Turn the Page

On a long and lonesome highway,
East of Omaha
You can listen to the engines
Moanin’ out it’s one note song
You can think about the woman,
Or the girl you knew the night before
But your thoughts will soon be wanderin’,
The way they always do
When you’re ridin’ 16 hours,
And there’s nothin’ much to do
And you don’t feel much like ridin’,
You just wish the trip was through

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Looked like we needed a new page. I don’t think I will have anything for next week and with the RNC in Tampa, might be better to stay in open mic anyway…

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    August 25, 2012 at 11:06 am• Edit

    Empire State Shooting: Shooter Never Shot At Police, Nine Bystanders All Shot By Police

    informationliberation.com
    August 25, 2012

    The Guardian reports:

    Johnson did not fire at police, according to law enforcement, but he did raise his gun. Nine civilians – four women and five men – were shot or grazed by the two officers who shot Johnson dead.

    Initial reports suggested the shooter shot the bystanders, additionally it was suggested the cops had “returned fire,” which has also been proven wrong.

    One of the shooting victims says police fired “randomly” into the street.

    Readers may remember this story where a 65-year-old woman used a gun to defend herself against five robbers, the police “cautioned store owners about defending themselves with guns.”

    Lt. Jeff Nightengale said, “Just like a police officer, when you fire that weapon and those rounds go down range, you have to be accountable for where those rounds go.”

    Will these police be “held accountable” for where their rounds went? Don’t hold your breath.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/empire-state-shooting-shooter-never-shot-at-police-nine-bystanders-all-shot-by-police.html

    Been waiting myself on how this went down. The Aura shooting had some saying if a police officer or military had been present in the theater, we could expect a safe, trained response. But a CCW permit holder just would not have the level of training and might accidently shooy an innocent bystander.

    • http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

      “We have on tape the perpetrator pulled his gun out and tried to shoot at the cops,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. “Whether he got off any bullets or not, to be determined.”

      NYPD names gunman; co-worker targeted

      Witnesses shocked by Empire shooting

      10 shot outside Empire State Building

      Empire State shooting a ‘surreal scene’
      Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers’ struck “flowerpots and other objects around, so … their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that’s what caused the wounds.”

      Earlier Friday, Bloomberg told reporters that some of the wounded may have been inadvertently hit in the crossfire or by ricocheting bullets.

      Six of the wounded were treated and released at hospitals as of Friday evening, while three others remained hospitalized, Kelly said.

      Police say Johnson used a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun — which held eight rounds — and was carrying extra ammunition in his briefcase. He purchased the weapon legally in 1991 in Florida, but did not have a permit to carry it in New York City.

      • And despite laws that forbids murder, forbids shooting people, and forbids carrying a gun without a permit, the Democrats, with all their ignorance, will call for more gun control laws, that will be broken the next time someone wants to go on a killing spree. Of course, someone will say ” we need common sense gun control laws”, which means “take them away from everyone”. THey will ignore what is happening in Australia, they will say real stupid shit, maybe they will let Biden talk on the subject 🙂 Dipshits!

      • Try, didn’t have a permit to POSSESS it in NYC. No way in hell but the news storyt somehow tries to imply that it might hav ebeen legally owned.

    • Cops. Sigh. Yet, if you criticize them, some people assume you’ve never actually known any.

      • Nice! But some people are going to assume the worst about you no matter what, so say it loud and proud. I have cop friends. They sometimes give me firearm advice (you ought to get one of these), have even given me ammo… Perhaps the biggest shocker happened when talking about lazer sights. They are affordable and can improve accuracy to the point it is sometimes practicle to shoot to injure a criminal, not kill. My cop buddy told me that would be against “procedure”. Nearly all police departments adopt the FBI recomendations on shooting procedures. This means if they shoot someone, they aim at the center mass of the body. As most vital organs are located there, shooting that area is usually fatal. This also cuts down on who might sue and testify. Dead men tell no tales….

  3. V

  4. 😐

  5. Lawyer: 20 More Cases Similar to Brandon Raub Ongoing

    Veterans are being targeted in aftermath of Homeland Security smear campaign

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, August 24, 2012

    The lawyer who helped secure the release of Brendon Raub, a former Marine forcibly incarcerated in a psychiatric ward by authorities in Virginia for political posts on Facebook, told the Alex Jones Show today that there are currently a further 20 cases in his county alone that are similar in nature to Raub’s detention.

    John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute also said that he had been contacted by numerous veterans in the aftermath of Raub’s release who had encountered similar problems with authorities attempting to have them declared mentally ill.

    Whitehead attributed the high number of cases involving veterans as a consequence of the Department of Homeland Security’s aggressive campaign to demonize former servicemembers as domestic extremists.

    Despite controversy at the time, DHS chief Janet Napolitano said she stood by an April 2009 DHS intelligence assessment that listed returning vets as likely domestic terrorists.

    Just a month later, the New York Times reported on how Boy Scout Explorers were being trained by the DHS to kill “disgruntled Iraq war veterans” in terrorist drills.

    The FBI has also gone out of its way to characterize returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as a major domestic terrorist threat.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/lawyer-20-more-cases-similar-to-brendon-raub-ongoing.html

    • I’m hoping that ALL SUFAites can see the big problem here! At any given time, anyone can be taken away, without due process or just cause, be labeled mentally ill by some quack thats on the govt payroll. At some point, it will be announced that our rights under the Constitution are suspended (if not already, just not announced). The Police State is upon us!

  6. You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10
    Commandments.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in Country run by idiots if… Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the “State’s” dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV’s and new cars) and the
    government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

    ============================== ========================

    You know you live in a Country run by idiots if… Using the “N” word is considered “hate speech” but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered “art”.

    ============================== ========================

    Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. Our country is run by idiots. We are in distress. Where do we go from here? OK, this is getting simply bizarre.

    On Monday, June 25th 2012, the following occurred: The Supreme Court unanimously – yes, UNANIMOUSLY – upheld the portion of Arizona’s Immigration Law that directs law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of EVERYONE who is ARRESTED for a crime. It not just “ALLOWS” them to check, but “DIRECTS” them to check. That means it’s mandatory.

    Less than three hours later, the President of the United States issued an executive order BLOCKING THE ENTIRE STATE OF ARIZONA’S ACCESS to the the Federal Database that would allow such checks. The only State or Local entity EVER to be blocked.

    One hour after that (which means they had it all ready in advance), the Department of Justice went live with a toll-free number, a web site, and ads, ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO REPORT BEING “RACIALLY PROFILED” because of this ruling, so they – THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT – can file “Civil Rights” lawsuits against the Police Departments, Sheriffs, Cities, Counties and State of Arizona.

    In other words, the American Citizens of the State of Arizona are going to be sued for vast sums of money, BY THEIR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, for enforcing a law that The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY held as constitutional.
    In God We Trust

  7. Neil Armstrong – who claimed the moon for all of mankind – has died.

    • One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

      Talk about back to the future! 😉 I was very young but I remember sitting on the floor (youngest 6 kids got the floor!) in front of the black & white TV with the family watching that .

    • Mathius™ says:

      Something here to say about Big Government™..

      Sally Ride died the other day, too…

      xkcd.com/893

  8. Gman

    At the margin of US politics, one group or the other gets some benefits.

    One group or the other gets to preside over a giant federal bureaucracy in which virtually all of the employees are protected by Civil Service legislation, so no President has the power firing more than a few hundred of them.

    No one is talking about the unfunded liabilities of the United States government, which are now in the range of $222 trillion.

    Nobody is talking about closing Guantanamo Bay prison, even though Obama promised that he would when he ran back in 2008.

    Nobody is talking about an immediate withdrawal of troops out of Afghanistan.

    So, where is the great debate?
    It isn’t about Medicare,
    Social Security,
    Afghanistan,
    the war on terror,
    Federal Reserve policy,
    a Federal Reserve audit,
    immigration,
    tax policy,
    or tax cuts.

    Where exactly is the great ideological battlefield on which class warfare is being conducted?

    There comes a time when people ought to face reality.
    They live under a klepto-kakisto-monocracy.

    A single government entity, run by the worse from the people, dedicated to the plunder of the people.

    People are fooled into voting for either the right hand or the left hand stealing from their wallets – but it is the same single entity with -except at the fringes- the same single set of policies .

    I realize that, for the vast majority of Americans, such a time has not yet arrived to face this reality.

    For me, It arrived for me no later than 1979.

    • Actually, I figured out the voting thing awhile back, but it’s fun to screw with folks sometimes. I have said clearly, that voting is useless at this point in time in America, the choices are already chosen, the difference is very little, if at all. Charlie, of all people, knows this!

      I hope everyone has prepared! I doubt it though 😦

  9. Actions speak louder than polls…

    It’s 8:21 on a Saturday morning and according to this photo snapped by Sharon Broadie, this is
    the size of the crowd that showed up in Powell, Ohio, (just outside of Columbus) to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:

    Here’s a look at the line to get in, and another look at the crowd from another source. And a real jaw-dropper.

    Meanwhile, President FailureTeleprompter is relegated to rationalizing his lack of turnout into a “deliberate” desire for smaller, more intimate crowds. Yeah, that sounds like the Mr. Greek Column we’ve all come to know and grow tired of.

    Meanwhile, the media refuses to report on the size of either side’s crowds.

    Meanwhile, across the country, the documentary film “2016” has just opened wide on over 1,000 screens and in the heart of Hollywood’s biggest season hit #3 at the box office.

    Meanwhile, though their Media Palace Guards assure us this is not the case, the Obama campaign’s increasingly desperate and shrill campaign is acting more and more like a campaign so far behind and so in fear of losing, they feel they have nothing to lose. From “felon” to “chains” to “Mitt killed my wife” to one bald-faced lie after another, President Obama has forsaken the dignity of the office and — should he win a second term — all hope of bringing the country together after the kind of scorched-earth campaign only the terrified wage.

    Meanwhile, the media is behaving in a manner no less shrill and desperate than their Presidential Master. When the unemployment rate increases, the media tells us that’s a good thing. When the economy shrinks from 4.1 to 1.5%, the media still call it “the recovery.” When an idiot in Missouri says something stupid about rape and abortion, the media launches into a week-long narrative accusing Republicans of being soft on rape.

    Meanwhile, Obama supports infanticide. Romney opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is at risk. Yesterday CNN released a poll showing 62% of the American people agree with Romney and only 32% with Obama.

    This morning the media was still painting Romney-Ryan as the out-of-touch extremists on this issue.

    Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney made a birth certificate quip and within thirty-minutes those few words received more media attention (and phony outrage) than the record number of American casualties currently mounting in Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, as the clock runs down and campaign days grow more and more precious, three days ago, the Obama campaign felt it was a good use of the Vice President to send him to the supposedly safe state of Minnesota.

    Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney was in the true blue state of Michigan.

    Something is happening in this country — something both the Obama campaign and its media cronies know is happening but won’t acknowledge.

    What’s happening is on the ground and not yet quantifiable in polling that doesn’t yet have its sea legs. But it’s out there and it’s real and before the media and President Obama are forced to acknowledge it, they’re spending every bit of their dignity and credibility and integrity to kill it.

    Red State’s Erick Erickson senses it too.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/25/2012-Untold-Story-Obama-Is-Losing

  10. The War on Children
    By Mark Steyn
    August 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.

    The Democratic party, never inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth, does have a tendency to flog him to death. So it is with a fellow called Todd Akin, a GOP Senate candidate who unburdened himself of some ill-advised thoughts on abortion and “legitimate rape,” and put Missouri back in play for the Democrats. Less ambitious political parties would be content with that little windfall, but the Dems have decided to make — what’s his name again? Oh, yeah — this guy Akin the face of the Republican party. I mean, Mitt pretty much sees “venture capitalism” as a fancy term for legitimate rape, right?

    California’s Barbara Boxer opened the bidding this week in her familiar low-key style. “There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals,” Senator Boxer told a Planned Parenthood meeting. “There is a sickness out there in the Republican party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives.” Reichsmarschall Romney and Generalissimo Ryan are both still married to their first wives, so it must be the moms. No wonder Ryan wants to throw his off a cliff.

    To win the “war on women,” the party’s general staff are planning their own Normandy invasion, adding to their convention line-up a host of stellar “pro-choice” speakers, including Desperate Housewife Eva Longoria, Planned Parenthood’s head honchette Cecile Richards, NARAL

    Pro-Choice America abortion supremo Nancy Keenan, and Georgetown Law’s contraceptive coed Sandra Fluke. President Obama’s lavishly remunerated strategists have presumably run the focus groups and crunched the numbers, but, if I were a moderate, centrist, eternally indecisive swing-voter in a critical state and I switched on the Democrat convention to find a bunch of speakers warning about the threat to your abortion rights I would find it a very curious priority in the summer of 2012.

    None of us can know what the world will be like four years from now, but one thing can be said for certain: An American woman will still enjoy her “right to choose.” Whether one supports or opposes abortion, the practical reality is that the biggest “threat” to your “right” to one is that you might have to drive a little bit further for it. Still, one should never underestimate the peculiar lens through which “progressives” view reality: The “war” on women boils down to Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old schoolgirl, demanding Georgetown Law should pay for its students’ contraceptives — notwithstanding that the entire cost of that four-year contraceptive bill works out to less than the first week’s paycheck of a Georgetown Law graduate’s first job (average starting salary: $160 grand per year). War is hell.

    If you think Barbara Boxer’s right about General Romney’s war on woman, feel free to waste your vote. But what else is likely to happen between now and the next time you cast a presidential ballot? We’ve rehearsed the fiscal stuff in this space before: China becoming the world’s biggest economy, another American downgrade, total U.S. liabilities equivalent to about three times the entire planet’s GDP. A “non-partisan” Pew Research study says the American middle class faces its “worst decade in modern history” — and the first bump down starts on January 1: The equally “non-partisan” Congressional Budget Office now says that the tax and budget changes due to take effect at the beginning of 2013 will put the country back in recession and increase unemployment. This is a revision of their prediction earlier this year that in 2013 the economy would contract by 1.3 percent. Now they say 2.9 percent. These days, CBO revisions only go one way — down. They’re gonna need steeper graph paper. In a global economy, atrophy goes around like syphilis in the Gay Nineties: A moribund U.S. economy further mires Europe, and both slow growth in China, which means fewer orders for resource-rich nations. . . . Four wheels spinning in the mud, and none with a firm-enough grip to pull the vehicle back on to solid ground.

    Oh, well, it was like that in the Thirties and then, as the ever-optimistic Paul Krugman likes to trill, the Second World War came along to stimulate the economy. Given that in Afghanistan the U.S. and its allies have just taken eleven years to lose to goatherds with fertilizer, I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the global-conflagration chips falling our way next time round.

    But don’t worry, Obamacare will “lower costs.” Since passage of the bill in 2010, the CBO has revised its estimate of Obamacare’s gross costs over ten years. Can you guess in which direction, boys and girls? Yes, up from $944 billion to $1.856 trillion. That’s some “revision.” I wonder where it’ll be in another two years.

    Well, I’m not the CBO, but I’ll take a wild guess: Obamacare is going to be expensive on a scale unknown to European health systems. Look around you. Americans are not Swedes. Obesity rate in the United States: 36 percent; Sweden: 9.7 percent; Japan: 3.2 percent; China: 2.9 percent; India: 0.7 percent. Ours is a country where 78 million people (or about the entire population of Germany) are classified by the Centers for Disease Control as “obese” — including over 40 million women. If 40 million women have it, isn’t that a “women’s health” issue? Perhaps even a bigger “women’s health” issue than the right of thirtysomething students to free contraception? It’s the first thing the average American of, say, 1950 would notice if you catapulted him forward from his mid-century Main Street to today: not how amazing all these computer gizmos are, but how large and sick today’s Americans look.

    As George Will pointed out this week, nanny-state solutions (such as Michelle Obama’s current campaign to get us all nibbling organic endives) don’t work: Overweight kids in schools with high-calorie junk food, 35.5 percent; overweight kids in schools that banned all the bad stuff, 34.8 percent. Indeed, the bloating of government, of entitlements, of debt, and the increase in obesity track each other pretty closely over the last four decades. If all those debt graphs showing how we’ve looted our future to bribe the present are too complicated for you, look out the window: We are our own walking (or waddling) metaphor for consumption unmoored from production. And, to the Chinese and many others around the world pondering whether America has the self-discipline to get its house in order, a trip to the mall provides its own answer.

    So we can’t fight a war in Afghanistan, but we can fight a “war on women” that only exists in upscale liberal feminists’ heads. We can’t do anything about exploding rates of childhood obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, but, if you define “health care” as forcing a Catholic institution to buy $8 contraception for the scions of wealth and privilege, we’re right on top of it. And above all, we’re doing it for the children, if by “doing it” you mean leaving them with a transgenerational bill unknown to human history — or engaging in what Boston University’s Larry Kotlikoff, speaking at the International Institute of Public Finance in Dresden last week, called “child fiscal abuse.”

    If that sounds a trifle overheated, how about . . . hmm, “legitimate fiscal rape”? No? Then let’s call it a “war on children.” Unlike the “war on women,” it’s real.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/314936

  11. Getting a gun in Chicago quick and easy

    BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter August 25, 2012 12:28AM

    Updated: August 25, 2012 8:08PM

    Want to know how to get a gun?

    Just ask Chris.

    The skinny teen attends high school in Chicago and is a talented athlete. But he’s also a notorious gunslinger.

    As a shooter in a South Side gang, he can get his hands on a gun as quick as you can get a burger at a fast-food restaurant.

    “I will make a call and say I need a gun. I will ride down the street on my bike and get it — five minutes.”

    The Chicago Sun-Times sat down with Chris for a lesson on how gangs get guns. Armed gangs like Chris’ have driven up Chicago’s murder total 28 percent above the tally at this time last year. And Chris is on the front lines of the shooting.

    “For your ’hood, you can’t stop [getting] guns because it’s war season. A gang need any gun it can get,” said the teen, who has worked as an informant for police and asked for anonymity. The Sun-Times is identifying him by an alias.

    ‘Gun guys’

    He knows men whose full-time job in the underground economy is to buy guns from suburban stores and illegally sell them to criminals.

    Chris calls them the “gun guys.” The cops have another name for them: “straw purchasers.”

    “Gun guys” have clean records allowing them to obtain Illinois firearm owner’s identification cards. With FOID cards, they can legally buy guns at stores in the suburbs.

    Then they illegally sell them to gang members banned from owning guns because of their criminal backgrounds.

    Most of the guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were bought in suburban gun stores, according to a new University of Chicago Crime Lab study of police gun-trace data.

    The police sometimes interview the people who originally bought the guns. Often, police are simply told the guns were stolen from them.

    But authorities say most straw purchasers are lying when they say their guns were stolen. It’s hard to catch them unless they confess to the crime.

    “It can be a man or a girl, but it’s mainly a guy,” Chris said of the straw purchasers he knows. “Somebody that got a gun license, they buy the gun, scratch off the serial number and sell it to you.”

    Chris said the big drug dealers in his neighborhood have the cash to pay straw purchasers for guns — more than $600 for a decent semiautomatic handgun, a markup from the retail price.

    But Chris doesn’t sling dope. He doesn’t have a job. He doesn’t have the money to pay a “gun guy.”

    So he and his crew look elsewhere for guns.

    Stealing ‘gats’

    Their demand for handguns is insatiable because cops seize them or they have to ditch them after they commit crimes with them.

    “Say one of your guys gets bumped [arrested] with a gun,” Chris said. “Now your gang need another gun. It’s a lot of people who get bumped, a lot of people who get caught. The chances are like 50-50. If I get caught, I’m gonna need another gat.”

    “Or you may have people who did a murder and want to get rid of their gun,” he said. “Now they get another gun and you take theirs.”

    Chris said one major source of guns in his neighborhood was a ring that burglarized suburban gun stores.

    In January, one of those stores, Maxon Shooters Supply & Indoor Range in northwest suburban Des Plaines, was looted of about 200 guns after thieves broke in with a sledgehammer, police said.

    Lots of those guns wound up in the hands of gangs on the South Side — including people Chris knows.

    “They sold people the guns — and when those people got caught, they snitched,” he said.

    Police have arrested the suspected thieves, including some members of the Gangster Disciples street gang. But police are continuing to try to track down all the guns, officials said.

    Another source of stolen guns is “the freights,” Chris said.

    He was talking about the freight trains parked on easy-to-access rail yards on the South Side.

    “You bust the lock,” he said. “Once you get in there, you may get the wrong thing. You may get shoes or something. You feel me? But you keep trying. We tried it before and we know what kind of containers they in. They’re carrying all type of handguns — in crates.”

    But the revolver Chris most recently acquired came from yet another “hot” source: a friend who stole the gun from a relative who legally registered the weapon with the city.

    The friend lent the revolver to Chris, but he never gave the gun back.

    “It’s a grimy world these days, I won’t lie,” he said. “I told my friend I lost it, but I kept it for myself.”

    The gun had a serial number on it, so Chris scraped it off with a screwdriver. The cops can’t trace the weapon back to the original owner without the serial number, he explained.

    “I don’t want no one to snitch on me,” the teenager said.

    He’d like a ‘Nine’

    A revolver isn’t the weapon of choice for Chris or his gang buddies.

    They prefer “nines” — 9mm semiautomatic handguns — but they’re harder to get.

    “It can hold like 17 shots,” he said. “A revolver only holds six shots. And I like the grip on a nine. I don’t like the revolvers, but that’s what I’ve mainly been getting. People holding on to their nines.”

    Chris said his crew members hide their weapons in their homes, but keep them “steady moving” to different locations to avoid police seizures.

    Anyone in the gang can use one of the weapons, Chris said. Five of his crew members also have guns, he said.

    The crew needs its weapons about three times a week, he said. Sometimes, it’s for self-protection.

    Sometimes it’s to go shooting at rivals — or “drilling,” as he puts it.

    Other times, the young gangsters simply pose with their guns in homemade rap videos they post on Facebook and YouTube.

    Chris credits the Chicago rapper Chief Keef with inspiring him to carry a gun and use it over the past year.

    “I wasn’t doing this before I started watching the videos. The females want to see you be a tough gang-banger,” he said.

    Unlike the Hollywood caricature of a gangster who points his pistol sideways to fire at his rivals, Chris said he knows how to shoot correctly.

    “Two hands on the weapon, arms straight out,” he said.

    In his neighborhood, nobody calls the police when he practices with his gun in his backyard.

    “What are they going to say, like, ‘I just heard a random shot?’ ”

    He said he takes the gun with him when he and his friends are venturing into the neighborhoods of rival gangs. He calls his rivals “ops” for opposition.

    “If I’m going to go over there and kill somebody, if we’re going to go over there and drill or if we’re trying to get past the ops to go downtown or the beach, we [have] our guns,” he said.

    Guns or games?

    Chris said he wants to leave gang-banging and concentrate on sports — and his dreams of attending junior college.

    Often, he escapes his neighborhood to hang out with high school friends who live in places where he won’t cross paths with his gang rivals. He and his high school friends shoot hoops instead of guns.

    “Everybody wants out of this,” he said. “Everybody would love to live in a mansion, move out of town and live in the suburbs.”

    But the reality is that retribution is a powerful force that keeps gang members like him from changing their ways.

    It motivates Chris to keep hanging out with his crew members in the ’hood — even though cops, ministers and other authority figures have encouraged him to get out of the gangster life.

    He notes that four of his friends have been killed in gang shootings.

    “You want to shoot back,” he said. “You want to go over there and drill.”

    Asked whether he would feel bad if he fired at a rival and hit a child, he quickly answered:

    “I ain’t gonna think about it. If it’s his nephew or something, he gotta feel the pain because he put his nephew there. If you a gang-banger, why you have a little kid with you?”

    Chris said he doesn’t think the police will ever rid the streets of guns in Chicago — unless legislators make getting caught with a firearm punishable with an extraordinarily harsh sentence, such as life in prison.

    He said his first gun-possession arrest, which resulted in probation, was a “joke.”

    He was standing with his crew when police stopped and frisked them and found a gun on Chris.

    The arrest taught him how to avoid getting caught with a gun, Chris said.

    Now when he goes on the street and needs a gun, a girl carries it for him in her purse.

    Chris said he’s confident he and his crew will always be one step ahead of the police.

    “You’ll never stop us from getting guns,” he said. “You feel me?”

    http://www.suntimes.com/14618767-761/getting-a-gun-in-chicago-quick-and-easy.html

    • Hey guy, scratching the number off will not work, Grinding the number off will not work. The only way I know to obliterate a serial number is to overstamp (punch new numbers in over the old numbers, not just once but multiple times) and even then I’m betting the FBI lab can pull it out.

      Like I said, they can trace the gun back then give you some bull about they can’t Prove there was a straw purchase. Firstly I suspect that there are both a limited number of phony buyers and a limited number of sellers to phonies. If someone claims to have conveniently “lost” half a dozen handguns over a six month period, they kinda stand out and deserve more scrutiny. If a dealer sells many handguns, that regardless of different buyers keep turning up at crime scenes, he deserves scrutiny.

      The truth is they are too lazy to actually put some time in investigating because they really don’t care, not the city, county, state or federal prosecutors . A paranoid might suspect that like “fast and Furious” there is an ulterior motive in NOT investigating. Guaranteed self fulfilling prophesy leads to more gun laws, the original intent.

      • SK,
        I thought grinding slightly below the stamping would work. Guess they can get a pattern from X-Raying…Bet burning with an arc welder would do the trick, re-align some molecules.
        Agree they aren’t trying, frustrates me they don’t arrest felons who attempt to buy but are stopped by instant background check. Seems a lack of enforcing the existing laws is a big part of the problem.

      • I took note of the mentality of” it’s always someone else’s” fault. I also think the fact that many in the gangs-aren’t legally adults-so they are rarely really punished unless they kill someone, if then. So they basically laugh at the “law”. I have a nephew-in trouble all his life-the court system-threatened-If I see you in this court room one more time you will regret it-then slapped his wrist and let him go-over and over and over.

  12. Say it ain’t so? The left being violent, Oh MY ! Left-Wing Radicals Looking for Confrontation at Republican Convention
    posted on August 25, 2012 by Tad Cronn 102 Comments
    152 Tampa, Florida, is buzzing with preparations for the Republican National Convention amid threats from every variety of Left-Wing radical and even a possible hurricane.

    Tampa police were busy cleaning up caches of suspicious objects like bricks and pipes, chasing down leads on threats from an assortment of radical groups and trying to ensure security as Hurricane Isaac loomed at sea.

    Although by Friday it appeared that Isaac would not be a huge threat, the threat of violence appeared to be real.

    According to information on the Occupy RNC website, protesters seem to be preparing for a “war.” Security teams will try to limit protests to controlled areas, but the Internet is expanding troublemakers’ potential.

    A map was posted online that featured hotels, private addresses and other information about conservatives in Tampa. The map at ResistRNC.org includes interactive updates on police and barricade locations, arrest reports as well as locations of “Institutions of Slavery” (that’s lib-talk for “banks”) and “Industries of Injustice” (defense contractors, police and the local Fox News station).

    The FBI has warned law enforcement to be prepared for radical groups blockading bridges and using acid bombs and Molotov cocktails.

    The list of potential Left-Wing terrorists is as long as your arm, starting with the “peace-loving” Occupy Wall Street, which is led by an alliance of communist and socialist groups, including the American Nazi Party (yes liberals, the Nazis are your guys), and going all the way down to Veterans for Peace, Dream defenders, Code Pink, United National Antiwar Coalition and most of the population of Berkeley, California.

    On the official end of things, the ACLU is working its usual magic to try to limit the authority of the police to control protesters, with the help of some funding from George Soros, according to The Blaze.

    And all of this is just what’s happening outside the convention center.

    One way or another, it should be a heck of a convention.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6752/left-wing-radicals-looking-for-confrontation-at-republican-convention/#ixzz24ed9bcGw

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I object your honor.

      The conclusion is nothing but speculation and the evidence is irrelevant to the conclusion.

  13. It was the second time in two weeks that police officers fired fusillades on the crowded streets of Midtown — 28 shots fired between the two episodes — and with it, there were once again questions of police protocol in urban settings. In the first shooting, no bystanders were struck when officers fired 12 shots at a man with a knife just south of Times Square.
    NYPD confirms: All bystanders hit by police bullets
    The nanosecond speed at which a shooting plays out is followed by hours of analysis, second-guessing and study.

    There is no national data on how often bystanders are struck by police bullets; Geoffrey P. Alpert, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina and an expert on the police use of force, said that hitting innocent civilians “doesn’t happen very often, but it happens.”

    He added: “The rule of thumb is that you do not put civilians in the line of fire, but the rule of thumb is also that you don’t let a murderer get away.”

    In many police shootings, stray shots are almost inevitable; a study based on New York’s annual firearms discharge reports indicated that officers hit their targets 34 percent of the time.

    “It’s a tense situation, people are scared and moving,” Professor Alpert said. “It’s not like the movies, where you can shoot the gun out of his hand.”
    Story: ‘Look of death’: Co-workers tell of office feud that led to NYC killings
    The New York Police Department does include such episodes in its firearms discharge report. In 2010, for example, the police hit three bystanders in a shootout with a gunman; the year before, one bystander was struck when an officer struggled with a suspect who was trying to take his gun, and the gun fired.

    Those encounters are some of the more trying for officers.

    “One of the grim realities of police work,” reads a recent annual report, “is the terrible contradiction that can arise when it becomes necessary to protect life by using deadly physical force.”

    The patrol guide, the department’s manual, states that officers should not fire their weapons when, “in their professional judgment, doing so will unnecessarily endanger innocent persons.”

    In the shooting in Midtown, Mr. Kelly said on Friday that the two officers “had absolutely no choice.” In Mr. Johnson’s bag, officers found a clip loaded with six rounds, the police said.
    Fatal workplace attacks are rare, and getting rarer
    The courts tend to come down on the side of officers in lawsuits brought from bystanders injured by police bullets.

    A variety of outcomes after having been struck by a police bullet — physical, psychological, legal — can be found in a gun battle in Harlem in 2005 outside the restaurant Sylvia’s, another New York City landmark.

    A suspect opened fire on officers, and five of them fired back 25 times, killing him. When it was over, a woman was kneeling in the street over her baby and bleeding from a gunshot wound to the elbow, and a 78-year-old man carrying groceries was stooped to help them.

    “I got up,” the man, Garnold M. King, recalled in an interview, “and put my hand on my back and said, ‘Oh my God, I was shot too!’ ”

    The Police Department was sued. One lawsuit, filed by the wounded woman, Tammy Johnson, went all the way to the Court of Appeals before being thrown out in 2010 in a 4-to-3 decision; the majority opinion stated that the officers “clearly had probable cause to fire their weapons at the suspect: they were in pursuit of an armed individual who opened fire on them on a public street, endangering the lives of the officers and the public.” New York City officials say they believe that finding strengthens their position in cases like these.

    Ms. Johnson, then 39, had been playing with her 17-month-old daughter when she was struck. That moment changed her. She quickly moved to Atlanta.

    “I didn’t feel safe in New York City anymore,” she said in an interview Friday.

    Ms. Johnson remained angry at the outcome. “It’s going to take someone to die for them to recognize that it’s not right,” she said. “It made me feel like I’m not important, and neither was my daughter.”

    • It is an instantaneous decision. The best examples are what appears time and time again in the literature when confronted with a life threatening situation. I don’t care if it’s a police shooting, combat, a car accident or anything else. For that brief moment all your situational awareness narrows down to the immediate threat. The equivalent if you will of going from 180 degree peripheral vision down to tunnel vision. Once that gun was pointed at those cops, they did not see the civilians behind or near the target.

      You can see this on the military history shows. Watch gun camera footage from bombers in WW2 where the waist, ball turret, rear gunners track and fire at enemy planes right through their own formations. They don’t see those planes. Also during the Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific, the Japanese planes are shot to pieces and falling yet the tracers keep going out at them until after they are in the water. Planes coming in on the deck may have US ships behind them but the gunners keep firing those 20 and 40MM’s at them.

      I hope that there is no action taken against these cops. and they are not second guessed. Does look like suicide by cop and the real shame was the perp did not think of all the other people he was putting in harms way. Had a cop bullet killed someone, that officer would have had to live with that for the rest of his life.

      Today in the NY press the victim is being portrayed as some type of altar boy. I always wonder about the rest of the story. Be nice if someone in the media would dig more into this and interview acquaintances and co-workers. Was the shooter totally nuts or did a real grievance push him over the edge?

      • No way – cops today watch too much Hollywood.

        Old Dad would never have been so frantic or careless in firing wildly into a crowd – even if surprised as it seems these cops were.

        Heck, once he was confronted by a bank robber who pulled and cocked a gun right at him.
        All Dad did was reach up and take the gun out of his hand while saying:
        “Oh, come on! Don’t be so stupid~!” … then punched the lights out of the guy… 🙂

        That is how it was done in those days – today, the militarization of the police – with heavy combat weapons and semi-auto’s … its a blood bath.

        • Yes and no. Each shooting should be judged on its own. In the past few years we have had a number of questionable shootings, Pace university student shot by cop after supposedly trying to run him over, New Rochelle, former marine shot by cops after accidentally setting off his life alert, small time drug dealer shot by cops in his bathroom while flushing drugs, knife wielding suspect shot by cops in midtown.

          But if you pull and point at a cop and are too far to be tackled and there has just been a shooting, I think I’d shoot too. I think you have a point with mag capacity. NYPD Glocks have a 15 round mag and a 12 pound trigger pull which in a crisis would almost guarantee spray and pray. Before the NYPD went off wheelguns to semi-autos, they prohibited single action firing and I seem to remember they had the hammers ground off the S & W’s because of an accidental shooting or two, I believe one cop accidentally killed his partner because he had the gun in full cock and tripped.

          If you look at the “gangsta” video’s and the ridiculous hold this trash media has on kids today, life is imitating art, on both sides. Just check V.H.’s previous post.

          http://www.suntimes.com/14618767-761/getting-a-gun-in-chicago-quick-and-easy.html

      • SK, I would have to say, in my opinion, the cops that shot the bystanders were poorly trained and failed to do their duties (protecting the innocent). If, as I have been reading is true, the cops shot all nine victims, and the shooter they killed, finally, never shot a round at them. Maybe someone should teach New Yorks finest to duck and cover before they start shooting up the city. Granted, the investigation is ongoing, so, I won’t say that the cops should be punished as of yet. We shall see!

        • Gun is out and pointed at you. Split second call, check the video again though I do wish we could see it enhanced. It is not clear yet whether anyone was actually hit by a bullet or just fragments. New news today, perp had just been evicted.

          This sounds like a great book. The whos and whys are interesting. There have been some photos of the victim where he looks like a smart ass wise guy and this whole thing about him and his girlfriend of eight years wanting to get married some day, she is like 38 sand he’s 44. Many, many interesting unanswered questions.

          Cops, mayor and reporters harping on this is an example of someone who should never have a gun. Lord, he had it 21 years and never shot anyone. Why now?

          • SK

            One one hand I don’t want to second guess the cop’s..I was not there and have never been in such a situation. But I do think it has become where cops are pretty much immune from consequences. Remember the Portland? shooting. Say what you want, kid was in handcuffs on the ground, begging for his life. Cop executed him and got two years…

            I think most criminals don’t wear a vest, giving police an advantage. Criminals usually have surprise as an advantage. I have always thought the double tap method was sound, so if they shot him 2+2, I would think that reasonable. They hit his three times and fired how many? I think there is a real lack of ongoing training and accountability. How many times do they refuse to pay the victims? In the same situation, as a CCW, what would happen to me? Maybe I do some time, maybe not, but I have no protection from their lawsuits. Had I been in that theater and saved ten lives, but shot even one, where would I be?

          • Sorry, SKT, I don’t care.

            Police have been given the power of life and death – unlike any citizen has.

            Their standard of such use of violence must be higher, not lower than one of the citizen – for the citizen, in trade with the police, have agreed that the power be managed by the police, and not in the hands of the common citizen.

            These cops totally violated this – and sorry, no example or perspective is justified.

            These cops fired into the civilians, while not under fire from anyone.
            That is the fact.

  14. Former FBI Agent: Surveillance State Trashing Constitutional Protections
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-fbi-agent-surveillance-state-trashing-constitutional-protections.html

    Kurt Nimmo
    Prison Planet.com
    August 26, 2012

    In the video below, a former decorated undercover FBI agent, Mike German, explains how the national security state, in league with local law enforcement, is secretly targeting Americans for political views and activities perceived as a threat to the political establishment.

    A surveillance state culture that rivals anything created by East Germany’s Stasi..German concentrates on the constitutional abuses of fusion centers and cites the Missouri Information Analysis Center report targeting Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as rightwing terrorists and the 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, produced by the Virginia Fusion Center, that singled out political groups as terrorist threats. Both reports were leaked to the media and covered extensively by Alex Jones and Infowars.com.

    German notes that local law enforcement is now used as a weapon against anti-establishment politicians, activists and political organizations – in short, state and local law enforcement is now fully integrated into a larger political secret police apparatus. Efforts by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, military intelligence and other agencies, including the CIA, in league with private sector contractors, have produced a surveillance state culture and foundation that rivals that created by East Germany’s Stasi.

    “We’ve moved away from surveillance based on individualized suspicion, the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause and a warrant has basically evaporated,” German told Reason.tv last year. “And the government can now collect information about people it doesn’t even suspect of wrongdoing.”

    For the establishment and its political elite, traditional criminal “wrongdoing” comes in a distant second to political “wrongdoing” perceived as threatening the political status quo. Fusion centers established by the Department of Homeland Security are not designed to respond to bank robbery and illegal drug trafficking, but work proactively to seek out, identify and “neutralize” (as the FBI described in the 1960s under COINTELPRO) political opposition to the state and the corporate and financial interests it serves.

    Government surveillance of political activity considered aberrant by the state has reached a phenomenal level. Earlier this month, we reported on Trapwire, a sophisticated high-tech surveillance software put in place nearly a decade ago.

    Earlier this year, NSA employee William Binney said the agency has a dossier on virtually every American and is currently building a mega-spy center in Bluffdale, Utah, that “will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency, including private emails, cellphone calls, Google searches and other personal data.”

    The all-encompassing security state – designed to destroy political opposition and not prevent mundane criminal activity – is the most portentous threat we face as a nation established as a constitutional republic. If meaningful and effective political activity is subtracted from the equation, we will have no option other than abject submission to the state and the fascist corporate and financial interest it serves.

  15. During my physical, my doctor asked me about my daily
    activity level, and so I described a typical day this way:
    “Well, yesterday afternoon, I waded along the edge of a lake,
    drank eight beers, escaped from wild dogs in the heavy brush,
    marched up and down several rocky hills, stood in a patch of poison
    ivy, crawled out of quicksand, jumped away from an aggressive
    rattlesnake and took four “leaks” behind big trees.”
    Inspired by the story, the doctor said, “You must be one hell of an
    outdoors man!”
    “No,” I replied, “I’m just a shitty golfer.”
    🙂 Happy Sunday!

  16. Good morning, SUFA……..D13 will be out for awhile today getting an annual check ride for multi-engine IFR endorsements.,,,but have an honest request for Mathius/The Walla/and the Plutonian Dust Mite, Captain Cannoli. I have been reading and not responding to allegations from each of you. This is an honest question and not a set up…..well, an honest question, anyway.

    Each of you have insinuated that Romney is a liar and you do not know where he is coming from….before I volunteer to do any work for his campaign ( I am doing work for a Senate and House Race ), I would like to know, from each of you, the top three things that you feel Romney has lied about. I wish to personally fact check these things. I do not wish to know your sources but if you want to throw them in, cool…just the top three things you feel he has lied about.

    In return, I will list 20 specific things about Obama that I consider outright lies and why he is not deserving a second term.

    For example, Obama outright lied about being able to keep your health insurance.

    One reason that I am asking this, is that I will be preparing debate questions for local elections and I would really like some honest input. Thanking you in advance, I remain….

    Time to go do stalls, spins, and erratic maneuvers while “under the hood”…..C U this PM.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Why should we help you with your opposition research?

      • speaking for D13
        OBJECTION, witness has not answered the question!
        LOI, sustained, witness will answer the question or withdraw all past/present remarks about Romney lies.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Wait.. you objected on his behalf and then sustained yourself? What kind of kangaroo court is this?

          Fine.

          Lie #1: Lie by omission.
          Romney released an ad where he played a sound byte from Obama saying “If we continue to talk about the economy we’re going to lose.” This, of course, was not truthful. Obama was quoting a McCain spokesman. The Romney ad made it appear as if Obama were saying he didn’t want to talk about the economy. In fact, it was McCain. Don’t get technical with this – you know this one’s a whopper.

          Lie #2: We just know, ok?
          “Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” – Mitt Romney (R-Money).

          This was in reference to a July 12 memo from the HHS allowing states more latitude on how to apply the work requirement in order to try to find more innovative solutions. This was at the request of various governors (several of whom were Republicans). In fact, the Obama HHS gave them certain waivers, but less than the governors had asked for.

          Romney asserts that this memo shows that Obama wants to “just send you your welfare check.” The HHS letter contains no such language. In several places, it says only proposals from states that “improve employment outcomes” will be considered.

          In fact, when questioned about it, Romney surrogate “Eye of” New Gingrich had this to say:

          “We have no proof today, but I would say to you under Obama’s ideology it is absolutely true that he would be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing,” Gingrich told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “I believe that totally.”

          Get that? We don’t have any, you know, evidence, but we believe it so it’s fine to say.

          And I believe that Mitt Romney may actually be the legendary Chupacabra which has been plaguing the Mexican border for generations.

          Lie #3: Here’s an easy one.
          Mitt Romney (R-Neptune) says that in the 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama “didn’t even mention the deficit or debt.”

          About midway through the speech, Obama tossed out this proposal for paying down the national debt:
          “In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

          Per Politifact, there are a half dozen other mentions.

          -A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit
          -“we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.”
          -“When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.”

          And more.

          I include this in my list specifically because it is SO blatant and easily debunked. I mean, jumpin’ Jehoshaphat!, the transcript is right there. Maybe Obama didn’t dwell on the debt and deficit, but to say he didn’t mention it even once is an out-and-out lie. There’s really no way around it.

          Lie #4: You weren’t specific enough.

          You didn’t say we had to limit it to lies about Obama. Here’s one involving McCain.

          In a Romney ad called “Remember” launched on Jan. 3, a group of New Hampshire residents praise McCain’s military experience and record of public service, then tick off grievances with McCain’s positions on taxes and immigration. One, identified as Collett Hill, says of McCain, “He wrote the amnesty bill that America rejected.”

          Following this add, in a debate with McCain, Romney said “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.”

          Now, you might want to give him the out on the technicality that HE didn’t say Amnesty – he had other people say it. But it was HIS ad, and at the end, HE approved this message. This one’s pretty blatant. He DOES describe the plan as amnesty in the ad, just because he uses someone else’s voice doesn’t change that fact.

          Lie #5: Ohio!
          (pause here while Mathius sings some Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young..)
          (ok, continuing)
          Romney claims “President Obama’s lawsuit claims it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period.”

          Yea… no.

          Obama’s lawsuit claims it’s unconstitutional for Ohio to ONLY allow servicemen and women extended early voting. Obama is suing to INCLUDE other voters, not to EXCLUDE soldiers.

          Indeed, Obama’s lawsuit clearly states that it seeks to permit all Ohioans – not just members of the U.S. military – to vote during the three days before the election, as was the case in 2008. The suit in no way suggests restricting early voting by members of the military.

          It is simply dishonest for Romney and his backers to claim that Obama’s effort to extend early voting privileges to everyone in Ohio constitutes an attack on military voters’ ability to cast ballots on the weekend before elections.

          Read that again, Romney is claiming that Obama is suing based on the opinion that it’s “unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges.” That’s not true at all. Obama’s lawsuit is just fine with this. He just thinks it should include others.

          This is like saying that suing to allow gay marriage is like fighting against the right of straight people to marry. Nonsense.

          Lie #6: Like shooting fish in a barrel.
          “This president went before the United Nations and […] said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip.”

          Really now?

          Obama: “[The price of war is] paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night.”

          Also: “The courage of a man like President (Mahmoud) Abbas, who stands up for his people in front of the world under very difficult circumstances, is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children. …. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire.”

          Also: “Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that, throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them.”

          Lie #7: Trade Agreements

          You know, there are some lies which are crafty, hard to pin down. Maybe he’s telling the a half-truth, maybe he gets off on some technicality. Here’s another one: “We have to open up markets for our goods,” Romney said. “We haven’t done that under this president. European nations and China over the last three years have opened up 44 different trade relationships with various nations in the world. This president has opened up none.”

          So Europe and China have opened up 44 different trade relationships. Obama: 0.

          It might have taken him three years, but he signed treaties with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. Korea, in particular, was a major one.

          Per Politifact: We asked the Romney camp for their view, and a spokesman said that Romney was referring to new deals initiated and completed by this administration, rather than deals initiated during the previous administration and closed by Obama. But we think that’s a misleading standard. If that’s what Romney means, he’s effectively stripping Obama of any credit for enactment of the three trade agreements, when in fact bringing them to fruition required significant negotiating efforts with lawmakers of the opposite party (and led to an achievement that eluded his predecessor, Bush).

          So, Romney is “clarifying” that he didn’t mean just signed under Obama, but Obama’s start to finish. ::BS flag::. Obama brought them back up after they had effectively died under Bush and negotiated with congress to get them passed. Obama maybe shares credit with Bush for these, but by no means is it fair to say he hasn’t “opened” any new agreements.

          Lie #8: Time Travel
          “is have HHS send out a hard letter making sure that the only things that will qualify under the work requirement is hard training and the cooperative programs with employers and define it in such a way that what was allowed before is all that’s allowed in the future…. That’s all that’s required.”

          Except, you know.. Obama did that two months earlier..

          Lie #9: Obama is easily confused with congressional Republicans
          “It was the president who insisted on this makeup, this formula. Defense spending is not half of all federal spending, but it’s half of the cuts approximately in the sequester. We disagreed with that then, disagree with it now.”

          Except, you know, the Democrats wanted the other half of the sequester to be tax increases. The defense cuts were proposed by House Republicans.

          Lie #10: The Opposite of #7
          At a campaign event in Bettendorf, Iowa, Romney argued, “We’ve now had four years in a row with a president that’s built trillion-dollar deficits.”

          That’s not true. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; it wasn’t something the president “built.”

          See how this works? When it’s good and Obama did it, Bush gets credit. When it’s bad and Bush did it, Obama gets credit. Wahoo!

          Lie #11: A bonus lie, because some people aren’t good at math.
          Romney “Now, the president promised that he was going to cut the deficit in half. Yeah, it didn’t happen, did it. He’s more than doubled it.”

          Doubling the deficit! Holy smokes!

          Well, when Obama came into office, the deficit was 1.3T. So that must mean it’s no… carry the two… divide by seven… WOW! 2.6 Trillion!

          Wowza! 2.6T! Except, you know, of course it isn’t. And before you dare say “he meant debt,” you should know that he’s repeated this line many times – it’s not an accident.

          And that’s because Romney is a liar.

  17. charlieopera says:

    Buon Giorno, Wingies and (cough, cough) “liberal” dems … it’s cloudy on Pluto this fine day … but the airwaves just shot us a good laugh on Morning Joe (or, as whacky Marc Levin calls it, Morning Shmoe) …

    I’m not a big fan of Chris Matthews tingles regarding Obama, but he just kicked Reince Priebus’s ass … and WTF kind of name is that? Can’t possibly be “American” …

    • CHRIS MATTHEWS: That cheap shot about “I don’t have a problem with my birth certificate” was awful and it is an embarrassment to your party to play that card. This stuff about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest. Everyone has pointed out it’s dishonest and you are playing that little ethnic card there. And you can you play your games and giggle about it but the fact is your side is playing that card. When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you’re playing and everybody knows what game you’re playing. It a race card. And this thing about- If your name’s Romney, yeah, you were well born. You went to prep school! Yeah, brag about it. This guy has an African name and he has got has to live with it. Look who has gone further in their life! Just a moment. Just a minute- Who was born on third base?

      JOE SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait.

      MATTHEWS: This absurdity! Making fun of the guy’s birth certificate issue when it was never a real issue except from the right-wing.

      SCARBOROUGH: You think- you think that Romney’s playing the race card? No, I’m asking you.

      MATTHEWS: When he said- yeah. There’s no doubt he did with his birth certificate.

      SCARBOROUGH: No doubt. Wow.

      MATTHEWS: No doubt. Why would he bring it up? Why would he say I have no problem with my birth certificate. What’s that supposed to mean?

      MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Because he’s an awkward joker.

      SCARBOROUGH: Because he misfired badly on a joke.

      MATTHEWS: Why would he do it?

      SCARBOROUGH: I’m just asking you. Do you think that Mitt Romney is playing the race card?

      MATTHEWS: On that one, yeah.

      SCARBOROUGH: Do you really?

      MATTHEWS: Yeah. And I think This work requirement plays right into it.

      SCARBOROUGH: That’s the race card, too, huh?

      MATTHEWS: Of course it is! Welfare. Food stamps. Absolutely. And you can chuckle, Mr. Chairman, because you have to flak this issue.

      BRZEZINSKI: No, no, no. You have to let him respond.

      REINCE PRIEBUS: Well, you got your monologue in, so congratulations.

      MATTHEWS: It’s a point of view.

      PRIEBUS: You’re loaded up- You got your — you’re loaded up, you got it out. The fact of the matter is that he’s from Michigan. He was born in Michigan. He’s making the point that I was born in Michigan. And you know what? We’ve gotten to a place in politics that any moment of levity is totally frowned upon by guys like you just so that you can push your brand. You know what? Good for you. It is a moment of levity. Everybody gets it.

      MATTHEWS: What was the joke?

      PRIEBUS: Barack Obama came out of the correspondence dinner with his own joke, as you remember, playing the Hulk Hogan song, “I’m a real American.”

      MATTHEWS: What’s the joke in the fact he has a birth certificate? I don’t get it.

      PRIEBUS: Every person, myself, starting in February of last year, as soon as I became chairman of the RNC, Mitt Romney continuously has said this president was born in this country. It’s a non-starter. It’s a dumb issue. It’s a distraction. Forget about it.

      MATTHEWS: It just seems funny the first joke he’s ever told in his life is about Obama’s birth certificate.

      TOM BROKAW: Listen, I disagree with Chris on this.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/08/27/unhinged-matthews-welcomes-gop-ranting-about-romney-playing-race-car#ixzz24lDjcZZp

      Chris Matthews is kicking @ss is he? How is a birth certificate “racial”? Doesn’t everyone born in the US get one?
      “work requirement for welfare” Racial? Even though there are more whites unemployed than blacks and Hispanic’s combined?
      I suppose talking about the price of gas is racial, because it’s been at it’s highest under a black president. Best not talk about the troops killed in Afghanistan under Obama are higher than under Bush. Questioning anything Chris Matthews says in defense of Obama must be racist! Can we at least talk about a media commentator that should show some impartiality, sounding like the DNC chairman? No, still racist?

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Has the Tea Party Sold Out?

    Interesting article that summarizes the diversity of opinions and how hard it is to hold ACTIVISM together long enough to have real impact.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/26/politics/tea-party-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

  19. charlieopera says:

    Flip-flopped or lied, Colonel? As well all know, most flip-flops are out and out lies (at one end of the flip-flop or other) but there are lists upon lists of Romney lying and here are a few i took from one article: http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-tk-presidential-endorsement.html

  20. The officers fired 16 shots at Jeffrey Johnson, with seven of them hitting Johnson, a hit rate of 43.75%. While one of the officers was fairly close, possibly eight feet or so, the other officer backed away and was much farther away when he fired his gun. Three of the bystanders were hit by direct shots from the police and six others were hit by ricochet shots.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Yea….

      I think some cops need to (A) go back to the target range and (B) relearn protocol as regards civilian bystanders in a firefight.

      Side note: I have three cousins working the Empire State Building (and have worked there myself).

      And now for the inevitable question: If cops are supposedly trained and responsible and they still wind up with this much collateral damage, can we still support the idea that if everyone in the crowd had been armed, there would have been fewer casualties?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        In the examples where it would apply I think YES, there would have been fewer casualties.

        You have to remember that those situations are where a gunman shoots people up close. So if one or more of those people were armed then more than likely the gunman dies.

        The Giffords example, remember the civilian who was armed did not fire for fear of hitting others. So maybe civilians are more “aware” of the collateral risk than the trained and “sanctioned” police. Of course the word aware should probably be “concerned”.

      • I still think so Matt, “Second, private citizens are much more wary of using their guns. Possibly this might be true because they don’t have the legal protections that police have.”
        (from John Lott, with links) Had these officers been in Aurora, reality is they most likely would have saved lives. He intended to shoot until out of ammo. Odds are better someone not trying to kill you is less dangerous than someone intent on killing you, all other things equal.

        There is indeed the chance that the police shot all nine of the people who were wounded as well as the killer who they killed.

        “We have on tape the perpetrator pulled his gun out and tried to shoot at the cops,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. “Whether he got off any bullets or not, to be determined.” . . .

        People have been writing me drawing the conclusion that this proves that private citizens with permits would also shoot bystanders. There are a couple reasons for believing that this comparison is not correct. The first is from the data. As I have written before: “Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.” Second, private citizens are much more wary of using their guns. Possibly this might be true because they don’t have the legal protections that police have. But accidental shootings by police doesn’t imply much of anything for private citizens.

        For whatever it is worth, this is from the UK Guardian:

        . . . . One of those injured by police told the Guardian that officers appeared to fire “randomly” as they confronted Jeffrey Johnson, 58, minutes after a workplace dispute escalated into a chaotic shootout in one of the busiest parts of Manhattan.

        Reports suggest that while Johnson drew his gun when he was confronted by officers, he did not fire; all those injured appear to have been shot by police. The New York police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, said officers had no choice but to act as they did: police discharged 14 rounds and the gunman died at the scene.

        The incident began just after 9am on Friday when Johnson, described as a “disgruntled former employee”, walked up to Steve Ercolino, 41, his former manager at Hazan Imports, a business that operates from premises in Midtown, near the Empire State Building. Johnson shot him three times before calmly walking away. . . . .

        UPDATE2: There are a number of times when police have used what might be viewed as excessive force in these encounters.

        It was the second time in two weeks that police officers fired fusillades on the crowded streets of Midtown — 28 shots fired between the two episodes — and with it, there were once again questions of police protocol in urban settings. In the first shooting, no bystanders were struck when officers fired 12 shots at a man with a knife just south of Times Square. . . .

        • Mathius™ says:

          “Second, private citizens are much more wary of using their guns. Possibly this might be true because they don’t have the legal protections that police have.”

          Maybe….

          Maybe….

          I just know way too many people who would want to “play cowboy”….

          • Matt,

            Follow the links at John Lott, this isn’t maybe. He has researched and found no cases. I know of people like that as well, but when you get a permit, you also are told of the consequences of shooting someone without legal cause. Anybody you shoot, you have to prove it was lawful. Compare that to the number of people who drive, but never get a lecture on if you hurt someone intentionally with your car, you will most likely go to jail.
            Wiki says 1,200 reports, 300 injuries out of how many million driving. (funny, it’s really very small numbers, but much higher than armed citizens committing any crime, much less harming any innocents…

            Road rage is a relatively serious act: It may be seen as an endangerment of public safety. It is, however, not always possible to judge intent by external observation, so “road ragers” who are stopped by police may be charged with other offences such as careless or reckless driving.In some jurisdictions, such as the American Commonwealth of Virginia, it is easier to prosecute road rage as reckless driving instead of aggressive driving simply because the burden of proof does not require “intent” to successfully convict.

            It is likely that those causing serious injury or death during “road rage” incidents will suffer more serious penalties than those applicable to similar outcomes from simple negligence. In April 2007, a Colorado driver was convicted of first-degree murder for causing the deaths of two motorists in November 2005.[7][8] He will serve a mandatory sentence of two consecutive life terms.

          • Mathius, While the New York shooting wouldn’t qualify a a “mass murder” event, It is an example of how people become brave when they know that they can likely achieve what ever sick goal they have, because the “laws” favor them (the criminal murderer). NY City is a very restrictive city and a vast majority of people do not conceal carry, Auroro theater was a “no gun zone” and by law folks cannot conceal carry and lastly, a place of worship, where most folks don’t carry either. It’s easy to see how brave people are when the odds are in their favor.

            • charlieopera says:

              because the “laws” favor them (the criminal murderer

              Gman on drugs again … the guy committed suicide by cop. I don’t think he was concerned with the laws … most lunatics aren’t concerned with the laws … think about it.

              • the guy committed suicide by cop.

                Captain Canolli 🙂 Good day Sir! Once again, you simply repeat what the media gives you. He never shot at the cops, but they sure whacked him good, along with 9 other people, 🙄 Now, you are right, lunatics don’t care about laws, that I agree with (why can’t the lefties understand this?) I don’t do drugs, thanks for offering though (unless vitamin B complex falls into this catagory 🙂 )

    • Four cops fired 41 shots at Amadiou Diallo in the Bronx and they hit him I believe 19 times from a distance of about 15 feet. It is the adrenaline thing. Our shooters tend to be stone cold killers who methodically do what they have set out to do. Cops are people.

      The latest reports on the shooter confirm that he was a gun toting veteran (coast guard) with a marksman medal who used to be a boy scout, was a divorcee and loved cats. So, see it’s the deranged veteran/boy scout thing again. Damn those scouts anyway!

      • Mathius™ says:

        I think the red flag here might have been that he was a man who loved cats..

        Just saying..

        • Oh crap…..I’m in trouble then. I have 5 cats and love them all.

          *peeks out curtains* I don’t see them feds, but they got to be out there………….

          😉

          • Mathius™ says:

            Cats are ok, don’t get me wrong. But a pet should be able to roughhouse with you. A purse dog (such as D13’s bijon frise, Fluffy) is not a real pet, and neither is your typical house cat.

            If I were going to get a cat it would either one of these (yes, that’s a domesticated house cat – called a Cheetoh) or, you know, an actual pet cheetah.

            However, I have a dog – a soft coated wheaten terrier. There is no better pet than a wheaten.

            • lol….you need to meet a couple of my cats (or look at the scratches on my hand), they like a good tussle.

              But to play it safe, I have 4 dogs as well.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Are these them?

                Those are not real dogs.

                This is a dog.

              • lmao….no, those are mops without a handle. And, no – our dogs are not that big (1 Aussie cattle dog, 2 Jack Russells and a Great Pyrenees). And no, the Jacks I’m not a big fan of (but my wife loves them). They are pesky noise makers prone to doing the exact opposite of what you teach them to do (at least ours anyway).

              • Mathius™ says:

                I don’t think they’d make good mops.. they’re white and would get very dirty, very quickly..

                Jacks are… enthusiastic.

              • I don’t think they’d make good mops.. they’re white and would get very dirty, very quickly..

                Well true. You’d just have to wash them out a bit though.

                Jacks are… enthusiastic.

                Very diplomatic of you. 🙂 I think they are a noisy pain in the arse.

      • I don’t know that they are necessarily stone cold killers. Of all the different shootings we could point to it would seem a likely possibility that they are stone cold simply because they have mentally prepared themselves to die should they be confronted. Whereas cops haven’t and are still in the fight-to-survive mode (which would be affected by adrenaline).

        • That’s pretty much what I mean when I say stone cold. They have hardened their hearts, will shoot a two year old as easily as a 20 year old and are prepared to die. Like, a suicide bomber, regardless of why they are bombing, it is awfully hard to protect against them when you are not willing to die, and worse, as a cop, when you are sworn to protect others.

          I like your take on the us vs. them down below. It took me many years and the help of a really great cop to break through that in my dealings with the NYPD and the narcotics cops specifically. But, I think that it is more than just us vs.them. Years ago, when I started working for the city and saw some things that I would have said a few years before were unbelievable, I found than most of my friends and acquaintances just did not want to hear about them. Personally, I could never understand that. No matter how bad something is, if it is real it has to be acknowledged and if you want to do something about changing it, you can’t just look the other way and ignore it. Cops feel the same way, nobody wants to hear, nobody wants to listen so they finally clam up. You get a lot of the “you can’t understand it if you weren’t there” . There is an awful lot of PTSD out there in the cop world that really does not get the attention that it deserves. I remember when I read Wambaugh’s “The Onion Field” thinking just how in the hell do you get over something like that?

          When I was younger, I had a fairly negative take on cops. I had met my fill of junior Napoleons and I have a few stories that paint them pretty harshly. Once I was working though in the really tough neighborhoods, I started to realize what they went through and more importantly carried around with them on their backs and became more tolerant.

          Matt is right when he talks about the two kinds of people who go into that business, couldn’t agree more.

          • Sorry for taking so long to reply to your thoughts Stephen – been a hectic several days round the homestead.

            I found than most of my friends and acquaintances just did not want to hear about them.

            As an aside – sounds like a lot of the way politics is played out by the “average” American in today’s world.

            But, you are correct in that a lot of people don’t want to hear about it (IMHO of course – I have little hard data to support that opinion other than personal experiences). People want to let someone else deal with the problem and make it “go away.” It doesn’t improve the mindset cops fall back on (the “us v. them”), and in fact from what I saw just hardens that attitude even more. I knew a lot of my fellow officers (and I too) who felt like we had to wade the gutters of society without any real help from the rest of society. The established training cops receive doesn’t help this situation either as they are continually hounded to remember that their partner(s) – the boys and girls of the thin blue line – are whom they must count on (much like the military teaches us to rely on our fellow service members for our life, etc.)

            Yet that attitude is strongly prevalent, and for one wearing the badge to admit weakness leads to a loss of the trust of fellow officers (when I hung up my badge and said it was because I didn’t have the heart for it anymore a lot of my – once – fellow friends moved me into the “them” category and ended whatever friendship we had).

            As law enforcement agencies (and the cops in them) become more militaristic in how they deal with their cities, counties, states, we will likely find that the “us v. them” is being reinforced harder in the minds of cops. Whether there is a need for this heavier militaristic style of policing is a whole different debate (so I leave that for some other time).

            In the end it will be society that pays the price. While some cops enter the profession with a genuine desire to help others – they too become hardened in a majority of the cases in their attitudes on society and join the – now – militaristic thin blue line. It is a shame really that it has become this way.

            There is an awful lot of PTSD out there in the cop world that really does not get the attention that it deserves.

            Even those suffering it don’t want to admit it – even to themselves – since that equates to weakness in their (and their fellow officers’) minds. Sad, but true.

            After almost a year of therapy now (15 years after hanging up my badge) I am told that I have some PTSD myself that still causes me problems. Luckily I am told that it isn’t so strong that it can’t be overcome. I shudder to think of the toll it would have taken upon me had I refused to acknowledge I just couldn’t do it anymore and had stayed in the profession.

            Society make strong demands on their “protectors” and the governments that employ them make even more demands. Policing is long past the idea of “protect and serve” the citizenry and now a days are there only to protect and serve the interests of their employing governments (this is my opinion of course).

            • Thanks for taking the time. It’s nice when you surmise something and it gets verified. As I have said before, don’t know if it’s a family trait or not, may actually be, but I am, like my Dad the bartender, a keen observer of human beings. I note that as my sons age they, still unbeknownst to them, are getting to be the same way.

              The answer to so much pain in this world is just to let people talk it out. That catharsis thing. It only works if there is trust though and a willingness for the listener to actually take on some of that pain.

  21. August 27, 2012
    Obama pays tribute to Neil Armstrong, the only way he knows how

    We all know the world revolves around The Greatest President in the History of Everything. So it makes sense that all the other celestial bodies were placed in the sky to shine down upon him.

    This is not a Photoshop. This was actually posted on Obama’s official Tumblr page:

    Sure, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. But only to tidy it up, so that one day it would be a suitable resting place for Obama’s kingly gaze.

    Hat tip to Sooper Mexican, who notes that this is a stock image from last April. That’s how Team Obama thinks: “Hey, we got any pictures of the boss looking at the moon? Any way we can make this all about him?” And that attitude starts at the top. Just ask Queen Elizabeth, as she’s deleting all the Obama videos from the iPod he gave her…

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/27/obama-pays-tribute-to-neil-armstrong-the-only-way-he-knows-how/#ixzz24mA3BEXs

  22. Attention U.S. Military: You are Being Demonized. This is an Extremely Important Article
    Posted on August 21, 2012 by Michael Krieger It’s now becoming overt. The meme emanating rapidly from the mainstream media is that the U.S. military is a threat to the nation! It sounds very 1984 and backwards, but what isn’t these days. What really captured my attention is a very clever and dangerous article published by Reuters titled “U.S. Army battling racists within its own ranks.” It sounds benign enough at first and as you continue to read it all seems pretty reasonable. Who wants crazy racists running around the armed forces? Nobody. That said, there is a tone throughout that clearly attempts to make the sheeple public suspicious about returning veterans, which is bothersome in its own right considering these young men and women are being sacrificed daily by the elite power structure that would never dip their dainty little toes anywhere near any action.
    http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/08/21/attention-u-s-military-you-are-being-demonized-this-is-an-extremely-important-article/

  23. For Black Flag:

    • Replace “both” with “all” and then you will get closer.

      And replace “F…” with “Ignore”, and you’d be right next door.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        As a subset of “all,” you must include anarchy.

        • No, because the definition of anarchy already excludes the “all”

          It would be akin to saying ” and not including zero – and including all things not zero” – wholly redundant.

  24. More Obamaloni 😦

    Obama’s Latest Whopper: He Created More Jobs Than Reagan!
    Fri, Aug 24 2012 00:00:00 E A15_ISSUES

    Posted 08/23/2012 05:29 PM ET

    Email Print License Comment

    inShare.Campaign ’12: Where are those allegedly unbiased fact-checkers when you need them? Like this week and the fantastic fib that Obama’s deputy campaign manager told about job growth under the current president.

    Here’s Stephanie Cutter’s quote in full — uttered Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” — just so no one can accuse us of taking anything out of context:

    “Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around. And over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private-sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery (or) in the Reagan recovery.”

    http://www.widgetserver.com/syndication/l/?p=1&instId=b9f36f52-b33b-4f80-b797-85fde6d336c5&token=3e00d45e73bee05a735085019b20cb4b23b093f4000001395d95b062&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F~r%2FEditorialRss%2F~3%2FtGAYVySVQLA%2Fobama-created-half-as-many-jobs-as-reagan.htm

  25. Sure as the sun rises, the govt and the whore media are inventing a NEW boogieman! Yes folk, Al Qeida has been funded by our govt since it’s inception and that was proven in Libya, so they need a new boogieman to scare the shit out of people. Now comes the American war vet anarchist white supremist. These stories are getting more frequent and always about WHITE vets! That is a clear sign that they are full of shit. Here’s one article! 😦 http://www.prisonplanet.com/prosecutor-says-%e2%80%9canarchist-militia%e2%80%9d-planned-obama-assassination.html

  26. charlieopera says:

    @gman … He never shot at the cops,

    Sweet Jesus, G … are you daft ALL THE TIME? Go outside and point a gun at a cop and see what happens? Make sure to wear your vest, buddy.

    Oh, right … it’s the vast left wing conspiracy … what was I thinking?

    • G,

      I am with Charlie on this one. Cops are trained to respond to the threat of violence and not to wait for the actual violence to occur. Pointing a firearm at a cop is sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force. No if’s, and’s or but’s about that.

      In fact, they don’t have to even wait for that weapon to be fully pointed. Movement indicated that threat is in the process (i.e facing the cops and having his arm coming up with a pistol in his hand) is enough to cause a deadly response. All the cop has to believe is that he/she is in imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death.

      • I’m understanding of the cops actions, although I believe a better trained cop (s) would not have shot through people to get him. If these two were legally carrying citizens, instead of cops, I would guarentee Charlie (and every Liberal on the planet) would be going off!

        I trained cops in the art of marksmanship for 12 years of my life, never had one hit an innocent civilian. I believe that cops should be better, I’m a bit prejudice on this matter I guess 🙂 I hold professionals to a higher standard, sadly, they aren’t living up to it. 😦

        • I hold professionals to a higher standard, sadly, they aren’t living up to it.

          I agree, I too hold them to higher standards. Unfortunately the key ingredient to situations cops are in is judgment, and no matter how much they are trained we can’t count on them learning the hardest of skills – judgment.

          Society demands police to keep a society “civil.” Yet, our society gets less civil and the cops are given harder goals to meet by their employing government. What part does society play in the less than stellar performance of the policing systems instituted to “protect” the society?

          There are likely many issues within society itself that contributes in some degree to the heavier authoritarian police forces used by governments to try to keep society civilized.

          • I have to wonder if the fact, that the gunman was pointing his gun at a fellow cop-when they are programmed almost to protect and backup each other-might have lead to the situation.

            • V.H.,

              That is a valid question. I would tend to think that is a potential part of the reasoning by one of the two cops involved. Like other dangerous professions (firefighters come immediately to mind) the “protect your fellow officer (firefighter)” aspect is very strongly ingrained into them. There is also the “thin blue line” us-versus-them thinking that plays in any cops mind on a daily basis. Many cops see everyone not a cop (or member of a cops family) as “them” and expect bad things to always come from “them.” Those in the “them” category can not be trusted. I thought that way for many, many years.

          • Plainly, as the old saying goes, “ya had to be there”. That is true of anything of this nature, and most times, one can’t explain his/her thinking at the time anyway, it goes to instinct. During this discussion, I have been tough on the cops, as we all should be. they need better and more training, so as not to hurt the innocent.

            However, I can express my opinion and say we need far less cops and far more armed citizens without the restrictions many “lawmakers” place upon them. Captain Canolli thinks it would be like the wild west, but most folks where I live carry concealed, and we don’t have much crime at all. THe State Police and local Sheriffs have all said that everyone with a permit should carry everywhere they go. I agree 🙂

  27. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    As we watch Isaac head toward the coast, I hope all those down there are prepared and make it through it OK. At least it’s more interesting than the RNC, and less windy 😆

  28. Ah Yes! Let’s have a nice look at what the demcrats really want 😦 http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/28/shooting-utopia/?eiid=

  29. THought everyone would like to know this!

    A new mini documentary by Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker and journalist Laura Poitras blows the lid off the US government’s secretive domestic spy program – a system currently storing all electronic communications and analyzing it in real time, building dossiers on virtually every American.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/mini-documentary-reveals-full-extent-of-stellar-wind-domestic-spy-program.html

    Considering that we recently talked aboput a vet who was taken captive by the govt, here’s how they get and keep info on all of us. And since they are watching, please see the middle finger I’m displaying

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    I have tried in the past to explain how party politics works, and how it is NOT just about voting for a candidate. I urge everyone to read this. You will get some idea of how “party politics” is conducted behind the curtain.

    http://michellemalkin.com/

    And a big HURRAH for Texas. I am sad that Montana did not start the fight but not surprised. One of the reasons I dropped out of the elephant club there was because they had imposed rules at the state level that essentially gave the elected officials and party’s nominees for Fed Office the power to control the party agenda, programs and delegates.

    By the way, for those that don’t know this the cost for a delegate to attend a National Convention runs in excess of $5,000. With exception for “Student Delegates” this is paid by the delegates themselves. So guess which socio/economic group all the delegates come from?

    • Still laughing at those that believe their vote makes a difference.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Flag,

        That is complete untrue. Voting does make a difference.

        It helps determines if the winner is the big government red-shirts who want to take away your freedoms and spend your money on their priorities while using violence to support their preferred causes or the big government blue-shirts who want to take away your freedoms and spend your money on their priorities while using violence to support their preferred causes.

        • I guess, Dread, it all depends on what “making a difference” is defined.

          Changing molecules in a chair – yeah, I guess you are right.
          Changing political motion – yeah, not applicable.

  31. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    A gang of 50 youths in Jeruselem attacked three young men the other day based (what else) on their religion. They then stuck around to interfere with attempts to give medical attention to the injured.

    Of course, we didn’t hear anything about this. And why? Because the attackers were Jews attacking Muslims. If this had been the other way, it would have been front page news. There would be hearings and retaliatory strikes and road blocks. Instead, crickets.

    As Roi Maor notes, unlike Palestinian attacks on Jews, attacks by Jews are under-reported, under-investigated, and under-prosecuted by the authorities.

    “At least one of the suspects was quoted in the Jewish media expressing regret that he and his friends weren’t able to kill their victim.”

    (a brief aside here while I note that if you’re in a group of 50 and you’re attacking three and “aren’t able” to kill them, you’re doing it wrong)

    But let’s all just keep repeating: Jews and Christians are peaceful, Muslims are bloodthirsty savages.

    Source: http://972mag.com/the-holy-war-against-arab-jewish-relations-and-the-jerusalem-lynch/54198/

  32. charlieopera says:

    Bada-boom, bada-Bing …

    • Mathius™ says:

      “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

      Matthew 6:24 (NIV)

      (I may be able to quote it, but no, I don’t know chapter and verse.. that’s why God gave us The Google)

      Good find, Charlie 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie and Mathius

      You two continue to display your ignorance of Rand’s views and the lies and logical fallacies committed by idiotropes like this clown.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Hey, I didn’t make the video.. but while we’re on the subject, just out of curiosity, what specifically do you disagree with in that video? Just a single point which can be shown to be empirically false.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          He connected her commentary about producers and consumers to the poor. Income had nothing to do with the concept.

          Note he makes the viewer thing she is talking about poor schmoes who are working two jobs to make ends meet. She would have found this honorable, not something to be derided.

          Notice how he connects her derision of Altruism to that Nun who spent her life helping others. The nun’s actions could in fact be easily described as SELFISH under Rand’s arguments. That is if it weren’t for the nun’s other flaws.

          There are two quick lies within the first few seconds. I turned it off after the two jobs just to support themselves.

          One other thing. What music was playing when he showed Rand with the Devil’s Eyes? Do you think that represented her beliefs???

          • Mathius™ says:

            What music was playing when he showed Rand with the Devil’s Eyes?

            It was L’hymne National Russe as sung by Les Choeurs De L’armee Rouge… the national anthem of the USSR sung by the Red Army choir.

            Do you think that represented her beliefs???

            Unlikely… Rand was many things, but a Communist, I think not.

        • How about the part that you don’t get to follow both? According to who? I agree with plenty that Rand says and I also follow Jesus. I’m not perfect. AND NEITHER ARE YOU. It’s really getting old that you must THIS or THAT 100% or you belittled to death. Show me a perfect person and I’ll bow at your feet. We were not created perfect so lets chill a little shall we.

          (save the speech about well he portrays himself as…so he should…..)

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m pretty perfect…

            ::throws first stone::

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            Good point. Ryan never said he “followed her”. This is an accusation leveled against anyone who repeats Rand’s ideas because then they can tag them as a “Cult member”.

            Which reminds me of another lie in the video. He claims Rand hated the Church because of its support for the poor. She hated the Catholic Church because of its evil history and the Pope’s attempt to control people via “magic”. Her distaste for Religion was based on her adherence to REASON and LOGIC. She viewed religion as accepting the irrational, namely that something could exist OUTSIDE reality and be able to bend reality to its will.

            I do take exception to you last statement. We are ALL “created” perfect. What we do with that gift is up to us.

            • Mathius™ says:

              She hated the Catholic Church because of its evil history and the Pope’s attempt to control people via “magic”.

              Hey… That’s why I hate the Church!

              We are ALL “created” perfect.

              Doubtful..

              What we do with that gift is up to us.

              Invariably, we squander whatever “perfection” we may have once had.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Perfection can only be judged by the creator against those criteria also established by the creator.

                We are the creation of nature, the universe, or of God if you like. God has proclaimed us as having been created in his image. Thus we are perfect if you subscribe to those teachings.

                If you prefer the universe or nature then it is obvious that we are perfect as well, despite the universe’s silence on the matter. Because if our creation was not “deliberate” then it is the perfect combination of random events which led to our evolutionary development. All things in nature are perfectly created as they all conform to the LAWS OF NATURE.

        • I’ll take a shot, how about those elderly folks like me whom he is going to force off Medicare and into a voucher program. That’s a pretty big lie. Hey, Social Security is, as currently structured, a Ponzi scheme, wasn’t designed that way but has been tinkered into one by add ons.

          The other day when I threw you the Goebbels quote about propaganda, you suggested we pretend Gandhi said it. I’ll suggest the same, any good ideas Rand had, I will attribute to Confucius.

          Always remember that old dictum, “even a broken clock is right twice a day”. That is, of course, unless it’s digital.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Ayn Rand on the concept of SELFISHNESS.

    The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

    In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

    Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

    This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      MORE: I know this is a lot but I am tired of the erroneous claims about her concepts and how those relate to our current issues or those who happen to discuss them. Anyway, it is time to do some hard thinking. So here ya’ll go.

      “There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).
      If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.
      To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness” that one has to redeem.
      The first step is to assert man’s right to a moral existence—that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . .
      The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.
      Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.
      The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.
      The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.
      This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .
      A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices.
      Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.
      Since selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man’s enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.
      Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.
      Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
      This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
      The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
      The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”

      • charlieopera says:

        New computer speak (my wife loved this and couldn’t stop laughing the other day because I had to count the letters off my fingers) … bioya … blow it out your ass … 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

      You missed a word.

      It’s actually, “characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.” That word makes a big difference, no?

      This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil

      True, the denotation does not offer a moral evaluation. The connotation, however…

      Dictionaries only offer the former.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Silly parlor game you are trying to play.

        We don’t know precisely which dictionary she was referring to, if any. I you studied her writings you would find that she often goes to the root of various terms to deduce the “exact” or “true” meaning of words.

        And I don’t think inserting the word “only” changes her argument at all. So the answer to your question is NO!

        • charlieopera says:

          Which dictionary was she referring to when she went on medicare/social security?

          one again, bioya

          • Just A Citizen says:

            charlie

            I have explained that to you before. So you can take your bioya and bury it with the trash out back.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Along the same lines, note the following definition from a 70’s Dictionary.

        Selfless: “Having no concern for self : UNSELFISH”

        So you see, the synonym for Selfless is unselfish, which of course is the opposite of selfish.

        So if selfless is “no concern for self” how is it that the opposite turns into “only” concern for self? Why is it not “concern for self”?

        Now do you see the word game she is condemning? Do you start to understand why?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Chasing further:

        Unselfish: “not selfish: GENEROUS”

        So now we have a condition called “SELFLESS that is connected to GENEROUS”.

        So “having no concern for self” is equated with “generous”.

        This of course eliminates the possibility that someone is is “concerned with self” could ever be “generous” .

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Check older dictionaries, especially those prior to approximately 1970, and the word “only” is not included in the definition. The word “only” was added later, by those who wished it to be added later.

        Sometimes adding one word to the definition of a word is a VERY powerful way of distorting the meaning of the word being defined.

  34. No politics involved, I’m sure…flight risk and such…

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80271.html

    • Nope, none whatsoever. As the article plainly makes clear — he is currently on probation; as such, his travel privileges have been revoked. Unless of course you can demonstrate that other people on probation for similar reasons in the state have been cleared for travel…

      • No problemo, thanks to skype. Bet he gets thunderous applause for BUCKing the system!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        O Keefe’s residence was in New Jersey. How is it that a District judge can confine him to a Circuit area where he does NOT reside?

        • Where were the charges filed? Where was the case brought? Where is he currently residing?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.

            Near as I can tell, He was a resident of New Jersey at the time the case was brought in LA.

            • And the crime happened where?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Wouldn’t it have had to been in Louisiana? It was his scam with the LA Congress woman, Mary Landrieu. I don’t know which office but if it were D.C. wouldn’t the charges have been brought there?

              • Correct!

                So we’ve established that O’Keefe committed a crime in LA. Charges were brought against him in LA (USDC, EDLA to be precise). He pled guilty and was sentenced to three years probation by the USDC, EDLA. The USDC, EDLA has jurisdiction over his sentence. A standard condition of probation by the USDC, EDLA is no travel absent consent of the Court.

                And you are questioning this under what pretenses?

              • Mathius™ says:

                And you are questioning this under what pretenses?

                Because when a court does something they don’t like, it must be cause of liberal activist judges.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Not sure why you spent so much time on that.

                My question was by why the court could prevent him from leaving the District when He DID NOT LIVE IN THE DISTRICT.

                The order did not make “travel” subject to the Courts approval, but “leaving the District”.

                This means a judge has the power to FORCE you to live somewhere if you are on probation. Correct or Not Correct? If Correct then where does the Judge get so much authority?

                So does this mean California can simply start filing misdemeanor charges against non-residents, then getting them to plea guilty in exchange for probation and then FORCE them to move to California, and FORCE them to work………….Thus increasing their tax base.

              • It doesn’t matter whether or not O’Keefe resides within the District. He committed a crime within the District and was sentenced to probation by the District.

                The Judge ordered that he serve 3-yrs probation. Since he is not a resident of the District (it appears that it is not fully known where he actually resided at the time of the crime) he was ordered to reside at his parents’ residence in New Jersey (decent chance this was still his residence at the time, but as I note above, unclear). This is not a case of a judge dictating where someone live (I sentence you to 3-yrs in the Yukon!).

                As part of probation, by my understanding, O’Keefe cannot leave the judicial district..either judicial district — the EDLA (crime scene) or the DNJ (his residence) without consent.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                I asked a very simple question and you seem to avoid answering.

                WHERE does a judge get this authority?

                Per the original probation order the Judge could have denied O’Keefe leaving the eastern District, PERIOD.

                That he did let him go to New Jersey is irrelevant. He COULD HAVE made him live in Louisiana. So where do judges get this kind of power?

              • I don’t believe a judge can force an individual to remain within the jurisdiction if said individual does not have a residence within the jurisdiction or if said individual is being sentenced to prison.

                I haven’t come across anything in my admittedly limited research on the O’Keefe situation — here O’Keefe was sentenced to probation; since he did not have a residence in Louisiana, he was ordered to serve his probationary period at his residence in New Jersey.

  35. We were at a dead end, pushed to the front of the crowd and positioned directly between the protesters and the baton-wielding — yet thoroughly professional — security forces. Vermin Supreme, wearing a rain boot on his head and a Styrofoam moon on his nose, began to calmly urge peace and mutual respect.

    Some occupiers harassed the police, but the uniformed cohort held their position. Chants of “we are the proletariat” and “a… anti… anti-capitalista” rang out and fueled the mob.

    We lost sight of the children. We didn’t see them again.

    Daily Caller video editor Grae Stafford managed to grab a shot of the children being led away. One of them was sobbing as an organizer snatched him up from the fray.

    As the rain picked up, a lone child — seemingly without parents nearby — biked by us and shouted, “Fuck this shit — I’m not homeless.”

    We saw so much yesterday. We spoke to Occupiers, we spoke to security forces, we understood the tension. But seeing children placed in front of conflict-seeking adults as they marched toward possible armed conflict rattled us to the core.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/28/reporters-notebook-children-of-occupy-tampa-photos/#ixzz24s1EtFJd

    • Mathius™ says:

      Wasn’t there a Children’s Crusade back in the 1200’s?

      Yep.. That’s right, the pope didn’t “officially” bless/sanction the march of 30k children (led by a twelve year old!) to the holy land to fight and convert Muslims, but neither did he lift a finger to stop it.

      And, oh yea, it was a disaster.

      (disclaimer: there is some debate as to the authenticity of this story)

  36. Mathius™ says:

    “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

    Romney pollster Neil Newhouse

    • Just A Citizen says:

      More parlor games I see. Care to discuss the lack of accurate fact checking by the fact checkers these days?

      Perhaps there is good reason to not let third parties dictate a “campaign”.

      • Yes, because each side is not only entitled to their own opinions, but to their own facts as well.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Really, it’s our fault for living in the what they call the “reality-based community.”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          You two know as well as the rest of us that there are very few “facts” in POLITICAL rhetoric that can be shown as absolutely true or false.

          Just like the “robbing 716 billion from Medicare” claim. I posted last week how this is partly true. Just as the accusation of Obama removing the work requirement from Welfare Reform is partly true.

          So your snide comments about ONE SIDE of this debate simply reveal your true stripes as I see it.

          • We, good sir, are on the side of reality! Harumph!

          • Mathius™ says:

            HARRUMPH indeed.

            And, maybe one could argue the medicare line, but the work requirement is BS. Pure and simple. They said “Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” That’s blatantly false. Obama’s “plan” was to give states more leeway in determining how to apply the work requirements in order to improve employment outcomes. When pressed on this, the Romney campaign came straight out and admitted that they had nothing to back this up other than the fact that “We have no proof today” and “I believe that totally.”

            “I believe that totally” doesn’t make something true.

            ————————

            ::Shoots self in the head::

            I just found your f***ing loophole (maybe I really should be a lawyer….). Yea yea yea… see, a “lie” requires “intent” – technically, it’s not a lie if you believe it. So, yes, if we accept the Romney Campaign at it’s word (that they “believe that totally”), then this is not technically a lie.

            But it’s still a falsehood.

            • Nope, still a lie, even with the intent requirement. Romney knows this is not true as it stands today. That he believes this is what Obama will do in the future is absolutely besides the point.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Again you misrepresent what was authorized. As well as what was being requested, especially by the “Red” states.

              The order gave the authority to REDEFINE WORK, not just to create flexibility in applying the work standard. THE POTUS DOES NOT HAVE the authority to grant such a waiver. WHY? Because Congress did not want anyone to be able to “redefine” work in a way that actually eliminated work.

              Which is exactly what this authority and EO allows to happen.

              The State Requests were primarily to get waivers of onerous paper work requirements. But the White House has LIED in trying to portray them as only responding to requests in allowing REDEFINING of the Acts definitions.

              So as I said, there is partial truth in the rhetoric. One factual error is in claiming a “plan”.

              I would have simply said “HIS ORDER ALLOWS” and I would have added “HE ONCE AGAIN HAS SHOWN HE THINKS HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW” which would have accomplished the same thing politically and been ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

              • JAC…..you sure to have a thick head, my friend…..beating it against a wall like that. The only way that I can reason with the left…is to go directly to the source….free of internet “fact” checking which is not fact checking at all….quote it and then interpret it.

                I am starting with Obamacare. I really wish people would read it……it is clear in its intent and it is clear in what it is going to do……I really hate that the increased taxes ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR……are not part of the political argument….I cannot believe that people really want this ACA with everything that is hidden in it…..but it is there and I plan to expose it…item by item in my volunteer work in on the local levels.

                I really want to see how the left supports this and then say that they have the country at heart….item by item…..coming soon.

  37. Sadly, the inability of Israel to punish its own crimes will be its defeat and destruction.

    Reporters covering Israel are routinely confronted with the question: why not call Hamas a terrorist organisation? It’s a fair point. How else to describe blowing up families on buses but terrorism?

    But the difficulty lies in what then to call the Israeli army when it, too, at particular times and places, has used indiscriminate killing and terror as a means of breaking Palestinian civilians. One of those places was Rafah, in the southern tip of the Gaza strip, where Rachel Corrie was crushed by a military bulldozer nine years ago as she tried to stop the Israeli army going about its routine destruction of Palestinian homes.

    An Israeli judge on Tuesday perpetuated the fiction that Corrie’s death was a terrible accident and upheld the results of the military’s own investigation, widely regarded as such a whitewash that even the US ambassador to Israel described it as neither thorough nor credible. Corrie’s parents may have failed in their attempt to see some justice for their daughter, but in their struggle they forced a court case that established that her death was not arbitrary but one of a pattern of killings as the Israeli army pursued a daily routine of attacks intended to terrorise the Palestinian population of southern Gaza into submission.

    The case laid bare the state of the collective Israeli military mind, which cast the definition of enemies so widely that children walking down the street were legitimate targets if they crossed a red line that was invisible to everyone but the soldiers looking at it on their maps. The military gave itself a blanket protection by declaring southern Gaza a war zone, even though it was heavily populated by ordinary Palestinians, and set rules of engagement so broad that just about anyone was a target.

    With that went virtual impunity for Israeli troops no matter who they killed or in what circumstances – an impunity reinforced by Tuesday’s verdict in Haifa.

    The Israeli military commander in southern Gaza at the time was Colonel Pinhas “Pinky” Zuaretz. A few weeks after Corrie’s death, I (as the Guardian’s correspondent in Israel) spoke to him about how it was that so many children were shot by Israeli soldiers at times when there was no combat. His explanation was chilling.

    At that point, three years into the second intifada, more than 400 children had been killed by the Israeli army. Nearly half were in Rafah and neighbouring Khan Yunis. One in four were under the age of 12.

    I focussed on the deaths of six children in a 10-week period, all in circumstances far from combat. The dead included a 12-year-old girl, Haneen Abu Sitta, killed in Rafah as she walked home from school near a security fence around one of the fortified Jewish settlements in Gaza at the time. The army made up an explanation by falsely claiming Haneen was killed during a gun battle between Israeli forces and Palestinians.

    Zuaretz conceded to me that there was no battle and that the girl was shot by a soldier who had no business opening fire. It was the same with the killings of some of the other children. The colonel was fleetingly remorseful.

    “Every name of a child here, it makes me feel bad because it’s the fault of my soldiers. I need to learn and see the mistakes of my troops,” he said. But Zuaretz was not going to do anything about it; and by the end of the interview, he was casting the killings as an unfortunate part of the struggle for Israel’s very survival.

    “I remember the Holocaust. We have a choice, to fight the terrorists or to face being consumed by the flames again,” he said.

    In court, Zuaretz said the whole of southern Gaza was a combat zone and anyone who entered parts of it had made themselves a target. But those parts included houses where Palestinians built walls within walls in their homes to protect themselves from Israeli bullets.

    In that context, covering up the truth about the killings of innocents, including Corrie, became an important part of the survival strategy because of the damage the truth could do to the military’s standing, not only in the rest of the world but also among Israelis.

    The death of Khalil al-Mughrabi two years before Corrie died was telling. The 11-year-old boy was playing football when he was shot dead in Rafah by an Israeli soldier. The respected Israeli human rights organisations, B’Tselem, wrote to the army demanding an investigation. Several months later, the judge advocate general’s office wrote back saying that Khalil was killed by soldiers who had acted with “restraint and control” to disperse a riot in the area.

    But the judge advocate general’s office made the mistake of attaching a copy of its own confidential investigation, which came to a very different conclusion: that the riot had been much earlier in the day and the soldiers who shot the child should not have opened fire. In the report, the chief military prosecutor, Colonel Einat Ron, then spelled out alternative false scenarios that should be offered to B’Tselem. The official account was a lie and the army knew it.

    The message to ordinary soldiers was clear: you have a free hand because the military will protect you to protect itself. It is that immunity from accountability that was the road to Corrie’s death.

    She wasn’t the only foreign victim at about that time. In the following months, Israeli soldiers shot dead James Miller, a British television documentary journalist, and Tom Hurndall, a British photographer and pro-Palestinian activist. In November 2002, an Israeli sniper had killed a British United Nations worker, Iain Hook, in Jenin in the West Bank.

    British inquests returned verdicts of unlawful killings in all three deaths, but Israel rejected calls for the soldiers who killed Miller and Hook to be held to account. The Israeli military initially whitewashed Hurndall’s killing but after an outcry led by his parents, and British government pressure, the sniper who shot him was sentenced to eight years in prison for manslaughter.

    That sentence apparently did nothing to erode a military mindset that sees only enemies.

    Three years after Corrie’s death, an Israeli army officer who emptied the magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl, Iman al-Hams, and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was cleared by a military court.

    Iman was shot and wounded after crossing the invisible red line around an Israeli military base in Rafah, but she was never any closer than 100 yards. The officer then left the base in order to “confirm the kill” by pumping the wounded girl full of bullets. An Israeli military investigation concluded he had acted properly.

    Tuesday’s court verdict in Haifa will have done nothing to end that climate of impunity. Nor anything that would have us believe that Israel’s repeated proclamation that it has the “most moral army in the world” is any more true than its explanation of so many Palestinian deaths.

  38. @ Mathius……good afternoon, sir….and thank you for your input and sorry for the lateness in saying thank you. Something called rain and thunderstorms interrupted the program and could only fly in the mornings and simulators in the PM. All done now. As to your statement about helping research for the opposition…..tch tch……I am simply asking for your opinion…and the reasons why and you supplied such. Thank you.

    I am reading each and every tidbit that you supplied in the way you supplied it. However, most of your answers seem to reflect Politifact, (I think that is it)….and that rag carries no weight with me because I found to be in accurate most of the time and it is directly leftward and supported and paid for by Soros. But,……it does provide some modicum of source that can be checked.

    In fairness, I have also found that most of the internet sources are so biased one way or another, that they are not believable……so, I am left with reading the actual statements and their intent. It is a sad day when no one on either side can be believed.

    Obama-care can easily be debunked because it is there to read and it is relatively self explanatory…some of the others…….not.

    But thank you for your reply.

    • In fairness, I have also found that most of the internet sources are so biased one way or another, that they are not believable.

      Good Day Colonel 🙂 This “fact” about the media is the biggest impediment to a really good debate, in my humble opinion. They twist and change the facts to suit there political position, all the while possibly destroying someones life because of their lies. What is just as sad, is listeneing to the gullable minions who believe their lies (you know who you are 🙂 )

    • Mathius™ says:

      I look forward to your rebuttals. That took me quite a while to type out.

      In particular, I’m interested in knowing how you justify #1. I’m especially interested to see if you let him off the hook on some bogus technicality.

      Also of special interest are #3 and #6 where the transcript clearly and unequivocally shows him to be false.

      • Speaking of technicalities..re; welfare reform. Above it’s stated that you don’t have to work, they’ll just send your check. That’s how it works right now. Without thinking hard, I can name 3 people I know personally who are receiving welfare and in no way are they truly looking for work nor do they intend to look. I hope you cannot defend that. I doubt any changes in paperwork that Obama proposes will have any affect on these people, they will figure out how to get around the paperwork. They and others always have and always will play the system. Do you think Obama gives a hoot that they cheat? I don’t. and I also don’t hear him calling them out for it, nor do I hear any words coming from him to the effect that he will seek them out and make it right. So it seems clear that he’s ok with it. Romney’s words, whether they were technically correct or not. captures how things are in reality. He calls it out, and you slam him for it. I don’t get it.

  39. This is why I feel we need more armed civilians 🙂 Events like these are a far bigger deterrent than any law or cops. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him?lite

  40. charlieopera says:

    Ann Romney knocked the ball out of the park last night … then her husband ruined it by stepping on the stage. Fatso Christie was way less impressive (sounded like a typical carnival barker) but had some great lines that were probably lost with his melodramatic attempt to sound like he wants Romney to win (he doesn’t–he wants to run in 2016). It’s all downhill from here, folks … Four More Years of Obama, get used to it.

    • charlieopera says:

      And i just LOVED while Christie was playing Hamlet, how the ticker on the screen showed New Jersey unemployment at 9.8% … way to go, fatso! Hell of a job, fatty … hell of a job.

      • You had to be really bored to waste your time listening to a bunch of windbags 🙄 Of course, next week, the windbags take over Charlotte and, with Obamaloni’s true to form arrogance, force’s the NFL to change their normal schedule so that his minions can fawn over his acceptance speech. I wonder if Chris Mathews will have a premature ejaculation live on TV 😆

    • What? You didn’t like Christie’s ‘me-me-me’ speech? Shocking!

  41. One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.

    If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.

    In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

    Throughout this convention, Matthews has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/28/msnbc-abandons-gop-convention-during-every-speech-by-a-minority/#ixzz24wEUIcYV

    • Isn’t Mathius related to Matthews? I think so 🙂

    • Watched as Mia Love was speaking. Great speaker, youthful, not afraid. Hope she wins her race and hope to see more of her in the future.

      • I saw alittle this morning, good speaker. That crowd full of racists and women haters sure showed everyone how terrible they are 🙄 Waiting for MSNBC to alter the tape to look that way today so Mathews can act important. 🙂

    • charlieopera says:

      One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.

      So true, I must’ve counted 2, maybe 3 African Americans at the convention last night …

      • Mathius™ says:

        • Let’s see, she made one dumb comment and the rest? Love the edits, she should only speak with a big clock behind her.

          Tom Clancy wrote how easy it would be for ME terrorists to sneak across the border. Republicans have done nothing to seal the border. Ergo, she is correct in her comments about Republicans having done nothing to alienate Hispanics, at least the illegal ones.

          If you really want to start something some day, and know any actual Hispanic immigrants into the US, ask them, in a nice way, preferably over a beer, their opinion of other Hispanics from other South and Latin American countries. It is interesting and instructive and will teach you an a quick hurry that this is not a monolithic block.

          • Mathius™ says:

            she should only speak with a big clock behind her.

            That’s actually good advice for all politicians.. But since their opponents would probably edit the background out, maybe they should do this.

            Tom Clancy wrote how easy it would be for ME terrorists to sneak across the border.

            Tom Clancy wrote a lot of things. Having read more than a few of his novels, I can tell you there’s a lot of, ahem, literary licence involved. Let’s do try to base our immigration policy on something more substantive that fiction novels.

            Republicans have done nothing to seal the border.

            What needs to be done? Maybe if we stopped funding both sides of the “war on drugs,” the border would settle down.

            Ergo, she is correct in her comments about Republicans having done nothing to alienate Hispanics, at least the illegal ones.

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74036.html

            If you really want to start something some day, and know any actual Hispanic immigrants into the US, ask them, in a nice way, preferably over a beer, their opinion of other Hispanics from other South and Latin American countries.

            You know, it’s interesting. A huge number of (legal) Hispanics are children of illegal immigrants or legal immigrants from a time when immigration was much easier. These days, it’s borderline impossible to become a US citizen (I have spoken to a few). Now, of course, that they’ve “got theirs” they think no one else should be able to. How convenient.

            It is interesting and instructive and will teach you an a quick hurry that this is not a monolithic block.

            This is not a monolithic block meaning Hispanics? They’re voting for the Democrats at a rate of something like 60+%. That’s pretty commanding..

            • No, my point on different Hispanics is the very real pecking order that exists among them. I won’t say who considers themselves better than whom, but there is a strong dislike between Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Dominicans. the only thing I know that they have in common is their mutual dislike of Mexicans.

              For either party to put its eggs in one basket supporting a particular candidate who is let’s say a Cuban and assume all Hispanics vote for him is a mistake. The gentleman running for the Senate from Texas, Mr. Cruz is half Cuban and half Anglo. It will be interesting to see how much support he will whip up among 1st generation Mexican immigrants. Marco Rubio is really not a good indicator since there is such a high proportion of Cuban Americans in Florida. I’m not sure how he’s do in the Bronx but he would do fine in Union City NJ.

              Things were not terribly different in the old days where the dislike between European immigrant Roman Catholics and their children, based on National Origin was endemic. All those small coal towns in eastern Pennsylvania with four or five Catholic churches. The Slovak, Irish, German, Italian, Polish parishes in a towns of 4,000 to 5,000 people.

              Most Dominican, Ecuadorian, Colombian, Mexican working class guys that I know who immigrated legally resent illegals for one really big reason. THEY DRIVE DOWN WAGES! Now, you may be very correct in your assertion that they got theirs and, I would like to point out, that they would like to keep what they earned (greedy bastards aren’t they?). It’s sort of like unions, once you have made progress and gains, you are not particularly crazy about going backwards. Now, I want you to repeat after me, very carefully, ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES! ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES! ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES! This is something you have to get through your head as does Buck and Charlie. Otherwise, on this issue, you are on the side of Black Flag who just loves wages being driven down (except his) so he can have better/more stuff. Admittedly, he wants us to have better/more stuff too but I not being a disciple of Ann Rand ask, “At what cost?”

              I also know quite a few legal immigrants who came here in the ’70’s and ’80’s who have taken their citizenship. Illegals of course are another matter. We will not solve that problem until and unless we come up with a solution that gives them status but does not give them citizenship. I know you consider this terribly unfair but it is terribly unfair what is being done to the fabric of this society by them too. All rights short of citizenship seems fair to me. That’s the penalty. It is a fair and just penalty too. Note, I said ALL rights short of citizenship. I bet you that a poll of illegals would show broad acceptance for an offer like that.

              Thinking on this the other day, I realized that I do not know if my own grandparents ever became naturalized. They were (3 out of 4) gone when I was born and my surviving grandmother who lived here 50 years never spoke more than a few words of English. Knowing the Democratic machine in that part of PA, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were but then I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t either.

              60% is actually a number I can live with, to make it 50% you only have to convince 10% more . Problem as always is communication. I cannot tell you how many of the people I have met march in lockstep with me on most issues and are Democrats. That’s no different for my Pennsylvania relatives. \My usual comment to them, “like what do you have in common with the Democratic Party?” goes unanswered. They are democrats, their parents were democrats, their friends are democrats and the local not-for-profit who hands out goodies tell them they should be democrats. We need a little more thinking for oneself out there.

              Hey, don’t knock Clancy or fiction. That’s where the ideas come from. If you restrict yourself to what has happened and not what could happen you have sealed yourself in the envelope.

              • Mathius™ says:

                but there is a strong dislike between Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Dominicans.

                I see what you’re saying. I guess since I grew up in LA, the term Hispanic was in practice interchangeable with Mexican. Elsewhere.. yes, I don’t disagree with you on this.

                Now, I want you to repeat after me, very carefully, ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES! ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES! ILLEGALS DRIVE DOWN WAGES!

                (writes on chalkboard)
                Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages. Illegals drive down wages.

                Why does one person’s “right” to inflated wages trump another man’s right to live and work somewhere?

                Plus, repeat after me: lower wages means lower prices.

                come up with a solution that gives them status but does not give them citizenship

                I’m fine with this. Propose your solution – I’m all ears.

                60% is actually a number I can live with, to make it 50% you only have to convince 10% more

                Ouch. Looks like it’s somewhat worse for Mitt than I guessed.
                “Romney lags behind President Obama among Latinos 65 percent to 26 percent, according to a poll released Monday.” – Link.

                They are democrats, their parents were democrats, their friends are democrats and the local not-for-profit who hands out goodies tell them they should be democrats.

                This is not uncommon for red-shirts, either.

                Hey, don’t knock Clancy or fiction. That’s where the ideas come from.

                By this logic, we should build a space defense array to protect against the Borg.

              • On the wage issue, I’m not talking about “inflated” wages or Union wages or Davis Bacon wages. I’m talking about people at or slightly above minimum wage. In terms of business owners, I’m talking about people who employ about 20 people and probably make less than $ 100,000 per year as a drywall, painting, ironwork, window replacement contractor. Now you may like hiring lower income illegals who come without any type of insurance be it liability, workman’s comp or auto. I don’t. That is one of the reasons legals cannot compete with illegals.

                Are cheaper do-dads really so important? To quote one of my immigrant superintendents in the barrio, “Just more cheap Chinese junk”.

                As we get closer to the election the Latino numbers should improve. If not, then the “bread and circuses” has worked and the Republic is cooked. Hail Caesar!

                I find that family, friends, union thing more common among democrats than republicans but then I have no experience in traditional Republican strongholds like the Midwest. I still stand by the “what do you have in common question though?” The Democratic party was radicalized after 1968. It showed up in McGovern and now in Obama. While Carter, and Clinton appeared as moderates a careful analysis of their policies (early policies) shows that they were not as moderate as now thought of. Remember Clinton pushed universal health care in the first year he took office and put Hillary in charge! Carter was the president who pushed us to be less than we could be same apologia to the rest of the world that Obama has refined. .

                Just following a thread of thought. It was Bush’s fault! If he hadn’t screwed up so bad Obama would have gotten no where near the nomination. The dems could afford to go all out radical in 2008 because the republican stock had fallen to a Hooveresque low. I know, I know, you will tell me that Obama’s policies are not really that off the wall. Well, had he been able to hang onto the House and not scared the crap out of his own people, the plans he had were far worse than what he has delivered. Yea, and that war thing. Orwell told us we need a good war as a distraction. But that’s fiction isn’t it?

                You mean, we are NOT planning for the Borg? Holy Shit?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Now you may like hiring lower income illegals who come without any type of insurance be it liability, workman’s comp or auto. I don’t.

                There are things I do and do not like (illegal) immigrant labor for. If it’s a day or work in the garden and/or busting rocks, the lowest bidder will do.

                If it’s skilled labor or something which needs to be done right, I’d rather hire someone with insurance and who I can find if there are issues. So if I need plumbing, maybe I can find a guy who will do the work… but I’d rather pay the extra for a licensed guy I can sue. Does this make sense?

                Hail Caesar!

                Hail Caesar either way. Don’t kid yourself.

                The Democratic party was radicalized after 1968.

                That may be – my memory of the ’60’s is hazy – but are you implying that the Republican party isn’t radicalized?

                It was Bush’s fault! If he hadn’t screwed up so bad Obama would have gotten no where near the nomination.

                Agreed.

                Dem powers that be would never have dared running a black man in white America if they didn’t have such tremendous headwinds against the Republicans. Canine Weapon would have beat Ronald Reagan in ’08.

                I know, I know, you will tell me that Obama’s policies are not really that off the wall.

                Obama’s policies are not really that off the wall.

                Yea, and that war thing. Orwell told us we need a good war as a distraction. But that’s fiction isn’t it?

                Just keep telling yourself that.

              • I am shocked sir, shocked do you hear at your admission.

                Seriously, hire an illegal to break rocks, have him, along the way, break his left arch to 30,000 pieces with the sledge. Have him hit the ER and over the next few years have him draw down $ 500,000 in medical care from us. Not a particularly great idea.

                I’ve had two situations one was an illegal hired under false papers by accident. The other was an “independent contractor” who asked us to cover him with our insurance while he did plumbing. Both were injured The former was a nightmare, the latter was no big deal.

                I would say that the Republican party radicalized as a response to what was happening across the aisle. Many of the issues like illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage etc were, you have to remember, not even issues back in the ’60’s.Despite the fact that Goldwater is perceived as some kind of saint today (by democrats no less!) he was considered pretty radical at the time. Check out the Rockefeller-Scranton-Romney coalition against him. Now, today things have changed to the extent that JFK’s positions would be considered conservative by Democrats and Goldwater’s pretty moderate by Republicans. Your history lesson today is the ’65 immigration law which kicked off most of this nonsense. Thank you Bobby Kennedy (for bi-lingual ed too) wherever you are.

                I really don’t think you are right on the black man thing. I think you and I would agree that regardless of who the prior president was and whatever screw ups he had done, Colin Powell would have easily been elected on either ticket. Blackness is not the issue it was, competency and vision are. Obama turned out to have the vision but is pathetically incompetent. Romney is a great administrator, no doubt about that but, to turn things around will require great vision and the ability to sell it. There always is another way. The Chilean Social Security system for example.

                Obama’s immigration policy, Health care. Yes, we need them both but not the way they are being done. Anybody with any experience in the law of unintended consequences knows where those things will wind up. You think Bob Dole ever expected addicts and drunks would fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

                Orwell, was simply me making the point about fiction predicting fact. I daresay, before 9/11/01, even I, cynic extraordinaire, would not have thought it possibly to have us fall into the “security” trap that we have. Homeland Security my ass. The name “homeland” itself, what a psuedo-Nazi piece of crap that was. At least Hitler’s “Fatherland” or Stalin’s “Mother Russia” made some kind of sense.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Seriously, hire an illegal to break rocks, have him, along the way, break his left arch to 30,000 pieces with the sledge. Have him hit the ER and over the next few years have him draw down $ 500,000 in medical care from us. Not a particularly great idea.

                First the person isn’t “an illegal.” He’s a person, who is an illegal alien. Or he’s a person who is here illegally. I think it’s derogatory to refer to them as if they, themselves, are illegal, which it’s just their immigration status which is illegal.

                As for the concerns… he’d be covered by my home owners policy. If he fell off the roof, however, well… I have a lot of woodland in my back yard…

                I would say that the Republican party radicalized as a response to what was happening across the aisle.

                So it’s our fault.. got it.

                Now, today things have changed to the extent that JFK’s positions would be considered conservative by Democrats and Goldwater’s pretty moderate by Republicans

                And Reagan would be considered a RINO.

                I really don’t think you are right on the black man thing.

                I know I am.

                I think you and I would agree that regardless of who the prior president was and whatever screw ups he had done, Colin Powell would have easily been elected on either ticket.

                I don’t know about that. Honestly, I don’t know enough about him, his past, his associations, his family, his blah blah blah blah blah blah. He might have more cross-isle appeal, but I still think he’d face strong headwinds from the whole being-black thing.

                Blackness is not the issue it was, competency and vision are.

                Obama was thoroughly hated well before his first day in office. He was the subject of countless conspiracy theories including ones alleging that he’s a radical Christian, a radical Muslim, a Manchurian candidate, not really American, a Soros puppet, the he was only admitted to Harvard because of affirmative action, and more.

                I still remember the survey that said that 30-ish percent of people in Tennessee would ‘never vote’ for a black man. And the thing that surprised me about this wasn’t that it was 30%, but that 30% didn’t even feel like they had to lie in response to that question. Blackness may not be the only issue, but it sure as shinola is a issue.

                You think Bob Dole ever expected addicts and drunks would fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

                I’m not sure Bob Dole knew that he was Bob Dole… did that guy ever speak in the first person?

                I daresay, before 9/11/01, even I, cynic extraordinaire, would not have thought it possibly to have us fall into the “security” trap that we have. Homeland Security my ass. The name “homeland” itself, what a psuedo-Nazi piece of crap that was. At least Hitler’s “Fatherland” or Stalin’s “Mother Russia” made some kind of sense.

                Amen.

                And we have W and the brown-shirts red-shirts to thank for this.

                Whatever their other failings, blue-shirts tend not to do this kind of thing. Other things, sure, but not that. If Gore had been President on 9/11, things would be verrry different, and I think much better.

                what a psuedo-Nazi piece of crap that was.

                Sadly, one correction…

                what a psuedo-Nazi piece of crap that was is.
                :/

              • I think that we can both agree that we, you and I are not responsible for assholes. So, if some liberal Hollywood has been wishes that all republicans are killed by a hurricane, I don’t blame liberals. If some dipshit puts up a sign on his lawn saying vote right, vote white, Conservatives should not be blamed either.

                Back in the bad old Huey Long days, when racism was a wee bit more pronounced than it is today, you would find that most racists, especially the poorer ones tended to be oriented more towards socialism and government providing things for them. The extent of their conservationism and desire for a small government extended just far enough to exclude all blacks from government programs.

                Huey Long is a great case study. perhaps the most dangerous man in America at the time. A home grown Hitler. Like uncle Dolph, he was a populist who was gonna put those two chickens in every pot. Nobody ever quite figured out how it was going to be paid for but, as with Hitler, details…details…details.

                My apologies for referring to Illegals as illegals. I have been using the word as shorthand for an awfully long time. Thank God you are not Chris Matthews, my word would have been magically transformed into a CODE WORD FOR RACISM!

                Don’t be dismissive of Bob Dole until after you have read his book. Then if you think you have to, go to it. I’d like to hear others comment on Colin Powell. There were, I believe polls done at the time and I know that the Republican nomination would have been his for the asking despite the fact he is pro choice. Back at the time Eisenhower ran, he had no particular party affiliation and was courted by both parties. I think the Republicans got there first and there were a few nasty comments about his intelligence by Harry Truman which did not help. His policies did not differ markedly from Democratic ones but he was perceived and I think rightly so as competent.

                Funny thing bout that. In my earlier years I was pretty dismissive of Ike.Sort of felt he was a do nothing president, took a lot of naps seemed to play a lot of golf. Was always at camp David (he named it). That’s probably one of the reasons JFK won, a breath, so to speak, of fresh air, youth and vigor. As I’ve aged and especially after I moved into administration I finally recognized what Roosevelt saw in him. A man smart enough to pick the best men and then, after cluing them in on what the boss wanted, leaving them alone to do their jobs. Ultimately, on my own, I found it was the best way to run things. When I used to get calls from central office on the newest “priority” or change in plans, I and my super-dooper staff would address them. When told I should work evenings and weekends on them just to be able to allow someone else to say they were being worked on I refused. It was absurd. One of the real joys of Civil Service was to say, ” If I can’t get it done between 9AM and 5PM, it can’t be done.” I was that sure of myself and my staff. Hubris maybe but I was never wrong .

                I have to think really hard about this hate and Obama thing. Being an elderly curmudgeon, I must say that I am far less tolerant of stupidity now than I was when I was thirty. I don’t think I ever hated Obama (never really gave him that much thought) at the time he ran but I can pretty honestly say I despised those who ran him, failed to vet him and became intoxicated with his charming personality. As I said to that guy with the old Volvo the other day still bearing the ’08 bumper sticker, “How’s that Obama thing going for you?” Now, talk about hate, well, I’m pretty sure that gentleman had some hate in his eyes when he glared back at me and slammed the door. I on the other hand was smiling and beaming at him.

      • I have no doubt you believe that bullshit too 🙄

      • I counted 23

  42. The controversy was over two issues: the seating of Ron Paul delegates from Maine and a rules changes that would: 1) require the make-up of any state’s delegation to reflect in the future the vote totals in that state’s primary election and 2) enable the RNC to introduce changes that would have been previously submitted to convention delegates.

    The protest erupted over the announcement that the Credentials Committee had ejected about half of Maine’s Ron Paul delegates owing to alleged irregularities at the state’s nominating convention. RNC Chair Reince Priebus called for a voice vote to accept the Committee’s recommendation. The volume of “nos” seemed about equal to the “yeses,” but the Chair ruled the motion passed. This triggered the eruption.

    Paul delegates yelled “point of order,” while Romney delegates, as instructed, chanted “USA.” The next committee chair to speak, a woman from Puerto Rico, was drowned out and stepped away from the podium. It took several minutes for Priebus to gavel the convention to order.

    What’s interesting in the debate about the rules changes is that other grass-roots conservative organizations, including Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, joined the Paulists and libertarian Republicans to issue protests.

    In another sign of the stage-managing of the convention by the Romney folks, only the prospective nominee’s totals were announced by the two clerks. If a state voted 21-6 for Paul, only the 6 votes were announced, and no running delegate total was displayed.

    You don’t have to like Ron Paul, or to long for the days when the nominee was selected in a smoke-filled room after multiple roll-call votes, to feel that Priebus’s team has acted with a heavy hand. A little drama in the roll call vote that nominated Romney wouldn’t have hurt the ticket.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/opening_day_fracas_in_tampa.html#ixzz24wJbNMkK

  43. Watching FOX this AM struck by how idiotic weather coverage has become. They have reporters out in the wind and rain all along the coast. Poor sound and picture, but it’s “LIVE” coverage. Strikes me as being like Fear Factor, “we want you to go stand in a hurricane”. “No way, I could be hurt or killed and it would be miserable, no matter what”.
    “We’ll put you on national TV and pay you minimum wage”. “NATIONAL TV!! I’ll do it!”.

  44. Mathius™ says:

    http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-08-28/story/customer-kills-gunman-during-jacksonville-robbery-attempt

    Some thoughts..

    The other robber, wearing a blue bandana and gloves, ran out the front and fled eastbound on Dunn

    Let us pause a minute while Mathius sings the Smokey and the Bandit theme song..

    after entering the Dollar General at 1921 Dunn Ave., he was thrust into an armed robbery

    If you’re robbing the dollar store, you’re doing something wrong. Seriously, how much money are you going to get?

    “He’s always been a marksman,” his wife said. “He shoots in competitions,

    So let’s not conflate him with the “average” guy. This guy knew what he was doing, how to aim, how to carry, and knew guns aren’t toys. The same cannot be said for everyone *cough* *Plaxico* *cough*

    “The citizen did not get shot, none of the employees were hurt, this worked out good tonight,” [Lt. Rob] Schoonover [of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.] said.

    No. This did not work out “good.” This worked out WELL – “well,” not “good.” Frigging Yokels.

    Also, it didn’t work out “good” because the man, who admittedly was a criminal, is now dead. Last I checked, theft should be punished with jail time, not death. Because this guy took matters into his own hands, someone died who didn’t need to die.

    Ask yourself which is more “good”: a petty thief is dead or a petty thief gets away with a small amount of money.

    It’s amazing to me how callous everyone becomes about sanctity of life as soon as the person doing the dying is a criminal.

    ::sigh::

    Guess I’m just in a mood today.

    • Your callous view of abortion is amazing especially since you’re not the one dying.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I never think abortion is a “good” thing. At best, it’s a regrettable thing when it happens. I wish there were no abortions. At all. I may not think a fetus is a person (complete with all attendant rights), but neither do I think it’s something without any worth.

        But I just don’t think we have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. That’s not the same thing as thinking it’s “good” that someone unnecessarily dies.

        • “But I just don’t think we have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.”

          Why-why is it such a big deal to tell a woman -she cannot kill an unborn child just because it’s in her body? People are forced to do many things a lot less important than a child.

          • Mathius™ says:

            People are forced to do many things a lot less important than a child.

            Because people are forced to do something you don’t agree with, you should have the right to force them to do things you do agree with?

            • I don’t believe you answered my question-so why don’t you try to do so-you just make your statement-and I am supposed to accept it as the truth. We stop people from doing things which harm another If they have an infectuous disease we put their whole body in quaranteen-if a person with aids has unprotected sex-it is a crime. Yet a woman can kill her unborn child-WHY?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Because the law hasn’t established that a fetus is a “person” with all the attendant rights. For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with this stance.

                Since the premise is not settled, it is impossible for the law to build on that. That is, if they’re not sure if it’s a “person” then how can they go a step further and criminalize actions which result in it’s termination?

                As for infectious diseases, re quarantine and criminalizing the deliberate spread of aids, this is a matter of settled debate. Spreading AIDS is a threat to the life of someone that the law, and society in its entirety, has no debate over the “personhood” of. That is, the person who is the victim, is undoubtedly a “person” and therefore entitled to the protections of the law.

                Further, if the fetus is a person, why does this person have the right to parasitize an unwilling host for 9 months, stealing nutrients, causing health risks, weight gain, nausea, hormonal shifts, pain, cramping, dietary restrictions and more? Why does one “person” have the “right” to do that to another unwilling person?

                I think, though it hasn’t been answered yet, my question to PeterB is instructive: if a hobo wanders onto your property and takes up residence, living off your land, do you have a right to evict him, even if doing so will result in his death?

              • That woman’s right ended when she laid down. How you can not hold her responsible for her actions is beyond me.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Just for the sake of argument, what about women who did not “lay down”? Just for the sake of argument, what about rape victims (whose magical vaginas did not “shut that whole thing down) or minors who can’t really make informed choices?

              • Mathius,

                Just for the sake of argument, what about rape victims (whose magical vaginas did not “shut that whole thing down) or minors who can’t really make informed choices?

                Just for the sake of argument, do not bother.

                You have a massive difficult dealing with the issue on the simple terms – let alone even begin to understand the complexities of the issue.

                Until you are consistent in the simple issues, the complex ones are far beyond understanding.

              • Matt..my boys are 13 and 14..they know very well what could happen, so that one doesn’t fly. Your rape victims, while I sympathize with them, are only a small part of the debate, and there can be exceptions. You want to justify for a minor percentage of a problem…cmon Matt..I thought you were living in reality. 🙄

              • Not even going there-the unborn child has a right to life because they are human and alive-yes the woman has a responsibility in most cases-but whether or not the woman was responsible is irrelevant to the child’s right to live.

              • Per your argument- if society decides that a baby born alive- isn’t a person-It is okay.to kill the ??????? what new word will society come up with to justify the murder of a living human being who is outside the womb. Oh I know- it would be “burdening” the choice of the mother.

              • Mathius™ says:

                if society decides that a baby born alive- isn’t a person-It is okay.to kill the ???????

                If society hasn’t made up it’s mind on something, then society should butt out of people’s private lives on that point.

      • Callous: Showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others

        I don’t think anyone’s views on abortion (at least here on SUFA) can be classified as callous.

        • Why not? Is it not insensitive to the baby that you support abortion. There’s no getting around the fact that it ends up dead…same as if a criminal ends up dead. Callous is callous. Dead is dead. Whatsamatter? Don’t like being labeled? You (Matt) have no problem calling someone callous. What goes around comes around.

          • I think if you go back and read all of our posts on abortion you will find there is no ‘cruel disregard’ demonstrated nor intended. Just because we may support a woman’s right to choose does not equate with a callous attitude.

          • Mathius™ says:

            that you support abortion

            I don’t support abortion.

            I just don’t support your efforts to control other women’s lives. It’s not my place (and not yours either) to tell women what they can and cannot do. So I support a woman’s right to choose even if I do not always support their decision in that choice.

            I think you’re confused. I think that you think that I want women to get abortions. I don’t. I think that you think that I don’t care about the potential babies who never get to be born. I do care.

            Try to focus here, I know it’s hard for you when you’re so busy having knee-jerk reactions: I don’t think we have a right to tell women what to do with their own uteruses. That’s all.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              When a baby (or fetus if you prefer) is occupying a woman’s uterus, it is NO LONGER MERELY “HER” UTERUS, it has a tenant which is 100% human. According to Natural Law, that 100% human tenant of the woman’s uterus has the exact same right to live as the woman in question does.

              That is where SOMEONE is encountering confusion.

              • Mathius™ says:

                If hobo wanders onto your property and takes up residence, living off your land, do you have the right to evict him, even if that means his death?

                He is, after all 100% human.

              • This argument will be equivalent the day a baby crawls on my property and I have the right to kill the child for refusing to leave.

              • Mathius™ says:

                This argument will be equivalent the day a baby crawls on my property and I have the right to kill the child for refusing to leave.

                As you wish.

                Do you have the right to kill the baby if it won’t leave?

                It is trespassing and stealing your resources, as well as causing all kinds of other collateral damage.

              • No. She doesn’t have the right to kill the baby for trespassing…AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE WITH YOUR STUPID COMPARISONS!

              • Mathius™ says:

                She doesn’t have the right to kill the baby for trespassing

                Sure she does.

                Does she have the right to kill the trespassing hobo?

                YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE

                I assure you I have every right.

                Just as you have every right to call my comparisons stupid.

              • You see Anita-the truth in this argument is that people use what they claim is logic or reasoning and insist they are simply removing emotion from their thinking. But what they are actually removing is humanity.

              • Mathius™ says:

                “Humanity” is not logic, nor is logic humanity.

                You wish to have a debate and reserve for yourself the sole use of “appeal to emotion.” Odd.

              • I get it VH. I don’t usually get into this debate but today I was called callous for not standing up for sanctity of life by someone who has no regard for the sanctity of innocent life…and it struck a nerve..why today and not over the last few years, I don’t know.

                Matt, you wish to debate by comparing monkeys to humans and babies to hobos..Odd!

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                Is the hobo genetically related to me? If not, then your question is, frankly, dumb. If so, then he isn’t JUST a hobo, he’s family.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Peter,

                The hobo is your long-lost half-brother, which whom you have no (and have never had) any personal relationship.

                V.H.

                Matt, you wish to debate by comparing monkeys to humans and babies to hobos..Odd!

                I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why I’m wrong with those analogies.

                Monkeys and humans are nearly identical, but we assign special rights to one and not the other.

                A hobo and a baby are both human beings who are mooching off an unwilling host, yet one can be evicted and the other not.

                Seems to me that I’m not the one making odd arguments.

            • Knee jerk? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I have watched you for several years defend (a woman’s right) abortion. You don’t get to separate the two, oh high and mighty Mathius

              • Mathius™ says:

                You don’t get to separate the two, oh high and mighty Mathius

                Huh? What “two”?

              • A woman’s right and dead baby. Her right ends up in dead baby. You don’t get to separate that.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I would much prefer not to have the dead baby fetus. However, a woman’s right to her own body trumps the fetus’s “right” to occupancy.

              • …said no aborted baby..ever!

              • No, Mathius,
                A dead baby – a fetus is a baby. You are trying to undefine the terms so to promote your vile philosophy.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Flag,

                You are trying to undefine the terms so to promote your vile philosophy.

                I am just going by the OED. I guess, however, we’ve established that the dictionary is in the tank for the liberals though.. so maybe not only are conservatives entitled to their own opinions and their own facts, but also their own definitions.

              • If you are going to argue with a dictionary, then you better get your arguments straight.

                A fetus is a developing mammal …..
                a stage of development of a mammal, or in the context a stage of development of a human being. IT DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE HUMAN OR NOT

                Baby – An unborn child; a fetus
                a stage of development of a mammal, or in the context a stage of development of a human being. IT DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE HUMAN OR NOT

                Baby and fetus are synonymous, so your attempt to use a term to justify your position is flawed.

              • Mathius™ says:

                so your attempt to use a term to justify your position is flawed.

                I’m not using the terms to justify my position.

                I’m using the terms to avoid the loaded / biased terminology preferred by my opponents so that we can have an honest debate. You know better than anyone the power of defining the terms of a debate.

        • I think-it really doesn’t matter whether one is callous or not-the end result is a dead baby.

          • And I think, it really doesn’t matter whether one is callous or not-the end result is a dead petty thief. Or, as a real possibility in the case of the death penalty, a dead innocent man.

          • Mathius™ says:

            the end result is a dead baby.

            the end result is a dead baby fetus.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              There is, genetically, no difference whatsoever between a fetus and a baby, you are just trying to use semantics to cloud the issue.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Here’s the problem, Pete, terms matter.

                If we define abortion the way, say, Anita does, then it’s “the murder of unborn babies.” If we take my definition, it’s the “removal of nonviable fetus or embryo from a woman’s uterus.” If my terminology is overly technical, you may have a point in that it obscures the ‘human’ element, however, the alternative biases the debate. How can we have a debate on the morality of something when it’s already been defined as murder and the object of that murder has been defined as a baby, ergo a person?

                Does this make sense? I can’t cede the debate on semantics because, as they say, whoever controls the language controls the debate.

                Think about it another way, if we are arguing taxation, we could define it as the “collection of money from the citizenry in order to fund government operations” or we could define it as “government theft.” But how do we have an unbiased debate on the morality of it when we use the later definition as our starting point?

              • Terms matter-yes terms matter-human is human and life is life-they have an accepted definition-one which people have decided to ignore in order to justify destroying a LIFE.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                Biologically, the embryo/fetus/unborn baby has completely unique DNA. True, half of the DNA is contributed by the father, and half by the mother, but the way that DNA combines means that the (whatever you choose to call it) is, in fact, a COMPLETELY UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL.

                Once you logically come to that conclusion (and there is no other conclusion which can be arrived at logically), then what you choose to call it makes no difference to the argument.

                Since the resident inside the uterus of the woman is biologically a unique individual human being, logic forces one to conclude that it has the same natural right to life as the woman carrying it.

                Note that this argument simply relies on non-contradictory logic derived from Natural Law, which is why I personally believe that it is the only argument that has any particular validity.

                Now, from a PRACTICAL VIEWPOINT, I MIGHT (and I emphasize MIGHT a lot here) be convinced that in certain very specific cases, abortion might be a legitimate procedure, but for mere after-the-fact birth control, no.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Now, from a PRACTICAL VIEWPOINT, I MIGHT (and I emphasize MIGHT a lot here) be convinced that in certain very specific cases, abortion might be a legitimate procedure, but for mere after-the-fact birth control, no.

                GREAT!

                Here’s a slight ray of hope in the vast darkness that is this debate.

                Ok, Mr. B, tell me. Let’s go out on a limb and assume that one of your possible exceptions is “legitimate” rape. (If not, let me know, but it’s easier to assume your answer than ask and wait for a reply). Ok, so a woman is raped through no fault of her own, become pregnant because her body failed to “shut that whole thing down” and does not want to carry her rapist’s baby.

                So she walks into a Planned Parenthood and asks for an abortion.

                ….
                ….
                ….
                ….

                And then what? Does the clerk require that she prove the assault was a rape? Maybe they have to review court proceedings, or worse wait for a verdict (which can take longer than the gestational period!). The point is this: when one of your exemptions comes up, how is it handled? Should she get a doctor’s note, or a permit from the police when she files against her attacker? A huge number of rapes go unreported (often because the victim knew the attacker) – if she doesn’t want to report the rape (or is ashamed or traumatized), would she be unable to have an abortion?

                In other words, while you “MIGHT” be convinced that some abortions are ok, do you set up a legal framework to make sure that those are the only ones that take place or what?

                Also, just another item for thought, if abortions are illegal, women (particularly teens) will still have them, but they’ll just have them in back alleys. Here there is a risk to the life of the woman, as well as a possibility of sterility. How does this fit into the equation with regards to restricting access to abortive services?

                but for mere after-the-fact birth control, no

                I am emphatically against the use of abortion as birth control. I am ok with it (though not necessarily in favor or, but just ‘ok’) as a stopgap for ‘when birth control fails’ or for teens who don’t understand birth control, etc.

                That said, it’s not my place to get involved in the uteruses of others. Even if I disagree with their decisions, it’s not up to me so I must butt out.

              • Matt-you really need to stop talking about exceptions-per you-there are no exceptions-because there isn’t anytime during the pregnancy that the government has the right to butt into a woman’s business. So 8 weeks or 9 months -it’s the woman’s choice. And that my friend is the loss of humanity-based on flawed logic.

              • Mathius™ says:

                there isn’t anytime during the pregnancy that the government has the right to butt into a woman’s business.

                Did I say this?

                Odd..

                I don’t remember saying that…

                VH. I think that at some point a fetus/baby gains it’s “human rights,” but I don’t think that point is defined by conception or birth or, even, viability. I think it is defined by some stage of mental development. I am not qualified to speculate on what that might be, but a human is different (superior to) other animals for one reason and one reason only: we’re smarter. That’s it. In every single other way imaginable, we’re equal or inferior to the rest of the animal kingdom. So if we possess any special rights, the key is in our brains.

                Personally, and this is only my opinion, since a characteristically “human” brain begins to form in week 5, therefore that’s about the point where I would probably say that this is a person with “human rights” and shouldn’t be aborted. That’s my opinion, however. The truth is that at just 5 weeks, this isn’t a high functioning brain relative to the animal kingdom, but I’d (personally!) say to err on the side of caution at least until we understand more about how brains work and how they develop. For me, personally, 5 weeks is the answer.

              • Actually you have said this-once directly. I remember, I was shocked but too busy and surprised to comment. It wasn’t that long ago-maybe I can find it-but I really doubt I have enough time to look for it at the moment. You said basically the same thing in your argument above about how Peter? would enforce his exception.

                The other is taken simply from your argument-if the government does not have the right to interfere with a woman and her body-the government doesn’t have a right to interfere with her body at a few weeks or at 9 months. Or your argument that you must butt out and mind your own business and the government doesn’t have the right to mess with a woman’s vagina is mute. The only argument is when does life begin-not someones made up definition of life but actual life. You say it’s when they have a functioning brain-yet from conception, barring complications-they have a brain-it just isn’t fully developed yet.

              • 5 WEEKS, Yet you continue to use the false argument about butting into a woman’s private life as your excuse to support abortion after 5 weeks.

              • Change that from a functioning brain -to “a slightly recognizable brain formation”

              • Mathius™ says:

                if the government does not have the right to interfere with a woman and her body-the government doesn’t have a right to interfere with her body at a few weeks or at 9 months.

                Government shouldn’t interfere unless / until this debate is settled. It is far from settled and I imagine that my personal view is in the VAST minority.

                The problem is that I have an OPINION. I THINK I’m right. But I can’t be sure. Society does not agree with me and who am I to push my OPINIONS on others? I think X, they think Y, why should I get to use government to force X and override their control of their own bodies? Sees me to that that is overreaching.

                If, however, society can come to a consensus, well… that may be a horse of a different color, as they say.

                You said basically the same thing in your argument above about how Peter? would enforce his exception.

                The question for mine is a simple one – how old is the fetus. Is it over x weeks old (5, maybe 6?)? Yes, no abortion. No, abortion permissible, but I’d really personally prefer you didn’t. You’ll note that this puts me pretty far on the ideological spectrum from the main Pro-Choice camp.

                For Peter, it’s much more complicated. If you allow abortion in cases of rape, for instance, how do you prove it was rape? How do you stop people claiming rape just to get abortions? What if someone lies? What if someone doesn’t want to admit rape, but still wants the abortion? It’s a nightmare of government bureaucracy involved in deeply personal medical decisions. That’s not a good thing.

                The only argument is when does life begin-not someones made up definition of life but actual life.

                Again, I disagree. Lots of things are alive. “Life” confers no special rights. HUMANITY confers special rights. And that derives from our special brains, just from the fact that we exist or have DNA.

                You say it’s when they have a functioning brain-yet from conception, barring complications-they have a brain-it just isn’t fully developed yet.

                A few cells does not a brain make.

                Per the Mayo Clinic:

                Week 5: The embryonic period begins

                This is when the baby’s brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.

                I’m no doctor, but I’d venture a guess that this brain and spinal cord are still way too primitive to be anything ‘special,’ but they are human in design. Something special about our brains may be present and since I can’t rule it out, this seems to me to be the earliest viable point at which to draw this distinction. In fact, this is almost certainly way too early. My daughter is 2 months old and she can’t even read or write – my dog is undoubtedly far smarter than she is at this point – yet her brain is undeniably human.

                I’m happy to readdress this topic once we understand how brains work and develop a little better.

              • Mathius™ says:

                5 WEEKS, Yet you continue to use the false argument about butting into a woman’s private life as your excuse to support abortion after 5 weeks.

                “5 WEEKS” is my opinion. I cannot justify using my opinions to meddle in deeply private and massively important decisions affecting the life (lives?) of strangers.

              • Now the government does have the right to interfere-a minute ago the woman’s right to the privacy of her body was sacrosanct. Make up your mind !

              • “5 WEEKS” is my opinion. I cannot justify using my opinions to meddle in deeply private and massively important decisions affecting the life (lives?) of strangers. ”

                Which means -you believe that abortion at any point in the pregnancy is permissible- so don’t talk to me about “viability” or “brain development”. And at least admit the inhumanity of that stand.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I believe that abortion is permissible within the bounds of the consensus of the American voting public. That doesn’t make it right, however.

                Viability is one other (possible) measure of when it’s no longer ok to abort. It happens not to be my personal stand, but that’s not the point.

                Brain development IS my stand, but since I’m not able to determine where, exactly, to draw the line I, personally, draw it at the point at which one can reasonably say “that’s the brain.” Erring on the side of caution. But that’s just me.

                And at least admit the inhumanity of that stand. Huh? Can you rephrase this?

              • No, I won’t rephrase it-if one uses the privacy argument to support abortion-it is only logical that it would have to encompass the whole pregnancy and stick with your brain formation argument as the beginning of life as you see it-using both-cancels out the other. I’ve said this over and over-why aren’t you understanding that you are using a false argument that supports killing unborn children -seconds before they are born.

                Your personal stand means swat-it’s what you support-that counts.

              • Mathius™ says:

                it’s what you support-that counts.

                I support not interfering in the private lives of others when I can’t be sure that I’m right.

                I support keeping the government out of your uterus.

    • Mathius, a petty thief is a shoplifter, not an ARMED robber (damn Yokel). You really are related to Chris Mathews 🙂

    • Mathius: It’s amazing to me how callous everyone becomes about sanctity of life as soon as the person doing the dying is a criminal.

      Buck: How true….just look at the death penalty issue.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Natural Law = everyone has a right to life (including a fetus, since it is alive, and by DNA it is 100% human).

        Natural Law = everyone has a right to protect their life and their property, up to and including the use of deadly force WHEN APPROPRIATE.

        If you are pro-life using logical premises of Natural Law, you would have to be against both abortion and the death penalty if you wanted to truly avoid contradictions.

  45. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • Probably. The way it then plays out is we fall apart during Romney’s term. The blame of course will be Romney’s and we have a gaggle of really off the wall democrats running for president in ’16. The wackiest of them will be elected because things will be so damn bad at that point (that’s how Obama won, on the perception of Bush and his party). That is when the fun really begins.

      I cannot see the US being lucky the second time around. No FDR. This time, scapegoats will be selected and they will be hunted down. You think that there is pitting of one group against another now??? Just wait. My prediction is that with the African American population becoming smaller and smaller and, though they don’t realize it yet more and more marginalized, they will be singled out for some special opprobrium.

      It will really not matter what the courts say because we will have gotten back to Jacksonian views of the court, “Let them enforce it!” All the pious preaching of the past seventy years will go out the window.

      The Colonel becomes the new President of an independent Texas! Hopefully he will remember his old friends and let us in and we will become good Texicans. .

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        My actual theory is that the Republicans actually ran a bunch of morons (Gingrich, Santorum, Romney) on purpose, specifically so that Obama would win a second term, and things would collapse in Obama’s second term, thus guaranteeing that the Democrats would be crushed for DECADES. However, even though Romney is almost as bad as Santorum or Gingrich, the public now realizes how close we are to the coming collapse, and they might just ELECT HIM, in which case, your scenario of a collapse in Romey’s second term might well be correct, since there is no way that any truly significant change is going to happen, especially not on the scale that would be required to even begin to reverse the process.

        • Peter, Good day Sir, I have believed firmly that this will happen pre-election. A huge False Flag is going to happen to move this along, and yes, it will involve both the economy and race relations. All this will lead to exactly what I have been saying, the elections will be cancelled. 🙂

  46. Abortion issue is problematic – not because it is hard to define human life and human rights, but because the conclusion of such creates massive contradictions to both sides of the argument.

    If abortion is murder, then using violence to defend the fetus is a moral right. This means attacking the mothers, doctors, nurses, and any of those that act against the rights of the baby and all of them become justifiable targets of such natural action.

    But even the anti-abortionists – most of them anyway – do not think this is a good thing at all.

    Thus, the anti-abortionist crowd are fighting not only those that do not hold to “abortion is murder” but they are fighting their own contradictions of rights.

    Abortionists have an equal problem.

    If they justify the slaughter based on “development”, there is no reason to why such justification stops at any stage of human development – or deficiency. So, the consequence is the abortionists justify their own slaughter for any specious reason. …. . and they don’t like that.

    So they end up fighting their own contradictions too.

    The answer is simple. Pick an objective determiner.

    It is either conception, or it is birth.
    And then correct all the current legal contradictions that exist, and move on.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Mr. Flag,

      Sometimes I wish that I could about you.

      The answer is simple. Pick an objective determiner.

      It is either conception, or it is birth.

      Just because there are two “simply” answers doesn’t mean either is necessarily correct.

      Doesn’t mean they’re wrong either.

      ——————

      Though we’ve had this fruitless debate before, I’ll just throw it out there again: If humans have a right to life and monkeys do not, what is it about humans that is different than monkeys which confers this added right?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        They have the same rights as all living things. But since we are not monkeys we have no idea of knowing what they consider those rights to be.

        Your question is just as irrational today as it has been each time you pose it.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Your question is just as irrational today

          I disagree.

          They have the same rights as all living things.

          And what, exactly, enumerated, are those rights?

          But since we are not monkeys we have no idea of knowing what they consider those rights to be.

          But since you are not a fetus, you have no idea of knowing what they consider their rights to be.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            Keep on beating the dead horse, my friend. Biologically the fetus is human. Biologically the monkey is NOT human. If you want to know what Natural Rights are, BF doesn’t need to enumerate them for you, there are literally thousands of sources you could use to discover this quite easily. You are human, so I am actually quite surprised you don’t even know what rights you naturally have.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Biologically the fetus is human.

              TRUE!

              Biologically, the fetus is human a homo sapiens.

              But maybe we’re confused about something. Maybe rights don’t vest at the species level – I mean, that’s pretty arbitrary, no? Why not at the race level? Or at the phylum level?

              Maybe there are Caucasian rights and those are different than African-American rights?

              Or maybe there are no “human” rights, but just “mammalian” rights?

              Maybe it’s even more narrow, maybe there are just “Bob” rights and “Alice” rights?

              Or maybe it’s even more broad, maybe it’s “Animalia” rights?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            They have the RIGHT to pursue their own existence according to their nature.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Ok.

              So does a fetus. That’s why it attached to the uterine wall.

              And, like other animals, it sometimes loses.

              Why is it ok to remove (and therefore kill) a tape worm but not a fetus when both are wholly dependent on a host who acquired them? Both are, after all, just pursing their own existence according to their natures.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Because one is a human and the other is a tape worm.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Because one is a human and the other is a tape worm.

                Yes. This is true, but it says nothing.

                I’ll let you know a secret. Buck the Wala is actually a tape worm! All this time, he has been blogging from the intestinal tract of Lindsay Lohan.

                Does this mean that you can just kill him now? I mean, he has a mind of his own, a law degree, a wife, hopes, dreams. But since he’s a tape worm, you can just kill him with reckless abandon, morality free?

                What about being human which is lacking or different in tape worms means that one can be killed and the other not?

                Just for reference, to be clearer. A square tire sucks as a tire, whereas a round tire is great. Why? The answer is not “because one is square and the other is round.” That doesn’t tell us WHY. The answer is that the round tire enables the vehicle to pivot around a center point where all external points are equidistant such that there is no required vertical motion when the wheel rotates. By extension, when a square tire rotates, depending on where in the rotation you are, the center point will move vertically up and down. This absence of vertical movement creates a smooth ride and requires less energy. Ergo, better. Do you see the difference between those two answers? One just restates the question, the other explains why.

              • Why do I have to be the tape worm in this scenario?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Because you’re a lawyer.. that’s close enough to a parasite!

              • Fair enough…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Here is your OED definition of “fetus”.

        fetus Pronunciation: /ˈfiːtəs/
        (British (in non-technical use) also foetus)
        Translate fetus into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
        Definition of fetus
        noun (plural fetuses) an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

        Origin: late Middle English: from Latin fetus ‘pregnancy, childbirth, offspring’

        Now Matt, tell me how a word originating in “late Middle English” FROM Latin, of that or prior periods, could come to include “more than eight weeks after conception” in the definition.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Now Matt, tell me how a word originating in “late Middle English” FROM Latin, of that or prior periods, could come to include “more than eight weeks after conception” in the definition.

          Obviously, the Romans were far more advanced than they let on.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Obviously we have gotten to that point, once again, where you make some silly crack to avoid an answer.

      • Humans have human rights.

        Monkeys do not have human rights.

        If you wish to ask a monkey about monkey rights, go right ahead. I believe the conversation will be brief.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Ok, I asked the monkey. He threw feces at me.

          So, I tried a different approach. I started trying to kill him. He fought me to stay alive. Therefore, it seems obvious, that monkeys think they have the right to not be killed.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You have erred already. All you know is that the monkey tried to not be killed, or tried to stay alive.

            You have no idea whether he considers this a “right” or a simple response to danger.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Neither do I know this about a fetus, yet you seem to believe it.

              ….

              Ok, fine. I just got back from the Bronx Zoo. I had a conversation with Coco the sign language using Silver Back Mountain Gorilla. I explained all about rights and morality. It took a while, but she seems to have understood. She contends that she, absolutely, has a right to life. Life and bananas.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                More absurdity. But lets play anyway for a moment.

                You and Coco have run out of food. No bananas or anything else.

                Does Coco have a right to kill you for food?

                Do you have a right to kill Coco for food?

                If yes in either case, then WHY?

                If not, the WHY?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Did you enjoy the monkey fecal matter? Maybe that should be our new policy here… ask an absurd question (like asking a monkey about monkey rights) and get $H!T thrown at you…

            Interesting option…

            • Mathius™ says:

              There’s the ::BS Flag:: and there’s the ::Brown Flag::

              And now we all know where the brown flag gets its color.

              Adding, I dodged with my ninja-like reflexes. Phew!

              Adding further, just as I was on my way out the door the other day, my daughter shit on me, forcing me to go back and change, making me late for work – ah, the joys of fatherhood..

              • You have no idea how much that made my day!

              • Your turn is coming Buck…and it doesn’t stop..even in Grandmahood..I was dealt such a mess todaaaay! Whew..I had to jump in the shower as soon as I got home! 🙂

              • What is going on today!?

                Anita gets ‘such a mess’
                Mathius gets ‘shit’ on in the AM
                Mathius gets feces thrown at him in the PM

                These are interesting times….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Error, error………. does not compute.

      “If abortion is murder, then using violence to defend the fetus is a moral right. ”

      MORAL RIGHT?????

      JAC sits here scratching head wondering who kidnapped BF’s thinking cap.

      One could argue it is “moral to defend one who cannot defend themselves”.

      But to argue that any particular moral principle is also a RIGHT seems to contradict your prior positions on Rights and Morals.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I think someone hijacked BF today as well. I seem to remember him clearly stating in the past that the only logical conclusion that one could come to is that a unique individual human being is created at conception, so I would love to hear it if he has some logical reason why conception is no longer biologically the OBJECTIVE determiner which must be chosen according to Natural Law.

      If someone can convince me that biologically, according to the DNA, a unique individual is NOT crated at the moment of conception, I would be really surprised.

      According to science, conception is THE objective determiner of when a unique individual is created. According to pragmatism, you could choose either conception or birth. However, PRAGMATISM could involve “logic” which was not necessarily based in Natural Law, which is WHY THE CONTRADICTIONS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      • Peter,

        I seem to remember him clearly stating in the past that the only logical conclusion that one could come to is that a unique individual human being is created at conception

        This is true.

        However, there has been arguments, dating back thousands of years, regarding determining rights based on birth (or in some cultures, baptism).

        Since every human living must be eventually born, using this line — which all living people must pass — is consistent…. if it is used consistently.

        The problem is, that the legal system uses this line for somethings, and in other things, uses a different line for something else – so that in the no-mans-land between, confusion reigns.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          Ok I understand what you are getting at now. I guess the question I have for you now is, for yourself personally, at what point do you believe that rights apply, and why?

          I am not trying to get “the answer” from you, I am just wanting to see your answer so I can see the process by which you arrived at your own conclusion.

          i have also seen in MANY cases where it is claimed that individual rights do not apply until ADULTHOOD because the minor lacks the capacity to fully grasp and understand his/her rights and is therefore the responsibility of the parents to protect the rights of the child until reaching adulthood. I see some merit to that argument, but at the same time, the fundamental right to life seems like it should necessarily apply to ANY living human being regardless of whether or not they have been born (let alone reached adulthood). This is why, to me, abortion is the ultimate contradiction. The fetus can obviously not UNDERSTAND its own right to live; however, it then is the responsibility of the PARENTS to PROTECT THAT RIGHT of their child (born or unborn) to have life. Abortion; however, is the ultimate act by the parent(s) of the child to abrogate the right of the child to live. According to Natural Law, there could be no greater contradiction than this in my opinion.

  47. Oh God we are back to abortion again!

    Yesterday I watched part of Santorum’s speech. I saw him when he spoke of his daughter Bella. Now, I don’t know the extent of her disabilities but I have heard that they are pretty severe and yet, there is no question, looking at him, looking at his eyes that that is a perfect baby to him. A little human being to be loved, flaws and all.

    The camera pans to the audience. There is applause. there are tears in the eyes of men and women alike, young and old but there are those not applauding. While maybe not exactly squirming in their seats they are, well, squirming in their seats. they are uncomfortable at best, angry at most. They do not agree with Santorum, they do not agree with the majority of the audience. We all know them. They are are friends, neighbors and relatives. They do not see, in that defective little being, anything other than a mistake. The mistake will cost the parents and it will cost the siblings and it will cost the society. That’s what they see. And, there is absolutely nothing in the world that will change their minds.

    I can’t say, though I would like to that their hearts are hardened because they feel, they feel for other people, other things, for children in sub-Saharan Africa, for the poor, the destitute, the folks addicted and their pets, their cats and dogs. They do feel. But the difference between them and those sitting next to them is I think a result of extreme rationalism. That baby, that piece of meat will never enjoy anything, will always be a burden will ultimately drag down into depression everyone who comes in contact with it. Better for it to die.Better for it to not have been born.

    That, my friends is the difference between supporting and opposing abortion. In a nutshell. This issue has weighed on me all my life, as the death penalty has. it is a very hard call. I would prefer it if no one had the right to choose but, since they do, please do not allow them the cop out that it is not terminating a human life. It is. There may be a reason for it, a good thoughtful reason, but it is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. If there is an afterlife, and a God, there will be some explaining to do. Be ready to do it.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m not positive how we wound up back at abortion – I was posting about the dangers of vigilante justice..

      The ways of SUFA are mysterious..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      SKT,

      There is (here and now anyway) a “right to choose” as you call it. The important thing to remember is that this “right” is a government-given right and not a Natural Right, and, as we know, government-given-rights are very often in conflict with Natural Rights. (Big surprise there…)

      • Agreed, just wish we did not have the issue. Those nine black robed idiots have repeatedly opened up cans of worms that we did not need. Supreme court decisions, affecting every facet of our existence should be as few and as far between as constitutional amendments. God, are we screwed.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Most cans of worms which have been opened up are the direct result of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. Natural Law requires personal responsibility. An alarming large portion of what we call “Law” has no such requirement. Hence the need for so many lawyers! (hat-tip to Buck) 🙂

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Because one is a human and the other is a tape worm.

    Yes. This is true, but it says nothing.”

    It says everything. You simply wish to ignore it.

    The tape worm is a parasite. The Fetus is NOT a parasite.

    • Mathius™ says:

      parasite (ˈpærəˌsaɪt)

      — n
      1. an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it

      an animal or plant – check
      that lives in or on another (the host) – check
      from which it obtains nourishment – check
      The host does not benefit from the association – check
      and is often harmed by it – check

      … Sure sounds like a fetus … are you sure?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        ABSOLUTELY SURE.

        The term parasite refers to a SEPARATE animal, not the fetus of the same animal.

        You are being ABSURD.

        • Mathius™ says:

          a SEPARATE animal

          I don’t see that in my dictionary….

          Some googling…

          Other dictionaries make this distinction..

          I fail to see the importance of this difference? Who cares what species is doing/being parasitized?

          If you put a human embryo in a money uterus, would it then be a parasite?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            What the hell do you think “another” means?

            Why do you insist on chasing these absurd lines of argument?

            • Mathius™ says:

              What the hell do you think “another” means?

              Another = not the self.

              I am me, you are another.

              Why do you insist on chasing these absurd lines of argument?

              Sport?

              Or because I believe I am right and you are wrong and arguing with a group of people I’ve never met is more interesting that doing my work.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I love your last sentence there 🙂

                Although, whether you do it purposely or not, sometimes chasing absurd lines of argument actually causes people to THINK about these things, so I actually think it has some value. Not that I want to do this on EVERY subject, but sometimes this really is informative both for the participants and the innocent bystanders that happen to be reading all of this…

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Matius, a fetus is not doing any “parasitizing”, because merely being dependent on the host for nourishment IS NOT SUFFICIENT for making that definition. Also, with a fetus, there is a DEFINITE TIME LIMIT on the period in which the fetus is DIRECTLY dependent on the mother for nourishment. With a true parasite, this time limit does not exist.

            You cannot say, “well, it is a parasite for nine months, after which it BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE”. Well… you COULD say that, and I wouldn’t put it past you to say that, but just because you said it wouldn’t mean it made any actual sense….

            • Mathius™ says:

              You cannot say, “well, it is a parasite for nine months, after which it BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE”.

              Seems I can.

              From eHow:
              “Finally, there is a type of parasite that can live its complete life on its own without a host at all, but if a host passes by it will take advantage of the situation and attach itself to that host, feeding off the supplies there. This is called a facultative parasite.”

              From Wikipedia
              “A facultative parasite is an organism that may resort to parasitic activity, but does not absolutely rely on any host for completion of its life cycle.”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        At worst, the fetus is a SYMBIOTE, which is NOT a parasite. First of all, the woman DOES OBTAIN BENEFITS from being pregnant (of which you are apparently unaware), and with a completely normal pregnancy, there is no harm involved whatsoever. Certainly if something goes WRONG with the pregnancy, it is possible for the mother to be harmed, but this is NOT NORMAL. Perhaps you should do a little research on the benefits of healthy pregnancy for the woman?

        Secondly, at no point in the existence of a parasite is it possible for the parasite to live for an extended period of time OUTSIDE OF THE HOST (unless the parasite has the ability to go dormant). With a fetus, after a normal gestation period, the fetus most assuredly does live outside of the host, which is a huge difference.

        If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, abortion would be legal up to the age of 18 (approximately), since the “fetus” is completely dependent on its parents for food, shelter, and virtually everything else up until that age. By your definition, any dependent could be defined as a parasite. If your grandmother had really bad Alzheimer’s disease, and you cared for her in your home, since she would be completely dependent on you, you could in theory define her as a parasite.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          P.S. I love playing argumentum ad absurdum. Perhaps we should have a go at solipsism some time too, that is fun as well!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Just to add further fuel to the fire. The PRIMARY difference between a parasite and a fetus is that the parasite doesn’t contain any of the DNA of the host. Offspring contain 50% of the DNA of the host.

          • Mathius™ says:

            So a test tube baby containing none of the host’s DNA is now a parasite?

            I mean.. if that’s the “PRIMARY” difference…

        • Mathius™ says:

          First of all, the woman DOES OBTAIN BENEFITS from being pregnant (of which you are apparently unaware)

          If the pregnancy is wanted.

          and with a completely normal pregnancy, there is no harm involved whatsoever.

          Even with a “completely normal pregnancy” (as if there is such a thing), there’s discomfort, weight gain, nausea, and more.

          And, of course, there’s always the change that it’s not a normal pregnancy..

          Secondly, at no point in the existence of a parasite is it possible for the parasite to live for an extended period of time OUTSIDE OF THE HOST (unless the parasite has the ability to go dormant). With a fetus, after a normal gestation period, the fetus most assuredly does live outside of the host, which is a huge difference.

          I must have missed this in my definition.. maybe you could point it out to me? Unless, of course, you’re adding things because they serve to make your case?

          Regardless, what is the relevance? If a tape work lived in you for a while then left for a while, would that mean it was never a parasite to begin with?

          And, anyway, a mosquito is a parasite, no? It lives outside your body just fine. So is a leech. So is a tick. So are, I’m sure, 1,000 other examples.

          If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, abortion would be legal up to the age of 18 (approximately), since the “fetus” is completely dependent on its parents for food, shelter, and virtually everything else up until that age.

          Probably closer to 22. Though, as I said, I’d sure love to abort Black Flag… wonder what trimester he’s in…

          Actually, no, of course not. I draw a different premise for human “rights.” But first, I have to abolish your premise.

          By your definition, any dependent could be defined as a parasite

          One could make this case as long as one were to remember the difference between symbiot and parasite – that is, that the host (parents) want the individual there and derive benefit (in this case, happiness) from him/her.

          If your grandmother had really bad Alzheimer’s disease, and you cared for her in your home, since she would be completely dependent on you, you could in theory define her as a parasite.

          See above.

          Though I would suggest that your decision to take care of her suggests that you care about her and derive happiness from that. No one is forcing you to care for her. So she’s not a parasite, but a symbiote.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            The woman derives PHYSIOLOGICAL BENEFITS from pregnancy whether the pregnancy is WANTED or not. This is called BIOLOGY. Google it!

            • Mathius™ says:

              A tape worm causes weight loss whether it’s wanted or not. This might be considered a benefit.

              Therefore a tape worm is a symbiote.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Indeed.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Actually, I know a girl who went to India and contracted a tape worm. She refused to allow the doctors to remove it until she lost a desired (but undisclosed) amount of weight.

                She looked a lot better afterward.

                But I digress..

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Your definition of a symbiote is also faulty. It has nothing to do with the choices you make. Better Google that one too! Also, of course no one is FORCING you to take care of your grandmother who has Alzheimer’s. Obviously you choose to do that… primarily because your grandmother chose not to abort your mother (or father), and your mother chose not to abort you, so you feel like you should care for your grandmother out of thanks for the fact that her decision ultimately allowed you to exist!

            Oops, sorry, that last bit was definitely more argumentum ad absurdum.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        A Joey (baby Kangaroo) lives ON it’s mother (inside her pouch) and obtains nourishment solely from her milk. the Joey does not leave the pouch or subsist on anything other than the mother’s milk until the Joey reaches a certain age. Therefore, by your definition, baby kangaroos which have already been born are clearly parasites.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Hmm… I wouldn’t say that birth is the difference between parasite / non-parasite.

          But that is an interesting aspect… thanks!

          But regardless, but joey is a parasite and (maybe) a symbiote regardless of whether it’s “born” (whatever that means, in context) or not.

  49. Mathius,

    You have been very well sliced by Peter.

    The “test tube” argument – which Peter correctly assigns to be your choice concludes your defeat.

    You concede that point of “test tube baby” on the point of “choice”.

    And that is exactly the same point in the case of natural conception within our topic…. choice

    The parents have chosen to do a sexual act – that is the choice they are free to make.

    And, like the test tube choice, there is a consequence to making such decisions.

    The defining situation – a matter of choice – exists as the fundamental measure in both circumstances.

    You declare, however, that in one case, the consequences of free choice can be mitigated by murder, yet you will deny this in other cases of free choice. Yet, you cannot provide any objective manner which to determine the difference.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I disagree on your reasoning, but conceded the point already to Peter.

      The act of making a deliberate choice to conceive suggests in this case that the fetus is wanted and is therefore a symbiote (providing happiness in exchange for nutrients).

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I still wanna hear BF’s reply to my query about when rights should come into being. Personally I thought that my argument that abortion was completely contradictory to the parent’s responsibility to protect the rights of a dependent to be pretty good… (pats self on back). 😛

    • charlieopera says:

      Jumping into the middle of this fray (don’t have time to read it all) … did yous all consider the couple having sex for the sake of lust and just happen to get pregnant or is it a mutual decision to get pregnant?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        In theory one should know that one of the possible consequences of having sex just for the sake of lust would be pregnancy, but that goes back to the whole personal responsibility and taking responsibility for ones own actions thing again…

      • Mathius™ says:

        Driving, just for fun, can result in a car accident, that doesn’t absolve you from responsibility for that car accident (maybe this isn’t the best analogy?).

        Anyway, whatever those consequences may be, an action taken is an action take. Unlike many here, I do not necessarily believe that the intent behind the actions which got you pregnant are relevant. Either you have the right to abort or not, but the why is not a factor.

      • The reason is irrelevant to why someone chooses to freely act. That is the point of freedom – you don’t need to justify “why”.

        Thus, the matter is the responsibility of the consequences.

  50. You guys are having too much fun here today. I have a great conspiracy theory to share. Here goes, in the near future, Obama and the govt are going to attempt a full takeover, after the numerous false flag events cause mass chaos. D.C. and other large cities will come under attack by foriegn fighters, State houses will be occupied and the BLUE list will then be put into play. The BLUE list are those who have been targeted for assassination, somewhere around 75 million people.

    Now, of course if this comes true, it’s no longer a theory, and you can sit back and say “shit, I was warned” right before the missile comes through your front door. You really didn’t think that the census people marked your house for nothing a couple years ago do you? Anyway, people will be losing it real soon as the meds they have been given will be activated by radio signal turning them into mindless zombies. This is to turn your attention away from the re-education centers being built and the houses exploding all around you, if you are still on the RED list. These folks get to visit the re-education camps, where around 25 million won’t leave alive (you don’t think that all those 4 people plastic caskets FEMA bought will go to waste do you?)

    All communications will be off, no phones, no internet, nothing. All transportation will cease (you don’t think the TSA will waste 1500 lbs of C-4 they just ordered, do you?). With all that going on, cities on fire, drones firing missiles into your neighbors house and zombie like people running around biting people, now you have to worry about where your next meal will come from. It really sucks when you run out of soft toilet paper! Now that’s a conspiracy theory, 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      At least you didn’t mention the WHITE list… mentioning the WHITE list and Obama in the same conspiracy theory would clearly have brought out accusations that you had “played the race card”, especially from the likes of Chris Mattiuews.

      • I was very careful 😆 I forgot about the carpet bombing of Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. The primary targets will be those who have opposed big government and gun owners. They keep the list in Utah. Those who have opposed the 1% will visit the re-education centers. Homosexuality will no longer exist, they are targeted as well. Whatever is left of the black population (after they get done killing each other in the inner cities) will join join the rest of the RED list folks. Abortion will no longer be an issue, as those that can bear children will be sterilized (exept for the select few thousand of elitists). Mathius will be jailed with a monkey and raped 😆

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Well, this is Uhhmurica, so I figured we had to have a red, a white, and a blue list….

          As to Mathius’ unfortunate situation… will the monkey be the one doing the raping, or was that two separate things? 🙂

          I apologize that my attempt at hybridization of Chris Mathews and Mathius ended up being nearly unintelligible in my previous post as well.

          • Mathius™ says:

            If I get pregnant, I’m aborting!

            • If you get pregnant, I’m launching a whole new career as your agent. I know someone who knows someone who is a distant cousin of Oprah’s niece. 50-50 split!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I believe Lloyds of London still has an award of 1 million British Pounds for the first man to become pregnant, although this may just be old urban legend 🙂

          • Mathius, the good news is I was only joking about you and the monkey starring in Obama porn 🙂 Everything else I wrote comes from declassified govt documents, and govt whistleblowers. I just put it all together in one fun conspiracy theory 😦

    • I intend to put ram’s blood on my doorpost to ward away the angel of death. Just ask Matt about it.

  51. charlieopera says:

    Hey, remember how inclusive the GOP is of the African American community?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/republican-cnn-attack-animal-peanuts-racist_n_1838249.html

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I think I saw Alan West and Herman Cain!

    • Not that I would ever think that this might be not exactly true but I have E-mailed the GOP and asked that they publicly provide names if these were delegates. If anyone is that dumb, not to mention gross, they deserve to have their names, states and other affiliations published for all to see. If the hoople who harangued that girl working for Chick-fil-a can be fired, can these schmoes be far behind? I would suggest that everyone else does this too.

      A half-way decent media would have already uncovered their identity. I’m sure they had badges.

  52. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I think I finally figured out what this boils down to. Like about 85% of the stuff we talk about on this site (approximately).

    Do you believe that you should be personally responsible for your own actions, and (perhaps more importantly) that others should be responsible for their own actions, and further do you believe that actions should have consequences for the person who acted, or do you believe that the State should take all responsibility? That seems to be the key unasked and unanswered question a lot of the time…

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    “You see Anita-the truth in this argument is that people use what they claim is logic or reasoning and insist they are simply removing emotion from their thinking. But what they are actually removing is humanity.”

    No V, they are also removing Logic, and their claim of using it is just as false.

    Logic tells us that a HUMAN FETUS is NOT a PARASITE. So the culprit has to assign false meaning to terms in order to try and twist the definition to suit his purpose. This is not the use of logic but a rationalization.

    Very much like what lawyers do when they torture a word to get the answer they want.

    Remember that Logic is simply a means of thinking designed to eliminate contradictions, in this case contradictions with reality.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I can logically prove to anyone here that 1=2. All I have to do is divide by zero. Who cares if that is a “forbidden operation”. It is probably only “forbidden” because some pious bastard didn’t like it, but hey, if I LIKE TO DIVIDE BY ZERO, IT MUST BE OK, so if you don’t like it, you are discriminating against me!

      http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

    • I only waterboard words…

      Coincidentally, the term ‘waterboard’ has been tortured by some so as not to be torture!

  54. Mathius™ says:
  55. Just A Citizen says:

    Dictionary dot com

    par·a·site
       [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
    noun
    1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    Websters medical dictionary:

    Definition of PARASITE
    : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.

    Note: “in parasitism”………….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Definition of PARASITISM
      1: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

  57. charlieopera says:

    Mike Huckabee speaks … yous wingies are so screwed …

  58. What’s the funniest part of this story – besides being in Texas?

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/smart-meter-movement-stirs-rowdy-debate-texas

    • They are very easy to by pass once they are installed. There was a huge argument in Fort Worth over this and the argument was that the utility companies and the government did not have the right to unilaterally change out the meters and raise rates without consent. (In Texas, we have a utilities commission that can raise or lower rates statewide…a utility company cannot do it without permission. This commission was established years ago to prevent predatory pricing)….anyway, the issue was….where was the data going and could we opt out of it. The utility company does not have the expressed permission to trespass on private property without permission. A lot of meters are in backyards. The argument from the utility company was that they were more exact…..ok, I can buy this one…..BUT, I am not about to give any utility company the right to cycle my utilities….which they say they can do. If I wish to pay extra…then I will do so…..so,,,we have the right to opt out…..

      Special Note……..it is real easy to by pass the utility cycling. I let them put a new meter on my property but I also by pass the data information to cycling air conditioning and heating units. The Federal government does not and will not know my utility usage except by the kilowatt hours used.

      As to the lady with the weapon……the message is clear. Do NOT trespass without permission. Pretty simple, really.

      • We get a phone call a few days before they come to read the meter. Trespassing is not a good idea here either Colonel. If there is anything funny, it’s that Liberals are so damn gullable, how’s that hopey changey thing working out? 🙄

  59. Mathius™ says:

    SK,

    I think that we can both agree that we, you and I are not responsible for assholes. So, if some liberal Hollywood has been wishes that all republicans are killed by a hurricane, I don’t blame liberals. If some dipshit puts up a sign on his lawn saying vote right, vote white, Conservatives should not be blamed either.

    I don’t blame “conservatives,” I blame idiots.

    The problem is that there are a lot of such idiots.

    And while there are racists on the left (notably blacks who vote for Obama only because he’s black), the racists on the right (as a general rule of thumb, I know this is not universally applicable) tend to be whites who won’t vote for Obama only because he’s black.

    “Vote Right Vote White” may not be indicative of conservatives, but it tends to be isolated primarily within the conservative camp. That is, they’re a subset (albeit a crazy, non-standard, outlying one) of your group. But that’s the not point.

    The point is that, regardless of where it’s situated along the ideological spectrum, racism is alive and well in America and any black politician, whether Obama, Powell, Condi, or the second coming of Jesus (if he happens to be black) would face strong headwinds in present day America. That’s not to say the challenge is insurmountable (obviously not – Obama won in ’08), but it’s still there.. by rights, Obama should have won by 20 points – Bush was.. well I don’t need to get into it, but in that climate, the tailwinds were massive enough to help a gifted speaker from the opposition party overcome that hurdle, by a good margin, but certainly not the total blow out it should have been.

    Back in the bad old Huey Long days, when racism was a wee bit more pronounced than it is today, you would find that most racists, especially the poorer ones tended to be oriented more towards socialism and government providing things for them. The extent of their conservationism and desire for a small government extended just far enough to exclude all blacks from government programs.

    “I got mine, now you go away.”

    Huey Long is a great case study. perhaps the most dangerous man in America at the time. A home grown Hitler. Like uncle Dolph, he was a populist who was gonna put those two chickens in every pot. Nobody ever quite figured out how it was going to be paid for but, as with Hitler, details…details…details.

    Hitler had a pretty clear plan.. steal everything from the Jews, loot neighboring countries, kill anyone who denies that there are in fact two chickens in every pot.

    My apologies for referring to Illegals as illegals. I have been using the word as shorthand for an awfully long time.

    I appreciate that. I think it’s an important distinction though.

    Thank God you are not Chris Matthews, my word would have been magically transformed into a CODE WORD FOR RACISM!

    SK IS A RACIST!! SK IS A RACIST!!

    Don’t be dismissive of Bob Dole until after you have read his book.

    I don’t read many books by politicians. When I’m reading fiction, I prefer to stick with Michener, Uris, Crichton, Follett, DeMille, Forsythe, Wolfe, Conroy, and Ludlum.

    Sadly, too many of those masterful writers are dead now. I have yet to find any new writers I like half as much.

    Then if you think you have to, go to it. I’d like to hear others comment on Colin Powell. There were, I believe polls done at the time and I know that the Republican nomination would have been his for the asking despite the fact he is pro choice.

    I think it’s easy to say a nomination is his for the asking. Quite another to actually ask it.

    Back at the time Eisenhower ran, he had no particular party affiliation and was courted by both parties. I think the Republicans got there first and there were a few nasty comments about his intelligence by Harry Truman which did not help. His policies did not differ markedly from Democratic ones but he was perceived and I think rightly so as competent.

    My memories of the Eisenhower administration are somewhat hazy..

    Funny thing bout that. In my earlier years I was pretty dismissive of Ike.Sort of felt he was a do nothing president, took a lot of naps seemed to play a lot of golf. Was always at camp David (he named it).

    Do know the original name for Camp David? Shangrala.

    Ike changed it because that seemed a mite… pretentious.

    That’s probably one of the reasons JFK won, a breath, so to speak, of fresh air, youth and vigor.

    *cough* mob connections *cough*

    As I’ve aged and especially after I moved into administration I finally recognized what Roosevelt saw in him. A man smart enough to pick the best men and then, after cluing them in on what the boss wanted, leaving them alone to do their jobs.

    In my experience, the key to great leadership.

    The best boss I ever had gave me work, told me to do it, offered to help if/when needed, and left me alone to do it as I saw fit. As long as I delivered quality results on time, he never bothered me.

    The worst boss I ever had gives me unclear directions, the walks off refusing to be questioned for clarity, then makes micromanaging decisions about things he doesn’t understand while pestering me constantly about the way to do things.

    Ultimately, on my own, I found it was the best way to run things. When I used to get calls from central office on the newest “priority” or change in plans, I and my super-dooper staff would address them. When told I should work evenings and weekends on them just to be able to allow someone else to say they were being worked on I refused. It was absurd.

    My boss’s boss issued an edict. My department was to be AIC (a** in chair) at 8, sharp. It didn’t matter that there was nothing to do at 8AM or that we leave later than anyone else, he didn’t like the idea that no one was working at that time. My boss folded like a cheap suit and agreed. I refused since I stay the latest and there’s not reason for me to get up earlier. So now my department gets in at 8 and surfs the internet and shoots the breeze until it’s time to start for real.

    Now that’s quality leadership!

    One of the real joys of Civil Service was to say, ” If I can’t get it done between 9AM and 5PM, it can’t be done.” I was that sure of myself and my staff. Hubris maybe but I was never wrong .

    Boy is that the wrong attitude…

    But, hey, if it can’t be done between 9 and 5, pick it up the next day at 9.. eventually it will get done.

    • I was let go by a company who absolutely insisted that I hew the line on 9AM to 5PM even if everything (and then some) was done by 4:45PM. It was a mutually agreed parting of the ways. I cannot see wasting time. I’m one of those guys who usually works through lunch because when I start something i want it finished.

      In the type of business I did as a Civil Servant, working before 9 or after 5 netted you nothing since, if you needed information or had to contact someone, they either weren’t there yet or were gone. So, staying was just an exercise in looking busy.

      When I started my career, got married and had four kids, I deliberately stayed on a path that would allow me a home life. I sure as hell knew I was not going to get rich but being a Father and Husband trumped that for me. I know too many people on their third or fourth marriage, dead in their 50’s, with addicted kids etc. who became quite wealthy by working ungodly hours.

      I am fortunate in that I am a sort of a cut to the chase kind of guy. When presented with a problem, I can usually break it down immediately into things to do and things to ignore. I know that this is a special talent and am grateful for it. The downside of civil service in many ways is the insistence on ignoring nothing and going down long endless tunnels in a project that lead nowhere but, the T’s must be crossed and the I’s dotted. My contribution was in being devious enough to accomplish goals quickly and efficiently and in pissing off a lot of people who deserved pissing off. I could spend weeks telling you how I got to that point in the way I think but that’s for another time. Do you believe that for three years I got away with signing WASHINGTON IRVING in the box marked supervisors signature in order to save a week’s time in processing? When finally discovered, the only question I got was, “Who’s Washington Irving”. To which I replied, “Oh, he’s gone now, took another job. Then I think I went to Robert Fulton or something.

      Of course JFK had mob connections. Guys like my Dad knew that but, everyone else ignored it because they wanted to. Sort of like the press and Obama’s background. Forty some years from now, people will know a whole lot more about that background and children, yet to be born will ask why? JFK also named the presidential yacht “Honey Fitz”, after Gramps. I forget what Roosevelt called it. They all have Chutzpah, otherwise they wouldn’t be politicians.

      The Dole book is a good autobiography not a political puff piece. Having been messed up big time in WW 2, his recovery is nothing short of a miracle. It has however resulted in a sort of cynicism that makes him appear publicly quite different than he does in private. having half your back and shoulder taken off at 19 by mortar fragments can do that I guess.

      Powell was urged to ask for the nomination by everyone who knew him. There were and still are strong personal reasons why he did not go for it. He alludes to them in his book. Until he supported Obama, which considering his betrayal by Bush 2, Cheney and Rumsfeld, I can more than understand, he was golden in the Republican Party. Though I disagree with him on social issues, he still ranks highly with me as an obviously good administrator, the Eisenhower of his time if you will.

      See, the problem I have with racists who call themselves conservatives is that the terms are really mutually exclusive. You just cannot adopt conservative principles which praise the value of individual beings and elevate them above all and be a racist. Does not compute. Sure, you can call yourself a conservative but only because you have no clue what it really means. I have talked to an awful lot of these people over time and from my personal experience, their positions on almost every government program is MORE. To them, the only reason those programs don’t work is either because the Jews controlling the media or government save the programs for the “savages”.

      As the American left is allowed by everyone to disavow the word “Socialist” as in National Socialist or “Communist” as in Stalin, we conservatives should be afforded the same privilege by the media, which we are not.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I am fortunate in that I am a sort of a cut to the chase kind of guy. When presented with a problem, I can usually break it down immediately into things to do and things to ignore

        My “things to ignore” pile is usually much bigger than my “things to do” pile.

        Much bigger.

        When finally discovered, the only question I got was, “Who’s Washington Irving”. To which I replied, “Oh, he’s gone now, took another job.

        Reminds me Captain Tuttle..

        Sort of like the press and Obama’s background.

        Just when I’m starting to think of you as a reasonable and rational guy…

        ::sigh::

        Sure, you can call yourself a conservative but only because you have no clue what it really means.

        It’s been my experience that most conservatives don’t understand conservatism.

        Though, to be fair, it’s also been my experience that most liberals don’t understand liberalism. Similarly, most Christians don’t understand Christianity. Most ::fill in the blank:: don’t understand ::fill in the blank::.

        Group identification is important to human psychology – the what isn’t nearly nearly as important.

        • Hey, you’ll live longer than me. Remember the question forty years down the pike and then apologize.

          • Mathius™ says:

            40 years from now, I plan to be living on my own personal tropical island, with drinks being served to me by a beautiful and scantily clad woman.

            Politics will be the last thing on my mind.

            • The global warming phenomena will preclude your dream.

              • Mathius™ says:

                No, it just means my private tropical island will be located in what is not the arctic circle.

                Actually, that’s better for me since I live in New York – I won’t have to travel as far.

              • Mathius™ says:

                typo:

                Old: .. located in what is not the arctic circle..
                New .. located in what is now the arctic circle.

        • Actually I want to continue on that. The analogy is to JFK. There were false flags on him, his Catholicism and the Pope. There were very real things though that people knew about. The old man’s rum running days, The family connections to organized crime, Where the money came from. These were dismissed as being rumors and character assassination. Only, as the years passed, to be resurrected and examined and generally accepted. The question my kids then ask is how did we allow him to get that far.

          I am not even going to refer to the absolutely ridiculous lengths the press went to through the campaign and the presidency to hide his almost daily affairs. Now, information is coming out that he may even have given Bill Clinton a run for the money with interns, underage girls and acting as a pig in his general treatment of women. In psychology there is the Madonna/Whore phenomena where the woman you marry is elevated on a pedestal and all others are two dollar whores. JFK seems to fall into that category.

          • Mathius™ says:

            There’s a theory I’ve heard that JFK was wearing a back brace (fact) when he was shot because he threw out his back with Marilyn Monroe (theory). The theory goes that the first bullet (or the first pass of the magic bullet) knocked him forward (fact) and that the back brace pulled him back up (theory) which allowed the second bullet (or the second pass of the magic bullet) to kill him.

            I neither know, nor care, enough to investigate this theory. I just find it amusing.

            Adding: where does one buy magic bullets like those? Are they expensive? Why aren’t we using them in Iraq, or are we? Have there been any improvements made to them in recent years? Do they only work on politicians, or can I use them to hunt elk / raptors?

            • Ask Flag, he’s up to his eyebrows in conspiracy theories.

              Actually back injury long predated Marilyn. WW 2 exacerbated it. He did have the brace on at the time. The magic bullet (#1) was always a quandary until some forensic guy revisited the issue. It passed through soft tissue, then hit Connolly in the back.passing through him, hitting his wrist and then leg while on a downward trajectory. This would have been impossible had the Governor been sitting directly in front of the President. The reality was the Governor and his wife were sitting on lower folding jump seats in front of and inboard of the President and Mrs. Kennedy. The trajectory lines up if these adjustments are made. The speed of the bullet had been significantly reduced by the time it exited Connolly’s body which is why it did not break up.

              Bullet # 2 was a clear miss. Bullet # 3 entered the President’s head and blew out his brains (literally) while tearing open the skull.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Bullet # 2 was a clear miss. Bullet # 3 entered the President’s head and blew out his brains (literally) while tearing open the skull.

                You mean pass #2 and #3 of the first (and only) bullet, right?

              • STK

                There were at least 5 shots – how did the bullet hit the windshield? (Being one of the “never discussed” rounds that were fired)

                Second, I don’t know what bullets you’ve ever seen fired, but no matter what they’ve hit, they’ve deformed … and here you surmise this bullet traveled through two people and a couple of bones and comes out looking like a fresh round.

                …we could go on for days…

              • Note bullet dent hole above rear-view mirror

              • Mathius™ says:

                Where does one buy bullets like this? Are they constructed out of the same material as your skull? That would explain their resilience.

              • There is but one source of such hyper-dense singularity, and I don’t seem to be suffering any loss of such mass lately.

              • List of shots vs. JFK

                . (1) street (2) curb (3) manhole cover (4) JFK’s back (5) JFK’s throat (6) windshield (7) trim strip (8) street sign (9) Connelly (10) JFK’s head.

              • Mathius™ says:

                It’s amazing that one guy could get that many shots off that quickly with a bolt action..

              • Maybe he was trained by this guy

            • because he threw out his back with Marilyn Monroe

              Not true.
              JFK suffered severe back problems due to the injuries sustained in the collusion and loss of PT109 during WW2.

              It plagued him for the rest of his life.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Back problems are terrible. I have a bulging disc which has been plaguing me on-and-off since I was 20. I have hopes that they will be able to fix it in the next decade or so, but when it’s bad, boy it’s really bad. And, to top it all off, pain killers don’t seem to work on me at all – not sure why, but it’d be really nice to be able to dull the pain with something stronger than Aleve.

                How’s the arm, by the way?

              • Mathius,

                Arm is ok – 90-95% fully functional … as long as I don’t need to reach over and scratch my back, I can reach pretty much anything else.

                Once in awhile it locks up but a manual twist unlocks it easily enough, and at times it hurts if I sleep on it wrong.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Give it a few years.. they’ll probably just grow you a new one in a lab and reattach it with nanobots.

              • You’d better hope not.

                Another singularity would have a counter-spin to the one already in existence, and the combination would result in instant annihilation, with the result cataclysmic event equal to the big bang.

  60. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Another great editorial from the same author Peter cited.

    And a great summary of the Progressive rot we suffer:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/infantilizing_leftist_morality.html

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    Speaking of Progressive Rot, what did you more conservative types think of the Progressive Republicanism espoused by Mr. Ryan last night?

    I think it was all he and others could do to not use the phrase “Compassionate Conservatism”.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Haven’t seen/heard it yet.. want to offer your take first?

      But I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there will be a lot of things I disagree with.

      —-

      Ryan was a great pick to motivate the base.. but I think once his views get out there, he’s going to scare the bejeesus out of the independents every bit as much as Palin did, albeit for slightly different reasons. He may not be considered extreme by SUFA standards, but he is by normal American political standards.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        If your definition of extreme is “more of the same by slightly different methods” then you are probably right about that. There are specific issues (abortion for example) where his views are “extreme” compared to more than 50% of the populace, but overall, a statist is a statist is a statist.

        I actually like Paul Ryan, he has more common sense than most politicians, but that really isn’t saying much, unfortunately. In the end, we all should know by now that either path continues to lead down the slippery slope, the only difference being that one “party” now admits to careening down the slope wildly and thinks that is the “proper path” while the other “party” still pretends to be putting on the brakes. Sad, really.

        • I agree with your assessment Peter — one party (the Dems) do still pretend to be taking some measures towards sanity while the other party (the GOP) has decided it best to jump off the cliff so to speak…

          🙂

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Buck,

            If you think EITHER party is still pretending to be taking some measures toward sanity, I highly question your sanity.

          • One question, and one question only. Where the hell is the money coming from? Do you believe there is a spigot somewhere where the money flows from?

            I never understood any of this when I was young but became painfully aware of it in the ’70’s. Growing up in the ’50’s and ’60’s inflation was basically such a minor issue as not to be an issue at all. As a kid, the first time I ever noticed it was in the early ’60’s when comic books,(10 cents from their inception in the ’30’s) suddenly jumped to 12 cents. Products were actually getting cheaper as was food. All my early life, Life Savers were a nickle, Wrigley gum a nickle, Wise potato chips a dime, a bottle of Pepsi a dime an ice cream cone a dime (12 cents with sprinkles) and so on.

            When the Vietnam war ended as the Great Society did, with a whimper, there was a palpable sense of relief. Then, a few years later, the so called Carter recession began. In reality it had nothing to do with Carter and even Nixon can probably take a pass. The problem was LBJ who wanted both guns and butter and refused to pay for either. The money was borrowed and the day of judgement put off. What the hell I guess Johnson figured he’s be long gone before the bill came due. I find him to be one of the most if not the most cynical politician ever in the history of the United States. So, Carter is stuck with double digit inflation and I with a 14% mortgage.

            The first and second world wars were pay as you go affairs (liberty loans-war bonds-war stamps). Since then we have just thrown the damn things into the general fund. I will never ever forget what I consider to be George Bush II’s worst mistake. After September 11th, when the American people asked, “What can we do?” He replied, “Shop”. The opportunity there and then to undo forty years of mistakes and errors, to once again bring the people on board, to raise war taxes, to ask for common sacrifice, to sell the war to the people (a referendum if you will) and the asshole says “Shop”!

            So, after this little history lesson, in which I never once mentioned the Wiemar Republic, where exactly is the money coming from? That question not only extends to the current wars but to current social spending, just like Vietnam.

            • Mathius™ says:

              a 14% mortgage.

              Mine is 4.125, and I’m wondering if I can get that down even more.

              WOOOOO!

              The first and second world wars were pay as you go affairs (liberty loans-war bonds-war stamps)

              WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI) were popular wars. It’s easy to get people to buy bonds to support a war they like. Nam, Korea, Gulf, Gulf II, etc are/were unpopular. If they were accompanied by higher taxes, they’d be even MORE unpopular, and the political pressure would be enough to terminate them – then the respective leaders wouldn’t be able to war-monger in the way they liked.

              So, put off the payment, split the cost (human cost and monetary cost), and then you can invade anyone you like.

              After September 11th, when the American people asked, “What can we do?” He replied, “Shop”. The opportunity there and then to undo forty years of mistakes and errors, to once again bring the people on board, to raise war taxes, to ask for common sacrifice, to sell the war to the people (a referendum if you will) and the asshole says “Shop”!

              Agreed he’s an asshole, but I disagree slightly with you.

              He should have called for temperance. This should have been a special ops matter from the get-go, never a war. With us or against us was a terrible terrible terrible policy. To back the world governments into a corner the way he did…. unforgivable. Probably did more damage to American foreign standing than anything in the last century.

              This was a crime not a war. Afghanistan didn’t attack us, neither did Islam. We were attacked by a group of madmen, and they should have been dealt with the same way as white madmen. Arrest, trial, conviction, punishment. Going to “war” only legitimizes them.

              The response, the cowering, sniveling fear mongering, of they hate us for our freedoms and you can’t have liberty if you’re dead, and WMD’s are everywhere, warrentless wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, water boarding, Patriot Act.. ::sigh::

              Gore would, no doubt, have had his faults, but I can’t imagine him doing things this way had the Supreme Court appointed him instead of Bush.

              Yes, Bush should have called for sacrifice. Sacrificing vengeance to justice and fear to reason and understanding.

              And, as an added bonus, we could have saved several trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

              where exactly is the money coming from?

              Well you see.. ::points:: LOOK OVER THERE! ::throws smoke bomb, disappears::

      • Charlie Stella says:

        He did what Christie did … cherry-picked his touting and slamming and ignored a few basic facts. Christie (what a great job he’s done in jersey … 9.8% unemployment ignored).

        Ryan … discussed TARP, the Stimulus, etc. … and didn’t mention he supported them …

        The yahoos at the convention (scary looking bunch) were thrilled to the bone while the rest of the country accepted they’d have to vote for a four year loser all over again because the GOP has been taken over by the lunatics …

        • I ask you what I asked Buck above, where is the money coming from? Divide your 1 percent by 330 million and see what it comes out to. Factor in inflation. and administrative overhead.

    • JAC, I’d be interested in your take on Ryan’s speech as well…

    • I think that describes me 🙂 but I didn’t watch TV last night, so I don’t know what he said-yet.

  63. What is evictionism?

    It is the theory that a pregnant woman has the right to evict from her body the unwanted fetus, but not to murder it.

    In contrast, the pro life position claim she may not do either, and the pro choice perspective allows her to do both.

    In the first six months of gestation, this does not matter much for the fate of the infant; if evicted; i.e., taken out of the womb, he will die even if he is not put to death.

    But it is very important in the last trimester; were eviction, only, the law of the land it would mean life for these young human beings while abortion (eviction plus killing) spells death.

    And, as medical technology improves, more and more such lives will be saved. For example, perhaps in 10 years from now, doctors will be able to preserve the lives of all fetuses removed from the womb in the last four months of pregnancy, and then, maybe, by 2030, they will be able to save all those in the last five months of gestation.

    Eventually, if evictionism is adopted, all lives can be saved. Whereas, if we pro lifers (I consider evictionism to be pro life in the most profound sense) stick to the losing strategy of pro life, even when medical technology improves to that degree, perhaps in 100 years, we will still be stuck with the mass murder of infant children.

    • This seems to equate a bit with my own position on abortion vis-a-vis viability. If we were to accept viability as the marker, as medical technology continues to improve, the time at which viability is attained will be earlier and earlier, thereby reducing the number of abortions as well.

      Given there still lies a very large difference between the two — evictionism would not allow abortion until viability is reached; though if viability can be brought down to only a few weeks after pregnancy, abortion may well be rendered completely unnecessary, in the sense that if a woman chooses not to have the baby, the fetus can be removed and incubated for the remainder of its development. Interesting thoughts.

    • Mathius™ says:

      What is evictionism?

      Interesting term. Seems.. fitting.

      But it is very important in the last trimester; were eviction, only, the law of the land it would mean life for these young human beings while abortion (eviction plus killing) spells death.

      This would be a “late term abortion” or an intact dilation and extraction.

      And, as medical technology improves, more and more such lives will be saved. For example, perhaps in 10 years from now, doctors will be able to preserve the lives of all fetuses removed from the womb in the last four months of pregnancy, and then, maybe, by 2030, they will be able to save all those in the last five months of gestation.

      I mentioned this the other day. My money is on 20 years from now, complete start-to-finished outside-the-womb gestation. If you get pregnant and don’t want to be, you evict, and it’s gestated in a lab somewhere, then put up for an adoption at “birth” (whatever birth means in this context).

      At this stage, yes, there will still be abortions, no doubt, but they will be vanishingly rare and highly illegal. Politicians will need to find some new culture-war issue to fight over.

      BTW: my guess would be that in 30-40 years, outside the womb gestation will be safer and (probably) confer certain benefits (ie, better health, higher IQ) to the offspring and will probably be considered (at least in the developed world) to be the “normal” way. It will become a rarity to see a “baby bump.”

      Eventually, if evictionism is adopted, all lives can be saved. Whereas, if we pro lifers (I consider evictionism to be pro life in the most profound sense) stick to the losing strategy of pro life, even when medical technology improves to that degree, perhaps in 100 years, we will still be stuck with the mass murder of infant children.

      Interesting. Though everyone got rather heated yesterday, I think this term probably more accurately captures my personal – PERSONAL – views than does “pro-choice.” I’m forced to choose between camps and choose the one which more closely mirrors my views, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

      I don’t think it’s “OK” to abort, even an embryo, but neither do I think it’s “OK” to use the law to force women to carry to term a fetus which they do not want.

      I would only add one issue to your concept of evictionism… and I’d be very interested in how you see this extrapolating: a fetus which is “evicted” before term, say at 6 months, may live, but it will likely suffer severe life-long issues such as learning disabilities and possible health problems. While it can reasonably be expected to survive given modern medicine, how do you all see this playing out? I’m not taking a stance or arguing.. I’m just interested in your elaboration.

    • Mathius™ says:

      From a paper on the subject:

      The current legal and political dispute is grounded in the misconception that the decision to have an abortion is one decision, a decision to terminate a fetus. In fact, in choosing an abortion, a woman is actually making two distinct choices: first, she is choosing to terminate her pregnancy, that is, remove the fetus from her body; and, second, she is choosing to terminate the fetus. Currently, a woman’s decision to remove the fetus from her body (the “autonomy decision”) is necessarily a medical decision to terminate the fetus (the “reproductive decision”). The current argument in favor of legalized abortion assumes that the woman’s autonomy interest is inseparable from the reproductive decision. Over time, medicine will develop to the point where the decisions can be made separately with a live birth of a fetus creating no more risk to the woman than an ordinary abortion. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court’s current abortion jurisprudence offers no legal reason for a woman’s interests to be given primacy in the reproductive choice over the reproductive interest of man or the state. For more than thirty years, one side of the abortion debate has argued about a right to life while the other side has argued about right to autonomy. The changing medical technology will allow the law to satisfy both sides. In the future, the law will be able to allow a woman to choose early in the pregnancy not to carry to term while making it illegal to terminate the life of a fetus. A change that will have significant consequences for all parties involved: women, men and the state.”
      (emphasis mine)

      “This argument has played out repeatedly in the courts
      since Roe v. Wade4 and was repeated most recently when the Supreme Court considered a state ban on “partial birth” abortions. Amazingly, advocates on both sides have missed the true significance of “partial birth” abortion; that is, partial birth abortion is an example of the built-in obsolescence of the controversy over abortion, and foreshadows the end of the abortion debate. Both sides of the debate have all but ignored the impact of changing medical technology on the debate as it is currently framed, and, by extension, on reproductive rights.”

      This is a salient point. The decision to “abort” a fetus at this stage (Intact D&E), is the decision to terminate a life (albeit a fetus) WITHOUT CAUSE.

      That is, I’ve always premised the view that the woman should be able to decide what to do or not do with her uterus. But that right should only extend to a decision to kick out a parasite. Insofar as that parasite is perfectly capable of surviving without her, where does her “right” to kill it come from?

      The phrasing of this, I think, is very clarifying…

      Once the fetus can be severed from the womb by a process which enables it to survive, leaving the abortion decision to private choice would confer not only a right to remove an unwanted fetus from one’s body but also an entirely separate right to ensure its death.

      The Supreme Court, 1972 Term-foreword: Towards a Model Roles in the Due Process of Life
      and Law, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 27 (1973).

      And there’s the viability argument..

      Very clarifying………

      Ok, I’m done copy pasting. Just go read it for yourself. This page is the abstract, but if you hit the download button it gives you the whole thing as a pdf – it’s only 17 pages (probably closer to 10-12 when you take out footnotes and a big chart).

      In fact……. yes, I’m officially assigning this as homework to everyone. There will be a test.

  64. Rant Alert-OSHA regulations are a pain in the …… !!!!!!!!!!

    • Been there! Also have other “agencies” out making my life difficult. Can email you if you want any help or info. We use the Dept of Labor’s OSHA consultation. It’s free and while under their program, OSHA cannot come in unless there is a fatality.

      http://www.labor.ar.gov/divisions/Pages/OSHAConsultation.aspx

      • Thanks, will remember the offer if we run into any trouble-but so far it’s just unnecessary crap which cost us time and money. Need to use a lift-oh well you must have a card for that-so another half a day wasted plus having to pay for the privilege- taking classes to do something any idiot can do.

  65. Mathius™ says:

    Texas, ladies and gentlemen!

    Though, to be fair, the mayor of New Delhi was killed by wild monkeys not long ago, so Texas is in good company.

  66. Mathius™ says:

    “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R – S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

  67. The regular and reoccurring abortion debate was – as usual – pretty much the same old thing (“nothing to see here, move along”). Regardless of ones personal stance on abortion, Roe v. Wade has stood as the law for almost three decades now and that will in all probability not change. This guarantees endless, repetitive debate that won’t change minds.

    There is however a new twist to the debate that finally sparked my attention – the evictionism and progress of medical science to allow a life to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier and what that could/would mean for abortion overall. Those have strong potential for reducing abortion, and possibly – at some future date – eradicating it all together.

    That is the only way the overall stance on the current state of abortion law will change.

    The only potential that current abortion “debate” has is to influence younger minds to choose their stance on abortion.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Did you read the homework assignment I handed out?

      • Homework? I musta missed that…..

        I hate homework too. I always preferred getting my work done during the school/work day.

        But, for you – this time – I will make an exception as long as you kindly show me the “homework” you wrote of so I don’t have to wade through the whole of all the comments to find it (a losing proposition as I will give up and get an “F” on any homework).

        • It’s up above, about 12 posts. Fascinating.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Plainly,

          a losing proposition as I will give up and get an “F” on any homework

          You don’t want an F from me.

          • Mathius,

            You’re a violent sadist who loves spanking young boys??!??

            :blink:

          • Ahem, you did not acknowledge my report…..

            • Mathius™ says:

              Reports submitted in the form of youtube videos are not accepted. That’s plagiarism.

              And, in any event, it’s not really a good response. When she’s not bible thumping, she’s just talking about abortion along the previous lines. The homework was to consider the concept abortion (of a pregnancy) as severable from the idea of termination (of the fetus’s life). This was not the focus of her talk.

              • That’s your response when a “fetus” survives? She speaks about how they tried to kill her because her “parents” were both 17 and the cost she pays every day. And this is the very issue Obama has four times voted to allow to continue.

                Should abortion be used as a means of birth control?
                Is there a point where it should not be allowed? (unless the mothers life is at risk?)
                Since a “fetus” can now be taken even in the seventh month, is therean option where purchase of the fetus is allowed? And when it comes to term and becomes a “baby”, they would be the parents.(saying this since you can’t adopt a “fetus”)
                Final thought, why is the liberal mantra all about abortion as a right
                NOT TO BE QUESTIONED?
                Why not seperate the rape, mothers life, etc from this first and then look at the issue? The answer is because that’s only about ten precent, the other precentage is abortion used as a means of birth control. I saw a number, that 3,000 abortions are preformed in the US daily. By the liberal talking points, 300 are reasonable, and 2,700 are not to be talked about.

                plagiarism? Did I say I wrote or spoke it? You did not stipulate the form you required for the response. SO anyway, I expect high marks, or everything you post will turn into a picture of Homer Simson drooling. ( extortion I know, but funny)

          • You hardass…………good thing I went ahead and read it. Very interesting I must say (so interesting I am passing it along to my wife to read).

            Now you can put your little stick away before I take it from you, break it in two, and put it where you have no sunshine. 😉

    • Don’t know that I like the stigma the child would have to bear with this process. But it is better than abortion.

      Jane: What is your birthdate?

      Jill: Well, it’s like this. I don’t have a birthdate. I was evicted 5 months prenatal..my gestation date is… so I just party on Cinco de Mayo!

      Jane: WTH? Are you an alien?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Give it 30-40 years and this will be the new normal.

        Again, I still suggest that it will become (as with c-section vs the old fashioned way) better and safer for everyone. I expect, probably, that it will even confer benefits over the old fashioned way (better nutrition, better protection from disease, etc, and/or higher IQ, lower defects, etc). I would lay even-odds on my grandchildren being gestated in an artificial womb.

      • I would much prefer we had to deal – as a society – with any potential social stigma than the alternative we have now.

        It is unfortunate that many will stigmatize just because they think (wrongly) that the evicted baby is somehow strange, weird, unnatural, etc. Ignorance in action and proven again and again over history to be a response some give to those who aren’t “like them.”

        • Mathius™ says:

          I imagine it will be more like Gattaca. At first it will be strange. Then, things will shift. When being externally gestated means making smarter or healthier babies, people are going to notice. The stigma will, in all probability, reverse with the womb gestated (100% home grown!) being the ones looked down upon.

          • A reasonable possibility that could occur. Either way there will be a socially created stigma to deal with.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Yes and no.

              It’s easy to stigmatize certain people. Skin color, race, gender, are all perfectly clear.

              It’s a lot harder to stigmatize things that aren’t readily apparent. Since there (probably) won’t be any clearly visible signs of how someone was gestated, it would probably devolve into a situation where it’s rude or inappropriate to ask about it.

              • visible signs — no belly button, perhaps?

              • True, it is harder. But, for the sake of discussion, keep faith in humans to find a way. Plus imagine possible future government public service announcements showing this improved intelligence and/or health of gestated babies to urge parents to choose this path for bring a child into existence?

                There are many ways the “stigma” could be brought forth in a society.

              • Mathius™ says:

                imagine possible future government public service announcements showing this improved intelligence

                Government won’t need to. They will, but they won’t need to. Once the opportunity presents itself to have a smarter baby or a healthier baby or a taller baby or a more attractive baby… people will flock to it all on their own.

                I would have sold my home if I could have given my daughter an extra 10 IQ points and guaranteed her health.

                I doubt I’m alone in this.

  68. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    I didn’t see a response to this.

    Mathius: I would only add one issue to your concept of evictionism… and I’d be very interested in how you see this extrapolating: a fetus which is “evicted” before term, say at 6 months, may live, but it will likely suffer severe life-long issues such as learning disabilities and possible health problems. While it can reasonably be expected to survive given modern medicine, how do you all see this playing out? I’m not taking a stance or arguing.. I’m just interested in your elaboration.

  69. Just A Citizen says:

    RYAN’s SPEECH

    I did not hear the whole thing.

    Ryan’s speech last night was typical political offering. Shades of truth, lots of hyperbole, just enough to let you think he supports YOUR vision, and some great lines and occasional emotion. Sometimes dragging but Great crescendo at the end.

    What is more interesting is the media’s attempt to immediately discredit many of the zingers, like the welfare thing, or the “you didn’t build that” line, etc.. Instead of evaluating the general message, the tone and the various target audiences they are focusing on “words” and “phrases”, nitpicking to beat the band.

    Now this would be great if they held the same standard for ALL POLITICIANS. But does anyone believe that will happen?

    I guess we will see next week.

    There was a very interesting thing that happened on MSNBC followup. Matthews and O’Donnel doing their usual carrying of DNC and Obama water. Matthews called Ryan “Mr. Goodie Two Shoes” about three times in the short period I saw. Mr. Steele was trying to show the positive side and being ridiculed by the other two and then there was Howard Fineman (spelling ??).

    The old time political analysts kept trying to tell them that this was one of the best “political speeches” he had heard at a convention. That it was crying out to the Gen-X and younger folks. That it would strike a chord with them and that Ryan was signaling a passing of the torch, within the Republican party.

    He was ignored by the other two and they laughed at him to some degree. He seemed “pissed off” to me. Matthews wanted him to discuss Ryan’s comments on welfare and he refused. “I don’t want to talk about that. I want to talk about something that happened tonight that I see as more important.”

    I think Howard is on to something at we will see if it sticks. Ryan did a great job of giving credit to the older generation, assuring them that his generation takes the promises made to them seriously, but that his generation and those younger deserve a better and more secure system. They deserve choices that the Dem party will never allow them to have. He bridged the generations from retired, to Romney’s, to his, to those younger.

    Now for the usual contradictions. Lots of “individualism” wrapped in Freedom, Liberty and Justice…………..then “we will not allow these safety nets to fail”. We will NOT cut the military or abandon our allies overseas.

    Best line of the night? “Young people in their 20’s shouldn’t have to live in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at their faded Obama posters, waiting to get on with the rest of their lives.” (that may not be the exact quote, so lets not start acting like Daily Kos or Huff Po….please).

    Most disturbing? Not from Ryan but from McCain and Condolesa Rice. The same old USA will use military force to enforce Freedom around the world because we are the righteous keepers of freedom for the world.

    My take on this………. if those on the fence tuned in early and heard this, all the good things from Ryan and Romney will not make a difference. Most will flock to Obama, unless they decide Gary Johnson is a more “honorable” vote.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Here are some other takes on the speech. I would add that they are pretty predictable. But note the younger folks response vs the hard core politicos.

      Oh, and be sure to follow the CNN fact check link offered for Hilary Rosen’s claim that Ryan was telling a FALSE story he knew to be wrong. The link doesn’t support her claim. It in fact concludes that in essence what he said is what Obama said.

      Yet this morning, this claim of a LIE in the speech is everywhere.

      Another one from Rosen. The fact that Ryan opposed the Debt Commission’s proposal has nothing to do with his accusation that Obama called for the commission and then did nothing with it. This is also flying around the lefty blogosphere today.

      My challenges to the thinking has resulted in me being classified as “ignorant” and “stupid”, among other things.

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/opinion/opinion-roundup-ryan/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

    • Just A Citizen says:

      ONE MORE THING.

      I almost forgot this one. There was ONE SIGNIFICANT campaign promise made by Ryan last night. At it came out of nowhere, given the more general rhetoric.

      “We will hold FEDERAL spending to a “maximum” of 20% of GDP”

      Now where have I heard that number used before???

      So there are the sideboards.

      Save Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid.

      AND

      Hold spending to 20% of GDP or less.

    • JAC, I see Condi’s speech differently. Of course I’m scared of the boogey man. That aside her remarks on military stem from this thought first:

      (referring to 911) From that day on — from that day on, our sense of vulnerability and our concepts of security were never the same again.

      I liked the sounds of that. Sorta like don’t mess with Texas. She went on to speak about America as an idea..that’s right up your alley. I’m surprised to see you nitpick (not a good word here) her speech as I thought hers was the best of the night. Ryan…wish he would have presented his a little better. Just like the rest of the speakers, he was reading a script. I want it to come from the heart, not from a script. His best line, I thought, was something about…America–where everything is free..except us! Glad the RNC was first. I think they took care of some things that the DNC is sure to address. War on women. being rich is ok, Medicare, Obamacare and whatever else. I can say though that I watched this year with a completely different frame of mind than any other year, thanks to all the good folks at SUFA 😉

      • (referring to 911) From that day on — from that day on, our sense of vulnerability and our concepts of security were never the same again.

        Yep, keep em feeling afraid, insecure and fearing the bogeyman. That way they won’t raise much hell while we (the government) take more of their civil liberties, rights and freedoms away from them in the name of national security to “protect” them.

        Both the Republican and Democratic administrations are fine with doing it. Ain’t government wonderful?

      • And another thing…..Condi is the first person I’ve heard say the words…My Fellow Americans. Bout time! I’m tired of being placed in a group. She was speaking to everyone not just a specific group.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        I liked her speech as well, the part I saw. No teleprompter……….old school and damn smart.

        I like Condi, for the record.

        It was just the “we are the worlds police” that I did not like. As if we have learned nothing. But she nailed several other issues and basically told the world that the Republicans are not what the Dems portray them to be.

        And I loved the crowds’ reaction to her finish. Tears flowing around the house.

        P.S. on Ryan. Loved how he got a little choked up and teary talking about his mom.

        I also enjoyed the First Lady of Puerto Rico last night, along with the long list of YOUNG GUNS who were very good. Especially Nikki Haley pointing at the camera and calling Mr. Obama out for his opposition to Boeings move to South Carolina. “I will not stop, I will not rest until we get this guy out of the white house.” Pretty brassy for a southern belle. I could see my darlin Spitfire standing behind her with hand in her jacket. 🙂

      • Okay, I read a transcript of her speech…….hopefully the only time I waste on political speeches this year.

        Interesting whitewash she slapped on the fence. About the only good thing I can say about it. I’ll spare you any further thoughts on her speech.

  70. JAC…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  71. Handicapped Parking… at Kroger’s.

    Today I had to go to Kroger’s. As I approached the entrance, I noticed a driver looking for a parking space.

    I flagged the driver and pointed out a handicap parking space that was open and available.
    The driver looked puzzled, rolled down her window and said, ”I’m not handicapped!”

    Well, as you can imagine, my face was red! ”Oh, I’m sorry” I said, “I saw your Obama sticker and just assumed…”
    She showed me a finger and yelled some nasty names at me.
    Boy! —— Some people – and when you’re just trying to help them out!

  72. So the Romneys are selfish for keeping a horse? And employing a groom……with a family to support. And paying for feed that’s sold by someone with a family to support and transported in trucks by someone with a family to support and manufactured in a factory by people with families to support from stuff that’s grown by farmers with families to support. And having a barn built by construction workers with families to support with materials trucked by drivers with families to support from factories with workers with families to support. Sounds to me like that one horse has done more to put Americans to work than that horse’s ass in the White House.

  73. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE0M9R1YXH0

    The man can’t sing but the message is great.

  74. At the cash register of the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own shopping bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.

    The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.”

    The cashier responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations. You didn’t have the green thing.”

    She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

    Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycling. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every shop and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

    But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

    Back then, we washed the baby’s nappies because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

    But that young lady is right. We didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

    Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wrapped up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

    But she’s right. We didn’t have the green thing back then.

    We drank water from a tap when we were thirsty instead of demanding a plastic bottle flown in from another country. We accepted that a lot of food was seasonal and didn’t expect that to be trucked in or flown thousands of air miles. We actually cooked food that didn’t come out of a packet, tin or plastic wrap and we could even wash our own vegetables and chop our own salad.

    But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

    Back then, city people took the tram or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mothers into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

    But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

    Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person.

    Remember:

    Don’t make old people mad. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off.

  75. 6:33 my time, going to open a new page. Please bring forward posts you want to discuss.

%d bloggers like this: