Got Popcorn?

OK, I’ve got nothing.  A lot of hype out there on the coming VP debate.  Not sure that isn’t the story, all the stories and talk about the debate are overshadowing the debate.  Could be the talking heads like to talk too much.  Time did this photo shoot of Ryan’s workout.  I bet it helps their sales, so I can’t fault them or their timing.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. TUCKER CARLSON AND NEIL PATEL: ABC fails ethics test

    Martha Raddatz is the moderator of tonight’s vice presidential debate. In 1991, Barack Obama attended her wedding. A year later, her then-husband, now a high level administration appointee and a personal friend of the president, attended the Obamas’ wedding.

    Irrelevant information? Put it this way: If Raddatz were a judge, she’d likely have to recuse herself from cases pertaining to the Obamas.

    We’re not arguing that Raddatz will slant tonight’s debate in the Obama campaign’s favor — any more than a member of Congress would automatically vote for an appropriation simply because it helps a campaign contributor. We are arguing that the public has a right to know the facts about Raddatz’s relationship to the president.

    You’d think that ABC News would be arguing the same thing. This is a network, after all, that has made a reputation (as well as a fortune) by exposing conflicts of interest among politicians, judges, business leaders and others in positions of authority.

    But not among journalists. That’s the line ABC News won’t cross, as our reporter Josh Peterson learned the hard way this summer, when he called the network to ask about Raddatz’s connections to Obama. ABC flacks refused to answer his questions. They hid the information from public view.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/11/tucker-carlson-and-neil-patel-abc-fails-ethics-test/#ixzz28ztXus3q

  2. charlieopera says:

    Sharks? Lions? Oy vey ….

    Just making sure you’re okay, which obviously you aren’t. If God wanted us to swim with sharks, he/she would’ve given us fins. If he/she wanted us to play with Lions, he/she would’ve made us gazelles. Take it easy over there. I was concerned you might’ve had a stroke when Romney turned the tables (and his policies) on The One. Just keeping your pulse going, brother.

    And how ‘bout those Buffalo Bills? 97 points and 1200 yards in two games. Can we get to 200 points and 2000 yards in three games? Yes we can!

  3. Snore.

    • We’ll wake you when it’s over 😉

      • Quip of the Day:

        Another politically important form of affection is identification with a leader.

        This is what [David] Hume calls “imaginary interest,” whereby individuals attach themselves psychologically to a leader whom they will never meet and from whom they can expect no material benefits.

        Quasi-erotic fixation on prominent individuals may sometimes inspire acts of personal foolhardiness or courage.

        But it usually has less dramatic effects. For instance, it allows devotees to live national events vicariously, to feel involved in large affairs.

        • Quasi-erotic fixation?.. LOI…quit giving BF big boy words like that to throw around! I have no idea what that means 🙂

          • It means people treat them like the girls treated the first arrival of the Beatles to America.

            They come to town, and everyone is giddy “Did ya hear Obama/Romney are in town!? Come on, might see’m drive by!”

  4. Time magazine did that pic? That should help with the young vote. (only 25#’s?? Come on man!)

  5. An argument I find compelling:

    Everyone should vote Democrat.

    Democrats are thought to be pro-government and economic interventionists. This is accurate. They are.

    Republicans are thought to be pro-free market and pro-freedom. This is not at all accurate. They are as pro-government and economic interventionist as Democrats.

    If a Republican wins, and the economy and nation continues to tank, people will believe it is their “pro-freedom-free-market” that is failing – when it is not.

    If a Democrat wins, and the economy and nation continues to tank, people will believe it is their “pro-government-interventionism” that is failing – correctly.

    If freedom has a chance in the future, the Democrats must win … and soundly.

    • I agree. It is a big concern of mine, that when we fly off the proverbial financial cliff, R&R are at the helm and will get all the blame, and the progressives will rule forever. This even may be a strategy of theirs. It is the one, lone, tiny smidge of a reason, where I’d stay home on election day.

    • I’ve been working on an article on the whole voting/Dem/Rep thing but thought I would wait for a break in the debates. Kinda hard to buck the news cycle, so I put of publishing when I know it’s likely to be ignored.

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

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning All 🙂

    I just had a nice peaceful morning in the forest. It’s a wonderful to hear all the wildlife wake up with the rising of the sun.

    Tonight is big for those who still live in fantasyland about the election. Your still voting for a crime boss 🙂 But, for the sake of your sanity, I hope you enjoy tonights event. I will likely be watching the NFL game, but may flip over to see if Uncle Joe makes a fool of himself again. After the events in Libya, I think Obama should just resign, he an incompetant boob, who has blood on his hands from dead Americans, what a shameful peice of shit. Not surprised that the left leaning folks are quiet lately, they are surely embarrassed by all this 😦

  7. Is Paul Ryan Hawt?
    By J.T. Hatter

    Paul’s Hot! Joe’s Not.

    I have to admit that I’m not “with it” anymore. I can’t dubstep. That would probably kill me. I’m a rock ‘n’ roller. That’s my music and my era. And that’s my excuse for completely missing out on the “Paul Ryan is hot” mania that is sweeping the country. It started as soon as Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate this summer. Women know all about it. They started it. They’re keeping it going. So there must be something to it.

    Did you know there’s a dance called the Paul Ryan? Yep. Here’s the music vid. It’s a hot rocking dance tune with a catchy beat, a sizzling female lead singer, sexy dancing girls, and a radically cool band pounding out the music.

    You can go to the website and cast your vote for who’s hot and who’s not. Paul’s Hot! Joe’s Not. Cast your vote here. OK, I admit it. I voted. Guess whom for. The video says it is “Brought to you by people who are not politicians.” That’s why it resonates. Those are the people who will save the USA — not politicians.

    The “Do the Paul Ryan” music video had me bouncing in my chair, so I decided to look more closely at the lyrics to discover if there were any profound political messages Ryan’s female supporters may have embedded in the song for us. Here’s the first verse:

    “Do the Paul Ryan”

    I wasn’t interested in politics much
    But the changes keep a comin’
    And I was out of touch
    But I’m hopin’ for a change
    And feelin’ kinda steamy
    Never had a Veep who’s been so dreaaammyyy.
    Uh oh, oh oh Paul Ryan
    (chorus) He’s hot!
    Oooo Baby you ain’t a lyin’
    (chorus) Rockin’ hot!
    Inside I think I’m dyin’
    Uh oh, oh oh Paul Ryyyaaaannn!

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/is_paul_ryan_hawt.html#ixzz2906RhVcN

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita posted a reference to a Lew Rockwell article on voting yesterday. It was written by a young lady for whom I have great respect and fondness.

    Small world it is indeed Anita. I thought you might enjoy her following letter.

    An Open Letter To My Ex-Boyfriend(s)

    by Ellen Finnigan
    by Ellen Finnigan

    DIGG THIS

    Dear Ex-boyfriend,

    It’s happened again: a perfectly good relationship torn asunder by a difference of political opinion. Oh why cannot the flower of love bloom on the border of the ideological divide? I thought love conquered all. Ex-boyfriend, what happened to us? Oh what aridity, what corruption, of soul, of culture, of country caused these delicate flowers to shrivel and die? I say “flowers” because, yes, this has happened to me more than once. Perhaps my standards are too high. Instead of picking the petals off a daisy and saying “he loves me, he loves me not,” I pick the petals and say, “he loves liberty, he loves liberty not” and if he does not love liberty, I find him hard to love.

    Oh ex-boyfriend, it could have been so beautiful. You were tall. You were well-educated. You cooked me dinner. You loved your mom, you loved your dog. You read my crappy writing and told me it was good. You said you were tired of the bachelor’s life. You wanted to get married! You wanted to start a family! All you wanted was to find someone who would share the mortgage, not get fat, read your terrible writing and tell you it was good…was that too much to ask? According to all those chick-lit books, those ones with the shopping bags and high heels and sparkly martini glasses on the covers, all of this should have been enough for us! But alas, it wasn’t.

    Things were going swimmingly until that one night – you know the one I’m talking about – that first time I used the “L” word. I saw you bristle, and then you became cold and distant. It made you nervous; I could tell. Perhaps it was too soon. Perhaps I should have waited until the third or fourth month to tell you I was a libertarian. I just didn’t want to hide anything from you my pet, my lover. You were everything to me. And I wanted to be everything to you.

    Although we “agreed to disagree” and rarely spoke politics after that, I could tell it annoyed you when, last summer, I put a Ron Paul sign in my window, prominently displayed above the town’s most popular coffee shop, where everybody, including your friends, could see it. When you noticed it, you scoffed and said, “He’s not going to win.” Then, you went and put that Obama button on your coat. For the record, my sweet, I thought you sounded like an idiot when I asked you why you liked Obama, and you replied, “He just sounds so…presidential.” However, I tried to stay cool. I tried to look on the bright side: Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said there must be some mystery in love – and there can be no mystery between intellectual equals?

    Looking back, all the red flags were there. But what can I say? I was a woman in love. Women in love are so full of excuses. I told myself what every woman tells herself when she is falling for someone with a worldview that clashes with her own, in other words, when she must confront the bleak prospect of incompatibility: “Well…maybe we’ll balance each other out!”

    We managed to stay together, but eventually, I had to start looking for ways to fulfill my needs outside the relationship. I started sneaking around. I’m not going to lie. Do you remember when you would call on those Sunday afternoons or on those occasional weekday evenings and I always “missed the call.” Well, I was with my Ron Paul meet-up. I’m sorry, baby, but they understood me in a way you never would. I could actually talk to them about things. I’ll never forget that day you stopped by my apartment unannounced and found 50 people in my living room poring over county legislative maps, planning a coup of the local precinct committee. I finally had to come clean. I hope you’ve forgiven me.

    It seemed that no matter how bad things got, I couldn’t let you go. For one, it’s hard to find a man who knows how to dance, and you were the best two-stepper in town. I finally had to admit to myself that we were incompatible, but I had a plan B. I believe it was Mencken who said it is the unique talent of the woman to always believe she can succeed where others have failed. I thought to myself: “I can change him!” I thought surely you must be prone to reason. Like you, pie, I am often too easily seduced by the idea of change.

    I gave you brochures. I sent you links to articles on Lew Rockwell. I made you read Rothbard. I told you everything about Ron Paul. For a while there, it seemed like you were coming around! I even convinced you to read Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. Then we discovered more things we had in common, like hating Republicans. Remember all those lazy afternoons we spent lying on the couch, holding each other and talking about the different ways we would like to murder and torture the President? “Poison him with depleted uranium!” “Waterboarding!” “Make him read a book!” Indeed, it was in those moments that I saw a gleam of hope.

    I’ll never forget the first time you agreed to come to church with me. It was Easter and you had just purchased a new suit for a wedding you were going to be in. When I drove by to pick you up, you came strutting out of your house, a peacock in sunglasses.

    Once you were in the car, I said, “Are you only coming to church with me, because you want to wear your new suit?”

    You said, “Yes. Do we get a free pancake breakfast?”

    “No.”

    “Donuts and coffee?”

    “No. Get out.”

    Oh funny ex-boyfriend, my little liberal cockatoo.

    We still had our bumps in the road, but overall things were fairly copasetic. The Ron Paul group had managed to win the county for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday, and I think after that you thought my obsession would die down. But it didn’t. I think you thought it would just be a phase. But it wasn’t. You soon tired of hearing about Ron Paul. Then, when he came to town in April, I stood you up to have dinner with him. I even had the honor of introducing him when he gave a speech at the University! (Yes, ex-boyfriend, this letter has largely become an excuse to gloat on the Internet about the time I met Ron Paul.) You weren’t too happy when you came over later that week and found that the framed picture of you and I had been replaced with a picture of me and him.

    You said, “Why do you care so much? Don’t you get it? He isn’t going to win.”

    Then I punched you in the face. After that things just sort of fizzled out I guess.

    Ex-boyfriend, I would just like you to know that I do not blame you for the problems in our relationship. I blame libertarians, with their ideas about sound monetary policy, non-interventionism, free markets and peace, ideas that seem to make some kind of logical sense and are based on some kind of truth, not on what people want to hear. It isn’t right that ideas, mere ideas, should come between me and those that I love. It seems ideas, mere ideas, are condemning me to a life of solitude and lovesick misery. For the record, if I end up alone at the age of 90 with 37 cats, shuffling around the public spaces with grocery bags on my feet while ranting and raving about the government, it will be all the libertarians’ fault!

    Faithfully yours,
    Ellen

  9. Common Man says:

    All those in Michigan;

    Since I adopted BF’s ideal some time back about focusing efforts at the local level I don’t pay much attention to the R’s or the D’s anymore as we are screwed either way.

    But…all of those of you who live in Michigan need to vote a resounding “YES” on Proposal 5 in this November’s election. Put Proposal 5 in your browser and read up. Our governor and the idiot mayor of Lansing are teaming up on defeating this proposal, so we need to ensure they do not get their way.

    Again vote “YES” on Proposal 5

    CM

    • Darn right CM! Yes on 5. You can pull up a sample ballot right down to the city level. I found that very helpful. It’s going to take some folks quite a while in the voting booth this time. It’s a few pages.

  10. I often rebuke a number of people here for their attention to national politics – because it detracts from the focus of where the real political power in the future will be delivered:
    local politics.

    I have also related that Charlie’s gang is so ahead of the Freedom movement in organizing at this level, that by the time it becomes so obvious that national politics is pointless, they will have lost the war in the local political battle field – all to everyone’s peril.

    Chris Hedges is a true leftie.

    He is a remnant of the American Marxist movement.

    Why would I want to listen to the speech by somebody like Hedges?

    For this reason: he understands very clearly that the Democratic Party that exists today is simply an arm of the American corporate Establishment.

    So, he stood before a small crowd of true believers in the old Left, and he said there is no hope of reforming the Democratic Party from the top. I heartily concur. There is as little hope for the old Left to recapture the Democratic Party as there is for the old Right to recapture the Republican Party.

    He comes to a conclusion at the end.

    He says that it would be wise to give up all interest in national politics.
    He said that the only real hope is local mobilization.
    He said that this is likely to take more than one generation.

    I have made exactly the same assessment of what needs to be done by those who wish to save their nation from future disaster.

    What this means is that he sees that anyone outside of the two-party system in this country have no real chance of capturing power.

    He argued that anybody who stands up for principle is going to be cut down in the Democratic Party. I would say that the same thing is true of anyone of principle in the Republican Party.

    The center has coalesced around the modern corporate state, and this corporate state is not about to allow anything to interfere with its extraction of wealth from American citizens.

    The difference between me and Hedges is this: he wants government to be bigger in everyone’s life, but controlled by his faction, so that his faction can extract wealth from their political enemies and reward their supporters, all in the name of helping the poor.

    That is the old Charlie’s position.

    He is angered because the corporate insiders succeeded in taking advantage of the growing federal state, thereby keeping Hedge and his allies from getting their hands on the leverage of central planning.

    My position is simple: Shrink the state. End the State.

    The difference between Hedges and me is enormous on the fundamentals of what government ought to do.

    But our recommended tactics are very similar.

    They are the tactics of any fringe group which has no possibility of getting a voice inside the corridors of power of the bipartisan American political party system.

    It is a realization that you are wasting your time to the extent that you invest hopes, money, or time in the outcome of the presidential election.

    We both see that the system is going down, that the Empire cannot be sustained, that there will be a great implosion. We both see that if you are going to pick up pieces, you’re going to have to do it at the local level.

    I think his ilk have the votes at the local level, and Freedom does not.

    I think we’re going to test that hypothesis over the next 30 or 40 years.

    But one thing is sure: neither Freedom nor the far Left is going to come into power in Washington until after there is a monumental economic crisis.

    He is already getting ready.

    You guys are not even in the conversation yet, dabbling along with Romney and mess….

    You should be terrified of this man in that video.

    • My position is simple: Shrink the state. End the State.

      Which can never happen so you’re full of it, as usual. You’re perfectly comfortable, it seems to me, with letting the 1% run the show, BF. It’s why there is no “true free market” … like Mr. Chomsky (and anybody else who deals with reality) states: Capitalism wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a truly free market system. The 1% requires the government to sustain their control.

      Go Marxists!

  11. Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks
    Published: Thursday, 11 Oct 2012 | 11:10 AM ET
    Text Size
    By: Kelly Evans
    CNBC Reporter

    For the second time in a week, a government unemployment report is sowing confusion—and may not be as positive as the markets think.

    First it was last Friday’s August payrolls report, which showed an unexpectedly large drop in the unemployment rate, that spurred confusion (and conspiracy theories). Now, a sharp drop in the pace of new jobless claims has also left people scratching their heads.

    The Labor Department on Thursday said the number of people filing jobless claims last week dropped by a seasonally adjusted 30,000—a pretty sharp decline, and one that left the total number of filings at a four-year low of 339,000.

    Financial markets immediately rallied on the news. (Read more: Stocks Rise After Jobless Claims Hit 4-Year Low.)

    While the government didn’t note any unusual factors in the release itself, a Labor Department official did tell news agencies covering the release about a quirk which partly accounted for the larger-than-expected drop.

    As Dow Jones reported: “A Labor Department economist said one large state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease.”

    The wording of that statement, along with the accompanying headlines, left the impression that one major state didn’t turn in its figures.

    Here’s what actually happened. The state did report weekly jobless claims but did not process and report its quarterly claims number (when many people have to reapply for benefits for technical reasons as opposed to being newly laid off). As a result, there wasn’t the expected spike in claims that normally happens at the start of the quarter.

    It is unclear why that happened or how unusual that is. What is clear is that the expected spike in claims around the start of each quarter was smaller this time than usual. Coupled with the seasonal adjustment (that expected a bigger increase), that pushed down the headline figure.

    In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions.

    That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won’t be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week.

    All told, these two weeks’ worth of jobless claims will end up being more noise than signal. That may frustrate those who follow the series closely for clues into the health of the U.S. labor market. Coupled with last week’s payrolls report, it is also likely to fuel perception that labor market figures in general can’t be trusted.

    The Labor Department appears to have had little choice in this matter, however; it couldn’t estimate what the one large state would or should have reported. Still, it may have been able to avoid more confusion had it more clearly articulated that in its weekly press release.

    And now, there is one state’s labor department with plenty of explaining to do.

    Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks
    Published: Thursday, 11 Oct 2012 | 11:10 AM ET
    Text Size
    By: Kelly Evans
    CNBC Reporter

    Twitter

    206

    LinkedIn

    14

    Share

    For the second time in a week, a government unemployment report is sowing confusion—and may not be as positive as the markets think.

    Spencer Platt | Getty Images

    First it was last Friday’s August payrolls report, which showed an unexpectedly large drop in the unemployment rate, that spurred confusion (and conspiracy theories). Now, a sharp drop in the pace of new jobless claims has also left people scratching their heads.

    The Labor Department on Thursday said the number of people filing jobless claims last week dropped by a seasonally adjusted 30,000—a pretty sharp decline, and one that left the total number of filings at a four-year low of 339,000.

    Financial markets immediately rallied on the news. (Read more: Stocks Rise After Jobless Claims Hit 4-Year Low.)

    While the government didn’t note any unusual factors in the release itself, a Labor Department official did tell news agencies covering the release about a quirk which partly accounted for the larger-than-expected drop.

    As Dow Jones reported: “A Labor Department economist said one large state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease.”

    The wording of that statement, along with the accompanying headlines, left the impression that one major state didn’t turn in its figures.

    Here’s what actually happened. The state did report weekly jobless claims but did not process and report its quarterly claims number (when many people have to reapply for benefits for technical reasons as opposed to being newly laid off). As a result, there wasn’t the expected spike in claims that normally happens at the start of the quarter.

    It is unclear why that happened or how unusual that is. What is clear is that the expected spike in claims around the start of each quarter was smaller this time than usual. Coupled with the seasonal adjustment (that expected a bigger increase), that pushed down the headline figure.

    In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions.

    That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won’t be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week.

    All told, these two weeks’ worth of jobless claims will end up being more noise than signal. That may frustrate those who follow the series closely for clues into the health of the U.S. labor market. Coupled with last week’s payrolls report, it is also likely to fuel perception that labor market figures in general can’t be trusted.

    The Labor Department appears to have had little choice in this matter, however; it couldn’t estimate what the one large state would or should have reported. Still, it may have been able to avoid more confusion had it more clearly articulated that in its weekly press release.

    And now, there is one state’s labor department with plenty of explaining to do.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49372827

  12. KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts
    Examining the State Department’s misplaced green priorities

    By Rep. Mike Kelly

    Wednesday, October 10, 2012

    In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

    The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

    Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

    In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

    The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

    While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

    Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.

    Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, two at the U.S. diplomatic compound and scene of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks.

    This first attack on the Benghazi compound occurred on April 6, 2012, when two Libyans threw a crude improvised explosive device over the compound wall. Two months later, another IED exploded at the compound, wounding one person and leaving a hole in the perimeter wall large enough for 40 people to run through.

    The second attack was linked to the “Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman,” a jihadist, pro-al Qaeda group named after the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The same group was responsible for subsequent attacks on the British ambassador to Libya and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both of which took place in Benghazi just months before the September attack.

    While these steady and increasingly violent attacks on western interests mounted, the U.S. State Department repeatedly rejected requests for additional protection measures for our security teams in Libya.

    According to Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer of the U.S. Mission to Libya from September 2011 to July 2012, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Ironically, as the State Department withdrew security resources, it increased hazard pay for its employees based in Libya by 5 percent.

    Mr. Nordstrom’s concerns regarding the escalating violence and inadequate security provisions, especially at the Benghazi compound, were shared by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, commander of the 16-member Security Support Team (SST) in Libya from February to August 2012. Lt. Col. Wood, who left Libya shortly before Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, believed that the SST presence needed to be extended, an idea Mr. Nordstrom said was shot down by the State Department in early July.

    When Lt. Col. Wood and Mr. Nordstrom surveyed the Benghazi compound’s physical security in March 2012, they said the security provisions were “inappropriately low,” with just one DSS agent available to supervise the 24-hour security. In addition to the DSS agent, the compound was protected by four armed members of the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade and unarmed Libyan contractors employed by the British-based Blue Mountain Group.

    According to an employment contract recovered at the Benghazi compound by the Washington Post shortly after the September attacks, those unarmed Libyan contractors were making roughly $4 dollars an hour.

    If that was indeed the case, the State Department, using the funds provided to the U.S. embassy in Austria for an electric vehicle charger, could have provided Ambassador Stevens with three additional guards, 24 hours a day, for 365 days, with some money left over.

    This is not to argue that having more guards, extending the SST presence, or authorizing the continued use of the DC-3 plane would have prevented Ambassador Stevens’ death, which marked the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since the 1970s. It does, however, raise a question about the State Department’s spending priorities.

    Should the money directed toward other State Department initiatives, such as the “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe,” have gone toward efforts to secure highly vulnerable State Department personnel in areas like Libya?

    In terms of securing the U.S. mission in Libya, it’s hard to argue that the money wasn’t there.

    What seemed to be lacking was the common sense to know where to spend it.

    Europe’s green energy sweep should have been Libya’s security sweep. Instead, the very real threats to the U.S. mission in Libya were swept under the rug.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/kelly-libya-security-cut-while-vienna-embassy-gain/?page=all#pagebreak

  13. Hee Hee He-Now if one has to vote for Gary-I can live with this outcome. 🙂

    Elections
    Poll: Libertarian Party nominee could be spoiler in Nevada
    12:48 AM 10/11/2012

    Caroline May
    Political Reporter

    While some may roll their eyes at Libertarian Party presidential nominee and marijuana-legalization champion Gary Johnson, recent polling shows that his presence on the ballot could have an effect on the presidential race, at least in Nevada.

    A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Wednesday found President Barack Obama has a four-point lead over Republican nominee Mitt Romney in Nevada (51-47 percent). But when Johnson is thrown into the mix, the former New Mexico governor garners three percent of the vote, largely pulling voters from Obama.

    “When Gary Johnson’s included he gets 3 percent and actually takes mostly from Obama, pulling his lead over Romney down to 48/47,” PPP explained. “That could be something worth keeping an eye on.”

    PPP noted that, last month, Obama’s lead on Romney in the Silver State was five points higher, with a 52-43 percent result in the middle of September.

    “That five point decline for Obama is consistent with what we’ve been seeing in most of our national and state level polling since last week’s debate,” the report read.

    Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states and the District of Columbia. Nevada has six electoral votes.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/11/poll-libertarian-party-nominee-could-be-spoiler-in-nevada-for-obama/#ixzz291A2VTVt

  14. Now this-I think is a true assessment of the Debate and it’s ramifications.

    October 11, 2012 12:00 A.M.
    The Game Changes
    Obama’s debate performance was not out of character — and his supporters are worried.

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Usually after a presidential debate, both sides spin the results. But after the first face-off between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, Obama’s exasperated handlers made no such effort. How could they when most opinion polls revealed that two-thirds of viewers thought Obama lost?

    Within minutes of the parting handshake, the liberal base went ballistic. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, and Michael Moore all but accused Obama of embarrassing the progressive cause. The post-debate spin focused not on whether the president had been creamed by challenger Mitt Romney, but rather on how that had been possible.

    Advertisement
    For a while, there were excuses galore. Was the meltdown due to Denver’s high altitude? Perhaps the president was distracted over national-security issues. Had Obama taken a pre-debate sedative for tension? Surely the rapid-recall Romney must have sneaked in written talking points on his Kleenex.

    A few days later, there were accusations from the Obama camp that Romney had been “untruthful” in the back-and-forth — a post-facto charge not leveled by the president in the middle of the debate, but only afterwards in his prepared campaign speeches.

    Yet Obama was not that out of character in the debate — at least not in comparison with his past performances. Obama’s professorial detachment; his condescension; his long, meandering answers; his avoidance of direct questions; his occasional petulance; and his frequent verbal tics, stalls, and stutters were all pretty normal for him. Roll the tape of any prior debate, press conference, or question-and-answer session, and what you see is about the same as we saw the other night.

    Why, then, the hysteria over a typical Obama performance? What was radically different was not Obama’s normal workmanlike performance, but two novel twists.

    This was the first debate in which Obama has had a record to defend. In 2000, he ran for Congress in a primary race against Bobby Rush and attacked the incumbent. In 2004, he ran successfully for the U.S. Senate, offering all sorts of promises — but never ran for reelection on their fulfillment.

    In 2008, a blank-slate Obama ran for president and won by lumping in challenger John McCain with unpopular incumbent president George W. Bush — while offering banalities like “hope and change” and “yes, we can!”

    The debate with Romney, however, marked the first time in his national political life that Obama has had the harder task of defending a record of governance. That he could not make the case onstage for a successful four years suggests either that his record is nearly indefensible — 42 months of unemployment above 8 percent, more than $5 trillion in new debt, record numbers of Americans on food stamps, anemic economic growth — or that Obama believes voters don’t care that much. Perhaps they will again be mesmerized by his promises of millions of new green jobs, more government entitlements, and more attacks on the better-off who haven’t paid “their fair share.”

    Barack Obama has always felt that it was enough to show up rather than to achieve. We all know that he got into Occidental College and Columbia University, was law-review editor at Harvard, was offered a professorship at the University of Chicago Law School, and was elected senator and president. But we have rarely heard of a significant record of actual achievement as a student, academic, or legislator — until his first term as president.

    This was also the first time that Obama has faced a skilled debater. In Obama’s 2000 debate with the plodding Rush, the latter coasted — rightly assuming that his long incumbency would be enough to defeat the so-so challenger Obama.

    In the 2004 senatorial race, Obama’s main rivals in the primary and general elections imploded due to mysteriously leaked divorce records. The last-minute fill-in candidate in the general election, Alan Keyes, was deemed wacky and not a serious opponent.

    Obama ended up mostly achieving draws when jousting with Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries. He won two of the three debates with nondescript presidential rival McCain by consistently attacking Bush and blaming the 2008 financial meltdown on Republicans.

    In previous debates, Obama sounded not much different than he did last week against Romney. Obama customarily looked down, gave disjointed, off-topic sermons, and stuttered uncertainly. That did not matter all that much, given that his youth and professorial air contrasted well with the inept Bobby Rush and Alan Keyes, and he appeared on camera as a fresh face in contrast to old, familiar, retread politicos like Clinton and McCain.

    Obama’s handlers know all this. No wonder what worries them is not that Obama was off his game against Romney, but that the game itself — not Obama — has suddenly changed.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329942/game-changes-victor-davis-hanson

  15. “In other words, Obamacare represents the triumph of the arbitrary rule of man over the fixed rule of law.” Long but interesting read.

    The Stakes Are High
    The threat of Obama’s second term.
    Oct 15, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 05 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/stakes-are-high_653797.html

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Where do you stand in life today based on this scale?

    Levels of awakening

    The path to true freedom begins with recognizing just how completely all the systems are rigged against you. Only from there can you withdraw your consent from all the rigged systems that are insidiously working to keep you sick, suppressed, impoverished and ignorant.

    From there, focus your power and your effort inward, asking self-empowering questions like how can I become better informed and educated? How can I gain new skills? How can I improve my health and set myself free from the medical enslavement system? In time, these questions will transform to more broad questions such as: How can I contribute something meaningful to the world? What can I do to serve in the defense of life and truth?

    These are levels of awareness / awakening. I describe them like this:

    Level 0 – “Zombie”
    This is the default level of total ignorance at which 90% of the population operates. They have no clue about anything that matters such as how fiat currency systems operate, natural cures for cancer, the true dangers of vaccines, how television manipulates their behavior and so on. (These people are often experts in sports and TV sitcoms, however.)

    Level 1 – “Awakened”
    This level is achieved when a person realizes something along the lines of “Hey, I’m living in a dream world. I’m being told lies at every turn. What is real? How can I know what is real?” This is where people start asking questions.

    Level 2 – “Informed”
    A level 2 person is someone who has taught themselves a significant amount of real history and the way the world really works. This person will have knowledge of politics, psychology, world history, economics, natural health, the natural world (water, ecosystems, soils, etc.), basic anatomy, basic science and so on. Not even 1% of the population today qualifies as level 2. Most people operate in a state of wild ignorance of the world around them.

    Level 3 – “Mastery”
    A level 3 person not only understands a great deal about the real world around them, they have also grasped ways to navigate through that world with great accomplishment and influence. They are innovators, creators and often communicators. Financial achievement is not the purpose here. Rather, it is achieving relevance in a world largely populated by utterly irrelevant people.

    Level 4 – “Enlightenment”
    This level is only achieved by those of the highest dedication to spiritual awakening. You would typically only find this level of understanding in people who pursue a lifetime practice of prayer, or transcendental meditation, or a similar spiritual practice. At this level of awareness, individuals become withdrawn from the material world and really have no interest in interacting with individuals of lower levels of awareness. Far less than one in a million human beings will ever achieve level 4 “Enlightenment.”

    Just to review these levels again, here are some of the keywords and concepts that typically relate to people of each level:

    Level 0 – “Zombie” – Football, sports scores, TV sitcoms, processed junk food, vaccinations, playing the lotto, following doctors’ orders, submitting to apparent authority, going along with the status quo.

    Level 1 – “Awakened” – Asks questions. Reads ingredients on foods. Questions their doctor. Watches documentaries instead of sports. Attempts to assess information and think rationally. Questions false authority.

    Level 2 – “Informed” – Reads books. Explores alternative information. Invests in self-education. Participates in activism. Seeks to make changes in the world around them. Speaks out with friends. Challenges people’s beliefs. Reflects on their own beliefs and is capable of adaptation.

    Level 3 – “Mastery” – Has great influence. Creates things. Innovates. Provides solutions. Invents new things. No television. No vaccines. No junk food. Has a very long-term perspective. Understands the “big picture.” Seeks to help others. Has compassion for living things. Recognizes the web of life on our planet.

    Level 4 – “Enlightenment” – Realizes the great illusion of life. Embraces immortality of consciousness and the human spirit. Expresses compassion for others but not intervention. Never seeks to “change” others, only to invite them to expand their awareness. Recognizes interconnectedness of all life systems. Sees the human life experience in a humorous light. Is able to tap into higher consciousness. Rarely seeks fame and not interested in financial success. Often abandons all material wealth.

    Remember: The rigged systems in place today want to suppress your rise from Level 0 to Level 4. They wish to keep you as dumbed-down as possible so that you never become fully aware of what’s really happening around you. Only by refusing to participate in those systems do you have a real opportunity to move up the levels and achieve the only thing that really matters: High-level consciousness.

    • gmanfortruth says:
    • One question-In your list–man seems to go from being ignorant of what is going on-to actually trying to produce and help-to going to “I’m too smart for the rest of you fools-so I’m gonna withdraw from society.

      Should we all really be aiming for:

      ” At this level of awareness, individuals become withdrawn from the material world and really have no interest in interacting with individuals of lower levels of awareness. Far less than one in a million human beings will ever achieve level 4 “Enlightenment.” ” ?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        VH, You should look at that level as a whole, rather than just picking it apart. Notice the term “material world”. I see that is “keeping up with the Jones’s” or “I got more toys than you” mentallity. Funny thing about that, I do not feel that I need the “material world”. I just want what I need to achieve my goals, living, hunting, cooking, ect. I do not choose to interact with the entitlement class either, do you?

        • Wow-G-I really don’t think I’m picking it apart. When the author uses words like-irrelevant people, no vaccines, no television, will not interact with people, and the only thing that matters is High level consciousness. I haven’t looked up the word enlightenment-but I don’t believe it means I am better than every body else and I am gonna withdraw and only take care of my smart self.

          • But I’m not sure that’s even the real point-the point from your article that I got anyway-Was that man goes through a process before he finally realizes that nothing he does can make any difference-so if he’s enlightened he just quits and concentrates totally on his self.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              V, I didn’t read it that way, but that’s normal I guess. I read the specifics of what is wrong in our current world today and how best to deal with it for self and family. Let’s face it, politics is a real disaster, everyone seems to be sick or on some kind of meds and it goes on and on. People spend immense amount of their time on everything, except themselves (I’m not talking about make-up and shoes here).

              I spend a great deal of my time providing food for myself and family, in some form or another, and I’m not talking about taking money to a grocerie store. I’m working for self and family, not the powers that want to be. Few can say that. In time I will no longer need the facsist market that we have to live with (capitalism my ass, Charlie) 🙂

              • I don’t disagree with everything the man said G-I just know none of us are an Island, as cliche as that may sound. I actually have a lot of respect for your hard work and your attempt to be less dependent on societies mechanics, for lack of a better word. But don’t let anyone convince you that you can just ignore government at any level-it ain’t going away just because you ignore it.

          • 2 hours ago
            Rich, worried and buying ad time

            Posted by
            CNN’s Ashley Killough

            (CNN) – He’s not running for office. He’s not part of a super PAC. He’s not lobbying for or against any ballot measures.

            But billionaire Thomas Peterffy is spending millions on television ads this election season with one cautionary message: Avoid socialism.

            “I grew up in a socialist country and I have seen what that does to people. There is no hope, no freedom, no pride in achievement,” he says with a soft Hungarian accent in the ad. “The nation became poorer and poorer, and that’s what I see happening here.”

            Peterffy told CNN he expects to spend $5-$10 million on the ad buy, depending on its effectiveness. The spot will run on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, and test markets in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Florida.

            The one-minute spot, which began airing Wednesday and will continue through Election Day, has no mention of any specific politician or lawmaker. It’s simply a plea for an end to what he sees as growing hostility to personal success – and to vote Republican.

            “America’s wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy,” he says in the commercial.

            Peterffy was born in Budapest in 1944 during the deadly Soviet offensive that ended in the capture of Hungary’s capital the following year. From then, the republic remained under communist control until it gained independence in 1989.

            The new ad features images of Peterffy as a child in Hungary and the impoverished conditions in his native country.

            “As a young boy, I was fantasizing about one day going to America, making a success of myself. The American Dream,” he says.

            Peterffy left his country and moved to New York in 1965, where-without knowing English–he got a computer programming job on Wall Street. He later purchased his own seat on the American Stock Exchange in 1977 and, fast forward a few years, found himself the creator of Interactive Brokers, one of the first electronic trading firms.

            Forbes Magazine now estimates Peterffy, 68, has a net worth of $4.6 billion.

            Peterffy is not alone in his fear of a socialist America. Some Republicans have launched vocal accusations against President Barack Obama for pushing what they call socialist policies. In part, they’re referring to Obama’s tax proposal that would ultimately raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of the country but maintain tax cuts for households making under $250,000 per year.

            Obama and his re-election campaign argue they’re not attacking success, rather they have a different viewpoint on how to create success. At the debate last week, Obama repeated his signature line, saying he wants to make sure everyone is “getting a fair share, everybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.”

            Peterffy, however, says such policies lead to a “slippery slope.”

            “I’ve paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime, now I am being told that I am not contributing my fair share?” he said in an interview.

            “When you trash the leaders of businesses, they stop working hard. They go on vacation,” he continued. “I even see that within myself, I used to be proud of building Interactive Brokers. I would look forward to work each day. Now I’m being told I’m not doing my fair share.”

            According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the billionaire donated more than $60,000 to the Republican National Committee last year and contributed to Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, and House Speaker John Boehner.

            Other billionaires, such David and Charles Koch, as well as George Soros, have played prominent roles this election, spending millions on ads for their respective candidates. But the titans maintain a low-profile, never appearing in the ads themselves.

            Asked why Peterffy wanted to personally take out the ad buy–and star in the spot–he said he was concerned that Americans were unaware of the “downside” of a “less stratified society.”

            “If people want to go that way, I want them to go with eyes wide open, aware of all possible consequences,” he added.

            http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rich-worried-and-buying-ad-time/

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        You have nailed it down quite well I think.

        Once I accept that everything is a lie, how on earth do I get to the next level?

        How will I know if my new found knowledge is true or just another lie???

        Now where did I put my tinfoil hat………………..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          OR………………….Another word for Enlightened……………………. Mooch.

    • Nicely done, but I still enjoy TV. Unfortunately always have. There is much to learn out there and it is for better or worse one of the better ways to see more than you could in person. I will however, never equate “Survivor” to let’s say “C-Span”. “survivor” and its ilk do have a purpose. They demonstrate nicely Level one (Zombie) and, and, in level 4 show the human life experience in a humorous light.

  17. Wow-I think most people give Biden a pass because they think he’s basically a nice guy-I’m thinking coming off as a condescending ass wasn’t a very good strategy.

    • Good point, V.H. He was condescending … but the other guy, by the end, looked like a kid repeating a bad poem. It only puts more pressure on Obama next week and if he doesn’t come prepared, he’ll blow what was an easy victory.

      • Actually, to me anyway, it looked more like a very experienced politician disrespecting a younger, less experienced in debates, younger man 🙂 You know we Americans-we pretty much don’t like bullies. 🙂 Real bad strategy, all the way around, by the Obama team

    • Wife just agreed. The Prez did the same thing last week. This attitude goes over well on the Upper West side of Manhattan, Georgetown and in my sister-in-law’s house. Don’t think it will play well in Peoria or Ohio I hope.

  18. .5 Pt to the dems. It’ll be up to The One to deliver next week. Biden was fine when he was pissed off, but the smiling/smirking was annoying. Backing Ayn Rand Jr. into a corner and having to hear him repeat the same bullshit over and over worked well. Obama better seek counsel from his war time consigliere next week … and leave the smiling home.

    • Those were smirks Charlie, not smiles. The empty chair had nothing better. maybe he can have a teleprompter implanted by next week.

      • I agree … all the pressure is now on The One …

      • Seriously, the belittling sounds, laughs, and head moves – followed by the oh, so sincere, look directly into the camera, appeals to “we the people” was just -what word fits-disgusting?

        • “almost” (almost) as disgusting as Romney using the term “middle class” after having to watch and hear him belittle 47% of the country at a $50,000 a plate dinner. I mean, come on already. How much worse can it possibly get?

          • No way to defend Romney’s statement-it was a major stupid thing to say. I may believe I know what he actually meant, so I give him a break 🙂 but that isn’t what he said and he should have known better.

            But as a said before-Obama and his choir have Romney beat by a mile when it comes to saying stupid things. The fact that the left wants to hold up this statement by Romney as oh so important, while ignoring the nasty, divisive crap their side has been saying for years is ……irritating.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    For those baseball purists among us, boy the playoffs have been G….R…..E…..A…….T.

    Orioles pull it out in ANOTHER extra inning game.

    Now if the Tigers can hold that lead……….. right Anita?

    • We handled it..no prob! Stayed up to cheer them on…made me late for watching my granddaughter this morning! Go Tigers!

      • Common Man says:

        Anita;

        And Justin got a shutout! What did you think of the Oakland crowd booing us at the end of the game…a bunch of sore loosers.

        CM

        • Complete game shutout with 11Ks..22Ks for his 2 games this series. Verlander Rocks! Oakland fans can use some class, whatever you haters!…, but the team did very well with ..I think I heard..17 rookies! Wow! Go Tigers!

    • I’m loving the playoffs too…..couldn’t tear myself away at the end. Go O’s and Tigers! And I’m hoping the Nats win theirs and go to the World Series!

    • Unfortunately, I come from the land of the post season choke .. Ohio(cincy)… and we did it again ..

      • See what you get for messin with my Spartans? 😉

        • Oh, those guys we beat! lol, I do like MSU, Dantonio was the coach at UC, good guy. I’d be happy with a Tigers/Nationals World Series … am I forgiven now? PS, please stomp the guts out of that other team from Michigan…

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Have you folks seen that it is now the Republican’s fault that the security in Benghazi was weak?

    You see it was the R’s that cut the Funding. That is the new Dem/Obama narrative.

    Another thought. The only thing I saw tonight was about 4 minutes of Luntz’ focus group.

    Question: Where did they find 20 people who HAVE NOT MADE UP THEIR MIND and STILL have no idea who they are voting for????

    Do these freakin people live on Mars or something?

    • Yeah, Pelosi said it awhile back-hard to believe isn’t it-Now Cutter is saying the Libya incident is being politicized-I guess it wouldn’t be a big deal that 4 Americans were killed if Romney and Ryan would just not talk about it.

      Anyone who doesn’t know who they want to vote for by now, which is hard to believe in the first place and I suspect most do know, shouldn’t vote. Although there was one woman in Luntz’ focus group who said she still didn’t know who to vote for-BECAUSE-the candidates kept contradicting each other. Seriously, that’s what she said-she simply should stay home on election day.

    • A guy votes against bolstering security, I don’t see how he escapes some responsibility.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Charlie

        Your comment reveals your lack of understanding about how appropriations and the Exec Branches administration works. The POTUS and SEC of State have the authority to respond to security threats, which includes moving money as needed.

        And of course there is the little fact that Ryan’s proposed budget is still sitting in Harry Reid’s desk.

        “The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for.” Biden’s lie about Ryan’s budget was an attempt to dodge responsibility for lax embassy security–and to cover up that the Obama called for new cuts to embassy security just days after the 9/11 attacks. Ryan’s proposal, which called for a 19% overall decrease in non-defense discretionary spending, does not even mention embassy security–the Obama campaign merely made up that number by applying 19% across the board. “

    • I had to quit watching. Between the laughing, interrupting, and non answers from both of them, I couldn’t handle it. 👿 Tigers made my night though!

  21. Ok I’m done! I don’t think I’ve ever taken up that much of the Recent Comments board :)…GMan take it from here……

  22. OK one more..Clint Eastwood nailed Biden’s performance a few weeks before it even happened:

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning All 🙂

    Some thoughts from last night. The Steelers lost in a close game with Tennessee! That made me happy! As far as the debate, IMHO, Biden’s whole attitude was such a distraction, it took away from what was being said. Totally condescending, ignorant and overbearing are just a few words I can come up. Basically, Biden was an asshole. Biden was so bad, I can’t remember much of what was said, because he was such a distraction. Maybe that was the plan, since he can’t defend any policies for the last 3+ years.

    As far as those who haven’t made up thier minds yet, I can only think of the term “Zombie” 🙂

  24. Biden did exactly what he was supposed to do………interrupt…and smirk. That was his job…..to disrupt and keep Ryan from staying on message.

    • I don’t think the moderator helped. Ryan got off to a bad start but recovered (never good). Interesting, right after the debate, the CNN polls (not Fox) were calling Ryan the winner by six or eight points. All night long Ryan has been hammered, I wonder what the “public” now has been convinced to believe. This morning in the “NY Daily News”, three major articles on how Biden “cleaned” Ryan’s clock.

      Can’t honestly say I have ever seen this much bias so upfront. They are not even pretending objectivity anymore.

    • Good morning, Colonel! The Plutonians are happy this fine message … but only wish the Ayn Rand wannabe actually stated HIS message (anything substantial). His and his ticket mate’s message being: 30-47% of Americans are deadbeats, including veterans and those currently serviing) so screw them. No need to worry about those people.

      Unfortunately, he stuck to his duck, duck, duck the answer bullet points.

      So, do you want to start another war?

      Would you rather Americans die in place of Afghanis?

      Which EXACTLY would you cut regarding loopholes?

      Go Bills!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Spousal Unit Leader has the day off so we are going to see the movie………Atlas Shrugged.

      • Hi ya Charlie……I gave credit where credit was due……Biden did his job. He was arrogant, stupid, demeaning, and wrong. But his job was to energize his base….he did that. I do know that the debate last night changed the minds of two women I work with….they were Obama supporters back then and were until last night. What changed their minds was his arrogance….and his statements that the WH did not know about the Libyan situation. Everyone with a quarter brain knows this was bullshit. They also have seen and felt the increases in their healthcare.

        Having said that…..I will answer your questions….

        I do not want another war and neither does ANY conservative that I know….and that includes Ryan and Romney. I do not believe in the so called “peace dividend” and I think we should be the biggest and baddest military on the face of the earth….1,500,000 inclusive. ( Note: I did not say we should be interventionists).

        I want no Americans to die anywhere…I wish Obama believed that…he does not.

        I have stated my tax position. Eliminate ALL and I mean ALL loopholes for EVERY person and corporation. NO depreciation, no mortgage deductions, no marriage penalty, no child care deductions…etc. The only deduction that I would leave in place is charity. I would eliminate all LLC’s and sub Chapter S corporations, all 501(c)..etc………I would set the corporate income tax at 15% and I would set income tax at 12% for all….no exceptions. I would eliminate ALL subsidies. I would disband all trade barriers. I would eliminate all foreign subsidies and eliminate foreign aid. Anything else?

        That is as exact as I can be.

        Hope you and yours are doing well.

  25. Common Man says:

    All;

    Here is something to laugh at, but it is sad that there are individuals out there this stupid who vote.

    CM

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    As I expected, you can’t put a lefty on TV without cranking up the LIE meter. WOW, a consescending lying asshole like Biden should not be so close to the Presidency. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate

  27. Everybody have a nice weekend-getting out of the house for a couple days. Woo Hoo 🙂

  28. Intrade

    Romeny vs Obama – no change.
    Ryan vs Biden – Obama dropped from 61 to 58%

  29. It is really interesting to see the exchange concerning Benghazi issue…..it boils down to one thing and one thing ONLY. The policy of the United States in its appeasement role…..cost the lives of the Ambassador and staff. A complete misunderstanding of how to live in the ME. It is not, will not be, and never has been a peaceful area for tens of thousands of years. It can never be a peaceful area….ever. Forget the fact that we are there……when an Ambassador asks for security, you do not:

    (1) Run an ad in the local newspaper as they did, for two local body guards.
    (2) DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE allow local security…NEVER…..NEVER…NEVER !!!
    (3) The 9-11 anniversary WILL ALWAYS BE A HOT POINT…..ALWAYS!!!! It does not matter if we totally pull out of the region lock, stock , and barrel and never return. It is here forever. Prepare for it next year in countries that ARE NOT Muslim.
    (4) When an Ambassador asks for additional security…..YOU GIVE IT….or leave.
    (5) DO NOT EVER put an Ambassador in a country that is involved in a civil war….and then take sides. Holy shit, Batman.

    Hillary Clinton has already lost any opportunity to run for President. This is a legacy that will be with her forever……she cannot protect American interests and sets them up for a killing field.

    Biden saying they did not know….is not only laughable but an insult to any American. They, the WH, is briefed……DAILY. It is not the State Department that is briefed…it is the PRESIDENT that is briefed……DAILY……..oh……unless you skip security briefings. AND a security briefing IS NOT an underling position….you do not send a surrogate.

    What happened in Benghazi is more criminally negligent than Charles Manson.

    • One thing that has not gotten any discussion is why did we post a known gay to the ME? It seems like that is a like a Christian throwing out red meat in the Colosseum full of lions.

      • SK Trynosky sr. says:

        Hey, what’s a matter, don’t you believe in equality? Once the good old US of A says something is ok then it is ok for the entire world!

        Join me for a chorus of:

  30. Out of curiosity…..has anyone on here…..worked their taxes for next year assuming no changes made by December 31? I would suggest doing so………The tax burden in real dollars for tax brackets beginning at $24,999…………goes up by 11.4 %. These are not Republican numbers….these are the changes in the tax code and the new taxes implemented in Obamacare.

    What happened to no one sees a tax increase under 200k?

    • any links that you can give us?

      the no tax increase under 200k is a campaign tool. You see, there hasn’t been a tax increase…. yet…

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought I would share some comments I made at Huff Po regarding the wonderful “Bailout” of GM. Which Obama is now touting in campaign advertisements.

    “Yes, Bush AND Obama BOTH violated the Constitution and STOLE from the American People to prop up another failed business.

    Yes,, BOTH are nothing but enablers of the Crony Capitalism, Mecantilism, Fascism that is our modern Political/Economic system.”

    “Besides that, when did Poverty become a Rationalization to Steal from others?

    When ever the left wants something that involves stomping on our Freedom and Liberty they trot out some 10% + or – group who is in despair.

    They will spend Billions on campaigns to take from their victims to fund their dreams, instead of just giving their own time and money.

    The only thing worse than a group driven by pipe dreams is the same group with control over Govt FORCE.”

    • Huff Po huh…..

      • JAC…..where on Huffpo do you post? Political blog?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Good afternoon Colonel.

          I just post comments under the various articles. Much like we do here.

          Except their format is not conducive to “conversation”, with word limits and moderators who cut stuff that proves them wrong, etc.

          Hope all is well in Texas this fine Saturday. Cool and raining here.

          Saw Atlas Shrugged II yesterday. Better than the first and has more “known” actors. Won’t be up for an Academy Award but it will stick in the craw of the MOOCHERS. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Yep. Even drag up a “thinking” person once in a while. Some have visited here as well but have not as yet added to the conversation.

        Somebody has to remind the Left they are lost in the land of brain eating smurfs.

  32. Anyone on here still have a 401 (k) ?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Still have a small IRA.

      Spousal Unit Leader on the other hand is in almost the worst of situations.

      She has a Federal Thrift Savings plan, with no real options to protect yourself from Inflation or Rising Interest rates. But her MAIN retirement is Civil Service. Rumors are beginning to fly about CUTS to the defined benefits.

      Now why did you ask the question?

      • Oh….IF Obama gets re-elected, the 401’s are pretty much dead meat, in my estimation. They are zeroed in on the Obama Care for 2016…a new tax.

        Cuts to defined benefits plans…..inevitable, I think. It is unfortunate. As I said previously, right or wrong, we have pulled out of all the Fed Banks…..and gone local. Several of our friends have decided to pool some assets and start a new state bank…..the only caveat is that they have no FDIC protection but it is a well managed bank. Eight months ago it started with 40 million…..it now has over 170 million and growing.

        Most of the business men that I know, are pulling in horns big time. Reducing employees to under the Obama thresh hold to avoid the new taxes in both Obama Care and the new payroll taxes coming down the pike.

        I registered on Huffpo….under this same name and none of my posts have been put on there….lol. I was reading several posts under the different articles…..it is definitely a leftist rag.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    I Laughed, I Cried, I Cleaned My Guns
    Written by Dave Budge on 12 October 2012

    I had a fantasy last night as I watched he Veep debate that my Twitter feed included real time commentary from Hunter S. Thompson, J. D. Salinger, and Mark Twain. I couldn’t help but want commentary on the weirdness, the phoniness, and the absurdity in the whole disaster. That said, I (as you might guess) have my own opinions.

    First, let me say that I think the debate will have almost no effect on the outcome of the race. I haven’t seen the numbers but my guess is that viewership was probably low. There were some major baseball games to watch which the low informed voter (yes, swing voters) surely were more interested in and, as my wife asked, “can I turn off all of the yelling now?” That was about 10 minutes in.

    So, after I moved my masochistic ars down to my man cave, I watched my Twitter feed – which is pretty bi-partisan – repeat the general ideas that Biden is a boorish dip-shit and Ryan is a pencil-necked dweeb not ready to run with the big dogs.

    Now, we won’t know for a few days how Americans (those who watched) will come down on this but here’s my guess. Joe Biden’s aggressiveness will hurt Dems with women. His whopper about Libya security will be a problem for Obama.

    But that’s just a guess.

    One thing for sure; if this represents the United States I’m not sure I want to admit I belong to this country any more. I’d go to Canada but I don’t have a passport – which is another reason to move to Canada. I am now more convinced than ever that God exists and he has put us all here for his own entertainment. What else could explain what happened last night?

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Chuckle for Saturday. from Malkin’s article on Hillary being thrown under the bus on Libya.

    “Quote flashback of the day:

    “Well, here’s what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you.”
    –President Obama, July 2012

    So it’s settled then — this is all Harry Truman’s fault.”

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Something a little more challenging. An older article republished in honor of Mr. Obama’s dedication the other day. You know, the NOT PANDERING to HISPANIC ceremony and dedication of a Chicano Hero.

    “Obama announced the creation of a national monument in honor of labor organizer Cesar Chavez.… Here’s Murray Rothbard, who has a somewhat different take on Cesar Chavez. The word ‘floperoo’ is used.” – Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

    We live, increasingly, in a Jacobin Age. Memory, embodied in birthdays, anniversaries, and other commemorations, is vitally important to an individual, a family, or a nation. These ceremonies are critical for the self-identity and the renewed dedication to that identity, of a person or of a people. It was insight into this truth that led the Jacobins, during the French Revolution, to sweep away all the old religious festivals, birthdays, and even calendar of the French people, and to substitute new and artificial names, days, and months for commemoration.

    This Jacobinical process has been going on in the United States, albeit more gradually, in recent years. Festivals important for American self-identity and dedication have been purged or denigrated: e.g. Washington’s Birthday has been denatured into an amorphous “President’s Day” designed merely to ensure one more holiday weekend. And in stark contrast to the great World Columbian Exposition in Chicago for the quadricentennial of the discovery of America, at its quincentenary in the fall of 1992, the discovery was universally reviled as a vicious genocidal act by a “dead white European male.” Every week, it seems, the media come up with little-known substitute people or events whose anniversaries, or whose deaths, we are required to honor.

    The latest ersatz hero is Cesar Estrada Chavez, who died last April at the age of 66. For days, TV and the press were filled with the lionization of Chavez and his supposed achievements. President Clinton asserted that “the labor movement and all Americans have lost a great leader,” and he called Chavez “an authentic hero to millions of people throughout the world.” And we were reminded of Bobby Kennedy’s claim, in 1968, that Chavez “is one of the heroic figures of our time.”

    What had Chavez done to earn all these extravagant kudos? He had, for the first time, supposedly successfully organized low-paid and therefore “exploited” migrant farm workers, in California and other southwestern states, and thereby improved their lot. By living an austere lifestyle, and accepting only a small salary as founder and head of the United Farm Workers, he struck many gullible young left-liberals as a “saint.” His admirers didn’t realize that love of money is not the only emotion that motivates people; there is also the love of power.

    Indeed, the Chavez movement was an “in” cause for New Left idealists in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Trained by the self-styled “professional radical” Saul Alinsky, Chavez successfully cultivated a quasi-political, quasi-religious aura for his union movement: including hymns, marches, fasts, and flags. He popularized such Spanish words as “La Causa” for his cause and “Huelga!” for “strike,” and made it veritable radical chic to boycott grapes in support of his five-year strike against the California grape growers. The Chavez farm worker encampments attracted almost as many short-term priests, nuns, and young liberal idealists as the sugarcane-cutting Venceremos Brigade in Cuba.

    In 1970, the boycott finally forced the grape growers to sign with UFW: five years later, Chavez reached his peak of seeming success when his newly elected ally, Governor Jerry Brown, pushed through the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, for the first time compelling collective bargaining in agriculture.

    Indeed, the new California act came perilously close to imposing a closed shop: its “good standing clause” permitted union leaders to deny work to any worker who challenged decisions of union leaders.

    Yet, despite the hosannahs of the nation’s liberals, and the coercion supplied by the state of California, Cesar Chavez’s entire life turned out to be a floperoo. Whereas he dreamed of his UFW organizing all of the nation’s migrant farm workers, his union fell like a stone from a membership of 70,000 in the mid-1970s to only 5,000 today. In the UFW heartland, the Salinas Valley of California, the number of union contracts among vegetable growers has plummeted from 35 to only 1 at the present time. Only half of the meager union revenues now come from dues, the other half being supplied by nostalgic liberals. The UFW has had it.

    What went wrong? Some of Chavez’s critics point to his love of personal power, which led to his purging a succession of organizers, and to kicking all savvy non-Hispanic officials out of his union.

    But the real problem is “the economy, stupid.” In the long run, economics triumphs over symbolism, hoopla, and radical chic. Unions are only successful in a market economy where the union can control the supply of labor: that is, when workers are few in number, and highly skilled, so that they are not easily replaceable. Migrant farm workers, on the contrary, and almost by definition, are in abundant, ever-increasing, ever-moving, and therefore “uncontrollable” supply. And with their low skills and abundant numbers, they can be easily replaced.

    The low wage of migrant farm workers is not a sign that they are “exploited” (whatever that term may mean), but precisely that they are low-skilled and easily replaceable. And anyone who is inclined to weep about their “exploitation” should ask himself why in the world these workers emigrate seasonally from Mexico to the United States to take these jobs. The answer is that it’s all relative: what are “low wages” and miserable living conditions for Americans, are high wages and palatial conditions for Mexicans — or, rather, for those unskilled Mexicans who choose to make the trek each season.

    In fact, it’s a darned good thing for these migrant workers that their beloved union turned out to be a failure. For “success” of the union, imposed by the boycott and the coercion of the California legislature, would only have raised wage rates or improved conditions at the expense of massive unemployment of these workers, and forcing them to remain, in far more miserable conditions, in Mexico. Fortunately, not even that coercion could violate economic realities.
    Rothbard, Murray N.

    $20.00 $17.00

    As the pseudonymous free-market economist “Angus Black” admonished liberals at the time of the grape boycott: if you really want to improve the lot of grape workers, don’t boycott grapes; on the contrary, eat as many grapes as you can stand, and tell your friends to do the same. This will raise the consumer demand for grapes, and increase both the employment and the wages of grape workers.

    But this lesson, of course, never sunk in. It was and still is easier for liberals to enjoy a pseudo-religious “sense of belonging” to a movement, and to “feel good about themselves” by getting a vicarious thrill of sanctification by not eating grapes, than actually to learn about economic realities and what will really help the supposed objects of their concern.

    The real legacy of Cesar Chavez is negative: forget the charisma and the hype and learn some economics.

    • SK Trynosky sr. says:

      Again I quote the end of “Liberty Valance”, “When the truth becomes legend, print the legend.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        Actually it is when truth conflicts with the legend, print the legend.

        • Actually, thanks to You Tube, I just replayed the scene. The actual reporter quote to Jimmy Stewart (as Rance Stoddard) was, “This is the West sir, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend”. He meant, I think, that when the truth morphs into a legend, then print the legend. hence, we have Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Bill Hickok and Buffalo Bill Cody. Hard to tell where the legend leaves off and the truth begins. Ditto I guess for Crockett and Boone.

          • Stephen, a dear friend of mine (very conservative) wrote a wonderful fictional novel that deals with Hemingway’s death called Print the Legend. Great book, great author, part of a series (Lassiter series). Poppa believed most government operations were fubar … yet he always took the side of the underdog … an enigma alright. Check out Craig McDonald’s books (Print the Legend is one) if you get the chance (he’s a terrific writer and extremely smart).

            • Thanks for the tip.

              FYI, I am all over the ,map on many things. For example, am reading a TR bio right now. Now, I know the guy was a “progressive” and therefore must be the enemy. But, on the other hand, when he was President my grandfathers both started working in the coal fields of Eastern PA. Now I know a little bit about tunnel mining and know that both of these guys were dead before I was born because of black lung. So, where does that leave me?

              Do I defend the indefensible? Or, do I sit down, do a lot of very serious thinking and come to the conclusion that sometimes, extraordinary measures are needed to address extraordinary circumstances?The problem with this is that the actions taken must be temporary, must be morally correct and must take the actions of both parties into account. TR was interesting since his “solutions” met these criteria. While hostile to trusts and unconstrained big business he was also hostile to out of control unions who did not understand the problems big business had and he had a deep distrust of anarchists and anarchy which he related to “mob rule”. When you read his bios on one page you will find his tremendous respect for the “common” man and on the next, the “distrust” of that same common man and Democrats and Jefferson and Jackson.

              A very interesting man to say the least and worth a great deal of study keeping the tenor of the times always in mind.

  36. JAC
    How was the movie

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Enjoyed it.

      It was better than the first. It is hard to explain but the cinematography and pace give it an entirely different feel than regular movies.

      This time there were more “regular” actors and they did a great job of incorporating current slogans and events into the story.

      Most importantly, it did a good job of defining the two sides of the argument.

  37. This man, you must pay attention to.

    Chris Hedges.

    He is a Liberal/Left – think “Charlie, Buck and Mathius merged”.

    In the first 7 minutes, he makes these claims:

    1. The American empire is pushing the nation into bankruptcy. But listen to his examples of this bankruptcy. They are all from the domestic welfare state. What he is saying is that the military is bankrupting the welfare state.

    Ho!Ho!Ho!

    He of course ignored Medicare and SS, which is the real producer of red ink. But his point is legitimate. The goals of the military cannot be paid for much longer. It really is guns or butter now.

    2. He says that the U.S. is now run by the corporate interests.
    It is. But that’s been the way since, arguably 1865, and definitely since 1900.

    3. He refers to Obama as a brand. He’s got that right! There is no substance there, merely fancy wrapping over the same fundamental political policies.

    When the Left agrees with me on a few of the fundamentals – you know something is up.

    You Left-leaning (cough) intellectuals. Here it from your own pillar of your movement.

    The rest of us – listen carefully.

  38. @ JAC……you should have done a much better job of warning me about Huffpo……that place is not for the weak. I do not know what it is a breeding ground of…but I do not want it….I have never seen such an anti business attitude. wow.

    • D13,

      For entertainment, expose their contradictions.

      Nothing riles up the Left as reason!

      • LOL…ok….sounds good…already have on one, I think…….from Canada.

      • Yes, D13, nothing riles up the left like reason based on fantasies! No government … an absolute fantasy (which is why it’s a nonsense belief) … based all your reason on that assumption … works like a charm … you even get to talk to the universe.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          One doesn’t base REASON on an assumption of no Govt. That would be irrational thinking.

          Much like your trying to claim reason based on an assumption of your greater good.

          It is the application of REASON that leads one to conclude that No Govt would maximize freedom, which is man’s natural and rightful state.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      LOL…………. You do have to take a deep breath and just keep calm. It is a great place to test your grit.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Hell Colonel, I just read your discussion at HP which ended well with the Canadian. Seemed to me you held your own quite well.

        For future reference, many there simply live in an alternate universe. I have posted “factual” information from the sources they use and it has been simply dismissed as BS.

        It was one of the SUFA ladies that commented some time back that it is no wonder we can’t agree on issues because we can’t even agree on FACTS themselves.

        • Yes, he actually saw my point and agreed in principal…..but it is an environment…lol

          Have to remember to limit my responses……you only get so much thread.

          But one interesting thing that I found and I will give an example is the outsourcing that Bain Capital supposedly did……So I did something horrible….I researched it. (gasp). It is interesting to note, that I cannot find a definite issue where Bain capital took over something and deliberately out sourced it….I am sure that it is there but I have not found it yet….but one thing I did find….the Obama administration, et al……has outsourced over 100,000 jobs……beginning with GM, GE, and Brazilian Oil Markets…while killing another 30,000 jobs by permit refusal. But somehow,,,,,this is over looked.

          I did ask someone on HP if they wanted examples……funny,no one has replied yet.

          • To your point, Colonel (buon giorno, from Pluto) … Obama’s “job dzar” Emelt was overseeing GE (outsourced 5,000 jobs when he was announced the new job czar) … which proves both parties are in the tank for corporations/1% … let me have those companies and see what happens …:) Bada-boom, bada-bing, redistribution of income … those who actually do the work get rewarded … fat ass investors playing golf and watching Fox get to sweep up. 🙂

            • Hey Charlie…..yes, it is all over the scale…however, it is more than 5,000 jobs….since then, it has climbed to almost 30,000 jobs as other things have been meted out…not counting the jobs lost to Brazil by Obama direct….but you are correct in that it is business as usual in Washington…no argument from me.

              What I am finding interesting, is a lefty from Huff….asking me why I am mentioning nothing about the stock market and its levels under Obama all the while, lambasting big business for maximizing profits by cutting employee costs. I asked him if he actually knew what the stock market was made up of (the companies) and then I asked him if he knew what a stockholder’s primary objective was………but I have seen no answer.

              • You are at least consistent…..I will give you that although you are selling books and things on the open market…..and I applaud that because at least on the surface, it appears that you are trying to work and not live off the government….please, do not disappoint me.

              • Now wait a minute, Colonel … all a’yous in here claim it isn’t an open market (that government influences it) … I work two jobs (like my wife) … we’re the kind of socialists yous guys can’t handle (the ones who don’t fit the capitalist loving stereotype that’s been propagandized into our little brains since kindergarten). We work hard … always … because that’s who we are. I’m find with all writers earning just enough to live with some dignity as opposed to 5-10% living like kinds and 90% having to work 2 and 3 jobs. And before BF interjects with his insane “jealousy” theory, remember Snooky is in that 5-10% … i might be envious of truly great writing, but I don’t begrudge truly great writers earning a living … although most truly great writers don’t come close, past or present. So it goes … and how ’bout those Buffalo Bills! Imbecile coaching staff almost gave that baby away with 4 minutes left to play (actually did give it away) so we had to get lucky in OT. Oy vey …

  39. @ JAC and BF……

    STOCKHOLM – Sweden said on Monday it wanted a make sure its tax payers would not end up paying for foreign bank bailouts under any European banking union and that it was allowed to set higher capital demands on its banks than others.

    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/10/15/sweden-says-no-taxpayer-money-for-bailouts-under-banking-union/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxbusiness%2Feconomy+%28Internal+-+Economy+-+Text%29#ixzz29NDrBNiq

    Pretty interesting that even Europe is beginning to understand you cannot keep spending.

    • A follow up:

      European Lawmakers Warn of Banking Union Split

      By John O’Donnell

      Published September 26, 2012

      Reuters

      Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/09/26/european-parliament-to-tackle-bank-union-split-fears/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz29NK8YDeS

      • @ JAC…they certainly cannot stay away from calling people names at HP…..lol. It is entertaining…..I asked a question for someone to show me..on the Romney/Ryan platform, where they take away abortions or deny access to them. I cannot find it..so I challenged them…the only answer so far is that…..if you are Republican, you are against Roe/Wade and, therefore, against all forms of abortion and a woman’s reproductive rights. Hmmm….when I informed them that I am an Independent and I support a woman’s right to choose….but I am a fiscal conservative and my vote is going to be on fiscal lines and not abortion lines…..then I am a wing nut……sigh……..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Good morning Sir!

          I do that a lot there as well………….. SIGH that is.

          Hope all is well in Texas, oops I forgot the Pokes fell again and the Texans were humbled by the Cheese Heads. My condolences to TEXAS this morning.

          • Yeah,,,,,not a good sports month for us is it…..sigh. Losing to Oklahoma is like losing to Texas…….47 out of 65 on the Oklahoma Team are from Texas….lol

            The University of Texas at Austin vs The University of Texas at Norman…..lol

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Well THIS is certainly interesting.

    Any comments Colonel??

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/philippines-peace-deal_n_1966029.html

    • JAC….very interesting……at the very least, it means we can pull the 900 man Specal Forces unit from the Islands. This has been brewing for years and it is an old conflict….ever since we puled our protectorate status from the Philippines, the Moros and the Philippine gov’t have been at odds…..

      This peace initiative means nothing and it makes great headlines…..the fighting will not stop. The Moros will never stop. And the minute that the Philippine gov’t gives up ANY….and I mean ANY power to the Muslim faction (which are militant and supported by Iran)….it will be a heavier and bloodier conflict.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Curious we have no comments so far on Alan Specters passing.

    So allow me.

    GOOD RIDDANCE!

    And CONDOLENCES to his family.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    REPUBLICAN PARTY VOTER SUPPRESSION…………………AGAIN.

    The R’s don’t understand that those of us who might vote for Johnson probably would not vote for Romney. Johnson may pose a greater threat to Obama if the proper campaigning were done…………by the R’s.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/gary-johnson-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-nominee-worries-republicans.html?hpw&_r=0

  43. Remember…you heard it here………Charlie is a Capitalist….Charlie is a Capitalist….nyah nyah…..Charlie is a closet Republican….whoo hoooooooo……..

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    I’m enjoying a beautiful fall, the leaves have turned and are falling like rain. The deer are in pre-rut, thanks to a cold snap.

    Maybe after being called a racist for the last 4 years or so, it’s time to put it to rest and attach that moniker to the real RACISTS. http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-threats-to-riot-if-obama-loses-election.html

    • Targets of opportunity, G Man, targets of opportunity.

    • The Bucks aren’t getting stupid down here, yet. No cold snap…they are still pushing to doe ahead of them instead of chasing them….they don’t get the “I don’t give a shits” until about November.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We have a food problem here, too much of it. The Acorn crop is unbelievable, deer are feeding heavy at night and not moving much in the daylight hours, makes for some tough hunting. The rut would be a welcome change in that. We’ll keep trying. 🙂

  45. Wish they would list these plans; anyone know where you can find them? Have a few friends that are public pensioners and they have no clue what may befall them.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-usa-pensions-study-idUSBRE89E0NF20121015

  46. Oh my…Huffpo cannot be for real…..a vote for Romney will mean that women do not get birth control which means that poor babies will be born to be canon fodder for Republican Wars….they can’t be serious. …

    • LOL! Madison is made up of well, a whole lot of Huffpo mentality-type people. There is a propaganda tabloid that comes out every Wednesday, as “The Progressive Voice”. I make sure I read it front to back to remind myself of the batshit crazy that I live amongst.

    • Actually more will be born to keep the prison industrial complex going. Right?

  47. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

    Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

    Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

    “The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said. “That is not how you do security.”

    With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.

    “You can’t always look to [new] money when there’s money sitting there,” Issa said.

  48. Hey, am I the only lefty, pinko, commi, plutonian, greater good MF’er left standing? Where are the troops!!!!! Madonna mia … I just wore my Dogs Against Romney shirt to the vet’s and caught some nasty looks (mostly from workers earning minimum wage–go figure) …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, You have been abandand it seems. They all left after the disaster in Denver and realised they are supporting a loser named Obama 🙂

  49. Lefties of SUFA unite! Come on, dogs … what’s up?

  50. Yuba City Pays Man To Stop Frivolous ADA Lawsuits
    October 13, 2012 10:58 PM

    Reporting Anjali Hemphill

    YUBA CITY (CBS13) – A disability debacle is playing out in Yuba City as officials are paying a man to stay away. And because of it, he’s cashing in.

    Yuba City officials say the man is attacking small business owners with frivolous lawsuits.

    This settlement agreement is the first of its kind in the state, and while it does give the city and businesses a moment of relief from one man, it also opens the floodgates for others to cash in on their decision.

    Owners of JJ’s Tools and Merchandise shop off Gray Avenue say they are relieved a notorious local man will not be able to target their business over Americans with Disabilities Act compliance laws.

    “We’d probably have to close it down. We do not have the capital; we’re barely breaking even,” owner Jayne Sawyer said.

    RELATED: Landmark Burger Joint Closes Over ADA Lawsuit

    The city agreed to pay George Louie $15,000 for him to stop bringing frivolous lawsuits against them and area businesses.

    “It’s just sad because it’s not what the law intended to do,” said Sawyer.

    Louie most recently was behind a a hefty lawsuit against the city over disability access at several of its intersections, costing them tens of thousands of dollars.

    Mr. Louie has a reputation for filing numerous claims, and it’s problematic,” City Manager Steven Jeasen said.

    Louie can no longer file ADA lawsuits within Yuba City limits, and the agreement also dropped any lawsuits that were currently active. But the city says the agreement doesn’t mean they or businesses can slack on complying with the laws.

    “What if someone else comes in and tries to pull the same thing?” I asked.

    “Unfortunately that will probably happen. We have our fingers crossed our local businesses are making the improvements,” Economic Development Manager Darin Gale said.

    The city says it doesn’t plan on paying out again.

    “We are definitely not here to be a bank for some of these advocates to continue to sue the city or local businesses,” said Gale. “But in this case, we went through the process and it’s in the best financial interest of the city, and we don’t plan on doing it again.”

    Meanwhile, city officials say they spend around $300,000 a year upgrading and maintaining their sidewalks to make them more accessible.

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/10/13/yuba-city-pays-lawyer-to-stop-frivilous-lawsuits/

    • I don’t think they can enforce this . Back in High School business law they would have said that the agreement violates “public policy”. Similar to paying a young man not to date your daughter then trying to collect the ,money back when he elopes with her. Can’t be done.

  51. My question-is our bailout even gonna save GM??

    How The GM Bailout Turned Into Foreign Aid
    By Tyler Vandermeulen on October 13, 2012

    Longtime reader and new contributor Tyler Vandermeulen is a financial analyst by day. He took a deep dive into the EDGAR database to unearth how much of GM’s money flows abroad. Please welcome Tyler with the respect he deserves. Rude comments will not be tolerated.

    Before the bailout of General Motors, it was well understood that the world’s largest automaker was losing huge amounts of money in the US and was staying afloat thanks to stronger performance in overseas markets. Since the bailout, however, that dynamic has been turned on its head. Thanks to a leaner manufacturing footprint, debt eliminations and steadily recovering sales, GM’s US operations have generated the lion’s share of the company’s profit since the bailout. And now, as the rest of the world economy slows, GM is spending more and more of its taxpayer-enhanced cash pile to shore up its faltering foreign divisions. In fact, according to an analysis of GM’s SEC filings, the company is likely to incur over $6.5 billion in losses and expenditures overseas in the 2011-2014 period, not counting over $1.6b in foreign potential legal liabilities or several other incalculable expenses that could add up to billions more. Not only are these expenses a challenge to GM’s overall financial health at a time when it also faces billion-dollar expenditures on pensions in the US, it shows the basic problem with national bailouts of global companies. Taxpayers who were told they were saving an American company are now seeing their tax dollars flowing overseas by the billions.

    A full calculation of GM’s overseas expenditures since the bailout would be a daunting task indeed. Simply by scouring GM’s latest SEC filings, one finds no shortage of losses and one-time expenditures abroad. In fact, nearly every division of GM’s global empire has required some kind of assistance over the last year or so. These expenditures come in many forms, from tax assessments to investments, from bailouts to severance deals, and due to the complex nature of GM’s global finances they cannot be fully accounted with precision. But they all emphasize the reality that, after years of living off foreign operations, GM’s bailed-out North American division is now bailing out the rest of the world.

    Europe: Black Hole Opel, Unions, PSA

    GM’s European losses currently get the most attention from analysts, and are nothing new for The General, which has reportedly lost over $14b in Europe over the last decade. Those losses and expenditures continue to add up. In the two full years since GM decided to cancel a planned sale of its European division Opel, GM Europe’s losses have added up to $2.74 billion, with another $617m lost in the first half of 2012 (EBIT). Additional goodwill adjustments of $590m in the first half of 2012 and $621m in 2011 further added to the losses. Additionally, GM has spent some $313m on voluntary severance for European workers, and expects to spend another $100m on the same program through the end of next year. Finally, GM has an undisclosed agreement with European labor unions to spend as much as $265m per year between 2011 and 2014. The company has pledged some $406m in inventory as collateral for that agreement. Not counting the spending agreement with European unions, this puts GM’s losses and outlays on Opel and GME in the last two and a half years at more than $4.25 billion.

    GM’s losses in Europe aren’t likely to end there. This year, GM spent $400 million on a 7% stake in Peugeot-Citroen PSA, an investment that GM admits has already lost value. GM says it plans to hold onto that stake for the long term, and has chosen not to write down that loss… yet. Just today, rumors surfaced that GM could spend even more money on its Peugeot tie-up, possibly providing capital for an Opel-PSA joint venture. Meanwhile, the worst-case scenario for Opel involves an estimated $13b outlay to shut down plants and prepare Opel for a sale, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas. In this scenario, GM could spend as much as half of its cash pile extricating itself from its money-losing European operations.

    GM losses and outlays in Europe, 2010-June 2012: $4.5b+

    Asia: Korea Debt, Murky Hong Kong Dealings

    GM’s Asian operations are consolidated as GM International Operations (GMIO), a division that includes Korea, China, Australia, India and other Asian markets. Prior to the bailout, GM’s Chinese operations were widely considered to be a major profit center for the company, while Korea has become increasingly important as a development center and India has potential for future growth. However, GMIO’s profitability has been weak in comparison to the revitalized North American division, generating just $400m in consolidated adjusted EBIT in the first half of 2012. And since 2011, GM has had several expenses associated with its Asian operations.

    In 2011, GM spent $100m for 7% of its GM Korea subsidiary, increasing its holding to 77%. This year, GM has recorded a $27m Goodwill impairment related to its Korean operations, and has paid $22m to Korean workers as part of its severance program there. GM Korea also carries significant amounts of short-term and long-term debt to Korean creditors that GM will have to pay down.

    More puzzling is GM’s strange Indian joint venture with its Chinese partner SAIC. In late 2009, GM rolled its Indian operations into a 50-50 joint venture with SAIC, known as the Hong Kong Joint Venture, or HKJV. By the first quarter of 2011, that venture had lost enough value for GM to record an impairment of $39m and “other charges totaling $67m.” From there things get strange. According to GM’s 10-Q:

    “We were informed of SAIC-HK’s intent to exercise its right to not participate in future capital injections in HKJV. If this occurs we plan to settle the promissory note in the three months ending September 30, 2012 and provide an additional equity investment of $125 million into HKJV. As a result SAIC-HK’s interest in HKJV would be diluted from 50% to 9%. We also anticipate that the shareholders agreement would be amended such that we obtain control of and consolidate HKJV.”

    It would seem that GM is buying its partner out of the Indian arrangement at a cost of $125m, however, GM has had several convoluted transactions with SAIC in the past, most notably in the sale of its “Golden Share” in the Shanghai-GM joint venture, which was offset by a Chinese bank loan and was eventually rolled back. It’s too early to say for sure whether GM will purchase the controlling stake in HKJV, and thereby regain full control of its India business. It is unlikely that SAIC will relinquish its grip on India, just because it suddenly can’t service the capital requirements of the HKJV. Possibly, more information will become available when GM files its Q3 paperwork, or possibly later. With some 30% of GM’s global sales in China, GM shareholders deserve more visibility into this byzantine part of GM’s world.

    GM Outlays on GMIO, 2011-2012: ~$380m

    South America: Tax Assessments

    GM’s South American unit dipped into the red in the second quarter of this year, and its $64m net EBIT through the first half of 2012 is just $7m better than its Q1 2011 performance alone. But even if GMSA’s performance improves this year, it has paid out around $100m this year between the purchase of GMAC’s Venezuelan financing operation and a worker severance program in Brazil. $700m was also spent in 2011 to retire debt facilities at GMSA. Furthermore, GM has run into several tax assessments in South America, including a $292m assessment for the years 2002-2004 by the Mexican government and a $180m assessment for 2007 by the Brazilian government. GM says it has “adequate reserves” to meet these obligations, but notes:

    “Certain South American income and indirect tax-related administrative proceedings may require that we deposit funds in escrow or make payments which may range up to $0.9 billion.”

    GM Outlays in South America, 2011-2012: ~$1.7b

    Legal Liabilities

    Due to the unpredictable nature of legal disputes, the amount of overseas legal liability carried by GM may not result in actual expenditures. That said, the following legal liabilities are noted in GM’s SEC filings:

    Settlement of class action suits regarding Canadian pricing policy: $21m

    GM Canada “Lock up agreement” lawsuit: potential liability $918m

    Korean labor law suit: $152m in accrual, $556m in further potential liability.

    Potential overseas legal liability: ~$1.65b

    Without including potential liability costs or the more inevitable costs associated with Opel’s restructuring, GM has spent or lost in excess of $6.5b overseas in the last 30 months or so. With more losses and expenses coming, taxpayers can expect to see their investment in GM’s North American operations continue to support a steady flow of cash to GM’s overseas operations. Perhaps taxpayers should have been told that they weren’t simply bailing out an American automaker, but a variety of overseas operations as well.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-the-gm-bailout-turned-into-foreign-aid/

  52. Former Aide on Obama: ‘Stunning that He’s in Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’
    10:25 AM, Oct 16, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    Neera Tanden, a former aide to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, had this to say about the relationship of the two presidents:

    Clinton, being Clinton, had plenty of advice in mind and was desperate to impart it. But for the first two years of Obama’s term, the phone calls Clinton kept expecting rarely came. “People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” observes Tanden. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”

    It’s a revealing statement from Tanden, who “served as senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, advising Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and working on President Barack Obama’s health reform team in the White House to pass the bill,” according to her bio at the Center for American Progress. She is currently president and CEO of the liberal organization.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-aide-obama-stunning-he-s-politics-because-he-really-doesn-t-people_654636.html

  53. Hillary Makes The Smartest Political Move of this Cycle
    by Datechguy | October 16th, 2012

    There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .

    It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.) If Hillary threw Obama under the bus would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.

    What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

    “I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

    The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:

    Seemingly:

    It is a statesman like move, going forward and not ducking responsibility in a way nobody has been willing to do.

    In Reality:

    It covers her, by taking responsibility it heads off all kinds of stories that might come up with a theme of finding fault. Why should congress investigate to pin blame when it’s already been accepted?

    Seemingly:

    It supports the president, by taking the blame she shields the first Black president both showing herself a good soldier to the party and most importantly to the black community.

    In Reality:

    It undermines Obama by making her look strong, and him look weak. He is now forced to make some kind of statement second as a response. It’s the 3 AM phone call with her answering while he goes to Vegas.

    Seemingly:

    It ends press coverage on what the Obama Administration should do next, blame assigned move on.

    In Reality:

    It doesn’t end coverage it changes it. What will the president do about this? It puts Obama in a box. Blame is assigned so what is the punishment? If Hillary is responsible does he ask for her resignation, does he fire her? With his electoral prospects already sinking he dare not do either, and God help him if she resigns on her own. It would be another example of her acting while he is paralyzed. It is the final act of Carterization of the president.

    Seemingly:

    It makes her vulnerable as every commentator on the right calls for her head in the hope of embarrassing Obama and taking her down a peg.

    In Reality:

    It gets her in good with the base of her party. I can see the fundraising e-mails now. “She’s taken responsibility and those nasty right wingers are piling on” This will coin money for her. That doesn’t even take into account how the press will react.

    Seemingly:

    It hurts her 2016 election prospects after all she is responsible for an attack on the US on the Anniversary of 9/11 no less.

    In Reality:

    Not only does this make her look presidential (Expect comparisons to JFK’s Bay of Pigs speech from the MSM) but it neutralizes her primary opponents on the subject, in fact for the second time in twelve years she will be able to paint herself as the victim of the irresponsibility of a man who should have known better.

    Seemingly:

    It hands President Romney a ready-made issue in 2016 to use.

    In Reality:

    It puts Romney in a box. Every president has foreign policy failures and Mitt will have his share. Imagine the debate answer: “President Romney is right. I was secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle and I took full responsibility for it. What I would like to know is when the president will take responsibility for (insert relevant issue here)”. It will put and keep Mitt on the defensive.

    The Bottom line is forgetting all the national security and moral issues involved. Hillary has done the thing that most helps her in the long run while all the time managing to undermine her foes on both the left and the right in one fell swoop.

    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do, it IS but as usual the right thing is generally the smart thing and this was the smartest thing anyone in this administration has done in a while.

    This story may continue, but in terms of its negative impact there will be little if any on Hillary Clinton from this point on.

    Simply amazing.

    Update: Stacy Smithy gets it:

    Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”

    Update 2: On Morning Joe Hillary Clinton compared to JFK. Think about it, in under 12 hours Hillary goes from: “The person responsible for a disaster” to JFK saying “defeat is an orphan”.

    Today is day one of campaign 2016.

    Update 3: Captain Ed Morrissey (he will always be Captain Ed to me) NAILS it:

    It’s a jaw-dropping display of a leadership vacuum, which Hillary ended up having to fill herself. This is exactly what Hillary warned voters about in 2008. The contrast between her moment of leadership in this crisis and Obama’s lack of leadership since the very beginning of it will not help Obama make the case for another four years of buck-passing at the top, not even when Obama showed leadership on the Nicki Minaj-Mariah Carey feud.

    And Stacy McCain spots an oversight on my part:

    @datechguyblog In your Hillary item (thanks for link) you credit me, when it was @smitty_one_each who did that post.

    — Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 16, 2012

    Corrected and noted.

    http://datechguyblog.com/2012/10/16/hilary-makes-the-smartest-political-move-of-this-cycle/

    I wonder how many times the President and his minions-minus Hillary 🙂 can claim “We didn’t Know”. After awhile, deniability itself, becomes an indictment-You Should have Known. Not that we actually believe you didn’t.

  54. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Afternoon SUFA, THe intelligence of the Obama supporters can now be exposed 🙂
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-supporters-threaten-to-kill-romney-if-he-wins-election.html

  55. Tonight’s the night, do or die … will it be down goes Romney or move over Mr. President? More importantly, where the fk are my lefties? Have they been purged? Woe is me … I mean us …

  56. I agree with Crowley on this one-just hope she is fair handed.

    Candy Crowley to defy debate contract

    By DYLAN BYERS |
    10/16/12 1:05 PM EDT

    In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight’s debate in Hempstead, N.Y. — an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

    “They will call on ‘Alice,’ and ‘Alice’ will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there’s time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it,” Crowley said. “So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there’s the time to go, ‘But Alice asked oranges? What’s the answer to that?” Or, ‘Well, you say this, but what about that?'”

    Crowley’s vision of her role at tonight’s debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time’s Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

    7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate…

    (c) With respect to all questions…

    (iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

    There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people — especially journalists — would and have objected to that, but that’s the agreement.

    Of course, Crowley could choose to go rogue and (gasp!) press a candidate on specifics. She might be criticized (or, just as likely, commended) after the fact, but no one’s going to run in from the wings and take the mic from her hands. But if you’re wondering what Crowley is technically expected to do tonight, beyond holding the microphone, taking questions, and keeping time… the answer is: nothing.

    So when Crowley goes on CNN and says:

    Once the table is kind of set by the town hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about x, y, z?’

    Or:

    The nice thing will be, if the town hall person asks about apples, and they answer oranges, I get to say, ‘Wait a second, the question was about apples — let’s talk about that.’

    ……you can see why it concerns the campaigns. As when she told POLITICO, “I’m not a fly on the wall… I’m going to react organically to what’s happening.”

    Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, declined to comment on the controversy surrounding Crowley’s role, but Commission co-chairman Mike Curry yesterday cautioned against “reinterpretation from the moderator.”

    (Also on POLITICO: Carole Simpson hopes Crowley follows up)

    Asked on CNN today how she was responding to the controversy surrounding her role tonight, Crowley said: “We are so close to an election, and there are people around these two men that push every button they can to try to get an advantage. I understand the stakes are enormous. This is what campaigns do, they push and shove and pull, and moderators become a part of that evermore in society over the past election cycles. It’s just a part of it. But in the end, you’ll look at these debates as a continuum, and people can judge all the debates the way they want in the end.”

    When the anchor made a joke about the pressure Crowley must be feeling, she responded, “No pressure here.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I disagree with her. If there is a need for a follow up it should be at the discretion of the person asking the question.

      She should keep her mouth shut otherwise and keep the clock.

      I am sick and tired of the media elite inserting themselves into everything. They Suck at their jobs and have become nothing but self inflated media darlings.

      How many saw Wolf Blitzer at the Nationals playoff game? Sitting in one of those luxury seats. Turns my stomach.

      • She should keep her mouth shut otherwise and keep the clock.

        Then why have a moderator at all? The person asking the question probably doesn’t have the ability to ‘stop’ the debate and ask that follow up question, to say to the candidates ‘thanks, but how about actually asking the question I asked’. That, to me, most certainly should be the job of the moderator.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          That is part of keeping the clock. Her role should be to call on the questioner. Then restart the clock.

          Time is up……….. XYZ did you get your question answered adequately? Do you want to ask a followup question?

          NEXT

          We really don’t need MODERATORS. What needs to be moderated anyway?

          Ask an open question………..let them go at it with certain REASONABLE time limits.

          And TWO MINUTES is NOT a reasonable time limit.

          • JAC;

            Have you been watching our beloved Tigers slap those yankee’s around? Our Ace goes on the mound tonight and if he preforms as well tonight as he did in Oakland there are going to be a lot of unhappy (and over paid) yankees setting around with deer in the headlight looks on their faces.You would thnk that when you pay 4 Key players well over $100 million combined that they could muster up better than a combined batting average of .117 in the playoffs.

            I dare say that if Justin does his thing tonight and the coach has the common sense to keep our useless closer on the bench, we could very well SWEEP NY.

            I am betting Matt is just beside himself watching them loose

            CM

            • Just A Citizen says:

              CM

              I have, and I have enjoyed it greatly.

              Great Pitching ALWAYS beats great hitting.

              The batting avg of almost every player drops significantly in the playoffs. But the Yanks have not adjusted yet the way they should have.

              I hope the Tiger’s Ace does better than St. Louis’ last night.

              I’m guessing Mathius isn’t even a baseball fan. Probably SOCCER………. bwahahahaha.

          • My problem with the plan as laid out by the two candidates-it was set up to allow the candidates to do the political “dance around the question” instead of answering them. As long as someone is allowed to ask followup questions works for me. The way you set it out would work fine, maybe better.

  57. USW/Colonel:

    This is the first of two video’s, the first one is several minutes, but features some folks with solid reputations. I suspect you two know them or know of them…Yes?

    Do either of you know anything about this organization? If so, your thoughts on the organization and the circumstances presented in the first video.

    CM

  58. USW/Colonel;

    Here is the second one and it is more of an advertisement for the organization.

    CM

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    DEBATE PREDICTION

    Much like the VP prediction I made…………. unless Mr. O falls flat on his face the headlines tomorrow will read:

    “Obama: The comeback kid”

    “The Obama we know Returns”

    “Obama wins….keeps HOPE Alive”.

    I think you get the idea. What I find interesting is watching some “liberal” or “old school democrats” say the same thing on talk shows last night. Now that is revealing to say the least.

    Romney will get excoriated over his TAX PLAN. The question will come up and Mr. O will attack him relentlessly. Instead of discussing the shortfall of his own plan.

    Anderson Cooper revealed the tactic and strategy last night. Expect more of the same tonight and in the final weeks. And honestly, I am not sure the Romney campaign is clever enough to twist the issue back to Obama quickly enough.

    I expect MORE good economic news in the coming weeks before the election. Ah hum…..if you recall MY prediction this past Spring!! OH, and did anyone notice that SUDDENLY the Govt is issuing a COLA for Soc Sec recipients? But I thought Helicopter Ben told us INFLATION is not an issue right now.

    WHO thinks there will be any serious question about this little contradiction or obvious political ploy asked of Mr. O in the next week or two???? Bueller, Bueller………….Bueller……….. 😦

    The media will allow Hillary to cover the White House on Libya, so that will not take front seat like it should. By November it will be played as just another “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.

    • What debate…..it is held in New York with a CNN moderator…..why Romney agreed to this is beyond me…….it is a shark tank and the deck stacked…..and it will not matter if Obama falls flat…..he will be a hero tonight.

      I wish Romney would pile on the Benghazi stuff. A regular security briefing includes…INCLUDES….Ambassador and Diplomatic mission briefs as well as Consular briefs….without fail each and every time. There is no way that the Pres/VP did not know….No way at all….it is criminal and Hillary can kiss her 2016 election goodbye….why she elected to jump on the grenade….well, who knows..her debts are erased.

      But Obama will energize his base and people will yell yahoo and the pundits and msm will say that Romney was an idiot………no truth will be told….and after just Benghazi, no part of his administration should be believed…..sigh….I will spend as much time on this tonight as I did the last two debates……zero.

      • I did watch and yet again I think the Republicans need some training in debating. On the Benghazi incident, Mitt totally missed and opportunity. He should have said that yes the president did say the day after that it was a terrorist attack but then for 2 weeks called it a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control. He even said this at the UN. During this time period, the president of Libya called it a terrorist attack and the members of our media where presenting evidence that it was a planned attack and yet O continued to blame it on the video. Either this administration was lying or is totally incompetent. Neither is acceptable.

  60. Just A Citizen says:
  61. Say what?? 285,000 acres

    Obama Administration Sets Aside Public Land Bigger Than Rocky Mountain National Park for Solar Development
    October 16, 2012

    Solar Public Lands

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar speaks during a news conference, Friday, Oct. 12, 2012, in Las Vegas, in which he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a plan that sets aside 285,000 acres of public land for the development of large-scale solar power plants. The government is establishing 17 new “solar energy zones” on 285,000 acres in six states: California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. Most of the land,153,627 acres, is in Southern California. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson).

    (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration announced last week that it is setting aside 285,000 acres of public lands to be used for “commercial-scale solar development” – a total acreage amount that surpasses Rocky Mountain National Park, with 265,461 acres owned by the federal government.

    “As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand domestic energy production, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today finalized a program for spurring development of solar energy on public lands in six western states,” the Department of Interior press release on the new project states.

    “The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing solar energy zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those zones, and a process through which to consider additional zones and solar projects,” the press release states.

    A fact sheet accompanying the press release states that the project will include “economic incentives” for development of solar power in the 17 “energy zones.” The fact sheet does not provide details about those incentives but labels them “strong incentives.”

    The fact sheet also states that the project “sets a clear process that allows for development of well-sited projects on approximately 19 million acres outside the zones,” and that the environment of public lands is being protected by designating 78.6 million acres off-limits for solar development.

    The agency said the project’s announcement signifies that “the President’s goal of authorizing 10,000 megawatts of renewable power on public lands” has been achieved.

    “Energy from sources like wind and solar have doubled since the president took office, and with today’s milestone, we are laying a sustainable foundation to keep expanding our nation’s domestic energy resources,” Salazar said at an event to announce the project in Las Vegas on Oct. 12.

    “This historic initiative provides a roadmap for landscape-level planning that will lead to faster, smarter utility-scale solar development on public lands and reflects President Obama’s commitment to grow American made energy and create jobs,” Salazar added.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-sets-aside-public-land-bigger-rocky-mountain-national-park-solar

  62. Every time I hear Hillary Clinton use terms as “combat situations”….”fog of war”….it is the most laughable comments I can hear. Buck, the Walla, has more combat experience in his little finger nail, than Hillary Clinton could ever hope to have….

  63. Will there be an asylum big enough for all the unhinged if Romney wins?

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/krugman-unhinged/

  64. Hi Buck! Lily Ledbetter! ROFL!

  65. let’s face it, you’re all waiting to hear from Pluto!

    Ass whooping, but … there’s no doubt in my mind the questions (and the moderator) were heavily loaded against Romney … still, Obama used the opportunities wisely … total ass whooping.

    • You know its all a game Charlie!

      It’s like a rigged prize fight – gotta keep the peons entertained – first the challenger knocks the champ around – to make it look good and keep the “marks” bettin’ – then the champ comes back with a few – and the bets and moola pour into their coffers!

      It’s all fake – bread and circuses for the naive.

    • Didn’t see an ass whoppin on either side.

      • So funny how partisan politics makes each side so blind…..

        • Okay, just who did you think got whooped?

          • For all his insanity in economics etc. – Charlie is a keen political observer.

            I would not bet against him in that matter.

            • Nice you have so much confidence in Charlie-but out of curiosity-Did you actually watch the debate?

              • *watch* hahahahah
                Couldn’t help but miss it on the TV set shared by a group of peons – yeah.

                Further and foremost – whether you or not you see it – Charlie is incredibly politically astute – his economics are junk and irrational – he has opinions on what politics he likes – BUT unlike many, he does NOT bias himself – he is a political animal, smells the wind, and knows exactly who is killing who…. methinks it was a survival instinct honed by his past lives.

    • Would not say an ass whipping. The great performer did exactly that, he empathized. he is pretty good at that. I was prepared to call it a draw before it happened and look at it that way. I would have preferred Romney to hammer on energy and on loss of manufacturing because of high energy prices. He did not. The moderator, “correcting” Romney actually did Obama no favors since she was forced to concede later that she was wrong. some will parrot her original mistake, the people who will probably vote will not.

      Romney did not back down and did not pull a McCain. He could have been tougher but I think he was afraid to cross the line.

      When push comes to shove, he “looks” and acts a lot more presidential than the “kid”. I also noticed that the “kid” last night did NOT pull his shucking and jiving routine. See what I mean about acting?

  66. Just A Citizen says:

    I’ve been on the field in those situations and NEVER had the butterflies I did tonight sitting in my cushy chair watching the ninth inning.

    Whew……………… 2 to 1.

    The whole time I was cursing the 3B coach for holding the runner and for Lehland letting Cabrera swing away with bases loaded and one out. At least offer a bunt on the first strike to pull in the third baseman. That third run would have been huge. At least made it easier on my stomach.

    • LOL

    • Dangit! I passed out somewhere around 10. Now I’m wide awake at 2am. Been stressed out for a couple days. My latest problem is that I lost my power cord for this laptop between my daughter’s home and mine this afternoon. You know when you retrace your steps like 15 times, run back out to the car 3 times in 5 minutes, run back to daughter’s house looking, chew the kids out because I’m freakin out! Ugh!. So I’m on limited battery power til I work this out. Guess I passed out on the Tigers so I wouldn’t actually have a stroke 🙂 Go Tigers!

    • JAC/Anita;

      One more too go….can we all shout “SWEEP!” I predict that despite CC on the mound tonight the BIG BOY bats will preform and Detroit will be a rocking loud enough to wake the dead former mayor Young

      Who gives a tinkers damn about politics when you can watch the damn yankee’s get their asses handed to them.

      All that money, hype and BS and they have managed to score 1 earned run in the series off a starting pitcher.

      Yankees SUCK, go home: Example: ARod makes $24M and has a post season batting average of .071 – how embaressing.

      GO TIGERS!

      God I love Baseball.

      CM

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    Huffington Post Headline at this moment.

    “Barack is Back”………………

    CBS snap poll……..”Obama Wins”……

    But on Fox the Luntz focus group had Romney swaying the “undecideds” to vote for him and NOT Obama. However, the group seemed a little stacked to me, like maybe somebody was able to sneak in some ringers.

    I should open up a fortune telling tent and charge money.

  68. Just A Citizen says:

    OK……….this is funny…………at least to me. Mr. O’s latest green energy company “going down in flames”.

  69. Just A Citizen says:

    From the Ayn Rand Institute:

    “The Misuse Of Top 1 Percent Income Shares As A Measure Of Inequality

    October 16, 2012 by Don Watkins

    Alan Reynolds, the author of the brilliant (although very technical) book Income and Wealth, has just authored an interesting new Cato Working Paper, “The Misuse of Top 1 Percent Income Shares as a Measure of Inequality.” Here’s the executive summary:

    This paper confirms recent studies which find little or no sustained increase in the inequality of disposable income for the U.S. population as a whole over the past 20 years, even though estimates of the top 1 percent’s share of pretax, pretransfer (market) income spiked upward in 1986-88, 1997-2000 and 2003-2007.

    It has become commonplace to use top 1 percent shares of market income as a shorthand measure of inequality, and as an argument for greater taxes on higher incomes and/or larger transfer payments to the bottom 90 percent. This paper finds the data inappropriate for such purposes for several reasons:

    Excluding rapidly increased transfer payments and employer-financed benefits from total income results in exaggerating the rise in the top 1 percent’s share between 1979 and 2010 by 23 percent because a growing share of other income is missing.
    Using estimates of the top 1 percent’s share of pretax, pretransfer income (Piketty and Saez 2003) as an argument for higher tax rates on top incomes or larger transfer payments to others is illogical and contradictory because the data exclude taxes and transfers.
    Using highly cyclical top 1 percent shares as a measure of overall inequality leads, paradoxically, to describing most recessions as a welcome reduction in inequality, because poverty and unemployment rates typically rise when the top 1 percent’s share falls, and fall when the top 1 percent’s share rises.
    Top 1 percent incomes are shown to be extremely sensitive to changes in the highest tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains and dividends. Although estimates of the elasticity of ordinary income for the top 1 percent range from 0.62 (Saez 2004) to 1.99 (Moffitt and Wilhelm), those estimates fail to account for demonstrably dramatic responses to changes in the highest tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

    I estimate that more than half of the increase in the top 1 percent’s share of pretax, pretransfer income since 1983, and all of the increase since 2000, is attributable to behavioral reactions to lower marginal tax rates on salaries, unincorporated businesses, dividends and capital gains. After reviewing numerous data sources, I find no compelling evidence of any large and sustained increase in the inequality of disposable income over the past two decades.”

  70. Just A Citizen says:

    I am now going to make a “prediction” that I hope I am wrong about.

    Absent any new earth shaking events in Romney’s favor it is looking like Obama will win.

    Possibly with only 271 Electoral votes. And Romney could well win the popular vote but lose the election.

    It could be even higher if any of Virginia, New Hampshire or Nevada go to Obama.

    When this is all said and done it could very much look like the NE and West Coast against the rest of the country. I do not think that will go down well. Especially when the county by county maps are done for the “blue” states.

    It is NOT OVER yet, but that is how the game looks to me as we start the 4th Quarter.

    • The “good news” this morning is that the NY Daily News, in the tank for any Commie these days, was very muted in their praise of the President. Nothing like four lead articles on Biden ass whooping Ryan last week. If they are being so delicate, the praise they gave Obama for being up to the fight doesn’t auger well for them.

      Krauthammer gave it to Obama on points last night, mostly on things Romney did not do. I’ll be the judge that disagrees. Maybe Obama but by a very close split which I think cost Romney nothing. Rematch.

      I did think though that calling the president out on drilling permits offshore or on federal lands was a well done masterstroke, for those who care. It is up to the rest of us and certainly Conservative media to explain how that relates to $ 5.00 gas.

    • @JAC – I would agree with you – but let’s say Ba-rockstar is re-elected, don’t you think he’ll be lame from day one? Any good data/insight on how or whether the Senate races may tip the balance politically?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Ray

        It is looking like R’s will LOSE House Seats but not their majority.

        The D’s will hold onto a majority in the Senate.

        On the surface this looks like more gridlock.

        HOWEVER, I think the R’s will cave in on the “fiscal cliff” because they can’t figure out how to keep the D’s from hanging it around their neck.

        I would not be surprised to see NEW R leadership in the House and the RNC. If Romney loses the “Conservatives” AND the “Tea Party” types are going to go after the RHINO’s.

        I expect Obama to increase his use of Executive Power to sidestep Congress. With Reid in the Senate to block opposition. The R’s may try to counter by NOT passing a budget but that will blow up as well because AGAIN, the R’s don’t know how to keep from getting blamed.

        Frankly, I think many of the old guard R’s are TIRED of the fight. It threatens their STATUS in the DC circles.

        Bonus Offering: I expect we will see D gains in the State Legislature and perhaps Governors as well. This will be due to Limbaugh vs. Fluke and a couple of State Legislatures that decided Abortion was their top issue after winning in 2010.

        If we didn’t know the electorate was “confused” then explain how Obama leads in States with lower unemployment because they believe “Obama” made a difference, BUT these States have Republican Governors who TURNED things around. Michigan and Ohio are two that come to mind.

        Now with that said……. I SO HOPE I AM TOTALLY WRONG.

        • I really don’t mean to be a jerk here-you know I respect you a lot-but how can you keep saying you really hope you are wrong-when you are going to vote for Gary instead of Romney-at this point, if you even lean right- voting for Gary increases Obama’s chances of winning.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            It is very easy V. My vote will NOT make a pinch of difference.

            Do not forget, I now live in OREGON.

            If I thought Oregon was actually in play I would have to reconsider my vote. Maybe….then again maybe not.

            But it is pretty easy when I can use it to express by distaste for the two Primary candidates, and I can vote my principles, all while not risking putting Obama back in office.

            Hence my statement that I was “taking the cowards way out”.

            Then again I hope I am wrong about Obama winning BECAUSE I HOPE JOHNSON WINS.

            • Yet-all your talk about voting for Gary as standing by your principles-encourages others who’s votes do matter- to vote for him! Or not to vote at all. And all the hoping in the world, at this point will not get Johnson elected.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                Even if I had a national megaphone do you really think anyone would vote for Johnson who hated Obama so badly they would even consider voting for Romney?

                No V, those who vote for Johnson would probably NOT vote given only a choice of two. I doubt very much that in THIS election Johnson will pull any serious votes away from Romney.

                The NEXT election, however, might be different.

                I also question your notion that I have discussed Johnson very much at all. Maybe two or three times. Compare that with the time I spent defending Romney, to the point of having Todd crawling down my neck over it.

                In any event, WHEN do we start standing on our CORE principles and STOP voting for the least worst case? Until we make that choice there is no chance of changing anything. Which of course plays directly into the hands of the Anarchist view that Voting doesn’t matter.

                WHEN? How will you know when WHEN has arrived? By what criteria will you decide that VDLG or some other version of the same is now worth FIGHTING FOR?

              • NEXT ELECTION not this one. What if your vote for Johnson gives Obama a one vote margin in the popular vote for Oregon?

              • There will never be a time when people don’t think they are voting for the least worse case. I don’t particularly think Johnson is a wonderful choice-I disagree with him on many things. But if he had a chance to win-I would vote for him based on the fact that he is extreme-and we are gonna need extreme to even begin overturning years of loss.

                I would do a lot to get people on the ballot-to ensure that third or fourth parties get a fair chance to win-but if right before the election-all the polls, all the information proved he didn’t have a chance -I would vote for the alternative which I believed was the best for this Country-that had a chance of winning before I would turn the Country over to a man who I believe will intentionally destroy her.

  71. I have been watching and talking to a number of young people about their political position these past several months for the sole purpose of gathering perspective. It is both interesting and shocking to hear some of the logic and emotion used to support their particular stance. Here is some of the things I have heard from the mouths of babes:

    -Obama is more of a Christian than Romney, Romney is just playing the part

    -The government should increase taxes, because the rich don’t care enough about the poor to give to charities, so without the government poor people and minorities would be destitute

    -The stimulus isn’t working because business and corporations don’t like obama and therefore refuse to spend the money as the government (obama) intended

    – obama really cares about us and is not a racist.

    – I voted for obama because he is a great speaker

    – Romney is a Mormon, which is not even Christian.

    – It is called ‘The White House’ for a reason

    – Healthcare is a right

    – Republicans hate minorities

    – Obama had to deal with everything Bush screwed up which was so bad that he deserves a second term just so he can work on what he promised during the first election

    – If the government doesn’t regulate business and Wall Street those con-men who own companies and work on Wall Street will wind up raping the Middle Class.

    – there should be a cap or restriction on corporate profits; nobody needs to make that much money. They need to give more to those less fortunate

    – obama is a great president, but corporate america is keeping him from keeping his promises.

    – obama understands because he came from a poor family, Romney is just another fat cat.

    – I am voting for obama again because I got a free phone

    – Romney will do a better job because he understands business and only a business man can get the economy running again

    – obama’s tax plan will only tax the ultra rich and he is going to redistribute those taxes to those of us who need it more than the rich

    – Congress doesn’t like obama, Congress is racist

    – obama is a really nice man and is only interested in helping

    – Romney hates muslims

    – obama is a natural leader

    – The Constitution needs to be re-written, because it is out dated for the times we live in.

    The list goes on, but what I find interesting is the lack of logic, fundemental knowledge, informed intelligence and overall ignorance of reality.

    As a result I have concluded that the real challenge we face is in educating our youth, otherwise they will find themselves royally screwed over the next 30-40 years. And by then they will be so indoctrinated they won’t know any difference. Kind of like those who to this day think FDR was a great leader and POTUS.

    Isn’t interesting how history repeats itself.

    CM

    • If you think back to the ’68 or especially ’72 election, it is not much different. Sure, Civil Rights and The War were major issues but I can remember my frustration at trying to make sense out of comments by my leftist college friends at the time. They were “for” civil rights because they were for them. They were against the war because they were against it. That’s about their depth on those two issues.

      Recently through this social media thing I have established contact with two of them again and I will not rise to their challenges on politics. Despite successful careers, both are for Obama because he is the “right” man espousing the ‘right’ causes and not a rich, rascally Republican.

      I think that I have hit upon something by just listening to them bloviate as O’Reilly says and then interjecting, “But where do you think the money is coming from?”. If you noticed, even here, the conversation ends when that question arises.

      • SK;

        It is kind of summed up by Ben Aflecks commnent indicatinig that because he lives a more modest lifestyle and has extra funds as a result, he has no problem paying additional taxes.

        The whole point is lost, and it is apparent (at least to me) because those like him lack a fundamental understanding of individual liberty and freedom. Their ignorance is a core issue, and until that fundemental understanding changes reason does not compute.

        CM

        • individual liberty and freedom

          Enough with this crock of shit argument already. If you really believed in individual liberty and freedom, you’d be an anarchist, end of story. In the meantime, you support parties (both) that cater to 1% of the population and have no problem being slaves to them. Talk about reason and logic … where is it?

          • Theodore Roosevelt did not like anarchists. They caused riots and assassinated people.

            There is a piece in the current “Atlantic Monthly” which gave me a laugh. It is about Alaska where the oil is running out. It said something like all Alaskans act like rugged individualists who want to be taken care of like Norwegians. They are already howling about losing their annual subsidy payments.

            Reason and logic go out the window when confronted with dollars and cents.

          • Charlie;

            Hey I resemble that statement. I do not support either party, as a matter of fact the only vote(s) I will cast this Nov is relative to local Proposals. My efforts as it relates to political parties are focused specifically at the local level, otherwise I am wasting my time and energy. The R’s and the D’s are cut from the same mold my friend, they just wear different colored shirts.

            As for Liberty and Freedom being the predominate foundations for sound social order, I know no other way, and cannot fathom any form of “ism” that eliminates or controls those principles.

            The ideal of “The Working Class” can and has only resulted in a Dick-tatorship that escalates to furthered repression, and the continued decline of an industrial/technological advance.

            As BF has pointed our you are well advanced past the populace relative to what is really going on in the two party system, as am I. The issue is that you and I see two completely opposite forms of social order.

            CM

    • Just A Citizen says:

      CM

      My mid twenties Son told me from day one that Obama was unbeatable. Absent some major unknown.

      His comment to me was “Dad, you don’t understand just how many people my age are going to vote for Obama just because they want to be Cool. And voting for Obama is Cool. If they voted against Obama they are afraid their friends would ridicule them”.

      So there you have it. A sample of ONE. About as good as the CBS/CNN polls that surveyed about 400 to 500 total people last night.

      • And these are the ones, the same ones who voted for Giuliani in NY who will tell their friends they voted for Obama and pull the lever for Romney. They will remain cool and as they did on the Upper west side of Manhattan in November of 1994 will “wonder” just how Dave Dinkins, “their” candidate lost his bid for re-election. Chuckle, smirk, hah!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          I was just wondering this morning if this was building to a 1994 outcome. It is starting to smell similar. The difference is the POTUS election though. The Electoral College may prevent a change if the D’s can turn out the URBAN Vote in big numbers.

      • JAC;

        One child at a time. I am focusing my attention on my Grandson and Goddaughter. They in turn maybe able to influence and inform 3-4 each who in turn can influence and inform 3-4 each and so on and so on.

        As parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and godfathers we are bound to do what we can, and hope the lessons sink in. Their future and prosperity depend upon our efforts.

        CM

  72. Intrade

    Barack Obama
    63.9%

    Mitt Romney
    36.2%

    I think the vote will be will appear closer -gotta keep the voters entertained and in suspense- but the winner will be Obama.

    • We will not have much longer to wait to find out. In any event, it will be instructive, not so much for who is elected but rather to gauge the electorate. Let us assume for a moment that there is only a perceived rather than any actual difference between candidates and parties. Even for the purposes we espouse here, it is important to know where the “people” are regarding these perceptions even if they are false.

      Frankly, for those who don’t vote this is probably the best reason to vote.

      I would suggest that during the inaugural parade we re-introduce the custom of having someone standing behind the winner whispering in his ear, the entire time, “Remember you are just a man”. Obviously guys like Obama never got the message. He governed far from what he was elected to do (not be Bush). .

  73. Looks like it’s over. Might as well call off the election and just appoint”the One”.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/honey-boo-boo-endorses-obama_654673.html

  74. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Busy here, but just want to say, do not underestimate the Benghazi exchange last evening. It just might make the election for Romney by the time all the smoke clears.

    From personal sources this Benghazi event is very important to many voters even before last evening.

    See this AT article and comments. This is basically what was on my mind last evening when I saw the exchange during the debate. It could very well be Obama’s final straw to break him. We will see.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/candys_not_so_dandy.html

    • Benghazi Consulate’s 3 AM Phone Call
      By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

      It was one of the most memorable images from the 2008 presidential campaign. It was not a McCain ad or an Obama ad. It was, instead, a Hillary Clinton ad.

      The ad featured a red telephone ringing urgently at 3 am in the White House. The voiceover for this political ad assured us that Hillary Clinton would be able to answer that telephone, that she was someone “tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”

      The Red Telephone ad is almost unbearably painful to listen to today.

      On September 11, 2012, that red telephone did ring. The world proved to be a very dangerous place for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his American compatriots in Benghazi, Libya. The phone rang, and the response in the White House, in the State Department, was: “The number you have reached is not a working number…”

      Is this too harsh? What else can be said of the two weeks of lies and obfuscations we have received since that night of fire and death? American sovereign territory was attacked that night. Our embassies and consulates abroad are as much U.S. territory as are our ships, our bases, or even the District of Columbia .

      Note how David Axelrod danced around Chris Wallace’s question on Fox News Sunday. “Did the president assemble a national security briefing immediately following the death of Amb. Stevens and his fellow Americans?” Axelrod assured us the president was in full communication with all the relevant national security officials.

      That’s not what was asked. Did the president hold an “all hands on deck” meeting to discuss the crisis? It was, after all, the first time in more than thirty years that a U.S. ambassador had been murdered. Axelrod’s weasely answer could have included the president in a touch-and-go round robin phone call from Air Force One as he jetted off to the real business of his presidency: yukking it up at a Las Vegas fundraiser.

      What happened to Chris Stevens and his fellow Americans that terrible night in Benghazi is what these people want to happen to all of us. Why we should give any of them another penny is a question that demands an answer. Maybe we can call that red telephone in the White House. At 3 am.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/benghazi_consulates_3_am_phone_call.html#ixzz29ZxJNZQl

    • A Puritan Descendant says:
  75. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    Did you find your cord??? It must have been the game last night because I couldn’t sleep either. Was up way late and then kept waking up. Yet I don’t feel tired now. Maybe the adrenalin still hasn’t worn off. And if CM mentions the “broom” again please reach out and slap him. A guy who loves baseball should know better than mentioning that word before the opera has concluded.

    Now for your question: “NEXT ELECTION not this one. What if your vote for Johnson gives Obama a one vote margin in the popular vote for Oregon?”

    Well I guess I would have to stand up and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for MY ACTIONS. Not much else I could do at that point.

    If I were the deciding factor then I would take solace in knowing that my vote may be responsible for Destroying the Progressive Movement once and for all. Because if they get everything they want, and it has the affect I think it will, they will not win again in a very, very long time.

    I am afraid that is the only consolation you will have if Obama wins, regardless of the reason.

    Who sits in the White House chair is not that important by itself. CONGRESS is what really matters. And my vote is not going to have any affect on that outcome.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      P.S.; The chances of my vote causing Oregon to go Obama by one vote is less likely than the sun rising in the West tomorrow.

      • You are probably right. I want Obama out so badly that I can’t justify any vote going anywhere else but Romney.

        Still no cord!! grrr, I have no idea what happened to it. On my daughter’s Mac right now. Replacement cord on the way 😉

        • Where are my manners? VERLANDER ROCKS!

          • Who’s VERLANDER? Sorry couldn’t help myself-I assume he’s some guy on some team 🙂

            • For shame V. He’s the ACE of the Tigers pitching staff! He’s won 3 postseason games already! One more win for us and we’re off to the Series!

              • 🙂 I sincerely hope your team makes it. Just don’t get into sports-I want my home college team and State team to win-other than that-I don’t pay any attention.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          anita

          Did you empty out your saddle bags? You know all kinds of things can hide in the bottom of those “bags” you ladies carry around. 🙂

          • I usually carry it in my Addidas backsack, yes..backsack..that’s what they’re calling them these days. I turned that thing upside down on the kitchen table yesterday..didn’t work! I did verify that it has a bottom. 🙂

    • I know that Congress is supposed to matter more-but it seems to me it is the unelected organizations like the EPA-that have most of the power right now-and what they do seems to depend a lot on who is the President-and lets not forget that the Prez. also gets to decide who sits on the Supreme Court. So I gotta say, I think who the President is matters a lot.

      • …and VH is stealing my thoughts. VH ROCKS TOO!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        The Senate has final SAY on any SCOTUS appointee. Problem is with the Senate on this one.

        Congress CONTROLS All Federal Agencies via authorizing legislation and APPROPRIATIONS.

        Again, the problem is with Congress.

        Yes, Obama poses a threat. But if it were not for the stupidity of the Republican Party leadership him getting re-elected would be meaningless.

  76. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Your turn on the hot seat.

    WHO is the “P” Progressive in waiting behind Obama???

    MRS. Clinton is toast. She can now go home and play with her grandchildren.

    So WHO are the budding stars of the “P” movement today??

  77. @ JAC…….gun totin’ times here….

    Texas landowners take a rare stand against oil in opposing TransCanada project

    Published October 17, 2012

    Associated Press

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/17/texas-landowners-take-rare-stand-against-oil-in-opposing-transcanada-project/#ixzz29a49ITNR

  78. Well this is a change from the normal post on here-Now I would like to point out that I normally don’t use the word slut. But in this case I will make an acception. Now him what oh what, do I call him-that would actually insult him because going by his wink-I think the fool is proud of his self. A degenerate piece of slime/slut man, that will do.

    Police: Florida Couple Had Sex Atop Restaurant Table While Parents, Kids Watched

    A couple who decided to have sex atop an outdoor table at a Florida restaurant–in full view of families dining nearby–avoided criminal charges because witnesses declined Monday night to provide statements to police.

    The manager of Paddy Murphy’s, an Orlando eatery, summoned cops after he “was notified by several patrons that a couple was having sex on a table in view of minor children,” according to an Orlando Police Department report.

    Tom Murphy told officers that he approached the couple early Monday evening and told them to stop. But the man, identified by cops as Jeremie Calo, responded, “She can’t get up at this time.” Calo, 32, was referring to his companion Tiffani Lynn Barganier.

    Calo and Barganier, 32, are pictured above.

    Murphy told police that he directed Calo to “Compose yourself, pay your tab or I’ll call the police.” Calo, however, signed his check “NO” and then scuffled with a restaurant employee when he tried to leave without paying.

    Murphy and the worker restrained Calo until the arrival of cops, who arrested Calo for defrauding an innkeeper.

    But Calo and Barganier dodged charges related to their alleged public lewdness on Paddy Murphy’s patio. “The parents of the young children that observed Calo and Barganier having sex declined to write statements regarding their observations,” noted police. The report does not further detail why the witnesses opted not to provide statements.

    Calo and Barganier were both “trespassed from Paddy Murphy’s for a period of one year,” reported Officer Anthony Wongshue.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/outdoor-restaurant-table-sex-687451

  79. Hee hee hee-ROFL!!!

    October 17, 2012
    Who Was That Guy?
    Bryce Buchanan

    I’m concerned. There was someone debating Governor Romney last night who said he loved free enterprise. He loved oil. He loved coal. He loved natural gas and pipelines.

    He said he was a huge fan of small businesses and wanted to help them every way he could. This man said he was very concerned about the deficit. He thought it was important to make budgets to address that important issue. He was concerned about illegal immigration. If only he had had a majority in Congress he would have addressed those problems.

    On the Benghazi attack, he said that, right from the beginning, from the very first day, he told the American people that this was a terrorist attack. He had not misled the American people in any way.

    My concern is this: Who was that person, and what have they done with President Obama?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/who_was_that_guy.html#ixzz29aZ0dClU

  80. October 17, 2012
    Inside last night’s polls, big trouble for Obama
    Rick Moran

    Liberals are crowing this morning about Obama’s big victory in the debate last night.

    Taegan Goddard:

    If President Obama had done this well in the first debate, most would have already written off Mitt Romney. Obama won the debate decisively.

    The president had a simple formula: Defend and explain his record while insisting that Romney wasn’t being truthful. He kept Romney on the defensive and came prepared with counter-punches to nearly every topic. It was devastatingly effective.

    The memorandum of understanding setting the rules for the debate — and the town hall format itself — went out the window pretty quickly. The debate turned confrontational within the first 20 minutes which probably pleased partisans. Both sides saw fire in their candidate. But it’s more likely that undecided voters didn’t like the confrontation at all.

    In particular, Romney doesn’t do testy well. He made a big mistake trying to roll over the moderator. He got away with it in the first debate but he looked mean tonight. His obsession with the rules also came off as petty.

    Were Obama’s tactics “devastatingly effective?” Let’s go to the videotape – or, more prosaically – to the polls taken following the debate.

    Numbersmuncher:

    On the economy, Romney beat Obama by 18% in the CNN poll and 21% in the CBS poll.
    The CNN poll had Romney up on handling taxes (7%) and the budget/debt (23%)
    CNN poll on if candidates had a clear plan – Romney was -1 (49-50) and Obama was -23 (38-61)
    Romney even led on health care (49-46), being a better leader (49-46), and giving direct answers (45-43)
    Obama led on being likeable (47-41) and who cared more about the questioners (44-40)
    PPP CO poll on whether view of candidates were more positive after debate: 40-36 (+4) Obama, 44-35 (+9) for Romney.
    PPP CO poll on who better understands people like you: 50/50 tie.

    That sure sounds devastatingly effective alright – for Mitt Romney. Just where is this “decisive” Obama victory?

    Keep digging, Taegan. I’m sure there’s a pony somewhere in that manure pile.

    Ace has more bad news for the president from those polls:

    But this is amazing: Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country’s problems?

    38% Yes

    61% No

    61% No. Wow.

    How about that asked about Romney?

    49% Yes

    50% No

    A Specatator Culture: Americans have gotten pretty sophisticated about judging performance, especially after 10 years of American Idol.

    We shouldn’t assume that when people answer the question “Who won the debate?” they confuse that question with “Who did you find more persuasive?”

    They might actually be offering a sophisticated analysis: “I think this guy won on debate performance points.”

    But then ask them “Who actually persuaded you?,” and they might answer a completely different way.

    It certainly appears that’s what happened here tonight.

    Taken together, do Obama’s numbers add up to a winning candidate on November 6? At the very least, it suggests Romney doesn’t lose any ground and may, in fact, maintain some momentum.

    The spin will continue, and the media will push the narrative of a “decisive” Obama victory. Whether it will alter the reality that people saw is unknown.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/inside_last_nights_polls_big_trouble_for_obama.html#ixzz29adheQi5

    GALLUP: R 51% O 45%

    I meant to ask you earlier JAC-why do you think Romney is going to lose. I admit that I will not be surprised by any result except Obama winning by a landslide.

    But if I go by my gut and my ingrained feelings that the American majority still values freedom more than a false utopian idea of fair-I believe pretty strongly that Romney will win by a respectful margin.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      My prediction is due to the Electoral College. Romney is on a roll but it is looking like he has to have both Virginia and Ohio. Without Ohio he has to pull Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire and I think Iowa. The 271 I predicted last night for Obama has Romney taking everything but Iowa and Ohio.

      Now if Kathy could just deliver Wisconsin or Anita and CM could deliver Michigan it would be a game changer.

      I think Virginia and Ohio are going to be hard to win because of the Urban Vote and the large black vote. Nevada will be hard due to the Hispanic Vote and all the lefties in VEGAS. If you look at the county by county votes in 2008 many Blue states were simply carried by a few counties around the big cities. Pennsylvania was a classic example. And since GMan has decided voting is a waste of time we can’t count on him to deliver that state. 😉

      The only way to overcome that is for Rural voters to turn out in numbers far greater and hope many of the Urban voters don’t show or switch on Election Day.

      A 2% margin at this point in Big States like Virginia and Ohio is a lot of votes to make up for Romney.

      The Election is turning out pretty much just like the EXPERTS expected. As BF said the other day, it will come down to a few counties within a few states. That was pretty much understood by the INSIDERS from the beginning.

      But Three Weeks is an eternity in political campaigns. I thought Libya might be O’s undoing. But it looks like the MSM is going to let him slide on that one too.

      • I guess we will wait and see-but I read the other day -per the polls- Obama only has a lock on 10 States. And that there is only a 1 point difference in Wisconsin-So I’m gonna remain hopeful.

        Vote people-waste your time-even if you don’t believe it will make a difference-it couldn’t make it any worse-than Obama will.

        Dang, I’ll be glad when this election is over.

      • Been thinking about this one all day and listening to the pundits. I think that Obama stopped the bleeding but only among his own hard core fans. The indies didn’t see anything new. Last week, I thought that all Romney had to do to win the debate was just not lose it. He succeeded very well in not doing that. He was on point, did not get thrown by brazen attempts by the moderator and Obama to throw him. I would have preferred he flesh out energy better and show the links between affordable energy and prosperity. He scored well in listing the litany of “losses” that the middle class has endured, but should have hammered it multiple times until it sunk in.

        People, even I, are getting “used” to Mitt Romney. He fits. Only Rush has been predicting a blow-out. I had hoped he was right a couple of months ago, now I think he’s right. The polls are not showing the Bradley/Dinkins effect and I don’t think they are showing the “I want to vote for the winner” crew either.

        • Any pollster that calls here, I hang up on as I suspect many do. So who does answer their questions?

  81. A Puritan Descendant says:

    After reading an article on AT about the ACA, I found a link which seems to confirm it as true. So if someone with family coverage racks up a $300,000.00 medical bill to their insurance company, the insurance company will have to pay an additional tax of $109,000.00!

    Or say a lady has a child with individual coverage and the bill to the insurance company is $20,000 the insurance company will also be taxed an additional $3,900.00

    And we all know who will end up paying this tax in the end.

    Who dreams this stuff up?

    https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/excise-tax.html

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      To clarify:
      “lady has a child” = “gives birth to a child”

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I may have twisted it’s meaning. i will read it again later, here is the AT article > http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/aca_more_you_know_more_you_hate.html

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      OK, I found why I was confused, from the AT article, they make it sound as if actual “health benefits” are subject to the limits while it should read ” Cost of the plan” or whatever….

      “The ACA penalizes (taxes) insurance plans where health benefits exceed $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family.”

      and reading further they seem to follow through on that first interpretation,

      “If you think these are benefits needed only by billionaires and members of Congress, you haven’t seen hospital bills for having a baby or removing a gallbladder, much less for heart surgery.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/aca_more_you_know_more_you_hate.html#ixzz29bZrmPkT

      And Puritan, Thanks for the conversation, LOL

      • My wife blew through the $10K limit months ago.

      • Amazing isn’t it-we are by law forced to buy insurance-yet, we can’t buy better insurance than anyone else can afford or get for free-because that isn’t fair. Welcome to The United States of Something-sure as hell isn’t America.

        • October 18, 2012
          Barack Obama and the Fundamental Transformation of America
          By Robert A. Hall

          As president, Barack Obama has cynically broken promise after promise, often enough that it’s hard to believe that his cognitive functioning is so impaired that he ever thought he could keep most of them. He wouldn’t, of course, be the only politician to make meaningless pledges to get elected.

          Unfortunately, his October 28, 2005 promise to set about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is one he has kept. If he is reelected on November 6, 2012, I believe that the transformation from the free republic we have cherished will be irreversible and permanent. And that the country will then be hopelessly on the road to fiscal, social, and political collapse.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a society where the majority of people live by the sweat of their brows to one where the majority live off the labors of a shrinking productive class.

          He will fundamentally transform America from one where the American dream is a job, home, and family to one where the dream is food stamps, welfare, Obama-phones, and government dependency.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a society that strives, however imperfectly, for a color-blind equality to one where race matters in everything from enforcement of voter protection laws, to college admissions, to hiring, to school grades and discipline.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a nation that is a beacon for freedom and democracy to one that leads from behind in the world.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in entrepreneurial efforts and free markets to a controlled economy where central planners make economic decisions for you.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country that rewards success and hard work to one where those who disagree still believe they are entitled to a “fair share” of what those who do have earned.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in rugged individualism to a caricature of a European socialist dependency, where citizens all belong to interest groups ever demanding more largess from the government.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country where our grandkids have a brighter future to one where they will live in poverty and destitution under the yoke of unpayable debts to fund ever-larger vote-buying schemes from leftist interest groups.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a land of plenty to one where the poor cannot drive, heat their homes, or feed their families as they are crushed by energy costs to please environmental interest groups and green crony contributors at photo-op places like Solyndra.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a society that strives to eliminate class to one of four classes: wealthy elite liberals, government union bureaucrats, the growing dependent poor, and the shrinking pool of working, productive folk employed in the private sector who are expected to support the other three classes.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a society that believes in and defends our culture and values to one where multiculturalism declares equal respect and value for cultures that hang gay people, mutilate the genitals of young girls, stone women for adultery, execute “witches,” murder apostates, prohibit education of girls, riot violently against free speech if someone offends them, and murder female relatives over trivial affronts to the family’s “honor.”

          He will fundamentally transform America from one where there exists a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, to one in which an all-powerful president rules through unaccountable czars and unchecked executive orders.

          He will fundamentally transform America from one that believed in life to one where babies are routinely aborted because of their gender or disabilities.

          He will fundamentally transform America into a poor imitation of Greece.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a society that rewards success and effort to one where everyone gets a trophy for showing up. And if you don’t show up, the community organizer will deliver it to your section-eight subsidized door.

          He will fundamentally transform America from one where small town values predominate to one locked in the corrupt grip of the Chicago Way.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country which the honored function of the military is to protect the nation and our freedoms to one where the military is the Petri dish for social experimentation. If that costs the lives of troops, well, it’s a small price to pay for the liberal elites to have their dreams, because their children don’t serve.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a powerful nation to one that has to acquiesce in the dominance of corrupt, state-corporatist China over our Asian allies, because their military is more powerful, their economy stronger, and they hold the debt from liberal vote buying in the US and can cut off credit if we stand up to them.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a land that welcomes immigrants who want to join our culture, adopt our values, learn our language, and participate in the political, economic, and social life of the nation to one where illegal colonizers are allowed to live off our economy and taxpayers while imposing the failed, corrupt cultures they came from on our people and society.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a nation that respects religious freedom to one where religious beliefs must give way to imposed bureaucratic values of secular, leftist elites.

          He will fundamentally transform America from a country with a healthcare system where people of means worldwide come for treatment and where doctors and patients made healthcare decisions to one where bureaucrats manage your healthcare decisions and ration and delay care.

          He will fundamentally transform America… actually, he already has. Now he wants to make it permanent.

          Will you let him?

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/barack_obama_and_the_fundamental_transformation_of_america.html#ixzz29fYwsI1L

          • As a fair, equal opportunity basher, just how different is this rant from one I could write about his predecessors for the past 20 years most particularly Bush the younger?

            The only difference between Republicans since Nixon I guess, with a pass given to Reagan for crashing Communism, is that they were slower. This slow down allowed us hopeful (false hope) ones to think we might have a chance to thwart their agendas.

            A lot of the complaints I hear today have to do with Obama having complete control of congress and not using it to advance the left’s agenda fast enough. Even conservatives use this against him when he tries to blame his failures on the Republicans obstructionism. Bush 2 was in the same situation and used none of his power or a malleable congress to reverse anything.

            The reality seems to be that everyone listens to the squeaky wheel and pays homage to the demands of, not the infamous 1% but, the 10% who control the media, academia the ever increasing social service/social welfare bureaucracy and tell us what we are to think and what we are required to do.

            So, in the scheme of things, unless someone out there holds a nominally Republican or Conservative candidate’s feet to the fire after election, the transformation will just continue, perhaps at a slower pace but it will continue. I daresay, my Dad who has been dead for almost 30 years, if he were to come back, would not recognize this country today. Just listening to JFK’s speech in 1962 to the Chamber of Congress, calling for tax cuts (individual and corporate) and government to get out of the way of the economy shows you the massive changes in his party since then. A large number of modern Republicans would find that speech “extreme” today also.

            • Okay, Equal Opportunity Basher, 🙂

              I agree with every word you just said. That’s the whole point, We the People have to hold their feet to the fire to uphold the Constitution and the platform they claim to support. Why do you think the train towards the cliff is slower under the Republicans. They have to at least pretend they are for smaller government.

              But please someone tell me, how do you hold fire to the feet of the Democrats to support their party platform and the Constitution when their whole platform is based on destroying our freedom, making the Constitution moot and To Fundamentally transform America.

              If anything, the Establishment Republicans in power are more like the old Democrat party, which you kinda noted, but the new Democrats in power-they are just crazy.

              • You cannot hold the Democrats feet to the fire anymore until and unless you get a practical politician like Clinton and someone like Gingrich on the other side. Since McGovern, that party has been out of control. Blame it on Vietnam, Civil Rights, the assassinations of Kennedy, King, Kennedy, whatever, but it is there. This is the party of Ho Chi Minh or Chairman Mao or frankly when looking at Reid or Pelosi, Stalin. The party has, in my opinion, committed itself to statism on a scale that would rival any socialist state. Their being in bed with the big banks and with corporations like GM and GE smacks of the Fascistic brand of socialism. They are a party which aims at minorities and people ridden with guilt and cannot, short of an internal rebellion be brought back to sanity. Have you noticed that the word “enough” never seems to fit into that party anywhere. It is the party of excess, personal, corporate, bureaucratic, makes no difference. When asking the party how far they have gone on any issue, the answer invariably seems to be, “not far enough!”

                It is just that the Republicans often seem to stand for nothing other than Democrat light. In New York Politics, the Liberal Party was founded to force Democrats to the left which worked brilliantly for decades. Then, in the early ’60’s Dan Mahoney founded the Conservative party to force the Rockefeller wing of the party right and incidentally beat the liberals. Ultimately they destroyed the liberal party and then went out of business.

                The Republican party really does need an internal Tea Party contingent to keep it honest. Liberals are like vampires in those 1940’s horror movies. You can drive a stake into their heart and turn them into dust in something like “the Son of Dracula” but in the next movie, “Dracula meets the Wolfman”, some idiot has removed the stake from the coffin and the vampire re-incorporates. Now, I’m not suggesting we drive stakes through the hearts of liberals……Wait a minute, maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all.

  82. Game Changer: Larry King Will Moderate Critical Four-Way Third-Party Candidate Debate

    By David Weigel

    |Posted Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, at 1:41 PM ET
    23

    It just makes sense.

    The former CNN giant will guide next Tuesday’s debate in Chicago, which will be broadcast on the Internet. The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, the Green Party’s Jill Stein, the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode and the Justice Party’s Rocky Anderson.

    Johnson’s Libertarians are on 48 state ballots, screwed out of Michigan because of the “sore loser” law (Johnson ran for the Republican nomination before switching, remember?), and denied Oklahoma because the state didn’t let Johnson keep the vacant Americans Elect ballot line. Stein’s Greens are on 37 ballots, including most of the swing states, but not including New Hampshire. That’s key, because it makes the GOP-friendly Johnson the only local spoiler. And Goode remains just popular enough in south-central Virginia to queer things for Republicans.

    Here, normally, I’d place some punditry about Rocky Anderson, but I honestly think that the average person who accidentally clicks on this blog while looking for “Dear Prudence” has more electoral oomph than he does.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/17/game_changer_larry_king_will_moderate_critical_four_way_third_party_candidate.html

  83. Good Morning SUFA, 🙂

    Windy day today with rain coming, yippee! Here’s something to start your day with a smile:
    http://biggeekdad.com/2012/10/move-the-deer-crossing/

    You can’t make this stuff up 😆

    • Day late & a dollar short G. Common Man already ran that one by us..look up above 😉
      Rainy here too..had to cancel last night’s Tiger game. Hopefully after tonight we’ll be on the way to the Series.

      I’m sending voodoo vibes to the extreme NW corner of the country hoping that a certain Citizen will quit raining on my hopes of Romney taking this election.

  84. Dang 😦 Let’s try this:
    On a golf tour in Newfoundland, Mike Weir drives his new Ford Fusion into
    > a
    > gas station in a remote part of town.
    >
    > The pump attendant, obviously knows nothing about golf, greets him in a
    > typical Newfoundland manner completely unaware of who the golfing pro is.
    > ”How’s she cuttin’ by ,” says the attendant.
    >
    >
    > Mike nods a quick ‘hello, ‘ and bends forward to pick up the nozzle. As he
    > does so, two tees fall out of his shirt pocket onto the ground.
    >
    > ”What are dose?” asks the attendant. ”They’re called tees,” replies
    > Mike.
    >
    > ”Well, what on God’s earth are dey fur ?” inquires the attendant..
    >
    > ”They’re for resting my balls on when I’m driving”, says Mike
    >
    > “fookin Jaysus ,” says the Newfoundlander, ”Ford tinks of everyting !”

  85. Jimmy Kimmel Live took their cameras to the streets Wednesday in Los Angeles, conducting a casual poll on the outcome of the second presidential debate — at 2 p.m. PST.

    Four hours before the debate started, show producers asked people on the street which candidate fared better.

    “Who do you think won last night’s debate?” the Kimmel interviewer asked.

    “I’m gonna go with Obama,” said one respondent. “He was stronger this time around, in his choice of answering questions. The best part for me what — I think there was booing — wasn’t there booing on uh … was it Mitt Romney?”

    “Did you watch the whole thing?”

    “Oh yeah, oh yeah!”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/17/jimmy-kimmel-live-asks-people-who-won-the-debate-four-hours-before-debate/#ixzz29ekAzCJX

  86. I thought we were broke….

    Purchase for 30-50% off with
    government rebates & incentives

    http://www.solar-america.org/o61/home-solar-quote/

  87. Colonel;

    My college brother (the Colonel I told you about) called me this morning to talk deer hunting and catch up. After detailing each other about our properties and success he let me know that our future campfire get together was going to be delayed for another year. He leaves in a month or so and will be commanding Special Ops somewhere. He says upon his return he is going to grow a foot long beard and then get lost in the woods for about a month wack’en and stack’en deer. I look forward to joining him.

    So, since those like you are never thanked enough…thanks and God Bless. Maybe someday individuals like yourself, USW and my blood brother can stay home and provide the rest of us with their infinate wisdom and guidence.

    I pray that some day soon the stupidity and arrogance that drives men to war will end. Until that day many thanks to those who serve and have served.

    CM

  88. Just A Citizen says:

    Quote of the Day

    “We human beings always seek happiness,” says Mr. Zhang. “Now there are two ways. You make yourself happy by making other people unhappy—I call that the logic of robbery. The other way, you make yourself happy by making other people happy—that’s the logic of the market. Which way do you prefer?””

  89. Just A Citizen says:

    BUCK

    I don’t remember if I posted this the other day or not. So here it goes again……??

    Federal “Campaign Finance” Laws are Mostly Unconstitutional
    Written by Rob Natelson on 14 October 2012

    In a recent posting, I wrote:

    [I]t is dubious whether the Constitution even gives Congress power to regulate the source and amount of campaign contributions and expenditures. The background and meaning of the Constitution’s “Time, Places and Manner Clause”—which Congress uses to justify such laws—strongly suggests not.

    The Time, Places and Manner Clause is Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. It reads as follows:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

    Note that this provision grants Congress some authority to regulate congressional elections; it grants no power to regulate presidential or vice-presidential elections. The authority to oversee the choice of presidential and vice-presidential electors is reserved mostly to the states within the regulations in Article II, Section 1, and some other constitutional provisions. (A 1934 U.S. Supreme Court opinion to the contrary, Burroughs v. United States, is apparently based on the long-discredited “inherent sovereign power” doctrine, and clearly erroneous.)

    About three years ago, I researched the original meaning of the Time, Places and Manner Clause. I examined the records surrounding adoption of the Constitution and contemporaneous election laws and other documents. I learned that the Founders understood the power to regulate the “time” of an election as authority to fix election days and hours and the length of the term of office. Since the terms of Senators and Representatives are fixed elsewhere in the Constitution, congressional authority to set the “time” of a congressional election means only to fix the days and hours.

    I further learned that “place” referred to the location of voting and the districts from which candidates were to be elected. The Constitution also limited somewhat congressional authority to fix the “place” of a congressional election.

    Finally, the Framers coined the phrase “Manner of holding elections” to refer to other voting mechanics. Under this phrase, Congress can determine such issues as whether voting is by closed or open ballot, whether a candidate needs a majority or merely a plurality to win, how the votes are counted and protected, and punishment for election-day misconduct, such as bribing election officials.

    The historical record was clear that only the states, not Congress, were to govern campaign practices and finance. The states duly proceeded to do so through their criminal codes, their election laws, and their rules pertaining to slander and libel.

    The Framers deliberately kept the scope of Congress’s Time, Places and Manner Clause rather narrow, because of the inherent conflict of interest in allowing Congress to regulate its own selection procedures. Many advocates of the Constitution represented that the power to regulate the “Manner of holding Elections” would mean only that the federal government could conduct a congressional election in case state officials were unwilling to so or (perhaps due to invasion) unable to do so.

    When my article was published in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, I was unaware that any modern court had competently reviewed the subject. Just this past week, however, David Keating, the President of the Center for Competitive Politics, brought my attention to Vannatta v. Keisling, a 1997 Oregon Supreme Court case that explored the meaning of the phrase “manner of regulating, and conducting elections” in its own state constitution. That phrase obviously parallels the U.S. Constitution’s Time, Place, and Manner Clause. And it originates from an era when U.S. constitutional terms were generally better understood than they are today.

    The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the phrase granted no power to regulate campaigns:

    If one were to utilize the modern definition of “election” as a “process,” there would be room for the Secretary of State’s argument for a sweeping interpretation of the word “elections” in [the Oregon constitution] because the “process” contemplated by the section could be deemed to be the entire electoral adventure, from the announcement of candidacy through the canvassing of election returns. However, the constitutional provision that we construe here was proposed in 1857, not in 1996. A dictionary relevant to that time gives a more limited definition of the word “election”: “The act of choosing a person to fill an office or employment, by any manifestation of preference, as by ballot, uplifted hands or viva voce[.]” Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).
    The dictionary on which we rely has no definition of “campaign” that corresponds to the present-day use of that word as a description of the effort to obtain public office or to obtain the passage of an initiated or referred measure. The concept of that time closest to what we now term “campaigning” was “electioneering,” which Noah Webster defined as “the arts or practices used for securing the choice of one to office.” Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). It thus appears that, whatever the degree of their overlap today, the ideas of “electioneering” and “elections” were somewhat distinct at the pertinent time, viz., at the time that the Oregon Constitution was created.

    Hence: One more fragment of evidence tending to show that incumbent Congressmen’s efforts to protect their own seats by “campaign finance reform” are flatly unconstitutional.

  90. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H. and Anita

    It is a beautiful day here today. Rain has stopped, sun is out and the colors are magnificent. So with keeping in the spirit of the day……………..

    1. Unemployment Filing is UP this week.

    2. http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=15992

    • Knew that it would be-Wish it wasn’t.

      Does this article mean my gut and personal observation is as good as this guys statistical polls. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        No, it means your gut instincts are as good as his gut instincts.

        Budge is now taking “even odds” bets that Romney wins.

        And he is a self declared “l” Libertarian.

    • Unemployment is up every week isn’t it..even when they say it isn’t, it still ends up being upped.

      Thanks for a somewhat positive article. But some guy had nerve to post under your name 😉

      And guess what popped up from deep in the bowels of my car? Yep, my cord! Good grief..it almost hit me in the face when I opened the door..This is after 3 people searched the car. ugh!..Oh well, I’ll have a spare now..but now I lost my lunch between here and home today! I can’t have shit! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Sounds like either Squirrels or Gremlins to me.

      • It is that alternate dimension thing. You know, where all the socks go. I know that in Washing machines, it is the time-space vortex they create. Your car must have accidentally tapped into a naturally occurring one or, possibly, you were driving at exactly 88 MPH for a specific period of time.

  91. I read last night where Apple makes the bulk of its products in China where workers do no less than 60 hours minimum and work in shit conditions. Here, Apple pays it’s production people $25K a year, but quickly upped their salaries 25% (big deal) when they learned the report would be released. Of course CEO’s/upper management were pulling in $400 million in stocks/bonds.

    There’s capitalism at its best … exploit workers wherever you can … I can’t wait for the revolution … and when I read crap like that, the more violent the better.

    • What -you think making our government More like China’s will make things better?

    • …or, as you would prefer, is the Chinese worker would be in the field working 125hrs a week, while under the threat of terminal starvation.

      The Chinese worker is not complaining, Charlie – he knows his life is better than yesterday, and tomorrow, his life and his kids lives will be even better.

      Your way – they all starve equally.

      • That’s pretty much what’s happening in N. Korea isn’t it? where capitalism isn’t allowed.

      • More baloney … propoganda from the right … and utter nonsense. By your “logic” BF, slaves should’ve been grateful during the civil war because our poor here were so much better off than where they were shipped from …

        Absolutely amazing … you don’t or won’t see the end result of this crap … enough millions of people out of work here because profit is maximized elsewhere … then what happens? That’s when the fields come into play … but guess who’ll be pulling the plows?

    • Charlie, Capitalism is awesome and greed is a great thing 🙂 Being morally greedy is what makes people excel and be successful. Without greed, we would still be living in caves 🙄 Why do you want to change this?

    • I thought that China already had that revolution.

      • Capitalism is bringing it back … only bigger and faster …:)

        • And that, my friend, is why it can’t work. Human nature. The desire to get ahead, the desire to improve one’s lot. Same reason why the only truly communist system, the Israeli Kibbutz ultimately disappeared. Short of Pre-frontal lobotomies, people who routinely work twice as hard as their co-workers resent the fact that those co-workers earn the same as them.

          You and I are in total agreement when it comes to excess but short of destroying the dream for everyone, there is no way to level the playing field. Some bastard will always take advantage.

          Trying to create a state utopia for everyone, without the requisite pre-frontal lobotomy merely means that a-la the Soviet Union or Communist China, you replace a set of Capitalistic Dictators with a set of Socialist Dictators. Personally you, as an individual have a much better chance of rising into those ranks and the ranks are far more open to outsiders on the capitalist side. That is, not to mention, that the Capitalist side tends to produce a better life for everyone than the Socialist one does.

          I do not want to hear about Finland, Sweden or some other Socialist paradise who have been able to grow and prosper and not spend a huge chunk of GDP on weapons because they have lived under an American umbrella for 70 years. As Greece, Spain and Italy are demonstrating there is a time when the bills finally come due and you can’t just transfer the balance to a new credit card at “introductory” rates

  92. Just A Citizen says:

    Another clever one from Dave Budge at electric city.

    “Now, I’m not comparing the “undecided” voters of last night with the idiots that Jimmy Kimmel shows us but I have to say that what I saw last night was largely people who were really undecided if they like Obama or really loved him.

    So, at the risk of sounding like the elitist snob that I am, I will say this: every four years politicians come running out to win the votes of the most politically lazy mopes of the American population that are convinced that the duty to vote is completely unaffected by the need to actually have a clue as to what the policy questions really are. Half of that population is probably just not interested in understanding policy while the other have is just probably too stupid to enter the poll booth. If I could affect the political practice of Americans I would get them to understand that they have a responsibility to stay out of the election process if they’re otherwise too occupied, lazy or stupid to keep abreast of current events and policy debates. In other words If You don’t Know Don’t Vote.

    OK, I’ve gotten that off my chest.

    I tuned into the debate with the TV on and Tweetdeck booted. Notwithstanding Gregg’s racist tweet that started the whole thing it was an entertaining event. One problem I have is that my Twitter feed is heavily loaded with libertarians who spent the entire debate with the sneering contempt that libertarians are so go at. I have a better understanding now of how people might view me. For that I’m sorry.

    At the same time it was interesting reading the partisan nonsense. What I see is that few people can call bullshit on their guy but so easily call bullshit on the guy they’re not endorsing. So this is what I come away with:

    Except for you and me everyone in the world is hopelessly stupid – and sometimes I wonder about you. And, yes, you know who you are, “

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Now along this line, I watched Greta interview the famous “undecided” voter who asked the Libya question, and who got a personal answer from Mr. O.

      Here is the key point. He claims he is undecided BECAUSE he WANTS us to have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security AND Obama Care AND……….let me say that again……..AND a National Health Care System. He likes Obama because of these “social” issues, as he called them.

      But he recognizes that without a good economy it will be hard to have these things and Romney is probably better on the economy. So Romney has the edge on the economy.

      Oh, and he liked Obama’s explanation on Benghazi but recognizes Mr. O has been doing the Kabuki dance. But he DOESN’T CARE about that. It is not a deal breaker. It comes down to Social vs Economy.

      “I’ll probably make up my mind when I step into the voting booth” he said.

      If that doesn’t just about sum up the mind set of the modern LEFT I don’t know what does. I want Socialism but I need Capitalism to Fund it. Good Grief.

      OR…………..

      So this VAMPIRE can’t decide until he is cloaked in darkness.

      They walk among us and they breed.

  93. Just A Citizen says:

    Ladies of SUFA.

    Care to respond? And Daily KOS is playing this as proof Romney is in DEEP TROUBLE with women in the swing States.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158069/women-swing-states-gender-specific-priorities.aspx?utm_source=add_this&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.UH8hgLQGmd0.twitter

    • Last I checked I’m still female but I see the responses from the men more in line with my thinking. From the women’s list the only things I care about in THIS election are, in this order, Economy, regulations, taxes and jobs..figure out the last three and the economy should bounce right back. From the men’s list I’d rate them in this order: Honesty, Defense, Budget deficit/debt Foreign policy, economy, gov regulation, taxes, jobs..the rest don’t matter THIS time.

    • Gonna have to think about this one-the % is so high based solely on abortion-I find it kinda hinky.

      But if it’s true-It makes me ashamed to be a woman.

  94. This is gonna be interesting-but I will be surprised if these cables become public before the election is over. But if this is true-I suspect they will be released one way or the other.

    Opinion
    Hillary’s non mea culpa
    8:58 AM 10/18/2012

    Edward Klein

    At the second presidential debate this week, Barack Obama finally appeared to man-up and acknowledge that, as president and commander in chief, he was responsible for the deaths of four Americans during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    After all, said the president, the secretary of state “works for me,” and as the top person in the administration’s chain of command, the buck stopped at him.

    It was, at best, a late and half-hearted admission of culpability. Indeed, President Obama waited weeks before dropping the administration’s false story — which he floated in the Rose Garden, at the United Nations, on “The View” and on “The Letterman Show” — that the attack was the result of a spontaneous uprising and not an al Qaida-linked terrorist attack.

    What’s more, in making his acknowledgement of fault, he couched his admission in such a way that the weight of blame still fell squarely on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton, not him.

    Thus, several questions were left unanswered by the debate:

    Are Hillary and the president working in tandem?

    Did Hillary take a bullet for Obama as a way of helping his campaign for re-election?

    Or did Hillary have another motive, which has yet to be revealed to the public?

    According to a member of Hillary’s inner circle to whom I have spoken, she and Bill Clinton assembled a team of legal experts a couple of weeks ago to determine how to handle the Benghazi debacle. The members of this team engaged in a lively debate over the best legal and political courses for her to take.

    Their chief goal was to avoid allowing Benghazi to become a permanent stain on Hillary’s reputation and hurt her chances to run for president in 2016.

    As they debated amongst themselves, it became clear to the Clintons and their advisers that the White House intended to throw Hillary under the bus. This conclusion became inescapable when David Axelrod went on Fox News Channel and cast all the blame for Benghazi on the State Department.
    At that point, Bill Clinton and some of the members of the legal team advocated that Hillary consider a “nuclear option” — threatening the White House that she would resign as secretary of state if it continued to make her the scapegoat for Benghazi.

    But ultimately, wiser and more rational heads prevailed.

    After the Clinton legal team had a chance to review the State Department cable traffic between Benghazi and Washington, the experts came to the conclusion that the cables proved that Hillary had in fact given specific instructions to beef up security in Libya, and that if those orders had been carried out — which they weren’t — they could conceivably have avoided the tragedy.

    Clearly, someone in the Obama administration dropped the ball — and the president was still insisting that it was not his fault.

    In the end, then, Hillary decided to assume responsibility to show that she was acting more presidential than the president.

    I am told by my sources that she firmly believes that when the State Department cable traffic is made public, either through leaks to the press or during formal House committee hearings, it will exonerate her and shift the blame for the entire mess onto the presiden

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/hillarys-non-mea-culpa/#ixzz29gMxpWSR

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Clintons……….what a pair of slime balls.

      If you do the RIGHT thing and this was in fact the Admin. screwing up then DO NOT hide it until it is discovered later.

      She will NEVER be President.

      I hope their daughter has many grandchildren to keep her happy while she plays in that big pasture.

  95. OMG! Going out to celebrate my son’s birthday but GO TIGERS! 2 2run homers plus good pitching! Common Man where is that broom…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita………CM

      OK, now you can say it…………..S….W….E….E….P !!

      • …..or S…W…E…E…T!!! how about Coke closing it out? We got him for Granderson!!

        Na na na na..hey hey hey..GOOOODBYE!

        • JAC/Anita;

          I love baseball, but the only other team I watch when I have time is St. Louis. That was my team as a kid, but having moved to Michigan in 85 I learned to appreciate the Tigers.

          One hears all the hype about the yankees and how they are the greatest in MLB, but all I saw these past few nights were a bunch of self-appointed egotistical bums, I have not seen such arrogance displayed in all my years of watching baseball. Couple that with each and every one of them act as if they are the star; no team effort. A-Rod expects to be treated like a god, but preforms like a little leager.

          Maybe if they got back to basic fundementals it would have been a much closer series. Now that is not to take anything away from the Tigers; they geld.

          On top of that the announcers were way to bias; to a point that I turned the volume off and turned on the local radio broadcast.

          I had no doubt after the 3rd game it was going to be a route, and that the Tiger bats would make quick work of CC.

          The yankees suck, I mean they really suck. And I have concluded that part of their problem is that they as well as New York seem to believe that the world revolves around them. Maybe humility would help all the way around.

          CM

  96. Obama cares about the people-yeah right.

    War on Coal Rattles Harrisburg Capitol, Legislators Take Notice

    posted at 9:39 pm on October 17, 2012 by Matt Vespa
    [ Economics ]

    Yesterday, the War on Coal, one of the most egregious of President Obama’s assault on the American dream, reached the halls of power in Pennsylvania with an unannounced press conference in Harrisburg. Anastasia Przybylski, PA Field Director for FreedomWorks and co-Chair of The Kitchen Table Patriots, invited coal miner Gary Dubois, Mark Fischer, Council Member in Waynesburg and candidate for the State House of Representatives in District 50, Kevin Shivers, State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Dr. Thomas Borelli, Senior Fellow with FreedomWorks, his wife Deneen Borelli Director of Outreach for Freedomworks, and John Pippy, former State Senator and CEO of Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, to detail how Obama’s war on coal is destroying a key component in America’s socioeconomic fabric

    Carol Vogel, a resident of Greene County, detailed how electric bills in her area are set to increase in her area five-fold by 2015. The “EPA regulations are killing us” she said before the start of the press conference. “They’ve shut down 100 out of the 500 coal plants and are slated to shut down 200 more – that’s 3/5 of all the plants closed.” While not a member of a coal mining family, she attended to show her support for jobs, affordable energy, and for the families who are set to struggle paying their electric bills if we don’t stop this assault on coal. She also noted that there’s nothing to replace coal and it will “hit everyone’s pocket book – class doesn’t matter.”

    Pat Vanderslice and Cheryl Tressler, central Pennsylvania locals, said they showed up to support “American jobs, access to affordable energy, and efforts to keep commodities prices down. Coal, in many parts of the country, is the life’s blood to a lot of local businesses. Remove coal, and prices are set to increase on most items. That’s a tax increase. Additionally, Obama’s war on coal is set to destroy communities that have been established for generations. As Marc Grove, another attendee, said, for these folks, “it’s either coal, or unemployment.”

    Anastasia Przybylski began the conference with her story on how she become involved in politics and public policy. She said that her transition from mini-driving mom to political activist came from the economic effects of Obama’s policies and how it impacted her livelihood. ”As a mom, I’m the one who has to balance the checkbook,” she said in her opening remarks. She stated that she didn’t want her electric bills to eat into her kids’ extracurricular activities or any aspect of her family expenditures just because Barack Obama hates coal.

    Mark Fischer detailed how coal was always the beacon of hope, even in bad times, because its positive effect on the local economies would never waver. Coal would always be there. Now, with Obama’s crusade to destroy the industry, we stand to lose thousands of jobs, and Fischer reiterated how we all need to think how that will impact their families and the families of those dependent on coal mining for their businesses.

    Kevin Shivers, chief lobbyist for NFIB, stated that Obama’s remarks back in 2008 was the first shot fired in the war on coal. Shivers said that if anyone has any doubts about the war on coal, they should ask one of the 1200 members of Alpha Natural Resources, who lost their jobs due to Obama’s regulatory onslaught.

    Shivers aptly noted the administration’s narrative towards coal was simple: “if you built it, they will kill it.” As this regulatory onslaught on American energy continues, the middle class, consumers, and workers have been crushed by new government mandates and taxes. Shivers said, that Sen. Bob Casey shares part of the blame for supporting the president’s agenda that has inflicted economic hardship on the residents of the Keystone state. Shivers concluded by saying the war on coal, at its heart, is an attack on Pennsylvania jobs and energy independence.

    Dr. Tom Borelli and his wife Deneen, who is also the author of Blacklash: How Obama and the Left are Driving American to the Government Plantation, slammed the Obama administration for their plans to close 200 coal plants throughout the country, and picking winners and losers in this economy. The winners are Obama’s campaign friends, who recieved 80% of the $90 billion in green energy loans. The losers are the American taxpayers and coal mining families. One such casualty was Patriot Coal, which was forced into bankruptcy thanks to Obama. Back in January, CBS did an excellent report showing the fragility within the green energy market. Out of 12 companies that received energy loans, all were either in serious financial shape or went into bankruptcy.

    Dr. Borelli rightfully said that crony capitalism is destroying American enterprise and Sen. Casey continues to sit in the cheap seats, watching Pennsylvanians suffer under this administration.

    Deneen Borelli was much more forceful, calling the president “a liar, a deceiver, and an empty suit.” She proclaimed that we will not be held captive to cradle to grave EPA regulations that are destroying the coal industry. Borelli eviscerated the Obama administration’s audacity to destroy coal. ”It’s destroying the lives of Americans and their families,” she said. In all, it’s a war on hard-working Americans. After taking aim at Obama, Borelli, as most of the people slated to speak did, took issue with Sen. Casey, who has done nothing to protect Pennsylvania’s interests.

    Borelli concluded that it’s wrong to bankrupt business. It’s wrong to push Americans out onto the street and leave them with nothing. How are they suppose to support their families? It’s time for the Casey/Obama alliance to end.

    Gary Dubois, a coal miner with almost thirty years of experience, detailed how the war on coal narrative is catching on with the electorate. He made simple signs that read “Stop the War on Coal: Fire Obama” and sold over 1500 signs by end of his first order. They have been seen across numerous states. One poignant story he told was about a twenty-year old Floridian man who was trying to earn a living with his girlfriend that had just graduated high school. A person trying to support himself and achieve the benefits of the American dream, but faces uncertainty under the heavy hand of government regulation.

    When former State Senator John Pippy came to the podium, he adamantly said that we’re an energy rich nation. Pippy is the CEO of the newly formed PA Coal Alliance, which represents 41,000 workers. He said we have centuries worth of coal beneath our feet, along with natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, to make the United State energy independent. However, Barack Obama and his administration “hate coal.” They’ve added 148 new regulation on top of existing laws. Sen. Pippy also noted that 90% of PA’s coal goes directly to electricity production. That’s power that charges your iPhone, heats your home, maintains your air conditioning, and keeps your local medical services running (i.e life support systems). If you shut that down, needless to say, the cost of power will go up for everyone.

    The resonance this issue is astounding. As mentioned above, this press conference was unannounced, but the Capitol rotunda was quickly filled by representatives of the state legislature or their aides.

    Those in attendance included:

    Sen. Dan White- Indiana County

    Rep. Scott Hutchinson- Venango County

    Rep. Jeff Pyle- Armstrong County

    Rep. Jerry Knowles- Schuylkill County

    Rep. Carl Metzgar- Somerset County

    Rep. Kurt Masser- Colombia County

    Rep. Donna Oberlander- Clarion County

    Rep .Kathy Rapp- Warren County

    Rep. Steve Barrar- Delaware County

    Rep. Rick Saccone- Allegheny County

    Rep. Matt Gabler- Elk and Clearfield County

    Rep. Dick Hess- Bedford County

    Rep. Gene Yaw- Lycoming County

    Pennsylvania is a battleground state. Many who attended the conference were confident that PA will go for Romney. Currently, the state isn’t out of reach for the Governor, but he’s been spending most of his time in Ohio. Nevertheless, given that coal country encompasses Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and a wide swath of land along the Appalachian trail, this could very well be where the election is decided. It also plays a role in deciding the political fate of a lot of State House Representative and Senators in coal-rich counties in Pennsylvania.

    With the anger rising over this regulatory offensive on American enterprise, it’s looking as if Obama’s bad tryst with coal is going to hurt him and the Democratic Party in November.

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/10/17/war-on-coal-rattles-harrisburg-capitol-legislators-take-notice/

    • Glad to see this. My relatives in PA have been in the pocket of the Dems since FDR. Still call it Mr. Hoovers depression. Depression is the entire economy of the Anthracite region in Eastern Pa.

      When oh, when will people who have been repeatedly screwed by the dem party, blacks and coal miners for example, wake up and smell the coffee. What will it take for them to see that their fortunes are in constant decline?

      With the announcement last week that the administration wants to cover the west with solar collectors in roughly the amount it would take to cover Rhode island from top to bottom and side to side, where are the environmental benefits?

      Damn, I hate being right.

      PS, V.H. Are you a professional researcher or something? You always dig up great stuff.

      • Thanks 🙂 but no, I just read a lot of the internet- I seem to need a lot less sleep- the older I get. So I sit up and read. I refuse to work at 2 in the morning 🙂

  97. The voice from the left (sanity) … yous tell me if I’m fair … http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-debate-round-two-goes-to-obama-boy.html

    • Charlie, Fair? Somewhat, confused, yep, mostly! 🙂 All Obama had too do was show up and act like he knew what he was talking about and the Obamanots would deem him winner. The problem, and it will come down to this, is his record. Romney has produced more boys than Obama has produced jobs. Domestic Policy = Epic Fail ! Four dead Americans in Libya, Foriegn Policy = Epic Fail ! $4 a gallon gas, Energy Policy = Epic fail ! The first debate mattered, Obama is a failure, Biden is a condescending asshole. Nothing else matters. Obama/Biden = Epic fail ! Romney in a landslide of epic proportions 🙂

  98. This is Charlie’s world, where paying people to participate is called “coercion” because *gasp* they pay too much, so attract poor people to the study.

    Can’t have that, so to reduce the “coercion” on “poor people” they are cutting the pay.
    ..blink…

    The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001), writes that paying subjects to participate in medical experiments may be coercive. They go on to say that, if an institutional review board is concerned that the subjects in an experiment may be economically disadvantaged, it may require that the researchers reduce the payments they make to participants. The concern here is … to protect low-income participants from being faced with such a high participation fee that they would feel coerced to participate.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Mmmmmmmm…….can we say Board of Equalization perhaps??

      Rand is starting to look like a fortune teller.

    • And BF’s world is the one Steinbeck wrote about … not a problem, BF, your head’ll be on the block some day too … 🙂

      • So, taking Tom Joad as an example, where did he wind up you think? Perhaps a WW 2 vet with a GI bill education and a VA mortgage. Odds are that’s probably what happened. Married two or three kids. Kids went to college. Tom got a decent job, worked his ass off and dropped dead at 65 from overwork or, lived to a ripe old age. Kids went on to college, one dropped out, died of a drug overdose in Haight-Ashbury in ’66. Another served in Vietnam, also used the GI Bill went on to be a member of the town council, deacon in his church but has two kids who won’t talk to him since he won’t accept his daughters gay lifestyle. Tom;’s daughter did it all by the book, got educated, got married, had a couple of kids of her own. At 55 her husband left her to find himself with a 25 year old. He’s living in Fiji having raided his 401K leaving her to start over on her own.

        And that’s the way it is..

  99. Something to ponder………

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.00
    The sixth would pay $3.00
    The seventh would pay $7.00
    The eighth would pay $12.00
    The ninth would pay $18.00
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

    So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

    “Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.“ Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get their “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
    And so:

    The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
    The seventh now pays $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20“ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right, shouted the seventh man. “why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in union. “ We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!

    David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
    Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

  100. Just A Citizen says:

    My thought of the day.

    The Greater Good crowd is in fact a massive PARASITE. But it must keep the host alive or it will die. This Parasitic relationship with the PRODUCERS has existed for a hundred years or more in what can be described as a tenuous balance.

    Basically the victims agree to let the parasites continue as long as they don’t make to much of a deal about the relationship or demand too much. And as long as the Parasites allow them a little bonus once in awhile. But then comes along a more “radical” form of the Parasite. This form decides to publicly ridicule and chastise the host. It demands MORE and accuses the host of not giving enough.

    The host is startled and surprised by this new behavior. It begins to wonder what the future of this relationship might be and if it should perhaps consider ending the parasites hold on its life.

    This brings us to the current point in time. The Host is trying to decide what to do next. It is starting to withdraw and is considering whether to simply STOP the Parasitic relationship.

    We don’t know what the Producers will choose. Will they decide to continue even if the NEW Parasite continues to dominate? Will they go back to the old relationship if the Old Form of the Parasite regains control? Or will they finally realize how risky this association is and simply withdraw completely?

    I am rooting for the last option. Until the Producers decide to cast off the Parasites once and for all their lives will never be their own. They will NEVER be FREE.

    • My thought of the day.

      You’re a moron, JAC … 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        charlie

        And YOU are a Parasitic Vampire.

        • Coming to a neck like YOURS soon …

          What a putz …

          • Stop it!!! Total waste of time to just throw insults back and forth.

          • Oh Greater Good, interesting reading, but math is involved (I had to get the numbers ‘plained to me)

            The key concept here is the possible explanation of why a certain segment of the
            population would be willing to accept a smaller GDP, meaning a less wealthy nation overall, if that wealth were spread more evenly. We as a country are about 20% to 40% richer than Sweden, France, and the EU. But about 40% to 50% of us would be better off, as individuals, with the economy of one of those other countries (all else equal).

            We are not talking about cutting up a fixed pie differently. Even knowing the overall pie would shrink, a healthy portion of the population would be better off with more equality. That portion of the population, by voting to adopt more European policies, would be acting rationally. Yes, such policies would hurt the overall economy, but the bottom 40%-50% (let’s call it 47%) would be better off.

            Implicit in such thinking is the assumption that we could be like Europe, income distribution-wise, and nothing else would change. There is a fly in that ointment, but I’ll save that discussion for another day.

            And that, boys and girls, is today’s lesson in why so many people vote Democrat. Half of us are below average. OK, maybe only 47% of us.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/i_dream_of_gini.html#ixzz29m1fXzlp

  101. Just A Citizen says:

    For those who feel like reading a truck load of BULLSHIT from another “famous” Obama supporter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/obama-energy-policy_b_1985714.html

    • Romney will set us back 40 years!!!!! Hew, why not 140? I wonder what his secret plan is to pave over Yosemite followed by Yellowstone. Actually the first thing he should do as president is use eminent domain to seize Sundance in Utah so that all the people can enjoy it.

      What a moron, great actor but a moron. I have been reading this crap about cars getting 50plus miles per gallon thanks to Obama. This sounds a lot like Stalin. To bad we don’t have a labor camp or Lubyanka prison set up for engineers who will be unable to meet this goal. Hey, why not 100 miles per gallon? Maybe even mandate 1,000 miles.

  102. Reading this one-made my head hurt. But it sure brings back memories of just how far the left will go to undermind our system- to get what they want. Okay, those of you, who know the Constitution well enough to tackle this-any chance this is a viable argument to take to the SC??

    October 19, 2012
    The Origination Clause: Die Harder, ObamaCare!
    By Daniel Smyth

    Chief Justice John Roberts could begin his next Supreme Court decision regarding ObamaCare with the following statements: “Whoops, ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As ObamaCare involves taxes, the House — not the Senate — was constitutionally responsible for originating ObamaCare.”

    If Roberts agrees with the Pacific Legal Foundation’s (PLF) recent case against ObamaCare, then Roberts, as suggested above, could reverse his decision in June 2012 that most of ObamaCare is constitutional. On September 11, 2012, PLF sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that ObamaCare violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which reads as follows:

    All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

    PLF argues that ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate, which Roberts labeled a tax in his June 2012 decision, significantly raises government revenue. The Individual Mandate “taxes” individuals $695 and families $2,085 per year for not purchasing health insurance plans. In Roberts’ words, the mandate will produce “at least some revenue for the Government … about $4 billion per year by 2017.” As PLF notes, ObamaCare involves multiple other taxes “estimated to increase federal revenue by $486 billion by 2019.”

    The Senate originated ObamaCare by “amending” House Resolution (H.R.) 3590, titled the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. H.R. 3590 didn’t regulate health insurance, and this bill granted tax credits to service members seeking their first homes and increased corporate estimated taxes for certain companies by 0.5%. It’s unclear why the Senate picked H.R. 3590 to “amend” over other possible House bills. But surely one reason was because H.R. 3590, which would increase corporate estimated taxes, was a House bill for raising revenue.

    The Senate’s “amendment” on H.R. 3590 was a complete replacement of H.R. 3590’s title and text with ObamaCare. The following picture shows the front pages of the original H.R. 3590 and ObamaCare:

    With the Senate’s “amendment,” a six-page, double-spaced House bill became the 906-page, single-spaced ObamaCare. Between the House bill and ObamaCare, the only commonality is the label “H.R. 3590,” circled in red.

    Yale law professor Jack Balkin recently argued that the Supreme Court, under the Origination Clause, has granted the Senate leniency in replacing sections of House bills for raising revenue, even replacements unrelated to House bills’ original purposes. However, as PLF notes, the Supreme Court has never reviewed a Senate amendment that completely replaces the title and text of a House bill for raising revenue.

    Legal scholars have argued that PLF’s case may depend on the original meaning of the Origination Clause’s “amendments” or the clause’s grant that “the Senate may propose … amendments.” For instance, Michael Stern at Point of Order has argued that ObamaCare’s constitutionality may hinge on the meaning of “amendment.” Stern notes that Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1768), the most widely used dictionary at the Constitution’s ratification, defines “amendment” as “in law, a correction of an error committed in a process.” Stern suggests that this definition may exclude a Senate “amendment” that completely replaces the title and text of a House bill for raising revenue.

    Michael Rappaport, professor of law at the University of San Diego, suggests that the original meaning of the Origination Clause’s grant that “the Senate may propose … amendments” could allow the Senate to completely replace the title and text of a House bill for raising revenue. However, Rappaport notes that, in this understanding of “the Senate may propose … amendments,” the Senate must, before passing the bill, send the “amended” bill to the House for approval. In ObamaCare’s case, the Senate failed to take this step and simply passed the “amended” bill.

    To advance Stern’s and Rappaport’s arguments against ObamaCare’s constitutionality, PLF should consider the original meaning of the Origination Clause’s requirement that Senate amendments be “on … Bills.” The Origination Clause’s relevant portion is “the Senate may propose … amendments as on other Bills” (emphasis added). In more complete language, this portion appears to read, “the Senate may propose … amendments on House bills for raising revenue as on other Bills.”

    Although Stern doesn’t mention the following definitions in his argument, Johnson’s dictionary (1755) further defines “amendment” as “a change from bad for [sic] the better” and defines “to amend” as “to correct; to change anything that is wrong to something better.” Just considering these vague definitions, it’s possible that senators could tout a Senate amendment that completely replaces the title and text of a House bill for raising revenue as constitutional. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could have alleged that the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was bad for America, and as an amendment, ObamaCare made H.R. 3590 better.

    Regardless, PLF should also note that Johnson’s dictionary defines “on,” as in Senate amendments “on … Bills,” as “noting addition or accumulation” and “noting dependence or reliance.” “On,” in Johnson’s words, “is put before the word [that] … signifies … that by which anything is supported … or where anything is fixed.” To clarify Johnson’s definitions, consider that Dictionary.com defines “on” as “so as to be attached to or unified with; in connection, association, or cooperation with; as a part or element of.” Considering these definitions of “on,” Senate amendments must be an addition to or dependent on a bill, so as to be attached to or a part of a bill.

    So what’s a bill, anyway? According to Johnson, a “bill” is “a law presented to the parliament [or congress], not yet made an act,” with a “law” being “a rule of action” or “a decree, edict, statute, or custom, publically established as a rule of justice.” As an “amendment,” ObamaCare wasn’t “on” — that is, added to, dependent on, or a part of — any rule of action, decree, edict, statute, or custom. As discussed earlier, ObamaCare completely replaced the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 except for the label “H.R. 3590.” However, the label “H.R. 3590” isn’t a rule of action, decree, edict, statute, or custom. Thus, ObamaCare isn’t a Senate amendment “on a bill” as the Origination Clause requires. ObamaCare is only an amendment “on a bill label,” so in this original understanding of the Origination Clause’s “on … Bills,” ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

    Discussing whether the Founders meant Senate amendments to be modifications to and never entire replacements of House bills for raising revenue, Rappaport asked, “[With a Senate amendment,] how much of the original bill must be retained? Would a single small provision be adequate? If not, how much?” This article suggests a Senate amendment can’t just leave a bill label such as “H.R. 3590.” A Senate amendment must leave at least one House rule of action, decree, edict, statute, or custom. The Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the original H.R. 3590, had among others the following decrees relative to service members and corporate estimated taxes:

    [There will be a] waiver of recapture of first-time home-buyer credit for individuals on qualified official extended duty
    [There will be an] exclusion from gross income of qualified military base realignment and closure fringe
    [There will be an] increase in penalty for failure to file a partnership or S corporation return

    If the Senate had retained one of these decrees with its corresponding provisions when the Senate inserted ObamaCare into H.R. 3590, then, according to the Origination Clause, this article suggests that ObamaCare may have been constitutional.

    Of course, legal scholars should seek more evidence from the Founding era, such as Founders’ writings about bill amendments, to verify this article’s vision of the original meaning of the Origination Clause’s “on … Bills.” If this article is correct, then PLF should tell Roberts and the other justices that ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate may be a tax, but ObamaCare ain’t no amendment “on a bill.” With this statement to the justices, PLF’s main argument that the Senate shouldn’t have originated ObamaCare will ring true.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_origination_clause_die_harder_obamacare.html#ixzz29lfAXmkC

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      V.H., I am too tired to consume this entire article and I am not qualified but i will take a shot anyway, 🙂

      It was not ‘intended’ to be a tax so it did not need to originate in the house.

      Below is how Roberts ruled they avoided the anti injunction act.

      “But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con­stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction”

      Am I all wet? 🙂

      • Now that you are saying this-I remember the arguments from earlier comments. You are probably right-but I personally find Roberts arguments nuts-the intent is what matters-what if the intent was to be underhanded and to deceive. Wow, my head just isn’t equipped to nit pick words and meanings-this seems pretty simple to me-You shouldn’t be able to take a totally unrelated bill and just change it to something totally different and then claim it’s okay because the House wrote a bill.

        • I have one more thing to say before I start watching TV 🙂 the only time Intent seems unimportant is when they are interpreting the Constitution.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          If it was found unconstitutional because it did not begin in the house. They would probably just
          have the house take the same finished ACA and reintroduce it in the house to make it constitutional. AND I am so cynical these days after Robert’s ruling on the ACA that I belive the Republicans would find an excuse to reintroduce it themselves in the house.

          To carry further, an argument I previously made to vote for Romney was to keep the USSC more conservative, but after Robert’s twisted reasoning, I say why waste our time. It is frustrating to vote for Romney just to keep Obama out. Kinda like walking 12 steps forward to gain one step if that.

    • They’re not just taxing bullets-they plan on another dollar on every pack of cigarettes, tax on gambling machines, and even raising the permit price to go to some park to have a picnic-At some point they may realize if they stop making everything that people do more expensive, whether they approve of those activities or not, maybe there would be less crime.

      • VH, I first thought of the small shops that will be out of business because they will lose business. THis will not even slow the crime, but it will cost the idiot liberals money in the long run. Not only will they not get the taxes their imposing, they won’t get what ever their getting now in regular sales tax. Law abiding citizens will go outside the county for their purchases, crime will not change, the idiot government will lose money.

  103. The Rise of Childless Americans
    11:20 AM, Oct 19, 2012 • By JONATHAN V. LAST
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    Last week, I spent some time talking about demographics and the latest CDC birth numbers. There were a number of interesting aspects to this data, but the big takeaway
    was that the percentage of first-child births has hit an all-time low. As I said last week, this suggests that we’re slowly bifurcating into a society where we have two classes of adults: parents and non-parents.
    baby

    This divide is important enough—and shocking enough—that it’s worth talking about a little more explicitly.

    The latest numbers suggest that an amazingly high percentage of women today—18.8 percent—complete their childbearing years having had no children. Another 18.5 percent of women finish having had only one child. Together, that’s nearly 40 percent of Americans who go their entire lives having either one child or no children at all.

    And it’s a big change in behavior from the recent past. There have always been people who lived without having children—either by happenstance or by choice. But for all of American history, the numbers of this cohort were fairly small. In 1970, for instance, just about 8 percent of women completed their childbearing years with no children. (And only about 11 percent of women finished with only one child.) Over the next 40 years, those numbers rose almost without interruption. (The numbers ticked backward only once, in 2002.) This dramatic increase in childlessness—the number more than doubled—took place in just two generations and came at a time when medical advances were drastically improving the odds of infertile couples conceiving.

    So what happened?

    It’s a complicated answer. (I’ve written an entire book on precisely this question. It’s called What to Expect When No One’s Expecting and it comes out this January. You can pre-order your copy today!) But let’s make one big distinction about the causality.

    There are two schools of thought concerning America’s fertility decline: economics and culture. (Actually there are three schools, but we’ll set that third one aside for the time being.) The economic school says that macroeconomic changes in American life have made having babies less important. As we moved from agriculture to industry, from rural life to urban life, children became both less helpful and more expensive. What’s more, the advent of Social Security and then Medicare inserted the government into family life by giving the state responsibilities for taking of the elderly that children once bore.

    What the entitlement state meant was that for the first time in history, people didn’t need children to care for them in their old age. The government would do it. Socializing this cost created a market distortion. Children are expensive to raise and everybody gets the government’s geezer goodies, whether they pay for the cost of creating new taxpayers or not. So only the suckers have kids.

    That’s the economic argument. And I don’t mean to dismiss it, because it has been an important driver in what’s happened to fertility in America. But as to the specific question we’re looking at today—the rise of childless Americans in the last 40 years—it just isn’t sufficient to explain the shift. After all, by 1970, Social Security had been on the books for a generation. And when you look at our fertility numbers, they’d been trending slightly downward since 1950 as the Baby Boom faded. But just around 1970, they went into a nosedive.

    Which brings us to the second explanation: It’s the culture. What happened beginning in 1970 was a massive change in American culture. Just to tick off a few of the most obvious changes: abortion, contraception, marriage, divorce, and religious practice. Each of these subjects underwent titanic shifts beginning in or about 1970. And as our relationship to them changed, so did our behavior with regards to family life.

    Where does that leave us today? With one final, scary thought. What if our new reality—the fact that a fifth of Americans no longer bother to have children at all—exerts its own pull on our demographics? There’s some data from Europe and the Far East to suggest that once a critical mass of people choose to remain childless, their example influences young adults and alters their behaviors and expectations. To give you just one example, Germany has had a higher degree of childlessness than America, and for a longer time. In a 2006 survey of fertility aspirations, 23 percent of German men said that having no children was the ideal form of family life. Think about that for a moment. And now think about what it means for a civilization to have a quarter of its men not interested in having any children at all.

    It calls to mind a deeply profound point from Christopher Caldwell’s recent profile of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Confronting his country’s demographic crisis, Orbán said:

    “Demography is the key factor. If you are not able to maintain yourself biologically, how do you expect to maintain yourself economically, politically, and militarily?” he asks. “It’s impossible. The answer of letting people from other countries come in …that could be an economic solution, but it’s not a solution of your real sickness, that you are not able to maintain your own civilization.”

    The reason we care about fertility numbers and demographics is because this—our civilization—is exactly what’s at stake.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rise-childless-americans_654984.html?page=1

  104. I have noticed that many Christian pastors who normally support the Democrat Party are coming out in great opposition to Obama supporting gay marriage. Yet they have stuck with the democrats when they support abortion, which also goes against Christianity. I find I do not understand the reasoning.

    • Neither do they. They all remind me of the sci-fi movies where the computer goes crazy and spews out “does not compute”, “does not compute”.

      These folks unfortunately have no clue about anything. Because they are “for” people and have great personal empathy as well as a religious calling to serve the poor, they buy into the rhetoric of the Democrats. Actions do not matter, only mealy mouth words backed by inaction. They are so foolish in believing that all politicians are moved (well at least the democratic ones) by a desire to help the poor rise. They are incapable of relating the evil that has been done in the name of good in history to contemporary times. They do not understand, because it does not interest them, the need of some for pure, raw power.

      As I have said before, I have known it seems, hundreds of good people whose future was destroyed by the easy availability of welfare. Welfare reform of the ’90’s demonstrated that these folks could do very well for themselves but once they did, they were no longer an automatic vote. The cynic in me sees the current financial crisis as a godsend to the democrats. It gives them the opportunity to re-introduce programs with a history of chronic failure to a new generation who does not know that history. Those of us who have been through it don’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of getting our message out since to do so seems “cruel and heartless”.

      Guys like Charlie, Buck and Matt who I admire a great deal and who I think are pretty smart guys fall into the trap of being stuck in the present, the now. In order to understand the present, one must know the past. For Charlie to equate anything today to “the Grapes of Wrath” sets my brain on fire. Matt and Buck are separated by an entire generation from those times. Unless they asked Grammie or Grandpa or unless their parents passed on the tales, they have the excuse of just being lazy and not doing the extra credit homework. Charlie is about ten years younger than me, a NYC boy and no doubt ran into victims of the great depression every day while he was growing up. Being a writer and by definition an observer, how could he miss the differences?

      Regarding the professional do gooder class, I’ll riddle you this. Why can’t they understand that open borders mean an eventual destruction of our working, lower middle and middle class? In my own family, we were the strikebreakers. We were the non-english speakers, hungry for work who repeatedly undid all the gains in the coal fields that our Irish, Welsh and Scot predecessors accomplished. It was only because of the First World War and the post war door shutting that our people finally got wise enough to join with their colleagues and demand safe working conditions, a fair wage and decent hours. The inability of management to just can them all and replace them with new cheap immigrant labor required that management listen to them and forced the mine owners into innovations that brought down production costs offsetting the higher labor cost. While I could spend hours talking about how the unions threw all their gains and the high moral ground
      away with their excesses, the fact remains, that an unending pool of cheaper and cheaper labor spells the doom of this country. Just try to find a Holy Joe today who would agree the door should be closed to protect those already here. They just cannot relate present policy to the creation of the new Calcutta.

      • Buon Giorno, a tutti wingnuts!

        For Charlie to equate anything today to “the Grapes of Wrath” sets my brain on fire.

        Interesting, Stephen. So the people living in tents in Sacramento and here in New Jersey (and homeless veterans sleeping under bridges for shelter, etc.), reminds you nothing of the The Grapes of Wrath? No, we haven’t hit that level of depression yet, but try and move up with the times, my friend. The weapon of income/money (the way nation states use it as sanctions against other nation states) is pretty much the same as corporations cutting loose X amount of workers to save the fat cats and investors money, hiring outsourced labor to increase profits. Farmers during the depression in CA, did pretty much the same thing as you righties (whether on purpose or from just being naive) do today, which is to set the little guys against each other. Non-union people blaming unions for their woes, when their woes come from greedy employers who maximize profits at their expense. (See Bain Capital, et al) …

        Here are some tent cities in New Jersey, Stephen. Maybe you’re the one needs to learn how to “observe” http://www.businessinsider.com/lakewood-new-jersey-homeless-tent-city-2011-9?op=1 … you can also visit a few of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_United_States

        Of course those people aren’t quite the parasites others taking welfare are (and maybe they’ll die off and increase the property values of the places they’re currently smelling up so “investors” can buy up that land for profit too someday … maybe you need to work harder at taking from the parasites so the numbers of homeless are so great, you can have them shot at (thus decreasing the world’s population?) … because why shouldn’t you have a conspiracy to get rid of them since YOU’RE so convinced they have a conspiracy to take from you?

        Matt and Buck are separated by an entire generation from those times. Unless they asked Grammie or Grandpa or unless their parents passed on the tales, they have the excuse of just being lazy and not doing the extra credit homework. Charlie is about ten years younger than me, a NYC boy and no doubt ran into victims of the great depression every day while he was growing up. Being a writer and by definition an observer, how could he miss the differences?

        The thing you really need to do, Stephen, is not try and extrapolate something 80 years ago and place it “literally” onto 2012. Seriously, have you ever heard of an analogy?

        Observe this: In the US living standards for some 16% of the population is already at poverty levels equal to the 1930s. Can you imagine where it would be without food stamps and extended unemployment, etc. this is caused by the wages of debt, accompanied by the disparity and inequality between the rich and the poor. That 16% is a total of some 45 million Americans. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26887.html

        Bottom line, the widening gap between the haves and have-nots is what will turn things around, not trickle-down economics. The have-nots are the reason the haves have, so to speak. The sooner they figure that out, the better. Starve enough of them, my friend, and it’s a guarantee recipe for revolution. And there’s some history for you to “observe” …

        • Good morning Captain Canolli 🙂 Just a thought about your post, the last time that wealth was so concentrated (top 5% or so), we had the Great Depression. THe economy sucks, the dollar is devaluing and unemployment in NOT getting better. THe difference between me and you, is we want different changes. Peace old man 😆

        • In 1932, my grandfather died, my father, the oldest boy at home, age 15 had to quit school and take what work he could find to support his mother and four siblings. Those were “Grapes of Wrath Times”. There was no social safety net, no home relief, no food stamps.

          Since the 1960’s we have been waging a war on poverty and have lost. Despite the Trillion and a half dollars spent. Minorities have given their votes to one political party for seventy years and are in even more dire straits than they were before with entire generations lost along with their culture.

          In 1989, when I left Government employment I had an experience that will stay with me till the day I die. My company had bought a semi vacant building on Davidson Avenue in the West Bronx. I was the construction manager. My first time on the block showed me about 14 apartment houses, all but three vacant. In addition, there were a number of vacant lots especially towards Tremont avenue. The cops stopped me and wanted to know why I was there. When I told them, they cautioned me to be careful. A week before, Red Cross workers had been mugged while they were tending to people made homeless by one of the endemic fores on the block.

          After visiting the building, I got back in my van and drove North towards Tremont. It was “the Heart of Darkness”. It was the trip up river in “Apocalypse now.” I wish that I had a video camera though I would probably have been killed for it. Shacks made of refrigerator boxes, 55 gallon drums afire with people standing around keeping warm. The vacant looks in the eyes of the Zombie drug addicts. The city had written the area off years before, services, were non-existent. Leave your car on the street overnight, unless you were a dealer, and if you were lucky you only lost your tires and battery. This was one of those times in my career when I wondered exactly what I had gotten myself into.

          Took us a couple of years to get the building on track, in the interim a couple of other adventurous types bought other vacant buildings and renovated them. The city came in, built some new stuff, dead ended Davidson Ave and built a new school at the end of the street, fronting on Tremont. It was unrecognizable which is, I am sure, what residents of the area in the early 60’s would have said had they seen it in ’89.

          So, poverty is there, I know what it looks like. I also know that today’s poverty is quite different from that of the ’30’s. That little magic word “drugs” has an impact absent in my Father’s day. I look at the people in Bush/Obamaville and ask why are they there. Who would leave Florida for the Pine barrens of NJ? Why is the Polish lady not back in Poland? Of course with a criminal/drug history you are not going find a job easily. But, the one I love the best and know the most about is the huge surplus of unskilled labor in the area and its direct relation to ….UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION. I have friends in the area around exit 88 on the GSP. Go to the Home Depot parking lot some morning and wave a 20 dollar bill around.

          I have ignored the sociological aspect of the past fifty years. Where are the tight cohesive families? Where is the familial intervention stepping in to help? My dad probably was the reason his siblings and their family survived (and incidentally, all but him got to finish High School) but there were the relatives who helped, the church community, the neighbors. In our increasing dependence on government we have lost all this. We barely know our neighbors and don’t live within hundreds of miles of our relatives. It is a choice we have made.

          I find the issue of charity instructive and the general cheapness of people these days. I have run a few events myself over the years and am amazed what it takes to pull a lousy dollar out of the pocket of someone who makes hundreds of thousands of them over the year. A few years ago someone turned me onto Joe Biden’s (that’s him and Mrs Dr. Biden’s), Al Gore’s and Bill Clinton’s charitable giving. Fortunately it is all public record. While they (except for Gore) all give today they did not until they became national public figures. Being the equal opportunity basher I am, I should point out that unlike Romney, Ryan is pretty stingy for a devout, practicing Catholic. I know he has young children to raise still but hey, when I was his age with four kids, I gave a larger percentage.

          We are our brothers keeper, that is the “we” personally. We will as St. Paul says, always have the poor with us. I have spent a huge part of my life trying to point people in the right direction, tenants, employees, co-workers and am repeatedly amazed at their stubborn insistence on repeating the same mistakes over and over and then blaming someone else. I was going to save the world at 21 by 41 I had decided if I could save 25% I was doing good. By 61, I discovered, Lo!, that anyone who wanted to be saved had to acknowledge the fact and that they had screwed up and be willing to change what they were doing. The entire universe should be run like a 12 step program!

          Now, thanks for screwing up my day, I’m at least 45 minutes behind schedule.

          • Since the 1960′s we have been waging a war on poverty and have lost. Despite the Trillion and a half dollars spent. Minorities have given their votes to one political party for seventy years and are in even more dire straits than they were before with entire generations lost along with their culture.

            You can always line them up and shoot them … or drop a bomb on these enclaves of parasites. That might work for the Ayn Randers of the world.

            Everybody has an anecdote (especially Paul Ryan), Stephen … but the fact remains you can do one of two things with people in distress (whether it be drugs or poverty or whatever) … you can try and help them or let them rot. You seem to blame much on the lack of familial and church values … and maybe (I don’t think so, but maybe) you’re right. Do you really think you will ever superimpose those same values in a world that has moved on (for better, which I think, or worse, which you think)? And that leaves you with the same dilemma; the one or two things you can do. I’m gonna suggest you opt for helping people through government … because charity isn’t going to cut it across the board … and if you don’t help them, you’ll realize what Dickens wrote about so effectively so long ago: Ignorance and Want: “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased…”

            🙂

            • So, anyhow, how we gonna lift that ignorance thing anyway? Seriously I take all your points in but flatly do not believe that government can actually do a damned thing. You seem quite willing to pass the buck to a bunch of salaried hacks. Are there those out there who work for government and care? Sure but they are counterbalanced by those who don’t care, at last equal in number I think.

              Your own little video shows just who is taking care of these people, a pastor and a church. Government, wants them to go away.

              And where I may ask is my answer about the unfettered immigration which has destroyed all the gains labor had made? Who, is willing to stand up and say, bringing the entire civilization down to the level of Calcutta benefits no one? I know I fight the left and right on this one and for totally different reasons but the truth is the truth.

              Anecdotes, anecdotes? I have a hundred. If I think about all the folks I have met and known in the last 65 years, maybe a thousand or more. These are not made up stories, not exceptions to the rule. This is not one magic rabbit pulled out of a hat. These are real things that happened to real people where they have overcome at least partly because they had no other choice. I’ll give you a better example than my Dad. Every Holocaust survivor I have ever known. Talk about starting out from scratch. Who was there for them? Think back into your own family history. Who helped?

              My reason fro bring up the government vs. private charity thing was to demonstrate how easy it is to put the poor and downtrodden out of your mind. Once you can say, “I gave at the office” you are off the hook. So, I pay taxes, taxes take care of the poor, I am off the hook, no?
              You are the guy who should listen to Dickens, there is another line, same story, “Are there no workhouses?”. That’s the government at work. Frankly as much as I think that the folks stuck down in the pine barrens may have themselves as the root cause of their problems, I am one hell of a lot more confident that the good Reverend will help and the Mormon missionary kids than the Cumberland County Department of Social Services (who close at 5). .

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          Maybe you should take your own advice.

          One of your Grapes of Wrath sites:

          Dignity Village is a city-recognized encampment of an estimated 60 homeless people in Portland, Oregon, United States.

          In the days before Christmas of 2000, a group of homeless people in Portland succeeded in establishing a tent city which garnered a great deal of both opposition and support, and quickly evolved from a group of self-described “outsiders” who practiced civil disobedience, to a self-regulating, city-recognized “campground” as defined by Portland city code.

          Now featuring dedicated land near Portland International Airport, elected community officials and crude but functional cooking, social, electric, and sanitary facilities,[1] Dignity Village got its start as a collection of tents and campers “squatting” illegally on unused public land near Downtown Portland.

          Ooops…… established Christmas 2000

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          And here is another, which refers to its brother/sister tent cities in Seattle:

          Tent City 4 is a homeless encampment of up to 100 persons operated by homeless residents and sponsored by 501(c)(3) organizations Seattle Housing and Resources Effort (SHARE) and Women’s Housing Equality and Enhancement League (WHEEL). The camp was created in May 2004 and limits itself to places of worship in eastern King County outside of Seattle. Minors are not allowed in Tent City 4, although there is a provision for emergency situations. Residents may use their own tents or community tents that are segregated by gender. Dumpsters, portable toilets and a shower, paid for by SHARE, are provided to address sanitation concerns. In order to control access to the encampment, there is only one entry/exit to the camp that is guarded at all times.

          Unlike its sister tent city in Seattle, Tent City 3, which moves around Seattle with little to no resistance, Tent City 4’s meanderings are often met with stiff resistance from some residents of the communities it moves into. King County and many of the cities therein have subsequently established land-use codes in an attempt to balance the desire of faith-based organizations to host the camp and the concerns of some of its neighbors over health and safety.

          Oooops, Established 2004.

          • And the articles touching on 2012, moron? Nothing clever to point to there?

            JAC, what is fascinating about you is your arrogance. It’s close to BF’s … you keep trying, I know. I only wish you (and BF) could be there the day it (your arrogance) gets rammed up your ass. I’d suggest talking to people without advantage to their faces (like go to the tent city in Jersey and spew some of your bullshit) but you don’t even have the guts to use your own name on a blog.

            You kind of remind me of Mitt (the war monger Romney) actually … did you write love letters in the sand to your betrothed while others (mostly disadvantaged) were getting killed and/or maimed in Vietnam (so you could sprout your pariotic bullshit anonymously)? Something tells me, probably not. 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              New Jersey tent city……… 100 people.

              No where near the Grapes of Wrath era.

              Your cryin’ stories are nothing but emotional pleas, a hope to destroy REASON.

              How ironic that your “tent cities” are groups of people who have “self organized” and seem to be functioning quite well despite Govt rather than being dependent upon Govt.

              I thought this was impossible according to you?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              Definition of ARROGANT
              1
              : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
              2
              : showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance

              I’ll leave it up to the JURY to decide how this word fits and to whom it applies.

              • So long as the jury can define parasite, moron. You call people parasites like every other coward I know … from an anonymous keyboard. Stay proud, buddy …

              • When there are people who hate those that advocate non-violence and freedom…
                When there are governments who invade homes, imprison without trail, and send people off to be tortured for merely expressing a view point…

                Yeah, a bit of anonymity is a prudent exercise.

            • Charlie, The message was clear, people can lift themselves up without GOVT. I wonder who many generations have been lost in the inner cities sucking on the Govt teat? When you can’t handle the message (the truth) why lower yourself to attack the messenger? C’MON MAN 🙄

  105. One of my daughters friends just dropped by-in his twenties-asked me who I was voting for-I told him-and guess what he said-He is voting for Ron Paul-Oh well, at least he didn’t say Obama. Is Ron Paul even on the ballot?

    • Not where I live. We have Ds, Rs, Green, Natural Law and US Taxpayers.

    • October 20, 2012
      The Perfect Candidate
      Russ Vaughn

      I just spoke with my thirty-something niece — a very intelligent young woman, an Army wife stationed in Alaska, and a mother of four — who has been pondering whether to vote for the libertarian candidate in the coming election because Mitt Romney just doesn’t meet all her needs. As I explained to her, Romney wasn’t my first choice, either. I was big on my former Texas governor until he blew it big-time in the Republican debates. So be it; your guy drops the ball, and you hand off to the next-strongest runner.

      My libertarian niece is a supporter of Ron Paul. I reminded her that Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul, are both registered Republicans and achieved their present offices as such. They selected the Republican Party because its principles most closely reflect those of libertarians, and because the Republican Party offers libertarians a seat at the table. Democrats, most assuredly, do not. I asked her if she believes that the bedrock principle of libertarian thought is limited government control over the individual, and she assured me that she does. Then, I asked her, that being so, which of the two leading presidential candidates offers libertarians the best opportunity to have a voice in the future of our country — a Democrat socialist hell-bent on federal control of virtually every aspect of our lives, or a Republican businessman and capitalist, with a growing Tea Party snapping at his heels, who seeks to curtail federal expansion? She conceded that it must be the Republicans.

      We ended the call with her agreeing that the best probability for libertarians would be a vote for Romney. I would hope that others out there who have a problem with voting for Romney because he just isn’t their perfect candidate would consider the hard truth that as conservatives and libertarians, we must face the reality that perfection isn’t ours to be had. But then, we must consider the alternative: Barack Obama, who was, in fact, back in 2008, considered the perfect candidate. And as the saying goes:

      “How’d that work out for you, America?”

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/the_perfect_candidate.html#ixzz29rQ1Guxx

  106. Uh-Oh!

    Good news: Interior Department creating their very own climate-change committee

    posted at 12:41 pm on October 19, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

    Because none of the hydra-like heads of the Obama administration’s ever-growing bureaucracy can ever be really complete without it’s own personal council of green-energy-promotin’, climate-change-science-pushin’ environmentalist types, the Interior Department is all set to get their special board of eco-advisers to help them inform their decisions on future policy-making, whoop-de-doo. Human Events has the scoop:

    The Interior Department announced the new bureaucracy in a recent federal registry notice along with a call for nominations by Nov. 19 to seat the 25-member board.

    The notice specifically states membership will be comprised of state and local government employees, non-governmental organizations, Native American tribes, academia, individual landowners and business interests.

    “In addition, the committee may include scientific experts, and will include rotating representation from one or more of the institutions that host the (Interior Department) Climate Science Centers,” the notice said. …

    The committee will advise on a national strategy to identify “key science priorities to advance management of natural resources in the face of climate change.”

    While I’m sure we’ll all look forward to seeing if Salazar picks candidates for the Interior’s committee the same way the EPA does on the waste/fraud/abuse scale, this is really an insidious little piece of policy-making, too. I’d bet big money that this is not going to be a dispassionate, balanced committee looking for ways to keep bureaucrats noses out of Americans’ private property and businesses; rather, it’s going to ‘inform’ the Interior Department’s already-made-up collective mind with contrived reasons to further regulate, control, and acquire land.

    That’s a damn shame if you actually happen to care about the environment rather than imposing your vision of what you think the new, green world should look like on the masses, because the federal government is time and again a demonstrably awful steward of America’s natural resources; for instance, when wildfires smothered the Western states this past summer, environmentalists were all-too-eager to blame the raging fires on climate change and a hotter planet, while giving the big-government, impoverishing, land-lockdown policies that actually caused the catastrophic wildfires a completely free pass.

    But hey, by all means, let’s just keep growing the government’s merry band of eco-crusaders and endow them with enough regulatory fiat that no mere commoner will be able to challenge their ostensibly conservation-minded ways. It’s all for the good of the planet, right?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/19/good-news-interior-department-creates-their-very-own-climate-change-committee/

  107. One for try 🙂

    http://www.pjtv.com/

    • Excellent points, my only criticism would be that it is incumbent to point out to Romney that he is the NOT OBAMA candidate and that will be the difference between his win and his loss. Obama either never understood that he was elected solely because he was NOT BUSH or was so full of hubris that he did not even notice (I prefer the latter option).

      So, as much as a pain as it will be, Mr. Romney will have to have news conferences up the kazoo to go over the media, use the bully pulpit and explain in clear, simple terms to the American people exactly what he is doing and why.

      The greatest achievement of Franklin Roosevelt for at least the first six years of his administration was that although his programs and policies accomplished nothing to end the great depression, he never stopped talking directly to the people about a better tomorrow. Love him or hate him, that kept the country from falling into chaos. ,

      • I dunno SK. I am soo tired of seeing and hearing Obama. He loves to mug the camera. I remember Bush not being quite so visible..as though he was actually busy WORKING. I hope that WHEN Romney wins that we only see or hear from him once a month or so…send the ‘problem of the day’ guy out..maybe even Ryan..to handle the cameras

        • Fine, just let somebody get out there and use that Bully Pulpit. Do not let your enemies set the discourse. Obama mugged for the camera but said nothing. Bush was too busy to be bothered. We need someone who will take the people through the process, lay out the “whys” not allow someone else to.

          McKinley did in fact use T. Roosevelt for this purpose during the 1900 campaign.

  108. Let’s figure this out….

    As an investor, the Obama Administration has taken billions and invested in several projects termed “green”. To date, 35 of these projects that have received over 300 billion are bankrupt and being dissolved. In addition, the CEO’s of these green companies (29 of them) have received over 50 billion in salaries and benefits. Further, all 29 are Obama donors.

    Now, I do not know about any of you, but if I had a financial investor that took my money and invested it in even ONE bankrupt company……he would be fired. IMMEDIATELY. Even the most LIBERAL investor, would fire their investment manager.,,,,,SO……why are you not firing Obama?

  109. Another classic example of shooting yourself in the foot, or perhaps missing the foot and shooting yourself in the head. When oh when will these guys realize that to be actively political and on everybody’s radar means you live your life under a microscope. So, no matter what your desires may be, you either have to forgo them or at least put them on hold until you are out of the limelight.

    Absolutely perfect timing, weeks before the election, and literally just as the video is released. Now, what any of this might have to do with hypocrisy regarding his critique of Obama, I cannot figure but that’s the term being bandied about by his critics. Cannot wait till Bill Maher works him over next week. The guy might as well go back to India.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/dinesh-souza-steps-manhattan-school-tryst-article-1.1187226

    • Yet, you do not really consider what you yourself have said.

      You argue that ad homenien – a typical fallacy of attacking the man, not his argument – is perfectly valid in arguments of politics! Why?

      Why does a fallacy of reason become a truth “over here”?

      It -again- points to the insanity of involving one is such an arena – not because of the microscope vision, but because it is -literally- irrational and insane.

      • It is not valid but it is a tool that is used. Should it? No, never.

        Over the years I have resisted attacking people in any walk of life over things that do not specifically relate to their job performance.

        DeSouza is not running for anything. His marital fidelity has no bearing on anything nor should it. If these things were the general standard, nobody would be qualified for anything. If DeSouza were my pastor and telling me how to live a good moral life, his actions may, and that is just may raise my eyebrows.

  110. Book: Rise of gender and ethnic studies programs helped bring about decline of modern academia
    1:17 AM 10/18/2012

    Modern academia has gone astray and identity studies programs are in large part the culprit, argues author and poet Bruce Bawer in his new book ”The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.”

    “Identity studies sum up everything that’s wrong with the humanities today,” Bawer told The Daily Caller. “They’re about nothing other than group identity, group oppression, and group grievance. Instead of engaging in objective scholarly study of, say, black American history or women’s literature, these departments are boosters for everything having to do with the group in question. It’s all slogans. Kids don’t learn anything other than to think of themselves as having been wronged by capitalism, by the West, by America, by white men.”

    Bawer says that this has consequences beyond the classroom.

    “Young people who have been brainwashed in college by all this groupthink head out into the world and are constantly on the alert for ‘racism’ and ‘sexism,’” he told TheDC.

    “And they find these things everywhere, just as they were trained to. If they hear a white person criticizing President Obama – boom! Racist. If a man has something negative to say about Hillary Clinton – boom! Sexist. It’s simple as that. These kinds of knee-jerk reactions are daily fare nowadays. It’s the only way the products of these cockamamie programs have learned how to think about anything. They make these facile, baseless charges and actually think they’re making insightful moral judgments. It doesn’t bode well for America’s future.”

    Read more of TheDC’s interview with Bawer about his new book, what he would tell students about to go to college and much more.

    Why did you decide write the book?

    Because all too many college students and their parents are being gypped. They’re paying for an education – and instead they’re getting indoctrination.

    What is the Victims’ Revolution?

    Education in the humanities used to mean learning about, and learning to appreciate, the glories of Western civilization – accomplishments that were made possible, in large part, by capitalism and individualism. Now, too often, it means being taught to despise Western capitalism and individualism, and to see Western civilization as a plot by white males to oppress members of other groups. Students are trained to see everything around them in terms of the power of oppressor groups over victim groups. They’re trained to cultivate resentment and to pour out ideological, jargon-heavy rhetoric about revolution. They think they’re having their eyes opened about the world but all they’re doing is being turned into robots parroting old, worn-out Marxist slogans.

    What was the purpose of higher education before the Victims’ Revolution, compared to what it seems to be today?

    Ideally, the purpose of humanities education was, among other things, to learn about history and culture; to learn to develop one’s own taste; and to learn to think critically and to discuss ideas profitably with people who thought differently than you did. Now it’s about becoming politically correct – adopting the same views as your teacher and everyone else in the class. It’s sheer brainwashing. And so many kids don’t even realize they’re being brainwashed!

    What is wrong with “identity studies” – i.e. women’s studies, black studies, queer studies, etc.? Why aren’t they real academic disciplines?

    Identity studies sum up everything that’s wrong with the humanities today. They’re about nothing other than group identity, group oppression, and group grievance. Instead of engaging in objective scholarly study of, say, black American history or women’s literature, these departments are boosters for everything having to do with the group in question. It’s all slogans. Kids don’t learn anything other than to think of themselves as having been wronged by capitalism, by the West, by America, by white men. College should bring together young people from different backgrounds so they can learn to get along, respect one another, and appreciate all that they have in common. Instead these pernicious “disciplines” encourage them to pigeonhole themselves and others and to see only differences.

    What have been some of the consequences of the revolution for society at large?

    Young people who have been brainwashed in college by all this groupthink head out into the world and are constantly on the alert for “racism” and “sexism.” And they find these things everywhere, just as they were trained to. If they hear a white person criticizing President Obama – boom! Racist.If a man has something negative to say about Hillary Clinton – boom! Sexist. It’s simple as that. These kinds of knee-jerk reactions are daily fare nowadays. It’s the only way the products of these cockamamie programs have learned how to think about anything. They make these facile, baseless charges and actually think they’re making insightful moral judgments. It doesn’t bode well for America’s future.

    Are you hopeful things will change?

    I have to be. By writing this book, I’m trying to help bring about a change. And I’m inspired by others who are in there fighting as well. People like David Clemens at Monterey Peninsula College in California, who singlehandedly took on a humanities program as benighted as any of them and managed to institute a Great Books Program and to teach a course about male culture – an effort to undo some of the damage done by women’s studies courses which relentlessly depict men as naturally violent and as potential rapists.

    What would you suggest to kids about to enter college today?

    Don’t just go by the annual rankings in those magazines. Do some Googling. Check out the course offerings at various colleges in the departments you’re interested in. The course titles and descriptions alone can tell you a lot about whether they’re serving up a lot of vapid, ideology-driven nonsense or courses of actual substance. Look at the website of an organization like the National Association of Scholars [(NAS)], which has been combating these nefarious trends for years, and find out who belongs to the NAS, who’s writing for them these days, and where they teach. This sort of thing can get you started on the way to an education worthy of the name.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/book-rise-of-gender-and-ethnic-studies-programs-helped-bring-about-decline-of-modern-academia/#ixzz29rfIxw32

  111. Mitt Romney Can Win Pennsylvania Because He Is Winning the “Jobs” Argument

    Posted on October 19, 2012. Filed under: General Surveys, In The News |

    Our latest Pennsylvania poll conducted 10/11-10/13 and released by the Washington Examiner October 18th shows Mitt Romney has taken the lead over President Obama by a 49-45 margin. This automated poll, conducted with 1,376 likely voters, was conducted on behalf of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, and released publicly by the Pa GOP shortly thereafter. This poll validates our last three publicly released polls showing the Keystone State as a tossup – including a pair of polls taken before the first televised presidential debate in Denver both showing the Keystone State was already in play even when other firms continued to suggest Obama would win by huge margins.

    The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is winning Pennsylvania because he is winning the “jobs” argument. Every statewide poll we have done the past three years shows Pennsylvanians want the economy fixed. According to our latest polls, the economy continues to be cited as the most important problem facing the Commonwealth– mentioned by nearly fifty percent and far ahead of any other issue. And the PA Labor Department released its revised unemployment report showing the state’s unemployment rate (8.2%) now officially higher than the nation’s 7.8%. So Pennsylvanians are still suffering from a bleak economy, more so perhaps than neighboring states like Ohio that can attribute their recent job gains to the auto industry. This explains why some need to warm up to the argument that Pa’s electoral votes could be up for grabs.

    Among Keystone State voters in our poll who say the economy and job creation is the most important issue that will influence their vote, voters prefer Romney over Obama by a 54% to 40% margin. This is clear evidence Romney is winning the jobs argument. Voters in Western Pa, who tend to be blue collar, working class Democrats, care about jobs and resent the President’s war on coal. In the Pittsburgh market, Romney is on track to run up huge margins. In the vote-rich Southeast collar counties around Philadelphia, Romney is neck-and-neck with Obama because these more affluent, better educated suburban voters identify with Mitt Romney and a lot of what he stands for. They know he’s not an extremist, know he cares about kids and women, saved the Olympics and wants deficits under control. Everyone knows Republicans can’t win Pa without doing well in the Southeast, and Romney is poised to make history there. And there is mounting evidence voters know that the natural gas boom in Pennsylvania is under a direct threat from a second Obama term – while Romney has made it clear he will do everything in his power to cultivate this growing gas industry that has already kept thousands of Pennsylvania families from joining the ranks of the unemployed.

    This is why our statewide polling was the first to show Romney with an improved image in the Commonwealth after the first debate – 48% now view him favorably, a huge reversal from pre-debate polling. And this is a clear indication even in a “blue” state like Pennsylvania voters are smart enough to know that having a leader in the White House who understands job creation is more important than having the letter “R” or “D” posted outside the Oval office door.

    So the fact of the matter is that pundits who dismiss Pennsylvania as a tossup are using the wrong set of assumptions. This is why our publicly-released polling continues to show that Pennsylvania’s electoral votes could go to Romney – even when many other polling firms continue to show huge 2008-size leads for Obama that are simply not believable in the current polarized climate. Other recent polling firms showing Obama with huge leads in Pa have systematically under sampled Republicans by an average of 5 to 8 points. This is a huge miscalculation in sampling error especially in a year where GOP enthusiasm is especially high and Republican voters are repeatedly telling pollsters they will vote for Romney by margins of 95-5. Our ratio of Republicans to Democrats surveyed in all our Pa polls has been 48D-42R, a good road map for turnout and one that nationally renowned experts like Michal Barone have argued makes sense. And if the recent news is to believed showing Pa Democrats have failed to hit their goals for absentee ballot requests and new registrations, this could be the first tactical evidence that Mitt Romney is ready to join former President George Bush “41” as the most recent GOP presidential candidate to win the Keystone State.

    http://sprblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/mitt-romney-can-win-pennsylvania-because-he-is-winning-the-jobs-argument/

%d bloggers like this: