Bicycle, bicycle

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle

I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like

I exercise regularly at fairly intense level.  A few years back I was talking to a guy the same height as me with a stockier build.  He was not fat, thick chest, arms and shoulders with me looking skinny next to him.  Yet I weighed ten pounds more than his 165.  Muscle weighs more than fat.  And it’s not that I’m super buff or anything, but when I look at what is listed for my body mass index, I’m too heavy!  This morning I rode my bike 20 miles in 85 minutes, averaging about 14MPH.  And during that hour & 1/2, I thought about the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare.  The highest court of the land has said the government can tax any activity or inactivity they so choose.

You say black I say white
You say bark I say bite
You say shark I say hey man
Jaws was never my scene
And I don’t like Star Wars
You say Rolls I say Royce
You say God give me a choice
You say Lord I say Christ
I don’t believe in Peter Pan
Frankenstein or Superman
All I wanna do is

Obama is also very into global warming and reducing our carbon footprint, and here I was spewing twice as much CO2 out as I normally would ( I think I tooted a couple of times as well).  Many of us have read a SF book where people living on the moon pay a tax for the air they breathe.  And I’m not saying that would ever happen here, no I am stating they could and would tax us for what we exhale.  Take a breath, breathe in deeply, now hold……..You didn’t let that pollution out did you?  I can see us under ObamaCare with our medical records reviewed by the health panels that are already funded.  “Mr. Illusion, your BMI is higher than recommended.  You have to either reduce it to the suggested level or pay an offset allowance”. ” But, but, I work out and am very healthy, just like it calls for in the government manual, Michelle’s Guide to Health and Happiness”.  “As that may be Mr. Illusion, that’s under a different department and has no bearing on our guidelines, lose the weight or pay the penalty”.

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my

So I see myself fighting and appealing.  I first go to the Heath and Happiness bureau, seeking guidance.  The weighting room is packed, much worse than the DMV.  And I feel uncomfortable, so many are big, overweight,it’s like I stepped into a biggest looser contest.  But I waste the hours and eventually see a counselor, Mr. Smite.  He explains nearly all their complaints are over the “couch potato” penalty.  A high BMI along with other factors results in a penalty that factors their BMI vs their CO2 emissions.  He’s looking over my information as we talk and runs my numbers, showing I’m much better off than most couch potato’s.  Well that’s something, but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m being penalized for being “too healthy”!  He’s a nice guy and very sympathetic, spends a lot of time showing me charts and numbers.  The end result is there is no way I can continue at my prefered activity level.  I will have to become a semi-couch potato!  No weight lifting, running or cycling.  No more than walking three times a week for no more than five miles or 45 minutes.  I speak out about my health issue, heart disease runs in my family, I can drop the weight lifting, but must continue a high level aerobic work-out level or blockage will set in…  Not a problem, he says, it’s all in my file, the drug treatments are already pre-approved! ” But, but, I don’t have any blockage or heart disease, my exercise program has prevented that!”  “Well, again you can continue your present lifestyle if you like, after all this is a free country, but you will have to pay the penalty.”  “I’m sorry, but we aren’t allowed any discretion on these matters”.  And then as if he had pressed a button, two large uniformed men appear in the doorway.  One asks Mr. Smite if the interview is over?  He nods with a sad smile as I am “helped” to my feet and out the door, my vague protests left unspoken…

Bicycle races are coming your way
So forget all your duties oh yeah
Fat bottomed girls they’ll be riding today
So look out for those beauties oh yeah
On your marks get set go
Bicycle race bicycle race bicycle race

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle
Bicycle bicycle bicycle
Bicycle race

One good thing about ObamaCare, depression is a disease that is not only recognized with pre-authorized treatments, after reading one of the several government pamplaments that kind Mr. Smite gave me, I now realize I have been depressed nearly my whole waking life.  I thought being tired and sore was a result of the long hours at work.  Nope, symptoms of the early stages of my disease.  I used to feel bad that the pretty girls all ignored me but nearly worshiped all the jocks, again, not my fault, another symptom.  Wow, I feel sooo much better now that I know what’s wrong with me and am getting proper treatment.  And to think I grew up despising pot for what it did to your body (well, there were those early government films we had to watch in school), but after my doctor explained the benefits of it combined with other medications, hey,

I feel great!

You say coke I say caine
You say John I say Wayne
Hot dog I say cool it man
I don’t wanna be the President of America
You say smile I say cheese
Cartier I say please
Income tax I say Jesus
I don’t wanna be a candidate for
Vietnam or Watergate
Cause all I wanna do is

Kinda lost my job…they didn’t fire me since I’m being treated as the government guidelines recomend, but they reduced my hours to the point I could not afford to work anymore.  Thankfully there is a distresssed worker program that just passed under ObamaSupremeCare.  I bypassed unemployment for full disability!  Still feel great but am developing noticable “love handles” with all the sitting around.  Took a while, but ObamaSupremCare paid off our morgage, house is ours until the wife and I both pass away.  They also sent some pamplaments for the kids on 100 year family morgages, after all, why should they have to leave the home they’ve lived in for 30-50 years?

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like

I hope all have enjoyed my little yarn…parts of it are fiction, parts of it are not…  Can you tell the difference?

The  economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics  reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely  to enroll in the Social Security  Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security  Administration.

The  disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama’s recovery.  While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1  million workers signed up for disability benefits.

In  other words, the number of new disability enrollees has climbed 19% faster than  the number of jobs created during the sluggish recovery

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/more_on_the_june_unemployment_figures.html#ixzz1zz9R4oo2

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Ask government to protect you from the consequences of freedom do not be surprised you have none.

  2. Mathius says:

    Obama is also very into global warming and reducing our carbon footprint, and here I was spewing twice as much CO2 out as I normally would ( I think I tooted a couple of times as well).

    Human respiration doesn’t even register on the list of sources of carbon emissions. The real culprit is industry and you know it. In fact… here we go.. Chart

    Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar, and anyone who asserts that the liberals want to tax your breathing is using a blatant straw man argument. I haven’t finished your article yet (I’m writing this as I go), so I’ll assume you’re just throwing this out there to annoy me.

    Many of us have read a SF book where people living on the moon pay a tax for the air they breathe.

    Yes, it and it’s a GREAT book. Of course, living on the moon, air is a scarce resource which needs to be brought from Earth and maintained via a delicate system. Though the book didn’t get too involved into the ‘tax’ (if fact, if I recall, they spoke about the ‘cost’ of air, but I don’t remember them calling it a tax per say), but it’s more like a sale of a good since in has to be produced and maintained and distributed. On the moon, this isn’t just something you’re surrounded by, it’s something humans had to create. I would guess that if you produced your own air (somehow), that you wouldn’t have to pay. Regardless. To anyone who hasn’t yet read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A Heinlein, stop reading right now, go to the bookstore, and buy this. And while you’re there in the sci fi / Heinlein section, pick up a copy of Time Enough for Love.

    You’re welcome.

    “Mr. Illusion, your BMI is higher than recommended. You have to either reduce it to the suggested level or pay an offset allowance”

    Objection! Unsubstantiated conjecture.

    The bill requires you to have insurance. It does not impose any penalties on healthy / unhealthy life-style choices beyond market driven (!!!) premiums for your insurance as determined by private companies.

    In fact… I could be wrong.. I doubt.. but I could be… is there a single country on Earth which, for instance, taxes obesity? I’ve heard this suggested here in the US (though it will never go anywhere). But with so many countries with single payer and if what you suggest were a plausible / likely result, then it seems that one of them should have some mechanism in this fashion. Do they?

    Even if they do, it wouldn’t make me believe this is likely here, but it would at least lend some credence (brief pause and I hum a CCR tune) to your theory. I’m beginning to wonder now if your jab was action the main thrust of your article…

    The end result is there is no way I can continue at my prefered activity level. I will have to become a semi-couch potato!

    Oh dear.. it seems you’ve fallen off the deep end..

    And then as if he had pressed a button, two large uniformed men appear in the doorway. One asks Mr. Smite if the interview is over? He nods with a sad smile as I am “helped” to my feet and out the door, my vague protests left unspoken…

    I bet Charlie is one of them…

    I now realize I have been depressed nearly my whole waking life. I thought being tired and sore was a result of the long hours at work. Nope

    Depression hurts. Cymbalta can help.

    And to think I grew up despising pot for what it did to your body

    Wait, what? What does pot do to your body?

    Thankfully there is a distresssed worker program that just passed under ObamaSupremeCare.

    OOH! How do I sign up? Supreme care?

    I hope all have enjoyed my little yarn…parts of it are fiction, parts of it are not… Can you tell the difference?

    Yes, the parts where you sound like a stark raving lunatic are the fictional parts.

    The parts about the bicycle are probably true.

    In other words, the number of new disability enrollees has climbed 19% faster than the number of jobs created during the sluggish recovery

    Sadly, this is not one of the parts you made up..

    • Matt,

      I hope you see the humor. Maybe I went to far on taxing our breaths… It’s not like there is anyone in our government that has such views, at least not in any position of power or influence…I do remember Glenn Beck talking about one who co-authored a book that suggested forced sterilization might be required to reduce the human population. Hmmm, what was his name???

      http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/cass-sunstein-obama-czar-information-and-regulatory-affairs-white-house-office-sunstein-quotes-us-constitution-sunstein-radical-ideas/

      • Of course I see the humor.

        The problem is that while I know and you know that this is a work of a fevered imagination, there are a lot of people out there in the real world who actually believe this. The problem is that I can walk down the hall and find more than a few people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Obama is planning in his second term to tax human exhalation, to mandate a healthy BMI, et cetera.

        You and I know that, even if – which he isn’t – he were out to do these things, there zero conceivable way he could possible make it a political reality. With over a third of the country morbidly obese, even if they can’t actually fit into the voting booths, there’s no way they’d let this happen.

        • As I mentioned, its not the BMI tax that is likely, it is the food tax/ban. And with the history of healthy food blocked by the FDA, it is likely that we will be shuffled into mediocre foods made by “big food” which will be regulated and overpriced and poor quality, but they will be a monopoly. Its not about Obama either, its the behind the scenes guys, the ones at the FDA and in committees and other places where they are out of the spotlight. Surely even you see the creeping losses of freedom, justified in some form or other, that have overtaken this country. Not just under liberal leadership, but under conservative leadership as well. How can you continue to say “oh be realistic!” when you look at history and see that what was not realistic 20 years ago has already happened?

          • Not just under liberal leadership, but under conservative leadership as well.

            It has been my view that the worst offenses against freedom have occurred under Bush.

            The PATRIOT Act, to name one, is an abomination. But worse, even than that, was the stifling of dissent. “With us or against us” was one of the most horrific things I’ve ever witnessed in American politics. To contend (and have the press go along!) that dissent is unamerican and that we must all be bleeting sheep marching in lock-step.. well even if it wasn’t a law, that was terrifying to see. Something like that makes you appreciate how we could have perpetrated the Japanese internment at Manzanar and other such atrocities.

            Under Obama, some things have happened, but being a liberal, I generally – GENERALLY – agree with the policy or at least the idea behind the policy such that it hasn’t been so egregious to me. That’s not to say I don’t see it, or that I can’t recognize it’s effect on others like you who do not agree. Certainly mandating that everyone buy heath care is a big change (though certainly nothing novel) and, by the way, it was originally a Republican idea. More troubling, of course, is the justification the the government can now tax any activity or non-activity it so chooses…

            I wasn’t really paying attention under Clinton as I was high school at the time, but I’m sure he had his own issues.

            How can you continue to say “oh be realistic!” when you look at history and see that what was not realistic 20 years ago has already happened?

            The problem is that discussion of the lunatic fringe of what “might” possibly happen distracts from the LIKELY results of what might happen. If this article had focused on how, rather than arguing about controlling his BMI and taxing his breathing (though I think he was going for humor), it had focused on how the health car law will lead to a series of crackdowns on unhealthy food, drink, etc.. well that’s a lot more real, and a lot more involved, and a lot more interesting, and merits serious discussion.

            Taxing CO2 from his bike ride is absurd. Taking my Big Gulp.. well that’s worth a second look.

            • I get the concern over exaggeration, I have argued that myself. It works for satire, but little else. Still, much of what you call unrealistic is not so unreaslitic as it seems. Crazy stuff has been happening, and people have been buying into it and allowing it to happen. Just saying, many things anger me, but not much suprises me anymore…

              As for Bush, I agree that the Patriot Act was one of the most vile things this government has ever done. I consider it about as large an encroachment on freedom as Obamacare itself, parhaps even worse, only not as directly noticeable in its effect. Of course, that makes it even more nefarious in many ways. The fact that choices have been limited and freedoms taken and so forth and so on under Obama should be equally horrifying tho, unless you really do not want freedom, you just want your own version of control not someone else’s. If that is the case, then you are just philosophically bnankrupt and in contradiction with yourself. I would point out, also, that Obama has not exactly been pushing to undo much of Bush’s policies, in fact he doubled down on many of them. He is Bush with the accelerator to the floor and a little more secretive about his military action. Oh yea, and he is a media darling so he gets away with all the crap that Bush never could in spite of it being the same damn stuff. Both of those men should be tried for treason.

              • I agree that the Patriot Act was one of the most vile things this government has ever done.

                Not even in the top 10.

                Maybe in recent history though..

                I would point out, also, that Obama has not exactly been pushing to undo much of Bush’s policies, in fact he doubled down on many of them.

                True.. and troubling..

                It’s why he doesn’t get a gold star from me.

                Both of those men should be tried for treason.

                On what (specific) charge. Being a bad President and passing bad laws isn’t grounds for treason as far as I recall..

              • True, recent history, within my lifetime. Japanese internment camps, election suppression under Lincoln, the New Deal, the many and horrible atttrocities under manifest destiny, etc. So yea, recent crap.

                On the charge of putting the US and its citizens in direct harms way through illegal and non-defensive wars. On the charge of direct violation of our sovereignty by putting international interests and the interest of other countries above our own, and seeking to subjugate us to international law and jurisdiction. On the charge of direct defiance and opposition to the constitution in a manner that fundamentaly violates the very foundation upon which the Unites States of America was anorganized, thus affecting our validity as a nation and the authority structure ratified by the States. On the charges of abuse of power for the purpose of harming US citizens and restricting their rights. On the charge of impersonating a President by acting outside of presidential authority, violating the terms of office and yet remaining in office. On the charge of knowingly and willfully attacking the United States through economic destruction, a weapon as effective as any military action ever could be.

            • I will say it again and I will say it until I die, the only thing conservative about the George Bush(es) was their suits. Same with Nixon. Reagan was a conservative but spent us into the ground to crush the Soviet Union. Had it happened quicker or had their been a conservative successor, things might have been very different. For one thing we might have followed up the crash with a hand up to Russia as the arch conservative Reagan wished instead of pretending they were still some kind of secret Soviet plot. This in turn might have led to “Not Putin” which would have been kinda nice.

              The way to gain control is to manufacture an enemy. Certainly FDR did in the beginning of the second world war. When the enemy was crushed though, as is Al Queda now and Germany and Japan were then, the rational for the crackdown ceases. Using the WW 2 example, Obama, the Senate and the House should be seeking repeal of many of Bush’s emergency measures, not their expansion. What exactloy does that tell you?

              • Mathius™ says:

                The way to gain control is to manufacture an enemy.

                This may be one of the truest statements I have ever read in my (almost) three years on SUFA.

        • I thought the same about abortion-so I would be very careful about claiming “it will never happen”. Through the courts and most recently President Obama his self-the people and their VOTE have been made ruled “unimportant”.

          • You thought the same thing about abortion what… that they wouldn’t legalize it?

            No one is forcing you to have an abortion. They’re just stopping you from telling someone else that they CAN’T have one.

            Apples.. Oranges..

            • Ah, but that is where we differ-as far as I’m concerned the government forced me to accept Murder against the people’s wishes and it was against the people’s wishes at the time-which is much worse! But we were talking about having faith that somehow the People could actually stop the government from doing what the government wants to do.

              • Accept it, don’t accept it. That’s your right.

                What isn’t your right is to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her own body because of your personal opinions.

                The court exists at least in part to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority. One of the major functions of the Court is to stop the majority from imposing on others. Specifically, just because The People might want to do something like control another woman’s body and force her to carry an unwanted fetus to term, the Court’s job is to stop you from being able to do things like that.

                Still Apples and Oranges..

              • Not gonna turn this into a discussion on abortion. But if the minority can decide that murder is acceptable and that forcing people to buy a product is the same as a tax-then they sure as hell can decide that you can tax obesity-or anything which causes obesity or breathing or anything else. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

    • The idea that obesity could be taxed is unlikely to go anywhere. The idea of taxing foods considered “unhealthy”, however, is extremely likely to go somewhere. Taxing or banning such foods is very much on the radar. Anyone thinking otherwise is lying to themselves.

      As for the new disability claims, I can assure you at least a portion of that is because of new “disabilities”. There is an old treatment for a lot of the disabilities people claim today, one that was very effective. Its called “suck it up, ya wimp”.

      P.S. Pot clogs your lungs (tho not as fast as tobacco). You should use an atomizer to avoid this damage.

      • My, how things leak out while discussing other things! 😉

      • P.S. Pot clogs your lungs (tho not as fast as tobacco). You should use an atomizer to avoid this damage.

        Duly noted.

        “suck it up, ya wimp”

        That’s certainly true for a lot of “disability”.. but not all. Much is legitimate.

        My GUESS – and it’s just that – is that a lot of the new additions were ‘on the fence’ but then when the economy collapsed it pushed them over into the only really available safety net. My GUESS is that many of the will rejoin the workforce once the economy turns around…. right around 2048.

        The idea of taxing foods considered “unhealthy”, however, is extremely likely to go somewhere. Taxing or banning such foods is very much on the radar. Anyone thinking otherwise is lying to themselves.

        It’s not just on the radar, it’s read and in affect in places.

        And I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, provided it’s not banned. It makes perfect sense to both raise revenue (to offset the cost of unhealthy citizens) and discourage purchasing (via the higher price) of unhealthy foods. This is a very market-oriented way of getting people to be healthier. And healthier people are more productive, take fewer sick days, and are just all-around-better to have in a society. The cost of diabetes alone in the United States is more than $174 billion each year (according to diabetes.org). And that’s just one such example. Heart disease is another. We CHOOSE to victimize ourselves with these by our own bad choices. It’s not like a brain tumor which is just bad luck – people are getting in their SUVs, driving to Taco Bell, and eating a half dozen Dorrito tacos.. They CHOSE it. And if we can encourage better choices, that’s great.

        • Encouraging better choices means talking, getting out the information. Raising prices can become pretty much the same as banning except that the wealthy can still afford a luxury and the rest of us can’t.

          • Smoking as been on the decline pretty effectively for a while now. People have known forever that they weren’t healthy.. it wasn’t until they started becoming very expensive that people stopped.

            It’s not about being wealthy and making it a luxury. It’s about making it less appealing than the alternative.

            People know that the Doritos taco is a terrible health choice, but they do it anyway, why? Because it tastes good (supposedly, anyway), because it’s cheap, fast, and convenient. Take away the cheap part and maybe people will have a salad instead.

            There’s of course, an argument to be made in support what what you’re claiming.. if they added a $1,000 tax to a Big Gulp, that’s effectively a ban except to the very wealthy. So it is, to be fair, a bit of a sliding scale.

            But let’s ignore the HOW for one second and just ask a simple question. Given that a healthy population saves a lot of money and produces more, should the government be involved AT ALL (and in any way) in encouraging healthier choices in food consumption? That is, is that, in your view, a proper roll of government (ignoring for the moment the HOW)?

            • No, it should not be involved. Its involvement removes responsibility from people. This removal tends toward laziness in decision making. Other cultures have not gone down the road of food regulation OR bad food choices. Look at Japan. They do not have an FDA, nor farm subsides, nor, as it turns out, a lot of unhealthy food. We can go into the reasons for this, there are many, and not all of them are related to a presence or lack of government, but at least some of them are. Stay out of people’s lives.

            • You sewed that question up so tight-it is impossible to give an answer worth giving.

        • Price controls as a means of influencing behavior is not at all “market oriented”. In fact, it will eventually just cause the same side-effects as banning: the creation of black market trade. Furthermore, it will have a similar effect as a ban if it makes the item unprofitable. You may think all this is fine, but you sound like all the anti-drug people and those who think prostitution or gambling or anything else immoral should be illegal. Oh sure, its a soft approach because its not an outright ban, but you are still messing with the market to achieve your own version of what is best for people. I have already pointed out, and can do so in much more detail, the glaring incompetencies of government decisions. They may be taxing something that is really not bad for you. In fact, I could see them taxing whatever was popular just to raise revenue. To be perfectly honest much of the reason for diabetes being so rampant can be traced directly to the FDA and to farm subsidies. Subsidizing corn and approval of fake chemical sugars are leading causes of diabetes in this country, if you really dig into the root of things. Laws of unintended consequences. Easy to recover from in the market, very hard in government. Besides all that, who are you to tell me what is right for me? Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot choose? Who are you to tell me I should be penalized for what YOU think is a bad decision?

          I am putting thousands of dollars into mine and my girlfriends businesses every year, trying to expand. That expansion will give us a better income and we will then be able to afford health insurance and other luxuries. Further, we will be at a point of hiring others and giving them income. Now, this is considered a “bad decision” and I am to be taxed a few thousand a year because of it. It will slow the growth of my business, increase the risk of business failure, since I will not have a reserve to replace equipment if it breaks, and generally have even greater potential to destroy me than the fact that I do not have health care. I am not exaggerating. I have run the numbers. The odds of a person like myself, in my physical condition, having a major health problem over the next 10 years is VERY low. The odds of a business failure due to a lack of capital at this stage of my business is VERY high. I have never cost anyone anything in terms of health care, I have paid for what I have needed out of my pocket. I am not seeking freebies. If I get hurt, I will deal with it. If I do not, however, then I have strong potential to become successful and even an employer, as opposed to scraping by and putting spare monies into expensive gear. This is the time of my life to be doing this stuff. Once established, the cost of health care will be less of a burden and more of a need, as I will be older then. The odds of getting sick or hurt are low, otherwise insurance companies would not exist, they would not be profitable. The whole hype over health care is just that: hype. And fear mongering. A different kind, but no less attrocious than Bush with his anti-terrorism crap scaring people into accepting the patriot act. Loss of freedom is a loss of freedom. My line has been drawn. They want to make me pay for not getting health insurance, they will have to come get it. I will not allow the government to ruin my opportunity because they think in their infinite stupidity that I am making a bad decision. I have run the numbers over and over and over. This mandate will destroy small businesses. We are the only ones with the guts to go without insurance that are not below the poverty line already. So the freeloaders they talk about that go to emergency rooms will still be freeloaders, because they are the poor people. The ones like me go to the emergency room and pay every dime, even if it takes a while. It is us, the risk-takers, the engines of the economy that are being hurt the most. You want your money because I dont fit your paradigm of morality or your opinion of a “good decision”? Come get it, we will see how good a decision that is for you.

          • They want to make me pay for not getting health insurance, they will have to come get it.

            They won’t. There is no enforcement mechanism.

            • Right, and there is no chance of such a mechanism being added at a later time if they do not get the revenue they wanted or expected….

              • It has been ruled a tax. That means the IRS is in charge of it. Trust me, there will be an enforcement mechanism, and it probably will not have to involve a vote in Congress.

              • Of course not!

              • I imagine that if the law specifically precludes an enforcement mechanism (which I think it does) then it would still take an act of congress to create one.

                But that again, I’m joking of course. Of course they will include on eventually.. once everyone settles down and stops paying attention. Today, tomorrow, ten years from now, it will happen.

                Now, for my money, insofar as you can get sick and wander into any hospital and they have to treat you at their own expense if you can’t pay, I think this is a perfectly reasonable tax. That is, you WILL get sick sooner or later, and you WILL make use of a hospital. And if you don’t have insurance, unless you are very well off, you probably will stick me with the bill. (My wife’s hospital bill following the birth of our child was more than 8k, and that’s for a 2 day stay and a routine procedure – cancer treatments can easily reach north of 100k – and if you don’t have insurance, something like this is very hard to pay). If society is going to wind up with the bill, you should be taxed to offset it.

                That said, however, I don’t think hospitals should have to treat you if you can’t pay the bill just as restaurants should have to serve you if you can’t pay the bill. Given THAT, it seems to me that this taxation (that is, to account for the statistical cost to me of people who choose to be uninsured) is unnecessary.

                How’s that?

              • I agree with your last paragraph. I do not agree with your third one. There are many people who never go to a hospital. Most may go to a doctor, but not deal with anything catastrophic. You speak as if everyone dies of cancer eventually. You have bought into the hype and ignored reality. My dad had to pay out of pocket for my younger sister’s apendicitis. It was 12k after they found out he did not have insurance (more than double that before, does that sound right to you?). It took him 5 years to pay that off. But it was paid off, no assistance, no taxpayer supplement, no insurance. His story is not rare among self-employed persons. It is a hardship when it happens, but it is not insurmountable. If I get sick and die because I chose not to have insurance, then that will mean one less annoying libertarian for your side to deal with. You should be happy. If your numbers are right, we will just all die out due to natural selection. I think you know that will never be the case.

              • Mathius,

                You are overlooking the segment of our society who will never face a penalty payment on their taxes since they do not file taxes, do not, or are not allowed to, work at a job and yet they receive healthcare at the hospital (by law as we know). The hospital and the taxpayers (where applicable) are stuck with the bill and always shall be. My wife (and ER RN) sees this daily.

                So healthcare law with or without enforcement will be unequally applied since not all persons in the USA wtihout the mandated health insurance will be “taxed” in this program. Hmm, maybe we could argue a 14th Amendment standing with the court???? (calm down, I am kidding).

                And for the record, though my wife is more to the conservative side of the spectrum than I, she believes people should be required to have insurance. Makes for fun discussion at home.

            • Ha HA Ha ha ha ha-try not paying it-you will find out real soon there is one!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than all industries in the world COMBINED put out over 1 YEAR, but go ahead keep blaming industry if you want.

      Also, I think you would find it an interesting exercise to calculate just how much CO2 7 Billion humans exhale over 1 year of time…. our “emissions” are not nearly as insignificant as you seem to think!

  3. Back when I was in the best shape of my life (have been lazy and in front of a computer too much lately), I was one of those exceptions on the BMI. So was every weightlifter I knew. I am 5’7″. I weighed 170 at the time, giving me a BMI of 26.6, overweight. At that time my body-fat percentage was 7.1, I was squatting 415, benching 250, and deadlifting 500.

    Currently, I have 18% bodyfat. I weight 165. I am working on that, but my BMI has improved! it is now only 25.8! To match the BMI’s standard I would have to diet and lose the fat I have without gaining any muscle. Its retarded. I will be losing the fat by running and lifting weights (muscle mass increases the metabolism, helping burn fat even when you are not working out).

    Government is not flexible. When they are put in charge of things like the health if individuals, they end up using foolish things like BMI because they cannot operate at the individual level. They use averages and so forth to calculate regulations and enforcement. There are things in life that should not have exceptions. Things like violating the rights of others. These things are outlawed, and such laws are good. Flexibility is not needed. In individual cases, however, such as health, education, personal spending, etc., government does a very poor job. They just are not suited to the task. And those who think there will not be stupid things that are known to be way off in many cases, such as BMI, will not be used as a government standard are not familiar with history. Even the interstate highway system was based on a 30 year old study at the time the act passed Congress. It was made so that we had an alternate troop transport method in case of invasion, so that we were not depending on rail. Of course, at the time it was made, air power was vastly more important in invasion, and really made troop transport irrelevant. Of course, the side effect was a transition from rail to trucking for all transport, since railways had to pay the maintenance of their rails and trucks did not have to pay for the roads. And what are we hurting for now? More mass transit and rail systems. Great job government. Or we can look at the mandate to move towards flourescent lighting, an antiquated technology that is anything but environmentally sound, in spite of the existence of a vastly superior option (LED), superior to flourescent in almost every way. Old tech and outdated, proven false studies have been used in government decisions countless times. The odds of BMI becoming a factor in our tax burden as Obamacare progresses is VERY high.

    Read my lips, the government is incompetent. It cannot do what you want it to do or fix what you want it to fix.

  4. charlieopera says:

    Kurt Vonnegut, jr. wrote a great short story (Harrison Bergeron) that I’ve mentioned here several times in the past (you’re is damn good as well, Mr. Smith–even though I don’t buy into it’s presumptions). Not to worry, the Vonnegut story support your theory, Mr. Smith. It’s not a leftist propaganda piece …

    http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

    Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose …

  5. charlieopera says:
  6. Of course they will use BMI as a punishment…..tax……penalty…….tax……penalty! Hello! I also am borderline overweight on the BMI scale because I lift, run, bike, eat a lot of protein and carry a lot of muscle. And this government will some day make me pay for it.

    BTW….

    Reporting on tooting = TMI!!!

    • (toot, toot)

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48069

      I do not know who snitched on my neighbors across the small pond. They had a beautiful vegetable garden within the perimeter of their well-tended yard. A painted fence surrounds the property in order to keep the deer and other forest critters at bay. They toiled in this garden every morning and every evening and it was a beauty: green and bell peppers, okra, tomatoes, cucumbers, cabbage, and squash. The garden was not visible from the street and it certainly did not violate the 300-page HOA rulebook that each homeowner was handed upon signing the agreement to move into the neighborhood.

      Two days ago, two men with smirks of satisfaction on their faces were busy pulling out every plant by the roots in this beautiful garden and throwing it over the fence, while the lady of the house was crying, wringing her hands helplessly nearby and wiping away silent tears. It was heart breaking to see such injustice. Do we still live in free America?

      • Isn’t an HOA a question of a private (ie gated) community?

        • Yes it is, not sure it qualifies as a violation of freedom, but it is unjust. And foolish. And a demonstration of the type of people who like to control other people just because. And it is tresspassing, plain and simple.

          It reminds me of what happened with the pig farms in Michigan, only that WAS government regulation. Private property should be private. Taking someone’s food is theft. Taking their livelihood is theft. It does not matter if it is by forcing them to pay a tax if they dont spend their money on something specific thereby taking their business capital or money slated for more needed things, or if its taking their pig farm because they bred a local breed instead of a commercial breed, or if its taking their garden because it didnt fit the protocols of the neighborhood nosies. Time to cast off this culture of control and start standing up for our rights. Our real ones, not the ones the politicians say we should or should not have.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Yes it is, not sure it qualifies as a violation of freedom, but it is unjust. And foolish.

            No one force this woman to move there. It was well known and established that there was an agreement to abide by. She voluntarily agreed to sign up. Then SHE violated the contract.

            Just because she didn’t consider the violation egregious doesn’t mean she had some right to override her contract, did it?

            And a demonstration of the type of people who like to control other people just because.

            I do know and hate people like that. At the same time, sometimes it’s necessary as a rule enforcer to have zero tolerance. If you allow this to squeak through, then that squeaks through, then something else and something else until the rules are meaningless and unenforced and unenforceable. Not justifying it.. just noting that there may be another side to this.. I wasn’t there so I can’t say.

            <b.And it is tresspassing, plain and simple.

            No it’s not. I’m positive that the HOA stated that they had the authority to enter the property and remedy as they see fit. Again, just because the woman didn’t like the way things worked out doesn’t give her a right to ignore / override her contract, does it?

            • Which is the main problem in our society today-We talk freedom -but freedom takes people who have a basic respect for the rights of others to also be free. Yes the HOA has a right to set rules and people who sign accept those limitations. But in a society which really has a mindset of freedom-the HOA would not deny people the right to grow food-they might insist that they do it behind a fence, but they would not deny a person the right to do so on their own property-and people wouldn’t accept such ridiculous rules limiting the use of their own property. It’s called social norms-and I’m not at all sure what our societies norms are anymore.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                and people wouldn’t accept such ridiculous rules limiting the use of their own property

                That’s the key.

                The HOA can set any rules it like and you, by agreeing to them are so bound. That’s it. Done. If they say you have to paint your house in pink and purple vertical zebra stripes and you sign the paper on the dotted line, you have to do it. You don’t get to turn around and say “that’s ridiculous, I’m not doing it!” We, ridiculous it may be, but you agreed as a condition of being admitted to the PRIVATELY OWNED community.

                If you find a rule to be crazy, such as ‘you can’t grow food on your property,’ apply for a variance, attempt to change the rule, OR MOVE. That’s called freedom.

                Don’t like it? Don’t live live in a private community where you have to agree to such terms.

                freedom takes people who have a basic respect for the rights of others to also be free. Yes the HOA has a right to set rules and people who sign accept those limitations. But in a society which really has a mindset of freedom-the HOA would not deny people the right to grow food [..]

                You terribly miss the boat with this. Yes, absolutely, freedom takes people who have a basic respect for the rights of other to be free. Absolutely. But then you gloss over the meat of this. There is no “BUT” after “the HOA has a right…” There is no “but” because it has EVERY right to set it’s own rule and you have EVERY right to agree or not to agree. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t somehow void the property owner’s right to require something stupid. Don’t like it? Don’t agree. But once you’ve agreed, freedom also requires that you be HONORABLE and honor your contracts whether you think they’re stupid or not.

                And then, how dare she play the victim. SHE BROKE THE RULES. She violated the contract. She’s not the victim, the HOA is the victim for having to spend the time and energy enforcing the rules to which she already agreed. If you hire an employee and say that the dress code is suit and tie, but then he comes in without a tie and you dock his salary (in accordance with your employment contract), does he get to say how terrible it is that the mean old boss docked him when ties are so stupid? Of course not! You’d chew him out if you heard something like that. You’d say, “it’s my store, my rules, you agreed, you broke them, I’m enforcing them – if you don’t like it, get out.” Right? How is this any different?

              • No “buts” they have the right. The only “but” was that people would not put up with this type of rule and most people would not even think to make such a rule if we actually respected and thought about the consequences of such actions on our Freedom.

            • Had that been my house those two would have best brought the law with them, or my shotgun would have overruled their foolishness. And don’t think I am kidding one little bit either.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Explain to me, sir, what right you think you have to shoot someone who is executing a contract which you willingly signed of your own free will?

                You agreed not to do X.
                You did X anyway.
                You agreed that, if you did do X, they could come undo X.
                They came to undo X.
                You shot them.

                Seems to me, sir, that you are in the wrong.

              • Because I can if I choose, provided I am will to accept the consequences of my actions. How’s that work for you?

              • BTW where I live has a set of protocols we must abide by – yet nowhere in the document does it give anyone the right to enter my property to remove any “violation” of the rules.

        • Most HOAs are not private gated communities. They are subdivisions that include public spaces usually easements for stormwater management, possibly a walking trail. The streets are usually township/city/county owned/opperated. The HOA fees are intended to pay for upkeep of the public areas that are not government opperated. (contract a landscaping company)

          HOAs get out of control fast when people think that they know better for the neighborhood (subdivision) then the people that live there. Few people vote in the elections and the nosiy neighbors that complain about anything are the ones that get in charge.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Regardless, did you sign a piece of paper (of your own free will) before moving in that said you would agree to the terms of the HOA?

            If you sign a contract, even if that contract has negative consequence you didn’t foresee and even if those consequences are “out of control,” you have to abide by your contract.

            Don’t like it, don’t sign.
            If you sign, suck it up.

            Don’t like the way it’s going, appeal, vote, get your neighbors to join in, whatever you have to do. But you signed the paper on the dotted line and you don’t get to ignore that just because you don’t like the way things turned out. Imagine if you take out a 5 year car lease, then around year 2, you decide you don’t like the car anymore for whatever reason. Well the contract says you have to pay for the next 3 years, but you’ve decided that you just don’t want to. “Tough,” you say as you park the car in the dealership lot, leave the keys, and walk away. Well, no, that’s not how it works, is it?

            • Seeing that I didn’t comment on the homeowners plight in my comment, they do have to abide by the rules they agreed to. However, as stated, “it certainly did not violate the 300-page HOA rulebook” while independent verification of this is not availible, a 300 page rule book is certianly excessive, and it not being in the rulebook is a different topic then what is being discussed here.

              As plainlyspoken has commented about how he would have responded and deal with the consequenses of his actions, the HOA is also restricted in what it can do. But not knowing the state or specifics there would seemingly be more actions required by the HOA before someone shows up on a property to ‘enforce’ such as seeing letters, fines, lawyers, judges, etc.

              As a side note, I refused to consider a house with an HOA when we purchased. I have seen/heard some strange restrictions in HOAs and know that if there isn’t one now, that doesn’t mean that it won’t be put in later.

      • Oh but no. Will not happen. Couldn’t. Not here. It’s just for our safety….and our health…..and will keep costs down….we just need reasonable laws…….blah, blah, blah. Funny how former communist country citizens recognize it for what it is and try to warn us.

        • Another Broken Obama Promise: Price of Health Insurance up 13.9% over last year
          Health insurance costs have soared 8.2 times faster than inflation over the last year!
          (John Lott’s website)

    • I’m 6’1 and weigh 160lbs. BMI of 21.1.

      Nice and safe. Phew!

    • Well Ok, but that whole Michael Mann stuff is the absolute truth, ’cause Penn State would never cover up anything!!!

      (Sorry if that was a low blow to you personally T-Ray, not so to Penn State as a university)

  7. Mathius™ says:

    SUFA,

    Opinions please: I had a typically fruitless conversation with our resident Oak Tree. My assertion was that coercion can still exist even without the threat of violence. More to the point, in his fantasy anarchist utopia, even if people do not use violence on each other, some people would still be victims of “coercion.” Thus:

    Black Flag: “A boss who extorts sex from an otherwise unwilling woman following a threat to fire her has not engaged in coercion.” – there, said it.

    Thoughts? Comments?

    • Extorting sex is just another way to rape -as far as I am concerned.

    • Kristian says:

      That’s coercion if I ever heard of it.

    • So you feel its coercion if you have to pay what a seller demands for his good/service as long as you believe he is asking too much?

      • Yes. You agree to take a job, talking on the phone, computer, dealing with paperwork. You and you “boss” agree in general what you will do and for what amount of pay. Your “boss” then adds sex as your “job”, or you will be fired (for other reasons, of course). Yes, that is coercion.
        I could see before the job, making that a condition, which would mean you were agreeing to be hired as a prostitute with other duties. Oh, and ask Mrs. Flag what she thinks unless she’s holding those big brass one’s you act like you have….

        • Mathius™ says:

          The word we’re looking for here is “coercion.” Does this qualify per your definition?

          PS: I agree.. I’d be VERY interested in knowing what Ms. Flag thinks…

        • LOI

          Yes. You agree to take a job, talking on the phone, computer, dealing with paperwork. You and you “boss” agree in general what you will do and for what amount of pay. Your “boss” then adds sex as your “job”, or you will be fired (for other reasons, of course). Yes, that is extortion.

          No, its a breach of agreement, and your recourse is to end your services.

          and ask Mrs. Flag what she thinks

          Your appeal to authority is a fallacious as Mathius’ appeal to the populus.

          • Mathius™ says:

            hehehe.. appeal to wife = appeal to authority.. guess we figured out who wears the pants in the Flag household.

            LOI, I’d tired of beating him up over this. It’s all you.. have at it!

          • Flag,
            If you make a demand of someone, and motion and show a gun in your belt, but make no direct threat or specific statement of violence, is it robbery? You say give me all your money, and you show me that you are armed (gun might not even be real, but it looks it). Is that attempted robbery? If the person complies because they perceive a threat, was it coercion?

            • Jon

              Flag, If you make a demand of someone, and motion and show a gun in your belt, but make no direct threat or specific statement of violence, is it robbery?

              Yes, the threat is violent, and fulfills of the Clear and Present Danger doctrine.

              You say give me all your money, and you show me that you are armed (gun might not even be real, but it looks it). Is that attempted robbery? If the person complies because they perceive a threat, was it coercion?

              Yes, there is violence or its threat, and there was no voluntary exchange, the exchange is notable that it is solely one way.

              • So, there is a perceived threat and a demand for something that would not be a voluntary exchange, as there would be consequences for non-compliance. Note, this is not the same as a boss offering improved employment or offering to ignore job failures, this is an employee with a specific real or implied contract. Due to physical attraction, the boss chooses to add a condition of continued employment after employment had already been arranged. This is an implied threat, especially to someone who is financially dependent on some sort of employment and their perception or reality is that alternate employment is not readily available. An unattractive employee or employee of another gender has not such thing occurring. This is coercion. Sure, there is a “way out”, but there is a “way out” of a guy with a toy pistol in his belt too. You could just ignore him, he did not actually threaten you and he does not actually have the means to do so. What is the difference? In the robbery case it is perception of a threat, how is it not perception of a threat in the sexual harrassment case? Now, certainly, the girl could alternately march out and declare to the staff what the boss was trying to do. However, that is intimidating, perceived threat of such an act leading to the boss being violent or just the embarrassment factor. Its a problem, and one that will have to be addressed by some other means than “the girl should just be bold and daring and unashamed”. That is not reality, just as the man demanding your money is not “really” a threat.

              • Jon

                So, there is a perceived threat and a demand for something that would not be a voluntary exchange, as there would be consequences for non-compliance.

                First, the engagement was not voluntary.
                Second, there is a threat of violence.
                Thirdly, CPD is invoked.

                , this is an employee with a specific real or implied contract.

                Agreed.
                The contract is “I work, you pay”
                The employer has breached his end, so the contract ends.
                You leave and remove your work.

                This is an implied threat,

                You require redefining the word “threat” to include what is not a threat.

                It is a change of condition of terms, nothing more.

                especially to someone who is financially dependent on some sort of employment and their perception or reality is that alternate employment is not readily available.

                Irrelevant.
                The shortage or over-supply of an economic good within a marketplace does not justify redefining a change of terms in purchase such an economic good to be a “threat”.

                An unattractive employee or employee of another gender has not such thing occurring.

                So?
                The terms in a different contract or arrangement are different. Do you get paid the same as me and demand the same terms – or else you call that “coercion” too?

                Sure, there is a “way out”, but there is a “way out” of a guy with a toy pistol in his belt too.

                We established that it was not a toy gun.

                You could just ignore him, he did not actually threaten you and he does not actually have the means to do so.

                No.
                If there is no CPD, there is no violence.

              • Flag,

                “First, the engagement was not voluntary.
                Second, there is a threat of violence.
                Thirdly, CPD is invoked.”

                There was nothing voluntary about an exchange wherein the boss attempts to use threat of job loss or a change in job conditions as a threat to coerce an employee into sexual acts. There was no threat of actual violence, nor CPD, but there was a threat.

                “You require redefining the word “threat” to include what is not a threat.”

                Actually, it appears you require restricting the definition of a word to fit your perceived meaning.
                From dictionary.com:
                “1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
                2.an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
                3.a person or thing that threatens.
                From this it appears that a threat can mean a declaration of intention to fire, with firing as the punishment for choosing the course of not engaging in sexual acts. Your resolution is to quit, essentially, your response to the threat of being fired is that you are already fired.

                “It is a change of condition of terms, nothing more.”

                I changed nothing, you did. Threats can constitute more than physical violence. Next you will tell me that blackmail is not a threat either, since no violence is engaged in.

                “The shortage or over-supply of an economic good within a marketplace does not justify redefining a change of terms in purchase such an economic good to be a “threat”.”

                True, it does not, but it does show why such an action could be a punishment, and thus, fit the definition of threat.

                “The terms in a different contract or arrangement are different. Do you get paid the same as me and demand the same terms – or else you call that “coercion” too?”

                Again, true, there is no demand that all be treated equally, but it does show a clear variation from similar employee relationships, thus ruling out any arguments that it could be a portion of implied employee/employer relationships in whatever given industry we are speaking of.

                “We established that it was not a toy gun.

                We did no such thing, I specifically said the gun may not even be real, only that it appeared real. Meaning part of the qualification for CPD relates to the perception of the threatened, not simply the validity or reality of the threat. This is why the loss of a job may be perceived as a threat to some and not to others. I would not care about a firing threat, I suspect you would not either. I would not care about a man with a gun in his belt either, real or not. It is not a threat to me until drawn providing we are in close proximity. I cannot expect such an attitude from everyone.

                “If there is no CPD, there is no violence.”

                True, there is not, but I submit that A) CPD is subject, at least in part, to perception. And B, that there can be a threat without violence.

              • Jon,

                There was nothing voluntary about an exchange wherein the boss attempts to use threat of job loss or a change in job conditions as a threat to coerce an employee into sexual acts.

                Of course there is voluntary.
                The worker, at any time in fact, can terminate their employment without notice or reason.

                Yet, you cry that the employer cannot do the same.

                The employer changes the deal to a degree that is unacceptable to the worker.
                The worker exercises their rights – they quit. End of deal, and the end of the problem.

                There was no threat of actual violence, nor CPD, but there was a threat.

                You’re changing your story in the middle of your argument.

                You presented a gun – now you retract that, and believe you are maintaining the same argument.
                But you are not, you’ve changed the condition, and the argument changes because the CPD is not invoked.

                Start again.

                Actually, it appears you require restricting the definition of a word to fit your perceived meaning.

                I restrict words to mean what they mean and not chase their definitions constantly to fit your argument.

                Coercion is violence. Demonstrate the violence.

                You want to include into violence things that are merely disagreeable, so that you can use the responses to acts of violence upon disagreeable people.

                But that is immoral and potentially very evil.

                You deal with disagreeable, but non-violent people in a manner that is non-violent. That is the moral way to deal with such people.

                Your resolution is to quit, essentially, your response to the threat of being fired is that you are already fired.

                The deal changed to a “take it or leave”.

                Do you declare any deal that is a “take it or leave it” deal a “threat” and an “act of violence?”
                Ever negotiate buying a car???

                “It is a change of condition of terms, nothing more.” I changed nothing, you did.

                That’s right, I did.
                I broke the deal.
                Response: end of deal.

                If we made a deal that I get your car for $100, and then at the exchange I go … “Nah, $50” – you claim I’m committing violence on you? I’m threatening you?

                Yet, here that is your claim!

                Next you will tell me that blackmail is not a threat either, since no violence is engaged in.

                Depends on the blackmail.
                “I will show the pictures of you in a nudist camp or pay me $10,000!”

                Well, if being naked in public is a problem, do not go naked in public.
                If you have done something that will cause you a negative opinions if exposed, do not do that “something” and you don’t have to worry about negative opinions. OR do it anyway, and take your bumps.

                Blackmail only works on pragmatic people – that is, people who will trade their principles for a short term gain at the cost of long term consequences. Guess what, blackmail is such a cost.

                True, it does not, but it does show why such an action could be a punishment, and thus, fit the definition of threat.

                It is not a punishment, no matter how much you try to define it that way.

                There are always consequences, and just because the moral thing to do is hard does not make it a punishment.

                We did no such thing,

                We did so.
                You are invoking God powers that somehow, thinking it is real, I know it is not.

                It is either real or it is not … TO ME.
                CPD does not need me to ask you if it is real or not before I defend myself. If to a reasonable person it appears real, it is real enough.

      • Kristian says:

        I have never seen an employment contract that indicated sex would be required. If you have then you travel in much different circles than I do. If my boss comes to me and tells me that the only way I’m keeping my job is if I have sex with him, that is coercion. It’s extortion if he’s holding something over my head that I don’t want known and he’s threatening to make it known if I don’t sleep with him. There’s a difference.

        • I have never seen an employment contract that indicated sex would be required.

          A brothel

          If my boss comes to me and tells me that the only way I’m keeping my job is if I have sex with him, that is coercion. I

          If he came to you and said “I’m redefining your duties – you are now in charge of making coffee or your fired”, is that coercion?
          How about if he said “…doing the filing…” or any other task?

          No, you probably would say no, it is merely a different task.

          Yet, you do not apply the same reasoning in other circumstances.

          If he did not use or threaten violence to obtain such, then it isn’t coercion. It may be disagreeable, but that is not coercion either.

          • Alright, this post got me. Been following along and was also having a hard time with it, but I see your point with this one.

            • Kathy,

              I’m glad you are having a hard time with it.

              The easy ones you have dealt a long time ago – because they aren’t that hard. A gun to a your kid’s head – coercion or not? Damn easy, right?

              It is these above that actually test the root of the principle – they confront deep seated biases, misunderstandings and to hold to a principle, you must defend the rights of those in error or are disrespectful, disgusting, or ugly – because defending the righteous, respectful, the wonderful, the beautiful is so easy.

              It is the ugly, the disgusting, the homophobic, the racist – that need that defense.

              For example, you must defend freedom of speech for that speech which you disagree and do not like – because that is the speech that is easy to suppress.

              No one argues to limit the speech of those they agree. But we fall into a Faustian deal if we do not defend the Rights of the People with whom we disagree – for we then fail to defend our own rights as well when other think we are disgusting.

              There are no exceptions to the exercise of Human Rights lest those exceptions be used to destroy your Rights.

              • BS-no one is going to make screwing your friggin boss equivalent to having filing added to your job description-it is this type of argument that causes people to insist on a government. It is this type of argument that destroys freedom. These things are not the same, to argue that they are is denying human nature- not freedom. I am not denying anyone their freedom by stating unrepentantly that they have no right to demand I have sex with them in order to be a maid, an accountant or whatever job they are offering. Screwing them is absolutely not necessary as a part of my job description.

              • What V said, including BS and friggin.

              • Then you create the chains that will be used to bind you, too.

              • That’s ok. You’re going down with us. 🙂

              • That is my fear.

              • It does not matter if you can do that old job.

                What matters is will you do the job he now asks?

                You do not want to.

                So leave.

            • I don’t think so-I think you will create the chains that bind us, by making an argument based on FREEDOM which Imposes on my freedom, in the most base and evil way-using man’s most evil desires to do it with, which denies me my ability to achieve my dreams.

              • What freedom is being imposed upon?
                Your right to have a job?

                No, his workplace, not yours.
                It is your labor, not his.

                You are making claims upon him that you have no right so to correct something that you do not like.

                In doing so, you now allow others to make claims upon you that they have no right to correct something you do not like.

                Because you want to use law to correct that man in his own workplace – you seize control of his workplace.

                In response, others use law to correct aspects of society they think needs correct, and seize control of your labor to make those corrections – called “taxes” “Obamacare” and other things.

                You hate and argue how bad that is – when others seize your labor against your will to do things that you do not want.

                YET! _ you sit there championing that very thing upon others.

                You have met the Enemy, and it is you.

              • Arg
                “In doing so, you now allow others to make claims upon you that they have no right to correct something THEY do not like.”

              • Then I will BE my worse enemy because Yes, I must have a job. I must be able to have a job to feed myself and my children . And you nor anyone else has the right to demand that I degrade myself to do so.

              • Yes, you must effort to live.
                But not that job.

                You must eat.
                But not his food.

                You must drink.
                But not his water.

                No one degrades you but you.
                Say “no” and leave.
                There are other jobs.

                But to destroy his rights – and thus, yours – for THAT job is foolish.

              • Such as what ?????? What claims am I allowing him to make????

              • You want a different deal than he has offered, and are willing to use violence on him to get it.

              • I posted before your last post -so I will ask another question-though you can answer both-I am not denying him his freedom-he is using his desires to deny ME MINE-Nature BF, Nature-is a very hard opponent. Sex is great, if agreed too-it is a powerful master if abused. It can very easily be used against a woman-so please do not speak to me about his rights-he does not have the right to use his/her desires to control Me or any other woman or man. depending upon the situation.

              • -he is using his desires to deny ME MINE

                He is denying you what?
                It is his job, not yours.

                Sex

                Sex is not the issue at all. It could be anything.
                Him denying you to smoke.
                Or to take a lunch break.
                Or to chew gum.
                Or to wear flat shoes and not high heels.
                To wear white shirt not colored.
                To wear a dress not jeans.

                It is endless.

                The principle at play:
                who owns the right to the job.
                You or him?

                He made the job exist, not you.
                It is his job, and he can demand whatever he wants for it.

                You bring the labor, not him.
                It is your labor and you can demand whatever you want for it.

                If the two of you happen to come to an agreement – you have his job and he has your labor.

                If you don’t agree – you leave is workplace and go somewhere else, and he looks for another laborer somewhere else.

                But because you do not like the man and his morals – you want to destroy this.

                What you end up destroying is you, too, as well as him.

              • Yes, I am very willing to use violence on him to get him-my only limiting factor is proving that he actually demanded sex for a job.

              • Then you give right to everyone else to use violence on you to get you too – and, ironically, they do not need to prove a thing – you gave them all that right all up front the moment you demanded that violence on someone else.

                This is why oppression grows.
                You think you need all this proof to justify destroying another person’s rights.
                You go about making errors about morals and society and children and their future and lives.
                You make grand statements of right and wrong, up and down.

                “They” sit and listen – taking it all in – ask questions and challenge irrelevant details of your “objective” measures on how you must destroy a man’s rights to save the moral stature of society.

                And then, one day, they agree – and *boom* a law is passed. You cheer! Your society is saved from that immoral beast! Cake and Cookies!

                And “They” laugh at you.
                You’ve given them all the leave to take all your rights – and they need not provide one second of “proof” to do it.
                You gave it all to them.

                “They” will merely repeat what you said.

                ..only, they well say THEIR morals are the right, and not yours.
                What do you have to prove different?
                Not a darn thing.

                So they happily apply YOUR justifications to THEIR morals, and *boom* you lose all your rights! No cake, no cookies, no cheering – but a lot of suffering and crying.

                You complain in your chains – how did this happen?

                “They” laugh at you, and say “You did all the work”.

              • No, he cannot demand whatever he chooses. I am not destroying anything-I can do the job without pleasuring him-pleasuring him is not, in anyway an economical situation-it does not add to his economical success-it only degrades a woman or a man.

              • Let me state a real big BS -I am not allowing them to take away my rights-you did that by stating that a man or woman has the right to deny me a job if I refuse to screw them. Then I will in self defense insist that someone in power stop YOU from imposing upon my rights to survive without being some business owners friggin slave. Nature, BF, you cannot get away from nature.

              • What rights do you think you have here?

                Do you think you have a right to his job?

              • The point, Flag, is that sex IS the issue. This is not the extreme case justifying a basic violation of rights. This is a case of abuse of power to control another person. Sex, especially in these cases, is often equated with violence for a reason. There are a host of ways in which sexual predators engage in their quest for control or power or sexual deviancy. They seek to find ways that are not illegal or not counted as really violent to get away with their acts, but in the end it remains abuse of power. I can fire at will just as you can quit at will, but I cannot use my authority to press you into sexual acts. This is not an acceptable act in society, if for no other reason than the fact that it involves the potential for other persons to be involved. It is not different to me than drugging someone so as not to have resistance or the use of intimidation or force.

              • Jon,

                No, sex is not the issue. It is an item or situation.

                The Principle in play is the issue

                You are using sex as an excuse to do something that if it was replaced by tennis shoes you would not do.

                That is the problem and the grave danger.

          • The problem, BF, is that because brothels exist, you equate all sex with any other commodity. It is not like any other form of labor, not to everyone. It is also unique because of the procreation factor. You made very clear your position on abortion, yet you think of sex as in the same class as making coffee? Further, you refuse to accept the concept of authority in the market, simply because you do not like authority in government does not mean authority does not exist. The use of authority to intimidate, the use of psychology to intimidate, carries with it the ability to be a threat. Making coffee does not have potential for creating another life. It does not have the potential to spread disease. It is a different class of action from sex with the boss. In your perfect world where all are educated and all is known, you might be able to sell this tripe, but it is not viable in a society of actual people.

            • Jon

              The problem, BF, is that because brothels exist, you equate all sex with any other commodity.

              No, and that is not at all my argument nor any argument.

              I responded to a claim Kathy made. Period.

              You define “threat” to become meaningless – hence, everything is threat, nothing is a threat.

              A land of one color – nothingness.

              • No, I do not define everything as a threat. I define the willful use of power to manipulate people as evil. I recognize that physical power is not the only form of power. There exist authority even outside of violence. This is the core of our disagreement.

              • But how can this “power” be done, if there is no violence?

                You merely say “no” and walk away otherwise. Where is the power?

                You believe that if I have something and do not give it to you UNDER YOUR TERMS, I am using power over you!

            • No, no, no. The brothels answer was merely a response to Kristin’s claim that no contracts would contain a sex requirement. And the coffee example was just to show how other requirements could be added that an employee either agreed with or didn’t. No relevance or comparison to coffee/sex and what is made, transmitted etc. You are overthinking this.

          • Kristian says:

            I don’t see your point at all and that you would suggest that telling an employee that their job is now contingent on sexual acts is nothing more than redefining job duties says something to me about your moral compass. Being told that filing or making coffee is now in my job description as opposed to being told that sexual favors are now a part of my job description are 2 very different things. That you compare the 2 as though they are the same thing kinda concerns me BF. They are not even remotely the same. Filing is generally a part of job duties anyway, sex can be used as a way to demean. As to terminating the contract by quitting, not everyone is in a position to do that.

    • Maybe in BF’s world he hasn’t coerced – in mine he sure as hell has. There said it!

      • Mathius™ says:

        Per our friends at Dictionary.com:

        co·erce   [koh-urs] Show IPA
        verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.
        1.
        to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

        ——–

        Catch that? by force, intimidation, OR authority.

        Sure as hell sounds like it to me…

      • charlieopera says:

        There is sanity at SUFA … the cannoli man is smiling …

  8. Wonder where JAC is? Many conversations lately I would have expected him to jump into 🙂

    • JAC’s on extended R&R..said 3 weeks..his time is up! I know, I could have used his help with BF the other day 🙂

      • So you disagree that people are applying for disability once their unemployment runs out only as a way to continue getting government pay? Do you believe all applicants are truly disabled and unemployable? Do you not have any concern about these numbers?

        I’ve read in another report that one of the most common disabilities is mental anguish due to unemployment. Do you believe that is a legitimate reason to file for disability pay?

        Honestly, I have mental anguish just thinking about what this adm. is up to. Would you feel I am qualified to apply for benefits?

        When is enough, enough Todd? How long do you and your leftist buddies continue to make excuses? How many people should we allow on the dole? What is your breaking point for all this excess?

        • I don’t have answers to all your questions Kathy. Do you? For the most part, they sound like typical right-wing hysteria.

          Based on your attitude and what you post here, it seems to me you probably do qualify for mental anguish SSD due to extreme right-wing hysteria.

      • Todd, That Huffington Post sure is a bipartisan rag, isn’t it? 😆 Geez, why not just link Media Matters, it’s an equally bipartisan rag! 🙂

        • If you have a different source Gman, put a link out here!

          • Todd, The media as a whole is bought and paid for by big corps, not much integrity left that you would accept. I don’t see much being written that isn’t partisan one way or the other. Sad really, how this nation has been divided in so many ways. Maybe we should talk economics 🙂

      • Todd,

        What about the jobs Obama promised? What part of the story would that be?

  9. “The Two Biggest Deals So Far – Industry Agreements To Cut Drug And Hospital Costs – Were Reached In Secret.” “He’d describe how televised deliberations would take place around a big table, with seats filled by doctors, nurses, insurers and other interested parties. As president, he’d joke, he’d get the biggest chair. ‘Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN,’ Obama explained in a Democratic debate in Los Angeles in January 2008, in language similar to many of his campaign stops. However, the two biggest deals so far — industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs — were reached in secret. ‘They were private, yes,’ said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., a key participant in the process.” (“Obama Campaign Vow Of Public Debate On Health Care Fading,” McClatchy, 7/9/09)

    http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/07/transparent-hypocrisy-obamas-fast-and-furious-broken-promises

  10. Virginia has long been supportive of agriculture, and the state has a Right to Farm law. While family farms are struggling, Virginia has discovered that its soil and climate are splendid for grapes. Hence, wineries are popping up to the joy of a good number of Virginians now employed by them, tourists, and many tax revenue collectors.

    Fauquier this past week, though, passed a new county ordinance requiring wineries to close their doors at 6 p.m. and requiring them to pay the county for special permits for such things as extended hours and catered food. Because of one or two wineries where bacchanalia has caused grief for some neighbors, the county decided to punish all wineries…oh, and to make more money off its theft of liberty, too.

    The wineries have numbers and money to fight this punitive over-regulation. By using narrowly tailored exemptions, though, the county bought off opposition from some, including one that defeated the county at the Virginia Supreme Court not long ago. When government believes that it owns our liberty, it selectively dishes out some as bribery.

    But Fauquier isn’t just stealing liberty from wineries. Using Orwellian oversight and threats of fines, Fauquier is also bullying a tiny farm in Paris, Virginia that takes in rescued animals and sells organic tea but is not a winery. Reading the order against the farm issued by Fauquier County Zoning Administrator Kimberley Johnson, one may confuse Fauquier for an anti-family banana republic.

    In deciding to seek fines against the farm, Ms. Johnson’s April 30 order includes the following specious, frivolous, and ridiculous items:

    1. The farm has rescued animals;

    2. The farm advertised an “organic tea café” and films its on-site small-farm events;

    3. As a means to unscrupulously load up her case, Ms. Johnson includes in her list of allegations certain “events” at the farm she found in an internet search that even her own order later acknowledges were never held on the property;

    4. Using her questionable internet investigative “techniques” (the county hasn’t yet used drones), Ms. Johnson alleges two other events in support of her claims: a “wine testing” in September 2011, and “a seasonal pumpkin patch and carving event” in October. Maybe Ms. Johnson should notify Homeland Security, too. Those kids carving pumpkins have knives!

    5. Perhaps the single most offensive allegation by Ms. Johnson is that the farm’s Facebook page “includes photographs of a child’s birthday party that was held” on January 22. Ms. Johnson believes that a party of eight 10-year-old girls on a family farm is subject to her regulatory purview and is cause to threaten county citizens with fines up to $5,000.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/bureaucrats_bully_family_farms_in_dc_exurbs.html#ixzz20uYOZo00

  11. No concerns about drilling in the arctic, right?

    The big oil companies know what they’re doing, right?

    Except they can’t even anchor a drilling rig properly:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/shell-arctic-drilling_b_1679697.html

  12. charlieopera says:

    @BF, et al …

    Explain the “logic and reasoning here please ….

    It is a change of condition of terms, nothing more.

    especially to someone who is financially dependent on some sort of employment and their perception or reality is that alternate employment is not readily available.

    Irrelevant.

    But a nation state using sanctions against another nation state is a threat? I think they both qualify as threats … then again, BF is dealing with the universe and not reality.

    • Yes, because to enforce sanctions, the nation needs to sail its navy, and actively prevent ships from reaching port – up to and including sinking them.

      The shooting party is neither the buyer or the seller of the good. He has nothing in the trade. But he is stepping into that transaction and stopping it. That party is ALWAYS an outsider.

      In the case of the change of circumstances above, the one doing the changing is actually one of the participants to the deal. He is not an outsider. And he is not threatening to anyone with violence, either.

  13. Bill: “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”
    Mitt: It depends on what the meaning of the words ’employed’ is.
    The Blue Dress is Mitt’s Tax Returns
    No stain, no pain
    Can a person be impeached before he is elected
    This question is Mitt’s Bain in the A$$.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!

    We must all remember a major contributing cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was the filing of false or misleading documents with the SEC. This is no small matter, since 2009 the SEC has collected fines of over 3 Billion dollars for this; from financial institutions such as, among others: Countrywide Financial, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab, Credit Suisse Group, J.P. Morgan, Wachovia Bank, and UBS Financial Services. Even if Mitt Romney actually left all operational control of Bain Capital in 1999, he sanctioned and acquiesced to the filing of false and misleading documents with the SEC until 2002. While this violation may not rise to the level of these other institutions, it does indicate a certain attitude towards these filings. The complete and truthful disclosure of all facts is not important. This was an attitude all too prevalent in the financial community prior to 2009, and all of us paid the cost.

    Is full disclosure to the SEC one of the regulations Mitt would do away with? What about the other regulations regarding the financial community; Wall Street and the banks too big to fail? If you put a fox in charge of the chicken coop, you have a problem for the chickens. Will Mitt’s election be the equivalent of that for the small investor? As a life-long Republican, small investor, and small businessman, I can not take that chance; I have been burnt once by a government that did not believe in regulation, and was asleep at the wheel. The sad thing is that Bain was first brought up by a candidate who wanted to colonize the moon, and the false filing was never mentioned. If this was discovered earlier, I would not have supported Mitt in the primaries and we would have a different candidate. Perjury is perjury. It was ethically and morally equal to saying “I never had sex with that woman” only worse since it was related to a public institution, not sex; and there could be no equivocation since the two official documents Mitt signed exactly contradict each other 100%. He can not flip-flop between these two documents. The only way he can extract himself from this hole is release the 12 years of tax returns, as his father did, and thereby prove he received no direct benefit from Bain after 2000.

    • viguy,

      How did this become about Mitt? Not trying to defend him, but as far as everyone knows, he has broken no laws and even by your post, was not active in trading during the Financial Crisis…Interesting who you think most responsible, no MF Global? Countrywide is the most relevant I think, although you did not name Freddy Mac or Fannie Mae..deliberate? I think so, you want to rewrite history so as to blame WallStreet. OK, but before you do, Freddy/Fannie caused the housing bubble to burst, resulting in many financial instutions to take a massive hit, hence TARP passed under Bush, adminstered by Obama..CountryWide was found to have ties to Barney Frank, who was key in opposing Bushes multiple calls for congress to exercise it’s exclusive power over Freddy/Fannie. No one else had/has oversite authority. And the kicker, what has happened since Obama took office? From 2008-2010, the Democrats had both houses, so if he wanted to pass reforms, he could have…

      Not expecting a reply, wordpress’s spam filters would not let you post…my guess is a fake email address or it’s blocked. Either way, you walk like a troll, talk like a troll, but I overrode the spam on your post just in case you are legit…

      • I hope it is not a troll-not sure why you think it is? But if not -Welcome. If you are for real, I would not vote for Obama-Period-never. And not voting for Romney-is voting for Obama-I do not know what Romney will do-but I do know and see the damage that Obama has done.

      • LOI,
        Could you explain how “Freddy/Fannie caused the housing bubble to burst”?

        PS – with a welcome like this, I’m sure viguy007 will want to return…

        • “Could you explain how “Freddy/Fannie caused the housing bubble to burst”?” No. Well maybe a little.

          https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/guest-commentary-goldman-sachs/

          “PS – with a welcome like this, I’m sure viguy007 will want to return…” I’m counting on you Toddster, to do the welcome wagon thing. But if truth is any defense, as I stated, the spam filters which I have no control over would not allow him to post. His listed IP address has something about “lockout” in it, making me think this is an experienced troll or spamer. I was honestly a little concerned overriding WP and allowing it to post, but wanted to be fair, even if I don’t agree/like his comments. Do you see any inaccuracies in his post?

          • LOI,
            I don’t see any mention of Freddie/Fannie in that article.

            You could have phrased your concerns about viguy007 as questions instead of attacks.

            I’d say viguy007’s post is pretty accurate.

            • Todd, my bad..I did not re-read that article. It is my belief that the government was the base cause of the crisis. Under Clinton, banks were pressured into making loans to people not qualified under normal or reasonable standards. Unemployment benefits, welfare, etc were counted as “income”. Banks, realtors and others soon grew confident that they were covered, even assured of easy profits. I think Barney Franks could/should have acted on oversight on Freddie/Fannie. He did not do so because of lobbyists and special interest. This also extends to Republicans. Both parties protect those who support their campaigns.

              http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

              I do think Romney will do a better job as far as special interest go, that Obama has appointed the former Goldman Sachs and other cronies. I also think Romney, though better, will do the same, just at a lesser rate. Maybe under him, the house will do something about Freddie/Fannie. Under Obama, it has/will not happen.

              • LOI,
                Once again you’re focusing a negative light on those you disagree with, and giving those you agree with a MOSTLY free pass.

                Your focus on Barney Frank is laughable – and contradicts your own link about the cause:

                The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

                You seem to imply that “banks, realtors and others” were more “victims,” when they were the ones taking advantage of the government lapses to increase profits.

                Your link to FactCheck does not list Fannie/Freddie as part of the cause.

                And what makes you think “Romney will do a better job as far as special interest go?” The fact that he’s a republican, so you believe/agree with him?

    • The financial crisis was based on real estate derivatives and rampant speculation. While the greed extended to individual homeowners who somehow felt that they could use the false equity they built up as a piggy bank to be cracked open at any opportunity, the bulk of the problem can be laid at the feet of Fannie and Freddie. Some, like Barney Frank thought that there was a positive outcome to be had by bringing people with no experience or brains into homeowner status. Others like Dodd, the chairmen of Fannie and Freddie some board members of Frannie and Freddie had no such illusions but were sure to be out the door before the roof fell in. No one has gone to jail. I will repeat that, the entire US economy will be in stagnation, like the Japanese economy for the next 20 years and no one has gone to jail. Have I brought up Countrywide yet?

  14. @ Mathius……please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  15. A United Nations agency under fire for shipments of computers and other sophisticated equipment to North Korea and Iran has apparently rejected a request by the U.S. State Department to conduct an independent probe into the controversy, drawing a pointed bipartisan rebuke from top lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    So what else is new….I am sure that we will send them a sharp letter of rebuke. Better yet…..pull out of the UN and go it alone. Let Europe and the Chinese handle North Korea and Iran…..no big deal and no threat except on paper.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/17/un-agency-slammed-after-refusing-us-request-for-probe-into-iran-n-korea/?test=latestnews#ixzz20vfjpXm2

    • Hmmmm-I can see shipping N. Korea food-but computers and other equipment-I cannot see any reason other than an evil one.

  16. Flag,
    “Of course there is voluntary.
    The worker, at any time in fact, can terminate their employment without notice or reason.
    Yet, you cry that the employer cannot do the same.
    The employer changes the deal to a degree that is unacceptable to the worker.
    The worker exercises their rights – they quit. End of deal, and the end of the problem.”

    I do no such thing. I rail against the abuse of this authority to gain a non-economic benefit. It is not the goal of such a boss to fire the person in question, but to intimidate them into engaging in sex. It is a threat, pure and simple, and the discussion has nothing to do with the rights of the boss to fire or even threaten to fire. It is abuse of power. Should it be illegal? Perhaps not, but it would be wise to have a means of defense for the victims, be it a means of reporting abuse or justification of physical defense. In a situation where they are alone, perhaps it would simply behoove the victims to claim CPD.

    “You’re changing your story in the middle of your argument.
    You presented a gun – now you retract that, and believe you are maintaining the same argument.
    But you are not, you’ve changed the condition, and the argument changes because the CPD is not invoked.
    Start again.”

    Wrong, I said in the beginning that the “robber” made a demand and showed a gun, and specifically stated it may not even be real. This was to show that perception is a part of CPD. I have changed nothing, I still maintain that perception is part of CPD and that the person made no direct threat, only showed a gun and made a demand. Either go read it again or show me exactly where anything has changed in my story.

    “I restrict words to mean what they mean and not chase their definitions constantly to fit your argument.”

    You restrict words to mean what you want them to mean, regardless of what they actually mean, then say that anyone bringing up a different or broader definition is changing the meaning. There is nothing to prove the meaning is the narrow one you claim it to be.

    “Coercion is violence. Demonstrate the violence.”

    Coercion is use of threat or force to get people to do something they otherwise would not. It is the use of power. Power comes in many forms, not merely the form of violence.

    “You want to include into violence things that are merely disagreeable, so that you can use the responses to acts of violence upon disagreeable people.
    But that is immoral and potentially very evil.
    You deal with disagreeable, but non-violent people in a manner that is non-violent. That is the moral way to deal with such people.”

    I deal with men who abuse their power with power in kind.

    “The deal changed to a “take it or leave”.
    Do you declare any deal that is a “take it or leave it” deal a “threat” and an “act of violence?”
    Ever negotiate buying a car???”

    The deal changed to take it or leave from a previously engaged upon and agreed upon trade. This is not the same as negotiating for a car. The deal changed to let me have sex with you and you get to stay, the proper response is to ruin the boss financially, in the same manner he threatened, not to merely leave. A suit of wrongful termination of contract would be in order.

    “That’s right, I did.
    I broke the deal.
    Response: end of deal.”

    Response, retaliate in kind. Financial ruin for financial ruin. Not because the end of the job was wrongful, but because the abuse of power was wrongful.

    “If we made a deal that I get your car for $100, and then at the exchange I go … “Nah, $50″ – you claim I’m committing violence on you? I’m threatening you?
    Yet, here that is your claim!”

    Of course not, but if you show up and say $100, and you have to let me screw your daughter, I would forcibly remove you from my property and ban you from ever coming back under threat of death, because you have shown yourself to be a sexual predator using false pretenses to gain access to sex with an otherwise unwilling person.

    Depends on the blackmail.
    “I will show the pictures of you in a nudist camp or pay me $10,000!”
    Well, if being naked in public is a problem, do not go naked in public.
    If you have done something that will cause you a negative opinions if exposed, do not do that “something” and you don’t have to worry about negative opinions. OR do it anyway, and take your bumps.
    Blackmail only works on pragmatic people – that is, people who will trade their principles for a short term gain at the cost of long term consequences. Guess what, blackmail is such a cost.

    Not when the blackmail is a lie. I can show pictures of you at a nudist camp even without ever having a nude picture of you. I can smear your name, claim you rape children. If I have a strong media voice and you do not, I can convince many of this and you can do nothing about it. You have no recourse in your world. It becomes a world where reputation and the number of people you know becomes the new “might”, but the “might makes right” of the violent man is the same, it is just a different weapon.

    It is not a punishment, no matter how much you try to define it that way.
    There are always consequences, and just because the moral thing to do is hard does not make it a punishment.”

    No, if I threaten an action against you, it is a threat. Just because you do not with the term to carry that definition does not make it so. Your definition your own, it is not the accepted definition of the word.

    “We did so.
    You are invoking God powers that somehow, thinking it is real, I know it is not.
    It is either real or it is not … TO ME.
    CPD does not need me to ask you if it is real or not before I defend myself. If to a reasonable person it appears real, it is real enough.”

    Excellent! We agree. Perception, reasonable perception, is a part of threat determination.

  17. BF,
    Down here-No I do not have a right to his job. I do however have the right to work without this man or woman changing the requirement to include sex.

    • There is no such right as “you cannot change the deal we made”.
      Looked it up in the “Big Book of Rights” (which is, actually, really small) and didn’t see it.

      You own your house, right?
      You invite me over.
      I accept.
      I start redecorating your rooms.
      You say “stop”.
      I say “Its my right, you invited me over”.
      You say “Leave”
      I say “You are changing the deal – you invited me, remember!??!”

      You are claiming I have a right to stay and a right to redecorate your rooms and you are stuck with me, because you invited me over.

      • No, I am stating that SEX is not the same as any other agreement.

        • Why?

          It is no different then your labor.

          • Well, that is the problem-it is a lot different than labor.

          • Your labor cannot create a new person. Again, you reduce sex to a simple economic commodity. Unlike many things, sex CAN be a commodity, but it is not always, not to all people. To presume that all persons approach all things, especially certain things like sex, as an economic good is a dangerously narrow view of reality. Even the universe understands there is more to some things than others.

            • My labor feeds humans – which is far more important as it has to be much more sustainable.

            • Wrong!

              We are talking about human rights as it applies to economics.

              You want to make up some sort of “other thing” – but it is not.

              You have this thing about sex, yet you do not contemplate that people offer their lives, arms and limbs for economic gain all the time and everyday – and you don’t worry your little thoughts about it.

              No, it is no different in the terms of the principle or dialogue.

              • No, BF, YOU are talking about human rights as it applies to economics. I am talking about human rights as it applies to abuses of power and attempts to control. I am talking about the fact that sex with the boss is a conflation of pleasure and/or power gained by the boss mixed with economic threats received by the victim. It is a negative reward, do this and I will not fire you is little different than do this and I will not hurt you or do this and I will allow you to live. Men like that abuse their power, they have no right to do this, they would not even exist in your enlightened world, at least not for long, because in your enlightened world everyone would believe the victim if she told on the boss, and the boss would be ostracized. In the real world, that is not how things happen.

              • Jon

                No, BF, YOU are talking about human rights as it applies to economics. I am talking about human rights as it applies to abuses of power and attempts to control.

                No, you are making up stories and assigning some emotional subjective mush to situations as you want. Nothing you have presented has a darn thing do to with Rights.

                You want to destroy human rights to correct an emotional problem.

                There is no end to your emotionalism – it will eventually extend that the employer has no right to determine who works at his job, since anything he does will effect people’s emotionalism.

                The facts:
                it is his job – he can determine its existence and its operation. That is his right.
                it is your labor – you can determine where it is applied and under what conditions. That is your right.

                If the two don’t match – there is no job and there is no labor.

                You want violent force upon the man to alter the conditions of the job to suit YOUR demands.
                You do not understand that this will cause violent force UPON YOU to alter the conditions of YOUR LABOR to suit others.

              • Yes, BF, people OFFER those things. People will trade them. That is not the same thing. You wish to make it the same thing, presuming that a fisherman on a crab boat knowingly risking his life for high pay is equivalent to a secretary suddenly being faced with the choice of losing her job or being violated. Risky jobs involve known occupational hazards. Coerced sex should not be an occupational hazard. In a world where it was, I would make it an occupational hazard for bosses who engage in practices to be beaten severely in the nuts until they vomit. Yes, that is violent, but in the free market world where there are no police and only shunning can be used as punishment, I think I would eat just fine and the bosses with the sore nutsacks would find themselves starving to boot. Despite the fact that I engaged in violence and they technically did not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                There’s nothing worse that watching people argue on your side, but incorrectly.

                Sex is, absolutely, simply a physical act, and the psychological/emotional importance/significance they attach to it is, for economic purposes, irrelevant.

                But that’s, again, not the point.

                The point is that it’s still coercive (and, by implication, morally dubious at best – I would say flat out wrong, but I’ll take baby steps) to cause someone to engage in unwanted sex under extreme pressure.

                The definition of coercive INCLUDES intimidation/authority in addition to violence to compel someone into doing something which they otherwise wouldn’t do, especially without concern for their wishes. Not just violence and the threat thereof.

                So, is it coercion when my boss tells me that I need to work on Sundays for no extra pay since he is (A) using authority to (B) make me do something I don’t want to do (C) without regard to my desires? And the answer is… maybe.. If he made it clear that failure to comply would mean termination, then I think I would be correct in saying that I was coerced into working on Sundays. This doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong or evil, per say, but it is coercion. If it’s a huge issue for me, say that I attend church on Sundays and would no longer be able to, at which he applied more and more pressure threatening and intimidating me until I capitulate, then YES, yes it is coercion. Does that make it wrong or inappropriate or outside the scope of an ‘acceptable’ request from a boss? Who knows. But that’s not the point. The point is that I was COERCED into it.

                How does that vary from, say, telling me that I now how to do some extra paperwork? Well it’s a matter of degrees, isn’t it? Certainly, I think, it is safe to say that extra paperwork might fairly be considered normal/routine and fairly benign in terms of affect on me. Conversely, working Sundays is a little more extreme in terms of impact and non-standard in terms of the requirement. Further, the use of threat of termination changes the tone of the conversation from ‘we expect this’ to ‘you better…’ Just because my boss didn’t threaten to hit me doesn’t mean that I wasn’t threatened at all.

                Once you take it a step further, to the boss demanding sex from his secretary, you cross into different waters. Perhaps it’s subjective, and I know you hate that, but that’s what it is. Demanding sex from an otherwise unwilling participant at peril of her livelihood is coercion. It meets all the requirements per the definition, plus my added nuance that it is extreme/irregular enough that it isn’t just the normal cost of doing business.

                I chose to use sex as an example because of the clarity in terms of people’s minds of the extreme-ness of such a demand. However, it can be substituted for anything where undo pressure is exerted and threats/fear/authority are used to dominate a person and override their resistance and compel them into behaving in a way which they would not wish to be have. That’s the definition. You can’t simply ignore parts of it just because you don’t like it. Address the following:

                The key, as he [that’s you, by the way] keeps glossing over, is that the definition (which I have posted a twice now), defines coercion as “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.” He insists on using his own magical definition of the word, while simultaneously ignoring what it really means.

                “to compel” – to have someone do something – check
                “by force, intimidation, or authority,” – not by force, but yes by intimidation and/or authority – since the definition uses the operator OR, any one of these conditions is sufficient. Since it IS by authority/intimidation, it qualifies – check
                “especially without regard for individual desire or volition” – she doesn’t want to have sex and he doesn’t care – check

                Please explain how that (blockquoted) reasoning is incorrect.

              • I do not care about the job, BF. I care about abuse of power. A single laborer does not have equivalent power to a single employer. This was evidenced by the fact that labor conditions in early industrial America required unions to change them. Equivalent power required a large number of laborers and even required force and threats against would be replacement labor to actually effect change. Granted, change would have come much sooner and with much less effort and violence if government had not interfered, but the fact remains that violence was required because of the consolidation and abuse of power, even tho that power was not violent, but economic.

  18. Hi Jon,
    Hope you are doing well!-No more responces, so I guess I will go to bed now. 🙂 Night BF-Night Jon-Night anyone else who happens to be around-see everybody tomorrow. 🙂

  19. Here Todd, some actual reporting (I think). Results of a police investigation http://www.prisonplanet.com/national-security-threat-obamas-birth-certificate-proven-fraudulent.html

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      One thing to keep in mind. From my own experience, I have seen Birth C’s written up for me (from my ancestors) with the correct child’s first name even though the actual original birth record showed ‘unnamed’ at birth (for that date and parents). (They got the correct name from me). So BC’s are often just compiled from the original birth record with the writer of the “BC” free to ‘fudge’ it, if u follow me. In my case the BC is newly written up from the original records but might not always be a correct transcription of the original.
      The original record might be on a page with many other records, so rather than just copy it, they might write up a brand new BC transcribed from that original page. I can’t speak for all States.
      Later, very busy here.

      • APD, When I moved to Pa two years ago, I had my original short form BC. To get a drivers license, I had to send 15 bucks to Ohio (Dept of Records or some such place) and get a long form with a blue border. A week later I received it in the mail and got my drivers license. I don’t see why this idiot administration can’t do the same and put this issue to bed. If I were the Sec of State of Pa, I would demand that he produce the same stuff to get a drivers license or don’t get on the ballot. Why should this not be demanded? Anybody?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Has it ever occurred to you that “this idiot administration” is not so idiotic? Maybe – just maybe – they prefer to leave this out there so that they can point at people who question his birth certificate as lunatics who question his Americanism because they’re racist?

          I mean, none of you are going to vote for him.. even if he did produce some document with a blue border. Even if he could convince you with absolute certainty that he was born here, you’d still never vote for him. So what does he lose by making you all look like a bunch of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists?

          Just saying…

          • Good point Mathius. I am already known as a conspiracy theorist, so what do I have to lose, LOL. Iasked in the other thread about Chicago and the coincidence that is becoming a war zone under Rahm’s watch, is this the first city to see Marshal law?

          • Yes it has. Hell, one of the most famous “conspiracy theorists” of today, Glenn Beck, has constantly admonished people to drop the stupid birther thing. He knows its BS and that even if it wasnt, it would not matter, and that the citizenship laws are such that it is very unlikely that there is a real question of citizenship here. It is being used to make people look crazy, and frankly, they kinda are. It is a waste of energy, there is plenty to use against Obama without messing around with his birth paperwork.

            • Mathius™ says:

              and frankly, they kinda are.
              heheheheh

              It is a waste of energy, there is plenty to use against Obama without messing around with his birth paperwork.
              I actually make this case quite frequently. I got into it with my father in law last night (nothing unusual about that) and he brought up a bunch of nonsense (not birth certificates, but similarly nonsense). I argued that there are plenty of things to legitimately criticize Obama for (I won’t bother naming them) and that getting bogged down in noise just distracts.

              I think, at one point, he was bashing the NEA, and I had to point out repeatedly that even if (and it’s a legitimate argument) the NEA is a waste and/or inappropriate for the government to spend on, defense spending is so massive that, comparatively speaking, the NEA is irrelevant. He bashed Obama for a dozen tiny specks of issues, but missed all the big gripes.

              And politicians, not just the liberal ones, love this. As long as people get lost in the weeds, they can get away with all kinds of things.

              • I abso-freaking-lutely agree with all of that with one caveat. In terms of economics, the NEA is irrelevant in comparison with other spending. However, in terms of their specific role and its importance, the NEA is a big deal. They were the primary force that stopped the voucher concept from being pushed through. That is a big deal to me. Even the most staunch supporter of public education has no legitimate gripe with vouchers, unless they are in public education management, because then it is their jobs on the chopping block. Not one single competent teacher will be hurt be vouchers. Only management/administration and bad teachers would be affected. I consider education to be one of the more important things in a society (not necessarily formal education). Vouchers would be a massive improvement, and the NEA was the primary power that stopped them. So, the NEA is very important to get rid of or cut, but not for economic reasons.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          ok, not much to add other than Ohio sounds like the same as Massachusetts. Your regular short form BC would be from the town you were born in. This short form was taken from the original records and given to you. The fancy BC from the state with the Blue border is taken from an exact copy of the original birth record the town made when you were born. The Town (like Massachusetts does) sends copies of birth records to the state.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            To clarify: “This short form was taken from the original records and given to you” ‘transcribed’ from the original records. All birth “Certificates” are transcriptions of selected information form the original. They can be fudged with (often in an attempt to make the certificate more complete.) (The writer of the certificate may have additional knowledge found elsewhwere.)

    • Gman,
      You think Huffington Post is biased… and then you post links to Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet?

      National Security Threat: Obama’s Birth Certificate Proven Fraudulent

      I think you – and Alex Jones – should look up the definition of “proven”…

      I think I understand your concern with the media. Since the “lamestream liberal media” does not report things that fit your ideology, you reject them. You take the right-wing media as gospel, but they have been proven wrong so many times, that leaves you with only one recourse:

      The media as a whole is bought and paid for by big corps, not much integrity left that you would accept. I don’t see much being written that isn’t partisan one way or the other. Sad really, how this nation has been divided in so many ways.

      It would never occur to you that it’s the right-wing that is dividing the nation…

  20. A different subject, healthcare, and non-partisan, go figure (why don’t the MSM report this stuff?) http://www.prisonplanet.com/alternative-media-blows-the-lid-on-big-pharmas-massive-bribery-network.html

  21. Says it all.

  22. Good morning SUFA. I see ya’ll have been keeping yerselves entertained while I am gone. As usual you seem to start on the good stuff when I am predisposed.

    Another week and I will try to add some ideas. Until then the travels have been great,, except for the very dry conditions basically east of the Continental divide. Lots of Rocky Mtns and big valleys filled with cows. Perfect for clearing one’s head.

    Just one comment on topics. Threatening your job for sex is certainly coercion. But BF’s point is that it is NOT “force”. Because the relationship of the job and the request is not “enforced” by force. Wish I had time to discuss further but have to go.

    See ya’ll next week.
    JAC

    • Mathius™ says:

      Another week and I will try to add some ideas. Until then the travels have been great,, except for the very dry conditions basically east of the Continental divide. Lots of Rocky Mtns and big valleys filled with cows. Perfect for clearing one’s head. Great.. enjoy your travels. Try not to let your oxen drown when you ford the river.

      But BF’s point is that it is NOT “force”.

      No, BF’s point is that it’s not “coercion” because you have a “choice.” You don’t HAVE TO say yes, therefore you are free to say no, regardless of the consequences. Ergo, per him, not coercion. Thus, in his utopic vision of the world, no one is ever the victim of coercion.

      This, of course, is crazy.

      The key, as he keeps glossing over, is that the definition (which I have posted a twice now), defines coercion as “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.” He insists on using his own magical definition of the word, while simultaneously ignoring what it really means.

      “to compel” – to have someone do something – check
      “by force, intimidation, or authority,” – not by force, but yes by intimidation and/or authority – since the definition uses the operator OR, any one of these conditions is sufficient. Since it IS by authority/intimidation, it qualifies – check
      “especially without regard for individual desire or volition” – she doesn’t want to have sex and he doesn’t care – check

      But in BF’s world, the definition is changed from “by force, intimidation, or authority,” to just “by force or threat thereof,” which changes everything. And, just like the mighty Oak Tree, there really is no way to make him admit that he is wrong.

      • “And, just like the mighty Oak Tree, there really is no way to make him admit that he is wrong.”

        It reminds me of arguing with my gf, I know I am right/winning when she just stops responding, getting a “you’re right, I’m sorry” is never gonna happen, lol. 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          We’ve all been there, my friend.

          The worst is when she’s wrong, you get into, and then YOU wind up apologizing to HER (usually for your tone) despite the fact that she was wrong, she started it, and her tone was just as bad. I used to find myself in one of these situations every 28 days or so like clockwork.. weird how that happens..

      • charlieopera says:

        This, of course, is crazy.

        And the only thing CRAZIER is to try and justify your position to him … it is, as Mr. Smith says, like trying to get an Oak Tree to admit it is wrong. Not gonna happen.

        It is also why he refuses to accept income as an employer’s weapon vs. an employee (loss of wages, etc.). In the good old US&A it is the utlimate weapon (salary) … in any capitalism economy, income is force to be wielded with absolute authority by one individual (the owner) over the other (labor) …

        Enough of arguing with the oak … I’m pretty sure I know where he stands on the Boy Scouts … but what about the rest of yous?

        • Mathius™ says:

          What about the boy scouts? I was never one myself, so my opinion is pretty uninformed.

          I like girl scout cookies though. Perhaps Boy Scouts would be more popular if they also provided me with thin mints and samoas.. just saying..

  23. Oops!… Obama’s Top Bundler Jonathan Lavine Was In Charge of Bain During GST Steel Layoffs
    Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 5:43 AM

    The Obama campaign blamed Governor Mitt Romney for the demise of GST Steel company in a video they released in May. The plant closed in 2001. Mitt left Bain in 1999.

    For some reason the Obama camp forgot to mention this…
    Obama’s top bundler Jonathan Lavine was in charge of Bain during the BST layoffs.
    Chuck Slowe reported:

    Blaming Governor Romney for any issues surrounding the failure of GST is wrong and it is a blatant lie. Mitt Romney had been long gone when the company started to fail and subsequently closed it doors. When are the President and his campaign hacks going to get the story correct? When are they going to get back to their economy and its dreadful condition? Mr. President, you can run but you cannot hide.

    It turns out that Jonathan Lavine, current Obama bundler, was actually in charge, at Bain, during that period, when the layoffs occurred. Oops, that isn’t right, is it? Yes, that story is the one that needs to be reported on. Sorry Mr. President, your lies are just getting to be more than many of us are able to handle.

    And, Jonathan Lavine is not your average Obama Bain donor. Lavine is one of Barack Obama’s top bundlers.
    ABC reported:

    While Democrats assail presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital business practices, Republicans note that President Obama has not been bashful about accepting cash from Bain executives or other high-profile figures in the corporate buyout business…

    …One of Obama’s top campaign financiers – Jonathan Lavine – is also managing director at Bain, bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions for the 2012 Obama Victory Fund, according to estimates released by the Obama campaign. The president has also relied on other leading figures in the private equity sector as hosts for high-dollar fundraisers and as members of his Jobs Council.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/oops-obamas-top-bundler-jonathan-lavine-was-in-charge-of-bain-during-gst-steel-layoffs/

  24. charlieopera says:

    So what says the SUFA congregation on the Boy Scouts of America’s Nazi-like treatment of Gays?

    That should get it rolling.

    • I for one say you should not make such false statements. Should they not be free to choose who they associate with? No one is forced to join BSoA. What about black churches that don’t allow white members? Same difference? But you didn’t have an issue with it before 08′?

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/romney_is_wrong_on_wright.html

      What does “Nazi-like treatment” mean to you? Anyone who wears a uniform? To me, it would mean violent oppression. And by that standard, the BSoA do not deserve that comparison. It’s the same old tactic, call whoever you don’t agree with the worst thing you can think of and try to inspire hate. Do you wish to promote hate, or have a discussion? It’s just a turn-off to me….

    • “Nazi-like treatment”, like it’s Ok if a couple old people die, for unions, it’s just normal negotiations…

      After the collapse of 17-month-long union negotiations on July 3, unionized health-care workers walked out of five nursing home facilities in Connecticut, but not before placing some elderly patients in dire medical risk through acts of sabotage, according to the company that owns and operates the facilities.

      “In the hours leading up to the strike by the New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 SEIU (the Union) against five HealthBridge Management Health Care Centers in Connecticut, Union members engaged in multiple illegal and dangerous acts against Center residents,” reads a statement released by HealthBridge on Tuesday afternoon.

      According to police reports obtained by The Daily Caller and reported Monday by the RedState blog, HealthBridge Management Health Care Centers alleged that union employees in at least three of its facilities intentionally mixed up or removed patient name plates, photos, medical bracelets and dietary advisories as they began their strike. Additionally, the police reports include allegations of both vandalism and larceny.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/18/striking-seiu-workers-intentionally-endangered-ct-nursing-home-patients-says-company/#ixzz20zfomMCo

      • charlieopera says:

        Do you wish to promote hate, or have a discussion?

        Calm down … discuss away …

        “Nazi-like treatment”, like it’s Ok if a couple old people die, for unions, it’s just normal negotiations…

        I’m trying to make the connection here but I’m failing miserably …

        What about black churches that don’t allow white members? Same difference? But you didn’t have an issue with it before 08′?

        I don’t believe any organization, private or otherwise, should be permitted to discriminate. That help?

        Okay, read your “union” apple and orange comparison. Workers should always have the right to walk out … whether they put others at risk is kind of up to the hospital to find replacements in time (I would think). It’s not like they walked out without warning. How that can be associated with the boy scouts remains a mystery to me, though …

        If union workers did something illegal, prosecute their asses … no problem here.

        • CALM DOWN??? I MAY REACH THRU THIS SCREEN AND honk your nose….You wanted to get things rolling.
          And you are avoiding or ignoring the question, what is nazi-like treatment, by you definition?

          We have seen union violence and intimidation used frequently. ” intentionally mixed up or removed patient name plates, photos, medical bracelets and dietary advisories as they began their strike. Additionally, the police reports include allegations of both vandalism and larceny.”
          OK, the police can prosecute them, but you won’t denounce them. You have more of an issue with a group that does not promote any sexual activity saying they do not wish or allow gay members.

          And I recall GreaterGood getting all huffy over saying anything about Obama and Hitler/Nazi’s. Point being there was truth there to back those statements. Back yours or you should retract and use those writing skills to find words that fit, ya mook.

          • What the heck is a mook 🙂

            • charlieopera says:

              I’m a mook, V.H.!

              Since when do I defend Obama? You’re lumping me in with whackos … I have my own whacko base remember … Plutonians for the greater good … we give out cookies!

          • charlieopera says:

            LOI … my nose is the only pristine thing left on my carcass … please do not honk.

            what is nazi-like treatment, by you definition?

            As regards this discussion, I would say “selectivisim” … or exclusion, if you will, based on a prejudice.

            As to unions, you do realize the first violence the mob was involved in was when they were hired by the “OWNERS” of companies AGAINST union members/activities. I do not condone union violence unless they are being locked out for some unreasonable issue … and yes, that’s a very ambiguous way to put it but remember, I’m not a black and white guy.

            Now, I’m going to get myself a nose protector …

    • Restricting gay membership in an all male group is no different than restricting female membership, and it is done for the same reasons. Sexual tension has no place in a scout troop. There is nothing “nazi-like” about it. They are doing nothing to gay people, nor are they demeaning speaking against them, they are simply restricting them from membership to avoid sexual situations in the same manner that they would female members or leaders. You hear about them burning gays in their campfires and maybe you will have something “nazi-like” going on.

      • charlieopera says:

        Sexual tension has no place in a scout troop. There is nothing “nazi-like” about it.

        Sexual tension is quite the assumption, Mr. Smith. Nazi assumed Jews were inferior, money grubbers … assuming the worst (when there is no worst) is pretty obscene to me.

        They are restricting them based on an absolute prejudice and nothing else. Maybe burning them is the next step? You guys love to assume the absolute extreme (statists taking over your lives) … maybe the boy scout upper echolon of bigots wants to burn them … who knows?

        • Quite the assumption? How is that? Is it quite the assumption to assume sexual tension could exist if there were female members or leaders? Are you saying that gay people do not really feel attraction like women do? That seems like quite an assumption on your part.

          They are restricting them based on a reasonable presumption of attraction, just as they would a female member. There is no next step. They have restricted them from membership, that is the extent of their authority, even if they wished to do more, which I see no evidence of.

          • charlieopera says:

            Are you saying that gay people do not really feel attraction like women do? That seems like quite an assumption on your part.

            Now you’ve switched the assumption onto women. Amazing you can’t see this, Mr. Smith. Why does there have to be such a negative connotation? What’s up with that? Why can’t people exist in either environment without getting hot over it?

            Apparently those serviing the armed forces, the NFL, MLB, etc., have managed … me thinks you’re a bit homophobic, my friend …

            • We are talking about kids, not adults. Young men in the midst of puberty. Out in the woods for a weekend or more at a time, no parental supervision, just the oversight of the adult leaders. Its like summer camp, only they are actually trying to avoid all the sex and kissing so its boys only. And they don’t want concerns from parents about boys ga-ga-ing over a female leader or any other potential impropriety. The same rules apply to gay members and leaders for the exact same reasons. The rules have to be consistent to remain fair. This is not the NFL or the military, it has less control than the military, more time alone than the NFL, and the persons involved are children. Nothing to do with homophobic or heterophobic, just making a clean environment with minimal distractions

              • charlieopera says:

                And what medical studies suggest to you that parents should live in fear of young boys humping each other in the woods? Come on, Mr. Smith, this is a complete over reaction. I’d be WAY more concerned about men who want to be scout leaders than I would be about scouts, for Christ sake. I’d be 20 x’s more concerned about that …

                Now don’t you honk my nose either … but this is complete homophobia you’re talking about … maybe you don’t see it, but it is.

              • I am quite sure there have not been any studies on such a ridiculous subject. I am talking about millenia of experience throughout history showing that young boys and girls will hump each other. The gay community has made it quite clear that theirs is a sexual attraction quite as natural and normal as heterosexuals. As such, it stands to reason that there would be unnecessary risk of sexual behavior where there should not be any.

                So, you jump all over me about assumptions and then go and say that men wanting to lead boys are high risks for being pedophiles? Talk about passing judgement without any evidence. I really do not see how you can dismiss the idea that sexual attraction in young people can lead to sexual acts in environments the scouts are often in (secluded, wooded areas, overnight, etc.). What evidence do you have that young gay men are better behaved and simply would not engage in sex acts whereas young heterosexual men and women obviously will? This is not me having an issue with gay sex, it is me having an issue with sex among adolescents on a camping trip. It is not to happen, it is against the rules. It will not happen if there is no one to have sex with, so you disallow women and gay men from membership. Problem solved. You want to have a troop of teens on an outing where sex is not against the rules, you go right ahead. Not sure how many parents are gonna let their kids attend tho…

    • Perhaps, as the only Scoutmaster out here (maybe), I should chime in. We’ve beaten this one around for the past thirty years or so, that and the issue of Atheism. The BSA is already paying a price for it. we have been banned from certain government facilities and in Philly I believe, thrown out of a building that was originally built for us.

      Scouting is based on certain moral principles and in a non-specific belief in a higher power. It has held these beliefs for the past 100 years. Societal norms may change but the values of Scouting as with those of certain churches do not. Simple and straightforward. There may come a time when scouting is changed so that in order to survive, it must become an extension of Government “Newspeak”. This will be the same time when the churches come under the ultimate control of the government as they do in China and did in the Soviet Union. At that time, I suspect you will be happy. I shall not.

      Years ago I read a biography of Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of scouting in Britain and ultimately world-wide. In the biography it pointed out how Powell shared art and even photographs of young men with his associates. The biographer seemed to think that this was a perversion. What he failed to realize, being a person in the “now” was that in the late 19th and early 20th century there was a return to classicism. The male body as well as the female was celebrated and certainly compared to the classical model as seen in statuary. I believ in 1892, when the “modern” olympics started, there was an attempt to have the competitions in the nude (ouch!) When I tell my own children that as a boy, both in a Public school swimming class as well as later in a Catholic High School, you swam naked, they don’t believe me. Different times, the end of classicism and different societal norms.

      While I am a believer in “freedom of association”, the issue goes far beyond that. From a purely practical standpoint, sexual predators have infiltrated scouting in the past. An incident in my troop, before I was involved, almost led to its destruction and the ‘volunteer” cost the national a pretty penny. To set the record straight, the predator was a former Eagle Scout from the troop who had come back after college as an assistant scoutmaster. Apparently as a mature adult, his predilection for young men finally publicly surfaced. perhaps as a pimply youth, he found no takers but as a “role model” he was able to use his authority, like certain DI’s in the military now on trial to get what he wanted.

      The Gay rights community can go on and on about how this has nothing to do with homosexuality. The facts seem to indicate that be it in scouts, sports, school, church or synagogue, it is adult MEN preying on Young men far more often than on females. The Gay culture , as gays will admit, is a culture based on youth. Nuff said!

      • charlieopera says:

        Stephen. I was a boy scout … no boy or man every tried anything on me … not while in the boy scouts … on the other hand, a sixteen year old neighbor did when I was 7 … should that preclude him from stepping outside his house and having to associate with other boys?

        1000 year old traditions are often found to be more than lacking to many people. I have no use for any religion and often argue with my wife (who is very religious) as to the overall good vs. bad effects of the catholic church on society as a whole … because the boy scouts have a tradition doesn’t make it right. In fact, in this case, it’s absurd (in my honked nose opinion).

        I don’t think it has to do with the state as much as it has to do with a freedom of choice (Christ, I hope BF is sleeping through this one) …

        • Regarding tradition, you may agree or disagree, it is your choice. Society is much like the theory of evolution, new things are tried, accepted or discarded. Some may last hundreds of years before being discarded. Some may be adopted. Essentially it has to do with survival of the fittest. That which permits society to continue is a positive mutation. That which works against it is eventually discarded. One of my greatest gripes about the human race is that it feels the necessity to re-invent the wheel every few years. Bad ideas never ever leave. the next generation brings them back over and over. What’s that line about insanity, doing the same over and over and expecting a different result?

          • charlieopera says:

            What’s that line about insanity, doing the same over and over and expecting a different result?

            Another good point … unfortunately it also applies to tradition.

  25. Bottom Line says:

    Call it what you want, but anything other than genuine mutual attraction where both parties are capable of such a decision and engaging of their own free will, …is wrong.

    In other words, if it’s not because you both want to, or if there is someone being taken advantage of in any way, then there’s something wrong with it.

    If the situation is tainted, and not pure, and not of mutual free will, …it ain’t right.

  26. ‘The unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again’
    Matt C. Abbott

    If you’re a (peaceful) pro-life activist, watch out for the feds!

    To wit: On July 13, two FBI agents paid a home visit to Andy Moore, the son-in-law of noted pro-life nurse-turned-activist Jill Stanek. The agents questioned Moore about his pro-life activities, but they also questioned him about-and were perhaps even more interested in-Stanek’s activities.

    From JillStanek.com:

    Life Legal Defense Fund, one of the pro-life legal firms that has successfully defended pro-lifers against prosecution by Obama’s Department of Justice, has now taken Andy under its wing. Senior Staff Counsel Allison Aranda shared her insights in an email:

    ‘The Obama administration is essentially engaging in a witch hunt. From the moment the new administration took office, the [Department of Justice] has been targeting peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors….

    ‘It now seems that the unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again. This time when the government determined that the evidence wasn’t quite what they thought it would be to proceed on a [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] claim against Andy, they turned their intimidating interrogation into a fishing expedition about the personal life of Jill Stanek….’

    Of course, the national mainstream media and the abortion industry have gone to great lengths over the years to point out violence perpetrated by a few “pro-life” individuals, but have largely ignored the many acts of violence perpetrated by numerous abortion advocates — not to mention the deaths of women caused by “safe and legal” botched abortions. And, most of all, the violence in the womb committed by abortionists.

    For an in-depth analysis of, and statistics pertaining to, abortion-related violence, visit

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_unscrupulous_eric_holder_is_at_it_again.html#ixzz20zeRObNK

  27. Everyone feeling safe with all the drones, wire taps, and all homeland security does to protect America?

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-let-25-illegal-aliens-attend-flight-school-owned-illegal-alien

    • There’s a video out of a drone roaming the streets of Detroit. Inside abandoned buildings, skimming treelines and rooftops, inside parking garages…they’re after us 🙂

      • Ever seen Dark Angel, the sci-fi series?

        • No., not my thing. Closest I get to sci-fi is Star Trek, Close Encounters and ET (phone home)! 🙂

          • Post financial collapse America, except it was due to a massive electromagnetic pulse that wiped all computer data everywhere instead of being because of socialism. Anyway, the police were very corrupt and the government was nuts, everything was in sectors that you needed special passes to go through, even within a city, and hover drones were everywhere looking for stuff to catch people on. Just gets more and more Orwellian every friggin day.

    • We’re safe again!! Thank Obama and our government!!

      2 Seattle men stopped at border for illegal candy
      MYFOXNY.COM –

      Two Seattle men say they spent more than two hours in a detention center at the Canadian border after U.S. border agents discovered illegal chocolate eggs in their car.

      Brandon Loo and Christopher Sweeney told KOMO they decided to bring home some treats for friends and family during a recent trip to Vancouver, British Columbia. They bought Kinder Eggs — chocolate eggs with a toy inside.

      The two men say border guards searched their car and said the eggs are illegal in the United States because young children could choke on the small plastic toys. Importing them can lead to a potentially hefty fine.

      Sweeney says one border guard said they could be fined $2,500 per egg. The pair said they could have faced a $15,000 fine.

      Sweeney says the bust was a waste of his time and the agents’ time. The men eventually got off with a warning.

      Mike Milne with U.S. Customs and Border Protection told a Canadian paper that officers do not usually fine travelers for carrying the chocolates, but they do normally confiscate them. Roughly 60,000 Kinder eggs were seized last year.

      “Kinder eggs are prohibited just like narcotics are prohibited,” he was quoted as said. “Our officers, if they encounter prohibited stuff, they’re subject to seizure.”

      The agency warned on its website around Easter that the treats can’t be imported legally.

      Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/19059416/2-seattle-men-stopped-at-border-for-illegal-candy#ixzz214CHOSMz

  28. charlieopera says:

    @Jon:

    So, you jump all over me about assumptions and then go and say that men wanting to lead boys are high risks for being pedophiles?

    I didn’t. I said I’d be more concerned with that than become so paranoid as to suggest it would happen (which is what you are doing when you state “sexual tensions” …

    Anyway, the point is … why couldn’t one kid who was being approached for something sexual do what we teach our kids to do in society at large … if you’re not comfortable, say no thanks.

    I mean, come on … you have them being stalked the way you’re posing it.

    • Yo charlie, I do not visit gay bars for the same reason I wouldn’t want one of my kids being led by a gay scout leader..I’m not one of them. nothing personal. Should I be more tolerant? Why do “we” always have to be tolerant? Why can’t “they” be more tolerant to us, respect our views? How about starting the gay scouts?

      • charlieopera says:

        Why do “we” always have to be tolerant?

        Anita, my love … because you are the majority (at least as regards laws) … they are the ones being discriminated against. How would you feel if they were in the majority and your sons weren’t allowed to join the boy scouts? If you mean they should stay away from you as a form of being “tolerant” … well, then I’m surprised at you … should all ethnic minorities keep to their own? Careful how you answer that one, you’re soon to be in the minority in the good old US&A … Recently a lesbian mom was removed from her boy scout office because she’s gay. How much more discriminatory can it get? Absurd … it’s 2012, not 1012 …

    • Charlie, I did not realize you were assuming I had some fear of a gay scout approaching and having sex with a heterosexual one. That is not my concern at all. Sure, there could be sexual tension, but it would only be one way and would likely be pretty manageable. What if there is more than one? Two way attraction, just as in a male-female situation. Mutual attraction is the sexual stuff I am referring to here. Why on earth would you think that only one gay scout would join a troop at any given time? I mean, I get why you thought it was homophobia now, I just do not get how you could presume based on anything I said that my concern was in the case of one gay scout. I even said that the rules must be consistent. If the rules allow one, then it must allow more, meaning you have sexual tension created by potentially mutual attraction. No different than a co-ed environment.

      • charlieopera says:

        Okay, I”m understanding your point better now, but I still don’t agree with it. Mostly because I’d say, “what’s the big deal?” If two gay scouts became involved while at camp, say, the scoutmaster would have every right to kick their butts out/send them home. That seems reasonable to me. I’m sure there would be far less screwing around if an example was set. And I doubt they’d be doing it out in the open where other scouts would see it. It just seems like a silly decision.

        I’m watching Scalia on CNN tonight … interesting man. I don’t agree with most of what he’s saying, but he’s no dope, that’s for sure.

        • Ok, but again, at a larger event you might have a 15 year old involved with an 11 year old, or even on a smaller scale, a couple of 12 year olds. You are talking about a pretty serious black mark. And its not just about making sure its not done in the open, its not about the influence on other scouts, its about the problem of the involvement itself. It is something that needs to be prevented in the eyes of the parents who are allowing their children to be under someone else’s supervision. Besides, I could see a lot of drama over claims that they were watched more closely and its profiling or descrimination or whatever. Better to avoid the problem altogether. Its not a stupid decision to the people making it. If you think it is, fine, don’t send you kids to scouts or support them, but they are doing what they do, not just within their rights as a private organization, but also with good reasons, whether you agree with the reasons or not, the fact remains that its not just bigotry and homophobia, there are logical reasons.

          • Lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit all over the place. For doing, for not doing for being quiet or for saying something. It is a no win situation. Who needs the headache?

            • charlieopera says:

              Good point … in a litigious society (that mean green always looks so good to so many) … anything goes.

          • charlieopera says:

            I see no logic in anything you just mentioned, Mr. Smith. I hear what you’re saying, but I think it’s a complete overreach; not that what you suggest might happen, but that it would be so remote, it cannot justify out and out discrimination (which is what I believe it is).

            • There might not be. The concerns over sex, particularly sex at a younger age, are heavily influenced by emotion. But, it is the emotion of parents, and an organization that is essentially claiming a safe and wholesome environment that takes steps to make sure parents are emotionally at peace with that claim makes sense. It is an all boys club. Part of the reason for an all boys group is to remove the sexual distraction/sexual tension/sexual pressure component. If you are attracted to boys, you need not apply. It really is not unreasonable if removal of any sexual component is one of your goals. Now, if you think the goal itself is foolish, fine, but that is where the argument lies. The discrimination in this matter is no different than the already existing gender discrimination. To be honest, to allow gays would remove the primary reason for not allowing girls.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I haven’t been following along too closely, so forgive me if this is stupid..

                But didn’t they kick out a lesbian counselor?
                Didn’t they also kick out a kid who’s parents were gay?

                If the answers to these are yes, then how does that square with your statement? It seems to me that the orientation of the parents is irrelevant to the sexual tension inherent in the group. Likewise, a gay female councilor is not going to be attracted in any way to the children (who are both too young and of the wrong gender even given some assumption that should couldn’t control herself if she were attracted) – so how does that fit in?

          • Jon,

            “It’s not just bigotry and homophobia” assumes that those things are part of the stew. To be honest, most of my friends in scouting do oppose gay scoutmasters for neither of those reasons. I’m not saying that they don’t exist but perhaps we are just a bit deeper than that in our thinking. Who needs this, what kind of an example are you setting for pre-adolescents and adolescents? There is enough confusion at that point in a child’s life without saddling him with even more. My wife, the early childhood educator has been beating the drum for “let children be children”, since I met her 40 years ago. We bemone the fact that our children are sexualized and confronted with choices beyond their years yet at the same time excuse sexualizing and in the name of open mindedness force them to make choices they are not mature enough to handle. See anything schizophrenic in that? Of course, it’s all done for “the greater good” but then atrocities since the beginning of time have used that excuse. As a related aside, have you ever noticed how the oft repeated liberal mantra, “it’s for the children”, is conveniently cast aside when it actually IS for the children?

            Charlie made a telling comment on tradition which I can understand and even, in limited circumstances, accept. However, there is a difference in a tradition which actually harms someone and one based on faith or morality which is designed precisely not to allow harm. Somewhere along the line in this society, the concept of “majority rules” but “minority respected” went out the window, probably about the time that illegal, criminal aliens suddenly qualified for constitutional rights. Even a minority of one, believing the most insane things, out of the entire population seems to be able to trump the will of the 229,000,000 other folks. Can’t quite understand how I was born into a period that not only allowed the shift but pretended that it had never happened. As I point out all the time, things we seriously accept now would have been considered laughable 30 or 40 years ago.

            I would go a little bit further in predicting that if the trend continues on the path it’s on regarding accepting almost everything, we will soon come to a time when the entire society is gridlocked. You will wind up with your personal attorney accompanying you around on a daily basis telling you what you can and cannot do under constantly changing interpretations of the law. Be good for the lawyers I guess. While we are busy spending all our fortunes and time on legal issues, we will be ripe for the plucking by the lean, hungry barbarians from the east.

      • I have been following the gay Scout discussions from above and wanted to add one statistic that no one has discussed. There are 2.7 million youth in the USA that are members of Scout Troops. Of those 2.7 million, 1.425 million youth belong to a Troop that is chartered by Christian churches. If BSA were to cave to the desires of a few, they stand to lose over half of their Troop charters as most Christian denominations do not support the gay issue. As a private concern, BSA has made a decision, backed by the Supreme Court, not to allow gays. This policy harms no one nor forces anyone to do anything, so it gets no sympathy from me.

        • Mathius™ says:

          This policy harms no one except the kids who aren’t treated equally through no fault of their own. Because we all know that young boys are so kind to people who are different, and that institutionally ostracizing an already borderline group of young boys can’t POSSIBLY have any harmful affects.

          Maybe gay boys should go join the girl scouts like the sissies we all know f*gg*ts are.

          Bah.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            The Scouts are a PRIVATE organization, and as such, they are (in a free country at least) ALLOWED to MAKE THEIR OWN RULES. There is no requirement that they treat all kids (or all adults for that matter) “equally”.

        • charlieopera says:

          It harms no one? Must be great looking through those blinders, Bamadad.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Please explain specifically how it does harm anyone. You might get me to buy “emotional distress”, but actual harm? No way.

        • I must have missed something in the beginning because the issue in boy scouting is ADULT gay leaders, not boys who may or may not be gay. I am sure that somewhere, somehow, somebody is pushing the issue. The primary problem we have had in scouting with boys is religious belief. Every now and then a scout pops up who declares himself an atheist. Usually the smart ass does this after he achieves or is about to achieve Eagle rank. The BSA then dismisses him from the program and he sues.

          It was only within the past twenty years that scouting allowed women to be scout leaders (Scoutmasters). generally this was done because there were troops where absolutely no adult males would step up to the plate and the troop would have folded otherwise. In some cases the women had been in Cub Scouting and wanted to continue on. There was huge debate over the issue because of the idea of role models. Finally national decided that having a troop survive trumped the male/female issue.

          Mr. Matt and Mr. Charlie, are you aware of the issue in girl scouting where allegedly transgendered, gender confused boys want to join? It has happened folks and there are mixed messages all over the place. I don’t think there is a policy because who the F— ever would have thought it would be an issue!!! It’s like Arnold Schwarzeneger deciding he wants to be a nun!

          Hey guys, Bama Dad is right on this one. This is a voluntary organization. Period. Not government financed or run. You are perfectly free to start your own organization any time you want. When it comes to the issue of denying membership is it not the same to force Gay scoutmasters on the Scouts which would then be denying membership to boys whose parents would not allow them to join or whose churches would then drop sponsorship of troops? You gentlemen are in good company, no less a personage than Steven Spielberg returned his Eagle Scout Badge some 20 years ago because of the gay issue.

          And another thing. Girls are allowed in Boy Scouts. They are encouraged to join explorer posts which are parallel to troops but operate on a specific interest such as hiking, camping, flying, police and fire etc.

          Get your blinders off guys, gays are not just in the mainstream, they are the mainstream. If you watch conventional television, they seem already to represent 25% percent of the population. The other 75% is composed of anybody but white straight males.

          • Mathius™ says:

            the issue in boy scouting is ADULT gay leaders

            And the issue is that gay male leaders are attracted to males and (somehow) therefore to male children?

            Or the issue is that gay male leaders will ‘confuse’ the scouts with complex adult issues such as sexual orientation?

            Or the issue is that, due to it’s Christian funding ties, the scouts much be hostile to homosexuals just to keep themselves funded?

            (not being sarcastic/obnoxious here.. just need to know what your stance is before I argue against it).

            • Matt, don’t you ever really read what I write? Or do you just “scan” things? The answers are in the previous posts. The scouts have been hit big for their failure to kowtow. They were cut off from United way years ago, the combined Federal campaign disowned them I believe. The “big” christian churches, to my knowledge contribute nothing nor do the Jews , Muslims nor Mormons other than as individuals. we survive on dues, fundraisers and bequests not to mention selling off excess property to create endowments. The New York Council will probably be able to survive forever on the proceeds from selling off a chunk of Camp Alpine in Alpine NJ.

              Funny part of all this is that you guys are so friggen concerned with alleged “rights” of a dramatically small number of individuals that you would be willing to sacrifice one of the only programs that is successful in dealing with inner city kids who are woefully short in the adult male role model category. Offhand, in the scheme of things I would think that the scouts help 10 boys (minimum) for every one that you think they may discriminate against. What the hell, if it ain’t perfect, it must be evil, right? But again, since the ’60’s I have always felt that libs prefer tearing down rather than building up. You are all WW 1 French Generals, each and every one. Like their attacks into impregnable positions, it was not the bad strategy that failed but rather the lack of sufficient elan in carrying out the attack. The society sucks, it must be the Boy Scouts fault!

          • charlieopera says:

            This works even better … they can allow women scoutmasters (so long as they aren’t lesbians … oy vey) … don’t they watch the news and see all those female teachers bedding down teenage lovers?

            Sweet Jesus … it is blatant discrimination (kicking out a lesbian scoutmaster) … couldn’t be more obvious … and damn well should be overturned.

            The boy scouts just took a big dip in the respect category for me … I’d send my eagle badge back if I had one.

            How about the mile swim … which I basically floated at least ¾’s of the way in Ranakwa slave camp, upstate NY …

            • Charlie, every now and then I just completely lose you????????

              Same question I asked Matt. Are the boys in Harlem and Bed Sty and the South Bronx better off with or without boy scouting? Willing to sacrifice them for perfection?

              Want to change things, volunteer! Want to be impressed? Watch a 15 or 16 year old plan and execute an Eagle project! Before every Eagle ceremony I give my stock speech. There is nothing else out there, nothing, not sports, not Student Government, nothing that teaches leadership the way scouting does. The service academies consider an Eagle (or a Girl scout with the Gold Award) equal to Valedictorian because they know the kid is a self starter and will get the job done. I didn’t make that up. A few year ago I was dealing with an AF Colonel whose job it was to sit in on boards held by congressmen and vet applicants for the Academies. I’m not saying a few bad apples don’t make it through, but they are few and far between.

              To close:

              On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country. To obey the Scout Law.To help other people at all times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight

              A Scout is: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

              You guys really have a problem with any of that? Or, is it too square for hipsters like yourselves?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Charlie, sometimes you are just goofy. I suppose you want all of the Private Clubs that only allow males to be admitted and/or become members to suddenly all start admitting females just out of the spirit of equality, right? For example, does anyone you know belong to a club where they can go smoke cigars, talk to “the guys”, and have a few cocktails without worrying about “female interference” while they are there at the club? If you do know such people, I am saddened that you aren’t lambasting them on a daily basis for belonging to such an awful, discriminatory, capitalistic club!

              Where’s your (faux) outrage???

        • bamadad says:

          What a bizarre theory on participation. I guess when I tried out for the basketball squad in Jr. High and did not make the team it scarred me for life. I bet that is the reason I don’t watch basket ball games as an adult. Not being able to participate in an activity does not equate to harm. When I was growing up some friends of mine lived in a community that had a swimming pool for the use of children who lived in that community only. Did I want to swim? Yes. Did I get to swim? No. Not being able to swim did not harm me in any way. How one equates harm to not being able to participate in some activity baffles me.

          • charlieopera says:

            The difference, which is quite obvious, is that you were allowed to try … if you can’t see that, there’s nothing I can do about it.

            • Keep your mouth shut and you can try too. But then again, this is a bogeyman argument. Question will always be…. Are boys better off with or without the program even acknowledging its weaknesses?

              And what about those tranny brownies pushing cookies, huh?

  29. G’morning Kathy. Wanted to get your thoughts on something. If you recall the other day you went a bit crazy over statements made by Obama? Below is Romney’s statement:

    “I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”

    • I am writing a piece on this, tackling Obama’s whole speech. Short answer to this question is that saying people help and that you are not an island is very different than saying you did not do something unique or could not do something on your own, and then further implying that the main help was government and that justifies a higher tax on you. The other answer is that Romney is a big government A-hole too.

  30. Colonel, how are things sir? Sorry I haven’t been around the past couple of days to continue our discussion — too much work and not nearly enough coffee!

    So where were we??

    1). I’m still not entirely following your argument on dividends and getting some sort of credit.
    2). Overall it seems we pretty much agree that while yes, there is some unknown point where if you raise cap gains rates past, investments will decrease as will revenues. But, we also seem to agree that we are not at that point, now will we be by raising rates from 15 to 20. Does this mean I have your support in making this change? 🙂

    • Goood morning, counselor. Yes, you have my support in raising the cap gains to 20% provided you leave the ordinary income rates alone and do away with “death” taxes.

      My point on the dividends is that dividends paid out (cash) automatically increases the stock price. A stock is going to increase in value as a direct proportion to dividends paid……it just makes it worth more artificially. So when you receive a dividend from your investment, the money you put up to begin with has already been taxed. Your financial statement is increased by the value of your stock at that time,,,,with a basis of the purchase price. As dividends are being paid with cash, we all know that dividends are paid right after the yearly prospectus or financials are put out by the entity where your investment is, We all know this is called “pumping the balance sheet”…….show huge amounts of cash reserves. In most instances, since dividend payments have not been decided upon, there is no regulation that says you need to list dividend payments as a short term liability….at the time the statements are published, there is no dividend in the works. Stock prices are based on the balance sheet….assets vs liabilities. This is accounting 101. One month later, the dividends are paid and the cash is gone but the value is still there….artificially. Since there is no indexing for inflation on assets and no indexing for cash allotments that show up on NEXT years balance sheet….hence an inflated stock value. This is a regularly accepted practice and does not violate any law.

      My other point, is that capital gains unfairly hits the elderly and the retired. You constantly worry about purchasing and buying powers of the less fortunate but somehow you seem to not consider the elderly in that bracket. The elderly have parlayed their money over the years into several types of investments…while they are taxed at ordinary income on dividends, a sale of assets (stock or otherwise) is going to be hit with a capital gains tax….all while they are on fixed income. It makes no difference if their effective rate is low…….the capital gains is going to hit them harder. Do you not find that to be disproportionate? Would you be in favor of elderly indexing?

      Other than that, things are going get a mite warmer although only 101 to day……

      • “Yes, you have my support in raising the cap gains to 20% provided you leave the ordinary income rates alone and do away with “death” taxes.”

        Hey, one tax issue at a time. How am I going to get you to agree with me piecemeal if I’m forced to agree with you from the get-go!?

        Let’s see…dividends…ok, I’m seeing where you are going with this. But I don’t believe you can make such a brightline rule. Given certain accounting practices you can do exactly as you describe. But more often than not I don’t believe there to be such a direct relationship. I’ve owned stocks that have appreciated considerably in value when decreasing the divided (or eliminating the dividend) so as to use the capital in other manners; I’ve owned stocks that have depreciated considerably in value when increasing the dividend paid out. I would still urge that the two must be treated separately.

        Now…on to the elderly….I may be able to support some form of elderly indexing, but would need a lot more information. But how about just making cap gains a progressive tax (the horrors! I know you hate that!!) like ordinary income — if below a threshold, tax at 15%; if above, tax at 20%? Would that allay at least some of your concerns?

        • “Hey, one tax issue at a time. How am I going to get you to agree with me piecemeal if I’m forced to agree with you from the get-go!?” D13 says:This is perfectly acceptable to us Colonel’s. I thought you knew that….it is in the Colonel’s handbook on Never Being Wrong.

          I understand the dividend issue…..just raising a point as an argument against inflated values through accounting.

          Ok…..the Elderly…..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……since I am going to fall under that next year at 65 years young……NO CAP Gains Tax would be my battle cry…………..I have put myself in that inevitable trap of purchasing hard assets and renewing them right after all the depreciation runs out……however, the chickens come home to roost when it is time to not repurchase hard assets and the depreciation is gone….so……..ok. I can get behind the threshold idea……up to 20% and it is capped there.

          • Woohoo!! Cap gains is finally made into a more progressive, two-tiered tax rate, with the top rate at 20%. Now…the threshold for where 20% applies — let me throw out a number to start: $250K AGI? Or would you be more comfortable keeping the two completely separate — in other words, the cap gains rate goes from 15 to 20 once a certain total threshold of cap gains is reached (as opposed to looking towards AGI)? I’m torn on the matter.

  31. Buck, Didn’t want to jump in on your question to Kathy, but I’m not letting you r sh** fly.

    You’re trying to redirect the argument off Obama’s outrageous remarks and try to make Romney look bad. Romney didn’t start it. Obama has taken his rhetoric to a new level. He took a shot at the very people who make the country work. Entreprenuers. Why? Because they are a thorn in his ideology. His central planning and control doesn’t work if people are successful. The message used to be that if you work hard you’ll be successful. Now it’s, “you’re not all that, have a seat.” That’s bullshit, Buck. You didn’t earn your way in life. Your hard work in law school doesn’t mean squat. You’re no better than couch check Joe. Everyone is the same..hard work or not. That is not what made our country successful, and for you to defend the remarks and shift the conversation to Romney, is just , what’s the word, PATHETIC.

    So before you start about my thoughts on what Romney said…how is he supposed to fire back? Say, Oh, Barack, you’re right. Government is the real reason we still exist! WTF? You’re smarter than that Buck. Careful, he’s after your money too. And one thing we don’t need to make the country work is lawyers. 👿

    • And furthermore..

      I’ll handoff to RedState and here’s the kicker: “..fundamentally transform America”
      http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/07/19/was-barack-obama-lying-then-or-now/

    • Sorry Anita, but the two (Obama and Romney) are saying the exact same thing here. Obama is taking a lot of flak from the right for saying the following:

      “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

      Romney, in his attempted criticism of Obama goes on to make the same general point being made by Obama! I fear you are reading in to Obama’s comments to see some nefarious intent, while glossing over Romney’s very similar statement.

      • No I’m not Buck. No one is denying that government has helped along the way! NO. ONE. Obama gave ZERO credit to the individual effort.

        • That is absolutely not true.

          • omg! I’ll be back, granddaughter comes first 🙂

            • Fair enough! 🙂

              • Hot Dog Dance is holding down the fort for now…

                Now, you mean this litlle, tiny bone he threw out there: The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

                The overall tone was demeaning. The PEOPLE made this country, through taxes. No people, no taxes, no brilliant masters. 🙄
                How many votes do you think he gained with that wisdom?

              • Sorry Anita, but they said the same exact thing. I’ll give you that Obama’s statement was a bit inartfully put, and opened himself up to false criticism. But the two main points are one and the same — it takes a community (along with enormous individual initiative…no one is doubting that).

              • He’ll come for this next!

              • Mathius™ says:

                What are you talking about?

                I did it all by myself!

                From the instant I was born:
                I fed myself
                I clothed myself
                I educated myself
                I built my own roads
                I provided my own health care
                I put out my own fires
                I provide my own police protection
                I hired myself in my first job
                I created the land on which I built my own house with own hands using supplies and raw materials which I also created
                I manufacture my own air
                I grow my own food
                I create my own water
                I invest my own money using my own currency
                I defend my home unilaterally from foreign enemies
                I built my own missile shield (and mine actually works)
                I negotiate my own treaties
                I produce my own television programming (and it’s still better than Fox News)
                I am my own internet service provider, having laid millions of miles of my own fiber optic cables, doing all independent R&D, and using my own switching stations
                I even created all of my friends (as they are all (Buck included) figments of my imagination)

              • I did do it all by myself.

                I earned income with my labor and brilliance, and I bought and paid for things I did not have with that income.

                You trade.
                No one “gave it to me”.

                The idiocy of the Left to believe that trade=gift, and therefore after the deal I am somehow still beholden to the other party….

              • You are nothing without your government, you are nothing without your government, you are nothing without your government.
                Keep worshiping your government and your masters. BF, Jon, or someone, take over my light work, I’m done.

      • ITs that last part that is most offensive, the “you didnt build that, someone else made that happen”. That is the real eye opener in this thing.

        • This is where Obama’s statement was inartfully put — if you take apart the actual speech, it becomes clear that “THAT” refers to the roads and bridges, not one’s business itself.

          • Yea, but even so, he is using the statements to justify a higher tax on the successful. Even tho the same roads and bridges and government help is available to all, in fact more available to the unsuccessful. So his logic is flawed regardless of whether he said it artfully or not.

            • That’s another point entirely. Obama is not being attacked by Romney for using this point as a justification to increase taxes on the wealthy; he is being attacked for the very substance of his remarks — the same exact substance of Romney’s own statement.

              • Not so. Stating that people had help is reasonable. Stating that there is nothing unique about what you did is not. So entrepreneurs are no smarter or harder working than anyone else? They got where they are because of others? Then why did they succeed where others did not? There is more to it, people will acknowledge they had help, but to say they did nothing more than anyone else is incorrect, THAT is the substance being attacked. Obama took a reasonable concept and warped it into an unreasonable one.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Where did Obama say that?

              • I fear you are reading in to Obama’s remarks what you think he is trying to say as opposed to what he actually said. Obama never said a businessman gets no credit, nor that a successful businessman has not worked hard. Obama merely said that intelligence, working hard is not always enough and that despite the individual initiative there is also a community working behind the scenes.

              • Substance-I say babies are precious and they should be protected from harm. You, Buck say babies are precious and should be protected from harm. Do we mean the exact same thing?? I would mean protect them from conception-you have a different measure. Our meaning is not even close.

                Obama is spouting about Rights owed because man is not an island. Romney is talking about responsibility. I know this because I look at words plus actions.

              • Babies are precious and should be protected from harm.

                If I made the above statement and then you decided to take it out of context to somehow make the claim that I want to kill all babies and then, in your criticism, say something along the lines of “Of course, we can agree that babies are precious and should be protected from harm”, well that’s pretty much what Romney did here.

                Both Obama and Romney are saying that individual effort alone is not enough; that you need government and the community. Obama may well believe that this need for government justifies increasing marginal tax rates; Romney clearly does not. But BOTH agree that we need government to incentivize and help (in some form or another) business! Yet Romney turns this around to somehow make the argument that Obama believes individual effort is meaningless. Huh!?

              • AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahhahahahahaha

                You left off the other half of the argument..the point that you keep avoiding…that govt is the reason people are successful.

              • No, the point is that Obama and Romney both said that government is one reason why people are successful.

                So Anita, are you going to vote for the big government GOP candidate who believes that government is necessary for success? Or will you vote for the big government Dem candidate who believes that government is necessary for success?

              • Mathius™ says:

                The government (and society) are contributing factors.

                The point is that people don’t achieve success in a vacuum.

              • Thank you for stepping in to this….now please excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall….

              • While you are correct about both candidates..here’s what I want..I want to hear you say that what Obama said was a knock against individual effort.

              • I don’t believe it was. Later in Obama’s statement was this little nugget: “When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

              • Nope the point is that Obama is promoting welfare as a RIGHT. The rest is just political noise.

              • Obama’s Rhetoric

                Thomas Sowell

                Jul 19, 2012

                Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

                His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

                Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

                Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

                Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

                The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”

                Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

                All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

                Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”?

                Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

                What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

                When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

                One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

                Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focussed on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”

                If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

                http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/19/obamas_rhetoric/page/full/

      • Also, Obama talks about how there are a lot of other smart and hard working people out there. Guess what? They had the same government infrastructure, the same so-called help along the way except that there might have been differences in parents and influences and they might have had help from another wealthy person. In other words, what Obama is implying is that government and “the people” are what made success possible, but when he says there are a lot of smart or hardworking people out there, he belies that implication because “government and the people” are the same for all, have the same impact on all. Except that government helps poor people a lot more than successful people, and none of those people become super-rich because of that government assistance. So yea, people help, others are involved, but it does not justify the forced “give something back” through increased tax burden that Obama is trying to sell.

        • Mathius™ says:

          have the same impact on all.

          Not true at all.

          If you are an industrial manufacturer, who protects your goods while in transit on in the middle of the ocean? You benefit (just an off-the-top-of-my-head example) massively from the protection of the Navy. Charlie, on the other hand, is a small time subsistence farmer in Iowa. He does not benefit NEARLY as much as you from the navy.

          Now, yes, the things he buys with his limited funds are cheaper because you were able to produce them in India and ship them without fear, thus his dollar stretches more. But you got RICH off of it. So, maybe they do have an impact on all (though I’m sure I could come up with better examples), they certainly do not have “the same impact on all.”

          Except that government helps poor people a lot more than successful people

          I don’t know if this is 100% accurate.

          Farm subsidies, oil subsidies, tax loopholes, patent law, etc.

          Beyond that, nobody bothers robbing a broke guy because he has nothing to take. The guy the police are protecting is the rich guy.

          The justice system is MASSIVELY rigged in favor of the rich, while the poor guy gets the shaft.

          I could go on, but I’d say, in short, that in some ways what you say is right, but it is FAR from being the whole story.

          • Granted, there is a lot of corruption in how government is set up. The support of the navy is not much different than the existence of roads. Both businesses technically benefit, the industrial shipper more from navy and the farmer more from roads, but both benefit. The Navy also keeps that farmer’s lands from being invaded. Technically. I mean, the navy and the rest of the armed forces also increases the risk on the shipper and the farmer by screwing around with the rest of the world with a might makes right attitude, but thats a separate discussion. The other stuff, the skewed justice system, the cronyism, the tax loopholes, the bailouts, the subsidies, the “incentives” to businesses to do business in a certain place or certain way, the lucrative government contracts, etc. are all things that no one in washington wants to really talk about. The government is advertised as helping the little guy. Taking that advertisement as truth, the government is skewed in favor of the poor, which is the one group that does not deserve to have anythign given back to because they did not help anyone get rich or build anything. So yes, there is more to the story, but the story Obama and his ilk are telling is what I am referring to, not what really happens. His advertisement is flawed. His (and his predecessors’) government is flawed a LOT more, and he has done nothing to fix it, is doing nothing to fix it, nor will he do anything to fix it. His whole thing is just a ploy to control more dollars, not fix how it is spent or who gets it, the backdoor deals will still exist, the corruption will live on, and the rich will soon only be the ones involved in the dirty deals, the ones that didnt not get there with government handouts or subsidies or special laws and considerations are a threat to government control, so that is who is being targeted. Make no mistake, I do not see Romney doing things much different, not in the long run. This is as much a choice between socialism and fascism as any I have ever seen. Both are big government, its just a matter of which big controlling government you want.

            • Mathius™ says:

              […] the lucrative government contracts, etc. are all things that no one in washington wants to really talk about.

              Yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there.

              The government is advertised as helping the little guy.

              It does.

              But it helps the big guy a lot more.

              Taking that advertisement as truth, the government is skewed in favor of the poor

              Why would you take that as the truth when you know it is a lie?

              Both are big government, its just a matter of which big controlling government you want.

              Off topic, but while we’re here, I might as well tell you that I couldn’t agree more.

              And, since that’s the case, I’m going to vote for the guy whose Big Government is closer to what I like – even if it’s not quite a perfect match, at least it’s in the right direction.

    • You’re doing great Anita! But be careful, pointing out the obvious will make you qualified as crazy, apparently.

      “Their guy” screwed up royally in showing his true colors, and they are trying desperately to soften the blow and put Romney in the limelight instead. We are used to their tactics by now. Excuse, deflect, name call.

      Right on with your pointing out the progressives’ battle cry! “You are nothing without your government, you are nothing without your government, you are nothing without your government”

      • Take a close look at the two quotes:

        Obama: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that…When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

        Romney: “There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That’s an important thing…I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help.”

        • Then let’s follow up with more Romney:

          ROMNEY: I don’t think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in a business. And my own view is that what the president said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a president of the United States. It goes to something I’ve spoken about from the beginning of the campaign, that this election is to a great degree about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government, or do we believe in an America that’s great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build their future?

          ROMNEY: I’m convinced he wants Americans to be ashamed of success. I want Americans to welcome and to celebrate success and to encourage people to reach as high as they can — and, in some cases, to build enterprises. I don’t want government to take credit for what the individuals of America accomplish. Whether they work in government or work in the private sector, it’s the people of America that make America the unique nation, the exceptional nation that it is!

          ROMNEY: I want to encourage economic freedom. Our economy is driven by free people pursuing their ideas and their dreams. It is not driven by government. And what the president is doing is crushing economic freedom

          ROMNEY: In the past people of both parties understood that encouraging achievement, encouraging success, encouraging people to lift themselves as high as they can, encouraging entrepreneurs, celebrating success instead of attacking it and denigrating it makes America strong.

          ROMNEY: That’s the right course for this country! His course is extraordinarily foreign!

          Doesn’t sound like exactly the same thing to me!

        • Here you go Buck! Might I add lawyers to the quote as well. From ProteinWisdom.com

          “How ‘You didn’t build that’ became ‘He didn’t say that’”

          Listen, Hobbits: who are you going to believe: your own lying eyes and ears, or those very sophisticated and better-educated journalism and English Majors who are going to pretend to sniff at your pedestrian inability to fully glean the very obvious and blazing subtext necessary to completely invert what Obama said into what he truly meant — which, duh, you guntoting dullards, is perfectly in keeping with the kind of full-throated embrace of a free-market capitalist message that the President in every other instance, in every other political incarnation, and through every one of his policies and actions routinely (albeit less transparently) rejects?

          We await your apology. Wingnuts.

          (h/t geoff b)

        • Obama Ad Accuses Romney of ‘Launching a False Attack’ for Quoting Obama
          1:46 PM, Jul 19, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

          President Obama’s reelection campaign accuses Mitt Romney of distorting the president’s words, by showing a side by side comparison of the Obama’s words and Romney’s quotation of those words:

          “Mitt Romney is launching a false attack,” the ad’s text states. But the weird thing is: The Obama campaign is purposefully trying to make it sound like Romney is misquoting the president, when the official White House transcript backs up Romney’s quotation.

          In the ad, Romney says that Obama revealed his thoughts on business when he said this, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

          And, in fact, according to official White House transcript that’s precisely what Obama said on July 13, 2012 in Roanoke, Virginia.

          Nevertheless, the Obama campaign, in the ad, says it’s not true. “The only problem?,” the ad text reads. “That’s not what he said.” It then turns to Obama, from the same Roanoke campaign speech, who said, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.”

          Which is true. Obama did say that. But he also said the line that Romney says he said– “If you’ve got a business –you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

          And, in fact, later in the ad the Obama campaign actually plays the clip that Romney quotes of Obama, at about :40 second spot.

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-ad-accuses-romney-launching-false-attack-quoting-obama_648762.html

          “Mitt Romney will say anything,” the ad concludes. It turns out, he’ll even say Obama’s words when quoting him.

          • The issue here is the Romney ad purposefully leaves out the ‘That’ (roads and bridges) in Obama’s statement, making it appear that what Obama said was that ‘if you have a business, you didn’t build that business – somebody else did.’

  32. Kristan

    I don’t see your point at all and that you would suggest that telling an employee that their job is now contingent on sexual acts is nothing more than redefining job duties says something to me about your moral compass.

    No, it doesn’t.
    But at the same time, I don’t confuse such a thing as being an affront to my rights either.

    Being told that filing or making coffee is now in my job description as opposed to being told that sexual favors are now a part of my job description are 2 very different things.

    Not one bit, except you assign a great deal more value to the latter then the former.

    In other words, you would not give sex away at the same price you would give making coffee.

    They are not even remotely the same.

    They are -economically- identical.
    The only difference is what value you place on them.

    • Kristian says:

      I’m sorry, but about the only way that sex is considered a comodity is if you do indeed work in a brothel. I don’t assign a monetary vlaue to sex and I don’t know many who do unless that is their profession. It’s not so much an affront to my rights as it is just wrong. My boss does not have the right to put me in that kind of position either. And I’m sorry but if I’ve signed an emplyment contract that obligates me to certain duties under my job description, unless it’s specified in that contract that my boss has the right to change that job description at his will, then no, he does not have the right to change the job midstream to include sexual favors, unless of course I work in a brothel! Now, remember, I’m not talking about the owner of the company, I’m talking about an immediate supervisor. That’s sexual harrassment and most if not all companies have a policy against it.

  33. Mathius

    But BF’s point is that it is NOT “force”. No, BF’s point is that it’s not “coercion” because you have a “choice.” You don’t HAVE TO say yes, therefore you are free to say no, regardless of the consequences.

    Not true. … regardless of consequences.
    You can say “no” to the man with a gun to your head – is a WHOLLY different consequence then saying “no” to a man whose job you are working.

    The latter – the employer owns the job you have no right to it.

    If you agree that the employer can terminate that job at his whim (that is, for whatever reason he says), then that is what he can do. All this further weeping over “why” he did such a thing is moot.

    • Mathius™ says:

      You still keep ignoring the definition of coercion though.

      The definition says violence, intimidation OR authority. OR.

      So how do you square an authority figure using intimidation with your belief that ” “A boss who extorts sex from an otherwise unwilling woman following a threat to fire her has not engaged in coercion.” – there, said it.”

      (Note, I’m not necessarily claiming that it’s a violation of anyone’s rights, but for now just that it’s coercive.) I just can’t seem to square these two statements.

  34. Mathius™ says:

    According to data contained in the Survey of Consumer Finances recently released by the Federal Reserve, the six heirs to the Walton family fortune of Wal-Mart fame are worth more than nearly 42 percent of all Americans combined.

    That sound you just heard was the vein popping in Charlie’s head.

  35. Let me see if I have this straight:

    1) You can be on a no fly list, yet learn to fly.

    2) Student loans to be kept at the same interest rates….paid for out of the PBGC….to the tune of 6 billion…..and the PBGC is 20 billion under funded.

    3) The private enterprise USPS is broke and the pension fund of the private USPS…..cannot make its payments…..and the government is wanting to grant a several billion dollar one time (cough cough) payment to the USPS…………………not a loan. I hope Congress says no.

    4) THe HOmeland Security and the border patrol stopping candy at the border……..but not stopping armed cartel members….under the see a gun and run program.

    And the hits keep on coming………………….

    ****D13 submits secret bill to Congress to ban all coffee in New Jersey and New York proper*****

  36. charlieopera says:

    According to data contained in the Survey of Consumer Finances recently released by the Federal Reserve, the six heirs to the Walton family fortune of Wal-Mart fame are worth more than nearly 42 percent of all Americans combined.

    Something they acquired, no doubt, by their swear of their brow! No one or thing helped them … they did it all by their lonesome.

    And what’s their address? BF’s universe … Mars.

  37. Nearly half of all homeowners in San Bernardino — approximately 150,000 people — have underwater mortgages, and the city recently became the third in California to declare bankruptcy.

    “They have been having the debate about considering principal loan forgiveness for four years,” Anthony Randazzo, director of economic research at the free market think tank Reason Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The eminent domain component is just the most novel approach.”

    Roughly one-fourth of American homeowners owe more on their house than it is currently worth. Nearly half of all mortgages in the United States are backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

    The Congressional Budget Office reports that the federal government has already given Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $130 million in cash payments, and the real cost of these “government sponsored enterprises” to the taxpayer has been estimated at over $300 billion.

    Edward DeMarco, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, testified before Congress that principal reductions actually hurt taxpayers and pose a “moral hazard” that might lead people to purposely stop making payments to benefit from the program.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/taxpayers-may-bear-burden-of-eminent-domain-scheme/#ixzz215fGU6Yd

  38. Another solar bust for Obama
    Rick Moran

    Flush another $20 million down the toilet. A North Las Vegas solar company has gone belly up after receiving $6 million in tax credits and another $15 million in grants from the DoE.

    Man, these guys can sure pick ’em, can’t they?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/another_solar_bust_for_obama.html#ixzz215jWnWVq

    One problem with this story, the loans were done and $15million went out under George Bush. I hate it when semi-trusted conservative sites screw up this badly. Obama has made enough mistakes without needing any false stories.

  39. Bama Dad says:

    Nice cut and paste job,

  40. Isn’t this the same post from last time? Think you take this troll off wordpress, LOI.

  41. Thanks alot Buck! I woke up all pissed off this morning, burr on my brow and all, after dreaming of arguing with you all night! 🙂

%d bloggers like this: