the menu.

      That’s according to Michelle Jones, a 35-year-old food connoisseur who eats out three or four times a week and writes a blog about it calledConsuming Louisville.

      Jones, an Internet communications consultant, had an idea to fix the problem: an iPhone app that would deliver a restaurant’s menu, hours and location in a readable format to people on the go. The name she chose, Menu & Hours, reflects the simplicity of its purpose.

      To bring her idea to life, she launched a project on Kickstarter — a website that allows creative people to solicit contributions from friends, family and strangers.

      Dubbed “crowdfunding,” it’s a new way to raise money — one that holds promise for entrepreneurs, said Ted Smith, director of the Louisville Metro Department of Economic Growth & Innovation.

      Jones says the most popular app on the market, Urbanspoon, is bogged down with advertising, unhelpful user reviews and menus that don’t display well on a smart phone — if they’re available at all.

      “I kept thinking, surely there must be something that exists already to help me get that information more easily,” she said.

      Others seem to agree there’s a need to be filled, and Jones has raised $6,407 from 159 people. She has hired a developer and a designer, and plans to release Menu & Hours by Derby Day with information for 75 Louisville restaurants. It will cost $2.99 in Apple’s App Store, which Jones said is a fair price for accurate, up-to-date information.

      Kickstarter is the most prominent among a handful of sites where people with ideas can raise money to see them through, Smith said. Others are Indiegogo, Profounder and Microventures.

      Entrepreneurs often start with money from friends and family, and Kickstarter makes it easy for them to organize and share their ideas, Smith said.

      Jones said it was a way to vet her concept. While she needed money to make it happen, “equal to, or more important, was seeing if this is something that people really want.”

      For ideas that strike a nerve, Smith said, “there could be money you can’t envision coming in from sources you can’t even think of right now.”

      For example, Steve Isaac, a Seattle-based software designer, had an idea for a silicone film that sits atop the iPad and makes it easier to type.

      Isaac’s goal was to raise $10,000 on Kickstarter, but he got $201,400, according to a December account by The Associated Press. Now there is a waiting list for the next production run of the TouchFire, which sells for $50.

      Other projects seeking funding on Kickstarter, which bills itself as “a new way to fund and follow creativity,” include bands looking for money to complete albums, filmmakers trying to finance documentaries and photographers looking for airfare for photographic expeditions.

      There are also quirkier ideas, like Friday’s “project of the day” — an effort by a Brooklyn, N.Y., industrial designer who wants to make “Frank,” “a wall hook that looks like a rabbit.”

      A big limitation of sites like Kickstarter is that because of federal and state securities laws, entrepreneurs can’t use them as a platform to offer investors stakes in a business or a share of profits.

      But that may change soon.

      Three bills before Congress would make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital online — and one has passed the House of Representatives, said Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

      President Obama also has expressed support for easing regulations related to crowdfunding.

      Another drawback is that people who give money to crowdfunded projects have little recourse if the recipient doesn’t follow through with the work.

      Jones acknowledged that she’s asking people to trust that she will use the money in the way she describes, for building the app. Not to follow through would jeopardize her standing in Louisville, she said.

      “There are no legally binding obligations, but it’s your reputation,” she said.

      As of now, the most anyone can expect in return for contributing to a Kickstarter project is a nominal “reward” from the creator. Exactly what that is depends on who is raising the money.

      Those who gave $10 for Jones’ iPhone app will get a free download when it’s done. Higher-level givers were promised a T-shirt or a dozen cupcakes.

      Jones, who has given money to a vegan food truck and about a dozen other Kickstarter ideas, said the real reward is helping to bring about something “you would like to see exist in the world.”

      Nothing prevents creators like her from making money off their Kickstarter projects, but Jones said the $6,407 she raised doesn’t cover even half of the cost of developing the Menu & Hours app.

      If she sells enough downloads of the apps to turn a profit, the money will be reinvested in making a version for Android phones, she said.

      “I have no illusions about getting rich,” she said.

  53. A mite harsh but truth sometimes is harsh.

    February 19, 2012
    Leni Riefenstahl: Congratulations on the HHS Regulations
    By Clarice Feldman

    Memo: From Leni Riefenstahl

    To: President Barack Obama

    Schatzi, it’s been over a year since I last wrote you. Please forgive me. It’s been so hot here I can barely stand to touch the keyboard. Not that I don’t appreciate the green energy projects you funded to cool off this place, but dear, you know even with the trillions you spent, those projects just keep going under. Yes, I know it helped put billions in the pockets of your donors, but hell is not freezing over you know and we could use energy for the air conditioners.

    Anyway, I forced myself to endure the scorching temperatures and pitchforks to congratulate you on those brilliant HHS regulations forcing people to fund insurance coverage for abortions, sterilizations and birth control against their consciences.

    Darling Adolf just loved to do that sort of thing. Remember — are you old and well read enough to remember? He figured out that if he could get people to operate against their conscience on small things, big things like Judenrein would be easier. Of course, that was just a start.

    Martin Bormann said it just right: “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” For the party to rule, he said the Churches’ influence in the leadership of the people “must absolutely and finally be broken.” He was taking about the Nazi party, but heavens, Democrats, Nazis — state control is state control.

    So, this move by your Administration is just a great first step. You had all the social justice crowd in the church supporting you ,and now those wicked bishops — how many divisions do they have anyway? — had to step in to try to put a stop to this.

    Well, the match is set.

    On your side you have some real geniuses. I mean all the media is helping you sell the fairytale that you are battling people who want to force women to forego contraceptives. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a real feather in your cap; arguing that all women deserve free contraceptives and that religious institutions shouldn’t be imposing their values on their employees is, you should pardon the expression, pure Goebbels. And you can count on the press to let her get away with this big lie.

    The media want to replace old fashioned religion with civic religion as much as you and I do. So, some Catholics have and continue to threaten to shut down their social welfare services rather than comply with such things? Great. The sooner the people learn that the state is the provider of all things, the better — for you and your party. Of course, not necessarily better for them or their country, but that’s not the point, is it?

    I suppose you have some other good ideas in the wings at HHS . Off the top of my head here are some ideas for you: Make public schools serve pork and require all kids to eat it; force Christian Scientists to see physicians and take medicine; make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir admit Moslems; ban religious circumcisions of males; draft the Amish into the military; outlaw Lutheran lutefisk parties and bake sales.

    My goodness, the possibilities once you control the levers of power! And what could possibly give you more power than controlling healthcare delivery? Imagine the rake offs, too. Plastic surgeons want liposuction and botox coverage? Let them kick in to your party. Somebody’s poor mom is too old for treatment, cross your palm with silver and a hospital bed becomes available. Why am I telling you this, you of all people? I mean Mr. President Chicago Way, right?

    And then your opponents are playing this rather stupidly. Letting you and the press frame this as a women’s rights issue, not a Constitutional issue. (Is it just gossip or is it true that Harvard Law School where you attended and the University of Chicago Law School where you were a lecturer, are mortified? Who cares. That Constitution is so old and updated anyway. Ask Justice Ginsburg, even she’s not crazy about it.) Maybe next year you can wait until Congress is in recess and replace it with something newer from Zimbabwe. Well, you certainly don’t need me to advise you on how to destroy religion or the Constitution.

    I was delighted to see how you are reviving the Sturmabteilung. Of course, you can’t credit us — we all discussed it here and understand. Calling it a Truth Team, a “grassroots communications team” will go over much better, but , schatzi, we all know where you got that idea. The explanation is another bit of brilliant propaganda: “The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives.”

    I mean even Michelle Obama’s Mirror calls it the “SS. See something, Say something.” I think she means it sarcastically but check out the great logos she’s come up for the Truth Team!! We couldn’t do better and we tried in between roastings.

    She didn’t even get to Project Narwhal, a data-mining outreach operation designed to snare even more low information voters than the media can rope in.

    And it’s working on ill-educated single women, who’d apparently gladly give up their right to worship as they choose in order to get someone else to pick up their contraception tab, never realizing they’re giving up something for nothing, because there really is no free lunch.

    I figure a couple years of this and there will be no private insurance companies because they’ll be run out of business, or employer provided health insurance because it’s all going to be too expensive. And then you’ll have the entire country in the palm of your hand.

    If I had a heart, liebchen, it would be singing right now.

    P.S. I keep meaning to tell you — when you tilt your chin skyward like that, you remind me so of the Italian heart throb Benito.

    Read more:

  54. This from the Obama Administration:

    “Just on Friday, the Department of Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic. The president has increased our fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards so we do use less energy, which will help drive down the price,” Gibbs said. “Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we’re making progress.”

    Interesting when one does not understand what the process is for permits. Since we, our family, knows first hand….Permits to explore are NOT permits to drill. We already know where the oil is.

    The domestic oil production statement as to being at an 8 year high… just plain a lie. But, I guess he, Obama, will get a pass on that as well. We are down over 3 million bbls per day and that is a fact. As a domestic producer, we are selling oil at cheaper than North Sea Crude and Cheaper than ME oil…….but we are not allowed to ramp up production. We,as a small producer, have over 22,000 bbls in holding tanks right now and are NOT allowed to ship it to the refineries.

    And add a new twist…..the Obama Administration is now going to private land owners and are telling them that that they cannot lease their mineral rights to any company, big or small, without government permission to do so…..wonder why this is not on the news.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      the Obama Administration is now going to private land owners and are telling them that that they cannot lease their mineral rights to any company, big or small, without government permission to do so

      Colonel, By what right or law do they have this power? I do believe they (government ) has gotten too big for their britches and needs to be removed and replaced (NOT with any form of Communism). Sir, as veterans, this may be our most important war. 😦

      • You could be correct…I am not sure yet. We just found out about it ourselves. One of our land owners where we have a lease set up has told us this. We are investigating. It would not surprise me at all……probably under some new EPA or Energy guidelines put out by the czars and not run through Congress as he is doing. What is appalling is that no one seems to care that he is by passing the Senate which is Democratically controlled.

    • I wonder if there will be a panic reversal to get as much domestic back in circulation with the Saudi’s reducing their output. Re-election could be lost on cost of gas alone.

      Interesting article…..

  55. @ Charlie…the Plutonian Canoli King:

    You said “This government serves at the 1%’s behest. It always has and always will … capitalism cannot survive with this government and the corruption inherent to a capitalist society. There’s no utopia of competition when 1% holds all the power, pal of mine. You’re wearing blinders to think otherwise.”

    I am reminded of a line in the movie “The Patriot”…..when the Continental Congress was meeting to decide to vote on declaring independence. At first, Benjamin Martin was against it by stating….”Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 300 tyrants one mile away”

  56. ‘If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation,’ he said.

    Read more:

  57. A Powerpoint presentation obtained by The Daily Caller shows that during a July 2008 meeting, the $789 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund proposed to coordinate and fund a dozen environmental and anti-corporate activist groups’ efforts to scuttle pipelines carrying tar sands oil from Canada to the United States.

    The most recent incarnation of that pipeline plan, the Keystone XL project, was the subject of intense public controversy until the Obama administration rejected it in January.

    The 2008 meeting consisted of presentations from Rockefeller Brothers Fund program officer Michael Northrop, Corporate Ethics International Executive Director Michael Marx, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Susan Casey-Lefkowitz and the director of a Canadian activist group called the Pembina Institute.

    (RELATED: See the 2008 Powerpoint slideshow)

    Northrop’s presentation described the extraction of oil from Canada’s vast tar sands oil deposits as a threat to environmentalists’ efforts to curb global warming. He outlined a ”globally significant response” consisting of a “network of leading US and Canadian NGOs” engaged in a “coordinated campaign structure.”

    TheDC made repeated requests for comments from Northrup, Marx and Casey-Lefkowitz. None of them responded.

    The subject of U.S. interests raining money on environmental organizations north of the border is a front-burner issue in Canada.

    On Jan. 15, Alison Redford, the premier of the Canadian province of Alberta, told a Global News television host that she resents some Americans’ use of hidden money and secretive agendas to affect Canadian energy policy. “I don’t like the fact that there are people that would try to hijack this process for their own political ends,” Redford said.

    “It’s not about the money. It’s about the transparency of the process.”

    Concerns about that lack of transparency found their vent on Feb. 9 when Brian Jean, a Conservative member of the Canadian Parliament, called for legislation to ban deep-pocketed foreigners from bankrolling what he called Canada’s “radical” green movement.

    In retrospect, Northrop’s proposal and others like it appear to be squarely in Jean’s crosshairs. Northrop’s presentation promised funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation in the amount of $7 million per year. Named in the presentation were 12 participating environmental pressure groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club.

    According to Canadian writer and researcher Vivian Krause, U.S. foundations have poured more than $300 million into Canadian environmental groups since 2000. One foundation, endowed by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, has been single-handedly responsible for $92 million of that total, Krause wrote Jan. 17 in Canada’s Financial Post. Foundations flush with the wealth of computer pioneers William Hewlett and David Packard, she added, sent another $90 million to wage green-politics wars in the Great White North.

    Read more:

  58. How many times have you heard the Rs don’t have any solutions? Or they are the party of No. Here is an information site worth checking out:

  59. Why is this OK? Just imagine for a moment, any of the other candidates sitting down and talking about launching a “Whites for ____” campaign.

    • This is NOT OK! Talk about racist!

      I hear Esom stomping around…..

      • Well!! How ’bout them apples?! The “Great Uniter” strikes again!!!!!!

        That arrogant, egotistitcal, brilliant SONOFABITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        You’ve got to admire a set of cojones that big! Solid brass too! 😀

        Ya’ know, it’s good to see that racism in Black America is still alive and kickin’, just like I’m sure it still is in White and Latino and Asian America. So let’s all stop pretending that it ain’t. I’ve always said that there will always be some dumbasses in America who will be racist.

        It’s just kind of disturbing to see 2008’s “Great Uniter” is also one. But I didn’t doubt you for a second Barack ol’ boy! And you sure didn’t dissappoint me either.

        We are never going to stop this class and race division. Barack has just shown that. He has shown that it is even worse among the Blacks than with Whites. White folks are swiftly becoming the minority in this nation. I wonder if we’ll be treated like they were when we are?

  60. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Hi everybody,

    I am wondering if our left of center commentators would engage in a little experiment I have thought of. Perhaps this is the reason we always seem to be so far apart on issues.

    OK, ready for a little speculation? How do you, left of center contributors, see this society evolving over the next 20 years (year 2032) assuming the re-election of the President, a continuation of his current policies and his succession by a like minded (or based on recent history in the Democratic Party) an even more “evolved” president?

    Please extrapolate on current issues including the environment, energy, social security, national security, the military, gun laws, employment, entitlements, education, higher education, health care etc. Assume that the congress is either Democratic or apathetic or that the President, by use of executive orders rules by fiat with congress serving only in a Greek chorus capacity. Assume that in term two the President gets to appoint two new Supreme Court justices. Where will we be, where do you want us to be?

    • From way out in right field, I would expect more of these type stories……

      • I like that website, been following it for a while.

        I’ve seen the article before. I can almost predict what Matt will say about it..but I’m curious what USW thinks about it?

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Why be surprised? It is only another logical step. The loons out there are the parents. There are certainly legitimate cases but as with anything else, there is going to be a “push” by some to explain very complex issues (or simple ones) as being the result of this gender confusion. Whoops! I don’t think I am supposed to call it gender confusion since the thrust is that there is no confusion. It’s a done deal in their heads, the parents that is. What about those kids who think that they are whales or horses and born into the wrong species? I’m not kidding about that either. I’m afraid to ask where they go for help.

        By the way, saw this one coming a long, long time ago.

  61. gmanfortruth says:

    A Scotsman moves to Canada and attends his first baseball game.

    The first batter approaches the batters’ box, takes a few swings and then hits a double. Everyone is on their feet screaming “Run”

    The next batter hits a si ngle. The Scotsman listens as the crowd again cheers “RUN RUN”. The Scotsman is enjoying the game and begins screaming with the fans.

    The fifth batter comes up and four balls go by. The Umpire calls: “Walk.”

    The batter starts his slow trot to first base. The Scot stands up and screams, “Run ye lazy bastard, RRUNN!”

    The people around him begin laughing. Embarrassed, the Scot sits back down. A friendly fan notes the man’s embarrassment, leans over and explains, “He can’t run — he’s got four balls.”

    The Scot stands up and screams: “Walk with pride, Laddie! Walk with pride.”

  62. The mainstream media have conspired in the protestors’ mission by labeling the austerity cuts “punishing,” as though not getting as much as you want for free is an intolerable deprivation. Prodigality appeasers insist we rescue Greece and blindly trust their commitment to reform.

    One New York Times commentator concluded a lengthy profile of struggling Greek citizens thusly: “Greece’s traditional infrastructure may not be the ultimate answer to its problems… but it may make difficult times less painful.” Yes, and Greece’s traditional infrastructure brought about those difficult times in the first place.

    Just as Paul Krugman and other leftists repeatedly, recklessly exhort the U.S. government to spend even more money it doesn’t have on stimulus, lest the country slip further into recession, EU bailout critics warn austerity cuts will further hobble Greece’s economy. The Guardian’s Fabian Lindner declares, “Europe is in dire need of lazy spendthrifts” to whom countries like Germany can export goods. Lindner predictably argues that because Greece has instituted five sets of minor austerity cuts that haven’t yet worked, it should reverse course and ramp up government spending again.

    Defenders of statism praise communism, and its relative socialism, by gushing, “It’s a great idea in theory; it’s just never been implemented properly.” In fact, communism and socialism are terrible ideas, and have been implemented squarely in line with their supporters’ intentions, minus any desperate freedom defenders’ last-ditch efforts to fight government’s encroachment on citizens’ lives. What we’re seeing in Greece is exactly what we could have expected after a half-century of full-fledged implementation of the modern welfare state.

    If the U.S. continues down its current path—with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid going broke, new entitlement programs like the prescription drug plan and ObamaCare being piled on, and Democrats and most Republicans unwilling to make reforms—then we’re going the way of Greece. The major credit rating agencies have already downgraded the U.S. and threatened to devalue us again if we don’t address our debt. But when the U.S. defaults, there’ll be no one to bail us out.

  63. You need to consider the source but this is very telling:

  64. I apologize if this becomes a duplicate post……..

    Good read.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      See what happens when you finally wake up and connect the dots?

    • A voice of reason there. Sometimes I wonder if I’m losing it. I’ll give the lefties credit..they can spin a good good it makes you sympathize with their cause…but then someone like this comes along to keep everything in perspective..sorta like JAC on most issues.. 🙂 ..makes me breathe a sigh of relief.. now if I can talk some sense into JAC about Rauf, I’ll be whistling Dixie! 🙂

    • The problem I have with muslims is; how do you tell the difference between the “good” muslims and the “radical” muslims? Is there a difference? There are no muslims where I live so it’s not something I have to be greatly concerned about in a direct way. But I am concerned in an indirect fashion because of the way their radicalization is beginning to affect the rest of the world.

      Something is eventually going to HAVE to be done about the radicals. What? I don’t have a clue.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        So, your thinking of adding religious bigot to the above???? Seriously though I suspect after Afghanistan and Iraq collapse we will get our fill of “refugees” and I’m sure Uncle will share some with you. I tend to think that if they believe their religious law trumps all and that they should be allowed to live in segregated communities as they do in France and England where they basically run their own show, they are “bad”.

        I still think the best way is to follow what someone told me years before 9-11. If you ask a Muslim to unequivocally condemn slavery, bigamy, honor killings and he cannot, then, I think he is pretty much not the kind of material you need living next door to you.

  65. Am I the only one who just found out that Freedom Watch with Judge Nap has been canceled?
    WHAT IF it was because of this:

    • Not sure what the deal is. On FB he is saying he is fine; and asking people to NOT continue to send in letters on his behalf to FOX as it will not make a difference.

      Very odd. Sealing off another voice of liberty and freedom. Perhaps he’ll go to GBTV – I might have to subscribe to that yet.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      So, that’s what Black Flag really looks like! Of course he had to go.

      Prediction based on life experience. Fox will slowly morph into ABC, CBS, NBC. Don’t ask me how it happens but it always does. Perhaps my comment about “going along to get along”.

    • I was wondering why all of sudden it was all reruns. Same for the other shows.

      Fox Bus is canceling three shows. Freedom Watch was the only one worth anything.

      But I was wondering how long the Judge could get away with plugging Ron Paul. I think that violates the election laws.

      Can’t believe that Fox is touting The Willis Report. That lady is one of the dumbest people I have seen on TV. Right next to Sean Hannity.

  66. @ SK…..Cannot blame the Iranians……I would be doing the same thing as A Jad….OIL is his weapon right now. ….he fired it. He says, “ok, want sanctions? I will do my own”…..he is betting that Iran can out last Britain and France and he is threatening to cut off other Europeans. He knows that our President has all but stopped domestic production and cannot supply England or France, and he has, so far because of his nuclear ambitions, has the Saudi’s buffaloed into not turning up the volume to make up for his decreasing supply (Remember that Europe is very dependent upon Iranian oil)…he, Ajad…simply does not care about his people and they are now powerless to throw him out and unless the remaining hard line mullahs and clerics get rid of him, they will lose control to the fiercely independent and reckless fundamentalists that are taking over. I remind you of my map that I submitted last year…..and which countries would fall and when to the fundamentalist….you will see that I am correct to the penny, and many thought it would not happen. It is and it will. The ME is headed into an abyss and A JAd is positioning himself into the total picture of control. Give him a nuke…and it will happen. Well, too late, he will have his nuke and then, when he extends his control, I want to see what people on here think or what excuse they will give him. But, do not blame the Iranians…..Persian history tells the story……read it.

    The United States is much weaker now because of Obama…..the only thing that Asians and Arabs understand is power….the big stick…they always have responded to it and always will..they thrive…THRIVE….off the weakness of others,…Just look at history. It tells you the mindset. A first grader, that cannot even read, can figure out what this administration is doing. To ignore it and think otherwise, puts anyone of that thinking in the ostrich classification.

    The problem that we have here… a European mindset… entitlement mentality. This world is not meant to live in peace….never has and never will….power is the name of the game….if you want a seat at the big game… better play it.

    • You say he will get it-You don’t believe Israel will act-you think it’s to late for her to act?-do you think she should? or what?

  67. @ JAC……good morning, sir. We are in interesting times…….

  68. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    As an aside, but not really. The 22nd is Washington’s birthday, not Presidents day. My son, who is starting to make me very proud with his ability to connect the dots of life and politics, forwarded me, “Washington’s Farewell Address to the Nation.” He sent it with the comment that here was the greatest of men as King George said because he gave up power.

    Despite being a history junkie, I must admit that I have never before read this speech in it’s entirety. It is an awful lot more than “Beware of foreign entanglements”.

    To my young friends who believe in the living, breathing constitution subject to re-interpretation and change on a whim, I urge you to read it. The case Washington makes for this nation is immutable. century/washing.asp

  69. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Whoops, seems like there is no gap between 18th and century. Try

%d bloggers like this: