DNC!dnc!DNC!

What magical timing!  How can you possibly hit the exact date with numbers this large?  Supercomputers can’t do it, not so many months out..too many variables on collections and payouts.

Maybe Obama does have god like powers?  He’s sure setting some records.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1601576978821580_651649.html

Advertisements

Comments

  1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is not a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

    Michelle Obama disbarred as well due to insurance fraud: Illinois Registration Status: Involuntarily Inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993

    • And we hear……

      crickets.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Evidence????

      One that has been confirmed yet ignored in media references to him: He was NOT a law professor nor a professor of Constitutional Law nor a professor of any kind. He was a guest lecturer on the topics of RACE within Constitutional law. Seems fitting don’t you think?

      • Statement on this very issue by the University of Chicago School of Law:

        “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.”

        • And the courses……Drumroll…..were?

          • Umm…doesn’t matter. The question is whether or not he was a professor of constitutional law. Yes, albeit not full-time nor on track for tenure.

            • Right…..but….., I’d like to know anyway and am too lazy to look for a course catalog for the period if such exists.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I forgot, we are talking about a school full of Lawyers. Only they could give someone title Professor who is NOT a professor.

              • Sigh.

                Come on JAC, stop being obtuse. His TITLE was ‘Senior Lecturer’, though he was considered a professor.

                My title is “Associate”. Does this mean I am not an ‘attorney’?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m the Director of Operations, does this mean that I’m not just a glorified numbers-monkey?

              • I’m a document services specialist (glorified typist) … but people tell me I’m great fun at parties …:)

            • You mean an honorary title…

              • His official tile: “Senior Lecturer”

                His job: professor

                What honorary title are you talking about?

              • Mathius™ says:

                What honorary title are you talking about?

                I think he’s referring to the title of POTUS. 😉

              • There are many teaching jobs…..that refer to people as professor…..I know that exists. I should have had a question mark in my post….(my bad)…I was asking if that was an honorary title like they give to visiting lectures all the time…even let them don robes and professor hats….

                I have seen many an honorary title of professor proffered. I saw it with Clinton on a couple of occasions where he received “honorary” degrees. I have seen “honorary” diplomas and other titles given in civilian circles based on “experience.” So, my question was meant to ask…honorary title. I see it as honorary but I can be swayed differently if he was actually and not contractually employed and actually has a doctorate that allows the use of doctor or professor…….so, my question, is his professorship and honorary title?

              • Yes Obama has a ‘doctorate that allows the use of doctor or professor’ — it’s called a law degree. As the University at which he taught made clear in its statement, Obama was a Professor (whose official title was ‘Senior Lecturer’).

              • Fair enough….did not realize an LLD was a doctorate…..so you guys can use PHD as well? Cool…..

              • Just call me Dr. Buck!

                We can’t use PhD, as we don’t have a PhD. But a JD is a doctorate degree.

      • Evidence is the Illinois Law Society themselves.
        He had said that he had used no other names on his application, however his pregrad record showed he did. It is also why he will not release his school records – it shows a different name.

    • Unfortunately, the Snopes people think otherwise although I tend to agree with you. They have voluntarily gone on inactive status and there is no record of any actions being taken against them. One would guess that they had the advice of counsel before doing what they did. From my own perspective “going inactive” would not seem likely without a reason. Take it from a guy who still pays every four years to renew a motorcycle license who has not been on a bike since 1973.

      The best analogy would be, when a civil servant decides to “retire” and guarantee his pension, right before proceedings are brought against him. In many cases, (two that I am familiar with), the retirement ended the investigation.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Renewing a motorcycle license is not maintaining a law license. There’s a lot involved. If you’re not going to use it, many times you’re better off dropping it, at least temporarily.

        5. It then says, “Michelle Obama ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993.” Again, I’m not sure what the quotes mean, but the bar record says that she is “Voluntarily inactive.” This is even more common for lawyers who don’t need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don’t appear in court or counsel clients other than employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money (see Rule 756) than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes (Rule 790), unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived). The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it’s pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that (as I did in early 2002); again, in Illinois, see Rule 756.

        Link.

        • I’ll almost cede you the point but, after working so hard to get the license, I really cannot see giving it up or putting it on hold. That;’s just my take. While I know very few lawyers who are working outside their field I know a number of engineers and architects who are and to my knowledge, all have kept their licensed status current. They have the same type of requirements and expenses. I wonder if the several MD’s in the House and Senate have kept their MD’s current?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Giving it up.. no, not really..

            But putting it on hold? Why not? It’s not like he needs it?

            engineers and architects who are and to my knowledge, all have kept their licensed status current.

            I can’t speak for engineers and architects, but I don’t know what (if any) requirements and/or expenses are required of them. This may be apples an oranges. You say they’re the same, so I guess they are, but this would probably be on a person-by-person basis. Also, don’t forget, the Obamas had 4 years of guaranteed employment – it’s not like they’d need their licenses on standby in case they need to switch immediately. I imagine a primary reason to stay current is to keep your options open, but the Obamas have no such need.

            And, as noted below, Mrs. Wala’s aunt voluntarily suspected her licence, so we indirectly know at least one person who has done this.

            I wonder if the several MD’s in the House and Senate have kept their MD’s current?

            No idea, but it’d be interesting.

            That;’s just my take.

            And you are eminently entitled to your “take.” What you are not entitled to, as Mr. Flag has done, is to state – as fact – something for which you have no evidence. He declared, as fact, that that Michelle was disbarred and B.O. surrendered his license to avoid prosecution – we know that, factually, Michelle was not disbarred, and there’s no evidence to support the B.O. assertion, yet he will never retract. Your “take” or opinion, is just fine as long as you couch it in those terms. Flag’s statements-without-qualifiers are not valid.

    • Flag,

      Michelle Obama disbarred as well

      False.

      She’s on voluntarily inactive status. That’s not “surrendered.” That’s “inactive.” As in, turned off, not given up. And, either way, that’s a far cry from disbarred.

      Public Record of Discipline
      and Pending Proceedings: None

      As, I’m sure, Buck could tell you, there’s a lot involved in staying active. There’s CLE, there’s bar dues, there may be liability insurance requirements. If you’re not going to be an active lawyer, there may not be a good reason to stay active. But again, this is a FAR CRY from “disbarred.”

      He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

      Or possibly because the Illuminati ordered the Bar to do it, but that’s just empty hypothesizing, with no actual evidence.

      He didn’t ‘surrender’ his license. He retired. And, again, there’s no record of any public proceeding against him.

      ——

      Read this. I’ll await your apology.

      • there’s a lot involved in staying active

        Ain’t that the truth!

      • You’ll wait a long time, Matt. BF apologizes to no one, knows and is about as credible as his fugazy name.

        • Mathius™ says:

          There have been so many times when I’ve had him dead-to-rights, but I’ve never once gotten a retraction.

          I mean, hell, he said she’s disbarred – that’s a flat statement. Yet the website for the Illinois bar shows she’s voluntarily inactive. You can’t make the case any clearer. So I’ll just sit here and wait.. I’m sure it’s coming any minute now.. yup… any minute..

          • I disagree. I have proved him wrong on 2-3 occasions. Was not easy, but when presented with facts and proof, he admitted being wrong. Therefore, you are either not trying hard enough, or you are still wrong….lol

            • Mathius™ says:

              Not trying hard enough?

              Why should I have to bludgen him to death with simple facts?

              He said Michelle Obama was disbarred. The Bar says she’s voluntarily inactive. Ergo he’s wrong.

              Simple.

              But I see no reason why I should have to chase him down and rub his nose in it just to get a simple “oops, sorry” out of him.

              He’s wrong. I know he’s wrong. You know he’s wrong. Hell, even he knows he’s wrong. If he can’t admit error, well maybe he needs to see a psychologist for that.

          • Voluntary surrender is not done so to “save from fees” – you believe millionaires care about a few buck fee?

            Voluntary surrender of license is in advance of an involuntary suspension of license.
            “You can quit or we will fire you” is the analogy.

            So, nope, no retraction from moi.

            • BF, you’re wrong on this.

              My wife’s aunt is also on ‘voluntary inactive’ status. This is SOLELY because she took a job that does not require her to be on active status and had no reason to (i) keep paying annual fees or (ii) keep taking CLE courses (and paying for said CLE courses). Personally, if I were to take a job in a non-attorney capacity, I would seriously consider doing the same. Maintaining active status takes time and money.

            • Mathius™ says:

              you believe millionaires care about a few buck fee?

              Some millionaires are the cheapest people I know.

              Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus.

              Voluntary surrender of license is in advance of an involuntary suspension of license.
              “You can quit or we will fire you” is the analogy.

              This is a possibility, yet you offer no evidence.

              By this logic, everyone who retires does so because they’re one step ahead of being fired or arrested.

              Some people just retire. Some people suspend their own licences. Law licenses aren’t easy or cheap to maintain – it’s not just the expense, but there’s also a CLE requirement which is time consuming. You ignore the write up from another lawyer who also suspended his licence and then later resumed it, also in Illinois.

              So, nope, no retraction from moi.
              Of course. Why would I expect you to offer a retraction when you say one thing and demonstrable reality says another?

              • I enjoy you are in a snout about it.

                Your Messiah-worshiping needed to be tested.. and you passed!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Messiah-worshiping?

                Since when have I EVER engages in messiah worship whether of Obama or any other messiah? (except Steve Jobs.. he shall rise again.. all hail Steve Jobs!)

                and you passed!

                Passed? Passed what, exactly?

                ———–

                And where’s that retraction?

              • I spoke with my father-in-law tonight. He is a lawyer, highly competent, and rabidly anti-Obama. He is prone to believing many conspiracy theories about Obama. I offered him up this one to get his opinion. He laughed out loud at the absurdity. People let their licenses lapse all the time for all different reasons. Then he moved on to his theory that Obama only got into Harvard because he’s black.

                If he doesn’t believe this claptrap, then it’s completely busted.

              • “Some millionaires are the cheapest people I know.”

                I have to agree here. They REALLY are.

                I have to agree with y’all on the Obamas also. If that were true, the Republicans and my fellow pro-Constitutionalists would have hammered him over the head with it a long time ago.

                HOWEVER.

                I am disturbed that all of his records have been sealed so no one can see them. And that no one has ever been able to settle the Birth Cert issue.

                I don’t say the man is lying, but what does he have to hide?

  2. 🙂

  3. Plus he was born in Nigeria … or Kenya … and he’s a socialist … which is why I’m voting for him!

    Go Obama!

    Go Bills!

  4. Jon-Paul says:
    September 4, 2012 at 8:12 pm • Edit

    And while I’m at it (basically ranting) people who discuss bias on the side of Fox News are only ostensibly forgetting the full-scale media bias not only from the networks, but in print news as well.

    @d13 – your post regarding Voter photo Id’s and the millions being spent to dispel them and the notion of the DNC needing two or more sources of photo Id’s to even get in, to me, is an oxymoron; yet, I expect nothing more from the Democrat Party.

    However the great state of Texas has gone to extraordinary lengths and measures to assure that no person lacking photo Id would be able to vote; in other words, provide transportation to and from, any fees, coverage in effect if the individual’s register late, up to 30 days after the election to cover their own particular bill with the state, but who cares right, because the state has willfully obligated itself to waive all fees.

    Now then…where does racial profiling fit into this mess?

    jps

    • Jon-Paul,

      As a conservative/libertarian, I think FOX’s bias during the RNC was over the top. There was no way to determine what was being presented as “news” due to their slobbering interjection of their opinions into everything.

      Voter ID, I think more states require it than don’t, so it would seem it should be presented as “normal” and not requiring it should be questioned…..

      • Thank God for C-Span. Over the past decade it has saved me from kicking in a lot of TV screens. Worst part is that the talking heads just concentrate on the “names” making speeches. Sometimes, the second stringers are much more interesting and instructive.

        • I didn’t watch the DNC much. My blood pressure can’t take it. But I don’t believe Fox overdid anything. Crap, somebody had to be on the Republican’s side. The others sure weren’t. And what’s good for the Goose……..

          Also, the other networks absolutely SLOBBERED over the DNC.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    I saw clips of the 2004 DNC convention last night for the first time. Mr. Obama’s key note address.

    Now for those who say that he was not being supported from the outside in hopes of driving his career to the white house…….I ask you this.

    Where did all the OBAMA signs come from that were being waived around during his speech. You would have thought he was the candidate.

    And on the signs was reference to Obama.com

    • I believe he was running for Senate…and the internet did exist in 2004…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I know he was running for Senate and my reference wasn’t that dot com meant anything. Only that there were thousands of commercial grade signs. Much more than you would ever expect for a Senate candidate at a PRESIDENTIAL election.

        I do believe that at that point in his career he had already drawn “outside” support for an upcoming “star”. That fact he was CHOSEN to speak is evidence enough of that.

        Just as “certain” young Republicans were “chosen” to speak.

        I do wonder if Soros had already put money behind him then or if his efforts were primarily in getting hold of the DNC.

  6. Republicans took a lot of heat for their official platform on abortion, which opposed the procedure without including exceptions for cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

    But Democrats are now drawing criticism for their own no-exceptions policy.

    The official Democratic platform, which was adopted Tuesday, supports a woman’s “right” to an abortion in virtually any case. The language in the platform does not include exceptions for partial-birth abortions or other kinds of late-term abortions, nor does it say taxpayer money should not be dedicated for the procedure.

    Here is the official language, posted on the Democratic Party website:

    “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.”

    The language was interpreted by conservative critics as an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortion — particularly the line about “regardless of ability to pay.” And anti-abortion advocates noted that the platform did not mention any exceptions for partial-birth abortion (which is illegal in most cases) or sex-selective abortions — or include language that was included in the past that stated abortion should be “rare.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/democrats-draw-criticism-for-no-exceptions-abortion-platform/#ixzz25bgji8as

    • Overall, I’m ok with the language adopted. At first I was a bit upset at their taking out the word “rare” as well, but believe the intent is still there as the platform explicitly recognizes ways of reducing the need for abortions.

      • I have this bridge going to Brooklyn from Manhattan which is for sale, interested?

        • Nah, already own a chunk of it. Bought it from this really slick guy I met while strolling through WIlliamsburg.

        • Where’s Sarah Palin when you need her (and a bridge)?

          The super patriot Romney (who protested IN FAVOR of the Vietnam war while at Stanford), didn’t bother to mention Afghanistan. Hmmm …

          • See, this is when I see arguing with Charlie is pointless.

            Unlike other times where the problem is that he is devoid of facts in general, economically illiterate and completely unreasoned …..

            … it is here he slices and dices like a Parisian master chef.

            In these matters of insanity of personality cults of Presidents or near-Presidents, it is best to stay out of Charlie’s kitchen because he just rips people to shreds … and laughs at the same time.

      • “there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. “

      • Are you then OK with,
        partial-birth abortions or other kinds of late-term abortions?
        taxpayer funded abortions?
        sex selective abortions?
        abortion as a type of birth control?

        • 1) No (caveat: exception for where the life of the mother is in danger) — as I’ve mentioned before, I stand at the line of viability.
          2) I have no problem with this, at least not in certain circumstances
          3) No evidence this is what is happening, and even if it were (which I’m sure it is in rare cases) no way of enforcing a law against this without undue infringement on the doctor-patient relationship
          4) If all else fails…

          • Now please excuse me while I duck back behind my desk to avoid the incoming…gotta get some work done today anyhow!

          • Keep telling yourself-you draw the line at viability-if it makes you feel better.

          • As for your # 1 caveat-please tell when a late term abortion or chemical burn is necessary to save the life of the mother. At that point the baby doesn’t have to be killed simply delivered to remove it from the mother-the only reason for an ABORTION at that point is to make sure the Baby dies.

            • Sorry, I’m not a doctor. But as a lawyer, I naturally demand that all possibilities are on the table and accounted for.

              • Oh stop with the lawyer stuff-I’m not talking to your profession-a lawyer who is legally required to try and win his case-there is no case and I am talking to you.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I would (generally) agree with you. So how’s this, since neither of us are doctors:

              A late-term abortion is permissible if, for some legitimate medical reason, delivery / c-section would pose a serious threat to the life of the mother. To clarify, if the pregnant woman cannot safely sustain the pregnancy, then the fetus should be extracted and treated the same as any other born child (ie, protected and kept alive if possible). If – IF – for some medical reason which eludes me, doing this would kill the pregnant woman, then an abortion would be permissible.

              How’s that?

              Now, since I cannot conceive of a situation wherein this would be necessary, it’s effectively a ban on late-term abortion (only permitting medically necessary preemptive delivery), but leaving the door open for that 1-in-1,000,000 pregnancy where some bizarre fluke of biology might make this necessary. Maybe something involving twins..? Just leaving the door open, just in case. How’s that? I mean, aborting the fetus, then extracting it is little different in terms of the health and safety of the pregnant woman from just extracting – or so I would think. But again, I have no medical degree and am loathe to pretend I know all possible scenarios. Does this work for you, V?

              • Mathius

                I am not a doctor-but are you suggesting that they kill the baby and just leave it in the mothers womb. Because that path would poison the woman’s system and probably kill her. The baby must be extracted at that stage or any other, either before or after the baby is dead.

                As far as the agreement-they have already equated mental distress with a danger to the woman’s life-so personally I would prefer not having any unnecessary loop holes-so before with agree with an exception which muddies the water-why don’t we just make sure we are right and no exception exists.

              • Mathius™ says:

                are you suggesting that they kill the baby and just leave it in the mothers womb

                I’m suggesting nothing. Only that the possibility or some abortive function be left for the safety of the pregnant woman. Just making this up, maybe the woman has a bleeding disorder and cannot be c-sectioned and regular deliver is too dangerous – so the fetus is aborted and removed in pieces – who knows? I sure don’t. But that’s the point – since I don’t know, I should be making blanket statements.

                If – IF – it’s necessary by some bizarre confluence of events and circumstances, I would want to say that the door is closed to the option. However, I think this would be extraordinarily rare.

                -they have already equated mental distress with a danger to the woman’s life

                “They” say a lot of things. I do not equate distress with a danger to the woman’s life unless she has an aneurysm ready to burst or a serious history of heart failure, etc. Just because someone can come up with some BS justification for something doesn’t make it right. I don’t need to get dragged into the weeds with you on this – if I say “for legitimate medical reasons,” I mean for legitimate medical reasons – if you want to have a separate discussion on what that might mean, we can have that debate another day when I have more time. For now, please take it in the spirit in which it’s intended.

                so personally I would prefer not having any unnecessary loop holes

                I would too… but I’d hate to not have those loop holes if they were needed. Plus it’s something to keep the lawyers busy.

                why don’t we just make sure we are right and no exception exists.

                Ok, let’s go to medical school and pick this up again in a few years.

              • And someone who knows a doctor needs to get them to join SUFA-we are constantly needing one.

              • Well in this case the “they” was the law-so what they said mattered a lot. As far as making sure we are right, I figured we could just go with what medical history showed-but somehow facts are hard to come by-experts never seem to agree-although this seems like a point it would be hard to prevaricate on.

              • So if medical experts cannot agree as to whether this is ever necessary, why should the law be drafted to take a position against? Wouldn’t it be better for the specific patient involved on a case-by-case basis in the event such a situation did arise?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Buck,

                So if medical experts cannot agree as to whether this is ever necessary, why should the law be drafted to take a position against?

                She’s concerned about abuse. Ie, some woman 8 1/2 months pregnant complains about a headache or stress to the right doctor for the right price and can get a intact D&X. She would rather phrase it in a way that (1) puts you innocent lawyers out of business and (2) allows the government to make private medical decisions for at-risk mothers as long as she gets her way.

                She, like so many others, is just fine with massive government overreach as long as it’s overreach in favor of her causes.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Adding..

                She, like so many others, is just fine with massive government overreach as long as it’s overreach in favor of her causes.

                It’s fine to force a woman to risk her life because V.H. knows better than the woman’s doctor, but don’t you DARE ask her to help pay for your socialized ObamaCare for the medical bills once that baby is born! That’s fascism!

              • Yes, Buck it would be better -if a woman could go to her doctor and the doctor knew his job was to do the best he could to save both patients and if that was impossible the mother and father decided what was the best course to follow. But that isn’t the world we live in-the world we live in-woman are being taught they have a right to kill a baby-whether it is viable or not. so we have to be very careful before we agree to any law that allows abortion because it will be abused.

              • You guys want government out of a woman’s uterus…so stay out of it!

                Hell yes I’m in favor of massive government…massive enough to get rid of itself. Sooner or later it equals out, then it starts shrinking, then get rid of the people who shrunk it too.

              • Hmmm-actually thought we were agreeing on a point about abortion for once-should have known better. A woman’s right to choose trumps everything-we couldn’t possibly let the government decide that killing a third trimester-viable baby is murder Or even really discuss how a law should be written so it won’t be abused.

              • What’s the matter Mathius, did you suddenly realize that you were about to put a legal limit on abortions and get angry at yourself.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ha, nope.

                Just like leaving myself protection to cover all angles.

              • Somehow it seemed more like an unwarranted attack-but I have been rather forceful in our recent discussions-so fair is fair I suppose. But I do wonder why you feel you need protection to cover all angles-protection from what?

              • Protection from you.

              • I’m somewhere in the middle of saying Good and also feeling a little bad-that you feel that way. 🙂

  7. Right out in the open now. Started the convention with it. We belong to the govt.

    • Mitt responded that government belongs to us…Different perspective?

    • Admittedly a short clip but really? How about being together in our humanity? In our concern for our fellow man?

      A classic example of government usurping the role that religion used to have. The phrase so often condemned here, Judeo-Christian nation implied that despite our sectarian differences, we were bonded and united in certain basic principles albeit administered slightly differently. Now, it’s “Big Brother” or more likely “Big Mother” bringing us all closer together. If I could draw worth a damn, I’d suggest that we change Lady Liberty in NY harbor to a figure bending over, smile on her face with arms outstretched to bring us all to her ample bosom. I won’t go any farther and leave the rest to your imagination. It even disgusts me.

    • Mathius™ says:

      BAH!

      Belong to, as in “are a member of.” Not as in “owned by.” This is clear, or is taking small snippets of things Democrats say out of context and misconstruing their meaning something conservatives have just decided to do with reckless abandon?

      Like when Romney’s add showed Obama saying “if we talk about the economy we’re going to lose” as if Obama was saying it rather than Obama quoting a McCain staffer?

      Or when Obama said “you didn’t build that” clearly referring to “roads and bridges” but the Red Shirts decided to make it a central theme in their convention as if he had been saying that government build people’s businesses.

      So now, you’re going to act like “belong to” means owned by rather than what it clearly means (are you “owned by” the church to which you belong?).

      Why do I even bother?

      • Why do you even bother defending that? I have no clue. Listen to the man on the street interviews about that particular intro. They are clearly fine with the fact that they are owned by the government.

        You didnt build that..we’ve been through this. He is speaking about people during the rest of that speech. Smart people, lots of them. A teacher. Someone helped along the way. And you still want to say he was talking about roads and bridges? He was talking about YOU.

        Belong now means owned? If I belong to a church I am a voluntary member. I am free to leave. I don’t belong to government.

  8. Go Government!
    Go Bills!

  9. What should not be a surprise, but Moochelle Obama’s speech was laden with lies and fairytales. Of course, Captain CVanolli fell for it, hook, line and sinker, as usual, along with all the Obamanots. The Liar in Chief also has a Lying First Lady 😆 First Lady Michelle Obama’s pitch to voters last night relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years–about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out” and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.” Her fairy tale–however well-delivered–was one great, big, colorful lie.

    Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.
    http://conservativebyte.com/2012/09/fact-check-first-ladys-false-fairy-tale-of-struggle/

    it seems Liberals will fall fo anything 🙄

    • I guess somebody should explain to me, the white privileged kid from NYC, just who did not have a car with a rusted out bottom and the exhaust system held on with bent coat hangers? Who, among my friends did not furnish their first places with cast offs from relatives and pick-ups from the street. Too dangerous to do that today with the influx of bedbugs from South of the Border.

    • 4 more years, G … get used to it!

      Obama in a landslide …

      • Common Man says:

        Charlie;

        You sound just as bad as Ann Compten did setting across from Hanity at the RNC. Rah, Rah, sis boom bah!

        CM

        • Who’s Ann Compten?

          The convention has zero to do with it, my man. The Dems just got my vote (I loved, LOVED, Michele’s dress) … so there goes New Jersey into the Dem column … goodbye election …

          • Ann is an unbiased ABC reporter who has been around, I think since the Harding Administration.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Was Jersey even in play before?

          • Common Man says:

            Charlie;

            She is that very skinny blonde who acts alot like Rush, although she is not quite as radical. She wrote a couple of books and claims to be a staunch conservative.

            She made a like statement on Hanity’s show the night of Mitt accepting the nomination. “Romney in a landslide”.

            Interestingly you and my brother-in-law are the only individuals I know that say they are voting for obama. As a matter of fact he and I were having a political discussion last week and somehow it got slightly side tracked to religon. I made a statement that I think obama claims his Christian faith as a prop, but is really not the least bit religous. My brother-in-law then made a statement that left me speachless: I think that obama is far more a true Christian than Romney!” I was dumbfounded. And this came out of the mouth of a church going faithful member of a local church.

            Just goes to show you that regardelss of the facts those that have drunk the kool-aid keep on wandering along behind the sheep herder; all the way up to the fleecing barn and then into the slaughter house.

            CM

            • How’s this: I could care less if Obama is a friggin’ devil worshipper, he still “talks” about policies much closer to my heart than a guy like Romney could ever dream to … I knew Obama was pro gay marriage long before he chose the political choice in 2008 of men-women … so when he came out (because of uncle joe), I wasn’t surprised … (was happy and only wished he had the balls to do it sooner) … I’m way more liberal than Obama, so I’m going to bite teh bullet this election (because of Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand) and vote Democrat … and hope to hell he finds the balls to be a liberal leader over the next four years.

              • Common Man says:

                Charlie;

                If I was going to cast a vote it would be for the lesser evil, although that is my whole issue; shit in one hand and hope & change in the other. I cannot begin to understand the mentality of individuals like you and my brother-in-law and why the two or you think liberal is the way????

                My brother-in-law believes that the government should force people to pay more taxes in the name of helping the forelorn and destitute, but at the same time he won’t let his homeless nephew stay at his house or lend him money because he is a drunk. Seems a bit hypicritical to me. He also thinks the thief breaking into the house to steal his things should be jailed. Yet it is perfectly OK for the government to overide the Constitution and/or Universial Law and steal to fund their needs. Just warped thinking in my minds eye.

                He also thinks that everyone deserves healthcare, but that the hospital he works at should refuse service to street people or addicts if they can’t pay their bill; especially if the treatment is for the same drug or booze related problem.

                He believes that if the government didn’t take care of the poor then they would eventually all die, or resort to crime to fend for themselves. He has told me that we should all live moderate lives and give all our excess to those in need; except the druggies and drunks that won’t stop abusing themselves.

                Seems very hypocritical to me.

                Obama is the worst choice we could elect, but then if he is re-ellected then we will just get to the breaking point much faster, which means we can go about rebuilding sooner. But regardless who is ellected the citizens of this country are screwed until the government falls.

                And just a side note: I was a life long GM man up to the bailout. I will never purchase a GM product again. I now drive an F-150. GM should have gone bankrupt, the car industry would have been better off in the long run.

                CM

            • No, no, you guys are mixing up Ann Compton (unbiased ABC reporter) with Ann Coulter(sometimes nut job).

            • Obama is a far more a true Christian than Romney. Romeny’s a mormon – since when do “true Christian’s” worship other people?

      • I call the foghorn on you!!!

        • Uh-oh … I’ll calm down.

          • Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that former senior Treasury Department officials who orchestrated the 2009 auto industry bailout enriched their former employers and likely made personal financial gains from parts of the deal they negotiated. At issue is the termination of pension plans belonging to 20,000 non-union salaried retirees from Delphi Corporation.

            Such self-dealing while an appointed member of a White House task force would violate federal law as well as an Ethics Pledge that an executive order from President Barack Obama said would apply to all appointees in the executive branch of the federal government from the date of his inauguration.

            During the auto bailout, now former Treasury official Matt Feldman, Obama Auto Task Force adviser Harry Wilson and other administration officials drove the Delphi pension cutoffs for non-union retirees. Their actions violated a federal statute that identified the quasi-independent Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) as the only government entity legally empowered to initiate termination of a pension or make official movements toward doing so.

            Since the bailout began, those officials have contradicted themselves in court filings, congressional testimony and press reports by claiming the PBGC, not they themselves, made the Delphi-related decisions. Internal emails TheDC published recently, however, indicate otherwise. (RELATED: Emails: Geithner, Treasury drove cutoff of non-union Delphi workers’ pensions)

            Financial gain is one possible motivation for the actions of Feldman, Wilson and others.

            “Politics appears to have played a role, but now we see a financial bias that could have played a role in the decision-making that could have benefitted their current and future business partners,” Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner told The Daily Caller in a phone interview.

            “The more information we get about who was involved and who made these decisions, it’s clearer that bias was involved both politically and financially. This was just wrong. If the Delphi pensions had been made whole, it would have been a less financially attractive transaction for Wilson’s and Feldman’s past and future business and law partners.”

            The New York Post has reported that the hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Elliott Capital Management earned a combined $1.3 billion on the Delphi deal.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/emails-obama-officials-enriched-former-firms-possibly-themselves-with-auto-bailout/#ixzz25cRUKYvY

  10. Common Man says:

    Didn’t watch the DNC simply because I didn’t want to go to bed with an upset stomach. Did however read a front page article in the local paper that provided some of the 1st lady’s speach. It basically said that if it had not been for obama’s actions in the first 4 years our country would really be in the dump. According to the paper, Mrs.obama indicated that her husband and his leadership saved this country from a total collapse. She went on to say that unless we voted obama back into office the Rep’s would quickly turn things around and put us back in the shitter.

    I did not know that in addition to everything else the obama’s were, they were also prophets who could tell the future. I guess that goes along with being the AntiChrist.

    I suppose it won’t be long before we start seeing adds describing how things would have been without the savior obama. It is a unique approach to pandering your failures by telling everyone how much worse it would have been had you not been doing such a shitty job in the first place. I think that is a great approach for each and every human out there who fails at a job or task. When they go to fire you just tout how much worse it would have been had you not been doing a shit job, and that they better re-think their position, cause if you are dismissed things will really take a dive.

    What a crock!

    Worst President ever! Makes Carter, Wilson and FDR look good.

    What we need is a Harding!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Or Coolidge.

      • Common Man says:

        JAC;

        Hope you are well my friend and have enjoyed this past summer. We here in the “Mitten State” are anticipating an interesting Bambi season. Due to the warm winter and early spring there are no acorns, apples or beechnuts on the trees. So we expect the deer will continue to live in the corn until it is harvested. Although we can bait, corn has gone to $22 a 100 lb bag, up from $13 last year. Buying the pressed food blocks instead.

        Will be usinig my new 10 point Crossbow this year which shoots lightning bolts at 365 fps and has enough force that it goes through a “block” target at 40 yards. The critters will never know they were hit. Can you say ‘Hot knive throught butter”

        BTW: It was Harding and Coolidge that led us to the roaring 20’s. If memory serves me Harding and Coolidge cut corp taxes 55% and capital gains tax down to 35% from 75%. What a concept…less tax = more prosperity.

        And then we got refridgerators and all kinds of new technologies.

        Shoot straight this year

        CM

        • Just A Citizen says:

          CM

          You as well my friend. Still hoping to cross paths on that river in Ar Kansas.

          Summer was short here as it was cool until July. Only a few days in the 90’s.

          There is a band of wet and green from mid Oregon to about Cut Bank Montana. Everything north was wet and green, everything south dry and brown, brown, brown.

          Many of my favorite fly fishing rivers in Montana were closed this summer due to high temps. But heading to the South Fork Snake and Henry’s Fork Snake at the end of Sept. A week of fishing with old friends.

          Did you get that hog hunt in yet?

          • Common Man says:

            JAC;

            No hogs this year, too much going on work wise. Did get to the White and caught a number of 23-28 inch browns, although nothing big enough to mount. Oh, and the DNR down there has changed the limit on browns. They now need to be at least 24 inches to keep them. Apparently the Head fishing biologist is a now an honorary member of an elite Fly Fishing club and as a result he got the rules changed to favor their wants. In additon to the size limit on Browns they also closed some of the prime fishing areas to barbless, catch and release only.

            Interesting that you mention a lot of your rivers were closed due to low water. My future son-in-law is an avid, avid Trout fisherman and spends as much of his free time as my daughter will allow on a little known river over my way called Paint Creek. It is just a spit of a stream, but loaded with trout. He came home last week with a 24 inch steelhead that was land locked due to low water. It must have come up stream from the Clinton River which dumps into Lake St. Clair, which feeds both Huron and Erie and got stuck with the dry weather. Beautiful fish and one he is mounting. Caught it on a one and half inch Rapala. Initially he thought he was hung up.

            We go down every year around the first of May and every year we are looking for additional mates. My buddy Dave and I are the only ones that make it every year. We like to have at least 4 guys to spread the cost of the cottage, but we could take up to six. This past year the whole trip including adult beverages, food, guide service, gas and cottage cost each of just under $1000. I don’t bet you can get a guide on the Henry’s for a week for that kind of money.

            Let me know if you are interested and I will keep you posted.

            CM

      • Silent Cal, actually a fascinating guy.

        “KEEP COOL WITH COOLIDGE”

  11. Just an aside, been watching the convention and commentary. Hear over and over again how obstructionist and unwilling to work with the administration the republicans are.

    Has anybody, including the republicans bothered to answer that that is why the electorate put them back in the majority in the House in ’10, as a blocking force?

    It is so simple that I am amazed no one has brought it up. Or, have I just missed it?

    • Stephen, seriously, it might have to do with McConnell’s statement early on to make sure there was no 2nd term for Obama. That was pretty telling … what happened afterward didn’t help his cause much.

  12. From 200K Charlotte Motor Speedway to 70K BofA Stadium to 20K Time Warner Arena. Clint Eastwood and his empty chair routine was right on target! This MM site is always good for a few laughs:

    http://twitchy.com/2012/09/05/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-eastwooding-obamas-dnc-speech-moved-to-smaller-venue-due-to-weather/

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Some men attend church because they want to be closer to God.

    Others come to church because they want to be closer to power.

    “Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change”.

    • And then he became President! How cool is that?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        NOT COOL AT ALL.

        In fact it is quite terrifying. Enough to make me consider Anarchy as the only TRUTH.

        If a freakishly inexperienced person like that can woo the people, like some hypnotist, then it is the greatest condemnation of democracy I have seen in my lifetime.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    President Obama: Constitution is “charter of negative liberties”
    During last year’s campaign, WorldNet Daily found a tape of an interview Barack Obama gave to Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001. In the interview, then-State Sen. Obama maintained that the Warren Court’s decisions on civil rights in the 1960s failed to go far enough — that they should also have sought “redistributive justice.” His opinion was that the court needed to break from the “essential restraints” of the Constitution:

    This is what Mr. Obama said (audio):

    If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. (Emphasis added)

    Abraham Lincoln, whom President Obama professes to admire, had this to say about “redistributive justice.”

    It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. (Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18, 1858).

    “Redistributive justice” is nothing more than robbing the working people to pay those whom government favors.

    Respect for the Constitution is the only guarantee we have that our rights as citizens and the states will be protected. President Obama, in every political office he has held (including State Senator) swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The President should have been closely questioned on this during the campaign — and should be even more closely questioned on this now.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    From a self proclaimed libertarian (little l) blogger from Montana.

    ” Written by Dave Budge on 04 September 2012

    I watched substantially all of the GOP convention and so far the same for night one of The DNC. So here’s the question:

    If you believe what pols from both sides say about their opposition what impression of America do you come away with?

    I know mine: This is a terrible place to live.

    The political process is doing it’s best to get us to hate America. It’s starting to work on me. “

  16. @ Common Man:

    My brother-in-law believes that the government should force people to pay more taxes in the name of helping the forelorn and destitute, but at the same time he won’t let his homeless nephew stay at his house or lend him money because he is a drunk.

    Sounds like he’s right to me. The kid needs to get clean, no? His home probably isn’t a good atmosphere for that to happen (i..e, professional help).

    Seems a bit hypicritical to me. He also thinks the thief breaking into the house to steal his things should be jailed.,/i.Yet it is perfectly OK for the government to overide the Constitution and/or Universial Law and steal to fund their needs. Just warped thinking in my minds eye.

    I’m fine with taxes so long as they are put to use for the common (greater) good, not corporate welfare and/or war.

    I also think every think EVERYONE deserves healthcare, but no, the hospital should take them in.

    He believes that if the government didn’t take care of the poor then they would eventually all die, or resort to crime to fend for themselves. He has told me that we should all live moderate lives and give all our excess to those in need; except the druggies and drunks that won’t stop abusing themselves. Seems very hypocritical to me.

    No, not hypocritical he’s got it mostly right … not everything is black and white, CM … it just isn’t. I don’t know what the panacea is to all our societal ills, except less government run by corporations … and I know it won’t happen, so I’m forced to vote socialist usually … except this time, with a professed Ayn Rander on the GOP ticket, I’ll vote Democrat …

    And just a side note: I was a life long GM man up to the bailout. I will never purchase a GM product again. I now drive an F-150. GM should have gone bankrupt, the car industry would have been better off in the long run.

    I hear you … it’s the perfect example of a middle class and/or poor guy cutting their nose to spite their face … what the GOP depends on year to year.

    • Common Man says:

      Charlie;

      Just to clear some things up: The nephew is a Vet. Did two tours in Iraq and came home a different person. Was raised in a wonderful family that afforded him everything and every opportunity, but did parent with strick rules. The kid does need to wake up and realize he is where he is because he has not chosen to be elsewhere. I do believe that he is also dealing with PTSD since he saw a lot of shit along with burying 12 brothers during the last tour in 2005.

      I am not fine with the magnitude of taxes, or the ability of government to raise them or create them at a whim. And now we have a government taxing us to a point that they have to literally make more money just to have enough to steal. That is check book balancing stupidity 101. You cannot spend more than you make…period.

      I agree that some things are not black and white. Abortion is a very gray area to me, and BTW not one I discuss. However, force is not an option for those that want something from others who don’t want to give it away or up; and that is what the government is doing

      Obama is and always has been a lacky for those in power; regardless of who they are. He wanted/needed the Union vote so he struck a deal and now GM again is loosing its ass. And BTW the deal was with the Unions not the stockholders, the stockholders got shafted.

      As far as big corporations go I believe that initially they started playing ball with a progressive government in order to further their business, but as both government grew so did the need to play ball to make ends meet. Hense we have the cluster we have today; Lot’s of regulations, lobbiests, favors being swapped back and forth just to make ends meet.

      And I just cannot understand how you boast Socialsm, less government and small corporations in the same sentance. It is an oxymoron.

      CM

      • That’s really Charlie’s Nazism at work, the unholy alliance between business and government. Something far beyond Ike’s worry about a military industrial complex. Today it’s primarily the financial industry complex. Proof, is that they crashed the market and economy and no one has gone to jail but everyone has been bailed out and the perpetrators of the frauds are now running the Fed and Treasury.

        Goldman Sachs is amazing. Too bad Bernie Madoff wasn’t affiliated. He’s be a free man today employed by the Treasury as a consultant. Hey, anybody ever find that 2 Billion that Corzine disappeared?

      • Just to clear some things up: The nephew is a Vet. Did two tours in Iraq and came home a different person. Was raised in a wonderful family that afforded him everything and every opportunity, but did parent with strick rules. The kid does need to wake up and realize he is where he is because he has not chosen to be elsewhere. I do believe that he is also dealing with PTSD since he saw a lot of shit along with burying 12 brothers during the last tour in 2005.

        Ah, the small details YOU neglected to mention … but all the more reason he needs professional care (it seems to me–I’m not psychologist).

        I am not fine with the magnitude of taxes, or the ability of government to raise them or create them at a whim. And now we have a government taxing us to a point that they have to literally make more money just to have enough to steal. That is check book balancing stupidity 101. You cannot spend more than you make…period.

        So, quit the wars, remove the corporate tax loopholes and tax the rich a few more points rather than everybody else. Cleanup some of the dumb/wasteful government programs. Problem solved.

        I agree that some things are not black and white. Abortion is a very gray area to me, and BTW not one I discuss. However, force is not an option for those that want something from others who don’t want to give it away or up; and that is what the government is doing

        Abortion is also gray to me, except I am for a woman’s right to choose under any condition. I don’t see anyone pointing a gun at me when I pay my taxes. I sure don’t see anybody doing it to the most wealthy.

        Obama is and always has been a lacky for those in power; regardless of who they are. He wanted/needed the Union vote so he struck a deal and now GM again is loosing its ass. And BTW the deal was with the Unions not the stockholders, the stockholders got shafted.

        I’m glad the stockholders got shafted (although I doubt that’s the case). Obama is a lighter version of shill for the 1%, no backbone and very political. He’s still a better choice than the Ayn Randers … any day of the week.

        And I just cannot understand how you boast Socialsm, less government and small corporations in the same sentance. It is an oxymoron.

        I do so with a smile. I’ve pointed out my positions on this 1,000 x’s here and don’t have the time tonight (you do realize it’s opening night in the NFL, right? 🙂

        You’re confusing my sentence with BF. He’s an oxy … well, you know what I mean.

        • “Glad the stockholders got shafted?” Do you really mean that? I’m one of those guys who never made a lot of money, was glad to be able to do things for the common good although I always considered that what I was doing was enlightened self interest and could not see myself spending my golden years in a cardboard box under a viaduct. Therefore, Ahem, I invested what little I could in a widely diverse self directed portfolio including US Bonds, IRA’s, Coins, Collectables that where not subject to whims, and quality stocks. So, any corporation which goes under in which I have stock tends to move me more in the direction of that cardboard box. I have lost a few along the way and won more (thank God) so, things look ok at the moment..

          I know an awful lot of people like me who have 401K’s and investments in quality stocks. These are not the Rockefeller’s. Sometimes I think guys such as yourself are living in the past when only the Getty’s and Kennedy’s owned stock. Not the case anymore and easily verified. Most unions own huge chunks of stocks as do hospitals, universities and various do-good institutions. So, when something as big as GM goes under and it did, a lot of ordinary folks got hurt some very badly.

          I think the thing that grieved me the most in the “saving” of GM was that it was solely aimed at preserving the auto maker unions. They took ownership in lieu of stock. their ownership was more or less guaranteed by the Feds. At the same time subsidiary corporations affiliated with GM like Delphi, formerly Delco were allowed to twist in the wind. Thousands of jobs were eliminated, plants closed, retirement savings and pensions destroyed (they had invested in a whole lot of GM stock) and no provision made to guarantee them the ownership interest that their GM coworkers got. They were too small to save I guess and did not guarantee the big Whoop that the administration will get from the Michigan delegation tonight and tomorrow.

          Cities like Buffalo NY, without a job to spare, awash in disaster because of the rust belt saw Delphi/Delco, their last big employer go down the tubes. Where was their salvation?

          • Glad the stockholders got shafted?” Do you really mean that?

            You betcha!

            I lost a lot too, my friend (401k, etc.) …. one more reason to nationalize, eh? Most middle class are bordering on poverty right now … I doubt their 401k’s are going to save them … you must forget how the big dogs (CEO’s who bankrupted the country) walked away with golden parachutes … I’d toss them out of a plane with a handkerchief.

            Corporations went down the tubes and there was the government to save “capitalism” … nice deal, if you can get it.

            • And just what does nationalization do for me. You are back spewing the old rhetoric. I tell you the bulk of stock is owned by ordinary people through their retirement plans or by their employers and you go off on capitalism.

              The fascism we see today or crony capitalism, the nicer sounding way to put it is what we should all be sounding off against. Nobody went to jail. Nobody went to jail!!!. As many liberal democrats made out as Republicans in taking down the housing/banking industry and nobody went to jail. Why can’t you seem to get it. Just a few weeks ago Holder announced that there was not enough evidence to prosecute anyone, yea, sure there wasn’t. How about replaying Barney Franks speeches and Chris Dodd’s too in front of a Grand Jury. let’s see what happens then. Where are the congressional (House and Senate) hearings. Where is Bernie Sanders the one and only elected Socialist? Why is former Senator/Governor Jon Corzine not breaking rocks?

              Capitalism my ass, fascism is what we got here.

              • Capitalism my ass, fascism is what we got here.

                Why can’t you seem to get it, Stephen. How the hell did all this happen from such a pure state of nature as a “free marekt”? You really believe it wasn’t the wealthy using the government to protect their wealth? It happened because a bunch of greedy power brokers formed a government so they could rule on their own? That’s a little absurd. If you were able to change this bullshit system overnight to a pure free market, it would return to what it is so fast you’re head would spin. Competition … market forces … all bullshit. It doesn’t exist without government (protecting the most wealthy) OR WHY THE FUCK DIDN’T IT REMAIN A FREE MARKET?

                Mercantalism? Please. What a crock of shit that argument is. The government was formed by the wealthy, for the wealthy and the wealthy will always remain in control of it so long as it remains a capitalist economy (whether crony capitalist or not). Why does Chomsky say capitalisn (truly free markets) wouldn’t exist for 5 minutes? Because where the fuck are they?

                Trust me, if everything here was nationalized, I think we’d all figure out how to survive … except we wouldn’t need 1% to rule over us.

              • The politburo was the 1% in the Soviet Union. It makes no difference the form of government you have,the greedy, selfish bastards will rise to the top no matter what. Black Flag is absolutely right on that one.

                All we can ever do as Jefferson, that greedy, white slave owner said is vigilance as in “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.

                The top keeps changing. The Jobs, Spielbergs, Gates, Obamas, Clintons are all new players. You harken back to the Illuminati conspiracy. Your 1% changes all the time. Its not fixed. Even the Kennedy’s have started to slide out.

                Your take on things is more oligarchical. If you were right, there would never be change at the top. It would be like medieval Europe with the same cast of inbred characters. It’s not. Do I disagree with you about wealth? sure as hell do because it’s about power and wealth is only a component of that.

                I do not really know where your ideas come from at all. I look around, see the progress that has been made in the world most if not all of which can be traced directly to the United States and wonder how dense you can be? was the motivation profit? Do I live longer than my great grandfather because people have stock in Pharmaceutical companies? Sure as hell do and I am happy that I do. Might want to invest in my grand children’s future by buying some of that stock too.

                I fear you play the envy game. You envy the rich, their vacations, yachts, horse farms, estates etc. You are as smart as they are (as am I) but you don’t have all those goodies. Well, I know the feeling but get up every morning and slap it down. In the scheme of things, I’m doing pretty damned good, better than my Dad, better than my grand dad and one hell of a lot better than my great-grandfather who disappeared in the maelstrom 20th century eastern Europe became. My kids, they all have advanced degrees in real things like law, engineering, science and healthcare. Proud to say not a gender studies major among them. By the rules of the game that you claim are fixed, they should do well in life. But there never was a guarantee it was done through hard work and planning. Your buddies out there, marching along, singing the “Internationale” would call a halt to that progress by falsely claiming the fix was in. .

                It does not take much in this world to become a 1%er, you don’t really need the big bucks. Just snare a great education, become an academic and write learned treatises on how bad and unfair the system is. Pretty soon, you will be interviewed by the major news outlets, invited to and fawned over at chi chi cocktail parties and ultimately asked by the powerbrokers to consult on screwing up society. Ultimately you will actually get rich but you will never ‘feel’ rich. You will always feel inferior to “them”. And that’s what it is really all about, envy.

        • Why are you trying to drive me nuts??????

          ‘Abortion is also gray to me, except I am for a woman’s right to choose under any condition’.—-THEN IT IS NOT A GRAY AREA TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Why won’t people at least be honest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • You gotta understand that Obama and Clinton are the 1 percent. They paid their admission dues and are now in. When Obama leaves office, like Clinton, he will sit on numerous corporate boards, receive seven figure speaking fees and will get to determine how you and yours live.

          Treat your 1 percent like a corporation, there are CEO’s and division directors, boards of directors and stockholders. people come in, people die off. Some people even get tossed. The “ruling elite” shifts from time to time. “The king is dead, long live the king!”

    • This BS that the poor will resort to crime is just that, BS. If it were true, there would have been one hell of a lot more crime during the great depression than there was. 25% unemployment, bank failures, savings totally wiped out, homes foreclosed, farms foreclosed. Agricultural prices so low that tenant farmers were evicted, the dust bowl. People did not resort to crime nor did they do what they did in Germany, or Italy and resort to the “leader” principal. We are a pretty interesting lot, Americans. There were huge concerns at the time that all those 30 plus year old family men with military training from the Great War would launch a revolution. That’s one of the reasons for the forcible put down of the bonus army. Instead of revolting, they went home. Only in America.

      I’m still not sure about the GM-Chrysler bailout. While I don’t think it was a good idea, I also think that the government and its lack of an energy policy is mostly responsible. So, does the “if you break it you have bought it” rule apply?

  17. @ LOI: Do you ever read what you write?

    Only when I’m ready for bed …

    I’d rather Bernie Sanders were running (and had a prayer of winning) but so long as the 1% have enough middle class and poor brainwashed into thinking less government is in their interests (capitalism by Kings), but since it’s an Ayn Rander and Romney, I’ll take the low road and Obama.

  18. Ooops! Losing a few too many votes so, um, yeah, we kinda like God and Jerusalem after all…..kinda….sorta……but, but, but, we aren’t a divided party!

    http://nation.foxnews.com/god-platform/2012/09/05/dems-try-put-jerusalem-god-back-platform

  19. Charlie’s Clan:

  20. Okay-done with watching the democratic convention-just can’t handle it-it really is nothing but vote for us and we will allow you to kill your children and invite you onto the gravy train of the US Treasury.

  21. This is what the rich think of the “average person”:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/gina-rinehart-australia-too-expensive_n_1856744.html

    “Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day,” she said in the video. “Such statistics make me worry for this country’s future. We are becoming a high-cost and high-risk nation for investment.”

    She thinks everyone (except herself, I’m sure) should work for $2 per day…

    Rinehart’s remarks are the latest to target the Australian economy. In a column published last week in a mining magazine, Rinehart said Australians needed to complain less and to work more if they wanted to be rich.

    “There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire. If you’re jealous of those with more money don’t just sit there and complain, do something to make more money yourself,” she wrote in Australian Resources and Investment magazine. “Spend less time drinking, smoking and socializing and more time working.”

    Yes, and at $2 per day, it will only take you…let’s see…multiply by 4…carry the 2…1369 years to become a millionaire. Of course that’s assuming you don’t spend anything – and no day’s off…

    So all you right-wingers, you better start saving for when your income drops to $2 per day.

    And so much for early retirement!

    • Todd, Quoting anything from the Huffington Post, a Left Wing Rag, does not give you any credability. Actually, it makes you look like a liberal moron, like most liberals who believe that crap. You can do better. 🙄

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Your argument seems pretty absurd to me.

      If I make a statement about our need to compete with a country that pays $2 per day that does not mean I want my employees to cut their wages to $2 per day. But it does mean we have to make cuts somehow if we are to compete.

      And as for Africa, that is why the Chinese have been building foundational relationships there for the last decade. But heaven forbid anyone else should consider that. Because it would be viewed as some unpatriotic outsourcing.

      Rinehart spoke the truth about how wealth is achieved. Work more, produce more, invest more and don’t waste your money on partying and expensive toys. But that seems to be repugnant to the leftist mind. So how are they to get wealthy? Take it from someone else? Is that the New Morality of PROGRESS and FORWARD?

      • Oh, JAC, cut the shit already. Keep outsource enough work and you’ll have 50% unemployment. That’s work great. Take away government regulations totally and you’ll have $2.00 jobs overnight (but full employment). That work great too (sarcasm intended). If they (corporations) don’t want to play fair, nationalize their asses. We’ll figure out how to run them fast enough. A guy bankrupts an investment bank and walks away with $20+ million in perks while they fire half the company … capitalism at its best. The “free” market unleashed will permit the same CEO to walk away with 20+ million while outsourcing the rest of the jobs. Great idea …

        Give it up already. Capitalism is on the wane … sort of like the GOP … and especially the tea party … and good riddens … 🙂

        • Charlie……surely you know by now that Obama and Immeld. (sp) have outsourced jobs on a 4 to one basiscompared to Romney and the Repubs? Want the source and the numbers….go to the CBO…..they have them….Immelt alone, Obama;s job czar,,,,has outsourced over 100,000 jobs……cutting NASA and shipping it to Russia and China has outsourced 12, 000 jobs…..oil and gas policies has outsourced approximately , 2,400 jobs….

          So…..dont throw outsourcing as an example.

          • Good Morning Colonel 🙂 Surely by now you know that facts are not included in Captain Canolli’s rhetoric. Presenting them to him may make his brain explode (think of John Belushi making like a zit in Animal House). 😆 Have a great day!

      • JAC

        There is a triad in building things, Labor, materials and energy. Ever wonder why manufacturing went overseas? Take a serious look at time frames. There was always a trickle and yes the Japanese built cheaper radios and motorcycles (and dumped them on US and European markets) but the actual shifts really accelerated after the oil embargo’s of the ’70’s.

        We had produced a high quality of life for our people, the best in the world. This was done with relatively high wages. High wages are good for all. Stimulates the economy. We have always had an abundance of raw materials to build with and most importantly, cheap energy. When cheap energy was pulled out of the equation, the tripod collapsed. No amount of cost cutting in US labor can match the offset of energy prices. The government, being totally unaware of causal relationships has, in the past 40 years made energy more expensive and has also driven up the cost of raw materials with often counter productive and nonsensical regulations. Gingrich is right, we need a Department of Environmental Solutions. Let’s put some time, energy and investment in that for a change.

        So today, in this country we are all striving to do more with less which never works. To get back on track, we have to roll back the clock forty years or so,. Save the environment, sure, but let’s have a plan not a mish-mash of conflicting regulations. Stimulate more jobs? Absolutely,but not everyone can be in the hospitality/service industry (remember that?) so we need manufacturing. How do we get to where we have to go? Rebuild the triad, return to cheap energy. Solve the environmental problems, don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I always come back to that wisdom of my father when I, as a young buck, was going to change a very small part of this screwed up world and change it overnight. “If it took forty years to screw it up”, he said, “It’ll take forty years to unscrew it”. Truer words were never spoken.

        Out of sight, out of mind. Heard that before? The folks who are so dedicated to saving the planet and lowering the ocean levels do exactly that. Over the weekend, I saw pictures of Chinese cities which were not really pictures of cities but of smog clouds. I saw a traffic jam in China, purported to be over 50 miles long on a ten lane highway. No matter what we do here, shut down every coal/oil power plant that exists in the States, we cannot make up for the damage that the Chinese are doing to the atmosphere we share with them. There is no solution unless you want to go to war with them. So, the environment becomes a non-issue. We can do the best we can for ourselves and prevent a return to Pittsburgh of the ’50’s for our people but we cannot change them nor the impact they are having. We could all voluntarily discorporate and the only real effect it would have is for us not to be around to see the end result which will continue on its own with or without us.

  22. The BIG DOG (Slick Willy) is kicking some GOP ass as the Cowgirls kick some Moonachie Blue ass …

    Go Bill! Go Bills!

    • Slick Willy? I was interested for the first half hour but he went on way too long. I fell asleep on him. How about your buddies DWS and Dick Durbin? They couldn’t lie good enough to cover their asses about God and Jerusalem. Then the LA mayor knew it was FUBAR during their 2/3 vote. I felt sorry for him. Deer in the headlights. Saw a screenshot of the prompter he was using. His marching orders were written before a vote was even taken. I wouldn’t brag Charlie. You should feel shame.

      • The Big Dog gave a great speech last night! Too long? Try not long enough. This was only his 3d longest convention speech. Man does he have a way with words. His prepared remarks were 3,136 words; delivered remarks were 5,895!

        • Sounded like the same old talking points, though he’s easier to take than Obama. What specifically were you impressed with? And I’m really interested in your thoughts, being Jewish, about the party platform vote re: God and Jerusalem.

          • Clinton just has a way of breaking things down. Was this his best speech? No. But it was a darn good one. He really broke the issues down and make a compelling case for Obama.

            As for the platform, I really don’t have any thoughts on the ‘god’ and ‘jerusalem’ issues.

            • AS an atheist, I could care less about the God/god issue … as for Israel … they can take care of themselves (for a change) … they buy weapons from us … that’s about it.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              “Compelling” case for Obama???? Are you kidding me?

              Boy if that doesn’t show that you still haven’t shed the shed the effects of Obama syndrome.

              Clinton is a lying sack of shit Buck. Lie number one, HE DID NOT HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET.

              Lie number two, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURPLUS THAT SHOWED UP HIS “LAST” TWO YEARS.

              Unmentioned FACT: His administration DESTROYED the Timber Industry in the Northwest and Intermountain regions of the US. They set the stage for further reductions under Bush. They took the NAFTA settlement money to retrain and help displaced mill workers and diverted it to other projects. And BUSH didn’t reverse the practice.

          • By the way, on Israel — interesting op-end from the NYT yesterday:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

            • I think that Col. Potter called that horsehockey.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Further proof that JEWS are a blight on humanity.

              • excuse you!?

              • say what?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                No excusing. I figured since Obama is going to win by a landslide I had better start acting like a Democrat, or is that Progressive.

                This guys reasoning is ridiculous. He can claim Obama did these things but to then argue against Romney, who has stated his support of Israel, on Bush’s record is irrational. For non-Jews to chastise Bush for playing hardball with Israel, when they are constantly whining about how we kowtow to Isreal is Hypocrisy at best.

                So since this guy is irrational and thus a threat, it is proper to demonize him and his entire race/ethnicity. That is what we do now in America, ya know.

  23. 😐

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    CM
    That is true, but then I don’t need a guide for the Henry’s Fork. 🙂

    The only time I ever paid for a guide was in New Zealand.
    Reply

    Buck says:
    September 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm • Edit

    Out of curiosity, why?

    Why don’t I need a guide? Or, why did I need one in New Zealand?

    • The latter.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Well first I had never been there before and there was little information on their fishing back then. Other than what was put out by the Guide services and Bureau of Tourism.

        I had a little over two weeks scheduled so we booked a guide for the first week. The service included transport and farm stays along the way. Never fished the same river or stayed in the same house twice.

        As it turned out many of the rivers we fished were on or required passage through private land and the guide had deals with the owners. I should say Spring Creeks rather than rivers. We did not fish the main rivers as the fish don’t hang out there.

        We hit it off with the guide so he showed us on maps where other rivers and Spring Creeks were that we could access on our own. So we did the second week without a guide. But we couldn’t access streams unless they had public access. We still found plenty of good water and had more time to explore.

        Hiring the guide turned out a good thing but also had its draw backs. We were always missing the early morning or late afternoon/evening fishing. That was due to the farm stays and moving from place to place. This changed when we were alone and as we suspected the fish in New Zealand are the same as here. Morning and evening are much better than mid day. One of the up sides was that the Guide was a treasure of information about the Country and their natural resource management.

        In summary, if you have a limited amount of time and don’t know the country, rivers, then a guide is worth the investment. The only other reason would be if you don’t have gear needed. Like a boat and trailer.

        • Fair enough, just curious. You never struck me as the kind of guy that’d want or need a guide!

          Where did you spend most of the time down there? Absolutely beautiful country! I was there for nearly 3 weeks a few years back; spent the entire time on the South Island. Basically a friend and I rented a car and just drove around stopping whenever we saw something interesting, to take a random hike, etc.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            True, I don’t want or need one but in that case it made sense, at least for the first five days. If we could have we would have hired the guide without the farm stays. But they had everything BUNDLED, because they all BUNDLED back then.

            The whole trip was on the South Island, although we never made it to the fiords. Since I spent much of my life “hiking” the only time I do that is to get to a good fishing spot. 🙂

            On the same trip we went to Australia for a little over a week. No Guide for that one. Just Exploring and Golf.

            • Sounds like a great trip! Next time you’ll have to head down to the fjords, and definitely check out Milford Sound – incredible spot. I didn’t do any fishing — though did spend time in a river for some white water rafting.

              Where’d you spend your time while in Australia?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Rafting…. An American started the river running business on the south Island. Same guy who made running the Colorado famous and has a drift boat named after him. McKenzie.

                Landed in Sydney, spent two days and two nights (one exploring and one golf) and one night Partying with the locals and an English Flight Crew. This is when I discovered the Brits are not “stuffed” as we think. Watched the Super Bowl in a local bar at 9:00 AM. They had all the American Game Food laid out, brats, dogs, nachos etc.

                Then went north to Brisbane and then a little west of there, one day out and one day back. Spent a couple days at Gold Coast where a local family tried to adopt/hijack my partner and I. They thought we should give up the walk about and just spend a week with them. While there we golfed the course where they play the Australian LPGA championship. Giant fish in the ponds and parrots flying among the trees. It was, and remains the most beautiful golf course I have ever seen.

                Side note, I spent the next year after my return trying to convince Spousal Unit Leader and the kids that we needed to move to New Zealand. Needless to say, I lost that one.

              • Not bad at all. I got my ass seriously kicked trying my hand at surfing at a little place along the Gold Coast called Surfer’s Paradise. Lot of fun, but I was definitely feeling it afterwards! So, we picked up some wine, headed back to the hostel and sat in the hot tub until we were out of wine.

                Keep working on Spousal Unit Leader for that relocation — it’d really be amazing to live there.

              • Dang! Now the travel bug is starting to itch again with no chance of going anywhere anytime soon….sigh….

  25. I know people are tired of the abortion topic-I’m tired of the abortion topic-but I think most will get a kick out of this video 🙂

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/05/video-meet-the-pro-choice-democrats/

  26. RNC/DNC……better than SNL.

  27. An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward’s latest book.

    The book, “The Price of Politics,” on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs.

    But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal — a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he’d already gone.

    The president called three times to speak with Boehner about his latest offer, according to Woodward. But the speaker didn’t return the president’s phone call for most of an agonizing day, in what Woodward calls a “monumental communications lapse” between two of the most powerful men in the country.

    When Boehner finally did call back, he jettisoned the entire deal. Obama lost his famous cool, according to Woodward, with a “flash of pure fury” coming from the president; one staffer in the room said Obama gripped the phone so tightly he thought he would break it.

    “He was spewing coals,” Boehner told Woodward, in what is described as a borderline “presidential tirade.”

    “He was pissed…. He wasn’t going to get a damn dime more out of me. He knew how far out on a limb I was. But he was hot. It was clear to me that coming to an agreement with him was not going to happen, and that I had to go to Plan B.”

    Tune in to “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline” on Monday September 10, 2012 to see Diane Sawyer’s exclusive interview with Bob Woodward

    Accounts of the final proposal that led to the deal’s collapse continue to differ sharply. The president says he was merely raising the possibility of putting more revenue into the package, while Boehner maintains that the president needed $400 billion more, despite an earlier agreement of no more than $800 billion in total revenue, derived through tax reform.

    Obama and his aides argue that the House speaker backed away from a deal because he couldn’t stand the political heat inside his own party – or even, perhaps, get the votes to pass the compromise. They say he took the president’s proposal for more revenue as an excuse to pull out of talks altogether.

    “I was pretty angry,” the president told Woodward about the breakdown in negotiations. “There’s no doubt I thought it was profoundly irresponsible, at that stage, not to call me back immediately and let me know what was going on.”

    The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.

    Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.

    While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.

    “It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama,” Woodward writes.

  28. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Y’AARGH!

    That is all.

  29. The wave of the future

    Honduras sets stage for 3 privately run cities
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_HONDURAS_PRIVATE_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-05-22-36-19

    The “model cities” will have their own judiciary, laws, governments and police forces. They also will be empowered to sign international agreements on trade and investment and set their own immigration policy.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    What did Clinton say that to YOU thought was a COMPELLING case for Obama getting another chance at the White House?

    Mathius and Todd please add your two cents as well.

    • For me, it was the overall presentation and delivery. He did a masterful job at propping up Obama and really ripping into Romney and the GOP. It’s what a convention speech should be. One section I thought went over very well:

      “Did y’all watch their convention? I did.” It went something like this. We left him a total, but he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in…I like the argument for President Obama’s reelection a heck of a lot better. Here it is: He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators…Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.”

      I take it you feel he gave a bad speech? How so?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Funny question from you given that you said he made a “compelling case”. It sounds like you are just reacting to the emotion of Clinton’s speech.

        I did not hear his speech. I scanned for a few seconds on the rerun but he was doing pretty much what you described. Bashing the other team and heaping bull shit praise on his team.

        Now exactly WHAT FLOOR did Obama put under the crash???

        WHAT exactly did HE do that involved “beginning” a long road to recovery????

        Foundation for a “modern and more well balanced economy???? I know this is supposed to be the green thing but the employment in this sector has been declining for almost two years now. And the Administration simply LIES about it.

        I expected him to give a “good speech” and to create all kinds of BUZZ and put HEARTS A TWITTER. That is what he does. You Progressives/Liberals/Lefties at SUFA claim you are rational, logical, pragmatic, etc. Yet you seem to fall for empty platitudes and political rhetoric.

        Last night and this morning some pundits are saying that Clinton won the election last night. That his personal interaction with the crowd will win over all those moderate Dems and Independents that recently swung Obama’s negatives 11% points….DOWNWARD. Well if that is the case, if they are moved by Clinton’s BULL SHIT, then we will all get what YOU GUYS deserve. That is the unfortunate reality of our system.

        WE ALL HAVE TO BUNDLE.

        • Actually Clinton did provide numbers throughout the speech on a variety of issues to make his case for Obama. But yes, part of providing a ‘compelling case’ in terms of a convention speech is the overall general feel, delivery, presentation of the speech. If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what else to say.

        • Mr. Clinton offered a comprehensive, even exhaustive, assessment of Mr. Obama’s first-term priorities, from the auto bailout to the health care law. Brandishing statistics with a familiar vigor, he laid out a case that each of Mr. Obama’s initiatives had met the Republican litmus test: leaving Americans better than four years ago.

          source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/politics/clinton-delivers-stirring-plea-for-obama-second-term.html?hp

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            More proof that if the press does their usual and simply accepts Bubba’s (Obama’s) comments as reality then they will pass as reality.

            Where are the FACT CHECKERS????????????/ chirp, chirp. Is that crickets I here?

            Auto bailout: The US Tax Payers are still on the hook for 30 billion. GM is losing money and may be pushed to bankruptcy in the next year. Chrysler is now owned by a European firm, they got the company we paid for and we got stuck with part of the bill.

            Health Care: Constitutional abomination aside, it will drive UP THE COST of health care. And it will create large SPENDING obligations. This are already coming to light at the costs pushed beyond the budget horizon are now being reported by the CBO.

            So America is NOT better off now than when Mr. Obama took office.

            But therein lies the LIE of politicians. How do you define “better off”? To the Progressives running the DEM party it is whether they got some of their GOALS implemented. Did they successfully plant the seeds in American Culture for future take over of economic sectors when it pleases them? YES THEY CAN and YES THEY DID.

            It has nothing to do with tangible outcomes or future prosperity based on reality. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with enforcing or protecting FREEDOM, LIBERTY, or JUSTICE.

            • Why the Fact-Checkosphere is failing: So, as I understand it, this year the MSM will righteously strike back against “Post-Truth Politics” through rigorous fact-checking, followed by a manly, non-balanced, yet authoritative calling out of transgressors for the liars that they are. James Fallows and Jay Rosen, among others, have heralded this great new day. One problem, of course, is the ease–rather, the constant temptation–of presenting debatable policy issues as right/wrong fact issues, a problem emphasized by dissenter Ben Smith yesterday. Another is the way what Smith calls “the new pseudo science of fact-checks” opens up a giant sluice for the introduction of concealed bias, especially when “facts” are fed to the fact-checkers by the competing campaigns.

              But a simpler problem is that the MSM’s fact-checkers often don’t know what they’re talking about. For example, the oft-cited CNN-”fact check” of Romney’s welfare ad makes a big deal of HHS secretary Sebelius’ pledge that she will only grant waivers to states that “commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work.” CNN swallows this 20% Rule whole in the course of declaring Romney’s objection “wrong”:

              The waivers gave “those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.”

              Why, it looks as if Obama wants to make the work provisions tougher! Fact-check.org cites the same 20% rule.

              I was initially skeptical of Sebelius’ 20% pledge, since a) it measures the 20% against “the state’s past performance,” not what the state’s performance would be if it actually tried to comply with the welfare law’s requirements as written, and b) Sebelius pulled it out of thin air only after it became clear that the new waiver rule could be a political problem for the president. She could just as easily drop it in the future; and c) Sebelius made it clear the states don’t have to actually achieve the 20% goal–only “demonstrate clear progress toward” it.

              But Robert Rector, a welfare reform zealot who nevertheless does know what he’s talking about, has now published a longer analysis of the 20% rule. Turns out it’s not as big a scam as I’d thought it was. It’s a much bigger scam. For one thing, anything states do to increase the number of people on welfare will automatically increase the “exit” rate–what the 20% rule measures–since the more people going on welfare, the more people leave welfare for jobs in the natural course of things, without the state’s welfare bureaucrats doing anything at all. Raise caseloads by 20% and Sebelius’ standard will probably be met. (Maybe raise caseloads 30% just to be sure.) So what looks like a tough get-to-work incentive is actually a paleoliberal “first-get-on-welfare” incentive. But the point of welfare reform isn’t to get more people onto welfare. **

              It’s understandable that MSM reporters and non-profit checkers–some of whom may have been given only a few hours to get to the bottom of a subject they’ve never written about before–would easily fall for a bit of bureaucratic fakery. Do they have to be so self-righteous about it?

              Update: Defending Obama’s waivers on Meet the Press today, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel relies heavily on the bogus “20%” requirement. [Relevant clip is about 10:56 in]. … You have to suspect that what Rahm really thinks is: “Why am I talking about welfare? This #&*!$)! would never have made it out of HHS if I was still in the White House.” …

              Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/credulous-fact-checkers-fall-for-20-scam/#ixzz25i9mwV4y

      • It was a great speech but it was political. Take the line about “we left you”. Who’s the “we” there? We,was just about everybody in Washington. I know I sound like a broken record on the Housing mess, but honestly, can’t the economic collapse be traced back to that as the prime mover and weren’t there more Democrats involved than Republicans? Who mostly got those Countrywide sweetheart deals anyway? Whose boyfriend got the Freddie Mac job?

        Yesterday I asked the following: “Weren’t the Republicans put in power in the house by the people in 2010 as a brake on what Obama was doing?” Had not there been some miscalculations, they would have had the senate too. This does not sound like a resounding mid term endorsement of the President’s ideas of Hope and Change.

        One would have thought that as Clinton patted himself on the back last night he might have mentioned the 1994 rout he suffered., That, you may remember but not spin, was what reeled him in from the left (Hillarycare for example) and made his reputation as a budget balancing welfare reformer among other things.

        It’s always nice to be able to do equivalency but, when you do, you have to be honest. Just as a stupid example is it fair to single out Republican Millionaires in the Senate but ignore the Rockefellers, Lautenbergs and the Reids on the other side? As a matter of fact, how many republicans who never held real jobs ever became millionaires in Public Service vs Democats? That question, for me, goes back to LBJ, the poor schoolteacher who amassed a gazillion acres while serving the people of Texas. But then again, he was a people himself, wasn’t he?

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    This is just absolutely freakin PRICELESS.

    It includes a sad statement about the Balkanization of America, in political terms, and a confession about the deliberate bias of a major media outlet.

    “MSNBC celebrated a major milestone on Wednesday when it topped its rivals in primetime convention ratings for the first time in its 16-year history.

    TVNewser was the first to report the news. An MSNBC spokesperson confirmed that it was the network’s first-ever convention victory, and the first time that it beat its rivals head-to-head while all three were covering the same political event.

    MSNBC’s victory came on the first night of the Democratic convention in Charlotte. The network was first in both total viewers (4.107 million) and in the coveted 18-49 demo (1.432 million.) CNN came in second, with 3.88 million and 1.368 million in both categories. Fox News trailed far behind, drawing just 2.398 million total viewers and 550,000 in the demo — a far cry from its ratings on the first night of the Republican convention, when it drew a whopping 6.87 million viewers. MSNBC was also the only channel to grow its ratings from 2008. All of the other networks saw their ratings drop sharply.

    NBC was the overall victor for the night, drawing 5.02 million viewers.

    The disparity between MSNBC and Fox News could be chalked up to simple partisanship. Democrats are more likely to watch MSNBC during the Democratic gathering, and Republicans are more likely to watch Fox News during the Republican gathering — and to stay away from watching the DNC altogether. But it’s also a reflection of the success MSNBC has had in solidifying its brand as the go-to network for progressive and Democratic viewers.”

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Another note on the Conventions. And further HILARITY which reveals the “corrupt” nature of what we are dealing with.

    We all watched when the RNC tried to push rule changes to delegate selection that was directly aimed at Paul supporters and those who might actually have a mind of their own. We saw the Bull Shit voice vote where a majority was declared by a voice vote that was anything but clear.

    Now we see the same, actually worse, by the DNC. I say worse because the Chair was dumbfounded when the voice vote went against the “desired outcome” and the mike was on when his “guide” told him to move on and “just let them do what they are going to do”. Unfreakin believable.

    Sidebar: Buck, Mathius, Todd………how proud are you of that moment??

    I have commented on this type of stuff before and explained how it was similar action that caused me to finally give up the elephant party. But now let me add a little something I heard on Fox yesterday about this particular issue of delegate voting. It came from Bob Boekel.

    He laughed the whole thing off, stating matter of fact that this is how things are done. But he didn’t stop there. He explained how a “well run” convention would have the leadership in control of the microphones so they could turn up the volume for the Aye vote and turn them down for the Nay votes. He confessed to having personally done this for the 1984 DNC Convention.

    There you go folks. Another confession from a political operative about how the elite keep control.

    Sidebar: It is now reported that Obama himself asked for the platform changes. How IRONIC. The guy who is unwilling to publicly acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital pushing to have it put back in the platform. Contradicting his stated “Official Policy” which contradicted his prior statements, which contradicted his unwillingness to change his Official Policy statements, which contradicts……………. ROTFLMAO!!

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    I love it when others are running on the same track. It saves me time on research. From Malkin’s main story this morning.

    aka: The GM bailout was a GREAT DEAL…………….NOT

    “The claims that GM paid back its taxpayer-funded loans “in full” — a story peddled in campaign ads narrated by Hollywood actor Tom Hanks — were debunked by the Treasury Department’s TARP watchdog this summer. GM still owes nearly $30 billion of the $50 billion it received, and its lending arm still owes nearly $15 billion of the more than $17 billion it received. Bailout watchdog Mark Modica of the National Legal and Policy Center adds: “In addition to U.S. taxpayers anteing up, Canada put in over $10 billion, and GM was relieved of about $28 billion of bondholder obligations as UAW claims were protected. That’s an improvement of almost $90 billion to the balance sheet, and the company still lags the competition.””

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Well at least the AP looks like it is trying to be objective. AP article on NBC web site.

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13690187-dems-twist-jobs-numbers-and-gop-medicare-ideas#comments

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I have read accounts of the “deal” from other sources many weeks ago. It seems Woodward is behind the curve on this and struggling to stay relevant. Although I am sure to read his account as well. We political junkies just can’t help ourselves.

      BOTH sides are to blame for various reasons. I posted a week or two ago about what is needed for meaningful negotiations to succeed and how this is violated by politicians. They just want to start with positions and go from there. This is usually the result.

      The other accounts also lay the final blame on Obama, but probably more on his staff than him personally. They tried an end run at a critical point and pissed off Boehner big time. They put him in a corner knowing he was on thin ice. You cannot do that in tough negotiations.

      Did you notice how they try to portray the “Tea Party dominated Congress”. If the freakin Tea Party ACTUALLY dominated Congress we would not be sitting here having these arguments. The House would have offered up much tougher medicine than what Ryan has proposed. And the debt ceiling WOULD NOT have been extended. What HORSE DOOKEY, BULL FEATHERS, OOOOOMPAH!

      • What I find with most of what I read about Obama, when it comes to any negotiations or interactions with Congress-is that he just doesn’t have the desire, the skills, or the understanding of the process, enough to get anything done. Lack of experience, he doesn’t like the system-I don’t know-but somehow when I read this-the first thought that entered my head-was that Congress, democrat or republican would rather work with Biden than Obama.

        • He was used to raising his hand and yelling “Present.” … but he was elected anyway (thank you George W. Bush & Sarah Palin) … and now he’s gonna be re-elected because the GOP has become a bigger joke than usual (thank you tea party).

          Get used to it, SUFA-ites … 4 more years.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          I have posted here before and will repeat again. My contacts within Govt have ALL made the same statement to me in various forms.

          “This Administration does NOT know how to govern”. This is the knock from inside the Govt. You never heard this when Bush was in the chair. You might here dissent about goals or policies, but not about basic skills of governance.

          There is also a serious flaw in the whole effort that Woodward never even mentions. At least not in these excerpts. WHY were they negotiating with the White House in the first place??? The negotiations should have been between the D’s and R’s in Congress.

          I guarantee you that if a deal had been struck that the D’s in the Senate would have killed the deal. That was what the “trial balloon” on entitlement cuts was all about at the time.

          When Bush was elected he surrounded himself with old school bureaucrats and politicians who understood how to run govt.

          When Obama was elected who did he surround himself with???

          Therein lies the source of what it is you sense about his skills or lack of understanding.

          • JAC: You never heard this when Bush was in the chair. You might here dissent about goals or policies, but not about basic skills of governance.

            Where are you coming up with this? There was constant talk of Bush’s inability to govern during his 8-yrs!

            • Agreed, that’s why Tom Delay and his gang took over. Bush may have had some good people in the cabinet but he certainly was no Eisenhower or Reagan. He allowed them to run things without ever checking up on them.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                S.K.

                You should know that is what Cabinet Officers are supposed to do. Run the Govt. The President is not supposed to interfere.

                Bush’s one big fault in this area was undeserved loyalty at times. He stood by top officials when they screwed up instead of letting some go.

              • Pres sets the policy and then checks up to see if its followed. If not, out you go.
                Otherwise, you are right, pick the right person and let them run with it.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Govern….as in running the bureaucracy. You know, being an EXECUTIVE. Did you know that Bush significantly changed the operations of the White House and was praised by many for his work? Did you know that Mr. Obama benefited from these changes and kept most in place?

              Yes Buck, there were no complaints of his governing by the Govt Officials he oversaw. Criticism was over his policies. What was the primary source of the criticism you think you heard? Could that have been Dem leadership and Progressive talking heads???

              The one exception and even it was attacked mostly by outsiders trying to damage him, was Katrina. And even Katrina was not the Federal boondoggle everyone wants to claim. It was not the Feds who prevented the Guard from entering the city immediately after.

              I told you where I got this from. The very govt officials who have to deal with the White House almost on a daily basis.

              • I distinctly remember hearing complaints from WH officials in terms of Bush’s ability to govern. I’m not going to go searching for articles on this now. True a lot (probably most) was in the wake of Katrina, but also in the wake of (and lead-up to) 9/11 and just generally over his 8-yr term.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Also, for what it’s worth, much of the “liberal media” was way too cowed by Bush to criticize him much.

                Remember this chestnut:

                Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott sniped, “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field? He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.”

                ie, It’s unpatriotic to question the President.. you know, as long as that President is a Republican.

                Or maybe you remember when the Dixie Chicks started getting death threats?

                http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/09/imperial_president.html

                Bah!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Here’s what the convention keynoter, Miller, said in the 2004 Republican convention about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

                While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

                Gee, I wonder why you didn’t see an excessive amount of criticism of Bush..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Point of Order.

                Neither of your cited comments have a damn thing to do with my point. None at all.

                I did not say that people did not criticize Bush. And the chastising you cited certainly didn’t stop anyone did it!

                So I throw the BS Flag against you. 15 yards and loss of down.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      For Buck and Mathius

      From within the abc news article. Remember when I told you that the accusation against Republican stonewalling was not honest?

      “With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration’s early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: “We have the votes. F— ’em,” he’s quoted in the book as saying. ”

      See that………..”decision to forego bipartisanship”……….. ROTFLMAO.

      I have to take a break now. The jocularity is causing my sides to ache.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    A long time ago when I first came to SUFA I made the accusation that we had a FASCIST political/economic system and that this was the result of almost one hundred years of Progressive backed policies.

    Well Mr. Clinton last night apparently put it all out there for everyone to see and I have yet to hear a single pundit, from either side, point this out.

    “We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

    Here is the KEY phrase; “with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity.”

    In fact, this is moving closer to “socialism” outright than just “fascism”. The latter is the control of private sector via regulations, partnerships, etc. What Mr. Clinton is talking about, is a MELDING of Govt and Private Sector into a SINGLE unit………… centrally planned in Washington D.C.. Under such a system, those business sectors not in favor with the elite will fall victim to all kinds of misfortune.

    He did tell the TRUTH, however. THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BELIEVES. We should take them at their word.

    • Yes, we should take Clinton at his words, at face value.

      His words: working together, as in collaboratively. Nowhere in that statement did Clinton say anything about a melding of public and private into a single unit. You continue to read in what you want to read as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, just taking his comments at face value. God I’m getting tired of this tactic…

      • I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” Barack Obama

        BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

      • He does not have to say it when it is there for all to see. Freddie, Fannie and Sallie are classic examples. they do not stand on their own like the VA they are collaborative partners with the lending industry. A nice way to say it would be that they have a symbiotic relationship which of course is not true.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        When did truth become a “tactic” to be dismissed?

        • Truth of the matter is you aren’t using the truth; you aren’t taking Clinton’s words at face value. Rather, you are reading into it your own perceptions at his meaning.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I have personal experience dealing with Clinton and his Administration. I know exactly what he means and I expressed the same.

            It is you who are trying to split the hairs once again.

            How can govt and the private sector work in “collaboration” without becoming a unified decision making entity???

            They become a single unit, as S.K. offered, a unified symbiotic entity consisting of two parts totally dependent on each other. Ironically this view is the direct opposite of the one espoused by Elizabeth Warren.

            Funny how the lefty pundits missed that ironic twist of logic.

    • Together!
      By Jonah Goldberg
      September 6, 2012 10:28 A.M.

      It is a real burden not to cite every other paragraph spoken from the stage as a vindication of my book, The Tyranny of Clichés (or, for that matter, Liberal Fascism). Over and over again the Democrats spout, to paraphrase De Tocqueville, clear-but-false ideas. The overarching one of the whole convention: Government is the only thing we all belong to. Such bogus appeals to unity and community as a justification for activist government drive me batty. That’s what Elizabeth Warren’s speech was all about and countless other lesser luminaries as well. Here’s Bill Clinton’s soundbite of the night: “You see, we believe that ‘We’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘You’re on your own.’”

      According to this, and countless other formulations, the choice is binary. Large, ambitious, government action or dystopian anarchy. It’s as if the only thing keeping us from raping and pillaging defenseless widows is the government. This, to borrow one of Clinton’s favorite phrases, is a nakedly false choice. Despite all of the b.s. we hear about the Randian captivity of the GOP, no Republican makes anything like that argument. What is it about liberals that makes them think all that stands between them and total Road Warrior–style anarchy is a bloated, inefficient, government in Washington?

      UPDATE: What the Heck, from Tyranny:

      Logically, the idea that “government is simply the word for those things we choose to do together” is an obvious fallacy. We do many things together, some of them involve the government, most don’t. An estimated 111 million people watched the 2011 Super Bowl. Weren’t we as “together” for that as we are for, say, an OSHA hearing on the efficacy of toilet flush regulations?

      Even if you allow for poetic license, this idea is a mess. We aren’t all employees of the government, and so we don’t all do what the government does together. We do all benefit together from a few things—a very few things—the government does, such as: ensuring the health of the water supply, enforcing the rule of law (broadly understood), and defending America from foreign enemies. But we don’t really do those things to- gether, do we? Consider the military, one of the few national institutions truly intended to serve all Americans equally. Military service clearly is not fulfilled by everyone, even if everyone pays for it. Indeed, one of the reasons we honor the fallen on Memorial Day and those who served on Veterans Day is precisely because we don’t all do it together. Those who wear the uniform carry the extra load so the rest of us don’t have to. The Korean War Memorial that reads “Freedom isn’t Free” might be more accurate if it said “This Freedom brought to you by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines”—but it’s too hard to make that rhyme in a Toby Keith song.

      And even when considering those very few things that benefit everybody, or nearly everybody, it’s a misunderstanding of our form of government to suggest that they are good or worthwhile because everybody agrees on their merits. We do not have a system of government that de- pends on the consent of everybody. In fact, no system ever has the consent of everybody, but plenty of systems have claimed they have support from everybody and have tried to prove it by killing anybody who disagreed.

      We have a system of government that depends on the consent of the majority of citizens. And even then, majorities do not always win the day—nor should they. We have a Bill of Rights and a Supreme Court precisely so that the majority cannot always win. At least theoretically, the majority cannot revoke my freedom of religion, speech, or association.

      It cannot take away my property nor rescind my right to bear arms. Now, obviously, in practice the majority can sometimes do these things, but only for reasons that pass various constitutional tests. But those tests are invariably applied when at least someone disagrees enough to go to court to complain.

      More to the point, when Barack Obama or Barney Frank say that government is just a word we use for those things we all do together, they’re doing so inevitably to make the case for spending money on things: entitlements, high-speed rail, Head Start, windmills, teacher sal- aries, mohair subsidies, whatever. And it is hardly the case that we’re “all in it together” when it comes to paying for these things. The average person on Medicare gets three times more out of it than they paid in.1 The rest is carried by other taxpayers, living and unborn. Sixty percent of households get more from the U.S. government than they pay into it.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316075/together-jonah-goldberg

  36. Heheheheh, Bush didn’t lie!(doesn’t mean he’s not an idiot)

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/05/a_classified_CIA_mea_culpa_on_iraq

  37. Charlie,

    I have to agree with the sentiment that regardless of what type of government a nation has there will always be control by a 1% of that nation (power being derived from their wealth because we know that with most people “money talks and bullshit walks”).

    Let me tell you some of what my wife related to me of her 10 days In Nicaragua this last July on the medical mission she was a part of.

    First, she fell in love with the country and its peoples. The mission she was on was to teach basic and advance life support for children and adults to a team of Nicaraguan doctors. A private hospital in Managua sponsored the team to come and teach and the doctors who were students are from that same hospital. As a private hospital it is woefully inadequate in modernization and capabilities compared to US hospitals. Sad, but true. Keep in mind this is a private hospital – no insurance or ability to pay, no treatment. My wife said that the few public hospitals where anyone may seek treatment are so inadequate, underfunded, staffed and capable of providing treatment that they barely surpass a private US medical practice, let alone any clinic or hospital. The doctors and staff in these public hospitals are just as dedicated and caring as any medical professional in our nation, it is just not even reasonable funded by the government. In fact in Managua if you need an ambulance to take you to a hospital you can forget it – the public hospital’s have no ambulances and the government has no ambulances for the people to use (yes, the private hospitals do – but you have to have insurance before they will send it out to get you). The final goal of the mission (for next year) is to get these doctors trained as instructors in the life support practices so they can train the other public and private hospitals (my wife – a certified instructor intends to return next year as a team member to continue training these docs). Once done Nicaragua will be the first and only nation in Central or South America certified by the American Heart Association for basic and advance cardiac life support for kids and adults.

    Let me tell you about what she said of the people of the country (they got to travel some outside of Managua to local towns and villages). The people are poor, very poor – poor that makes the poorest American look affluent in comparison. But, they are some of the most charming and caring people she has ever had the pleasure to associate with! Side note: My wife has said if we were to ever emigrate and leave the US for good, Nicaragua is her choice just because of the people.

    She (with the senior hospital staff as escorts and translators) went to local markets to shop and was so delighted at the beauty, craftsmanship and ingenuity the people displayed in their handiwork. Most of it all handmade (there were no shopping trips to what we see as national chain stores). Many of the people were making their wares as they waited for more business. She said that it was amazing how they would comes up with ways to earn a few cordoba’s a day to support themselves and their families. One young man tried to sell my wife his parrot he had that he trained to entertain people in the hopes of earning spare change (he said he’d sell it to her for $20 US). She declined but gave the young man money for taking the time to has his parrot entertain her on a street corner (she still won’t tell me how much she gave him. 🙂 I personally suspect it was probably $20 dollars – which is what I would have done). In all ten days there were only two things she saw on the streets of the city that disturbed her – women in the world’s oldest profession and the fact that all along the streets of local mom and pop businesses were men armed with assault rifles guarding these private businesses from criminals (the national police force is small and not very effective for a variety of reasons she was told).

    There was much more and I’d doubt I do justice in the further retelling. Suffice it to say that she smiled and – as she put it – cried every day for and about the people and their struggles.

    So, what is the point of all I have spoken to you may be wondering? Well, it goes like this. This is a nation that has had many political struggles since the end of the Somoza regime in 1979. This is a nation that has continued to undergo continually interference in it’s internal politics from the United States (primarily against the Sandinista, led by current President Daniel Ortega) by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Our interference is just the example of what the USA should not ever be doing overseas. But, back more to my point. The governments, whether right or left, have not and show no interest in, truly working for the people. Nicaragua is – I believe – the second poorest nation in the region (behind only Haiti). Basically, whatever government has been, or is, in power the people are still dominate by a small elite who hold the country in a tight grips – continually struggling to gain or hold on to power. Man’s base instincts to power push them to be as they are – regardless of political perspective. The 99% will ever be forced to live under the rule of these elite 1%ers. While it is commendable to believe in fairness for all, for the “greater good” the 1% of any political persuasion will never allow it to happen – shame on them.

    What is the answer? I confess that I do not know. I don’t know if there is an answer that we can hope will come to fruition my friend. But, I do know that all we can do is to try and help those we can – to improve and enrich one life at a time if that is all we can do. I trust no government to ever truly lift the people – all people – to a level of equality you and I could agree was fair. I believe this would be because to do so would remove the need for any government to control a society where everyone was equal and treated fairly.

    I respect Daniel Ortega and the attempts he tried to make, but the Sandinistas have done no better for the people than and right wing group has when they were in power.

    Forgive my long and winded post. Who knows, maybe someday I’ll be posting my comments from Nicaragua (if my wife has her way. 🙂 )

    • and please forgive my grammar and spelling errors.

      • Excuse my typos too … I’m at lunch at work …

        I have to agree with the sentiment that regardless of what type of government a nation has there will always be control by a 1% of that nation (power being derived from their wealth because we know that with most people “money talks and bullshit walks”).

        I agree … up to a point. If there are caps on the wealth one can acquire, it diminishes THAT 1%’s ability to rule/corrupt government. Yes, there will always be corruption, but to what degree. In our system, it’s an out and out joke—completely corrupt.

        Nicaragua …

        I hear you, Plainly, but Nicaragua isn’t exactly the country the U.S. should be measured by. Australia, for one, is doing just fine (and they’re not even socialist, but provide socialized medicine). We’re ranked somewhere in the middle medically … against many states that provide socialized medicine. That tells me more than an anecdote about Nicaragua.

        Let me tell you about what she said of the people of the country (they got to travel some outside of Managua to local towns and villages). The people are poor, very poor – poor that makes the poorest American look affluent in comparison. But, they are some of the most charming and caring people she has ever had the pleasure to associate with! Side note: My wife has said if we were to ever emigrate and leave the US for good, Nicaragua is her choice just because of the people.

        I guess that sometimes in poverty, people come together. I tip my hat to them, you and your wife, brother.

        She (with the senior hospital staff as escorts and translators) went to local markets to shop and was so delighted at the beauty, craftsmanship and ingenuity the people displayed in their handiwork. Most of it all handmade (there were no shopping trips to what we see as national chain stores). Many of the people were making their wares as they waited for more business. She said that it was amazing how they would comes up with ways to earn a few cordoba’s a day to support themselves and their families. One young man tried to sell my wife his parrot he had that he trained to entertain people in the hopes of earning spare change (he said he’d sell it to her for $20 US). She declined but gave the young man money for taking the time to has his parrot entertain her on a street corner (she still won’t tell me how much she gave him. I personally suspect it was probably $20 dollars – which is what I would have done). In all ten days there were only two things she saw on the streets of the city that disturbed her – women in the world’s oldest profession and the fact that all along the streets of local mom and pop businesses were men armed with assault rifles guarding these private businesses from criminals (the national police force is small and not very effective for a variety of reasons she was told).

        I hear you again … and we have women in the world’s oldest profession walking our streets as well … especially in poverty stricken areas. Are they just a bunch of lazy sluts who didn’t want to work hard (like good Americans)? I know you don’t think that … just making a point. Our poverty level rises every day while our wealthiest (who did SQUAT – certainly nothing near their worth) to “earn” it grow more and more wealthy/powerful.

        So, what is the point of all I have spoken to you may be wondering? Well, it goes like this. This is a nation that has had many political struggles since the end of the Somoza regime in 1979. This is a nation that has continued to undergo continually interference in it’s internal politics from the United States (primarily against the Sandinista, led by current President Daniel Ortega) by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Our interference is just the example of what the USA should not ever be doing overseas. But, back more to my point. The governments, whether right or left, have not and show no interest in, truly working for the people. Nicaragua is – I believe – the second poorest nation in the region (behind only Haiti). Basically, whatever government has been, or is, in power the people are still dominate by a small elite who hold the country in a tight grips – continually struggling to gain or hold on to power. Man’s base instincts to power push them to be as they are – regardless of political perspective. The 99% will ever be forced to live under the rule of these elite 1%ers. While it is commendable to believe in fairness for all, for the “greater good” the 1% of any political persuasion will never allow it to happen – shame on them.

        I’m glad you seem to recognize how much our capitalist system used and abused other nation states (keeping them in the same third world status that has now reached our borders). And yes, socialist countries “might” do the same. We won’t know until we try, though, will we? I doubt it (socialism) is a panacea, my friend. Like you, I don’t have any answers either. I rail against the supporters of this system, however, for the absolute bullshit they lay on people in their attempts to convince them that “we’re the greatest in the world” … “free” … have equal opportunity under the law … equal rights, etc. … and then point to founding fathers who spoke for a very small percentage of landowners (because there weren’t many fieldworkers adding text to the original documents, etc.). I don’t hate America … nor do I want to “steal” from the wealthy … I don’t happen to believe the wealthiest in this country could possibly have “earned” what they have accumulated over time (and off the backs of workers, whether foreign or domestically exploited).

        I respect Daniel Ortega and the attempts he tried to make, but the Sandinistas have done no better for the people than and right wing group has when they were in power.

        Unfortunately, it is much more common that a revolution turns as brutal as the one it replaces (Cambodia—another VICTIM OF AMERICAN INTERVENTION—and the direct cause of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge) … but we’re already a civilized nation with an education system in place. Imagine the good we could do if we had a truly representative government (of the people—not the 1%)? In my opinion, it’s more than worth the try.

        When you post from Nicaragua, I may be posting from Germany, the UK or somewhere else in Europe. It’s our plan to travel for a few years (if we can) and live overseas.

        You remain the best, Plainly.

        • I agree … up to a point. If there are caps on the wealth one can acquire, it diminishes THAT 1%’s ability to rule/corrupt government. Yes, there will always be corruption, but to what degree. In our system, it’s an out and out joke—completely corrupt.

          You may very well be right. Problem is that the elite 1% will continually prevent that from happening. Shame on them.

          but Nicaragua isn’t exactly the country the U.S. should be measured by

          I was trying to compare only in how the 1% in any country holds sway over the people. I suspect I did a poor job of making that clear. My apologies.

          Australia, for one, is doing just fine (and they’re not even socialist, but provide socialized medicine). We’re ranked somewhere in the middle medically … against many states that provide socialized medicine. That tells me more than an anecdote about Nicaragua.

          I wouldn’t disagree. There are aspects of any nation that could be better implemented that could give some improvement to the people. If we can get any nation’s 1%er’s to get out of the way and allow it to happen. Trial and error will give better measurements as to the usefulness (or lack thereof) of any aspect tried than any political pontificating. One problem is though we tend to keep doing bad ideas once they are implemented – like changing to something else would automatically be worse. What is that old saw about not learning from history?

          I guess that sometimes in poverty, people come together.

          I think we could agree that in them they work for the greater good for themselves and those in the boat with them. I see it as the only logical choice they could make.

          I hear you again … and we have women in the world’s oldest profession walking our streets as well … especially in poverty stricken areas. Are they just a bunch of lazy sluts who didn’t want to work hard (like good Americans)? I know you don’t think that … just making a point. Our poverty level rises every day while our wealthiest (who did SQUAT – certainly nothing near their worth) to “earn” it grow more and more wealthy/powerful.

          You’re right, I don’t think that about them. Survival will push one to extreme ends to live. I know wealthy aren’t all bad – but I also agree that those you are talking about may not see (or want to see) how there fellows struggle to make life decent for themselves and may tend to think that “if only they work harder they could be like us.” Bullshit for the most part, but then it is easy to not see what one doesn’t want to see when living their “good” life. I don’t give a damn if they are rich and how they got it even. I get pissed at their assumption anyone can be what they are. That may have true once in time in this nation – but now, not really.

          And yes, socialist countries “might” do the same. We won’t know until we try, though, will we? I doubt it (socialism) is a panacea, my friend.

          I don’t believe the socialism we have seen practiced by nations we base our views of socialism on will work one bit better here. Maybe if we tried a “modified” socialism (for lack of a better term) it might – but we still must get past the 1% to make that happen. I don’t know Charlie. I believe at this point we can only fight for incremental changes to better ourselves for all our peoples. Problem with that is each side spends more energy in fighting over what those changes should be that we “progress” even slower in trying them out.

          Like you, I don’t have any answers either. I rail against the supporters of this system, however, for the absolute bullshit they lay on people in their attempts to convince them that “we’re the greatest in the world” … “free” … have equal opportunity under the law … equal rights, etc. … and then point to founding fathers who spoke for a very small percentage of landowners (because there weren’t many fieldworkers adding text to the original documents, etc.).

          i understand that of you Charlie. It’s why I look past the “disgruntled” wording you use in ridiculing most of the time. Honestly it doesn’t work to change thinking, but even I have to vent frustrations at what I see as bullshit too. The founders weren’t as bad as the rulers they rebelled against necessarily, but made many of the same choices as many other peoples (like slavery) and didn’t rise above their prejudices to put truth behind their grandiose wording that “all men are created equal.” But, I believe it was the best experiment in self-governance that could be instituted at that point in the nation’s history. I think they knew we would spend the rest of the nation’s history fighting over it.

          Unfortunately, it is much more common that a revolution turns as brutal as the one it replaces (Cambodia—another VICTIM OF AMERICAN INTERVENTION—and the direct cause of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge)

          True.

          but we’re already a civilized nation with an education system in place. Imagine the good we could do if we had a truly representative government (of the people—not the 1%)? In my opinion, it’s more than worth the try.

          I can agree. I think that we would be much closer to all men being created equal (and of course I’m sure you know I mean “all people”) than we have now. Once again it comes down to what it will take to institute the right changes.

          When you post from Nicaragua, I may be posting from Germany, the UK or somewhere else in Europe. It’s our plan to travel for a few years (if we can) and live overseas.

          I must say that my wife’s descriptions of the country have me wanting to join her on her next trip, though that will likely not be possible. I’m betting I wouldn’t want to come “home” to the US. lol.

          I don’t hate America

          I saved this for the end. Charlie, never thought you did. I see your hate as being directed at what you believe to be injustice, discrimination, and inequality of and against the people. Just as I hate those same things in the same way. But then, to be fair – many others hate the same as they believe it to be. Whether that is BF, JAC, GMan, Anita, VH, Buck, Mathius, Todd or myself. It comes down to agreeing what each side believes how those are practiced in this nation. Strive on with your beliefs Charlie, it’s good for you, for your fellow man/woman, and for the nation. Silence is the death of change. I may not always agree, but we can work that out issue by issue my friend.

          Peace brother. 🙂

          • When people “rank” the United States, be it on education, medicine, crime, violence, poverty, wealth, they leave out one little thing. Among developed nations, we are to my knowledge the only one that permits swarms of people to come in through the back door. Sure we screen conventional immigrants and miss a few not so great ones but by and large, they have been vetted and like them or not, they offer something to the nation. Now the back door group, that’s another thing.

            When its is assumed that anywhere from 11 to 30 million people may be here having not gone through any vetting at all, one wonders the effect that has on all the rankings? I suspect that some would say none, but the reality is if you constantly import a new supply of uneducated new poor people, you are never and I do mean never getting those numbers out of the basement. Australia, New Zealand are not valid comparisons other than in what they did to their native populations (HEAR THAT CHARLIE) since it is a very long swim for Mexicans.

            The only available statistics that I have ever seen are those on people who are here undocumented and in prison for crimes. Fully 30 percent, if I remember, of inmates in California and New York are undocumented. If you transpose those figures to other things such as education and medicine it goes a long way towards explaining why we are not number one as Charlie points out.

            After the First World War, the gates slammed shut and stayed shut partially because with the advent of the Great Depression who needed more poor people? Maybe our forebears were a lot smarter than we are., They understood that there came a time when the attention and concentration of the country should be on assimilation E Pluribus Unum.

            It is obvious to me that we are where we are, stagnating, because we cannot move forward. Every step we take up the slope causes us to slip back a step. I wonder why there is even a point of contention on this issue. It is clearly there for all to see. Perhaps people like Charlie see this as some kind of “cosmic” punishment for American Hubris or perhaps he just does not know how to balance a checkbook.

            Plainly, you talk about how the founders did the best they could in this nation at the time. Expand your boundaries my friend, do not forget that did the best in the world at the time. Their best, back then without our improvements over the past 225 years, still beats what we have in a good portion of the world today. I read a lot, always have and lately have been concentrating on the immigrant experience circa 1880 to 1920. It is instructive. Those poor uneducated peons who came here back then, either from Sicily, the west coast of Norway. the ruined farms of Ireland, the Pale, Poland, the Ukraine, Greece came looking for something that did not exist where they were born. They were welcomed by a country eager to exploit their labor in jobs that do not exist today. Along the way, this country transformed them into Americans and became richer for it. Teddy Roosevelt and his ilk (the 1% ers of the time) were schizophrenic on immigration. They had a love/hate relationship but demanded one thing. That there be no hyphenated Americans. You could be an American of Polish extraction but not a Polish-American. You checked your other allegiances at the door when you came in. In the run up to the first world war there were major concerns over loyalty. The Irish hated the Brits and rooted for Germany. Poles, depending on where they came from in that non-country either sided with Germany or Russia. Jews, from the Pale hated Czarist Russia and rooted for Germany until the Kerensky revolution in 1917.Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and the rest of the residents in Austria-Hungary had mixed allegiance and yet, when war came, they, surprisingly to many, answered the colors.

            All of us here sit back fairly fat and happy and forget these things ever happened. I do not have any clue what part of Italy Charlie’s family came from but I guarantee you if it was Southern Italy, you would have to have sent them back at gunpoint to get them to go. I suspect my Grandfather would have been the same regarding Galicia and many, many elderly Russian Jews I knew would have killed themselves before going back to the place where their parents faced obligatory pogroms. How can we possibly forget why and how we are here?

            .

            • Stephen,

              Plainly, you talk about how the founders did the best they could in this nation at the time. Expand your boundaries my friend, do not forget that did the best in the world at the time

              The founders based their views on tyrannical government on England and King George – so my statement is clear. “The founders weren’t as bad as the rulers they rebelled against necessarily, but made many of the same choices as many other peoples (like slavery) and didn’t rise above their prejudices to put truth behind their grandiose wording that “all men are created equal.” But, I believe it was the best experiment in self-governance that could be instituted at that point in the nation’s history. I think they knew we would spend the rest of the nation’s history fighting over it.”

              Our founders weren’t screaming about other governments in the world at the time, just about England’s.

              • Just pointing out that what they created topped anything else anywhere at the time. Before Charlie jumps in, yes, I know, we were supported by Louis of France and as a matter of fact that is who Louisville KY is named after.

                It is the old Steve Allen tune, “This could be the start of something big!”

            • As too getting into any immigration debate – I’ll pass on that for today.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Sandra Fluke, ICON of the Liberated and Independent Modern Woman.

    Demanding that OTHER PEOPLE be FORCED to pay for her contraception and medical care.

    Such a “liberated” person is so ………………………………. gee, I can’t find the words to express how this gives me the warm and fuzzies inside.

  39. This is just too good not to share with all you upstanding SUFAers. I know none of you would ever need this skill, but should you be looking for a way to lie publicly, take some tips from these two clips. Poor Cory Booker – after speaking his mind on the Bain crap, he’s been a good little soldier trying to get back in the WH’s good graces. Seems he’s continuing his pandering ways here. How many tire tracks does this poor guy have on him? (and listen to him at the end try to use the fallback….Bush!) And Axelrod and ValJar in the second clip? Even John Stewart couldn’t do it better.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/dnc-platform-co-chair-cory-booker-getting-hammered-over-godjerusalem-omission/#disqus_thread

  40. ODonnell: Neanderthal Republicans … you gotta love it.

    • So-all Ryan said was I reject Ayn Rand’s philosophy-this quote is the totality of what he said. Really! I seriously doubt it-so where is the rest of his statement.

      • So, are you suggesting he’s for “some of Ryan” and not all of it? That seems to be a mantra here for some (stay in your box, USW, I didn’t say ALL) of SUFA … was he just a moron who didn’t read the atheism in her works or did he just ignore it? Seems to me his church took issue with his inability to recognize what Rand was about. He’s a natural politican, Ryan is … except he stands on the neanderthal side of the aisle …:)

        • Whatever-where’s the rest of his statement-And yes, one can look past her atheism and concentrate on her points about individualism without buying into all of them. There can be good ideas which are too extreme-but they do not have to be taken or implemented to the extreme. It isn’t a choice between Socialism/Communism or Anarchy.

          • Me thinks you’d better confer with the bag of wind himself, sir B of F … and if I’m not mistaken, Sir JAC is another who believes there is black and white and nothing else.

            The issue O’Donnell was raising, though, since you seem interested, is Ryan is considered “the smart” one in the GOP … O’Donnell is merely questioning his “smarts” since he read so much of Rand (without ever noticing her atheism?) … he seems to have worshipped her (in fact, using the word “morality” in his praises of her … the fact her “economic morality” is antithetical to what Jesus preached was a big fly in the ointment … as was her positions on abortion and religion in general … so was he over enthusiastic, a typical politician or a moron? Probably a combination of the three … but he’s the extreme right’s hero right now (running alongside a guy who’s flip-flopped more than a friggin’ slinky) … and that’s why the GOP will lose big in this version of the circle jerk we so proudly mistate is a democracy …

            • There’s an old saying-The Pot calling the Kettle black. ^ Oh my, should I search history to see if that old saying is racist.^

              I am more than aware of what ‘Donnell is trying to do. Again-Give me Ryan’s whole statement ^ Actually forget it-I’ll find them myself ^ and I will decide what I think about his recent remarks and if they change my current opinion.

              From the remarks I have heard-I have no problem with his statements about Rand laying out a case for capitalism by looking at individualism vs collectivism. And believe me -I believe we should help the poor and so does Ryan. Trying to make him out as a lying, un-Christian anarchist is just political BS stupidity.

              Try to overlook the weird way I’m typing-My key board is shot and I haven’t had time to go get a new one. Several keys just won’t type anymore. 🙂

            • Until she came right out and confronted him with it, Bill Buckley missed it too.

          • Agree.

            It is the master choice between freedom or slavery.

            What you choose either improves one or the other.

            Choose carefully.

  41. Peterson jury asks for definition of ‘unanimous’

    Published September 06, 2012

    Associated Press

    JOLIET, Ill. – Jurors deliberating the murder case against Drew Peterson’s sent a note to the judge Thursday asking for the definition of the word `unanimous’ — a request that would seem to indicate a lack of consensus among them after more than a day and a half of discussion.

    After the former Illinois police officer and his attorneys gathered in the Joliet courtroom, Judge Edward Burmila read out the one-sentence note from the 12 panelists, who include a research technician, a part-time poet and mail carrier. It read: “Just to be clear, judge — what does `unanimous’ mean?”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/06/peterson-jury-asks-for-definition-unanimous/?test=latestnews#ixzz25ihvkwNK

    (sorry, that just sounded Clintonian to me, had to share)

    • Peers, its all about peers. Wow, is this one going out the door on appeal. What do you think Buck?

    • I thought it was an insurance program, that FDIC thing. I always believed that banks paid a premium for the insurance. Somehow that twerp failed to mention that. And, in the scheme of things, 10 mil, come on. Wanna revisit AIG or my friends at Goldman Sachs? Liars lying about liars lying about liars.

      • FDIC
        No, it is not insurance. It is sold to the public like it was insurance, but it is not.
        Banks pay a fee to it, correct, but does not insure the banks, nor does it insure you.

        The government funds the FDIC from the treasury.
        The treasury gets its funds from the FED.

        It is method to keep the banking system solvent, nothing more.

        Non_FDIC: If a bank fails, the depositor loses their money – this is how it should be. Deposits are what funds banks, and if the bank is bad, it is up to the depositors to protect their own money.

        However, this eliminates banking capital, causing recessions due to reducing the money supply.

        FDIC: If a bank fails, you get your money. What do you do with your money? Well, you deposit into another bank. The bank system sees no change, no reduction in the money supply. No recession, BUT inflation.

  42. Anyone on a jury who doesn’t know/understand what “unanimous” means should never be on a jury in the first place. 🙄

    Just my opinion of course.

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    I thought perhaps it time to reveal just a tiny bit more about my experiences.

    I would like you to meet an old “acquaintance” of mine. I say that because he and I were invited to debate “opposing” views on a couple of panel discussions when he was primarily focused on natural resource issues. He and I exchanged a few notes following these “exchanges”. I enjoyed our discussions and I think he was surprised with how much I agreed with “some” of his ideas.

    It if funny to see his evolution from a darling of the Green movement to a pariah because he opposes subsidies of public transportation and “smart growth” dictates. At one time his work was widely cited in lawsuits against the Forest Service and BLM over land management activities.

    He also makes a great example of a man who continued his education outside the system. Eventually being recognized by Cato as worthy of their name.

    A tip o’ my hat to Randy this fine Thursday afternoon.

  44. Paul Ryan & his Ayn Rand “position.

    Here is an article in the Christian Science Monitor:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0814/Paul-Ryan-does-an-about-face-on-Ayn-Rand/%28page%29/2

    • and here are his statements in an National Review interview:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

      Now y’all can fight over where he stands and what he said.

    • From the two articles I see a change in attitude for political expediency by Ryan.

      The CSM shows pretty clearly where he was before versus what he wants you all to believe now. To me it spells no backbone – getting elected is more important than the “principles” he previously espoused.

      • Ryan’s Economic Plans Aren’t as Ayn Rand-Based as You Think
        By Yahoo! Finance | The Exchange – Mon, Aug 27, 2012 8:47 PM EDT

        By Dr. Harry Binswanger

        The buzz is huge. The web is “aTwitter” and the streams of the mainstream media are churning: VP candidate Paul Ryan is an admirer of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

        The left is particularly exercised. Just Google “Ryan-Rand ticket” and you will find a slew of articles at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc., claiming that Rand’s Objectivism has “taken over the Republican Party” and that Ryan’s budget was an “Ayn Rand budget.”

        If only!

        The Truth About Ryan’s Views

        As an Objectivist philosopher, let me point out the light-years separating Paul Ryan — and every other contemporary politician — from what Rand called “the unknown ideal”: laissez-faire capitalism.

        “When I say ‘capitalism,'” she wrote, “I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism–with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

        Ryan has been called an “extremist” for wanting to tinker with the way government funds a couple of programs and seeking to slow the growth of government spending. For the actual extreme — i.e., liberty uncompromised — step back for a moment and consider what Rand’s laissez-faire would be like.

        No Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no welfare for anyone, no government-provided disaster relief, no post office, no public schools or state universities. That’s only part of it. There would be no antitrust laws, no Federal Reserve, no regulatory agencies of any kind.

        Rand, correctly, in my view, opposed all government regulation on principle. She identified regulation as preventive law, requiring the innocent to satisfy regulators that they will not engage in legally proscribed behavior.

        Wait, there’s more. Under laissez-faire, the money in your wallet would be “bank notes,” issued by private (completely unregulated) banks. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving would be shut down. Even the roads would be privately owned.

        What would be left to fund, in an “Ayn Rand budget”? Only the three legitimate functions of government: the military, to protect you against foreign aggressors; the police, to protect you from domestic aggressors (criminals); and the law courts, to settle disputes under objective law.

        A Realistic Option?

        Ludicrous, impossible, unthinkable — right? Think again. This was, in essence, the original American system. This was the great engine of progress that reigned for most of the 19th century, rocketing America forward, luring millions from statist Europe, who said our streets were paved with gold.

        Yes, there was a government post office and roads, but otherwise the American principle was the inviolability of the rights specified in the Declaration of Independence, with government force limited to the protection of those rights — not used to violate them, as it is today.

        And this is the system of “Galt’s Gulch” in Atlas Shrugged. The politics of the novel express its deeper philosophy, and on every fundamental that philosophy, Objectivism, is the opposite of that espoused by Ryan, and of any form of religion. Objectivism upholds the absolutism of reason and reality, religion invents a “higher” world whose mysteries are to be accepted on faith; Objectivism holds that one’s life on this earth is an ultimate value, the fundamental value on which morality itself is based; religion grounds morality in the arbitrary dictates of a supernatural being and demands the subordination of worldly interests to the humble service of this imaginary being; Objectivism champions rational selfishness, religion demands that man be his brother’s keeper.

        Here, for example, from Atlas Shrugged is Rand’s view of the myth of the Garden of Eden:

        What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge–he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil–he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor–he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire–he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy–all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was–that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love–he was not man.

        If reading Atlas Shrugged moved Paul Ryan a teensy bit towards the “unknown ideal” of laissez-faire, more power to him. But given Ryan’s religious worldview and his record of accepting and supporting the welfare state, Ayn Rand would have leapt to agree with his recent statements distancing himself from her philosophy.

        She could have been speaking to Ryan when she wrote in 1980:

        If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with–and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.

        http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/ryan-economic-plans-aren-t-ayn-rand-based-004749753.html

        • Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, Abortion & Liberal Dishonesty

          by Lee Stranahan 20 Aug 2012 12 post a comment
          Almost as soon as Paul Ryan was announced as Mitt Romney’s choice for the Republican vice presidential nominee, the left began an interesting line of attack: smearing Ryan as some sort of cultist of the philosopher and Atlas Shrugged novelist Ayn Rand.

          Breitbart’s Warner Todd Huston pointed out a number of faults with this argument in an excellent piece called Lefty Attack: Paul Ryan a Follower of Ayn Rand, but on issues such as abortion, Rand and Ryan are actually polar opposites. The left has noticed these differences, but rather than do the honest thing and clarify the distinction, they have actually used it to create a sort of smear journalism trifecta. They attack both Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand and deliberately mangle the pro-life position.

          To equate Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand does no justice to their respective positions. Yes, Ryan has said that Rand was an influence on him, but it appears as though that she had the same effect on Paul Ryan as she had on many on the libertarian/right, serving as something of a “gateway drug“ to Austrian economists such as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. As any adherent of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism will tell you, politics wasn’t Rand’s main concern, and her philosophy has a complete metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that her politics rest on. Ryan was inspired by Rand’s work in some senses, but let’s not take it too far. It’s much more accurate to say that Obama is an Alinskyite than to say Ryan is any sort of Randian.

          Case in point: on an issue like abortion, there are big differences between Rand and Ryan. Let’s let them lay out their cases in their own words. My point here is not to argue for one side or another but simply to lay out the facts of what Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand have actually said.

          First, here is Ayn Rand on abortion. This first quote is from The Ayn Rand Letter from 1976.

          Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

          If that isn’t clear enough for you, this is from her essay Of Living Death, which is available in her book The Voice of Reason.

          An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

          Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

          As you can see, Ayn Rand takes a hard-line pro-choice position. It’s more or less indistinguishable from the position that the pro-choice left takes today, although as an advocate of limited government, Rand opposed state funding for abortions.

          More importantly, Rand’s formulation in Of Living Death isn’t merely pro-choice; it’s explicitly, avowedly anti-Catholic. At one point in that essay, for example, she equates a papal encyclical to communism. It’s as far from Ryan’s solidly Catholic position as one could get.

          Paul Ryan is unabashedly pro-life. He has a Zero rating from NARAL’s Pro-Choice America and a perfect score from the National Right to Life Committee. He also makes the case that being pro-life is completely consistent with being pro-capitalist. In the short essay The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom on his congressional website, Ryan makes his case:

          As a champion of capitalism, I strongly support every person’s right to make these economic choices and to fight against government efforts to limit them. Freedom and the choice it implies are moral rights which Americans are granted, not from government but from the principles that have made this a great and prosperous society. These principles uphold the equal natural rights of all human beings to live, be free, and pursue happiness, insofar as the exercise of these rights does not violate the corresponding rights of others.

          He continues:

          Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.

          The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.

          Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake.

          The contrast could be not clearer on the issue between Rand and Ryan. It’s easily researched. Yet, the Left media can’t just lay out these positions clearly. They misreport while at the same time deciding which position is right. They can’t tell their readers that Ayn Rand takes a position that the lockstep left would agree with, because that might engender some sympathy for Ayn Rand; nor can they explain Ryan’s views without using insults designed to scare.

          For example, in the subtly titled Paul Ryan’s Extreme Abortion Views, Michelle Goldberg at The Daily Beast writes:

          Indeed, Ryan exemplifies a strange sort of ideological hybrid that now dominates the GOP. On economic issues, he’s a hardcore libertarian who once said, “[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker…it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

          Yet when it comes to women’s control of their bodies, he quickly turns into a statist.

          This is a bizarre and dishonest formulation; the notion that being anything other than “a hardcore libertarian” on an issue is somehow “a strange sort of ideological hybrid” from the GOP. Words have meanings. Conservatism isn’t the same as libertarianism. Therefore, conservatives by definition aren’t “hardcore libertarians”. Of course, none of this matters to the Left, who want to have it both ways — attacking conservative positions and then, when it suits them, equating conservative positions with libetarian positions and then attacking those.

          It also ignores Paul Ryan’s actual ideological position, where he fuses his pro-capitalist and pro-life stance and says very clearly that they are one in the same. To extend the metaphor to slavery that Ryan himself uses, Goldberg might as well say, “Paul Ryan is a strange hybrid who claims to be libertarian on the economy but when it comes to masters controlling their slaves, he suddenly turns into a statist.”

          Slate’s Emily Bazelon demostrates that she understands Ryan’s position in her piece Paul Ryan: Libertarian on the Market, the Opposite on Abortion but dismisses it precisely because it’s ideologically consistent.

          This is the anti-abortion talking point that leads directly to the personhood amendments, which, it’s worth noting, don’t have universal support in anti-abortion circles. The group that pushes hardest for these amendments at the state level, Personhood USA, is not a well-funded powerhouse within the anti-abortion movement. Other pro-life groups tend to keep their distance, or even oppose the amendments, as the National Right to Life did in Mississippi last year. That’s because these laws appear to ban standard in vitro procedures by granting legal rights to fertilized embryos, and even if you oppose abortion, you might think that’s a loser at the Supreme Court or that it risks alienating mainstream voters.

          The idea that Paul Ryan may actually hold a position without referencing its popularity with a segment of voters doesn’t seem to occur to Ms.Bazelon. As Calvin Freiburger points out in a piece about the coverage of Ryan and abortion on Live Action News:

          Here we see one of the key reasons American politics remains so bitter and understanding seems so unreachable: liberals simply don’t understand conservatives and refuse to consider the possibility that there might be some kernel of sincerity or insight behind our beliefs.

          As Andrew Breitbart said in his last CPAC speech, “Everything has changed in the last few years. Conservatives used to take it. And we’re not taking it anymore.” So pity the liberal media establishment. Now there’s a possibility of some of that sincerity or insight poking through their hermetic seal of misrepresentation from time to time.

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/20/Paul-Ryan-Ayn-Rand-Abortion-Liberal-Dishonesty

          • VH, Got some inspiration below. Try to visualize Paul Ryan in “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Is he Mr. Potter or George Bailey? can’t you believe in making money and independence without being Mr. Potter?

          • Now- This I agree with ” From the two articles I see a change in attitude for political expediency by Ryan. ‘ Except that I don’t think his attitude actually changed -I think it was just being defined by everyone else in away that wasn’t true.

            This I do not “The CSM shows pretty clearly where he was before versus what he wants you all to believe now”

            Ryan’s policies and actions do not reflect Rand taken to the extreme.

        • VH, I didn’t say I was going to fight over what Ryan where it comes to Rand. So this article you posted – unread by me – is hopefully pointed elsewhere?

          I am not voting for either candidate. So nothing anyone says or links to about any of the four matters as far as the election goes where I am concerned.

          • It isn’t pointed at anyone Plainly, simply a continuation of the above discussion-which is what I thought your post was meant to be. You don’t want to comment further-Okay 🙂

            • Anyway 🙂 I suspect I post a lot of things people choose not to read. I post them anyway He he he 🙂

            • Yep, for anyone that wanted to continue the Ryan/Rand debate. lol

              I guess today I am doing a better job of staying in the middle – “I don’t care” sums up the way I am feeling a lot today. 🙂

          • Plainly, just curious. I realize you won’t be voting. BF and Gman have also said the same. I have a general idea when they last voted. When was the last election you voted in?

            • 2008 – McCain (not because I thought he’d necessarily do a better job, but as the lesser of two evils in my eyes.

              Since then I have come to better understand I need to be truthful with myself that neither side has the best interests of our society at heart and they fundamentally are going the same direction – just by slightly different corrupt paths.

              A lot of which I credit BF for getting me to think about.

              And for the record – my voting past:
              Reagan
              Reagan
              Bush I
              Clinton
              Clinton
              Gore
              Bush II (I liked Kerry even less than Bush, so I held my nose and breath – I almost passed out I think)
              then McCain.

              • Oh what a fool I have been.

              • Good because I just set you up. You have just recently made that decision. BUT! You give Ryan NO SLACK for coming to a different decision in regards to his belief in Rand’s philosophy. He read Rand when he was young. He has since come to different conclusions..and you blast him! Not fair! 🙂

              • Blast him? Nope. I read the articles before I posted them to see if the had views from each side, then simply gave my opinion (which along with $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Denny’s). You decided I “blasted him” and was unfair because you personally disagree with me.

                Gee, now what?

              • Now what nothin. Your post said what you thought and I just think it’s not fair. You give Ryan no slack even though you have changed your thinking also, that’s all.

              • ok. Of course you’ve probably never been unfair towards a political figure you didn’t agree with…………..right?

                On this topic any further, like the saying goes “here’s a quarter, call someone who cares”

              • Okay-time for some music 🙂

            • Great song! Peace Plainly, and VH JAC, and everybody 🙂 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          This is an excellent find and what I would consider ACCURATE description of the Rand vs. Ryan controversy.

          Ryan simply stated that Rand was a primary motivation in him becoming active in politics. I suspect also in the study of Austrian Economics and other philosophies that support Freedom and Liberty.

          He is correct in that Rand constructs a MORAL basis for Capitalism. It is called FREEDOM.

          P.S. I read EVERYTHING you post here.

          P.S.S. I bet I can guess why some of those keys don’t work on your keyboard. 😉

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Plainly

      I think Anita is correct. If these words are not blasting someone then I guess we will have to argue over the meaning of blast.

      “From the two articles I see a change in attitude for political expediency by Ryan.

      The CSM shows pretty clearly where he was before versus what he wants you all to believe now. To me it spells no backbone – getting elected is more important than the “principles” he previously espoused.”

      I would also like to point out that your conclusion is not supported by the articles you posted as the basis of your conclusion. That is not to say you could be correct, only that they really don’t support the notion he changed his views for political reasons.

  45. Disclaimer:

    I only got 30-50 pages into Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” before it bored me to tears. Have never, and doubt I will ever, read either of her tomes.

    My choice for President (hold on to your hat BF): No one.

    • Never even got that far, read the “Fountainhead” though. I have no problem with the individualist stuff and can empathize with what was done to Roark by a press run by a rabid 1%er. I liked that his thought processes (the media king) were there for all to examine. Still can’t figure out what the rape thing was all about though. Growing up, watching the NY TImes, CBS, NBC, ABC, I could imagine the big shots, in their board rooms, sitting around figuring out who they would destroy this week. They kept power by encouraging class warfare between the haves and have nots. They played with people like chess pieces.

      Been reading some of the Ryan stuff you posted from NR and the CSM. First of all I detest Paul Krugman and would not believe him if the Lord God Jehovah was holding his hand. That is one slimy,smarmy SOB and I think O’Reilly. blowhard though he may be, has his number. The man uses innuendo in a way that would earn him a gold medal at the Olympics. The wonderful old Catholic Church and Jesuits in particular hold no sway with me on these issues. I have heard such tripe regarding the poor. If you are Mother Theresa, you have the right to speak on the issue, If you are not, your opinion, is not significantly more valuable than mine or Paul Ryan’s. She followed Christ’s dictum, “give up all you have and come follow me”. She would have gotten absolutely no place in her crusade had not people, wealthy, poor or in between contributed their time, treasure and talent. An aside on that. Know a guy who owns a garage in Harlem. He’s a Jehovah’s witness. Located next to his garage on 126th Street is an outpost of Mother Theresa’s servicing aids patients and the poor in general. They own two donated vans, he maintains them for free. As he told me once, “How can you turn down a nun?” I think its a bit more than that.

      There is an old, expression about a rising tide raising all boats. Historically that is what has happened in this country. In a way, its like the old Bedford Falls/Potterstown comparison in the Frank Capra classic, “It’s a Wonderful life”. I would love to really hear someone like Paul Ryan’s take on that movie. Krugman and Charlie would see him as mean old Mr. Potter because it seems to fit the Ayn Rand model. I don’t think Ryan sees himself that way. I’m not sure he is Jimmy Stewart but I think he thinks he might be. If you remember, the Bailey savings and Loan gave out loans for people to build houses which led to a better town for all. They did not give out houses repeat THEY DID NOT GIVE OUT HOUSES. George Bailey may have not been in the business for great personal gain, but he was in it to allow others to improve their lives physically and financially. Bailey was, a Capitalist. hear that Charlie, George Bailey believed in Capitalism. The stockholders got interest and dividends, greedy bastards. Imagine making money off the interest paid by your next door neighbor. Enlightened self interest if you will. A rising tide raising all boats. A movie, yes, but how different from Levittown on Long Island or outside Philly? Or Parkchester, Stuyvesant town and Peter Cooper village, apartment complexes built in the ’40’s and ’50’s by Metlife for a middle class that did not yet exist. Nice small homes and apartments for people formerly cramped into places like the lower East Side of Manhattan. Hell, Stuy town was built on top of the slums of the lower East Side. the Levitt brothers made money lots and lots of money and the people got homes for a price they could afford fulfilling a dream that seemed impossible fifteen years before, during the depression. Metlife made money, paid its stockholders and policyholders, people who had invested with them.

      • I have no more use for Krugman than I do for say Limbaugh. I simply posted two articles that spoke to the apparent fight over what Ryan said/believes about Rand. Krugman’s quoted statement is a small and insignificant piece.

        I know “It’s a Wonderful Life” very well. One of my favorite movies. I don’t know whether I’d compare Ryan to either Potter or Bailey, likely because I really don’t know enough about him and have no interest in finding out. Whoever governs for the next fours years makes no difference to me. At most we’ll trade one set of mostly ineffective government for another.

    • Bless you, Plainly.

  46. I haven’t had the time too catch up yet, so forgive me if i repeat something. Tonights is an interesting night, cuz in the world of conspiracy theories, there will be an attempt on Obama’s life, all orchestrated by the government to blame the Tea Party so called extremists (who don’t exist). Let’s see what happens no!

    Disclaimer: I don’t want any harm to come to Obama or anyone else. Violence is stupid!

  47. Comments on “Evictionism,”

    “The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.”

    Pretty strange “trespasser” who’s there by invitation only. Last I heard, the male contribution to the process doesn’t crawl all by itself up to an unsuspecting victim, break a window, and enter the room-ah, womb.

    The innocent fetus isn’t the criminal here, though pro-abortionists would execute him just the same.

    —–

    Yeah, that’s my point, differently worded. The cases where the actions were voluntary, abortion is without a doubt murder.

  48. Two pictures that define the entire political landscape of the USA

    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRccPo1ia3g7NZy6m5tGdSW8qiwDvZXsGz9V4il0b7hH7RmmG-7

  49. Go Gabby-one good thing at the Dem. convention!!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂

  50. @Stephen … Black Flag is absolutely right on that one.

    Except he wants the greedy bastards to have even less restraint.

    Yeah, THAT makes sense …. oy vey again.

  51. Obama’s speech … ooops, missed it. I didn’t sleep at all the night before so I took a pill when I was home from work and didn’t last … out cold befoe 9:30 p.m. … but this morning I see the line of the night was from John Kerry (of all people) …

    “Ask Osama Bin Laden if he’s better off four years ago than he is now …”

    Game, set, match …

    • Ya didn’t miss much Charlie. Most are saying the speech was empty and dry. The fact checkers are having a field day (Obama is a compulsive liar after all) not only with Obamaloni’s empty words, but Wasserman-Shultz got caught lying AGAIN. Not a surprise, the Dems can’t tell the truth, it’s not in their DNA 😆 As far as your game, set, match crap, you’re sounding like you know alot about premature ejaculation 🙂 Oh, yes, the labor unions are just as much part of the corruption problem as the 1%, but you already know that I think, unless it’s another fact you choose to ignore 🙄

      Happy Friday Captain 🙂

  52. This is a good article about Obamaloni and his litany of lies. http://personalliberty.com/2012/09/07/the-obama-campaigns-litany-of-lies/?eiid=

  53. Jennifer Granholm..glad to be rid of her..had a serious Howard Dean moment last night..YEEEEEEEEEAAAHHH!

  54. Tweet-tweet … Saint Sarah was at it again, this time commenting on Kerry’s line using her name. Sarah tweeted: ‘Diminished Himself By Even Mentioning My Name’

    It’s good to know she’s starting to get it, eh?

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    Two straight weeks of political conventions and two days of the Dem meme of victim and I want, I want, I want.

    Had decided to not watch Mr. O last night as I know who and what he is and could stand no more.

    Stumbled across a biography on Reagan on the History Channel.

    It was absolutely uplifting and I felt so much better last night than previous nights.

    • Stumbled across a biography on Reagan on the History Channel.

      Did you stumble upon the part where he was a union leader and once believed to attend a communist party meeting? I think he switched sizes as soon as the Alzheimer’s took effect.

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    Re the Employment Data. Here is the press release. Please note Charlie that the rate drops because the population of workers declines.

    THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — AUGUST 2012

    Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 96,000 in August, and the unemployment
    rate edged down to 8.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
    Employment increased in food services and drinking places, in professional and
    technical services, and in health care.

    Household Survey Data

    The unemployment rate edged down in August to 8.1 percent. Since the beginning of
    this year, the rate has held in a narrow range of 8.1 to 8.3 percent. The number of
    unemployed persons, at 12.5 million, was little changed in August. (See table A-1.)

    Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.6 percent),
    adult women (7.3 percent), teenagers (24.6 percent), whites (7.2 percent), blacks
    (14.1 percent), and Hispanics (10.2 percent) showed little or no change in August.
    The jobless rate for Asians was 5.9 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little
    changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

    In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
    was little changed at 5.0 million. These individuals accounted for 40.0 percent of
    the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

    Both the civilian labor force (154.6 million) and the labor force participation rate
    (63.5 percent) declined in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.3 percent,
    was little changed. (See table A-1.)

    The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
    as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 8.0 million in August. These
    individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
    they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

    In August, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
    essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.)
    These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
    and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
    unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
    (See table A-16.)

    Among the marginally attached, there were 844,000 discouraged workers in August, a
    decline of 133,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.)
    Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
    no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached
    to the labor force in August had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
    survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See
    table A-16.)

  57. Football is back … best line at the DNC … Shakedown … Sarah’s one liner … Pavarotti vs. Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/09/football-is-back-best-line-at-dnc.html

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    Re: The PETERSON trial.

    I heard about his on the news yesterday and waited to find an actual written reference. It seems that Illinois CHANGED their law regarding use of circumstantial evidence JUST TO GO AFTER PETERSON. They even named it after him.

    Now think about that for a minute and tell me if it sends a chill down your spine. The Govt could not prove guilt, so they CHANGED the laws to RETROACTIVELY allow evidence that was “circumstantial” and included “here say”.

    The man is a creep and probably did kill these women. But the Ends DO NOT justify any means necessary. This is the morality and ethics of the PROGRESSIVES.

    Clip from NBC article.

    “With no physical evidence tying Peterson to the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, prosecutors had to rely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Such testimony isn’t usually admissible in court, but Illinois legislators in 2008 passed a law — dubbed “Drew’s Law” — which allows it in rare circumstances.

    Supalo said the jurors took three votes on Wednesday. Seven believed Peterson was guilty on the first vote; eight in the second vote; and 11 in the third.

    Ultimately, he said, it was the hearsay testimonies by Rev. Neil Schori and attorney Harry Smith that cleared the picture for him.”

    • “It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen,” Eastwood said. “I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there.”

      He’s an “average guy”? He has the same perception problem as his boy, Mitt.

      The average guy out there is a) about 2,000 x’s more coherent and b) aware of his limitations … Clint was in way over his head … but he did bring back memories of Saint Ronald of Reagan … namely ALZHEIMERS …:)

  59. It is a demonstration of your fallacy of blaming the current for the past.

    So, mr. logic, how does blaming Stalin’s communism (the past) figure into your tossing the milllions killed, then vs. today?

    Seems to me, it’s a capitalist country doing most of the killing these days … I’m just sayin’ …

    • how does blaming Stalin’s communism (the past) figure into your tossing the millions killed, then vs. today?

      Because communism -by its principle- leads to such – every communist state has demonstrated this – Russia/China/N.Korea/Cambodia, etc.

      Seems to me, it’s a capitalist country doing most of the killing these days … I’m just sayin’

      Not capitalist, but mercantilist and corporatist, I agree.

      • Well, I guess that lets you off the hook … since there’s never been a truy free market … which is kind of confusing since you usually claim capitalism is what led to the greatest advances in human history …

        Seriously, dude, stick to one argument for longer than 3 posts …

        • I know you resist learning and reason because you would betray your own irrational beliefs – however….

          Of course there has been free markets – every day all around you is a free market.

          You merely focus on the parts you want to focus on Charlie, and ignore the rest.

          The complaints of Communism is not the complaint of your use of it in your own home.
          The complaint solely derives from the attempt to force communism broadly.

          The same problem: force and violence broadly expressed, is the plague of mercantilism. Without violence mercantilism evaporates, leaving a form of capitalism with tight competition, not much unlike you buying coffee this morning.

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    OK folks, a trick question. Well not really a trick. It is pretty obvious.

    Which of the following two graphs will Obama use and which will Romney use?

  61. I’m not sure who wins this one.

  62. Just A Citizen says:

    I have been looking for all the LOVE over Mr. O’s speech last night. You know, like the stuff yesterday following Clinton or the day before following Michelle. I even went to the KOS to see if they at least had GREAT THINGS to say. Something that would support all the WETNESS I heard from the MSNBC talking heads. BUT NOPE. The KOS seems to think Eastwood more important this morning.

    http://www.dailykos.com/

    So apparently watching the Reagan Biography last night WAS the BETTER CHOICE.

    • It really was an empty speech-just flowery words, which just don’t work for an incumbent who is trying to convince the undecideds to vote for him. Just a continuation of empty Hope and Change rhetoric IMH.

  63. Just A Citizen says:

    Boy, here is a sotry that has a little of something for everyone. Anarchist, conservative, liberal, or Progressive. HuffPo has the story.

    Shepard Fairey

    Artist Shepard Fairey was sentenced to two years probation in a U.S. District Court in Manhattan Friday.

    Known for the “HOPE” posters he created during President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Fairey pleaded guilty in February to charges of criminal contempt, and admitted to destroying and fabricating evidence related to a civil lawsuit with the Associated Press. That lawsuit, which revolved around whether or not Fairey’s infamous poster based on an AP image violated copyright laws, was settled out of court in 2011.

    In court on Friday, federal prosecutor Daniel Levy recommended prison time before the artist’s sentencing. “Some deprivation of liberty is necessary,” he said. “Anything else sends a terrible message to the world.”

    Fairey’s defense lawyer argued against the recommendation, describing his client as a self-made artist who admitted his misconduct immediately. He emphasized that Fairey suffers from Type I diabetes and, if incarcerated, would not receive adequate care for his condition.

  64. Just A Citizen says:

    “My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

    Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.”

    For the New Intellectual

  65. Just A Citizen says:

    “[A] real turning point came when the welfare statists switched from economics to physiology: they began to seek a new power base in deliberately fostered racism, the racism of minority groups, then in the hatreds and inferiority complexes of women, of “the young,” etc. The significant aspect of this switch was the severing of economic rewards from productive work. Physiology replaced the conditions of employment as the basis of social claims. The demands were no longer for “just compensation,” but just for compensation, with no work required.

    So long as the power-seekers clung to the basic premises of the welfare state, holding need as the criterion of rewards, logic forced them, step by step, to champion the interests of the less and less productive groups, until they reached the ultimate dead end of turning from the role of champions of “honest toil” to the role of champions of open parasitism, parasitism on principle, parasitism as a “right” (with their famous slogan turning into: “Who does not toil, shall eat those who do”).”

    “In business, the rise of the welfare state froze the status quo, perpetuating the power of the big corporations of the pre-income-tax era, placing them beyond the competition of the tax-strangled newcomers. A similar process took place in the welfare state of the intellect. The results, in both fields, are the same.”

  66. Just A Citizen says:

    Since Charlie has once more thrown our the Rand uses welfare harpoon I thought it might be helpful for everyone to see her explanation of this behavior IN HER OWN WORDS. Please note that this argument was made long before she needed these programs.

    “Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

    I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

    There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

    A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

    The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

    Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

    The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

    The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

    The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

    In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.”

    • “The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have.”

      How convenient!

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    d13

    Re; your reference to The Big Bang Theory the other day (Sheldon playing in Harvey).

    Yesterday afternoon at the gym I met a REAL LIFE version of those characters.

    Lil JAC asked some young man if he was wearing a Justice League T shirt. The young man, ABOUT MID 30’s, said “YES, I LOVE THE JUSTICE LEAGUE”. A short exchange ensued between the two and Lil JAC left for the lobby.

    The young man then let me know that there was a COMIC BOOK convention in town this weekend. He was planning on attending as there would be Justice League comics and many others, as well as many “artists” of said Comic Books to visit with.

    I thanked him politely and shared that my son had trouble with crowds but his suggestion might be one where he could overcome his stress for the Comics.

    Sometimes it is very hard to be polite and gracious without exploding in laughter and drooling on oneself. I had cramps in my face for about an hour afterwards.

    Just thought I would bring some humor to your Friday.

    Best to you and yours in TEXAS.

    • lol……that is funny. doing ok…did have some heart issues….have a stint now….third coronary artery had 99 percent blockage,,,, but no other blockages…..doing well and feel great.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Good morning Sir. Sorry to hear of your troubles but very glad all is well now.

        Is this related to your Agent Orange issues? Seems like you have other secondary problems that all seem to relate to this one thing.

        No matter….My best to your and your family.

        Give that fine lady that tolerates you a big hug for me.

        • Col.

          Hope everything is fine with you. Just buried a buddy this morning, 66, Brown Water Navy, PBR driver ’66-’67. Diabetes and heart problems. Didn’t really believe the Agent Orange thing but as my friends who were there early hit their mid fifties and early sixties, a lot came down with some very strange illnesses. Hope your heart issues relate to your genes or diet and nothing else.

          Best

        • Thanks, but not AO related. Did find out that blood sugar is a little high but managable and that ia AO related.

  68. More on Obama’s Law License revocations..

    To rebuttal Mathius and Buck: “Did Romney surrender his license? No.
    Did either of the Clintons surrender theirs? No.
    Did Nixon surrender his? No.”

    You assert that it is normal for a candidate for the nomination of President to surrender his right to practice law.

    On the contrary, it had never happened before in American history.

    I am not saying that the Obamas were ever formally charged with misconduct.

    I am saying that the most plausible reason for their having abandoned their licenses was to avoid disciplinary action and the threat of public disbarment.

    • No one asserted its normal for a candidate for the nomination of President to surrender his license. We said that it is perfectly normal for an individual previously practicing law to go into ‘voluntary inactive’ or ‘retired’ status (depending on the term used within the given jurisdiction) when they are no longer practicing law.

      The most plausible reason they went into voluntary inactive status is simply because they were no longer practicing law and had no need (nor personal desire) to remain ‘active’.

      • Once again you are assigning some sinister motive behind a perfectly benign course of action. Why?

        • HA!

          Finally Buck asks a deep, piercing questions.

          There are many things about Obama that his critics have totally wrong.

          For one, they believe he is closer to a Communist.

          He is not. He is a Left-wing socializer, who loves the lime light, the money and whose wife loves the consumption component of capitalism for her personally.

          He is not an ideologue nor radical.

          He is firmly in control his handlers – who know very well why he let his license go….

      • Buck,

        The most plausible reason they went into voluntary inactive status is simply because they were no longer practicing law and had no need (nor personal desire) to remain ‘active’.

        No, it is not the most plausible.

        Plausibility is demonstrated by repeat.
        There has been no repeat – never – in American history of such a thing in politics. Zip.

        Therefore, where there is variance, there is power.

        Power demanded this. Obama complied.

  69. Just A Citizen says:

    An ACADEMIC evaluation of Romney’s Tax Reform plan. NOTE, this deals with the concept and tests the primary assumption of whether the reforms will increase growth and thus tax revenue.

    http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

    For the lazy among us………the answer is YES IT CAN!!

  70. Just A Citizen says:

    Pretty clever………… and ON POINT. “Cargo Cult Economics”….. hilarious.

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/07/obamas-solution-cargo-cult-economics/

  71. Just A Citizen says:

    Very quiet today. Must have given too much reading and not enough sniping. 🙂

    Well before I go off and do some chores, here is one more thing to digest. It includes a peek into the “not Govt” culture I have described before when asked to “show us a successful society without govt”. I do believe, that like many articles from this site, the author takes some license in assigning motives for govt actions relative to Native peoples. Some things were actually done out of “good” intentions. But they had terrible “unintended” consequences. A characteristic for certain of GOVT control.

    http://mises.org/daily/6176/One-Race-to-School-Them-All

  72. @Charlie, Good Morning Pinko Commie friend of mine 😆 I have been thinking about your comment on the jobs report this morning, thought I’d bring you some REAL news, not that liberal hack crap you get your info from 🙂 Here are 5 things about the DNC that those not drunk on the Kool Aid saw : Now that the Democratic National Convention is in the rearview mirror, let’s evaluate it by the numbers. I believe the conference can be summed up in five:

    (1) 16,000,000,000,000 – Just as the DNC was scheduled to kick off on Tuesday, the national debt clock clicked over to the staggering and dangerous sum of $16 Trillion. More than $5 Trillion of that total has accrued under President Obama, and a top administration official has testified that the White House has no plan to restore the national debt to a position of sustainability.

    (2) 46,700,000 – The Department of Agriculture released a report on Wednesday stating that the number of Americans dependent on government food stamps climbed to a record-breaking 46.7 million this summer.

    (3) Three – US manufacturing shrank at the fastest clip in more than three years, according a study released on Tuesday. President Obama touted manufacturing jobs and growth in his acceptance speech on Thursday. Three is also the number of times thousands of DNC delegates objected to the re-inclusion of God and Jerusalem during contentious and embarrassing party platform voice votes:

    (4) Zero – The number of times the president mentioned the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus”) in his primetime acceptance address on Thursday night. These are his signature legislative accomplishments, yet he decided they didn’t merit any attention.

    (5) 368,000 – The number of discouraged workers who gave up on seeking jobs and simply dropped out of the labor force in August. This figure is nearly four times the number of jobs created over the same period.

    The Democratic National Convention opened with $16 Trillion in debt and closed with a dismal jobs report. Everything in between those harrowing bookends was just noise.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/09/07/the_dnc_in_five_numbers

    NOTE NUMBER 5 CHARLIE 😦

  73. Ya’ll may like this. Very well done 🙂 http://www.starspangledbannerchallenge.com/

    • It’s a very cool rendition, excellent. But watch out G. You may get accused of supporting the USA. That’s getting to be a taboo topic these days. Look at all the dissent even right here on SUFA. It’s sad. Did you see the small print?:

      Help Madison Rising keep the Banner flying and show EVERYONE that you are one of the millions of hard working people in this country that is still proud to be an American.

      It’s sad that we are at a point where we have to ‘show’ that we’re proud to be American. And that even then there are folks who will give us grief over it.

  74. Two Billion Dollars

    The National Convention extravagances run by the Republic and the Democratic Parties are over.

    Nothing unexpected occurred.
    The fringes were fringed.
    The anointed ones were anointed.

    This was entirely predictable.
    Both presidential candidates have been running for a long time.
    Both are mediocre speakers at best.

    Each is devoid of any workable policy agenda for the economic crisis that clearly confronts the United States. Voters are tired of listening, tired of advertisements directed at the lowest common denominator of the electorate, tired indeed of politics itself.

    Of course, a slim majority of the electorate will turn out on November 6.
    The repeated illusion of choice indicates that they should do so.
    Reluctantly, most of those voters will pick a candidate and not abstain.

    And more so, they already know for whom they will vote, as the lesser of same evil.

    This election outcome is already determined. The same people who have won over the last 125 years will win again.

    The candidates and their respective financial backers are loaded with dollars – two billion of them according to some estimates. They will have no hesitation in flushing those dollars down the sewers. The media will have no hesitation in providing a helping hand. The people must be entertained with the spectacle. Competition from “Storage Wars” and “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” is too strong not to spend two billion dollars in advertising politics.

    Keynesian economists may even view this flushing process as beneficial – yet another stimulus package for a failing economy. Many other economists will view it as simple waste – evidence at least that there is still some surplus income in the economy available for frivolous outlays.

    In a population in excess of 300 million, there is surely something wrong when two billion dollars is spent to aggrandize two mediocre people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

    With the economy at a serious tipping point, it is nothing less than a tragedy.

  75. Anarchy vs Conservative

    Conservatives show deference toward political authority; anarchists show defiance toward political authority.
    Conservatives respect politicians; anarchists revile politicians.
    Conservatives see voting as their patriotic duty; anarchists see voting as a waste of time.
    Conservatives feel an emotional attachment to democracy; anarchists think democracy is a farce.
    Conservatives think the Constitution is sacred; anarchists think the Constitution is a dead letter.
    Conservatives would feel honored to meet the President; anarchists would feel like showering after meeting the President.
    Conservatives love Ronald Reagan because he believed in smaller government; anarchists despise Ronald Reagan because he enlarged the government.
    Conservatives see sex scandals as an embarrassment to the nation; anarchists see sex scandals as entertainment for the nation.

    Conservatives take pride in U.S. history; anarchists deconstruct U.S. history.
    Conservatives are moved when they hear the National Anthem; anarchists just want to start the game already.
    Conservatives pledge allegiance to the United States of America; anarchists declare independence from the United States of America.
    Conservatives think unity is important; anarchists think unity is dangerous.
    Conservatives detest draft dodgers; anarchists admire draft dodgers.
    Conservatives grieve for soldiers killed in wars; anarchists grieve for civilians killed in wars.
    Conservatives disparage conscientious objectors; anarchists are conscientious objectors.
    Conservatives think dissent is unpatriotic; anarchists think dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    Conservatives ridicule conspiracy theorists; anarchists are conspiracy theorists.

    Conservatives fear an out-out-of-control population; anarchists fear an out-of-control government.
    Conservatives think drugs are destroying society; anarchists think the war on drugs is destroying society.
    Conservatives respect government law; anarchists respect natural law.
    Conservatives think it’s wrong for people to pick and choose what laws they want to obey; anarchists feel a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.
    Anarchists might help a teenager trying to score some beer; conservatives would threaten to call the cops.
    Conservatives worry about what their neighbors do behind closed doors; anarchists worry about what cops and prosecutors do behind closed doors.”
    Conservatives think everyone should pay their taxes; anarchists think no one should pay their taxes.
    Anarchists feel excited about breaking the law; conservatives feel guilty about breaking the law.
    Conservatives feel safe in the presence of law enforcement; anarchists feel threatened in the presence of law enforcement.
    Conservatives grieve for the federal agents killed during the Waco siege; anarchists grieve for the civilians killed during the Waco siege.

    Conservatives fear instability; anarchists fear tyranny.
    Conservatives value order; anarchists value freedom.
    Conservatives think about what’s practical; anarchists think about what’s right.
    Conservatives want to take over the State; anarchists want to smash the State.
    Conservatives want reform; anarchists want revolution.
    Conservatives fear extremists; anarchists are extremists.
    Conservatives take interest in elections, budget proposals, and constitutional amendments; anarchists take interest in secession, nullification, and civil disobedience.
    Conservatives worry about what would replace the existing political order; anarchists are willing to roll the dice.

    • Words, words, words. Whole lotta BULLSHIT mixed in.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Oh, I think it is pretty accurate. Conservatives are interested in finding ways to live in the world they find themselves.

        Anarchists live in a dream of their own construction. Having no interest in dealing with reality.

        Hope your Saturday unfolds with warm sun and laughter.

        • 😉 Clean house, chicken breasts marinating, ready to grill and watch some Chippewas get roasted in Mt Pleasant. Go Green!

    • Where’s your list for Liberals-are do you secretly like Liberal policies better? Or do you consider everyone other than anarchist as Conservatives?

      • Conservatives tend to be hypocrites.
        Liberals tend to be irrational.

        Arguing with irrational people is almost always pointless.

        Hypocrites, on the other hand, have a small chance of waking up.

    • My friend, even back in the mid 60’s, during the Goldwater convention when I was first getting interested in conservative politics, The differences between “Traditional Conservatives” and “Libertarian Conservatives” were dramatic. Not being an anarchist I found myself in an 80-20 split leaning libertarian. The problem I had with the traditionalists were that they smacked too much of blue blood old line republican types, just as likely to oppress you for their reasons as the other guys were for theirs.

      You and I will never agree on the need for government or what governments rightful responsibilities and duties are but since I first patterned myself on Barry Goldwater, I’ve been pretty comfortable there.

      Back, when I was young, it was always pretty easy to distinguish the libertarian conservatives from leftists, traditionalists, etc because the libertarian conservatives were the ones having fun at events and conventions. Everyone else was too damned serious.

  76. Rule number 5, if they go after your emotions, it’s likely a big LIE. G-Man’s Rules on Politics and Media. http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/obama-lies-about-mother-to-promote-obamacare/

  77. Just A Citizen says:

    Kathy

    I see your badgers are out hunting down beavers today. PAC 10/12 or not, I guess I will have to pull for the badgers on this one.

    How about those Utah State Aggies? Put some Utes on the run last night. Love it when the little guys show their stuff.

  78. What? After all the hateful talk about Ryan’s plan-they are gonna do this?

    Surprise! HHS pilot program to send 2 million poor seniors from Medicare into … voucher programs
    posted at 11:01 am on September 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    I know that every campaign promise Barack Obama makes has an expiration date … but this is ridiculous. The confetti is barely off the floor at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina after Obama’s acceptance speech, and already we find out that he’s flip-flopped. Remember this part of the speech, in which he attacks the Paul Ryan plan to apply free-market reform and cost controls to Medicare?

    And I will — I will never turn Medicare into a voucher.

    No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street.

    Expiration date — the very next day:

    In his convention speech in Charlotte, President Obama vowed to block the Republican Medicare reform plan because “no American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies.”

    But back in Washington, his Health and Human Services Department is launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of the poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

    The administration has accepted applications from 18 states to participate in the program, which would give states money to purchase managed-care plans for people who are either disabled or poor enough to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. HHS approved the first state plan, one for Massachusetts, last month.

    Bear in mind that Ryan’s plan made the vouchers optional; seniors could choose the traditional government-run Medicare plan or opt for a private insurance plan from a federal exchange of approved insurers. Ryan also allows all seniors to choose, and didn’t force the poorest seniors to take the voucher option. Not only will Obama push just the poorest seniors into this plan, in some states they’d have to know to opt back in to traditional Medicare:

    California is already counting on more than $500 million in budget savings from its own program this year. Most states are proposing to automatically enroll people. Those who don’t want to participate would need to opt out. The Massachusetts plan includes that feature.

    Talk about leaving seniors — the poorest seniors! — “at the mercy of insurance companies.” And why has HHS decided to roll out this pilot program? As Paul Ryan has argued all along, the competition will drive down costs, especially given the headaches associated with government bureaucracy for dual-qualified seniors:

    Potential cost savings are a big incentive for states. Patients who qualify for both federal health programs are a costly population and include many who need nursing-home care or other expensive services. About 40 percent of Medicaid’s costs go toward patients who are also eligible for Medicare. Advocates of the pilot program also say it could lead to better coordination of care for patients who often struggle to navigate the two different programs.

    Don’t get me wrong — this sounds like a good program to test. In fact, it sounds a lot like the Medicare Advantage program that Obama gutted to pay for his Medicaid expansion in ObamaCare. It’s similar to the approach Ryan wants to use to drive down costs, except that Ryan didn’t propose to use the poor as guinea pigs to test it out. And he certainly didn’t propose his plan quietly while hypocritically railing against private insurance and Wall Street just as the program got ready to start.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/08/surprise-hhs-pilot-program-to-send-2-million-poor-seniors-from-medicare-into-voucher-programs/

    • this sounds like a good program to test

      Okay, so it is established that you like the plan – or testing of the plan. You’re just pissed at who put it in to action? If it was Ryan you’d be kissing his ring with praise, but because it isn’t you kick Obama in the head repeatedly. Yep, sounds like politics pure and simple to me. 🙂

      • Let’s review-Ryan has been accused of throwing grandma off the cliff and many many other really hateful horrible things for suggesting what they are now ready to TRY-and they were/are making the accusations while planning to use his idea-Now this may have something to do with kicking someone in the head but it was Obama kicking Ryan in the head for months for suggesting that this might be a good idea-so I feel free the figuratively kick Obama in the head for his hypocrisy.

        • yep, like I said pure politics. Whether that is Ryan railing against Obama & company, Obama railing against Ryan & company, or you railing against whomever.

          Shouldn’t the point be that 1) hurray, at least they hear the ideas – regardless of where they come from – and will use/try them? or 2) Well good for them for once? Something along those lines. Instead we focus on the head-kicking.

          Rise above the squabbling and be happy/thankful or whatever that something is being tried that you find fits in your thinking as “reform” of government.

          It’s kind of like when Anita said I was being unfair to Ryan……

          • No, I don’t think rising above the squabble means ignoring such a blatant LIE- It rises to the level of a policy change-it isn’t just an exaggeration.

            • *sigh* and it continues. Why not just admit that you will never give good comments on anything Obama & company do while in control of the government? You dislike him intensely and will never say a damn thing nice about his Presidency (I guess I can give you a point for consistent negativity).

              It’s only ever good when it’s your side doing things you agree with. So squabble on………cause I have probably wasted my breath.

              • I have no doubt Plainly that I am harder on democratic Presidents because I am so against most of their platform. I do dislike Obama’s views and policies intensely, I haven’t met the man but I suspect I wouldn’t like him personally either but who knows -I might. I know many dems. which I love intensely. But the truth in this discussion isn’t that I won’t recognize a good if it’s done on the left or criticize a wrong if it’s done by the right-it’s that you believe both sides are exactly the same-so taking up for either side is a losing proposition-I do not believe they are the same-and I haven’t given up on the people’s ability to force a change for the better.

              • Yep they are pretty much moving towards the same goal, just by different paths. Just because I choose not to vote for federal level office holders does not mean I don’t intend to vote – there is still state and local voting to be done, so I choose to work closer to home, where any real change is likely to come from.

                But the truth in this discussion isn’t that I won’t recognize a good if it’s done on the left or criticize a wrong if it’s done by the right

                Actually that is exactly what it is. I guess you too do what you say about others, when you don’t like the debate you decide to change the debate to something it wasn’t in the first place.

              • I’m sorry, I don’t understand what this means-“Actually that is exactly what it is. I guess you too do what you say about others, when you don’t like the debate you decide to change the debate to something it wasn’t in the first place” .could you clarify for me. change the debate?

              • Sure VH, gladly. The statement is is exactly what I was talking about until you decided I was talking about something different.

                But the truth in this discussion isn’t that I won’t recognize a good if it’s done on the left or criticize a wrong if it’s done by the right-it’s that you believe both sides are exactly the same-so taking up for either side is a losing proposition

              • Plainly, I am not trying to change the debate-you just stated last night -that you were not going to vote and you did not care-today -first you accuse me of being closed minded and then pointed out that I should rise above the squabbles and just be happy. I pointed out that I believe a basic policy change while claiming very loudly that the change is bad for people -rises above just a squabble. You then pointed out again how closed minded I am.

                I responded to that claim, by admitting to being harder on the dems, and also pointing out that you believe both sides are the same .

                How is that changing the subject-you JUST clarified that you are still involved at the local level-fine-but at the Federal level you still believe it is pointless because you think both parties are the same.

              • :::silently cheers for VH::: okay V, I’ll shut up 🙂

              • You are right in: 1) I am not voting in federal level elections and 2) that makes the outcome moot for me. But, does that also mean I must withhold my opinions on something at the federal political level? No, not to my thinking.

                It would have made no difference what level this occurred on – I would have said the same thing. I was talking about your personal political attitude, nothing more and nothing less.

              • I didn’t say, you shouldn’t give your opinion. I think we are having a real communication problem here. My point is that some political attacks rise above just the exaggerations and BS personal attacks which both parties are guilty of. You seem to be saying that since both parties are guilty-we should just ignore the blatant lies.

                As far as my personal political attitudes-I have some strong ones against the dems. and I have some that agree with them in everything but there seeming belief that enough is never enough.

              • I am saying why not acknowledge the positive from the other side without laying down more argument about lies, deceit, finger pointing etc. Why must the right and left turn everything (or so it seems) into a political punching match?

                Do you happen to watch Dr. Phil? If so, do you recall what he tells a guest when their answer to a question is “yada yada yada yada, BUT,………”?

              • I’m certainly not gonna take up for politics. Obviously politics and parties is the problem. Just don’t know how to fix that problem. We fight to get a party elected that we only partly agree with-because we almost totally disagree with the other party. So yes it would be nice to just point out the good on both sides-but even when I find something they are saying that I agree with-they keep talking until they get to a point where I say -stop-a step wayyy to far.

                I used to think the people could work out their differences or at least most of them. -If there wasn’t that little thing about getting your party elected. It seems to lead to extreme positions, that a few years ago I would have said no one really agrees with-now I’m not sure.

                As far as that yada yada, But-I find with the extreme positions being taken today-I do feel like yada yada yada But!
                Welfare-yes, but slow the hell down-welfare doesn’t mean just opening up the U.S. Treasury to everybody.

            • Sorry-it isn’t just an exaggeration or hateful unsubstantiated personal attack.

          • I figured that was going to be your argument for everything we see as suspicious. 🙄 If that’s the case there is no point in discussion.

            • You are likely right there. Your to partisan to be open minded.

              • What is up your butt? Your head? Where are you coming from? First off, it was an article from a third party source that VH was linking to. Not even her statements. And you attack her, claiming she is too partisan and changes the debate? And isn’t happy if it comes from O’s adm? She was pointing out the amazing hypocrisy again of this Adm.

                And now for your famous line…..

                And I’m not going to comment further on this subject.

              • Generally when someone post a part of an article, with the link – that comes from their “side” of the aisle they are generally showing agreement with that which is posted in the article (what I did there is called making an inference when I commented originally). Further comments fleshed this inference out to a point of accuracy. The on went discussion between V.H and I. Simple enough for you to grab?

                My head is where it belongs, on my shoulders……maybe that isn;t the case with you?

                Comment.don’t comment further – makes no difference to me.

              • Part of an article-what do you mean Part of an article? I posted the complete article.

                Oh, I see, they added something after I posted. I don’t post partial articles, at least not on purpose without notating that I did so.

              • VH., I phrased that badly, I was talking in general. Yes, you do usually post the whole article (with a link). I should have said ” posts an article or part of an article, with the link….” My apologies for the confusion.

                I bet we could have a whole separate debate on the fair use doctrine as well. 🙂 But, lets keep that for some other day.

              • Thanks for taking up for me Kathy-I appreciate it-but I do so hate to see the family fighting-unless we’re discussing abortion-then it’s on 🙂

              • Yes, another day would be best. The family is fighting enough already. 🙂

            • Maybe JAC will be along at some point to jump in and defend the position you’ve taken. lol

              • Sorry you feel that way Plainly.

              • I figured that was going to be your argument for everything we see as suspicious. 🙄 If that’s the case there is no point in discussion

                I’m not, you’re the one who stuck in the one-liner of closed discussion on your part.

  79. Yes this will do-states my feelings about the Dem. Convention much better than I could.

    September 8, 2012
    The Charlotte Freak Show
    By Peter Heck

    Not since the tear gas and mass arrests of Chicago 1968 have the Democrats put on a convention that better demonstrated to the American people the sorry state of the left’s values and ideals. From the opening refrains that echoed the macabre yet unifying obsession amongst Democrats in Charlotte to promote the killing of unborn children to the culminating moment of President Barack Obama telling us why we need more of him in our lives to survive, the Democrat National Convention revealed just how deplorable things have become in that party.

    Truth be told, most casual observers could see the train wreck coming a mile away. Once the speaker line-up for the convention’s opening day had been released, the ensuing circus was completely predictable. First, the Democrats would give the floor to a communist from the SEIU, followed by the most rabid abortion fanatic in the country. Then, Harry Reid would take to the stage, presumably to tell everyone of a secret phone call he had just received informing him that Mitt Romney had once molested a pack of wild penguins. He wouldn’t have proof, because it’s Romney’s job to prove that it didn’t happen.

    And just in case the mentally unstable Senate majority leader wasn’t embarrassing enough, corrupt Mayor Rahm Emanuel was invited to take a break from his busy schedule of presiding over Chicago’s descent into the third layer of Hell to come lecture on good government. Not that Emanuel’s speech was necessary to depict exactly what Democrats see as an effective administration. The stirring video tribute to the disastrous Carter years, as well as the keynote address from a man with the appropriate last name of Castro, pretty much said it all.

    When Michelle Obama finally approached the microphone, she was following a procession of idiocy and buffoonery that no conservative commentator could even hope to parody. And keep in mind that that was just the first day.

    But lest you were tempted to think that the Democrats are incapable of equaling such incoherence, day two should have laid those fears to rest. For that was the moment when the podium was handed over to a thirty-year-old woman whose life mission appears to be getting you to pay for her birth control. Perhaps nothing better defines or encapsulates the left’s view of government’s appropriate role than having it function as a prophylactic Pez Dispenser. And what does it say about the extent of liberal visionaries when a prime speaking role is given to an individual who is significant only because a popular radio host called her a nasty name?

    Yet amazingly, Sandra Fluke wasn’t the real spectacle of the evening. Nor was the keynote speaker, former President Bill Clinton, who spent his time reminding Americans how he balanced the budget and created jobs. Apparently, we were all supposed to just ignore the inconvenient reality that such success was predicated upon Clinton following the pro-business, free market policies enacted by a Republican Congress. Absent from Clinton’s speech, of course, were the multiple criticisms he has made in recent years of President Obama’s decision to abandon that pro-growth approach in favor of economy-crushing, high-tax, big-government regulation.

    But the pinnacle of the week came in two key moments. The first occurred in an opening DNC video that included the jaw-dropping line “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.” Who exactly wrote the script for this video? Chairman Mao? As Mitt Romney appropriately tweeted in response, in America, “[w]e don’t belong to the government. Government belongs to us.” That Democrats see this foundational reality completely backwards is extraordinarily instructive.

    Couple that revelation with the Democrats’ decision to drop the one reference to God from their platform. Now, in some ways this was a mere formality — codifying what their public policy agenda has embraced for some time. After all, when the leader of your party and president of the United States shakes his fist at the sky and tells God that His definition of marriage is bigoted, removing His name from the platform shouldn’t really be a surprise.

    And yes, after public outrage, the Democrats reinserted God — to much consternation, boos, and hisses from the raucous crowd. But the larger point comes in the context of a convention dedicated to the proposition that government is the new god. It cares for us, provides for us, nurtures us, teaches us, corrects us, props us up, and wipes the tears from our eyes. Without it, we can do nothing — we are nothing. We are a people of, by, and for the government.

    So while we didn’t witness SWAT teams and riot gear this time around, we were left to consider this pathetic reality: in 1968, most mainstream Democrats were embarrassed by what happened in Chicago. In 2012, they are thumping their chests with pride over the spectacle in Charlotte.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_charlotte_freak_show.html#ixzz25uiApuos

  80. Hi Ya’ll 🙂 Been reading along today, crappy weather has kept us indoors mostly. What I have noticed is that we have already lost, no need for any elections at all. We have lost to the greedy and wealthy, the left and the right, the enviro nuts and eugenics crowd, and mostly, to the propaganda that we all know exists, but fail to aknowledge it. Liberals are bad and Conservatives are good, and the other way around. That’s the propaganda. Conservatives are racisits and women haters, if you believe the liberals. Liberals are baby killers and bleeding heart enviro nuts, if you believe the conservatives.

    All that is accomplished is division. We keep falling for the same propaganda, the the two sides are different, but we continue to go straight down the same road, regardless of who is in control of the steering wheel. Until everyone gets this and acts upon it, it will not change and we as a nation are doomed, if we aren’t already. Sad, really sad!

    • Hey G. How are you my friend? I was getting lonely over here on the crazy bench. 🙂

      • I’m well my friend! I hope you are doing well too! THe bench is getting crazier by the day it seems! I’m happy bow season is around the corner, lot’s of bucks this year. Started reloading, with wonderful results! I will send you a pic of my new treehouse after we lift it this week, I think you will realize that I may be crazy after all, LOL.

        • Doing okay under all the circumstances, thanks. I look forward to seeing the photo. Does it come with a fridge full of snacks – this tree house of yours? 😉

          As to being crazy, they done decided that about several of us long ago I suspect. lol

          • Well, it’s big! It’s a long story, but the floor will be 12.5 feet up. The building is 7 x 8 x 8 high. Don’t need a fridge, but it will have a heater and some nice comfy recliners. I will panel the inside and have some lights as well. When I say it’s a cadillac, it will be. As far as crazy, just a little. I’m doing my “prepper” stuff, LOL, which isn’t much now, other than reloading and getting ready to do some deer hunting. We filled our red tags already (2 does) and have 3 doe tags and a buck tag.

            I took my young cousins coyote hunting last Saturday evening. I was doing the calling and we had a big field surrounded. Just before dark we all had the pleasure of watching a huge black bear come towards the call. I was in the center of the field in a small shack with two kids and the tree stands were full with the rest of them. What a beautiful site when a 400 pounder just strolls out under the stand of one kid, comes within 50 yards of us, turns left and goes in under another stand. A true once in a lifetime moment for the kids!

        • I just sat on my deck and watched 4 bucks walk through the back yard. There was DaddyWarBucks a 9 pt by eastern count, Buckaroo, a 6 pt, then BuckyBoy and his brother both 4 pts. BuckminsterFuller another big 6-8 pt did not show tonight. Occasionally Jane shows up. They hang around because we no longer have a dog and we have fruit trees that provide good feed. Their racks are polished up and ready for battle. I watched a video earlier today of a guy describing multiple incidents with mountain lions. This occurred about 20 miles from here but lions also frequent this area. He had 3 lions in his fenced in yard going after his sheep/goats. Even after peppering one with bird shot, they did not leave. The county hunter was called in and eventually eliminated two of them but the third got away. Since CA passed the amendment making lions a protected species, they have been becoming more of a problem.

          • I can do the same here many days of the week. We have a small group that constantly wander this area. They aren’t worried by my dogs as they are kept inside or in the in the fully enclosed goat pen. I have at least one, possibly two, living within a mile of the house but they have never tried to get into the pens (all the goats are locked in their 9×9 house at night). If they come around and try for my stock I can kill em, otherwise I am suppose to call the Dept of Wildlife and they supposedly will come find and remove the offender. Same goes for bears or anything else harassing my stock, my pets or my family.

            I have 00 buck in my 12 gauge and will settle any issues with mountain lions/bears/etc with that.

    • If people were paying attention they would already know these things.

      And I’m almost positive Obama brought up transparency at the last Dem. Convention. Where does the nerve come from to make the SAME false promise a second time-why in the world would one believe him?

      • 1. He is a politician. 2) He is preaching to his choir. Most voters follow the party line no matter what their candidate says – imho only of course. 3. When called on it a politician will deny, deny, deny, then demand proof, then deny some more. His/her only goal is to get elected.

  81. Crap….missed opening of dove season….missing bow and black powder season…..cant hunt hogs…..cant hunt at all……SIGH. What is a heart anyway? Found out today that another stint may be needed in another artery…….got to get it done so I can fly again…..also grounded. Nothing to do except read SUFA and watch football….and sit outside. Can still target practice…..tho. But in the city, target practice is not looked upon nicely…even in Texas….besides, Mathius does not like his front porch light shot out……

  82. @Anita, Good Morning my Michigan Friend 🙂 I will clarify my position, it seems I should at this point. I’m an American and proud of it. I love my country and all the people in it, I do not, however like my government. I believe they are totally corrupt and cannot be fixed. Therefore, I fall on the side of Anarchist. I believe the govt has killed indiscriminately overseas and at home. I believe the govt had everything to do with 9-11, Oklahoma City, the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber and they will strike again, on US soil, before the next election. I think we need a Revolution, and I have written an article on how a new government could look (powerless). I think the whole two party political system is corrupt and cannot be fixed. They can go with the government. I think we have a major economic issue about to explode upon us, it will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

    I would not be surprised by the following: We get hit by a Russian nuke or two. Every major city in America is sealed off due to extreme violence. Many rural areas will seal themselves off from the government. UN troops on US soil. American deaths could reach 75 million.

    We are screwed, I love my country, I hate my government. I do not want violence. Voting is useless. We are so screwed!

    Feel free to ask any questions!

%d bloggers like this: