Open Mic for Speed

As we await the good Colonel, D13, to finish his expected article, let’s speed up the loading speeds. (Note to USW, I can only open my drafts in the Dashboard) I’m trying to get some more writers to come on board and add their input, as well as be part of the daily chat, wish me luck!  On another note,  Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School,  gun control has been a daily issue in the alternative news.   I am, as you know, totally against any form of gun control, at all.  I believe I can debate this issue with anyone, including any current politician.  At the same time, I am trying to NOT beat the issue into the ground here at SUFA.   If I’m overdoing the subject, please give me a kind reminder 🙂  For now, let’s move forward!  I can’t believe I said that! 🙄  



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Guns and Spoons

    Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my 30.06 right in the doorway. I gave it 5 shells to go in the clip, and noticing that it had no legs, even placed it in a wheelchair (Having one handy) to help it get around. I then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street shoveled the snow, a girl walked her dog down the street, trash man picked up the trash, and quite a few cars went by. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn’t rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it’s the misuse of guns by PEOPLE that kills people, or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world. Alright, well I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.

    • G, how has the world survived without your empirical knowledge. That HAS to prove your point. And the spoon anology! Pure brilliance!

      Come on, man … you have to do better than that … 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Come on Chuckie, what’s wrong with a little satire in the morning? I’m not worried about the world surviving my friend, it will do just fine destroying itself without me. Maybe I can find some good Commie jokes, what do ya think? Maybe not though, it’s too sad a failure to laugh at, Bwahahaha! 😆

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    This subject is disturbing to me. I hope I never see someone wearing one.

    Gov’t Wants Volunteers to Wear ‘White Guilt’ Bracelets

    Aaron Dykes
    March 13, 2013

    Has political-correctness gone too far?

    In Wisconsin, volunteers in AmeriCorps are encouraged to cope with their “white privilege” by wearing a white bracelet, while reminding themselves to examine their status in society and talking with ‘friends of color’ to encourage their transformation.

    Agrowing movement or is this just more leftist brainwashing?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      white guilt…..sounds rasis, somebody call Sharpton, lol

      Actually, this white guilt thing does kinda sound like a PC version of white superiority, doesn’t it

      It’s like their saying whites are better….but we feel bad about it!
      ….the whole thing is just stupid.

    • as long as they make Italians wear them because of all the peoples they conquered when Rome was powerful. And the Greeks because they conquered, and the Persians before them, and…

  3. I wanted to run a thought passed the intelligent people here at SUFA. It has become an observation of mine that the left worship the almighty ‘%’.

    We always here the tax debate as a matter of % and not total $ paid. There is no argument that the top 10% of American income earners pay nearly 3/4 of the total tax revenue. But the lunatic left keeps crying that the “evil rich don’t pay their fair share”. They get to that conclusion based on % of income. They think that because a high income earner can make more charitable donations and get their taxble income lower and therefore pay a lower pecentage of income that they are not doing their part. No matter how much is paid in total, all the left cares about is percentage.

    This worship to the almighty % came up in another debate I was having, our federal spending problem. The lefty I was speaking too kept hiding behind % of GDP to justify the insane level of federal spending. When I pointed out the fact that our federal government is estimated to take in a record amount of tax receipts this year, and that our federal budget has never decreased under Obama, the lefty kept pointing to the the drop in % of GDP the budget takes as evidence that Obama has cut spending.

    What can we do to wake up our ignorant countrymen on the left to real world math? How can we get them away from their religion of worshiping the almighty % and encourage them to use basic math on a calculator? Or is there no hope for the lunatic left and we should look to just breed them out?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning FLP, I hope that all is well with you and yours 🙂

      Let’s try an easy solution, replace the current taxes (payroll, SS, Medicare ect) with a flat sales tax on everything sold. No exceptions. That is more feasible than me saying “let’s just get rid of the Fed’s all together”. What you experienced is a person who knows nothing about economics and is just repeating left wing talking points. He/she is a well trained useful idiot, taught well by the Public Indoctrination System and the Lame Stream Media. This person reads HuffPo and watches MSNBC. Chris Mathews is his/her favorite talking head and to him/her you are a racist. Breeding them out takes too long. Any other ideas?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Forget about % – break it down to fundamentals.

      You own your body, time/money, and mind. You exchange the use of your body, time/money, and mind for money to buy stuff.

      Anyone that thinks they have a right to your property is really suggesting that you are their slave.

      Start there. Ask them what right they have to other people’s life and property.

      If they cannot understand something as fundamental as such, they are a lost cause. If they try to force you into giving up your property, you have the right to defense – use it.

      Granted, anyone that wishes to live in a community, must accept a shared responsibility for shared security and benefits of a community. Thus people have a responsibility to contribute. Allow them to freely decide, according to wants/needs of themselves as it compares to the wants/needs of the community. But the second you add force into the equation, it is a form of slavery.

      • So that means, what, if you choose to live solo, you don’t get to use public roads, public schools, publicy anything. Have a nice life going that route! 🙂

        • Bottom Line says:

          Not necessarily.

          How do you figure there is a necessary requirement or stipulation?

          So long as the infrastructure is there in place, how does it do harm if others use it? Does it not benefit the community as a whole to have everyone use roads to access local markets and such?

          Do out of town people not get to use your roads? They didn’t pay for them.

          I will give you a successful real life example of how to work it…

          Every year in Louisville Ky, there is the “Kentucky Derby Festival” that has one of the biggest fireworks shows in the world, complete with an air show,bands, etc..

          It is all funded by volunteer contributions. The local government helps with police and traffic, organization, etc.. Local businesses and citizens all chip in $ and volunteered time to make it happen. Military and vintage aircraft pilots fuel up and coordinate to have an air show, etc, etc

          The whole city voluntarily gets together to make it happen – NO FORCE. It is always a big successful event and the city as a whole benefits via revenue for local businesses and everyone has a good time.

          No one cares if you did not give $ or time. There is no admission price. Everyone benefits. Why can you not do infrastructure, or anything else for that matter, similar to what I have just described?

          • Bottom Line says:


            Another example; If you need a traffic signal, you can make it known and start a fundraiser. If it is that big of an issue to not have a traffic light at location X, then people will agree and likely contribute as it will benefit everyone.

            So long as it is in place, what difference does it make if bob or john didn’t contribute? The problem is solved and all benefit.

            My grandfather once explained it to me like this… He was walking through a sales area where there was a paper wad in the middle of the aisle. Two sales people were arguing over who did it, and who should have to pick it up. He simply picked it up and put it in the trash, even though he had no part in putting it there. He made them look like fools, because while they were wasting time and energy arguing over it, he used far less time/energy to solve the problem.

            Get it?

            • Get what, BL? Public roads paid for via taxes … government sponsored, etc. What’s your point, that it didn’t have to happen that way? Too late, it already did. You’re screwed. Now pay up! 🙂

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” What’s your point, that it didn’t have to happen that way? ”

                Yes, and that there is a far better and more efficient way for future civilization.

                ” Too late, it already did. ”

                Then tear it down and rebuild it the right way.

                If everyone were to simply accept things because ‘that’s the way it is’, then how can we ever progress as a species?

                Should black folks have just said, ‘that’s just the way it is” ? Should the founding fathers have just accepted British rule citing “that’s just the way it is”? Should Jews in Nazi Germany have just said “that’s just the way it is”?

                If the way it is isn’t right, then it is a good reason to say “How can we improve/rectify this situation?”

    • FLPatriot,

      I wanted to run a thought passed the intelligent people here at SUFA.

      You should probably be more specific – otherwise Gman and BottomLine will answer you. Oh, too late…

      The reason percentages are important is because everything is “relative.” A certain dollar amount of debt may be a big deal to me, but not a big deal to you, if you have more income and wealth.

      An Example:

      Greece Debt…..$473 Million
      US Debt…………$16 Trillion

      The US has 33 times as much debt as Greece. Why is Greece having a debt crisis and the US isn’t?

      Because the US GDP is 58 times bigger than Greece.

      The percentage of Debt to GDP matters. Understand?

      This is all off the top of my head, because I’ve had this discussion here several times, and usually don’t get much of a response. If this leads to a real discussion, I’ll find the actual numbers, links, etc.

      There is no argument that the top 10% of American income earners pay nearly 3/4 of the total tax revenue.

      If percentages are bad, why are you using two here? 😉

      But do you realize that this same top 10% receives 85% of the income? And has 95% of the wealth?

      Do you understand how important wealth is?

      Another Example: Whatever your current economic situation, how would your life change if you won a $10 million (after taxes) lump-sum lottery? You would suddenly have $10 million in wealth. Even invested conservatively, that would yield you $500,000 in annual income. That gives you options – quite your job if you want, move to a better/safer neighborhood, make sure your children get the best education, have the time and resources for family vacations, etc.

      That’s what wealth does. It may not buy you happiness, but it buys you security in your life and your future.

      But the lunatic left keeps crying that the “evil rich don’t pay their fair share”. They get to that conclusion based on % of income.

      No, the lunatic right seems to have a hard time understanding large numbers…

      If you don’t like the “conclusion based on % of income,” what’s your conclusion, based on what arguments and what facts?

      They think that because a high income earner can make more charitable donations and get their taxble income lower and therefore pay a lower pecentage of income that they are not doing their part.

      No, this is wrong. Make all the charitable contributions you want. Taxes are calculated on your net income – after all deductions, including charity.

      The lefty I was speaking too kept hiding behind % of GDP to justify the insane level of federal spending.

      Well, government spending does have an impact on GDP. That includes direct spending on things like the military, and in-direct spending on things like highways, bridges, schools – that benefit private businesses. You know – those “investments” in infrastructure…

      How do you quantify your definition of “insane level of federal spending”?

      When I pointed out the fact that our federal government is estimated to take in a record amount of tax receipts this year

      Cool – the economy must be doing good!

      that our federal budget has never decreased under Obama

      It has never decreased under any president. Why do you expect it to decrease under Obama?

      the lefty kept pointing to the drop in % of GDP the budget takes as evidence that Obama has cut spending

      “Reduced the growth in spending” would be the correct phrase. But you know how people tend to exaggerate things – especially in political discussions…

      What can we do to wake up our ignorant countrymen on the left to real world math?

      Here’s your chance – take all the percentages you referenced in your post, and lay-out the real numbers for me. I’d be happy to discuss them.

      How can we get them away from their religion of worshiping the almighty %

      I don’t think it’s “worship,” because percentages are a very useful tool. If you’ve ever been involved with business/private enterprise, you’d know they use percentages quite a bit too…

      encourage them to use basic math on a calculator?

      I think percentages are part of basic math, and the “percent sign” (%) is on most calculators… But I have to admit I don’t use a calculator very often anymore…

      Or is there no hope for the lunatic left and we should look to just breed them out?

      Are you suggesting eugenics?

      • Bottom Line says:


        What gives you the right to 1% of another’s income?

        What gives you the right to 60% of another’s income?

        How do you decide amount of what you/we have a ‘right’ to?

        What is the difference in how you base your conclusion?

        • BL,
          What gives Bill Gates the right to whatever percentage earns him $600,000 an hour when the people doing the work are earning far, far less?

          The market?

          Careful now, many here posit this isn’t a true free-market. If it was, we’d all be working for minimum wage, that’s for sure …

          Better yet, what gives a hedge fund manager the right to earn $1.4 million an hour in 2010 while the people doing his paperwork earn, say, 50K?

          Remember, the “free” market has corrupted by government … or is it the other way around? 1% own 98% of the wealth … they own the government, set policies accordingly … bail themselves out when they fail …

          Now tell me about all that “risk” they took … even after they were bailed out.

          It’s a good country, America … if you’re the 1-2% … the rest of us our third worlders but not enough of us have figured it out yet. 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            ” What gives Bill Gates the right to whatever percentage earns him $600,000 an hour when the people doing the work are earning far, far less? ”

            They agree to it.

            ” Remember, the “free” market has corrupted by government … or is it the other way around? ”

            A free market does not include interference from government or otherwise, …hence the word “free”.

            • Well, is it free (our economy) or not?

            • Who agreed to what? It’s more like, here’s the job and this is the salary and if you don’t like it, apply for welfare.

              Some agreement.

              We’ve bought into this bullshit system for 200+ years … and to who’s benefit?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                here’s the job and this is the salary and if you don’t like it, apply for welfare.

                No, it’s called go find a job that your happy with the circumstances. Just where has another system existed Charlie? Where has what you want ever worked?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Well said, G.

        • Bottom Line,
          I don’t have a right to another’s income.

          But we have a constitution, that was adopted by the residents at the time, that created a government and gave it certain powers. That constitution and government has been reaffirmed by all successive generations, and it has evolved and been modified as those generations saw fit.

          One of the powers of the government is to pass and enforce laws – including taxes.

          That constitution also preserves your right to petition the government and work to change it. It also preserves your right to leave if you feel so inclined.

          So if you don’t like our constitution and government, feel free to work to change it, accept it, or leave (or continue to complain about it here – that right is also preserved!)

          • Bottom Line says:


            I have a right to live here freely as I am a natural creature born and raised here.

            My right to do so exists above and beyond what any piece of paper says.

            I have the right to defense of myself and property.

            I have the right to destroy any entity that seeks to violate me,…as do you, as does anyone.

            YOU leave if you don’t like freedom and rights…or die trying to violate them.

            Don’t ever argue to me that what people decide on a piece of paper rules over me or anyone.


            You argue that you do not have the right, but that government does. So where does government get it’s ‘right’ ? From the people? But people don’t have that right, so how can they extend it to any other entity?

            • “You argue that you do not have the right, but that government does. So where does government get it’s ‘right’ ? From the people? But people don’t have that right, so how can they extend it to any other entity?”

              And what is the government made of? People. The fact it is owned by 1% of the country (the people) seems fine with you. Unless you’re an anarchist and in that case, good luck with that. You against the world. It’s a nice premise (even I think so) but it’s more a fantasy than Disneyland, communism, socialism and any other ism combined.

              And please film the day you decide to take on the government when they come to collect your taxes … you seem very determined to use violence to stop them.

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” And what is the government made of? People. ”

                You apparently missed the point, Charlie.


                A: NO ONE

                …thus the people have no right to extend a nonexistent right to government.

                ” The fact it is owned by 1% of the country (the people) seems fine with you. ”

                When have you ever heard me argue this? Or are you referring to the notion that people are free to decide whether to accept or reject an employment position?

                ” Unless you’re an anarchist and in that case, good luck with that. You against the world. It’s a nice premise (even I think so) but it’s more a fantasy than Disneyland, communism, socialism and any other ism combined. ”

                Indeed I consider myself an anarchist, …with strong Libertarian leanings I might add.

                And I am not against the world, as I know that there are many that agree with me with regard to freedom and rights. And we’re tired of people like you supporting institutions that seek to violate us.

                The fantasy is that people have rationalized that paper somehow has magical authority over free men and women, or that rights are granted by government, or that it gives government a right to violate.

                Rules are supposed to be a mutually beneficial standard in which to live by in order to maintain a peaceful existence. They are not supposed to be a means to provide an excuse to violate.

                But you keep on pretending, Charlie. One day it will bite you in the ass.

            • Bottom Line,
              This seems like deja-vu all over again. Didn’t our last conversation – about ObamaCare – start like this?

              Yes, you do have a right to live here freely, and defend yourself and your property. But did it ever occur to you – all that has been done in the past to make this country what it is today? Both private enterprise and government – many times working together – and many times working in co-hoots. It’s far from perfect, but I don’t think there’s a better place.

              That “piece of paper” that you so despise is an important part of what makes this country free and full of opportunity. You want to discard that “piece of paper” and have a society free of government, because you think that society will be freer. But you ignore the entire history of mankind that says you’re wrong. This utopia you desire has never existed because it goes against mankind’s very nature – the desire and need to work together for the benefit of everyone. This doesn’t require government, but it always leads to it.

              You don’t want what people decide on a “piece of paper” to rule over you, but look around the world. Where that “piece of paper” – or something similar – doesn’t exist, the void is filled with a brutal dictator. If you succeed in throwing out that “piece of paper”, there will be a brutal dictator who will be happy to rule over you.

              I do not have an individual right to another’s income. But we as a society have decided that revenue is needed to fund the government. We affirm that decision by continuing to live here and contribute to and benefit from society.

              • Bottom Line says:


                Good points, but…

                When all hell breaks lose, paper and everything you think you know will mean squat.

                Get over it. Learn to live without government.

              • Not gonna happen Bottom line-even if hell breaks loose -man will bring back government -if God gives them the choice. 🙂 It is a reality-man wants government-we may disagree on the % that is good-but we have always had government and we will always have government.

              • Bottom Line says:


                I read your post and went into some expansive thought process about the history of civilization and how we ended up where we are today.

                I started typing a big long response in the hope that I might provoke thoughts that may actually get through to anyone willing to listen and indulge.

                Then I stopped. I thought ” If even a good honest intelligent woman like V rejects the notion of a peaceful existence, it says something about humanity.”

                Every time I get to thinking about it, it always goes back to the same root issue…People don’t want peace and freedom. They either want to be slaves or they want to control others via some form of force.

                This is rooted in evil. It is the nature of our species. It is our flaw. It is what the ‘lord’ saw when contemplating the flood. Our very nature and capacity to do evil is our own worst enemy. It will be our undoing and demise.

                Government doesn’t work as it is predicated upon coercion and seeks to control that which it cannot.

                It’s breaking down and one day will not be here. Those that cannot live peacefully without being forced to do so will eventually kill themselves off through conflict, war, inability to organize.

                Those that can learn to live peacefully will do so because it is in their nature to do so. They will be the long term survivors…IF they are capable of fighting for their right to live peacefully against those who seek to violate them.

                Wheat from chaff, Order out of Chaos, Golden Rule, Live and Let Live, blah blah blah, yada yada yada……

                No one cares.

              • Bottom Line,

                When all hell breaks lose, paper and everything you think you know will mean squat.

                First, that piece of paper helps to stop all hell from breaking loose – or at least slow the process and reduce the impact.
                Second, I’m not as helpless as you seem to think.

                Get over it. Learn to live without government.

                It’s not that I need government, it’s that mankind “has a need” – or “has a desire” – to create government.

              • Interesting chat folks 🙂 Hope today finds everyone well! We are getting our St. Patrick’s winter storm, so to speak, 4 inches and counting.

                All of you make valid points. I agree with Todd that the Constitution has limited government enough to slow things down. V. has a point about govt and BL has a point about living free. What I’d like to see more people do is apply the lessons of the past with the information of today. Maybe that will help most to see the future.

                Peace Friends 🙂

              • Bottom Line says:


                People collect, organize and establish a standard of behavior called rules for reasons of mutual benefit/gain.

                This is self organization and it is the basis for civilization.

                This differs from government as government is predicated upon coercion for sake of an edict that essentially works out for one portion of the population to force the other into compliance of their standards.

                It is not mutually beneficial, but beneficial for some over others.

                If you are going to argue the effectiveness of paper, specifically the constitution/bill of rights, then you can start by explaining to me how it has been anything BUT effective in protecting individual inalienable rights.

                How does ‘shall not be infringed’ translate to ‘150 types of assault weapons being banned’? How does that happen if paper has so much power?

                I mean, c’mon…who are you trying to fool?

                I am not trying to knock the idea, just trying to make the point that at the end of the day, it is just paper, and without a population that is willing to go out of the way to stand up for the ideological basis, it has virtually no effect.

                And frankly, the notion of telling someone to leave if they don’t like being violated, is disgusting.

                Taxes are theft, plain and simple. Voluntary contribution is for mutual beneficial. …BIG difference.

            • Bottom Line says:


              To be honest, I am kinda getting sick of debating in circles to people that refuse to even try to understand or respect the concept of respecting the rights of others.

              Several years of doing so and many more before that from so many others has apparently not worked out so well.

              Look at the society we live in. Honestly, I think it’s too far gone…that it’s going to implode and erupt into chaos unless we as a whole(as in ALL of us) get it real fast and make up our minds to do something about it other than sit here and argue and bitch about it.

              I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

              Nope,.. it’s gone.

              • “This differs from government as government is predicated upon coercion for sake of an edict that essentially works out for one portion of the population to force the other into compliance of their standards.”

                Yet you don’t see how (assuming there could ever be a governmentless society) the powerful/rich would eventually hold dominion over everyone else. That’s is what is so baffling about your position, BL. Even we are to assume that someone “could” come to riches on their own (without the help of anyone else, you don’t see how that one person might try to consolidate his/her power via expansion? Or is it okay because there isn’t a government involved?

                We don’t get it? You’re living in a bubble, my friend. A pretty scary one at that.

              • Charlie, I understand BL quite well. “Yet you don’t see how (assuming there could ever be a governmentless society) the powerful/rich would eventually hold dominion over everyone else. That’s is what is so baffling about your position, BL.” This has already been in place for a long time Charlie, you have even admitted that. The Govt is PROTECTING the very rich you are concerned with. Take away the protection, and things will be far different old friend. You are thinking inside the current box, open up! 🙂

      • Todd, well done and I can tell you put some thought into your response, it is only right for me to do the samefor you. Give me a little time and I will be more than happy to have this dicussion with you.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Just wanted to give you something to deal with your lefty friends on the Debt per capita commentary.

          Ask them if having more kids would reduce their spending.

          As for the “love of percentages” I think it fair to say that BOTH sides simple love whatever “statistics” suit them best. Most people don’t understand how those numbers are derived or what the interpretation means. So they can get away with it.

          I commented on here long ago, however, over the lefts love of using percentage in their “art of minimalization” as I call it. When they DON’T like something then you will see them try to portray the thing in terms of some % less than 10% and therefore the thing is not important enough to save. So the number of 10% seems to be some magical threshold they like to use in that regard.

          But when it came to health care reform, having less than 10% without Insurance was a catastrophe. But they did not use the %, they used 30 million people. When it wasn’t working they inflated the number and started using 40 million people.

          • JAC,

            Debt per capita commentary

            It’s not “Debt per capita”. It’s “Debt per GDP”.

            Ask them if having more kids would reduce their spending.

            More kids does not reduce spending. What it does is increase GDP (or in this case, income for the family). So the increased spending is worth it.

            Just ask any dairy farmer…

        • Hey Fl. seems you don’t need to worry about those pesky numbers or %’s-the dems. who control the writing of the budgets have decided they are irrelavant . He he he 🙂

          “Budgets, she said Wednesday during a committee hearing, were less about “abstract numbers,” and more about “values” and “priorities.” ”

          March 14, 2013 4:00 A.M.
          The Democrats’ Budget
          It’s bad, and it gives the GOP an opportunity.

          By Andrew Stiles

          Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow• 4475 followers

          Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.)


          Senate Democrats on Wednesday officially unveiled a budget resolution for the first time in nearly four years. It presents a stark contrast to the latest offering by House Republicans, which achieves balance within a decade without raising taxes. The Democratic proposal never balances, and calls for a $1 trillion tax increase, at least $100 billion in stimulus spending, and a smattering of nebulous spending cuts, most of which can be chalked up to accounting gimmicks.

          Now that Senate Democrats have finally put their plan on paper, it is not hard to understand why they have been so reluctant to do so. For one, it is far easier to demagogue an opponent’s proposal without a serious plan of your own to defend. In almost all respects, the Democratic budget is a political testament to President Obama’s insistence that “we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt.”

          Democrats, though, don’t seem worried — yet. Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.) expressed confidence that the American public’s verdict in the 2012 election was a repudiation of the House Republican budget authored by Paul Ryan, and a mandate for the “balanced, responsible approach” Democrats are offering. Budgets, she said Wednesday during a committee hearing, were less about “abstract numbers,” and more about “values” and “priorities.”

          Murray’s budget, which is woefully light on specifics, essentially embodies what former Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner told Ryan last year: “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is, we don’t like yours.”

          Prior to Wednesday’s hearing, Murray circulated a list of talking points, nearly half of which was devoted to explaining what her budget doesn’t do — “dismantle Medicare,” “make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families” — and was, essentially, a laundry list of familiar Democratic attacks on the GOP budget.

          Democrats will argue that their budget reduces the deficit by $1.85 trillion over the next decade, resulting in more than $4 trillion in total deficit reduction since 2011. Most of those savings would come in the form of a $1 trillion tax increase, or “closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.”

          This is how many Democrats define “tax reform.” Murray, however, has enraged Senator Max Baucus (D., Mont.), one of her party’s most vocal advocates for bipartisan tax reform, by including reconciliation instructions in her budget that would make it easier for Democrats to jam through tax increases in the Senate. “Reconciliation would kill the possibility of doing any tax-code simplification,” Baucus’s office told Breitbart News.

          The spending cuts Murray has proposed are dubious, at best. They include $242 billion in reduced interest payments, which are not typically counted as new savings, and $240 billion in defense cuts apparently gleaned from the “war gimmick,” counting savings from the military drawdown in Afghanistan, which is already current policy. Additionally, The Hill noted, since Murray’s budget eliminates the sequester, it is actually proposing a net increase in spending compared with the Congressional Budget Office baseline. Meanwhile, the $100 billion in new stimulus spending is carefully described as a “targeted economic recovery protection plan” charged with “tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation.”

          Though many Democrats likely share Murray’s belief that Obama’s reelection was an endorsement of the vision outlined in her budget, the half-dozen or so red-state incumbents up for reelection in 2014 are probably not thrilled at the prospect of voting for a plan that hikes taxes by $1 trillion and does little to get the nation’s debt problem under control. In fact, Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, recently suggested that voting for the plan could be a liability for red-state Democrats such as Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), and Mark Begich (Alaska). That could become a problem for Senate majority leader Harry Reid, since Democrats can afford to lose only five votes if they hope to pass their budget.

          Expect Republicans to pounce. Due to the nature of the budget process, GOP lawmakers will be able to offer dozens of amendments on the Senate floor, and force vulnerable Democrats to cast difficult votes on tax and spending issues. Most congressional Republicans are thrilled to finally have a Democratic alternative with which to compare their party’s own fiscal plan. “It’s going to be nice to be able to play some offense this time around,” a GOP aide says. “I think it’s going to become abundantly clear why Democrats have avoided this process for so long.”

          • VH,

            “Budgets, she said Wednesday during a committee hearing, were less about “abstract numbers,” and more about “values” and “priorities.” ”

            She’s right. The budget does not authorize any spending. It lays out the plan – the “values” and “priorities” – for the spending for the year.

            Congress still has to pass individual bills – call “appropriations” – to authorize the actual spending.

            That’s why I feel a budget is not that big of a deal. But you already beat-over-the-head on that one 🙂 and I now agree they should pass a budget. Take a stand – layout you plan – and tell us what your “values” and “priorities” are.

            I don’t like Ryan’s budget. There’s no chance that it will ever pass. But I give him credit for putting it out there (even though it’s more of a political ploy to appeal to the right-wing base 😉 ).

            • You gotta admit coming across this quote right after reading you guys back and forth was timely and funny 🙂 And to use the word abstract- he he he -theoretical numbers when talking about a budget-well it just hit me as very funny. Now as far as a budget being about values and priorities-I don’t disagree but I’m thinking I need some basic numbers in order to distinguish between necessities before I move on to any preferences.

              But I agree, neither budget is going to pass as written-and both are meant to appeal to their bases. I figure the Republicans are trying to make changes too quickly and the Democrats, well you know how I feel about the democrats. 🙂 But I am happy to see the process going forward and I hope the Congress battles it out and they come to an agreement on a budget that will do more than just put off our problems.

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Here’s is an op-ed from a useful idiot with a keyboard. A false flag is coming, as I mentioned yesterday and here is how you get the people ready to point the finger.,0,2444361.story?track=rss

  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. Hey, it looks like the new Pope has some dirt under his whites: “To the judicious and fair-minded outsider it has been clear for years that the upper reaches of the Argentinian church contained many “lost sheep in the wilderness”, men who had communed and supported the unspeakably brutal western-supported military dictatorship that seized power in that country in 1976 and battened on it for years.”

    But let’s not get into the “western-supported” issue … because we all know how all our giants of industry got where they are by the “sweat of “their” brows” … nobody else helped, nor was exploited. It was all them. 🙂

    • Charlie my friend, absolutism unveils your ignorance of reality.

    • Go farther with your comment. Was the new pope a lost sheep? Did he support the military dictatorship? If so, how is that relevant to his papacy?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Anita, Anytime that a Lefty posts words that someone else wrote, beware! They have a habit out of cherry picking and taking text out of context so that it fits their meaning rather than the true meaning of the writer. This fits that sort of silliness because he doesn’t provide a link.

      • Just breaking shoes, Anita … he’s against birth control and gay marriage and that makes him evil enough for me.

        • Fair enough

          • @Anita:

            Per Charlie:

            “Just breaking shoes, Anita … he’s against birth control and gay marriage and that makes him evil enough for me.”

            What isn’t black and white about this-How exactly is my statement wrong, Charlie?

            evil “enough” …. I don’t think the man is evil, per se … I believe his following church doctrine is often evil (anti birth control, anti gay marriage, etc.) … there’s nothing black and white about what I said. I think religion does more harm good. Not black and white … “I think” it does more harm than good.

            • You are welcome to your beliefs, believe whatever you want. But you are missing the point Charlie.

              You brought up the Pope maybe having “dirt under his whites” Per Charlie: Just breaking shoes, Anita.

              Then you said “that makes him evil “enough for me” So the point-you do not care anything about whether or not the Pope has dirt or not-that is just breaking shoes. So why would anyone bother talking to you about the “dirt under his whites” when all you really care about is the fact that he is against contraception and gay marriage? That isn’t really a question-this conversation has gotten nit picky enough. But to make this a little shorter and more to the point-Why should I bother talking to you about a subject if your not really interested in the subject and you only brought it up to push buttons?

              • I thought my “breaking shoes” clarified my position enough. I only explained further for the sake of humanity (oh, the humanity!). I have no use for a church or religion that excludes anybody, never mind 10% (at least that) of the world’s population. I don’t see where there’s a discussion. The possibility he may have done what so many in the same church have done through the ages regarding political prisoners (turn the other way). Just remember that the Vatican is what it is (a sanctuary from the state for anything and everything) because of a deal made with Mussolini). How do you take it seriously?

              • Alas, is it me or you-seems we just keep talking around each other. Again, I get your attitude about religion-but I’m not talking about your attitude about religion. I’m talking about your stated purpose for posting the article-to push buttons or to “break shoes”. Now respond however you want but I’m pretty much done with this discussion.

      • If he ignored a military junta tossing people out of planes and other violence against political prisoners, do you really think he’ll do anything about the pedophelia problems he’s been blessed with? The last Pope Deuschland ubber alles ignored pedophelia from day 1. The Vatican has become the pedophile sanctuary.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No Charlie, this was written to blame the banks, but the reality is that it’s about years of Democratic leadership that has failed miserably. They need money and take out expensive loans, probably get kickbacks, and then the left wing rag media wants to blame Capitalism and you fall for it. BWAHAHAHA!

      • NYT on Detroit Debacle: White Republican ‘Undemocratic Seizure of Control’

        Print Article Send a Tip
        by Wynton Hall 13 Mar 2013 24 post a comment View Discussion
        On Tuesday, the New York Times warned that “Detroit, a mostly black city led mainly by Democrats” is at risk of “needless and undemocratic seizure of control” from “intervention by the state, mostly white and led by Republicans.”

        The Times’ Herculean effort to inject race into a story about Detroit’s moribund financial status and pending state takeover may telegraph the left’s next move in shifting the Detroit narrative away from failed Democratic policies to one of a racial power grab by Michigan’s Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.

        According to New York Times reporter Steven Yaccino:

        For decades, a variety of methods – from oversight boards to appointed receivers – have been used in cases where cities have fallen into financial disarray, but the arrangements are often controversial, stirring up political struggles.

        In Detroit, a mostly black city led mainly by Democrats, the intervention by the state, mostly white and led by Republicans, has been viewed by some as a needless and undemocratic seizure of control.

        Missing from the article was any discussion of Democrats’ failed economic policies that led to the potential need for Gov. Snyder to appoint an emergency financial manager, or the fact that last year, nearly half of Detroit property owners failed to pay $246.5 million in taxes. Indeed, according to an analysis by the Detroit News, “delinquency is so pervasive that 77 blocks had only one owner who paid taxes last year.”

        Look for the racial meme to pick up in the weeks ahead as Detroit—the town that Democrats built—slides deeper into economic despair.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          V.H. Is what your really trying to say is Detroit’s problems stem from a socialist thinking Democrat leadership who agreed to overpaying union workers and then Taking out loans to pay off their bad decision making all because they wanted to spread the wealth? Then the wealth left and Bada Boom Bada Bing, epic fail ! 😉 You might be right my friend! 🙂

      • Right, you got it, G. How could the rest of the “sane” world ever thought otherwise. 🙂

    • You seem to always want to blame the wrong people-it was the people running the government in Detroit that borrowed the money Charlie. What did that one man write-we figured the banks were doing what was right for the citizens. Ha ha ha -give me a break-that has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in awhile. How about putting the responsibility where it belongs -look at the people the residents of Detroit voted for-you know the people who actually were supposed to be looking out for the citizens.

      • Thank God you figured it out. Now we can all be saved. It’s Detroit’s fault!

        • They’re certainly not gonna figure out the problem by blaming it on the banks. Wonder how the people would have reacted if the banks had refused to give them any loans. I can hear it now-Racism-you won’t loan to us because you’re racist. But now it’s the banks fault because they have the nerve to expect the State to honor it’s contractual obligations.

          • VH … I’ll guarantee you there were far many more whites who defaulted than blacks … you really should watch Capitalism: A Love Story … not because it’s gospel, but it might dispel some of the garbage you swallow about how banks didn’t sell loans to those who couldn’t afford them … it actually used fraudulent signatures (paying people $10.00 an hour to sign the documents) so they could expedite the loans they already knew would go bust. No, God forbid you accept what capitalism ultimately seeks (the highest level of profit) at whatever the cost/whomever’s expense. Blame the people … right. Great deduction.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              OH MY, You got hooked by Michael Moore Too? V.H., don’t waste your time, it’s just more Liberal lies trying to deflect from the truth, more brainwashing for the sheeple. 🙄

            • I’ve never said that banks didn’t sell loans to people who couldn’t afford them. And I’m not under any illusion that the banks are there to help me out of the kindness of their hearts-that seems to be the ridiculous belief of some in Detroit. And I never said anything about the race of the people who couldn’t pay their taxes-I simply said that Democrats are using racism to cover up for their stupid, irresponsible actions while also blaming the banks. And if the banks hadn’t given them the loans they most likely would have blamed that on racism too. You’re the one who seems to believe holding the government responsible for their own mistakes somehow translates into excusing the actions of everyone in the private sphere.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Please explain how the article you posted has ANYTHING to do with Capitalism.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Very good charts and graphs about where we are heading as a society.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    In case anyone was wondering just how honest the Dems are about claiming they want to compromise on a grand budget plan, let me share a radio commercial I just heard.

    Courtesy of the AARP, there is an add running claiming that there are plans by certain people in Congress to CUT Social Security. The word Cut is used many times in describing the idea of adopting a “Chained CPI” for the cost of living adjustments.

    Yes you got that right. Using a Chained CPI is a “cut” in benefits that “we all worked for and have earned”.

    Now since there has been NO SUCH proposal made in legislation, isn’t it interesting how the AARP is running ads against it? A little “insider information” perhaps combined with a “preemptive strike” to prevent it from getting off the table?

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    We do have an Idiot – n- Chief don’t we. Our Navy has had 5 Nuclear Aircraft Carriers ordered to port for inspections. They are all docked in Norfolk Va on Feb 8th 2013. Not sure if they are all there today, but this have not happened since Pearl Harbor.

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    Think of Jeff Foxworthy when reading this is. You might be a terrorist if you……

    Yes, the genius of the Left is always floating 😆

  11. Putting finishing touches on it now.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Some interesting things in this article. Controversial for sure!

  13. Just A Citizen says:




    WASHINGTON — Reuniting with supporters and top-tier donors who fueled his re-election victory, President Barack Obama on Wednesday told a grass-roots group springing out of his campaign that they can play an equally powerful role in helping his ambitious second-term agenda come to fruition.

    Addressing the fledgling group Organizing for Action for the first time, Obama sought to temper concerns among Republicans and good-governance groups that questioned whether the group was really seeking to help Democrats recapture the House in 2014.

    “I actually just want to govern – at least for a couple of years,” Obama said.

    Obama, who hours earlier held a rare meeting with House Republicans aimed at laying the groundwork for compromise, said he senses a genuine desire among Republicans to get things done. Many of those in the opposing party are just as weary of grinding gridlock that has stymied progress on major fiscal issues, he said.

    “Members sometimes are scared about making the right decisions,” Obama said, telling the group that they could make the difference in marshaling support that would help lawmakers come to the right decision.

    Obama acknowledged that after his 2008 victory, he didn’t do enough to keep supporters engaged. He said his oft-cited observation during last-year’s campaign – that Washington can’t be changed from inside – has always been his belief, and that Organizing for Action can ensure the voices of those who elected him are heard now that the election is over and the tough work of policymaking has resumed.

    About 75 supporters and donors, including Google chairman Eric Schmidt, packed a wood-paneled restaurant at a ritzy hotel blocks from the White House to hear Obama, the headliner for the two-day summit. Unlike most of his campaign and White House events, the president spoke without a teleprompter. After Obama made brief remarks, reporters were escorted out as Obama mingled and took questions from attendees.

    Outside the hotel, a few dozen protesters set up camp – some bearing signs objecting to the president’s policies on the use of unmanned drones.

    Earlier on Wednesday, organizers claimed that they OFA is not a partisan organization aimed at electing specific candidates, but rather a volunteer-driven nonprofit focused on popular issues pushed by Obama, such as curbing gun violence, promoting immigration reform and addressing climate change.

    “This is something that should be celebrated, not criticized,” said David Plouffe, a former White House senior adviser.

    Jim Messina, OFA’s chairman and Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, said: “I suppose we all could sit back and relax after the campaign and say we got him re-elected. But it’s not `yes he can,’ it’s `yes we can.'”

    The group was formed by former Obama aides and is raising millions of dollars in unlimited amounts from donors and small-dollar contributors. Donors who attended the meetings at a Washington hotel near the White House were asked to contribute $50,000. Aware that many of those contributing to the new group also ponied up big for his campaign, Obama noted that being a politician is akin to being a perpetual college student, forever dependent on checks from mom and dad.

    “I’ve graduated,” Obama quipped. “I’ve run my last campaign. But we’re not done with the work that led me to run in the first place.”

    The group is not accepting donations from corporations, federal lobbyists and foreign donors and has said it will release, voluntarily, the identities of donors who give more $250 or more on a quarterly basis.

    Watchdog groups say the group runs counter to the spirit of Obama’s opposition to the influence of money in politics and have cautioned that donors could get special access to the White House in exchange for large contributions.

    J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, said Obama’s involvement with OFA “not only raises policy concerns relating to the purchase of influence over the administration, but also may cross the line in terms of the federal law banning the soliciting of gifts by any member of the executive branch, including the president.”

    OFA officials said they were on sound legal ground, noting that Obama can appear before any nonprofit group that advocates for public policy issues. White House press secretary Jay Carney has said there is no pricetag to see the president and has said that administration officials routinely interact with outside advocacy groups.

    OFA plans to ramp up its activities across the nation with weekly, issue-oriented events

    “Our role, quite simply, is to change the balance of power by being an organization, a network of grassroots strength, that is going to stand up for that agenda,” said Jon Carson, OFA’s executive director.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      LOL JAC! Those on the left will call you a conspiracy theorist, so I will welcome you aboard with open arms 😉 I got plenty of room on this ship!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Conspiracies are supposed to be hidden, this is sitting out there in plain sight.

        This also shows just how BIG the challenge is going to be to Take Our Country Back. We are fighting “organization” and “religious zealotry”.

        There, that should spur on the debates. Bwahahahahaha.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          They just aren’t hiding these things anymore! 80% of the people are walking bags of hammers, so we must trudge on through the Lefty BS! Can I join you on your ship for a cruise? 😉

  14. Does anyone know where I can get my hands on 1,000 rounds of .22 longs? Cabella’s, Outdoor World, Remington Arms………..all out. So, some of you normal people who actually own a weapon, does anyone know of an Internet source for .22 LR?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Oddly, just looked for them at Wal-mart, none to be had. None at the local gun stores either. I will check some other sources and get back with you.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I got nothing for 22 ammo. You would think we are preparing for war these days!

        • What is ironic, is that I have been able to purchase the following: 750 rounds of .270, 1200 rounds of .243, 830 rounds for 300 Weatherby, 1500 rounds of .30 cal carbine, 1000 rounds of . 222, 550 rounds of .223, 575 rounds of 7.62…….1250 rounds for four different hand guns…..I also purchased casings, bullets, flat and round powder for reload all of the above for an assorted 5,000 rounds.

          Unable to purchase…. .22 long rifle. AND unavailable for purchase……black powder for a single shot Sharps .50…….black powder is considered an explosive but flat/round powder is not.

          Go figure.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            You seem ready for war I reckon 🙂 I’ve been waiting a month for 7mmRem Mag dies from RCBS. That’s the last thing on my list. Then, I reckon I’m ready for war too! 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The way I figure it, if I can’t get more ammo (and guns) with the amount of ammo I have, it’s because I’m dead. Geez, Been down that road before, feels like Dajavue!

      • None to be had. Walmart in Texas, is only going to stock shotgun ammo. No more rifle or pistol… exchange for Obamacare exemptions. In other words, they sold out. There is a huge organized boycott that is taking effect and sportsmen and hunters are not buying anything at Walmart….in Fort Worth alone, the news reported that Walmart sales have dropped 9 percent in two months in their sports department.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Thanks for the info, didn’t know about the ObamaCare thing. Will pass that along locally!

    • D13, I might be able to assist. I’m having to beg for .22 ammo for 4H. Think I will be able to make do, we use about 2K getting ready for events. I’m ok on all components and what I want to stock for personal use. Thought about selling some with that 300% mark-up, but haven’t… Also buying on gunbroker where the prices are reasonable for reloading. Takes some searching but not everyone is trying to gouge you there. Just bought some 7mm & .30 bullets for around $23.00. This link was passed to me & had sites with in stock ammo.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    VH, It’s funny that we can be called racist’s when the #1 cause of death of Black”s is abortion. Imagine that?

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    New Theory

    How to identify a Communist.

    If you accuse someone of being a Communist and they respond by calling you a McCarthyite or committing McCarthyism.

    The Non-Communist will argue instead and explain their “actual” position. Which is probably some form of Fascist Progressive ideology. Like Social Democracy or Social Justice.

    • Sweet Jesus …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Sweet Jesus? really, thought you didn’t believe in religion 😉

        • I have a friend named Jesus (he-zeus) … he’s a sweet guy. I think of him often … 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            HAHA 😆 Yea, Right! For the record, I’m far more against gun registration then I am about background checks (I don’t like them either). The Govt has no business knowing what I own. It’s my right to own, they do not have the right to do anything about it! It say’s so, just read the words!

            • You ever wonder why people so often call out the name of the Lord whenever they are scared, upset or even just angry?

              • Habit, pure and simple. we ALL want to believe (even me) … but some of us opt for something more concrete than fairytales. And there are far too many religions for any one to be more right than the next … assuming, of course, any of them are right (which I don’t believe they are). It’s the dogma that hurts people that makes me reject it wholesale; the institution itself that causes harm.

              • Tis’ a shame-missing out on the peace of God because you insist on fighting what your own heart and mind knows and desires. You should listen to your wife more. 🙂

  17. Just A Citizen says:


    I am curious. Since you so often ridicule good Patriots for arming themselves against a tyrannical govt, calling it insane, etc, etc, then exactly what is it you expect a Church Leader such as a Priest or Cardinal to do against a tyrannical Govt???

    Is personal martyrdom required by you of the Priest to meet your moral standard?

    • JAC … now this must be coming from some fantasy of yours. If you have been paying attention to my stance on gun control, you’d feel foolish for asking such a question. I’ve stated more than several times, including on my blog, that I have no stance (i.e., I see both sides of the coin regarding guns, although I do feel my version of common sense would preclude certain types of weapons and/or high magazines—and quite the opposite of your accusation regarding guns—one of my main concerns about gun control is, in fact, the inability of citizens to revolt … why I’m not a member of the American Communist Party, by the way (one of the main reasons) … because they don’t believe in armed/violent revolution.

      Now, as regards the Pope/Cardinal … I guess that depends … I can’t speak to Pope Frank’s particulars, but the Vatican making a deal with Mussolini was (you give us a homeland free from persecution and we’ll recognize your fascist regime) … well, I think that speaks for itself. I’d be much more inclined to support any pope/cardinal/priest who didn’t have to worry about being shot and just stayed home to take on the absolute disgracefulness of harboring pedophiles in the Vatican … how about starting there, at home, and exposing the peds for what they are?

      Your turn.

      • In case I wasn’t clear enough regarding guns: No assault weapons (actual assault weapons–not to include the AR-15) … and limit the magazine capacity (I have no idea what a fair/decent number would be, but obviously (to me) under 12 rounds). And I don’t care if people have 50 or 100 guns, so long as they are registered and/there has been some kind of security check on the owner. I don’t believe the tragedy in CT was preventable via gun control or anything else. Crazy is as crazy does.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Should we all say you know zero about guns?

          • Yes, it would be a good assumption. What you ignore, however, is that I have as much a say in the issue as someone like my dear friend Doc (an expert marksman and right wing lunatic–but a really wonderful person, writer and dear, dear friend). Knowing about football makes my opinion no more valuable than anyone else’s, G. I know you know this.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, Of course I respect your opinion, even if I don’t agree. With respect to that, you said that you supported mag restrictions and registration, if I read correctly. So, I’ll ask you, explain exactly how the criminals are going to abide by these laws? I ask only for this reason, if the criminals will not abide by the law, why limit law abiding citizens in their own protection?

              • I don’t really remember criminals in any wholesale manner using high capacity clips and/or assault weapons (remember, the AR-15 isn’t an assault weapon :)) … but using your logic, G, then we’d have to make anthrax accessible … or 747’s … I think it’s a reasonable request to keep the high capacity clips to a minimum … and the assault weapons … if I’m not mistaken, many of the semi-automatics can be modified to fully auto … so if the citizenry needs that at some point, they can modify. I’m sure they’ll some industrious dudes out there to handle that end of it.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You really need to read slower. I did NOT ask you about gun control. I pointed out that you among others here have ridiculed the idea that an armed citizenry can “fight against the Govt” and expect to win.

        So if an “armed citizenry” is hopelessly outmatched, what the hell do you expect a Priest, Cardinal or even Pope to do about a tyrannical govt?

        Dealing with their “pedophile” issue is completely different than the issue I am raising. My questions go to your condemnation of them for making deals or turning a blind eye to what was happening. What would you expect them to do?

        • “I pointed out that you among others here have ridiculed the idea that an armed citizenry can “fight against the Govt” and expect to win.”

          Nope, not me. Wrong AGAIN. I assume it will come to that and like most revolutions, once the Army realizes they’re killing their own, they’ll turn and it’s goodbye gov’t. What happens next is anybody’d guess.

          My questions go to your condemnation of them for making deals or turning a blind eye to what was happening. What would you expect them to do?

          Speak out … use their celebrity/power of the pulpit … grab the attention of the world … anything but turn a blind eye … or is that your suggestion? And it seems to have an awful lot to do with the pedophile issue — turning a blind eye.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    I have a question, but I don’t want to ask because it is rather personal. I have been studying different forms of medicine (holistic etc) to help me find some answers. My daughter, around age 3, was told she had Epilepsy after having seizures. She was not born with this ailment and only began to have problems shortly after having some scheduled vaccinations.

    I have a reasonable amount of confidence that I can treat her naturally and end her problems. The same goes for other childrens ailments, such as autism. Would anyone be interested in this as a subject of discussion?

    Thanks for your input, G!

    • Don’t know anything about the subject G. Don’t have anything against holistic medicine but I know myself and if the problem was serious-I would stick with conventional medicine until or unless I saw it wasn’t working or was causing harm. I would consider seizures serious. Is there some reason you don’t trust conventional medicine to handle this problem?

    • I am taking a look at orthomolecular medicine to see if there is anything there that might help my wife. Some seem to think this is quakery but much of what they say makes sense. For now I am just studying. We have not deviated from traditional medicine except add some more nutrients to her diet. I have become very leery of psych drugs. I certainly would like to here what you and others have to say.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    This article is about govt unions and the pushback they are getting in California. This is going to spead like the flu, whether by the taxpayers saying “no More”, or by defauly by all the govt’s that just can’t pay for the promises of past and present politicians.

    Charlie, what say you my friend?

    • It will be interesting to watch and see what happens in many of these Blue States and Cities. See how long their big tent holds together now that reality is smacking them in the face.

    • G, I just don’t have the time to read every single linked article or cut and pasted one … life is too short …

  20. How to Weaken an Economy
    March 11th, 2013 – 12:16 am
    by Victor Davis Hanson

    It is not easy to ruin the American economy; doing nothing usually means it repairs itself and soon is healthier than before a recession.

    But don’t despair: there are plenty of ways to slow down even an inherently strong economy. History offers plenty of examples. But as more contemporary models, take your pick of successfully ruined economies — the Venezuelan, the Cuban, the North Korean, the Greek, the Italian, the Portuguese, or pretty much any from Mediterranean Africa to the Cape of Good Hope. There are certain commonalities about why and how they fail. Let’s review some of them.


    The state can never be too big. Ensure that it is unaccountable and intrusive, in constant need of more money and more targets to regulate. The more government, the more people are shielded from the capital-creating, free-market system. Think the DMV or TSA, not Apple. The point is for an employee to spend each labor hour with less oversight, while regulating or hampering profit-making, rather than competing with like kind to create material wealth. Regulatory bodies are a two-fer: the more federal, union employees, the more regulations to hamper the private sector. The more federal mandates, like new health-care requirements and financial reporting, the less employers profit and the fewer employees they can hire. Washington should be a growth city, absolutely immune from the downturn elsewhere, a sort of huge and growing octopus head with decaying tentacles. State jobs should be redefined as something partisan — whose expansion is noble and helps the helpless, and whose contraction is evil and the design of a bitter and aging white private-sector class.

    On the other end of the equation, ensuring 50 million on food stamps, putting over 80,000 a month on Social Security disability insurance, and extending unemployment insurance to tens of millions all remind the jobless that life is not too bad (thanks to the government), and certainly a lot better than working at a “low-paid” job that equates to giving up federal support. To paraphrase Paul Krugman, the more and the longer the jobless receive, the less likely they are to take chances looking for a job. That too might be again a good thing if you wish to slow down the economy. In general, even Arnold Toynbee, a man of the Left, acknowledged that the greedy drive of the scrambling private sector was not as pernicious to civilizations as the collective ennui produced by vast cadres of lethargic and unaccountable public “servants” doing supposedly noble work.

    The Law

    To ensure capriciousness and unpredictability for both suspect employers and investors, make the law malleable, even unpredictable from day to day, in the style of an Argentina or Venezuela. Redefine the law as what is deemed socially useful. For federally subsidized bankrupt auto companies, creditors should be paid back on the basis not of contractual law, but of nobility — why borrow to give a rich man a return on his superfluous investment, when a retired auto worker might have to pay a higher health care premium? Boeing wants to open a non-union plant in South Carolina? Have the NLRB try to stop it (and illegally staff the NLRB with recess appointments). Illegal aliens? They are neither illegal nor aliens, as federal immigration law is itself a capricious construct. Does the Senate really have to present a budget? Do presidents need to meet budget deadlines? Who said there is a Defense of Marriage Act?

    What law says that gays cannot serve overtly in the military or women cannot fight at the front — some reactionary construct? The point is to restore a simulacrum of popular sovereignty: the law is what 51% of the people are perceived by technocrats to want on any given day. I would hammer away at legal fictions like the very idea of borrowing and paying back loans and debts. Soon the popular culture would respond in kind, and run ads constantly on radio, TV, and the Internet in a way rare just a generation ago: how to renegotiate IRS debt, how to renegotiate mortgages, how to renegotiate credit card debt, and how to renegotiate student loan debt.

    The man who owes $50,000 has been taken advantage of; the man who is owed $50,000 already has enough without being paid back. The aim is to create a general climate where when one borrows, one does not necessarily have to the pay back the full sum for a variety of legitimate considerations. The more bubbles — housing, student loan, credit card — the more avenues for government intervention and relief. Do all that and perhaps lending itself might slow down, again not a bad thing for our purposes. The debtor, not the lender, is the true American success, as our collective debt underscores.


    Don’t forget the value of cynicism in weakening an economy. It is a critical tool in sowing distrust and fatalism, as in “Why try, when it doesn’t matter anyway?” or “Why should I follow the rules, when they don’t?” Greece, for example, is a cynical country to the core and one can see where such endemic distrust got them: a successfully ruined economy.

    I would lecture about the evils of federal bailouts to Wall Street fat cats who then take million-dollar bonuses for mediocre performance — and then appoint a Treasury secretary who did just that. I would trash offshore accounts as something amoral and unpatriotic — and then appoint a Treasury secretary who did just that. I would lecture about paying your fair share and hiking taxes — and then appoint a Treasury secretary who avoided paying the income taxes he owed. I would sermonize on the evils of the revolving door — and then appoint as my top financial officials those who for a lifetime have gone into the White House, out to Wall Street, and back into the White House. Again, if “they” do that, why then do “we” need to pay our taxes or follow ethical behavior? The cynical mindset is a valuable tool in recreating a Greece or Italy. Indeed, almost any cynicism is a good thing: so why not praise federal financing of campaigns and then be the first to refuse it, or campaign on the evils of the Bush anti-terrorism protocol and then embrace or expand almost all of it?

    Top Down, Not Bottom Up

    Leveling must go in one direction, not two. To ensure equality, the public schools should lower standards so that all are the same. The more who need remediation upon entering college, the more likely the curriculum will have to adjust to level the playing field, and the less skilled will emerge the average graduate. The more that those with “Cadillac” insurance plans can have procedures rationed, the more others will see their own options expanded.

    The world is a finite system, a pie with only so many slices. There is no middle class, just rich and poor. For each F student, an A student stole the former’s resources. I would invest not in honor students, but in remedial ones. Grades and test scores should count little for college admission; life “experiences” and community service far better would ensure the presence of mediocre students. The aim again is not to turn out graduates with expertise or knowledge who build a strong economy, but to graduate students, brand them with degrees, and ensure they are invested in a similar ideology of redistribution. If California — of Caltech and Stanford repute — can dumb down its public schools to rank 48th or 49th in the nation in math or English testing, then there is hope for the country at large.

    The War of Words

    Prosperity is always relative, never absolute. A car, a house, or a job is not to be judged on its own merits, but in comparison to someone else who has one better. If today’s Kias are better than a Mercedes of 20 years ago, it matters little: they are not as nice as someone else’s Mercedes of today. Britain in the postwar 1940s discovered the power of envy and what it can do to slow down ill-won prosperity.

    From Plato to Marx to Tocqueville, philosophical minds, for both good and bad reasons, have always appreciated that human nature is attracted to the idea of enforced equality, to such a degree that most would rather be poor and the same, than better off with some far better off. Let’s give them that chance!

    I would try to redefine the entire capitalist notion of profit, getting ahead, and being rich or successful as something arbitrary. Better yet, it should be analogous to cheating, proof of unfairness, or incurring general shame. The point is to make profit-making synonymous with failure; and poverty something inherently noble. Compensation should be seen as capricious, never based on logical requisites like education, knowledge, experience, level of responsibility, hard work, personal comportment, or even the less predictable such as health, luck, fate, and chance. Redefine rich and poor to emphasize the fact that one making $20,000 a year and another $200,000 is unfair, period — and to be corrected by a fair, all-knowing, and compassionate government. I would talk always of poverty and hunger, never of the epidemic of obesity or the nation’s collective youth glued to iPhones.

    Sometimes, sloppy language is critical: jumble together “millionaires” with those worth 1,000 times more, and you earn the force-multiplying evil “millionaires and billionaires.” The word “fair” is critical: as in “pay your fair share.” But “patriotic” is even better, as in “unpatriotic” past presidents who run up debt, and “patriotic” present egalitarians who borrow in four years what used to take eight.

    I would also redefine entire professions in negative terms: bankers are “fat cats”; the rich “junket” to Las Vegas; CEOs are “corporate jet owners”; doctors lop off limbs and yank out tonsils to pile up profits. Material wealth alone defines us. Mitt Romney is a man with lots of money, a big house with an elevator, a wife with horses. Who cares what he did with the Olympics or as governor?

    I could continue, but you get the picture: the point is to slow down the capitalists by making them look over their shoulders, to hamper the grasping small businesses by prepping a psychological battlefield in which the rich deserve higher taxes and regulations to atone for their sins. If lots of those who once made $400,000 a year no longer do, is that not progress? Did they not at last realize that they had made enough money and that it was no longer the time to profit? My goal would be to convince the pizza-parlor owner that after 12 hours on the job, he was taking away money from his noble customers and had a duty to pay more in taxes and cut his profits for those more noble who could not afford his crust. But there would be one exception: fat cats can buy exemption by loudly supporting the president, serving on his jobs council, or investing in green energy. In other words, send the message that getting rich building a Solyndra is noble in a way Exxon is not. A Warren Buffett or George Soros is not a “billionaire” but a “philanthropist,” whose profits are channeled in the right direction. That’s an important message to send if one wants to warp an economy — suggesting that the rich can pay proper homage and thereby win exemption from being culpably rich.

    Everywhere a War

    The rich/poor dichotomy is valuable, but perhaps not enough in itself to harm the economy. Political stasis is also critical. Think the blues and greens in the hippodrome, fighting over everything from religion and civil service to class, ethnicity, and sports. And what better way to seed acrimony and to ensure constant bickering than unleashing a series of domestic wars? The camouflaged assault-weapon killers who hide behind the 2nd Amendment are at war with millions of innocent children. Even female celebrities and lawyers are under attack by misogynists and chauvinists, who won’t pay for their birth control. Latinos are targeted by nativists. The latter even hunt them down at ice-cream parlors. Blacks are back to near slavery as racist conservatives want to put them back in chains. Greens battle nobly against the polluters, gays against the homophobes. Muslims are demonized as terrorists by racists and bigots.

    The point would be to introduce so many divisive fault lines that no one can much agree on anything — other than a common enemy. Worry over unemployment, slow or nonexistent growth, and massive debt gives way to more pressing issues like gay marriage and banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Distraction is valuable: who cares that the real unemployment rate is way over 10% if the Keystone pipeline will destroy the Nebraska aquifer or Jim Crow is back on election day? A “jobless recovery” and the “misery index” can become artifacts of a distant era.


    I would borrow as much money as possible, to the point of making the word “trillion” synonymous with the old “billion,” and “billion” now not more than a mere “million.” On its coins, a fading Rome pressed bronze over a thin silver core; we have done better with the Fed. Think of all the ways in which deficits are good: they spread the wealth through greater entitlements; they eventually require higher taxes from the wealthy; they usually lead to inflation that erodes wrongly accumulated wealth. For every trillion borrowed, there is a greater likelihood that the deserving will receive more federal largess and the undeserving will have to pay for it — and the country itself will slow down and smell the roses. Is it not far preferable for the government to print money than the cumbersome private sector to create it?


    Zero interest is as important as sky-high interest. Thus, 1% on passbook accounts can be as valuable in stalling the economy as 15%. If there is no gain in stored wealth, why seek to store it? If owing is better than being owed, why work to create capital? A good way to ensure inflation is to ensure zero interest. The many who have no money deserve the use of free money and the few who have it have no need to profit from it. Again, if the state employee’s pension pays out more in annual revenue than the multi-millionaire’s passbook account, is not that a distortion worth institutionalizing? The point would be to guide the retiree into real estate, precious metals, or the stock market, anywhere with real risk to beat his .5% passbook return. Or better yet, do away with the idea of the retiree altogether, as the poor fool keeps working to earn what his savings won’t — thereby providing an added benefit of keeping his would-be younger replacements jobless.


    I would try to find a way to discourage private gas and oil production through more regulation and cancellation of projects like the Keystone pipeline: keep the country paying steep import fees and keep it vulnerable to Persian Gulf oil. New technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling are to be declared de facto synonymous with pollution and destroying the environment. How can energy “skyrocket” or gas reach “European levels” — that alone will ensure a cooler planet or government- and union-run mass transit — if freelancers can find hoards of natural gas on land the government can’t touch? I would also borrow billions to subsidize wind and solar power. The more costly the kilowatt, the more expensive energy might slow down human activity and finally stop the rat race.

    Success is Failure

    Finally, I would double down. The more higher taxes, class warfare, bigger government, borrowing, zero interest, and political stasis began to slow down the economy, the more I would demand more of them all, and declare that the economy is expanding and growing. Again, the key to fine tuning a properly moribund economy is to stay the course — and learn to redefine failure as success.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    I have some misgivings about this video, but worth the time to watch it!

  22. Bottom Line says:
    • I have to say, Marc Levin made me chuckle today when he called her Diane Frankenfeinstein.

    • Ted Cruz is da man!!!

      • Really, these Dem women need to grow a spine and know what they are talking about. Hillary’s shrill: What difference does it make? screech when pushed with a couple tough questions and now Feinstein’s response. Answer the damn question – don’t lecture, get off your self-imposed high horse, and shed the haughtier-than-thou attitude. We are tired of it.

        Also hearing more pressure being put on adm to release names and make available Benghazi survivors. Read where one that is still hospitalized is under an alias name. D13 – what do you think is going on here? How common is this behavior?

  23. 🙂 TGIF! This definitely woke me up..

  24. @ G and BL: “No, it’s called go find a job that your happy with the circumstances. Just where has another system existed Charlie? Where has what you want ever worked?”

    Are you fucking kidding me? How many times does one need to point across the ocean … somehow, with all your (and SUFA’s) doomsday predictions about socialist economies, socialist economies survive (and with many more benefits for workers than the bones thrown to workers here). How’s YOUR system doing, G? BL? JAC? Seems to me the gap between poor and wealthy gets wider each day, bringing into the ranks of the poor the so-called middle class … how’s that working for YOU?

    Have a nice day … 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Good Morning ! Hope you and yours are healthy and happy 🙂

      My system is great! I am making good money, live in a great place and have all things I want. I’ve been able to buy into a business and take my time to build it. Yes, Charlie, my system is great because I made good choices and did manage to get enough education to get by. I have my concerns with our country and I have let them be known. I’m prepared for whatever happens, if nothing happens, I’ll just go deer hunting and enjoy life.

      Other nations overseas, let’s see, Greece, Spain, Italy, France, to name a few are an economic mess, BECAUSE of Socialism. Just ask a few Greeks who were living high a few years ago on promises that couldn’t be kept where they would like to be now 😉

      Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran etc. No thanks, we have it way better here. Australia, New Zealand, Canada ? Maybe. Those places are a lot like ours and have alot to offer. Sorry, they are not very Socialist.

      There may be some decent Socialist countries to go to. To each his own. If you want Socialism, feel free to go to anyone of your Utopia’s that are out there. As far as this country? Well, you and I both know that Socialist ideals are failing, like in Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, California, just to name a few.

      Just where was that again where Socialism is working? North Korea you say? OK, reckon so 😆

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Can you even name 1 country? You haven’t yet. You have pointed your finger and said “over there”.

      • “Other nations overseas, let’s see, Greece, Spain, Italy, France, to name a few are an economic mess, BECAUSE of Socialism.”

        Maybe it’s me, but all ALL of you do hear is complain about the economic mess THIS country is in … I’ll tell you this much, aside from the absurdity, the workers over there are much better off than those over here … It sure is working there … you can’t stand the idea, but they’re doing just fine … certainly no worse than here (see Holland–I keep telling you that but you ignore it no end) 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Holland is not a country BWAHAHAHA 😆

          • The Netherlands … Holland … unless you’re grouping it with that communist Iceland again. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, the Netherlands, which includes the provinces of North Holland and South Holland are hardly socialist. It’s a Constitutional Monarchy that spends very litte GDP per Capita. Try again……never mind. There is no answer because none exists. Keep in mind I’m only looking at wealth distribution equality, which even attempting to find any equality in any country is senseless, because no country has that kind of equality in it citizenship.

              So, I won’t ask anymore 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      There goes Charlie again, he recognizes that “our system” isn’t working (with which I agree whole-heartedly), but he still persists in believing that “our system” is the same as free-market capitalism, which it most certainly ain’t.

      You see Charlie, you will continue to come up with the wrong answers as long as you continue to use the wrong definitions.

      You could also bring up Sweden as an example of a “democratic-socialist” country which is doing quite well, but I bet that you would get all of the reasons completely wrong as to WHY Sweden has been doing so well lately….

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I checked out Sweden and I can see why they have so much govt stuff, their taxes are insane. Their wealth distribution, which is Charlie’s big poo-poo, is not as good as the EU. Their wages are closer together, which tells me that they are worse off than here with little chance to move up. Their unemployment is similar to ours, except for the older workers up to 64. But geez, they have to work to pay the taxes on everything (VAT) after they get robbed of 30% of their earnings. Need to look further! Thanks Peter 🙂

      • Hey, moron, you read the posts from yesterday where I asked one of you airheads whether or not this is a free market system. Blow it out your ass already with the anarchist bullshit. That’s as serious as your belife an unrestricted market would be a change for the better — a total farse. Now, do you miss Peyton or are you satisfied with Luck?

        And I pointed to Sweden a number of times in the past … the bottom line is you’ll always find a some bullshit excuse why socialist/social democracies are doing well … for the bulk of their populations (which is ALL I care about), there’s no comparison. Wake up already.

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    There is a lot about this that should be disliked by all. I’m just glad I don’t live anywhere near a city 🙂

  26. A Manhattan millionaire faces three years in jail for drawing an unlicensed gun on a burglar inside his home.

    George Bardwil, who owns linen company Bardwil Home, was in his E Street apartment when an intruder came into his home in January, The Daily Mail reports.

    Mr. Bardwil, 60, threatened the intruder with a loaded .40 cal Sig Sauer. The man fled and Mr. Bardwil called the police.

    After showing the cops footage from his home surveillance cameras, they arrested him under suspicions of owning an illegal firearm.

    The businessman’s lawyer, Michael Bachner, told the New York Post that the gun is legally registered to the defendant’s bodyguard.

    “There’s no dispute that George was being burglarized,” Mr. Bachner said. “George had been the victim of multiple burglaries, and the DA’s office concedes that it was used in self defense.”

    Read more:

  27. Interesting……V A dental service being terminated, V A tuition assistance being terminated. Tricare (veterans health) insurance rates rising between 22-31 percent, V A out patient services being terminated, V A counseling service being terminated, prosthetic taxes being applied to Veterans for battlefield wounds……..

    Meanwhile, illegal immigrants being given free tuition, free meals, no deportation, being released from prison, free housing, eligibility for entitlement programs……..millions being spent on fat lesbians, shrimp on treadmills, menus for Mars expedition, 3 million being spent on a study of violin music on dolphins, the White House being shut down, Obama trips totaling over 12 million still going on……………..sigh.

    • Enough to make a Vet go postal. But the one must do with a lobster lunch. Oh what a tough life it is.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Obama isn’t making many friends in the military, past or present. This may be a good thing down the road.

      • Yes, because the military may realize how they’re being used like cannon fodder and come to their senses about “protecting liberty” … what a joke. What they protect is the 1%’s bank books …

    • It seems the plan is to reduce the significance of the military and raise the power of the DHS. I wonder why.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Continuation of FLPatriot’s comment on the use of Percentages. This one is especially obnoxious in my view.

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    Looks like you got some problems that need cleaned up in PA.

    One of Charlie’s friends I take it. You know, those guys who built the middle class.

    • Kathinator … that stuff doens’t bother me quite as much as you’d think. I’m 56 … figure I have another 12 or so years … 20 at best (family history) … I’m sure Chelsea “earned” the gelt to purchase such a place … I’m sure she didn’t have any priviledge growing up … I’m sure life is supposed to go like that (all sarcastic, in case you’re missing my point) … but I suspect it’ll bother you a lot more than me when she’s President some day …:) And you can probably take that to the bank.

  30. Soooo many examples, but, in honor of Anita, will go with this one for Exhibit B, Liberal Mental Illness:

    • “So all those ideas about the ceiling falling, the walls caving in because of that, you can sleep more comfortably in your bed at night when you realize that we don’t think there’s a problem,” he said.”

      They don’t think it’s a problem- Wonder when he’ll realize that that is exactly what scares most of us.

    • Don’t drag me into that mess. Levin is gone, he’s 78. Conyers is EIGHTY THREE! I’m stuck with him for 6 more years 😦

  31. Bottom Line says:

    Whoever or whatever keeps doing that to my posts, you need to stop it, …or at least contact me with some sort of explanation as to why you continue with such games.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      What’s happening?

      • Bottom Line says:

        I cannot say for sure. It’s not a SUFA thing. But it seems that I’ve been hacked or something.

        Either someone is manipulating me or covering my ass…or I am just stupid and/or paranoid.

        • Had a tough time with my home ‘puter last week, some P.C. clean program got on and would lock it up on internet. Finally managed to look at dates when added and delete programs until I eliminated it.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Blame Buck, maybe that’s why he’s been so quiet 🙂

  32. Serious inquiry

    Is the CIA above the law? Who do they answer to? This article just makes me curious. Who’s to say they will give up any info. If they are so secretive then they can just give any BS they want to give. They aren’t going to just put themselves or their programs in jeopardy.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Anita, the whole Federal Govt is above the law, or they seem to think so. As for the CIA, who do you think runs the illegal drug business in this country? You do know that we have troops guarding Poppy fields in Afghanistan, don’t you?

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, I understand where your coming from, although I think that a lot of what you think about socialism is untrue. But if that is what you want, then that’s up to you. Don’t you think it would be easier for you to move to a socialist type country rather than trying to change this one to suit your needs? The Netherlands seem to be a nice place to live, and you can still post from there and tell us how nice it is. It seems to be quite an undertaking to make the USA like Sweden, when it’s just simpler to move to Sweden, don’t you think?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      OH, did I mention the eye candy over in Sweden? 😉

    • It’s one of the reasons I’m getting my MFA, G … I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to leave the good old US&A … not for a second. It depends on family first, then employment … and if I could get citizenship there (France, Sweden, The Netherlands/Holland … ) it’d be a beautiful thing indeed. In the meantime, I actually “earn” my living (two jobs) and enjoy life the best way I can, some of which includes jabbing your wingies in the ribs … 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I wouldn’t mind visiting for a few weeks, but I like where I’m at. I’m too old for any more moving, LOL! 🙂

        • Hey, yous wingies are all into private charities. Why don’t yous put together, say, 5 or 6 million, send it my way so then I don’t have to worry about working in Europe … Yous can write it off as a charitable donation and call me a parasite! 🙂

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    This is classic stuff! Who wants to meet me there 😉

    “The university is providing funding for this workshop because it covers a wide range of issues that are beneficial to our students,” Simpson said.

    There are 30 events planned including “Getting Laid,” “Sex Positivity; Queer as a Verb,” “Bow Chicka Bow Woah,” “How to Talk to Your Parents About Sex,” “Loud and Queer,” and “How Many Licks Does It Take…” – a workshop about oral sex.
    “It’s tackling important topics related to sexual health, sexual identity, preventing sexual assault, gender roles (and) religion,” she added. “The students have done a good job making sure there are things to appeal to all.”

    Read more:

  35. gmanfortruth says:
  36. gmanfortruth says:

    Yes, these “oh so wise” people are suing the US Treasury to have “In God We Trust” removed from the dollar. It seems these dumb asses didn’t read the part that says “Federal Reserve Note”. They are not a govt agency, BWAHAHAHA!

  37. gmanfortruth says:

  38. Hmmmm-have to admit this rather surprises me!

    Rand Paul Introduces ‘Life at Conception Act’
    Mar. 15, 2013 4:42pm Becket Adams

    Sen. Rand Paul (R Ky.) Introduces Life At Conception Act

    Sen. Rand Paul. (Getty Images).

    Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Thursday introduced the “Life At Conception Act,” saying that the “right to life is guaranteed to all Americans.”

    “I plan to ensure this is upheld,” the Republican senator added.

    “Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human,” the senator’s office said, per a press release.

    “This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions,” his office adds.

    Here is what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The bill has 15 cosponsors (all Republican) including Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Daniel Coats (Ind.), Thomas Coburn (Okla.), Michael Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Charles “Chuck” Grassley (Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), James “Jim” Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), James Risch (Idaho), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.)

    “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection,” Sen. Paul said.

    “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” he added.

    Here’s the senator’s press release:

  39. Here, wingies, have some fun at my expense … Momma Stella goes off …


    This is long but interesting. I think it asks a lot of relavant questions and lays out the basic divide between us. I also think it points out some places we could come together-if the divide wasn’t based so much on the political.

  41. Can’t believe I’m actually posting a quote from Bill Maher-and I understand he is basically stating that we should cut defense spending in order to continue to finance social programs-but Still he has actually stated that their is a Limit to how much he is willing to personally pay to back his ideology. There is a point that he will say No! Now I take from this that there is also a limit to how much he would cut the military-but that is just an assumption-wonder what he will think we should do when we hit that wall.

  42. @G: “The Govt is PROTECTING the very rich you are concerned with. Take away the protection, and things will be far different old friend. You are thinking inside the current box, open up!”

    Are you purposely blind or just so full of SUFA bullshit, you really can’t see how absurd what you wrote is? The government works at the behest of the rick … take it away and they’ll form a new one. How hard is that to see? How do you think THIS FUCKING GOVERNMENT was formed? It has ALWAYS

    • (HIT THE WRONG KEY THERE) … IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOV’T BY THE RICH FOR THE RICH … the founding fathers weren’t field hands … wake up … drink the caffeinated stuff … 🙂

      • Happy St Patty’s Day to the Misus 🙂 I doubt you knuckle draggin Dago’s do much with.

        The way you post makes me wonder if your “all knowing” self has a PHD in U.S. History.:roll:
        Of course you don’t , but you think Holland is a socialist country, so what should we all expect 😆

        Dude, the rest of the world is not clouded in your Communist run history lessons. Monopolies only exist by the protection of corrupt govt, in our day and age. And no Charlie, you have no actual proof that the 1% solely formed our govt, there were many people involved, all of whom were not rich. Come down out of your Communist cloud and see the light old man!

        • What drugs are you on today, G!

          Happy St. Pat’s Day … Go Rangers! Go Bills! Go whatever drugs you take!

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Amici, Giving a try at a traditional Irish dish, Corned Beef, cabbage and red potatoes with a side salad. No drugs here! It appears all those LSD trips you went on as a youngster are catching up to ya! BWAHAHAHA! 😆

      • I preferred rick!

        Ya know, Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. I guess that means the rich will too. So whether you were born rich, or made your millions or were like Hugo Chavez or Hitler or Stalin or some other two bit pol we are always going to be stuck with you or people like you. Goes with the territory of being a human I guess.

        • Stephen, this Jesus? It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

          • I am not going to disagree with that. More money, more temptation, more hubris. Less money, more envy. The quote of course refers to the small easily defensible entry points in the walls of Jerusalem rather than to a sewing needle as most people think. So, it is HARD for a rich man to enter but not impossible.

            I know you are younger than I, but were you a fan of the original “Twilight Zone”? If so, there are numerous episodes that deal with the flaws of the rich as well as the flaws of the poor.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      So you finally admit that removing Govt would eliminate the PROTECTION of the corrupt?

      Now your gripe is that if there are “rich” people, whatever that means, they will ALWAYS reform the Govt power.

      Well now you need to explain HOW they would do this if the people don’t agree.

      • “Well now you need to explain HOW they would do this if the people don’t agree.”

        JAC, I FINALLY admitted that a long time ago. But if you need to see how wealth would protect itself, go back to the beginning of time. When did it not protect itself? How did this government come about? Field hands thought it was a good idea to go to war with England? I don’t think so … me thinks it was people with property who were sick of being abused … so once the war was over, JAC, was it field hands/laborers who developed a government? Or maybe it was the wealth? A capitalist society requires expansion, JAC … and it sure seems to have expanded … at the expense, oh, let’s see how many people were destroyed on the route to “this great land of ours” …. Ha … 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          We should all give thanks that your opinions about history and religion are as factual as your non-fiction novels. 🙂 At least your novels are entertaining 🙂

          • Yes, they are … so buy a dozen today and another dozen tomorrow … repeat until I am a 1% and can form my own government … which will no doubt never permit unions and will pay everyone just enough to keep buy more books 🙂

  43. gmanfortruth says:
%d bloggers like this: