Weekend Open Mic Part II

To speed up loading, I’ve added this. It seems that the last page was loading really slow. If it’s me, let me know. Bring forward what you want!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Hope this is not an inconvenience. 🙂

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Life of Illusion says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:13 am • Edit

    Dear Todd,

    I think some people loose interest in SUFA when it gets petty with personal attacks and sarcasm. “grow up & act like an adult?” You expect that to inspire a meaningful exchange of ideals? You want to use the Flagster where it suits you but skip over his conclusion is ALL government must be eliminated for true freedom and prosperity. I have talked with USW about our liberal posters and wondered why they have never written an article. He said he’s reached out several times but no takers. You are a great writer, well informed & opinionated. But you never have put an ideal out there first, have you? So much safer & easier to sit back and bash our offerings. You boldly go nowhere.

    How about some insight to you thoughts? As a liberal, how do you think Obama’s foreign policy is working? Is the world safer/better where he’s been active?
    Egypt?
    Libya?
    Syria?
    Iran?
    Russia?
    China?
    Still think he’s a better choice than Romney? And what about the economy? Gas is expected to have a new “norm” of around $3.75 a gal. Part of this is because of currency devaluation, part is reduced demand worldwide. Food prices are also rising 20-25%, impacting the poor & middle class hardest. Is this what you want? Obama seems happy with everything except those damned Repugs won’t let him spend enough. So how about you, our sometime “Defender-in-Chief”, are you happy with Obama’s work?

    Todd says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:33 pm
    Wow – high praise…high praise indeed.

    Is this the best you can do?

    I’ll go back to my original question that started this “discussion”:

    Any chance you’ll ever grow-up and act like an adult?

    Reply
    Todd says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    Gman,
    You’re right, government are responsible for the slaughter and murder of countless innocents over the course of history. But those governments were made up of people – you can’t separate the two. So people were also responsible for the slaughter.

    But you ignore the countless innocents that have been saved by governments over the course of history. Black Flag has pointed out several times that poverty, starvation, famine, and suffering have been the “norm” thru out most of human history. It’s only in the last 50-100 years that we’ve overcome that – the same period of the “terrible-progressive-onslaught-of-big-government” that you guys always complain about…

    Something to think about!!

    Reply
    gmanfortruth says:
    February 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    Now that you feel better, can we get to this?

    Instead of arguing about all this, maybe we can agree on a form of some kind of “government” that can’t do this.

    • Dear Life of Illusion,

      I think some people loose interest in SUFA when it gets petty with personal attacks and sarcasm. “grow up & act like an adult?” You expect that to inspire a meaningful exchange of ideals?

      My comment…

      Any chance you’ll ever grow-up, act like an adult, and realize this is the definition of “society”?

      …was in response to this comment from Bottom Line…

      I find myself rather annoyed by your use of the word “requirement”

      There is no such requirement. Nope, just some assholes thinking they have a right to tell people what to do because of some bullshit written on paper.

      NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO USE COERCION TO STEAL FROM YOU OR TELL YOU WHAT TO BUY. <——period

      …which I find to be rather immature. So yes, if people act like adults, it will inspire a meaningful exchange of ideals.

      Do you disagree?

      You want to use the Flagster where it suits you but skip over his conclusion is ALL government must be eliminated for true freedom and prosperity.

      Oh no, I didn’t skip over his conclusion. It is the heart of my argument – very few societies have existed without some form of “government”. And the ones that have, have been violent hell-holes – not “true freedom and prosperity.”

      This is the example Bottom Line won’t provide. Can you provide an example of a society without government were “true freedom and prosperity” existed?

      But you never have put an ideal out there first, have you? So much safer & easier to sit back and bash our offerings. You boldly go nowhere.

      Yep – you’re right. But I have written some pretty long comments (quite a while ago) that got very little response. So I don’t really feel its worth my time.

      There are some conservatives here that have never posted an article – does this apply to them too?

      As a liberal, how do you think Obama’s foreign policy is working? Is the world safer/better where he’s been active?

      Well, I was asked about some of these a few months ago, posted a long reply, and got ZERO response. Do you expect me to go thru that again?

      Bu to answer your two questions – yes & yes.

      As far as the locals you listed – we’ve talked about most of those quite a bit. I think I know your position. Do we need to rehash them?

      Better choice than Romney? Oh good god YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

      And what about the economy? Well it’s been an all-to-slow recovery, but it is recovering. Now, if the GOP would just stop trying to destroy it (debt-ceiling, fiscal cliff, etc), it would be doing better.

      Gas is expected to have a new “norm” of around $3.75 a gal. A big part of this is because demand is up (I thought you conservatives understood supply/demand?), and Obama has little control over gas prices. Or do you want him to impose price-controls?

      Part of this is because of currency devaluation What currency has been de-valued?

      part is reduced demand worldwide Reduced? Are you sure about that?

      Food prices are also rising 20-25% Where did you get this from?

      Is this what you want? We need to make sure we have the correct statistics before I can answer this.

      Obama seems happy with everything except those damned Repugs won’t let him spend enough. Well, I agree with that!!

      So how about you, our sometime “Defender-in-Chief”, are you happy with Obama’s work? Now, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about the way this question is worded that doesn’t inspire me to have a meaningful exchange of ideals.

      And you were doing so good – just can’t get thru an entire comment though…

      Sincerely,
      Todd

      • Todd, thanks for a thoughtful response. Started to reply & computer wiped it all. Going to try responding a point at a time.

        “Yep – you’re right. But I have written some pretty long comments (quite a while ago) that got very little response. So I don’t really feel its worth my time.”
        (I feel ya dude, sometimes I write complete articles that get little or no response)

        There are some conservatives here that have never posted an article – does this apply to them too? ( It does but since all of us writing tend to be conservative/libitarian, I think it would be more of the same, not a “fresh voice)

        “Well, I was asked about some of these a few months ago, posted a long reply, and got ZERO response. Do you expect me to go thru that again? (only if you want, I have no right to demand anything from you. I am interested in what you think are our most important issues today. Is it the same as for the rest of us? Economy, gun violence/control, etc?)

      • “And what about the economy? Well it’s been an all-to-slow recovery, but it is recovering. Now, if the GOP would just stop trying to destroy it (debt-ceiling, fiscal cliff, etc), it would be doing better.”

        (Slowest recover since the Depression. Look at all the presidents that faced a recession, Carter, RR, Bush, how can Obama’s economic numbers be so much worse, yet people still support him?)
        (should the GOP just give him an unlimited credit card? Why hasn’t the Democratically controlled senate passed a single Obama budget? Why won’t they pass a budget themselves?)

        • Sorry LOI,
          I’ve been “distracted” by others!!

          Yes, it’s been a slow recovery. But it was also the worse recession since the 1930’s. And it’s my opinion that a slow recovery (or no recovery) has been the Republican’s goal all along – the “make this president fail” and “one-term president” attitude. It’s hard to make things work when half the “team” wants it to fail.

          No the GOP should not give him an unlimited credit card, but they need to work together. If Romney had won, the GOP would have “fixed” the fiscal-cliff and debt-ceiling ASAP so the economy would improve. No such luck with Obama winning.

          I don’t know why the Democratically controlled senate hasn’t passed budget. V.H. beat me into submission on that one 🙂 and I agree they should pass a budget. But they do need 10 GOPer’s to break a filibuster…

      • “Gas is expected to have a new “norm” of around $3.75 a gal. A big part of this is because demand is up (I thought you conservatives understood supply/demand?), and Obama has little control over gas prices. Or do you want him to impose price-controls?”

        (Some conservative understand supply/demand, I don’t speak for all conservatives. I don’t claim much understanding myself, but you can (will) judge me for yourself. There are other factors than S/D that affect the price of oil. Uncertainty is a big influence. Conflict in the ME
        causes the price to spike. Environmental issues such as the Keystone pipeline, EPA regulations on boiler emissions, coal power, fuel mileage, exhaust emissions all cause businesses to be uncertain in spending their money. And no on price controls. More gov. usually means more problems.)

      • “Part of this is because of currency devaluation What currency has been de-valued?”

        (The official US currency has been de-valued. In simplest terms, a dollar does not buy as much today as it did before Obama took office. Some of this is “normal”, but it has accelerated since the Fed keeps printing money. Other currencies are also devaluing such as the Euro, Japan & China’s..(not sure about Russia’s).

        • The dollar has been pretty stable and inflation has been pretty low, but it’s hard to find a descent source. Do you have one?

          The Dollar, Euro, Japan & China’s can’t all be devaluing. Because they’re valued against each other…

      • “part is reduced demand worldwide Reduced? Are you sure about that?”
        (kinda sure except for China, for example)

        Job Cuts in Recession 2012 – Pepsi May Cut 4000 Jobs Worldwide
        PepsiCo, one of the biggest soft drinks and Snacks Company in the World, is close to finalizing more than 4000 job cuts worldwide in signs that consumer demand has been rising but at a pace that is slower than the job creation rate across the World.

        The company is also all set to reduce outstanding pensions to its staff in a strong bid to cut costs worldwide and boost earnings.

        The US economy in particular has been fledging for the one year and even strong doses of monetary easing coupled with record near zero interest rates have failed to enhance the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the country.

        What remains to be seen is if it such a move by PepsiCo is a one off or will this be the start of job cuts that are set to be announced in the consumer goods space. The signs of a recovery from the 2009 recession are still not there and the European Union Sovereign Debt Crisis has only added to the problems of policymakers around the world.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          LOI, Todd is an IT person, the world is great for him. He reads HuffPo, which rarely reports any real news. Based on that, the economy is just fine. Nothing to see, Pelosi said so 😆

          • Well it could be that he has his own cows, so milk costs the same as it always has for him, same number of tugs/squeezes….Maybe this will inspire a new NAME for Todd instead of “tree hugger”..”CowPoke”..”MilkMan”..

            • Hmmmmm…seems like you and Gman are having fun at my expense…calling me names…would this qualify as a “person attack”, or does that only apply when Liberals make fun of Conservatives?

              (Do I have to put 🙂 🙂 🙂 so you realize I’m joking??)

          • Well, I’m doing pretty good since Obama took office. Aren’t you? Maybe it’s just an IT thing.

        • This report is over a year old. Do a search on it and you’ll find even BETTER info!

          My problem with this is it’s being done to cut expenses and improve investor return. I understand that, but don’t employees count for anything?

          And the CEO got a $2 million dollar bonus…

      • “Food prices are also rising 20-25% Where did you get this from?”

        (sources include, my wife, FoxNews & other posters here at SUFA. US food prices are UP. Some of it can be blamed on the drought last summer. Some can be blamed on increased fuel prices. (Wasn’t regular gas around $1.85 when Obama took office?) Combine that with currency devaluation & that explains most cost increases without the drought.)

          • Oh, I should probably look a little bit ahead, hey!

            Ok, but these are 3 year numbers, not annual inflation rates, and they are from the depth of the recession (you know, the one Obama inherited from…someone who’s name I’m not supposed to mention) to the “top” of a marginal recovery.

            It’s also a very narrow selection of items – gas, beef, bacon (seriously, how much bacon do you eat? 😉 ), ice cream, bread, eggs, and milk. What about fruits and vegetables (no, I don’t mean GMan!), or don’t conservatives ever eat those? 😉

            And it’s a year old. What happened in 2012?

        • Commodity Food Prices are flat or down slightly over the past 6 months, up over the past year, but flat for the past 5 years.

          http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=food-price-index

          Click on the “Range 6m 1y 5y 10y 15y 20y 25y 30y” to see the different charts.

          But this is world-wide (I think). I couldn’t find a chart for Life-of-Illusion-Ville.

          But this “forecast” seems to come up here at SUFA every winter: Food shortage coming THIS year, massive famine and starvation causing riots in US cities. And none of those past predictions have occurred…

          Wasn’t regular gas around $1.85 when Obama took office?

          Yeah, because we were in the middle of a GLOBAL RECESSION and demand was way down…

          Do you have a link on this?

      • “So how about you, our sometime “Defender-in-Chief”, are you happy with Obama’s work? Now, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about the way this question is worded that doesn’t inspire me to have a meaningful exchange of ideals.”

        Todd, I agree with you! It wasn’t meant to inspire meaningful dialog. It was humor. I know, I know, you don’t like my sense of humor. I respect your opinion & your right to have one (but I bet several others got a chuckle over that & it’s so much more proper than simple name calling)

        • Geez, you didn’t get the SARCASM in my response?

          I respect your opinion & your right to have one

          Gee – Thanks!

          (but I bet several others got a chuckle over that & it’s so much more proper than simple name calling)

          So the “measuring stick” is if others get a chuckle? So as long Buck or Charlie laugh at my jokes, they’re Ok?

          And isn’t this “simple name calling”? Or do you think it’s so good it qualifies as “Complex Name Calling?” 🙂

          But one question – am I the sometime “Defender-in-Chief” or is Obama?

          Your little jokes don’t really bother me, but there are enough of them here (not all by you), that it might turn off new people – or start the downward spiral of a conversation. It seems those of us on the left are usually accused of starting the downward spiral, but I think that’s mostly because you view the comments of the righties as “funny”, and similar comments by the lefties as “attacks”.

          And how often have the lefties first brought up the “personal attack” when a discussion spirals downward? I don’t think very often – I know I NEVER have. The little cheap shots are part of the discussions here, by the righties seem to get worked up and declare a “personal attack” much faster than the lefties.

          I’m not sure I want to bring this up again, but there it is right below here. My comment was:

          The requirement/fine starts in 2014. Someone isn’t being honest here.

          And Bottom Line’s response:

          I find myself rather annoyed by your use of the word “requirement”

          There is no such requirement. Nope, just some assholes thinking they have a right to tell people what to do because of some bullshit written on paper.

          NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO USE COERCION TO STEAL FROM YOU OR TELL YOU WHAT TO BUY. <——period

          So who started the “personal attack”?

          Just some stuff to think about!! Still SMILING 🙂 🙂

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Bottom Line says:
    February 9, 2013 at 7:27 am • Edit

    Todd says:
    February 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    The requirement/fine starts in 2014. Someone isn’t being honest here.

    Bottom Line says:
    February 5, 2013 at 3:18 pm – I find myself rather annoyed by your use of the word “requirement”

    There is no such requirement. Nope, just some assholes thinking they have a right to tell people what to do because of some bullshit written on paper.

    NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO USE COERCION TO STEAL FROM YOU OR TELL YOU WHAT TO BUY. <——period

    (okay Todd, this is where it originally started. You made a statement that it was "required", which annoyed me as it was an 'as if' statement..as if because it is law, it is okay to violate rights, that it is okay to steal as a punishment for not being obedient and accepting being forced to buy a service. I responded with a correction taking human rights into account.)

    Todd says:
    February 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm Any chance you’ll ever grow-up, act like an adult, and realize this is the definition of “society”? "

    (your response was an insinuation that I am immature. Now, this was a straw-man argument right from the get-go. The claim was respect for rights, not about maturity. A logical response would have been to argue that government has a right to force you, followed by supporting your claim with reason or at least a reasonable philosophical premise.)

    February 5, 2013 at 6:09 pm- BL – "Todd,

    I hardly consider violating others as ‘mature’.

    Any chance that you will ever understand the principles of free will, and basic human rights?

    What gives you or anyone the right to force another to do as you say? Paper and ink? Can you come up with something better?

    Is there any chance you will stop confusing coercion and force with the concept of being civilized?

    Is there any chance that you will ever understand the fundamental difference between right/wrong?

    Is there any chance you will ever present something other than a straw man argument to demonstrate your point?

    Is there ever a chance that you will learn to actually formulate a legitimate logical argument instead of resorting to personal insults? "

    ( I immediately recognized the straw man tactic and noted that it is not about maturity and tried to redirect the debate back to it's original premise of rights by asking you in your obviously familiar antagonistic question form, pointing out your obvious confusion and/or obfuscation )

    Todd says:
    February 5, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    Oh yeah, cause you’re all about free will and basic human rights, right? Except when it affects you. Then you’re happy to use “paper & ink” to enforce some imaginary line in the sand to define who can move where and compete with you for painting jobs.

    If you want to pretend to be all high-and-mighty, you need to be more consistent.

    Bottom Line says:
    February 6, 2013 at 8:12 am

    Todd,

    You obviously haven’t been paying close enough attention to notice that not only have I publicly admitted to being wrong about immigration issues, but have taken a stance that is a COMPLETE REVERSAL of my original position, …adamantly arguing at length in favor of no borders whatsoever…here and elsewhere..

    As for the Myers/Briggs thing, I was simply pointing out differences in the way people think in response to G. If you care to re-read the above post you will notice that. Don’t take it as a cut or an attempt to claim superiority, because it was simply not intended as such.

    Over the last several years here at SUFA, I’ve taken notice of your sensitive ego and ability to understand things in the realm of human compassion. To be honest, I wish I were as capable.

    And just because we are better suited at one thing or another doesn’t necessarily mean that it is where we end up, which, I may argue, is a major inefficiency within modern society.

    Now, would you like to drop the straw-man tactic and get back to the original premise with regard to human rights, or just drop it altogether?

    ( Your response was to again use a straw man argument of making it about borders without demonstrating the relationship to the logic/mechanics/principles of rights, and in combination with an incorrect accusation of my view of said borders. You also accused me of acting "all high and mighty", another personal attack, instead of just simply demonstrating a counter claim of how government has a right to use coercion/theft as a means of punishing one for not obeying a law that forces you to buy a product. Then, you actually, in your own inconsistency, accuse me of being inconsistent. This where I again counter your claims by first correcting your false accusations of my view about borders by reminding you of my change from my originally ignorant position several years ago. I tried to also remind you that my statements with regard to the Myers/Briggs test was not an attempt to attack your sensitive ego…which was already pretty clear in the text that you apparently ignored. I was trying to take the high road by admitting I was wrong with respect to borders as well as avoiding allowing you to use ego as yet ANOTHER straw man obfuscation. Then, I AGAIN tried to redirect the debate back to it's original context by suggesting that we argue the ORIGINAL premise of the principles of basic human rights. And after noticing so many attempts at obfuscation I decided that perhaps the debate was going nowhere but rather into a chaotic mess, that you are obviously not getting it, and that perhaps you needed an 'out', I suggested that we 'just drop it altogether')

    —————— In The Next Article Comment Section ——————

    Todd says:
    February 7, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    Bottom Line;

    "Now, would you like to drop the straw-man tactic and get back to the original premise with regard to human rights, or just drop it altogether?"

    Sure – as long as you drop your straw-tactics as well.

    Let’s deal in the real world. You don’t like the US Government – or government in general. So name the society – the time/place – where, in your opinion – the principles of free will and basic human rights, the concept of being civilized, and the fundamental difference between right/wrong were best adhered too.

    (Okay, first, you falsely accuse me of straw man tactics in spite of my repeated attempts of the exact opposite, be it that I made a few CLEAR AND DIRECT attempts to argue the original premise of the principles of rights. Then you AGAIN attempt to obfuscate with yet ANOTHER obfuscation of first insinuating that I am not arguing within the realm of the real world and then by asking for an example of a society that exists without violating rights…instead of simply continuing where the debate went awry and demonstrating how government has the right to force you to buy a product and punishing you with theft via coercion.)

    Bottom Line says:
    February 7, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    Todd,

    Understand that I am not what you may consider antisocial. I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. I rather like order, although I do understand chaos quite well.

    My issue is when people use coercion/force to encroach upon the rights of others. It is at which point that a person or group of people decide they know what is best for others and force it upon them that I have issue with.

    In the real world, people have God given basic natural inalienable rights that should be respected.

    Just for the sake of clarity, I will simplify and explain exactly where I am coming from.

    I think the line is drawn in the difference between minding your own business, and minding the business of others. If they are not somehow encroaching upon your rights, you have no business minding their business.

    Live your life, and allow others to live theirs. Live and let live…very very simple. Why is it that so many have such a hard time with this?

    You continue to challenge the idea that people cannot live without being forced into following rules that are in contrast with respect for basic human rights. So long as society rejects such an idea, it cannot exist.

    If you care to read throughout history, you can see for yourself there are countless examples of what you are asking of me. I suppose I could humor you and go on a research fit for hours digging up specific examples of such, …but why should I?

    Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of minding your own business?

    Further,…

    A straw-man argument is when you argue a different premise or logic than what was originally posited by your opponent.

    For example, if I argue that apples are red, and you respond with oranges are not red, You have presented a straw man argument.

    Another example would be if I were to argue that apples are red and you respond with apples are delicious.

    The original argument was that apples are red, thus anything other than arguing the color of apples is a straw man.

    A legitimate counter claim would be to say that not all apples are red as some are green.

    (First, as to establish clarity, I explain in more precise terms where my position is with regard to rules/government as it relates to the concept of human rights…Followed by a simplified explanation, for your benefit, as to demonstrate an example of how it works. Then, for even more clarity as to avoid further use of obfuscation, to rid you of excuse of ignorance, I attempt to allow you an explanation in terms a child can understand, a simple definition and examples of exactly what a straw man argument is)

    Todd says:
    February 7, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    Bottom Line,

    I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order.

    But the minute someone does that, they will infringe on someone else.

    (You start by attempting to demonstrate how rules and coercion/force are inseparable)

    My issue is when people use coercion/force to encroach upon the rights of others. It is at which point that a person or group of people decide they know what is best for others and force it upon them that I have issue with.

    If you “organize and form rules”, you’re going to infringe on someone else. It’s just a fact – someone isn’t going to like the rules…

    ( You continue in the same attempt. A falsehood, a notion that it is fact, apparently without ever considering otherwise)

    I think the line is drawn in the difference between minding your own business, and minding the business of others.

    If you’re going to mind your own business, why do you needs rules?

    ( a clear and unwitting admission of my point)

    By definition rules are “a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.”

    The “rules of chess” is a good examples. If you and I are going to play chess, we have to agree to and follow the rules. Otherwise, on my first move, my Queen will jump across the board and take out your King. I win! If you try to “force” the rules on me, you’re encroach upon my “right” to play “chess” anyway I want too…

    You continue to challenge the idea that people cannot live without being forced into following rules that are in contrast with respect for basic human rights. So long as society rejects such an idea, it cannot exist.

    No, you have it backwards. It’s not that “people cannot live without being forced into following rules”, it’s that people choose to create rules to help maintain order in society. It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want, someone will create rules (government). It’s human nature.

    If you care to read throughout history, you can see for yourself there are countless examples of what you are asking of me. I suppose I could humor you and go on a research fit for hours digging up specific examples of such

    If there are countless examples, why would it take you hours of research? You expect me to do the hours of research to prove your point?

    …but why should I?

    To back up your assumptions with facts.

    Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of minding your own business?

    No, I do it all the time. How about you? You seem to want to force your version of “society” on everyone else.

    A straw-man argument…

    Yes, I’m familiar with the straw-man argument. It’s a common “tool” here to change the direction of a discussion.

    Bottom Line says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Todd,

    ” I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. ”
    ” But the minute someone does that, they will infringe on someone else. ”

    You incorrectly suggest that rules violate, when they do not have to. There are such things mutually beneficial rules. An example would be a rule against theft, because theft is a violation of property rights. Everyone has property rights, thus everyone benefits equally by a rule against violating property rights.

    But everyone understands that theft is wrong, and thus a rule against it is, arguably, unnecessary. I cite my personal favorite, “The Golden Rule”

    ” If you’re going to mind your own business, why do you needs rules? ”

    EXACTLY!

    I’m impressed, Todd. I think you’re actually starting to get it.

    ” By definition rules are “a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc ”

    Where does it state or require people to be violated?

    ” If you and I are going to play chess, we have to agree to and follow the rules. ”

    Yes. We do so because it is mutually beneficial to have rules that make it a logical challenge as our mutual goal is to have a challenging game.

    “No, you have it backwards. It’s not that “people cannot live without being forced into following rules” ”

    Where did I state this?

    ” …it’s that people choose to create rules to help maintain order in society. ”

    Yes. And if you care to reference above, you will see that I stated that ” I have no problem with people organizing and forming rules to have some sort of order. ”

    ” It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want, someone will create rules (government). It’s human nature. ”

    Then what is the point? Are you suggesting that life is about obedience to rules that violate us?

    I will argue that it is human nature to seek out a way to get along, and that overgrown out of control coercive government is a failed attempt to do so. Our society is a good example.

    ” If there are countless examples, why would it take you hours of research?

    (Seriously? Are you drunk?)

    Because there are many. If you have 500K beans, why would it take more than a day to count them?

    “You expect me to do the hours of research to prove your point? ”

    You are the one that originally asked for examples. If you are so curious, why can’t you look for yourself.

    ” To back up your assumptions with facts. ”

    You mean to do the research you are unwilling to do to answer your own inquiry.

    ” No, I do it all the time. How about you? You seem to want to force your version of “society” on everyone else. ”

    Really? Lol. You apparently are ignorant of the definition of coercive force and confuse it with logical pleas to try to convince others that coercion is unnecessary. Re-read above and you will notice that.

    ” Yes, I’m familiar with the straw-man argument. It’s a common “tool” here to change the direction of a discussion. ”

    Indeed you are, as you are the one that consistently uses a straw man tactic. If I cared to take the time to do so, I can clearly and concisely demonstrate how almost every single one of your points is as such. It is actually getting ridiculous, and I don’t think anyone is falling for it.

    ( I think this leg of our debate is somewhat self explanatory. I suppose I could nitpick, but it was actually starting to form into some kind of reasonable point/counterpoint format in spite of your apparent confusion and continued attempts to obfuscate)

    Bottom Line says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Todd,

    Again, you use straw man tactics by insinuating that government is necessary to have a technologically advanced/modern standard of living.

    Try again.

    ( I again recognize your use of a false premise without backing it up with reason and attempt to point it out to you in hopes that you will see your flawed reasoning and actually correct yourself so that we may have some sort of reasonable debate)

    Bottom Line says:
    February 8, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Todd,

    Further,…

    I have come to the conclusion that you are either …

    A – as intelligent as you claim to be, fully aware of what a straw man argument is, and intentionally using the tactic as an attempt to obfuscate.

    …or…

    B – just plain stupid

    I am inclined to go with the former, which, of course, prompts me to wonder ‘why?’

    Is it possible that you are one of those paid plants assigned to sabotage conservative blogs as mentioned in the article that G posted?

    ( After taking a few minutes to reflect on our previous correspondence,[note the time stamps], I gave you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intellect, and had come to the conclusion as clearly stated, be it that you have no interest in reasonable debate, but rather are attempting to obfuscate. I further inquire your reasoning for doing as such by asking if there is some ulterior motive such as that you are being paid)

    Bottom Line says:
    February 8, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    ” You say that rules don’t have to violate, but your only example – theft – is so simple – by your own admission – that it is not a valid example. Do you have any examples of rules that are pertinent to modern society and don’t violate? ”

    Pigs do not fly, Todd. Claiming as such is completely ridiculous.

    ” Not all rules violate, but when you get to a complex and crowded society, someone is going to object to most rules. ”

    The manufacturer is indeed responsible if it knowingly uses an aircraft that is unsafe.

    ” You said that right above: ”

    You’re an asshole.

    ” A long time ago, USWeapon set out some rules for SUFA (yes “rules” – the HORROR!). One of those was “you can make any argument you want, but you have to back it up with facts.”

    But instead, you use straw-man tactics. I didn’t ask you the list all 500k examples, just one or two. It is your responsibility to back-up your arguments with facts. ”

    Are you kidding me? Latex paint dries MUCH faster than oil based paints.

    Oil based paint usually takes a day to dry, while latex can dry in as fast as 20 minutes depending on conditions.

    ” It is not research I am unwilling to do to answer my own inquiry.

    It is research you’re unwilling to do to back-up your arguments with facts.

    You MIGHT be a smart guy, but you’re intellectually lazy. You’re not willing to put forth the effort to use whatever intellect you have.”

    Orange juice is delicious.

    ” Once again, your intellectual laziness shines thru. Not willing to put forth the effort…”

    No, Todd, …you have it backward. Gravity pulls things TOWARD an object…like Earth.

    ” There are no straw-man tactics – or any insinuation – in my comments. The fact is these tribes live in huts, are hunter/gatherers, have no internet and no GUNS, and they use spears. ”

    Yes, I like Britney Spears. I don’t know her, but she seems like a nice person.

    ” The straw-man tactics are yours – avoiding the issue by attacking me.

    Obviously the only argument you have.”

    I do not, asshole.

    lol

    ( After realizing that our debate was, at best, moving slow, or more accurately to state, that it is nonsensical chaotic mush as for your inability to properly reason, I decided to imitate you in hopes that it would bring about self reflection as to your debating 'style', that it may prompt you to realize what you are actually doing. That is what this was about.)

    Todd says:
    February 9, 2013 at 2:03 am

    Bottom Line,

    Latex paint dries MUCH faster than oil based paints.

    Oil based paint usually takes a day to dry, while latex can dry in as fast as 20 minutes depending on conditions.

    Yes, it’s probably best you stick to a subject like this – that you have a marginal understand of…

    You’re an asshole.

    More “high praise”…

    Thus I cannot justify taking the time to debate anything with you as it is pointless.

    ‘pointless’ again? Nah, just more intellectually challenging than you’re up too…

    I’m still waiting for an answer to this:

    Any chance you’ll ever grow-up and act like an adult?

    ( clearly, at this point we are 'debating' in a format you are more comfortable with and accustomed to, be it personal attacks, obfuscation and nonsensical BS)

    If you like, I suppose when I have more time, I can make an even more in-depth analysis…but I think you get the point…or I at least hope you do.

    Now, with all that said/demonstrated, is there any chance that you can either…

    A – Actually counter the ORIGINAL claim of mine by clearly and concisely demonstrating how and why government or any other entity has a right to forcefully coerce you into buying a product, or stealing from you via the same means as a way of punishing you for disobedience…

    …or…

    B – Dropping it altogether as it is a waste of time to attempt to debate in a completely obfuscational and nonsensical straw man fashion, as it gets us absolutely nowhere.

    ??????
    Reply

    Life of Illusion says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:27 am • Edit

    BL
    I don’t think USW’s rules include backing a statement with references or sources. It is frequently requested but not a rule. No one has to prove God or Unicorns exist to have an opinion about them. Having sources for what you base your thoughts on does help prove your case in the court of public opinion. There is a rule on personal attacks. Sometime’s I think Todd comes here just to poke at us & try to stir us up. Mission accomplished Todd.

    BL, any more articles coming from you?
    Reply

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    V.H. says:
    February 9, 2013 at 4:38 am • Edit

    Who is smart-well that is a good question-but I must wonder and ask-we talk so much about freedom-which is an American staple-but when does the liberal answer the question-when is too much government -too much. When do we hit the point where freedom is lost.
    Reply

    charlieopera says:
    February 9, 2013 at 6:35 am • Edit

    I think it’s a matter of perspective, VH (when freedom is lost). To anarchists it’s lost soon as you have any form of government/social contract (to include the police). To Tea Partiers it might be when safety nets are created or sustained … to more reasonable minds (also subject to definition/interpreation – reasonable is), it might be when civil rights are being violated. And there’s hypocrisy on both sides of the argument, I think. What I find hard to understand on the right is this claim about being anti-corporation while crying for a free market (or more free market) … see the beer issue raised the other day. Remove the regulations and bada-boom, bada-bing, it’s a monopoly overnight. Anarcists say “Good for them.” True liberals say, “Bullshit. Pay the workers an equal share of what they produce and not wages.” All a matter of perception … but if you think big money is having a rough time in America, sorella are you mistaken. Notice who’s having the rough time … and do you really think it’s because of government interference? This government has always been serving big money. Remove it and big money will put another one in its place. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The corrupt or the corruptors? Again, all a matter of perspective.
    Reply
    gmanfortruth says:
    February 9, 2013 at 10:31 am • Edit

    Charlie, You are not the Pinko Commie monster that you think you are. You can be a rational thinker who wants freedom just as much as anyone. Our country, as you basically have said, is not a free market country. Seems much more fascist each day as government gets deeper and deeper involved. We both know that the banksters are in charge, they own government. With that in mind, let’s work from there, not on arguing existing problems, but solutions. We should start on how to end the corruption. Then what?

    • Okay, is anywhere in that attempt to create social justice-any acknowledgement that we are losing more and more freedoms due to the implementation. Are is freedom just blaise these days?

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    @ T-Ray, I’m not sold on the HAARP issue myself. I know that there is weather modification, to what extent is the question. The way they predicted Hurricane Sandy and the recent winter storm has been impressive, almost uncanny. Our weather predictions remain the same, a guessing game, go figure? 🙂

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    @Todd, Maybe I worry to much, maybe I don’t worry enough. Time will tell, but I’m not alone:

    February 4, 2013 by Bob Livingston
    The Failing American Regime

    As regimes collapse, they step up oppression of their subjects. Because the collapse is gradual, so is the increased oppression. Gradualism and stealth are key components to the success of the elites and their stepped up oppression of the people.

    The coming collapse will reveal the fact that the illusion of government and so-called democracy is only organized crime run by the psychopathic politicians and bureaucrats. They have run and ruined the world with mass deception and manipulation with fiat currency.

    How is it that not everyone knows about this? Many people see the chaos and feel the economic oppression, but they refuse to believe the cause. Yet it is laid bare for all to see. By refusing to look, we are sanctioning our own enslavement.

    We are square in the middle of decadence masquerading as civilization. Social and economic oppression is closing in, but we accept it under all manner of rationalization and government propaganda.

    We have horrible “security checks” at airports, train stations, sporting events and even at highway checkpoints. Every day there is reduced personal freedom; and increasing numbers of directives, executive orders and regulations are signed as if into law under the guise of “keeping us safe.”

    Food and energy prices are rising, but government statisticians say they are not a part of the cost of living. Infrastructure is fast deteriorating. The standard of living for the middle class is declining. Regulations and high taxes are oppressive.
    http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/04/the-failing-american-regime/

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Courtesy of Cyndi P.
    Old Man And The Beaver

    An 86-year-old man went to his doctor
    for his quarterly check-up…

    The doctor asked him how he was feeling, and the
    86-year-old said ,’Things are great
    and I’ve never felt better.’

    I now have a 20 year-old bride
    who is pregnant with my child.

    “So what do you think about that Doc ?”

    The doctor considered his question for a minute
    and then began to tell a story.

    “I have an older friend , much like you, who is an avid hunter and never misses a season.”

    One day he was setting off to go hunting.

    In a bit of a hurry , he accidentally picked up his
    walking cane instead of his gun.”

    “As he neared a lake , he came across a very large male beaver sitting at the water’s edge..

    He realized he’d left his gun at home and so he couldn’t shoot the magnificent creature.

    Out of habit he raised his cane , aimed it at the animal as if
    it were his favourite hunting rifle and went ‘bang, bang’.”

    “Miraculously , two shots rang out and the
    beaver fell over dead.

    Now, what do you think of that ?” asked the doctor.

    The 86-year-old said ,
    “Logic would strongly suggest that somebody else
    pumped a couple of rounds into that beaver.”

    The doctor replied , “My point exactly.”

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    @Todd, Do you not see what this guy writes about?

    Elected Officials Are Fundamentally Dishonest

    To the Editor:

    This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid

    I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren’t harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.

    Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I’m not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers’ circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George’s successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it’s as threatening as ever.

    That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA’s actions.

    You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can’t afford and you’ve never read. You claim it’s critical because health care costs are killing this country… no they’re not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can’t lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you’ll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don’t care and have no integrity nor honor.

    You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don’t trust you as far as we can spit. You’re a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.

    I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You’ll stop restricting guns when only you have them.

    Brendan Duffy

    4 Chestnut Knoll Drive, Sandy Hook January 8, 2013
    http://newtownbee.com/Opinions/Letters_to_the_Editor/2013/01-January/2013-01-10__13-58-39/Elected+Officials+Are+Fundamentally+Dishonest

  9. G. You said above, in an article:
    “Our country, as you basically have said, is not a free market country. Seems much more fascist each day as government gets deeper and deeper involved. We both know that the banksters are in charge, they own government.”

    And while this IS most definitely TRUE, there are also other points to be made here. Our Government IS becoming more and more fascist and leaning more toward Socialist than ever, especially now that Obama imagines that he has received vindication for his policies by being re-elected. The fact that a vast MAJORITY of the citzenry do NOT support those policies has either escaped him, or he doesn’t care. I personally would think the latter.

    Add to that the fact that the REAL power behind the throne, the Super Elite, Super Rich (George Soros comes to mind and others), are manipulating the Government; and by Corrupting it and destroying our Nation’s True Liberty and Justice with phrases such as ‘Social Justice’, ‘Social Equality’, and ‘Spreading the Wealth’, while having absolutely ZERO intention of abiding by such ridiculous ethics themselves.

    People have no idea in the main, what is going on because their heads are firmly stuck in the sand and\or their collective ANAL ORIFICES! Some do realize what is happening, of course, but either don’t care or are even happy to see it because they believe this coming economic disaster will somehow not affect them, or that for their support the Elites will save them. This idea is completely moronic on it’s face!

    Then, some are happy because they feel it is the right path to be on. That everyone should share and share alike, because we are, in fact, one big world and we should all work together for the common good. The rich should not be ‘selfish’ and since they make more they should contribute more for all the others, DEADBEATS AND ALL! This idea is even more insane as it would impoverish everybody. We would all be equally poor and dependent then. Not to mention that, for this idiocy to work, the rest of the world would of course have to cooperate with it. And that, my friend, is a possibility right up there with Unicorns being real and magic Rainbows coming out of my ass.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Esom, We both know what a mess things are. What people think, just don’t matter much, because we are all going to suffer. This country has flourished because of the Petrodollar. Those days have been coming to an end for some time now (why do you think we are up Iran’s ass). The Petrodollar will die on March 21, 2013. Thought you would like to know!

  10. For Stephen: Just watched Looking for Superman … wow … I yield to much of what you’ve said in the past after watching that documentary. Randi Weingarten should be tossed out on her ass … maybe the entire union structure … to include no more special interest donations to pols (that goes for Goldman Sachs, Exxon, et al) … no way tenure (I’ve always been against that travesty) … start over … model on the Harlem and DC program … and take a flame thrower to the “rubber room” in NY. That actually made me very angry (the entire documentary) … by the end, I could see how so many would just throw up their hands and say “fuck it.”

    • I obviously need to watch this Looking for Superman. But without doing so-I will simply say-if you ever had any personal experience with the Union as an employer-you’d feel the same way. It’s like the government decided to back up the mafia.

      But what exactly is the Harlem and DC program and how is it modeled? I’m not against employees having a fair hand in negotiations with their employers. But I am wayyyy against some unelected government agency, not the court system being the final judge and jury to decide disputes.

      • The theory is to make the charter schools real honest to God not -for -profits. This can never happen as long as there is money at stake, and big money at that there will always be a way around. There is an old expression, “What one man can put together, another can take apart”.

        I being married to a 40 year teacher whose best friends are all teachers, mostly taught by nuns themselves back in the day, have batted this one around for years. Denise and I disagree about accountability, testing and merit pay. Our disagreements center around the abuses she sees these things opening up. She is right of course, we have both seen it. Long after I left the City of NY’s employment I discovered that I, as an Area Housing Director was earning far less than all the other area directors despite the fact that my staff was usually half their size and I beat most of them in productivity and matched the others. I however, am not political. They sure as hell were. In schools it would be the same thing. Principals rate their teachers and principals these days are not what they once were. In the old days, they all came up through the ranks and in effect were “commissioned”. Today, spend a year or two in the classroom, take grad courses in administration and voila! you are an assistant principal. The possibilities of favoritism, sexual harassment and vindictiveness are almost endless.

        The answer, the 900 lb gorilla in the room that no politician wants to discuss is a voucher program. take the time to study the abuses inherent in all educational programs and you will see that the voucher programs have the least. They cost less, reward ANY school that has better performance and give the poor kids in the inner city a shot at the same type of education their peers in more affluent neighborhoods get.

    • Thank you Charles! Every now and then I do get it right. Next question, when are you taking me up on the rifle range visit? We will have to wait till it warms a bit though.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    More good stuff! I like a good dipping sauce! http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-recipe-log/#comment-934

  12. I have a question for the the Colonel. Knowing now that the SecDef was not in contact with CinC or SecState during the Benghazi attack, if this had been a military outpost under your command and you went to bed like BHO and your second in command ignored the situation like HRC, what would be the reaction from your superiors?

    • Surely you jest……if this were a military command, I would have been relieved of duty within 24 hours. The exec, or second in command would have been relieved of duty, given a summary courts martial. revocation of his commission, and given a dishonorable discharge, and then charged with murder.

      As the commanding officer, my career would be over. I would never be given a command againand rightly so. My records would reflect an OER of less than stellar performance. This is a start.

    • It’s sad she’s been brain-washed to the point of putting her own health at risk…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Really Todd, When one is handicapped, escaping a fire is not a pleasant thought. Maybe it’s the electric company that is putting her health at risk…….http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/PECO-Smart-Meter-Replace-Fire-166466686.html

        • All 15 of the units that overheated were among about 186,000 units installed. They overheated because existing wiring that isn’t up to date.

          That’s 0.008% that have caused a problem – because of old wiring.

      • Why do you say she’s been brainwashed-from my understanding this question really hasn’t been answered conclusively. I know that the heart association states that the microwave oven and cell phones will not hurt you- unless you are using an older model of pace makers. But on the other hand the hospital will not allow you to have cell phones on when you enter the hospital. There is from my understanding a lot of research still going on about this subject.

        And there is another point to this article-the length to which this electric company went to try and force this woman to comply. Obviously she is convinced the meter will hurt her.

        • V.H.,
          From what I’ve seen, most hospitals have lifted this ban – at least the few I’ve been in.

          The electric company has a right to maintain/replace/update their equipment.

          But what is the source of her concern?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Many people are not trustful anymore. I had a natural gas meter replaced several years ago because it was 20 years old. That was their policy and I didn’t really see it as a problem. One thing that I did notice is that there is no way of knowing if the meter is accurately measuring. There is no quality seal, not checks and balances. Go to a gas station and look at the pump, it has a sticker that affirms it’s accuracy. I don’t think it needs to be a government job, but needs to be verified. Wouldn’t you think so, or do you just trust these business’s to be honest?

            • Gman,
              I don’t know. If you don’t “trust” some things, you’ll spend (waste?) an awful lot of time/effort/stress trying to verify everything on your own. I think you have to use past experience, intuition, and just “everything” else.

              We have LP heat. They fill the tank a few times a year and leave a bill in the door. I don’t know how much gas they put in the tank – but we’ve never run out, and our usage has been fairly consistent over the years following the seasons…and no one has ever filed a complaint against them…

              The sticker on the gas pump is from the government. Who do you trust more – the gas station or the government that supposedly tests the pumps and affixes the sticker??? 😉

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I don’t really trust anything, but not much can be done about it. I would like to see a civilian company or fifty 🙂 that would take on this job. But, it is what it is today, not much can be done. Small issue I guess 🙂

          • The hospitals around here still enforce the rule. And I agree, even monopolies have a right to update their equipment. But since they are a monopoly, I don’t think they are as free to make decisions that effect me, when I have no other way to get the product without them.

            Don’t know the precise way things like this should be handled but I think they should have to prove they will do no harm. And they really shouldn’t break the law in the process.

            • Oh, I don’t know what the source is for her concern.

            • I don’t understand the up-roar over smart-meters. Is it just because Obama is in favor of them?

              In conjunction with other equipment on the grid, they make the grid more efficient and more responsive to users. It’s like being against anti-lock brakes (which I still hate am not real fond of, but I’m getting used to them…).

              We’ve had a smart-meter for years. It means we don’t have to read the meter every month, and our power no longer flickers twice a day (and then we had to reset every freaking clock in the house – do you realize how many things now have clocks in them????). And no one has questioned me about my right-wing activities for posting on SUFA!!! 😉

              As for “do no harm” – I think the smart meter is the least of your worries. That article had 15 out of 186,000 smart meters that had/caused problems. I know it sucks if you’re one of the 15, but that’s a pretty good rate.

              What law did they break in this process?

              Technology is a great thing – but it’s also a double edged sword. It does a lot of good, but keeping everything working together is a nightmare, and it’s getting worse – in the sense that there’s so much already out there, every time a “new & improved” product comes online, ALL the old stuff has to be tested to make sure it will still work. At my company we’ve made it a priority to stay on the leading edge, because – as expensive as that is – falling behind is even worse.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      The conclusion of this story:

      “We are pleased to report that less than three hours after we reported on this story, a utility crew returned to Ms. Hawk’s home and reestablished her electrical power. In a phone conversation with the very happy homeowner, we learned that many Blaze readers had also reached out and tried to help her by contacting various government agencies. Apparently, switchboards at the state Capitol and senior service agencies were flooded with calls on her behalf. Brenda very modestly asked that we thank everyone “who wasted their Saturday on me.””

      There is a Sheriff and Utility Company exec who need to be removed, retired, maybe fined some serious cash for violating State Law.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      One more note.

      A Govt protected Monopoly decides unilaterally to ignore the customers concerns, and then enlists Law Enforcement to IMPOSE THEIR WILL upon said customer/citizen.

      Yet there is no evidence of a Govt that has grown so big that it is significantly threatening our Freedom.

      I assume you got that on your own. Just wanted to make sure it wasn’t overlooked.

      • No, I’m glad you pointed these things out specifically-My “length to which” wasn’t specific enough.

  13. Bottom Line,
    I thought this was ‘pointless’? Not worth your time…but you spent an awful lot of time rehashing the same conversation…

    My original comment – that caused you so much consternation – was about the “requirement” in Obama Care. The “requirement” is not a violation of “human rights.” It’s a law that was passed by a democratically elected government. I know you don’t like that, but that’s just the way it is.

    You seem to think that we’d all get along just fine without “government.” But you have provided no evidence that this is true.

    So, instead of rehashing the same conversation again, wouldn’t it be easier to provide an example of a society that fits your definition of “Freedom”. If there are so many – as you claim – why not provide an example?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Maybe you might have a point Todd. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, at least that stayed that way (a society that would fit BL’s definition of Freedom). In further thought, this just shows that throughout history, humankind has always been infested with psychopath control-freaks (just like today), who, in their desire to control, has always led to the eventual downfall of society, either through the murder of one’s own people, murdering those of another society (war), or both (Hitler).

      Your right Todd, we have always had governments. Far too many will never learn what it always leads too. 🙄

    • Bottom Line says:

      Your claim: The “requirement” is not a violation of “human rights”.

      Your supportive reasoning: That’s just the way it is.

      My counter-claim; The requirement is a violation of human rights.

      My supportive reasoning; If you do not purchase healthcare service as demanded, it is further demanded that you pay money to government. If you refuse to pay money to government, you are jailed. If you resist being jailed, violence is used against you, whereby you are forced to go to jail anyway, and/or receive physical harm up to and including death.

      Thus your options boil down to two things. Obey or have violence used against you.

      (I’m neglecting to include the concept of theft via coercion as to simplify for your benefit)

      This is a form of coercion.

      ~ Coercion – 1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

      ~ Violence – 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

      (I cite definitions 2, 3, and 4)

      Coercion via violent action, or violent action itself, is a violation of human rights. Can we agree on this statement before proceeding?

      It is a simple yes or no question. I suggest you think real hard before answering.

      If you answer with a yes, you concede your argument by order of logic. If you answer with a no, you waiver, again as a matter of logic, the concept of basic human rights.

      You like using chess metaphors…Ever heard of a ‘knight’s fork’?

      If you answer with anything other than a yes or no, this conversation is over. I think it is over anyway. Just tip your King.

      It isn’t really even about ‘winning’ per se’, but rather demonstrating to you the fundamentals of rights as to hopefully undo whatever damage has been done with respect to your (likely learned/indoctrinated) ability for rationalizing justifications for violence and coercion.

      It always eventually boils down to trying to do the right thing anyway, and the right thing is to try to defend the concept of basic human rights.

      Right makes right, not might.

      • Your supportive reasoning: That’s just the way it is.

        No, my reasoning is that we approved this law thru our democratically elected government.

        There is no coercion or violence. If you do not like the laws of our nation, you are free to work to change them – or leave.

        My supportive reasoning; If you do not purchase healthcare service as demanded, it is further demanded that you pay money to government. If you refuse to pay money to government, you are jailed. If you resist being jailed, violence is used against you, whereby you are forced to go to jail anyway, and/or receive physical harm up to and including death.

        Except Obama Care explicitly says there are no criminal penalties for those who do not obtain coverage and refuse to pay the penalty tax.

        As plainly stated on page 111 of the law, “In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.” There would also be no liens or levies placed on property for failure to pay.

        http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/dec/20/bob-marshall/del-bob-marshall-says-violators-obama-health-care-/

        Kinda negates the rest of your argument…

        • Seems to negate the law its self, makes one wonder “what is the point” is it that they know most people are going to follow the law simply because it’s a law-because those letters the IRS sends out are meant to scare the crap out of you. If it’s such a just and legal law-Why isn’t there enforcement attached to it? Is it because they know it’s a crappy law that’s gonna hurt those they are claiming to help and they know it. Maybe there afraid the actual consequences of their wonderful law would cost them an election. Or maybe it’s just further proof that all the law was designed to do-was to lead to nationalized healthcare-something they couldn’t get passed by the American people.

          • Sorry – the issue was “jail time”, not how the government can collect the fine/tax/theft.

            From the same link:

            Instead, the law would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments.

            So you better recalculate your withholding so you aren’t expecting a big refund!! 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              So how is it that the IRS can TAKE your money that is withheld without a criminal or civil case against you? How is this NOT a LIEN on your property?

              • JAC,
                It’s not “TAKE”, it’s “COLLECT”. Don’t you know the difference???? 😉

                I don’t know JAC, I haven’t read the entire law. But since you seem to know that this part of the law is not on page 111, maybe you can read thru your hardcopy and tell us?

                It’s not a “LIEN” because a lien is a financial claim against property in someone else’s possession. In this case the government already has your money, and it has determined you owe some of it to the government. Or something like that…

                Man, you guys are gonna have a field-day with THAT explanation…

              • Wow-that kinda sounds like the electrical company’s claim that they weren’t breaking the law because the law only applied to people who hadn’t paid their bill 🙂

            • I thought the discussion was whether or not they were going to enforce the law. Someone around here kept saying they were not-I wasn’t aware that only meant criminal charges. I kinda believe enforcement imply’s one doesn’t actually have to pay the tax. I suppose if I never worked again-I might not have to pay the tax-but after all the discussion-I believe that’s the only way anyone would get out of it. To me that is the definition of enforcement .

        • Bottom Line says:

          Todd,

          ” As plainly stated on page 111 of the law, “In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.” There would also be no liens or levies placed on property for failure to pay. ”

          If this is indeed correct, and that there is ultimately no penalty for noncompliance, hidden or otherwise, then I stand corrected, and yield to you…sir.

          However, I am not so quick to dismiss the possibility that there is some form of punishment for noncompliance, simply because of one paragraph presented to me. I am more inclined to be skeptical and wonder where or in what law DOES mention penalties for noncompliance.

          I mean, c’mon…we know how law and government works. Where is the stealth legislation?

          Admittedly, I haven’t researched much into the healthcare law. But if this is indeed correct, then I think you just exposed on page 111, the ‘loop-hole’ that(as V mentioned) essentially voids the entire thing.

          Thank you.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Further,…

            If this page 111 thing is true, then why did we go through all that debating?

            Why didn’t you just mention that from the start?

            …was kinda fun though…lol.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The requirement is NOT on page 111.

              How ironic is that?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd used Politifact, as he put it, “The Hilarity Never Ends”.

              • JAC,

                The requirement is NOT on page 111. How ironic is that?

                So did the page number change? How is that ironic?

                Is the page number the most important part of this issue?

            • Why didn’t you just mention that from the start?

              Well, you didn’t ask about collecting the fine/tax/theft. You just went off on a rant about the word “requirement”, COERCION, violating others, free will, basic human rights, and force.

              But if you had done a little research on your own, maybe you’d know some of this.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd,

                You know when at the end of a sporting event, players shake hands as to show a gesture of good will? Don’t be the asshole that spits in your hand first.

                I realize that you’re fighting hard in the ideological trenches lately, and I respectfully give you credit for your zeal. (I’ve been there, and done that.) Try not to overdo it though.

              • Bottom Line,
                Come-on, you know I’m the touchy-feely-sensitive type. I would never spit on my hand before the handshake (seriously, I wouldn’t).

                So if I had said early on “There’s no jail-time and the law would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments”, you would have been ok with that?

                I guess I’m surprised by that…

              • Bottom Line says:

                Todd,

                ” Come-on, you know I’m the touchy-feely-sensitive type. I would never spit on my hand before the handshake (seriously, I wouldn’t). ”

                Right on, Todd. Right on.

                ” So if I had said early on “There’s no jail-time and the law would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments”, you would have been ok with that? ”

                Quite possibly, yes.

                Granted, I like to hash out a good debate every now and then, but I think my deep desire to discern truth overrides. I probably would have at least argued something just for the sport of it.

                I am apparently supposed to be doing something(not sure what exactly) really important, something that I have decided that I want no part of, and am trying to find a way out of…if it’s even possible. My recent activity here at SUFA is my way of diverting my focus and having a little fun. Thank you for engaging me.

              • Bottom Line,
                No problem – it was fun!

          • Just a for instance here. About 20 years ago a fellow worker was caught speeding on a federal installation down South that he was visiting. He came to work the following Monday showed us his ticket and announced that he was not paying it. The following April, as he was eagerly awaiting his income tax refund, he was informed it was being held. He had to make an appearance before some type of Federal magistrate, plead the ticket and was fined and given additional penalties. Six months later he received his tax refund. There is I guess a question of the legality of what the Feds did. can you link an income tax refund to a violation of a speed limit? I don’t know the answer to that nor the amount of expense and difficulty in fighting it. Here in NY State if you don’t pay your parking fines, anything to do with the driving privilege, license renewal, registration, re-registration of a vehicle will not happen until the debt is settled. How legal is that?

            So what will be the penalty on the health care law? I am sure they will think of one.

            • Stephen,
              It will be exactly what you stated here!

              They’ll collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments owed to you.

          • See my response to V.H.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          The issue of Penalties and the ability to prosecute is in my opinion NO LONGER what you have posted.

          Thanks to SCOTUS there are NO PENALTIES. Mr. Roberts declared it a TAX. Thus this section of the law would be moot and the IRS laws would prevail.

          Now I ask you, if the intent was to NOT enforce these “penalties” then why include them in the law???

          More specifically, the law does not prevent the Fed Govt from declaring you guilty of tax/penalty evasion and place a determination on the records to this affect. While they can’t prosecute you under “criminal” authority they can under “civil”. While they cannot place a lien on your property, they can place your name on all credit ratings with “failure to pay”.

          In short, they can impose fines and then enter this information into records that could destroy your credit ratings and negatively affect your employment chances. I wonder if it could be entered into the federal record and affect your ability to purchase a gun?

          • “There’s more than one way to skin a cat” seems appropriate. All I know is I would not want to be the first person to test this theory. 🙂

          • Besides the mere premise is crazy-why pass a law-if you have no intention of enforcing it-if your a law abiding citizen you get punished with a tax/penalty-if you aren’t you get a pass. How fair is that?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Because most of the people who would likely end up in jail over this are in Democrat voting blocs. You don’t think that Obama wants less voters for him, do you?

          • JAC,
            I believe Mr. Roberts declared the requirement/fine the same as a TAX, and therefore falls within the government’s constitutional power to tax.

            However, he did not change the ObamaCare law at all – just declared it constitutionally valid.

            They will enforce that law – just not thru criminal penalties. They’ll collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments owed to you.

            Geez – don’t you guys ever read the links I post? Do you just automatically believe me and I can stop posting links and just make stuff up?

            Seems to be a common theme here lately…

            In short, they can impose fines and then enter this information into records that could destroy your credit ratings and negatively affect your employment chances.

            Of course – and then we’ll the government will throw you in jail for that. The hidden agenda behind ObamaCare is to destroy the lives of all conservatives – that why we the government is building all the FEMA Concentration Camps.

            I wonder if it could be entered into the federal record and affect your ability to purchase a gun?

            Yep – you’re catching on JAC!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              You’re learning Todd 🙂 Actually your correct as far as what the IRS can do about Obamacare. It’s not really about killing conservatives, but more like old people. You know, the useless eaters. The FEMA camps exist, ask the Sandy storm folks who stayed in one on the East Coast. Although they are not “concentration camps”, they have the tools to make very large camps to house people in a jail like environment.

              Operation Safe Haven, Republic of Panama 1994/95. Within weeks 5 camps were built to house 2500 Cuban Migrants in each camp. Within weeks, thick jungles were leveled and camps were built. On December 6th, 1994, riots broke out in several of the camps, causing hundreds of injuries and quite a bit of damage. We, the AF quick response team from Howard AFB, along with members of the 82nd Airborne quelled the riots at Camp #2 on the morning of Dec 7th, 1994. Over 70 people were injured, no deaths resulted. The camp remained secure until it was emptied a few months later.

              I spent several weeks working security inside Camp #2 after the riots. I would not want to be forced to live that way, but I have seen how fast they can be built and maintained.

              I don’t see it happening in this country. Just so you know!

              • Gman,

                You’re learning Todd

                What?? I’m not learning – I’m teaching everyone here. Pretty typical…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Come On Man 🙂 I was joking, hence the 🙂 Relax Todd, if we can stay on subject, rather that each other, we can have a great talk. That goes with everyone else as well. Work with me here 🙂

              • Sorry Gman,
                It didn’t come across right, but I was joking too!!!! 🙂 🙂

  14. Life of Illusion,

    I don’t think USW’s rules include backing a statement with references or sources. It is frequently requested but not a rule. No one has to prove God or Unicorns exist to have an opinion about them. Having sources for what you base your thoughts on does help prove your case in the court of public opinion. There is a rule on personal attacks. Sometime’s I think Todd comes here just to poke at us & try to stir us up. Mission accomplished Todd.

    You are mistaken. It was one of USWeapon’s constant complaints – Liberals never can back up their arguments with FACTS.

    Seems the tables have turned…

    • Toddster,

      Maybe you need to hire Buck for this one….

      “one of USWeapon’s constant complaints – Liberals never can back up their arguments with FACTS.”

      So where in this do you find a “rule” for posts made at SUFA? A constant complaint is a rule in your world?

      • LOI,
        You want to start splitting hairs over syntax, grammar, and word usage? Seriously??? 😉

        USWeapon was pretty clear about backing up your comments with facts. The specific article I remember was a long time ago – Spring/Summer of 2009. I don’t really feel like searching for it.

        But, if you feel that is not important, then we can all just start making up stuff. I’m sure that will lead to a meaningful exchange of ideals.

  15. V.H.

    Oh man, lets look at the differences in our basic believes here-I agree with you Todd that we need a government to help create a civil society. But I agree with Bottomline and G that government has grown to a size that makes freedom a dream that doesn’t exist anymore. And it is growing to the point of no return.

    I have issues with the size of government, but not “that government has grown to a size that makes freedom a dream that doesn’t exist anymore.”

    I think that’s just a little bit of an over-reach.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Spot on V.H.

    • This is interesting-I would really like to know where you think the government is overstepping.

      I suppose one could claim it’s an over-reach-I feel relatively free in my day to day life. It’s just when I actually think about the number of laws and regulations and fees and taxes-I can’t help but realize that I am free as long as I follow all the rules. And damned if there aren’t so many-I don’t even know what they all are. And there are lots more coming.

      • V.H.,
        I didn’t say the “government is overstepping,” I said I have some issues with the size of government.

        Now I’m sure there are some instances of the government overstepping, but I was referring to the size of the bureaucracy that wastes money, trips over itself, etc.

  16. Even Bob has noticed the OBVIOUS!! 😉

    Haha wow, did this place ever turn into an echo chamber. Well it was fun while it lasted eh?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I think you folks have some responsibility in that as well.

      If you stop contributing there is less diversity of opinion being expressed. Then you drop in and claim it is an echo chamber because there is no diversity in the opinions.

      Buck and The Colonel had a great running discussion on Gun Regulations. Some of us disagreed with their ideas. I don’t recall you or Bob adding comments to that discussion. But now Bob shows up and claims we are an echo chamber and you come back with I told you so.

      I am still not sure why Mathius dropped out. He tried to explain it but it just didn’t make sense to me. It seemed to really be about deciding he wanted to allocate more time to other things. I don’t think it was really about an “echo chamber” or “confirmation bias” issue as much as we were recycling old discussions with no movement. At least that was my personal feeling on the matter.

      One thing you complained about, as did Matt, was the single mindedness or responses to you or the “lack” of negative responses towards others by the “other” SUFA members. You don’t respond to “every” comment made, so why should others?

      It is one thing when a silly or erroneous comment is made and everyone yells Hoozah, and another when the same thing happens and only one or two respond but the others are all silent.

      Silence does not necessarily mean agreement.

      I have some chores to do right now, but I will return later to explore your question of how Govt’s have supposedly helped or hindered mankind.

      • JAC,

        I think you folks have some responsibility in that as well.

        You can’t blame people on the left for the hard-right-turn here at SUFA. I’ve tried occasionally to point this out, but no one seems to care.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I did not blame the left for the right turn. I said you can’t pull out of the discussion and then blame everybody that your view is not represented.

          And I am not sure what you consider a “hard right turn”. Care to clarify that?

          • JAC,
            Bob did not say his views are not represented, just that SUFA has become a right-wing echo chamber – which to me means it is just a constant regurgitation of the Fox News, et al, line of “Obama Bad.”

            And that is the “hard right turn” – the constant posts from the right-wing websites with conspiracy theories and “news” about all the terrible things that Big-Bad-King-Obama is doing.

          • Like I said JAC echo ehco echo…….., 400 comments on some of these posts from 6-7 unique users.
            I pop over and glance at the comments every now and then but all I generally see is, “EMPEROR OBAMA STEALING MY FREEDOMS!!!!!!!”, people linking in 80’s butt rock and country music videos (which should be a crime) and linking conspiracy theory articles about the NWO and how Obama is trying to put everyone into FEMA concentration camps. Oh and dont forget all the hilarious “You know when someones a liberal when……….” jokes.

            Having been here from the beginning I am surprised why people are still bothering with this. We have the same people using the same arguments and nothing has really changed. You get GMan rambling on and on and no wonder no one new is coming here.

            Those on the left are simply outnumbered. You start a discussion and you end up having to reply to 7 people for every comment that is made. It gets tiresome after a while. Add in the circle jerking, cheerleading and it ends up a very frustrating experience for those not on the right.

            If the Obama rhetoric had been clamped down, if comments had been properly moderated, if the tone of the articles had been calmed down, then this site could have actually been useful and not turned into what exists today.

  17. Hey, I just noticed the “”Who Will Win the 2012 Election” link under “Political Blog Links.” And the site is still active!! The must be Karl-Rove-type-deniers who are still hoping that Ohio will be called for Romney!!! 🙂

    Oh the hilarity never ends!!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I noticed a week ago on some other site, this huge amount of response claiming that the elections was “stolen” via the voting machines and other practices. Ohio was only one of the examples they used.

      I don’t know how I missed this, because it was very STRONG and ANGRY. I don’t recall any reputable organizations claiming this. But it was out there with about the same strength as the Dem conviction that somehow Bush stole the first election in Florida.

      The part that should be of concern is that we now see both sides acting in ways that show severe distrust of the system. This is how revolutions begin. But we have opposing views with the same distrust. Potentially, this means a three part revolution. Left vs. Right vs. Govt.

      Very strange situation.

      • JAC,
        The only thing I saw was the typical right-wingers that couldn’t accept that Obama won. The difference is the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          The court did not hand the election to Bush.

          I know it is hard for the dogmatic leftists to understand but it simply is not true.

          • JAC,
            Don’t tell anyone, but I used to a Republican. Even voted for Bush in 2000. And I didn’t really like the Supreme Court decision back then. So I’m not really a “dogmatic leftists”. It just seems that way here – because you guys have taken such a hard-right-turn – you can’t even see the “middle” anymore.

            But “the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush” is a much more valid argument then the “very STRONG and ANGRY” right-wingers “claiming that the elections was “stolen” via the voting machines and other practices.”

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m trying to engage with you, can you explain the elections being stolen issue as it concerns SUFA?

              • Gman,
                I’m just responding to JAC’s comment about an “other site…claiming that the elections was “stolen”…because it was very STRONG and ANGRY”.

                It doesn’t necessarily concern SUFA – unless you think the election was stolen. Then you need to find out the name of the “other site” from JAC.

                Hey, maybe the “other sire” was GMan-For -Truth???

              • gmanfortruth says:

                NO Todd, not on my blog. I’m trying hard to keep our discussion non-personal. Is there a reason why you seem to go in that direction?

                Anyway, I have no faith in the election system as a whole. I also don’t really believe that it matters who wins. As far as the political parties go, the direction of the country has not changed, whether the D’s or the R’s are in control. Do you see a difference?

              • Gman.

                NO Todd, not on my blog.

                I know Gman – that was a joke!

                I’m trying hard to keep our discussion non-personal. Is there a reason why you seem to go in that direction?

                I have a really hard time believing both parts of this.

                I just posted to LOI about this same thing – I think you feel this way because you view your comments and the comments of the righties as “funny”, and similar comments by the lefties as “attacks”.

                Not really true – but you see it that way…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, It can be hard to take the written word as it’s intended by the writer. If I could write it, just like I say it, you could tell the difference, so I try to use smiley faces to show a positive sense. I will use the evil face when I’m not happy. As far as calling Obama names, so what. He’s the Prez and SNL has made a living attacking them. It was just fine when Bush was sleeping in DC.

                To be fair, all of them are fair game, feel free to call Boner a boner 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              I never said the accusations the election was stolen were valid. And I certainly didn’t claim it was valid just because the right wingers are angry. That would be a very irrational argument.

              I said that I missed the entire controversy and was thus surprised to see it all over the “conservative” blog sites.

              As for Bush, claiming SCOTUS handed him the election is no more valid than the Right wingers screaming fraud in 2012.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting status report from Valley Guns in West Virginia :

    Status of gun industry

    Attention F.B. fans: to follow will be several IMPORTANT Info updates about the status of the gun industry currently, followed by an INVENTORY UPDATE: We traveled to Texas for Industry meetings concerning the shortages, here’s what we were told.

    Smith & Wesson-is running at Full capacity making 300+ guns/day-mainly M&P pistols. They are unable to produce any more guns to help with the shortages.

    RUGER: Plans to increase from 75% to 100% in the next 90 days.

    FNH: Moving from 50% production to 75% by Feb 1st and 100% by March 1. Remington-Maxed out!

    Armalite: Maxed out.

    DPMS: Can’t get enough parts to produce any more product.

    COLT: Production runs increasing weekly…bottle necked by Bolt carrier’s.

    LWRC:Making only black guns, running at full capacity…can’t get enough gun quality steel to make barrels.

    Springfield Armory: Only company who can meet demand but are running 30-45 days behind.

    AMMO: Every caliber is now Allocated! We are looking at a nation wide shortage of all calibers over the next 9 months. All plants are producing as much ammo as possible w/ of 1 BILLION rounds produced weekly. Most is military followed by L.E. and civilians are third in line.

    MAGPUL is behind 1 MILLION mags, do not expect any large quantities of magpul anytime soon.

    RELOADERS… ALL Remington, Winchester, CCI & Federal primers are going to ammo FIRST. There are no extra’s for reloading purposes… it could be 6-9 months before things get caught up. Sorry for the bleak news, but now we know what to expect in the coming months. Stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted…

    Related commentary from Bob Owens :
    They didn’t know when they’d be getting anything back in stock, from magazines to rifles to pistols. Manufacturers were running full-bore, but couldn’t come close to keeping up with market demand. It wasn’t just the AR-15s, the AK-pattern rifles, the M1As, and the FALs that were sold out. It really hit me when I realized that the World War-era M1 Garands, M1 carbines, and Enfield .303s were gone, along with every last shell. Ubiquitous Mosin-Nagants—of which every gun store always seems to have 10-20—were gone. So was their ammo. Only a dust free space marked their passing. I’ve never seen anything like it.

    Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone. This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

    Feb 9, 2013

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. ”

      – Isoroku Yamamoto

      • ” You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. ”

        – Isoroku Yamamoto

        Not true!

        http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

        Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          This does not make the statement “Not true”.

          It makes it “unsubstantiated”.

          • JAC,
            So I guess we are going to just start accepting anything as “fact’ then, huh?

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

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              Are you having trouble reading these days?

              I did not say it was TRUE. I said that your references argument would only make it unsubstantiated as opposed to False.

              Because False would require definitive proof it was not true.

              What you have is one guy making an argument that is two parties removed. And he doesn’t even know for sure if that was the actual source.

              So if we can’t prove something is true or false then we simply don’t know. It becomes a statement that has not been substantiated either way.

              • JAC,

                Are you having trouble reading these days?

                Gee, would this qualify as a personal attack? 😉

                I believe the standard here is that you have to show some “facts” to back up claims. You don’t like my source, then please post some source that shows when/where/what context he said this.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Whatever, Todd. How about this One Instead? …

          ” Don’t Fuck With Americans ” – Bottom Line

        • I would recommend reading the memoirs of Yamamoto. It is required reading for War College. The quote is there…along with….. ” The resolve of the individual American is as great as our own Sumari.”

          His memoirs are required reading because of his viewpoint of war.

    • This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

      And the US gov has bought 2 billion rounds these last couple years?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, the DHS has bought well over 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. A majority of this is hollow points, which are illegal under the Geneva Convention for use in war. What I find interesting is how the Govt keeps painting certain groups as dangerous (vets, tea partiers, etc.) Yet they themselves pose a far bigger threat to our society than any non-governmental group in the U.S. It has even been admitted that Al- CIADA was manufactured and funded by the CIA.

        I sure don’t want any wars. I don’t think anyone I know wants a war. With that said, who are these dangerous people that they brand?

  19. gmanfortruth says:
  20. gmanfortruth says:

    The SPLC Collaborates With The DOJ: It Is NOT A Coincidence!

    Nor is this a surprise. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin739.htm

  21. For those that are interested, Sue Paterno has responded to the Freeh report.

    http://www.paterno.com/Default.aspx

  22. gmanfortruth says:
  23. gmanfortruth says:

    @V.H. As I said awhile back, many will see this rogue cop as a hero. Maybe there is some truth to his words, but his actions are wrong. Our society is so sad. http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/dorner-and-the-media-game/

  24. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/10/Democrats-Slam-Carson-for-Prayer-Breakfast-Speech-Not-Appropriate-Says-Schakowsky

    I have much to say about Schakowsky’s words-First, it is a prayer breakfast-God is going to be invoked -what more appropriate place is there. Second, invoking religion in politics-Obama is at a prayer breakfast-where he is no doubt going to speak about politics and also invoke God into his statements. He has invoked the wisdom of God as his reasoning for many of his social responsibility stances.

    And Third-why is it one is allowed to use people and their ideas such as Martin Luther King as a guide is acceptable but Jesus Christ who most I think agree that he was at the least, a man who walked this earth, is unacceptable.

  25. A great quote,

    “America is at an awkward stage, it’s too late to work within the system but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    Sounds like a neat bumper sticker to me!

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    A woman from Los Angeles who was a tree hugger, a liberal Democrat, and an anti

    -hunter, purchased a piece of timberland near Colville, WA.

    There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a

    good view of the natural splendor of her land so she started to climb the big

    tree. As she neared the top she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her.

    In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many

    splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a local ER to see a

    doctor. She told him she was an environmentalist, a democrat, and an anti-hunter

    and how she came to get all the splinters.

    The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go wait

    in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.
    She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared.
    The angry woman demanded, “What took you so long?”
    He smiled and then told her, “Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental

    Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I

    could remove old-growth timber from a “recreational area” so close to a waste

    treatment facility. I’m sorry, but due to Obama-Care they turned you down!”

  27. gmanfortruth says:
  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Nurse, please don’t laugh!

    “Of course I won’t laugh,” said the Nurse to the patient, “I’m a professional.
    In over twenty years I’ve never laughed at a patient.”

    “Okay then,” said Bob, and he proceeded to drop his trousers, revealing the
    smallest adult male organ the Nurse had ever seen in her life.

    In length and width it was almost identical to a AAA battery.

    Unable to control herself, the Nurse tried to stop a giggle, but it just came out.

    And then she started laughing at the fact that she was laughing. Feeling very
    badly that she had laughed at the man’s private part, she composed herself as
    well as she could.

    “I am so sorry,” she said, “I don’t know what came over me. On my honour as a
    Nurse and a lady, I promise that it won’t happen again. Now, tell me, what seems
    to be the problem?”

    “It’s swollen,” Bob replied.

    She ran out of the room.

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/huge-asteroid-will-miss-us-%E2%80%9Cby-about-15-minutes%E2%80%9D-next-week.html

    Here’s a good question. Should we trust government and the media to ever tell us the truth? Even about this asteroid, wouldn’t it actually hitting the earth somewhere be kept quiet to avoid panic? That would likely be impossible, or would it?

  30. gmanfortruth says:
  31. gmanfortruth says:

    I have articles ready to post, but just not sure that’s what needs to be talked about. I’ll ask again, what should we discuss? Todd, what about you? Buck, you?

    • I’m burned out Gman. No ideas on what’s next…Goodnight!

    • Have a couple only half done. Not sure when I will finish one. Go ahead & publish or there are interesting things happening. Two different police officers/organizations wrongfully shooting innocent people has my attention. The number of laws violated is scary. The belief they will be absolved of any wrongdoing is terrifying.

    • Interesting because it’s so rare that a pope resigns. Says he doesn’t have the strength any longer to keep up with it. Give him credit. He knows he’s old school and he knows some old school pope isn’t going to keep/attract new members. The pope tweets now for cryin out loud. Friend of mine, Christian, Catholic hater, certain we’re in the end times, predicts a black pope will be next. I’m good with that, but wonder if Dolan will get the nod.

      • I’d be surprised if they went with Dolan, though stranger things have happened. The Church may well choose someone from Africa or South America in an attempt to diversity and bring in/maintain some newer members.

        For some reason I just don’t buy the health reason given — Pope’s routinely grow old and have major health issues, yet they remain as Pope until death. The last Pope to resign was some 600-yrs ago and due to a war within the Church. I don’t know of any precedent for a Pope citing health concerns, but again, stranger things have happened.

        • I know how you feel. Don’t think you’re going to get any leaks from the Vatican though. This conclave will be different though since there really is no rush to fill the vacancy. Normally the pope is dead and they rush to fill his seat. It will be interesting to watch

          • Bottom Line says:
          • Bottom Line says:

            Research the third Secret of Fatima

            …is interesting

            • I’ve read up on that in the past — interesting stuff, but do you believe this may play a role in the Pope’s resignation? If so, how/why?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Yes.

                As a guess, he is trying to bail because he feels something big is about to take place. I don’t blame him. As I understand, he is supposed to be the last pope.

                I am most confident that our timeline has been altered from what was predicted/warned in the third secret…among other predictions/prophecies. As best as I can guess, things may still get messy, …only later than originally thought.

                That’s why I and others have been trying to preach a message of trying to get along and do the right thing, respecting the rights of others, etc. …to try to avoid disaster, or at least survive it.

            • Just read up on it from wiki. As with everything today, you just don’t know what or who to believe anymore, which is why it’s all about the F bomb..Faith!

              Buck..I remember as this pope was voted in he wasn’t expected to hold the position very long because of his age. He was referred to as a ‘transitional’ figure for the church. I’m taking things at face value until proven otherwise.

              • I remember as this pope was voted in he wasn’t expected to hold the position very long because of his age.

                Correct – he wasn’t expected to hold the position long due to his age because of death, not because of retirement.

            • It is a scary proposition. No doubt about that.

        • This is an unusual man. As much as I liked John Paul II he really was never the same after he was shot. I would suspect that the last five or so years he was on the throne, he was kept there by people who feared that they would lose their influence and power if he were to step down. This guy gave indications a long time ago that he would probably not stay if he felt his health would limit him. be interesting to see if he’s picked out a “successor” .

          Wife and I were discussing this in light of some of the past scandals and his “blame” in covering them up. While there is never an excuse for looking the other way, quite often, something happens that is kept from the big guy by subordinates eager to never deliver bad news or to protect their cronies. This came up in Vietnam regarding Mai Lai. Did HQ in Saigon know, did the Divisional Commander of the Americal even know? We do know that Nixon did not participate in Watergate nor was he even aware of what was going on. His problems resulted from participating in the cover up in the mistaken notion that it would either blow over or that his buddies needed to be protected.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I can only hope that it does.

      Like perhaps the Catholic Church drying up and blowing away in the wind.

      But I won’t hold my breath.

      I expect nothing will change except the face of the despot.

      • Let’s not go there JAC.

        • Yeah 😉

        • Just A Citizen says:

          What’s the matter.

          You guys can’t handle the truth?

          • Settle down cowboy! Sorry SK but I wanna know some more of JAC’s thinking. You were saying, Mr. Citizen?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              The “Church” has been one of the most corrupt forces against humanity since its inception. Yes, there have been a few good things done by people within the Church.

              But as an “institution” is is corrupt and has either committed or tolerated evil in the name of keeping its power.

              In my view it is the most “anti-Christian” organization I know of that claims Christ as their god.

              I don’t care much for any “organization” or “institution” claiming to be a “Church” of God. But this one holds a special place in the line of hypocrisy and vile behavior.

              I know that some will find this offensive. But it is how I feel. If the Child Molestation cover ups were not enough to wake people up then nothing will.

              This is not a condemnation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is a condemnation of MEN who claim to speak for God.

              • Gee whiz JAC. If that was the case then we should have been doomed long ago, but we still persevere. Lots of folks have the same line of thinking. One of my very best friends thinks like that. Twelve years Catholic school and 23 years of mass, (that’s when I finally got up the nerve to stop practicing, fear of excommunication in the family 🙂 ) I never felt that way. True there are rotten apples, but demons have infiltrated every group no matter the cause. I see the Catholic Church as the original Christians..This power you refer to, what power? How do they have any power over you? There is no mandate from Rome that you must follow. So, in my Black Flag voice, what difference does it make to you what some men in Rome do?

                (no offense taken, just curious) SK I know I opened the can of worms that you didn’t want open but you need to help me out here. 🙂

          • Whose truth?

            • I have to deal with this attitude in my own family. We are still suffering from the molestation issue. But, and it is a big , every organization that deals with kids deals with the same thing. Several years ago, when the stat accidentally got out, it was reported that there were over 260 molestation incidents, teacher on student in the NYC system in one year . Recently we had the Penn State thing and the Boy scout thing, and the Rabbi thing and of course Brooklyn Polytechnic HS. A Protestant founded upper scale private school where abuse was endemic via the sports coaches

              As I have said before, I was more than fortunate to be educated by De La Salle Christian Brothers in the upper grades of Grammar School,. High School and College. They got me through my doubt period with their no-nonsense common sense approach to our faith. So, unlike a lot of other folks, I was exposed to learning what is ex cathedra from what is not. What I must accept and what I do not have to accept. The pope and the church are composed of men, average, ordinary men, not Gods. they can and do err. If you listen very carefully and read a lot, you will see this pop up throughout church history.

              Every organized religion will eventually go off the rails. It is the nature of power and of the beast itself. I was watching a program the other night on the Crusades, you remember those, the wars to defend Western Civilization. This particular propaganda piece essentially laid all evil at the feet of the Crusaders and the Western Church. Again, going back to the education I had, I was taught about the excesses but taught about the excesses on BOTH sides.

              Those of us who believe that the media is politically slanted should realize that a lot of what they think they know about the church is based on the same type of slanted view. Why? Great question. I suspect in many cases because the church stands firm on issues of Faith and Morals. Standing in the way of abortion, contraception (not ex-cathedra by the way) and Gay marriage, the Church is a huge target. The society cannot be transformed unless it is destroyed. The mandates on birth control in Obamacare are just a part of the opening shots in that war. protestants have run up the white flag a long time ago and despite predictions of the Church, it still has far better numbers than the protestants in the mainline churches who seem to stand for nothing. I have always believed that standing for something will get you a lot farther than standing for nothing. The loss of parishioners among Hispanic immigrants to Pentecostal churches seems to derive from the mushy Catholic Church led by the ’60’s generation. The “God loves you crew” who think God asks nothing in return.

              Here’s a little piece on Catholic education in this country which touches on anti-catholicism:

              http://www.ncea.org/about/historicaloverviewofcatholicschoolsinamerica.asp

              And then there is Patrick Cardinal Hayes fellow:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Joseph_Hayes

              Pay particular attention to his comments on the Great Depression.

              Boy, I really dd not want to get dragged into this one!

      • Hey, we agree! 🙂

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Re; your comment:
    “Geez – don’t you guys ever read the links I post? Do you just automatically believe me and I can stop posting links and just make stuff up?”

    Yes, I read your links. And I read the links contained within your link. Because your link is usually just another person’s view of the actual material.

    That by the way, is how I discovered that the actual provisions were not on page 111.

    And the “irony” was that a site calling iteself “politiFACT” referenced the wrong page.

    The wording you referenced is in Section 1501 of the Act.

    It also made a misleading claim about the liens on property. Turns out those limitations on prosecution are in reference ONLY to the heavier fines of up to 20,000 for failure to accurately report your info.

    You think I just manufacture conspiracy on how the IRS will impact those who do not pay?

    Well I offered their methods based on actual experience. So I have no doubt that if they want to they will provide the “money owed for back tax” records to Credit Agencies and Mortgage Brokers data bases.

    You say they will only take the money from refunds and Govt payments. So does that include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments??

    Does it include paychecks for all Federal employees and retirement checks for the same?

    How about Federal Grants to States which are then paid to contractors?

    If people think these provisions of the law protect them from the IRS they are seriously mistaken, in my view. That agency doesn’t have to prosecute you criminally or get a “lien” on your property to destroy your life.

  33. Topic No. 2

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/keller-the-conscience-of-a-corporation.html?hp

    Am I wrong to assume that most here on SUFA would support having an employer dictate their insurance coverage on religious grounds? I hope I am wrong…

    • Off to lunch though….have at it! 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      “Dictate”?? No but the employer certainly has the right to accept or not accept certain coverage for what ever reason they wish.

      Of course, that decision has to be made in light of negotiations with employees. Or at least, in light of competitive forces for labor.

      It is a contract issue and should NOT involve any Govt entity.

      The only reason this issue exists is because the employer’s rights have already been violated by the Gov trying to dictate Insurance Coverage.

    • I think this debate shows the problem with the government imposing its self in almost every aspect of our lives. As time goes along there are more and more things we are forced to do. So we lose more and more freedoms. As I’ve stated before Religious freedom is simply the last Wall we have left to fight against the governments ability to completely take over our individual freedoms.

      And just for fun-when did the government get the power to make companies give away something for free. Sounds like a really bad business plan.

  34. An interesting quote I found this morning:

    “Oh, all that philosophy stuff – what a joke! I only made that up to sell books! Objectivism? What a pile of hooie! You wouldn’t believe the bender I was on when I came up with that one! Laissez-faire capitalism – ha – I’m from Russia – I’m socialist to the core! Anyone who believes any of that crap needs their head examined.”

    Ayn Rand – Deathbed Confession – March 7, 1982

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      OK, I’ll bite. WHO’s Quote?

      • This is a direct quote of Ayn Rand, made on her deathbed, just moments before she died on March 7, 1982.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Bullshit

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I am afraid you source is in serious error.

          Either that or he/she has the wrong Ayn Rand.

          You see, Ayn Rand died on March 6th, NOT on March 7th.

          She was with friends in her home when she passed. One of those later wrote that she did not die bitter, was surrounded by friends and true to her philosophy and her love for life, right to the end.

          • JAC,
            No, she actually died on March 7th, but after hearing these comments, her friends thought if they moved the date of her death up one day, they could pretend she never said those things.

            But like all conspiracies, the truth eventually came out.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    A tax proposal that is more sensitive to market forces. Also a tax that is actually more FAIR than any other proposed.

    The Flat Tax Versus the Flat, Flat Tax
    By Joseph Salerno
    Sunday, February 10th, 2013

    Although I am not a fan of the flat tax, this short video is well worth viewing. The look on President Obama’s face is priceless as pediatric neurosurgeon Benjamin Carson criticizes the punitive thrust of progressive income taxation at the National Prayer Breakfast.

    Of course the so-called “flat tax” is not really a flat tax at all because it extracts a much higher dollar amount from those earning higher incomes than from those who earn low incomes. For example, if everyone is taxed at the same flat rate of, say, 10 percent, then the individual earning $1 million per year must pay taxes of $100,000 whereas the individual earning an annual income of $50,000 pays only $5,000. The former is thus forced to pay a price twenty times higher than the latter has to pay for the same rotten government services. How is this not a punitive tax?

    This phony flat tax contrasts sharply with the situation on the market where all individuals, regardless of income, pay exactly the same price for any given good like bread, tablet computers, Cadillacs, movie tickets and all of the other privately produced goods and services they buy. Now imagine if everyone were forced to pay a price in proportion to his income for everything he purchased on the market? A higher money income would no longer mean command over more goods and services. Hence, no one would have any incentive to earn a higher income by excelling at producing things consumers desired, and, as a result, productivity and the economy would come crashing down. If people truly wanted to avoid the discriminatory and punitive aspects of taxation then they would favor a “flat, flat” tax, that is an old-fashioned “capitation” or “head” tax in which everyone paid the exact same dollar amount to the government. Not only would this not penalize more productive people but, much more important, it would have to be very, very low in order to ensure that even the lowest-income people are able to afford it. I think 200 bucks a person per year sounds about right. To the bleeding hearts out there worried about the poor, I am more than willing to entertain proposals of 100 bucks, or better yet, zero.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Re: evidence of past societies that were free:

    Further information: Great Law of Peace
    The Treaty of Penn with the Indians by Benjamin West painted in 1771.

    Some Europeans considered Native American societies to be representative of a golden age known to them only in folk history.[65] The political theorist Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote that the idea of freedom and democratic ideals was born in the Americas because “it was only in America” that Europeans from 1500 to 1776 knew of societies that were “truly free.”[65]

    Natural freedom is the only object of the policy of the [Native Americans]; with this freedom do nature and climate rule alone amongst them … [Native Americans] maintain their freedom and find abundant nourishment… [and are] people who live without laws, without police, without religion.
    —Jean Jacques Rousseau[65]

    • [and are] people who live without laws, without police, without religion.

      Seems to me to be a pretty misguided view of Native American society…or, at the very least, a look at Native American society through the prism of European society.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        It does reflect the European experience. That was the point of the observation and why it fits the discussion.

        Europe had a long history of Governments. At that time some were preaching the concepts of “freedom”. But Rousseau is noticing that those “savages” in North America had it already in place. They did not need Govt, police or religion to direct and control their lives, as the Europeans understood those concepts.

        The Religion issue is one I have always found interesting. Many have tried to describe Native Religions. But if you compare to all those practices we call religion many of the Native practices don’t fit perfectly into the concept. Again that is because those definitions start with European scholars and philosophers.

        They were far more fluid for example. Spirituality and belief in the spirit world were consistent. But the stories, legends, practice and rituals varied among tribes, clans, families and over time.

        • But they did have governmental structures in place — just not the same type/extent as that found in Europe. I think you said it best: But if you compare to all those practices we call religion (or government or law or police or etc.) many of the Native practices don’t fit perfectly into the concept. This does not mean there was an absence of government, law, police, religion, etc. It was just expressed in a different form from that found in Europe, partially due to the difference in population size, partially due to different culture and a host of other differences.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I don’t know a lot about the eastern tribes. What I have studied shows a more structured Govt similar to the European experience. At least he northeastern tribes.

            I think that fades as you move south and it definitely fades when you move west. Because Govt is not just some structure, but the ENFORCEMENT of laws upon people using force and coercion.

            For example, there was no single person who decided issues of customs violation. And then if one was found guilty they might simply be shunned by the people. That is NOT Govt as we apply the term in our discussions.

        • To add, there were also vast differences in such practices from one tribe to the next.

    • JAC,
      Native Americans are probably the best example, but there were wars between the tribes, so they weren’t all “peaceful”.

      They may have lived “without laws, without police, without religion,” but “as the Europeans understood those concepts” is the key.

      And as Buck pointed out, they were relatively small, homogeneous, nomadic societies which makes social norms and structures easier to follow/enforce.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        I am not sure what you mean by “relatively small” but during their heyday they far outnumbered the Europeans at the time of our Founding.

        While large areas are known to be of certain Tribes, the clans, families and smaller tribes were no that homogenous. And of course many were not nomadic.

        I don’t know why you think norms would be easier to maintain with a nomadic group. Especially when these groups kept splintering apart. Seems to me the most developed “governmental” structure was in the northeast, where tribes were pretty stationary.

        Yes, the key to the question you asked is a European understanding of Govt. That is the type of Govt we are trying to dilute, reduce and/or eliminate.

        I do think population size matters in this, but it is not because it causes complexity or such things. It is because it reduces the amount of unsettled land (commons) available for alternative infrastructure locations. This is why public utility monopolies still exist. It would be very hard to allow full blown market competition.

        • JAC,
          I was just winging it from my (white-man’s sanitized!) elementary education.

          I did a few searches and found this. It’s very interesting – I kinda knew some of this, but not in this detail. And I definitely knew everyone of their MYTHS from grade school! It’s an interesting – and entertaining – and not too long of a read. It confirms much of what you said (crap!). But the last part on page 2 about government is very interesting. Seems at least some Native American societies did have quite complex governments.

          http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html

          I’m going to look around for other articles. If you have any good links, post’em.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            Great find. That sure was funny.

            Based on my research there were two major periods of complex civilization and something resembling a European style Govt.

            One was the period before the Europeans began serious exploration of N. America. This is the pyramid and mound builders. Whose structures resemble S. America and who traded with tribes to the south.

            There was trade across wide stretches. Obsidian from Yellowstone Park has been found in central Mexico. This stone was the premier of all arrow head material. So it was highly valued as trade stock.

            It is not clear that this first period was wiped out by the European diseases. It may have vanished due to other calamities and the invasion of the second period tribes.

            The second period was the one the Europeans found among the NE Tribes when they finally came to settle here. It was that Govt that some settlers borrowed from in establishing Colonial Laws and Govt. It was probably this group which existed in the millions but had been decimated by the time the Pilgrims came to dinner.

            I don’t have any good links but I do have some reference materials in my library. So maybe tomorrow I can post some of them here.

            By the way, there is some archeological evidence the Vikings were not the only early explorers here. There may have been IRISH as well. Although the Vikings and the Irish might have been “related” by that time. 😉

            And then there is the case of Kennewick Man. Nothing will raise the hackles of an American Indian quicker than bringing up that European in the Wood Pile.

  37. Haven’t been able to keep up with everything posted, so apologize if this is a duplicate.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-an-ominous-warning-from-canada-gun-registration-will-lead-to-gun-confiscation/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Neither will happen in this country. Americans are not buying guns and ammo like their planning on giving them up. They are buying them to prepare for war.

    • Again, this is what NYC did. Registration in ’65. Little by little, starting in the “90’s the noose was tightened until all semi-automatics (.22’s included) were outlawed and owners were required to surrender them or get them out of the city. Then they banned detachable mags and rifles which used them. So the 1898 bolt action British Enfield .303 is banned in NYC. Very reasonable those folks.

      Do not believe a word they say. They are lazy, lazy people who never take the time to study an issue, its causes or the possible ramification of their “solutions”. Remember, their Chief Assistant Zombie told us all in a verry reasonable way that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it! F—— Ass—–!

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    WOW, I would have never thought that this would even be thought of in this country. the sad part is that it’s one of thousands of similar articles. http://www.naturalnews.com/039046_military_drones_American_citizens_murder.html

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    Are people just starting to lose it at an alarming pace? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/new-castle-county-courthouse-shooting_n_2661604.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D268878

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Imagine for a moment if the tables were turned and a Republican president had issued an order that permitted the killing of American citizens with drones.

    The country would go gonzo.

    Liberals would be screaming at the tops of their lungs about the president’s intentional violation of due process and civil rights.

    Liberals would be demanding the president be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

    Jesse Jackson and Al Not-So-Sharpton would be lisping their ebonic mumbo-jumbo that the policy and the president are racist and bigoted. They would organize protest marches in front of the White House, where they would burn effigies of the president.

    The Huffington Post would run headlines such as: ”President wants to kill Americans” or “The butcher-in-chief.”

    Red-faced with anger, Michael Moore would devour another dozen or so donuts, feign personal hygiene and then start his movie camera.

    Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would sling all kinds of slurs and disparaging remarks at the president and claim he is usurping his authority. They would encourage Americans to revolt.

    The “99-percenter” crowd of intentionally unemployed Americans would move into Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, where they would pitch their tents and refrigerator boxes, ingest massive amounts of mind-altering chemicals and then try to storm the gates of the White House.

    Scores of Hollywood actors would scramble to be on television to proclaim they are leaving the country until the president is charged with murder and forced to resign.

    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would ban all images of the president in New York City and encourage New Yorkers to fly the American flag upside-down as a distress symbol.

    Piers Morgan would be so angry that he would encourage Americans to buy AR-15s and revolt.

    CNN would be running 24/7 coverage with panels of guests condemning the president and with live reports from the White House. Wolf Blitzer would be howling at the moon.

    The residents of East St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago and other cities would burn their own neighborhoods in protest.

    Left-wing musicians would organize a massive pay-per-view concert to protest the president. The musicians would call the president a murderer from the stage. A big banner behind the stage would have a picture of the president and Adolf Hitler with the words, “Can you spot the difference?”

    The heads of the ACLU would spin completely around and then spontaneously combust.

    Vice President Joe Biden would say something so outrageously stupid that even CNN wouldn’t air it.

    Bill Maher would piously stand on his comedy stage and say, ”I told you that you couldn’t trust a Republican, and now they are going to kill us all.”

    MSNBC’s rating would increase to more than 60 viewers!

    Jimmy Carter would encourage military members to desert, and then he would fly off to the Middle East where he would meet with Hamas leaders and apologize for America.

    The National Education Association would go on strike and claim it was doing it to benefit the children.

    Representatives from NARAL, the pro-abortion group, would say had they known the Republican president was going to issue such an order, they would have wished their parents had aborted them.

    But what has been the left’s response to President Obama’s decree to kill Americans who are suspected of being or associating with terrorists? Nothing. The big goose egg.

    The reason for their condemnable silence is that President Obama is Democrat, a big-government liberal like themselves. Need any more proof that liberals are two-faced hypocrites?

    Liberalism is hypocritical poison, and it’s on full parade for all the world to see.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/when-a-republican-murders-u-s-citizens/#Aw8OmUC7qPXOOKR5.99

    Going back to the waterboarding days, is Ted that far off? Or did he miss something?

    • Ummm…many liberal commentators are coming out very strongly against Obama on this issue.

      • Very true, Buckster…….and so are a whole lot of military commanders. Although, there is one problem……the drones used in the United States….are CIA powered.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t watch much TV, but I do believe what you are saying. This is actually a kind article compared to some I have read. Peace!

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    Anita will like this! 🙂 This is an important message to all of us. http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/02/confrontation-101/

    All of us means just that. the voices of Buck< Todd, Charlie, Mathius and all Americans, regardless of political leanings have the right to speak freely. Please watch 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sorry, it should be Buck, Todd. Not Buck<Todd, because Todd is not boning Buck, at least I don't believe that to be the case 🙂 😆

      • I certainly hope not! And if so, at least wine and fine me first, I thought you were better than that Todd!

        • the voices of Buck< Todd

          I thought that meant “Buck is less than Todd”, which we know isn’t true!! Just another personal attack on us poor defenseless liberals here.

          And if I have to wine you, I’m certainly going to FINE you too!!

      • ??
        This is from 2011. Not sure what your point is.

        • Gman’s link was about freedom of speech and the government requiring permits and setting rules for free speech and demonstrations.

          That’s what Scott Walker initiated in Dec 2011 – and it’s still in place – permits are required to protest in the Wisconsin Capital.

          This Government Overstepping doesn’t concern anyone?

          • Sure, it needs to be challenged in court. Do you have a link to Walker’s actions? I have a question, will go to the bottom to ask.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            It concerns me and I have said so before.

            However, if those demonstrating would simply show some good manners and then clean up after themselves, perhaps we wouldn’t have to discuss “permitting” free speech.

            Now, did you have heartburn over the Tea Party folks having to get permits for their march on D.C.??

            I don’t have a problem with a “permit” as long as there is no burdensome costs required. Such a permit would simply be a mechanism for organizers and the govt folks to sit down and make some plans for crowd safety, health and clean up afterwards.

            • JAC,

              However, if those demonstrating would simply show some good manners and then clean up after themselves, perhaps we wouldn’t have to discuss “permitting” free speech.

              I kinda agree with this, but demonstrations usually arise around issues that people are passionate about, and requiring good manners and sanitation goes contrary to the idea of a demonstration.

              And I don’t remember seeing any references to “good manners and then clean up after themselves” in the 1st amendment… Almost sounds like you’re trying to “interpret” the Constitution????

              Now, did you have heartburn over the Tea Party folks having to get permits for their march on D.C.??

              Of course not! 😉 But I’m not the one who brought up the issue. The impression I got from Gman’s link is that the Obama administration is trying to squelch free speech by requiring permits. I was just pointing out the its not only Obama.

              I don’t have a problem with a “permit” as long as there is no burdensome costs required. Such a permit would simply be a mechanism for organizers and the govt folks to sit down and make some plans for crowd safety, health and clean up afterwards.

              Does this same philosophy about “permits” apply to permits for guns?

              You know, as long as there is no burdensome costs required. Such a permit would simply be a mechanism for gun owners and the govt folks to sit down and make some plans for crowd safety, health and clean up afterwards (you know, like the bodies from the gun fire?)

              Did the Founding Father’s apply for permits to demonstrate against the British? Did they always have good manners and clean up after themselves?? 😉

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                Of course they didn’t. But you know our society is so much more “complex” now. 😉 back at ya.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    OH MY! This guy was seriously destroyed and made a fool of. I would’nt want to be a Liberal with this idiot talking for my side. OH, I’m not a Liberal, Thank God! 🙂
    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/02/anti-gun-liberal-news-anchor-destroyed-in-interview-w-keith-morgan/

  43. This is why all of you should listen to me. We Scandinavian’s know how to get along and get things done!

    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/11/why-nordic-nations-are-a-role-model-for-us-all/?hpt=hp_bn2

    • True-false?

      February 11, 2013 12:00 A.M.
      If Only We Were Swedenizing
      Scandinavia reforms while we stagnate.

      By James Pethokoukis

      In President Barack Obama’s Election Night and inaugural speeches, he made it clear there would be no centrist pivot in his second term. Forward, 51 percent of my fellow Americans, to a more egalitarian, tolerant, and communal future!

      The president’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday will likely flesh out that vision as it applies to the federal budget, income inequality, and the environment. The era of Big and Getting Bigger Government is here to stay, he’ll surely admit. Higher taxes on the rich and business will be presented as a small price to pay for an expanded safety net and greater economic security. Don’t worry, middle-class Americans, the “dad of the country” — to use comedian Chris Rock’s recent description — will make it all better.

      Given all that, it seems like good news that The Economist has just published a paean to Nordic-style, cozy capitalism, calling the Viking on its February 2 cover “The Next Supermodel.” After all, isn’t that what Father Obama is hell bent on accomplishing, the Swedenization of America with a supersized welfare state, confiscatory taxes, and greater income equality? The next thing you know, Michelle will be hiring Ikea to remodel the Oval Office. Out with the stuffy Resolute desk, in with the clean, modern lines of the Vika Gruvan model.

      We should be so lucky. While America is moving left, Scandinavia is moving right. As The Economist points out, Scandinavia’s socialist image is badly out of date. Sweden is the largest of the Nordics and perhaps the best example of their embrace of market capitalism. Over the past 20 years, Sweden’s public spending has declined from three-quarters of GDP to just over half. Its corporate tax rate is half of America’s, its annual deficit a rounding error of just 0.3 percent of GDP.

      Late last year, the pro-free-enterprise Legatum Institute published its annual Prosperity Index, ranking major national economies on eight “foundations” of success, including economic fundamentals, entrepreneurship and opportunity, and governance. The top three finishers were Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, with Finland in seventh. And the U.S.? It finished twelfth, outside of the top ten for the first time. Legatum’s damning assessment: “[America’s] biggest fall is in entrepreneurship and opportunity, which has declined eight places in the last four years. Businesses’ start-up costs are rising in the land of pioneers and patents. Fewer Americans believe that working hard will get them ahead.”

      Scandinavia still taxes and spends too much. But it is able to offset those disadvantages partially with efficient, honest, and transparent government. Both cultural homogeneity and history have created a high level of social trust, The Economist explains, which means “high-quality people join the civil service. Citizens pay their taxes and play by the rules. Government decisions are widely accepted.” In its economic-freedom index, the Heritage Foundation praises the Swedish economy for its “regulatory efficiency [and] open-market policies that sustain flexibility, competitiveness, and large flows of trade and investment.” Of Denmark, Heritage says, “The overall regulatory environment, transparent and efficient, encourages entrepreneurial activity.”

      The Nordics have had one other big advantage, at least up until now: an America that innovates for the world’s benefit. It doesn’t matter so much whether your own country is innovative, so long as it is open to importing and adopting new ideas, inventions, and processes created elsewhere (as well as the “creative destruction” such innovation brings), which the Nordics are. But someone somewhere needs to push the technological frontier. Economists Daron Acemoğlu, James Robinson, and Thierry Verdier suggest countries “may want to be like the Nordics with a more extensive safety net and a more egalitarian structure . . . [but] it may be precisely the more cut-throat American society, with its extant inequalities, that makes possible the existence of more cuddly Nordic societies.” If America were “to switch to such cuddly capitalism, this would reduce the growth rate of the entire world economy.”

      This possibility has probably never entered the president’s mind. If it had, he might have, say, not raised investment-tax rates by 60 percent as he did from 2012 to 2013. The worst-case outcome is an America that gets a more Nordic-sized welfare state and tax burden, keeps its current inefficient, dysfunctional government, and loses its innovative edge. That is a recipe for, in turn, stagnation, crisis, and decline. Under Obamanomics, America is more likely on path toward Italy or Greece than Sweden or Denmark.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340280/if-only-we-were-swedenizing-james-pethokoukis

      • I’d vote “Sad”.

        The article I posted is about what Scandinavian countries are doing right, and what other countries can learn from that.

        The article you posted focuses on the parts to the Scandinavian Model that don’t apply to the US, and just craps on the whole idea of even trying to improve things.

        Sad.

        • I don’t want to make you sad 🙂 but it isn’t just crapping on anything. It is pointing out the real possibility that the things you are focusing on-are working out well because of some other specific things.

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    With the State of the Union Speech happening tonight, a new thread will begin shortly before the speech is to begin so that those of you who watch it can express your opinion in real time. While my opinion is not very high of our President, I may watch it just so I can discuss it here. If not for that, I would not waste my valuable time listening to a narcisstic windbag spout about all his rhetoric. If he brings up the fraud known as Climate Change (or whatever they call it these days) I might even puke.

    He will undoubtedly bring up that we “need to invest” in education, just like every President as far back as Bush I has said in every SOTUS. Seems that money isn’t fixing things, but the psychopaths in the District of Criminals can’t seem to grasp that reality.

    Now, if someone yells out “liar” “socialist” “communist” or “loser” I will laugh very loudly. I know that not everyone has the same feelings about this man and what he say’s, and I will respect your opinions. that would be a fun debate, to prove him right or wrong, that is.

    After the big speech, Chris Matthews will have to change his pants after a premature ej….. you get the point. Piers Morgan will have a new lease on his gun control life, only to get embarrassed again, and Rachel Maddow may come out of the closet and reveal she is really a he. Buck will clap, Todd will don his ski’s and head out for a workout, and Charlie will likely rip his speech apart in his next article on his blog.

    Sounds like fun 🙂

  45. Valentine’s Day Massacre? NJ Dems Take Aim At Gun Owners & Non-Union Construction Workers

    By: LaborUnionReport (Diary) | February 12th, 2013 at 07:30 AM | 1

    This week, Wednesday and Thursday appear to shaping up to be an all-out assault on freedom in the State of New Jersey.

    On gun control, according to Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins:

    The Democrat leadership in the New Jersey Assembly plans on ramming through 24 different anti-gun measures on Feb. 13 and 14.

    In addition, the assault on union-free construction workers continues.
    Non-Union Need Not Apply – saad-akhtar-pic

    Last month, the New Jersey Senate approved a union-sponsored bill–written by Ironworkers’ organizer and NJ Senate President Stephen Sweeney–that would discriminate against union-free construction workers.

    Now, along with taking aim at New Jersey’s gun owners, union-bought legislators in the Democrat-controlled state assembly are voting on the bill to discriminate against non-union construction workers this Thursday.

    If the bill passes in the Assembly and signed into law*, the Project Labor Agreement expansion, which dictates union construction workers be used on specific projects–including projects involving Hurricane Sandy cleanup and reconstruction–may lead to discriminating against over 75% of New Jersey’s construction workers who choose to be union-free.

    A study on Project Labor Agreements was conducted by the State of New Jersey in fiscal year 2008 but only released in October 2010. This study, cited by the Associated Builders & Contractors, points out that schools built with PLAs vs. schools built without PLAs cost NJ taxpayers 30.5% more.

    According to the ABC’s Truth About Project Labor Agreements website:

    Sen. Sweeney and the Senate Democrats are claiming this bill is important because it would ensure local construction workers are employed on Superstorm Sandy recovery projects. But readers of this blog know that PLA mandates do not ensure a local workforce on public construction projects. They are nothing more than Big Labor handouts at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only will this bill open the door to the waste of taxpayer dollars, it will also ensure the vast majority of New Jersey’s hardworking and well-trained construction workforce will not have an opportunity to compete for critical recovery projects in their own communities.

    It’s also worth noting that Sen. Sweeney makes $207,000 a year as a paid organizer for the International Association of Ironworkers (BSOIW), a union whose members typically benefit from PLA mandates on public construction projects. New Jersey Ironworkers’ locals, in particular, would profit from this proposed expansion of the PLA Act because they often perform significant work on bridge projects. Absent a PLA, this work could be assigned to contractors signatory to other competing trade unions, or qualified nonunion contractors and their employees through a normal competitive bidding process. [Emphasis added.]

    * Previously, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had vowed to oppose Project Labor Agreements. However, it is not known whether recent union overtures has softened Christie’s stance.

    What you can do

    If you live in New Jersey, you can e-mail the assembly and tell them you think eliminating New Jerseyans’ 2nd Amendment Rights and discrimination based on union membership is wrong.

    Here are the e-mail addresses you can send your concerns to:

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/12/valentines-day-massacre-in-nj-democrat-pols-to-vote-against-non-union-construction-workers/

  46. Move out of New Jersey like most sane people are doing. It is simple.

  47. Banning Gays From The Prom

    By: Breeanne Howe (Diary) | February 11th, 2013 at 06:13 PM | 110

    While anti-discrimination laws prevent gay students from being excluded from school activities, a group of students, parents and a teacher are hoping to do just that. According to Paige Preusse of NBC 2, At Sullivan High School, in Sullivan, Indiana, the group will be creating a separate prom that will ban gay students from attending.

    As if the idea of excluding certain students from the prom wasn’t enough, the group is attempting to do it in the name of Christianity. As one student put it, “We want to make the public see that we love the homosexuals, but we don’t think it’s right nor should it be accepted.” Helping to lead the charge is special education teacher, who serves as a shining example of the failure of public schools, Diana Medley. Said the public school teacher:

    No I honestly don’t [think gays have a purpose in life]. Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t understand it. A gay person isn’t going to come up and make some change unless it’s to realize that it was a choice and they’re choosing God.

    Local pastors have also shown support for the anti-gay prom. Of course anyone that is actually familiar with the Bible knows that what this group is proposing could not be further from the mission of Jesus.

    Yes, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms the Old Testament truth that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Bible also states in Leviticus 18:22 that to practice homosexuality is a sin. However, overwhelmingly throughout his life Jesus made clear that he came with a message of love for all. In fact, Luke 5:32 tell us:

    I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

    Further, it was the sinners with which Jesus broke bread. He admonished the Pharisees for their belief that they were better than others and without sin. Clearly holy huddles were not Jesus’ style. From the prostitute Mary Magdalene to Judas, the man who’s betrayal would lead to him on the cross, Jesus excluded no one. Had he excluded sinners, Jesus would have found himself alone; because the fact is that no one, including folks in Sullivan, Indiana, is without sin. Lest certain groups think their sins are less than the sins of others, the Bible is clear on that issue as well. Romans 3:23 states, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And is the result of sin different depending on the sin? No, Romans goes on to explain in verse 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” All sin leads to the same place, separation from God. Through Christ alone we are saved.

    Those in Sullivan should be ashamed of themselves. Not only are they completely misrepresenting how Christians should behave, but they are giving those that haven’t had the opportunity to know Jesus a horrible and wrong impression of his word.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/11/banning-gays-from-the-prom/

    They definitely should be ashamed of themselves!!!!!!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Good for them. Exercising their Right of association.

      • Well, I agree they have the right to associate-I’d say good for freedom-but that does not mean I have to think those actions are good.

      • Good for who?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Those organizing a PRIVATE Prom Dance.

          • I’d agree in principle (although I think it speaks volumes (negatively) about these students and their parents) if it weren’t for the involvement of the teacher.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Teachers have private lives and I doubt the teacher was the instigator in this.

              Perhaps their message is valid from their religion’s perspective. That society is trying to FORCE “normality” on something their religion treats as a Sin. So they are taking a stand for make people see the truth.

              Or maybe they just wanted a dance where they didn’t have to watch homosexuals making out on the dance floor.

              Trying to make people accept such behavior as “normal” is far different than “tolerating” the sinner while trying to get them to repent.

              I think the person who wrote the critique may need to reconsider her own religious “interpretation”.

              If we agree on the principle then we agree. The principle should then dictate the response.

              We can say “well that ain’t right” but we should not let it bother us nor take any action to stop it. We are of course free to try and explain why such behavior is not constant with the principles or in their case, their religion. I just think the author was using “literary license” in trying to argue that this was not consistent with the religion.

              But that kind of goes back to my comments of yesterday regarding religion. 😉

              • Nothing is ever simple JAC-but when reading the Bible it is pretty clear that holding a person to God’s word is meant to inform Christians what to expect and demand of other Christians. Not to judge the people who do not want or claim to be attempting to walk with Christ. So what seems contradictory to you or others is not always what it seems.

              • And we do not say “We can say “well that ain’t right” but we should not let it bother us nor take any action to stop it.” We are commissioned to spread the gospel of Christ, plant seeds, and then let God take it from there. That does not mean we cannot as citizens or even Christian organizations be involved with political matters. That is why it irritates me to constantly be told I am simply not allowed to be involved because I’m not talking about anything but religion. I talk politics on the basis of how I think issues will effect society, not because God said so-Because God pretty much stated I cannot expect the non-Christian to follow the Bible. Others may simply say God says-but quite frankly I don’t really have a problem with this either-I find it no different than someone-following the philosophy of say an Ayn Rand or Martin Luther King. And yes, I know you do not agree with everything Ayn Rand says-well I do agree with God on everything-but that does not mean that everyone at a secular level has to do so and they shouldn’t be forced to do so-just Because God said so-they would be better off if they did-but that is a completely different argument and it doesn’t involve force.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              In hindsight I could have said it much shorter.

              I think this is a sign of BLOW BACK.

              • You seem to be generally in support of people exercising their rights of association and speech but coming down hard on those people who disagree and exercise their own rights of association and speech in opposition to the initial event.

                As for the issue with the teacher’s involvement, yes a teacher is a private individual and is allowed to have a private life. However, they still must understand that they will often be looked upon as a public figure in the local community and, rightly or wrongly, as a representative of the school. As such, a teacher most certainly should be in involved in organizing with a select group of students to keep out another group of students.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Not sure how I am opposing others of expressing their opinion on this.

              I said that there should be no ACTION taken to stop it. That would be infringing upon their right of association.

              They are organizing a Private dance which has rules of attendance. That is their Right. Their dance does not impose upon anyone.

              If I take ACTION to stop that then I am the one imposing upon them.

              On the other hand, I am free to speak out against their action as well as to support their action.

              Or in this case, to support their action based on principle but criticize it for lack of good manners.

              • I am free to speak out against their action…

                Isn’t that what’s going on here?

              • I’d say the question here Buck, is are you free to forcibly stop them.

              • No, but you are free to speak out against this in an attempt to get them to abandon their plans. As I said immediately above: isn’t that what’s going on here?

              • I certainly believe one has the right to do so-but I find even that answer unsatisfactory-I think people have begun to believe the right to speak out-means much more than just the right to speak and protest. They seem to think it means they have the right to invade people’s privacy, their property and to use the powers of government to intimidate. There is a line, which I can’t always identify in words but I know it when I see it.

              • I have no problems with peaceful protests, even if I don’t agree with them. I do have an issue when violence gets involved. VH says : “They seem to think it means they have the right to invade people’s privacy, their property and to use the powers of government to intimidate.” In many ways I agree, many tend to attempt to persuade in a fashion that can require the legal use of the 2nd Amendment. Always be ready!

    • There is a disconnect here and I see it often. When Jesus saved the prostitute from stoning, he called on the crowd to remember their own sins and transgressions. The most important part of the story involves the words he used to send the prostitute on her way, “Go and sin NO MORE”. Perhaps if your religion finds that practicing homosexuality is wrong then you might take that last part to heart.

      This is like the word “people” in the second amendment. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard and read, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I almost never hear part two about not sinning anymore.

      From a purely practical point of view, if the parents want to have a “private” unsanctioned party. Go at it. People are quite free to condemn them or to humiliate or embarrass them or even to shun them for what they want to do. But prohibit it ? That is where the thought police come in.

      Regarding my initial reaction to all this when I first read it. They basically don’t want a Danny and Billy prom with Billy in 4 inch platforms looking like a whore. Same goes for Mary and Sally where they are both in their tuxedo’s french kissing on the dance floor. Sorry, maybe I am way too old school here but I find this disconcerting and I think a lot of others do too. ,

      • I’m not sure why when the topic of teenage homosexual couples came up you immediately leapt to the image of a boy in platform heels dressed like a girl and the girl dressed up to look like a guy making out with her partner…

        Do you find it similarly disconcerting to have Billy and Sally on the dance floor making out like there’s no tomorrow. People don’t necessarily want to see that either. My point being the same standards of decency should apply to a heterosexual and homosexual couple.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          And what is the basis of your conclusion regarding “standards of decency”??

          How do you know they are correct?

          • Societal norms mostly.

            Let’s take the context of the official school prom here — as a school sanctioned event, the school administrators can establish a code of conduct. If anyone violates, regardless of sexual orientation, they are kicked out of prom. I have no problem with this.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              It is not a society norm to force acceptance of homosexuals into a private dance. It is not a social norm to shun such dances.

              So why do you consider this groups action to have an exclusive dance as somehow violating social norms?

              What are these norms? Who shares them? How deeply entrenched are they?

              You know we have social norms against public nudity and profanity. Yet the “left leaning” progressive courts have decided these behaviors are “protected” against said norms.

              How does that square with your proposition?

              • “So why do you consider this groups action to have an exclusive dance as somehow violating social norms?”

                I don’t. I feel it bad form to exclude someone else because of sexual orientation, but if a group of students wants to get together outside of school and exclude another group, so be it.

                I am generally against public nudity and profanity laws because it is that individual’s right and freedom to express themselves as they see fit. It is also your right to kick them out of your store for walking in nude.

                Where it gets a bit trickier is a public/private setting like a school prom — assuming a public school at question, there are competing concerns. But those in charge (the school administrators) can proscribe rules of decency/conduct so long as they don’t rise to the level of discrimination (for instance, if two boys make out on the dance floor they get kicked out, but if a boy/girl does the same they can stay — such discrimination, in my opinion, would not be allowed).

              • It is all well and good to say that the school administration may set rules. Sure, they can set all they want, Billy can’t wear a dress. Sally must wear a dress, Billy can’t kiss Sean, Sally can’t kiss Brenda but you know and I know the practical outcome, a discrimination lawsuit which will establish yet another new “norm”. There are new “rights” being born every day..

              • Well as I said, in this context, the school cannot proscribe rules of conduct that discriminate against any group. Billy should be free to wear a dress if he chooses (and be ready for the unfortunate jeers and taunts that will result), but his dress can be no more revealing than the dress Sally is wearing.

        • I agree with you Buck 🙂 I don’t care about sexual orientation, but let’s keep it private. Intimacy should be a private thing, and if some folks prefer to be public, then I can exercise my Free Speech rights and tell them to get a hotel room.

          On the subject of cross dressing. I think it’s funny when men go out in public dressed like women. I saw one in K-Marts many years ago. He was so stupid looking. He was being openly laughed at. Sucked to be him. I guess my point is, that he chose to publicly show his sexuality. this can be frowned upon sometimes. If a woman dresses up like a whore, she will be ridiculed and looked down upon.

          I hope you get my point. 🙂

        • Maybe because I have seen it and read about it. I agree that if Billy and Sally are French kissing, that too is out of place but in my Neanderthal thinking there are degrees of out of place, there are degrees.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    On the recent criticism of Dr. Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.

    Perhaps the Dems, and their media trolls can explain why we didn’t see them criticize this fellow for invoking the Bible as a defense of his political view points!

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-PrayerBreakfast/2012/02/02/id/428302?s=al

    • I thought Dr. Carson’s speech was fantastic. He is quite intelligent and it showed. A credit to the human race 🙂 (yea, that’s deep coming from someone who has been declared a racist)

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    re; your comment:

    “Nothing is ever simple JAC-but when reading the Bible it is pretty clear that holding a person to God’s word is meant to inform Christians what to expect and demand of other Christians. Not to judge the people who do not want or claim to be attempting to walk with Christ. So what seems contradictory to you or others is not always what it seems.”

    A more False statement isn’t possible. Many things in this universe are in fact “simple”.

    As for the Bible, what you think is a “clear reading” is not shared by everyone who reads it. Including me. So how can it be so clear if many get a different answer? If it is so clear then why do various Religions need some “special” MEN to interpret it?

    Your interpretation doesn’t seem to be consistent with the general narrative of this book of books. It is God’s Law, remember?

    So why would God be only discussing how Christians should judge other Christians? Christ’s legacy was one of preaching to the non-Christians. It was the story of “conversion”.

    And of course there were NO CHRISTIANS when Jesus walked the earth or when the stories in the books were occuring.

    • The Bible Jac does both -it teaches what we should expect from other Christians -and it sets down those laws of nature that you speak of-yet it gives one freewill to decide for themselves but the consequences for those decisions are still there-you know like your understanding of natures law.

      • As far as why does Man interpret the Bible differently-Why JAC does man reason differently? If all people don’t agree about what is truly objective reasoning, make objective reasoning mute?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          It would be more proper to say that men “think” differently, and in some cases improperly. Also that men come to different conclusions based on what they see and then how they interpret it, which in turn is affected by their prior experiences and beliefs. If you wish you can say they reason differently. But I would say they are not truly using “reason”, or that they are using “faulty reasoning” depending on the nature of their conclusion.

          REASON is our means of discovering and addressing TRUTH. It is a process of taking in information, forming concepts and then testing those against reality. In fact, this is one of the flaws I see in Rand’s discussions. She seems to reach a point where she stops asking if her conclusions are still valid. Instead of testing against new information she started just attacking the new information.

          So when it comes to something like the Bible we can apply good logic and reasoning to get to a certain point in discovering REALITY. But by its nature, the Bible deals with things that cannot be addressed by REASON alone. Because these are of the spirit world where there is no way to TEST truth or falsehood.

          Now for a direct answer to your question.

          No, it would not make objective reasoning moot. It makes it all the more necessary to overcome the faulty thinking used to justify faulty conclusions.

          Your statement amounts to this: If we cannot agree on fact or truth, then does this not make truth moot?

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H.

    re; your second comment above.

    Attacking your political views by attacking your religious foundation or beliefs is simply a LAZY means of argument. It has been a standard method used by the “left” but I now see it being used by the “right” more and more. “He’s a Socialist” becomes the counter argument, rather than the actual reason the political viewpoint is detrimental of false.

    A person’s religion is part of the basis for their behavior and conduct, their value system. So I see the arguments of getting religion out of politics as an “impossible” thing, let alone obnoxious to the concept of Freedom and Liberty.

    What matters is what that person proposes in the role of a Govt official. If you try to IMPOSE your values upon me, then I have a problem with you. If your religion informs that proposed imposition then I will oppose the policy and your rationale for it. This may include your “religious” arguments for the policy. But in the end, it is the policy that matters and must be argued against.

    If I am to win that argument with Reason then I have to show how your religious basis is “unreasoned” or “unreasonable”. But how do I do this if there are no base criteria from which to evaluate each argument?

    Our Founders provided that base in my view. Not secularism and not abolishing all evidence of religion from public policy debate. But from the base of Freedom, Liberty and Justice.

    The concept of “just don’t impose your religion upon me” is the essential value expressed by many of the Secular opposition. One you have seen expressed here by our “left wing” friends. I generally share this view, as it relates to Feedom and Liberty, but not all the specifics of how those people act in imposing their views on others.

    For example, I don’t see letting a town put up a nativity scene on public lands as “imposing” anything upon me. If naked people are NOT imposing then how can a Nativity Scene or a monument with the ten commandments be “imposing”? They CAN’T.

    Not unless one admits that we are incapable of independent thought. Which of course would lead us down and entirely different path. One that I think would be very dark and filled with evil.

    • I agree that people should use reason-but many people don’t or on some subjects simply don’t have enough knowledge on a subject to do so,and the ones that don’t lean on the wisdom of someone they respect to stand with. Not saying it’s the perfect way to go, just making a point that it is not really any different to stand with the wisdom of God than it is to stand with the wisdom of anyone else when it comes to the secular world.

      • Depends.

        You wouldn’t accept my saying “Because Obama says so” or Charlie saying “Because Marx says so”. So why should I accept your “Because God says so”.

        You are more than welcome to stand with God’s wisdom (as I can stand with Obama’s wisdom – yes, I know that may well be an oxymoron, but just go with it for the moment!), but you need to back up your support with some reason as well.

        Does that make sense? JAC – is that what you’re getting at?

        • I don’t disagree with your statements Buck-just pointing out that separating out people using God’s word as their source as somehow worse than a secular person just following whatever Obama says isn’t justified.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          As do you. If you add this then yes, that is part of what I am getting at.

          The other part is for everyone to chill out over the “impact” of others practicing their beliefs when it really causes you no harm.

          I don’t go to down town Portland for the Gay Pride Parade. I have no interest watching the naked OLD Hippies ride by on bikes. Not to mention the other freaks. Their parade causes me no harm and I can avoid it.

          It is my choice to visit a Nativity in the Town Square at Christmas. It causes me no harm and I can avoid it if I wish.

  51. As we traverse all the political mumbo jumbo going on, I pose a question. If a elected person proposes, signs into law, or otherwise initiates the power of the office in an unconstitutional way, how should that politician be dealt with? this is for all politicians.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      1. Public humiliation. Remember the town halls after TARP and STIMULUS??? More of that and things will start shifting.

      2. Recall petitions in their home states. If the State law does not allow it then get a recall law passed.

      3. Finally, make sure they lose the next election.

      4. If 1-3 fail then just skin em’ and hang thar hide on the fence. That’l keep dem others away.

      • I like #1, Not sure if the next 2 will be effective (I don’t think elections are honest anymore), and love #4.

        I also think that there could be easier ways. I think that any of the questioned events should be brought before a court, ruled upon by a jury of peers, and a decision rendered. If a politician is found guilty by the jury, he/she is simply removed from office and not allowed to hold any other public office. I think that the threat of facing a constitutional jury would solve most of the problems.

      • JAC,

        1. Public humiliation. Remember the town halls after TARP and STIMULUS??? More of that and things will start shifting.

        Well, so much for Good Manners, hey?

        2. Recall petitions in their home states. If the State law does not allow it then get a recall law passed.

        Gee, I don’t remember you being a big supporter of the Wisconsin Recall Elections? Did I miss that post?

        4. If 1-3 fail then just skin em’ and hang thar hide on the fence. That’l keep dem others away.

        Does this fall within your definition of Good Manners?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Yes it does. I have never nicked or otherwise harmed a hide when skinning it.

          I treat my hides with the utmost of respect and care. That is another reason to hang them on the fence rather than toss them in the hog pen.

          On recall, I did not support the Wisconsin effort because I thought it wrong given the issues.

          But the question was “unconstitutional” actions.

          I think you can humiliate the elected officials and maintain good manners. Well maybe not. It is hard to keep your cool when they try to simply dismiss you or talk down to you. But it is possible.

  52. Bottom Line says:

    Things that make ya go “hmmm”

  53. Great conversations today 🙂 Unfortunately, at least to me 🙂 I have to go. Be back later.

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Re The Dance

    We once again find an example where we can discuss the meeting of rights and what should be our response. Last time it was over boycotting. This is actually very similar.

    Your comment:
    “No, but you are free to speak out against this in an attempt to get them to abandon their plans. As I said immediately above: isn’t that what’s going on here?”

    Freedom to speak does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD speak.

    Lets consider for a moment if many of us stopped speaking out, stopped trying to organize some group shunning of people, over things that are not really that impactive to the larger group of society.

    Would that not move us farther towards a more civil discussion? Could we expect less Blow Back from one side or the other if we stop getting all over people for exercising a right that we all seem to agree they have?

    Perhaps we would see more serious conversations on issues if the participants didn’t have to fear a boycott or public attack for expressing their views.

    • Freedom to speak does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD speak.

      And, freedom to associate (in a discriminatory manner) does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD associate (in a discriminatory manner). Which is more harmful — those discriminating against a group of their peers due to sexual orientation, or those speaking out against such an act?

      • Buck, I generally ignore what I don’t agree with. Unless they push themselves and ideals upon me, I will not confront the issue. There are some occasions where this does not apply. Stopping someone from being harmed wrongfully (stopping a rape) would qualify.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Today it is those speaking out.

        • How so?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Because it is they who is attacking another’s RIGHTS.

            We already agreed this Right existed as a matter of principle.

            So those attacking them for exercising that Right are the more destructive.

            • Using the freedom of speech to criticize another’s use of the right of assembly is NOT akin to attacking another’s rights. Unless they are doing something more than merely speaking out against the underlying action.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                If your not attacking their Right then why would you speak out against it?

                This is like claiming a boycott is not a form of coercion.

              • To speak out FOR what you believe in.

                Boycotting is another peaceful means of standing up for what you believe in. But I’m not going to get into that debate again.

            • To paraphrase what you yourself said — just because you have a right doesn’t mean you should necessarily be exercising said right in a given manner.

              I find nothing wrong with speaking out against what one perceives as a poor exercise of a right.

  55. Just A Citizen says:
    • Which tells you all you need to know about why it is a bad policy…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        While that is true, it is the ENTERTAINMENT value of all this that I find more interesting.

    • There was a time when this guy (Cheney) was a pretty straight thinker and then he turned into Dr. Evil. I wonder if there isn’t a physiological reason. Maybe all those heart attacks caused minor strokes in the brain. Because, in the past 12 years this fellow bears no relation to the Sec Def. in the Bush I administration.

  56. It appears that the Communist News Network forgot that we have laws in this country.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-asks-should-dorner-be-killed-with-a-drone-strike.html

  57. I’m not very familiar with the Catholic religion. But, with all this stuff about St. Malachy, can someone help me out on this? Is it an issue or just more baloni? http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/02/prophecy-of-the-last-pope-is-upon-us-have-we-come-upon-the-end-of-days-2448148.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      It is more BALONEY.

      Hell, they can’t even find one view on the story itself.

      As for coming on the end of days I would say YES. However, remember that in Bible speak a Day is not well defined. It could take millions of our current earth years before this end of times actually comes to an end.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I dunno, JAC… He was said to be “amazingly accurate”.

        ” Through the centuries, his prophecies have turned out to be amazingly accurate, even prophesying the date of his death. ”

        ” The doubters of St. Malachy have been proven wrong over time. It was said that he prophesized the very date of his own death, and got it right. “

    • This is a new one on me. I have heard of Fatima and of Bernadette of Lourdes but not this one.

  58. Ya know things are bad when even the “WALKING VAGINAs” don’t like Obama 😆
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/even-code-pink-wants-obama-impeached/

  59. Todd & I were discussing price increases in food, gas, etc.. Everything is going up or seems to be because nearly every currency is going down in its real world value. Russia may be the one exception, but I am not sure. They did purchase 540 metric tons of gold last week. Three times the weight of the Statue of Liberty.

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/business/berko/17609385-420/berko-why-is-the-market-moving-higher.html

  60. @Todd 🙂 Hope today finds you and yours healthy and happy 🙂

    Re: Smart meters. I don’t know what to think about this, your thoughts?
    http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=242905
    Pepco Customers Claim Smart Meters Make Them Sick

  61. Two more cops shot by Dorner in Cali. Live on the news

  62. Geez, 3 surgeries in ten days, my sister, father and mother in that order. Fortunately, nothing major. Just lost an Aunt, losing a cousin soon as well. Lord knows I don’t like funerals.

  63. Why does anyone care if North Korea have a, as in one, nuke? Same with Iran. What are they gonna do, yell boo!

  64. I must be missing something…..The queen Liberal Bee herself….Pelosi…..saying that there is not a spending problem…it is the deficit that is the problem………ummmmmm isn’t a deficit caused by spending?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      No! Its caused by lack of REVENUE.

      You Texicans spend to much time in the sun. No wonder you don’t get the basics of Progressive Economic Theory.

      • How silly of me….the business school that I went to taught the opposite. So, I need to embrace spend first, then raise revenue? I get it….spend money you don’t have, then steal more? Is that it? Create a deficit and then take more money from honest folk that work for a living?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Now your cookin with gas. Bout damn time you understood this!!

          Speakin of “business school” in the old vs new model. I was explaining to my Economist Son that inflation is the increase in money supply after he graduated. (And was working for the Govt as an economist. )

          He told me I was soooooo wrong. It was simply the increased price of goods. I had to dig up some old Econ texts and copies of the Austrian view of Money to show him.

          He said all that information was NEVER covered in his classes. This from a guy who finished Magna Cum Laude in Economics.

          So you see my Texican friend. We have not only grown old, our knowledge and understanding has been replaced by the PROGRESSIVE Education. We are worse than dinosaurs.

          Good thing we still control the purse strings. 🙂

          Hope all is well with you and yours.

    • In newspeak, the answer is definitely, emphatically, categorically NO.

  65. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    I need your advice/help on some computer questions.

    Email me at justacitizen1787 at gmail dot com if you please.

    Thanks

  66. How can we do a background check on an illegal immigrant ? We can’t even get it right for gun owners, according to this idiot!

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    gman

    My prescription: Take two glasses of that Tomato Brandy of yours, turn of the Teli and turn on some good music.

    It is time to D….E…..C…..O…..M……P…….R……E……S……S

    Peace and Live Free my friend.

  68. Gman, you weren’t inspired and awed by his intelligence?

  69. Hopefully, I provided some laughs tonight. In the morning I will start a new thread and the issues can be discussed seriously. I’m not sure what has been said since, I turned on some Country music as I chatted on the phone. I have lots of family issues to deal with in the next 10 days or so, but will remain active here (sorry Todd 🙂 ).

    Can’t wait for Spring to kick in!

  70. Just heard Rubio. Much better speech than O. Simple to the point and informative. O was rambling, not specific, basically the same old crap. I got a laugh out of his comment that police were tired of being out gunned by the criminals so let’s limit or take the guns from the law abiding citizens. I don’t think they teach logic at Harvard.

  71. Just A Citizen says:

    A snippet from a story on Huff Po regarding Mr. Obama’s promise to bypass Congress on climate change if they do not act according to his wishes. This one paragraph should be sent to every person you know. If it doesn’t wake them up I am not sure what will.

    “But the federal government has tremendous power when it comes to driving the clean energy industry. Its vast reach into the economy makes it uniquely able to trigger the private sector to direct investment one way or another. As Christian Parenti wrote previously for HuffPost, taken together, federal, state and local government spending makes up nearly 40 percent of gross domestic product. “

%d bloggers like this: