Screw John Calipari….

First let me say congratulations to the Kentucky Wildcats. They are a great example of what happens when you put five guys on the floor who should be playing in the NBA against a team that has a player or two who may end up there (at least one, Robinson, will). I don’t hold any ill will towards these kids. They are 19 year olds who were handed a National Championship because they are talented (6 guys on the team headed to the NBA).

I don’t really respect the win, however. It is kind of like what the NBA has become with all these teams creating “super teams” by having superstars get together like Miami, LA, Boston, and NY have done. It isn’t all that impressive to win a championship when you get to have all the best players on your team. This is much the same way I felt about the NY Yankees for so many years. Unfortunately, my Red Sox and some other teams have joined them in compiling superstars to compete with teams that can’t afford any. Realistically, the Sox, Yanks, Tigers, Phillies and others who adhere to this tactic should be embarrassed every time they don’t win a championship (which is why I still say the Yankees are the biggest losers in baseball…. Highest team salary in the game and not nearly enough rings to show for it). 

Kentucky should have been ashamed if they failed to win a championship. Carolina is much the same way, but at least they had key injuries to blame. But this isn’t about the boys that played on the floor tonight. It isn’t their fault that college basketball has become what it has become. No, this is the fault of people like John Calipari.

Let me be clear, I cannot stand Calipari. There are two main reasons for this:

1. I don’t like his approach to the game. To blatantly go out and make it your stated path that you will take all the kids that are one year college and jump to the pros players is the antithesis of what college basketball was supposed to be about. Fortunately for many years his plan has failed. Tonight it succeeded. I fear what the repercussions will be for college basketball.

2. This guys is as crooked and dirty as they come.

Calipari shaking the hand of a real legend

Allow me to offer a few facts about Calipari. The other night it was noted that Rick Pitino is the only coach in college basketball history to take three different programs to the Final Four. Quite an accomplishment. However, this statistic comes with an asterisk…. because Calipari has also done so. Calipari took the UMass Minutemen there in 1996, the Memphis Tigers there in 2008, and Kentucky there this year So why would it be noted that Pitino is the only guy to do so? That would be because neither the UMass OR the Memphis teams count for Calipari. BOTH were vacated by the NCAA after it was found that those programs violated eligibility or recruiting rules. In other words, it was found that Calipari cheated to win in both previous cases.

I will assume that the Kentucky win tonight will be vacated a few years from now.

So while Pitino is the only coach to have taken three different programs to the Final Four, Calipari is left with the distinction of being the only coach to have multiple Final Four appearances vacated by the NCAA.

And what makes it so much worse for me is that Calipari has never had to deal with the consequences of his actions. You see, he bolted to coach the NBA’s Nets just before the NCAA announced the trouble UMass was in. The future UMass players suffered the consequences but Calipari suffered none. And then he bolted Memphis to coach Kentucky in 2009, when it became clear that Memphis was in trouble. The future Memphis players suffered the consequences but Calipari suffered none.

That makes him a dirtbag.

And now there are allegations out there that Calipari again skirted rules to land Dereck Cousins for his one and done year at UK

So pardon me for throwing up a little in my mouth every time the announcers in tonight’s title game mentioned Calipari’s legacy being enhanced by a National title. Because from where I sit, Calipari’s legacy is one of skirting the rules, leaving programs in disarray as he left for other coaching jobs, and now winning a national championship by flaunting his disdain for what college basketball was supposed to be.

I get it, we can’t fix this college basketball problem until we figure out a way to make up for the fact that the schools themselves are bringing in millions of dollars on the backs of athletes who get nothing but a scholarship (although that is a lot more than nothing). But none of that changes the fact that Calipari is a sleazy coach who obviously doesn’t do things within the rules that the other schools have to follow. I don’t deny that there are others out there breaking the rules. But I can’t stand this one of them is being celebrated while we all ignore is very dirty past.

There is my rant for the night. Sorry to bore most of you with my sports babble. I have an article almost finished that should go up tomorrow or the next day so that we can get back to politics…

In the mean time…. Screw John Calipari


  1. charlieopera says:

    I don’t usually follow college basketball but I do remember the great book on how absurd the NCAA is regarding this stuff (Connie Hawkins story, Foul) … he could barely read or write. That was a long time ago … and it’s obvious little has changed. I read this on ABC this morning:

    Says it all. It’s always about the money.

  2. Buck the Wala says:

    Say what you will about Calipari but thanks to him and Kentucky, I won the office pool. 🙂

  3. What’s a basketball?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good mornin Colonel.

      It is a ball that resembles a punkin. Ya throw it into a bottomless basket located bout ten feet off the ground.

      I know you favor swat and follow, so think of it as toss and chase.


      I wonder how many folks know that colleges use the baseball team and the golf team to PAD their NCAA “athletic GPA” in order to keep their eligibility.

      • Great point……I forgot about that….I wonder what the actual degrees are for graduates of Football and Basketball are….as compared to golf and swimming or baseball. There is bound to be some statistic somewhere.

      • How about the Chess team?

        Adding, I absolutely resent that some (many?) athletes got the same degree as me with a fraction of the academic performance. My school offered free “tutors” to certain athletes. These tutors could, in some instances, sit in on tests with you, “help” you write papers, etc.

        And their degrees say the same thing as mine. What a joke.

        Adding, did anyone here ever read I Am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          You do realize don’t you that your are “resentful” of the Progressive’s favorite keystone………Social Justice.

          The athlete should have the same chances as you for a degree. Just because they are slightly challenged should not impede their dreams. They are entitled to special treatment in order to create EQUAL OUTCOMES.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Progressives desire EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, not equal outcomes. You know this, yet continue to state otherwise.

            • Actually, I did not know this. Redistribution of wealth is the rearranging of an outcome. It may be, in part, an attempt to offer opportunity, but in general it is not, and regardless it is an adjustment to an outcome. It also hinges on the idea that money creates opportunity, which is not only false, it is the premise that proves progressivism is materialistic. Freedom creates opportunity. Money can create a certain amount of freedom, but without the right to property, the right to engage in business and pursuit of happiness as you will, much freedom, and therefore much opportunity, will be lost.

              As for the special treatment of athletes being progressive, that is not the case. It is a corruption of a system run by progressives. One of the dirty little secrets that keeps the money coming in so that they can continue on their academicly bankrupt paths, spouting foolishness and teaching the religion of socialism, preaching the greatness of science while teaching things that defy and defile the very idea of science as if they are scientific and only fools would disagree with them. It is just like any other real application of progressivism in history, it must engage in corrupt practices to stay solvent, because the concept, at its core, is doomed to failure.

            • USWeapon says:

              I understand what you are saying Buck. However, that isn’t entirely true. It may be true for you and others here at SUFA. However, the larger progressive movement in this country, including the President, have determined that they also would like an equal outcome (or at least closer to equal). I don’t see the President doing anything to increase opportunities for people at all. Do you? What I see is him attempting to take from some groups to give to others, in other words, equalling out outcomes as opposed to opportunities.

              • Buck and I represent the “larger progressive movement in this country” in the same way that you represent the “larger Republican Party in the this country.”

              • charlieopera says:

                What I see is him attempting to take from some groups to give to others, in other words, equalling out outcomes as opposed to opportunities.

                I hope Wall Street is included in this “giving” of Obama’s … although he’s far from equalling the outcome from where the poor and middle class reside.

              • USWeapon says:

                It is… I have no love of Wall Street either. But this wasn’t a Wall St discussion. Just a general what progressives want statement.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              My lawyer friend,, I am much more aware of what PROGRESSIVES want than you do. And yet you claim to be one.

              But then you knew that already didn’t you?

              You can not create EQUAL OPPORTUNITY through the use of GOVT. Not unless you reduce those for some to enhance others. Because once you get unequal outcomes, it will be assumed that the opportunities were not in fact equal at all. Just look to the long term life of “affirmative action”.

              You seriously need to look into the differences between “being progressive”, which I maintain is the history of this country regardless of political party, and that of “being” part of the Progressive Movement and its agenda.

              A keystone of that agenda is “Healthcare is a Right”. Now tell me how that simple statement is NOT outcome based.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, ‘healthcare is a right’ relates to equal opportunity. How can there be equal opportunity if only the wealthy can afford quality health care!? Equal outcome would mandate that everyone live to age X, or everyone has the same illness/quality of life/etc. That is nonsense. Equal opportunity, to me, mandates that everyone have access to affordable, quality health care, and is able to receive the treatment they need. It allows everyone to receive the medical treatment they need so they can continue to live, to compete, to work, etc.

                I see you are going down the ‘redistribution of wealth through taxation’ road as an argument that Progressives believe in equal outcome. That is also nonsense. The purpose of a progressive tax code is a recognition that no one in this country gets to where they are by their own effort alone. Success may often require an immense personal effort, which should be commended and rewarded; but it also requires the footsteps of those who came before you, of the rest of society. It is also a recognition that the wealthy can afford to pay a higher burder to keep that society going, whereas the poor are unable to do so. This is not about making the poor equal to the wealthy in terms of assets or salary.

                But let’s make one thing clear here — yes, I do consider myself to be a part of the larger Progressive movement. I may not agree with 100% of all issues, but that is neither here nor there.

          • JAC,

            First of all, let me state, for the record, for the 6,332,441,234th time: I DO NOT WANT EQUAL OUTCOMES!

            What I want, in terms of the BS terms “social justice” is that no one who is legitimately trying winds up homeless, hungry, or without adequate medical care. You know, the staples of living. I do not think that everyone is entitled to a house in the burbs regardless of talent, effort, or luck. Some people are going to live in slums, eat Ramen noodles, use public transportation, and get only the most basic of medical care. And I am JUST. FINE. WITH. THAT.

            I think there are SOME people who are mentally handicapped, sincerely disabled, etc who need the support of society at large. I think there are millions of people who are down on their luck or who made poor choices who need a safety net. I think many of these people abuse the safety net and that’s a good reason for serious reform*. I think, if you are fired from your minimum wage job through no fault of your own, you probably never had the chance to build up savings sufficient to insulate yourself from being out of work for months in this economy. So, yes, we should HELP. But I do not agree that we should necessarily help you keep a home you can’t afford, or a car you can’t afford, etc. If you have bad luck, I’m sorry, but that’s not my problem (via government mandate, I may opt to contribute to charity to help you out, but that’s a private decision, not public policy – unless you want to make an economic argument that people losing their homes is bad for the economy and it’s spirals down*).

            Second of all, their being slightly challenged is fine. I don’t care. There are lesser schools. There could be a lower degree. They could be forced to EARN their degrees. But they aren’t. This is akin to saying that it doesn’t matter what your credit history is, we’re going to give everyone 800’s. Well, NO! A diploma is an indicator in the workforce that you have the intellectual chops and work ethic to be a good hire (whether this is completely accurate…*) and that you prize academic knowledge. Giving this degree to people who haven’t earned it is like giving that 800-score to a chronic defaulter – the message that is given to potential lenders is misleading. It is a misrepresentation of a person that weakens the value of that certification for the rest of us. So that, if I took my 800-score to a lender, he might discount it even though I legitimately pay all my bills. Some people are going to have 300’s. AND I AM JUST FINE WITH THAT.

            But you knew all this already, didn’t you?

            * But that’s another topic

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I know what you claim, but I also know that you support policies and politicians that contradict your claims. Your actions are NOT CONSISTENT with your stated views.

              You can not create equal opportunity or address the needs of the downtrodden with Govt and EVER expect efficiency or effectiveness. It violates the laws of nature. No Govt has ever achieved that honorable goal.

              If you believe Society has an obligation or at least “should” support others, then work to convince Society to do so. Don’t undermine that same Society by introducing them to Theft by Force to reinforce your views of what we should do.

              If you want Govt to provide something that is not destructive to the whole, then you need to cut Govt back to the point where the VAST MAJORITY agree on the “something”.

              For example, I bet over 75% of Americans would agree to a Govt funded program for the mentally and physically handicapped. Those INCAPABLE of caring for themselves. But the minute you start in with the “poor guy who lost his job due to no fault of his own”, you start losing support.

              So in the spirit of compromise, lets think of ways that Govt could ENHANCE and ENCOURAGE greater CHARITY rather than more Govt.

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    I usually don’t follow basketball much, but after reading your article USW, one would come to the conclusion that Calipari should run for Congress under the Democratic ticket, he would fit right in 🙂

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    I told ya’ll she was being groomed. You can find the full article at HuffPo

    “While Fluke continues to follow the legislation that matters to her, right now she says her main focus is finishing law school. Asked repeatedly if she might have a future in political office, Fluke admitted she is “talking to a number of people right now about some exciting opportunities.” “

  6. USWeaspon,
    You do realize that YOU are the cause of this problem, right?

    Now, of course I don’t mean only YOU and I really don’t mean you personally, but how many hours of “March Madness” did you watch? How many NCAA games do you go to? All sports?

    NCAA basketball and football at big bucks because of fans who attend games and watch TV, and because of alumni who want their school to bethe best. John Calipari (and I absolutely agree with your description of him!) gets away with what he does because it “pays” for the school in the short run (and maybe even the long run).

    A national championship fires up the students, alumni, future students, etc. This excitement can weather a few years of sanctions and then the school starts rebuilding the program.

    This is the American way. In some ways it’s capitalism – the best rise to the top. And it’s Social Darwinism – doing what you need to do to survive and thrive within the system…

    • Just A Citizen says:


      It is NOT Capitalism except in the broadest definition which would include Fascism and all other forms of “mixed” economic models.

      College sports have a captive employee pool that has NO NEGOTIATING power due to rules established by and enforced by the STATE.

      However, you are absolutely correct in that we all contribute by our participation. Even the smallest of schools pull in extra money when they build winning teams. Although I think sports is just one means of creating that alma mater spirit that keeps the money flowing. Look at the big bucks the Ivy League pulls in and their sports teams are pretty much mediocre. The “Fraternal” connections, which lead to enhanced business connections keep the money flowing in that case.

      How funny you used Social Darwinism in your comment when POTUS is throwing the same term around this morning to attack Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Coincidence or subliminal messaging?

      • JAC,
        It’s Crony Capitalism – the only type of Capitalism that exists because your beloved “Truly Free Market Capitalism” will never exist.

        Although I think sports is just one means of creating that alma mater spirit that keeps the money flowing. Look at the big bucks the Ivy League pulls in and their sports teams are pretty much mediocre. The “Fraternal” connections, which lead to enhanced business connections keep the money flowing in that case.

        So why does this matter JAC? We’re talking about sports here. I don’t have a problem with people who support universities for EDUCATION, do you? I give to my alma mater, but not the sports programs.

        Or do you just need to get in a cheap shot at those bastions of terrible “liberal education” Ivy League schools?

        How funny you used Social Darwinism in your comment when POTUS is throwing the same term around this morning to attack Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Coincidence or subliminal messaging?

        I haven’t seen that JAC, but I guess great minds think alike!

        • USWeapon says:

          It’s Crony Capitalism – the only type of Capitalism that exists because your beloved “Truly Free Market Capitalism” will never exist.

          And neither will your beloved utopia either, Todd, so touché’. But at least one of those two goals fosters the idea of “free” in there somewhere…

          Although I think sports is just one means of creating that alma mater spirit that keeps the money flowing. Look at the big bucks the Ivy League pulls in and their sports teams are pretty much mediocre. The “Fraternal” connections, which lead to enhanced business connections keep the money flowing in that case.

          So why does this matter JAC? We’re talking about sports here. I don’t have a problem with people who support universities for EDUCATION, do you? I give to my alma mater, but not the sports programs.


          I think you need a time out here Todd. JAC was discussing the money that is brought into colleges by sports and then expanding on the espirit de corps that is fostered by them. And it was actually a positive statement about Ivy league schools that despite their mediocre sports teams they still get huge support from their alumni.

          Or do you just need to get in a cheap shot at those bastions of terrible “liberal education” Ivy League schools?

          Or do you just need to get in a cheap shot at people here at SUFA at any cost, and thus look VERY deep to find some hidden meaning that you can attack.

          Chill out, brother. You aren’t even able to discuss sports without getting your panties in a bunch.

          I haven’t seen that JAC, but I guess great minds think alike!

          Well you would be one of the very few people left willing to think that a comparison to Obama is a good thing!

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Chill out, brother. You aren’t even able to discuss sports without getting your panties in a bunch.

            My guess is that he really wears them, all pink and soft and feathery 🙂 Enjoy Todd! 😆

          • USWeapon,

            Chill out, brother. You aren’t even able to discuss sports without getting your panties in a bunch.

            You write ANOTHER one of your “Someone I Hate” articles, and you think I need to chill out or not get my panties in a bunch?


            Last week sometime Jon Smith tried to blame “all the ills of corporations” on liberal Ivy League education.
            I guess this week it’s JAC’s turn.

            I didn’t see JAC’s comment as something positive. He’s equating Ivy League money to sports money. These kinds of little cheap shots are all over here – like your comment I quoted above.

            But I would like to hear JAC’s comments about that.

            Well you would be one of the very few people left willing to think that a comparison to Obama is a good thing!

            Only in your little universe USWeapon. Only in your little universe. 😉

            So, any response to my original post?
            Are you going to own-up to your participation in creating/maintaining this system?

            • USWeapon says:

              You write ANOTHER one of your “Someone I Hate” articles, and you think I need to chill out or not get my panties in a bunch?


              I wrote an article about a sports figure that I feel is getting undue praise given his extremely crooked past. I didn’t reference politics at all in the article, as it was meant as a stand-alone. You have subsequently spent two days trying to turn it into a political discussion.

              But you are correct, perhaps my panties are in a bunch over a sports figure and shouldn’t be. I am willing to admit that. You should admit that you also have your panties in a bunch because of your interpretation of a comment that didn’t appear to me to be a negative reference at all

              Perhaps others could chime in here. Am I reading JAC’s comment incorrectly? Was his comment meant to be a stab at Ivy League schools and their liberal slant? I didn’t read it that way but perhaps my little universe view doesn’t allow me to see what everyone else does…

              Last week sometime Jon Smith tried to blame “all the ills of corporations” on liberal Ivy League education.
              I guess this week it’s JAC’s turn.

              I didn’t see Jon’s comment, but had I seen it, I would disagree. I don’t think all the ills of corporations can be blamed on liberal education. I think the liberal education is a problem, but the ills of corporations go far beyond anything that our colleges can be blamed for…

              I didn’t see JAC’s comment as something positive. He’s equating Ivy League money to sports money. These kinds of little cheap shots are all over here – like your comment I quoted above.

              But I would like to hear JAC’s comments about that.

              I would also like to hear JAC’s comments about this. I didn’t see it the way you did, obviously. But I could be wrong. Although, even if you get the same explanation from the horse’s mouth, will you even be willing to hear it? It appears that even when presented with an alternative view of what was said, you aren’t necessarily inclined to consider a different viewpoint.

              Yes, you are correct that the little cheap shots are abundant here at SUFA lately. But please don’t do yourself the dishonor of not including yourself as a master of them…

              Only in your little universe USWeapon. Only in your little universe.

              Case in point…

              So, any response to my original post?
              Are you going to own-up to your participation in creating/maintaining this system?

              Do you mean that by watching college sports I am participating in the process that has corrupted the system? Yes, I would agree with that. My problem is with Calipari blatantly cheating. I am not part of that system.

              I will not agree to your premise that this is some failure of free market capitalism, though. Sometimes the left’s (yours in this case) attempts to link free markets or capitalism to nearly anything negative as a way to prove capitalism and free markets are a bad thing border on being “Beck-esque” or “limbaugh-esque”.

            • I am not sure if I said “all the ills of corporations” were due to ivy league educations, but I might have. It is not the case, there are a great many factors involved. However, many of the major corporate leaders come out of those institutions and abide by what they were taught, and that is where a lot of the lousy business practices come from, a lot of the Wall Street crap is right from the curriculum of how to run a business on the large scale level. Yes, USW is right, there is a lot more to it than jus that tho.

              As for your comments versus JAC, it really did not seem like you read what he said at all. He was saying that through business and fraternal contacts, the Ivy League schools got plenty of money without sports team based funding, meaning it is not a necessary evil, there may be a better solution. Its almost like you sae JAC was arguing with you, saw “Ivy League” and assumed he was slamming liberal schools and formulated a counter-attack based on what you thought he was saying or assumed he would say, rather than on what he actually said.

              As for the idea of it being a failure of capitalism, I would like to point out that almost all the colleges are overwhelmingly run by liberals, not just the Ivy League ones. So, if its such an evil capitalist thing, why is it permitted? Why do they allow themselves to be supported by it?

    • charlieopera says:

      Todd … no to mention the gelt bookmakers (legal or otherwise) earn off these dopey games.

      It sure is capitalism … one of the many by-products of money being the root of all evil … the corruption that exists in college sports (at pretty much all levels) would make your heads spin … or maybe it wouldn’t (you’re all politically saavy enough to know this anyway) …

      • Charlie,

        Sitting here by myself, thinking and wondering just who from my readings of ancient history (thanks to a superior classics education) you remind me of. Are you by chance a descendent of Tiberius or Gaius Gracchi? You gotta remember that though it started out well for them it did not end that way. They too underestimated human greed (of all classes).

        As another aside, a friend of a friend is working on a project about NY City street gangs of the ’50’s and early ’60’s , Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn. I suspect you might have some useful info. If you do, perhaps I can figure out a way to connect you. For some strange reason, he’s Canadian. Things must get awfully boring in paradise.

        • Mathius says:

          my readings of ancient history (thanks to a superior classics education)

          Are you sure it wasn’t, thanks to your having been there when they were written?

          Sorry, couldn’t resist 🙂

        • charlieopera says:


          I was born in 56. I have no idea about street gangs from those years. IN the 60’s I was a wannabe New York Met … a catcher, of course, even though I wasn’t a fatso back then (not until I developed shin splints at 31–see my facebook page for the old me). I was a jock and a half until the age of 26 or so. Coached football, etc, etc. …

          I am not classically trained and I was only joking up above … well, a little. Was Tiberius the meatball historian who became Caesar after Caligula? I have no clue …

          • Look them up, they were well meaning gents or, depending on your politics, rabble rousers. The brothers Gracchi were actually considered either the world’s first Socialists or first Populists. Tribunes of Rome, they tried to divest the 1% in favor of the 99% about 200 years before Christ. Surprise, didn’t work.

            • charlieopera says:

              STephen, you imply that the 1% is working for the 99% now. I think not. I think the fact 23% (if not more) of the middle class has dropped into poverty level suggests this 1% ruling class isn’t working either. I guess we’ll have to wait and see … some would argue the 1% argument here hasn’t worked at all (those in bondage for 100+ years; those wiped out for breathing space, etc.) … not picking at old wounds here, just stating facts.

      • Charlie, capitalizing is not the same as capitalism. A free market is based on mutually agreed upon, non-fraudulent transactions. Anything else is corruption.

  7. @ Buck,

    “Yes, ‘healthcare is a right’ relates to equal opportunity. How can there be equal opportunity if only the wealthy can afford quality health care!? Equal outcome would mandate that everyone live to age X, or everyone has the same illness/quality of life/etc. That is nonsense. Equal opportunity, to me, mandates that everyone have access to affordable, quality health care, and is able to receive the treatment they need. It allows everyone to receive the medical treatment they need so they can continue to live, to compete, to work, etc.”

    The same could be applied to “shelter is a right”, with the same pitfalls. What constitutes shelter? Do people who require less shelter, say, a young person who live at home and pays nothing, have to pay for the shelter of others? What is shelter? Is it just shielding from the elements? A tent? A cave? Does it have to have air conditioning? How about “quality shelter”, how is that defined? What is needed? Some need more than others, or think they do. In medicine, even more so. I DO NOT NEED HEALTH CARE. I am already healthy. I may go my whole life and not need health care. If I do, I may just need something basic, not some specialist or super-expensive stuff. It is not NECESSARILY required for life. I have the opportunity to get any health care I want, all I need to do is find a way to pay for it. The problem I see with the “health care is a right” argument is that no one can truly define what the needs are, nor who deserves it. Is the person who eats two pounds of sugar a day really justified in demanding “quality health care” for their diabetes? Why should I, who work out and eat right, have to pay for that? Sure, there are genetic issues, and there are issues of quality food costs, etc., but so much more of the health problems are directly related to lifestyle. What right do you have to force me to mitigate the risks you took to have your lifestyle? No more right than you have to force me to pay for your lifestyle when it comes to shelter. It is not perfectly equal outcome, but you are asking to equalize things despite outcomes. Income and wealth is an outcome, that you wish to equalize when it comes to the purchase of health care. Physical health is an outcome that you wish to equalize by offerring the same level care to all regardless of cost and lay the cost on all, whether they participated in risky or foolish lifestyle choices or not.

    “I see you are going down the ‘redistribution of wealth through taxation’ road as an argument that Progressives believe in equal outcome. That is also nonsense. The purpose of a progressive tax code is a recognition that no one in this country gets to where they are by their own effort alone. Success may often require an immense personal effort, which should be commended and rewarded; but it also requires the footsteps of those who came before you, of the rest of society. It is also a recognition that the wealthy can afford to pay a higher burder to keep that society going, whereas the poor are unable to do so. This is not about making the poor equal to the wealthy in terms of assets or salary. ”

    Oh BS, it is no such thing. To say that success must be shared because it is the result of more than yourself is to ignore the success already given to others in the process. Jobs, suppliers, etc. are all created when a person succeeds, people other than themselves are already helped and benefit. Further, the members of society you share the wealth with almost NEVER have ANYTHING to do with success of that individual, so it is not a repayment to society, it is an equalization of outcomes, even if it is not an absolute one. It is also an elevation of society to a status higher than the individual, rather than what it is, an abstract term for a collection of individuals that have chosen to co-exist and interact. There are aspects of that society that might have assisted in success. There are also aspects that held it back, yet you hold the entity up so that it does not matter if it helped or hurt the successful, they must pay homage, they must support it whether it is poison or health. It is not to elevate the poor, true, it is to bring down the successful so that they bow before the great god “society”. It is religious drivel, no more worthy than any other, and its evangelists are no better than the Jerry Falwells of the world.

    “But let’s make one thing clear here — yes, I do consider myself to be a part of the larger Progressive movement. I may not agree with 100% of all issues, but that is neither here nor there.”

    Perhaps so, but I think you fail to see what its leadership really is, and what it really seeks. Even the well-intended do not understand the result of their ideology is equal outcome for all, an equal outcome of squallor and servitude to tyranny.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think Buck is fully aware of the Progressive leadership and the movements agenda. He is in fact one of them, has stated so several times, and I have no doubts based on his arguments. One of the key indicators is the willingness to change the meaning of terms as rapidly as needed to support you position. So now “equal outcome” is limited to the EXACT same microscopic result of trying to provide the same stuff. As in Providing health care is not equal outcome but if we all live to 75 then we have equal outcome.

      You forgot a key point relative to “healthcare is a right”. The Progressives, socialists, communists, etc took the concept of Rights and turned it around 180 degrees. Our Rights are negative rights or freedoms. Rights create obligations on others. A negative right, my right to life, creates an obligation on others to NOT act against me. In other words, it requires no action.

      Healthcare, housing, etc are Positive Rights. They place an obligation on others TO ACT. Since everyone won’t accept this, they MUST use Govt to enforce this obligation on “everyone”. But we can’t all afford the cost. So along comes the “Progressive Tax” system. After all, those Rich people OWE the rest of us. They don’t “deserve” more than we have……blah, blah, blah.

      • Buck the Wala says:


        But I’m the one changing terms and definitions, using words to fit his purpose, and so on and so forth.

        And no, providing healthcare is NOT equal outcome (though to be fair, I can see why and how you are making that argument), but it is essential to ensure everyone has equal opportunity.

        • The problem, Buck, is this:
          You want to take a snapshot of things as they are, and then try to equalize opportunity. You are quick to point to history, a generation or more ago, and show that success was built on the work of others. You are also quick to point to more distant history, 3+ generations ago to show that failure or poverty was because of things in history. Yet, you fail to look at the history of the existing lifetime, you want to ignore that the current situation IS an outcome in a vast number, if not a vast maority, of cases.

          You also seem to equate health care with health. This is not the case. It is like equating a suit with the state of being clothed. It is only necessary for naked people. If you are already clothed, you do not need a suit to be clothed. I should not have to pay for everyone’s clothing, especially if I already have sufficient clothing. Also, if I work from home and need only casual clothing, I should not have to pay for your suit simply because your job is in an office and requires more expensive clothing than I require. My t-shirt should not be cost-averaged with your suit. Providing health care is only necessary for some people, it is not a universal benefit

          I believe in equal freedom being the source of equal opportunity. If I have the freedom to preach my religion, and you do as well, we both have that opportunity. You may not have a religion to preach or a desire to take the opportunity even if you did have something to preach on. So you do not benefit from this opportunity. However, you did not have to pay a cost for me to have that opportunity. It cost you no money, no resources, no time. However, what you are asking for, when you seek equal opportunities that require resources, is for everyone to pay for an opportunity whether they want it or not. It would be like everyone having to pay for college, whether they went or not, whether their career required it or not. More than that, it would be like cost averaging ALL higher education costs, so that all people would pay, and pay the same, whether they got no degree, an associates, a bachelors, a masters, a doctorate, multiple doctorates, soecial tech schooling, etc. It would be an equal opportunity for all. Do you think that would be a good idea? Do you think it would be a realistic idea? Why or why not?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Sorry Jon, missed this yesterday.

            I see where you are coming from/going with this — if we all had equal opportunities then there are inevitably going to be different outcomes (as should be the case) and so on and so forth so that voila, we are exactly where we are now. There is some truth to that. My answer would be that each generation, each individual needs to have the same opportunities. I am not advocating for a ‘reset’ button to bring everyone to the exact same level and just start over. Rather, we need policies (such as progressive taxation) to ensure that those who are successful, and who do earn more, give back to society at large to ensure the next generation has the same opportunities for success. Take a look at college for instance — I do not believe that there should be cost averaging, that everyone should get to go for free or for the exact same cost regardless of the degree/school in question. But I do believe that something should be done about the cost of college; the middle class is being quickly priced out of being able to send their kids to college. That is not right, nor is it good for us as a society.

            Does this make a bit more sense? Remember, I’m only a few sips into my first cup of coffee at this point!

            • Good morning, Counselor…..very concise explanation of your beliefs. Wow……hmmmmm….errr……

              You need a few more sips of your “jo”..

              “Rather, we need policies (such as progressive taxation) to ensure that those who are successful, and who do earn more, give back to society at large to ensure the next generation has the same opportunities for success.” This scares me more than Obama statement to the SCOTUS. But it is your opinion and I respect that. I hope that you are not proven correct in the future but I fear that you are.

              • Listen, Tex, you be nice to Buck or Al Gore is going to send some more tornadoes your way.

                Hope you made it out of that intact..

                Adding, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Buck just said.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Why does this scare you so much?

                Taken to the extreme I can see where this would be disastrous. But as I’ve laid out, I’ve been pretty clear that I do not support instituting a ‘reset’ or ‘start over’ nor a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor to make everyone equal. All I am asking for is some measure by which we ensure continued equal opportunities for all to succeed, or fail, on their own merits.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Your views have been clear for some time. But it makes NO SENSE.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Nope, my views make perfect sense.

                Exhibit A: Mathius’ remarks: “I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Buck just said.” I rest my case.

            • There are so many issue with that tho, Buck.
              1) Who gets to decide what is “equal enough”? It is too subjective. Is being given the money for earning a bachelors equal to a doctorate? No, but you are not advocating THAT much equality. Why? Why is a certain level “equal enough”?
              2) If opportunities are equal, will not the market change qualifications? That is what is happening now. The middle class is not just being priced out of a degree, it is a matter of expanding demand, and then the graduates are unable to get the work they expected in the process because there are only so many high paying jobs, we cannot all have them, so some other means of deciding who gets the job is put into play. If we all have masters degrees, then the doctorates win out. You see how, in the real world, the bar just keeps getting raised?
              3) How much does this equalization cost? What is more important, that success pays more or that failure is subsidized more? When does it stop? When does someone with a mathematical mind say that the rich are being taxed enough?
              4) How does hurting income equalize things? Income taxes are an abomination, they are a direct attack on earning. The only possible solution would be heavy estate taxes. But then, do you really have the right to take someone’s property that they put aside to give their children so that their children would have more opportunity? Should we destroy the parental desire to give the best they can to their children? Who is anyone to have that right?
              5) Who handles the money? Is that not a position of great power that is highly dangerous and attractive to corruption? Who is accountable with this?
              6) What is the “something” that should be done about college costing too much? Do you have a plan, or do you just want to throw other people’s money at it willy-nilly? That is a massive reason why it is so expensive to start with. That and the arrogance of academia and the pressure driving people to the academic system. You cannot just point to a problem and say we need to tax people to fix it. You have to look at the real and long-term effects of a policy. If its not working, then why redouble your efforts?
              7) People with many opportunities squander them, others make great success out of small opportunities. It is not about the opportunity, it is about the freedom to pursue it, and the freedom to receive both the success or failure of that pursuit. Equalization of outcome, even for the intent of equalizing opportunity, just doesn’t work.

    • an email I got this morning,

      The “System” in action… and it depends on YOU to finance…

      The new breadwinner in the family!

      An emergency room physician told me that a woman in her late 20’s came to the ER today with her 8th pregnancy.

      She told the first doctor she saw: “My Mama told me that I am the breadwinner for the family.” He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the State for the family. It goes like this:
      The Grandma calls the Department of Child & Family Services, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids. DCFS agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care.

      The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster
      parent, and receives a check for $1500 per
      child each month in Illinois. That amounts to a comfortable yearly income:
      $144,000 tax-free and nobody has to go to work!

      In fact, they get more financial assistance if there is no husband/father/man in the home! Not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid), plus a monthly card entitling them to free groceries and a voucher for 250 free Obamaphone minutes each month. This does not include WIC and other welfare benefits… that they are “entitled” to.

      Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the “breadwinner” for the family.

      This is how the liberal politicians spend our tax dollars. When this generous program was invented in the ’60s, the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date… and now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole… No wonder our country is broke!

  8. Dang! 911 to D13! The weather looks pretty grim down your way. We need a status update from you!

  9. Gettin kinda windy here……..have four tornados on the ground…..2 in Tarrant and 2 in Dallas…….2 inch hail….sirens going off….interesting day.

  10. @ Jon…..thanks…..we are all ok….tornados have moved north…..some damage around……there is a new line of storms moving in from the south but only heavy rain so far. Lots of hail……but we are used to this at this time of year. There were only five so far today……and nothing really strong except the one in South Dallas…pitched 20 or so 18 wheelers a couple of blocks. Not bad. No one dead as yet….

  11. charlieopera says:

    Okay, I have a new topic (based on a few recent exchanges between me, Jon, USW, the Colonel, etc.).

    Do you all know the Victor Hugo novel, Les Miserables? (Trust me on this: it’s a much better written novel than Fountainhead and/or Atlas Shrugged). Now, ignore Hugo’s liberal slant and try and stick to my questions below. Here’s the premise I pose to yous crazies on the right (and my fellow Plutonians and even that middle of the roader, Matthius of Worcester).

    Jean Valjean was convicted of stealing a loaf of bread. In the novel he was sent away for some ungodly amount of time (20 years, I think). He stole because his sister, her children and he himself were hungry/starving. What he stole was worth pennies (or whatever currency equivalent) worth of sustenance. What say yous on his “conviction”? Was it too harsh, was it too light? … Please try and forgot what happens to him later in the novel (if you’re aware of the story). Just focus on his crime … and it was legally a crime.

    I am very curious as to what each of you have to say.

    • I would say the punishment did not fit the crime at first glance. I am against theft on principle, and some measure of punishment should be in play for that, more importantly, it should remain illegal regardless of intent. I do not think anything could justify a sentence of that level, tho another factor in the theft would be, from whom did he steal it? If stolen from another, equally starving person/family, it would bear greater weight. Like the discussion we had before, theft of items, even those worth relatively little, can be devastating to a whole life or livelihood. Whereas the identical theft or identical value might be less devastating to another. In that case, of course, it is still illegal, but if the man in question stole a loaf of bread from me, if charges were pressed at all, I would likely give a loaf or two to the people he sought to feed. If he stole from a rich man and I were on the jury, I would still find him guilty, but would seek a minimal sentence. Were I on the jury and he stole from a penniless widowed mother of 4 and it was her last morsel of food, I would have sought a much harsher sentence, tho it would still not approach 20 years.

      • charlieopera says:

        Mitigating circumstances … very fair (altough the penniless widowed mother of 4, being in the same boat as poor Jean Valjean) might bring a further set of mitigating circumstances into play.

        I did forget to mention who he stole from (thanks for pointing that out, Jon). An average shopkeeper. Valjean broke a window pane to steal a loaf of bread.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      There are NO extenuating circumstances. He STOLE. He is a THIEF.

      The severity of the sentence is reasonable IF it is the punishment known for that crime in that place.

      This does not mean I would support the same punishment. Only that when it comes to human laws you have to evaluate them against the standards of those living under those laws. Now you can argue they are unjust if they are imposed by Govt without consent of the people, especially if the common law sentence was significantly different.

      I would support “indentured servitude” until the cost of the bread was returned, say “three fold”.

      • Agreed, no mitigating circumstances on guilt or innocence.

        Not sure I agree about the crime and culture argument. A punishment should fit the crime, some cultures chop off a hand, some would do almost nothing. Neither are appropriate responses to the crime at hand. I will grant that the culture should come into play when it comes to judging it, but if talking about your own personal response to this case, I imagine it would be closer to your suggestion on indentured servitude.

        That is a perfect concept for this scenario. I would go a bit further, even tho judging intent is a sticky wicket, and say that the intent and “mitigating circumstances” should come into play. Payback by work is perfect, since the punishment fits the crime. At the behest of the victim, they might work directly for them or for an agency of some sort. If this were a case of revenge or of theft from someone just as badly off, I would say the payback should be higher, say 7x.

        • charlieopera says:

          Jon, you show some compassion in your answer. I like the payback by work myself, but I see no reason to make it at a profitable rate.

          • In part as punishment, in part because the loss of something is more than just the face value of it. There are emotional costs, and more importantly, the potential for lost sales or lost work due to the missing item or due to the time you spent dealing with or replacing said item. Further, it is not as tho you will get paid back instantly. A few pence of bread will get worked off quickly, but what about the theft of a car? If you stole it for some desperate reason from someone who had many cars, you pay back triple. If you stole it to be mean, you pay back 7x as punishment for engaging in theft for evil purposes. Besides, why should the victim break even? They had their rights violated, did they not?

      • charlieopera says:

        JAC, that is essentially the Javert (the inspector who chases Valjean the next several decades in the novel) argument; a black and white worldview. No mitigating circumstances.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          We must JUDGE people for their actions. You either commit a crime or you do not. It is that simple and the way mankind has operated most of our “civilized” existence. The “circumstances” to which you refer are usually considered in the “sentencing” or administration of “punishment”.

          In the past thirty years what has happened was first an erosion of the first principle when leftist legislators and judges created Guilt dependent upon circumstances. Then the more “conservative” people pushed back creating “mandatory sentencing”. BOTH are the WRONG APPROACH.

          During the first phase the state of Idaho took what I considered a reasonable approach. In that state your CAN NOT be found INNOCENT due to insanity. You are still guilty of the crime. But the “insanity” is considered in the sentencing phase.

          Unfortunately, the same state eventually passed mandatory sentencing and three strike laws as well.

          • Precisely. Harsh minimum sentences are a restriction of one of the greatest citizen powers. The power of the jury. Court cases decided out of court, or without juries also limit this power. Guilt is guilt, a crime is a crime. However, circumstances can change the punishment for the crime so that the punishment fits the crime. If you steal, even to survive, it should be noted on your record that you have stolen. However, if you were released on probation with no sentence because of the circumstances, that is fine as well. Guilt is not a variable, it is either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or it is not-guilty.

    • Good morning, Charlie…..sorry I am so late in responding….there was some clean up to do yesterday but no major damage at my place from our little fracas…only 6-12 class 1 and 2 “naders”……no deaths. (We know what to do when these disturbances blow through)….ok….to answer your question.

      I have always been torn in the definition of mitigating circumstance because it is completely subjective. . Allow me to “couch” my answers slightly.

      1) I am hungry, I steal from a vendor to eat.
      2) I have no money, I rob a bank to get it.
      3) I have foot problems and cannot walk, I steal a bicycle to ride.

      I think that a lot of people will see mitigating circumstances in the three examples that I listed. I see no difference in the three. All three examples are theft. Simple and easy. IF the penalty were to lose a hand because of theft, all three circumstances will result in a loss of a hand. So, to answer your question, it is theft and whatever punishment was on the books to be meted out is what it is. It is the act that is the problem and not the reasons for it. That is why we have a jury system, I guess. A jury can allow compassion in the application of a lighter sentence if it wishes to assess mitigating circumstances but it does not change the facts.

      Now, a question in return. If you were the shop vendor and you chose compassion and did not wish to charge the lad with theft and, therefore, let him have the bread….that is cool. But, as a vendor, if you wished to send a message to other thieves not to mess with me, and decided to press the full charge of theft…..that is also cool.

      Question….whether you wish to show compassion or not, does that change the facts? And if you choose not to show compassion, does that make anyone a lesser person?

      • D13,

        Amazed there were no deaths! Glad you are OK.

        “A jury can allow compassion in the application of a lighter sentence if it wishes to assess mitigating circumstances but it does not change the facts. ”

        And that is where justice is supposed to be served. Most realize you cannot write a law that covers every situation. I think that is the biggest failing in the progressive mindset, that there is a government answer to everything.

      • charlieopera says:

        Question….whether you wish to show compassion or not, does that change the facts? And if you choose not to show compassion, does that make anyone a lesser person?

        I have to say, No, I’m with all three of you on this one. Of course I’d be one mitigating fool/sob (depending on where you stand) once punishment phase came into place, but I do agree it is a crime and mitigating circumstances should be clarified at the sentencing phase.

        Did I just agree with JAC? And yesterday with Jon?

        This makes two times in two days I have to kill myself (no self-defense allowed–New Jersey is very liberal …)

  12. USWeapon says:

    Is anyone buying for a second that it was a “mistake” by NBC that led to the 911 tape from Zimmerman being edited to present him as being racists when he was actually just answering the question asked of him?

    C’mon, even you folks fighting me all the way around this case have to admit that to call it a mistake is like saying Zimmerman shot that kid by mistake….

    This is why there are so many of us that scream about media bias. This was an intentional attempt to mislead people and make news rather than report news.

    • charlieopera says:

      I think it’s pretty much established, even among the libtards and plutonians like myself, that there is a media bias and that except for FOX, which slants heavily the other way, it is mostly so-called liberal (or the democratic party view of liberal). That said, I did hear the entire tape on youtube, without the editing.

      But no, I doubt it was a mistake. Somebody had an agenda … sort of like when FOX would show hundreds of thousands of spectators from different events to make a point about support for something they were in favor of but not even 1/3 of the supporters were there.

      • Charlie, my friend, you just gave an excuse. I see no excuse whether from FOx or NBC. incomplete reporting and the deliberate omission of facts to sway an outcome should be criminal….no matter who does it.

    • And ABC fessed up shortly after NBC saying their tape of the (non) head wound had been edited too, That’s GMan’s corporate whore media pimps for ya. (Is that what you call them G?)

  13. charlieopera says:

    I have no love of Wall Street either. But this wasn’t a Wall St discussion. Just a general what progressives want statement.

    Except if he gives to Wall Street, it kind of suggests his “rhetoric” (like joining the picket lines of unions threatened with a loss of collective bargaining) doesn’t come close to what he does. He may speak the language of progressives, but so far he’s done a hell of a lot more for big business in this country than he has for the poor (to include the middle class). Progressives may want a more equal distribution, but they sure aren’t coming close to getting it from the Democratic Party or the so-called “socialist” President. I still suspect big business is fine and dandy with Mr. Obama and that is why they allowed the GOP to field a camp of incompetent political clowns to run against him.

  14. charlieopera says:

    Stand your Ground … the more I look into this fiasco of a law, the more absurd the application of the law is (take note of the bolded sections … yesterday I heard someone state gangbangers are using this to defend themselves … and getting away with murder).

    From the first link: The laws expand on the so-called Castle Doctrine, which allow a person to defend himself with deadly force inside his own home (or castle) without first having to retreat. Stand Your Ground eliminates the need to retreat, even outside your own home, so long as you reasonably believe you are in danger.

    A subtle change, but a significant one. Combing press reports and state records, The Tampa Bay Times found 130 cases in Florida in which Stand Your Ground was invoked. In more than 70 percent of the cases, someone was killed. But only 28 of the cases went to trial, and only 19 resulted in a guilty verdict.

    State Attorney Meggs says because of Stand Your Ground he just lost a case in which a young man was shot to death and the killer went free. “This was a totally unnecessary shooting,” he says. It began with a drunken argument in a bar which was resumed later that night on the side of the road. One man was walking, the other was a passenger in a car. The car stopped, the argument began again, the man on the side of the road leaned into the car window, and was shot to death. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the shooter was “standing his ground.”

    “We have solved a problem with the Stand Your Ground Law that didn’t exist,” says Meggs. “The people who are using this law are not law abiding citizens. The people who are using this law are thugs and gangs and drug dealers.”

    At least one Florida legislator has called for a reexamination of Stand Your Ground. But the law’s author, State Rep. Dennis Baxley, says the problem is not with the law, but with how it’s being applied.

    Your friendly Plutonian here: Except now that certain cases have been tossed, they are precedent, thus making prosecution of illegal shootings harder to prosecute.

    Baxley says George Zimmerman “is on very thin ice” using Stand Your Ground as a defense in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. “There was nothing in this statute ever intended to protect somebody who was pursuing or confronting other people.”

    From the link below … the gang effects:

    According to a Tampa Bay Times editorial, “Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the ‘stand your ground’ law.”

    Great … the wild, wild, wild, wild, west … except now they have automatic weapons. I wonder how many innocents were struck by stray bullets out in the middle of a street where “stand your ground” “was written to protect potential victims from being falsely prosecuted when they stand their ground.”

    Oy vey …

    • gmanfortruth says:


      I’ll give you credit, you don’t quit 🙂 I have come to the conclusion that we will never agree on this subject. The reasons are many I’m sure, but you have your opinion and I have mine. I don’t know if we have a Stand Your Ground law here in Pa, but we should. I side with the good Colonel on this issue, I like Texas justice and it should be applied everywhere. In the meantime, enjoy your canolli my French loving friend.


    • Yo, Charlie, this is precisely why Texas did not adopt stand your ground philosophy. We have a right to protect private property and life with the use of deadly force. This does not apply to bar room arguments where you go outside and have a shootout. Texas is very strict about that. We are western in our justice but just like in the past….we hang horse thieves, but will also hang a lynch mob. The Texas stand is this in barroom fights. Take it outside. Nothing is going to prevent two people form killing each other if they are destined to do so. If not guns, it will be knives or clubs or stomping one to death. It is the code of the west. However, do not steal a mans horse, guns, or women. (Not necessarily in that order). Do not trespass upon one’s property for any reason. Do not take one’s Red Bull and do not take one’s whiskey.Always tip yer hat to a lady. (and lady means female gender…whether a whore or not. A lady is a lady). Case in point (you may not remember this). True story involving Gubernatorial Candidates Clayton Williams and Ann Richards. Williams a republican and Richards a democrat. Texas is a conservative state BUT republicans put a Democratic Governor in the Mansion simply because Williams disrespected women. He likened rape to Texas weather “”If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it” and he refused to shake her hand in a debate. You just do not do that here and it actually cost him the election. I did not vote in the governor’s race for that very reason.

      So, our style of justice is different. We do not have to have a stand your ground law. We have no duty to retreat (Texans do not retreat anyway). Self defense is just that…self defense. Do not pick on someone because they may have a better weapon…you better be prepared. BUT, like lynch mobs, Zimmerman would have been arrested here.

    • Oy vey,

      The ABC link you provided shows an undated photo of a much younger Martin. Is it to portray him as more young and innocent than a recent pic with his tat’s, gold teeth, flashing gang signs?

      “Great … the wild, wild, wild, wild, west … except now they have automatic weapons.”

      Now you are just making things up Charlie. Automatic weapons are difficult to come by, which might explain how rare it is for them to be used in crimes in the USA. You have to have a federal license to own a machine gun. Without that, using such a firearm, even in a legal, defensive nature would still get you charged with a felony.

      Also wonder why “The Root” doesn’t mention black on black crime? Why do they want to only talk about the 10-15% of their crime problem and ignore the 85-90%? Why is there always outrage because a “black man” was shot and him being a criminal or gang member is not an issue? Martin was POUNDING Zimmerman’s head against the concrete. That is attempted murder. In your world, Zimmerman should have waited to see if Martin would have stopped short of killing him. Maybe maiming him would have been OK? At least no one would have died. But there is no way to know if Martin would have stopped and I for damn sure would not risk my health over concerns about someone trying to kill me.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But LOI, there is NO EVIDENCE that Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head against the concrete…

        • Buck,

          Technically true, but mostly pure bulldookey. We do not have the evidence, the police do. Several articles and the information released by the police support this claim. Zimmerman was treated after the shooting for a nose and head injury. A witness is reported seeing Martin atop Zimmerman, attacking him. All the reports show Martin was the attacker. Also consider the police and prosecuting attorney had this evidence and did not charge Zimmerman. With all the outrage, do you really think they did not do so because they are protecting Zimmerman? They clearly did not think they could win in court. Sorry dude, but on this you are barking at the moon or something.

          Now IF you want to make a case against Zimmerman, you have to go to him pursuing Martin. Did Zimmerman cause the fatal confrontation? Without witness on the words they exchanged, we can wonder what was said. Pure speculation, but it’s something that happens in trying to determine cases like this. Did they get into a heated exchange? Did Zimmerman threaten Martin? If so, that changes the whole legal issue.
          If Zimmerman was threatening, then Martin acted in self-defense. The problem is in proving this, if the only living witness doesn’t want to confess. I think that is why they did not prosecute, they could not win a conviction on the stand your ground part. And if Zimmerman did commit assault, the old “dead men tell no tales” is still an effective defense.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “Technically true” yet you call it ‘bulldookey’??

            Based on the timeline Zimmerman was treated for maybe 8-10 minutes tops. If you had your head repeatedly bashed into the pavement, I’m pretty sure you would be taking to a hospital to at least ensure you didn’t suffer a concussion. The reports do not show Martin was the attacker (from my understanding, no witness saw Martin attack Zimmerman), except if you are going to simply accept Zimmerman’s statements as truth.

            So, based on the rest of your post, do you now agree that this is a bad, horrible, no-good law? As you say yourself: “they could not win a conviction on the stand your ground part” and that “‘dead men tell no tales’ is still an effective defense”.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The law seems fine to me. The law is not the problem here.

              Note, that without this law the situation would be the same. There is no proof that he committed murder. That he was the attacker.

              Everyone is lost in the superfluous here. The only issue is what happened once the two came face to face. Then and only then could we even begin to judge whether the pursuit was intended to be more than keep this guy cornered until the police arrive.

              Now, as with the Colonel, I suspect Zimmerman was suffering from “cop wana be” syndrome. Thus my original statement that he is guilty of “negligent homicide”.

              And I see nothing in the law that would prevent prosecution for this, UNLESS there is proof that Martin attacked him without “violent” provocation.

            • “Technically true” yet you call it ‘bulldookey’??

              Yes. You and I do not have the evidence, nor should we at this time. The police have the evidence. If what has been reported is true, there is ample evidence that was enough to support Zimmerman’s story. Even the police video showing Zimmerman shows some injury to the back of his head. Now you can claim it was not sever, and may be right. But that comes back to the person being attacked gets to judge how threatened they are, not the people sitting at home watching a video hours after the attack, after he was treated.

        • (There are links at A.T.)

          The most interesting question at this point in the Trayvon Martin case may be who believes the Party line and why.

          As for the incident itself, after the case became the latest and noisiest cause célèbre of the left, the police released seven 911 tapes on March 16, and then disclosed further details from their investigation to the Orlando Sentinel on March 26. All are a couple of clicks away, and until the Seminole County Grand Jury convenes on April 10, or the special prosecutor files charges, which may happen earlier, any account of what happened has to be based on what the tapes disclose.

          Of the 911 calls, only two are from actual eyewitnesses: a man identified as “John,” who later spoke with the Orlando Sentinel and the local Fox station, and George Zimmerman.

          “John” told police that he saw two men on the ground, fighting. The one on top, beating the one underneath, was Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman, in a red sweater, was yelling “Help, help!” You can hear his screams on other 911 tapes. A tape was played for Martin’s father, and he confirmed that the voice crying for help was not his son’s.

          The Zimmerman call runs for four minutes and twelve seconds. He reports seeing a suspicious character in his gated community. Despite the relentless focus on the hoodie, what disturbs the neighborhood watch captain is Martin’s behavior, not his clothes. It was raining, according to Zimmerman and at least one other 911 caller, but the teenager is not walking briskly and purposefully, as people tend to do in the rain. He seems to be wandering aimlessly, as if on drugs, looking at the houses. Zimmerman then reports, nervously, that the guy is staring at him, then coming toward him, his hand concealed in his waistband. At about 1:42 on the tape, he can no longer see him. “The assholes always get away,” he mutters. At about 2:15, he spots the guy in the distance, running. He starts following him, and the dispatcher tells him that he doesn’t need to do this. “OK, he replies (2:29). “He ran,” he says under his breath ten seconds later. At 3:38, asked for his address, he hesitates. “I don’t know where this kid is,” he says. Zimmerman proceeds to give directions to the dispatcher, asks police to meet him at his truck near the mailboxes, then requests that he be called when the cops have come through the gate.

          According to Zimmerman’s later testimony, he had returned to his truck and was waiting for the police when he was surprised by Martin. The teen asked him if he had a problem. When Zimmerman said “no” and reached for his cell phone, Martin punched him in the face. Zimmerman fell to the ground; Martin jumped on top of him and began slamming his head against the sidewalk.

          Zimmerman was not arrested for the simple reason that the physical evidence corroborated his testimony and “John’s.” According to the police, he had a bloody nose, a swollen lip, lacerations on the back of his head, and scuff-marks or grass stains on the back of his jersey. The police had no reason to believe that these were self-inflicted. If Zimmerman’s statement is accurate, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, the subject of so much vitriol, may not have been relevant; it applies to individuals who are standing, not lying on their back being beaten. In no state do you not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if your head is being slammed into concrete.

          Read more:

  15. Even when they are proven wrong-they won’t quit ! Someone owes this company a lot of money, but when the responsible party is the government -we all just get ……………

    April 4, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later
    The regulatory state’s biggest bully beats up another victim.

    By Mario Loyola

    Last summer, I wrote about the Environmental Protection Agency’s shameful persecution of a Texas natural-gas company, Range Resources Corp. The year before, EPA had slapped the company with an “emergency order” under the Safe Drinking Water Act, alleging that it “caused or contributed to” the contamination of two water wells west of Fort Worth. Almost immediately, however, EPA was forced to admit that Range had no connection whatsoever to the contamination in question. It nonetheless insisted on the company’s obedience to the original order.

    I argued then that this was all a shameful abuse of power. Well, just last week, after a nearly two-year odyssey in which the company has spent $4.2 million defending itself, EPA agreed to drop the whole thing. The withdrawal of the emergency order was officially announced at the end of last week, where the government usually tries to bury its embarrassments. But the question remains: Why now?

    EPA should never have issued the order in the first place. From the start, EPA staff admitted that they had no theory of how methane could have migrated into the shallow aquifer in question from Range’s natural-gas well a mile underground. It quickly became clear that the methane in the aquifer had migrated naturally from an entirely different geological formation than the one from which Range was pumping gas, and that the area’s water wells had long contained small quantities of natural gas. Texas regulatory authorities, which conducted their own vastly more professional investigation in short order, concluded that Range was not related to the gas contamination in any way.

    Rather than withdrawing its order at any of these points, EPA’s regional office raised the ante, seeking enforcement of the original order, along with fines that soon totaled millions of dollars. Confronted with incontrovertible evidence that the source of the gas had nothing to do with Range Resources, EPA claimed that the law didn’t require it to prove or even allege any connection between Range and the contamination.

    Strictly speaking, that astonishing position appeared to be correct. Under Section 1431 of the Safe Water Drinking Act, the EPA administrator may “take such actions as he may deem necessary” when he knows of a possible contamination of drinking water, including “issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect the health of persons.” Among the key things left unclear in the statute is, well, almost everything: (a) exactly what group of people can be compelled to do something under that emergency order; (b) what they can be compelled to do; (c) what EPA must establish to have a reasonable basis for its order; and (d) what the target of the order can do to challenge it.

    The statute is so vague that the only natural way to read it is as a grant of power for EPA to commandeer anybody — totally at random if EPA so chooses — and force him to clean up, at his own expense, a problem that he can immediately prove he had nothing to do with.

    As EPA sought enforcement and penalties in district court, the company filed a petition for review of the original order at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in the case in October of 2011. The tenor of that oral argument (listen to it here) suggests one reason that EPA decided to withdraw the order: the fear that it might lose its emergency-order authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act altogether.

    The company’s lawyers restricted themselves to arguing that Section 1431 was unconstitutional only “as applied” to them. But the three-judge Fifth Circuit panel was much tougher on EPA, and focused instead on what EPA thought it had the power to do under the law. The tenor of the oral argument was such that EPA must have been worried that Section 1431 might get struck down entirely, as unconstitutional on its face, not just ruled unconstitutional as applied to Range Resources.

    It’s easy to understand why. The company’s lawyers argued that the order was arbitrary and capricious as it applied to them, but in fact emergency orders under Section 1431 will be arbitrary and capricious in virtually every case, because of the way the statute is written. It is almost impossible to know, for example, who is subject to the statute. Even if EPA had procedures in place to guarantee minimum due process for emergency orders (which it doesn’t), you would still have a statute that is not limited in any way to people connected with any contamination. EPA can issue emergency orders to anybody.

    The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, which insisted that citizens hit with an EPA order must have their day in court, may also have weighed heavily on the EPA. At the very least, the justices seem finally awake to the grave danger that EPA’s emergency and remedial authorities pose for the due-process rights of private citizens. That subtext to the Sackett opinion is one that the lower courts (who try to avoid being overruled) can read as clearly as EPA.

    Congress should subpoena Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional administrator, to come explain how this whole fiasco happened. Congressional hearings on the case of Range Resources and others like it will quickly reveal the need to curtail the EPA’s statutory authorities and put a stop to its increasingly brazen abuses.

    Range Resources has in essence been deprived of $4.2 million dollars, not to mention the damage to its reputation, without due process or recourse of any kind. Many environmentalists apparently think oil and gas companies shouldn’t have due-process rights and deserve to be targeted for arbitrary abuse by the authorities. But as the case of the Sacketts shows, the EPA’s next victim could be any one of us.

    • naten53 says:

      That’s what happened in my parents rural township. The EPA forced them to put in a sewer system, and the township caved, even though the citizens took it upon themselves to hire professionals to prove the EPA report wrong. The township still was forced to put in the sewer system because the EPA was requiring the township stick to the original order. I say that they were forced because, a rural township doesn’t have the money to spare to fight the EPA, and even when the people were willing to pay for it, the township didn’t have the backbone to fight.

      Now my parents have a $100+ per month sewer bill. Where I live, my house pays about $60 per month for sewer and water, and that is even with a sewer surcharge because of combined sewer/stormwater system that they are working to replace.

      • Since we’ve been talking wild west lately-it’s time for these agencies to get corralled-hopefully the last couple court cases will help to cut down on the total abuse of power.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Nothing will happen until this and other agencies are PURGED of the Algorians within them.

          Congress MUST act to fix this, but they won’t. If you think Social Security or Medicare is the third rail, anything environmental is the Fourth Rail.

          The only hope is to CHANGE CONGRESS.

  16. This is worth reading just for the pleasure of reading one line. Hee Hee-Can you guess which one?

    Compliant Americans

    Walter E. Williams

    Mar 14, 2012

    Last month, at a Raeford, N.C., elementary school, a teacher confiscated the lunch of a 5-year-old girl because it didn’t meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines and therefore was deemed nonnutritious. She replaced it with school cafeteria chicken nuggets. The girl’s home-prepared lunch was nutritious; it consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, a banana and apple juice. But whether her lunch was nutritious or not is not the issue. The issue is governmental usurpation of parental authority.

    In a number of states, pregnant teenage girls may be given abortions without the notification or the permission of parents. The issue is neither abortion nor whether a pregnant teenager should have an abortion. The issue is this: What gives the government the authority to usurp parental authority?

    Part of the problem is that people who act as instruments of government do not pay a personal price for usurping parental authority. The reason is Americans, unlike Americans of yesteryear, have become timid and, as such, come to accept all manner of intrusive governmental acts. Can you imagine what a rugged American, such as one portrayed by John Wayne, would have done to a government tyrant who confiscated his daughter’s lunch or facilitated her abortion without his permission?

    I believe that the anti-tobacco movement partially accounts for today’s compliant American. Tobacco zealots started out with “reasonable” demands, such as the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packs. Then they demanded nonsmoking sections on airplanes. Emboldened by that success, they demanded no smoking at all on airplanes and then airports and then restaurants and then workplaces — all in the name of health. Seeing the compliant nature of smokers, they’ve moved to ban smoking on beaches, in parks and on sidewalks in some cities. Now they’re calling for higher health insurance premiums for smokers. Had the tobacco zealots demanded their full agenda when they started out, they would not have achieved anything.

    Using the anti-tobacco crusade as their template and finding Americans so compliant, zealots and would-be tyrants are extending their agenda. Why not control what we eat? San Francisco, Chicago and several other cities have outlawed or are seeking to outlaw serving foie gras in restaurants. Here’s my challenge to these people: Don’t be a coward and use the state to accomplish your agenda. If you see Williams eating foie gras, just come up and take it off his plate.

    Other food tyrants want to stop us from eating Dove and Haagen-Dazs ice cream, Mrs. Fields cookies and McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets. San Francisco has already banned McDonald’s from selling Happy Meals with toys in them as sales pitches to children. Seeing San Franciscan compliance may have been the source of inspiration for the North Carolina schoolteacher who took the 5-year-old girl’s lunch.

    Americans have become compliant in nation-crippling ways. Over the past several years, gasoline prices have been shooting through the roof, but not to worry. President Barack Obama’s current secretary of energy, Steven Chu, said in December 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That translates to $8 or $9 a gallon. During a recent hearing on the Department of Energy’s budget, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, R-Miss., asked Secretary Chu whether it is the DOE’s “overall goal” to lower gasoline prices. “No,” Chu responded. “The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy.”

    Because Americans are so compliant and willing to suffer silently at the gasoline pump, the Obama administration is willing to press on as handmaidens of environmental extremists who want to halt the exploration of our country’s vast oil supplies, which are estimated to be triple those of Saudi Arabia. The Obama administration would rather pour more taxpayer dollars into risky alternative crony energy suppliers and electric cars. The OPEC nations have to be laughing at us, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were revealed that they are making under-the-table payments to environmental wackos.

    • I’ll guess this one:

      Can you imagine what a rugged American, such as one portrayed by John Wayne, would have done to a government tyrant who confiscated his daughter’s lunch or facilitated her abortion without his permission?

      But speaking of gas.. I wish the dollar store sold gas… 🙂

      • That’s a good one too-but it wasn’t my favorite.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          This wasn’t bad either: “Don’t be a coward and use the state to accomplish your agenda. If you see Williams eating foie gras, just come up and take it off his plate.”

          Go ahead, “make my day”.

        • As far as the first one-an adult helps my daughter facilitate an abortion-I don’t need a John Wayne type-I’ll take care of them myself !

  17. Dupes for the State

    Walter E. Williams

    Apr 04, 2012

    Public misunderstanding, ignorance and possibly contempt for liberty play into the hands of people who want to control our lives. Responses to my recent column “Compliant Americans” brought this home to me. In it, I argued that the anti-tobacco movement became the template and inspiration for other forms of government intrusion, such as bans on restaurants serving foie gras, McDonald’s giving Happy Meals with toys, and confiscating a child’s home-prepared lunch because it didn’t meet Department of Agriculture guidelines. A few responses read like this: “Smoking is different because that actually affects other people. We should be living by the notion that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt other people. Smoking hurts other people.”

    If we banned or restricted all activities that affect, harm or have the possibility of harming other people, it wouldn’t be a very nice life. Let’s look at what can affect or harm other people. Non-obese people are harmed by obesity, as they have to pay more for health care, through either higher taxes or higher insurance premiums. That harm could be reduced by a national version of a measure introduced in the Mississippi Legislature in 2008 by state Rep. W.T. Mayhall that in part read, “An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state Department of Health.” The measure would have revoked licenses of food establishments that violated the provisions of the act. Fortunately, the measure never passed, but there’s always a next time.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2010, nearly 33,000 people were killed in auto crashes. That’s a lot of harm that could be reduced by lowering the speed limit to 5 or 10 miles an hour. You say, “Williams, that’s ridiculous!” What you really mean to say but don’t have the courage to is that to save all of those lives by making the speed limit 5 or 10 miles per hour is not worth the inconvenience. Needless to say — or almost so — there are many activities we engage in that either cause harm to others or have the potential for doing so, but we don’t ban all of these activities.

    One of the least-understood functions of private property rights is that of determining who may harm whom in what ways. In a free society, it is presumed that the air in a person’s house, restaurant, hotel, car or place of business is his property. That means that if you own a restaurant and don’t want your air polluted by tobacco smoke, it is your right. Most would deem it tyranny if a bunch of smokers had the political power to get the city council to pass an ordinance forcing you to permit smoking. You’d probably deem it more respectful of liberty if those who wanted to smoke sought a restaurant owner who permitted smoking. The identical argument can be made about a restaurant owner who permits smoking in a city where nonsmokers have the political power. The issue is not whether smoking harms others. The issue is the rights associated with property ownership.

    The emerging tragedy is our increased willingness to use the coercive powers of government, in the name of health or some other ruse, to forcibly impose our preferences upon others. In the whole scheme of things, the tobacco issue itself is trivial. Far more important is its template for massive government disrespect for private property.

    John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

  18. When Notre Dame faces Baylor tonight in Denver to decide the national championship in Division I women’s basketball, you can be sure that ESPN will have more than hoops on the menu. If past results are any indicator of future performances, tonight’s telecast will probably come with a heaping helping of Title IX advocacy — just the sort of advocacy that won’t deign to acknowledge the profound damage the use of gender quotas to enforce the law has done to men’s sports.

    But ESPN’s efforts to smother any discussion of the deleterious impacts of Title IX enforcement won’t stop with effusive praise for the law from their on-air talent. Just a few days ago,, in conjunction with its women’s sports website, ESPNw, rolled out a microsite called The Power of IX as the “digital hub” of its efforts to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the passage of Title IX.

    As you might have guessed, the microsite features plenty of adulatory coverage of the law, including an interview with President Obama, a personal essay about the law from Katie Couric and an analysis of how female coaches are having a tough time competing with their male counterparts for jobs coaching women’s teams. Missing is any discussion of how countless men’s athletic programs have been cancelled due to Title IX quotas, including men’s swimming at UCLA. Before it was cancelled, the UCLA men’s swimming program produced 16 Olympic gold medalists.

    Needless to say, one has to wonder why a news organization like ESPN would ignore juicy stories like these, especially as it would seem that the 40th anniversary of the passage of the law might be a good time to reflect on the totality of its impacts instead of just one side of the story. Then again, why should we expect that when ESPN as a corporation has already taken a side in the Title IX debate?

    Why do I say that? One of the leaders in the effort to preserve the gender quota system used to enforce Title IX is the Women’s Sports Foundation. Along with groups like the National Women’s Law Center and the National Organization for Women, the WSF has been a stalwart when it comes to fighting efforts to reform the Title IX quota system while also working to expand it to American high schools.

    And when you go to the WSF website, you’ll see that both ESPN and ESPNw are listed as “Partners and Funders” and “Corporate Supporters.” That’s right, a corporation that has made billions of dollars in revenue airing advertising targeted at male sports fans is using those dollars to support a radical activist organization dedicated to limiting the ability of young men to participate in athletics at all.

    I’d be tempted to call ESPN’s actions ironic if they weren’t so cynical.

    Read more:

  19. Who’s in the mood to buy? I say we pool our money, rename it SUFA-town, USA, and appoint USW as mayor and D13 as sheriff. I, for my part, will put the liquor license to good use.


    And, by the way, owning your own town has to make you the freest person in the US, bar none – no property taxes, no public schools, no zoning laws, no cops, no politicians, no bureaucracy, etc. I bet Black Flag and LOI are seriously contemplating the move. Bidding starts at 100k.

  20. @ Mathius……….everyone here knows Al Gore and his antics……besides it is not global warming that is causing the problems……it is earthworms.

    Buck….I can appreciate the issue. What causes my heart burn is the “progressive” thing and how your litmus test is impact on the individual. Success, to you, means to give more because you have more to give and the impact is less. This, in my opinion, is regressive and does not stimulate the individual to be more independent….I see the opposite. But, that is your opinion. All this affirmative action and quotas and progressive taxation has made indentured servants out of the very people it is supposed to help.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not sure I’m following you on this Colonel — how is it regressive to provide that those who have the greatest ability should bear more of the burden?

      • He’s saying it’s regressive because the most “harm” is being done to the poorest in that they are being disincentivized to achieve/self-motivate. In effect, in his opinion, the “help” we are giving the less fortunate is actually bad because they become dependent on it, thus trapping them in the lower stratus.

        I’m open to hearing more about this argument. Though, to me, it seems like a case being made for massive reform of the welfare/etc system rather than a scrapping of the progressive tax system. (that is, the way the money is gathered is fine, but the way it is given out may not be).

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Up is down; black is white; progressive is regressive.

          Got it!

          • Just A Citizen says:



            Up is up

            Down is down

            Black is black

            White is white

            Progressive is Fascist

        • Correct Mathius……except one area, I am NOT against welfare. I am for making it true welfare for the truly needy and there needs to be a very strong litmus for qualification but this is another argument. And, yes, the program needs serious adjustment, I personally feel that the current system is fraudulent as a majority…and not as a minority, I base this on what I see and work with and what my significant other sees and works with on a daily basis. (She is a visually impaired teacher and is quitting this year because she is tired of the abuse she gets personally and she is tired of the entitlement attitude she deals with daily. And the public school system is losing a dedicated teacher.)

          In a flat tax system, the wealthy will provide more than the none wealthy. You wish to integrate economic impact on the individual as a form of fairness. I say that this is regressive in that there is no incentive for anyone to get off their ass. I disagree with you and the left that the majority of the poor want to do better. I do not think that is the issue at all. They are content to take for the most part and complain it is not enough. You want fairness, then make it equal. Not equal in the dollars one gets but equal in how to get those dollars. Expanding welfare and unemployment is not getting anyone off their ass….it is creating an entitlement society.

          I think that you have to get everyone involved with their dollars. Want to take tax breaks out,,,,,,then do it. ACROSS THE BOARD. Rich and poor alike. I firmly believe that the poor among us will grab their boot straps and work instead of waiting for the handouts.

          Crap, got on my soapbox again…..sorry sir.

      • At another two year college, a pregnant student had her baby five weeks early. Thus, she was given an accommodation and sent me her work online in order not to fall behind. When she returned, the other students were all excited to see the baby pictures. I inquired as to who was taking care of the baby. The 19-year-old told me her mother was watching the baby. I asked the student if she planned on registering for next term, and her excited response was, “Yes, and the financial aid office told me that my financial aid will be increased now that I am a single mother and my boyfriend does not live with me.” When I inquired if she intended to marry her boyfriend, she looked at me with disdain and quite emphatically said, “Not for a long time, if ever.”

        Thus, single motherhood is praised and rewarded while we the taxpayers shoulder the cost. I am reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report “Defining Deviancy Down” and his description of the “earthquake that shuddered through the American family in the past twenty years.” Since then, the demise of the traditional nuclear family has only worsened across all demographic and economic lines.

        Read more:

        • So your assertion is that we should apply economic pressure to “encourage” young women to marry men who they don’t want to marry?

          Because there’s nothing better for a child than to grow up in a two-parent household where the parents don’t love each other.

          • “So your assertion is that we should apply economic pressure”

            Wow!, up is down. What is the economic pressure? Oh, it’s that “free” money. I am asserting we should not pay women to make babies. I am stating the “Greater Society” is a disaster and will destroy the US, if allowed to continue. I am stating a fact, the poverty rate was dropping after the welfare reform passed under Clinton. Pelosi did away with it in the stimulus, requiring states that took welfare money to re-expand their welfare rolls. Think about that, if it was lowering the poverty rate, why would even a Democrat be against it? Maybe they like having a dependent class that looks to them as their providers? Maybe it’s simply vote buying?


          • Just A Citizen says:


            Let nature take its course.

          • No longer giving money to someone is not “economic pressure”, it is the removal of economic pressure. There was no call for subsidizing marriages, just a removal of subsidizing singleness.

  21. Conspiracy Theory..

    Obama is intimidating SCOTUS about ACA. Why would he go with this angle? A leak from SCOTUS on the first vote? And who would have leaked?


    • Buck the Wala says:

      Enough with the conspiracy theories!!!

      Nothing was leaked. Obama is not trying to intimidate/influence SCOTUS in his remarks. There is no angle. Obama’s comments were (1) in answer to a question posed to him and (2) all about his campaign for re-election.

      • Part of the conspiracy is that the question was planted 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Ah of course, how could I miss that part!?

          • Did we ever address the accusation that he raped and murdered a young woman in 1990?

            • Tisk, tisk..stay on topic..intimidating SCOTUS

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Look, even if Obama’s remarks where intended as an attempt to influence SCOTUS’ decision in this case, do you really believe this to be of any consequence? Do you really believe SCOTUS would be intimidated by a President saying that he believes a law to be perfectly constitutional and that past notions of judicial restraint would require the law to be upheld?

                If you truly believe SCOTUS could be intimated by a President’s remarks on his own thoughts of where a case should lie, that really says something about how far our political system has fallen.

              • I think that the conservative justices are thinking “b**ch, please”. But he could very well be swaying the liberal judges. So when the verdict comes out 5-4 that will keep the country in fits..just like he wants. Hopefully it will come out something like 6-3. That would at least keep tensions more under control.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, we agree! That’s exactly what I would guess would be the outcome: 6-3 CONSTITUTIONAL!


            • What the hell are you talking about? Everyone knows that in 1990 he was not even on earth….sheesh.

      • LOL…you are correct Buck….there have been several Presidents that have tried to influence the SCOTUS…up to and including trying an end run to appoint additional SCOTUS judges. I do not excuse however, a sitting President (regardless of party) for trying to further his agenda through intimidation and that is what he is trying to do. Put pressure on the SCOTUS by remarks of being non elected and that to over turn it is not what a SCOTUS should do. Even if the SCOTUS is charged with constitutionality. Do I think he has been forewarned….obviously I cannot prove it…but yes, I can think it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So, where do you rank Obama’s comment amongst all Presidents’ attempts to influence SCOTUS?

          • Cannot give him first place…..probably have to give that to Roosevelt and Taft……Obama’s are just comments…Roosevelt and Taft tried things. Jackson also comes to mind……so…..fourth or fifth place.

            (Mind you I am not talking about the appointment procedure…I do not know of a better procedure but unfortunately, Justices are going to be appointed by the influence that is there…not because they are good Jurists).

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Where do you rank the liberal court members openly looking like they were propping up the Govt’s case when the Solicitor fell flat on his face?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I don’t see that as being the case at all JAC.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Guess I shouldn’t be surprised by that!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC, take a listen to oral arguments from pretty much any case before SCOTUS and you will see much of the same thing from liberal and conservative justices. Remember: decisions are more often than not decided upon by motion prior to oral arguments.

              • USWeapon says:

                100% agree Buck. Having, in past degree programs, been forced to take different levels of law courses (business law for business degrees, nothing approaching the legal stuff you had to do…) I had the opportunity to review a ton of SCOTUS cases, their transcripts, and their impacts. One thing I always noted was that the oral arguments very often go exactly as we saw in this instance. And I also noticed that very often it appeared that the case decisions were actually made prior to oral arguments, and the oral arguments were really nothing more than a last opportunity to sway the decisions with some new angle that the SCOTUS justices hadn’t considered…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Oral arguments are also another opportunity for the justices to sway one another towards their viewpoint. Then a preliminary vote is taken and justices go off to write their opinions. Then they work towards getting other justices to switch initial decisions and join their opinion.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So your lawyers interpretation is that the question CAUSED the particular answer?

        He is absolutely trying to intimidate the court, along with the Republicans. Part of that is to keep his base MAD AS HELL and SCARED TO DEATH.

        • Mathius™ says:

          OK, I was trying to steer clear of this whole thing, but I give up. What, exactly, was said? Do you have a video or transcript?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            The crux of Obama’s remarks:

            “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said on Monday. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

            • Mathius™ says:

              How is that intimidation? Will listen to Anita’s Mark Levin video before passing final judgment though.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Ok, listening to Levin. I’m ready to call it.

              Verdict HORSE SH*T.

              What a crock this “intimidation” is. I’m done with this.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Aren’t you so glad you wound up tuning in to this discussion?

              • But, but….I really like this comment…

                Can you imagine Constitutional law professor Obama in oral arguments on this before the Supreme Court in place of Solicitor General Vernelli? “Er … um … damn teleprompter … I think the mandate is constitutional because … er … um …. damn teleprompter … even Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted for it in exchange of funding for a hospital and … er … um …. damn teleprompter … a 219 to 216 vote in the House is a huge majority.”

              • Mathius™ says:

                Buck: No. I wish I could have those minutes of my life back. Can we go back to talking about D13’s earthworms-causing-tornadoes-theory?

                Anita: Isn’t it amazing how he can simultaneously be a dithering idiot incapable of a single coherent sentence and a political mastermind orchestrating the most elaborate and masterful geopolitical conspiracy that the world has ever known in order to take away your rights?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No…my interpretation is that there is no conspiracy here.

          Obama was asked a question and he made some comments in response. Was the intent to intimidate/influence SCOTUS?? No, I do not believe so; I believe the intent, as you put it, was to rile up the base a bit for his re-election.

          And, even if Obama’s intent was to intimidate/influence SCOTUS, I do not believe it will have any effect.

  22. Poor Notre Dame…….before it wins a title, it is going to have to play someone other than a Texas team….lost last year and this year to Texas teams……congrats Baylor Lady Bears….40-0 is an accomplishment. (Cut me some slack, we do have bragging rights here).

  23. On the Tuesday broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele declared that tornadoes plowing through the Dallas-Fort Worth area were brought on by climate change.

    Steele, formerly of The Weather Channel, also predicted that more extreme weather is on its way.

    “It really is [such a strange spring],” Steele said. “That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. You know, extremes are kind of ruling the roost and really what we are seeing, more become the norm.”

    “CNN Newsroom” host Carol Costello said it made her “afraid” about what is in store for next spring.

    “It might be unnaturally cold,” said Costello. Steele agreed that future weather would be less predictable.

    “This global warming is really kind of a misnomer,” Steele said. “It’s global climate change. So the colds are colder and warms are warmer and severe is more severe.”

    Read more:

    • Climate Change, Act Three
      By Jeffrey Folks

      Once upon a time, it was the contention of global warming alarmists that the earth was getting warmer — a lot warmer. Now, after decades of such claims, the evidence points to a world that is, for the present at least, growing colder. When that fact became evident, alarmists shifted the ground of their argument. The earth’s climate was not necessarily getting warmer; it was just “changing,” and that was somehow a bad thing. No matter that the climate had been changing for more than four billion years, ever since the earth’s formation.

      Not to be deterred, climate alarmists insist that the climate is changing in new ways — for example, in the “extreme weather” that has purportedly struck the U.S. since 2005. Focusing on Hurricane Katrina in that year and an outbreak of deadly tornadoes in 2011, alarmists contend that the weather is becoming more extreme and that climate change is the cause.

      The facts undercut this claim. Only one hurricane has made landfall on the U.S. mainland since 2005, while tornado deaths in the 2000s were the least of any decade on record. Heightened media coverage of extreme weather events, not the weather itself, has made it appear that climate change is reaching epic proportions.

      This is precisely the intent of such coverage: to manufacture a crisis so as to facilitate government takeover of large segments of the economy. In reality, the climate is no more extreme than it has been in the past. The deadliest hurricane in American history remains the great Galveston storm of 1900. The worst tornado was the Tri-State storm of 1925, which killed nearly 700 persons. The Joplin tornado of 2011 was the only U.S. tornado to kill more than 100 persons since 1953. It is true that lower death tolls are mostly the result of improved forecasting and warning systems, but if climate change really were producing monster storms of Al Gore proportions, death tolls would be higher than they are. The fact is that there were F-5 tornadoes in the past, and there are F-5 storms today. Today’s storms are no stronger or more destructive than in the past.

      The plain truth is that there has been no documented increase in the severity of storms in the U.S., or anywhere else, as a consequence of climate change. There has, however, been an explosion in the intensity of media coverage devoted to extreme weather events

      Read more:

    • I am telling you,,,,it is the earthworms.

      • Well why did you ever think it was a good idea to cross breed them with raptors?

        Btw, here is a conversion I had today about a report I produce:
        Boss’s Boss: Make the font bigger.
        Me: There’s no more space on the page.
        Boss’s Boss: just do it.
        Me: Can I remove some of the data to make room?
        Boss’s Boss: No. Everything has to be there.
        Me: Then data will be pushed off the page. Can I split this onto to pages?
        Boss’s Boss: No. Keep it on one page.
        Me: Then can I change the layout to try to stack it differently?
        Boss’s Boss: No. Keep the layout.
        Me: Can I rotate the page to landscape?
        Boss’s Boss: No. Portrait.
        Me: Can I use a bigger page? Say 14×11 rather than 8.5×11?
        Boss’s Boss: No. Regular paper.
        Me: So you want the same data on the same size page in the same layout on one page with a bigger font, even though there’s no more space? Did I get that correct?
        Boss’s Boss: Yes.
        Me: HOW?
        Boss’s Boss: Just do it. I don’t want your excuses.

        And then I shot myself in the head.

        • It was an experiment. How did I know that the “Earthwormoraptor” would get as far south as the Comanche Peak Nuclear Facility?

          • Oh…please do not turn me in to the EPA….I did not get prior approval on cross breeding…..I got them all rounded up except for one known to be burrowing towards New York.

        • Sounds like some of my economic debates on HuffPo…

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You too?

            Don’t ya just love it when you present all kinds of data and the economic facts behind a statement and they respond with:

            “Why don’t you take an Econ 101 class”!!

            • Yea, I usually respond with a story from my econ 101 class wherein my professor was a blithering idiot who thought I was a fool for recommending buying gold at $234 per ounce. Since that time he has lost his retirement and his Z3, whereas my buddy who bought gold used a small portion of it to pay off his house, and is now debt free.

        • charlieopera says:

          That’s becuase your boss went to an amateur. I’m a professional word processor. I would’ve told him where to shove the paper, it’s font and his data … he would’ve fired me and later that day probably tripped down the subway stairs … or, if he doesn’t take the subway, slipped while getting into his limo and banged his head off the door’s edge.

          This is how crime novels begin … good job, Matt!

  24. Top Ten Deadliest Tornadoes in Texas (since 1900)

    The deadliest tornado in Texas history struck shortly after 4 pm on the day after Mother’s Day in 1953. It touched down north of the town of Lorena and began moving North-Northeast toward Waco. On a radar screen at Texas A&M University, the tornadic storm developed a hook shaped echo. Nearly 1/3 of a mile wide, the massive F5 tornado crossed Waco on a path that ran almost south to north, killing 114 persons and injuring 597. It destroyed around 600 homes and other buildings and damaged over 1000, including 2000 vehicles. Some of the survivors had to wait up to 14 hours for rescue.


    The second deadliest tornado in Texas killed 114 persons,the same as Waco, but is rated number two since with 250 injuries, it injured fewer people. It is believed to have touched down just before 4 pm near Berclair, about 15 miles southwest of Goliad, and moved on a track toward the northeast. About 1/8 of a mile wide, the F4 tornado crossed the San Antonio River southwest of Goliad and moved into the town. Most of the deaths occurred in the west part of Goliad, where hundreds of buildings were destroyed.


    The third deadliest tornado in Texas history, like the first and second, occurred well south of what is generally considered Tornado Alley. This F5 tornado touched down 3 miles to the northwest of Rocksprings, in Edwards County, and moved toward the southeast. Nearly 1 mile wide as it crossed Rocksprings, it destroyed 235 of the 247 buildings in the town. It killed 74 people and injured 205, almost 1/3 of the population. Clearing Rocksprings, it continued southeastward at least 35 miles and perhaps as far as 65 miles.


    The fourth deadliest tornado in Texas history also moved through western Oklahoma and dissipated near St. Leo, Kansas. Part of a family of deadly twisters, it touched down 5 miles northwest of Pampa and crossed just northwest of Canadian, nearly parallel to US 60. It’s funnel was reported at times to be between 1 and 2 miles wide. Just before crossing into Oklahoma, it destroyed the town of Glazier and most of the town of Higgins. It killed 17 and injured 40 in Glazier and 51 persons were killed, 232 injured in Higgins. Final totals across three states were 181 killed and 970 injured.


    One of the most infamous of Texas Tornadoes, this huge F4 first touched down about 3 miles northeast of Holliday, a town lying southwest of Wichita Falls, where it damaged homes and businesses. Crossing into Wichita Falls, it severely damaged Memorial Stadium, followed by Mc Neil Junior High, and then entered the residential part of the city. It damaged a shopping center and numerous vehicles, then proceeded across US 287 where it destroyed additional vehicles. At times it was a mile and a 1/2 wide. It continued northeast from Wichita Falls, past the Red River and into Oklahoma where it dissipated north of Waurika. It killed 42 people in Wichita Falls, 25 of those deaths were vehicle related. It caused over 1700 injuries, destroyed over 3000 homes and left 20,000 homeless.


    This F4 tornado touched down near Bynum, in Hill County, crossed into Navarro County east of Mertens, struck the town of Frost, where it killed at least 25 persons. Continuing toward the northeast, it caused additional deaths south of Rankin, south of Bardwell. It then crossed into Ellis County and killed citizens of Ennis. Its total death toll was 41, with over 200 persons injured.


    Tornado number 7 occurred on the same day as the Frost tornado. It touched down 3 miles northwest of Kenedy in Karnes County. Moving to the east-northeast, it crossed 3 miles south of Runge and dissipated 3 miles south of Nordheim. Along its path, this F4 tornado encountered numerous weakly constructed homes and shelters that provided little safety. This is the reason for a death toll as high as 36 with 60 injuries.


    Tornado number 8 formed somewhere close to the town of Zephyr, in Brown County, near midnight and destroyed large parts of the town during the early morning hours, leaving little to view except vacant lots. Not much is known of the tornado path, except that most deaths occurred in the residential areas on the south and east sides of the town. Rated an F4, the tornado damaged nearly 50 homes, 6 businesses, 2 churches, and a high school. It killed 34 and injured 70.


    Tornado number 9 touched down 2 miles southwest of Saragosa in Reeves County, and moved northeastward for 3 miles. 1/2 mile wide as it crossed over Saragosa, the F4 tornado destroyed more than 80% of the town, killed 30 residents and injured 121. 22 of the deaths occurred at the Guadalupe Hall where a group had gathered for a children’s graduation ceremony. Most of these deaths were among the parents and grandparents who shielded children from the debris with their bodies.


    The Jarrell tornado is the last confirmed F5 tornado in the state of Texas. This tornado followed an usual path, moving to the south-southwest and has revived studies on the role of gravity waves on thunderstorm initiation. This storm killed 27 persons (injuring 12 more) and hundreds of cattle. More than 40 homes were completely destroyed, some of which were completely removed from their foundations.


    The Lubbock tornado formed over the southwest corner of the city and touched down just south of the downtown area. It tracked toward the northeast near US 87, just east of the Texas Tech campus, and continued for 8 miles before lifting. It destroyed over 1000 homes and apartment units, 10,000 vehicles and over 100 aircraft. It killed 26 persons and injured 500. This tornado was studied and mapped in detail by Professor Fujita, and was an important key in the development of his Fujita Scale. It was rated F5 on this scale.

    Other Tornadoes Since 1900 that have caused more than a dozen deaths in Texas, according to ‘Significant Tornadoes’ are:
    Date Counties Deaths Injuries F-rating
    July 5, 1905 Montague 18 40 4
    April 26, 1906 Clay,Montague 17 50 4
    April 8, 1919 Collin,Fannin 18 60 4
    April 9, 1919 Henderson,Van Zandt 17 60 4
    April 9, 1919 Cook,Camp,Titus 24 100 4
    April 8, 1922 Runnels,Coleman,Callahan 12 90 3
    May 4, 1922 Travis 12 50 4
    May 14, 1923 Howard,Mitchell 23 250 5
    May 9, 1927 Collin 19 100 4
    May 9, 1927 Dallas 15 40 4
    March 30, 1933 Angelina,Nacogdoches, San Augustine 13 150 3
    February 8, 1935 Leon, Houston 12 70 2
    June 10, 1938 Callahan 14 40 5
    January 4, 1946 Anderson 15 60 4
    March 13, 1953 Haskill,Knox 17 60 4
    May 11, 1953 Tom Green 13 159 4
    May 15, 1957 Briscoe 20 80 4
    April 18, 1970 Swisher,Briscoe,Armstrong,Donley,Gray 17 41 4

    But wait…the majority of these were before global warming…..or is it now that global warming is going to be retroactive.

    • naten53 says:

      you mean to tell me that all those tornados that hit the south and midwest every spring and summer are not due to climate change because tornados hit the south and midwest every spring and summer? Huh, you must be some sort of scientist to make that connection.

  25. @ Buck…..”Look, even if Obama’s remarks where intended as an attempt to influence SCOTUS’ decision in this case, do you really believe this to be of any consequence? ”

    D13: Nope

    Question…I am confused on the 5th Circuit issue…..any enlightenment here? I do not understand why they are even involved. I must have missed something rounding up my Earthwormoraptors.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The 5th circuit is hearing a case involving suit against Obama Care. So the judge is demanding a Justice Dept opinion as to whether they think the Court has the authority to rule on the case.

      Sneaky Texan way of telling Justice and Mr. Obama to KISS MY ASS.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not familiar with the 5th Circuit issue here – will try to look into it some later today. For now….meetings loom…and coffee is scarce…

  26. Charlie,

    Here’s one you and I can both probably totally agree on.

    It’s not one stupid wannabe but an entire police force.As much as I don’t trust the “NY Daily News”, this is one of those stories that if 10% is correct on, a whole bunch of people ought to, at the very least, lose jobs and pensions. I don’t expect much more to come of it though. That incident with the black Pace University student up in Westchester pretty much demonstrated that.

    • charlieopera says:

      We agree. That’s the limit, 3x’s in two days. I can’t continue … the world is upside down.

      Or should I adjust? Like one of my hitman characters (Tommy Burns) says: “It’s the way of the moden world.”

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Re your assertion or intimation that SCOTUS can not be intimidated.

    Do you forget that we are dealing with an expanded definition of the commerce clause (your living document theory at its best) that was created by the SCOTUS REVERSING itself AFTER FDR attempted to stack the court with new members?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I never said SCOTUS cannot be intimidated. I said two things: 1) I do not believe Obama’s intent here was to try to intimidate SCOTUS and 2) even if Obama’s intent was to intimidate SCOTUS, I do not believe SCOTUS would be intimidated by Obama’s comments.

      I wish I can take credit for living document theory, but sadly I cannot — gotta reach back all the way to the founding fathers for that (coincidentally, also the birthplace of strict constructionist theory)!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        His PRIME means of governing is by intimidation.

        Create crisis, identify the enemy, isolate, motivate the fear and loathing, set the minions loose against the target.

        This has been his style from day one.

        He was absolutely trying to intimidate SCOTUS, but they were not the only target. It was a “group shot”.

        It may not work this time. But the backlash created if they overturn this, largely thanks to the DNC and Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, could influence future decisions. By both SCOTUS and Congress. That is his purpose.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “His PRIME means of governing is by intimidation.”

          Once again, I just don’t see that as being the case either.

          “It may not work this time. But the backlash created if they overturn this, largely thanks to the DNC and Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, could influence future decisions.”

          So if SCOTUS overturns the ACA, any backlash is Obama’s fault for his rhetoric and attempted intimidation of the Court, and if SCOTUS affirms the ACA, it is Obama’s fault for intimidating the Court into reaching this decision? How convenient!

  28. Department of Justice Drops Appeal and Pays Pro-life Sidewalk Counselor

    Washington, DC – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped its appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this improper lawsuit. The DOJ had unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Susan Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (“PWC”) abortion clinic.

    After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised for filing a case with no evidence. Federal Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp stated that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their joint failure to preserve video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest level of the Obama Administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.” After this ruling the DOJ appealed on the last day possible and gave indication that President Obama ordered the appeal.

    Read more:

  29. @ Mathius…….see? I told you. All that discussion up there about this and that….and the earthworm saga continues. Besides, I bet I can prove my earthworm theory better than Gore can prove his GW theory. I just don’t get the money….but wait……..I can apply for a stimulus package on earthworm theory. I will get more results than the green projects that are going bankrupt and Obama can use this for another green project. Like his pond scum theory…..(get ready for it)…………Earthwormoraptor droppings. Seeing as how they picked up some radiation from Comanche Peak……they will have an eternal source of power….and….glow in the dark. Whadda ya think?

    • Wait….it gets better…….since they glow in the dark, we can turnoff some lights and save oil….huh ? Huh ?…As good as anybody else. I can see the marketing strategy now…..a mandate for……..(here it comes)…….Earthwormoraptor Dookie Power. (Geez, I crack me up and all this without RB or Buck’s coffee).

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Afternoon Colonel.

      Re your comments on worms and massive storms. Just wanted to share this with everyone.

      I can tell ya from personal experience that surviving one of these when caught out in the open will make you FEEL ALIVE like you have never felt before. That is once your hair stops standing on end.

      P.S> I was glad I didn’t have a metal bat in my hands at the time. But words of wisdom to those of you who trek in the woods. A baseball cap has a little metal button under that cloth knobby thing on top. IT WILL PICK UP LIGHTNING CHARGES FROM A DOWNSTRIKE NEAR YOU. SO WILL A FISHING ROD. AND IT HURTS LIKE HELL WHEN IT HAPPENS.

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    My response to your following to me re. sports and the Ivy League:

    You: It’s Crony Capitalism – the only type of Capitalism that exists because your beloved “Truly Free Market Capitalism” will never exist.
    Me: Yes, it is crony capitalism. We agree, although I hate the fuzziness of that name. But I will go with you on that. As for the second part, that is false. It has existed in the past and it does exist in small scales today. It is true it has not existed at a National Scale ever since the STATISTS took control of the world. However, NEVER is a very, very short time from now.

    My original: Although I think sports is just one means of creating that alma mater spirit that keeps the money flowing. Look at the big bucks the Ivy League pulls in and their sports teams are pretty much mediocre. The “Fraternal” connections, which lead to enhanced business connections keep the money flowing in that case.

    You: So why does this matter JAC? We’re talking about sports here. I don’t have a problem with people who support universities for EDUCATION, do you? I give to my alma mater, but not the sports programs.

    Or do you just need to get in a cheap shot at those bastions of terrible “liberal education” Ivy League schools?

    Me: USW nailed it here Todd. I was simply pointing out that the big bucks surrounding sports is NOT the only driver for having sports. We agree that this money corrupts and we all participate. But I was simply pointing out that sports HELP create part of that “family” feel of a college that can help with fundraising. But it does not need to be corrupted to create large income itself. Not when other means, such as the Ivy League schools have, exist.

    I was actually complimenting the Ivy League. And reading my comments again I am still puzzled how you could see that as criticism or some “cheap shot”.

    My original: How funny you used Social Darwinism in your comment when POTUS is throwing the same term around this morning to attack Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Coincidence or subliminal messaging?

    You: I haven’t seen that JAC, but I guess great minds think alike!

    Me: Then I will chalk it up to coincidence. For the record, I think far more of YOUR intellectual capacity than that of the POTUS. But don’t let it go to your head.

  31. Unbelievable……there is a GW expert on CNN saying that since Texas never has tornado’s….this round of tornado’s is a sign of global warming. Apparently, this individual from Sweden has not checked things very thoroughly…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      there is a GW expert on CNN

      How can one be an expert on something that does not exist? Only if it appears on one of the Corporate Whore Race Pimp networks!!!!

%d bloggers like this: