Friday Nite Excitement!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-shirtless_n_1797096.html

or open mic  (why do liberals want to see Ryan shirtless?  And what will they do with  it now?)  I may have an article for Mon-Tues unless anyone else has something?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😐

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    I missed the game but just saw the Stats. Looks like Moore had a better game this week.

    The Lions must have played well.

    • Anita, my love, the Lions have a boatload of talent (like the Bills did in the early 90’s). It’ll be up to the coach to keep them in line (and himself in line) … they could be a new dynasty … or one huge disappointment … injuries always factor in a long season. I like them to smarten up and take the division this year, but I’m the kiss of death with these things.

      As to Ryan shirtless … seems strange anyone would report on this stuff. I wish they’d stick to his Ayn Rand breakup and all the bullshit he was slinging about her book and philosophy (making staffers read that garbage) and then running for cover when he “learned” she was an atheist? Seems he has a little war with women he needs to settle now … I look forward to the debates for their entertainment value …

      @Plainly … I was hoping you’d get back to me on my explanation for being a hardhead …

      • @Plainly … I was hoping you’d get back to me on my explanation for being a hardhead …

        Charlie, my sincere apologies but I do not remember what I said or where. If you could point me to my comment and let me refresh my thinking (the noggin has been lagging lately) I most certainly will accommodate you and explain. 🙂

        • I got your back Plainly. Charlie did address you several times lately when it was not you who commented to begin with. It’s not you, it’s just that SOMETIMERS has set in with Charlie. 🙂

          • Thanks Anita. 🙂

            I would like to say about the religion discussion that both JAC and Mathius are correct. I was baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant. In the eyes of the church I will forever be a Catholic. Yet, I am not a Catholic and haven’t been for decades. I do not practice their doctrines because (like Mathius) at about 10 years old I began to see all the hypocrisy in the church. I am a Christian and I am Baptist. I have been baptized as an adult, by my choice, by the Baptist minister of the church we attended at the time.

            So JAC is right in that a particular religion may still consider one to be of their faith and Mathius is right in we are what we choose to be regardless of what any religious organization believes. Obama states he is a Christian, then regardless of what Muslims may wish to believe (here or abroad) he is a Christian.

            Now if one wishes to question a candidate religious beliefs versus the Constitution in order to decide for themselves whether to vote for that candidate is up to them – but, I do not believe it should be a national dialogue. Write a letter or attend a political rally and ask him/her for yourself.

            PS: Mathius , if I have to be a vegetable can I be an ear of corn? I really like corn. 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:

              plainly

              I agree with your summary except for the constraint you place on my getting answers.

              It is nearly impossible to get a direct answer to personal inquiry. So in this modern day we are left with hoping some media pundit or group can create enough stir to get the answers to the questions. Furthermore, if it is a legitimate question, then it should be of national interest, not just my personal interest. Of course the real question is whether others share those same questions.

              Just as the media did with Kennedy. And he gracefully addressed the question.

              The problem is that it doesn’t end with questions and answers anymore. The political tactic of denigration takes over, regardless of the answers.

              One other thing. Quitting the Catholic church will not get you killed by the Catholic Church. Not in the modern era anyway. Depending on the Muslim Church it might get you killed to quite theirs. Mr. Obama should be thankful his father took him to Indonesia and not Saudi Arabia.

              • Yes, Kennedy did address the question. But, I also remember learning from the history of that election that a large segment of the conservatives in the country felt Kennedy would turn the country over to the Church and succumb to the authority of the Pope. Neither of which happened as we know.

                I am not overly concerned with Obama being a Muslim or not (I believe him to be what he states he is – a Christian) and don’t find it as a reasonable issue. Even if he openly answered any question(s) by the media about being Muslim, one must remember that Muslims may lie to unbelievers without committing any sin in the eyes of the faith – so what good would the questioning be even if he was secretly a Muslim?

                The political tactic of denigration takes over, regardless of the answers.

                Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.., I care not. While the laws prevent a religious test for any political office, the population chooses to institute a religious test (or not) in the dialogue of a political election. Then as you point out it becomes a war of denigration over religious issues. Nothing of which will bring forth the fitness of a person to hold the elected office he/she is campaigning for.

    • Missed it JAC…didn’t even know they played. Thanks, now I’ll go to ESPN……

  3. Lemonade Freedom Day
    By Orit Sklar

    If apple pie is the all-American dessert, the lemonade stand you see over the windowsill where granny’s pie is cooling is the all-American first job. Sometimes it seems that nearly every kid since lemonade was invented has learned the virtues of hard work, responsibility, saving toward a dream or fundraising for a cause, and entrepreneurism by running a lemonade stand. But this is America 2012, where kids are more likely to learn a lesson in big government and dream-crushing regulations. Think of it as trickle-down tyranny, a micro-version of what they face when they enter today’s real economy and workforce.

    Last year, the war on lemonade stands came to the forefront of the national debate. Police descended on street corners to earnestly scold innocent second-graders. Parents were being fined hundreds of dollars. Cities and counties were passing ordinances to put an end to the threat to society once and for all! Do lemonade stands rank among the most urgent public safety and policy matter of our day? Are our tax dollars being used and elected officials focused on solving real problems?

    Real problems. Like in Midway, Georgia. According to the Associated Press, Midway police “shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn’t have a business license or the required permits.” Police Chief Kelly Morningstar also “didn’t know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it.” Last time I checked, the recipe for lemonade had not changed. Was it the lemon, sugar, or water that was suspect? (If the lemonade stand had been in New York City, where Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a ban on drinks 16 ounces or larger, I would have suggested the cup size.)

    The peddler’s permit, which according to the city was necessary in order to continue operations, cost more than the girls would make in a day. Even these young girls could figure out that the government had wiped out any hope of profit, so they chose yard work and chores, which, for now, are still out of state reach. One has to wonder: in how many other arenas are government’s cost-prohibitive regulations stifling entrepreneurism and keeping people from pursing their dreams?

    It’s imperative that kids grow up learning that our nation celebrates success and encourages entrepreneurship. The Midway girls’ story continues to resonate with Americans. To show appreciation for their entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and dedication to lemonade stands, they were awarded $5,000 each from Tropicana Trop50 towards their college fund just last month on ABC’s The Chew.

    But the policies and actions taken to shut down lemonade stands aren’t occurring in a vacuum. Kids are also seeing massive changes and prohibitions in their schools. In North Carolina, a woman sent her daughter to school only to find out later in the day that her homemade lunch was forcibly replaced by cafeteria food. Snacks are being sold on the black market because the school administrators have followed directives to remove the tasty treats. (Don’t you just love such enterprising young people?) And bake sales, the biggest fundraising opportunities for extracurricular activities, are being banned.

    The Lemonade War is just one skirmish in an unprecedented, and once unthinkable, government invasion on the food and drink marketplace. From outright bans to burdensome taxes to baseless guidelines, Americans are facing a future where we will be less free to make decisions about what we eat and drink. Continuing down this path means decision-making power transfers from the consumer to the government. We are surrendering our menus and allowing the state to place our orders.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/lemonade_freedom_day.html#ixzz23tqchgwt

  4. Carryover

    Todd says:
    August 18, 2012 at 1:18 am
    Anita,
    I’m not defending the guy’s statement. But the 3 of you are using someone else’s comments to “prove” Obama shouldn’t be reelected.

    The “European country of his choice. Unless he prefers to return to Indonesia” is just a childish comment to (wink, wink) point out that Obama really is a SOCIALIST and a MUSLIM…

    Now would you care to have an actual discussion about this question or do you wish to simply take pokes at pieces and parts as suits your need to ridicule?

    WOW! Now we can’t even be offended by a racist spouting hate. My attitude about Toure’s comments has nothing to do with OBAMA’s reelection.I can ridicule him to hell freezes over if I damn well want to. His comments have nothing to do with the election either, but more to do with fueling racial tensions. Like we need any more fuel on that fire. Who is this guy anyway? I’ve never heard of him before. For MSNBC to put him on the air, and try to justify his remarks, as the hostess did, shows pure hatred by that network itself and SHOULD BE RIDICULED. And for you to get you dander up about my being offended shows that you don’t have your eye on the ball either. So instead of presenting yourself as a JERK how about commenting on the guys’s statement. NIGGERIZATION. WTF is that? He should look in the mirror. Only a RACIST would equate Romney’s words of “take your campaign of division, anger, and hate back to Chicago” with racism. And all you have is to call us STUPID? Hey Todd! How about you keep your anger and hate in Northern Wisconsin and take some Xanax before you think about calling me stupid again.

    END RANT

    • Terry Evans says:

      The Liberals are feeling things slip away and are becoming desparate…but it is their norm to name call and demagogue. I am confident that if the election were held today, we would have a new POTUS…there are still 80 days to go though. As long as Romney/Ryan keep their eye on the ball and keep the economy in the discussion Obama does not stand a chance.

      • Terry,

        It matters not one wit who sits in the big chair – nothing fundamental will change.
        The wars will continue.
        The government spending will continue to grow out of control.
        There will be another 70,000 pages of new laws placed upon your head every year.

        The Messiah syndrome that most voters suffer continues to poison the nation

        • At this point all we have is a choice of poison. That fact is not going away. I’ll take Romney’s poison and chase it down with the constant pressure of VDLG.

          • It is the same poison, but only with a different label.

            Anyone believing one label dilutes the poison vs. the other label is living in a fantasy.

            • BF, you know I respect you. But it’s a fantasy to believe that we can go from being poisoned to not being poisoned… overnight. Besides that would be pulling all the knives at once. I’m with you all the way on your theory but it just isn’t going to happen in an instant. So I’m forced to choose what I SEE as the lesser poison.

              • Anita

                BF, you know I respect you. But it’s a fantasy to believe that we can go from being poisoned to not being poisoned… overnight.

                Never said that, nor has that ever been the condition demanded.

                So I’m forced to choose what I SEE as the lesser poison.

                But that is the point – you are NOT being forced AND you are not choosing the lessor poison.
                You are willingly drinking from it and merely choose it based on a label and not the contents.

                There are other choices, but you refuse them in favor of poisoning.

                I have laid them out.

                Withdrawal of consent.
                Withhold of obedience.

                Now, I understand why you do not choose these options .

                They supply tremendous personal risk.

                Voting for more poison supplies little personal risk, and the disease created by the posion – well, you can blame some guy in a chair 1,500 miles away for it – “it isn’t your fault he made those decisions”.

                All political change only comes from those that accept personal risk.

                The meek only vote when safe to do so.

              • I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think you understand me ;). I’ve been round with my brother on this too. If I personally do not consent (vote), that does nothing to change the fact that 300 million other folks will consent. So my non consent is actually a vote FOR Obama. I can’t live with that. Maybe in a different time, like say pre 1900, when there were two sane (used lightly) parties, I would chose not to vote. But all we have now are extreme parties running the show. I still have faith that conservatives are the majority and that their large turnout will put us in a better direction. I’m not saying that we will suddenly be free because conservatives won, but I def feel that if Obama wins we will be so far from being free that folks will think it’s normal. I can’t support that.

              • Anita,

                So your logic says
                1) The only establish (non-violent) way to change is to withdraw consent.
                2) If I withdraw my consent, my individual action pales in the face of millions in contrary to my action
                3) YET If a confirm my consent, though, my individual action is powerful in the face of millions in alignment to my action.
                4) Therefore, the only way to change a system is to use the system to prevent change.

                And then you wonder why evil grows.

              • Anita,

                And, oh, just to remind you

                90 million people did not vote last election – nearly a third of the population. You are hardly “alone”.

                The politicians are worried – their legitimacy is evaporating.

              • BF,

                90 million people did not vote last election….

                because they are lazy.

                NOT because they withdraw their consent for government. I’m sure there were a few in there, but they were MASSIVELY outnumbered by the lazy non-voters.

        • It matters not one wit who sits in the big chair – nothing fundamental will change.
          The wars will continue.
          The government spending will continue to grow out of control.
          There will be another 70,000 pages of new laws placed upon your head every year.

          The Messiah syndrome that most voters suffer continues to poison the nation

          Once again, BF and I agree.

          • Terry Evans says:

            And I don’t totally disagree…you and BF are two different sides of the same coin, and I understand where you are both coming from, I simply do not agree…totally. I see salient points raised by both of you, even if those points are usually diametrically opposed. Matt is right in one respect IMO…not everything is as black and white as you like to present it…there are varying shades of gray…

        • Terry Evans says:

          It would at the very least be an improvement over what is currently in the White House. Rome wasn’t built in a day, so if there is any hope whatsoever, it has to start somewhere. I know you are 10000% against government of any kind, and I understand where you are coming from even if I don’t totally agree. Don’t condem someone for trying…even if your view is that it is useless.

          • How can you change a system by enforcing the system?

            Rome is already built – and arguing that continuously adding more bricks makes it better IS the very problem.

            There is no political theory that demonstrates a deconstruction of political power – all political power grows one way. Arguing that by changing a vote will change this flow is a sign there has been done little personal study of the power of politics.

            The only way the power of politics is evaporated is by non-participation. Withholding of consent and the withholding of obedience.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Son, I have been down this rabbit hole with you before, and do not intend to go there again. As I stated before, I understand what you expouse, and do nto totally disagree…I just don’t totally agree.

              • Terry,

                And, here, you are no different then Charlie in some of his espousing.

                You merely disagree. But empty to any rational to explain it.

                You cannot offer any political theory that supports your disagreement.

                You do not like the conclusions a truth delivers, so you close your mind to the truth, and rather live a lie.

                Perhaps you do not understand that the truth is the truth whether you see or not, and by blinding yourself to it makes the outcome -when delivered- become a very terrible surprise.

    • Anita,
      I did not call you stupid. I used “your words to simply show how STUPID you all sound.”

      However, upon rereading the comments, it was JAC’s and Gman’s comments I was using, not yours. So I should not have used your name in my reply. I SINCERELY apologize for that mistake!

      You can be offended as you want by a racist spouting hate. Just as I am offended by the racists spouting hate.

      I do not agree with Toure’s choice of words, but I do agree with the sentiment. Romney’s words of “take your campaign of division, anger, and hate back to Chicago” is in-and-of-itself loaded with division, anger, and hate. I think everyone knows what he means – it’s red meat to try to appease the right-wing that Romney really is “one of them.”

      None of these comments got my “dander up.” I have no “anger and hate” about this – I was chuckling as I posted it. But JAC posted in the same thread “Now would you care to have an actual discussion about this question or do you wish to simply take pokes at pieces and parts as suits your need to ridicule”.

      These types of posts will never lead to “actual discussions”.

      PS – maybe the distance threw things off 😉 . I’m not in Northern Wisconsin this week. I’m out west chasing down JAC – but don’t tell him!!

  5. Terry Evans says:

    The lawn beckons…I will return to this later, but understand that I am not arguing with you…that is a pointless endeavor. I believe that Anita and I are pretty much on the same page…

    • Believe in what?

      Believe in the miraculous power of violent power?

      Believe that a handful of telegenic and charismatic individuals will sacrifice their personal welfare to work as servants for millions of strangers simply because those strangers are citizens of the same political entity as are the telegenic and charismatic individuals who furiously fight each other for the privilege of sacrificing their personal welfare to work as servants for millions of strangers?

      Believe that a handful of telegenic and charismatic individuals – who do not know you personally – can spend your money and regulate your behavior better than you can spend your own money and regulate your own behavior?

      Or believe that if a majority of your fellow citizens vote to give power to a handful of telegenic and charismatic individuals, then it’s moral and right and proper and economically sensible for that handful of telegenic and charismatic individuals to take money and autonomy from some politically impotent people in order to enrich you and other people less politically impotent than are those whose money is taken and whose freedom of action is constrained?

      Such a Religion has never ever appealed to me.

      This fact is one important practical reason why I strongly advocate freedom of religion.

      I wish that that freedom extended to being free of having to support the cult of the State and to participate in the rituals that the State’s priests and faithful laity impose on us all.

      • No. Believing that we have been set up. You haven’t dealt with the notion that not voting = pulling all knives at once. What if no one voted in this election? Then we have spoken up and said that the govt is not legitimate. But then what? The same people get to stay in power? And then.. all the knives are out at once.. and…we die? what? You say we can’t pull all knives at once but that’s exactly what you want us to do. Whatsupwiththat?

        • Anita,

          No. Believing that we have been set up. You haven’t dealt with the notion that not voting = pulling all knives at once.

          Yes, I have – but you didn’t read it the last time.

          When higher level of government loses legitimacy – it devolves to a lower level of government.

          So the delegitimization of the Federal system, pushes power back to the State or Provincial level.
          Delegitimatizing that level pushes power back to counties, towns and cities.
          Delegitimatizing that level pushes power back to communities and neighborhoods.

          It is not likely such political power will fall much past counties/towns/cities but if it did, it would follow this scenario presented.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Now you chastised Terry for supposedly putting words in your mouth, but the fact remains that less than half the people in this country vote for Federal offices and even less vote for State and Local

            So WHERE IS THIS MAGIC level of DE-LEGITIMATIZING that you speak of located?

            • JAC

              Patience – delegitimization takes time.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                That Sir is NOT AN ANSWER.

                At what magic percentage does the population of NOT VOTING actually begin to affect legitimacy of the Govt?

                When does it have any REAL meaning to the rest of us?

              • When 10% to 20% of the population stops voting purposefully, the end of legitimate government is approaching.

                When that same population then begins a program of ridicule, it’s over.

  6. IF I don’t vote, I am powerless because my withdrawal of one vs the millions who do vote is too small to make notice.

    IF I do vote, I am making a change as my one vote among the millions is very powerful and will be noticed.

    For most of you, this bizarre thinking makes sense.

    • BF to Terry: You cannot offer any political theory that supports your disagreement.

      Not to worry, Terry, neither can he. Only in HIS mind is the world black and white. There are always shades of gray … unless you wear blinders and/or close your eyes, which is what BF does to anyone else’s opinion. His political theory (anarchism), as much as many of us might love to see it, CANNOT HAPPEN … WILL NOT HAPPEN … so to pursue it is AT LEAST as pointless as the “bizarre” thinking he mocks.

      Which is why I consider him a Buffoon … because he knows what he knows and we’re all idiots for not taking him at his word.

      Hitler had the issue too …:)

      • Charlie,

        That is where you err.

        There is centuries of political theory that explains political power and action, as well as principles and thoughts around anarchism, and all the other “isms” you wish to select.

        Your error is that you read none of anything outside your bizarre and twisted Socialist myths.

        Your measure – a “happening” – exists around you, but – again – you blind yourself to it, because it makes your myths a lie.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      It is not that not voting makes you powerless. It means that OTHERS have total say and you have none.

      You seem to confuse voting with actual cause/effect.

      Voting is the final “peaceful” expression of the individual. It is the alternative to violent rebellion.

      As I have said before. If you take the history you espouse you will see that withholding votes is only important to totalitarian states. And it is important to them NOT to fool the people they rule, but to gain “acceptance” from the broader community of nations.

      The only thing a totalitarian fears is loss of control. Whether that be by violent rebellion, strike or loss of tax revenue. And possibly ………….. an election.

      Our problems do not stem from people voting. It comes from what it is that those people believe and thus who they vote for, based on those beliefs.

      • JAC,

        Exactly.
        Whether you vote or not – you have no say.

        So, the question remains, What, then, is the purpose of voting, if the voting itself has no say?

        It is only then a statement of affirmation of the system and status quo

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          NO! It is an affirmation of YOUR views and your best judgment as to who you want to represent your views.

          If I vote then I had a SAY. My view may not win today. But I DID HAVE MY SAY in the matter.

          If nothing changes then you get MORE engaged, not less. This included voting in a system where decisions are made by voting. Which happens to be all systems invented by man since the days of despotic monarchs.

          So does voting validate the system. Yes it does, to the extent that humans believe in self govt and thus the right to vote on matters that affect them. It remains the only peaceful means of CHANGING the system.

          Withdrawing your involvement accomplishes nothing, except perhaps make one feel more righteous.

          Spreading cynicism and apathy is no way to fight evil.

          • JAC,

            You had no say in the matter at all – that is what all the studies demonstrated.

            The point here is that yours and Anita and other’s claim that you vote “to make a difference” is wholly invalid. The politicians do not care at all about the vote.

            The threat of “you will face the ire of the voter at the next election” – a come retort of yours and others as a powerful tool to reign in political creeps simply does not exist as a force.

            Yet, politicians DO fret over votes.

            So if the vote is powerless to invoke a change YET politicians still fret over votes, what is the power of the vote?

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Go ahead and withhold your vote in protest.

    And see what you get…………

    http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/

    • Yeah! Good catch JAC

      • No you don’t.
        That is what voting got you

        He did not achieve office because of non-votes.

        He got there because of votes.

        You have -once again- your cause and effect backwards.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          It is not I who has the cause/effect reversed.

          It is your claiming that the vote itself is the validation of the system itself. It is NOT.

          We vote because we have already validated the system and accepted it.

          That my friend is the root cause.

          So REALITY is that we live in a system where the vote is used to make change. Now we can sit on the bench and whine that voting is a joke, or we can get up and play the game we are part of today.

          • JAC,

            IT IS the validation of the system itself.

            If no one voted, what power does the politician have in claiming the common will?
            None.

            Votes have NEVER made a change in modern politics.

            As long as you participate in the game, the game will never change.

            You cannot change a system by participating in a system that by its root organization prohibits change to itself.

      • Further,
        You gave him legitimacy by voting – you call him President, and obey his decrees –

        because even if “your guy” didn’t win, you agree with the system and methodology that puts a person whom you disagree with into a position of power that you obey.

        You do so, so that why “your guy” wins, you insist the other side that “loses” also submits to the position of power and obeys

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          Yes, in a very general sense I DO AGREE WITH THE SYSTEM, that being a Constitutional Republic.

          I do not require anyone to submit. But they should be free to do so if “it pleases them”.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    If you find yourself engaged in a football game, you will accomplish nothing by sitting on the bench and demanding that everyone play basketball.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    Great article on property rights, history of Indian relations in Canada and how the US differed, summary of the arrogance of outsiders and the utility of Property Rights.

    Which is the prerequisite for Capitalism.

    BUT……………. there is a BIG HOLE in the conclusion. Big enough to drive a big rig through.

    So lets see who can find and then describe that hole!!

    Happy reading.
    🙂

    • Ok but you have to send us somewhere first 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Sorry my dear. I got all caught up thinking about a response to BF on voting. Apparently I can’t multi-task this morning. 😉

        http://mises.org/daily/6150/Respect-Indigenous-Property-Rights

        • Terry Evans says:

          JAC, I understand where BF is coming from as I am sure you do. In my opinion where he misses the point is basically what Anita said…it is highly unlikely that you could get EVERYONE not to vote…that is where his logic fails. He is trying to apply logic to human behavior, and those two do not compute.

          • Terry,

            In my opinion where he misses the point is basically what Anita said…it is highly unlikely that you could get EVERYONE not to vote…that is where his logic fails. He is trying to apply logic to human behavior, and those two do not compute.

            You know what pisses me off the most – is when people lie about my position and principle.

            Nowhere did I ever say “EVERYONE” – like when do I ever say that at all?

            You, like most, are merely a bunch of sheep. You’ll follow direction the current wind may blow.

            It is a sociological observation that tipping points are achieved with merely 10% of a population in motion.

            It was only 10% of Americans who supported Independence.
            It was only 10% of Russians who supported the Communist party…etc.

            Nowhere – ever – is even close to a majority necessary – since the vast majority action or opinion hold no merit nor actually achieve anything.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              Alas, another failure in your logic. You argue that NO ALL are needed to withhold a vote to change a system and then use examples of where a MINORITY USED VOTING to secure the power to use violence against others to gain power.

              So your examples confirm the counter argument. Namely those 90% who did not vote got run over by the 10% who DID VOTE.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Oh, and my intention was not to piss anyone off…so I apologise if I misrepresented your position.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Forgive my math, but you stated before that 90 million people out of 300 million did not vote int he last election…pardon my ignorance, but that seems to be a bit more than 10%…I see nothing getting better, so I chose not to be one to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. If that disagrees with you, I really don’t care…

          • Terry,

            Further, the position is not on what is or is not achievable – your stance would fail instantly under such a test.

            The position is held based on a principle – a principle you mouth but contradict by your action.

            You want freedom, but act and support people who destroy it.
            You complain about the destruction, but refuse to change your action.

            The space between principle and action – when they contradict one another – is where evil grows.

            When you preach against evil – look in the mirror, for that is its source.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              A principle of freedom is NOT violated by the act of voting.

              It entirely depends on WHAT is being voted on.

              Therefore the Vote itself is not the issue.

              • JAC

                Keep to the subject matter.

                We are not talking about voting at your local pub on what to watch on TV.

                We are talking about violence and the vote that legitimizes it.

              • Voting IS the issue.

                You can use a knife to cut your steak
                or
                You can use a knife to cut me.

                The knife is the tool, and its use is the debate.
                Replace knife with “vote” and there is your issue.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    You could not be more WRONG with this one:

    “Anita,

    And, oh, just to remind you

    90 million people did not vote last election – nearly a third of the population. You are hardly “alone”.

    The politicians are worried – their legitimacy is evaporating.”

    I don’t know what kind of tea you been drinkin lately but I assure you that the politicians are not worried right now about their “legitimacy” and they certainly don’t feel it is evaporating.

    The only thing that concerns them is having enough people in their club to control the levers.

    The only thing that could jeopardize their “power” is a complete economic collapse. But that is not a solution brought on by “withholding your vote”. And as you said, the elite will do everything to prevent it from happening.

    • JAC

      I assure you that the politicians are not worried right now about their “legitimacy” and they certainly don’t feel it is evaporating.

      You couldn’t be more wrong.

      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2111398?uid=3739392&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21100991195583

      Quote from one of their referenced studies:
      We find that there is little evidence that the preferences of voters matter disproportionately to the activity of policymakers.

      The study showed that the preferences of voters – for or against an issue – did not matter one wit to the decisions and activities of the politicians!

      Further, what mattered was not the vote, but public opinion and here voters and non-voters held absolute equality.

      The conclusion was “unequal participation” — that is voting (participating) vs. non-voting (not participating or selective participation) – held the same influence on public opinion – thus, the same hold on government action.

      Quote:
      But at least in terms of global policy preferences, the relationship between public opinion and government action is not inhibited by unequal participation.

      The root:
      Voting does not improve influence; non-voting does not remove influence.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        There is absolutely NOTHING in these conclusions that counters my conclusion.

        Politicians are NOT concerned today with their loss of legitimacy. SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

        • You are not reading.

          “Max weber’s concept of legitimacy occupies a paradoxical position in modern political science. On the one hand, it has proved to be the dominant model for empirical investigations of legitimacy. On the other hand, it has met with almost universal criticism by those political philosophers who have evaluated it.

          In Weber’s hands, however, legitimacy no longer represents an evaluation of a regime; indeed, it no longer refers directly to the regime itself.

          Rather, it is defined as the belief of citizens that the regime is, to speak in circles, legitimate.

          Legitimacy becomes, for Weber, simply a matter of fact, the fact that citizens hold a certain belief.

          Weber virtually identifies legitimacy with stable and effective political power, reducing it to a routine submission to authority.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            I do not see how any of what you offered here will change my conclusion.

            I just finished a quick over view of Weber’s view points. I see nothing there either that tells me that politicians in the USA have any fear of their legitimacy being reduced.

            • Lost on me as well. As long as Nancy Pelosi can vote herself into office, she will do so. Legitimacy means nothing to her as long as she has the power of that office. Checks will be written and cashed. People do what they become used to doing, not what’s best for themselves. Think of the population in general being kidnap victims and forming a bond with the kidnapers. We all suffer from voters Helsinki Syndrome. It will take some form of mass thearpy to break the dependence.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    I just had an idea tied to voting.

    What if with each vote you had a scale of 1 to 10 to express your level of support for the person you chose.

    So Romney/Ryan win the election with a satisfaction number of say 5 out of ten.

    This would provide them with a greater sense of how we felt about their “mandate”.

    Looking back, Bush would have won in 2004 with a satisfaction rating of 1 or 2. He would have never mistaken his re-election for affirmation of his programs.

    I also like the idea of NONE OF THE ABOVE and a requirement for new Candidates should NONE win the majority.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    This Sir is a FALSE argument:

    “Voting IS the issue.

    You can use a knife to cut your steak
    or
    You can use a knife to cut me.

    The knife is the tool, and its use is the debate.
    Replace knife with “vote” and there is your issue.”

    The decisions to be made in your example, in order, are:

    1. Whether to have steak or soup.

    2. Which utensil to use for the meal selected.

    3. Whether to kill you or not kill you.

    4. Which weapon to use to kill you.

    Now I live in a house of many people so we VOTE for the meal. My side won, we are having STEAK.

    So now I use a knife to cut the steak. A fork or spoon would be pointless, in fact irrational.

    My decision to use the knife was NOT a vote, but a rational choice.

    Now I decide to kill you. Again not a vote as it is my personal choice. Now lets say the family wants to make a joint decision. We VOTE to kill you. We vote to have me do the deed.

    I choose the knife because again, a spoon is an irrational choice given my options.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Boy, talk about getting a thread side tracked. OK, lets try again. Anyone see the hole in the argument regarding private property rights and natives?

    http://mises.org/daily/6150/Respect-Indigenous-Property-Rights

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Communism and Marx…………. aka, a special post for Charlie.

    [This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 10 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995). An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.]

    Another important reason for Marx’s failure to publish was his candid depiction of the communist society in the essay “Private Property and Communism.” In addition to its being philosophic and not economic, he portrayed a horrifying but allegedly necessary stage of society immediately after the necessary violent world revolution of the proletariat, and before ultimate communism is to be finally achieved. Marx’s postrevolutionary society, that of “unthinking” or “raw” communism, was not such as to spur the revolutionary energies of the Marxian faithful.

    For Marx took to heart two bitter critiques of communism that had become prominent in Europe. One was by the French mutualist anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who denounced communism as “oppression and slavery,” and to whom Marx explicitly referred in his essay. The other was a fascinating book by the conservative Hegelian monarchist Lorenz von Stein (1815–1890), who had been assigned by the Prussian government in 1840 to study the unsettling new doctrines of socialism and communism becoming rampant in France. Not only did Marx show a “minute textual familiarity” with Stein’s subsequent book of 1842, but he actually based his concept of the proletariat as the foundation and the engine of the world revolution on Stein’s insights into the new revolutionary doctrines as rationalizations of the class interests of the proletariat.[1]

    Most remarkably, Marx admittedly agreed with Proudhon’s, and particularly Stein’s, portrayal of the first stage of the postrevolutionary society, which he agreed with Stein to call “raw communism.” Stein forecast that raw communism would be an attempt to enforce egalitarianism by wildly and ferociously expropriating and destroying property, confiscating it, and coercively communizing women as well as material wealth. Indeed, Marx’s evaluation of raw communism, the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was even more negative than Stein’s:

    In the same way as woman is to abandon marriage for general [i.e. universal] prostitution, so the whole world of wealth, that is, the objective being of man, is to abandon the relation of exclusive marriage with the private property owner for the relation of general prostitution with the community.

    Not only that, but as Professor Tucker puts it, Marx concedes that

    raw communism is not the real transcendence of private property but only the universalizing of it, not the overcoming of greed but only the generalizing of it, and not the abolition of labour but only its extension to all men. It is merely a new form in which the vileness of private property comes to the surface.

    In short, in the stage of communalization of private property, what Marx himself considers the worst features of private property will be maximized. Not only that, but Marx concedes the truth of the charge of anticommunists then and now that communism and communization is but the expression in Marx’s words, of “envy and a desire to reduce all to a common level.” Far from leading to a flowering of human personality as Marx is supposed to claim, he admits that communism will negate it totally. Thus Marx:

    In completely negating the personality of men, this type of communism is really nothing but the logical expression of private property. General envy, constituting itself as power, is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way … In the approach to woman as the spoil and handmaid of communal lust is pressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself.[2]

    All in all, Marx’s portrayal of raw communism is very like the monstrous regimes imposed by the coercive Anabaptists of the sixteenth century.[3]

    Professor Tucker adds, perhaps underlining the obvious, that “these vivid indications from the Paris manuscripts of the way in which Marx envisaged and evaluated the immediate postrevolutionary period very probably explain the extreme reticence that he always later showed on this topic in his published writings.”[4]
    Sumner, William Graham

    $18.00 $14.00

    But if this communism is admittedly so monstrous, a regime of “infinite degradation,” why should anyone favor it, much less dedicate one’s life and fight a bloody revolution to establish it? Here, as so often in Marx’s thought and writings, he falls back on the mystique of the “dialectic” — that wondrous magic word by which one social system inevitably gives rise to its victorious transcendence and negation. And, in this case, by which total evil — which interestingly enough, turns out to be the postrevolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and not preceding capitalism — becomes transformed into total good.

    To say the least, Marx cannot and does not attempt to explain how a system of total greed becomes transformed into total greedlessness. He leaves it all to the wizardry of the dialectic, now a dialectic fatally shorn of the alleged motor of the class struggle, which yet somehow transforms the monstrosity of raw communism into the paradise of communism’s “higher stage.”

  15. Black Flag,
    Carry-over from yesterday:

    Please explain how everyone can have insurance while also everyone can make a claim on that insurance, and do so without bankrupting the insurance company.

    It’s call “premiums.” We’re pretty good at that!

    • Todd,

      Good.

      What price would the premiums need to be at, so that everyone who participated in this “insurance” scheme could also make a claim?

      • I can do this math… The amount paid out plus administrative costs plus profit margin divided by the number of participants.

        • Exactly – which would add up to be more than the actual cost per person, if everyone merely took care of themselves

          That’s the issue, JB, as your math shows – Socialists can’t add, nor do they understand the systems of insurance.

          No insurance program can support everyone making a claim – yet, the Socialist health system demands that.

          • yet, the Socialist health system demands that.

            and does it pretty efficiently in many civilized countries … 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            Mr. Flag… again, you miss the point..

            It’s a subsidizing of the poor / infirm at the expense of the wealthy / healthy.

            Maybe it costs more, but it costs LESS to those who need it most.

            (not saying this makes sense as a program or that it’s even a good thing (again, I’m on the fence), but you’re attacking this for failing at a goal it’s not supposed to achieve).

            • Mathius,

              You missed the point

              It is the violent subsidization of the poor by theft of the rich.

              It is not the ends that measures the moral good.

              It is the means of realizing such an end that measures the moral good.

              Your philosophy is one of evil because of this measure.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m not talking about morality of taxes (ie, theft). I’m talking about efficacy.

                You and JB attack the ACA (ie, ObamaCare) for costing more than if people just insured themselves. I’m pointing out that this isn’t the correct way to attack it since that’s not the goal.

                If you build a wall to keep out the barbarian horde, I shouldn’t criticize your wall-building by pointing out that it does nothing to keep out pigeons. You didn’t build the wall to keep out pigeons, so how is that a proper criticism?

              • Mathius

                I’m not talking about morality of taxes (ie, theft). I’m talking about efficacy. You and JB attack the ACA (ie, ObamaCare) for costing more than if people just insured themselves.

                But it does. You merely have not completed the calculations.

                You are only measuring “over this small time”. Analogy: you steal a million from a bank – for a while you are a millionaire.

                But that is only if you stop your calculation there – and after you get caught, give back the remainder of the million, lose your freedom, your home, family and all other bad things, the theft costs you a lot!

                Same here. The calculation certainly works for some people right now – it’s a big win! Pay a penny and get a hundred grand worth of free medical stuff.

                But this will stop – and there will be nothing left – it isn’t that “ok, we’ll scale back” … it is a STOP collapse and evaporation – and you will have no care.

                The Socialists calculation cannot be long term – they have repudiated all economic calculation, so they have no means to see the long term.

                Thus all their programs focus on short term profits – at the cost of sustainability. Socialists have a very short time preference – eat like a glutton today, including the seed corn….

              • Hmm, not sure where I said that. I just jumped at the easy math question. Usually I have to use some Bessel functions or Legendre polynomials or something… (actually right now it is an unbinned extended maximum liklihood estimation)

                But while we’re on the topic, I don’t think Flag is talking about the ACA (or was that in some previous post?). It seems to me like we’re talking about socialized health care, which is different than the ACA (which simply forces people to participate in a private health insurance market unless they cannot afford it, in which case they get a waiver or on Medicaid anyway). But do explain one thing for me, I must have missed it; how is health insurance less expensive for the poor/infirm under ACA? I suppose you mean those with pre-existing conditions, but that is not a province solely of the poor.

                By the way, if reducing the cost of health insurance is not the point of the AFFORDABLE CARE Act, then politicians need to find a dictionary…

  16. A commendable explanation of our budget crisis. Sadly, the Democrats, the Republications, the Tea Party, the media (including Fox News) are either ignorant of these details or are complicit in keeping them from the public. Presented in this way, it’s obvious that we’re due for a terrifying future

    If you watch nothing else today… please watch this short illustration lesson. This is a non-partisan video produced by an accountant, Hal Mason, retired after 27 years with IBM. He looks at the budget, its revenues and expenses, and very simply illustrates the problem. Amazingly, we get all the media talking heads blathering and shouting for hours and never get clarity. This guy does it in a couple minutes.

    Click below to view the video.

    http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

    • Just A Citizen says:

      LOI

      Lets not forget the rest of the story.

      It would take an ADDITIONAL $2.3 Trillion per YEAR in taxes over the next 40 years to pay the debt and entitlement “obligations” that are on the books today.

      This is a DOUBLING of the tax revenue to deal with the debt alone.

      • Actually JAC…..I see it as an exponential rise…..the tax rate would need to go up a total of 136%…this is also to deal with inflation.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Doubling = 100% , not sure where your additional 36% comes from. Unless your using a higher debt number. There seem to be several floating around.

          My number is based on PNV so inflation should not change the number. It does however include an assume interest rate of 3%, which is close to avg inflation.

          Either way, we are talking about pennies compared to the larger problem.

          • JAC….it really does not matter which numbers you use….in business, we know how to calculate the things that everybody says you cannot calculate……ie: The actual impact on the bottom line of any business indexing the cost of money and the impact of inflation and/or recession on that cost of money. We refer to it as “hidden costs”. When you see that debt calculator that is always shown on tv…it shows how fast the debt is climbing with t he interest rate zooming along at warp 10. There are other costs that are not being calculated in that model. The general frame of reference in business is that if some one says it will only cost you this…..it does not “only” cost you that. We, our family, has a saying that we go by: Hide, guts, and feathers….meaning the total costs, which includes the cost of money that is more than the interest rate. Exponential costs are always in there and NOT part of the interest rate that is governed by the Fed….so we have devised formulas that show this amount. What I told you was NOT a federal number, which are “ginned up” anyway….just what we go by.

  17. I do not understand all the hoopla……..everyone on here knows how to add and subtract. Do the numbers yourself. It is easy and then look at your answer. Make your decisions accordingly. Pretty simple.

    @BF…..if the Central Banks have their way, it is going to be interesting to see the relationship to Gold bullion vs Gold coin around 2014. I predict a greater bubble than the Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae debacle on bullion. Interesting facts out there if people take the time to look.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Care to explain?

      • Yes sir…it has to do with what a bank will value your gold and how you report it on a financial statement. If you are in possession of gold bullion and you wish to pledge it as collateral….you are given roughly 50% of its value on a financial statement. You also had better be in physical possession of your bullion. Certificates of ownership are worthless and a bank normally will not take them, even if from a reputable source. As it stands now, with reference to long term debt, most banks require double the bullion to loan amount. As a test to this, I approached my bank and asked them about using gold as a collateral. They said no for several reasons, but one reason was of the bulk and weight of it and the inability to handle large deposits of bullion. The other reason is the perceived volatility of not only gold but all metals regardless of what the market is currently doing, hence the 50% value of bullion.

        What the Central Banks are talking about is recognizing gold once again as a medium of exchange. In this, the value of gold goes to 100%, thereby pumping the reserve values of banks inordinately and being able to use gold in their percentage of debt to equity ratios. When this is done, more money is supposedly freed up. This has a pumping effect on balance sheets. Just as in the mortgage business, balance sheets and bank debt to equity ratios were pumped with false and/or over valued properties. This crashed the system. Using gold as an exchange medium will, I fear, result in the same thing in that individuals will pump their financial statements, banks will recognize gold the same as cash and create a new lending spree. Once this happens and all of a sudden gold collapses….you have pumped balance sheets at banks, pumped individual financial statements that suddenly have no value or much less.

        I then asked the Bank what they would accept as gold value. Which would carry the most weight in value….coins or bullion. Coins was the answer that I received primarily on the value of the coins that carries value the world over…..to other collectors. Coins, aside from their troy ounce weight, have other qualities that are considered more valuable than bullion. (Ie…where they were minted, how many, what type, etc.)

        So, I see a distinct difference in the future if gold is accepted as a medium of exchange. I see a difference in having bullion vs coin.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Thanks. This relates to my question of several weeks back about the Chinese hoarding gold and their supposed plans to issue gold backed currency.

          Very interesting.

          • JAC…..it makes no difference to what the Chinese do…they can have all the gold they want. They can have gold backed currency if they want. It will not change anything. As a collector of gold coins, we have bought many Chinese gold Panda Series. So they are selling gold as fast as they find it.

            I would worry more about the pumping of balance sheets. It is another Ponzi that will burst.

    • There is a lot of talk of contracts vs. the ability to deliver.

      I do not expect this to unravel – it is the core basis of any commodity trading.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    Are you now trying to claim that politicians do not worry about voting because they don’t worry about getting elected?

    Your kidding, right?

    • They do not care about your vote or your threat of not voting for them as it pertains to them designing a policy.

      During election time, they want your vote.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        I have had several politicians tell me they don’t care what the public thinks.

        They care about what the VOTING public thinks.

        Your conclusion is based on a flawed analysis of voting records compared to public opinion polls. But it fails to ask WHY? Or explain the relationship between the politician and those whose vote they cherish.

        Polling is how the politician gauges how the “voters” might react.

        Now here is another truth. The politician does care about my vote but he/she cares more about the person who votes and contributes money and works for their election.

        That is why LOBBYING is so effective, if the lobbyist can show the connection between their issue and those who vote, contribute and work.

        But it seems that your argument here is far afield of the premise you are trying to defend. That is whether voting can cause change.

        If a politician ignores the will of the voters in making policy then we vote for a new politician. When they come to realize that their job security depends on listening to voters when making policy their decisions on policy will conform to the voters desires.

        The weakness is in the fact that not all issues are resolved the same in the minds of the same group of voters.

        But to argue that voting is a waste of time is simply ridiculous. One only has to look at the major changes caused by voting. Unless of course your only measure of “success” is the elimination of Govt.

        I see hints of this in your latest comments. So is that the real issue here? Have you once again boxed in the argument via your criteria to get only the answer you seek?

        • JAC

          The studies I posted contradict your opinion – politicians do not care about the votes at all.

          Public Opinion regardless of voting or non-voting public does matter to them.

          Lobbying is effective in gather funds for the politician at election time – in return for policy implementation – and once again, the policy is external to the vote; the policy is tuned for the lobby, not the voters.

          Voting has never been the reason politics changes. Public opinion is arguably a reason for minor political change.

          Your threat of voting for a new politician has historically changed nothing significant – which is why the US is in the dire straits it finds itself. No matter how many times the party in power changes, the policies do not.

          Voting is a waste of time – it is truly utterly pointless as a vehicle of change. It’s only achievement is confirmation of the status quo – because that is all it has ever achieved.

          No government has ever been ‘dismissed’ by a vote – no one has ever voted themselves free.

          Government evaporates when legitimacy is removed.

          There are two ways that is done:
          violently with overthrow, ending with violence replacing violence.
          or
          non-violently by ridicule and shunning. If people ignore government, government holds no power.

          • BF, Do you pay taxes? ….. I thought so. Why? ….. but you said the govt holds no power if you ignore it.

            • Yes, and yes.

              Tax protests are one of the most effective methods of anti-government enforcement.

              In these things, the power of group exceeds that of one individual.

              Government holds no power if it merely one man with a funny hat in the street as well

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Really? “Public Opinion regardless of voting or non-voting public does matter to them.”

            I present:

            TARP

            Stimulus

            Affordable Care Act

            Reauthorization of Patriot Act

            Immigration reform

            There is some truth in what you say, regarding ridicule. But the notion that voting is irrelevant is ridiculous and based on silly studies which play games to divorce the act of voting for the relationship between the public and their representatives. Like the idiotic argument that your vote does not count/matter unless YOUR SINGLE vote is THE VOTE that causes the 50% plus ONE. If my vote created the 50% and Anita’s created Plus One then my vote sure as hell “mattered”.

            Voting is the expression of opinion. If a Politician fears losing he/she will change their policies or take their chances. They know that the way they lose is via the vote.

            The vote is the combination of turnout and percentages of those who support them.

            The logic of all this is also flawed if one simply takes the reverse analysis.

            Since voting got us to where we are, which is a major change from where we were, you can not argue that voting does not create change.

            You may be able to argue it will not eliminate a govt, but not that it can not cause significant change. Civil Rights Act, for example.

            Then of course is the relationship between voting, the public and the FORM of Govt.

            Voting in a pure Democracy would sure as hell cause significant change. Every time the wind changed directions. It does absolutely nothing in a dictatorship. Its affect in between these two extremes is as varied as the forms of govt that also exist between them.

            • JAC,

              You prove my point.

              The bailouts were given regardless of the voters annoyance because why?
              The lobbyists insisted on the bailout.

              So your vote and your threats held no sway.

              PS: I said -as the studies said- that public opinion influences political policy – it never said it always alters it. What the study said further is that voting did not even achieve that much (ie: no influence at all).

  19. Shout out to VH..thought about you when I saw this…hope you’re not currently in a good mood 😉
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/gross-code-pink-dresses-up-as-vaginas-for-free-abortions-rally/

    • I am more than just a little bit amazed at these woman’s demand for RESPECT-as they parade around dressed as a vagina.

  20. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    Went to a Minor League Baseball game Saturday night. It wasn’t sold out, but still more people than at any Obamaloni rally 😆 Joe Biden is still making Sarah Palin look smart (that’s for Charlie), actually, Palin would have been a much better VP, Biden is a moron of the highest level. Women walking around in vagina costumes demanding free abortions. Really? What else will the entitlement class want? Yous lefties sure are demanding, 🙂

  21. Government officials and citizens in Australia speak out to warn America “Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns!” According to reports when the Gun Ban went into effect in Australia the crime rate spiraled out of control. The police officers are overwhelmed and are unable to protect the citizens due to so much crime.

    When the forced gun ban (buy back program) went into effect law abiding citizens had to turn in their semi automatic firearms, pump action rifles, and shotguns or face going to jail. Six hundred forty thousand conventional firearms were taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens, confiscated and destroyed. Law abiding citizens followed the law and turned in their weapons. Citizens were promised safety in return for turning in their guns. Does any of this sound familiar, like UN Gun Treaty perhaps?

    Since the gun ban in Australia, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders increased 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. More proof that not only does gun control not work, it makes it safer for the criminals at large. In their words

    “The cost of lost liberty can be measured in the loss of life”

    Andy Dunn from the South Australian Police Association states “The bad guys are happy to break into somebody’s house. They are not frightened to break into somebody’s house while their at home.” He also states “It is very bad right now. It has never been worse.” The police can’t protect the civilians now, because they are undermanned and their morale has never been lower according to reports.

    Wake up America! To those Anti-gun activists, you need to realize this is going to affect you also. Wake up before it is too late. Will the United States listen to the warning Australia is sending us? Will it make a difference? I truly hope so. I would like to thank the Australians for taking the time to warn us about the effects of gun-control in their country. Although many of us know what affect gun control has on our nation, many do not and have been fooled by the smooth talking politicians. Others seem to be in the mind set that it doesn’t affect them. Without our right to bear arms, our right to protect ourselves, our family, and our home will be gone. Thus allowing the Constitution to be destroyed by politicians for the sake of their agenda.

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/australia-warns-america-don/#ixzz245NxNrcR

  22. In a book set for publication Tuesday, a politics and government professor at The Citadel claims President Obama’s 2009 health care reform law was, in part, a union-driven effort to organize 21 million health care workers.

    In ”Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind,” Mallory Factor describes a December 9, 2008 memo from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare president Dennis Rivera to the Obama-Biden transition team.

    That memo outlined a legislative proposal calling for “increasing the capacity of the health care workforce” as part of a larger health care reform initiative.

    The SEIU and the Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Factor writes, later coordinated with other public-sector unions to spend “literally hundreds of millions of dollars promoting Obamacare.”

    The Daily Caller requested comments for this article from the SEIU, AFSCME and a White House spokesman. None of them responded.

    A booklet published by SEIU during the 2008 election season called for “building a new American health care system,” in part by “organizing workers.” The publication argued for outcomes nearly identical to those later adopted in the Obamacare legislation.

    “We … will not stop until every man, woman and child has quality, affordable care they can count on,” it read. “The time to fix health care is now.”

    And in an April 9, 2011 memo, the United Healthcare Workers — a union affiliated with the SEIU — articulated its future vision, including “an ambitious plan to fight for our future by organizing healthcare workers.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/19/book-obamacare-law-designed-to-unionize-21-million-health-care-workers/#ixzz245XGsrF4

  23. G, my dog is smarter than sarah palin … but I have no doubt you’d think she’d be a better VP than Joe Biden … something tells me you and Sarah share a lot more than ignorance … but you’re both loveable … and funny.

    • Mornin Captain Canolli ! Actually, both my dogs are smarter than most politicians (but Biden is a comlpete Buffoon ) As far as my intelligence, guess it depends on what the subject is actually. I don’t pretend to know everything, but I know alot (of what is important to me). Had a great dish on Sunday, Italian Haluski. It was fantastic! Peace to you oh pinko commie 🙂

    • So, I guess it is all in the way you look at the interview. I had the honor,(twice), of being interviewed by channel 7 eyewitness news on BS issues that were designed to make my company (the evil landlord company) look bad. One was particularly hilarious to me because it involved three violations we had received for not having fire escapes in a FIREPROOF building (never underestimate government stupidity or the low bidder mentality of some government hiring). The building was constructed in 1912, you would think someone might have noticed before 1998.

      Both interviews were gotcha types with questions along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?” However, I was prepared. I sat down for those interviews with a large clock on the wall directly behind me. They could NOT edit me!

      In one case, the story disappeared before airing . In the other, the thirty minute interview, on the 11 o’clock news was cut to one 8 second sound bite where Cheryl Fiducia asked one question and they pulled a generic four second answer from me. The lead in from the anchor was cute though. They had a graphic with a burning apartment house on it and words like, “Inferno Landlord” emblazoned across the picture. That was in keeping with the media’s previous views of landlords as “Dracula” or “Frankenstein”.

      If I had been a coach for Palin, I would have told her not to bother answering anything she was not familiar or comfortable with, just change the subject like everyone else did.

      Some day let me tell you how CBS news changed a support our men in Vietnam rally into an anti-war rally on the Evening News with that paragon of honor Walter Cronkite back in ‘the spring of ’68.

      Since Tet, I have never believed the news especially the New York Times or CBS. They lie.

      • If I had been a coach for Palin, I would have told her not to bother answering anything she was not familiar or comfortable with

        Silence is golden … but might make for a boring interview.

        They tried to hide Palin for as long as possible … then they couldn’t. I can see how she was thrown off by “gotcha” questions like “which paper do you read?” … sweet jesus.

        • Charlie, you don’t know the whole story behind that..or do you? I’ll be glad to enlighten you, but first tell me some background on the comment she made.

          • Care to enlighten me Anita? What’s the whole story behind the question: “What newspaper do you read?”

            • At the risk of being stupid again..as she states in Going Rogue…an interview was granted to Couric. From memory it was to take place over two days…but Couric overstayed her welcome…and Palin was gracious enough to accomodate. Palin was in the midst of many appearances and was exhausted..as she exited the stage that day all she was thinking about was relaxing and getting some food…as she walked backstage..within steps! Couric was on her with that question…Palin said her thoughts at that moment were something to the effect of (my words coming) PLEASE! I know this is an ambush but I’ll try to be cordial even though you have waaaay overstayed your welcome. So then she flubbed it.

              But that’s just me and my worship of Sarah Palin 🙄

              • But that’s just me and my worship of Sarah Palin

                That’s what it would take to believe it. Worship … some blind faith worship. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                Saw the interview.. if she was that exhausted, she’s a pretty remarkable actress. Maybe she’s in the wrong career?

          • I think the story behind that was “Governor, can you tell us what papers you read?”

          • Mathius™ says:

            COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
            PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media, coming f—
            COURIC: But like which ones specifically? I’m curious that you—
            PALIN: Um, all of ’em, any of ’em that, um, have, have been in front of me over all these years. Um, I have a va—
            COURIC: Can you name a few?
            PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where, it’s kind of suggested and it seems like, ‘Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?’ Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

            The correct answer here is: “the Wall Street Journal” or “the New York Times” or, even, “Caribou Digest”. The correct answer is NOT “we’re just like the rest of America.”

        • You have never misspoken? You have never been nervous in an interview? I used to be a terrible public speaker until I started treating it like a game in my 40’s.I will be the first to say that she was unprepared but in the sense that she was now a very small fish in a very big pond. It is like taking a first year Physics student with tremendous potential and putting him up against Einstein. Does not judge his ultimate worth.

          To enter that arena you need to be seasoned. The mistake was in nominating her. What she would have become without being hurriedly thrust into public scrutiny will never be known.

          Taking politics aside, just for a moment, absolutely any gaffe she makes, ever, pales in comparison to normal speeches and statements made by Nancy Pelosi or Sheila Jackson Lee. But somehow, they don’t face the same opprobrium. Again, sarcastically for Matt, I wonder why?

          • You have never misspoken?

            All the time, but there is a difference between misspeaking and being a dumb shit (who “misspeaks” all the time because he/she is clueless). Defending Sarah Palin on her knowledge of anything outside of dressing a moose does you no service, Stephen (or anyone else). I agree she was thrown into the fire and McCain paid for it dearly (although no GOP candidate could have survived Bush) … stil. she accepted the nomination and try as McCain’s staff did to enlighten her about things outside of dressing Moose, she came up as empty-headed as possible. You might like her sound bytes and what she stands for … but she can’t coherently explain what she stands for (outside of bullet points), nor has she a clue about the world at large.

            Like I said, my dog is smarter …

              • This was funny, LOI … “accomplishments?”

                being the youngest governor ?
                approval ratings?
                and the bridge to no where? She was for it before she was agin’ it …

                You’re seriously defending this imbecile? You do know she quit the governorship, right? Was that an accomplishment?

                I’m sure you know about the scandals in Alaska (her brother-in-law, the library book banning attempts, etc.) …

                What did John McEnrow say again? You can’t be serious …

            • Mathius™ says:

              Charlie,

              You might like her sound bytes and what she stands for

              I liked here “naughty librarian” look…

            • Without either of us sitting down with her, I cannot say with certainly that she is as dumb as a rock. You did not comment on my Pelosi or Jackson Lee analogy. Why?

              • I’ll go out on a limb and say Palin is as dumb as a rock when it comes to any governmental issues (being governor or president doesn’t preclude stupidity) … I don’t know enough about Pelosi or Jackson Lee (don’t know of Lee at all) but I’ll say this much, she (Pelosi) can be a putz, but not a stupid one. Palin (to my mind) is pretty stupid (again, as regards world affairs, domestic affairs). Pelosi wouldn’t hurt her base cause in an election the way Palin did.

              • Oh, come on, Never heard Nancy say we had to “Pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what’s in it”? Jackson Lee is just about the same. While Palin would have been # 2 in line for the White House if elected, let’s not forget Nancy was #3 without being elected. I could also bring up Harry Reid # 4 for being too dumb to live but he’s a man, I think.

  24. For JAC and Matt, it’s long and slow but, Islam is not so peaceful no matter how you dress it up. Main idea..it does no good to fight the people, we need to get rid of the religion.
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29366

    • …we need to get rid of the religion.

      Be careful. The same can be said of any religion.

      • Not necessarily..it’s saying that Islam’s doctrine is about evil and killing. can’t really say that is the basis of other religions, at least of the mainstream ones.

        • Mathius™ says:

          it’s saying that Islam’s doctrine is about evil and killing

          http://majalla.org/books/quran/109.htm

          can’t really say that is the basis of other religions, at least of the mainstream ones.

          Oh can’t you? ::raise eyebrow, again::

          Let us revisit, if we can, the tale of Samson.

          Samson was engaged to a young woman, a Philistine. He posed to his groomsmen a riddle. If they could guess it right, he promised them each a fine outfit as a prize. These groomsmen convinced his fiance to give them the answer, and so won.

          Samson, then, goes out and murders a thirty random Philistines, steals their clothes and gives these to the groomsmen to fulfill his bet.

          Unfortunately, while he was out murdering innocent bystanders, his fiance got married to someone else. The father, apologetic, offers his younger daughter. Samson does not approve, however. Though, for some reason marries her anyway.

          He then lights the tales of 100 foxes on fire and sends them into the fields and town, burning the entire community to the ground.

          Once they find out that it was Samson who did this, the Philistines kill his new wife and her father (I’m not 100% sure why).

          In revenge, Samson then goes out and murders a bunch more random Philistines.

          Afterward, he surrenders himself, then escapes, and kills 1,000 soldiers with the jawbone of an ass. I won’t count this against him.. at least they were soldiers.

          Next up, he becomes the leader of the Israelites for twenty years.

          After some whoring around (a recurring theme), he is ambushed, kills some more people, and falls in love with Delilah. She betrays him, and he is captured and blinded.

          Once in the Philistine temple, he prays to God to allow him to “be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.” Key, here, is avenged – he’s looking for vengeance. God restores his strength and Samson collapses the entire temple (murder/suicide), killing “many more as he died than while he lived.” If we do a quick check of his kill-count to date, we see that he’s north of 1,030 (conservative estimate) so killing “many more” means (at a barest minimum) another 1,030.

          So here is an Old Testament hero and leader of the Israelites for two decades with a personal kill count at a bare minimum of 2,060 (probably closer to 3,000), of whom a bare minimum of 30 (though likely closer to 1,000) are completely innocent bystanders.

          And Islam is the violent religion?

          Oops, some re-reading. Judges 16:27. There were 3,000 people in the temple. Some of them, to be fair, were probably soldiers or guilty of attacking him – though, to be fair, he was a terrorist by any reasonable definition (remember, he had murdered 30 people in cold blood and also burned down an entire town) so attacking him doesn’t seem particularly evil to me – but the rest were just bystanders. So this brings his kill count to (at a bare minimum) 4,030. And again, hundreds if not thousands of them were innocent victims.

          And, again, Islam is the violent religion?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            This is where the weak go astray.

            You try to take the books of history and compare them to an instruction manual.

            Either the books of Islam are an instruction manual or they are not. Those who practice the religion and come from the middle east tell us it is an instruction manual. That violence and conquest are the root of the religion. They we say, OH NO, it is no different than the old testament.

            Of course you also seem to ignore that the old testament is NOT about Christians.

            Now don’t go off your own rails here. I am not claiming Christianity has not been used by tyrants to justify their own conquest.

            What I am saying is that Islam actually calls for conquest. I base this on what Muslims say is in their guiding books.

            So where is the proof that what other Muslims say is NOT true?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Islam is not so peaceful no matter how you dress it up

      General agreement.

      Then again, neither is Christianity.

      we need to get rid of the religion

      Oh? ::raised eyebrow::

      • Read the dang article..both of yous. (mom voice off)

        • Mathius™ says:

          Started to read it, then got bored. Hit pieces have that affect on me.

          He’s conflating Sharia law with Islam and they are NOT THE SAME THING.

          The problem isn’t Islam, the problem is fanatical Islam religion.

      • We need to get rid of the religion … oy vey. Wasn’t that how Hitler felt about Jews?

        You learn something every day. Today I learned from some Republican Tod Akin that women’s bodies go into a biological defense mode when raped that prevents pregnancy.

        Gee, these guys are so smart … us pinko commies have something to learn, for sure, alright.

        • :::sigh:::

        • Let me just use some liberal logic on you Charlie..it starts like this:

          So you’re saying….

          …that NOT fighting people is bad…and getting rid of evil is NOT good

          • That depends on your definition of “evil”, Anita my love.

          • Mathius™ says:
            • making his bowels fall out … bada-boom, bada-bing.

              Not to mention how he/she made Norwood miss that field goal in SB 25.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              You atheists kill me.

              You say God does not exist then put up examples of Gods violence to prove that Gods religion is violent.

              If God does not exist then God could not have committed these things. People did these things, or nature, and then used God in the history books to explain the unexplainable.

              • JAC, you religious types can’t be this stupid (or can you)?

                He was posting examples of how catholicism/christianity depicted their own God’s murders.

              • You beat me to it JAC. Charlie, could you rephrase your snipe to JAC. The title of the list is How many people did God kill? Not how Christianity depicted the killings. So which way do you want to have it?

              • Mathius™ says:

                JAC,

                Huh?

                I don’t buy it. None of it. It’s BS. But that’s not the point.

                The point is that your religion is violent. One of it’s biggest folk heroes is a mass murdering terrorist. It doesn’t matter if it never really happened, this is the story as told by your own holy books. And after committing murder, he is made leader of your people. If you’re going to hold up the Koran and proclaim that Islam is violent because of some random passage, then you have to look at your own books and judge your religion by a similar standard.

                It’s only fair.

    • It is all part of the collapse of mainstream religion and the the moral equivalency disease. back in the old days, Catholics, Protestants and the like would send out missionaries who, through their good works would lead people to Christianity. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th century this was the norm, certainly among Catholics, Methodists and Lutherans, sects I am familiar with. The old conversion by the sword went out the window years before.

      What my friend Matt refuses to acknowledge is that Christianity and Catholicism in particular, his favorite whipping boy I think, have, from time to time gone off the rails and been taken over by people you could probably refer to as insane at best . What he can’t seem to acknowledge though is that each and every time, the religion comes back to original intent, purges the nut cases and gets on with the business of saving souls, providing healthcare and education and doing good works.

      Islam, unfortunately, is stuck in the seventh century. I think that historically it has been a mirror image of Christianity but in the opposite direction. There have been glimmers through the years of moderation and progress but eventually comes back to purging the progressives and taking up the sword again.

      In defense of Christianity and even the Roman Church, I must point out that in the past two thousand years, the Church has been forced many times to become civil authority in the breakdown/absence of civil authority. That, of course is never good leading to a perversion of it’s original mission. Like any other civil institution, it then becomes overly protective and will fight to preserve its authority (more bad things). In the scheme of things this is what really caused the many schisms over the years.

      • What he can’t seem to acknowledge though is that each and every time, the religion comes back to original intent, purges the nut cases and gets on with the business of saving souls, providing healthcare and education and doing good works.

        Oy vey, Stephen. This scares the crap out of me (just as the founding fathers’ original intent does) … who gets to determine that?

        Did you watch 60 Minutes last night (the Irish Archbishop who released 68,000 documents relating to all the child abuse in Ireland). Good for him, bad for his church. Even he wasn’t willing to deal with the Pope when it came time to suggest a culprit (the Vatican was not pleased with what he did) … while they continue to hide Law (from Boston) … my wife (who is religious) and I argue this one a lot. To me religion ultimately does more harm than good. She thinks (like you) otherwise. One thing she doesn’t dare argue, is that one religion is better (or more evil) than another. That is just hubris bordering on a BFism …:)

      • Mathius™ says:

        What my friend Matt refuses to acknowledge is that Christianity and Catholicism in particular, his favorite whipping boy I think, have, from time to time gone off the rails and been taken over by people you could probably refer to as insane at best .

        Nope, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge this.

        Catholicism is, in particular, my favorite whipping boy because it’s such a juicy target. But I’m just as happy to go anyone who presents such a golden opportunity.

        I am, of course, well aware that the Church (big C) has been taking over by stark raving lunatics from time to time and that it’s no more fair to judge today’s Church by it’s evil past than it is to judge Germany (at present) by its actions when it was controlled by a lunatic sixty years ago.

        What he can’t seem to acknowledge though is that each and every time, the religion comes back to original intent, purges the nut cases and gets on with the business of saving souls, providing healthcare and education and doing good works.

        I’m actually well aware of this.

        But I think that when Christianity goes off the rails, people give it a pass (“oh, it was controlled by a nut back then, but it’s better now”). Yet when Islam goes off the rails, people paint the whole religion with the same brush (“no, that’s just how Islam is – it’s an evil religion we need to get rid of”). See the problem?

        the Church has been forced many times to become civil authority in the breakdown/absence of civil authority

        The church was “forced” to become the civil authority? Perhaps in a few instances. Primarily, the Church fought tooth and nail to gain authority over every aspect of everyone’s life. The Church wasn’t “forced” to become anything… it “forced” itself on the civil authority. The idea of a secular government would have been abhorrent to Church leaders for much of the last millennium.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          “Yet when Islam goes off the rails, people paint the whole religion with the same brush (“no, that’s just how Islam is – it’s an evil religion we need to get rid of”). See the problem?”

          When Islam goes off the rails it becomes more peaceful. But then it is purged of the crazy people and it goes back to its fundamental and “foundational” principles.

          CONQUEST

          • Or perhaps, when Christianity goes off the rails it becomes more peaceful, an agent for peace, helping those in need, etc. etc. etc. But then it too goes back to its fundamental principles of control, civil authority, etc. etc. etc.

            Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

            • Good question! The only guesstimate one can make is the behavior after the founding of the religion. Until Constantine 300AD, Christianity at best was “tolerated” in between various purges by various emperors. In Islam, conquest started immediately. Hence, my “mirror” image analogy.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Jews spent decades under Muslim rule as protected and respected members of society with full and equal rights. In fact, Saladin even surrendered a prized jewel from his personal collection as ransom to save a community of Jews from Christians. It wasn’t until the Crusades radicalized the Muslims that Muslim society (note, the society not, intrinsically, the religion) became overtly hostile to non-Muslims.

              • Matt, that’s a reach. You forget that the Crusades were defensive wars against a rampant Islam. I would just like to remind all those who may have forgotten that the Med, prior to Islam was a “Christian Lake”to use the Roman analogy.

                For decades, the Jews were welcome members of a lot of communities, England, Spain, Germany to name a few before they weren’t.

                I always felt that it was the Jews survival instinct that worked against them. Not ever really being able to settle down and in because they were different, they were clannish (good), believed in education (good) stayed liquid (good) . Case where a minimum of these three goods traits set them further apart from the societies they lived in and made them suspect and pretty good scapegoats (very bad).

                I’m always tempted to throw in the fact that they are generally liberal and tolerant (good?) but I’m not sure that it is as real as it is perceived. In my 65 years of people study, I think that the theory is if the society becomes more liberal as a whole, it will make it better for Jews living in the society. A great but flawed premise.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You forget that the Crusades were defensive wars against a rampant Islam.

                It seems that you and I define “defensive” very differently.

                I would just like to remind all those who may have forgotten that the Med, prior to Islam was a “Christian Lake”to use the Roman analogy.

                And we all know that time started when the Christians were at the height of their power. I mean.. it’s not like it was a “Jewish Lake” or a “Pagan” lake before that.

                Islam ‘invaded’ Europe and the Mediterranean largely through population growth, through proselytizing, and other peaceful means. At this time, the Muslims world was technologically advanced, financially prosperous, and stable – they were advancing their ideas, but not by conquest. The Christians were the ones who used violence to repel and invasion of ideas.

                Also, the Christians had a large standing army left over from the Vikings and decided it would be better to send them off to “reclaim the holy land” than have them sitting around Europe. But nevermind that….

                For decades, the Jews were welcome members of a lot of communities, England, Spain, Germany to name a few before they weren’t. Yes, and for centuries, Jews were treated as subhumans with no rights or protections, extra taxes, et cetera. I’m sure the pogroms were a hoot.

                Case where a minimum of these three goods traits set them further apart from the societies they lived in and made them suspect and pretty good scapegoats (very bad). Could be. But that sort of flies in the face of your assertion that they were welcome members of the communities, doesn’t it?

                I’m always tempted to throw in the fact that they are generally liberal and tolerant (good?) but I’m not sure that it is as real as it is perceived Tolerance is a strong tenet of Jewish faith (unless you’re orthodox, apparently). Liberalism comes with being smart and well educated.

                if the society becomes more liberal as a whole, it will make it better for Jews living in the society Interesting.. I’ll have to mull that one.

              • I said decades as you did and I did that deliberately. I guess I read history differently than you did. While there may have been a peaceful advance of Islam I cant quite believe the fairy tale you spin. The same can certainly be said of Christianity up until the time it became a state religion and then beyond for a bit. Conversion was done peacefully.

                Unfortunately, you mistake my comment on “welcome members of a lot of communities”. They were, but it was never long lasting. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s views on Jews are fairly well known, “Hymie-town” ring a bell? Here to me is the classic example of what I am talking about. To rebut those clowns, I can only say Goodman and Schwerner, two Northern Jewish martyrs to the civil rights cause. How soon they forget.

                Liberalism may come from being smart and well educated but not practical nor grounded in reality. Now, when you get smart and well educated with practical experience and your face rubbed in the mud a few times, that’s when you “get” it. You, may, as I do, love humanity and people and their foibles and differences but you also realize just how flawed they are and where that can take you. watched a documentary the other day. German Professor who was a Hitler Youth member at age 9. He said something very provocative. If Hitler had not gone beyond harassing Jews and had conquered using economic rather than military force, he would have been remembered as being one of the great men of history. Interesting I think to ponder that. Margaret Sanger inspired race laws and all.

                Obviously if the society becomes more liberal (in the non-political sense) it will be more tolerant. But we are always only one catastrophe away, one depression away from the thin veneer being stripped away and our ugly animal selves re-emerging.

                I build on this when I attack the class warfare baiting that goes on every political season. That is dangerous territory especially if you are a Jew. How many times have you heard that the “Jews” own the Media and Hollywood and are the “rich”. Of course that’s BS but it is believed and I daresay by as many democrats as republicans. Try polling the minorities on that one some day asking questions like ” What ethnic group owns most of the wealth in the US?” They ain’t going to say the Irish Catholics or English Protestants.

                I hate “old money” no matter who has it because it was not earned and that is a fault I acknowledge and try to atone for. On the other hand, someone like Bill Gates or Ray Croc who built their companies from scratch I admire. It is just a prejudice I have based on some probably non representative experiences. That’s what all prejudices are and that’s the one used most often with Jews. There are visible because they are successful and they are different. Blacks for instance are also perceived as a threat, a minor threat because they have no economic power. There are no obvious Bernie Madoff’s for them and no one ever sees the poor Jew though you and I know they exist.

                It is an interesting subject.

        • it “forced” itself on the civil authority.

          Which is much of the argument I make with my overly faithful wife … the more harm it does (to gays for instance) … and it acted no different than any other government in crisis when it was “discovered” to have protected pedophiles … (and had to be brought down here in the U.S. by RICO statutes) when it was found to be acting as a criminal enterprise.

          They’re all bullshit (religions) in my opinion … but to choose one amongst the lot as inherently “evil” is absurd. They’re all absurd.

          • Charlie..then you deny what the Koran preaches…paraphrasing..YOU MUST KILL THE INFIDELS…and lie through your teeth and deny that that is exactly what they teach. You are in denial Charlie.

            • Oy vey …

            • Mathius™ says:

              The Koran preaches the following:

              109.001 Say: O disbelievers!
              109.002 I worship not that which ye worship;
              109.003 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
              109.004 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
              109.005 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
              109.006 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

              Is this too subtle for you?

              You seem hung up on what’s called the Sword Verse (9:5)

              9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

              Sounds like it supports your take… how ’bout some context?

              9:4 except to those idolaters who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous.

              9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

              9:6 If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to safety. For the idolaters are ignorant men.

              9:7 God and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.

              Got that? If an “idolater” (non-Muslim) honors his treaties and does not AID OTHERS AGAINST YOU (that’s important), then you are to leave them alone. If they seek asylum, you are to grant it and convey them to safety. Why? Because they’re ignorant (ok, so the Koran is condescending.. I’ll admit that). God doesn’t trust non-Muslims (9:7) and therefore, presumably, neither should you – but as long as they act in good faith, you should act in good faith toward them. So, to be clearer, this is instructing to kill the non-Muslims who are hostile enemies of Islam.

              It is clear, therefore, that this verse is one of self-defense. The Muslims here are commanded to “slay the pagans” who are hostile towards them. It is not a carte blanche to “kill all infidels”. This verse is specific to a specific time, and it is not understood by the overwhelming majority of Muslims to be a general call for murder against all those who are not Muslim.
              —Hesham A. Hassaballa, Does Islam Call For The Murder of ‘Infidels’?

              It is repeatedly made clear in the Koran that acts of aggression may be met with aggression, but only from a defensive posture. You can “severely punish” an apostate… but only if he is trying to convert others away from Islam. You can go to war against infidels.. but only if they are attacking you. Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.

              Yet you persist in believing that “Koran preaches…paraphrasing..YOU MUST KILL THE INFIDELS”

              ::sigh::

              And, by the way, to your second point: and lie through your teeth and deny that that is exactly what they teach.

              Yes, the Koran does say to lie.. in certain circumstances. What circumstances might those be…?

              It permits lies to smooth over differences: “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (ie, “does this dress make me look fat?”).

              It permits lies to hide your faith from persecution. (there’s a passage with the Pharoh in Egypt where a faithful man must lie to avoid being killed.. God, it is established, would prefer the man hid his faith in secret then die unjustly). It’s a little dense, but here’s the actual verse (it goes on for a few more after ward): ” And a believing man of Pharaoh’s family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful, then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar.”

              And it permits lying in war. This is born out extensively where Muhammad (who was, after all, a military general) used deceptive tactics repeatedly and extensively in order to win his battles. It’s hard to win a war, after all, when you’re honest with your enemies about your plans. I would think you’d be hard pressed to extrapolate “lie in war” to “lie to the infidels with impunity about what the Koran says”.. though I know you’ll just do that anyway since it supports your forgone conclusions..

              ——————

              This is what happens when you take the time to read the texts. It was annoying, it took forever (it can be pretty dense in parts), and it takes time and effort to actually figure out what it’s saying rather than just reading words on a page without processing them. But when you’re done, you have a clearer understanding than the bullsh*t you read in chain letters.

              I suggest you purchase a copy, and commit to reading one Surah a day. There’s pretty short. And really mulling over what it says. You seem to be pretty hung up and, sorry to say, woefully uninformed. I think it will shed some light.

              And if you’re so inclined, read the Hadith as well – I haven’t, but maybe I’ll get around to it some day. But first up is the Talmud.. God, I’m dreading that..

              • Damn, Matt, now you went and ruined it (pointing out something silly like “context”) … this was fun while they wore blinders.

                What was that about seeing what I want to see, Anita, my love?

                Oy vey kavelt …

              • In verse 9:5 Allah tells the Muslims that after the four sacred months (Rajab, Zulqad, ZulHajj, Muharram) have passed, slay (fight and kill) the pagans wherever they are found.

                Ibn Kathir writes that this means, the earth in general. That means this verse is not meant only for the Meccans pagans; it applicable all around the globe, even today.

                Echoing ibn Kathir, Jalalyn and ibn Abbas further say: Do not wait until you find them, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in various roads and fairways and force them to Islam. If they do not embrace Islam, then kill them. This verse allowed Muslims to fight the non-Muslims until they embrace Islam. These verses allowed fighting people unless and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. If they repent and become believers then forgive them.

                There, in the above paragraph, we read the true spirit of Islam, as per the immortal exegetes of the Qur’an.

                According to the most Qur’an scholars this verse (9:5) is known as the verse of the sword (ayat saif); this verse alone cancels about 124 verses that espouse mercy, tolerance and forgiveness to the pagans

                Matt, this article comes by way of an apostate. While you may be well versed in the Koran, you have never lived as a Muslim. So I tend to take this guy at his word..he presents a reasonable discussion with ‘links’ to sort it out. You really haven’t convinced me not to believe him. You have admitted to Islam being evil, so why are you still trying to defend it? Afraid of being the first one (Jews) in the crosshairs?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anita, did you READ what I pasted? I wrote you directly what it says. It says that you are not to harm those who have not acted against you. It says to give them sanctuary. It says to convey them to safety.

                You’re only reading a tiny part and acting like this is the whole. Ibn Kathir is doing the same thing, presumably because it suits his interests or supports his pre-conceived notions. Read the Surah FIRST then read the interpretations if you can’t decide for yourself.

                Jalalyn and ibn Abbas And who are these people? I don’t know them, but I don’t they’re not quoting the Koran. They’re INTERPRETING the Koran. That’s no more binding on the religion as a whole than the idiots in the Westboro Baptist Church are binding on Christianity as a whole. They have a twisted and perverted view of the texts, they read selectively, and the reach the conclusion that God is hate rather than love. Yet, again, you write off the crazy Christians while holding up the crazy Muslims as proof. Bizarre.

                Shouldn’t you at least try to be consistent?

                this verse alone cancels about 124 verses that espouse mercy, tolerance and forgiveness to the pagans

                EXACTLY!

                This one verse, alone, twisted and taken without context is somehow being read by you and a few others to cancel out 124 other verses. By numbers alone, it would seem clear that the others should control. If 124 times, you are told to play nice and once told (not that this is actually what it says) to go kill, on balance, shouldn’t you read that as God wanting you to play nice, at least in general?

                While you may be well versed in the Koran, you have never lived as a Muslim True. But I’ve never lived as a Christian either and I still know your religion better than 90% of Christians. Statistics show (per The Google) that less than 10% of Christians claim to have read the entire bible. Now, claim is an interesting word because, of course, some are probably exaggerating. So, let’s say 5% (just a wild shot). Yet somehow, they claim to know their religion just because some guy in a preacher outfit tells them about it for a few minutes on Sunday? Please.

                I had to explain to Emilius that Angels are in the old testament. She had no idea. I’d bet most Jews have no idea. Yet, she’s a far better Jew than I’ll ever be. But that doesn’t mean she “knows” her religion.

                Just because this guy was once Muslim doesn’t mean he’s automatically right about everything in Islam.

                So I tend to take this guy at his word And you ignore the word of the other billion or so Muslims who say they have no interest in killing you and who say they do not interpret this to mean God wants them to kill you? Just like you take the one twisted verse and ignore the 124 others, you cherry pick your examples to support your conclusion while ignoring all contra-evidence. How convenient.

                You really haven’t convinced me not to believe him. Because convincing you is impossible when you’ve shut your eyes to reason.

                You have admitted to Islam being evil, so why are you still trying to defend it? I have? Well, I suppose all organized religions (can be) evil.. and Islam is no example. I’ll admit Islam is evil if you admit that Christianity is evil.

                Afraid of being the first one (Jews) in the crosshairs? Not hardly, my love. I know how to say “there is not god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” in passable Arabic.. that’s an instant get-out-of-jail-free card in Islam… you know, just in case..

        • Many great evils have been done in the name of religion. We think the Civil War ended slavery, yet it still exists in the modern world. A madman sought to conquer the world with his “Master Race”. But who seeks today to force their religion on others? Who will fight wars and kill to enforce their religious beliefs? When is the last time a Christian or Jew stoned or crucified someone for a sin?

          http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/

          • When is the last time a Christian or Jew stoned or crucified someone for a sin?

            I seem to remember very recently a few stories about ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel stoning people…don’t have the time nor inclination to find a link at the moment, but Google is your friend!

            • Mathius™ says:

              I seem to remember very recently a few stories about ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel stoning people

              Not to fear, I have an example or two right off the top of my head.

              But who seeks today to force their religion on others?

              You can also look up Sabra and Chantila (sp?). The Israeli army was kind enough to secure a refugee camp, then fire flares, and allow in a group of Christian Lebanese who then massacred some absurd number of Muslims. Or is that too long ago? I think it was the early 80’s. Maybe that doesn’t meet your definition of “today.”

              Well there’s this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre
              That should be more recent for you, I mean that was ’94. Recent enough? No?

              How does JANUARY OF THIS YEAR strike you? http://www.nodeju.com/18248/orthodox-jews-stone-woman.html. Get it? Strike you? Because the woman was struck in the head with a rock.

              Want some examples of Christians? I have plenty of those on top as well.

            • To quote Charlie, Oy Vey!!!!

              There is always a difference between what a few, even a large few do in their interpretation of what is right vs. company policy.

              It is like the wacky Westboro Baptists. You extrapolate that into Baptists, then all Baptists, then Christians, then all Christians then religion, then all religion. easy to do but not particularly accurate.

              • Mathius™ says:

                True.

                Yet you extrapolate the actions of a few crazy Muslims onto the other billion non-crazy Muslims and see no contradiction?

              • I’m not so sure about the non-crazy few. It seems rather widespread from the Philippines through East Timor, the Horn of Africa, North Africa, the entire mid-east, Southwest Asia, Pakistan.

                As annoying as it may be to acknowledge something like the primacy of the Pope in the Catholic religion, it sure beats the hell out of the anarchy Islam is. Other religions too, but you are the one who mentioned the two billion adherents.

                The military probably gets it better than most, or should. We invade, we conquer, we win and yet it continues. Why? Because there is no one on the other side to call it off.

                A few years ago, Dinesh D’souza did a piece for “National Review” on this subject. Have to see if I can dig it up for you, a fascinating read.

        • TEHRAN, Iran – Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity,” Iran’s president said Friday in one of his sharpest attacks yet against the Jewish state, as Israel openly debates whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

          Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said confronting Israel is an effort to “protect the dignity of all human beings.”

          “The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity,” Ahmadinejad said. He was addressing worshippers at Tehran University after nationwide pro-Palestinian rallies, an annual event marking Quds (Jerusalem) Day on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

          The comments are “reminiscent” of a letter written about the Jews and signed by Adolf Hitler in 1919, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of the Simon Wisenthal Center, says.

          “Even though Ahmadinejad is attacking the state of Israel, we know what he means,” Rabbi Hier said.

          Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/17/iran-calls-israel-existence-insult-to-all-humanity/#ixzz246KsRPLi

          • Oh, then by all means, attack him.

            Sweet Jesus …

            • Wait, come to think of it … since the Koran can’t be trusted (or those seeking to kill all infidels), let’s just wipe’m all out!

              Quick, go get the swastikas …

              And yous wonder why some of us call you crazy?

              • See Charlie..you read what you want to see! As I said in the original post…YOU DON’T WIPE OUT THE PEOPLE..YOU DISSOLVE THE RELIGION!

                OY FREAKIN VEY!

              • Anita, how do you dissolve a religion??

              • If you would READ THE ARTICLE as my mom voice told you to :)…I read it last night so I may be somewhat off..but.. You have Christians and Jews applying the pressure..pointing out that Islam preaches evil…and continue to preach..even when they try telling you that you don’t understand Islam or the Koran…continue pointing to ISLAM=EVIL..and hope to GOD that some of them start catching on. The article says that many Muslims don’t know the Koran..purposely planned that way..their elders teach them the Koran..according to what they want known. Hope this makes sense.

              • Anita

                The article says that many Muslims don’t know the Koran..purposely planned that way..their elders teach them the Koran..according to what they want known. Hope this makes sense

                MOST CHRISTIANS DO NOT KNOW THE BIBLE and their ELDERS LIKE IT THAT WAY and fill Christian minds with all sorts of garbage and crap, like thinking Muslims=Evil.

                “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
                – Gandhi

              • Mathius™ says:

                For centuries, the Church refused to allow translation of the Bible to English.. care to guess why?

              • Mornin BF…but it’s their own people (apostates) saying it…. how can you deny them their thoughts when they actually live it?

        • I think we have to go waaaaay back on this one, to the collapse of the west into barbarism. Who was left? Agreed that they did not want to surrender up the power that they assumed, nobody does. Not the Stuarts, the Bourbons or the Romanov’s.

          • Mathius™ says:

            But of course, the problem isn’t about giving up the power.

            The problem is that you said “the Church has been forced many times to become civil authority in the breakdown/absence of civil authority.” And that’s laughable. I certainly believe that did happen at times. And I certainly understand the church not wanting to surrender it’s power. But the problem is that the church gobbled up so much power in the first place. And you act as if it was foisted on the Church reluctantly rather than the Church feverishly working to accumulate it.

            • Yes, I admit I do. Again I ask why? Whenever there is a breakdown or absence of authority, someone steps in. Islam did, the Catholic Church did. Although the comparison is odious, the Bolsheviks and Nazi’s did the same.

              A lesser example and one that is more interesting is the shadow government the Catholic Church became in Poland under Communism. In the end it was rather obvious who was really running the show and it was exactly because of the illegitimacy of the secular government.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Whenever there is a breakdown or absence of authority, someone steps in.

                When there was an absence of power (or a weakness of power), the Catholic Church didn’t “step in.” It dove headfirst in, like a bridesmaid after the bouquet. It dove in headfirst like Charlie after the last canoli. Like George Costanza trying to get out of a building when the fire alarm goes off.

                To be fair, Islam did the exact same thing.

                To be more fair, so did Judaism, back in the day.

                To continue being fair, so did Communism.

                Although the comparison is odious, the Bolsheviks and Nazi’s did the same.

                To be even fairer, so did the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

                Catholic Church became in Poland under Communism. This is new to me… what’s all this now? I haven’t heard about this before.

            • It is interesting. The Catholic Church in Poland was the only viable opponent to the government. They ran an entire underground. John Paul II, the Polish Pope, was perceived to be a problem for the folks in Moscow. There are more than a few who believe that’s where the assassination attempt was brewed up. Lech Walesa and Solidarity were backed by the Church. Jaruzelski,the Moscow appointed premier, a former general was scared of both. In the end it was the Church who can take at least half the credit for bringing down the Polish government. There are a few historians that credit Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul acting more or less in concert with crashing Communism. The books probably won’t be written for another fifty years or so for alleged national Security reasons but they will be an interesting read.

  25. @ Anita (my love): @Anita (my love): You beat me to it JAC. Charlie, could you rephrase your snipe to JAC. The title of the list is How many people did God kill? Not how Christianity depicted the killings. So which way do you want to have it?

    Well, if you want to defend the Bible and catholicism, etc., I guess you’ll have to accept that God killed … unless you’re like me and believe it’s a crock of shit (fine short stories, but still a crock of fiction/shit) … then it’d be how Christianity depicted thier God and his killings.

    Either way, my love, you lose (if your point is to suggest catholicism/christianity is any better than the nonsense spewed in the Koran.

    • No I don’t lose..because as JAC said..you atheist don’t get it both ways..Deny God but use example of how he killed…besides..it’s his game and if he wants to kill some it’s his choice, they end up better off than us anyway.

  26. Anita, how do you dissolve a religion??

    Wipe out the people who practice it … very popular in Germany during Hitler’s reign.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Hitler couldn’t wipe out all the Jews and there were only 13-ish million of us.. There are a billion plus Muslims. Just saying..

      • A billion plus? Can somebody give them the number to planned parenthood already?

        • Mathius™ says:

          “(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things…then the soul is breathed into him” (that’s from the Hadith – had to do some Googling)

          So that’s 120 days, or roughly four months. Plenty of time for an abortion.

          Also, per Wikipedia, Islam seems fine with contraceptives, so long as it’s used by consent of both parties, does not cause permanent sterility, and does not do any bodily harm (what the holy hell kind of birth control are they using? A bunch to the nuts?)

  27. their elders teach them the Koran..according to what they want known.

    I almost missed this. Sounds like the U.S. Constitution, etc … 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      ::round of applause::

    • Mathius™ says:

      here we go…

      Pope Innocent III stated in 1199:

      … to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted

      Got that? Don’t worry about reading it for yourself.. we’ll tell you what it says..

  28. Mathius™ says:

    And from the COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE circa 1229 A.D.

    Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

  29. Many religions make it a point to “convert” people to their religion. They knock on your door and when you open it they start preaching in hopes of converting you. Islam is no different when it comes to converting, except the radicals have formed different meaning of the words, demanding conversion or they believe they can kill you if you don’t. While I don’t believe that Islam is truly an evil religion, the radicals have been on the front page for everyone to see.

    Religion, like Liberalism and Communism, always want to be in your business. Maybe if they would just mind their own business, there would be less

    • OOps, my point is, if religions, like Liberals, would just mind their own business, their would be less violence in the name of said religion.

      • Yet is is the GOP that refuses to acknowledge the utter pointlessness (and defeat) of our trip to Afghanistan … not that the Dems seem to be in any hurry … but it was GWB who opted for 2 wars at once … now that we’re 0-2 and still getting our kids killed for our efforts (while defense contractors score day in and day out), maybe it’s time to rethink attacking Iran (mr. Romney)?

    • Religion, like Liberalism and Communism, always want to be in your business. Maybe if they would just mind their own business

      Unlike SUFA? (watch how fast this one brings out USW) …:)

      Seriously, dude, don’t answer the door …

    • Mathius™ says:

      except the radicals have formed different meaning of the words, demanding conversion or they believe they can kill you if you don’t.

      The radicals didn’t “form” this.. they “borrowed” this from the Christians, who borrowed it from the Romans,

      While I don’t believe that Islam is truly an evil religion, the radicals have been on the front page for everyone to see.

      Yes, because they’re “spooky” and “different” and “foreign” and hyping up the fear of the “other” sells newspapers. Ok, well nothing really “sells newspapers” anymore… but it does drive web traffic and tv ratings.

      Muslim extremism, at least insofar as it poses a threat to everyday American life, is tantamount to a shark attack. Most of them pose zero threat, but we insist on believing that all of them are blood-thirsty killers. Attacks are rare. When they do happen, it’s rarely fatal. But it sure scares the hell out of a lot of irrational people.

      • :applaud:

        Of course, the Christian bombings and slaughter of Muslims is righteous, painted under the color of a liberation war. So those don’t count.

        Christian dead (9-11 included): 10,759
        Muslim dead: 920,000+

        • Mathius™ says:

          ::siffles nose bleed::

          I was wondering when you were going to step into this.. I’m getting a little tired of beating these people up.. there’s just no sport in it when they don’t even seem to realize how badly beaten they are..

        • The assumption, of course is that all the WTC dead were Christian? That all the soldiers are Christian? A small point I know but no less ridiculous than painting it as you did.

          How about we all agree that we should mind our own damned business, let the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakis, Egyptians, Libyans, Kosovars, Serbs, Croats etc. all get back to killing whomsoever they all want to kill. Oppress the living crap out of women, stone the gays and do whatever else they think they should be doing.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          Horseshit and you know it.

          The “Christians” did not wage war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The US GOVT did that,, along with Govts from many other places. Some of which are Muslim.

          Remember that REASON has at its core TRUTH.

          • Mathius™ says:

            The “Christians” did not wage war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The US GOVT did that

            And who runs the US Govt?

            I’ll tell you who sure and hell doesn’t run the US government. Muslims.

            Who sent up into war? I mean, who REALLY sent us to war?
            Bush – Christian
            Cheney – Christian
            Rove – Christian
            Condi – Christian
            Rummy – Christian
            All of congress – overwhelmingly Christian

            The US may not be, technically, a Christian theocracy.. but it sure isn’t far off.

            • Choke!!!! Gasp!!!!

              Man, that’s a stretch.

            • Mathius,

              US is a theocracy – beyond a doubt. It doesn’t need to elect a “pope” or a “bishop-ish” person to run, – but the Presidents since God-knows have ended their speeches with:

              “God bless America”

              It is a religious crusade – promote their version of “freedom” -tainted with bizarre christian dogma and kill whomever does not agree.

              Because most Americans swim in this, they do not see in themselves at all.

          • Nonsense.

            So you are claiming that it is a bunch of secular atheists that invaded Iraq/Afghanistan.

            It is the Christian nations that are making these wars to be a War of Religion – remember who invaded who.

  30. So I tend to take this guy at his word..

    Where did you learn this?

    On the Internet.

    • Gimme a break Charlie. Did you really have to stoop there. I didn’t post that as a way to start a fight or ridicule anyone..I’m open to the discussion. I’m sorry if you are offended or if you see me as stupid (as Todd does)…but use a filter between your brain and your keyboard. I guess I’m done talking about apostates! Have a good day!

      • I don’t see you as stupid, Anita my love … as see you as someone clinging to a bad idea (about the Muslim religion vs. any other religion). I’m not offended at all. Bad back today so it won’t be so good. My Monday off is a painful one. Sorry if you feel offended.

        • To be fair, I see most of the righties on SUFA as those clinging to bad ideas …:) Sometimes REALLY BAD ideas …:)

          • Mathius™ says:

            I see pretty much everyone on SUFA except Buck and Todd as clinging to bad ideas… you, Charlie, included. It’s just that your bad ideas are less bad than theirs.

            • Fair enough. But you, Buck and Todd (I think) support a policy/partyline a public hair to the left of the GOP (not the tea party–that’s 10 pubic hairs to the left at least) … and ignore the damage (I think you ignore it) this clown act in the white house has done to labor in the U.S. (to include white collar labor/workers in general) … setting them back 50-100 years (if not more). That a bad idea too … just less so than the GOP’s … one pubic hair or so.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Do NOT STOP discussing these matters.

        Simply ignore the obnoxious. Carry on as if it did not exist.

        You raised a legitimate question this morning and perhaps one of the most important of our time.

        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

        • What was that question? How to eradicate Islam??

          • Mathius™ says:

            Has anyone tried DDT?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            No! The question was whether what this guy said is true. His commentary is consistent with others who come from the middle east and who have been willing to speak out against Islam.

            So ………….. wherein lies the truth?

            Because if what he says is true, then it does raise the question of why we would allow this religion to coexist with us in the United States.

            That in turn raises a question of how you would eradicate it,…………….OR……….transform it.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Why do you take his word over the millions of others who are equally credible and equally informed who say the exact opposite?

              • Reminds me a bit of the discussion the other day with needing to question a Muslim more harshly than a Christian or Jew running for gov’t office…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Maybe it is because we don’t hear any of the other 2 million speak out. OK maybe some.

                I put credence in their words because those I hear come from the region where the anger and hate and backwards ways thrive.

                Perhaps some of the others do as well, but the ones speaking of tolerance and peace seem to come from our part of the world.

                It is not that I believe one over the other. It is that I do not think you can discount them as wingnuts or someone with an “agenda” as you did earlier.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Maybe it is because we don’t hear any of the other 2 million speak out.

                You mean like any of these people?

  31. You’re more than welcome. 🙂

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I find your chastising others for selective “interpretation” of Islam a little strange unless you speak the original Arabic language in which the documents were written.

    And of course are an expert in converting them to English.

    I also find it Ironic that if we applied the same standard to Christianity that the Muslims did to Islam, there would be no versions of the Bible written in anything but Greek.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      re you above commentary.

      Where do you get off accusing me of being a Christian or attacking my religion, when I have NEVER shared MY religion with SUFA?

      • Mathius™ says:

        I have NEVER shared MY religion with SUFA?

        Just a generalization – not you personally, but the “royal you.”

    • Mathius™ says:

      I find your chastising others for selective “interpretation” of Islam a little strange unless you speak the original Arabic language in which the documents were written.

      And of course are an expert in converting them to English.

      Fair enough. I, of course, have zero intention of learning Arabic so I can read it in the native language. I have enough trouble with Spanish and it uses the same alphabet as English.

      But I have read the translation (technically considered by Muslims to be a “commentary”) which is widely accepted to maintain strong fidelity to the original. Though, of course, I cannot say with certainty where it may differ or what nuance may be lost, I feel that what I have read is close enough to the point that I can still speak authoritatively about what it “says.”

      My criticism of others for using their “interpretation” of Islam versus my “interpretation” of Islam is that I’m only reading a linguistic interpretation. Yes, it’s not 100% perfect, but the point is that the text is what I’m reading. Others are reading the same text (possibly in the original language – possibly not) and then extrapolating. The point is that they’re taking things that AREN’T in the text to be canon whereas I’m taking things that may be slightly off due to linguist differences, but which are very close, to be canon.

      By the way, my copy of the Koran contains three simultaneous translations which occasionally vary from each other slightly. Each line is presented in Arabic and then three times in English. I find this helps restore, somewhat, the nuance.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I appreciate your efforts to share your information and knowledge of this subject with us.

        I do think, however, that you jump to the defense when it may not be justified.

        When evaluating these issues of religion and its relationship to other cultural norms we need to look at history as well. I can’t help but notice the difference between the teachings and practices of the “first Christians”, which is not the Catholic church, as opposed the the First Muslim and his family.

        And then there is the relationship to WHERE they developed and WHERE they spread and how they were used among the various peoples who adopted them.

        One cannot escape the fact that Islam was invented by part of the Arab people, who had and maintained thereafter a culture of war against “others”.

        Christianity on the other hand was used much in the same way in places but underwent greater “evolution” towards peace with others and over time.

        If is my opinion that Islam has supported the lack of progress in the middle east and is more easily used to support Islamic Caliphate. However, I also think this is because of its youth compared to Christianity. As it spreads among more “civilized” societies it may be that it too will “evolve” into the more peaceful version.

        That is if the “less peaceful” elements allow it to do this. And therein lies a very important question as it relates to where we are TODAY. Because we KNOW that some of the more violent or less tolerant have spread along with the religion itself. Whether they are countered by “moderates” or “liberals” within their community is yet to be seen.

        Meanwhile we need to recognize this reality and deal with it. We should not pretend it doesn’t exist just because we want to appear tolerant of because we believe in religious freedom. No religion deserves protection that violates the basic tenants of freedom, liberty and justice.

        • Mathius™ says:

          As it spreads among more “civilized” societies it may be that it too will “evolve” into the more peaceful version.

          It HAS spread into more “civilized” communities. It HAS evolved into a more peaceful version. That’s what those 2+ billion Muslims are practicing.

          There are just some holdouts. Yet, again, you keep painting the whole religion with the same brush.

          There are a FEW, statistically speaking very few, Muslims who are CRAZY and EXTREMIST. Just like there are a FEW, statistically speaking very few, Christians and Jews who are crazy and extremist. If there’s a difference in tactics (suicide bombs vs drone strikes), it’s just an artifact of who holds the better technology, who has greater resources, more money, etc.

          The problem isn’t the RELIGION – the problem is the way a few lunatics interpret the religion.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            “There are just some holdouts. Yet, again, you keep painting the whole religion with the same brush.”

            I am not. My entire comment to you was about differences, throughout history, geographic and cultural.

            It is not “terrorism” that is of concern to me. It is the desire to IMPOSE their will upon me and their willingness to do that once they become numerous enough. It is whether their religion in fact pushes this idea or whether it does not. And if it does, can its affect be softened to avoid this conflict.

            I think you ignore the historical fact that the problem stems from the actions of the guy who invented the Religion. Not some lunatics who came along later.

  33. @ JAC: Oh, come on, Never heard Nancy say we had to “Pass the bill (Obamacare) to see what’s in it”?

    I actually didn’t, and as dumb as that is (what she said/did), it still doesn’t make her half as stupid as Palin (on world issues, domestic issues). Let’s put it this way. “How do you feel about the Bush doctrine, governor?” Duh …

    I’m positive Pelosi could’ve responded without using a lifeline.

    But again, remember my pubic hairs, Stephen … I have as much use for Pelosi, et al, as I do for Palin et al … all I’m saying is at least they can answer direct questions with at least some knowledge of what they speak. Palin, no way.

    • Ooops, I meant at Stephen …

    • If I had the time and inclination, I would go back and pull up her (Nancy’s) gaffes. Would have been nice if the media had done that for me but, then again, it’s like the 3,456,987 times Gerry Ford hit someone with a golf ball or the 2,345.765 times he tripped on the Air Force 1 gangplank. Or, did those things just happen once and Chevy Chase kept hammering them? Matter of fact, I am unsure now whether it was Sarah Palin who said she could see Russia from her front porch, or was it Tina Fey?

      • The real quote is: “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”

        • And, on a clear day you can you can see it, as you can see the White Cliffs of Dover from France. But, the quote she gets hammered for is really Tina Fey’s bastardized version on SNL. I know Ford is ancient history to you but, you could check on Chevy Chase’s recent comments on his portrayals of Ford and why they were done. .

          • This should clear it up …

          • Stephen: I don’t think the queston was whether or not she could see Russian from her house. It was how that enhances (or even suggests) her foreign policy (if she has one).

            • An interesting and well taken point. One could ask does anyone? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have been thrashing about with no foreign policy to speak of. I don’t think Obama could have answered the question either if it had been asked. He’s not particularly good on extemp goes over into what we used to call shucking and jiving back on the block.

              It was Jack Kennedy who named the State Department “Foggy Bottom” for a reason. When have those guys ever been right about anything? Every time they have bumbled us into a war, it was because they have misunderstood something.

              I don’t really know if it was insanity or inspiration that had Reagan tell them to “shove it” and go with his gut. All I know is that it worked and what I always feared most, an accidental nuclear war with the Soviet Union did not happen. You have to realize I grew up on “Fail Safe” and “Dr. Strangelove (originally written as “Red Alert) .

      • “…dontcha know…”

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    I find it so odd to see the “explanations” of what Islam is or is not from those who despise other religions.

    They do not defend or not the religion of Islam on its own merits. Instead the respond with attack on the other religion. Today is is Christianity.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a Classical Logical Fallacy.

    And look who is committing it. Bwhahahahahaha

    • Mathius™ says:

      🙂

      They do not defend or not the religion of Islam on its own merits. Instead the respond with attack on the other religion

      As you should know by now, this fallacy is called the Tu Quoque (or “you too”) fallacy.

      Today is is Christianity.

      To be fair, most days it’s Christianity.

      Though, to be even more fair, I did post three separate examples of terrorism / genocide committed by Jews.

      I find it so odd to see the “explanations” of what Islam is or is not from those who despise other religions.

      Why does a dislike of (all) religion equate to me being wrong about them? I don’t like spiders, but I can still know about them.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I will tell you why. Because every time this topic comes up it sounds like you, Buck, BF and Charlie come running to defend Islam and denigrate Christians or Jews.

        On other subjects I do agree that the same group comes running to denigrate Christians and Jews.

        I don’t even remember WHEN your little group ever chastised or denigrated Islam.

        NOW, you did agree with Anita right out of the chute this morning that it was basically a violent religion. But then you spent a lot of type trying to prove it was not violent. but proving Christians and Jews are violent. See what I mean?

        Your group is always looking for context and nuance when defending Islam but then uses harsh situations or words taken out of broader context to attack Christianity or Judaism.

        That is why I pointed out the fallacy.

        And Matt, this is MY perspective. This is what it sounds and looks like to me. The guy with NO, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH interest in defending Christianity or Judaism or what ever religion you wish to present. But neither do I wish to simply attack them because I do not share them.

        I enjoy the more sane discussions about the various religions, in terms of their teachings, the people involved, their evolution and their historical context relative to human development.

        But I find this constant denigration of Christians and Jews as the RESPONSE to questions about Islam as obnoxious. Kind of like screaming racist at someone for questioning the President’s policies on Welfare.

        • No, we denigrate all religions equally. We just dislike the hypocrisy of denigrating Islam while holding up Christianity or Judaism as the ‘answer’ (so to speak).

          • BULLSHIT..JAC beat me to it again because I had to go outside with the dogs to blow off some steam..but you guys never beat up on Islam…if so I missed that day (singular day).

            • Mathius™ says:

              No real need to beat up on Islam.. you guys do enough of that for us. I think Buck put it perfectly.

              Islam has it’s moments just like everyone else. It has it’s baked-in violence just like everyone else. Evil has been done in its name just like everyone else. What are you looking for here? Do you need me to enumerate the crimes perpetrated by various Muslims?

            • Oh, yes we do … I think we’re pretty fair minded about beating up on all religions … it’s just we find ourselves having to defend (what appears to be “defending”) islam here because you righties go apeshit in attacking it as if it stands alone as the single most evil religion in the world. So our attempts to dismantle all religions (especially christianity because Ameri-cha is mostly Christian) makes it seem like we’re picking on it.

              Not to worry, I think they’re all bullshit and more harmful than good, but their architecture is pretty cool.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Well it seems to me the pro Christian arguments usually come in response to your first attack. That is why I raised the fallacy.

            Now as for WHICH one, of those listed, would be the one to hold up, if any, I give you a little test to conduct.

            Ask your wife and your gay friends WHICH they would rather live under TODAY.

            The Christian USA/Britain/Germany etc, the Jewish Israel, or anywhere in the Islamic Middle East/northern Africa.

            • The Christian USA — do you mean the current USA, or do you mean the USA as it would be if extremist Christians had their way?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                The test applies to the World we live in TODAY.

              • Well then she (and they) would presumably choose the USA — because it is NOT a Christian theocracy….yet. 🙂

              • I wonder why that is?????? We have supposedly been the majority since our inception-but somehow the Christian majority have not used their majority to even try and make the US a theocracy-I wonder why??????????????????????????????????????

              • VH,

                Stop asking that question, it is a WHY question. They never answer WHY questions.

              • As I’ve long said — majority rule with respect and guarantees for minority rights.

              • Stephen, I can’t help myself-it seems like this fact should be relevant to any discussion about the US and Christianity. But it’s sorta like the question of social programs-I agree we should have some-but despite all their declarations to the contrary in WORDS-there seems to be no Real limits that they will impose and they refuse to even consider answering the question of when have we gone too far and stepped into more socialist than free.

              • Respect for minority rights, yep, absolutely, but guarantees for minority rights? When does that then trump majority rule? many of us here think that that is what has been going on these last forty years. It matters not what the majority thinks, votes or rules if it can be thwarted by a judge or judges responding to an alleged issue of minority rights. Some would call this anarchy I call it chaos.

                I always thought the original intent of Republican or representative government was to create that one small division between the populace and their representatives which, in most cases, would prevent mob rule. System seemed to work quite well for the first 180 years or so with exceptions due more to the immaturity of society (racism) than a lack of legislative or judicial activism.

                Always wondered, if the Civil War had been averted, or if the South had won, how long Slavery would have lasted? I mean I know Joe Biden’s position but how long would have it really lasted, 1880, 1890?

      • To be fair, most days it’s Christianity.

        There you go! Show me a chart from 50 yrs to now…that’s 50 years.. almost a lifetime..comparing how many people have been killed and by what religion…Hint..3000 on one day in 01 by Muslims.

        • Oh, I don’t think you want to go there, Anita my love …

          • I’m talking killings related to religious beliefs. Killing in the name of Christianity, Islam and Judaism

          • Mathius™ says:

            Shame she said 50 years… the Nazis were completely couched in “Christianity”.. Too bad I can’t tack the 6mm+ on.

            There are too many murders, wars, massacres, etc on ALL sides to count. I’d speculate that there are more on the Christian side only because there are MORE CHRISTIANS. Jews are probably trailing way behind only because there are FEWER JEWS.

            Christians are dominant in wealthy and modern countries such as the US, so they get to fight their wars under a banner of legitimacy which is denied to Muslims. It’s “legitimate” to use a predator drone, but “terrorism” to strap a bomb to your chest. This skews the result.

            And, by the way, not for nothing, but should the “violence” of a religion be judged the the effectiveness of it’s violence? That is, if I shoot up theater and you crash a plane into a building, your kill count might be 100x mine, but does that really make you any less violent than me? Just some food for thought.

            • You blame every war and all that is bad on religion-yet you continue to point out that those who are religious are individual’s , interpret the meaning of their Holy Books differently and should not be blamed for the actions of others or their whole religion painted with the same brush-and per me are on opposite sides of every argument-yet you blame all on RELIGION-not the individual acts of the men or governmental power involved-. You totally confuse me-with what seems to be contradictory messages.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Could you please stop spreading this lie about Nazis and Christianity. We have chased this before. Nazis were not Christians, they were in fact wrapped more in paganism than Christianity.

              Yes, they tried to not attack Christianity and to twist some beliefs to avoid this conflict. That is until they gained total control. The heads of the church tolerated them for their own survival. Further confirmation that inaction allows evil to breed.

              They did not use Christianity to create anti-semitism. That already existed through out Europe.

              • Nazi’s and Christianity …

              • Mathius™ says:

                Nazis were not Christians, they were in fact wrapped more in paganism than Christianity.

                That’s fine.

                The Nazis weren’t Christians.

                Then the perpetrators of 9/11 weren’t Muslims.

              • I don’t know that the Nazi’s ever said that it was their Christian duty to eradicate Jews. Might have. Charlie, ever see “Joyeux Noel”, Germans sang “Silent Night” in the first world war too.

  35. @Matt, in both of you examples, the government reacted against to attacks, in mine, they stood aside. They also encourage or enforce Islamic laws, Iran stones homosexuals. Palestinians simply shoot anybody that violates their religious laws such as dancing or singing….(except on 9/11, when it was OK for some reason)

    The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred when Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli settler and member of the far-right Israeli Kach movement, opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslims praying inside the Ibrahim Mosque (or Mosque of Abraham) at the Cave of the Patriarchs site in Hebron in the West Bank. It took place on February 25, 1994, during the overlapping religious holidays of Purim and Ramadan.[1][2] Twenty-nine worshippers were killed and 125 wounded.[3] The attack ended after Goldstein had expended his ammunition, when he was overcome, then beaten to death by survivors.

    The attack set off riots and protests throughout the West Bank, and 19 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli Defense Forces within 48 hours of the massacre.[2] Goldstein was denounced “with shocked horror” by Orthodox Judaism,[4] and most in Israel denounced Goldstein as insane.[5] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a “degenerate murderer”, “a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism”

    • Mathius™ says:

      Goldstein was denounced “with shocked horror” by Orthodox Judaism

      That’s interesting… You know, except for this..

      The gravesite has become a pilgrimage site for Jewish extremists; a plaque near the grave reads “To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel.” At least 10,000 people have visited the grave since the massacre.[5]

      Eventually the Government bulldozed the grave site in compliance with a law prohibiting monuments to terrorists. However, the 10,000 people who made the PILGRIMAGE to visit his grave attests to a lot of support for his actions. Let’s not pretend that he was such an outlier.

      There are 5.7 million Jews in Israel (I’m limiting my sample to only those who could reasonably have made this pilgrimage). If there are 10k crazy Jews like these (and that’s the absolute minimum), then the incidence of terrorist support amongst Jews is 0.17%. Scale that up to Muslims (apparently there are 2.2 billion of them) and you get 3,859,649. That’s 3.9 MILLION terrorist supporting extremist Muslims. See where I’m going with this?

      3.9 million Muslims dancing in the street on 9/11 or stoning homosexuals is just a statistical consequence of having so many Muslims. The rest are just normal people who you insist on painting with the same brush.

      • Eventually the Government bulldozed the grave site

        Don’t bulldoze me, bro …

      • “Let us revisit, if we can, the tale of Samson.
        Samson was engaged to a young woman, a Philistine.”

        You have to compare Old Testament for a match to modern Islamic behavior. Behavior that is encouraged or approved in many Muslim countries? I agree the 4 million extremists are the urgent issue, but the two billion that BELIEVE everyone must submit to Islam or face either death or enslavement, that’s a problem as well. But after the 4 million terrorists, how many millions support terrorists? I agree trying to dissolve their religion is not a path I would pursue. Is it wrong to ask they renounce violence in the name of Islam?

        • Is it wrong to ask they renounce violence in the name of Islam?

          Is it wrong Iran asks you to mind your own business when it comes to nuclear weapons?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Well lets test the hypothesis in reverse.

            Has the world minded its own business when it comes to the US’s nuclear weapons?

            • Way to avoid the answer, JAC … then again, the US is the only one to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation state … so maybe the rest of the world gets a little nervous?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Charlie

                Is was not avoiding anything. If the principle of “minding our own business” is universally held among humans and their world of nation states then the all must hold to the same standard.

                If not then it is not a principle but just another political toy.

                Yes, we used it. Do you think Russia would not have used it if they had it and we did not? Do you think Japan would not have used it if they had it back then?

                The reality of the possibility has caused the WORLD to intervened its desire to restrict access to Nuclear Weapons. Is this a valid position for the WORLD Govts to take?

                If yes, then we have a role to play. If no, then you are correct. It is none of our business.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Samson was engaged to a young woman, a Philistine.”

          Thank god someone actually read that.. it took forever to type out..

          but the two billion that BELIEVE everyone must submit to Islam or face either death or enslavement, that’s a problem as well.

          GOONNNGGGGG!!!

          No. The other two billion believe that you must sumbit to Islam or risk going to hell. They don’t (mostly, anyway – it’s a mixed bag) believe that you should be killed or enslaved. Only the crazy ones think that. Just like only the crazy Jews think that all Muslims need to be killed.

          But after the 4 million terrorists, how many millions support terrorists?

          Actually, the 4 million (I see you rounded up, by the way) number was the number of supporters. I don’t have clean numbers on the number of actual terrorists, but I’d suggest it’s probably in the low 4-figures (a lot, but not when you consider the huge population). And I’d remind you that religion isn’t necessarily the defining factor in the decision to wage war against non-Muslims – remember that there is an Israeli occupation going on.

          I agree trying to dissolve their religion is not a path I would pursue. That’s good because there’s nothing good in that direction.

          Is it wrong to ask they renounce violence in the name of Islam?

          Nope. Not at all. In fact many/most of them have renounced violence. For the N’th time, remember that the vast overwhelming majority of them are NOT trying to kill anyone. If 2.2 billion Muslims were all engaging in violent aggression against non-Muslims, we’d be in a lot of trouble. You think the US military could hold off that many people? And remember, there are 2.6 million of them already inside of the US.. they could be right behind you!

          ::ducks::

          By the way, just for my edification, is it wrong to ask everyone to renounce violence in the name of whatever god they believe (or don’t believe) in?

          • Matt,

            “In fact many/most of them have renounced violence.” Any proof? A lot of them “renounce” violence but don’t stop the practice. If someone breaks their law and dances at a wedding, them may not see it as violence on their part when they kill the offender.

            “For the N’th time, remember that the vast overwhelming majority of them are NOT trying to kill anyone.” How many Palestinians want peace? The seem to keep voting for violent terrorists for their government. The harbor them when they attack Israel. Where was OBL hiding? Another neighborhood in another nation that has renounced violence? Iraq is now aiding Iran? Iran is aiding Syria?

            “By the way, just for my edification, is it wrong to ask everyone to renounce violence in the name of whatever god they believe (or don’t believe) in?” Not at all, great thought!

      • Yep, and that’s why they dumped Osama’s body in the deep to prevent it from becoming a shrine. It was also why Stalin’s body was removed from the Kremlin and there are not a whole lot of of graves for former Nazi leaders.

        No accounting for stupidity out there.

  36. All this arguing that everybody is doing about religion……I doubt that anyone can point to any religion that does not have their moments. There is no one religion any less violent than the other and that includes Ghandi.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      MINE!!

      Oh wait. I guess since I am the only one it really isn’t a religion. Never mind.

      Old cowboy speaking before thinking.

      Good morning Sir. Hope your weekend was good.

      • Hi JAC……..(saying that line in an airport would get you arrested…..)

        Have you seen the best bumper sticker ever in Texas? Painted on the back of a pickup truck.. O B A M A …….in smaller print, in between the letters….One Big Ass Mistake America,

        Then in the interview with Nancy Pelosi……when asked, “you won’t eat at Chick Fil A because the founder is Christian…..so tell me again about your tolerance and their bigotry.

        Billboard sign posted on Interstate 35….sponsored by the Texas Veterans…You may be a liberal if you hold a fast food restaurant to a higher moral standard than your President.

        Then the Gene Wilder statement…so, you stopped eating at Chick Fil A because the owner believes that homosexuality is wrong….so, tell me, when are you going to stop buying gasoline because the owners of OPEC put homosexuals to death…

        So far, more Chicagoans have been murdered this year than all the troops in the war zone in Afghanistan……and all that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Board can do is pass a law banning minors from using tanning beds.

        Finally a sign outside of Chick Fil A…..thanks to the recent liberal boycott, you can dine here in safety. We are now cleaner and more drug free than ever and you can dine peacefully knowing that liberals are eating elsewhere.

        Week end was good, JAC…….watching all this crap on here about Palin and wondering why they cannot leave this gal alone….all this religion stuff…..and Rome is burning……sigh.

        • Mathius™ says:

          watching all this crap on here about Palin and wondering why they cannot leave this gal alone….all this religion stuff…..

          We’re just having fun, Coronel!

          and Rome is burning……sigh.

          Wanna let it burn
          Wanna let it burn
          Wanna let it burn
          Wanna wanna let it bu-urn!

    • Mathius™ says:

      My religion is pretty peaceful… I worship The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I strongly suggest you check out our faith – I think you’ll find it to your tastes.

  37. Rumor has it that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was spotted over Laguna Madre….sounds of cannon fire heard in the distance……stay tuned for more details.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Did you happen to see Hannity’s special with Mr. Dick Cheney last Friday evening?

      They spent time showing the outfit using fly fishing to help vets cope with PTSD, etc.

      Which raises another question to you.

      What was your assessment of Mr. Cheney as Sec Def?

      • I’d like to hear that too.

      • I did not see the special….as to Cheney as Sec of Defense…….he was far more qualified for that than VP…..however, he rates in the top three sec of defense…..He was very well respected. The Joint Chiefs had absolutely no problem with him as he did not play favorites. He openly stood against Bush II in the assessment of the Iraq war as his VP.

        His assessment of the Kuwait operation was spot on under Bush I. It was as near perfect as it could have gone…given the circumstances

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          What do you mean when he stood “against Bush II” on the Iraq war?

          • He was against the war in Iraq……that is easy……so was Rumsfeld in the beginning….but when the Pres says go…..they get on board. Rumsfeld did his job as Sec of Defense but if the boss says jump…you ask how high on the way up. Everybody hated Cheney but Cheney was pretty good at what he did…..taking politics out of it. The only thing wrong with Cheney is that he walked in lock step because….he had to walk in lock step.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              How strange that that is not the story told by the left nor his legacy, thanks to those same ass-hats.

              You have confirmed my thoughts on the matter.

              One thing struck me with the special Friday. He chastized Hannity for stereotyping all Muslims and ALL Arabs. He explained how we had MANY long time friends in the area and need to remember that when we are looking for the Bogey Man.

              He did express his view that we are AT WAR with RADICAL ISLAMISTS and need to remember that. But I got the sense it was more about authorities to employ certain resources, especially military, and in keeping vigil than anything else.

              I do not share his “world view” of Americas proper role, but I have always respected his thinking and knowledge of what it was he was responsible for.

  38. @ VH/Stephen: We have supposedly been the majority since our inception-but somehow the Christian majority have not used their majority to even try and make the US a theocracy-I wonder why??????????????????????????????????????

    I think it has to do with most Christians not being the fire and brimstone lunatics like Michelle Bachmann and/or Sarah Palin who seek to pray the gay away and/or ban books … but I could be wrong. Sensible Christians, a lot like my wife. They go to church (or don’t) and keep their faith to themselves and understand that trying to impose their will (like constitutional amendments banning gay marriage) are insidious attempts that expose religion for the sham it really is (although my wife won’t use “expose” or “sham”) … but she should. 🙂

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    “I wonder why that is?????? We have supposedly been the majority since our inception-but somehow the Christian majority have not used their majority to even try and make the US a theocracy-I wonder why??????????????????????????????????????”

    I will take a shot at this.

    1. Martin Luther
    2. The American experience with Puritans.
    3. The Enlightenment, which connects new ideas with 1 and 2.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Blue Laws.
      Abortion Laws.
      Anti-Gay rights Laws.
      Anti Prostitution Laws.
      Personhood Laws.
      Public Decency Laws.
      Sodomy Laws.
      Anti-Polygamy Laws.
      Christmas as a national holiday.

      Yea, ok.

      • Mathius™ says:

        ooh… almost forgot..

        In God we trust…
        One nation under God…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Both of which were brought to us by the PROGRESSIVES.

          You just don’t seem to understand your FASCIST roots.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Sorry, we weren’t talking about Progressive vs Conservative. We were talking about a “Christian theocracy.”

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Exactly. That is why your list is so silly.

              Nothing there portends of an attempt to create a theocracy.

        • Matt,

          Taking your list, in a Christian country:

          1. Almost Gone, except in Bergen Co. NJ

          2. Basically gone

          3. Going, almost gone

          4. Not going except in Nevada and what the hell, who needs them anymore anyway?

          5. Gone

          6. I vote gone but my son still says that indecency can be punished???

          7. Gone

          8. Going, has to end if you accept gay marriage.

          9. Be grateful call it Solstice if you like doesn’t bother me.

          10. Got me on that one (or two)

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I found this response a little childish given the full context of my comment.

    “You mean like any of these people?”

    But since you gave examples of the 9/11 responses as your argument then please address:

    As thousands danced in celebration in the streets.

    Why did THEY not capture and turn over, or prosecute, the perpetrators?

    Why did THEY not take action against Al Qaeda?

    Where are their ACTIVE efforts to stop this type of belief system?

    Now I have one recognition to give. Iran did help us out with getting into Afghanistan. So perhaps you could count this as action against the violators of Islam.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Apologies if I came off as childish.

      My point was that there have been TONS of Muslims speaking out against terrorism and radical Islam. Yet, for some reason, it never seems to enter into the mainstream American consciousness that Muslims ARE speaking out against this. Even you, how are no doubt far more informed than average, suggest that Muslims aren’t speaking out and are somehow failing to object. That simply isn’t the case.

      As thousands danced in celebration in the streets.

      Yes, there is a lot of crazy out there. It’s also worth noting the the US is pretty hated over there due to our history of supporting their enemies and bombing them ever so often.

      Why did THEY not take action against Al Qaeda?

      Who says they didn’t? I’d be STUNNED if they didn’t join with us, at least to a moderate degree. Remember, again, that we have been pretty hated in those parts for a long time.

      Where are their ACTIVE efforts to stop this type of belief system?

      They speak out, such as in the link I gave you. They preach in their mosques. There are outreach centers everywhere I go. Maybe they’re just not getting through. Maybe the people who are extremists are not listening, just as the extremists of other religions aren’t listening.

      Iran did help us out with getting into Afghanistan. So perhaps you could count this as action against the violators of Islam. And just look how we repaid them…

    • As thousands danced in celebration in the streets.

      Yep and I seem to recall news casts of Americans standing and cheering at the tv’s when Obama announced – we’ll call it killing – of Osama bin Laden.

      That’s different from the others how?

      • I certainly did not dance in the streets..matter of fact my first words were ‘prove it”. There were how many? smaller attacks on American targets pre 9/11. There were 17 UNITED NATIONS resolutions that were scoffed at. Then 4 planes wipe out thousands in one hour. I would like to think that the celebration on our end had to do more with the thought of relief that the wars would now end than the fact that OBL was killed. I’m sure personal satisfaction entered everyones minds also but it not being the major reason for celebration. That’s just my personal feeling.

        And why were THEY celebrating on 9/11?

        • For the same reason Americans celebrated – a hated enemy died.

          The war didn’t end either, did it?

          • Explain to me this…why do THEY..ALWAYS get a pass and we have to defend our actions?…tell me your plan…what other way do you get the message across when their message is ‘kill them all’…all the while they are still killing….what do you? Sanctions didnt work, resolutions didnt work..but people were still ending up dead.

            • when their message is ‘kill them all’

              That is not their message…unless by ‘their’ you mean the extremist fundamentalists.

              • WHO EVER!!! They want us dead. Doesn’t that bother you even one little bit?

              • But can we please stop painting all Muslims with the same broad brush?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Not really.

                You want them dead. Should that bother them?

                The real problem, to me, seems that you can’t distinguish between “extremist fundamentalists” and “Muslims,” so you want aggressive action taken against “Muslims” which only exacerbates the situation.

            • Mathius™ says:

              They don’t get a pass. But neither should we.

              They think they’re the victims.
              We think we’re the victims.
              They think they’re defending themselves.
              We think we’re defending ourselves.
              They attack us in defense or reprisal – we see it as aggression.
              We attack them in defense or reprisal – they see it as aggression.

              But here’s the difference – we’re a lot more powerful, wealthy, etc – we have the obligation to be the grown up. Black Flag likes to call this being the hegemonic power. It’s our job to grow up and break the cycle – why is that everyone seems to think that the last punch thrown should always be ours and that the first punch thrown was always theirs? We’ve been messing with them for decades and we’re shocked when they lash out? Why is it that when we attack them, they should just lie down and take it?

              ::sigh::

            • I am not giving anyone a pass. We have, flawed as it is, a criminal justice system – use it. TERRORISTS killed on 9/11. Why do you concur with sanctioned murder (which is what the killing of bin Laden was no matter what authority you dress it up in to soothe your conscience)? Show me where an Afghani has come over and murdered someone in the US since the war in Afghanistan started? No hurry, I’ll wait…………………..

              You, hopefully, don’t believe that the war in Afghanistan is still about killing terrorists do you (and I question if it ever was, or only the excuse to use to be able to avenge the 9/11 attacks)?

              Maybe we should make war on the Westboro Baptist Church for their hateful beliefs (just google it and look at the images)?

              My plan. Get the hell out of Afghanistan, we have no right to be there. We had no right to be in Iraq either. Respect the people’s and their beliefs they hold in their nations or – GET OUT OF THOSE NATIONS ALL TOGETHER! Work with those moderates in THIS nation to reduce the fear and hate for Islam and Muslims in our country. Use our criminal justice system to punish those found guilty of committing acts against us in this country. Stop hating people just because they are different. Judge them by the content of their character, just as YOU would want others to judge you.

              Do you need me to continue?

              • Mathius™ says:

                We have, flawed as it is, a criminal justice system – use it. Can I get an Amen?!

                Show me where an Afghani has come over and murdered someone in the US since the war in Afghanistan started? Frankly, I’m stunned they haven’t. If I were leading the resistance to our occupation (and that’s definitely what it is, complete with puppet government), this would be one of the first things I’d do. It’s too easy to send your troops off to kill a foreign enemy on the other side of the planet – there’s nothing visible, no personal cost to the citizenry – I’d make them pay, however slightly, to make sure they’re aware that they’re in a war, and that war is two-sided. Maybe the resistance can’t afford a plane ticket?

                only the excuse to use to be able to avenge the 9/11 attacks BINGO. Can I get another amen?!

                Also, you know, to pay off their buddies at the defense contractors…. Just saying…

                make war on the Westboro Baptist Church for their hateful beliefs I really like how the folks over at Twitter handled them. Google that for a laugh.

                My plan. Get the hell out of Afghanistan, we have no right to be there. Check
                We had no right to be in Iraq either. Check
                Respect the people’s and their beliefs they hold in their nations or – GET OUT OF THOSE NATIONS ALL TOGETHER! Check
                Work with those moderates in THIS nation to reduce the fear and hate for Islam and Muslims in our country. Check
                Use our criminal justice system to punish those found guilty of committing acts against us in this country. Check
                Stop hating people just because they are different. Check
                Judge them by the content of their character, just as YOU would want others to judge you. Check

                Do you need me to continue? YES, PLEASE CONTINUE!

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Nazis were not Christians, they were in fact wrapped more in paganism than Christianity.

    That’s fine.

    The Nazis weren’t Christians.

    Then the perpetrators of 9/11 weren’t Muslims”

    Now pay attention:

    The Nazis were a small political group in GERMANY and they WERE NOT CHRISTIANS.

    Many of the GERMAN people were Christians and NOT NAZIS.

    In the beginning the Nazis were careful to not step on Christianity, because they were a minority and the Christian majority, who were steeped in Socialism, would have revolted.

    But Nazi dogma and iconography is wrapped in German Paganism. In fact the modern Environmentalists owe Hitler for being the first to Nationalize Environmentalism.

    The perpetrators of 9/11 WERE MUSLIM. They were also Arabs. MOST Arabs are also Muslim.

    Your entire argument is illogical.

    • Your illogical flies in the face of reality (like usual):

      People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler’s henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .

      Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler’s “evil” have eliminated Hitler’s god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler’s God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Hitler held many hysterical beliefs which not only include, God and Providence but also Fate, Social Darwinism, and ideological politics. He spoke, unashamedly, about God, fanaticism, idealism, dogma, and the power of propaganda. Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

      “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

      Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible’s God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery’s coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler’s most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler’s stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one’s own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican’s Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

      • Bottom Line says:

        A swastika is representative of a sun deity.

        You may be surprised at how much of the world’s religions are rooted in sun/moon worship, paganism, numerology and astrology. The bible is full of it.

        Ever been to the Vatican? Did you notice the giant obelisk/sun dial/solar wheel out front?

        What about the star(Venus) and crescent (moon)?

        Or what about the star of David? Do the math on that one.

        …just sayin’

  42. Anita: “…it does no good to fight the people, we need to get rid of the religion.”

    I am just waiting for you or anyone to show how you’re (a “royal” you’re) going to rid the Earth of a religion with 2 billionish followers?

    Just wondering…………………

    • Plainly..it’s not my argument..but you also did not listen to my mom voice above about READ THE ARTICLE 🙂 :

      FP: How do we most effectively combat this threat?

      Kasem: Islamic terrorism is not going to end soon—not at least before a few more 9/11s, Madrids, Balis, 7/7s take place. Its demise will depend upon how resolute the world becomes in the coming days. As long as there are PC politicians, and as long as the world depends upon the so-called moderate Muslims to extinguish this menace, nothing will happen, rest assured on this.

      The world must not follow this path of least resistance. This method will only ensure the defeat in the hands of the clever and cunning Islamist terrorists and their supporters, the so-called moderate Muslims. America, UK, Australia, the forefront nations in the fight against terror have limited resources. They are spending billions of dollars to face this challenge. This cannot go on forever. These nations will soon get tired, their money exhausted, their population will soon rebel and refuse to send their children to join the army and be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for a cause that has very little to do with their lives. Soon, there will be loud voices in these nations to pull out. The Islamists are just waiting for this moment. Their war on the unbelievers cost them next to nothing. Mind you, life is so cheap in Islam. With one suicide bomber they kill hundreds and thousands of people. Do your math and you will realize why the Islamists are capable of carrying out their act for decades, if not for centuries. We must recognize that the real enemy is not the terrorists. Rather, it is Islam. As long as the world does not internalize and comprehend this truth, and as long as wrong, PC policies are pursued this war will continue and the defeat of the non-believers is guaranteed.

      Just think if we could convince the suicide bombers that there are no 72 virgins waiting in Paradise to provide them with unlimited sexual orgy. Just think if we could convince the Islamists that Islam is barbaric, false, and imperialistic.

      The bottom line is: The focus of war should be shifted from Iraq or Afghanistan to Islam. No doubt, it is necessary to fight this war militarily, but it should also be fought doctrinally. It is an ideological war. We need to expose Islam to the world. This will force the so-called vast majority of the not-so-good Muslims to discard, at least the violent part of it. They would remain contented with the ritual part of Islam, like prayer, fasting etc. These rituals do not harm others. When this happens, the Jihadists will find it extremely difficult to recruit new suicide bombers and Islamist killers. That is how Islamist terrorism should be fought. It will take time.

      • Anita,

        “it is necessary to fight this war militarily….

        So you support this line of thinking? Isn’t this being done already in Afghanistan (and was done in Iraq)? Do we declare war on a nation that is Islamic (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc). Where does the end come for military action? I, personally, am against – and have been against – these wars we were thrust into by the Bush administration (and continued under Obama). Do we continue using presidential sanctioned assassination against our “enemies”? Is that the “justice” this nation follows? Persecution, war and murder to “free” us of the evil Islamic “threats” to our world?

        This will force the so-called vast majority of the not-so-good Muslims to discard, at least the violent part of it.

        Doesn’t this mean there are moderate Muslims already in the world? Or are all Muslims the enemy still? If you say no, then you admit to there being moderates who disavow the hateful aspects of the religion.

        Many Americans, Christians even, if I may be so bold, are just as hateful of Islam and Muslims as many of them are of non-believers (us). The common thread the two groups share – hate.

        If this nation is compelled by her citizens to continue a war on a religion – as this writer suggested – then I want no part of it and would rather be in my grave if/when it happens.

        • My problem is the word taqiyah! Who of the can.you.trust.

          • whoops *them*

          • Mathius™ says:

            Taqiyah allows them to lie to avoid persecution. How is that a threat to you, exactly?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Depends on who and how they “interpret” persecution.

              Now if they have a bunch of US Attorneys, especially left wing Constitutional Scholars, working for them then we had better damn well be worried.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I do love wikipedia:

            In 16th century Spain, following the end of the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, Muslims and Jews were persecuted by the Catholic Monarchs and forced to convert to Christianity or face expulsion. The principle of taqiyya became very important for Muslims during the Inquisition in sixteenth century Spain, as it allowed them to convert to Christianity while remaining crypto-Muslims, practicing Islam in secret. In 1504, Ubayd Allah al-Wahrani, a Maliki mufti in Oran, issued a fatwā allowing Muslims to make extensive use of taqiyya in order to maintain their faith.[2][25][26][27]

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I am talking about OUR lawyers. Not 16th century Spain.

              Can you guys stay at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.

              • That is impossible JAC…….the Muslim faith is rooted back that far,,,,they do not believe in the 21st Century…..the secret to that part of the world is history. I say leave them alone. They, the ISlamic fundamentalists and their governments will fold like a cheap tent after a Jalapeno fart. The more we fight them, the more we legitimize them……………….however….I am a firm believer in the big stick. We leave everybody alone…..then when one….only ONE fundamentalist hits us… do not believe in due process and treating them like criminals and hunting them down….find out what country they came from and then blast the infrastructure into dust. Give everybody this person or persons name or names…..let their own form of social justice work. Sanctions do not work and if the “innocent” (cough cough) population gets mad at us…..biggie wow wow..I do not give a rat’s ass….Let them be mad…let the world be mad. Unlike Mathius, I do not believe that the most powerful and rich country in the world has any moral obligation to anyone. Deal it back with spades…..eventually, they will leave you alone.

                Take a lesson from the “Muslim” faith…every time a cartoon is printed they do not like….the streets erupt in violence and they have done this so often that people are afraid of them now. Fatahs are issued……and people are afraid.

                A great example is a T shirt that I have that reads: “Proud to be Infadel”….I wear it whenever I want…and people ask me,…are you not afraid that some one will shoot you. To not wear it….means that the terrorists or fundamentalists win……however, I have a couple of Muslim friends that find the T shirt offensive….I ask why….and they say it is a sin against god. THey are the ones that need to grow up…..

              • D13: “Unlike Mathius, I do not believe that the most powerful and rich country in the world has any moral obligation to anyone. ”

                Plainly: Even its own citizens?

          • I am sure they ask themselves the same thing about us, and certainly have reason to considering how Muslims are being condemned for their religious beliefs by so many in the USA.

          • Also, I’m wondering if you’ll be answering the questions I posed?

            • No. I posted the apostate’s reply. It is not my reply. No matter what i reply will not be good enough for you. I am extremely leary of the Islamic religion considering everything that I have seen and read. I’m not in FAVOR of killing ANYONE but desperate times call for desperate measures. So fire away and tell me how I deserve to go to hell.

              • I’m not in FAVOR of killing ANYONE but desperate times call for desperate measures.

                So you are in favor of killing if you decide – which it appears you do from your answer – that the times are desperate? You seem to be saying that fear has overcome reason?

                No matter what i reply will not be good enough for you

                How do you know if you don’t try? What do you have to fear?

                So fire away and tell me how I deserve to go to hell.

                At one time in my life I might have, but since I am a renewed Christian I know it is only the Lord Jesus Christ who judges whether or not you (or anyone) deserves to go to hell.

              • Yes Plainly, I have decided, along with our entire Congress and many other nations, that times are desperate. I have also decided that you cannot REASON with those people. Which is another good argument against civil trials for them. I can only imagine how they could REASON their way from the courtroom back to the battlefield to kill again. So I guess I am in fear.

              • I haven’t really been following everything here, but I must say, Anita, that your opinions here are probably about the same as those of the Muslims who think we are the evil ones. I would be more comfortable with this topic if more Muslims would come out and condemn those who commit acts of terror, but I do not this that this level of rhetoric is necessary even now.

  43. US taxpayers bail out California homeowners, as banks fail to pay their share

    By William La Jeunesse

    Published August 20, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/us-taxpayers-bailout-california-homeowners-as-banks-fail-to-pay-their-share/#ixzz247Z5OCIn

    I did not

  44. Mathius™ says:

    Jac,

    Maybe it is because we don’t hear any of the other 2 million speak out. OK maybe some.

    I put credence in their words because those I hear come from the region where the anger and hate and backwards ways thrive.

    Perhaps some of the others do as well, but the ones speaking of tolerance and peace seem to come from our part of the world.

    It is not that I believe one over the other. It is that I do not think you can discount them as wingnuts or someone with an “agenda” as you did earlier.

    So, just a thought. If hate and anger and backward ways are thriving in that region, while peace and tolerance are coming from our part of the world (your words), would it not see to you that the problem is one of culture rather than religion? After all, they are all Muslims who share a common faith in the Koran and Muhammad. If some are (shorthand) good and some are bad, then it seems you can’t paint the whole religion, no?

    If the “good” Muslims aren’t trying to kill or convert you, then it’s not Islam that’s the problem, but extremism intrinsic, perhaps, to living in that hellhole called the middle east.

    You’d be cranky too if it was 110F in the shade.

    • Culture is an excuse, Mathius.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Blame the weather? I mean 110F is good for you and me.. but most people get pretty ornery when it gets that hot, especially when you haven’t invented air conditioning yet.

        Culture is an excuse, Mathius.

        So is blaming an entire religion with billions of peaceful practitioners for the actions of a small minority.

  45. BF

    I have heard your claim that the US is a theocracy many times and each time it makes me a little angrier. You are so specific about definitions when they support your arguments-yet you will so willingly apply a false definition in order to attack government and religion. We are no more a theocracy than we are a free market-so stop with the BS.

    • But the US is a theocracy.

      If you wish to invent a new word for the type of theocracy it is vs., say, Iran – go for it.

      It is similar to calling Nazis “Socialists” and Soviets “Socialists” and Buck “Socialists”.

      They are all Socialists, but implement Socialism differently.

      Same here – US is a theocracy, but implements it differently then the Vatican or Iran.

  46. Anyone familliar with the incident involving Brandon Straub being detained for his Facebook posts? I perused briefly through the comments above and didn’t see any mention of it. Welcome to the face of the new Amerika people. Don’t you guys just love this UNPRECEDENTED hopey changey society?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48731669

    http://www.examiner.com/article/from-hero-of-the-country-to-enemy-of-the-state-a-facebook-minute

    http://wtvr.com/2012/08/20/statement-from-attorneys-on-brandon-raub-detention/

  47. Yes Plainly, I have decided, along with our entire Congress and many other nations, that times are desperate.

    Based upon what? Islam as a religion is only a bit younger than Christianity and it seems only now it has become so desperate that we must wipe that religion and their followers from the face of the Earth? Funny, the Romans felt the same way about Christianity for several hundred years, yet Christianity hasn’t destroyed the world.

    i also could argue that what you support the government doing against Muslims can just as easily be turned against you.

    I have also decided that you cannot REASON with those people. Which is another good argument against civil trials for them.

    The use of a term like “those people” is to dehumanize them so that they can be treated as a lesser kind of human and treated in any way one desires. You again seem to be soothing your conscience about the treatment of other human beings because you fear, hate, despise, or distrust them for being different. Hmm………….holocaust anyone?

    You justify military tribunals against foreigners taken by force from other nations because they can’t be reasoned with? Can you reason with a serial killer? Can you reason with a serial rapist or child molester? Should not all that can’t be reasoned with be denied a civil trial then?

    I can only imagine how they could REASON their way from the courtroom back to the battlefield to kill again.

    Possibly they could, but so could paroled prisoners of war in WWII. Because it might happen seems to be a pretty thin reason to treat them in other ways than you would demand for yourself.

    So I guess I am in fear.

    Well, I’ll agree with you on that. It is that sustained fear of the bogeyman that has allowed the US Government to successfully enact laws that fly in the face of any principled behavior. It makes it easy to order the execution without trial of anyone the government declares to be an enemy of the state. Hang on to that fear, but turn it in the right direction. Someday we may all regret that fear that is being used against others.

    • Based on the fact that after multiple attacks on us and our peaceful ways of solving the problem did absolutely no good.

      You choose to attack my use of the words ‘those people’…Cmon Plainly..I’ve been at this all day and am running out of patience.I’m not taking your guilt trip or deflection. If you DIDN”T realize that I meant no harm by those two words then I’m telling you I MEANT NO HARM BY THOSE TWO WORDS.

      Possibly they could????? THEY HAVE.

      There have been 19000 terror attacks SINCE 9/11.. Exactly where do you fight back Plainly, when peaceful means have failed…besides bringing EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER
      onto our soil…taking years…and more money…WHILE THEY(can I say they?) KEEP KILLING. We’ll hold them right upside that mountain you live on, and you can guard them.

      • One thing I will point out, and I think this is a cause of justifiable frustration, is that the reason this is happening is not because of the religion. It is because of the ignorance of the general population, who believe whatever they are told by their radical leaders. As in Cuba, one of the best things we could do is flood their markets with iPads and WiFi…

        • That is very true. Very, very true. But it’s religious too, as many of the high up clerics and ayatollahs are pulling the strings.

          (side note: i didn’t blow off your comment above, it just stumped me because from my suburban kitchen table it doesn’t compute that I’m evil and their not 😉 ) OOPS I said ‘their’, dang!

          Fair warning, this may very well double post

      • Dang it, lost my post. Trying again.

        You say there have been over 19,000 attacks since 9/11. Okay, against who? The USA is only responsible for dealing with attacks here, not in the rest of the world. Why must the US be the world’s cop? Further, how many terrorist attacks did Great Britain deal with from the IRA over the decades? Or Germany from the Red Army Faktion/Bader-Meinhof terrorist group? Or Spain from the Basque ETA? Or Israel from the PFLP? Or France from Algerian Separatists? Why does the terrorism from Muslim extremists warrant a different attitude? They commit crimes against the population of the US, then it is the civil courts that are to deal with it (unless of course the USA becomes a military dictatorship). Those who support military tribunal courts are in essence (in my opinion) saying they have no faith in the civil criminal justice system – in which case we should just do away with it and turn to military courts for all prosecutions. It seems an expression of no confidence in the court system.

        I am not trying to guilt trip you, you are doing that to yourself. I am expressing what I believe is part of a pattern of behavior that leads to dehumanizing some in order to treat them unequally.

        Yes. possibly they could have. I am talking about those taken into the civil court system, Plus, again where did these acts occur? Was it within the USA? If not, not our problem to handle.

        I’ve already said where you fight back and with what. I guarantee you the continued military action by the USA in foreign countries will stop nothing – absolutely nothing. Our service personnel are dying for nothing (not to mention those maimed or psychologically damaged). Continued war will only continue to make more people the enemies of the US. The war guarantees that those who hate us will keep on killing.

        Lets face facts, nothing will eradicate Islam (well, maybe if we nuke the crap out of half of the world we might). Nothing has eradicated Judaism or Christianity, what makes you believe Islam will end?

        So tell me, exactly how do you propose to get rid of “those people” so the country can feel safe again?

  48. Glad to see everyone is focusing on important things like religious differences, Sarah Palin, Bush I and II (really?). Maybe, just maybe, ya’ll will not be in chains soon, cuz the economy is screwed! Don’t worry about that 15 trillion dollar debt (or the awful number of trillions promised) that can NEVER be paid! You do understand NEVER right? THat means that the debt owed by our govt, to other countries and it’s own people, will NEVER EVER get paid. Now, consider the ramifications, if you can, of that FACT!

    • To change the subject is the only weapon they have left Gman….

      • Ah Colonel, one moment sir………
        *scrolling up………..more scrolling………………..much more scrolling* whew, this is a long way *some more scrolling even………..and yet more* Halleluiah!

        I believe it started right here sir:

        Anita says:
        August 20, 2012 at 9:32 am

        For JAC and Matt, it’s long and slow but, Islam is not so peaceful no matter how you dress it up. Main idea..it does no good to fight the people, we need to get rid of the religion.
        http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29366

        Now what was that about changing the subject? 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          plainly

          Anita posted a summary of what the person concluded and the article itself.

          You and others have since then accused HER of hating Muslims, stereotyping, being Islamophobic, and wanting to KILL Muslims just for the hell of it.

          So I would say it is you all who have changed the argument..

          Does or does not Islam contain as part of its dogma the justification for violence against the West?

          If it does then that has serious implications that go beyond just leaving them to their own devises.

          • JAC,

            Very noble of you to come to the rescue of a lady. Yet throughout my different comments i have asked many questions (starting with “So you support this line of thinking?) of which Anita has not cared to answer for whatever reason. I have also responded to comments she has made.

            So in the end sir, you are simply wrong where my comments are concerned. Thank you and have a nice evening.

          • I will take your word that it does call for violence against unbelievers (not just the West), So?

            You will use that to justify fear of all Muslims and the eradication of Islam. I’ll offer you the same opportunity I did to Anita…..

            So tell me, exactly how do you propose to get rid of “those people” so the country can feel safe again?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I am not proposing any such thing. Nor did she. Nor did the guy in the article.

              • Oh, okay I’ll change the question slightly and maybe you and Anita will answer it (as I answered her question about what my plan would be).

                So tell me, exactly how do you propose to get rid of “that religion” so the country can feel safe again?

                That a better question? And by the way the guy in the article – knucklehead that he is – said to fight Islam militarily. So, if militarily we aren’t killing Muslims, who would we need to fight militarily?

                As as for Anita’s positions, why not let her answer my questions?

              • Mathius™ says:

                For JAC and Matt, it’s long and slow but, Islam is not so peaceful no matter how you dress it up. Main idea..it does no good to fight the people, we need to get rid of the religion.

                So, again, how does one “get rid” of an entire religion practiced by 2.2 billion people?

        • Hello JAC……….it was not you that prompted me at all, I understood what you meant……there are times that I let my alligator mouth overload my canary ass…..sometimes it is hard to ascertain when people is trying to make a point or whether or not they are just throwing something out there to “rile” the right…

        • @ Plainly……thank you for the endless scrolling….I sure hope you do not get carpal from all of that….the one and only point that I was trying to make is that it is the economy and the debt that is far worse than anything we have faced before….and to refocus on a statement or conclusion of some feeling and crying bigot is…well…….beyond the pail given the circumstances that we are in……yelling racist, Islamophobic, homophobic are all diversions from the real problem, in my opinion, and that problem is spending us into the dust.

          All this recent crap about Chick Fil A was an attempt to refocus the actual debate… What I saw was that the very people that were upset about the feelings of a business owner stating his position and structuring his company to be off on Sundays in observance of a Christian belief, because he is a Christian……are the hate mongers and bigots.

          I saw an OWS crowd that violated almost every law on the books to create unrest to refocus away from the economy….and allowed to do so. IF the majority of the OWS crowd was peaceful and there were a handful of miscreants, then I would not say anything….but from what I saw, the majority of the OWS crowd were miscreants and deliberately were bussed in to be violent, piss in public parks, throw excrement on police cars, trash cities and public areas,,,,all in the name of freedom of speech but when a peaceful Tea Party crowd forms…..they are asked for their permits and told where to go and where to stay…..this is a clear design to create problems away from the real problem and I sincerely believe that.

          So, I was merely stating that I believe in the attempts to refocus the argument because no one can point to ONE example of where the POTUS’ programs have worked…..and GM is not working despite what people on here say………………….but the real problem is economic and it is HUGE…….

          • Yes sir, diversion abound and they come from both sides when it suits them to do so. The left is doing it now and the Right sure as hell did in the Bush years after 9/11. I doubt there hasn’t ever been a time in modern political history when diversion hasn’t been used to one degree or another.

            Anything to keep the people’s eyes off the ball.

            • Mathius™ says:

              PS,

              The more and more I read from you, the more I find myself nodding along… is it possible that, other than Buck, Todd, and myself, there’s another sane person in this madhouse?

              • Mathius,

                Maybe. You just never know. But then being considered sane here by either side is likely relative to the stance I take on any issue. 🙂

                But I thank you for the compliment anyway.

    • I’m with ya’ there G-Man. Our government is now able to completely do away with 1st and 4th amendment rights with this combination of the NDAA Act, Patriot Act and folks seem more concerned with a propoganda that is being used to confuse, divide and manipulate our society.
      Believe it or not but our government is an Oligarchy of families using the military industrial complex and other various corporate entities, that controls our “elected” officials by outright purchasing their representation. Period. It is undeniable to any logical thinking person. You can see it every day in the various news dished out to us once you wade through the bullshit.

      • Amazing all the crap that came out of the bottom of the septic tank since the original passing of the Patriot Act huh?

        Yet we are still considered the “land of the free and the home of the brave” by the sheeple.

    • Ya know G, if I was better at economics I’d wade into those debates, but I know when I’m stupid and to keep my mouth shut. 🙂

    • I could be facetious and say, yup, so what…. but I won’t. I do not know nor can I even guess what can be done.

      I sit here every day and read Matt, Buck and Charlie and love them to death for the inspiration they give me not to just waste away in my non chosen retirement. None of them, not one, can answer me where the money is coming from to run their fantasy world.

      I suspect that they, like my eldest son just think that is there and will somehow always be there. That by fiat, the government can continue to print money that will be accepted as having some kind of value. In my more delusional moments I think them right since the minute the jig is up and people realize it, life as we know it, ends for everyone, everywhere except maybe the upper Amazon and New Guinea. A nuclear Armageddon may be preferable to what actually happens. Can’t visualize eating your great aunt Tillie, can you?

      History to them has no value. It’s old stuff, stale and boring. We all know it can’t happen again right? We have in many ways become the new Pagans who have built our new society. Ours is no different that the tower of Babel the ancients built and based on the same false hubris they had. While I do not consider myself particularly religious, I accept that generations, thousands of years ago, produced men smarter than I who have made these parables up for a reason. As Rod Serling used to say at the opening of “The Twilight Zone” , they are a cautionary tale.

      As a young man, I liked old people, they told me stories of their past and I listened. It was in many ways like being there. What I never realized was that I was one of the only ones who listened and learned from what they had to say. What I learned has served me very well in life. I trust everyone, have been screwed many times over but still came out ok in the end because, well, I expected that it would happen from what I learned and still chose to trust people and learn from them rather than cut myself off. In the scheme of things I guess about 10 to 20 percent of the human universe will take advantage of you in one form or another, some not even being aware of it but that other 80 or 90 percent, they can teach you so much if you open up to them. There is a big caveat on this, never, ever, loan anybody any money you are not willing to throw down the sewer anyway.

      So, G-man, if you have some ideas, I’ll listen because I know my limitations. In the interim, I stockpile a reasonable amount of food and bet that I rival the Colonel on the amount of ammo in the basement. I see guns and ammo as the ultimate trade goods. I’ll make it through the first cull and I hope I can drag a couple of my kids through too. After that, all bets are off. I wish the hell I was closer to Texas.

      • I tip my hat sir….well spoken. 🙂

      • SK, I think that most of us who listened to the elders as kids can see what is coming our way. Our economy can’t sustain itself and the fiat currency is going to turn to toilet paper. Greece is just the tip of the iceberg and should be a warning to all of us. Far too many people have either no idea and are clueless or just can’t fathom our way of life changing that drastically.

        The garden harvest is over, the shelves are full and I’m working on deer hunting locations now. I’m also collecting some alternative weapons, pistol crossbows, throwing knives ect, and stocking up on arrows, bolts and broadheads. May need to hunt quietly for awhile if Obamaloni and the elites get their way and ttry to take the guns (that would be a really dumb thing to try). I can see this in the cities, not so much where I’m located.

        Like you, I like Mathius, Buck and Charlie too, kinda like the modern day 3 stooges (great for entertainment) and Todd is the male version of Lucille Ball 😆 I do fear that those on the coasts will get hurt the worst! Oh, one item to have some extra in storage, toilet paper! The ladies will be very thankfull when the stores run out.

  49. I shut up now……I talk too much.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13the colonel

      Sir, I believe you have misunderstood my comment.

      “That is impossible JAC…….the Muslim faith is rooted back that far,,,,they do not believe in the 21st Century…..the secret to that part of the world is history.”

      I was simply pointing out that if our lawyers were involved they would pars the meaning of “persecution” until they could rationalize any action. Pretty much like they do now.

      I am not in disagreement with your assessment, or even your solution. It seem to be what they understand and respect. We NEED TO BE the Strongest Tribe.

    • Noooooooo. Your posts are good for my health, help to keep the blood pressure down 😉

  50. Is G Man right after all?

    Outcry after military veteran detained for anti-government Facebook posts

    Published August 21, 2012

    Associated Press

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/20/outcry-after-military-veteran-detained-for-anti-government-facebook-posts/#ixzz24B5Vp7R6

    If this article is factual…..then 90 % of SUFAites….can be arrested….and without a warrant as depicted in the article, and held indefinitely without being charged with a crime……and hauled off in handcuffs for resisting a non warrant arrest. Could this be Obama’s world? Could this be the Amerika that my Plutonian friend wants?

    • OOOPS>…….I am so sorry……I just saw Gman’s post on the same article…..it seems that I have come for the department of redundancy department.

    • Colonel, I hope I’m very wrong! But I can post a link or links everyday very similar to this, occurring all over the country. I’m not to concerned about us SUFAites, we are very mellow as compared to others. Just don’t sell raw milk folks, that seems to be an issue with the government. They seem to think that those who sell raw milk are the equivilent to terrorists for some reason. 🙄

  51. Valedictorian’s Diploma Denied After ‘Cuss’ Word in Grad Speech

    Posted on: 10:50 am, August 20, 2012, by FOX 4 Newsroom, updated on: 12:14pm, August 20, 2012

    Oh my…..oh my…….oh my……what in the hell was the principal thinking……..ooops I said a nasty.

  52. One last comment before I go…………the horror of this next one…….making the news……..

    A general’s plane received shrapnel hits…….while in a war zone……from rockets fired into a compound……while in a war zone……. and this is news…..while in a war zone.

%d bloggers like this: