Partisan

Partisan

The Controversial Painting 'One Nation Under Socialism' (Photo Credit: John McNaughton / http://McNaughtonArt.com)

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation – referring to those who wholly support their party’s policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

In the United States,  “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties.

Renig Bumper Sticker
A friend posted this on facebook and I shared it with SUFA.  I find it to be racist and offensive.  I don’t have friends that object to Obama because of his skin color.  I know people who support him strictly because of his race, but that is another topic.  Someone responded to my friends post,

“I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”

I shouldn’t be offended since I’m not a Republican, but I do oppose Obama and don’t think that comment reflects well on me and most who have and are speaking out on today’s issues.  The TeaParty was vocal about fiscal responsibility and was called racist.  Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.  The price of gasoline alone is issue enough to call for his being thrown out.  He railed against Bush when oil prices spiked, by his own words and standards, Obama should be thrown out of office.  He is constantly attacking the “fat cats” on WallStreet while showing compassion for the man on the street suffering thru these hard times.  But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?  The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.  How much has the value of the dollar dropped since he took office?  WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.  The one defense I will offer for WallStreet is at least they are honest in what they seek, it’s all about the money!

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?(1)

I did not expect that comment!  Bravo, bravo!  I don’t agree with your political beliefs, but I respect the honest, forthright answer.  We could at least have a conversation that would have real meaning.  But could we have the same conversation with our president or most of his progressive followers?  Is he a socialist?  He and his American followers say no but a supermodel seems to think otherwise.  Is she judging him on his looks?  Would make sense for a model to focus closely on how a person looks, their appearance and attractiveness.
“I think Obama’s going to do it.  I’m socialist. What do you expect?”
I expected you to deny he was/is a socialists.  I expected you to blame the deficit on tax cuts and ignore record spending.  It’s hard to defend Bush’s spending record, which I don’t.  But how can anyone who attacked Bush on the economy and spending excuse Obama for the economy and spending?  Bush ran up the deficit in eight years.  Obama has surpassed him in only three.(2)  Any Obama supporters want to defend that?  If you try or even can defend that, I have a name for you, partisan.  I see you as not looking at what is right or wrong, but what is left and right.  And you have chosen sides like picking a sports team,  SOX fan until I die!  I think that’s OK in sports, but doesn’t work well in life and politics.  The Soviets and Chinese killed over 70 million in the name of the “Greater Good”.  Their leaders promised it would be worth the sacrifices later on, after everyone was equal.
Obama has made some promises and like others before him, failed to keep many.  Myself, I don’t care or mean to harp about  those he was wrong or nieve to make.  In many cases, he simply cannot fund/spend money as he would like without the agreement of both Congress and the Senate.  He wanted to spend more on cancer research, but could not get the support.  I don’t blame him for trying and failing on cancer.  I do blame him for promising to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, then submit a budget that achieves said balance and deficit goals some ten years after he’s out of office.(3)  I think Bush spent too much on the “War On Terrorism”, but let’s be honest, this was life and death.  Blame Bush for using 9/11 to incite the masses, but Congress and the Senate voted for the war.  That means we legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way.  That also means any person of conscience does not begrudge them whatever bullets or bandages they request.  Sure we get hosed sometimes like a MASH episode, draw a line thru the M16 and write pizza oven in and you will receive.  The thing is, Obama has spent, not on war, but on his agenda.  Oh, but thousands are dyeing in the streets of America. There is some truth to that, I remember Chicago had over 300 in its morgue, way more than they could processes.  They had to put two bodies in some coolers which broke some state laws but was mandated by other state laws.  Something about identifying/notifying and retaining the deceased body until efforts had been satisfied.  So to be very non-PC, how does ObamaCare fix the homeless or the drug addicts?  It has been US law that if they presented themselves to an emergency room, including the free ambulance ride, they would receive treatment.  Again, harsh reality, all the money in the world could not save Whitney Huston, Michael Jackson or Elvis.  So what are the visible results of Obama’s trillions of spending vs GWB’s trillions?  I’m still irritated (not surprised) at the thousands of dollars of increased health insurance costs I’ve paid since this came out, where are the promised “savings”?

The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000 — a direct violation of candidate Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. This Friday marks the second anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.

Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are four that most hurt young adults and children. Every single one of these taxes violates President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of taxes on families making less than $250,000.(oops, sorry, new ‘puter just erased instead of copied.  Source was the Daily Caller)


A sad truth to me, Obama did tell us what he hoped to do, the masses just heard what they wanted, with no thought to the cost.  I talk to a wide variety of people, and even the poor blacks are unhappy with the high gas prices.  They tell me they are not sure if they will vote for Obama again, or don’t answer.

Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice.”  Obama’s justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.

Still, most Americans would deny Obama’s Marxist outlook, mistaking the term’s meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao.  Marxist theory informed many of history’s most murderous tyrants, but Obama’s brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge.  He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.

Further confusion revolves around textbook definitions as production remains primarily private.  We still exhibit generally free markets, although our economic liberty rapidly erodes. If socialism connotes complete public ownership of society’s productive infrastructure, and capitalism represents purely private property with minimal state interference, then few examples of either exist. (4)

Can you be proud to be an American but still attack the very principles that inspired its creation?  How can you believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and then spout off about redistribution of wealth?  Words have meanings.  A celebrated constitutional scholar is expected to know redistribution of wealth in the context of his statement means taking from the wealthy by government force, and giving to those they deem needy.  One has to question what principles Obama is guided by…. does a handshake mean a honerable agreement, or is that the Chicago way, shake hands while slipping the knife in….

Boehner thought he had worked out a deal with Obama, a deal which included $800 billion in additional revenues, largely from future growth. This would be worked out through projections involving a “macro estimate”:

“(T)he macro estimate was essential to Boehner; he needed it to make the argument that a decent chunk of the additional revenue could come through growth and stepped-up compliance, and thus Congress wouldn’t need to actually raise anybody’s rates to get it done. Boehner left that Sunday meeting convinced that Geithner, in particular, understood and accepted this condition.

But in his counteroffer, Obama had reversed the formulation so that the tax revenue figure – now at $1.16 trillion – would be the minimum that rewriting the code could achieve (a floor), rather than a maximum (a ceiling). With a slight turn of phrase, he rejected Boehner’s entire premise that growth could be counted on to deliver some of the revenue. (did it again, this is from American Thinker)

  There are Republicans out there that would vote for George Zimmerman if he were in the primary!  And there are Democrats who will vote for Obama and never question if he’s right or wrong by their personal beliefs.  There are also true “Progressives”, who in MHO, are trying to walk us down the path to socialism.  I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway, but could be blinded by my own bias.  What about liberal bias?  Do you assume ignorance rather than look in the mirror?  If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way?  Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life?  China has dropped most of their green energy projects and has scaled up their coal use and imports.  Is it OK to mine coal in the US if it is exported to China?

(2)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
(3)http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
Advertisements

Comments

  1. I was hoping someone else had an article. Please treat as open mic.

    Proof global warming isn’t making weather wackier?

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/#ixzz1tcmlPbF0

  2. charlieopera says:

    Way to long to even read, never mind respond to piece by piece … but Sweet Jesus, talk about a partisan. Your post fits your description pretty well. Again short on time, but this really gets on my nerves (and not because it’s accurate or inaccurate): The Soviets and Chinese killed over 70 million in the name of the “Greater Good”.

    How many perished in North America from European “civilization”? How many deaths worldwide does America own? And if you get to question the 120,000,000 Ward Churchill claims, we get to question the 70 million figure … so unless you were taking a death by death tally, I’m going to assume it’s an exaggerated figure …

    Shake hands and come out fighting …

    • Charlie – I just try to remember (sometimes) that SUFA launched around the time Obama came to office – so if you’re left leaning or hard left then SUFA would always seem/feel largely anti-Obama / anti-Democrat with the odd bone thrown in there to slap Dubya’s pee pee from time to time. I’d like to think that should a Paul Ryan or Ron Paul or Chris Christie or Michelle Bachmann or Eric Cantor-type ever be elected to the Oval Office then the we’d see the same level of venom displayed here. I think some of the graphics that get selected to accompany the articles are over-the-top but I no longer get wrapped around the axle with it.

      • Ray,

        I think I will be just as critical over Romney. I think the Republican establishment and the conservative media (FOX) have not given Ron Paul a shot….
        Over-the-top graphics??? You didn’t like Elle? That, my friend, is the way to sell socialism, if it looks that good, it has to be good for you….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Well since the idea of “socialism” existed in the USA in the early 1800’s, and the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 it seems to me that we can assign much of the Indian Genocide to the Socialist value system that had leaked into the US Govt policy making, and not to Capitalism. Sorry about that.

    • Estimated number of victims

      In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois asserts that “…Communist regimes… turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government”[3]. He claims that a death toll totals 94 million[4], not counting the “excess deaths” (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

      65 million in the People’s Republic of China
      20 million in the Soviet Union
      2 million in Cambodia
      2 million in North Korea
      1.7 million in Africa
      1.5 million in Afghanistan
      1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
      1 million in Vietnam

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

      • charlieopera says:

        Look at that, it’s less than 120 million Churchill claims were lost in North and South America. Go Communism!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Again, Churchill… find us a source that wasn’t fired by the University of Colorado for research misconduct. The guy is a putz who has no academic standing. Other than that, great guy, I am sure.

    • “How many perished in North America from European “civilization”? ”
      Charlie, am I defending that? I hope not. I think we should and do feel collective shame for some of the mistakes made in the past. I think we feel more pride for the good done by some of our forefathers. But you should pay attention to the details of our sins…

      Only One President Has Ever Ignored A SCOTUS Order

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/only_one_president_has_ever_ignored_a_scotus_order.html#ixzz1tds9ELqo

      “How many deaths worldwide does America own?”

      Millions, I am sure. how many lives could be claimed to have been saved because of America? The world poverty level is dropping at an incredible rate. The UN had a plan that involved nations giving them money which they would then give to the needy. Instead, many nations have adopted free-market or capitalism instead and prospered. Would the world be a better place under a fascist Germany? Being a non-blond, I admit my bias on this, but I don’t think so….

    • Charlie,

      I know you are short on time, but I would like you to explain this a bit more if you get a minute:

      “Again short on time, but this really gets on my nerves (and not because it’s accurate or inaccurate): The Soviets and Chinese killed over 70 million in the name of the ‘Greater Good’.”

      You then go on to lament the deaths of Native Americans and others because of the US.

      I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the soviets and chinese do not deserve reproach? Or are you upset that LOI did not also mention the Native Americans? Sort of like, blame Fox for being partisan all you like as long as you also scold MSNBC.

      • charlieopera says:

        I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the soviets and chinese do not deserve reproach? Or are you upset that LOI did not also mention the Native Americans? Sort of like, blame Fox for being partisan all you like as long as you also scold MSNBC.

        Good point, JB. I was stirring the pot with my last comment (120 million vs. 94 million). They’re all horrible statistics and I am one of those lefties who does not support Stalinist or Moaist or Pol Pot’s version of communism/Year Zero or any other form of dictatorship. And I know ALL forms of government are ultimately susceptible to corruption (in the worst and any forms). But I’m tired of the one-way mantra of communism killed 90 gazillion people when it’s pretty obvious that communist doctrine was used by ruthless dictators (revisionism, if you will) and that the same can be said of any other form of government. Anarchy becomes all the more alluring when the facts of corruption are weighed against any form of government, but that isn’t going to happen in our lifetime. We’re lucky to be born in America but it has little to do with anything more than living under a system capable of exploiting its workforce and other nation states resources.

        • Ok, I have had time to research the hell out of this stuff, finally. The metrics used for Ward’s population estimates are absolutely ludicrous. The existing infrastructure and technology and hunter/gatherer food sources could NOT have come close to supporting populations even close to Ward’s claims. The 15 million total number in the US regions are far and away the most accurate and realistic. Now, that said, the 15 million number versus the number after Manifest Destiny had run its course does indeed border on genocide, tho I would point out that a lot of it happened pre US revolution. For example, while Ward’s claims of infected blanket distribution were ridiculed along with a lot of his other claims, I have seen it from enough sources to believe it. However, all those sources point to it being done before the Revolutionary War.

          Still, I have to disagree with JAC. Perhaps there was no universally accepted extermination attempt, but there were attempts, at least in some areas and by some people. From the infected blankets to the effort to wipe out the buffalo with the goal of destroying or driving away the nomadic native tribes of the midwest, it is certainly evidence that there were genocidal tendencies, the buffalo killing campaign was definitely perpetrated during manifest destiny, and driven by the railroad owners, who were very much in bed with the government. Some of the worst “eminent doamin” offenses were actually committed in the days of major railroad expansion.

    • Charlie, the most deaths in the western hemisphere were perpetrated by European imperialism, which never had any intention of freedom or equality among the rights of humanity. As for what happened under manifest destiny, that, too, was imperialism. Like slavery, the idea of the superiority of some humans lives on in spite of claims of equality. Even those who despise the 1% often fail to believe they have equal rights, they would as soon exterminate their lives, denying the right to life, over an inequality of material possessions. Its not about what flag of philosophy was flown when murder happens, it is about who actually did the killing, and what they really espoused. The only time the philosophy is at fault is when the philosophy is being followed and attrocities are perpetrated. When attrocities are perpetrated and the philosophy is not followed, then the perpetrators claiming such philosophy can just add deception to their list of sins.

  3. Hi LOI – thanks for the new article. I still read everything posted here pretty much – just never have time to respond.

    On the subject on “high gasoline prices”. I do not entirely blame any POTUS for the price of gas at a particular moment in time during their reign – they are an easy target – we know too well that there are many factors, some completely out of their control, that influence pricing. But that aside….

    I can remember paying 99 cents a gallon for gas – not sure if that makes me old now – but I do remember that. (I do not remember gas ever seeming to be “cheap”)

    I do think the price of gasoline is too high. I also think many of our habits in work and life result in wasting gas (work from home anyone?).

    But what is a price for which I would no longer B+C? Is it relative to other economic factors? What is the right price for which I would say “ok, I’m good now. Let’s move onto other things”. What government AND Wall Street influence can we cast aside and let supply/demand dictate price? Do I think that sans government interference all the stakeholders in the fuel value chain will not simply increase their margins once the costs associated with regulation and compliance are vanquished? I don’t know.

    The pessimist in me says the price of gasoline will not materially decline…..ever. In other words, even if the cost of producing gas dropped in a significant way, I do not ever envision the cost per gallon dropping below 3 bucks where I live (it is in the 3.70s now). This isn’t an argument for not doing anything (de-regulating, open the Arctic, etc) – I’m merely stating that I have no reason to believe we’ll ever really see a material effect on what we pay. I cannot imagine a world where the laws of supply and demand are powerful enough to overcome monopolization and collusion. Since these corporations are now people, these people have ways and means already in place to influence political decision making in numerous ways. My net perhaps is that no matter we do – gas will only ever potentially be “expensive, but not as expensive as it used to be”.

    Thoughts?

    Thanks!

    • Ray,

      Good thoughts and question. I think what has happened with natural gas might be an indicator. Supply has suddenly increased and the price dropped. It does look like some companies may slow or limit their drilling and production. That may indicate market manipulation or it may be that there is a bottom where they don’t generate enough profit?

      http://storify.com/jlangfel/natural-gas-why-are-prices-dropping-so-fast

      I have seen some stories where they want to go after Apple for their unethical profits. I would like to hear the big “O” explain the differences between Exxon’s profits and Apple’s when it come to tax policy. And no, I don’t want more taxes on Apple and the cost of their made in China products to go up, just treat them the same….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ray,

      I am not THAT old, but I do remember the Summer of 1986, I had a HUGE 1977 Mercury Grand Marquis which had a 460 Road Rocket in it instead of the standard engine… The thing got 9 miles to the gallon. Thank God in Indianapolis that summer, gas was as low as 57 cents per gallon a few times and was routinely below 80 cents per gallon. It didn’t last long, but that summer it was nice!

  4. I think Charlie has it right LOI. It IS partisan. You either Support the Socialist/ Progressive/Democratic moron in Chief, or you don’t support his disastrous spending and systematic destruction of the Nation, or you just plain out don’t care one way or the other because you are stupid enough to believe it will never actually affect YOUR life. Guess which side I fall on! 🙂

    As far as I am concerned though, if you vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black, you are a racist, plain and simple. Also, if you DON”T vote for Obama, BECAUSE he is black, you also, are a racist, plain and simple. I myself wouldn’t vote for him if he was the only candidate running. But it has nothing to do with color. It is policy. You see, I would vote for Allen West. I was going to vote for Herman Cain right up until he dropped out. I don’t agree with EVERYTHING they say either. But it was close enough that I would vote for them, even over any WHITE candidate I can think of, certainly over Romney.

    But with the choices we have, I’m gonna have to go with Romney. He may not do a thing right either. But after the last 4 years, I will at least give him his chance to fix it. If things are beginning to get better by the end of his first term, I’ll vote for him again. If not, then someone else will get my vote. In these chaotic times, I don’t think two one term Presidents in a row is neccessarily a bad thing. Just keep voting them out on the street till we get one that starts listening to the people.

    • Esom, Esom,

      How can you even think that? That Charlie is right about something???LOL.. I hope I am honest with myself, but think we all need help on that. I have argued with Flag that there is need for some government, so a pure libertarian world cannot exist today. I think we have to judge by the results, not the intentions. The war on poverty sounds noble, but the results have been an increase in poverty. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, even though it’s been shown to reduce revenue. So if he wants to reduce the deficit, how can he explain reducing revenue?

  5. Just out today. The forces behind Wisconsin’s left. Recall primaries next week; recall vote in early June. Truly fighting not only a battle for financial stability for our state, but against union forces whose intent is total power and control – not the kids, not the workers.

    • The unions have spent $60 million trying to oust Walker, the liberal media is out to get him. If he wins, I think part will be because of the backlash from, sorry, partisan politics. People resent outsiders like the unions coming in and trying to buy an election. And the media…

      Despite Wisconsin’s unemployment rate being well below the national rate and steadily falling, on Saturday’s NBC Nightly News correspondent Ron Allen selectively hyped job losses: “With the protesters serenading Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker and urging voters to recall him from office June 5th, the state’s job losses add to the list of grievances. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs between March 2011 and March 2012.”

      That same Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed that Wisconsin’s unemployment rate fell from 7.6% to 6.8% in that same time period. Ignoring that reality, Allen featured a sound bite from an unidentified woman who ranted: “No other state has lost jobs like this. Wisconsin alone moved sort of off the rails of the national recovery.”

      Allen then proclaimed: “Many here blame Governor Walker for the job losses. He took office in January 2011, made deep cuts to balance the budget, and virtually eliminated collective bargaining for most public workers….Policies that brought tens of thousands of protesters to the capital and launched the effort to recall Walker from office.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/04/30/wisconsin-unemployment-falls-nbc-hypes-job-losses-many-blame-scott-wal#ixzz1tdniMZwf

  6. Pretty interesting article. Where I will disagree with you is that, in my opinion, Obama does have an agenda and it is not a good one. I firmly believe, given the last year and half, that he believes that our way of life is wrong and that he intends, with others, to destroy it.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Well said Colonel 🙂

    • I agree on Obama’s agenda. I just cannot get my head around on why would any thinking adult vote for him because he’s a Democrat. If they agree with him on policy/agenda, at least that’s an honest answer. But to defend him on the economy? Spending is going to balance the budget? ObamaCare will reduce health costs? ShovelReady!

    • I’m thinking this is significant and I don’t know what to think about it…..

      http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-deploys-f-22-fighter-jets-uae-officials-233154971.html

      • I wondered about that too……

      • There are two choices, either sabre rattling or preparing to shoot the Israeli’s down. Nothing else makes sense. My bet is on the latter.

        • Well IMO, shooting down Isreali planes will be a far different proposition than shooting down Libyans or Iraqis. Our pilots had best beready for a fight when they jump on the Isrealis. Their Air Force is as highly trained as ours. We should know, we probably trained most of them. Some have even been through our top gun schools.

          But of course, that is exactly why I don’t think it would happen. It’s one thing to get into a Turkey shoot with a third world country. It’s quite another to get in a wild dogfight with trained people with the same technology you have and that you trained.

          • Not with F-22’s. Sure, they could hold their own in F-15/16’s, but with the stealth, they would be dodging missiles and never see them coming. And never have a target to shoot back at…

            Wild thought, could they be to provide air support to an Israeli raid? The F-22 cannot take out a nuclear facility unless they used a nuclear weapon. So it will require a or several bombers. The MOOB requires is too big for any of our bombers and has to be dropped from a cargo plane.

        • preparing to shoot the Israeli’s down

          Seriously? Shoot the Israeli’s down?

          A third option – maybe to support the Israeli’s – never occurred to you?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Come on Todd, don’t you know that Obama is staunchly anti-Israel?? I’d think you’d have been following along by now! 🙂

            You haven’t been around much lately; how goes life?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Mr. Obama IS staunchly “anti-Israel”. At least in the sense that he doesn’t really give a shit and sees them as the “problem”.

              But “political reality” is that he can not act on his basic instinct and personal preference.

              It shows clearly when you watch him talking to their Prime Minister or discussing our “alliance”.

              And on this issue I AGREE with him, to a point. Distancing us from Israel should not require us to move “closer” to the Palestinians.

              We should move away from BOTH.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Please list how you arrive at the conclusion that Obama is “staunchly anti-Israel”…or is that just your gut reaction because, as you say, political reality mandates he doesn’t act on this stance?

                Keep in mind that criticizing an action taken by Israel does not mean you are anti-Israel.

              • I’ll help my buddy JAC…Here is a link to many posts containing many links on Obama’s pro Muslim stances..Pro Muslim..as in anti Israel.
                http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/muslim_in_the_white_house/

              • Buck the Wala says:

                First, Obama is not a Muslim. Let me say this again…Obama is NOT a Muslim.

                Second, and perhaps more importantly, even if Obama was a Muslim….so what!?

                Third, Pro-Muslim and Pro-Israel are NOT mutually exclusive. I know plenty of Muslims who can be considered pro-Israel. Does that mean they secretly hate their own religion? I think not.

              • Ok. You didn’t like that angle? How many times has Obama dissed Netenyahu publicly..like skipping out on dinner, like saying Israel should go back to 67 boarders, and correct me if ‘Im wrong.. didn’t Obama have a “hot mic” slam on Netenyahu too..something to the effect of I have to deal with him every day”.

                One thing can be passed off…multiple things make you wonder….

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Some days are just more fun than others.

              “First, Obama is not a Muslim. Let me say this again…Obama is NOT a Muslim.”

              But you see Buck, HE IS A MUSLIM.

              Once a Muslim ALWAYS a Muslim. Not that he claims it, but THEY won’t let him out of it.

              Kind of like when people claim Indian Status because their Family Told them So, or they want it to be true. Or when an Indian declares someone else an Indian because he wants them to be so.

              So Mr. Obama has no choice. He is a Christian/Muslim and a White/African-Crow Indian American.

              However, he is NOT a Native Born American. Bwahahahahaha!!!!

              • Mathius says:

                That’s news to me. I don’t seem to remember that section when I read the Koran… If I recall, you are a Muslim if you say you are a Muslim.. ::double checks:: yup.. that’s it. Nothing in there about being a Muslim because “THEY” won’t let you out of it.

                That’s pretty handy if they can just claim people like that. I guess it’s like how the Mormons keep baptizing people into Mormonism after their death and against their will. I’m pretty sure they’ve converted Anne Frank a dozen times already.

                What nonsense. tsk tsk, JAC.

              • charlieopera says:

                Once a Muslim ALWAYS a Muslim. Not that he claims it, but THEY won’t let him out of it.

                So says JAC … very logical. Factually wrong, but why let that stop you.

              • Not sure about that once a Muslim always a Muslim thing either JAC, where did that come from?

              • Mathius says:

                And, while we’re on the topic:

                However, he is NOT a Native Born American. Bwahahahahaha!!!!

                Anyone born within the borders of the US is a citizen by birth, regardless of parentage. Obama was born in Hawaii, which gained statehood two years before he was born. However, if you don’t believe that, there’s another tact we can take with this:

                Obama’s mother was a US Citizen.

                Obama could have been born on the moon and he would still have been a Native Born American Natural-Born Citizen. That’s the law. Children of citizens are citizen by birth, regardless of where they are physically born. Having only one citizen-parent still counts.

                But wait, you say, he lost his citizenship when he was in Indonesia eating dog!

                US law does not allow minors to renounce their citizenship, nor can parents do so for them. So his years abroad under different citizenship do not strip him of his American citizenship. He would have to do that for himself at the age of 18.

                Eating dog meat as a young child does not forfeit your citizenship.

                Being black does not forfeit your citizenship.

                Being Muslim does not forfeit your citizenship.

                Being a communist, socialist, fascist, radical, big-government liberal does not forfeit your citizenship.

                So I really don’t understand the fuss is all about.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I explained what I meant by “anti-Israel”. I do not mean he wants the country to disappear. Although I do wonder what he personally believes. I don’t think we will ever know for sure. As I said, he sees Israel as an impediment to Peace in the Region. He sides with the Palestinians on their arguments about boundaries, and that Israel must back off. This is AGAINST as in “anti-” the current Israeli position.

              I explained that my view is based on what I hear and see it in his speech and mannerisms.

              Think that is silly? Watch him talk about something he truly believes in, like vilifying the Rich then watch his speeches about “our long alliance and friendship with Israel”.

              Look at his rhetoric at the beginning of his term and what happened and then how it has changed. At least the words. But the “emotion” or the “conviction” of those new words is missing.

              Since I don’t KNOW his “personal” beliefs it would probably be more accurate to say I am convinced he is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. That does not make him anti-Semite nor anti-Israel, as in against the existence of Israel.

              But I have to tell you, based on what I have seen of the man and the crowds he hangs with. I would not be surprised if he felt Israel should be abolished and the Jewish people become “part of” a larger Palestinian State.

          • Hey, they shot us up. See USS Liberty for details.

  7. A much more important article than mine….

    http://www.unknownsoldiersblog.com/2012/05/bigger-than-day.html

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Glenn Beck has been warning of violence planned for this spring and summer by the Anarchist wing of the Occupy Movement.

    He has been ridiculed for this.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/01/11485641-5-anarchists-nabbed-in-plot-to-blow-up-ohio-bridge?lite

    • “Glenn Beck has been warning……” “He has been ridiculed for this.”

      I think those statements could be used for many things we see unfolding before us.

      • The S/P/D Liberals ALWAYS ridicule those who give warnings right up until it happens. Then thay blame the very ones who warned of it to begin with. Just like they have said already that Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and others are just fomenting trouble where there is none.

        And I guess Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are just giving information and telling it like it is and not Racebaiting!!??? And the sad part is that even the WHITE folks are buying this bulldookey. And the White folks are the victims of the racebaiting!!!

      • charlieopera says:

        God forbid, violence. Glenn Beck must be a saint.

        Sweet Jesus …

        • Glad to see that you have finally seen the light and joined the choir!

          • charlieopera says:

            SK, I’m a lunatic but not nearly as whacky as Glenno … I especially loved his show (the one I watched for 15 minutes or so) when he saw communist designs on the buildings at Rock Centre … even though where he was broadcasting from was in Rock Centre … the guy is an absolute cartoon.

    • @JAC – quoting an MSNBC “news” story to back up Glenn Beck – what is this world coming to? If I get caught speeding with three fellow farm-to-table foodie enthusiasts does that indicate that the farm-to-table movement somehow supports fast driving (maybe it does if we were all headed out to eat) – hell – I dunno. I guess I’m behind on my Glenn Beck conspiracy / end-of-the-world from-behind-the-black-cloak theories – but it seems odd to me that these same Occupiers whom were heavily criticized for being nothing more than lazy farm animals sleeping in their own feces have magically coalesced into an organized unit of misfits and urban terrorists. While I’m certain Acorn, Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the homeless guy at the SEPTA station in Center City Philly that masturbates all over the handrail are all behind this – I’m not sure what separates Beck from many of the charlatans that used to parade on daytime TV able to read minds and predict the future and talk to the dead.

    • Another one of those plots hatched by five losers sitting around with too much beer overheard by someone with an active Federal warrant out on them who then sets up the meet with the federal agents who suggest…………..

  9. Is this a gloating trip to Afghanistan? I have very little expectations for this president to ever do the right thing for our country, but this is even off the page for him. Really?

    I really don’t understand the attempts at keeping it hush, hush by the WH. The war on terror is over so what’s the big deal?

    • @Kathy – it is a trip to insult our intelligence while we set a “framework” to work with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet (sort of like working with ourselves).

  10. Wow, where to start…

    I don’t have friends that object to Obama because of his skin color. I know people who support him strictly because of his race, but that is another topic.

    I’m always amazed that you only see things that support your view…well, not really amazed…

    “I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”

    Well, I agree with that!

    Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.

    What is the reason?

    But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?

    Wall Street

    The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.

    Wrong – Obama’s not the one printing money.

    WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.

    Do you have an argument or some facts to support this?

    MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?

    I expected you to deny he was/is a socialists.

    Elle MacPherson said she’s a socialist. She didn’t say Obama’s a socialist. And even if she did, so what. She’s a model. She doesn’t speak for Obama…

    Any Obama supporters want to defend that? If you try or even can defend that, I have a name for you, partisan.

    LOI, if you’re doing the name calling, I’m happy to be called a partisan!

    Clinton’s last year had a $128 billion budget surplus (2001)
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

    Bush’s last year had a $1.4 trillion budget deficit (2009)
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    All three of Obama’s years have had about a $1.3 trillion budget deficit (2010-2012)

    Bush is the one who dug the hole.
    Obama has been holding steady. Not necessarily a great thing, but at least we’re not still going down.

    When Bush took office, the DOW was at 10,646.15 (January 2, 2001)
    When Bush left office, the Dow was at 8,279.63 (January 20, 2009)

    The DOW dropped 2,300 points during Bush’s 8 years in office.

    When Obama took office, the DOW was at 8,279.63 (January 20, 2009)
    Today, the DOW is at 13320.76.

    The DOW has increased more than 5,000 points during Obama’s 3 years in office.

    Bush vs Obama – who’s policies added more to the deficit?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

    And just today – a look back at the Bush years:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-campaign-seems-to-have-forgotten-about-bushs-economic-crises/2012/04/30/gIQAcBebsT_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

    I think Bush spent too much on the “War On Terrorism”, but let’s be honest, this was life and death.

    Only if you believe the fear mongering.

    Blame Bush for using 9/11 to incite the masses, but Congress and the Senate voted for the war.

    Yes, at Bush’s urging, and based on his administration’s lies.

    That means we legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way.

    That means Bush, as commander-in-chief, legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way. He could have stopped it at any point.

    Can you be proud to be an American but still attack the very principles that inspired its creation? How can you believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and then spout off about redistribution of wealth? Words have meanings.

    Every time the issue of “taxes” comes up, conservatives scream “redistribution of wealth”.
    I don’t see the “poor” living a life-of-luxury.

    Let’s start with “paying off the debts” of the Bush Tax Cuts and Bush Wars.

    If we ever get that done, we can talk about “redistribution of wealth” or not…

    A celebrated constitutional scholar is expected to know redistribution of wealth in the context of his statement means taking from the wealthy by government force, and giving to those they deem needy.

    I find it comical and cute how you guys are so worried about the wealthy, and taking from them by government force. You’re more concerned about the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet and George Soros – the ones who control government – then you are about the millions of poor in this country.

    I don’t know how to respond to that…

    One has to question what principles Obama is guided by…. does a handshake mean a honerable agreement, or is that the Chicago way, shake hands while slipping the knife in….

    So we just assume Boehner’s story is true? Maybe he’s the one slipping in the knife?

    I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway

    Seriously? Did you pay attention to the GOP primaries?

    If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way?

    Yes and no.

    Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life?

    It’s called innovation. It doesn’t/won’t ruin your way of life. It’s actually what has led to your current way of life. If we do it right, China and India will follow. Otherwise we’ll be following them.

    • Alright!!! Todds here!!! It must be a party now. Sorry you were kicked into mediation, I think the two links in one post did it…

      I don’t have friends that object to Obama because of his skin color. I know people who support him strictly because of his race, but that is another topic.

      “I’m always amazed that you only see things that support your view…well, not really amazed…”Should I have phrased it differently? Do I know any racists? Yes. Are they friends? No. Do I value their opinion? No. P.S., I also know some blacks that don’t like whites, but another sbj..

      “I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”

      “Well, I agree with that!”
      Oh come on! When did the opposition to Obama reach it’s highest point? When did congress scamper back home because the people who elected them were becoming vocal? The town halls were brought on by opposition to ObamaCare. Whenever they can’t answer with facts or logic, they start the mudslinging, oh those racists TeaPartiers…

      Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.

      What is the reason? Partisan anyone?

      But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?

      “Wall Street” Funny how well wallstreet has done under Obama. Sad that the 99% has suffered more under him than under Bush.

      The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.

      “Wrong – Obama’s not the one printing money.” No, but he supports it along with tax and spend. All the BS aside, if they were to simply use the budget from 2007, it would solve the deficit issue. Why is the debate only about spending cuts without looking at how bloody much spending has been increased?

      WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.

      “Do you have an argument or some facts to support this?” QE or devaluing your currency means it buys less.

      “I find it comical and cute how you guys are so worried about the wealthy, and taking from them by government force. You’re more concerned about the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet and George Soros – the ones who control government – then you are about the millions of poor in this country.”
      Not really worried about them… I think lower taxes is good for the economy. The better the economy, the better everyone does, including the poor. I also think the tax loopholes that allow Apple and GE to prosper but punished Exxon is bad for the economy. And again, if you are concerned about the poor, cheap gas means a lot more to them than the cost of a computer they can’t afford anyway… OH, and smokes, a lot of the poor still smoke, so government forcing the cost up hasn’t made them stop smoking, just raised their overall costs…
      Sad truth, I think some kids go hungry when their parents still get their cig’s.

      “So we just assume Boehner’s story is true? Maybe he’s the one slipping in the knife?” Source is NY Times Magazine, via AT

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=7&hp

      I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway

      “Seriously? Did you pay attention to the GOP primaries?” Some, but not much. Most were conducted by the liberal media. I say liberal media because about 90% of them are avowed Democrats or vote that way. I remember one of them asking about abortion and hit Romney, Newt, Perry and tried to move on to the next question when Ron Paul spoke up, as the only medical doctor, he thought he had some insight on the issue….

      If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way?

      “Yes and no.” Well, hell Todd, if burning coal is causing global warming, China or India burning it doesn’t change things, does it? But by allowing coal to be sold to China and India, who don’t do nearly as much to clean it when it’s burnt makes it worse. It would do more to assist fighting AGW to burn it here where the EPA has oversight. Add to that the tar-sand oil from Canada, it will be sold and used. Who would do a better job, the US or China?

      Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life?

      “It’s called innovation. It doesn’t/won’t ruin your way of life. It’s actually what has led to your current way of life. If we do it right, China and India will follow. Otherwise we’ll be following them.”

      And if we do it like Obama’s administration, we will spend billions on green energy projects that never get built. How many of his picks have gone bankrupt? How much power have they produced? Right now we’re following Spain. On their failed green energy policies. On their failed economic policies.

    • Middle class wages dropping faster under Obama than Bush
      Rick Moran

      Some day, a politician is going to be honest about the declining American middle class and stop blaming the guy in office for what has been a decades-long phenomenon.

      But today is not that day. And Obama has left himself especially vulnerable to criticism in this regard because of his heaping blame on George Bush for failing the middle class during the 2008 campaign.

      Turns out that the Obama administration has done nothing to halt the slide and indeed, the drop in middle class wages has accelerated on his watch.

      Bloomberg:

      Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

      The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.

      […]

      As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

      Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.

      A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93 percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

      On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

      While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60 percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and $100,000, according to the U.S. Census.

      It should be pointed out that raising taxes on the 1% will not close the income gap nor will such a tax increase affect middle class wages. Any revenue from a tax increase will simply go into government coffers, to be used as government uses the rest of its tax revenue.

      Perhaps Mitt Romney should remind voters of Obama’s words back in 2008 about how a president’s policies affect the decline in middle class wages.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/middle_class_wages_dropping_faster_under_obama_than_bush.html#ixzz1tewD6IaE

      P.S. didn’t he also campaign about reaching accross the isle, being bi-partisan?

    • “I don’t have friends that object to Obama because of his skin color. I know people who support him strictly because of his race, but that is another topic.

      I’m always amazed that you only see things that support your view…well, not really amazed…”

      Maybe he just doesnt associate with racist conservatives. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any (I know some myself, tho I don’t consider them friends), but I would bet there are far fewer than the pro-Obama crowd thinks. The assumption of racism is a problem, on both sides. I know there are people who vote for Obama because he is black, tho I think there are fewer than the anti-Obama crowd thinks.

      “Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.

      What is the reason?”

      Not sure what LOI was implying, but I am sure that regardless of which of the many reasons people support him, I will disagree with those reasons. 🙂

      “But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?

      Wall Street”

      What difference does it make? They are both the same anyway. Its a fake dichotomy.

      “The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.

      Wrong – Obama’s not the one printing money.”

      True, the Fed does that, in order to buy the US debt. That Congress spends and Obama approves.

      “WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.

      Do you have an argument or some facts to support this?”

      Wall street is not engaging in inflationary money policy. Well, actually, they are part of it. Fractional reserve banking does some inflationary stuff, tho the vast majority is due to the Fed, at the behest of the Government.

      “MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?

      I expected you to deny he was/is a socialists.

      Elle MacPherson said she’s a socialist. She didn’t say Obama’s a socialist. And even if she did, so what. She’s a model. She doesn’t speak for Obama…”

      Not the point. Obama has the support of persons who identify themselves as socialist. Meaning his policies are amenable to such a person. Does not mean he is a socialist, but he is not exactly anti-socialist either.

      “Any Obama supporters want to defend that? If you try or even can defend that, I have a name for you, partisan.

      LOI, if you’re doing the name calling, I’m happy to be called a partisan!”

      You don’t get to be called that unless you are defending his spending.

      “Clinton’s last year had a $128 billion budget surplus (2001)
      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

      Bush’s last year had a $1.4 trillion budget deficit (2009)
      http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

      All three of Obama’s years have had about a $1.3 trillion budget deficit (2010-2012)

      Bush is the one who dug the hole.
      Obama has been holding steady. Not necessarily a great thing, but at least we’re not still going down.

      When Bush took office, the DOW was at 10,646.15 (January 2, 2001)
      When Bush left office, the Dow was at 8,279.63 (January 20, 2009)

      The DOW dropped 2,300 points during Bush’s 8 years in office.

      When Obama took office, the DOW was at 8,279.63 (January 20, 2009)
      Today, the DOW is at 13320.76.

      The DOW has increased more than 5,000 points during Obama’s 3 years in office.

      Bush vs Obama – who’s policies added more to the deficit?
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

      And just today – a look back at the Bush years:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-campaign-seems-to-have-forgotten-about-bushs-economic-crises/2012/04/30/gIQAcBebsT_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

      Oh wait, you are. I do not have a problem saying Bush’s last year was worse than Obama’s years in dollars. I do not have a problem agreeing that Bush did some horrible stuff. But that does not excuse the Obama spending levels. You talk about the Bush wars and the debt involved. Obama did not have those things to spend on. If Bush’s spending was all about war and that was wht burried us, and Obama has no such wars, then where is he spending all that dough? And why is it that Obama’s spending is helping us recover but Bush’s put us under? Yea, partisan fits.

      “I think Bush spent too much on the “War On Terrorism”, but let’s be honest, this was life and death.

      Only if you believe the fear mongering.”

      Agreed. Bush misused the situation for gian of power. Plain and simple. We are in a terrorism crisis is fear mongering. We are in a health care crisis is also fear mongering. And it is just as much a pack of lies to justify expansion of power and taking of money.

      “Blame Bush for using 9/11 to incite the masses, but Congress and the Senate voted for the war.

      Yes, at Bush’s urging, and based on his administration’s lies.”

      Sure, and the current overspending is at Obama’s urging, based on HIS lies. Can’t have it both ways.

      “That means we legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way.

      That means Bush, as commander-in-chief, legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way. He could have stopped it at any point.”

      Agreed, legally or not, it was BS, and a lot of good men died for nothing.

      “Can you be proud to be an American but still attack the very principles that inspired its creation? How can you believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and then spout off about redistribution of wealth? Words have meanings.

      Every time the issue of “taxes” comes up, conservatives scream “redistribution of wealth”.
      I don’t see the “poor” living a life-of-luxury.”

      Then you arent familiar with “poor”. And who has how much has nothing to do with the argument. The idea of wealth redistribution is justified by a concept of materialism. The idea of private property disregards matrialist equality arguments, so pointing out the variances does nothing to justify your position, because you are using your philosophy to justify itself. It is little different than a religious person who can only point to their own religious texts for justification of thier faith.

      “Let’s start with “paying off the debts” of the Bush Tax Cuts and Bush Wars.

      If we ever get that done, we can talk about “redistribution of wealth” or not…”

      You do realize that the numbers you are talking about total around 3 trillion. This INCLUDES money spent on the three wars under Obama’s administration AND interest on borrowed funds. That TOTAL spending is still far less than Obama has added to the debt in his first three years. So, yea, pay off that, but in the mean while, STOP ADDING MORE.

      “A celebrated constitutional scholar is expected to know redistribution of wealth in the context of his statement means taking from the wealthy by government force, and giving to those they deem needy.

      I find it comical and cute how you guys are so worried about the wealthy, and taking from them by government force. You’re more concerned about the Koch brothers and Warren Buffet and George Soros – the ones who control government – then you are about the millions of poor in this country.”

      What have you done for the millions of poor in this country? I warrant far less than most of the rich have done. And I am concerned for the poor. There are billions in new taxes and indirect costs that will be levied on the poor and middle class by the Health Care bill alone, not to mention the other policies and inflationarty monetary policy under this AND the previous president. Taking every dime from the rich STILL would not balance the budget. So when are you going to start admitting that way too much is being spent, and its not all on wars?

      “I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway

      Seriously? Did you pay attention to the GOP primaries?”

      Depends on how you define extremist. More importantly, it appears the extreme elements did not have sway, otherwise the Republican party would not have been stuck with a moderate progressive like Mitt.

      “If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way?

      Yes and no.”

      Well, you got the second half right.

      “Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life?

      It’s called innovation. It doesn’t/won’t ruin your way of life. It’s actually what has led to your current way of life. If we do it right, China and India will follow. Otherwise we’ll be following them.”

      TRUE! It is about innovation. The thing about innovation, however, is that it is ALWAYS superior in the private sector, mostly because there are more minds in the private sector, but also because there is less restriction and agenda. Furthermore, it requires funding. Jacking up energy prices to motivate innovation is like saying the beatings will continue until morale improves. It does not work that way. You open up every possible source of energy and you reward innovation, but you do not punish the use of current technology and get any innovation out of it. Any psych 101 student could tell you thats a bad method. Its the most retarded policy I have ever seen. Besided, you want to hurt the Wall street guys? Flood the supply of oil, end all the moritoriums. The speculators everyone hates will lose their shirts. Hell, I would bet that they are the ones lobbying to keep ANWR closed.

      • Dear Jon,

        “Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama. ” This was posted on facebook in response to the re-nig bumper sticker, implying republicans were racists.

        “I think Bush spent too much on the “War On Terrorism”, but let’s be honest, this was life and death.”
        Not saying he was right or wrong on the wars, just that when you go to war, it’s either your people die, or the bad guys. You do not deliberately shortchange the guys on the sharp end(which we did. )I do hate to say this but deficit spending is sometimes necessary, like when you are at war. I do not think the war on poverty compares, but that is the racist in me coming out again, even though there are more white people on welfare than all other races.

        Taking every dime from the rich STILL would not balance the budget. ”
        Here is where I TRY to put my bias aside. I am against this in principal, but try to evaluate it strictly on merit. The UK increased it’s taxes on the wealthy and instead of more revenue, they collected less. Regan & Bush said(oh, Kennedy too) lower taxes and we will get more revenue. The more our economy produces, the greater our cut. So when Obama talks about reducing the deficit but increasing taxes on the wealthy because it’s “fair”, he knows it will have the opposit effect. How many fires can you put out with gasoline? Raising taxes on the wealthy is kinda like that, not about the moral right or wrong, but does it work?

        • LOI, the biggest problem I have with Obama’s policies is that they are structured to DELIBERATELY short circuit the Economy. Anything he could do to help the Economy, he has done the exact opposite. He is either doing it deliberately or he is getting terrible advice OR he is just the STUPIDEST President we have ever had. Guess which one I pick? 😉

          • When this administration prints money to cover Obama’s out of control spending, the value of our dollar falls. Prices of food are rising too, but filling your car is the most visible – one might say visceral – experience of a falling dollar.

            The Erste report analyses the gold-oil ratio — how many barrels of oil one ounce of gold buys — since 1971. They blame the current spike in prices on the Fed policy of ‘quantitative easing,’ which makes our dollar cheap.

            The oil price has been stable in terms of gold, but the dollar has lost more than 98 per cent of its purchasing power vis-a-vis oil. …more so since quantitative easing began in 2008.

            A cheap dollar is translated swiftly and directly into higher oil prices for a very obvious reason: oil sheiks get paid in U.S. dollars, so if the dollar goes down in value, they require more dollars to receive the same value.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/obama_and_the_oil_speculators.html#ixzz1tiTK7RIL

            It does seem deliberate to me….

          • the biggest problem I have with Obama’s policies is that they are structured to DELIBERATELY short circuit the Economy.

            Please provide your evidence of this?

        • Deficit spending makes sense in threat of an invasion. Thats pretty much it. And that is after all the other spending is suspended or cut to absolute minimum levels. The rest of it is justification for BS. Worse still, we spend all this and engage in wars that we shouldnt, but the battles we should fight we either don’t fight or we hamstring ourselves with beaurocracy and concern over looking mean. Someone attacks you, they are mean, you be mean back. Someone threatens, you threaten back. Someone says your being mean when you hit back, you say: “Yup. Gotta problem with that?” Our foreign policy is so far from reality its scary.

      • Jon,

        Maybe he just doesnt associate with racist conservatives.

        Or maybe he’s one of them so he doesn’t see it?

        Not sure what LOI was implying, but I am sure that regardless of which of the many reasons people support him, I will disagree with those reasons.

        Seems kinda of close-minded. Maybe even “Partisan”?

        I do not have a problem agreeing that Bush did some horrible stuff. But that does not excuse the Obama spending levels.

        So why weren’t you all up-in-arms when Bush was doing the horrible stuff?

        Obama has no such wars, then where is he spending all that dough?

        The war(s) and tax cuts are(were) still there.

        And why is it that Obama’s spending is helping us recover but Bush’s put us under?

        I’m not the one complaining about spending.
        I’ve never said Bush’s spending put us under.

        I’m simpling pointing out what happened and when – something many here are able to understand.

        What have you done for the millions of poor in this country? I warrant far less than most of the rich have done.

        Please present your research and measurements to back this up.

        Taking every dime from the rich STILL would not balance the budget.

        No one is saying we should take every dime from the rich, or that it will balance the budget right away. But they reap plenty of benefits of the US government – they can afford to pay more.

        So when are you going to start admitting that way too much is being spent, and its not all on wars?

        Again, I never said it was all on wars. That’s the “Black & White with no shades of Gray” mentality that’s common here.

        Government spending is used in times of recession to help get us out.
        Government spending should drop during the good times to pay off that debt.

        Too bad that didn’t happen during the Bush years…

        • “Not sure what LOI was implying, but I am sure that regardless of which of the many reasons people support him, I will disagree with those reasons.

          Seems kinda of close-minded. Maybe even “Partisan”?”

          Sounds like that, doesnt it? Not my intent tho. The thing is, I cannot think of any reason, nor have I heard any reason that would validate me supporting Obama. This is not to say he has done nothing right, but the few things he has done that I like are so small relative to the rest of his actions that they do not constitute a reason to support him or consider him an option for another term. I am open to hearing reasons to support him, I really am, but if they are innaccurate or opposed to my core philosophy or too small to justify support, then I will disagree with those reasons. That is what I intended to say. Sound bites tend to screw up intent in statements. 🙂

          “I do not have a problem agreeing that Bush did some horrible stuff. But that does not excuse the Obama spending levels.

          So why weren’t you all up-in-arms when Bush was doing the horrible stuff?”

          Actually, I was. Admittedly it took a little longer for me to see the light on the wars than it should have, but I was in the midst of changing my mindset on foreign affairs during some of those years. But the spending, the wars (eventually), and most of all the Patriot Act garnered massive protest from me and many like me. Thing is, there are not yet any loud libertarian voices out there. All the big media are conservative and liberal, so all the reasonable stuff you never really hear.

          “Obama has no such wars, then where is he spending all that dough?

          The war(s) and tax cuts are(were) still there.”

          Indeed, in fact, he added to the wars list. Furthermore, the spending, as I mentioned, far outpaced war spending. Its not the wars costing the bulk of the money. Also, the tax cuts cost far less than you seem to think. Spending is an easy number to calculate. “Lost revenue” is not. I have seen everything from a net gain to a ridiculous 2 trillion dollar loss (I say ridiculous because the numbers absolutely do not work, it is based on a continually rising economy at Bush era levels, which is not reality). Regardless, the continued presence of those things by any measure still do not account for Obama’s spending.

          “And why is it that Obama’s spending is helping us recover but Bush’s put us under?

          I’m not the one complaining about spending.
          I’ve never said Bush’s spending put us under.”

          No, but you did say that we have to account/pay for Bush’s spending before we can talk about Obama’s. Basically you are pulling a “your guy did it too” as a justification for Obama. News flash, there are not that many fans of Bush here, most of the pro-Bush stuff around here is a matter of showing him as a lesser evil.

          “What have you done for the millions of poor in this country? I warrant far less than most of the rich have done.

          Please present your research and measurements to back this up.”

          I admit, I have no research or evidence on what Todd has done for the poor. However, I do have some on the rich. Of the hundreds of billions given to charity, households with net worth’s above 1 million gave more than half of it. That does not mean all rich people do this, tho there are some extraordinary examples. Far more non-church giving is done by the wealthy, as much of the lower income giving is religion driven. Now, as a percentage of income, the wealthy are not the most generous, but in terms of actually assistance to the needy, they do a great deal.
          http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
          That does not even count the aspects of tax burden, the majority of which is spent on government assistance programs and stuff like Social Security. It also does not count the number of people employed by wealthy persons, especially well-off small business owners. Ever employed anyone Todd? Ever employed hundreds of people? Ever given millions to the needy? Ever set up a foundation to help with underpriviledged children or paid for an educational program or museum or library wing? These are things rich people have done.

          “Taking every dime from the rich STILL would not balance the budget.

          No one is saying we should take every dime from the rich, or that it will balance the budget right away. But they reap plenty of benefits of the US government – they can afford to pay more.”

          No one is saying where to draw the line, either. Now I am all for making them pay for benefits from the government, or better yet, remove those benefits. As much as I abhor welfare, it is nothing compared to how much I abhor corporate welfare and all the subsidies businesses get and all the laws and regulations that limit competition and insulate existing businesses from having to be competitive, or that bail them out when they screw up, or that ensure the continued wealth and success of a business in spite of exploitive practices. I want a separation between business and state, because, as you say, they are reaping great benefit from government.

          “So when are you going to start admitting that way too much is being spent, and its not all on wars?

          Again, I never said it was all on wars. That’s the “Black & White with no shades of Gray” mentality that’s common here.”

          Fine, you never said it was all on wars, you just like to parade that around whenever spending is brought up. How about the first part? When will you admit that too much is being spent? At what point does the mathematical side of your mind kick in and recognize the unsustainability and long-term disaster that the sort of spending we are doing represents?

          “Government spending is used in times of recession to help get us out.
          Government spending should drop during the good times to pay off that debt.

          Too bad that didn’t happen during the Bush years…”

          Too bad its never ever happened during any years. The so-called Clinton era surplus was based on projections and a percentage of growth, growth that was largely a bubble. The actual dollars spent by the federal government never went down. It never has gone down. It constantly grows. I agree that spending should drop and we should pay off debt in good times. Too bad it has never happened under any administration since deficit spending began. This is not a left thing, its not partisan, its bad all around, and both sides need to be lambasted for it. Even the precious Reagan that the Conservatives often champion was one of the worst offenders of deficit spending. Its time for it to stop, and its time to quit pointing at the other side as a means to deflect attention from your own side. My side is the people of the country. The other side is the government. Thats how I see it split.

          • Jon,
            This is the key point:

            Now, as a percentage of income, the wealthy are not the most generous

            Is it a bigger deal if “an average person” (feel free to use yourself) gives $1,000 to charity?
            Or if Mitt Romney gave $1 million to charity?

            That does not even count the aspects of tax burden

            Taxes are a bigger burden on “an average person” than the wealthy.

            the majority of which is spent on government assistance programs

            Bullshit. Provide some reference.

            and stuff like Social Security.

            Bullshit again. It’s a separate fund.

            It also does not count the number of people employed by wealthy persons, especially well-off small business owners.

            Why do people employ people? Because it makes them more money. It’s not some kind of charity.

            Wealthy persons, especially well-off small business owners, got that way by employing people. Who is using who?

            Ever employed anyone Todd? Ever employed hundreds of people?

            No I haven’t Jon. Have you?

            Ever given millions to the needy?

            Not personally, but my family has. And I’m getting close.

            Ever set up a foundation to help with underpriviledged children

            Do two local food pantries count?

            or paid for an educational program

            Yes.

            or museum or library wing?

            Nope – not there yet.

            These are things rich people have done.

            Jon, I don’t think you can lecture me – or anyone – about income, taxes, and charity, if this is your analysis.

            • “Is it a bigger deal if “an average person” (feel free to use yourself) gives $1,000 to charity?
              Or if Mitt Romney gave $1 million to charity?”

              Depends on perspective. Its a much bigger deal for me, however, for those in need its a much bigger deal to get 1 million. You are looking at this from a moral standpoint, I am looking at it from a utilitarian one.

              “Taxes are a bigger burden on “an average person” than the wealthy.”

              Again, a moral argument, not a mathematical one. Its not about who it is a big deal for. Its not even about who can afford it. That is an arbitrary measure. It is about whether it is right to take from some and give to others on the basis of material possessions. One can have a right to the property of another based solely on arbitrary measures of wealth and need. Its not philosophically consistent or honest.

              “the majority of which is spent on government assistance programs

              Bullshit. Provide some reference.

              and stuff like Social Security.

              Bullshit again. It’s a separate fund.”

              Its still part of the budget, and its still funded through a tax, and it still is funded at times from the general revenue to cover “obligations”. In fact, there is no actual SS trust fund, no such account exists except on paper. The revenue gets used for whatever is deemed necessary, it being a separate fund is entirely an accounting trick. You don’t get to discount government spending because it got arbitrarily named “Non-discretionary”, its still spending and its still paid for with taxes or with borrowed money or with printed money. See the real numbers, go through the spreadsheet listing the spending outlays for 2011 here:
              http://www.cps-news.com/archives/fy-2011-federal-budget/

              “It also does not count the number of people employed by wealthy persons, especially well-off small business owners.

              Why do people employ people? Because it makes them more money. It’s not some kind of charity. ”

              Again, not a moral argument, I am talking about how the poor are benefitted, not about how the rich are good and wholesome and pure as the wind-driven-snow.

              “Wealthy persons, especially well-off small business owners, got that way by employing people. Who is using who?”

              Both, actually. You think the employees got nothing? A lot of people want jobs and do not want to start or run a business. You know why? Because its hard, and its risky. I have had 13 failed businesses before finally getting this one going, and I am not up to the point where I am employing anyone else yet. I lost a house and two vehicles and have a credit rating not much higher than my age because I lost big more than once, and I did not have a family with money to help. I wont say I had no help along my path, I have, but none of it has been taxpayer funded.

              “Ever employed anyone Todd? Ever employed hundreds of people?

              No I haven’t Jon. Have you?”

              No, but I am not rich, never have been. I am comparing your benefit to the poor and society to wealthy people, not to myself.

              “Ever given millions to the needy?

              Not personally, but my family has. And I’m getting close.”

              Thats great, good that your family had the resources to do so as well as the will. Was it as hard for them as it would be for me to give $1000? I don’t know nor care. They have helped a lot more than I have, you probably have too. I have helped, you have helped more, because you have had more to help with. That is my whole point.

              “Ever set up a foundation to help with underpriviledged children

              Do two local food pantries count?”

              Sure, and thats great. Most of the ones around here were done by rich people. Not sure if you are rich or not, but good on you for helping out.

              “or paid for an educational program

              Yes.”

              Again, thats awesome. Do you consider yourself rich? I dont know, but I bet you are richer than I am by far.

              “Jon, I don’t think you can lecture me – or anyone – about income, taxes, and charity, if this is your analysis.”

              I am not lecturing, I am pointing to actual occurences, not trying to devine motives. I am pointing out that the presence of wealth allows help, the taking of it does not. It will depress charity and it will slow economic growth. Government doing the redistribution will be more innefficient than a charity doing it in almost every case but the worst examples of corrupt or fraudulent charities.

              • Jon,
                Your original post seemed to be pointing out how generous the wealthy are because of how much they give.

                But now you’re saying “I have helped, you have helped more, because you have had more to help with. That is my whole point.”

                Isn’t that a moral argument?

                Or are you trying to brush-off my charity?

                You started this line of thought with what I consider to quite condescending comments Jon. You made assumptions about me that are untrue (which has happened many times here by several different people). Now you seem to be trying to walk those comments back…

                But I’m not just making a moral argument Jon. The $1000 you give is MORE important than the $1 million that Romney gives, because there are more of you. If every person like you could give $1000, it would have a bigger impact than if every person like Romney gave $1 million.

                Your statistic bears that out:

                households with net worth’s above 1 million gave more than half of it.

                That means households with net worth’s below 1 million gave the other almost-half of it.

                And “households with net worth’s above 1 million” is too low of a bar. A millionaire is not what it used to be. That should be “households with net worth’s above 5 or 10 million” if you’re trying to draw a line between the rich and not-so-rich.

                Don’t ever dismiss the impact of many small donations.

                Its not about who it is a big deal for. Its not even about who can afford it. That is an arbitrary measure.

                You’re right Jon. But you can’t separate moral and right/wrong any better than I can. We’re all humane – its part of us. Trying to take that stuff out of the equation doesn’t work.

                Its still part of the budget, and its still funded through a tax

                Jon, you made this statement, that is completely false:

                the majority of which is spent on government assistance programs and stuff like Social Security.

                The majority of taxes are not spent on government assistance programs and stuff like Social Security.

                SS trust fund exists only on paper – yes. And so does your bank account. And your stock certificates. And any other investment you make. The government takes you SS funds, and they lend it to themselves. Yes, that sounds stupid, but would you prefer they deposit your SS funds in a bank and make 1% interest, and then go to that bank and ask for a loan at 5%?

                Explain to me what the government should do with your SS funds?

                Both, actually.

                Right – it’s mutually beneficial. So employment doesn’t belong in the same conversation as charity. They are separate. Business owners are not doing anyone a favor when they hire someone. The business owner has an economic need, as does the employee. They agree to exchange time/talent/effort for money.

                You seem to think that business owners are better than employees. We need both, or the system doesn’t work.

                And being an employee is every bit as hard and risky as being an owner.
                The owner has his life tied up in his business.
                And the employee has his life and future well-being tied up in his job.

                No, but I am not rich, never have been. I am comparing your benefit to the poor and society to wealthy people, not to myself.

                Sound like a moral argument to me?

                And what’s the comparison Jon? Do you think all wealthy people are business owners who employ people? Does that make them better than me?

                Do you want to know what my benefit to society is Jon? I’m a Software Architect. I design the high-level systems and advise senior management of my Fortune 100 company on what our future direction should be for information technology.

                What I do is make 50,000 employees more productive.

                What’s your benefit to society?

    • Todd,

      While Jon summed things up fairly well, let me make a point. When people on the right (well probably not all, but those of us who use our brains) talk about the problem of redistribution of wealth, we are not concerned with the fate of the rich over the poor. This sort of idea is one of the most partisan comments thrown around these days. What is concerning is the fact that the government is not collecting taxes in what we see as an equitable way. When the top 10% pay 70% of federal revenue and the bottom 50% pay 2% and yet the left says the rich aren’t paying their fair share, I realize that what you see as fair is much different than what I see as fair.

      We can hash out what should be done to the tax code, but whatever you believe is right or wrong, let’s at least be reasonable and respectful about it. I won’t say you want to steal money from the rich to give to the poor (some do, but I don’t think you are one of them) if you won’t say that I only care that the rich get richer (some do, but I certainly don’t).

      • JB,

        When the top 10% pay 70% of federal revenue and the bottom 50% pay 2% and yet the left says the rich aren’t paying their fair share, I realize that what you see as fair is much different than what I see as fair.

        I agree your numbers are close enough for discussion.

        The part you’re missing is that the top 10% own 75% of all assets in America, and they earn 75% of all income (these are just rough numbers – I didn’t look them up – but it’s something like that).

        Another part is:

        If your income is $50,000, $1,000 is a lot in taxes, and that can have a significant impact on your quality of life.

        If your income is $50 million, $1 million is A LOT in taxes, but it’s probably not going to have the same impact on your quality of life.

        Does that make sense?

      • charlieopera says:

        Respectfully, JB, another opinion on the matter:

        We can hash out what should be done to the tax code, but whatever you believe is right or wrong, let’s at least be reasonable and respectful about it. I won’t say you want to steal money from the rich to give to the poor (some do, but I don’t think you are one of them) if you won’t say that I only care that the rich get richer (some do, but I certainly don’t).

        I say the rich has mostly stolen money from the working class … out and out robbed it via the system. The working class do the actual “work” and the rich (especially through inheritance) maintain their place atop the pyramid. It is a form of slavery (whether you want to accept it or not). Those who do the work, get the least reward. They may pay 70% of the revenue but they sure reap more than that in profit (even when it is utterly impossibly to “earn” $2.4 million an hour). IMPOSSIBLE unless the deck is rigged and the deck has been rigged forever.

    • charlieopera says:

      Every time the issue of “taxes” comes up, conservatives scream “redistribution of wealth”.
      I don’t see the “poor” living a life-of-luxury.

      Great point, Todd. The poor (unless you fall for the strawman argument that the poor today live so much better than the poor 200 years ago) never mind the rich today live so much better than 200 years ago, numbers are growing (thank you what was once called the middle class).. The gap widens as we edge ever closer to a 2 class system. Class warfare? You’re damn right it is (and should be) … I only wish Obama was a socialist … he’s not even close. He’s part of the problem (as is his party) … it’s a rigged deck that won’t find a cure without a revolution (peaceful or otherwise) … but it sure isn’t going to happen in my lifetime so I try to ignore all the politics of the day (one big sideshow).

      • I was more comparing the poor here to the poor in, say, Communist Cuba or China. 🙂

        • charlieopera says:

          It’s great to be exploiters, there’s no denying that, although it is funny how China can serve your purposes both for a move toward capitalism and a knock on communism.

          Like David Brooks said in this month’s Playboy interview: Some on the right just ignore the facts …

          • Charlie, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you are kidding. The fate of the poor in China is vastly superior to before we started “exploiting”. For one thing, we are not using their natural resources. We are benefitting from cheap labor. However, in doing so, we are providing work to the lower classes that previously had none. The reason China serves both purposes is that it fits. Communism left billions in poverty, and the emerging middle class and rising lower class has only occurred as China has gradually accepted more aspects of capitalism. We have a SERIOUS negative trade ratio with China, we are dumping money on them like no tomorrow, and not just by their government buying our very bad debt. If anything, China is exploiting our consumerism to fund their economic growth. They are not being exploited, they are being economically smart, unlike us.

            I guess some people on the left ignore facts too. And mathematics.

            • charlieopera says:

              Jon. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t assume you know the fate of the poor anywhere. I have no idea how the poor in China are faring, except if you think for one minute capitalism in China isn’t going to abuse the workforce, me thinks you’re using blinders. The state of the poor under Battista in Cuba was much worse than it is under Castro (and no, I’m not holding up Castro as a hero), but that revolution didn’t come about because Battista was a humanitarian with his own people. Capitalism left billions in poverty too … mostly in the countries our businesses exploited (see south america and maybe why they’re not such great fans of us). The bottom line is here in the good old US&A, our poverty level rises daily while the wealth of the 1% increases daily (they must be working VERY hard) … how’s that working out for us?

              This all very respectfully, fellas … now I have to go to bed … I’m really whacked with work … but fear not, layoffs are on the horizen yet again. I’ve survived 3 rounds (because of my work ethic, make no mistake) since I found this job but it isn’t look bright in NJ right now. Then I can be a slacker for the 2nd time in my life (in 2 years actually) … partners earning $250K and up can’t have their bonuses screwed with so it’s the little guys that get whacked first … you know them, the ones that do the actual work. So it goes.

              • Not saying abuse wont be there, just pointing out that it was already there. Also, if you think socialism or anything else wont have abuse in it, you are using blinders too. Some people are evil. Its not the system, its people. As for Battista, he was not exactly a capitalist. Just because something is not communism or socialism does not make it capitalist be default. There are other governmental forms. In this country there is hardly any free market left, just the capitalism part. Capitalism combined with statism is fascism. We are bordering on that. And the more statism we get, the more wealth redistribution we get, the worse the income gap gets. Have you noticed that, ever since the “New Deal”, the middle class has been getting beat up? That the income gap you always bring up has been expanding faster and faster the more government gets involved in the market? The actions of the Fed and many of the real power brokers that lead to the Great Depression was not accidental. It was to stop the rise of the middle and lower classes that began with the industrial revolution and continued into the 1920’s. More material “equality” through government action has obviously lead to less.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        POOR??????????

        What is the CRITERIA for being POOR????????????

        Oh that’s right. It is a percentage of the Median Income, which is continuously RISING.

        • charlieopera says:

          Maybe you should take a look at all those who’ve lost their homes over the past 4 years. They qualify … or those who lost jobs they can’t find. Unless, of course, it’s their own fault …

          Yeah, right.

          Workers of the world unite!

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The workers of the world can “unite” all they want, but until the workers of the world ACTUALLY understand economics (among other things), they won’t accomplish a thing. It is kind of like saying “dyslexics of the world… UNTIE”. It is funny, but that is about all. Unfortunately, the “workers of the world” have been systematically mis-educated for so long, if they DID unite it would highly likely be a huge disaster.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Nuff said!

  12. Oh, oh BF! Some competition for you in your special club!

    Meet Mensa’s youngest US member: She joined at age 2

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47233631#.T6BGGtWRx8E

  13. This for Obama and all his fellow Bush blamers. When you blame Bush for the Economy as it is today you should try to remember that Bush had had his legs cut out from under him by January 2007. Pelosi and her liberal homies had taken over the House and Reid and his liberal idiots had control of the Senate. Mind I still don’t say NONE of it was Bush’s fault, But the blame should be spread around a little more than the Liberals want us to believe.

    REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007

    The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
    January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

    George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

    Remember that day…
    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

    So when someone tries to blame Bush…
    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
    Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. Where were their budgets!
    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

    Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and his Democrat pals.
    In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
    And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

  14. the number one issue facing America domestically: our looming entitlement crisis. If we don’t radically change our entitlement programs and put them on a sustainable course, our country is in deep, catastrophic trouble. We face in the neighborhood of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That’s trillion with a “t.”

    In terms of getting our fiscal house in order, nothing even comes close to entitlement reform. Defense, foreign aid, the bridge to nowhere, taxes on the rich — it’s all just noise. The entitlement programs, especially Medicare, are where the money is at. But what has the Democratic leadership proposed — on paper — to fix our long-term debt problem that is serious and even the slightest bit politically risky? I can’t think of a single thing.

    Mann and Ornstein suggest that while the Democrats aren’t exactly perfect, in the end they are all basically just “centrist protectors of government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.”

    There is nothing centrist about this. It is radical when what threatens our national long-term prosperity and solvency is exactly what the Democrats steadfastly refuse to consider touching. In fact, they apparently oppose such reform enthusiastically.

    In a Wall Street Journal review of Robert Draper’s new book on the current Congress, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl summarized how the Democratic House caucus was prepared to oppose serious entitlement reform that was supposed to be part of the “Grand Bargain” President Obama was working on with Speaker of the House John Boehner in summer 2011 (it was not, of course, released on paper):

    “In ‘Do Not Ask What Good We Do,’ Robert Draper vividly describes a closed-door caucus meeting of House Democrats just after the world learned about Mr. Obama’s secret talks with Mr. Boehner,” Karl writes.

    “Nancy Pelosi prepared her fellow House Democrats to go to battle against the president. She told them she would deliver the message directly to the White House the next day. ‘Do I have your permission,’ Ms. Pelosi, her voice rising, asked her fellow Democrats, ‘to go over there and say, ‘We’re not cutting Medicare, we’re not cutting Social Security?’ The party rank-and-file ‘applauded wildly,’ Mr. Draper says.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/01/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-lets-just-say-it-the-democrats-are-the-problem/#ixzz1tia9BIZq

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Ray Hawkins

    You are misunderstanding, or representing, my comment about Beck and the Anarchists.

    “@JAC – quoting an MSNBC “news” story to back up Glenn Beck – what is this world coming to? If I get caught speeding with three fellow farm-to-table foodie enthusiasts does that indicate that the farm-to-table movement somehow supports fast driving (maybe it does if we were all headed out to eat) – hell – I dunno.”

    Note that I said the “Anarchist wing of the OWS”, not the OWS in its entirety. This is what Beck has been talking about since last fall. That there is a Global movement of people that are trying to use the current economic situation to create “chaos”. The exact why is not clear but can be deduced by prior such movements. CHANGE governance among many countries. But to what??? All indications are that the old “marxist” movement is behind the Anarchists. Which of course means they are really not Anarchists.

    He has been predicting that there will be efforts by these groups to increase violence this summer as the next “step” in the effort. If you look around some stories yesterday you will find a few talking about how the “original” OWS organizers are now distancing themselves from the movement because it is “coopted” by the “Communist Anarchists”.

    Back when I listened to Beck more often he would have guests on his show that provided evidence for his “crazy predictions”. He wasn’t just making shit up, if you will. Now you can call them crazy if you like, but it wasn’t him on his own. Many of these people had been in Govt or were part of large International Organizations, business and govt..

    I notice you used some of the same knee jerk reaction to Beck in your response. Making fun of his “soothsayer” moniker. It is that reaction why I love posting information that shows he was CORRECT in his predictions.

    So tell me, why if the man is correct so often on the big things are so many intent on ridiculing him for predicting these things?

    Remember his predictions on Gold prices due to printing money? To this day people on the left are accusing him of a “fraud”. Yet Gold went from around $700 when he started that prediction to almost $1800. In less than three years.

    Now I will grant you this. He is hard to take in large doses and I do find him outright “irritating” at times. I also think he is getting close to losing the credibility he built over the past 5 years. Probably the inevitable effect of trying to maintain high ratings, and of course “income streams”.

    Best to you this fine day.

    JAC

    • Sorry JAC – not buying a lot of this “Beck predicted all this stuff” – I’m no accusing him of being a fraud – I’m just not so convinced that his “predictions” were just that – stating the obvious or stating things in such a way as to say down the road: “look! I was right!”. I’m also not accustomed to seeing someone use “anarchist” and “organized movement” in the same sentence while referring to the same thing.

      • That may be true. In fact, his predictions would not be so touted as prophetic were it not for the naysayers. He “predicts” what is blatantly obvious. Big deal. However, he is called a fraud and a conspiracy theorist and everyone says his “predictions” are ludicrous and will never happen. Then they do. He is not some sort of psychic, he is just employing common sense. It is the resistance to that common sense that creates the contrast, not anything amazing about what he says. The amazing stuff is the media bashing his predicitons as crazy and paranoid. I predicted the dramatic rise in gold prices before he did. That he predicted gold’s meteoric rise is not phenominal. That he was called a fraud and investigated by congress for that prediction IS phenominal, and that is what makes people notice what he says. If the media wasnt so myopic and stupid and biased, Glenn’s prophetic ability would not even show on the radar.

  16. For Charlie. Here’s a high class “Native American” for you! All 1/32 of her!

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/02/sacaja-whiner-elizabeth-warren-and-the-oppression-olympics/

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sigh…a very good reason why NOT to read Malkin…

      • You actually might learn something. Give it a try. She has plenty of links throughout to verify her post.

        BTW, why do you progressives sigh all the time???? What’s up with that? Do we, the little people, frustrate you elitists so much that all you can do is shake your head and sigh? What an intrusion on your all mighty brain, huh?

      • Why? This points out pretty clearly one of the problems with using minority status as a qualifier. This woman is no more native American than I am. My daddy told me I had Native American blood too.

        If one actually believes in enforced diversity-than one would have to look at Warren as a woman who cheated a REAL minority out of a job. It’s also an example of how it can and is abused.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Do you really believe Warren was hired due to her ethnicity? That she is otherwise unqualified? If so, come out and say it.

          Or, if all you and Malkin are really saying is a criticism of affirmative action in general, of looking at ethnicity/gender/race/etc. in any application/screening, then say that. Argue against that.

          But seriously, what does this have to do with Warren and her qualifications for office?

          • What I think about affirmative action-isn’t the point-What does Ms. Warren profess to believe?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Well then ask her. But why the disparaging comments towards her? I’m tired of all the faux outrage.

              • Faux outrage-This woman is clearly not a minority -she is a democrat so I will assume she supports affirmative action -yet she has allowed the school to show her as a minority in order to falsely meet the standards. Which affects true minorities. So please tell me how stating this fact is faux outrage. Please defend her and the schools actions, which circumvent the stated goal.

              • @VH – what does “clearly not a minority” even mean? Are you judging her appearance? Just curious.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok, back from lunch…

                Yes, complete faux outrage! To add to Ray’s comment, what does “which affects true minorities” mean?

              • No, I’m not basing it on her appearance-I’m basing it on numerous articles I’ve read. I’m basing it on the fact that she has been using the designation for years and now she is having a problem proving it-and seems to think family lore is enough to base minority status on. I basing it on her claim that she didn’t know the college was using her status when she has been promoted under the designation, listed as a minority in college directories, and used the designation at other schools. I’m basing it on any blood basis she has to Native Americans is ancient history.

                But I wonder what percentage one must have to qualify-maybe she isn’t lying-but by using her measure, who knows, maybe we are all minorities.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                V.H.

                By her criteria, (1/32 minority), then YES we would ALL, (each and every one of us) qualify as minorities. I am CERTAIN that all of us can claim ~ 3% of ancestry of 1 minority or another, it isn’t hard to do.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            According to the quote in the Article it doesn’t matter what we think. The University seems to have thought so. Or at least was using it to their “credit”.

            I’ll tell you what it has to do with her qualifications. She is a LIAR. Lying about her ancestry simply validates what we already know as the behavior of the PROGRESSIVE.

            She has shown a willingness to say what ever is convenient to accomplish her PROGRESSIVE goals.

            Furthermore, she is a LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR. This should DISQUALIFY her automatically.

            Trust me, I am not displaying “faux rage” as you call it. I CAN NOT STAND this person. She is antithetical to Freedom and Liberty. She is just another version of the current President. Another FASCIST PROGRESSIVE, which of course puts them both in the SOCIALIST FAMILY TREE.

            • I agree with Buck – complete faux outrage….

              from the same article:

              “The Warren campaign said the candidate never authorized Harvard Law to claim her as a minority hire.”

              Funny that Malkin never mentions that eh? Guess it doesn’t fit the narrative.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Ray

                Good grief, she has been caught red handed. She has already side stepped, back tracked and done the chicken dance.

                But now because “her campaign” says this you think this is just some Faux issue? She didn’t authorize the Univl. to use it, huh! Did she tell them to STOP????

                By the way, just what the hell does “Faux Outrage” mean to you anyway?

              • @JAC – in other news I hear Warren supposedly said “I like dogs”. The filthy right wing media is soon to accuse her of bestiality.

              • @JAC – faux outrage is this completely bullshit mindless drivel that people like Malkin make a career out of – inciting people over scant/little/no evidence of any wrongdoing or even misstatements or statements taken out of context. Her campaign has to play it now because she is in a political race and the filthy media shitbags that exist all over the spectrum do scant research, slant/ignore the facts – all in an effort to sell crappy newspapers rather than to inform. So perhaps a comment she may have made years ago about possibly being Native American (if even partially so) gets twisted and spun into a ridiculous diversion. There are plenty of substantive reasons to debate her policy positions – but hey – its more fun to get wrapped around the axle on something like this eh?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Ray

                You didn’t answer my question.

                “I like dogs” in Democrat speak means ” They taste great”.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              JAC, where was she lying?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                “Fried said he learned about Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware background later when he found a picture of Warren’s mother and asked her about it. Both Warren’s grandparents on her mother’s side had Native American lineage, her campaign said yesterday.

                Christopher Child, a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogical Society, traced back Warren’s family to her great-grandfather on her mother’s side and couldn’t find any proof of Native American heritage.

                “In her immediate pedigree there is no one who is listing themselves as not white,” said Child, who has researched the heritage of several prominent politicians.

                She was willing to let the “I am of Indian heritage” thing go on and her campaign continues to say this is true. But alas, the genealogist can find nothing.

                Now this is NOT the only thing. I have listened to her campaign rhetoric about Paul Ryan and Scott Brown. She LIES and DISTORTS, which in my view is lying.

                Is that what you want in a politician? Or is is OK just because she is a PROGRESSIVE?

                Now this may shock you a bit. While I wouldn’t vote for her to be dog catcher, I would consider her for an agency appointment or as an adviser to the JAC Administration. I wouldn’t want her having the POWER to execute her Dogma on others, but I think she has done some great work in digging up some real problems that need to be addressed.

                Personally I would put her on a team of equally motivated and competent people with the opposite Political Agenda. Diversity in such groups can actually be beneficial, if the right LEADERSHIP is applied to the effort.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                There was no lie nor distortion here. She is part Cherokee. End of story.

                I would vote for her in a second. I agree she would make a great appointee or advisor, but she will also make a great Senator. But I do find it strange that you would consider her for an appointment and praise her ‘great work in digging up some real problems’ and at the same time lambast her lying and distortion. If I truly felt this way about someone, I would never consider that person for a position in my administration.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                What happened to her Delaware heritage???????

                Does that make it a Half Lie?????

            • Buck the Wala says:

              A genealogist in Massachusetts has uncovered evidence that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren does have Native American heritage as she claims.

              Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren’s great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Funny how fast the rats can dig up the cheese when the light of day finds them.

                One can’t now one can. But here is the point. She let it ride on nothing but “stories”.

                Here is the other point. When it became awkward, the Dems fell back to “you are criticizing a woman”. Boo hoo hoo!!

                Here is another point. She let the Univ claim her as a “minority woman” based on these stories. And even if she had proof then of the bloodlines, it was NOT enough to allow the Unive to claim her as a “minority woman”. Yes, she let them do it. She could have forced them to remove the claim, she did not.

                The argument that she did not “authorize use” is just More Lawyer Kabuki Dance if you ask me.

                I do find it humorous though how these seems to have caused you to react so harshly and quickly. What’s the matter? Got a little thang for Ms. Warren do ya?

              • Are you really OK with someone receiving special benefits because they are 1/32nd American Indian? Will you excuse any level of (or lack of) morality as long as that person shares your ideology?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Well, I don’t know about having a little ‘thang’ for her (she is a bit too old for me, not to mention the Mrs. wouldn’t like that very much), but I am a huge admirer of the work she has done.

                I completely stand by my comment that this is all faux outrage though. You don’t like her positions, attack those positions. I am not falling back on any line of ‘how dare you criticize a woman’ — I’m sure she can more than handle her own — I am just of the opinion that this is an absolutely ridiculous line of attack that has no real basis in reality. She’s not minority enough for you? Harvard claimed her as a minority when she doesn’t truly fit the definition? She self identified as part Cherokee when she (according to you?) shouldn’t? Who cares! Stick to the issues and attack her positions.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Kathy,

                What special benefits did she receive? What lack of morality has been displayed here?

              • Well fantastic!! My Gr. Gr. Gr. Grandfather on my mother’s side was full blood Cherokee also. I also had another ancestor that was Creek. I wonder how many government benefits and handouts I can get because of this? I my problems may be solved!! Thank you so much for informing me of how advantageous it can be to have approximately one squirt of American Indian blood in you!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                By the way, for me the whole I am an Indian thing is not that big a deal.

                It makes for a great example of how in Politics one should be careful about how deep they dig into the mud pit. She got some of the same thing she and her friends have dished out.

                It seems her campaign has covered her backside quickly. But the fact remains, there was no “hard evidence” when it started. Now it suddenly appears. Good staff work.

                As far as using those who lie for advice. There are lies and there are LIES. I know, I can’t believe I said that but I am trying to create an atmosphere here from which one could “govern”. And to deal with current reality. Most of her lies are in my view linked to “political rhetoric” and defense of her Progressive Ideology. If we discounted everyone with those types of lies we wouldn’t have many people to consult with in the field of politics.

                That is why you bring them into a committee but you NEVER give them Authority over anyone. Whether Dem or Repub, you put Leaders in charge and make ideologues the worker bees.

                I wish we had a clean source of worker bees, but for now we simply don’t. So you have to find the ones who can do what you know their strength or benefit will be and put aside the partisan B.S.. Some can do this. I would give her a fair hearing on this point.

                Now if I found out she “lied” about basic information or distorted analytical conclusions to fit an agenda……………NO WAY would she ever get near my administration. If I wanted that I could just bring back the Algorians.

                One more thing. When I say I will give someone a JOB or a position ADVISING my Administration I DO NOT mean I will put them on the PAYROLL. If they are serious about what they believe is needed to address our problems then they should be willing to provide their help free of charge. They should be willing to do their FAIR SHARE.

            • Well JAC, maybe she wasn’t lying. It would appear there is another concept to use when what you’ve previously stated, has now been proven to be untrue. It is called a composite.

              http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/obama-ny-girlfriend-was-composite-character-122272.html

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Kathy

                I have not read his books. I find this, well simply Slimy. What kind of person writes such a thing about a particular person when it is not true, then claims it was someone else, then that is was really a “composite”. But he used HER name?

                Progressive………….NO HONOR.

      • charlieopera says:

        There was a time when I didn’t know who Michele Malkin was … and now I long for those days.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Perhaps Michelle has it right. It is simply a pathology of the hard left. I give you Ward Churchill, Charlie’s hero.

      Military Service
      Churchill was born in Urbana, Illinois to Jack LeRoy Churchill and Maralyn Lucretia Allen. His parents divorced before he was two, and he grew up in Elmwood, where he attended local schools.[11]
      In 1966, he was drafted into the United States Army. On his 1980 resume, he said he served as a public-information specialist who “wrote and edited the battalion newsletter and wrote news releases.”[11]
      In a 1987 profile on Churchill, the Denver Post reported that he was drafted, went to paratrooper school, then volunteered for Vietnam, where he served a 10-month tour as Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP), one of a six-man team sent out to track down the enemy.[12][13] The Post article also reported that Churchill was politically radicalized as a result of his experiences in Vietnam. Churchill told the Post that he had spent some time at the Chicago office of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the late 1960s, and briefly taught members of the Weather Underground how to build bombs and fire weapons.[12]
      In 2005, the Denver Post reported that Churchill’s military records show he was trained as a film projectionist and light truck driver, but they do not reflect paratrooper school or LRRP training.[11][14] The 75th Ranger Regiment Association found no record of Churchill having been a member of the unit, or a LRRP team.[15]
      Churchill received his B.A. in technological communications in 1974 and M.A. in communications theory in 1975, both from Sangamon State University, now the University of Illinois at Springfield.[11]

      Ethnicity
      In 2003, Churchill stated, “I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father’s side, Cherokee on my mother’s, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.”[20][21] In 1992, Churchill wrote elsewhere that he is one-eighth Creek and one-sixteenth Cherokee.[22] In 1993, Churchill told the Colorado Daily that “he was one-sixteenth Creek and Cherokee.”[23] Churchill told the Denver Post in February 2005 that he is three-sixteenths Cherokee.[14]
      In a statement dated May 9, 2005, and posted on its website, the United Keetoowah Band initially said,
      “The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary ‘associate membership’ in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry.” The tribe said that all of Churchill’s “past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah ‘enrollment,’ written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band.”[24]
      Two days later, the United Keetoowah Band replaced its statement and acknowledged Churchill’s “alleged ancestry” of being Cherokee:
      “Because Mr. Churchill had genealogical information regarding his alleged ancestry, and his willingness to assist the UKB in promoting the tribe and its causes, he was awarded an ‘Associate Membership’ as an honor,” the tribe’s website now said. “However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee.”
      The tribe’s spokesperson, Lisa Stopp, stated the tribe enrolls only members with certified one-quarter American Indian blood. The website statement further clarified that Churchill “was not eligible for tribal membership due to the fact that he does not possess a ‘Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB)”, and the associate membership did not entitle an individual to voting rights or enrollment in the tribe.[25] [26]
      Churchill has never asked for CDIB certification, and finds the idea of being “vetted” by the US government offensive.[26][25]
      In June 1994, the United Keetoowah Band had voted to stop awarding associate memberships.[25][27] Such honorary associate membership recognizes an individual’s assistance to the tribe, but it has nothing to do with Indian ancestry, and it does not entitle an individual to vote in the tribe as a member.[28] The Keetoowah Band states that Churchill still holds the associate membership and it has not been rescinded.[28][29] In a separate interview, Ernestine Berry, formerly on the tribe’s enrollment committee and four years on its council, said that Churchill had never fulfilled a promise to help the tribe.[30]
      In June 2005, the Rocky Mountain News published an article about Churchill’s genealogy and family history. It “turned up no evidence of a single Indian ancestor” among 142 direct ancestors [of Churchill’s] identified from records.[31] The News reported that both Churchill’s birth parents were listed as white on the 1930 census, as were all but two of his great-great-grandparents listed on previous census and other official documents.[27] The News found that some of Churchill’s accounts of where his ancestors had lived did not agree with documented records. Numerous members of Churchill’s extended family have longstanding family legends of Indian ancestry among ancestors;[27] but, none were confirmed among the 142 direct forebears of Churchill who were identified.[32]
      Documents in Churchill’s university personnel file show that he was granted tenure in a “special opportunity position.”[17] In 1994, then CU-Boulder Chancellor James Corbridge refused to take action on allegations that Churchill was fraudulently claiming to be an Indian, saying “it has always been university policy that a person’s race or ethnicity is self-proving.”[33]
      Some of Churchill’s Native American critics, such as Vernon Bellecourt (White Earth Ojibwe) and Suzan Shown Harjo (Southern Cheyenne-Muscogee Creek), argue that his assertion of Native American ancestry without the ability to prove it might constitute misrepresentation and grounds for termination. The University has said that it does not hire on the basis of ethnicity.[33] The University of Colorado’s Research Misconduct Committee conducted a preliminary investigation into whether Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity to “add credibility and public acceptance to his scholarship.”[34] The committee concluded that the allegation was not “appropriate for further investigation under the definition of research misconduct.”[35]
      In a 2005 interview in The Rocky Mountain News, Churchill said, “I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was. And even if [the critics] are absolutely right, what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull.”[36]

      The longtime indigenous activist Russell Means said in February of that year, “So I want, from this day forward, every media person nationally, internationally and locally to know that we have ascertained that Ward Churchill is a full-blooded Indian leader.”[37]

      Now I would like to offer this comment. Russell Means’ announcement saddened me then and now. I thought more highly of Mr. Means than him associating with this guy just because he fights for the Indian Cause.

      And of course, if a simple announcement of Indian status, by an actual Indian, is enough, then Mr. Obama is a double quota guy.

      Not only a “white” African American but a member of the Crow Tribe.

      • charlieopera says:

        Charlie’s hero, I love it.

        JAC, you’re always good for a laugh, but remember, you shouldn’t try to discern what I’m thinking. Any alternative to what you swallow must be rejected … I get it.

        So remind me again (if it was you, I could be wrong) about the black guy on the boat GW was making way across the delaware on again … and how that somehow cleanses the FF’s of what wrongs they committed ….

        Okay, this is my last for the day (I think). I have stuff to get to …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlieopera

          You once again display the problem with your arguments. You make rash assumptions and DO NOT LISTEN to what others are ACTUALLY telling you.

          I NEVER said that the fact a black man is portrayed in the boat, a real person by the way and most likely wasn’t actually in the boat, somehow “cleanses” the FF’s of their errors.

          I have only stated that YOUR rendition of that period as well as what transpired with the Indians is a gross oversimplification and in fact erroneous at times.

          For example, a Genocide requires purpose of intent, not just Shit Happens. There was NOT a concerted plan to ERADICATE the Indians from this continent during the Colonial or early America period. And “eradication” is the goal of Genocide, Charlie. As time passed, and as political philosophy changed (see Marx) the American Govt, well parts of the Govt, took on more of an eradication mindset. At least a “Complete Conquest” mindset. But even then, they kept falling back to old values of contract and treaty. If a true genocide was the goal there would never have been any Reservations or treaties. The few remaining Indians would have simply been left to melt into the general population. Where they most likely would have perished.

          The other thing I have tried to point out, to no avail in your case, is that the Moral, Ethical, and thus Political standards of those periods are entirely different than today. The Sins of our Fathers are our Fathers sins. NOT MINE.

          I have NEVER denied that I benefit from the Invasion and Conquest of North America. I would NOT EXIST if it had not happened. And I am GLAD I EXIST. I do not feel guilt or sorrow for EXISTING. I will deny, however, that my economic well being is somehow integrally linked to, and the sole result of, exploitation of slaves or the genocide of Indians. Those are connections far to removed from cause/effect.

          Now here is another truth. Those Indians of today? There is no proof they would EXIST either if the invasion had not occurred. You simply can’t run the clock back without considering ALL the connections.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    The President’s Trip

    From a Story on his trip yesterday, and the efforts to keep it secret.

    “”There’s a group of reporters that has to be aware of his movements in advance,” Vietor said. “Those reporters are read into those movements with the agreement that whey won’t report them until a predetermined time.”
    Vietor said no U.S. reporter in on the secret broke it.”

    So let me be the one to ask the question.

    WHY? Why is there a group of the press that “has to be aware of his movements in advance”???

    🙂

    • @ JAC….would you please quit asking sensible questions. Buck just dropped his coffee.

      @ Esom: Thank you. you saved me from having to answer the numbers game. However, remember that figures do not lie but liars can figure. ( A mainstay in our political spectrum ). People wish to point to the swings up and down of the DOW and no one really understands what the DOW is and what it is comprised of…..it is not a measuring device for the economy at all and the left figured it out long ago….the right has not figured it out yet., The DOW rises and falls not based on economy at all. Want to see the true impact on the economy, look to the inflation rate and the transportation costs. THAT is the measure to go by. All this talk about budgets is also a smoke screen for the debt. One thing that I marvel at is in Todd’s references…….and the assumption that there has been a budget in the last three years. I would like to see it. I cannot find it and the references that were presented also showed no budget…..unless you wish to call “continuing resolutions” a budget…..but that would be tantamount to calling Nancy Pelosi a Republican. What did a loaf of bread cost you at the end of 2007? What does it cost now? What did a gallon of gas cost you in 2007? What does it cost now? What did health insurance cost you in 2007? What does it cost now? What is it going to cost? ( Even the most liberal economists are predicting over 25%increases and less insurance on the market ). How many jobs were outsourced from 2002 – 2007? How many jobs have been outsourced since 2007? (The number will stagger you post 2007). What were the spending levels in 2007? What is it now? How many wars was the US involved in at the end of 2007? How many are we involved in now? What was the total debt in 2007? What is the debt now and where is it headed? Just basic questions……..

      Simple economics……you cannot spend your way out of trouble.

      • Oh, on the subject of outsourced jobs……take a look at WHO has done this….and the correlation to “bundling” and campaign donations AND who is on the Presidents council on job creation.

      • Exactly sir! The only reason I copied that post over from an earlier one was in reponse to all the Bush blaming. I actually didn’t think he was that bad a President. I didn’t think he was that GOOD a Pres either. But the Socialist/Progressive/Democratic liberals hated him even before he was elected the first time. As did the MSM. And I am sick and tired of the blame game. Obama is President, has been for 3 and a half years. The economic and social problems in this Nation are HIS! Period!

        He most especially cannot “blame Bush” for the great social divide in the nation. He helped immeasurably in creating it, and has opened it wider and wider since becoming President. That one is solely on him. The “Great Uniter” my pasty white behind!! More like the “Great Divider”, the “Racebaiter”, THE RACIST BLACK MAN!!!!!!!

        The man is more dangerous than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson combined. At least with those two, everyone KNOWS they are Racist. He is more subtle than that. He doesn’t just spit hate and racism like venom from a cobra like they do. He just puts his Presidential power behind racial agendas and makes “faux pas” racist remarks that are quickly dismissed by the MSM as “taken out of context” or outright ignored.

        On the subject of Inflation, heck yes we are far worse off than before Obama!! Everything I know of costs nearly twice what it did before he got there. And he most definitely could care less. I too think the idiot has an agenda to destroy us financially and as an independent nation and world power. It’s almost like he is being paid to do it. I have NO doubt it is intentional.

        I was taught at an early age that last simple line of yours….you cannot spend your way out of trouble.

        But he cannot or WILL not get it.

      • Colonel,
        You’re right – I should have used the words “government” or “spending”, because the figures are actual dollars, not budgets. But “budget” has become the common term.

        Obama has presented a budget to congress every year. They haven’t passed it.

        But, the budget is exactly that – just a budget. It authorizes no spending. It simply lays out the plan for how money will be spent. The actual spending is done thru individual spending (appropriation) bills passed by congress and signed by the president.

        So not having a budget isn’t really a big deal. But it does give you something to piss-n-moan about, so you should be happy about that! 😉

        Why do you use 2007 as your “dividing line”?

  18. @ Buck…..I just noted that the earth’s rotation is to left (looking down at the earth from above the North Pole). Is it possible that gobal warming and the ills of the world is because of the leftward spin? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Your perspective is upside down and backwards.

      The earth spins, neither left or right.

      However, the Leftist Progressives ARE responsible for the wobble.

      Far to many of them are concentrated along the coastal plains of the NE and NW. I think their heavy brains and oversized egos create an unbalanced MASS relative to the other hemisphere.

      • Could be….I do not claim to be a meteorologist…….but I was reading this…. http://www.enotes.com › Science › Geology Questions.

        It does go on to say about perspectives……looking down from the North Pole…..ccw……from the South Pole…..cw…….

        Strange how that correlates to politics…..perspective. (and all of this w/o a DP)

        • Whoever came up with the left lean thing tho, failed to consider that if you are in space looking down at earth, you yourself could spin 360 degrees, thus “left” could become up, down, or right. LOL. 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          I forgot my manners. Good morning Sir.

          Yes, perspectives are a FUN thing at times. I do like your “left spinning” theory though. 🙂

          Follow up: I doubt that Kira Knightly knows how to shoot. She may ride but I am guessing one of those Eeeeeenglish saddles, if at all.

          Dead on with the Dow Jones comment. Drives me crazy watching the media and politicians yapping about the stock market indexes as some indicator of economic vitality. The market is up because the vultures think the Fed is going to keep “stimulating”. That simple.

          Best to you and yours today.

          • And a gracious good day to you as well, sir. Things are going well. And I hope the same back to you.

            Re: Knightly…….well, if you wish to call English Saddle riding….and what may pass for a horse…ok.

            Real women ride real horses…..Western style……no foo foo….and do it NAKED !!!!

      • Cou….coul……could….we ti….tip……over?

        • I would be embarrassed at the fact that He is a Rep from Georgia, except for the fact that he is from an almost all Black Atlanta Dsitrict.

          OMG though! Afraid the UH UH Island will CAPSIZE from all the people on it!!??? He talks and sounds like he’s smoked a little too much wacky baccy in his past. That man is SHOT OUT!!

          I don’t see how that Admiral kept from busting out laughing! You could see him trying to fight the smile off his face. I would be liable to shoot myself if I had to sit in a hearing and listen to him all day!

          • P.S. – If you believe I was making fun of him, you are correct. This is not near the first STUPID thing he has said. And waiting on him to stumble and bumble to the point of the conversation would try the patience of a saint. He could at least make sense after all of that.

            And what I mean by ‘all black Atlanta District’, is that he was voted in solely because he was black. Funny how it’s OK to have an all black district, but not an all white one.

            • Sad really, I know he has some illness and it may not be his fault, but why elect someone who is simply not capable???

              • I don’t know if he has an illness or not, but does that excuse his stupidity? I can understand if he has some disorder which affects his speech, and if he does, then I’m sorry I said that. But the stupidity of what he says is appalling. How could he be elected if the problem is bad enough to affect his mind? He is from here and I can tell you it is not near the FIRST stupid thing that has come from him.

              • In December 2009, Johnson revealed that he had been battling Hepatitis C for over a decade, which resulted in slow speech and a tendency to regularly get “lost in thought in the middle of a discussion”.[23] Johnson said that he learned he had the disease in 1998 but does not know how he contracted it. The disease has damaged his liver and led to thyroid problems.[23] He was treated with a combination of ribavirin and interferon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[23] In February 2010, Johnson finished an experimental treatment for Hepatitis C, resulting in weight gain and increased energy

  19. The REAL genius of democracy………………the voters are ultimately to blame.

  20. Did she use her native-ness to climb the ladder? We’ll never know. But when hiring for diversity is such a big deal, you have to wonder if it is just mere coincidence or contrived falsifying that she would, based solely on family lore, decide to tout her ethnicity – which we now “know” is 1/32nd. (Aren’t we all 1/32nd of some minority? – give me a fricken’ break.)

    You are reacting quite strongly to this one, Buck. That whole bro/sis-hood of lawyers sticking together?

    • I think the simple point is that at one or several times in her career she checked the little box that said Native American. I also think most Americans can claim mixed heritage. Is there a legal standard for how much is required to claim minority status? One of the posts above lists a 1/4 standard. It seems that a law professor would not make such a claim unless it was deliberate. That leaves her to be either an idiot, or a liar. Or maybe she has a legal view that we’re all minorities….. Let’s see how the affirmative action fans react to that one!

    • This is good. Pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

      White and wrong: On the reservation with Elizabeth Warren

      http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061128614

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        Play nice, and stop kicking sand in Buck’s face.

        🙂

        • He started it………….

          • Buck always starts it…..”It’s Buck’s fault”

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Everything is Buck’s fault…just ask Mrs. Wala.

              • And for the next however many month’s, until that baby is born and actually a little while after the baby is born-those baby blues can be harsh-Mrs. Wala will always be right and everything will be Buck’s fault-it will just make your life easier to accept this now. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Trust me, I’ve realized long ago that I’m never right and am always at fault. Or, at least that’s what I tell her! 🙂

          • But here we have it. The mystery is solved! She did it…..to make friends! Now, I have no doubt this woman would be challenged in this area – not exactly the warm and friendly type. But really? All those years you checked off minority status to make “like” friends?

            But wait, at the end, she mentions that whole qualified woman thing again…..so……..we’re back to….the war on women. There you go, back to our comfort zone. It’s all about the Repubs war on women. Whew! Almost got really far away from the talking points for a minute there ol’ Liz!

            http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-claims-listed-herself-as-minority-to-meet-people-but-story-doesnt-hold-up/

      • This one covers by sentiments. They scream all these “we must do what’s right” reasons to support diversity and affirmative action, but one of their own-takes unfair advantage -and it’s just fine-she isn’t technically lying as long as a drop of Indian blood might still be in her-all the “do whats right”-flies right out the window.

        Elizabeth Warren camp: Her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee
        posted at 5:02 pm on May 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

        Yesterday I thought this story was small potatoes but revealing as an insight into how far Warren might go to gild her resume with a diversity credential. After this, though, I’m honestly interested in hearing her address it. What’s the threshold of “minority” status in her mind? Are we back to the “one drop” rule or is 1/32 juuuuuuust enough for a shot of authenticity whereas 1/64 is a bridge too far? Actually, maybe those standards aren’t so different: When you’re talking about a great-great-great-grandparent, one drop is about all that’s left.

        Ace notes that the premise behind diversity hiring is that a minority employee brings a perspective that whites simply can’t. Another premise, a la affirmative action, is that a minority employee deserves special consideration because he/she had to cope with cultural disadvantages that whites haven’t. Is Liz Warren claiming that she’s in either of those boats? Can’t wait for this press conference.

        Desperately scrambling to validate Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage amid questions about whether she used her minority status to further her career, the Harvard Law professor’s campaign last night finally came up with what they claim is a Cherokee connection — her great-great-great-grandmother.

        “She would be 1⁄32nd of Elizabeth Warren’s total ancestry,” noted genealogist Christopher Child said, referring to the candidate’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, who is listed on an Oklahoma marriage certificate as Cherokee. Smith is an ancestor on Warren’s mother’s side, Child said…

        Meanwhile, Warren’s camp issued statements from five faculty members at the four universities where she’s taught, including Harvard Law School and University of Pennsylvania, to knock down any suggestion she used her Native American background to get hired.

        “To suggest that she needed some special advantage to be hired here or anywhere is just silly. She was hired for her great abilities as a teacher and a scholar. Her family tree had nothing to do with it,” wrote Jay Westbrook, chairman of the business law school at the University of Texas at Austin, who hired Warren.

        The same genealogist also discovered that one of Warren’s great-grandfathers, although white, did live for a time in Cherokee territory, which makes him … kind of minority, I guess? Good enough for her to claim 1.5/32 status?

        Three lingering questions here. One, as noted yesterday: Why did Warren stop describing herself as minority circa 1995? What changed? Two: Why did she start describing herself as a minority circa 1986? If she didn’t have hard documentation until literally yesterday that she was part Native American, what evidence was she relying on to claim that distinction in the first place? “Grandma told me I might be part Cherokee” doesn’t cut it, I hope, when we’re talking about criteria that qualify as a competitive advantage in one’s profession. You need proof, or at least you should. Three, via Ann Althouse: Why does Warren’s campaign seem so impressed by the fact that her previous employers are willing to say her ancestry played no role in hiring her? Of course they’re going to say that. If they don’t, they know it’ll be interpreted by the public as an admission that she was graded on a curve in the hiring process. Either embrace diversity hiring as a glorious fair-minded policy or don’t, but don’t try to have it both ways.

        http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/01/elizabeth-warren-camp-her-great-great-great-grandmother-was-cherokee/

  21. For decades, the growth of government, both here and in Europe, has been inexorable. For perspective’s sake, it should be noted that the last budget submitted by the Clinton administration for fiscal year 2001 was $1.9 trillion. Exactly ten years later, president Obama introduced a budget of $3.8 trillion. Thus in the space of a single decade, spending by the federal government doubled.

    What has such doubling produced? A myriad of things, but one of the foremost is an American public that has become more dependent on government, not just for benefits, but employment. This is no accident, since the more such largesse emanates from Washington, D.C., the greater the power that flows back to Congress and the president as a result. It is also no secret that one political party would like this particular dynamic to go on unimpeded, until the nation is driven into fiscal oblivion. Whether that ambition is the result of ideological stupidity or a Machiavellian plan to create a totalitarian state full of Americans who can no longer function without the “benevolent” hand of government controlling every aspect of their lives, is one of the prevailing issues of the current election season.

    Unfortunately, we have reached sufficient levels of dependency, that the economic paradox occurs. We all know that $16 trillion of debt is a time bomb, and that the only way we can save ourselves — in the long run — is to bring revenues in line with expenditures first, and then have revenues exceed expenditures, so that we can begin paying down the mountain of debt we have already accumulated. Hence, the austerity argument is legitimized.

    Except that it isn’t, in the same way that taking a heroin junkie completely off heroin all at once will cause a pretty unpleasant experience for the junkie. Hence we have methadone clinics, created (ostensibly) to wean the junkie off drugs incrementally. In economic terms, as we are seeing it played out in Europe, the attempt to wean entire societies of “junkies,” i.e. those addicted to government largesse, off the government teat has created havoc. Furthermore, and this is where it gets to the nub, societies structured to live off government, the ones where government is the major employer — even as that employment has driven those societies to fiscal insolvency — are now faced with the economic “ripple effect” that the laying off government employees produces.

    Ergo, in step the progressive economists who can then posit that austerity is a “failure,” because the unemployed government worker is no longer capable of buying goods and services from his private sector counterpart, who is no longer able to pay the taxes necessary to solve the government debt crisis that necessitated the layoffs of public sector workers in the first place. Thus, the progressives argue, it becomes imperative to continue “priming the pump” with fiscal stimulus, in order to avoid the economic contraction that austerity is bringing to people in Europe.

    Sound good, until one realizes that stimulus is nothing more than an increase in the very same government debt — and government dependency — that brought Europe to its knees in the first place. In short, fiscal stimulus is an effort to kick the can down the road, even as the debt load piled onto future generations becomes so obscene that it would take a miracle to get out from under it. The progressive “solution” to that problem? Tax the “rich,” which includes people making $200K a year and businesses making $250K — now. I say now because the progressives’ dirty little secret is that that particular threshold will have to be lowered considerably in order to maintain the level of government spending, interest payments — and dependency — that those who wish to see as much power as possible concentrated in government hands need to maintain that concentration. In other words, those currently suckered in by the siren song of class warfare have precious little idea how far down the income ladder the term “rich” can be extended to accommodate such ambitions.

    Furthermore, as some Americans have begun to notice, “priming the pump” is debasing the hell out of our currency.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46413

  22. Good Grief-you must look at these pictures-I think she may be innocent, based on the fact that she has cooked her brain! But she is definitely overdone. I would normally put a smiley face but this isn’t really funny.

    Wait Until You See the Horrific Picture of the Mother Arrested for Putting 5-Year-Old in a Tanning Booth

    Posted on May 2, 2012 at 2:00pm by Madeleine Morgenstern Madeleine Morgenstern

    Print »
    Email »

    Comments (57)

    A New Jersey mother has pleaded not guilty after she was accused of letting her 5-year-old daughter tan at a salon — and the little girl ended up with a burn.

    Facing a child endangerment charge, Patricia Krentcil, 44, entered the plea in a Newark court Wednesday and said she “would never permit” her daughter Anna, now 6, to go tanning, WCBS-TV reported.

    Not likely to help her case, at least in the court of public opinion? Krentcil’s own burnt sienna skin tone:
    N.J. Mother Accused of Putting 5 Year Old Daughter in Tanning Booth Pleads Not Guilty

    Patricia Krentcil, shown in an interview this week with WCBS-TV, has pleaded not guilty to a child endangerment charge. (Image source: WCBS-TV)

    According to WCBS, the mother of five has admitted to bringing her daughter into the tanning salon room with her last month, but said she never allowed her daughter to get into the booth.

    “It didn’t happen,” Krentcil told the station. “She’s six years old. Yes, she does go tanning with mommy, but not in the booth.”
    N.J. Mother Accused of Putting 5 Year Old Daughter in Tanning Booth Pleads Not Guilty

    Krentcil’s booking photo last month. (Image source: WCBS-TV)

    But that’s not what prosecutors are saying: They claim Krentcil took Anna right into the tanning booth, which caused a sunburn. When a school nurse asked the girl about the mark, she answered: “I go tanning with mommy.”

    New Jersey state law prohibits anyone under the age of 14 from using a tanning bed. The school notified child services and Krentcil was arrested a short time later.

    Krentcil has said it‘s all a misunderstanding and that her daughter’s burn came from a weekend outside gardening.

    “It’s a lie,” she said of the charge. “She never went in there.”

    Krentcil is currently out on $25,000 bond and her daughter is in her husband’s custody, the New Jersey Star-Ledger reported.

    Still, she makes no apology for her own hue.

    “I love to tan, as you can see,” she said. “I’ve gone tanning my whole life.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wait-until-you-see-the-horrific-picture-of-the-mother-arrested-for-putting-5-year-old-in-a-tanning-booth/

    • 😯

    • Dang woman looks darker than the Black man who interviewed her. She literally looked like someone had painted her dark brown. She looks plumb goofy. But seeing as how the Tanning Salon never saw the little girl in the booth, and the woman flatly denies that her daughter was ever in there, they will have a very tough time proving her sunburn was caused by the Tanning Booth.

  23. Note to Obama: While you are talking with the Taliban and the Afghans…..do not forget the Pakistani’s who are funding the Taliban. However, Ido not understand why you are confused at the bombing right after you left Afghanistan. On the TV today, you were quite perplexed that the Taliban was protesting your involvment in negotiations with Taliban and Afghans……ummmmm…….did you ever stop to consider that the Taliban leaders you are negotiating with are not the true leaders….could it be that they are puppet leaders just like the Afghan government you are negotiating with and there is to be no “road to peace”…as you so eloquently put it. Could it be that you are no different than the myriad of other American Presidents trying to install “your” brand of governing? Could it be that you have no concept of mideast history at all?

    Perhaps you need to rethink your position?

    • @D13 – no rethinking possible – if the GOP were smart (and they can be) – they’d use this mess as a key election issue. What are we spending each day we are over there? 2 billion?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Ray

        Do you really think the Republicans are capable of being “smart”?

        You give them more credit than I do.

  24. I don’t know whether to laugh or scream-at the ignorance. I guess this fits JAC’s ” okay for thee but not me” 😦

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/01/Owner-Has-Business-Trashed-By-Occupy-Were-Not-The-Fcking-Man

  25. How about this, a party that treats it’s members as their equals…..

    Florida’s Gov. Scott: No gun ban for downtown Tampa during GOP convention

    Florida Gov. Rick Scott has shot down a request by Tampa’s mayor to allow local authorities to ban guns from the city’s downtown during the Republican National Convention in August

    Citing Second Amendment protections in the U.S. Constitution, Scott told Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn that conventions and guns have co-existed since the nation’s birth and would continue to do so during the four-day event beginning Aug. 27.

    “It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law,” the Republican governor said in a letter on Tuesday.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Local officials need Scott’s permission to enact the temporary restrictions after state lawmakers last year passed a measure that prohibits local governments from adopting gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good news! Maybe another law abiding citizen will be attacked by a gang-banging thug and send him to a meeting with God. 🙂

  26. From my email..haven’t looked into it yet:

    Elena Kagan’s $20 Million Commitment to Destroying the Republic

    What would you say if you learned that a member of the highest court in the land has spent the last 30 years openly advocating for the destruction of the US Constitution and even went so far as to accept $20 million from Shariah Law proponents to accomplish her goal?

    That Supreme Court Justice is Elena Kagan.

    TELL CONGRESS: REMOVE KAGAN FROM THE COURT! SELECT HERE NOW!

    The year after Ronald Reagan entered the Oval Office with the goal of restoring America to greatness; Elena Kagan penned a telling and disturbing senior thesis titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.” In that body of work, Kagan lamented that “a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States”; and that,” no “radical party” had yet “attained the status of a major political force.” Kagan went on to sound a rally cry for “those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”

    Apparently, this was no mere college dalliance, as the Elena Kagan has spent the rest of her career working to remove the underpinnings of freedom and destroy the American Constitution from within. And Kagan’s grand plan has worked very well indeed.

    After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law. And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy’s resources to accomplish ones’ true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal – a noted Shariah Law proponent – to implement an “Islamic Studies” program.

    TELL CONGRESS: REMOVE KAGAN FROM THE COURT! SELECT HERE NOW!

    Lest we think Kagan’s intentions are ancient history, take a look at her line of questioning when hearing the ObamaCare case last week. Rather than question the thinly veiled socialist Trojan horse as an affront to our Constitution, Kagan almost seemed willing to defend ObamaCare and salvage the master plan to fundamentally change America into a new Euro-socialist model.

    By definition, our Supreme Court is charged with upholding, defending and preserving the United States Constitution. The Judges on the Supreme Court are meant to protect our freedom, not destroy it. To do otherwise is nothing short of treason.

    TELL CONGRESS: REMOVE KAGAN FROM THE COURT! SELECT HERE NOW!

    “Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as an attempt to ‘overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].'”

    Destruction of the Constitution is an attempt to overthrow and seriously injure America. Elena Kagan’s lifetime of actions lay bare a clear intention to subvert our Constitution and its founding principles, thereby rendering her UNFIT FOR DUTY as a Supreme Court Justice.

    ObamaCare is not the end of the line. The Supreme Court will continue to weigh the Constitutionality of numerous cases. The fact is that Elena Kagan is an activist judge with hatred toward the very document she is sworn to protect. As such, Elena Kagan must immediately be removed from the bench if our Constitution and America is to survive.

    TELL CONGRESS: REMOVE KAGAN FROM THE COURT! SELECT HERE NOW!

    Defend America,

    Alan M. Gottlieb
    Chairman, AmeriPAC

    • If this is true Anita, then where was it at her confirmation hearings? I’m certainly not saying it’s not, but it seems SOMEONE would have uncovered this prior to her being ok’d for the Supreme Court. Unless it was covered up!

      I don’t think they will ever remove her from the court though. It will either be hushed up, or the ones who discovered it will be ridiculed to silence by the uncaring and unbelieving sheep of the nation.

      You MUST have noticed like I have how the Liberals have begun to respond to everything with “The Republican ______ did it too! Or “it was this way when Bush was in office!” Like that makes it right to keep on doing it. examplle: Because we had a deficit at the end of Bush’s term, it’s Ok to have one twice as big now. Since Bush was big government Republican, it’s OK to be a bigger government Socialist/Progressive/Democrat/Liberal.

      The stupidity of Politicians and their minions knows no bounds.

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • So we are supposed to take Media Matters word for anything? Got anything else? Any proof it’s not true?

        • OK. After doing my own research on the MM article, I have come up with interesting facts. What the memo says is; Kagan led curriculum reforms in 2006 that changed Harvard Law School’s 100 year-old curriculum to require International and Comparative law. It does not say she dropped Constitutional Law, just that she required International and Comparative Law. And the articles referenced her own testimony before Congress and the Congressional Questionaire that SHE HERSELF filled out.

          I have to ask the same question they did. Why was these other law classes required by her and NOT Consitutional Law, you know The Law of the Land. The Law of the United States?

          Like I said before. Excuses.

          • And in another part of the AUG memo, it said this;
            During her Senate confirmation hearings last year to become U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan was asked her view of the role of foreign law in statutory interpretation. Kagan responded: “At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General’s office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices’ support for the positions that the office is taking.”[1]

            The one at the end is the reference for where they got this at; her own mouth!

            All of the liberal Law calleges are de-emphasizing Constitutional Law and putting more of the emphasis and learning on International Law. This is dangerous because as it stands we are not, and should not be, held accountable to International Law. The U.N. I’m sure, would like nothing better than to have the U.S. subject to International Law. Like they do such a FANTASTIC job of enforcing it in third World Dookey holes like Somalia, Iran, The Sudan, and the Congo. However, I am quite sure they would go after Americans with a vengeance if they were allowed to.

            The point is Buck, that MM should research better before they go calling things false, distortions, or outright lies. Both AUG and the Washigton Post had references to everything they reported. AND they were only concerned about her being properly vetted before she was put on the most important Court in the Land whose only job is to uphold Constitutional Law. Especially when she apparently falls in that classic Obama mold of America hater, and Constitution ignoring Politician. And this was all BEFORE she was confirmed ANYWAY. As I said above. Where was this at when she was being vetted? Was it swept under the rug? Looks like it was, because nothing like this was reported on the National News. And I know you will agree that if Fox News had got a whiff of this they would have screamed it to the World.

            Obama and Clinton are already trying to sneak through Congress a bill requiring U.S. citizens to follow International Laws concerning gun controls. And since we have the 2nd Amendment, which has already been upheld by the Supremes, I don’t see how this is even possible.

            The biggest point I have with this is that I am sick and tired of hearing the excuses for acts done by our Government pushing us further and further towards Progressive Socialism. I am sick of hearing “Transnationalism” and “Global Governance”. It might not be as bad if there was a government equal to the one we already had. But that is not the one the Globalists want to use. Even as they go down the tubes, the EU still wants us to follow their failed model of Governance. I have one word for that: BULLDOOKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            yes, there were curriculum reforms…as happens at every single college and university from time to time. yes, as part of the reforms, Harvard decided (remember this wasn’t Kagan mandating anything as dictator of Harvard) to require a course in International and Comparative Law, as well as a course in Legislation and Regulation. And this is an issue, why again?

            Law Schools are most certainly not de-emphasizing Con Law in favor of International Law. That is a huge distortion of the issue and is not based in reality. Law Schools are beginning to amend their curriculum to require (in some cases) and add as an elective (in other cases) a course on the bedrock of international law and how it relates to our government and laws as well as the existing framework of international bodies, regulations, NGOs, etc. A pretty good thing to have at least a basic understanding of if you ask me. Note that this is not being done to replace con law in the least. As I indicated, when Harvard decided to require a course in International Law, they did so while simultaneously requiring a course in US Legislation/Regulation. As well as continuing to offer all of the con law courses previously offered.

            I’m not going to even get into the blatant falsehood of the statement that Obama is trying to sneak through a bill requiring citizens to abide by international law in gun regulation.

            And please, please, please can we stop with the Obama is an America hater meme? Its been done.

            • And please, please, please can we stop with the Obama is an America hater meme?

              NO. He started it ( 🙂 ) with the ‘fundamentally transform’ rhetoric. Obviously he doesn’t like it.

              • I guess that would make the Tea Party “America Hater’s” as well, right?

                They want to “Take back America”, so obviously they don’t like it either.

            • I’ll stop saying it when he stops doing it. Until then, LIVE WITH IT! 🙂

              Seriously. Every day he makes it extremely apparent that he hates all of us. He hates the Country, the Constitution (because it gets in his way, his words), and us, the peeps. Or at least the white ones, although I don’t think hereally cares about us whites, blacks or any others except as voters for him.

              So I will just continue to hate him back. Or rather I will seriously dislike him anyway. If you Liberals don’t like it, too bad. He started it, as Anita said. 😉

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    Due to the popularity of the “Survivor” shows, Texas is planning to
    do one entitled, “Survivor, Texas-Style!” The 24 contestants will all start
    in Dallas, then drive to Waco , Austin , San Antonio , over to Houston and
    down to Brownsville …. They will then proceed up to Del Rio , El Paso ,
    Odessa , Midland , Lubbock , and Amarillo . From there they will go on to
    Abilene , Fort Worth and Finally back to Dallas …

    Each will be driving a pink Volvo with bumper stickers that reads:
    “Occupy Wall Street,” “Amnesty for Illegals,” “I love the Dixie Chicks,”
    “Boycott Beef,” “I Voted for Obama, ” George Strait Sucks,” “Hillary in
    2012”, “Rainbow/Gay Pride” And… “I’m here to confiscate your guns.”

    The first one to make it back to Dallas alive without aid of emergency medical care, wins.

    Gotta love texas! :)_

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    It seems that our resident Communist was in Oregon the other day introducing Mr. Ayers to the student at UofO. At least by the intro, I would assume it was Charlie.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-ayers-to-university-students-americas-game-is-over-and-another-world-is-coming/

    • You know that I am DEEPLY disturbed that those who HATE America the most and the minions of theirs who are blindly following them like sheeple, are the very ones in power. Having a man like Bill Ayers running around free is like allowing Osama Bin Laden loose in our streets. And we actually are allowing him to give speeches to college students so we can have even more radicalized homegrown terrorists. Shouldn’t he be in prison for life for domestic Terrorism?

      Obama plainly hates America. And if there is ANY doubt about him, there certainly ain’t none about that rabid dog wife of his. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Shumer, Dodd and a few others I can’t think of right now are just as bad. Allan West is right. There are at least 80 members of Congress right now who are closet Socialist/Communists. I personally believe that number to be very low. And they aren’t just Democrats either. There are more than likely more than a few Republicans that should be on the list as well. But the biggest of all, and he’s not even making that big a secret of it, is in the Oval Office. Either directing or being directed in his agenda to subvert our Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Democracy. And that’s just a contradiction, Socialist Democracy.

      I fear greatly for us friends.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA

    For you consideration and contemplation. Also, please note the “map” on the cover of the book.

    Also note, that as I have argued with Buck and others, the United States was formed by the STATES.

    The STATES are the ultimate arbiter of acceptable Federal Power.

    • I think all the States should sign a pact of Confederation based upon the Constitution and toss the Feferal Government out on their rumps. If all 50 states agreed to it, what could the Feds do? Stomp their feet and hold their breath till we stopped? 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Esom

        My old friend, you are starting to finally come around to my way of thinking.

        • JAC

          I came around to that way of thinking some time ago. By now all should see that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and needs to be put out of our misery. I believe a Confederation of States that just cooperate with each other would work much better. That way, when a state like California screwed the pooch like they are continuously doing, it would not harm the others. They would be responsible for getting themselves out of their own mess.

          I bet you that would stop multimillion dollar studies on sea otters, while dealing with a 55 Billion dollar deficit in a hurry! 🙂

      • and toss the Feferal Government out on their rumps.

        Kinda sounds like treason, trying to ‘overthrow’ the Federal Government…

        If all 50 states agreed to it, what could the Feds do?

        Good point! I mean, it’s like they have any powerful institutions at their disposal.

        Why don’t you try it and see how they respond?

  30. This is a mess-Not sure exactly what America is supposed to do in this situation-they can’t just go get him and his family and leave with them. So how is this kind of thing handled diplomatically?? Should we try? I certainly think so

    Chinese activist now wants to leave China, US under pressure to intervene

    Published May 03, 2012
    FoxNews.com

    The Chinese activist at the center of an international tug-of-war now wants to flee China with his family, a U.S. official confirmed, with the blind dissident telling one reporter he wants to “leave for the U.S. on Hillary Clinton’s plane.”

    The latest twist in an increasingly complex diplomatic stand-off comes as a prominent human rights advocate on Capitol Hill accuses the Obama administration of trying to sweep away the controversy to make way for diplomatic photo-ops at a round of Beijing meetings. The opening day of those talks, which include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was Thursday.

    “Unfortunately, having this summit and trying to get this off the table in time for the happy pictures and the photo-ops with the summit may have driven this in a way that led to a poor outcome,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., told FoxNews.com. “How are they going to guarantee his safety?”

    The situation is developing by the hour, though, and U.S. officials are continuing to reach out to Chen Guangcheng.

    The blind activist first escaped house arrest and fled to the U.S. Embassy in China last week, touching off the diplomatic dispute. He finally left the embassy Wednesday to seek medical care and visit his family at a local hospital — a decision U.S. officials described as his own. Yet despite initial U.S. claims that the Beijing government offered assurances to Chen and that Chen wanted to stay in China with his family, those claims are being challenged.

    Chen told reporters Wednesday that the Chinese, via U.S. intermediaries, had threatened to send his family back to their home province where they were persecuted if he did not leave the embassy — he said one U.S. official passed on a message that his wife would be killed, though the U.S. State Department adamantly denies the claim. Chen is now saying he wants to leave China — he told The Daily Beast he wants to fly out with Clinton.

    A U.S. spokeswoman on Thursday confirmed that Chen wants to leave with his family. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that U.S. officials had spoken twice Thursday with Chen and also with his wife and “they as a family have had a change of heart about whether they want to stay in China.”

    Nuland and other officials would not discuss the possibility of Chen being granted U.S. asylum but said earlier that “we will do what we can to help him achieve” what he wants.

    U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke also told reporters that Chen had been “very clear from the very, very beginning that he wanted to stay in China.”

    “We asked him, did you want to go to the United States, and he said no; maybe someday to study, but his immediate goal was to stay in China and to help with the cause,” Locke said.

    The ambassador said Chen was “never pressured to leave” the embassy and had never asked for asylum in the U.S.

    But Smith said the U.S. should “without a doubt” revisit his case and consider granting him asylum, chiding the administration for its handling of the affair.

    “There is no safe place in China if you’re a dissident. It doesn’t exist. It’s an oxymoron,” Smith said. “I think we missed an opportunity to press for asylum.”

    Chen reportedly has tried to reach out to Smith, asking that a message be sent to him to “help my family and I leave safely.”

    Smith, in an interview with FoxNews.com, said he has not yet gotten in touch with Chen. He said he called the U.S. Embassy in China on Tuesday night to try to reach him and “stood by the phone all night,” to no avail. He said he never got a call back but is “responding as if I did.”

    Smith has tried to visit Chen in China before, but said the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., had turned him down for a visa.

    Other Republican lawmakers also put added pressure on the Obama administration in the wake of Chen’s published comments.

    “Having handed Chen Guangcheng back over to the Chinese government, the Obama administration is responsible for ensuring his safety,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “While our economic relationship with China is important and vital to the future of people in both countries, the United States has an obligation to use its engagement with China to press for reforms in China’s human rights practices, particularly with respect to the reprehensible ‘one-child’ policy.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said that “if American does not speak up for Mr. Chen, who will?”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/03/chinese-activist-now-wants-to-leave-china-us-under-pressure-to-intervene/#ixzz1toRzSVFC

  31. My main interest in this story -that this was listed as a “simple assault” and the following words “Both said the officer did not record any names of witnesses who stopped to help. Rostami said the officer told them the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?”

    The officer pointed to public housing in the area and said large groups of teenagers look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told Forster.”

    Could that be true? Could violent mobs of teens be so commonplace in Norfolk that police and victims have no recourse?
    A beating at Church and Brambleton

    By Michelle Washington
    The Virginian-Pilot
    © May 1, 2012

    Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim.

    The victim’s friend, a young woman, tried to pull him back into his car. Attackers came after her, pulling her hair, punching her head and causing a bloody scratch to the surface of her eye. She called 911. A recording told her all lines were busy. She called again. Busy. On her third try, she got through and, hysterical, could scream only their location.

    Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton.

    It happened four blocks from where they work, here at The Virginian-Pilot.
    –––––

    Two weeks have passed since reporters Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami – friends to me and many others at the newspaper – were attacked on a Saturday night as they drove home from a show at the Attucks Theatre. They had stopped at a red light, in a crowd of at least 100 young people walking on the sidewalk. Rostami locked her car door. Someone threw a rock at her window. Forster got out to confront the rock-thrower, and that’s when the beating began.

    Neither suffered grave injuries, but both were out of work for a week. Forster’s torso ached from blows to his ribs, and he retained a thumb-sized bump on his head. Rostami fears to be alone in her home. Forster wishes he’d stayed in the car.

    Many stories that begin this way end much worse. Another colleague recently wrote about the final defendant to be sentenced in the beating death of 19-year-old James Robertson in East Ocean View five years ago. In that case, a swarm of gang members attacked Robertson and two friends. Robertson’s friends got away and called for help; police arrived to find Robertson’s stripped, swollen corpse.

    Forster and Rostami’s story has not, until today, appeared in this paper. The responding officer coded the incident as a simple assault, despite their assertions that at least 30 people had participated in the attack. A reporter making routine checks of police reports would see “simple assault” and, if the names were unfamiliar, would be unlikely to write about it. In this case, editors hesitated to assign a story about their own employees. Would it seem like the paper treated its employees differently from other crime victims?

    More questions loomed.

    Forster and Rostami wondered if the officer who answered their call treated all crime victims the same way. When Rostami, who admits she was hysterical, tried to describe what had happened, she says the officer told her to shut up and get in the car. Both said the officer did not record any names of witnesses who stopped to help. Rostami said the officer told them the attackers were “probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?”

    The officer pointed to public housing in the area and said large groups of teenagers look for trouble on the weekends. “It’s what they do,” he told Forster.

    Could that be true? Could violent mobs of teens be so commonplace in Norfolk that police and victims have no recourse?

    Police spokesman Chris Amos said officers often respond to reports of crowds fighting; sirens are usually enough to disperse the group. On that night, he said, a report of gunfire in a nearby neighborhood prompted the officer to decide getting Forster and Rostami off the street quickly made more sense than remaining at the intersection. The officer gave them his card and told them to call later to file a report.

    The next day, Forster searched Twitter for mention of the attack.

    One post chilled him.

    “I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light,” wrote one person.

    “I don’t,” wrote another, indicating laughter. “(do it for trayvon martin)”

    Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen, died after being shot by a community watch captain with white and Hispanic parents, George Zimmerman, in Florida.

    Forster and Rostami, both white, suffered a beating at the hands of a crowd of black teenagers.

    Was either case racially motivated? Were Forster and Rostami beaten in some kind of warped, vigilante retribution for a killing 750 miles away, a person none of them knew? Was it just bombast? Is a beating funny, ever?

    Here’s why their story is in the paper today. We cannot allow such callousness to continue unremarked, from the irrational, senseless teenagers who attacked two people just trying to go home, from the police officer whose conduct may have been typical but certainly seems cold, from the tweeting nitwits who think beating a man in Norfolk will change the death of Trayvon Martin.

    How can we change it if we don’t know about it? How can we make it better if we look away?

    Are we really no better than this?

  32. Good morning, counselor…..hope you and yours are doing great. I know that you are getting ready for the blessed event. ( Caveat: The use of the term blessed does, in no way. signify, any religious significance by D13.) D13 wishes to inform you that “growing up to be a teenager” is after the sleepless nights, terrible two’s, torrential three’s, the changing to solid foods from infant fare (whoooeee), the rearranging of furniture above reaching height, playing in cat litter boxes (if you own a cat..oops sorry..NO ONE owns a cat), the ever present wobbly walk into the table, car seats forever,( you have your profession to blame for that one ), the wrapping around one’s finger (Yes, it is a conspiracy and a 5th Dimension phenomenon)…….you get the picture….Now on to a different item

    Buck states: ” And please, please, please can we stop with the Obama is an America hater meme?”

    D13: I think you have ascertained by now that I am not the proverbial name caller and actually, on occasion, have offered some rational thought. After all, I am just a retired old Colonel who knows nothing…………………BUT…………………..You are going to have to really convince me that Obama has the best interest of America at heart. I was willing to give the benefit of doubt (even to the arguments of a “Walla Yankee Barrister”…….sorry, been caught up in this series called Grimm) but the last year and one half, I have become to think that this administration is more corrupt than Richard Nixon’s and even the Johnson administration. I do not believe at all that he is a Constitutional believer at all. I am beginning to believe that his motive is beyond that of a Democrat or Progressive ( I mean we survived Jimmy Carter, although his policies, never reversed, are still causing financial harm) but I see Obama,et al are causing more harm. I think that I can say this with some authority as I have lived through it (This is no way makes me an expert…just seasoned). Now, we all say these are our opinions and opinions are like belly buttons (everyone has one) but I have never seen a power grab and deliberate attempt at destroying a system as I am witnessing now and the blatant thumbing of the nose. I have also never before witnessed, (because of technology advancements and what I will admit some brilliant strategy of using that technology) the manipulation of the election process and that also includes the Nixon and Kennedy era.

    My dad, at 93, and still quite lucid, has also commented that he has never seen such a blatant attempt at power grabbing and he said that includes the Truman administration. And, in my life time, this includes the flaunting of the SCOTUS and intimidation attempts. I feel his actions are indicative of more than change…I think it is more sinister. BUT, sir, that is my opinion. Just like some have thought that the Tea Party hijacked the conservative movement….I think Obama, el al has hijacked the Democrat position.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      G’morning Colonel, Sir! I’m trying to catch up on as much sleep as I can muster now, before everything goes down the tubes. So far I’ve been unsuccessful and for whatever reason, haven’t had a good night’s sleep in quite some time. Meaning, I’ve been drinking even more coffee throughout the day at work in an ever-losing battle to keep my eyes open. I can only wait to see how I look/feel in a few short months time. No cat to worry about, just the dog. I appreciate the sentiment, and, being a lawyer, the added caveat.

      I don’t believe I have the burden of proving to you that Obama does not have the best interest of America at heart, and doubtful something like that can even be proven. I have no problem with anyone opposing Obama — as you well know, I have my misgivings with him as well — I have no problem with arguing against his policies, nor with believing his policies are not working and arguing for a different approach. But the anti-America meme is really starting to wear thin. Can’t we just agree that Obama is acting in what he believes to be America’s best interests? That he may well view America differently from the way you do? This doesn’t make him anti-America though.

      I find it a bit funny that you feel Obama has hijacked the Democrat position/party. Not funny because you are necessarily wrong, but just because I have a very different take on it. Any President is going to ‘hijack’ a party by a certain measure as they are the de facto leader of that party. But if anything, to me, Obama has pulled the Demoract party more to the center than it was a few years ago. The Democrat party is not far left; it is center left. And that is causing a lot of progressives to criticize Obama, though from a very different angle than your own criticism of Obama and his policies. It may be difficult for you to see this as ‘center left’ though from the far reaches of the right, so bring your binoculars! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        If a person runs for President on the platform of Communism is that person anti-American in your view? Or is he just supporting what he thinks is best for America?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t like the term anti-American to begin with and find a hard time of accusing anyone of it. After all, couldn’t it equally be said that those on SUFA espousing no government are also anti-American?

          I am going to ignore your follow up question on ‘What is America’ for now as I don’t have a good answer for that, and especially not a concise one.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Nice avoidance technique. Not letting you off the hook.

            Answer the question counselor.

            Then I will answer yours.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              As I said, I really don’t have a good or a concise answer.

              Suffice it to say that different people have different ideas of “America”. This is true today; this was true back when the Founders convened. Who are you, or anyone else, to define what is “American”? It wasn’t too long ago that Bush’s campaign made it clear that you are with us or against us; if you don’t support Bush, then you are un-American, etc. etc. etc. Its a disgusting tactic that needs to stop. You believe Obama’s policies are taking us in the wrong direction? That his policies are harmful to our society? Argue away. But don’t hide behind the ‘anti-America’ meme.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Followup question: In your view What is America?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck said “DEMOCRAT PARTY”, Buck said “DEMOCRAT PARTY”, nah, nah, nah, nah!!!

        Come on Todd, give him some shit would ya!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I was merely carrying along the parlance of the esteemed Colonel so as not to seem to mock his linguistic usage of the term in question.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Typical Bull Dookey lawyer answer!

          • So now I am a linguistic user? ( I hang around way too many lawyers ) Ah…sir, I saw no animosity nor did I see a the “mock” broom out, Ok….so the term “anti-American is troublesome to you…..(mind you,…that I do not believe I used that term with his philosophy or him…..however, I may be guilty of the implication. To that I shall stipulate.) But, I think I know several center left persons of character ( you being one of those ) and I have no problem with their stance or position or yours as long as it is not with blinders. Obama has moved center left ONLY to get re-elected, I think we both know this. Clinton had to do the same and it worked well and his position even changed.

            But, ok. I can say that I disagree with Obama and his philosophy and I can say that his view of America does not agree with mine. How’s that?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Better! I knew you had it in you Colonel!

              But I disagree about Obama having moved center left only for re-election. He was always center left, though he has moved a bit more that way for the election.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Yes, he is CENTER LEFT. Which of course is NOT Left Center.

                He is in the CENTER of the LEFT WING. And the LEFT WING is LEFT of Center.

                The man is a Fascist Progressive. Located just right of Communists, Attila the Hun, and Genghis Khan.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          PS – didn’t you read above how tired I am!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            As the Colonel said, excuses are like belly buttons, or here in the Rocky Mtn region, A-holes. We all got one.

      • Ok, I gotta give Buck some credit here. And not just because he is an expecting father in need of a break (congrats by the way Senior Wala). Firstly, the whole “how much Native American is Native American” discussion was way out of proportion. I do not disagree with anything said against the crazy lady, just sort of bothered that it registered 50+ comments on SUFA, like it was important. Over-reaction in my book.

        Now, as for the whole thing about anti-America, it really does come down to “what is America?” If you see America as a nation, then Obama is not anti-America, he is very much a nationalist with a vision. He wants to make it or remake it according to his vision, and the issue is with his vision, not with his “Americanism”. Furthermore, the anarchists here, and even the small government conservatives are somewhat anti-America, in terms of what America is or has become. If you see America as some philosophy synonymous or metaphoric of freedom, then Obama is just the latest in a long list of anti-American leaders. The symbol of America being freedom has long since died. It does not mean what it used to. If you do not believe that, just ask any informed person that is not American. What America used to symbolize is a great thing that would be good to preserve. The problem is, its already lost, the horse already escaped the pasture while you were asleep, no use shutting the gate now. Wake up and recognize what America really is and what it really symbolizes. Its really not that crazy what Obama is trying to do in light of that, except that what Obama is trying to do will drive the country to the ruin it was already headed towards much, much faster. Its like the movie Leaving Las Vegas. the alcoholic decides, rather than hanging on to reality, he will pull all his money out and use it to drink himself to death in Vegas. Go out with a bang. Be irresponsible and look like you are being caring and loving and kinder and gentler and still a bully and a meddler in the rest of the word while the whole thing burns to the ground around you. Hopefully, as you set the fires, you will be assured of your own death or escape with as much loot as you can get before the fires burn it down. That is Obama’s plan, and it is VERY American, in modern terms. You want the old America, you might just want to cheer the fires because they will hasten the time when you can start over, because fixing it at this point will take multiple lifetimes.

        Not sure if Buck will see that as me complimenting his comments, but I still say he was right. 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I may not see America the same way you do, but I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment behind your thoughts! Besides, how could I disagree with someone that says him right!?

        • Jon,

          It doesn’t matter what America has become-the point is what America was meant to be-that is why people are talking about the Constitution and trying to figure out how to turn around. Unfortunately there are people who wholeheartedly believe we can continue on this path without limits and somehow remain a Country where the answer to the question is still : We the people govern ourselves with our individual rights protected. The crazy true socialists like Obama and his administration- know we can not-which is why he is anti-American. The people, at least most of them still have a heart that stands with my answer-they just disagree that doing these things is going to make this founding principal history.

          • I agree, but terms like “anti-American” are unproductive. They only mean anything to those who view America as a symbol rather than a nation or a symbol of materialism or progressivism or whatever. When talking to people who think unlike you, make sure your terms mean what you intend. Anti-American has been thrown around by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, its better to use terms that convey what you mean more specifically. 🙂

            • I agree with you but in this instance, my word choice conveys EXACTLY what I mean.

              • Although, we may have been being too nice-the left seems to do pretty well with their nastiness-I’m just hoping that it backfires.

              • Tell em V! …”what America was meant to be”…EXACTLY! ….and before Buck or Matt start … We may not agree on what America is supposed to be but no one can argue that America has taken a beating in the last 50 years. It used to be such a friendly place ( it’s the Pollyanna in me)…. back in the simpler times…..

  33. May 3, 2012
    U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan More Than Doubled Under Obama
    M Catharine Evans

    In yet another sin of omission, the national press corps has failed to report that more than twice as many U.S. military service people were killed in Afghanistan since Obama took office than in six and a half years of the Bush administration.

    Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

    Year US UK Other Total

    2001 12 0 0 12

    2002 49 3 18 70

    2003 48 0 10 58

    2004 52 1 7 60

    2005 99 1 31 131

    2006 98 39 54 191

    2007 117 42 73 232

    2008 155 51 89 295

    2009 317 108 96 521

    2010 499 103 109 711

    2011 418 46 102 566

    2012 93 16 31 140

    Total 1957 410 620 2987

    Nearly 100 soldiers have died in the last 122 days alone. The mainstream media must think dead soldiers under a Democrat are less dead than under a Republican. Remember when CNN ran daily body counts?

    Obama, the anti-war Bush slanderer who pandered for votes from the likes of Code Pink, has just committed the U.S. to 12 more years in Afghanistan and billions of dollars in aid. Still, the MSM sycophants say nothing.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/us_military_deaths_in_afghanistan_more_than_doubled_under_obama.html#ixzz1tp4XOv8x

    • You forgot to mention the other three wars he is participating in now. Oops…..did I say that? That would mean that he has become involved in three more wars than Bush?

      • I do forget a lot.
        I forget how the media praises his deft skill with foreign policy.
        Announcing timelines for troop with-drawl.
        Making public statements about Egypt, exactly the opposite of what the Saudi’s and Israel advised.
        Denouncing the methods of interrogation terrorists while using the information gained only after such methods were used, which resulted in finally tracking down OBL. Taking full credit for what would never happened under his policies. Classifying most of the information to avoid antagonizing Muslims, then releasing that information when the election draws near.
        Ignoring the increased violence in Afghanistan that has been a result of his policy, resulting in more US lives lost.
        Israel is calling up more reserves because of increased border violence in Egypt and Syria.
        Saudi Arabia is warning Iran.
        North Korea anyone?
        And how are things with China?

        http://newsbusters.org/obamas-willful-blindness-political-oppression.html

        Did I forget to mention how brilliant Obama is…..because nobody seems to pay any attention to what he’s screwing up!!!
        (present company excluded, of course)

      • Obama Insults Netanyahu; Press Fails to Report

        by Keith Koffler on November 8, 2011, 10:14 am

        Updated 11:20 am ET

        President Obama failed to contradict French President Nicolas Sarkozy last week when Sarkozy termed Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netenyahu a liar, responding instead that Netanyahu was basically a pain in the ass, according to Reuters.

        “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

        “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied.

        The two leaders were together in a room, about to hold a joint press conference at the G-20 Summit in Cannes, France, and they thought their microphones were not yet live. But they were, and some reporters who turned on their translation-providing earphones before they were supposed to picked up a conversation that was meant to be private.

        But they didn’t report it. Exactly when did journalists start worrying about whether news was not intended to be made public?

        According to Israel’s ynetnews.com, reporters present subsequently signed an agreement not to publish the remarks. Only after the French photojournalism website Arret Sur Images reported the exchange did Reuters, which had a reporter on the scene, “confirm” it with a story.

        From ynetsnews.com:

        The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

        A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

        He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

        Precise rules of conduct?? Journalism is supposed to be about NO RULES OF CONDUCT, except in certain cases when national security or the safety or livelihood of individuals is involved.

        It’s incredible to me that White House reporters were involved in suppressing information. They may have had to break the “rules,” but once you have information, you report it, even if it means someone is going to be angry at you. For journalists to actually sign some kind of agreement to not report, ever, a major news story is a disgrace beyond words.

        This is why people don’t trust the media. It’s why so many conservatives reacted with such disdain to what I think are legitimate reports about alleged sexual harassment by Herman Cain. I cannot help believing some of the very same reporters who signed the non-disclosure deal about Obama’s remarks would have clung to exalted claims of journalistic integrity and reported the matter had it involved George W. Bush.

        This is only Obama’s latest personal insult toward Netanyahu, having already walked out of a March 2010 White House meeting with him and left him hanging out on his own in the West Wing to stew with aides over whether he could come up proposals more to Obama’s liking.

        During the conversation with Sarkozy, Obama also criticized the French president for voting to allow the Palestinians to join UNESCO, an event which forced the U.S. to withdraw funds from the agency, and fretted about the consequences of the Palestinians signing up with other UN outfits, like the International Atomic Energy Agency.

        “You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately,” Obama said.

  34. You will have to go to the link to watch- “The Life of Julia” propaganda.

    Obama Campaign: Romney Would Ruin Life of Composite Woman

    by Ben Shapiro 19 minutes ago 8 post a comment

    President Obama’s campaign re-election website has put up a public relations initiative called “The Life of Julia.” The goal of this initiative: to compare “how President Obama’s policies would help one woman over her lifetime – and how Mitt Romney would change her story.” It’s propaganda of the worst order. It’s a typical Obama scare tactic. And worst of all, it assumes that Julia will remain dependent on the government her entire life.

    Julia’s story begins when she’s 3. Thanks to President Obama, the website says:

    Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.

    Well, no. Head Start has been one of the worst failures of the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services itself found that the government has invested $150 billion in Head Start since 1965 … and that has yielded precisely zero impact for the kids involved. But according to Obama, that dastardly Romney fellow would cut Head Start by 20%. The horror, the horror!

    Apparently, nothing happens in Julia’s life until she’s 17. There’s a reason for that – America’s public school system is an utter failure, and Obama knows it. But Obama says that Julia at age 17 is flourishing (presumably she isn’t one of the approximately 25 percent of all students who drop out of school, or one of the 40 percent of black or Hispanic students who do so). Here’s Julia’s life under Obama at 17:

    Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.

    Julia must be one of the lucky ones to get into a charter school. If she goes to one of America’s normal public schools, this is a pipe dream. But according to Obama, nasty Romney would cut funding for public education “to pay for tax cuts to millionaires.” Because what we need is more education spending, not less – even while districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District expend about $30,000 per year per student to achieve the worst results in the nation.

    By age 18, Julia’s taking out college loans – with the help of the taxpayer:

    As she prepares for her first semester of college, Julia and her family qualify for President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit – worth up to $10,000 over four years. Julia is also one of millions of students who receive a Pell Grant to help put a college education within reach.

    So Julia majors in lesbian dance at one of our nation’s colleges. Who pays? Obama doesn’t say.

    At age 22, Julia undergoes surgery:

    It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents’ coverage until she turns 26.

    Because God knows that this independent young woman can’t buy her own health care, obtain it through her college, or find another way to pay for her surgery. Also, what kind of surgery is this? Is it elective? Is it required? Who knows? And let’s not mention that the average 22-year-old isn’t receiving surgery. Obamacare hurts Julia because she’s subsidizing her parents, since she has to pay higher costs once she obtains her own insurance.

    At 23, Julia “starts her career as a web designer.” This assumes she will have a job in the private sector under Obama. Or, that she’s going to be hired to design programs like “The Life of Julia.”

    Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions o women across the country who knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay.

    She can sue people. Julia’s friends, the trial lawyers, are overjoyed!

    At 25, Julia graduates. And her loans are cheap, thanks to the Obama administration:

    After graduation, Julia’s federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low. She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.

    Gotta love the assumption that she repays her student loans rather than defaulting on them. The rate of student loan default is rising dramatically thanks to more and more students entering the system, taking on useless majors, and then finding themselves living in a tent in Zuccotti Park complaining about their lives.

    Now Julia’s 27. And her name is Sandra Fluke. Seriously:

    For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.

    So now Julia’s been in the work force for four years as a web designer, supposedly – and yet she wants everyone else to pay for her pill. And her abortions. Or whatever. Romney, however, wants to repeal Obamacare so “insurance companies could go back to charging women 50% more than men.” For things like, you know, pregnancy. Because women are different than men biologically, and legislation won’t change that. But never mind – somebody will probably pay the bill. But not Julia, because she’s got some sort of magical national debt waiver from the administration.

    Finally, at age 31, Julia “decides to have a child.” Where’s the father? Nobody knows. Was this a good decision? Nobody knows. So let’s all pay for it!

    Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.

    Wrong. She’s past age 26, so she’s covered by the individual mandate. Which means she’s paying for all of it.

    Now Julia’s 37, and she has a son, Zachary. Little Zach is getting ready to enter the feeder system of ignorance that is our public school system. But not according to Obama:

    The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama’s investments in education and programs like Race to the Top.

    Laughable. The teachers unions have probably run Zach’s school into the ground, the facilities are crumbling. Little Zach’s father? Nowhere to be found. But somehow, Julia’s doing just fine, and so is Zach.

    By the time Julia’s 42, she’s ready to start her own business. What took her so long? Why has she been working as a web designer for the last 19 years without building up some savings? Because Obama’s taxing the bejeezus out of her, undoubtedly. And since the banks are hard-up for start-up cash under Obama’s banking regulations, she can only get a loan from the Small Business Administration:

    She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama’s tax cuts for small businesses like Julia’s help her to get started. She’s able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.

    Once again, Obama leaves out a crucial factor here: does she have a market? According to the SBA itself, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first five years. As of 2009, the default rate on SBA loans was 12%. In 2004, the SBA loan failure rate was 2.4%. Thanks, Obama!

    We skip forward in Julia’s life. We learn nothing about her work experience or her family life, what it’s like for her to pay massive taxes for which she receives few benefits. But at age 65, Julia enrolls in Medicare, “helping her to afford preventive care and the prescription drugs she needs.”

    Oops. Under President Obama’s plan, Medicare will be cut by $320 billion over 10 years. And it will still be fiscally unsustainable. Apparently, Julia had just one kid. If that’s the case, the entire pyramid scheme is upside down, and Medicare will certainly be bankrupt by the time Julia hits 65. Actually, estimates say that Medicare will be bankrupt by the time Julia is 12, if she’s born this year.

    Finally, at age 67, Julia retires.

    After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

    Because, as we know, our life’s goal is to retire and work at a community garden. Presumably with Michelle Obama, growing organic vegetables. By the way, this entire scenario is pure fiction. Social Security will be out of money by the time Julia’s in her early 20s. Barring catastrophic tax increases or a massive baby boom, Julia will never see her Social Security checks.

    And, according to Obama, that’s the end of Julia’s life. She’s been taken care of, cradle to retirement, by the feds. What happens to the rest of her life? The last 25 years or so, where she lives off non-existent Social Security and sucks up medical costs on the dime of others under Obamacare?

    Obama doesn’t say. But the prospect of a death panel is far more realistic than any of the other financial expectations in this fictional Life of Julia.

  35. charlieopera says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Wonderful TRIPE. That’s all.

    • What was once a middle-class entertainment has become a luxury item. Tickets for the original run, in 1949, cost between $1.80 and $4.80; tickets for the 2012 run range from $111 to $840. After adjusting for inflation, that’s a 10-fold increase, well beyond the reach of today’s putative Willy Lomans.

      Then again, in 1949, the top marginal tax rate was 82 percent. The drop in that rate to 28 percent by 1988 helped create a stratum of people who could afford to pay high prices for everything from inflated theater tickets to health care and college tuition.

      So why do we the taxpayer now have to pay for everyone’s healthcare and tuition? If they can afford it along with hundred dollar theater tickets, why are we getting the bill?

      • charlieopera says:

        Because it’s the right thing to do … 🙂

        Do the Right Thing, my brother. Do the right thing …

        JAC obviously doens’t enjoy Tripe … a GREAT eye-talian dish …

        • Charlie,

          I talked at length to a church pastor. Small church, maybe 40 members tops. They have several thousand dollars set aside for the pastor to give out as he see’s fit to those in need. Time after time he refuses to help the “needy”. They claim they can’t find work, he tells them where to find work, but they never show up, they only want handouts, not a hand up. And no, teaching dependence is not the right thing to do, unless you enshrine slavery.

          http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/08/dependence-on-government-at-all-time-high/

          • charlieopera says:

            LOI: Why does it bother you so much that some people (not all, just some) are slackers? Why would that bother you if you could have a happy life just getting along. Why do you need to know they are suffering and/or that you possess more than they do? Unless I’m missing something here. And this isn’t a supportive argument of slackers. I just don’t see the “logic” (if you will) behind worrying about things you can’t control.

            Teaching slavery (to wages, say) is not right either. Reread the article on Death of a Salesman … what has all that freedom to possess more than the next bought us?

            • My personal opinion on why we have to worry about slackers-is that we could better help people who truly need help. The only way we can ignore those who take what they do not deserve or need-is to stop helping anyone.

              • charlieopera says:

                The only way we can ignore those who take what they do not deserve or need-is to stop helping anyone.

                There’s the spirit! God bless me and the hell with them.

                Oy vey.

              • Charlie do you even read what I actually wrote? Or just see what you want?

            • Charlie,

              “Why does it bother you so much that some people (not all, just some) are slackers?”

              It doesn’t, live and let live. What bothers me is you/Pelosi/Obama/Lyndon Johnson insist that I pay for those slackers. And Obama/Pelosi have built on Johnson’s foundation where it’s not just a little help, it’s a lifestyle, it’s a living… It is a generational practice to have children out-of-wedlock, raise them of free food & free housing, now add to that free cell phones, free healthcare and a system that teaches them this is their RIGHT!

              It bothers me that they have become willing slaves, support the Democrats and they will be rewarded. I see them lacking in human dignity when they willingly, even eagerly agree to that deal.

              It bothers me that you support Obama/Pelosi and their slave organization. Look in that mirror Chaz, you support slavery. You might have good intentions to help those truly in need, but you are being played for a chump, having your own values used against you in a truly perverted reality. You are outraged over the sweatshops Nike and others use overseas, paying children a few dollars a day. And yet, if you get your wish and it’s stopped, most of those children will become prostitutes earning even less.

              A great ideal is only great if it works. History has proven the failure of all Marxist perversions. No Greater good has resulted for one for all and all for one. Capitalism, free markets have proven to reward not just the rich, the winners. The poorest people in free market countries live at a much higher standard than their counterparts in central planned countries. Even the “wealthy” in many do not live as well as the poor in America. And you want more, bigger government.

              • Great response! I think Charlie has a mistaken idea of how people define a slacker. It isn’t someone who just can’t find a job, or is handicapped, etc. -it’s a person who won’t take one or even try to find one. At least that’s my definition. And I suspect most people’s definition.

            • No problem with slackers. Just a problem with slackers that think they deserve as much as the hard working, creative people get. If you slack and just get by, great. If you slack and get by because you have your hand out, screw you. I give charity to those who actually need it, not just to someone who doesnt feel like feeding themselves.

  36. The liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
    We agree…and think 25 to life would be
    appropriate.
    –Jay Leno

    America needs Obama-care like Nancy
    Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
    –Jay Leno

    Q: Have you heard about McDonald’s’
    new Obama Value Meal?
    A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you
    has to pay for it.
    –Conan O’Brien

    Q: What does Barack Obama call
    lunch with a convicted felon?
    A: A fund raiser.
    –Jay Leno

    Q: What’s the difference between
    Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
    A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers,
    and threats to society. The other is for housing
    prisoners.
    –David Letterman

    Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were
    on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it
    started to sink, who would be saved?
    A: America !
    –Jimmy Fallon

    Q: What’s the difference between
    Obama and his dog, Bo?
    A: Bo has papers.
    –Jimmy Kimmel

    Q: What was the most positive result
    of the “Cash for Clunkers” program?
    A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper
    stickers off the road.
    –David Letterman

    Could not resist.
    D13

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good afternoon Sir.

      Thanks for that, it has lightened my afternoon.

      🙂

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting article on the left wing propaganda methodology. There are some weaknesses but also much truth in the general strategy.

    Martin vs Zimmerman from Am. Thinker

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/trayvon_and_zimmerman_the_structure_and_elements_of_a_disinformation_campaign.html

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    New fight song of the day.

    The Marxist poo flinging monkeys of Occupy. ROTFLMAO

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought for the evening.

    With a special shout out to Charlie…………… arrrrrgh!

    Want to Have Less of Something? Make its Provision a “Right”
    By Daniel J. Sanchez
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

    John Tamny at Forbes cites Mises to explain how the Lone Path to Cheap Healthcare is Expensive Healthcare, and how the path to highly scarce healthcare is state-mandated “free” and “affordable” healthcare.

    “Healthcare is not an inalienable right as the Left maintains. How could it be, considering it didn’t even exist until very recently and still doesn’t for much of the world?” – Bill Flax, The Courage To Do Nothing, p. 112

    In his 2007 book, A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark pointed out about the rich that “their current lifestyle predicts powerfully how we will all eventually live if economic growth persists.” Clark was of course elegantly channeling the thinking of Andrew Carnegie who long ago proclaimed that “Capitalism is about turning luxuries into necessities”, along with Ludwig von Mises who found that “Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of the few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone.” (…)

    …the first step to making healthcare a ubiquitous good is to banish forever the notion that it’s a “right.”

    The above is essential because anything that is made a “right” will by definition never be. Automobiles don’t dot the global landscape because hapless politicians over 100 years ago deemed them something everyone should own. Instead, cars began as a highly distant luxury enjoyed by the lucky and enterprising few, and because market forces were allowed to prevail, what was once obscure soon enough became pedestrian. (…)

    Indeed, as von Mises so helpfully observed, luxury is “essentially historical.” Applying this truth to healthcare, much as cellphones, personal computers and flat-screen televisions were once only gaudy gadgets owned by the rich, entrepreneurs saw profits in all three such that they eventually became commonplace. With medical care, and with an eye on eventually saving a huge number of lives, it’s important that at first doctors only save the lives of those who can afford unique, and very expensive treatment. We must embrace this because as is always the case in the free markets, that which enters the marketplace as obscure eventually becomes a necessity we all take for granted.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Another who agrees with me that we should NOT be focused on creating JOBS.

    Steve Horwitz has some great insights on jobs:

    “More important, though, is that both Krugman and politicians from both parties are much too concerned about job creation when they should be concerned about value creation. Creating jobs is easy; it’s creating value that’s hard. We could create millions of jobs quite easily by destroying every piece of machinery on U.S. farms. The question is whether we are actually better off by creating those jobs—and the answer is a definite no. We want labor-saving, job-destroying technology because it creates value by enabling us to produce things at lower cost and thereby free up labor for more urgent uses.”

    Charlie: Here some REALITY for you to chew on. YOUR Utopia can not exist with revolution or “workers uniting” to take the Power from the Rich/Oligarchs or what ever other Bogie Man of the week you choose.

    It will only occur when there is no need for JOBS. When the “workers” no longer need to work.

    • We want labor-saving, job-destroying technology because it creates value by enabling us to produce things at lower cost and thereby free up labor for more urgent uses.”

      I’m not following here. What does creating value have to do with the number of jobs available? You have robots to do what people used to do. Your product is now less expensive. Good. But now you subtracted jobs from the picture. Oh!, but there are more urgent uses for the now unemployed…What’s so urgent? How do we support the people who no longer need to work? Did everyone get rich and I missed it?

      • Anita, I believe that is what he is saying. It will NOT work. To get that kind of Socialist Utopia, you would have to take away the workers having to work. To be supported by the Government. That will not work. And anyone should know that.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Esom

          Not exactly, although the conditions for it to work are far fetched and long into the future. And no “REVOLUTION” can force them to happen.

          Think of Star Trek world, the one I like to make fun of all the time. Well the reason nobody “has to work” is because robots and computers make everything. This allows people to do things they want. This unleashes the brainpower and creativity of humans and we really begin to accelerate.

          Now yes, people will still work. But they are not as “trapped” into working for sustenance or in Charlie’s words “slave to wages”. They work on things that interest them, that they find rewarding.

          So this is the ONLY way Charlie’s UTOPIA can exist. But here is the kicker. It can ONLY be achieved via FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. A Communist, workers unite, revolution will destroy the productivity gains needed to actually achieve the situation. Charlie is stuck in the mirror looking back at his reflection.

          • Sorry. This is what happens when you try to blog and watch Swamp People at the same time. See post below. 🙂

            • Swamp People dudes are scary. I like the Duck Dynasty guys!.. 🙂

              • Aw Heck. I love that Troy. But I lived in LA for a while even though it was in New Orleans. But daddy preached in some churches down in Cajun Country where Swamp People is filmed. Those are great folks. Only different from us GA hicks in where they live. Us in the Hills and them in the Swamp.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Creating value may or may not be job destructive, depending on the good/service. But generally, the lower the cost the greater the availability because you have now created a value to the “masses”, not just the “rich”. I am assuming here that the term “value” means that to have a value to someone it must be attainable and thus subject to “choice”.

        The people who are no longer employed are free to find new work that may be more productive, less productive or more rewarding. Perhaps go back to school and start a new career. What happened to all the people who made wagons and buggy whips? As productivity improves overall wealth increases, fueling new innovations and product lines, thus increasing employment in entirely new market segments. Thus has been the natural evolution of humanity.

        The “politics” of jobs is just that…….POLITICS. It is not really an economic issue, unless you deliberately narrow the window to ignore the inevitable changes. So we can look at NOW and say, Oh my God the govt needs to act. Or we can look at the next decade and say, it will all be fine and the sooner we allow the market to sort out this mess, the quicker it will be OK.

        • I’m following this reply. Your previous post , at least to me, created a loop..where technology replaced workers to infinity. I’m still not sure that you will keep people employed to infinity even with new markets.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            I had a longer reply but goofed it up.

            I doubt Horowitz’ comment is intended to mean that ALL JOBS will be eliminated, eventually, sometime in a land far, far away.

            I do get a kick, however, by the fact that the ONLY way to achieve Charlie’s utopian dream is via increases in productivity that eliminate jobs. Only when NOBODY has a job can NOBODY be FREE from the “slavery of wages”. Because ONLY THEN do they NOT HAVE TO WORK. ONLY then will they work ONLY when they WANT.

            And of course this requires FREE MARKET CAPITALISM to achieve.

            You can prove, mathematically, that this ultimate achievement in productivity is not attainable. Care to try? 🙂

            • Uh. no thanks! I havin a hard time keeping up as it is! 🙂 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                Come on you can do it……………

                HINT: How do you express productivity mathematically?

              • Sidetracked ….. Now JAC! I told you I’m havin a hard enough time keeping up. Then you throw some advanced calculus on me! I def cheated..googled it…and here’s what I came up with:

                After some mathematical manipulations, the production function above can be converted to an equation for the growth rate of output per worker as a function of “total factor productivity” and the growth rate of manufactured capital per worker:

                growth rate of output per worker = growth rate of total factor productivity + 0.3 (growth rate of manufactured capital per worker)
                For example, if “total factor productivity” grows at 1% per year and capital per worker grows at 2% per year, this equation says that output per worker will grow at 1.6% per year (1% + (0.3)2% = 1.6%). This became known as the “growth accounting” equation.

                Note that output per worker is what is commonly referred to as “labor productivity”. While labor productivity and GDP per capita are not quite equivalent (some people in the population do not work, for example), they are obviously closely related. Thus, this model implies that the way to raise income per capita—to achieve economic growth—is to increase the amount of capital that each person works with (the second term) and improve technology (the first term).

                What did that just say? Nevermind..I can’t hang! 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                Oh my dear, no need to over complicate.

                Productivity = unit output / unit input

                If we reach absolute productivity, as proposed, then unit input = 0

                unit ouput / 0 = NOT A REAL NUMBER

                Therefore, we can never achieve 0 input.

                Hooray, some jobs can not be eliminated. According to the math anyway!!!

                🙂 🙂

              • That was easy enough..even at 8am 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              OOPS

              “Only when NOBODY has a job can NOBODY be FREE………….” Should be can EVERYBODY be FREE.

        • But Socialism destroys innovation. It destroys the desire to do good work so that even if you get cheaper goods, you also get lower quality. When Workers know thay get no benefit from these things, they will not do it. So you get not only cheap, but also crappy goods.

          • Agree.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Esom

            Whoa there pard. Who said anything about SOCIALSIM?

            I only used it in Charlie’s Utopia. But instead of focusing on his goal of Communism or Socialism, I boiled down to his core issue. “Slave Wages” or Being a “slave to wages”.

            So you see, we can reach Charlie’s Utopia of NO MORE SLAVES TO WAGES, but only through the innovation and productivity increases made possible by FREE MARKET CAPITALISM that eventually ELIMINATES the need for LABOR.

            Now does that make more sense?

            To jump ahead in time, if the “utopia” is reached we don’t have to worry about crappy products because the “robots” will be making everything. And only those who give a damn about FREEDOM will be allowed to program the robots. And thus ended, in the year 3076, the concept of “Socialism” among the human race……………bwahahahahaha.

            • I think we agree. As I said things don’t work too good when you try doing two things at once like blogging and trying to watch your favorite TV show.

              Like Anita, I didn’t really understand your first post to Charlie. But I do know you weren’t talking about Socialism. That was for Charlie. I don’t understand how people continue to believe that Socialism works. Seems to me common sense would dictate that Soviet style, or even EU socialism does not cut it in the real world.

              Too much Socialism like the USSR and you destroy innovation, enthusiasm, and good work ethics. That in turn weakens and eventually brings down the Country.

              EU Socialism puts the Worker’s in control which gets you shorter work weeks, earlier retirement, longer vacation times, much more legacy costs……. in other words profit destroying production costs which wipe out companies and weaken the tax base for the government. This cycle would slowly strangle the strogest economy. Look at GM. They were wiped out by legacy costs and crappy products by a company that had “spoiled” their employees with high salaries and even higher benefits that, once they were trying to cut costs, the workers refused to compromise on. That was why I believed they should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Instead we know what happened. The UAW wound up with GM. The stockholders wound up screwed.

              How are you a “wage slave” if you work for a living? You perform a service for an Employer and he pays you a wage for it. The Employer puts all the money in Equipment and other business related expenses, you don’t. The Employer takes the risks associated with running a business. You don’t. All you do is work and get paid. Where is our once great work ethic gone to. Since when has working for a living becaome being “enslaved to the man”?

            • charlieopera says:

              FREE MARKET CAPITALISM

              Slavery, pure and simple. Instead of a government telling you what to do, it’ll be some straw boss.

              I don’t understand how people think capitalsim works (except when it is obvious (and it is) they view the world from blinders focused directly on their own needs/wants/desires.

              • That’s just wierd. I’ve never heard of working for a living called Slavery. I always thought slavery was forced work without pay. And maybe being beat like a rented mule if you refused.

                If you work somewhere, somebody’s got to be the boss. Even the USSR had “bosses”. How do you get anything done without someone being in charge?

                Oh! Hold on! You mean we should all be able to sit around on our behinds and the Government pay us!? But who would pay the taxes so the Government could do this wonderful Utopian Act? Sounds like a pipe dream to me. I think maybe you gots a little squirrel turd in YOU head Charlie! 😛

              • Just A Citizen says:

                charlieopera

                “they view the world from blinders focused directly on their own needs/wants/desires.”

                ROTFLMAO………

                Good grief man, you finally get it.

                Now explain how YOUR POLITICAL system is going to resolve this BASIC human behavior.

                How are you going to overcome the NATURAL behavior of people and IMPOSE upon them some system and then tell them they are FREE?

                You are a great comedian.

              • Sooo, you think the only way to not be a slave is to have no one ever tell you what to do? A world without authority. And yet, in the absence of any authority, you want to make sure everyone does what they are supposed to do. You want there to be enough material possessions available to all people that they do not have to work to stay alive, and can then do whatever they wish. Does that really seem like a good idea? Can you really believe that could be sustainable? Can you really imagine what would happen if that were the case? Not what you want to happen, but what would happen considering the reality of human nature?

  41. OK. Let’s see…. stop calling Obama Anti-American. Hmmmm. Just semantics, but I didn’t call him Anti-American, I called him an America hater. Is there really a difference? Well, maybe not to you, but there is to me. See, I don’t see him thinking that he is Anti-American. Oh I’m quite sure he has a vision of America that he just loves. It one that we would recognize, but it is what he CALLS a “fair” America where everyone gets a fair shake and has the RIGHT, not the opportunity, but RIGHT to succeed. Also his definition of “succeed” is different.

    See, his vision is one where ALL Americans are equal and everything is fair. He sees the Government with the power to take everything from the rich and have it given to the poor. That way everyone will be equal. Equally poor though, because the govt will keep most of the money for themselves. The “needy” will be provided for which means that, in addition to those unable to work for whatever reason, we will add to them those who have nothing wrong with them but are absolutely UNWILLING to work. And even if you are willing there will be few jobs because of the stifling and oppressive regulations and taxes to maintain the ones who don’t work. We’ve gotta be fair right?

    And also, if you DO have a job and work for a living, you can’t make but so much money or the govt takes most of it because the wealth has to spread around and in the Obama Economy succeeding means you succeed in providing for the poor and underpriviledged. Underpriviledged being those who are too lazy to get off their butts and do for themselves (or too stupid, let’s not leave that out. The education system sucks now and will still suck then)

    So now in Obama’s Socialist American Utopia we are ALL equally poor and repressed with heavy taxation. All initiative and quality and innovation has been crushed because any person with those qualities who makes good money will just have it taxed away to provide for the others. Oh, and also to pay for the crushing debt we are under because we all know that you can just spend your way out of debt at any time. It’s just that the time will not ever seem to come. And he and Congress will tax more and instead of paying on the debt they will just spend it right up until whoever is loaning them the cash cuts them off or the dollar becomes as useless as a freshly laid dog turd.

    Now. Why do I call him an America Hater? Well because he is of course. He despises the America that he sees now. You know, that one that does NOT run on his Agenda. Is not Socialist YET, only fascist. The one that still allows us to own guns and allows the States to have some rights. Oh yeah, we also still have some freedom of religion although the plan to stop that has already started. We also have freedom of speech unless we get to close to govt officials in which case we can be charged with a felony now for speaking our mind to them. And Americans themselves! Oh man does he hate us! Unless of course, we support and adore him for the God he thinks he is. Even then we are only a means to gaining the power he craves to make us into the Far Left Socialist/Progressive/Democracy on the European Union model. But that doesn’t wok so well does it? Oh well. It will this time. Unless he doesn’t get re-elected. Unless he finds a way with a litle help to rig it. Or just outright steals it by pulling a Hugo Chavez on us. Or puts on a disaster of some kind where he “Suspends” 😉 elections under executive authority until after the present “emergency”.

    But I digress. By now I’m sure some of you think I’m nuttier than a squirrel turd! 😛 Maybe I am. Or maybe I see what he’s is doing already in plain sight and realize that there is nothing he WON”T do. Do you see him listening to the people? Or do you see him and his supporters ridiculing and mocking anyone who disagrees with them with an arrogance that is appalling. Making new rules and regulations and totally ignoring and /or disregarding the Constitution in the process.

    Well I do. And I’m not by myself. There are far more out here like me than you can imagine. We ain’t fooled. It may still happen, but it won’t be a suprise. And some of us have our own plans if it does. If it doesn’t, then I guess I am crazy. If he is re-elected though, there will be a lot of changes made in the next four years. And a lot of us won’t like them. Maybe even MOST of us. Maybe even some of you won’t like them that just love him now.

    WE WILL SEE.

  42. President Barack Obama has promised not to attack Pakistan-based al-Qaida leaders or fighters from bases inside Afghanistan.

    The surprising commitment effectively bars Obama and his successors from launching another nighttime helicopter raid like the one that that killed Osama bin Laden. That raid has proven to be Obama’s primary foreign-policy success because it killed bin Laden, scooped up much intelligence data and shocked Pakistan.

    Obama’s commitment will also end the use of secretive drone-attacks from Afghanistan. Those attacks have killed hundreds of al-Qaida leaders since the mid-2000s. They’ve also been very popular with U.S voters, and usually have had tacit Pakistan approval.

    The unadvertised provision is buried in the deal that Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Obama signed with much campaign-style fanfare May 1 in Kabul. It could provide a legal shield for Pakistani-based al-Qaida’s leaders, front-line fighters, terrorism-planners, allied terror-leaders, funders, terror bases and terror training-grounds.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/04/obamas-deal-with-karzai-bans-raids-into-pakistan/#ixzz1tuR9gpCs

    • Just A Citizen says:

      LOI

      No worries mate. We will soon learn that drone attacks are not raids or attacks. It is all in the meaning of words you know! 🙂

      • FOX this AM had a segment with a former intelligence guy. He claims the new Obama strategy will hurt us down the road. Using drones and no longer attempting to take prisoners denies us information. In a firefight, we now kill them all. Maybe a survivor knows and would share where some of his buddies are hiding? Ironic also that KGB or whatever his name is is now going to trial.
        At Gitmo.
        Where it would have been held three years ago had Obama/Holder not stopped it.
        And I expect the results just in time for the election so Obama can take credit……

        And on a completely different note, Uncle Ted looses his cool.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7407452n

  43. The Julia saga:

    Under Obama – Julia would not even get to the birth stage

    Under Romney – Julia would be allowed to live.

    • Two words:

      BULL DOOKEY.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Great quote in that piece: “They [Mann and Ornstein] say our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Great quote but it left off half the equation. I see absolutely nothing from the Dem party leadership or the lefty media indicating that they think the “right” has a legitimate political viewpoint.

        So that kind of tells you where Mann and Omstein sit on the scale of “objective” research, doesn’t it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Depends on how you look at it. If Mann and Ornstein are making the argument that it is the right wing that jumped off the ship so to speak, then wouldn’t the Dems be justified in thinking the GOP no longer has a legitimate policital viewpoint?

          But your response changes the question, it is not just that the GOP no longer believes the Dems have a legitimate viewpoint; it is that the GOP is questioning the very legitimacy of Obama himself (see: birtherism; Muslim; anti-America; etc.)

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            The Dems jumped off the “reasonable” wagon during Clinton’s administration. That is before the “crazies” took over the Republican party. In my opinion they went insane when Bush won in 2000 and they haven’t recovered since. But a lot of what we are dealing with today goes clear back to McGovern’s ass whoopin. The hard core left never got over that and have been fuming and plotting ever since. This is NOT all the Republican’s fault.

            If not for the hard core push to the left, which is where Gore wanted to go, we would not see the hard push back from the Right.

            And it is a LIE to claim the GOP questioned Obama’s birth records or legitimacy. You can claim some people who probably vote Republican.

            But that would equally apply to the communists and anarchists who usually vote Democrat and make all kinds of obscene claims against Republicans.

            Buck, you need to recognize the differences between these various groups, within each party:

            1. Those who vote mostly one way.
            2. Those who always vote one way.
            3. Those who “participate” in elections.
            4. Those who are the party “structure”
            5. Those who control the party structure.
            6. Those who are elected within a party.

            The people we see on the news every night are usually those who “participate” and those who are “elected”.

            But those who actually “control” are not seen. Except when the “leadership” is put in front of the cameras.

            Now tell me how Boehner and McConnell are “radical right wingers” while Pelosi and Reid and Schultz are “reasonable moderates”.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Re: GOP questioning Obama’s birth. Fair enough, the GOP never put out an official release stating that Obama was not born in the US. So technically, you are correct. But quite a number of elected officials used this to their advantage, refusing to go on the record stating their opposition to such statements, using it to their advantage, etc. etc. etc.

              Re: Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Schultz. Schultz? As in Ed Schultz? Never realized he was elected to office…go figure. As to the rest of them, I don’t believe any of them are crazy radicals on either side. And don’t believe I ever said they were.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Not Ed, but the DNC Chair. Wasserman-Schultz.

                Bet you can’t even name the RNC Chair. I know I can’t. The guy must be a real radical, crazy right winger.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I can name him, just can’t spell his name — Rince Priebus.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Re communist caucus

                I have to run for awhile so I suggest you start with Bernie Sanders. I know he is a member and I think Kucinich was as well.

                I saw the list the other day and will try to find it. There were about twenty names listed as I recall.

            • Mathius says:

              In my opinion they went insane when Bush won in 2000 and they haven’t recovered since. We went “insane” because Bush was TERRIBLE. T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. The. Worst. Awful. Abysmal. Atrocious. Catastrophic. Horrendous. There was only one major policy initiative of his which I can recall which I liked (I’m sure there were others but none come to mind). Meanwhile, he was an anti-science, war-mongering, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, fish-mongering, knee-jerk reactionary bible-thumping cowboy. Of course we went insane – somehow the country managed to elect (or SCOTUS managed to elect) someone like that to lead us! Of course we haven’t recovered.. and neither has the economy.

              But a lot of what we are dealing with today goes clear back to McGovern’s ass whoopin. The hard core left never got over that and have been fuming and plotting ever since. I don’t really care about McGovern… but maybe that’s just me..

              And it is a LIE to claim the GOP questioned Obama’s birth records or legitimacy. HAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHA HH AHAHAHAH AHHAHA HAHAH AH AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH A AHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA A HAA HHAHA HA HA HHA hA AHHAHA AH AHHA HAAHAHAH AHA A HAHAHA HAHHAHAHA Ah AHAHAHAHAHAA AH AHAHAHAH AHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH HHAAHAHAHAAH A H AHAHA AHAH AHHAHAH AHAH HAHAHA AHA HAHHA AHHA HAHAHAH HAH AHAHAH HA A AH HAHA A HAH A HHAHAHHAHAH HAHAHHAHA HAHAHA AHAHAHHAH AHAHA HAHAAHA HHAAHAH HAH AHAH A H AHAHHAHAHA AHAHA AHAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAH AHAH AHAHAHAHHA AHAHHAHAH AHAH AH AHAH HAHAHAAHHA HAHHA HAAAHAH AHA HAHHA AHAH AHAHAH AH

              But that would equally apply to the communists and anarchists who usually vote Democrat and make all kinds of obscene claims against Republicans. .. Yes……. but here’s a major difference. When someone lunatic on the left says something crazy, the mainstream left shouts them down. When some lunatic on the right says something crazy, the mainstream right, with a wink and a nod, just lets them go on saying it. For example: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/11/allen-west/allen-west-says-about-80-house-democrats-are-membe/… I especially like the way that the crowd says ‘oh my god’ and murmurs very concernedly for the next 30 seconds – the correct answer is a collective spit-take.

              Buck, you need to recognize the differences between these various groups, within each party: Yes. True. But. When there is a concerted effort by Republican aligned media and non-officials, reading from the same talking points, all say the same thing without an official rebuke from the party leadership, it can be safely considered that the party is in the same camp. Silence is consent.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                RE: Allen West. Do you realize there is an actual “Communist Caucus” in Congress, made up of Democrats. And that the Communist Party of America claims many existing Democratic Congressmen/women and other Democratic Party elected officials as members.

                These people hug the idea of communism or at least full blown socialism but then Allen West is the crazy person? Now he may have the total number wrong, but there are certainly many in Congress who have claimed affiliation with “communism” or hard core “socialism”. Remember the “we need to just nationalize them” comment from a prominent Congresswoman?

                Silence is NOT consent. Not unless you are a participant. I am not guilty of my neighbors Sins, even if we share political affiliation. This is another one of those false demands being made in today’s political/media circus climate. AND BOTH SIDES DO IT.

                You and others may hate Bush for his policies but I am talking about the hard core and the capital P, Progressives who lead the Dem party politics. It was the election itself that sent them into a fit. Al Gore was their first chance since McGovern. And when he lost it the way he did they went crazy. I know Matt, because I was around them at the time.

                We stopped seeing some friends and relatives at that time because of the outright HATRED. And this was BEFORE Iraq or the tax cuts or deficits, etc, etc.. In fact we still can’t be around them. Because with Bush gone their hatred and anger has moved from him to the Republicans and now Tea Party.

                Many of these people are among those who “participate or control” the Dem party. That does not mean all, but they are certainly still in the fight.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Communist Caucus? There’s a Communist Caucus? Really? First I’ve heard of it…

                Gore/Bush and hatred — Having an election stolen will do that to a person.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                JAC, can you point to the Communist Caucus please:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucuses_of_the_United_States_Congress

        • Mathius says:

          I see absolutely nothing from the Dem party leadership or the lefty media indicating that they think the “right” has a legitimate political viewpoint.

          It is possible that the right DOESN’T have a legitimate political viewpoint.

          The “real” answer isn’t always between the two sides. Sometimes one of them is just wrong. That doesn’t automatically make the other side (left) correct, but there’s no reason we should automatically accept the validity of a viewpoint just because it’s offered by the “right,” as if legitimizing crazy is somehow necessary to maintain balance in journalism or research.

          Bah.

          I swear, if I said the Earth was flat, the media would somehow report that both sides have a point and that the answer is probably somewhere in the middle – maybe the Earth is a flattened sphere like a deflated football. Sometimes, just sometimes, one side is WRONG. Flat, unambiguously, WRONG. And when a researcher or writer calls a spade a spade, it’s not reciprocal to point fingers and shout “they do it too!”

          This should help clear things up.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You do a good job of making my point. Thanks for the support.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            P.S.; Your citation uses a bad example of the fallacy. It ignores the possibility that the first fallacy committed, if true, could have affected the second one accused. Bwahahahaha

            Oh, and that is not what I was doing here. So please recognize the difference.

            The “answer” is not between two sides, but TWO sides make an argument.

            The RIGHT has the ONLY legitimate argument or position being offered. But nobody is listening anyway.

            The real battle is between the two parties on the left.

            If the arguments are over core principles that are in opposition then there is no solution. Unless of course one side surrenders because they want to be liked and feel pressure to “compromise”.

          • Did you really mean to say that? No need to listen to the other side cause they are wrong? You realize that most here believe the left is completely wrong, why would it be justifiable to not listen to them at all? Your statement is the epitome of close-mindedness, the very thing the left claims they are not and claims the other side is. You want to do a retraction maybe???

            • Mathius says:

              Naw.. no retraction needed.

              I never said “you don’t need to listen to the other side ’cause they are wrong”.. nor, I thought, did I even remotely imply it. I said that they do not need to be legitimized just because they are the “other side.”

              I’m not suggesting you shut out one side just because “they are always wrong.” I’m suggesting, issue-by-issue, if one side is flat-wrong, you don’t have to listen to them, present them on equal footing, or treat them like they’re two sides of a coin. If one side is wrong, it is ok that we treat them like they’re wrong.

              I see this over and over and over again where the left says or does something and then the media or politicians or some such pull of a false equivalency so they can use this “both sides” thing or the “the answer is somewhere in between these two” thing. Sometimes one side is right. Sometimes, it’s the right (less frequent in my humble opinion) and sometimes it’s the left.

              My favorite recent example is a giant steaming pile of BS. So, Romney tied his dog (in a carrier) to the roof of his car, where it shat itself (ostensibly in terror), he then took it down, hosed it off, put it back up, and continued on his way. He told this (proudly) as a story of how he maintains a cool head under pressure.

              OK, so I don’t really approve. But I wasn’t there, I can’t judge really. It doesn’t seem, to me, like the right/humane way to act, but it’s really not a Presidential election caliber issue. To me. However, some people, such at the PETA-types think it is. And, to them, it’s pretty damning. So what happens? Someone opens up a book Obama wrote, finds a passage, and VOILA!, “two sides!”

              Seems Obama, as a five year old, was given dog meat, which he ate and recalled as “tough.” Now, while I certainly am not in favor of eating dogs (unless they’re “purse dogs”), this is really not the same thing.

              One is a grown man, making a decision on how to treat his dog, being (allegedly) callous and cruel. The other is a young child, in conformance with local customs, eating food he is told to eat. How are these the same? Not even close. I tend to thing both are BS (in terms of a Presidential election), but the media seems to have picked up and run with some sort of equivalency story-line. THEY AREN’T EQUIVALENT! Yet the “both sides” narrative is perpetuated. Why? Because it sells. But it’s really not doing any favors to our discourse.

              • I see, I get what you are saying. Indeed, an argument is not legitimate just because it is the other side, nor is the answer always compromise. We agree totally there. However, I feel this way about nearly everything the government does these days, certainly every expansion of spending or of revenue. I do not think the answer is in between, in between is just a lesser of two evils, which is still evil. So yea, that makes sense, but understand that the very same argument can work against “your side”. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Re spending and revenue — The point here, at least to me, is that we need to look at BOTH spending and revenue. They are two sides of the same equation. The GOP is dead wrong for insisting on only spending cuts (while simulatenously reducing taxes and revenue somehow). Likewise, it would be dead wrong for the Dems to insist on only increasing taxes…but the Dems aren’t taking this approach.

              • Mathius says:

                understand that the very same argument can work against “your side”. 🙂

                Of course!

                ….

                But my side is usually the right one 🙂

                Disclaimer: Please do not conflate “my side” with the Democratic Party’s side. Though we do indeed align on some issues, we are NOT one and the same. I will return the favor by not conflating you with Black Flag.

              • @Buck
                With spending where it is, I very much think it is just about spending. This is not a compromise issue. There is no more revenue to be had in a declining economy, the society cannot afford it. Furthemore, it is unjustifiable until all measures have been taken to ensure the current spending is a efficient and justifiable as possible, make sure all luxuries and non-necessities are on hold, at least for the duration of the economic slowdown, and make some cuts in the “insurance” side of things, such as the military, which is generally only there as insurance against aggression and invasion. In any budget, business or family or non-profit, etc., these things are all done first before doing things like raising prices or taking on work or selling off assets. The only reason the government doesnt do that is because they can just take what they want to increase their revenue. That is not an acceptable attitude or action.

                @Matt
                Thank you for not conflating me with BF, despite our frequent agreement, I will grant you the courtesy you requested as well. As for your side being right, well, I dunno about that, I think my side is. 🙂 Mine, however, is also correct mathematically. Is yours?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t disagree that spending is an issue. But going to your family budget analogy — you can look to cut spending, but you can also look to take on a second job. There are options. I’m not saying that we can balance the budget by increasing revenue alone; I don’t think anyone is saying that. But in order to balance the budget, shouldn’t all options be on the table? That is where the compromise comes in.

              • But the government is not looking at a second job, it is looking to raise prices. On a populace that can scarcely afford the current levels. Its like a business raising prices, it WILL make sales drop, and it WILL anger their customers. So, no, increasing revenue through raising taxes should NOT be on the table until all other options are truly exhausted, and believe me, they are NOT even close to exhausted.

      • Some of my favorite parts:

        Specifically, money buys power, and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties, in the process destroying any prospect for cooperation.

        JAC, remember when I told you the wealthy would be happy to pay for government, if they could control it???

        Now, however, the Republican Party is dominated by doctrines formerly on the political fringe. Friedman called for monetary flexibility; today, much of the G.O.P. is fanatically devoted to the gold standard.

        Oh – kinda close to home here…

        N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University, a Romney economic adviser, once dismissed those claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves as “charlatans and cranks”; today, that notion is very close to being official Republican doctrine.

        That too…

        For example, conservative goldbugs have been predicting vast inflation and soaring interest rates for three years, and have been wrong every step of the way.

        Speaking of which – where has Black Flag been???

        But this failure has done nothing to dent their influence on a party that, as Mr. Mann and Mr. Ornstein note, is “unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.”

        This explains most of the right-wing rhetoric…on many topics…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          On the first point, of rich happy to pay for govt, do you remember me ever disagreeing with this?

          I have said time and again, if you hit a man with a stick you give him the moral authority to hit you back. And GOVT is the ultimate stick.

          If you grant Govt power over people, there will be people who seek that power.

          As for the others do you realize that these are typical of Krugman these days. There is nothing solid there, there. He creates a statement based on “popular perception” backed by “assertions” that are neither scientific or necessarily factual.

          The Gold Standard is a good example. WHO publicly supports this position among the Republican Leadership? Yet he uses the phrase “fanatically devoted”. Clever manipulation this Crouch fella.

          Another, he takes a Keynesian economist working for a Keynesian politician and then uses them to declare a different point of view as “charlatans and cranks”. This allows him to dodge the REALITY he claims to cherish. Revenues have increased following tax cuts.

          Does that make them “paid for”?? Technically Krugman can claim anything he wants because the REALITY is we don’t know for sure if one “caused” the other or if it just happens we accept cuts right before jumps in revenue would occur anyway. And of course it avoids the entire philosophical issue of why a letting someone KEEP THEIR MONEY should be considered as requiring it to be “PAID FOR”.

          Nobody Pays For keeping something.

          Not sure where Flagster is these days. I assume he has been busy doing the analysis on the climate models, but not sure. Was about to check on him though. Maybe he is stocking up his bunker. Hope the radiation from the old nukes hasn’t gotten him.

          As for this: ““unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” ” I think that sums up Krugman these days quite well. I will add BOTH political parties to that so you don’t think me a Partisan Hack.

          • JAC,

            On the first point, of rich happy to pay for govt, do you remember me ever disagreeing with this?

            Yes. You disagreed completely. Do you remember that?

            I will add BOTH political parties to that so you don’t think me a Partisan Hack.

            I see this type of comment here quite often. But it doesn’t mean you’re not a Partisan Hack.

            What it does is it lets you off the hook from having to defend anything. It gives you the freedom to attack the democrats, and then since you add “I don’t like republicans either”, you must be an impartial judge of all things politics, right?

            I’ve pointed this out several times – the right claims “true free market capitalism” (or whatever you call it) would work great. And since there are no examples of that system, there’s no way for anyone to dissect it, and you can just claim it will be perfect.

            Meanwhile the left has to defend every crappy government and society that has ever existed, because in general that’s what we want (just a little better!!).

            When you claim you don’t like either party, that’s not taking the “high road.” It’s taking the “low road,” because then you can attack without fear of reprisal.

            So tell me, who have you voted for recently?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              “Yes. You disagreed completely. Do you remember that?”

              Obviously not.

              If that is true there must have been a very different context. Or are you just messing with my old brain.

              Not nice to make fun of old people’s memories ya know.

              On the other about partisanship. I have been very open here at SUFA about my past political party affiliations, including why I was a member and why I stopped being a member. If you recall, I have been active in BOTH the Dem and Repub. parties.

              I have strong beliefs. Not strong Political Party affiliation nor do I give them support. I am far more Libertarian Party but find myself agreeing with SOME Democratic and SOME Republican positions.

              So I don’t see it as a cop out of some kind to point out I think “both” do something. When arguing with you, Buck or Mathius I feel I sometimes come across as to much in the Republican camp. This is because you start from the D side and I try to point out the flaw in the argument. Which naturally becomes anti-D, but not necessarily pro-R.

              Your arguments about Free Markets have some validity in that you can’t show a “modern” example on a Nation Scale. But I have given other examples as has Black Flag. However, examples are not the proof given the evolution of political philosophy and practice in the world. If that were the criteria for human development we would all still be living under the control of monarchies.

              In fact your favorite example of a “social democracy” did not exist until recent times. Using your logic, it could not work because there was no example of it, before it existed. Yet it was a philosophy of some sort that let to somebody trying it. Just as the Democratic Republic didn’t exist before 1787, but it was created from the knowledge of the past. So too, can a limited Fed Govt and Free Market Economy develop without prior example. The possibility is undeniable. The truth of its practicality or efficacy is yet to be proven.

              In the last Pres election I voted for Romney. I also voted for John Tester, Dem Senator, I voted FOR Schwietzer, Dem Governor and FOR Denny Rheiburg, Rep House . In the local elections I voted pretty much for the Republicans or the Libertarians because our local Dem party was controlled by the hard core leftists. Even old Dems voted for the R’s but the D’s ALL won.

              In the recent mid terms I voted again for Rheiburg and against Max Bauchus, Dem. Senator. But I would vote for the neighbors dog before voting for Bauchus so I’m not sure you can hold that against me on a party basis. Local elections turned out the same as 2008, I voted R and L and ALL the Dems won.

              All Votes for President: Humphrey, Nixon, Carter, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Perot, Clinton, Bush II, Bush II, Romney (write in)

              • JAC,
                A write-in for Romney in 2008? Why is that? McCain and Romney are pretty similar…

                Oh wait, I know why!

                It wasn’t a vote FOR Romney.

                It was a vote AGAINST someone else!

                Boy, that’s gotta hurt your conservative credentials – You Betch Ya!!

        • “On partisanship: The Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have been making waves with a new book acknowledging a truth that, until now, was unmentionable in polite circles. They say our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” You can’t get cooperation to serve the national interest when one side of the divide sees no distinction between the national interest and its own partisan triumph. ”

          Our system of government was designed for gridlock. The founders did not want to make it easy to pass endless laws. But they did include some rules and requirements, one of which is passing a budget each year. The senate has refused to discuss a budget for three years, or rather the majority Democratic party has refused. I think that alone is enough to demonstrate the two “scholars” are blind with bias instating it is only the Republicans.

          Healthcare, the majority in both parties wanted reform. They differed on how to go about it, but both indicated government action was needed.
          Healthcare should have been a bi-partisan issue. One party would not compromise and with their majority control mandated. Partisan action.

          I think every person with an opinion agrees entitlement reform is necessary or eventually our government will not be able to meet it’s obligations. (there is no agreement on when, where or how) Bi-partisan issue. The Republican”s have made several plans public to address this issue. The Democrats have attacked each plan but steadfastly refused to offer one of their own.

          The Democrats insist the oil companies pay in more. They also insist the rich pay in more. And lets say the Republicans step back and allow this, what will be the result? Four or five billion more from big oil? About the same from the Buffets (except he’s now fighting paying his back taxes) ? So you get ten billion more a year in revenue. Which will pay less than a tenth of the cost overruns now evident in ObamaCare. The promise that it would save everyone money? And it’s now going to cost $111 billion more than expected? Hell, they couldn’t even pay for BidenRail(60-70 billion est.) in California with both taxes…..

          And you think only the Republicans are partisan?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Is it really your position that the Dems refused to compromise on healthcare? They wound up passing a Republican based bill.

            The Dems have attached every plan proposed by the GOP and refuse to settle on entitlement reforms? They have clearly demonstrated a willingness to address this issue; yet, the GOP will only consider privatization or some such nonsense.

            I don’t think only the GOP is partisan — there are ample examples on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP has become increasingly more so and increasingly more extremist in their positions of late.

            • “Is it really your position that the Dems refused to compromise on healthcare?” Yes, the outcry that led to the townhalls should indicate there was broad opposition. I think the way Pelosi conducted herself led to their loss of the majority. You know, pass it so you can read it.. They had the power and went for the slam dunk. They did not care about the consequences. Consider the intent, to lower health care cost in the USA. How’s that looking now? Is it wrong, as many Repugs wanted, to go slow, try a gradual approach?

              “They wound up passing a Republican based bill”. RINO who is trying to distance himself from that.

              “The Dems have attacKed every plan proposed by the GOP and refuse to settle on entitlement reforms? They have clearly demonstrated a willingness to address this issue; yet, the GOP will only consider privatization or some such nonsense.” I don’t think this is true but if you have examples or sources I would be happy to admit my errors. I honestly do not remember seeing any Democrat proposing to reform entitlements. And I blame them only because it is their job, knowing for them to do so will result in the loss of that job.

              “I don’t think only the GOP is partisan — there are ample examples on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP has become increasingly more so and increasingly more extremist in their positions of late.”
              I think both parties are, and many individuals stand out as partisan, some on just a few issues.

              Obama vs Bush? Or Clinton? Who has refrained from critizing his sucessor? Who still blames the guy before and drags the husband of the woman that should have been our first female Pres to fundraisers? Do the Clintons both think they could have done a better job? And yet, party loyalty forces them to take one for the team, just one more time…

              Pelosi vs the current Speaker? How many times has he flown off to meet with countries we have imposed santions against? Changed house rules to silence the minority party? No, he changed them back to allow those that silenced his party to speak. And yet you believe the Repugs are the ones most unwilling to compromise?

          • LOI,

            But they did include some rules and requirements, one of which is passing a budget each year.

            Where did you get this? There is no constitutional requirement for a budget.

            blind with bias

            You’d be an expert on that, but not on the two “scholars” side…

            Healthcare should have been a bi-partisan issue. One party would not compromise and with their majority control mandated. Partisan action.

            Wow, where do you get this stuff?

            I think every person with a brain agrees we need to raise taxes or eventually our government will not be able to meet its obligations.
            The Democrats have made several plans public to address this issue. The Republicans have attacked each plan but steadfastly refused to offer one of their own.

            Blah, blah, blah…

            • Actually, everyone with a brain agrees we need to reduce the government obligations and reduce the amount they spend on the ones they have. Why does the left keep focussing on revenue? It is well known the government is innefficient in how it spends. It is well established that the government is doing too much stuff, even if there is disagreement on which things. This is NOT about revenue. This is about spending.

              • Jon,

                Reconsider please. You and I agree it’s the spending. On that we are partisan. Todd and most liberals think it’s all about revenue.
                Again, partisan. Both sides might agree it’s about balancing our budget and reducing our deficit.

                But then there are extremists. Krugman has said even a 100% of GDP rate of deficit spending is sustainable for a period of time, but around 25% was more desirable. I think he is correct but for how long is one question and why would be another? I personally am trying to do well and hope to leave much of it to my children. I could instead only think about myself and reward myself now, spend their inheritance…. And if I were a Krugman type, proudly proclaim the wisdom of leaving everyone else with the bill for my excesses.

                The funny thing about revenue, even Obama is on record agreeing increasing taxes will result in less revenue. His answer as to why he would do so anyway was fairness. But to punish the rich, the poor are punished to a greater degree. He promises to balance the budget, ten years after he’s out of office. It’s left to who’s in office then to figure out how to pay for the trillions Obama has run up. And for what, two years now the senate has voted down 97-0 Obama’s budget proposal? Were all those Democratic senators being partisan?

              • Actually, based on your definition of partisan in this article, it is not partisan. There are a few political parties that are opposed to spending, but neither of the major ones truly are. The R’s claim to be opposed to spending, but that is just talk. I am aligning myself with a mathematical process of thought, not with a political party. There are other things, not spending related, that I am more in line with the D’s. The closest to partisan I am is the Libertarian Party, and I have distanced myself from them some because of a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the recent parade of loons running for office, that and my growing distaste for the concept of political partles. As for saying those with a brain know its spending, perhaps that was too harsh. Those who can do math agree that the problem is spending.

                LOI’s response,

                Ok, I concede the point Jon…mainly ’cause you brought math in and I don’t do math…Having to walk around barefoot all day is too much trouble.

            • The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 stipulates that Congress must approve a budget resolution by April 15 of each year. In the Senate, only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget, as budgets are one of the few pieces of legislation invulnerable to a filibuster. Democrats currently control 53 seats.

              • LOI,
                I didn’t know the Founding Fathers were still involved in 1974.

                April 15 is only a target date.

                Congress has completed action on the budget resolution by this date only six times, most recently in 2003. So this is hardly “required by law”…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      True. It pretty much sums up Krugman’s slide from famous economist and rational thinker to political hack.

      His “interpretation” of Depression Era economics ignores all recent scholarship on the issue. And his rhetoric ignores the fact we ARE NOT in a Depression. Funny how nobody on the “business networks” ever challenge him on this point.

      Whenever he is challenged, like the Paul vs Paul thing recently, he has to resort to some idiotic retort or logical fallacy.

      He is so locked into his belief system he can’t even recognize that reality has passed him by. The key component of Keynes’ theory can’t work. It requires Govt to CUT BACK once the hard times are past. That flies in the face of REALITY of HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Which is what the study of economics is about.

      So you see, Krugman has to ignore the very foundational tenant of economics in order to defend his beliefs, PEOPLE.

      He claims we didn’t do enough to stimulate the economy. Ignoring the TRILLIONS the Fed put into the system to do just that. To the tune of about 20 Trillion total. So just HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH???

      He alludes to some mysterious connection between wealth distribution and govt structure, partisanship, etc. Yet he provides absolutely NO actual cause/effect explanation and ignores the extreme Partisan Politics of American History. You know, from those days when wealth distribution wasn’t such a problem.

      Like so many who want compromise for their favor, he must harken back to those good ol’ days when basically the Progressives controlled everything (60’s and 70’s). This is his example of when “Statesmen” ruled and compromise was easy.

      What was that fellow in Atlas Shrugged? Wesley Crouch or something like that, I think.

      • JAC,

        ignores all recent scholarship on the issue

        Do you mean the right-wing trying to rewrite history?

        his rhetoric ignores the fact we ARE NOT in a Depression.

        I believe he uses that to emphasize the depth of the recession and the slow recovery. Not really a key point in this article.

        He is so locked into his belief system he can’t even recognize that reality has passed him by.

        Seen a mirror lately?

        To the tune of about 20 Trillion total.

        But the problem is $1 trillion was stimulas, which benefits “everyone”.
        And $19 trillion was quantitative easing, which benefits the 1%, and only benefits “everyone” if the 1% put that money to work – which they haven’t.

        He alludes to some mysterious connection between wealth distribution and govt structure, partisanship, etc. Yet he provides absolutely NO actual cause/effect explanation

        Remember when I told you the wealthy would be happy to pay for government, if they could control it??? Well, they now have enough “disposable income” to try…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Krugman uses the “depression” term quite often and has claimed “we are in a depression”. That has academic meaning, which is what he is portraying himself as. Which goes to my point. He has become a slick propagandist. He won’t stand and fight on JUST economic arguments. He has to use these other tools to distort and obfuscate. To create the sense of “scholarly authority” where none actually exists.

          The Rich have ALWAYS had enough money to try and the means to do it. NOTHING has changed. Krugman’s argument is a fallacy and nothing but political rhetoric. Rich get richer, but they always were RICH. They always try to influence Govt. Just as the rest of us try to influence Govt.

          Ironically, proportionately WE have had more influence in recent times than in the past two hundred years. Even though the Rich are getting Richer. Why? The advent of Lobby Groups that represent an ever growing array of issues. The most powerful lobby in Congress until recently was AARP, for example.

          The 20 trillion wasn’t all “easing”. I understand there was much transferred in cash or “obligations” to cover other debt. Such as retirement funds. But this has a direct “stimulative effect” per Krugman.

          But you are still ignoring the primary fact and hole in his proposition. Keynes’ theory depends on Govt retrieving the stimulus money during good times. WHEN has that happened? How can it be done without creating more bubbles and crashes???

          Reality hasn’t passed me by Todd. It is racing down on us like a freight train.

          Wesley Crouch will be standing there on Bloomberg or MSNBC crying out for more “stimulus” while the house of cards he helped create crashes down around him. Who will they burn at the stake when they find out their Medicare and Social Security funds DO NOT EXIST any longer?

          By the way, Krugman recently cited “austerity” as the reason for collapse in Europe. Did you happen to notice that the one country that imposed “austerity” BEFORE they reached a crisis is doing well? That being Germany. Funny how Krugman forgot to mention that the “austerity” he cited has come AFTER the collapse due to DEBT began, not as an attempt to prevent the collapse.

    • How appropriate that Krugman uses the term “intellectual confusion” in his op-ed. Describes him perfectly. Try this instead, Todd:

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 and one to grow on 🙂

      • Great link! Sowell should be heard a lot more.

        I have noticed a change, started getting blitzed on email. The notify me used to be blank until you selected it, now you have to turn it off.

  44. I always love it when the Left use a wacko nutball to accuse a Right winger of being a wacko nutball. It’s amusing to watch the wacko nutballs go at each other. Especially since I am probably considered by some as being a Radical Right Wing wacko nutball myself. I consider myself a Radical Right Winger myself, but not a wacko nutball. And :

    1. I don’t think Obama was born in the U.S.. Not that it matters anymore. The left and the MSM have successfully shut that down. Congrats!

    2. I do think Obama is a closet Muslim.

    3. I also think he is a Blatant Socialist/Progressive/Democrat/Radical Lefty.

    4. I don’t believe we will survive as a Nation 4 more looong years of Obama.

    5. I believe Obama is out to deliberately destroy this country and it’s economic system and impose his idea of what HE thinks we should be.

    6. I know for sure Obama is an America Hater.

    7. I know that Obama has gone that extra mile to ignore, go around, and make irrelevant, the Constitution of the United States. He would like nothing better than to tear it up and do as he pleases, and it makes him angry that the Constitution and it’s supporters are standing in his way.

    These and other things are what makes me hate him back. With a passion that rivals his own. The worthless dogturd should be tried for Treason or failure to perform his oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

    If that makes me crazy. Then so be it.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sorry Esom, but that’s some pretty wacky stuff! But you do a good job of making our point. So I thank you!

      • You’re welcome. You’ll also be happy to know then that I consider you, Todd, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Mat, as Radical Left Wing/Social/Progressive/Democratic wacko nutballs as well as your leader, Obama. If you ain’t against him, you’re with him! 🙂

        Getting back to more serious things though. Most of my focus is one the fact that I am for Freedom and Liberty and Justice. For everyone, and not just the winners and losers of the Obama platform. I don’t believe it’s any more right to pick on or at the oil companies or wall street, but leave the companies such as GE and people like George Soros out. They are ALL equally guilty of robbing the American public. But your sainted messiah only looks at it from a political aspect. Do you support me or not? That makes him no different to me than George Bush and actually a good bit worse.

        And that shouldn’t be disputed by ANYONE with enough brains to wipe their behinds. And even sometimes if you support him, like wall st. did in the last election, you get thrown under the train when it becomes politically expedient for him to do so. Doesn’t that bother y’all? Apparently not.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I hate to tell you, but I don’t always support Obama — on quite a few issues I attack him from the left. I guess I am a crazy leftie whackjob…

          With that, I’m outta here — enjoy the weekend all!

          • From the Left…. you’re further left than Obama? Ain’t no way. The only reason he isn’t PUBLICLY further to the left than he is, is because it would be political suicide if he did and even HE knows that.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hate to break it to you, but Obama just ain’t all that far to the left. All you can go by is his public statements, positions and policies, unless you somehow know something on his own private thoughts on these matters.

              • charlieopera says:

                Don’t you love it when Obama is classified as a “socialist.” Obama, if anything, is a moderate Republican. One can only hope there’s something suggestive of a spine in Mr. Obama so when he wins in November, he rams as much progressive policy up the asses of the Reps and their blue dog democrat counterparts as he can muster, but I seriously doubt he’ll even try (although I do expect him to FINALLY feel protected enough to FINALLY speak his mind (I want to believe he feels this way) about gay rights. That said, I won’t hold my breath.

                So far he’s been more business friendly and horrible to labor than GWBush ever was (that’s for damn sure). Between his bailouts and dependency on his buddies from Goldman Sachs, his turning his back on Wisconin public workers union and his continuation of pretty much all things Bush, I keep thinking the GOP’s secret plot (or maybe it’s the 1% secret plot) is to run a used car salesman like Romney so they can fake an actual election because Obama sure hasn’t done much for the poor and/or middle class thus far.

                The real shame of this next round of spin the presidency is how well that constitution so many are so beholding to continues to work for 1 class of society; the one that drafted it and the one that continues to make a mockery of us all.

                Obama a socialist … that’s just friggin’ funny.

      • Hey Buck,

        Guess who agree’s with you on FOX being biased? heheheh
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/03/al-quaida-cunning-methods-us-news

  45. People Not In Labor Force Soar By 522,000, Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981
    Tyler Durden’s picture
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/04/2012 08:40 -040

    it is just getting sad now. In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to
    88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/people-not-labor-force-soar-522000-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981

  46. Economists note that the shrinking labor force has masked the true size of the unemployment problem, since people who quit looking for a job are no longer counted as unemployed.

    In fact, had the labor force participation rate had stayed where it was in June 2009, the unemployment rate would be around 11%.

    Many of those who’ve quit looking have instead signed up for disability benefits.

    So far this year, nearly 1 million workers have applied to get on the disability program. According to the Social Security Administration, more than a third will eventually be enrolled in the program.

    Almost 90,000 workers enrolled the program in April, pushing the total for new enrollees over 333,000 in the first four months of the year.

    If you add in spouses and dependents, the number of beneficiaries added to the program so far this year climbs to 539,000.

    As IBD reported recently, more than 5 million workers and their families have enrolled in the disability program since Obama took office.

    A report last fall from the Obama administration’s economic advisers warns that the mass exodus of workers who can’t find a job onto the disability rolls poses a long-term risk to the economy, since once enrolled, these workers almost never return to the active workforce.

    http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/win-can-you-get-disability-for-depression.html

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Re your comment: “Re spending and revenue — The point here, at least to me, is that we need to look at BOTH spending and revenue. They are two sides of the same equation. The GOP is dead wrong for insisting on only spending cuts (while simulatenously reducing taxes and revenue somehow). Likewise, it would be dead wrong for the Dems to insist on only increasing taxes…but the Dems aren’t taking this approach.”

    1. You can CUT taxes and increase REVENUE. This has been proven. Furthermore, the proposed tax cuts by the R’s have included elimination of a large number of deductions. Something the D’s claimed they supported. But when proposed Reid demanded tax increased for the upper brackets IN ADDITION to eliminating deductions.

    2. You commit an error I see on both sides which clouds the debate. That is jumping back and forth from “deficit” to “debt”. It is not deliberate on your part but I wonder about the politicians and media when they do this.

    This is why it is important. It will take an additional 2.3 Trillion a year in INCOME (REVENUE) to address the current debt and entitlement obligations over the next 30 to 40 years. This is the REVENUE needed to deal with DEBT. It is about 20% of current GDP.

    The Current DEFICIT is about 1.3 Trillion per year. This is about 10% of GDP. But we are already collecting and spending about 18% of GDP.

    Those of us who have been in this game for awhile KNOW that Congress can not be trusted to balance later or to CUT later if we give them increases now. So yes, there is some stubbornness on this issue. It has been earned in battle, by getting burned.

    Here is the compromise but I don’t see the Dems accepting it.

    You have to tag any REVENUE increase that comes from an increase in “tax rates” to the DEBT. I think this is possible if you do the next steps first.

    Flatten the tax rates, and dump the deductions. Any REVENUE increase here goes to DEFICIT.

    Now CUT the existing expenditures by about 30% to address DEFICIT and then wait three years.

    If not in decline then CUT some more.

    After the change in tax rates and cuts you enact the “special excise tax” for DEBT reduction. Spread it out as much as possible among the higher income earning segments. Not just earned income but imports/exports, etc.

    Here is the thing Buck. DRASTIC cuts are needed. And they have to be actual reductions below EXISTING spending. So far the DEMS have not proposed any such thing. Their “cuts” have been nothing but reductions in the RATE OF GROWTH. Of course, Ryan’s budget does the same thing. That is why the Tea Party wing has come out against his budget.

    He is gambling that the appearance of good faith effort will hold off the creditors. I don’t trust this to be true. We need REAL solutions that actually FIX this.

    Of course my proposal does not assume any reductions in the DEBT by Cutting benefits. Anything cut here can reduce the size of the ‘excise tax’ needed to pay off the DEBT.

  48. Todd say’s,

    Wow, where do you get this stuff?

    I think every person with a brain agrees we need to raise taxes or eventually our government will not be able to meet its obligations.
    The Democrats have made several plans public to address this issue. The Republicans have attacked each plan but steadfastly refused to offer one of their own.

    Blah, blah, blah…

    Where do I get this stuff? I did a search for government waste and find:

    It gets my blood boiling that the crowd in Washington is talking about raising our taxes when the budget is so riddled with excess spending. Here are two stories that illustrate the waste, fraud, and abuse that is pervasive in the federal budget.

    Our first example is about unemployment benefits fraud. I’ve noted on several occasions (including this very amusing cartoon) that the main problem with unemployment benefits is that they lure people into long-term joblessness and dependency. That gets me angry in my role as an economist. As a taxpayer, though, I get upset that 10 percent of the funds (that’s just what the government admits, so the real figure surely is higher) are squandered because of fraud. Here’s some info from an AP report.

    A nationwide crackdown is coming for people fraudulently drawing unemployment payments — those who were never eligible and workers who keep getting checks after they return to work — a $17 billion benefits swindle last year alone, say federal officials. …As much as 30 percent of the wrong payments in 2010 went to people who had returned to the workforce but continued to claim benefits, according to Dale Ziegler, deputy administrator for the Office of Unemployment Insurance at the U.S. Department of Labor.

    Our second example comes from a news report in West Virginia, and it deals with the weatherization program (one of the flagship components of Obama’s failed stimulus scheme). You won’t be surprised to learn the program has been a farce.

    Federal audits are turning up misspent taxpayer dollars in a $5 billion stimulus program aimed at lowering the utility bills of disabled, poor and older Americans by making their homes more energy-efficient. In West Virginia, which received $38 million in weatherization funds, some of the money went for lobbying, to consultants who did little work and to recipients with connections to state officials who are doling out the funds, the Energy Department’s inspector general found. In one case, West Virginia paid $25,000 to a lawyer for writing two sentences stating that weatherization contracts had been reviewed, reportedly after four hours’ work at a state office, according to a report analyzing how the federal stimulus money was used. A $20,000 consulting fee was paid to the former director of the state’s weatherization program after he left the job in May 2009 even though there were no specific work requirements set for the consulting contract. …more than half of weatherized homes that were re-inspected needed to be redone because of faulty work, the report said. Meanwhile, $2,500 was spent on lobbying in Washington – even though such use is expressly forbidden – to “get the word out” that there wasn’t enough funding to administer stimulus programs, it said.

    • More government “obligations”, the NOAA needs a mindreader….OK Todd, scrap my plan to cut spending and raise my taxes.. I didn’t know we now needed to invest in magic…is there a unicorn cloning agency yet???sorry, have to stop myself

      WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal agency needs illusionist David Copperfield to help escape from criticism over now-canceled plans to hire a speaker to train agency leaders using “magic tools.”

      The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in hot water because on May 1 it posted a notice seeking a magician motivational speaker for a June leadership conference in suburban Maryland. The agency said presentations should include “physical energizers, magic tricks, puzzles, brain teasers, word games, humor and teambuilding exercises.” It asked for the performer to create “a unique model of translating magic and principals of the psychology of magic, magic tools, techniques and experiences into a method of teaching leadership.”

      In an eight page bid solicitation, the agency in charge of weather, climate and oceans said it wanted to use the emotional intelligence techniques of a prominent Harvard professor who has written five books, but misspelled his name.

      The posting came weeks after the General Services Administration was embroiled in a scandal involving a Las Vegas conference that cost nearly $1 million and included a mind reader.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/04/noaa-sought-magician-now-wants-plans-to-disappear/#ixzz1twc0OGzD

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Here you go. The Socialist Caucus. Apparently they have dropped the association with the Communist party.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/

    Now I suggest you take that list and compare to the Progressive Caucus. And please note that POTUS was on the list before he left congress.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sorry…no Socialist Caucus either. Care to try again?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucuses_of_the_United_States_Congress#A

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        I gave you the link. Do you think they are lying??

        As I said, go to th Congressional Progressive Caucus:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

        Now compare the founders of this caucus, and members, with those listed by the American Socialist Caucus.

        Your lawyer BS aint goin to let you out of this one pard.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          And here is one of their “support groups”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Democratic_Action

          Notice the “family tree” for this organization. “American Socialists”. Now these folks were socialists and decidedly “anti-Communist”. Left wing socialists opposed to Communism but supported International intervention, socialist programs, etc. Sound FAMILIAR???

          And look at the pedigrees of the founding members.

          Starting to see the connections now from Socialist to Fascist to Fascist Progressives to current Progressive Caucus?????

          These are YOUR people Buck. If you agree with them then don’t try to hide it or accuse those of us who understand that we are somehow crazy or unjustified. Stand up and be proud of them. They are SOCIALISTS. Why is it so hard to admit it????

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          And here is a link to the DSA which is referenced in the question about “how many Congressmen and Senators” are members of the American Socialist Caucus.

          DSA = Democratic Socialists of America

          http://dsausa.org/dsa.html

          Charlie Stella: Since you might lose your job check out the Job Announcement for YOUTH ORGANIZER. I know it is a month old but maybe they still need somebody.

          Now somebody throw me a rope before I slip any farther down the Glenn Beck rabbit hole chasing these SOCIALISTS among us.

          🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          JAC,

          Again, there is no such thing as the American Socialist Caucus, or any caucus with the words ‘Socialist’ or ‘Communist’. Now there is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It would appear to me that your source is merely taking the list of the latter and claiming they are all crazy commies.

          • Maybe not ASC. How about Democratic Socialists of America:

            In October 2009, the DSA newsletter reported that 70 congressional Democrats were active members.

            The group also claimed 11 socialists sit on the House Judiciary Committee.

            The DSA makes clear its preference for working within the Democratic Party for the change it seeks.

            “Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies,” the group states in the “Where we stand” section of its website.

            “Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.”

            In addition to a national program of “massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector,” the DSA also calls for a breaking down the American-style notions of nationalism and national sovereignty.http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/houses-80-communists-in-caucus-founded-by-socialist-group/

            Semantics Buck, semantics.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            So your argument is that when someone calls themselves the American Socialist Caucus they are not real???

            It is THEIR name for THEMSELVES Buck. What part of that do you not understand???

            You are playing a game by trying to use “official” Congressional Caususes to refute the existence of a group who named themselves and claimed certain members per the “agreement” of those individuals.

            And as I said, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the American Socialist Caucus membership has serious “overlap”.

            So here you have them claiming themselves XYZ and a guy like West takes them at their word, and your rebuttal is “they are not real”.

            What is that you say all the time:

            “Sigh”…………

            • Buck the Wala says:

              JAC — you referenced two groups, the Communist Caucus and the Anerican Socialist Caucus, so I looked them up and I found…nothing. That is all I’m saying here. Do you have a link to the American Socialist Caucus? All I’m finding is an article purporting to list its members which you had posted to earlier.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh us Crazy Right Wingers. Thinking the Progressive Movement has had anything to do with socialism. Thinking that the country is being pushed towards socialism, etc, etc,..

    Why don’t we just take their word for it.

    http://peoplesworld.org/is-this-a-socialist-moment

    • Aw heck JAC!!! Let’s just EMBRACE the name! You and I know that we are really Radical Right Wing Liberals. And I know the way I really feel about the Federal Government and the Presidential Moron. And I think I have the solution to it, as do you.

      By now all should see that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and needs to be put out of our misery. I believe a Confederation of States that just cooperate with each other would work much better. That way, when a state like California screwed the pooch like they are continuously doing, it would not harm the others. They would be responsible for getting themselves out of their own mess.

      This is quite possibly, with refinement, the solution. Their quite simply would be no NEED for the Feds. We might wind up with a few lefty state govenments, naybe even a Socialist one or two. But they wouldn’t last long. And most State governments already have balanced budget amendments. And if they didn’t they would adopt one if they were on their own financially. And pie in the sky programs would not last long when faced with fiscal reality. And that reality would not be long coming at a state level when you swiftly realize there is no more Federal to pull your financial cojones out of the fire.

  51. seemed to be slow loading, so have posted open mic. Bring foreward what’s on you mind.

  52. charlieopera says:

    @Jon:
    As for Battista, he was not exactly a capitalist

    Only if you ignore the fact that he took graft from every major corporation that saw fit to exploit the people of Cuba (including the friggin’ mafia) and let them do whateve they wanted … then jailed and executed those who refused to do his (and those who greased him) bidding.

    And that worked pretty well in America too until labor unions were formed. Now that labor unions are as corrupt as the government, it seems to me there’s only one choice here … and it isn’t (under any circumstances) to let the so-called “free markets” handle the problem. They ARE the problem.

    Respectfully, of course.

    • What you just described are clearly the actions of a dictator. The fact that corportations were involved is irrelevant, that does not make it free market or even capitalism.

      • charlieopera says:

        Jon, you can kid yourself all you want about whether or not that was a free market or not. Business was permitted to do whatever they pleased in Cuba under Batista; in fact, it was probably a much more free market than we’ve ever had here in the US&A. And they did what big business does when there’s nobody to stop them, they used and abused and exploited the native workforce for profit. It’s why so many Cubans were willing to overthrow him. He was a pay toll for big business: Pay at the door and the workers here are all yours. If businesses like Bacardi (great book about what happened to them) treated their workers fairly, it was because the Bacardi family had honor enough to do so … but the vast majority of busineses and American Investors could care less what kind of poverty the peasants had to live with. Sort of like our investors here, don’t you think? Find cheaper labor in India and go for it. More profit … that’s all that counts.

        Why capitalism will utlimately fail, my friend … because greed will ultiamtely make the poorest choices.

        • Socialism fails for the same reasons. Laziness and greed. The problem you are having is that you fail to see that government is what screws up the free market. Batista executed dissenters. Workers had no ability to rise up or unionize. Here in the states worker strikes were out down by troops. Only when the workers started winning did the “benevolent government” change sides. Without the government the so-called robber barons would have fallen far sooner and far faster. In Cuba it was not the businesses exploitation, but the government’s support of it that angered the people, the people could have fought the businesses easily were it not for Batista’s tyranny. Even now, when government supports unions, it still backs businesses. Businesses with bad or exploitive practices get protected by government created legal entities known as corporations, and they even get bailed out of they are big enough, such that they can do things that would make them fail in a free market, yet survive.

          • charlieopera says:

            Only when the workers started winning did the “benevolent government” change sides.

            Really? So it was unions that were bailed out to the tune of $700 billion (not included the constant flow of corporate welfare). Here in the states, because they figured out throwing bones to the working class would keep them rich in profit a lot longer, they allowed unions. The government here couldn’t be more owned by big business without all of us wearing the physical apparatus (chains). The government here supports unions so well, a) it disbanded public worker unions in Wisconsin, b) the current President turned his back on the same unions (see his 2007 campaign speech to “wear some comfortable shoes and join the picket lines” … not only him, the AFL-CIL leader didn’t bother showing up and still supports Obama … and c) unions are at an all time low. Corporations are what owns this government, my friend. This government NEVER changed sides. It was drafted by money and it continues to support money.

            Again, very respectfully, Jon.

            • Um, I was talking about when the unions first emerged in the 1800s. And yes, the government “switched sides”, at least in some ways. I happen to agree that they never REALLY switched sides, but they passed all sorts of labor laws and minimum wages and safety standards and blah, blah, blah so that they could take credit for the progress in worker rights that was actually made by the unions. Also, I think, they did it to placate the unions so that they would not continue to gain power. The unions could have negotiated a fair deal with their respective employers without any regulations whatsoever, and it would have come about even more easily had the government not fought them early on. So, I guess what I am saying is that I agree, they never really supported the unions, they placated them and convinced them that the needed to be political organizations, because the unions were fooled into thinking that they needed government, and that they would not have to do the hard work involved in unionizing if they just got the right laws passed. Thus, modern unions are just political lobbyists with not much more concern for their worker members than the fat cats and politicians. The real reason union membership keeps falling is that workers realize this and are not wanting to join, only to have to pay dues to be screwed over by their union bosses as well as their work bossed. Public worker unions need to understand that they are not paid by government, the are paid by taxpayers. Thats a little different. Also, unions can get greedy, but without government bailouts the would have learned not to by now. The UAW benefitted from that bailout of GM and Chrystler, because they all would have been out of jobs if the companies had been allowed to fail. That sort of lesson needs to be taught as well, so does the lesson that should have been taught to the banks about lending to those who cannot afford it.

              So, I respectfully agree with most of what you are saying, and invite you to look closely at the state of modern unions and tell me, would you join one? I certainly would not.

  53. Todd, you are still missing the point, and I think you need to reread my origina post. At no point did I compare myself to anyone. Read it in the context of a utilitarian view. I was not ridiculing or making presumptions about your generosity, nor claiming the rich were generous.The only thing I was assuming was that you were not as rich as “the rich” and therefore it would not be possible for you to have offerred equivalent benefit to the poor versus the average rich person. Again, look at it from the poor’s view, a single gift from you will be smaller than a single gift from a much more wealthy person, even if you are more generous.

    My point is that more available wealth permits more charity AND more ability to employ. We agree here. Where we disagree is that taxes should be a part of this. In other words, when you tax the rich, you reduce the charitable and employing ability. Your point is that “they can afford it, so they should be taxed.” MY point is that they can afford to do other things that benefit society, and taxing them more would reduce that ability. The two biggest issues with this are one concerning rights (what gives you the right to take money by force, just because someone has and arbitrary measure of “more than enough”) and one concerning utility (is the government really a better arbiter of funds? Are they more efficient? A better employer? A better source of charity? My contention is that the government is less efficient, less flexible, less competent, more corrupt, and more uncaring than individuals or the market itself). And no, this is not a moral argument (the question on rights could be considered one I guess).

    And no, I was in no way trying to brush off or belittle your charity, or even be condescending. In fact, if my poor wording or emotion in my response made it seem that way, then I apologize. What I am trying to point out is that what is best for a society and for individuals is not wealth redistribution via force.

    My assumptions about you were not, in fact, false, tho I was surprised to find out you were as well off as you are. My statement that you have not given as much in real dollars as the average rich man, I think, still stands. Despite how it may seem, I was not trying to belittle my own charity either, meager tho it may be in raw numbers. There are a lot more of me than there are of the rich. However, that works to my point also. Taxing the rich does not really do much good. There are too few of them. The math behind it just does not work. Charity is important for everyone, taxes work against that. Like many, if there were fewer taxes and more needs (because of fewer safety nets) I would give a great deal more. I think most people would, even the very wealthy. The lack of charity in this country is heavily influenced by the concept that the government will take care of the needy so you dont have to, that they can afford it, so why make the sacrifice, or that they are hurting you so much that you cannot make anymore sacrifices.

    If millionaires are not what they used to be, then why are the proposed increases in taxes on those making over 250k? And even that is a lie, since a lot of taxes and government-caused increases in the cost of living hit many below that level. I will tell you why, because the greedy in Washington know what you know, that there are not enough of the very rich.

    I am not trying to completely remove morality, but I am trying to point out the fallacies of some moral claims. I am doing this via a utilitarian argument. IF an act is done with the intent of morality, but it causes harm, was it a moral act? No, it was not. It may be a moral intent, but it is not a moral act. Those using reason and utility in their arguments are not necessarily trying to be amoral, in many cases they are proving out their course to ensure that it truly is moral. Shifting the care of the needy to the government, and shifting the burden of that cost to the rich using force, is not a moral act, and it is not as effective or helpful for the people in the society. The middle class becomes irresponsible, the poor become dependent on an uncaring and corrupt government, and the rich become resentful. How is that a moral act?

    If my statement about budgets is false, then what is the majority spent on? Including all spending the numbers run over 50% for entitlements, SS, Medicare, Welfare, etc. Military takes nearly 30%, and the rest is government regulatory costs, salaries, and service of the debt. Perhaps we need to go deeper into the analysis of the budget, we are obviously reading things differently.
    Actually, I would prefer that it be invested as it was originally proposed would be done. If there was really a trust fund for SS, it would be earning a LOT more than 1% sitting in a bank, it would be 3-4 times that, based on the size alone. Furthermore, if the government was not borrowing so much money, it would not need to take a loan from SS. It makes no sense whatsoever. What you are saying is that it would be better to blow your retirement account and fill it with IOUs from yourself than to take out a loan. That might be true, but it would be better still to stop spending more than you take in. Even worse, what is happening is more like a business spending their employees retirement accounts rather than borrowing, when what they should do is close down the parts of the business that are costing them money. Does that sound right to you?

    Ok, so employment does not belong in the same conversation as charity, however, you said that employers are needed. Employment does not belong in a moral conversation with charity, but it is important in a utilitarian one. Because even the non-generous rich are benefitting the economy through employment and economic activity. Activity that is removed if they lose money through taxes. The activity is then carried out by government instead, so some would say it is not lost, but there is also nothing really gained. And, again, I think the government does a far worse job of it. I do not think business owners are better than the employees, but when people talk about taxing the rich and workers of the world unite and all that crap, it sounds like they think the employees are better than the employers. Now, perhaps I was conflating your attitude on the employer/employee relationship with Charlie’s, and if so I apologize again, but you do support increasing taxes on the rich, yet your statements about the labor market and about the number of rich persons show that position to be foolish and ideologially driven without regard for logic.

    I do have to disagree that being an employee is just as risky as starting a business. It is just as risky, perhaps more so, than owning an established business, and many of the large businesses are in that category. Many CEOs and so forth are not in a place of risk anymore, or never really were. I get that. But do not try to tell me that starting a business is equivalent risk and difficulty and stress, etc. to working a job. The two are not even close. For small businesses, expansion is just as risky as the startup phase itself. So hiring at the small business level is incredibly risky for the owner, and very much not for the employee. Yet that is the majority of our employment. Leaving excess resources in the hands of those owners mitigates that risk, and makes hiring vastly more likely.

    Again, in terms of the comparison, I never intended to say anyone was better than you. Better able perhaps, because of resources, but not a better person. You are not better than me because you have given more than I have, I am not better than you because I have given a higher percentage of my wealth (hypothetically, I don’t know if that is the case). But this is not about better than, it never was, and again I am sorry if it really sounded like that.

    I am a small business support IT person, I handle small scale servers, PCs, cost analysis, and have some exceptional abilities with virus removal. All total among my clients I make about 400 people able to work. One of my clients, a non-progfit free clinic, gets my services at a 50% discount. My contribution is not as big as yours. This does not say you are better than me or that I am better than you, it is the place we are at in life at this time. I think we are both better judges of where our money should be spent or given than anyone in Washington. You seem to think otherwise. That is the whole of the argument I am trying to make.

    • Jon,

      Again, look at it from the poor’s view, a single gift from you will be smaller than a single gift from a much more wealthy person, even if you are more generous.

      But you didn’t phrase it that way, and you’re making assumptions about me and the rich (again) with nothing to back it up.

      By your logic, the only “generous” person – or should I say the only “charitable” person – is the ONE who gives the most, because “a single gift from everyone else will be smaller than a single gift from the person who gives the most.”

      How does that make any sense?

      In other words, when you tax the rich, you reduce the charitable and employing ability. Your point is that “they can afford it, so they should be taxed.” MY point is that they can afford to do other things that benefit society, and taxing them more would reduce that ability.

      And government does things that benefit society that you don’t want to acknowledge.

      And more assumptions about the rich – that they’ll do things to benefit society. Do you think they all believe in Altruism?

      what gives you the right to take money by force

      This whole “take money by force” argument is so…I’ll say “misguided” because I’m trying to be nice.

      First, it’s not me taking your money. It’s the government.

      What gives them the right? The US Constitution and laws passed by our elected officials. If you don’t like that, work to change it. Or move somewhere else.

      Taxes are part of society – every single one of them. To call it “theft” or “force” is…”misguided”.

      But this is really the heart of the issue Jon:

      In your little paradise, how will your “limited government” be funded?

      If you can’t answer that, then you don’t have an argument.

      My statement that you have not given as much in real dollars as the average rich man, I think, still stands.

      A vague statement that means nothing until you define the terms.

      And you’re still making incorrect assumptions about me. If you’re still using the “households with net worth’s above 1 million,” then I’m in your “average rich man” category. You know – that group that give more than half of all charity. So then you have to compare ME to YOU, right?

      If millionaires are not what they used to be, then why are the proposed increases in taxes on those making over 250k?

      Because those are two different things. Your quote was “households with net worth’s above 1 million”. Net worth is the value of everything you own – house, cars, investments.

      The 250k is referring to income. The money you earn in a year.

      If you earn 250k a year, and spend nothing, you’ll be a millionaire in 4 years.

      Understand?

      You know Jon, I still find it comical how concerned you are about protecting the wealthy, especially considering how little you understand about them – and about wealth in general.

      • “But you didn’t phrase it that way, and you’re making assumptions about me and the rich (again) with nothing to back it up.”

        Indeed, and I apologized for my poor phrasing. As for the numbers, forget the personal aspect, I never should have gone there. There is more usefulness in a large gift (which only a person with means can make) than a small gift, no matter what the relative sacrifice is.

        “By your logic, the only “generous” person – or should I say the only “charitable” person – is the ONE who gives the most, because “a single gift from everyone else will be smaller than a single gift from the person who gives the most.””

        No, charity has more to do with sacrifice, so it is not a jugdement of how charitable they are. It is a judgement of how useful it is to society as a whole. Every gift is good and important and all that, but if you reduce the means of individuals, you reduce the ability of those individuals to help others, AND you reduce their ability to engage in mutually beneficial trade, including labor (jobs). I thought I had made it clear in my last post that I am not making judgments on charity or generosity, I am talking about the benefit to society.

        “And government does things that benefit society that you don’t want to acknowledge.”

        Actually, I did say that they did things, but that they did them less effectively and efficiently and with more corruption than things done privately. That applies to job provision, innovation, productivity, and charitable efforts. They do a LOT, but they do it worse than the private market, so why should they do more? Should they not do less?

        “And more assumptions about the rich – that they’ll do things to benefit society. Do you think they all believe in Altruism?”

        As we discussed and agreed, while employment is not charitable in any way, it does benefit society. And no, not all the rich do things to benefit society, but many do. But taxes dont make that distinction, they are levied whether you would make a better decision with your money than the government or a worse one. My point is that more of them make a better decision than government than not. Perhaps that is an assumption or a belief. You obviously think otherwise, which is equally an assumption or belief.

        “This whole “take money by force” argument is so…I’ll say “misguided” because I’m trying to be nice. ”

        Thank you for being nice. If I do not pay taxes, the government will not be so nice. In fact, they do not even have to abide by the same laws as any business or creditor, they can continue to pursue tax debts despite bankruptcy and can take money forcefully or put me in jail for not paying. How is that not use of force or threat of force?

        “First, it’s not me taking your money. It’s the government.”

        Does not change that it is being taken. And it is a government action you support. So it is not you, but it is being done based on your vote and the vote of others like you.

        “What gives them the right? The US Constitution and laws passed by our elected officials. If you don’t like that, work to change it. Or move somewhere else.”

        That is what I am doing. I am voting for persons that would reduce the costs and taxes. And I am engaging in debates such as this to educate others around me. I may never change your mind, but our discussion might make others see things my way. If there was another place to go that was more free, I would already be there, and I would be engaging in this debate from there.

        “Taxes are part of society – every single one of them. To call it “theft” or “force” is…”misguided”.”

        If I am compelled to pay under penalty of law, then it is force. The fact that all societies have such force does not make it not force. Slavery used to be normal, and was in every known or major society, that did not make it slavery, nor did it make it right. To call it theft is not entirely accurate, since it is supposed to be a cost for services rendered. Government renders services, there is a cost to that. For those who do not really receive any services or support the action, it feels like theft, and in fact fits the definition perfectly, but I can see how you would say its not theft.

        “But this is really the heart of the issue Jon:
        In your little paradise, how will your “limited government” be funded?
        If you can’t answer that, then you don’t have an argument.”

        I do have an answer for that, not sure I can put it properly in this short a space. It would involve a form of voluntary tax, as well as trade for services rendered both domestically and in trade with other countries. I do know that some form of funding is needed, but there are far more enlightened ways to accomplish this. I would be happy to go into it in more depth if you like, just a little late at night for that right at the time of this posting.

        “And you’re still making incorrect assumptions about me. If you’re still using the “households with net worth’s above 1 million,” then I’m in your “average rich man” category. You know – that group that give more than half of all charity. So then you have to compare ME to YOU, right?”

        Not really, this was never intended to be comparing me and you and who is better, who has the bigger heart, etc. It has been established that I made some assumptions about your wealth that I should not have. Your personal wealth is not really relevant to any of my real points, I just should have left out any personal statements. If my apologies for this have been unclear or vague to this point, let me reiterate: I apologize for making personal statements, it was inappropriate and has served as nothing but a distraction from my argument.

        “Because those are two different things. Your quote was “households with net worth’s above 1 million”. Net worth is the value of everything you own – house, cars, investments.

        The 250k is referring to income. The money you earn in a year.

        If you earn 250k a year, and spend nothing, you’ll be a millionaire in 4 years.

        Understand?”

        Yes, I am well aware of this. I am also aware that many people with an income over 250k do not have a net worth over a million, and many with net worths well over a million do not have a yearly income approaching 250k. They are different measures of wealth, I only even mentioned the asset level measure because it was the measure used in the article on charity. My point about taxes stands, however. You were pointing out that a millionaire was not a big deal, not really “rich”. I submit that yearly incomes of 250k is not as big a deal as it used to be either. Even if many with that sort of income have assets over 1 million, how many do you think are in the 10 million plus range that you thought was a more valid measure?

        “You know Jon, I still find it comical how concerned you are about protecting the wealthy, especially considering how little you understand about them – and about wealth in general.”

        Now who is making assumptions? I know little about the wealthy or wealth in general? Based on what, this specific discussion? I could, and have, make a lot of similar assumptions based on the content of this discussion and others in this thread, which you called me on. My turn. I know a great deal about wealth in general, and have a better than average understanding of a wide range of demographics and classes. I am sure I have more to learn, and I am sure you do as well. That is not a baseless assumption, that is a fact of human life. There is always more to learn. As for protecting the wealthy, they are not the only ones I am seeking to protect, but they are a group that is being threatened. Not so much the super-wealthy, I am sure they will be fine, in fact I would not be surprised if they are part and party to many of the threats. The only thing that can really threated the super-wealthy are those whose wealth is growing. They are competition for investing and sheltering of assets. It is competition that truly threatens them, not government action. This is why income taxes are such an issue to me. Income taxes hit the middle class to moderately rich, it does not really have significant impact on the very rich. For instance, your statement about those with incomes of 250k is not true. If you make 250k and spend nothing, it will still take you 7 years or so to accumulate 1 million because of what you lose in income taxes. The heart of the issue for me is two-fold. 1) What is the best solution for all in a society over the long term (by all I mean what will benefit the most people, it is impossible to find something that is best for all, its like pleasing all the people all of the time, its not possible). And 2) what is philosophically consistent. If my philosophy is based on haphazard or vriable measures and standards, it fails. If it contradicts itself, it fails. This is why I do not accept philosophies based on immeasurable things like ability and need. Such things are not truly known. That said, I get that humanity itself is a variable, thus even the most perfect philosophy will not lead to utopia or solve all problems. It may not even work. I can, however, predict the utter failure of an inconsistent or contradictory philosophy, so I do not see how I could ever accept such a line of thinking. Does that make sense?

%d bloggers like this: