Because It’s Offensive to be Thought Stupid

Greetings SUFA. I have a theory that I would like to present regarding political discourse in America and the bitter divide that exists between so many Americans and further between Americans and the politicians that are supposed to represent them. I made the following claim some time back to Charlie Stella: “I believe the primary reason that people seeking some sort of social justice like you have thus far failed in your quest, is that you continue to use irrational logic and emotional appeal in your claims, while calling us names and treating us like we are stupid for having a different belief.” I am going to attempt to expand on that statement and make my case regarding this theory. I look forward to the thoughts any of you may add.

One of the great things about small children is that they lack filters. They will say exactly what they think  and act exactly how they feel. As such they are a great window into the human patterns. If a young person wants something they scream to get it. If you make them mad, they will stubbornly oppose you on everything regardless of facts or reason. We have all witnessed this in children, and we tend to chalk it up to immaturity. But I think this is incorrect. I believe that the stubbornness of children is human nature, not immaturity. And while many believe that we grow out of this phase eventually, I believe that it is still there, buried inside us as adults.

As a result of this, we react in much the same way as children when discussing issues that are important to us. The only difference is that as adults, we are more educated and better at rationalizing our reactions. We don’t clap our hands over our ears and refuse to listen (well most of us don’t anyway), but we are every bit as stubborn and every bit as unreasonable under the right circumstances. Further we hold that grudge over the offending issue for much longer. Go back and watch small children. They don’t resolve their issues at all, because rational discussion is impossible for them. The only difference is the grudge doesn’t last as long. They will move on to building a new fort and forget the argument. We adults won’t take that step.

Now apply this to today’s political discourse. In doing so you will see what I believe is the great downfall of American politics. Those presenting the arguments have resorted to doing so in the most baseless way possible. Gross exaggerations, spastic generalizations, mean spirited accusations, and pure emotional appeal have become the tactic of the day. One need look no further than the very men and women chosen to represent us and the very medium meant to inform us to see the glaring proof of these tactics:

  • GOP claims that what Democrats want is a Soviet style of communism
  • Democrat claims that Republicans don’t care about anyone but the elite rich, coupled with their narrative painting all upper class members as immoral monopoly men intent on stealing from the poor.
  • The portrayal of laws requiring proper ID to vote as intentional attempts to disenfranchise poor voters
  • The portrayal of laws requiring proof of citizenship as equal to the Nazi’s asking for your papers
  • The overwhelming (and this one is so big it almost deserves its own article for inclusion) GOP tactic of fostering fear of terrorism to justify gross injustices such as the Patriot Act
  • The entire global warming debate and the claims of doomsday approaching despite history showing otherwise
  • GOP claims of “defending marriage” that include the idea that allowing to same sex people who are in love to marry will lead to bestiality or that it somehow lowers the status of traditional marriages (a bar which has already been set pretty damn low in my opinion)
  • Any political topic regarding children from either side

These are just a few of the wide range of examples. We all know that I could offer a list that went on for days and that the list would have tons of examples from both political parties and the media.

And what makes matters worse is that neither side bothers to hide the fact that they are well aware that while emotional appeal is a dirty tactic in regular debate, it is a winning strategy to win the debate in political discourse. Take for example this opening to an article on one the left’s largest sites:

When it comes to the structure of arguments, getting someone to accept your claims simply because they trigger emotions such as anger and outrage is a fallacious approach to debate. In politics though, appealing to emotion is a very critical component of a successful campaign. And it’s something that, after all of these years, still hasn’t sunk in with the Democratic Party as a consistently winning strategy.

Let us look past the ridiculous idea that Democrats haven’t embraced emotional appeal as a winning strategy while the GOP has (when in reality both have in different ways). It seems, the majority of the time, it is the ONLY strategy employed by either party in any large debate topic.

The point is this: For most people (and by most people I do not mean politicians and MSM folks), when they enter a true discussion on an issue, they do so with the intent of discussing it rationally and relying on the facts and talking about the true potential consequences of the actions in question. But this quickly devolves into a hate filled diatribe that alienates the two sides from one another.

This is because none of us like to be thought of as stupid. Allow me to offer an example or two of this happening to me.

The 1% debate: I get it, there are some bad rich people out there. I also get that the bad rich people have far too much influence in Washington DC. But the second that you ignore that the “evil rich” pay the lion’s share of taxes or that you insinuate to me that we should pass laws to punish all wealthy people, with zero regard to how hard many of them worked to get there and how many of them did so without some mythical advantage or immoral actions, you have stated to me that you think that I am so dumb that I cannot see the flaws in your argument. I now become less inclined to even discuss the topic with you. Further, since I can see that you are irrational and unable to see these other things that I see, I will generally oppose all your solutions immediately, because I deem you unable to do so without emotion.

The Gay Marriage debate: I get it, you don’t think its natural for same sex couples to marry. You think that the only reason for marriage is to propagate the species, therefore a union that cannot result in birth is obviously against the laws of nature and forbidden. But when you make this argument, you falsely claim that this is the purpose of marriage. We don’t need marriage to have kids, that much is certainly clear. Marriage is a statement of dedication and love to another person that matters to us. Sex with the potential for children has nothing to do with it, unless of course you believe that people who are sterile also should not be allowed to enter into the “sacred union.” Perhaps the church should outlaw hysterectomies and vasectomies, the way they have contraception, as well? After all, they don’t occur in nature. Further, the government is firmly entrenched in the “sanctity of marriage,” through special recognition and benefits. For those screaming about the separation of church and state being so important, outlawing gay marriage because it violates the christian faith is the most ridiculous removal of a barrier between church and state I have seen. Ignoring all this when it is so clear means that you either think that I am stupid or that you refuse rational discourse. Either one makes me not want to further discuss it with you.

Illegal Immigration Debate: I get it, you think that it is wrong to deny those who are here any of the government goodies that the rest of us get. But the second that you ignore that you scream for removal of his rights because George Zimmerman broke the law (or didn’t, I don’t want to start that up again) while ignoring that they broke the law entering our country without the proper procedure, you kind of bury yourself. Further, if you disagree with the immigration policy, muster up the support to change the law, but don’t simply decide that this law should be ignored while so many others should be followed to the letter. You either believe that the rule of law is the proper way to keep a civil society or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose. That you ignore these things makes me believe that you think I am stupid, despite all that you are ignoring. I will tend to hold onto that grudge, cause we don’t have the ability to find some sheets and start a new fort.

Climate Change: Perhaps the biggest one of all for me. It certainly makes me think that you assume I am really, really stupid when you state that a two degree rise will destroy us all when history shows that it has been much warner than that in the past. It certainly makes me feel that way again when you ignore the fact that the “science” we are supposed to believe is found to be fraudulent in some cases and mistaken in others. When you propose trillions of dollars in spending to combat something that we don’t have any evidence what-so-ever that we can affect, while simultaneously screaming that we need to spend trillions taking care of the “99%” and fighting so many attempts to spend on things that we obviously CAN impact, It appears irrational to me. In fact, that you believe I will change my mind in spite of the sheer multitude of flaws in nearly every aspect of man made climate change “proof” is certainly a statement of what you think of my critical thinking ability.

Health Care: Another of the big ones for me. I get it, you believe every person should have the ability to receive health care no matter their economic status. You will find that a great many people who oppose the recent health care legislation attempts agree that it is a good goal to have. However, when you blatantly ignore all the aspects of the situation that are found that are negative, and when you further ridicule me as though I am stupid for thinking that a panel that determines what care will or won’t be made available to me is an awful lot like a “death panel,” it gets me angry. If there is any topic over the last two years that has brought out our inner child on both sides, it is this one. Those on the left need to stop acting as though government is a benevolent group of people who would never put a law in place that do bad things in the name of the greater good. Those on the right need to stop acting as though there aren’t rational ways for us to implement something that ensures everyone can receive basic care. There will be more on this topic coming as Buck has provided to me his thoughts on a single payer system and I will be answering his thoughts and we will together be publishing an article discussing the issue…

But I think you get the point. I think that we are all flawed in certain parts of our beliefs. But I will address this from my personal experiences here at SUFA. I have tried really hard over the last three years to present my beliefs, for public consumption no less, so that they can be debated and argued, and I can make changes to what I believe when a logical point is made. Despite the fact that I have altered my stance on some important topics over that time, there are still several here that believe I am nothing but an ideologue who toes either the GOP line or the Black Flag line, depending on the day and topic. In my opinion, that means that you think that I am stupid, because to be an ideologue and ignore the arguments on either side out of hand is just that…. stupid.

It is frustrating to be thought stupid when I know, even if no one on SUFA agrees, that I am a pretty smart guy who tries to look at all sides of every issue. I have said this before, and it bears repeating: I don’t write my thoughts on SUFA to change everyone who reads them to believing what I believe. On the contrary, I have done so for the past three years to challenge what I believe, have it attacked and debated, so that I am able to increase the knowledge I have and make better decisions about what I believe. To that end, I have encountered two distinctly different reactions:

There are those who generally agree with a lot of my thoughts. Those folks, JAC is a good example, treat me with respect despite often disagreeing with me. As a result they present me with rational argument, devoid of name calling or emotional attacks. And because of that reaction, I have learned a lot and they have managed to change my opinion on some subjects and I have been able to do the same with some of their opinions.

There are those who generally don’t agree with a lot of my thoughts. Those folks, and I won’t provide an example 🙂 , tell me I am stupid, or worse accuse me of being intentionally dishonest. They work to destroy my credibility by claiming I am an ideologue, a shill for the GOP, or whatever works. And because of that reaction, they and I find it relatively difficult to accomplish anything in debate. I often feel I am too busy writing ten paragraphs to re-affirm what I actually believe before I can even get to the point of debating the topic on merits. As a result, we learn nothing from each other and never learn to see each other’s positions.

There are times, when those in category two end up in category one on an issue. Charlie is a great example of this. Once Charlie and I find a way to be civil, stop accusing each other of believing something that we don’t, and debating the merits, we actually start to understand where the other one is coming from, even if that doesn’t result in either of us changing positions. The debate still ends up being productive. If nothing else we improve on our ability to defend our positions.

Now, I am going to be the first to admit here, that when things have not gone that way with Charlie, I am exactly 50% of the reason. While I am generally not quite as “caustic” as Chaz, I certainly have the ability to be as rude to him as he is to me. I much more enjoy when we get past that point (I will take credit for usually being the one to extend a truce and reset the anger with an apology when warranted 🙂  ) and begin to discuss things rationally. Charlie is a smart guy after all, and provides me with a far different perspective that what I have on my own.

And I hope that by reading those few times when Chaz and I have found common ground by respecting each other and having a debate focused on the issues instead of each other each of you has caught a glimpse of what I imagined SUFA to be when I started this website over three years ago. Those who have been around for many years can remember how much time I spent batting down hostility and demanding respectful conversation. You can remember how often I muttered the mantra that without civil discourse the gap would widen and we would never come together to combat the real enemies of freedom, big government fueled by corporate cronyism.

So I ask each of you to consider what I have put down on paper here (or on a keyboard in reality). SUFA was meant to be the one place on the web where people could come together and discuss topics with respect and using the facts rather than emotional pleas. People on both sides of the topics have gotten away from that. There are times when I have gotten away from that. I don’t want that to continue to be the case. Despite claims that SUFA has lost readership because of the opinions of certain people here, the reality is that SUFA has lost readership because we failed to live up to the standards of civil discourse this site was started with. In short, because we have failed to keep what made SUFA different in the beginning.

So buck up kids. Imagine that every person you talk to at SUFA is big enough or bad enough to punch you in the mouth and you couldn’t do a thing about it (because some at SUFA actually are…). And then imagine you are speaking to their face rather than across hundreds of miles. You would be surprised at how much more civil you will be if you do so and subsequently how much more you can get out of the conversation. If we can accomplish this I believe that SUFA will again grow in readership and we will again get something positive out of it. If not, I can promise that SUFA will end up going away no matter how much I try. After all, if there isn’t anything different and better about discussing things here, I don’t have the time to compete with all the other sites where civility isn’t present.

We aren’t children. We won’t bitterly disagree and start building a fort together five minutes later. The bitter divide in America exists because each side assumes the other side is simultaneously stupid and then fails to treat others with any respect as a result. That isn’t to say that we should lose all the passion we have for our subjects. But we can be passionate about what we believe without disrespecting one another. Further, we all lose our tempers once in a while and say something that is disrespectful. Take my cue and apologize when you calm down and realize that you have done so. Because even a child won’t learn anything from someone who continues to tell them nothing more than how stupid they are. Don’t fall into the trap that politicians and their pundits have set for us. Appealing to emotion is only a strong political tactic if we allow our emotions to be tweaked.

All of us here at SUFA have been coming here for years. And I have learned enough about each of you to know that you are better than this. None of you are stupid. LISTEN to the other side and debate them on the merits. You won’t learn anything from them if you don’t. And more important, you certainly won’t change their position unless you stop riling up that hidden trait we all have to tune out to the opinions of those who insult us.

Sorry for such a long article. Obviously this is a topic I am passionate about…


  1. charlieopera says:

    I often respond to posts here (from lack of time), a paragraph or thought at a time (i.e., respond before reading the entire post–time usually doesn’t permit me to do anything else). Today, as usual, I began responding before the olive branch paragraphs toward the bottom. This paragraph (the opener) is something I wrote at the end to forewarn/prepare the reader(s) so as not to offend. With that caveat, here I go:

    USW, you should have named this post It’s All About Me! No, not me (Charlie Stella), YOU, USW. The world is out to get you with irrational arguments? Was that the point of this post? No, I’m not reading your mind, just trying to figure out why you feel it so necessary to defend yourself sixteen times a day. We get it, YOU need to feel vindicated. You feel broadsided, you feel I (and some others) are not presenting rational enough arguments (even though we often feel you and some on your side do the same and/or that some of us (I at least) believe rational thought destroys the soul. Be that as it may … onward …

    But I think you get the point. I think that we are all flawed in certain parts of our beliefs. But I will address this from my personal experiences here at SUFA. I have tried really hard over the last three years to present my beliefs, for public consumption no less, so that they can be debated and argued, and I can make changes to what I believe when a logical point is made. Despite the fact that I have altered my stance on some important topics over that time, there are still several here that believe I am nothing but an ideologue who toes either the GOP line or the Black Flag line, depending on the day and topic. In my opinion, that means that you think that I am stupid, because to be an ideologue and ignore the arguments on either side out of hand is just that…. stupid.

    Okay, you’ve reiterated this about two hundred times now (including prior posts), but it is your ball …

    It is frustrating to be thought stupid when I know, even if no one on SUFA agrees, that I am a pretty smart guy who tries to look at all sides of every issue

    Okay, you’re a pretty smart guy … and?

    While I am generally not quite as “caustic” as Chaz, I certainly have the ability to be as rude to him as he is to me. I much more enjoy when we get past that point (I will take credit for usually being the one to extend a truce and reset the anger with an apology when warranted)

    There was a smiley face in there, which made me smile. Still, I think this is open to further debate … 🙂 … not that I want to do that.

    My response: I am honored once again to be a (note I didn’t say “the”) featured protagonist at SUFA. That said, I hear you, USW and will re-extend (I think it’s me who does this initially with you) the olive branch for civil discourse once again.

    The truce begins … Peace. Drinks on me. Go Bills!

    • I find I make that error on occasion too Charlie, I get riled up before I finish reading and start wrting stuff, usually I have to delete half of it. Also, time sometimes means a response of mine is cut short. I am verbose. I do very poorly with space limits, because I have a hard time getting my thought out clearly in less than 234,234,543 characters. That’s why I don’t do twitter. One thing I have discovered by spending some time on Huffington Post, is that their 250 word limit really makes me sound like an idiot at times. I cannot get a whole argument out in a lot of cases. I stay at it tho, in hopes I will learn to be more concise. I find I get a lot of harsh reactions there to my initial posts, but subsequent explanaitions tend to lead to calm discussions.

      Also, I find that I get VERY “passionate” and non-objective when blogging drunk. Thus I tend to avoid that, tho on occasion I still indulge in a comment or two after a bit of rum or gin….

    • USWeapon says:

      USW, you should have named this post It’s All About Me! No, not me (Charlie Stella), YOU, USW. The world is out to get you with irrational arguments? Was that the point of this post? No, I’m not reading your mind, just trying to figure out why you feel it so necessary to defend yourself sixteen times a day. We get it, YOU need to feel vindicated. You feel broadsided, you feel I (and some others) are not presenting rational enough arguments (even though we often feel you and some on your side do the same and/or that some of us (I at least) believe rational thought destroys the soul. Be that as it may … onward …

      Of course it is all about me 🙂 It is, after all, an article detailing my thoughts on the decline of civil discourse around politics. But the article wasn’t really meant to “defend myself” as much as those positions were offered as examples so that everyone would understand exactly why I feel the way I do on the subject. I ceratinly don’t need to feel vindicated either, although it is nice those few times it happens. I think that very often you (and some others) present tons of rational arguments. I also feel that you (and some others) offer other positions that don’t make a lot of rational sense. For the record, I understand that I sometimes present positions that don’t seem rational as well.

      I would like to better understand this concept that rational thought destroys the soul. I am not sure I understand the sentiment.

      Okay, you’ve reiterated this about two hundred times now (including prior posts), but it is your ball …

      I don’t think that reiterating that being an idealogue is not rational can happen too many times. Obviously, that concept, despite my mentioning it 200 times, still hasn’t completely sunk in with some folks yet…

      It is frustrating to be thought stupid when I know, even if no one on SUFA agrees, that I am a pretty smart guy who tries to look at all sides of every issue
      Okay, you’re a pretty smart guy … and?

      There is no “and”. I said it all with “it is frustrating to be thought of or called stupid when I think I am pretty smart.”

      My response: I am honored once again to be a (note I didn’t say “the”) featured protagonist at SUFA. That said, I hear you, USW and will re-extend (I think it’s me who does this initially with you) the olive branch for civil discourse once again.

      I only mentioned you in a good way in this article, Charlie. It was meant to be a compliment that when we both lose the emotion, we have some beneficial discussions.

      Perhaps we are 50/50 on extending the olive branch. I haven’t kept track, so I was just going on gut, which could be inaccurate.

      The truce begins … Peace. Drinks on me. Go Bills!

      Glad to hear it!

      • charlieopera says:

        Cool beans, USW. You’re too nice a guy for us to get dopey. I agree and will do my best.

        As to “Losing one soul” … it has to do with rational thought becoming the overwhelming factor in the decision process (in the sense it overrides some basic level of morality). Now, morality comes in many colors, I agree (we all have our own sense of it), but probably more lefties like myself feel rational thought presents too black and white a worldview and thus “can” eradicate “our” sense of morality (i.e., Valjean stole a loaf of bread therefore he is a criminal). The fact is he is a criminal for stealing a loaf of bread (rational thought); but (and I understand JAC will point to the admonishment/punishment phase for mitigating circumstances) but some (myself for one) feel in certain situations, although it is a crime, it is as justifiable as picking up a paycheck after working all week (irrational, no doubt, but it saves our soul to be able to justify a man saving himself/his family when there is no other out for them–no job, etc.). This was brought forward in a movie not long ago, with very conflicting opinions on the topic, (I forget the name of the movie, but Russell Crowe was in it, I think–not a very good movie) … in it he was a teacher and there was a classroom scene where he discusses Don Quixote and how rational though might cost us our souls (paraphrasing there: I think he actually said it kills or destroys the soul). There have been many discussions of it since becasue of the irrationality of Cervantes Quixote early in the novel and how he turns toward rational thought at the end while his sidekick turns to irrational behavior, etc.

        On another note: Do you believe what this clown Williams was caught saying on that tape about the 49’er players? Brother, I hope he never gets to coach another day in his life. Another former Bill … glad we fired him. We did one thing right.

        • USWeapon says:

          I truly appreciate the explanation on rational thought killing the soul. I completely understand that thought process and can see why you believe it. I am not sure where I fall on it. I will have to give it some honest thought (I have been sitting here thinking about it for the last 5 minutes with hours of thought to come I am sure). It is an interesting concept and one that I THINK I may agree with you on, but as I said, let me think on it.

          As for Williams… I listened to the tape this evening and sat here in complete shock. I absolutely understand that ruthless mentality of a NFL defense, but this was well over the line. I am with you 100%. I hope this guy never gets to coach another football game in his lifetime, at any level. I may be willing to accept him coaching in the California Penal League. Perhaps he can try to rattle Burt Reynolds at QB. But this guy is a frickin dirtbag, in my humble opinion.

          I am fairly positive that Goodell will never allow him back into the NFL. I hope he isn’t allowed to coach in college or HS either.

          • This is actually a subject very near and dear to my heart. It took me a lot of time and stress and thought and mental turmoil to reach the point I have on the emotion vs. reason/logic thing. Unless you intend to do one, USW, I would love to do a piece on this. I have started on the promised piece on worthy candidates, but I think I could type out something on this subject really quickly since the subject came up. It is incredibly important to core philosophy, and I would love to share my thoughts as well as get the feedback from others here on them. The soul, faith, reason, rationale, logic, emotion, etc. are all aspects of humanity, all parts of the mind. To deny or ignore any of them, or to put one in too high a position, is to invite disaster, be it the loss of the soul or the destruction of wisdom.

          • charlieopera says:

            I found a trailer that I think would permit an imbedding. Not sure until I load it.

          • charlieopera says:

            I’m wondering if there is anything legal any of the four players I heard Williams target can do about this. I didn’t know one of them has a father who is a coach or manager of the White Sox and he made a statement yesterday any father would make, then cut it short (very professionally). I don’t know, but this was as you said, way over the line. I was pretty shocked myself. Unbelievable, really.

  2. gmanfortruth says:


  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Speaking of Global Warming, just how many folks here believe in this? Regardless, lets not forget to lower our carbon footprint, or else :

  4. But, USW, I am just a retired old Colonel who knows nothing…………………………………………………………………I have your six.

  5. charlieopera says:

    I have you cannoli … and sfogliatelle!

    • what exactly is sfogliatelle?

      • I had to look that up,too- sounds delicious. But I think I’ll let charlie tell you-he has a way of talking about food that I don’t possess.

        • I know, I am awaiting his response because I think it will be better than whatever google has to say… 🙂

          • Just a little pressure 🙂 But he is a professional writer.

            • lol 😛
              Actually, it doesnt matter if its a better explaination, I just prefer talking to real people sometimes versus looking stuff up. Assuming you can accept the idea that blogging on the internet counts as “talking to real people”…

              • I definitely believe it is communicating with real people-I do try to remember it’s written words not talking- that lack of hearing can easily distort your meaning. Thank goodness for those little smiley faces-wish WordPress would make more available.

      • charlieopera says:

        It is the greatest piece of pastry in the world, Jon (prejudiced opinion aside) … it is the root cause of my heft … that, pizza and pasta …

        My wife is Half Irish (so I make exceptions) … the way she often butches the Italian language is heartbreaking … what she did with sfogliatelle … well, let’s just say I’m glad we don’t have Stand Your Ground in Jersey 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:


          Where can a guy get a half-way decent sfogliatelle stuck out here in NJ?? Used to go to this amazing place in Whitestone when I was in Queens, but its since changed hands. Also its a bit far of a drive for a pastry!

          • charlieopera says:

            Buck, my brother in libtardedness … here you go:

            Several locations: A&G Pork Store (I go to the one in Fords). I don’t know where they get them from or if they bake them at one location but they are wonderful (truly). I ordered a dozen for my mom’s easter torture session.

            They have locations in Warren, North Brunswick, Middlesex and Fords. A&G Italian Fine Foods (they also use).

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hmm…bit further off the beaten track for me. Anywhere a bit further north? Otherwise, I’ll be making a trip to Fords one afternoon!

              • charlieopera says:

                Plainsboro also. Fords # is 732-225-0885. Very nice guys work there. Moonachie Green & Blue fans, but I forgive them.

  6. Sorry-I know you said you didn’t want to bring this up again-but I think it’s relevant to the emotion part of your post.

    I also read a while back where another group came to the same conclusion-that the word was cold-they also pointed out that the word before the expletive was “it’s” which doesn’t really go with the first conclusion jumped too. I have to question CNN’s motivation in this whole situation.

    CNN Enhances Zimmerman 911 Call Again — And Reporter Now Doubts Racial Slur Used

    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 8:39am by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl

    Recently, CNN enhanced the audio of George Zimmerman — the man who shot Trayvon Martin — to try and determine if he did, in fact, use a racial slur while calling police on the night of the shooting. Back then, it sounded like Zimmerman might have used the phrase “fu**ing coons,” and his critics have cited it as evidence of a racially-motivated attack. But now CNN has enhanced the audio again, and the reporter is casting doubts that the term was used.

    “It certainly sounds like that word to me,” Gary Tuckman said when the audio was first enhanced. But after the latest enhancement, he’s not so sure:

    “Now it does sound less like that racial slur. … From listening in this room, and this is a state-of-the-art room, it doesn’t sound like that slur anymore. It sounds like … we‘re hearing the swear word at first and then the word ’cold.’ And the reason some say that would be relevant, is because it was unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.”

    The audio expert agreed it sounded like “cold,” and said the new method gets rid of a lot more background noise but doesn’t change the voice or words.

    Watch the segment below, which includes the initial audio enhancement and the new one:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, 🙂

      I am sure I have been guilty of being emotional on this particular subject, especially with Buck and Charlie. To them I apologize. But I will say that I am fed up with people being called racist when they are not. The truth about Zimmerman is coming out and he is certainly not a racist, as most people have chose to ignore. The CWM should be sued for falsely leading people to that conclusion, namely NBC and ABC. However, rather than get emotional again, I will just sit back and watch as the truth comes out. Many people will eat crow, hope they enjoy it 🙂

      • Think I’m with you G! I did disagree with USW and others on Zimmerman. I don’t think I was insulting, just laid out my viewpoint, knowing I could be wrong. But it works both ways, they might be the ones mistaken… I hope when it’s said and done, we know the truth. Seems like a lot of times, it all ends in a muddled fog, he said/she said and nobody has any proof(damned lawyers). oops, sorry Buck, but I bet you know what I mean…

    • charlieopera says:

      For what it’s worth VH. My wife and I listened to the CNN “enhanced, bla, bla, bla” last night. I thought he said Cone (which is close to Cold). My wife said she couldn’t say what he was saying. No idea …

  7. I think I stay fairly reasonable unless I’m talking about abortion, or the degrading of our culture , or Obama being rude, or ………….and then of course there’s ………… 🙂

    • We all have those hotbutton issues that get us soapboxing or throwing tantrums. We just have to learn to reign it in, forgive others when they do it, and give a soft answer to disarm the tension. That doesnt mean concede, only reason should be allowed to win the day. Reason and emotion can coexist, but reason and emotionally escalating arguments are mutually exclusive…

      • Yes we do-but sometimes I don’t think what I posted is just an emotional plea-I think it is based in reason and the emotional effect is just a side affect. Others disagree 🙂

        • Ya think?…..Emotion is something that creates passion. Passion IS an emotion, I believe. Emotion also clouds rational thought. Military officers are often lambasted for their positions on things because of a lack of emotion, (This is not true but we are often labeled that way). So, you are quite emotional on your stance and that is ok. Others are quite emotional on their stance. So, this is where reasoning must come in when people debate. I think this is the underlying thing that USW was trying to point out.

          I will use myself as an example and my position on illegal immigration. I do not feel that I am emotional at all, on this topic….because if I were, I would be on the side of compassion. But in the application of law, there is no room for compassion. A non emotional and rational thought would be….it is the law….good or bad…it is the law and it needs to be enforced without compassion or emotion. That is finite. Do not like the law? Change it. It is not ok to violate it. I have great empathy for the immigrant that wants to come to the US for work to support his family and eat. But the law says you must do “x” and enforcement of that law is not the fault of the person doing it. As an enforcer of that on the border, it does not make me a calloused individual to turn them around or detain them. I may not like it but I must do it, Failure to enforce a law when you are supposed to…..impugns the integrity of the person sworn to do so. Any argument other wise… pure emotion.

          Debates lose their appeal when emotion over rides the real subject and the name calling comes out. This does not mean that passion is something that is bad. You can be passionate about a subject without being derogatory. I tell Charlie all the tie he has inhaled too much Plutonian Dumb Dust……but he and I actually understand each other and can share a plate of pasta together without stabbing one another with our respective forks. Reasonable debate is good and everyone……even Charlie… entitled to their opinion. It is the way they think. This is where USW was coming from , I believe.

          But, what the hell do I know…I am just a retired old Colonel who knows nothing.

          • I agree-I’m just pointing out that we don’t always agree on what is or isn’t a reasonable argument. I say millions of un-born babies are killed every year because of abortion-people are destroying a huge part of a generation of people. This is a true statement to me-a fact to me-others say I am not stating fact but using emotion-I don’t agree.

            But I do understand what USW is saying-just pointing out how I think we get there sometimes.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Good morning Sir.

            “That is finite. ”

            I am sure glad you added that. I was about to have a canipshun, but now I can save it for another.

            I take exception to one point, with a caveat. That is that opposing a law via “ignoring” it can be done for solid rational and logical reasons. NOT EMOTION only. It is in fact sometimes the only remaining feasible alternative.

            The Caveat?? Those whose “Sworn Duty” is to uphold the law are not afforded this option. Nor another one I see used from time to time. That is the false implementation of a law for the purpose of “undermining” its actual intent.

            Example? Not positive but the Florida enforcement of the Stand Your Ground law is looking a bit familiar. No better way to undermine something you don’t like that create absurd outcomes that piss off the people.

            Tip O’ the hat to you this morning and a heads up on recent weather passing through. Sudden change from warm to cold, very unstable air mass. If it hits the alley at the wrong time you will get the same results as the other day.


            P.S. You ground pounders wouldn’t know a “six” if it ran over you!! 🙂

            • Weather….we are always ready for it in the spring time.

              GROUND POUNDER??????????? OMG……..USW did you see that? GROUND POUNDER???????? I will have you know, sir…..that I am NOT…repeat…NOT a mere “leg”……..I am airborne infantry. I jumped out of perfectly good airplanes 87 times with reasonable results….I suffered more scrapes and bruises being “airlifted” out on tethers. Helo pilots hate being shot at and forgot that we were dangling below before getting above tree level.

              GROUND POUNDER…..oh my……have to sit on this one. I will chalk this up to you not knowing the difference in infantry terms……GROUND POUNDER……oh oh oh…….you might as well call me an **gasp** Aggie.

              But, a tip o the hat back to ya sir……..(do not let the fact that clandesto-raptors are lurking around your camp bother you).

              • USWeapon says:

                I am beyond words…. I am currently re-evaluating my ability to discuss things rationally. 😉

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Send all you have. I am sure they will be distracted consuming all the refuse that exists here. They will be so fat and satisfied they will forget why you sent them.

                Only you ground pounders would think that jumping out of an AIRCRAFT makes you anything but a “leg” or “legs” depending on how you land. Do have to give you credit though for inventing Bungee Jumping.

          • charlieopera says:

            Emotion also clouds rational thought.

            Some of US believe rational thought “kills the soul” Colonel!

            It is of the Javert school of criminology.

            The Stella School of criminology states: There are ALWAYS gray areas … nothing is as black and white as it seems.

  8. 🙂

  9. A Puritan Descendant says:

    USW, congrats on your attempt to spur debate. However, please try being a bit more subtle so as to not PISS me off!!!!! 😉 You decry bad tactics then proceed to put words/sentences/paragraphs into others mouths. Quite frustrating to read, especially knowing that any response will spur more of the same from others jumping in. Most folks including myself have better things to do with our time. So in summary try being a bit more sneaky about promoting debate. Humans left and right are bundles of emotions which need to be played like a fiddle, not stomped like a bug. 🙂 Oh, and GM!

    Prediction: Obamacare will be upheld. Justice Kennedy seems to have a pattern of supporting government. He seems to lean with the conservatives on law enforcement issues, and side with the libs on issues like eminent domain. This from cases I have in memory…. I hope I am wrong but his statement on the recent SC hearing > “JUSTICE KENNEDY: But they are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for.” gives me concern. If only the constitution meant what it what it said……….

  10. Einstein sayings..

    • A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    • Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.

    • Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.

    • The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

    • I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

    • Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

    • I never think of the future. It comes soon enough.

    • The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

    • Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.

    • I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

  11. @ Buck……interesting evening last night. I was invited to the Tarrant County Bar Association meeting where a guest speaker from Boones and Haynes was there discussing the topic of the SCOTUS and mandated health care. It seems that the consensus from Haynes/Boone was that the mandate would be struck down 5/4…………but he also said that if it is not struck down…..therein lies another issue. If the mandates are upheld, then the exemptions that have been given out raise an issue of constitutionality and discrimination. (Saying some can have an exemption and some not). He further stated that no one has looked into the exemptions handed out and the donations to campaigns associated with exemptions. That alone, he says, could quite possibly violate several laws and become unconstitutional by right. (Whatever that means…never heard that before).

    • Buck the Wala says:

      It seems the firm came to the conclusion of a 5/4 decision striking the mandate due to the current make up of SCOTUS more than anything else. Did the attorney give any indiciation of where he personally stood and why?

      • Actually he did…..he did admit being torn on the issue but he did say he would err on the side that the mandates themselves are an over reach of the commerce clause. He was also very surprised that the bill eliminated some clause giving the courts a way out……that the mandate was an either or situation which places a hard burden on the court to stretch the commerce clause that far.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Which I believe was a deliberate attempt at “intimidation” aimed at Kennedy and Scalia.

          • You are referring to escape clause. so to speak?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Severability, YES.

              I believe, have not hard evidence, that this was left out DELIBERATELY.

              I don’t give Mr. Obama the full credit for this ploy, nor the legislation for that matter. It was a group effort led by the Progressives in the Dem Party. Pelosi and Reid being THE major players.

              Two other moves were also DELIBERATE. Implementing those provisions that people would FEEL immediately and get them outraged if lost (prior condition for example), and deferring the major provisions until 2014 so the full cost wouldn’t show up in the CBO’s budget rating.

              For those that forget, Mr. Clinton used that last one to create the “illusion” of a balanced budget that still gets hung around Mr. Bush’s neck. And in fairness, Mr. Gingrich was a “conspirator” in that fraud.

  12. Whole lot of happy faces on SUFA today!

    🙂 🙂 🙂

  13. :mrgreen:

    • Seriously-there’s a difference between being civil and being boring-Now USW 🙂 I am religious and I, nor my church, has a problem with contraception. I do however have a problem with chemical abortion pills being called contraception. There are many different religions, many different beliefs-can’t speak for other religions but all Christians are not Catholic. No offense meant to Catholics-people just need to quit talking about religions- like they all believe the exact same thing.

      • I think the gay marriage issue could be taken out of religious context. I think the traditional meaning that it’s a union of a man and a woman should stand. Government should not be able to decree a new definition for the accepted meaning used for thousands of years. But that also means the religious groups should have no say in civil unions or whatever they want to call themselves or do behind closed doors. And I have expressed that opinion to gay friends.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          LOI, I’m not so certain that you can separate the ‘traditional’ and ‘religious’ meaning of the term.

          But, even if you were able to do so, government has become so entwined in ‘marriage’ that, so long as it recognizes any ‘marriage’ at all, it must grant such recognition to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The only other alternative would be for the government to refuse to recognize any marriage (keeping ‘marriage’ within the religious context) and issue a ‘civil union’ license to all couples that apply (and, absent such a ‘civil union’ license, grant no recognition nor special treatment to any marriage coupled).

          • USWeapon says:

            and issue a ‘civil union’ license to all couples that apply (and, absent such a ‘civil union’ license, grant no recognition nor special treatment to any marriage coupled).

            This is the solution that I believe is most appropriate, Buck.

          • Buck…don’t do this to me………we agree……..again. Whoa…..

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Wow, you and USW at once…I think I need to sit down for awhile.

              • You can stand back up-cause I still don’t agree with you 🙂 Mostly because we all have to live in peace together the religious and the non-religious. To many freedoms have been taken away and unless they are given back-the religious and the non, cannot live in peace if things go as you wish.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not sure I’m following you here VH.

                Why do you disagree? As you say “we all have to live in peace together”, so why not afford the same respect to all? What freedom is being taken away from you under this solution?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The Govt’s “recognition” of a particular “marriage” is not a LEGAL issue in itself. It is the “privileges” that are tied to that “recognition”.

            Without these immunities and privileges, there is nothing to base any constitutional challenge on.

            However, if we don’t simple make them the same then I think USW has struck on a good solution. The immunities and privileges then are tied to a Govt License. Without it you can call yourself anything you like and live with whomever you wish.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck, USW, d13

            P.S. I don’t think the solutions offered will be enough to satisfy the issue. Look at the attack on “civil union” laws now.

            I honestly believe this is NOT JUST about equal protection under the law. The homosexual community WANTS Society, via our Govt, to validate them as “normal” part of our society. To be the “same” as the rest of us. That can not be done by passing laws.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I disagree with you here.

              The Civil Union solution would resolve the issue because there would be NO government recognition of marriage. It would be completely stricken from the debate. You and your wife would not be ‘married’ in the eyes of the State, but rather ‘civilly unioned’ (or however you say it!) Tax forms, for instance, would no longer read “married, filing jointly” but instead printed to reach “civillly unioned, filing jointly”. Benefits would accrue not to your ‘spouse’ but to your ‘civil partner’.

              The other alternative would be to keep things as they are now, under the term ‘marriage’ and simply extend that term to cover a gay married couple.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                *printed to read

                I don’t know how you print to reach something…where’s that dang coffee machine??

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You misunderstood my comment. Well maybe.

                My first comment about Civil Union was the EXISTING laws. These are being challenged because they are not “equal protection”. But the only thing different is acknowledging the “title”.

                This leads me to believe it is the “title” or “label” they want. They want to be the SAME.

                Now the proposal offered by USW and YOU would make us all the SAME in the Govts eyes. But not “MARRIED”. Thus I think it would be opposed because what they want is to be the SAME under “traditional societal definitions”.

                Fact is that your last is probably the only real end to this issue. If the FED Govt remains neutral the Courts will eventually eliminate the various State laws that differentiate between the two.

              • Mathius wonders aloud if you would only be permitted one civil partner? Could I, for example, unionize with Emilius AND Sofia Vergara?

                How would tax policy work in this instance?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC — I see what you’re saying here, but dont’ believe that would be an issue. Yes, they want to be the SAME, including being afforded the same title as any other couple. By having the government label everyone a Civil Union (and no one a Marriage), this becomes a non-issue. I agree this will probably never happen – not because of gay couples, but because of heterosexual couples who no longer have the title of ‘Married’ at least as gov’t is concerned.

                Mathius — This is also a non-issue as you have no chance in hell of being with Sofia Vergara. Not to mention, I know Emilius, and I know she would not allow for this at any level.

              • Mathius says:

                Sofia and I go way back. She was very upset when I chose Emilius over her.

                Now answer my question.

              • V.H.

                By using civil union as the government recognized term and leaving it stipulated that marriage, the traditional term used by most religions is preserved. We can still say married, and services performed in a church would use that term. The legal documents they sign would say civil union. Gay couples could and can say they are married. Freedom of speech, you can’t stop them. When we try to use the government to tell them what they can or cannot do, we are chaining ourselves to the same standard, the government then gets to dictate to us.

                I think this is like prohibition, you can’t legislate morals. And trying to use government to force gays to behave one way results in government being able to force Christan’s in another way. Both groups will be better off without involving the government. If you “force” the government to call a man and wife, “married”, the government can then “force” you to call a man and another man, “married”.

              • First off-I am not saying gay couples can’t have civil unions, that are recognized by the government and with equal legal standing-so forcing anyone to act a certain way-is not even a part of this discussion.

                I am saying that there is a difference between the two by definition-and keeping that distinction under law is critical under the present state of our rights in this country-the government already has and uses it’s power to force us and you are arguing that by allowing government to have a say in marriage will hurt us-well I don’t see that SAY going away, it is just being REPLACED with another word to define the same thing, as far as the courts are concerned-I don’t see where it makes any difference whether you call it marriage or civil union-the point is to make the two types of relationships the exact same legally- you let the legal definition go away-you will have no legal standing to argue anything.

                So woop to do I can call myself married in the private sector-gays can call themselves married in the private sector too-where the distinction really matters is in a court of law.

              • Just as a side note-I was always a little conflicted about the gay rights issues-I’ve always felt they deserved equal rights -but listening to Matt-convinced me that if I wanted to retain my rights -a legal distinction was absolutely necessary. Obama and his mandates was just additional proof. 🙂

              • V.H.

                Remember how conservatives were pushing for the Patriot Act, that it would never infringe on our freedoms? They meant under a government they expected to act in a certain way. Now they think it’s bad because Obama has expanded it to allow even more intrusion. If we allow government to define marriage, you can expect the same. It will just be a matter of time until it’s used in a way you could not imagine. So if we change it to civil union, they won’t be able to change the meaning. You will protect it best by removing it from the government’s power. Freedom of speech does not allow them to dictate the words spoken in a church ceremony.

                I also think the gay issue is over worried. Not many will be attracted to the same sex. I think the erosion of our values is much more important today. The acceptance of single mothers and out-of-wedlock child rearing is where our culture is being destroyed.

              • Well what’s gonna happen is that they are going to get gay marriage in some states and then they will get it through the SC-but changing the name to civil unions for all-really won’t change the eventual outcome. Because calling it a marriage in a religious ceremony won’t mean much when it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or sexual identity. And that is what is coming and allowing them to just basically change the definition of another word, which is what you are doing if we agree to using civil union’s alone, will just help them in their aim.

                But we will wait and see, I suppose. But discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity are coming-insistance on making heterosexual and homosexual and male and female the same legally, and mandates to take away freedom of conscience, is their road map to total governmental control.

                But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree 🙂

            • JAC,

              I think you are right, it’s about using government to force acceptance. So lets proceed with government only recognizing civil unions. They will just have to figure out another way to frame their argument. Maybe it will shut them up for a little while..

              • Except once they win the battle of no legal difference between sexual orientation or gender-they will pass discrimination laws -that will make any religious or non-religious belief that the liberals disagree with-illegal. They will have won-not just the right to form government acknowledged equal unions but the right to force the general public to conform and support that which they disagree with through the force of law. There is very little right not to do so now. So remember, through laws and the giving of money, very few actions in this country are free of government regulation and control. Gay marriage, insurance mandates, numerous discrimination laws-you simply can’t look at these laws as separate-you have to look at the extended consequences of them all together.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH: “they will pass discrimination laws -that will make any religious or non-religious belief that the liberals disagree with-illegal.”

                Buck: ?????

              • What about the post do you not understand Buck ?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You seem to be going along with the slippery slope argument here, correct? So that, if we make no legal difference for purposes of a civil union either to a heterosexual or homosexual couple, that would somehow mean that any religious beliefs that don’t tow this line would be rendered illegal?? Huh? Not quite sure I’m following you here.

              • I’m saying that when you look at our currant laws-and combine them with the new ones liberals want to pass-then religious freedom and individual freedom to not support issues like, gay marriage, abortion, etc., etc, etc, etc, will not be allowed by decree of the government, because there is almost no separation between public and private anymore. Actually with discrimination laws and quota’s-I’m not sure there is any separation anymore-except the church and Obama and his party are very quickly trying to take away those too.

              • V.H.

                “Except once they win the battle of no legal difference between sexual orientation or gender-they will pass discrimination laws -that will make any religious or non-religious belief that the liberals disagree with-illegal. ”

                You may be right but is it not better to settle the issue on gay marriage? If we agree the term marriage has historically been the union of a man and a woman and the government cannot change that meaning just because some groups feel differently. That would be government forcing us to agree to changing definitions. But we must accept we don’t have the right to refuse them to enter into relationships that are legal social groups. So if government calls all such relationships “civil unions”, that discrimination argument is eliminated. It will put the weight back on them to find a legal issue requiring government action to address. I think they will have to get very creative.

                “Illusion, you were discriminating because you refused to kiss that gay man!”
                “Sorry, not my type!”

              • If one wants to retain the actual meaning of the word marriage, in a world, where the government is in control of everything-you best hold on to that definition legally. They won’t need any other legal standing other than does your argument, in anyway discriminate. the gay lobby isn’t just trying to get equal standing under the law, there not just trying to change the social norms-They are trying to make it to where any distinction based on anything is illegal. Except maybe for being white, heterosexual , or religious. Freedom cannot stand under this extreme thinking when it is backed up by government IMHO.

    • Looking for trouble????

      A Virginia elementary school teacher told her students that “Republicans are stupid” and “they don’t care about anyone but wealthy people and businesses.”

      Kristin Martin said this to her 6th grade class as Republican voters were filing into the halls of Powell Elementary School in Fairfax County to vote on Super Tuesday.

      “It all started when this disabled kid came in and named all the Republicans candidates for Super Tuesday,” one student told The Daily Caller. “She [Martin] said to him, ‘I don’t like them, I think that they are stupid.’”

      Read more:

  14. Re SUFA readership: Why is the front door locked so tightly these days? We haven’t had any fresh air in quite some time. Not to forget the trolls either who add to the excitement..just sayin

    • Anita….I am just a dumb old Colonel who knows nothing………interpret that for me……..Everyone knows that I have to lock the front door….Mathius would be in my basement stealing bootlegged grog from DPM.

      • You guys have all your fancy hi-tech equipment, above and below the water line..a locked door should be only a minor inconvenience.

        • Mathius is formidable….he still carries a grudge that I got DPM out of his basement.

          • Mathius says:

            I haven’t heard from him in a while.. either he’s passed out drunk somewhere or wordpress making everyone sign in and it’s too annoying for him to log in every time he has something to say.

    • I don’t know-I remember when I first came here-I was a mite intimidated. Just made an occasional comment but gradually got past it. 🙂

  15. Catfight?????

    Coulter vs. Malkin: Female conservatives clash over Palin

    Last Sunday, in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter took what some have seen as a swipe at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying that the eventual Republican candidate shouldn’t pick “a novelty candidate” as their vice presidential nominee because it “would ring too much like Sarah Palin.”

    Conservative blogger and commentator Michelle Malkin challenged Coulter’s characterization, suggesting in a post on Monday that Coulter was part of the “war on conservative women” Malkin had opined on a month ago.

    Read more:

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Geez, I don’t know which is worse…Coulter or Malkin…

    • My money is on Michelle Malkin..I read Coulter’s book Slander years ago, and while she may make some good conservative arguments.. it takes her too long to get to the point between her giggling and hair swooping..I have to just mute the TV! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I’m with you on this one, 100%. I bought one of Coulter’s first books. She kept making accusations and claiming she would “prove” these. At the end of the book she was still just making accusations. No proof ever offered. I skimmed her later book in the store. Same thing. So I never spent another dime on her stuff. Very smart lady and funny “at times”. BUT…

        Michelle has the whole package and BACKS IT UP.

        I am concerned lately, however, that Michelle is falling into the “commentary” and “unfounded opinionating” a little much lately. She is deadly when sticking to the “journalistic” style she started with. I hope she stick with that method.

  16. Can I stir the pot a little this morning? I sure am glad that Dean Singleton at the Associated Press is unbiased and can present all sides of any politician.

  17. USWeapon says:

    As I check in this morning to see where the comments are leading, I have to add something. It seems to me that some people are taking what I wrote above a little personally in some cases. That wasn’t meant to be the case with what I was offering. The point of my article was that, while it is human nature to be offended when someone treats us as though we are stupid, we should attempt to find a way to eliminate the emotions and focus on the facts.

    I wasn’t taking a shot at anyone personally and I don’t want to have anyone feeling that the examples I provided above were a result of anyone here. They were just generic debates examples that I have encountered here and elsewhere as I participate in discussions. For example, VH I wasn’t commenting on you or your church. I absolutely believe that there are vast differences between different christians and I certainly do not want to lump them all together. But I find that many of the worst pundits in the political world DO (anyone who believes in God is called a flat-earther, which is ridiculous). My point was merely to offer an example of the arguments that I get and why they make me feel as though the person offering them thinks I am stupid.

    I will attempt to answer individual comments when I can throughout the day, starting at the top with Charlie’s…

    • Thas’ ok, USW……….I just found Charlie’s weakness. It is a word that I did not know existed until today….”sfogliatelle”. Did not even know what it was…..if it does not have Jalepeno’s, I would not know…… 🙂

      So, sending detachment of clandestoraptors to Charlie’s camp with year supply of sfogliatelle!.

      • charlieopera says:

        I love jalepeno’s Colonel! This could be a new business. Cannoli with J’s … I’m just saying.

        We sell enough, I might give another look at that capitalism thing …

    • Hold on -I was not offended at all-you are misinterpreting my meaning. The comments about me and my church -was just a means of discussing one of your points. It is also a major problem-a tool used by the media to put people into categories so they can divide us more.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My dear, you are going to love this one. Yesterday over at Huff n Puff, I spent an inordinate amount of time debating what I offered were the “positive” aspects of a Tennessee law that would allow science teachers to respond to, and/or discuss evolution in the full context of science and religion, when students raise “religious” challenges to evolutionary theory.

        Many immediately launched into the “you stupid Bible thumping idiot” and “keep YOUR religion out of the schools” and “if you want to indoctrinate your kids with your stupid ideas then keep them home”. Yes, I was accused of being a right wing “conservative” religious zealot.

        Even when I explained that I subscribed to NO organized religion and provided lengthy reasons on why and how a Full and Enriched Education would benefit our kids, the ridicule continued. In fairness, a couple folks did engage for better understanding. But they are simply terrified that the “religious” people are just trying to “indoctrinate” our children. This is just another “Trojan Horse”.

        Anyway, given our past discussions on this I thought you would find it humorous.

        I also think the responses I got from many on this topic are excellent examples of what USW proposed in his article.

        Best to you this fine day.

        • I’ve had similar experiences on other blogs. I look at the Tennessee bill as an outrage, these teachers actually need a bill to protect them from their employers in case they teach something which is somehow radical or outside of orthodoxy. I hope the bill passes.

          And I am an evolutionist, I believe Darwins theory to be correct. Over time it might be proved wrong, but not allowing teachers to teach other viewpoints or not allowing them to criticise the theory is an outrage. Darwin’s theory is safe I asure you, though it is often taught wrong. But because I feel alternate theories should be safe for teachers to teach, I was labeled a ‘bible thumping 1%’er’. Whatever that is.

          I don’t beleive for a minute that some teacher won’t take advantage of a bill like this and push the envelope, like using it as an excuse to teach holocost denial or something. But that’s just going to have to be delt with when the time comes.

        • Been there -finally got tired of the name calling-go back and read but I don’t bother to comment anymore.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Heart felt suggestion. Let it go. Further response will be counter productive. Focus on more important issues of the day. Your time is limited.

      I for one would like to see you dive deeper into your topic and theory. The sharply alienated debates we see today in the public discourse. How does logic and emotion play in this, if and when, etc. Is emotion the only effective tool? If so then how can we Radical Right Wing Liberals use it as well?

      • Really USW-I agree with your premise-besides even if I didn’t, you do not OWE me an apology for anything you said. You are voicing your opinion not calling me personally stupid or anything else-if you ever do(which you won’t)-I would call you on it -in a way that would be very clear. 🙂 🙂

        • But if you are taking my words this way-maybe I owe you an apology. I am simply trying to make a couple points and obviously doing a fairly bad job of it.

      • charlieopera says:

        JAC, one way to use emotion is to constantly bring up how many “innocents lives are being saved by the Stand Your Ground” law when so far all I’ve seen of this law is how out of context the law has been taken. Now, I’m sure it’s been justly applied in many cases but how many is something nobody can know. On the other hand, we’ve already seen several cases where standing one’s ground has been very broadly applied (to the point of a gang shoot out in the middle of a street) …

        I’m just saying …:)

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Yes, that is one way you use emotions. The other is to ignore a response and give back more emotional stuff :).

          Such as when you try to paste me with the label as racist or an apologist of genocide on Indians.

          Hint. You destroy any credibility you might otherwise have, when you use that ploy. It shows me that you have not read my words on the topic or my prior writings on the subjects. A little like sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing to attack with emotional and hurtful words. Thus my bully comment.

          Now as to Stand Your Ground. If you look at the law “objectively” I think you will find it considered much of what BF published here in the beginning of that discussion. The points about use of “force” and who has the “obligation” to PROVE the danger. Even the “pursuit” angle fits the non-initiation of “force” quite well.

          So what we have is somebody stretching the application of a “Govt Law”. Your criticism of the “interpretation” or “rulings” is justified based on the evidence you have provided us. Assuming it is accurate and complete. However, that is TRUE for any “Govt Law”.

          Look at the arguments over the health care SCOTUS debate, or the Second Amendment, or the laws governing the “taking of property.”

          This brings us back to the PRIMARY values. IF YOU, as in Charlie Stella, support writing various Govt Laws to cover a variety of things, then you will get the very situation you are complaining about. And some of those results get people killed. The examples of this law in Florida show how even a well constructed law can not be immune to “stupid” application.

          However, to NOT have such a law gets you equally “stupid” applications in the other direction. And that is why so many states have enacted these laws in recent years.

          So if I must live with “stupid” interpretations, then I prefer laws that favor the possibility of innocence than those that favor the possible guilty.

          • charlieopera says:

            Such as when you try to paste me with the label as racist or an apologist of genocide on Indians.

            I don’t remember doing that to you, JAC. I remember Gman getting a little wild with some of his answers I felt were racist in nature (even if G didn’t it mean it the way I took it).

            Hint. You destroy any credibility you might otherwise have, when you use that ploy. It shows me that you have not read my words on the topic or my prior writings on the subjects. A little like sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing to attack with emotional and hurtful words. Thus my bully comment.

            A hint back at you. When you start a dialogue with “As usual, you cannot connect the dots …” it is a pretty big assumption (a bit on the nasty side as well, whether you intended it that way or not). The assumption your side is right is a bit arrogant. See below:

            Now as to Stand Your Ground. If you look at the law “objectively” I think you will find it considered much of what BF published here in the beginning of that discussion. The points about use of “force” and who has the “obligation” to PROVE the danger. Even the “pursuit” angle fits the non-initiation of “force” quite well.

            I do not live or subscribe to all of BF’s rules. I don’t regard him with the same authority you’re implying here (unless I’m reading you wrong) … but, we (BF and I) agreed that only when life is in imminent danger (directly threatened) should another life be taken (I’m pretty sure that’s what he agreed with) … now, I don’t see “Objectively” how giving chase when one’s life is CLEARLY not in danger applies. Okay, you admit the law was interpreted poorly. But you’re ignoring what that implies (I think). The fact it is now precedent on the books permits much more leeway than prior to something so foolish (which has to, ipso facto, invite similar results in the future). My contention was simply this: there’s already a law on the books to protect oneself regarding self defense. Once you open it up to chasing individuals (or following, etc.), no matter how repugnant those individuals may be, you invite disaster.

            So what we have is somebody stretching the application of a “Govt Law”. Your criticism of the “interpretation” or “rulings” is justified based on the evidence you have provided us. Assuming it is accurate and complete. However, that is TRUE for any “Govt Law”.

            Except this particular government law has to do with life and death.

            Look at the arguments over the health care SCOTUS debate, or the Second Amendment, or the laws governing the “taking of property.”


            This brings us back to the PRIMARY values. IF YOU, as in Charlie Stella, support writing various Govt Laws to cover a variety of things, then you will get the very situation you are complaining about. And some of those results get people killed. The examples of this law in Florida show how even a well constructed law can not be immune to “stupid” application.

            Again, irrelevant. This is about a single law that broadens the scope of self-defense way beyond what may actually be self-defense. It makes no sense.

            So if I must live with “stupid” interpretations, then I prefer laws that favor the possibility of innocence than those that favor the possible guilty.

            I understand and see what you are saying, but the possibilit(ies) of unnecessary deaths, to my mind, supersede anything and everything else.

            We agree to disagree?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “I do not live or subscribe to all of BF’s rules. I don’t regard him with the same authority you’re implying here (unless I’m reading you wrong) … YOU ARE GETTING ME WRONG.

              but, we (BF and I) agreed that only when life is in imminent danger (directly threatened) should another life be taken (I’m pretty sure that’s what he agreed with) … AND THIS IS WHY I RAISED THE POINT. I RECALLED THAT YOU AGREED ON THIS POINT AND IT FIT INTO YOUR POSITION.





              • charlieopera says:


                JAC, I hear/see what you’re saying but this above is more scary than I originally thought. THAT IS UNLESS THE RESPONSE TO YOUR FORCE EXCEEDS EQUAL RETALIATION.

                That, it seems to me, invites all kinds of chaos (to be defined as unnecessary deaths).


                This is where I disagree completely (with the law/or any like interpretation of it). Once you put yourself into danger, it becomes vigilantism (to me). One might feel extremely justified in doing so, but that does not change the fact one is doing so of one’s on volition (which, to my mind, is asking for trouble—no matter who is injured/killed). That kind of interpretation then permits people to go off half-cocked in wild pursuit. To my mind, it completely invites bad, potentially deadly situations.


                Here I do not agree for a second, JAC. I can’t even imagine it. Self defense, to my mind, is an imminent life threatening situation never to be associated with giving chase. Never. That is my read on it. I don’t see how the self-defense doctrine could EVER include giving chase (without a life threatening situation – i.e., the guy sees his truck being stolen from his window—no way).

                YES, I AGREE TO DISAGREE

                Fair enough, brother.

              • I am a little confused by your posts, Charlie-in some you say people have the right to stop someone from stealing from them-in others you say they cannot pursue a person. Which is it? Does a person have to stand by and have their possessions taken from them? Or can they pursue to stop a theft?

  18. 8)

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Behind the 8 ball again I see.

      Want update on your big Statistics project.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    These are interesting times, that’s for sure. This will make the Zimmerman issue seem small, I think. I just heard on the radio, a commercial, that basically said that all white people would be fools for voting for Obama again, as he is destroying our country and dividing the nation even further. I’m trying to find it on You Tube, but I didn’t hear who made it. Can anyone help?

    Peace! 🙂

  20. Zonation on Trayvon:

  21. Just A Citizen says:


    I agree, we should deal with outliers when they occur instead of dumbing down everything to “protect” ourselves from the outliers.

    Now if you liked that, I also suggested that High School Seniors should be able to attend classes in “philosophy” which include discussions of the various major religions.

    You would have thought I turned a skunk lose in the room. Some have told me that High School kids are just incapable of such “deep” thought. That sure isn’t how I remember my Sr. year in High School. Or even my Jr. year.

    I think we sell our teenagers way short when it comes to “thinking ability”. They become what we expect when we don’t push them.

    • Mathius says:

      I vaguely remember a school (in Texas?) which was trying to teach the bible as literature. They justified it saying that, true or not, gospel or BS, the bible is believed by billions of people and is tremendously influential in the world. As such, a working knowledge of what it actually says is an important thing to have. They tried to offer it as an elective.

      And then some firestorm popped up because they were using public funds for this.. blah blah blah blah blah.. not sure how it ended.

      I couldn’t agree more that this should be taught, perhaps not as philosophy, but as a influential literature course. As we’ve discussed, I have read the bible cover to cover (along with the Torah & Talmud, the Koran, and about 1/3 of the Book of Mormon). I find that it gives me an excellent basis for understanding the way believers think.

      That said, I think it’s walking a very, very thin line to expose kids to this in school. Teachers have to be extraordinarily careful not to advocate the faith of Christianity, just an understanding of it. For my money, I could see swapping this course out for a “major religions” series of classes where they read all these books, one-per-semester, cover-to-cover, and discuss the meaning and interpretations. Starting with Greek/Roman, then Judaism (and what it means to be reformed/orthodox) and the Pagan religions including the Norse pantheon, Buddhism and Shintoism, then building up to Christianity (and all the subdivisions – catholic/Greek orthodox/protestant/(mormon)/episcopalian/etc) and finally Islam. (the reason Islam goes last is because it’s a heated subject best addressed by more mature students and also because it incorporates all the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism, so you won’t have a full appreciation without studying them first). And, for good measure spend some time on agnosticism somewhere in there.

      • Matt, is there an online course our fearless leader could take?

        Obama said, “I hear politicians talking about values in an election year. I hear a lot about that. Let me tell you about values. Hard work, personal responsibility – those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. That’s a value.”

        Obama said, “I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.” The “brother’s keeper” quote comes from the book of Genesis. But when the entire story is presented, a quite different message comes forth:

        1Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also brought an offering – fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. 8Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Lets go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

        “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

        10The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground[.]”

        By the way, I searched the NIV Bible, with “brother’s keeper” as my search argument, and found reference only to Genesis 4:9, so Obama cannot plead “wrong verse.”

        Further, the Hebrew word for “keeper” is what a prison guard does, keeping prisoners in cells. Abel was a keeper of flocks, not a lamb that needed “keeping.” A “keeper” implies control of a flock of docile, stupid, incompetent, wandering, helpless…sheep.

        Read more:

        • Mathius says:

          Cain is a primary example of humans sin in the bible. When Cain says he is not his brother’s keeper, he is, of course, denying the obligation of knowing his brother’s whereabouts. Which makes sense given the situation. But one could interpret it as him saying, it’s not my job to take care of my brother – my brother is not my problem. I think the former is more technically correct than the later.

          Obama is saying the opposite of the evil brother – that it is our problem to take care of each other. I tend to agree with you that he misses the mark with his interpretation in an exacting sense. That is, it should be that he isn’t the guardian or warden of his brother so his whereabouts aren’t his business but Obama took what I suspect is a fairly common and fairly innocuous misinterpretation (that it is not his job to take care of his brother) and just flipped it. In 99% of the reading into this passage, it really wouldn’t make any different – the point is the Cain is trying to evade responsibility by lying to God, so what lie he tells isn’t important. It’s only when you flip it and try to derive a religiously grounded obligation that the nuance becomes important.

          I don’t read this passage to suggest that we have a obligation to care for one another – only that we have an obligation to not murder our brothers and lie to God about it. More specifically, this is about envy and resentment. The opposite of not-killing someone is not some obligation to care for them, it’s doing nothing. If you wanted to argue that we have argue for an obligation to care for one another the bible is rife with them, though the Torah is somewhat sparse. So, while the President’s use of that phrase as a, yes, dog whistle is flawed, but only insofar as it uses the wrong verse to evoke the message.

          He could have gone with “as you do unto the least of my my brothers, you do unto me” or “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven” or “if you seek favor with the lord, take all of your belongings and give them to the poor” or when Matthew defied the Romans by aiding the poor. Or when Jesus went among the lepers. Or… well, there are a lot of examples.

          So, yea, he messed up, but he’s still right.. if only by accident.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I would put the lessons in their “historical order” as much as possible. Thus Islam, being the second youngest would come next to last. Mormonism would be last.

        Not sure you would have to read and study the books as much as the basis and differences in the various religions throughout history. Funny how currently the schools teach about the Greek, Roman and Egyptians Gods and religions, but can’t touch anything after that.

        Religion is a branch of the field of Philosophy. That is why I put it in that class, or classes, but it includes much more.

        I would personally disagree with reading the Bible as part of English or Literature class. Unless of course you read the Greek Version, in Greek.

        It may be a thin line but it is one worthy of crossing. I am tired of treating teens as if they were stupid. Stupid is as stupid taught.

        My goal is to destroy your paradigm regarding People. 🙂

        • Mathius says:

          I would argue that the defining difference between Greek/Roman/Norse is that no one takes them seriously anymore. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a single person alive today who actually worships Odin. So, in that sense, it’s not a hot topic – it’s a DEAD religion. And we can safely deal with it. It’s like depleted radioactive material. Once you switch to topics which people still believe, well now it’s live radioactivity.

          Islam-then-Mormon or Mormon-then-Islam, whatever. But I might argue that Mormon is too small of a population to necessarily merit study on the same level as Islam. There are over a billion Muslims so the Koran is extremely important in terms of influence on the world. The same cannot be said of the Book of Mormon (regardless of the merit and/or truth of the book itself, it just hasn’t had a comparable impact on the world). To that end, I lumped it in with the rest of Christianity, though it might rightly deserve it’s only section within that course.

          It may be a thin line but it is one worthy of crossing. I am tired of treating teens as if they were stupid. Stupid is as stupid taught.

          I don’t know if that’s the way they think of it, or if they’re more afraid of parents who don’t want their children to be taught certain things. I think kids learn hard things and are treated, themselves, as smart, but the schools can’t risk certain things because of a potential backlash. Just my thoughts though – as we’ve noted before, I have never attended a public school.

          My goal is to destroy your paradigm regarding People. 🙂

          “My” paradigm? Mine? Sir, this is not my paradigm.

          Adding, in my paradigm, words would be spelled phonetically because “paradigm” is just dumb.

          • Odin? Is gone? Damn.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Mormon grouped with Christian? OK by me. At High School you don’t have to cover each in detail, just the fundamental “different” ones.

            When I attended public school I felt MOST of the teachers EXPECTED us to perform and challenged us accordingly. Even in SHOP class.

            My kids did not experience this, although their public school was pretty darn good by today’s standards. Only in the highest AP classes were they challenged or treated like they “were capable” of learning.

            For those that think this age is only capable of learning rote material, remember Alexander the Great at the age of 18 set off to conquer the world. AFTER spending years learning from the worlds greatest teachers and philosophers.

      • It did not fly here at all. It is taught in college as a social study under religion…….it hits all the religions.

        • Mathius says:

          Right… but why shouldn’t it? Provided, of course, that parents can opt out for their kids and that it’s taught as lit and/or philosophy not as an indoctrination course.

          I know that might be tough for the bible thumpers down in Texas to handle though.

  22. @JAC……..Sir……………calling me a “leg” would be like calling Buck a Republican.

    • Just A Citizen says:



      Sir, I stipulated that if you were in fact good at your trade you deserved the label “legs” as opposed to just a single “leg”.

      Look closely at your wings. That little thingy in the middle is a bed sheet on ropes so you can float, NOT FLY, to earth without killing yourself. And then of course you can use it to clean yourself once you land……………Bwahahahahahaha

      • You are evil…..

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Bwahahahahaha…………oh crap……… to go. JAC is coming back. Must be done pulling weeds.

          Later Sheet Rider.

          Damn, does that mean you guys invented para sailing as well as bungee jumping?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Oh goodie, he had to go put the tools away.

          After many tries, the Rooster flaps his wings like crazy and finally makes it to the top of the fence. Sitting there he puffs up his chest and starts crowing, then jumps back to earth, falling on his butt when he lands. He stands and fluffs all up crowing look at me. But in the end he is still just a Rooster.

          HE IS NOT AN EAGLE.


          Uh oh, here he comes again. gotta run and hide.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    On the topic of divisive debate in America today, it is time for a history lesson.

    Done during the McCain/Obama race but includes good historical stuff.

    Even more clever, the election of 1796.

    By the way, the vitriol in Lincoln’s race was so bad it was believed he would be assassinated enroute to D.C. for the inauguration.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Did anyone else see Stossel’s show Tuesday night on Liberty?

    Audience was a bunch of College aged “Libertarian” types.

    One of the guests was Ambassador John Bolton. Between Stossel and a Vet of Iraq, Mr. Bolton lost his composure and had to resort to classic strawman attacks. It was a classic.

    • Missed it-want to expand on what was said?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        In a discussion about WHY are we the worlds policemen, and why are we still messing around in the middle east, Mr. Bolton went on his usual “NEO CON” lecture about the evil in that part of the world and “protecting us from another attack”. He got very pointed about “inferring” that Stossel and others were not concerned about our safety if they didn’t agree. Then he slipped up and asked point blank if Stossel thought there would be “fewer people trying to kill us if we simply left”. Stossel nodded, YES. Bolton then launched into some “prepared”, in my opinion, lecture about some intellectual in the early 1900’s that predicted wars would end because nations who trade with each other would not destroy trade.

        This is a classic “strawman” fallacy, in general sense. Bolton is taking something about a theory then jumping to “see WWI and WWII” prove the theory wrong but FAILS to connect the cause/effect. In fact those wars were the result of the failure of the world to operate as “assumed” in the theory. Namely free trade.

        That was the first part. Then Bolton flat accused Stossel, and all who think like him, of being “appeasers” like Chamberlin. Stossel was great. He simply put that smile and befuddled look on his face (a bit smirky) and then turned to the college kids and asked if anyone had questions for the Ambassador. Seemed like half the group rushed the mircophone.

        During this period an Iraq Vet explained that his buddy had been killed by a 13 yr old Iraqi and that he hoped like hell his 13yr old brother would be willing to do the same to defend America. He flat stated that the Iraqi kid was just defending his people against forceful intrusion of the US military in their lives. He described “blag bagging” and the unwarranted confiscation of property and guns.

        Mr. Bolton’s response was to basically accuse the young man of “misconduct” by stating that most Americans served with honor in Iraq and that such things were a violation of American Values. The look that young man gave Bolton would have stopped the heart of a charging Grizzly.

        It appeared to me there was an edit in the show’s tape at that moment, moving to the next question. If I am correct, perhaps the show had to edit the kids response to Bolton.

        Good news here V is that these self proclaimed “Libertarian” or “Liberty Loving” college aged kids were very articulate and seemed quite informed. They weren’t taking any “standard rhetoric” from anybody. At the same time they were not all robots. There was a divergence of opinion on some details while maybe not the larger principles. Such as controlling drugs. The all seemed to reject making Pot illegal, but many sympathized with not making ALL drugs legal.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Couldn’t find a clip of the entire Bolton segment but did find the part with the young Vet. I was correct that the tape was edited. In fact it was filmed in Feb.

        But it turns out the editing was not what I thought. It seems Fox edited it to make it look like Bolton was booed when he was met with silence. Interesting to me is the version I saw Tuesday night was the “silent” version. Meaning they “re-edited” it for the latest release.

        Note that Bolton doesn’t actually address the question about “what do you feel about blow back”? When you set the stage for a question you create the opportunity for the “dodger” to attack the “staging” and not address the question itself.

        I see also that this Vet has his own blog site. His comments are the first of those below the video.

        • USWeapon says:


          I am not quite sure what to make of this. This kid claiming to be a part of 3rd Ranger doesn’t really sit right with me. The way he carries himself, the toothpick in his mouth, just doesn’t feel right. So I watched his “One Man’s Terrorist” part 1. I don’t know of a single Ranger that I have ever met who would create such a vile portrait of soldiers as he did here. I don’t know the kid. Perhaps he was a Ranger, but something about this whole thing doesn’t sit right.

          D13, what is your take. Check out part one of his “movie” here. Can you imagine anyone in Special Operations making such a thing?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I didn’t check out his site but now I will given your concern.

            The toothpick I wrote off to a nervous habit. Something I have seen in two other people in my life. But ya never know.

            What struck me was he sounded like the 21st Century version of John Kerry.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Just watched episode 1. I would add it seems like something produced by someone with “some” knowledge but not a “professional” “Ranger”.

            He could be legit but just couldn’t take the whole thing from the get go. I’ll bet if that is the case he may not have finished his tour.

            BF would be proud of his production though. 😉

            • USWeapon says:

              My guess would be that he was never a Ranger. It was more than the toothpick, it was the entire way he held his body, the way he carried himself. It is hard to explain, but i am sure the Colonel will know what I mean. You can tell Special Ops guys by the way they carry themselves.

              This happened in 2009? If so he hasn’t been outed yet, which tells me that the likelihood (IF I am correct in him not being a Ranger) is that he was some sort of support for 3rd Ranger, not an actual Ranger. Something like a F.O. or a medical support soldier. As such, he would not know a thing about any such operations as he was referencing and he absolutely wouldn’t have been out there going into people’s homes the way he claims.

              Based on his “movie,” I am guessing he is a guy who joined the military, couldn’t hack it, got discharged early, and became an anti-war activist (which he clearly is).

              I thought his production value was sub-par and his depiction of special operations soldiers was as far from reality as possible. People like the jerks in his movie wouldn’t make it to earning a tab, and even if they had tricked their way there, the real SOF folks would have ensured they didn’t last long….

              • USW…….watched the episode twice and was noting several things. Watching his body movements closely, his PLF off the roof, the way he carried his weapon and fired it…..his general physical conditioning for his age…..this lad was/is no Ranger and I doubt if he was even support. He certainly is not any part of Special Ops….nor a black hat. It is quite possible he is a Ranger School dropout….could not hack it. Anyone familiar with special ops, even in the initial brief, knows that special ops do not carry out operations such as this. This was a depiction of “peace keepers”, of which I was a member in Bosnia, kicking in doors and rappelling into neighborhoods, and going after a selected anarchist…and it is pure bull shit. The members depicted on this rappel, did not even have the proper equipment nor technique. If this lad had any military training at all, much less spec ops, it did not show.

                In addition, firing a pistol empty and ejecting clips in that manner, is great for Steven Segal and Hollywood. It is apparently supposed to depict quick draw techniques which make great movie but in reality, will get you killed. I do not know of any combat soldier that ejects clips and lets them fall to the ground in that manner. I have been in firefights and never left a clip or magazine ANYWHERE. They can be picked up and used by the enemy. In close combat, the sound of an empty magazine hitting anything but grass is audible.

                My two cents….this could have been a wannabe….but I doubt even that. As you stated, too many things do not add up. What you saw and what I saw….In addition, anyone who does have knowledge of operations of this type are security bound. Anti military and special ops doubt about it.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                USW, D13

                OK, you guys got my curiosity going and now I have spent way to much time trying to chase this guy down. It really isn’t important to the point of the question he asked, but in this day and age the lack of credibility of the person can certainly destroy the message. Took a while but I found a post he made on a Ron Paul site and then followed the conversations.

                Following are the comments relative to his service. His first one is in response to a guy who attacked his character for doing the things he said he did while in Iraq. Then a few days later two guys show up, on the same day and time, to attack his service. BUT, they both claim he WAS there although while one says he is no Ranger, admits to being in the same “Unit”, but does not explain what Unit that is. So I think it is unclear what his role was, although it looks like he was in the Army and he was in Iraq.

                Of course, we have no way of confirming any of the comments by him or the other two are real. It did seem strange how these two showed up to criticize out of the blue. No other participation on the site. Similar to the Troll attacks on USW made here before. Maybe they saw the Stossel show and followed links like I did. Who knows.

                Anyhow, if this stuff is half way accurate it seems to support all OUR suspicions., Note, he claims to have been in country only 4 months. Here you go.

                David Kirk West 2/25/12
                After I saw what was happening, it didn’t take me much time to wake up and realize that I wasn’t fighting bonafide terrorists. I started getting pretty vocal about my growing opposition to the wars before we were even done with our 4 month deployment. When I got back stateside, I started a year-long battle to get discharged as a conscientious objector. I told my chain of command that, while I was in no way a pacifist (and didn’t need to be one, according to AR600-43), I could not agree to fight for the government any more.
                Don’t be so quick to judge someone whose story you don’t know. I was NOT just a soldier who hid behind the excuse of following orders. I THOUGHT what I was doing would be righteous. It didn’t take me long to realize that it wasn’t, and I course corrected as quickly as I could.

                Submitted by Jhayes6405 on Mon, 02/27/2012 – 21:37. Permalink
                I too was in the same unit who deployed with Mr. west. David was no Ranger. Yes he was a member of the unit for a brief period. He proved himself to be such a pathetic excuse for a soldier he was promptly marked for duties no higher than one would consider a clerk. Mr West was caught stealing from the Army and other soldiers in order to further his own personal agenda of a post governmental society.
                Do you remember me David? We had several talks about how you act as a man and not hide from the responsibilities of your crimes behind your supposed ” conscientious objector” status. I respect a man who stands up for what he believes in. Especially in such a totalitarian place as the Rangers, but you proclaiming you abhorrence to war was only an effort to distract from the stealing from the men who were supposed to be your brothers.
                Shame on you David. Shame on you for bringing up the death of a friend of mine. A man you didn’t even know.

                Submitted by dbake28 on Mon, 02/27/2012 – 23:19. Permalink
                I too served with Mr. West and can confirm that he was the most worthless individual I have ever experienced in my career. He was released from the Regiment if not chaptered out of the Army as a PFC after he claimed to be conscientious objector because either way he was going to be kicked out because he couldn’t cut it. Before being booted out he was caught stealing from his fellow Rangers. Mr West is no hero.

                Submitted by dabooda on Tue, 02/28/2012 – 01:59. Permalink
                And I say this as someone who has taken a great deal of flak for criticizing David West myself.
                Why would a man with an “personal agenda” of furthering “a post-governmental society” join the military at all? It makes no sense whatsoever.
                I can’t say what kind of soldier Mr. West was, but I’ll say he showed rare courage and integrity standing up to John Bolton, and if I had to lay a bet who is telling the truth here, I’d bet on him, not some guy who shows up using two different screen names to “support” his own veracity.

                Submitted by Jhayes6405 on Tue, 02/28/2012 – 02:32.
                I wondered the same thing about West when he was there too. I was one of the only guys who sat down with him and tried to reason with him. My only thought was he was like me in a sense. I thought the Army was an entirely different beast than it turned out to be. I left very jaded toward it and my country. Or maybe he saw the military as a way to learn vital skills he may need later in life? I dont know, and I dont much care. All I know is how he conducted himself while assigned to D/3/75. Stealing from my buddies is something I never would have resorted to though.
                It’s an easy assumption to make that I posted as another person. I can’t disprove it, but it simply isn’t true.
                West and I are exchanging emails now.
                What courage does it take to “stand up” to some over inflated Washington fat cat? He asked a provocative question but built his credibility on falsehoods.

                Submitted by beesting on Mon, 03/05/2012 – 13:29.
                I know David personally!
                I served for 7 1/2 years in the USAF, and also saw despicable foreign war survivors that would turn any sane person sick.
                You brown nosers that put David down are not doing any good spreading your unappreciated opinions about a fellow uniformed soldier, and should be ashamed of yourselves.
                Anybody that’s been in a war zone is putting his/her LIFE on the line, and just maybe John Bolton should go grab a gun and join the fray, to really see what happens in wars.
                There are NO winners, only dead, wounded, and mentally maimed forever survivors.
                Go ask Adam Kokeish what he thinks !

                Here is the site where I found this discussion:


                By the way, I found other stuff with pictures of him, all part of promoting his “films”, and he had the toothpick in all of them. Strange habit.

              • USWeapon says:

                Hi JAC… My questioning of his background was in no way meant to take away from the question he asked of Bolton. It is a fair question if one believes that this is the mission that was being carried out. It appears that perhaps the claim he was making about what the Rangers were doing were either based on second hand info or made up altogether to support an agenda, but it doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be asked. Regardless of the missions being done, even if we assume that the missions he described are completely made up, it is a valid question to ponder whether they are fighting us simply because we are there.

                You mentioned the trolls that came after me here, and believe me I have thought about that in light of what you found in the discussions. Obviously, there are people who will say anything to destroy the credibility of the folks they disagree with. I don’t make the accusation lightly, and I do stress that I believed he was a soldier at least for a time, just not a Ranger. As I noted, I could be wrong, but it just didn’t seem that way. It appears that these people who knew him confirmed that he was not a Ranger, but was a support unit as I initially suspected. I had already determined that I wouldn’t post any comments on his site, as I didn’t have any evidence that he was telling the truth or not. It was just a gut feeling. I feel much better knowing that D13 got the same feeling, so it wasn’t just me. But that is the extent of my criticism of the man. And there really isn’t any reason for you to spend any more time digging into him. His agenda is obvious, and if he gains any traction by claiming to be something that he isn’t, I am sure folks who were in Iraq with 3/75 will call him on it.

                I won’t go any further about this. There really isn’t a reason to. Whether he was in the Army or not, whether he was a Ranger or not, he is entitled to his opinions, and his question to Bolton was valid. I agree with Bolton’s answer that if he knew of such things that he should have reported them rather than politicizing them. But I really would have liked Bolton to answer the question.

                But I will roundly criticize his depiction of soldiers in general through the use of his movie. It is neither accurate nor realistic, in my opinion.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I wouldn’t have spent a moment on the guy except I also had strange feeling about him and was curious. It was his “movies” that got me looking.

                I do think he is a great example of how when you want to make a point or have one question of someone like Bolton, DO NOT confuse the question with “setting the stage”. Bolton then used the “stage” for his rebuttal.

                Now that said, I find this fellow and many of those commenting on his post to the Paul site to be very much like the “looney” Paul folks I ran into when the Tea Party stuff first got going. Literally all kinds of folks crawling out of the woods. Some rational and some who believe there are “reptilian aliens” walking among us.

                Also found it interesting that this character lives somewhere in that part of Oregon I drove through last week on the way home. Probably one of those Gadsen flags I saw flying along the way. 🙂

              • @JAC……after reading and looking at the site you posted, it fits what I thought. A wannabe and a dropout. I do not question, at least now, some type of military duty. He simply was not a Ranger and he does not have first hand knowledge of Ranger Operations. I proudly wear the tab since I went through Ranger training but was never assigned to a Ranger detachment. We were simply Ranger qualified. It is great training for small unit operations or that is what the training was for in 1969/70. I am sure that the operations have changed significantly since the Vietnam War. I lost touch with that type of training because as an officer, the slots were severely limited in the 5th or 7th Forces. I cross branched into Armor to further my career.

                This lad may have been some sort of admin guy for awhile. That would make sense according to some of the posts that said he was stealing. The black market is alive and well in all theaters of combat operations and the rear echelon guys had access to overages. As a former commander, one of the areas of concern was always the supply chain. Commanding officers always had to sign for and be fiscally responsible for their supply chain. I, of course, made the supply sergeant sign for the property as well so when the change of command came all equipment was accounted for whether issued or destroyed or on the shelves. So,it is possible for this lad to have been in some sort of support role IF he indeed was stealing. He could not take the equipment home, so any theft would have been black market. But, like USW, I would not waste anymore time on this…..but the idea of “peace keepers” coming after him and kicking in doors…..well, it makes good movies.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    USW and d13thecolonel.

    Gentlemen, I see that I left my computer on while doing yard work yesterday, and that Gremlin that hides in my office used the chance to disparage your past profession and honor.

    Sirs, I just want you to know that I would NEVER, EVER, in a million years, accuse you of being Roosters.


    • JAC….JAC…..JAC……your Gremlin can make us Roosters…your Gremlin can make us Piglets….your Gremlin can make us anything you want…..heh heh. Just tell him not be disturbed at any strange noises in the middle of the night…….hoorah.

      Swift..Silent..Deadly…………call in the A I R B O R N E when any real fighting needs to be done.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13 and USW

        When you AIRBORNE guys get to where your going, could you do me a big favor and bring my sign home with you.

        I’m starting to run low.


        • OMG JAC! Blast from the past! My dad used to draw that “schmoe” on the chalkboard in our bedroom when we were kids.Schmoe was the tattletale if we didn’t go right to sleep. He also kept us (5 girls) safe from monsters! 🙂

        • Ahhhhh…..there you go again, JAC. Just like the Obama administration saying that the GSA problems were a holdover from Bush (When everyone knows that the GSA was the ONLY department that cut millions under Bush)……….you are taking credit for what Airborne Pathfinders left for you……..tch tch tch.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA, and Buck the Wala in particular.

    Today I find myself in complete agreement with Justice Clarence Thomas. He nailed it on a concern I have had for years regarding the SCOTUS methods of “questioning” lawyers during the Oral Arguments before the court. Especially the hand holding. And yes Buck, I admit I have seen it in the past by both sides. I just thought it even more over the top the other day. Especially when the solicitor couldn’t speak without stumbling over his words.

    In this link you will also find a list of great examples of why we have so much divide in our political debate. Notice how many of those on the left couldn’t just say, “Hell Yes, I agree.”

    • Good commentary by Thomas.

      When any justice has to guide the oral arguments along and even offer up additional information that the presenter missed, as we saw in the OCare arguments, something is wrong. Funny how those those HuffPo commenters didn’t pick up on this.

      • When they are only allowed 30-40 min’s, stealing some of that time could be crucial. Also disrupting their presentation, side-tracking them could really hurt a case. And if the justices are debating a point, they might be able to “coach” an answer out of an exchange. I think this is where they play a lot of politics.

  27. charlieopera says:

    @VH: am a little confused by your posts, Charlie-in some you say people have the right to stop someone from stealing from them-in others you say they cannot pursue a person. Which is it? Does a person have to stand by and have their possessions taken from them? Or can they pursue to stop a theft?

    VH, in my personal opinion, a person can pursue to his or her hearts content, but if in so doing they put themselves at risk (where there was no risk of losing one’s life at the initial infraction (for lack of a better word), then the stand your ground rule should not apply.

    Example: The case of the guy who saw someone stealing his truck from his bedroom window. Of course I’d want to pursue. Most would. And they may do so, but the pursuer’s life was NEVER in danger while he was upstairs in his bedroom. He could have done any number of things, including pursuing the thief, but once he boxes the thief in, say, he has now initiated whatever happens next. In the actual case in Florida, the thief had a knife, but it was closed and in his pocket. The shooter even admitted the thief never made a threatening move.

    In the Florida case where two gangs took shots at one another and a fifteen year old kid was killed, the prosecution’s murder charge was dropped by a judge (negating the fact that a wild west shootout was going on and other innocents were exposed to stray bullets and opening the door for further wild west shootouts).

    I have no problem with anyone pursuing, but once you do that, you are putting yourself at risk and shouldn’t be permitted to use stand your ground. That is my opinion on those types of cases. Obviously, if I chase a guy who stole my wife’s handbag and he pulls a knife on me and I get lucky and snap his neck, I’m defending my life. Same with the guy who saw his truck being stolen, except the thief in that case made no threatening move once the guy caught him (and stabbed him to death).

    It’s a tricky and slipper slope, but we already have self-defense laws on the books. I think stand your ground can be used in so many bad ways, it isn’t worth the risk.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Put the law aside for a minute, assume it doesn’t exist.

      Some guy steals my bike and takes off. I give chase and catch him.

      I tell the guy to give me back my bike or I’ll call the cops.

      The guy comes at me with a pipe wrench, machete, gun, you name it. Hell he just attacks me with his “fists”.

      Per your argument, I NO LONGER have the Right to Defend myself. Because I gave chase to the thief.

      Furthermore, if I defend my self, I am guilty of “Assault”, “Battery” or even “Murder”, depending on the outcome.

      Yet not once did I actually INITIATE force or violence against this other person.

      But then you turn around and claim: “Obviously, if I chase a guy who stole my wife’s handbag and he pulls a knife on me and I get lucky and snap his neck, I’m defending my life.”

      Charlie, that is ALL the Stand Your Ground law says. That YOU can not be charged with a crime for snapping this guys neck. Because, You were “defending yourself”. Or do you think that YOU should be charged with murder?

      • charlieopera says:

        Per your argument, I NO LONGER have the Right to Defend myself. Because I gave chase to the thief.

        That’s a different scenario than the one in Florida where the guy who did the stabbing (the guy who owned the truck) admitted there was no threat against him.

        Furthermore, if I defend my self, I am guilty of “Assault”, “Battery” or even “Murder”, depending on the outcome.

        Assuming he does come at you with a weapon, you do what you need to do. If it’s just his fists, unless you can’t fight, it’s a fight. But do you see where this gets completely out of hand (or the potential is there to get out of hand). The law states if you have “reasonable” feeling you’re in danger … that one can be stretched (and has been) to a gang shootout in the streets. I think if you encourage people to give chase, in some instances I’m sure there will be a justified result, but I’m just as sure (and it has been documented now) there will be just as many unjustified results. Too many are deaths where there was no immediate life-threatening situation. It sets up vigilantism (to my mind). The fact it’s being used by criminals now is pretty telling as well.

        Yet not once did I actually INITIATE force or violence against this other person.

        Nor did you avoid it. That’s one of my points.

        But then you turn around and claim: “Obviously, if I chase a guy who stole my wife’s handbag and he pulls a knife on me and I get lucky and snap his neck, I’m defending my life.”

        Again, not what has happened in some cases in florida. The law was interpreted without the threat.

        Charlie, that is ALL the Stand Your Ground law says. That YOU can not be charged with a crime for snapping this guys neck. Because, You were “defending yourself”. Or do you think that YOU should be charged with murder?

        That would also apply in any self defense case. If it happens as I described it (hand bag, knife, neck, etc.), that’s clearly self defense. Why do we need another law that broadens that definition to include gang shootouts? That’s all I’m saying, JAC.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Here is the key to this whole “reason” for the law Charlie.

          Your own conclusion: “That would also apply in any self defense case. If it happens as I described it (hand bag, knife, neck, etc.), that’s clearly self defense.”, is NOT TRUE.

          Under “normal” self defense rules people who acted as you did would be prosecuted for murder, battery, etc. BECAUSE you chased the thief and harm resulted in your chase.

          So Charlie, you agree with me regarding your rights and regarding the use of self defense, but the existing laws would make you the criminal.

          You did not answer my direct question in this regard. Do you think YOU should be arrested and held for trial for breaking the guys neck?

          The law doesn’t broaden the definition to include gang shootouts. In fact, the EXISTING laws would under your theory protect the gangbanger who was attacked, already. Being in a gang is not illegal. The presumption of guilt is kind of like a black guy wearing a hoody in fact.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Clever response by a commenter at Malkin’s site, regarding the employment numbers released today. This by the way, is the same logic used by Mr. Obama in his claims that the Ryan budget will cut the safety net.

    On April 6th, 2012 at 10:17 am, rightwingrocker said:

    Employers added 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, the smallest increase since October.

    Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm employment to increase 203,000 and the unemployment rate to hold at 8.3 percent.

    Using Washington, DC logic, that is a loss of 83,000 jobs …



  29. I wish they had given a few more details -but opinions.

    GOP version of Dream Act holds promise
    By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor

    San Diego (CNN) — You may have heard that a group of Republicans in Congress — including GOP rock star and possible vice presidential pick Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — are getting ready to introduce their version of the DREAM Act.You also may have heard that Democratic lawmakers and liberal advocacy groups despise the Republican alternative and derisively label it “DREAM Act Lite.”

    As someone who has written about immigration for more than 20 years and hammered Democrats and Republicans (including Rubio) when appropriate, I call the GOP approach to the DREAM Act something else: A common sense solution. It could break a stalemate and improve millions of lives. And it could only be opposed for ugly partisan reasons.

    While it’s not perfect — and no piece of legislation is — it is better than nothing, which is all the critics have been able to offer, even when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

    Like the bill that has been kicked around in Congress for more than a decade, and which met its demise in December 2010 when five Senate Democrats effectively killed it by voting against cloture on the debate, the Republican plan would give undocumented students a path to legal status in exchange for going to college or joining the military.

    But unlike the earlier version, it would not include a path to citizenship. Students could become citizens later. It’s not like they’d be barred from the citizenship process. But they would have to take the initiative. It would be on them, as it should be.

    Of course, Democrats hate this idea — for three reasons.

    1. Some of the 50 Senate Democrats who voted in favor of cloture in support of the original DREAM Act may have been moved by the humanitarian argument that young people brought here by their parents shouldn’t be forced to languish in the world of the undocumented.

    But for others, it is likely that their vote was a political calculation. If hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students could gain legal status, many of those people would become loyal Democratic voters for life. But if citizenship isn’t in the mix, and there are no votes to be had, why bother?

    2. Rubio is attached to the bill, and, in fact, seems to have been put front and center by Republican colleagues such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Democrats know that the Cuban-American senator is on the short list of likely running mates for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. And that has to terrify them.

    Rubio has skills. Besides, they know that putting him on the ticket could lure some Latino support away from Democrats — especially given that, according to polls, a majority of Latino voters disapprove of President Barack Obama’s handling of immigration. If they can torpedo the GOP DREAM Act, they might just hobble Rubio. But if they can’t, and Rubio uses the bill to score points with Latino voters, it could be a nightmare for Democrats in November.

    3. Many Congressional Democrats, and for that matter, most of the other critics of the Republican bill, don’t really understand what is at stake in the debate over illegal immigration.

    They approach the issue of what to do with the undocumented in the third person, like rich folks who talk about poverty over lunch. If you want to know what the immigration debate is really about, you need to get out of the Washington echo chamber and ask an illegal immigrant. Why would you ask a U.S. citizen who takes for granted all the benefits that come with citizenship?

    Take it from me. I was born in the United States, as were three of my four grandparents. So while I care about the immigration debate, the truth is that my destiny, and that of my family members, doesn’t rise and fall on whether Congress stops passing this hot potato and finally tackles immigration reform.

    I can sympathize with the undocumented, but I can’t empathize. So when they talk, I shut up and listen. What I’m hearing from the illegal immigrants I’ve interviewed — who also happen to be parents of teenagers who are also undocumented — is emphatic support for a bill like this. They don’t care about citizenship, and they care even less about voting. All they care about is putting their kids in a lifeboat.

    Many of those kids are planning to go to college and start lives of their own like their classmates, and the last thing their parents want to do is explain why that is impossible.

    While Congress dickers on this issue, all these people hear is the ticking of the clock. They understand the value of a solution, even if Democrats in Congress don’t.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that those who are so quick to criticize a bill they have not even seen yet may not be interested in solutions at all. Maybe what they really want is the problem — something to hurl at their opponents at election time to rile up Latinos so they turn out and vote for Democrats. If that is the case, then shame on them. This isn’t a game. This is about peoples’ lives and finding the best way to enrich them without turning our country’s principles inside out.

    We tried the Democrats’ approach. Many of them backed the original DREAM Act, but the leadership couldn’t even convince every Democrat in the Senate to support the bill. Now let’s give the Republicans a chance. And give politics a rest.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Looks like AMNESTY II, to me.

      If we are going to entertain letting them all stay, and helping the kids through college, then just stop pretending and give them AMNISTY.

      But nobody has the GUTS to do what they really want to do. Another BS political game.

      I HATE the idea of holding future citizenship hostage to anything, school or military, other than hard work and a desire to be an American and NOT something else.

      And of course once this is passed, and we still haven’t solved the border porosity problem, what does this guy think will happen next?

      • I’ll wait to hear the details before making a final decision, maybe closing the borders will be in it somewhere.

        But it always comes back to closing the borders(which it should)-I wish the liberals would give in on this fight about the borders-because I truly want to give the children of illegals who are already here and have been most of their lives-the security of being here legally, but not immediate citizenship.

        I also find the idea that they must attend college or join the military as the basis for staying-is promoting the wrong, I guess “motivation” for being a part of our country-it should be because they want to be an American. But we have to figure out something-because this problem isn’t going away.

        • Thing is that to make something happen, we all have to be on roughly the same page. Personally, Gingrich’s plan was just about perfect. Come forward, identify yourself, be vetted, if you have been here long enough, get a green card which is revokable should you be convicted of a crime. Never, never be allowed full citizenship. Your children will have it but you won’t. That’s the penalty. You are a bona fide legal resident with all the rights but no vote. That, is the penalty.

          If we could all pull in this direction, I think it could be rammed down the politicians throats. Kt is too simple a solution though.

  30. How can Obama make this statement “Ultimately, 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. “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.”

    While at the same time refusing to enforce laws he does not like and refusing to defend DOMA -which is also a democratically passed law-I believe it was actually passed by a strong majority. He seems to be displaying a lot of “activism” his self- what ever one thinks of the Courts decision-at least they are legally empowered to make this decision-Obama not so much.

  31. Several months back I was bored and wrote a short story that predicted the future of politics in this country. I did not share it as it was not well written and covered to long a time period hence was devoid of many of the details it needed to flow well. It would make a good outline for novel. Part of the prediction was that the OWS crowd would cause trouble leading up to the fall elections and as a result, martial law would be declared and the elections postponed indefinitely. The OWS crowd would morph into BHO brown shirts. From there everything goes down hill. For the Texans it was positive as the Republic of Texas was reborn.

    Anyway, please look at this link to see what Van Jones is now up to.

    Could my prediction be coming true?

    • Anything is possible 🙂 I find it interesting that the OWS crowd which seems to be aligned with the union, are going out of their way to make an enemy of the police and the police union.

      Occupy’s New ‘Enemy’: the Police

      by Lee Stranahan

      In an online discussion this week, Natasha Lennard, Salon’s reporter covering the Occupy Wall Street movement, clearly spelled out what she believes will be the prime “enemy” for the Occupy movement this spring: the police.

      The online chat was previewed on

      Lennard, a former New York Times reporter who was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge during a mass protest back in October 2011, discussed what she perceives to be police “repression” against Occupiers who recently attempted illegal civil obedience in direct actions designed to take over property, such as retaking Zuccotti Park in New York City.

      Responding to a question from the audience about identifying “enemies”, Ms. Lennard replies that while she didn’t believe that the neo-left, “Chicago school” tactic of identifying enemies was the optimal one for the movement, she did say that “racism and patriarchy” were enemies and then referred to the police as “an emerging enemy.”

      Ms. Lennard’s statement seems to echo the beliefs of many in the Occupy movement. When the movement began back in the fall of 2011, many said “the police are part of the 99%.” However, the general antipathy towards law enforcement shared by many of the movement, anarchist leaders combined with the press-garnering effectiveness of direct conflict and aggravation of police officers, soon eroded any possible feelings of solidarity.

      Now that the legal resistance against the Occupy movement has stiffened, look for increasing hard-line conflict.

    • LOL….One could only hope, T-Ray…….You would not believe how many Texans would love to go back to being Republic.,,,,and they are not a minority.

    • Ugg, I don’t think she’s at risk on anyone wanting to cross her police line.

  32. PICKET: H.S. student’s traditional family mural censored

    By Kerry Picket

    April 7, 2012, 09:39PM

    Elizabeth Bierenday, a junior at at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, Rhode Island, found out her mural, showing a boy growing up into an adult with a wife and family, was so offensive it had to be painted over. According to a local NBC 10 news report out of Warwick, Bierenday was asked by the school to paint a mural:

    Bierenday showed the school’s assistant principal the sketches, which were approved.
    Bierenday said she started to paint the mural last week, when an assistant principal came to her with a problem.

    Some people at the school felt the mural didn’t accurately represent many students at Pilgrim and school officials decided to paint over the right side.

    Warwick Superintendent Peter Horoschak said he just found out about the issue on Thursday and sided with Bierenday saying she should be allowed to paint her original design.

    NBC 10 spoke with a few parents and they agreed with the superintendent.
    On Friday, Bierenday spoke with John DePetro on WPRO-AM about the mural and said she was told that her original design may be offensive or a religious symbol.

    A final decision is scheduled to be made about the mural next week.

  33. @ Charlie… know, after reading all this stuff on the “Stand Your Ground Law”…you are correct.

    Just adopt the Texas method and there would be no problems. You have a right to defend yourself and protect you property no matter where you are and what it is using deadly force. You have a right to protect another person’s life and property with the same effect. Trespass carries the same penalty. It is really simple. Someone is stealing your car… practice. Someone steals your bike…don’t forget to lead them properly…then target practice. (If you shoot more than once, make sure your shot group is tight.) Can’t get a clear shot?….move until you have one. We do not look at property in value….it is property whether a football or a Stetson or a brand new Pickup….it does not matter….it is the act of theft that matters. Like the grandmother told the police in Houston…..”you will find one intruder on the living room floor and the other one outside in the yard. I was a little slow getting to the front door. I am 78 and not as fast as I used to be.”

    DO not wish to be profiled? Then do not act like someone who would be profiled. Ride around on motorcycle, covered in body art, and wearing German Nazi helmets… will be taken for a biker gang…..period. Wear your pants to your butt crack, hoodie, and use “home boy” language….you are immediately thought of as a gang member. Have tear drop tattoo’s under your eye (no matter your race), you will be thought of as a murderer or hit man. Shave your head bald and tattoo “live or die” on your arm and you are a (fill in the race blank) supremacist. Any of these examples will draw scrutiny….but, even in Texas, these examples do not allow vigilantism. We will hang those as well.

    See it is so simple here…..BUT….we do not eat what ever that strange word you had earlier was. Come on down… is so much easier here and we will teach you how to shoot.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hey Colonel!

      Been on the road a bit, having caught up some, I must agree with you 100%. I am not bald (yet anyway, LOL) and my 3 tatoos are 2 eagles and 1 8 point buck! Not much into that supremecy thing, maybe that’s why I have issues with Liberals 😆 I do not want to be told how to live, period. I would live for you to come visit my (rather cool) part of the country some day, you will see that freedom isn’t just a Texas thing (not saying that you feel that way), it’s country wide, and blood deep!

      • Hi Gman…….freedom is not just a Texas thing…we are just simple and straight forward. HOWEVER, we do have our detractors. There is a KKK outfit down in the triangle area (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Vidor) that should not be there but attrition is making them smaller and smaller each year. We do not condone such methods and organizations.To my knowledge, we do not have any other skin heads nor survivalists living in underground bunkers in the wilderness areas.

        Would love to come visit and looking forward to CM later this year as soon as I can get my schedule straight.

  34. O’Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder’s Ballot

    by Breitbart News
    In a shocking new video, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.

    The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year – April 3, 2012 – and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.

    Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.

    Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve shown celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady registering to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Washington DC voting law is a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sigh. When are these criminals going to be arrested and charged with voter fraud?

      • Good morning, counselor, do I detect a note of sarcasm this….ummmmm….very foggy morning, here.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Maybe when Holder admits that there is such a thing?

        ROFL yeah that’ll happen 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        By the way folks, since we all SHOULD know by now that VOTING is a fraud in and of itself….

        Oh well, carry on!

      • If they do not vote, what fraud are they committing? Would you feel better it Mike Wallace was doing the taping?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Federal law provides that it is a crime to knowingly procure (or attempt to procure) an application or ballot that are known by the person to be materially false.

          And Colonel, no sarcasm here – I would actually love to see O’Keefe charged here!

          • Would this not fall under some version of the “whistle blower” issue?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Don’t think so. He broke the law in procuring these ballots; plain and simple.

              I believe you made the point the other day in regards to immigration — we have laws and they should be enforced and applied equally to everyone so long as that is the law of the land. Shouldn’t the same hold true to voter fraud laws?

              • Certainly, but unless I am wrong…(and I could very well be here) doesn’t the whistle blower statute or act or what ever it is protect these types of individuals, if said actions show that fraud does exist?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t believe so, but I could be wrong as well. I didn’t think the whistleblower act extended to permitting individuals to engage in criminal behavior themselves to ‘prove’ that such behavior is possible.

              • He procured nothing. Look at the video – was the ballot even handed to him?

                You are really desperate here, Buck, to claim this is voter fraud. And yet, real voter fraud occurs at every election with help from Holder, Acorn, Community Organizers Anonymous, et al, and yet they fight, fight, fight against the only thing that can begin to bring credibility to the process: Voter ID

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Kathy, he asked for a ballot that he knew to be materially false.

                For all the talk about the need for voter ID laws, the need to prosecute individuals and organizations for voter fraud, here is a clear cut case of an individual committing voter fraud! Prosecute away!

              • Even if they do get prosecuted, the fact remains that successful voter fraud was quite simple, indicating a strong need for a better system. Rather than focussing on whether the so-called “whistle blowers” were engaging in criminal acts or not, consider the results of their little “experiment”.

              • Kathy,
                Please provide facts to support this:

                And yet, real voter fraud occurs at every election with help from Holder, Acorn, Community Organizers Anonymous, et al,

          • Goes to intent. Did they intend to obtain a ballot illegally? In no case have they accepted a ballot even thought they were offered and assured they could have the ballots. They did not accept the ballot. They were attempting to demonstrate they could obtain ballots with ease that many government officials claim is not and can not be a issue.

            If I go to a store and carry an item around, have I shoplifted? What if I put it in my pocket because my hands are full(should have gotten a cart). Until I leave the store, what crime have I committed?

            • Interesting theory….but beyond my pay grade…..but, if Buck is right….even the attempting to procure violates the law whether or not he took it. The dilemma…..voter ID would help stop this type pf thing but the rallying cry in the wilderness is that it disenfranchises……

            • Buck the Wala says:

              The way I read the statute is that even the attempt to obtain a knowingly false ballot is a crime. Doesn’t matter that he didn’t intent to actually cast a vote.

              • They did NOT attempt to obtain a ballot. They acted to see if they could but rejected taking the ballot.

                Consider me, a well known thief. I go to a jewelry store and ask to look at an expensive rock. I say I’ll take it and am going to my car for the cash. Buck the ace detective is watching the whole thing. I stop and joke with him because there is nothing he can do to me. Looking is not against the law. What’s that saying possession is 9/10’s of the law?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                They knowingly and purposefully asked for a ballot that they knew to be materially false. That is the crime in this context.

            • What if I put it in my pocket because my hands are full(should have gotten a cart). Until I leave the store, what crime have I committed?

              Willful concealment is shoplifting. You do not have to leave the store.

              If you don’t believe me, feel free to test this out… 😉

              • 1. If they catch me.
                2. If they believe it was intentional theft (goes to character). A known person of good character would not even be detained. The store manager would talk to them and any reasonable explanation would be accepted. ( I know this because I am a character)
                3. Yes, I think you are correct but think it is state law, and may vary?

  35. Navy deploys nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Gulf amid rising tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. Sure glad Obama is not going to use the military he despises.

    • Colonel,
      A month or so ago you were saying that Obama would be too chicken to send one aircraft carrier into the Gulf.

      Now that he’s send a second one, you’re upset because Obama despises the military?

      What do you base this on?

      • Hi Todd…hope you are well today.

        Yes, I did say that which was in response to the threat to close the waterway. I also posted I was pleasantly surprised that they did not back off and that nothing happened because Iran is all bluff when it comes to naval power and threats, It is the way of the mid east. I am constantly reminded by the leftward leaning that the cause of the problems of the world was Bush and his interventionist policies of sending carriers and military around the world. Now we have a Liberal President that ran on a platform of non military intervention and then has intervened in more countries than Bush and, if this were not an election year, he would not be fighting Iran and its ambitions…this is my belief.

        I am not sure that TWO carrier divisions are necessary but this tells me something is in the making. And this is certainly going against the grain of the democratic party.

        However, to answer your question of him despising the military….I have plenty of things to post on this…..I will a little later this afternoon.

  36. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Charlie et al.

    Rational thought does not kill the soul. Rational thought ENLIGHTENS the soul! A soul bereft of rational thought is a soul wandering in the darkness. I will expand on this later when I have a bit more time.

  37. April 9, 2012
    Yippee! Free government money! Come and get it!
    Thomas Lifson

    So anxious is the federal government to give away money to lower income people (up to $49k!) that it is buying expensive full page advertising in magazines like Sports Illustrated urging people to take advantage of the “Earned Income Tax Credit” (EITC) program. In the ad reproduced below, the fed show pennies raining down from heaven (get it? pennies from heaven), so that poor people merely need to put out a vessel of some sort to catch the money.

    As you prepare to send in your income taxes on April 15 — for many taxpayers the amount involved is more than they spend on food and housing combined — remember that other people get paid money when they file taxes, because their incomes are lower than yours.

    The desperation to spend as much money as possible on taking money from taxpayers and giving it to other people who didn’t earn it and who don’t pay income taxes is offensive to everyone who works hard, succeeds, and as a result has a bulls eye painted on their pocketbooks.

    Update: According to its rate card, a full page color ad in Sports Illustrated’s national edition costs $238,000. Think of it: the feds are borrowing money from China in order to be able to borrow even more money from them and give it away to people who don’t earn it themselves.

    Read more:
    Pic at link….

  38. a couple of years ago, England’s father was responding to his daughter, who was asking for help when her house was being broken into.

    He went after the suspect in this case, he, the father. The two had a fight. Mr. England’s father was not armed, but the other man was. Turned around and shot him. That man, evidently, according to court documents that we have found, indicate that he was not prosecuted for that crime.

    Read more:

    Some interesting thoughts about this,

    A son became so upset over police failure to prosecute (supposedly) a black man that shot his white father who was trying to catch a man attempting to break into his daughters home. After all the media attention on Zimmerman/Martin, makes you wonder how hard is it to prosecute someone for shooting another person?

    CNN has now twice said Ni**er live, on air. Always heard only a black person can call another black person that? Fanning the flames a little?

    Double standards? Black on white crime not a story?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why would black on white or black on black crime be news worthy? The liberals cannot open up the airwaves to the race pimps in those instances.

  39. @Kathy……this discussion is whether or not the rule of law was broken. If the law is absolute and it was broken, then the law should apply evenly…no matter the intent or reason.

    The fact that voter fraud is rampant, which I believe it is, and I also believe that it is a democrat mantra, is not relevant in this case. You cannot go rob a bank to prove that the security is lax even if your intent is not to take the money.

    Now, if you wish to state that there is a double standard being applied to voting…I will agree with you. I will also agree that anyone casting a vote with a false id should also be subject to the same issue as Buck is pointing out. What I do not understand, is that even though Buck may be correct in the application of the law,,,,,,he is still against methods to dissuade voter fraud under the disguise of disenfranchisement. And, I have seen no one come forward with any other way to prevent voter fraud. As I said before, I do not think voter fraud to be an exception, I feel that it is rampant.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Colonel, as I’ve argued in the past – I do not support such efforts because I don’t believe that voter fraud is as much of an issue as those on the right make it out to be and because I believe the affect from the potential disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters is greater than the affect of any alleged voter fraud going on.

      • but, given known occurrences of voter fraud, on what do you base the idea that disenfranchisment due to ID requirements is higher? there is a TON of disenfranchisement, some of it due to perceived voter fraud, making people not bother voting because they feel it does not count and the game is rigged. There is as much evidence of that, if not more, as there is of people not voting due to ID requirements. Look at polls of non-voters and tell me what you think the real reasons are for disenfranchisement.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Part of the problem lies in the inability to prove disenfranchisement as a result of a voter ID law. It necessitates a look at who (and which communities) are affected the most by such laws. It also necessitates a look at any voter fraud actually being committed – which, by the evidence, is not much. Now, does that ‘not much’ figure necessitate voter ID laws to combat such fraud (and do the voter ID laws actually stop such fraud) is the question and where we disagree.

          • Indeed, and I do not disagree that the evidence is difficult to gather, nor do I disagree that the proven cases of voter fraud are few. What we are talking about in support of both laws, however, is perception. It is the perceived difficulty of getting an ID that might disenfranchise, more so than any real inability. It is the perception of fraud, regardless of how much there really is that can cause disenfranchisement that ID laws might help prevent.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Fair point, and one I will give more thought to. My initial impression though is that it doesn’t change anything. Even if the perception of fraud causes some people to choose not to vote (a choice being made), that is not the same to me as people being unable to vote due to the existence of a legal barrier.

              • Agreed, if it is truly an inability. I do not see how it is an inability, any citizen can get an ID. Furthermore, the proposed laws have contingencies for persons who show up without an ID, allowing them to vote but checking their claimed identity to make sure it is a legitimate person and that said identity is not used by another. I do agree that the required extra step is a more direct impact than a perceived futility due to a lack of steps, but the distinction is quite slight in practice, and it still would have to come down to what has the greater negative impact on voting, would it not?

      • Yep…I understand your position completely…..just trying to explain to Kathy.

      • “Buck the Wala says:
        April 9, 2012 at 9:41 am

        Sigh. When are these criminals going to be arrested and charged with voter fraud?”

        More votes than voters? (Move along, nothing to see.)
        Kerry wins by just 11,000. One city alone makes nearly half the numbers needed. ( A thourough investigation”wink, wink” will take place)
        200 felons were allowed to vote illegally
        100 people double-voted
        1,300 people voted on Election Day even though their same-day registration cards were missing names, addresses or other key data.

        5/12/2005 John Lott’s blogsite
        More on possible vote fraud in Milwaukee
        From John Fund writing at’s Political Diary:

        John Kerry won the swing state of Wisconsin by 11,000 votes out of some three million cast last November. Now many are wondering how solid that “win” was. An official inquiry into irregularities surrounding the Wisconsin election has just been finished by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, a Republican appointee, and Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann, a Democrat. In Milwaukee County alone, 4,609 more ballots were cast than can be matched with actual voters. In addition, more than 200 felons were allowed to vote illegally, more than 100 people double-voted and 1,300 people voted on Election Day even though their same-day registration cards were missing names, addresses or other key data.

        Buck, if voter fraud is such a small issue, why is policing or proving this such a problem? You want them to arrest the messange and dismiss whether he’s right or wrong.

      • The primary problem isn’t the rules. The real problem is the lack of consistency. Take some of the ballots that only marked the oval for Coleman, but where the oval is also marked through with an “X.” The Canvassing Board determined that those marks meant those voters intended to support “other/no one.” Here are a couple of examples, with more here.

        Yet, there are a number of cases where the exact same markings for Franken were decided by the Canvassing Board to result in votes for Franken. More can be found here.

        But to make the case even more strange, given this rule, what should the board decide when the oval is filled in for Coleman, but the Franken space is marked with an “X”? The board ruled that the vote is for Franken.

        Nor can Coleman even win when there is an oval filled in for Coleman and the Constitution Party candidate receives an “X.” In that case, the board determined the support went to “other/no one.”

        But if you have an oval filled in for Franken and the Independence Party candidate receives an oval with an “X,” the vote is given to Franken.

        There are other cases where the ballots are clearly marked for Coleman, though the marks were relatively small, and the board awarded the votes to no one.

        There are still other cases where it is hard to see how the board could legitimately declare certain votes for Franken. For example, a voter filled out neither the oval for Coleman nor for Franken, but colored in the area in between the two candidates. Part of the blob touches the edge of Coleman’s oval and one thin line goes slightly into Franken’s oval, and for 28 other races on the ballot the voter seems to have been able to fill out the required ovals – there is only one other case where he missed. Perhaps the board saw that the voter was voting for other Democrats and used that to help influence its decision, but there were a number of Democrats who voted for Obama and other Democrats, but not Franken.

        Still the most obvious classification would have been not for Franken, but for “no one,” what most readers of the Minneapolis Star Tribune thought was the right answer.

        Mistakes were also made against Franken, but they were much less common.

        The Canvassing Board has made a number of other controversial decisions. For example, 10 days ago, news headlines proclaimed “Franken Wins Big at Canvassing Board.” One decision, to count 133 so-called “missing” ballots in Minneapolis’ Ward 3, precinct 1, immediately gave Franken an extra 46 more votes than Coleman. That decision by itself gives Franken most of his projected winning margin.

        There has been much arbitrariness over whether to count newly found votes. Compare these 133 additional votes to the 171 votes that were found in Ramsey County’s Maplewood Precinct 6. In Precinct 6, Franken argued that the original vote total had missed the 171 votes because the voting machine was initially not working and the 171 were not rerun through the new machine that replaced the original defective one. However, Republicans were concerned that the newly “found” ballots might not have been really cast on Election Day.

        Since the recount showed that there were 171 more ballots than recorded votes, the decision was to add in the ballots, giving Franken a net gain of 37 votes.

        Contrast this to the 133 ballots in Minneapolis. The 133-vote problem arose because more votes were recorded on Election Day than were found when the recount was conducted. The initial explanation was that the ballots must have been accidentally run through the voting machine twice — that no votes were missing, but that 133 had just been accidentally counted twice. The Canvassing Board however decided not to rely on the recount and instead on the original machine totals.

        The only commonality in these two decisions was that the outcome benefited Franken. When the recount is in Franken’s favor that is used. When the original machine tally works best that is used.

        Ignoring the questions with correcting the typos and discovered ballots in an election judge’s car, the Canvassing Board’s decisions have easily supplied more than the 78 vote lead that the board projects Franken to end up with. Yet, the Canvassing Board’s choices will leave long lasting questions about the legitimacy of any win.

        Read more:,2933,470892,00.html#ixzz1rZYoez4T

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Change of Pace.

    An indicator of the economic impact of Autism.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    There is a wondeful video to watch here. I guess we are all supposed to be real afraid of these jackwagons.

  42. President Obama’s $1 Million Pizza Party In Detroit!
    April 9, 2012 12:27 PM

    By Carol Cain
    CBS 62

    President Barack Obama is coming to the Motor City for a $1 million pizza party being thrown for him compliments of Denise Ilitch, daughter of Little Caesars’ founders Mike and Marian Ilitch. Ilitch is opening her home April 18 for the fundraiser where movers and shakers are being asked to pony up thousands to add to his re-election coffer while getting a chance to rub shoulders with the most powerful man on the planet. “I’m honored to have been asked,” by the Obama campaign to host,” Ilitch said of the event she and husband, Jim Scalici, will hold at their Metro Detroit home. She made the comments on “Michigan Matters” when asked about media reports. Watch the full episode.

    When asked what she planned to serve, she said: “Pizza! But, we’ll be serving it on sterling silver plates!”

    The price of admission isn’t for those on a budget. $40,000 buys access to the cocktail reception, formal photo with Obama and dinner. $10,000 buys dinner and a photo.

    • This is very disturbing. I may have to stop rooting for the Tigers and Wings if the parents are in on this as well. If the parents don’t attend then I will just say a prayer for their daughter.


  43. As an individual who grew up in a different country, this article hit home to me. When I first moved to the United States, I remember being shocked by the vitriolic and, indeed, childish method of political discourse that seems to have overwhelmed the country. This attitude can be seen in virtually every level of the political process, from the citizens who substitute epithets such as “Obummer” or “Rethuglican” for valid opinions on the Internet, to the hateful and biased rhetoric seen in prominent television and radio personalities on both sides of the political spectrum. In response, both the Democratic and Republican parties have polarized to the extent that bipartisan cooperation is almost impossible to achieve, even when it results in debt crises and credit downgrading. Because our politicians are behaving “childishly,” as this post so aptly describes, they have accomplished proportionally little, and as a result, the American public’s approval of Congress has never been lower than it has been over these past few years.
    Sometimes, this inability to compromise has resulted in real policy changes; while an individual mandate was endorsed by many prominent Republicans just a few short years ago, the reactionary desire to vilify the other party has led to cries of “socialism” when describing a health care law that shares many common features with their past ideas. Because both parties have drifted further away from the ideological center, politicians have found it necessary to perform ideological acrobatics in order to justify themselves to the party base and the individuals who elected them. This has led to the perception that politicians are opportunists who cannot be trusted, increasing public dissatisfaction and creating intra-party division, in addition to the already crippling division that has been exhibited between the parties.
    On the other hand, sometimes this division has only lead to artificial distance between the parties. Immigration reform is an excellent example of this principle. This article accurately states “You either believe that the rule of law is the proper way to keep a civil society or you don’t.” Both parties are fond of implying that they uphold the rule of law, while the other wishes to destroy the American ideal, the prosperity of the nation, our essential freedoms, the principles our country was founded upon, etc., in a manner that blatantly disregards legality. Republicans portray Democrats as wishing to give illegal immigrants a free pass; Democrats insist that Republicans have proposed measures that violate the rights and freedoms of both citizens and immigrants.
    In actuality, neither party is willfully ignoring the law in order to promote a secretly anti-American agenda. While both parties may disagree on how to achieve an ideal, they have the same ideal at heart: a secure border with legal immigration. As an example, take the following two sentences, one from the Republican 2008 Party Platform, and one from the Democrat 2008 Platform: “America can have a strong immigration system without sacrificing the rule of law” and “American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” Taken out of the context of their platform, it is impossible to tell which sentence each party said, because they say the same thing.
    In fact, the Democrat and Republican platforms are often surprisingly similar, considering their apparent inability to compromise and the insults that are hurled back and forth. This has been shown on the issue of immigration, where both parties agree that the border system needs to be repaired, illegal immigration must be stopped, and that legal immigrants should be made to feel welcome. Often, both parties get caught up in the details of their different methods of accomplishing a common goal, and insist that the other party differs in terms of fundamental values, instead of in details. Even though both parties value the rule of law, want to end illegal immigration, and support the immigrant communities who lawfully build America, neither party can seem to acknowledge the fact out loud.
    A similar issue occurred with the debt-ceiling crisis. Neither party actually wanted America to default or have its credit rating reduced in the short term; in the long term, both parties state in their platforms that it is important to get the budget under control and achieve long-term stability. However, instead of acknowledging that the other party had the same basic goals, and making the necessary compromises on both sides to achieve this goal, the parties insisted on clinging to extreme positions on details, jeopardizing their ultimate goal because they could not make concessions.
    In the aftermath, the Democrats have been painted as the party of irresponsible waste, content to spend the government deeper into debt while taxing the American people until the USA collapses like the USSR. On the other hand, Republicans were characterized as the heartless one percent, who were content to let America default as long as they kept their tax breaks and their military. In actuality, both of these ideas are ludicrous. As this article says, “the stubbornness of children is human nature,” and while both parties are guilty of clinging childishly to details instead of compromising for what should matter most to them, the members of both parties have America’s best interests at heart.

    • Hi Jaclyn-Just a short comment about one point you made-I don’t see where democrats have agreed that we should do anything to stop illegal immigration-they seem to argue that the border should be left open -period.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        VH, I fear you prove Jaclyn’s point.

        • Perhaps, but I made one of my own. And backed hers up to a point-we are so busy arguing, that all I hear are the arguments for open borders from the left. So here’s your chance-under what conditions would the left agree to close the borders?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I don’t speak for the entire left wing (nor does the democratic party speak for me). I’m no expert on this issue and will not pretend to be, though I do know that you can’t just close the borders. Its just not possible.

            • I think I just made my point. The right doesn’t believe closing the border is the whole answer or even that the border can be completely closed-some people will still get through our defences-they just believe it is the first step-then we decide what to do with the people who are already here.

              • From their 2008 platform:
                We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law. We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence. We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade. We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally. And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It’s a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families, and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel. We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and we will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people’s privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

                Read more at the American Presidency Project: Democratic Party Platforms: 2008 Democratic Party Platform

              • Can you show me where the left has supported any laws that would actually accomplish what these words say?

                This was their most recent federal proposal. It would feature increased border security and a national ID card. “Increased border security” is hardly wanting to just leave the border open.

                They also support a system that would allow illegals, who have otherwise not broken the law, to gradually become citizens (it would take 8 years). As you yourself said, “The right doesn’t believe closing the border is the whole answer or even that the border can be completely closed-some people will still get through our defences-they just believe it is the first step-then we decide what to do with the people who are already here.” So, the left and right agree that fixing the border and increasing security is an important first step. They want to work towards it. I’m sure there are policy disagreements as to how to accomplish it – but really, is being able to ask for proof of citizenship (Republicans in Arizona or Alabama) so different than a national ID card (Democrats)? Both sides agree that deciding “what to do with the people who are already here” is a tricky issue.Is an 8-year probation period with numerous conditions really being “soft” on illegals, or is it just a pragmatic solution to the fact that these people are here, and deporting all of them would be impractical, let alone break up families and cause numerous problems.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And the national ID cards could be used as proof of who you are for voting purposes…


              • Well, maybe you should move this decussion to the new page-since we can claim we aren’t changing the subject 🙂 Hate to do this but I have to go-won’t be back until tonight-but will think about this and do a little research and get back to you guys. Jaclyn nice to meet you-will hopefully talk to you tomorrow.

    • While I agree that the parties are not really so different, I am not so sure I agree that they both have the best interests of the people in mind. Perhaps they have it at heart, in the sense that their intentions might be ok, but, being government people, they both tend to push for government solutions. There is a growing distrust of the people towards government, but there is also a distrust of government towards the people, hence the tendency to believe that people cannot survive on their own without massive government involvement in their lives. This is frustrating, since, while individuals do not always make good choices, the government is notorious for its bad or outdated decisions.

%d bloggers like this: