Will the Nork’s attack?

As we head into the weekend, it’s time for a new thread to speed up load times. The Nork’s are still shooting off at the mouth about some terrible war they want to start.  So as we watch and listen to what may amount to nothing but bluster,  I hope that everyone enjoys the weekend.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I wonder if Kim Jung Un and Charlie are related? They look alike, both talk a lot but have nothing to say and both are great examples of Constipated Communists’s 🙂 Lenin would be so proud 😉

    • Hey, I didn’t even notice this yesterday. I’m way better looking than Kim Jung Un and … this at 54 or 55, I think: scroll to the bottom, this was actually part of a tribute to a dear friend of mine who committed suicide, but that’s fatso his own bad self … I’d eat Kim Hung Un for breakfast, boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

      http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/02/rest-in-peace-brother.html

      And I’m all for every nation have whatever they want (see, I’m more into liberty than yous fugazy MF’ers—always claiming the rights of man until it interferes with your parchese matches). Let the little shit bark all he wants … and he’s as much a communist (by the true definition) as all you chicken shits using phony monikers are brave. 🙂

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    The weather here stinks to high heaven 😦 Rain and more rain! The good news is that all work is indoors today. The deer is butchered and getting prepped for canning. Fresh venison backstrap tonight 🙂

  3. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Here is a family that has been running a country since 1945. Three generations of “Dear Leaders” all of whom have been repeatedly stroked by their sycophants. At the same time, the two huge powers basically next door have propped them up over and over again. The “West” in an attempt to encourage dialogue has pointedly used anything other than force to attempt to bring the Hermit Kingdom into the family of nations. While I believe Washington looks at what they have done as out and out bribery, the Dear Leaders look upon it as tribute and rightly so.

    If nation pays you tribute, it acknowledges your superiority. It does not, repeat, does not fear you. Continued dialogue accomplishes nothing except to encourage yet more delusion at the higher echelon in Pyongyang.

    While the Armistice in 1953 may have been a good idea at the time, all it did was to postpone an inevitable showdown which may occur tomorrow, next month, next year or in a decade. Unless the two bit dictator is unseated, by anyone or any means. Eventually there will be hell to pay and enough carnage to make everyone happy.

    I am not a genius but way back, when I was a senior in college and the USS Pueblo was seized I felt that as soon as Commander Bucher and his crew were released a two element Phantom strike should have been made on the ship. To this day that ship sits in the North Korean harbor. A propaganda tool demonstrating the superiority of the North Koreans. We, dumb as rocks westerners have never and will never understand that people are not the same all over and certainly do not think the same.

    The absolutely best comment I ever heard on LBJ and the Vietnam War was that LBJ insisted until the very end that he could “negotiate” with Uncle Ho as he could with the AFL-CIO. They were fools, their successors are fools and American and South Korean lives will eventually pay for their foolishness. Which, when it is all over, will have taught them…..nothing.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I wonder if the saber rattling has something to do with a lack of food? Keep the people that are starving united against a foreign enemy and the dictator and his puppets will not face an major uprising. He talks too much, that’s for sure.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Certainly it is a component but one must fear the delusions created by the West’s less than stellar performance in the backbone department.

        I’d love to see the Colonel comment on whether the US has kept the South Koreans from taking out this despotic dynasty or if they have learned how to be wimps like us. I find it amazing that he can send assassination squads over the border, sink ships, blow up stuff and be a general asshole without any significant S. Korean response.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          They don’t have anything we want. Iraq has oil, Afghanistan has poppies. The Nork’s have……Charlies twin in charge 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          I am guessing the South is smart and understands it can’t FINISH well if it Starts anything serious.

          If they were capable of taking out the North and “winning” another war on their own, they would then have to clean up not only their own mess but rebuild the North. There war torn country would have to FEED the north for several years.

          Oh, and I do think there is a “wimp” component, although I would cause it RATIONAL THINKING.

          Why jeopardize your entire country’s prosperity over a few incidents like those you listed.

          • Germany took the task on and it has not turned out that badly for them. Unless I guess wrong, from a financial standpoint, with as usual the exception of the British, they just won everything they fought two world wars to try to obtain without firing a shot by keeping their financial house in order!.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH. The left wing will ignore all of this as much as possible. They are clearly hypocrits when it comes to killing kids, and this just proves it 😦

      • Hypocrits when it comes to children, hypocrits when it comes to protecting woman, hypocrits when it comes to racial outrage, hypocrits when it comes to caring about the poor.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m starting to see a change of attitude from many conservatives in my area. Let me say they are FED UP with the Democrats and liberals. They are tired of being called racist…..and the list is endless. Political correctness is being tossed out the window and people are saying whats on their mind. It’s about time too 🙂

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Absolutely!!!!!!

      The real creed of the NY Times and their ilk, “All the News that FITS, we print”. Dropped the following on Charlie yesterday.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

      Certainly can’t tar everyone (except conservatives and gun owners of course) with the same brush but it does fit in well with my theory that male on male sex abuse does have a significant homosexual component.

      Anyway, back to the Hermit Kingdom.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        I got caught in a massive effort responding to lefties yesterday for chastising Johns Hopkins students for threatening to boycott Mr. Carson’s commencement address. He has withdrawn as a result. In the course of that discussion, which focused on the accusation he had equated “homosexuals” to “pedophiles” and “bestiality” a question popped into my head which I did not get a response to. I am guessing the HuffPo moderators simply deleted it quickly.

        So here it goes……………

        Are not men who seek sex with boys ALSO homosexuals?

        Are not women who seek sex with girls ALSO homosexuals?

        Therefore, are not SOME homosexuals also pedophiles?

        Why are they trying to draw distinction for a groups who’s very definition of identity is based on the SEX of the sexual partner and not the AGE. After all, we are not called ADULT ONLY HETEROSEXUALS, just heterosexuals.

        Good day mate.

        • I look at this pretty simply when it comes to boy scouts and girl scouts-I don’t want a man to lead the girl scouts and I don’t want a woman to lead boy scouts. It isn’t that I think either will do any thing wrong but the possibility is there and the effort to stop anyone from even thinking there might be something wrong going on-will lesson their ability to interact with the children. So a man who is attracted to men simply shouldn’t be put into this position-it isn’t fair to him or to the children and the same goes for a woman.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          “He who controls the language, controls the world!”

          This kinda all fits in with the meanings of “militia” and “marriage” too. If you can make a word mean anything then, to quote Cole Porter, “Anything Goes”. Notice for example the subtle shift away from “Man made global warming” to “global warming” or “climate change”. Of course the climate changes and the earth is in a warming cycle but since they so totally blew the facts on the man made part, they have to tell us what we all know and make it sound like it is part of their narrative. Fools are fooled.

          As I get tired of pointing out, male homosexual culture is based on youth. Ever see the magazines? Now, there are exceptions to the rule but if you know anything, or are merely capable of keeping your eyes and ears open, you know that. Having said this, the teenager is obviously the ideal.

          I know very little of female homosexual culture. the little I know and see is very different from the male. In a Female -female relationship, youth and beauty are not determining factors as they are for males. There is a distinctly dominant partner and a submissive one. It is interesting because the submissive may well be the financial load carrier but still defers in the relationship to the partner. What is humorous here is that women in such relationships will take abuse from another woman they would never,ever take from a man. .

          All in all, it is an interesting field of study. If you want to I would suggest that you go back to analysis done in the early ’60’s or ’50’s before homosexuality became “normal” and all discussions of it being “abnormal” ended with those still in that camp being labeled “homophobes”. There are books, they my be hard to find but they still have not been burned. Not yet anyway.

          • Stephen,
            You want to talk about child molestation? Pedophiles? Raise your own prey?

            You want a goddam break?

            Let’s start with the Catholic Church. After you explain why that Pedophile Production and Protection organized shouldn’t be liquidated and disbanded, we can talk about your other phobias…

            Also, as I get tired of pointing out, male heterosexual culture is based on youth. Ever see the magazines online videos?

            • Really, heterosexual sexualization is based on adults and teens or pre-teens? The Catholic Fucking Church, of which I am a member is no more or less guilty in this regard than any other large institution it seems. I could and will point out Penn State, the recent incidents in Bronx High School of Science, Brooklyn Polytechnic High School, Horace Mann School and Riverdale Town and Country. The latter three are all distinguished NYC institutions (private) which have spent the past twenty or more years on cover-ups of male on male sexual abuse. Stop your damn ad hominem attacks. Phobias my ass, I live in the real world, and frankly, ain’t afraid of shit. Faced down enough narcotic dealers in my time, unarmed.You guys see things the way you want them to be and pretend the bad stuff does not happen because it interferes with your weltanschauung. At 66 I am getting damned tired of delusional people and even more so of people who throw out shit like “phobias” to disguise their own inability to recognize reality. Hell, don’t believe me, I don’t really care live in your own cloud coo-coo land as long as you want to. Must be a nice place.

              The human sexual drive is the strongest of all drives. Period! All the sick, perverted crap that we are exposed to in our daily papers is a direct result of that being improperly cross wired or imprinted on our brains. What exactly is so hard to understand about the concept that sexual predetors go where the hunting is best? Willie Sutton answered a dumb reporters question about why he robbed banks once by pointing out, “that’s where the money is”.

              If an adult male seduces a 10 year old male it is not homosexual to you. My question to you is, if it is 11, or 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, or 16, or 17, or finally an 18 year old when exactly does it become exclusively homosexual rather than pedophilia to you. Where is the line? Is there a line?

              • CFC? Things escalate fast around here 🙂 I agree with your post SK, and thanks for the talking points..I’ve been in a years long argument with a friend over this CFC stuff. Congrats on the new bundle of joy!

              • Stephen,

                As I get tired of pointing out, male homosexual culture is based on youth. Ever see the magazines? Now, there are exceptions to the rule but if you know anything, or are merely capable of keeping your eyes and ears open, you know that. Having said this, the teenager is obviously the ideal.

                Where’s your data to back this up. It sounds like your perception based on your experience. There are just as many heterosexual sick-o’s as homosexual, yet you can only see the homosexuals.

                The Catholic Church, which excludes marriage and requires celibacy of Priests, which declares homosexuality to be a sin, and should be protecting the most vulnerable members of society, instead protects pedophile Priests. And then you rag on and on about homosexuals…doesn’t add up…

                But you dodged this whole issue…

                The human sexual drive is the strongest of all drives.

                And yet you deny that the homosexual drive exists, or is natural for some people…

                What exactly is so hard to understand about the concept that sexual predetors go where the hunting is best?

                Nothing. But it applies to more than just homosexuals.

                If an adult male seduces a 10 year old male it is not homosexual to you.

                Sometimes it is homosexual, but many times its about power and control.

                My question to you is, if it is 11, or 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, or 16, or 17, or finally an 18 year old when exactly does it become exclusively homosexual rather than pedophilia to you.

                It doesn’t have to be exclusively homosexual or pedophilia. I don’t think that really matters. Any adult having sexual contact with a child is wrong, illegal, immoral. What you call it depends on the details of each case.

                Where is the line? Is there a line?

                The line is adult and child. It doesn’t matter if its homosexual or heterosexual.

              • Todd, For back-up, read Kinsey. Old but valid. Researched it as an undergrad. Came back to it in the late 80’s. While there are some questions bout Kinsey himself being a less than stellar personality, his research is damned good. There is also a bunch of literature on this subject which should be pretty easy to access these days though it is considered outmoded and passe but still not yet burnt.

                “The line is adult and child” That, was my point. Who is who?

                And yes, you are right. As a single guy I used to haunt the Jersey Shore and the skiing areas in the Catskills. In college, I went to mixers every weekend. I went where the girls are. Unfortunately if you are someone who preys on young men or young women, you will go to the Boy Scouts, High Schools, Youth Sports teams, Churches, Mosques, Temples or any other place that services youth. Singling out the Catholic Church is more than a little unfair, somewhat bigoted and frankly whitewashes the scope of the problem. Since the NYC stories started breaking in the last few years I have commented on line about them with the Cynical “I thought only Catholic Priests did this?” Hopefully I am getting my point across.

        • Liberals have situational ethics, their ethics change depending on what they want. Here is a question that gets lefties fired up because it challenges them to apply their “princples” equally when they don’t want to: Homosexuals define themselves by a sexual urge, besides cultrual acceptance, what is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex and an urge to have sex with an animal?

          • “Homosexuals define themselves by a sexual urge, besides cultrual acceptance, what is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex and an urge to have sex with an animal?”

            FL: You’re a moron. What ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH (whether He’s risen or not) is the urge some has to have sex with you (YOU FUCKING MORON … OR JUST “MORON” IF THERE’S NO ONE WITH THAT “URGE”).

            Seriously, what friggin’ tree did you fall out of and how hard did you land on your head? How does one make it through life being half as fucking dumb as you read right now?

            You better ask HIM for a new brain … before HE runs out of them … or maybe HE has.

            • I will join in this fun later…… Right now I m babysitting with the “older sister” all of 2 and a half.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              charlie

              You commit the same sin as most lefties. FLP raises a legitimate question.

              But instead of finding the flaw, if there is one, with reasoned argument you simply go on a Knee Jerk Rant filled with name calling.

              The base question is whether identification with “sexual URGE” is the proper way to describe the identity. Is not sexual URGE the same as sexual “orientation”?? If not then try to explain why not.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I doubt Charlie is intellectually competent enough to raise a reasoned argument. That’s why he calls names, he gets confused by the subject and can’t handle the truth 🙂
                Don’t worry FLP, I got your back 🙂

              • JAC, you commit the same sin as most morons, assuming he raised a legitimate question. There’s really no point in arguing something this absurd … Todd mentioned this the other day … give yourselves a bunch of high fives (for being intellectual idiots) … there, I see G has already done so. Bada-boom, bada-bing.

              • @JAC – I call bullshit – you’re playing with words with what end game in mind? Orientation from a social / psychology perspective can imply both voluntary and involuntary manifestations. To try and qualify sex only in ways of urges, and this continued nonsense of trying to cleverly link homosexual sex to sex with animals is insulting. I hate the fact that anyone needs to define the identity based solely on sexual “urge” (e.g. and really only done with respect to homosexuals) – it merely necessitates that “we” seek to find differences among us all for what purpose?

          • @FLPatriot – hi – I’ve honestly never heard a homosexual define themselves by a sexual urge – that’s such an odd way to put it. To humor – I consider an urge rooted in something involuntary – with respect to sex – for me – it would be to have an involuntary urge to have sex with a female human being (in my case, my wife – I’m married to her and have an emotional connection to her). I would suppose most all heterosexuals and homosexuals to feel the same way. Can someone have an urge to have sex with an animal? I guess. Probably the same as the guy who shoved an eel up his ass or others that do more graphic things to inanimate objects. But to loosely couple homosexual sexual urges to some urge to have sex with an animal…..well……you lost me. Some questions can and should fall on the heap of ridiculousness.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Howdy Ray 🙂 Hope all is well in your world today.

              I think that sexual urge is a good question to think about. Maybe attraction can also be part of the equation. I have very little knowledge of the gay lifestyle and what drives a man to be attracted to another man, so any question is a good question. What’s the old saying? There is no such thing a dumb question. There are plenty of dumb answers (see almost anything Charlie says 🙂 ). HEHE

              Peace!

              • G wrote: “I have very little knowledge …”

                I’ll fill in the blanks. “OF ANY FUCKING THING …” 🙂

              • Hey GMan – speaking in obviously very generalized terms – I am no expert in the psychology of sex – but I would offer that any healthy sexual relationship (hetero or homo) brings with it things like having an emotional connection to the other party – things generally unavailable when the other party is a dog or an email or a lightbulb or a sock.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Ray, There is a difference in a relationship and the urge to have sex. One has a physical and emotional aspect, the other may only have a physical aspect. In some cases I would say the urge has neither. Do all gays want a gay relationship? Do all non gays want a normal relationship? Many people like to have friends with benefits. I would think that those types of relationships apply to both sides.

                What about abusive relationships? I would guess they occur in all relationships. I have found that the bully types are nothing but cowards anyway.

                Glad to hear from you! 🙂

            • Ray said: “you lost me. Some questions can and should fall on the heap of ridiculousness.”

              He’s a gentleman. I’ll stick with FL (and any asswipe that supports his “question”) is a fucking moron … 🙂

              • G WRITES: “brings with it things like having an emotional connection to the other party”

                Like when a guy pays a prostitute.

                Take a few seconds to think about it, moron. Then you wouldn’t have to ask such stupid questions … 🙂

            • Ray, thanks for trying to discuss this like an adult.

              I think there was a misunderstanding though. I am not saying that having the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex means you would also have the urge to have sex with animals. What I am is asking is what is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex, different sex or with an animal?

              Lets go back to the begining for a second. What is the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual? Who they are attracted to for sex. So it is the urge to have sex with either someone of the same or different sex that seperates hetero and homo sexuals.

              So if extrapolate that idea further, what is the differance between the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex and someone with the urge to have sex with an animal? Of course there are culturally exepted norms that make people squimish with the thought of bestialigy, but that is the same cutlural norm that the homosexuals are trying to change to make their urges seam normal.

              If the left is able to make homosexuality a cultural norm where is their moral ground against bestiality? The truth is that the left is morally bankrupt and they are too shallow and ignorant to see it.

              I laugh at their moral stand on gun control to protect children while they support aborting over a million children every year.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                FLP

                An urge is short term and specific in nature. Homosexuals might have an “urge” to have sex with someone of the other sex from time to time. Heteros have had such “urges” as well. Note here the “experimentation” confessions from college students.

                But those “urges” are not the same as their primary orientation.

                So the difference between those who like homosexuality vs those that like bestiality is that one group is inherently drawn to having sex with other people, of the same sex, while the other is inherently drawn to having sex with animals.

                Although I do agree that there is probably a “urge” component to the “bestiality” group. That being that the term is not limited to a uniqueness of behavior but occasional abnormal behavior.

                Homosexuality is a behavior, condition, lifestyle, pick your word of choice that involves human to human relationships. Thus it fits in the world of moral and ethical argument among HUMANS.

                Making comparisons of behavior between man and beast is silly. Because this is not an issue of Human morals or ethics. Well at least ethics.

                Cultural “norms” may or may not conform to any particular set of “moral standards”. So to claim that a cultural norm must have a moral defense is a false assumption.

                Not unless you have a way to IMPOSE the SAME moral standards upon everyone.

              • @FLPatriot

                “What is the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual? What is the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual? Who they are attracted to for sex. So it is the urge to have sex with either someone of the same or different sex that separates hetero and homosexuals”

                I think you are oversimplifying things a bit, especially considering how early gender identity develops. To state that the mere difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is solely who you find sexually attractive (gender) undermines the many complex factors that comprise a relationship between two people. What do you make of the man that loses all interest in sex with wife (or any woman for that matter) – does he cease to be a heterosexual and become something….else?

                Even if I use your reasoning I must ask you to explain why you insist on stating your question as: “What is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the same sex and someone with the urge to have sex with an animal?”

                Rather than:

                “What is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and someone with the urge to have sex with an animal?”

                Further – if we elect to be as inarticulate to simply say that Bestiality is wrong because…..its just wrong; then we shorten our ability to say why hetero- or homosexual is right. It is far more complex than that and I think you probably know that.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    An example of what modern Republicans are up against regarding race.

    Jon Stewart has ridiculed Rand Paul, stating you can’t yada, yada, yada, your way past the last 60 years. Got that? The accusation is 60 years of RACISM by Republicans.

    Here is a comment from HuffPo on the subject. I brought it here because it has some truth in it. It is an example of how one uses truth to hide the false and thus lead the reader to the wrong conclusion. Fabulous propaganda. The sad part is I think the poster is serious. This is his belief, not a deliberate attempt to confuse others.

    “Its always amusing to see modern Republicans trying to claim the legacy of liberal-progressive Republicans of the past with regard to civil-rights. But It’s funny, they don’t seem to try to claim the legacy of past Republicans who supported progressive economic views, or even socialist ones. They do not seem to try to claim the legacy of anti-religious agnostic 19th century Republicans like orator Robert G. Ingersoll, i.e. the most famous secular-humanist of his day in America.

    The Republican Party has been completely transformed by the its embracing of the very southern Democrats these Republicans keep referring to. The Republican Party was once a northern orientated party that dominated in states like Massachusetts. Today, the Republican Party is a southern oriented party that has very few members in Massachusetts. All the rhetoric we hear from Republicans today about states rights and tyrannical government used to come from southern Democrats!

    There are 10’s of millions of modern Republicans who will wave, and show pride in, the Confederate Flag. How many Republicans in the 1860’s do you think were doing this?”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Does it even matter what they were called 100 years ago? Today, we have Conservatives and Liberals. One stands for Liberty and the other for a police state. I know where I stand 🙂

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    The Liberal Stream Media simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Of course, this is the whole liberal ideology, lie about it or hide it. Assholes!
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bozell-abc-cbs-nbc-deliberately-censoring-bad-news-obamacare

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Ray Hawkins

    “@JAC – I call bullshit – you’re playing with words with what end game in mind?”

    I am not “playing” with words. I am suggesting that words have meaning and if used improperly they can create false arguments. My end game is to get people to use REASON instead of knee jerk EMOTIONAL reactions to deal with arguments.

    In this case FLP used certain words to raise the question. I think he created a FALSE premise by selecting a particular word. This in turn would show his conclusion to be false. In fact you begin to address the flaw in your comment to FLP.

    It centers on the use of “urge” instead of “orientation” or “identity”.

    Urges are very short term in nature. We don’t think of ourselves as having an URGE to be something or do something in the long term. Sexual Orientation is a “long term” thing not an URGE.

    Thus the premise that homosexuals identify themselves by “sexual urge” is FALSE.

    This makes FLP’s “premise” false, and thus the argument fails before it begins.

    Now, how have you been? Haven’t seen you around lately so I assume you have been busy chasin rug rats.

    • JAC, how would you define sexual orientation?

      I would wager that my question would be a vaild question if you changed the word “urge” with a word the equates sexual orientation.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        FLP

        I think I just addressed the fundamentals above.

        Orientation is to me the same as identity. Inherent attraction and desire might be good way to describe it.

        Bestiality has historically been used for abnormal or abhorrent behavior that is NOT part of a human’s identity or orientation. More of an URGE if you will. Not to say that such might not exist.

        Lets assume they are the same. So what? If your coral moral standards are those that support freedom and liberty then what do you care whether your neighbor loves his dog? It causes you no harm.

        This doesn’t mean that bestiality or even homosexuality has to, or will, become a Cultural “NORM”. It only means it will be tolerated without avarice.

        • I agree with you JAC that as long as my neighbor does not try and force me to accept their actions as moral, I don’t care what they do. Unfortantly, being able to freely do what they want to do is not enough for the left, they want to force me to accept their morals as my own and that is where I have a problem.

          As evidenced by charlies “response” you see that the left will avoid discussing their position outside of the situation they want to place it.

        • Seems like JAC is dreaming about his horse…

          If your coral moral standards…

          Freudian Slip or what?

          What about your morals outside of the coral JAC?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            A Freudian slip would have been …….. corral, not coral!

            My morals are the same, I LOVE my horse both inside and outside the corral! 🙂

            • I know – but I’m a terrible speeler 😉 and it looked like corral at first, and I couldn’t resist!

        • Much the way the normal world has to tolerate lunatics like you 🙂

    • Hey JAC – hope you are doing well. Work, kids and life in general tend to fill my day to the brim. I enjoy stopping by here time to time to rattle my gray matter a bit – if only just to lurk and read. I do unfortunately think the whole lot of us is going to hell in a handbasket. I fear tremendously for what my kids will face in another 10/15/20 years.

  7. I have a couple questions:

    Are not men who seek sex with girls ALSO heterosexuals?

    Are not women who seek sex with boys ALSO heterosexuals?

    Therefore, are not SOME heterosexuals also pedophiles?

    Heterosexuals define themselves by a sexual urge, besides cultural acceptance, what is the difference between the urge to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and an urge to have sex with an animal?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      In some cultures, girls as young as 10 get married. I have heard that sex cannot occur till age 13, but I don’t follow that religion. Is pedophilia a religious issue? It would seem that way if some religions allow sex with children.

      None of the non-heterosexual stuff affects me in any way, so I really don’t care.
      Hope today finds you and yours well Todd 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      YES, they are.

      The urge to have sex with humans is a different urge than the one to have sex with animals.

      Also notice how your logic jumped from humans to animals with no connection in the argument.

      Unless you are using the word “urge” to connect the two. Is that the case?

    • The difference todd is moral standard. My moral standard is that men should not engage in sex with an animal, a child or with another man. Your morals may be different and as long as you keep your morals out of my life, then you are free to do so (as long as you are not endagering the freedom of another person, then I will step in to protect that other’s rights).

      • I can’t wait for one of FL P’s kids to come out … and MY god bless them for it … while FL P maybe cleans his ears out with a flame thrower … 🙂

      • You didn’t answer JAC’s question:

        Also notice how your logic jumped from humans to animals with no connection in the argument.

        Unless you are using the word “urge” to connect the two. Is that the case?

        The difference todd is moral standard

        You’re not applying “Moral Standard.” Your applying bigotry.

        (as long as you are not endagering the freedom of another person, then I will step in to protect that other’s rights).

        Per SUFA, you have no right to do assume another person’s rights…

        • You guys really need to stop the per SUFA crap-We don’t all agree-and per me-you guys are obviously a part of SUFA.

          • VH. I think I can get Todd to agree … when “some” of you using the generalizations you sling our way … but that won’t happen, so let’s just leave it be … 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Chuckle’s, At least Todd debates. You can’t seem to debate anything because you to busy calling people names. Maybe you should quit acting like a third grader and we can all talk about a subject, present our differing views and go from there. Are you even smart enough to get past the name calling? COME ON MAN! Get a grip 🙂

              • No, as has been clearly established by all 6 of you geniuses, I have nothing to offer but name calling. Sorry I don’t live down to your intellect, G, but life is too short to “debate” at SUFA … besides, I’m not sure you can hang with the big dogs …:)

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That’s what I thought, your really not bright enough are you? You have a disability maybe? You can be honest, I don’t want to hurt your feelings if you have a mental disability 🙂 I’m a much nicer person than that. But let’s be clear, the closest thing to a big dog that gets near you (or in the mirror) is the last hot dog you had to eat. 😆

              • You know Gman,
                You complain about Charlie posting insults and never debating – does the same standard apply to you?

                You toss around insults about those on the “Left” pretty liberally (pun intended!) here (see your first post here).

                You also post a lot of articles asking what everyone thinks, but you give your thoughts to start the debate.

                Just curious…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, I agree with you. I am quite intolerant of the left and yes, I do throw out lots of insults towards the left. I do bust Charlies butt a lot too, but he gives it right back. I can do better in both areas, for sure. 🙂

                I do post a lot of different stuff. Sorry, very boring time of year here. That is changing as the weather improves.

                I do like the way you have been debating, Kudo’s to you. I will work on doing a better job of starting the debate on a subject, but feel free to express you opinion on any article I post. Opinions are what it’s all about.

                Any ideas how we, as a people can mend our differences politically? We, in my opinion, are way to divided, and I find that sad. Just wondering 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          This is an unfair accusation:

          “You’re not applying “Moral Standard.” Your applying bigotry.”

          You may view his standard as bigotry but it is STILL a moral standard.

          However, I don’t think it qualifies as “bigotry” either.

          It seems to me “bigotry” is being overused. It is too easy to throw that accusation just to shut people up who you many not agree with.

          • Bigotry – stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed , belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

            Sorry JAC, I think that fits.

            • bada-boom, bada-bing 🙂

              As for Charlie not debating … I’ve done that hear for years … no point … pointless as tits on a bull …

              But here, have some fun anyway …

              No texting while driving, please … Hubert Selby Jr. … Rutgers … Momma Stella and the Rangers …
              http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2013/04/no-texting-while-driving-please-hubert.html

              • that’s twice i used hear for here … must be G …

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I love Ya man, but it’s Bush’s fault 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Right on about the texting and driving. It’s illegal in PA, but idiots still do it. If they come in your lane don’t move, let them hit you and teach them a lesson, I would. Did you say 55 mph? I haven’t seen that in a long time. We think of those signs as a suggestion 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              How is it “completely” “intolerant” to say that you don’t care what people do in their own home but don’t want them to push it on you in public, or to try and change the meaning of “marriage”? If you don’t take any action to harm those folks but simply fight to maintain the status quo regarding laws of marriage then how is the “COMPLETE” intolerance?

              You are missing the hostile nature in the meaning of the word Bigot and Bigotry. Is that a deliberate deletion to make bigotry fit your accusation?

              By your definition why not just use “disagree strongly” with……..?

              • It’s not this one comment JAC. It’s the totality of his comments – today and other days.

            • Way too wide a definition. If I disagree with you I am ….what, a bigot? Don’t think so. Your definition would then make most activist atheists and activist homosexuals bigots, wouldn’t it? Of course, not if you think that they and they alone had the pipeline to the truth. There were another group of people in the last century who thought that way, they were called Nazi’s.

              • It’s not my definition. It’s pretty much the common definition. You could look it up yourself – there’s a thing called Google…

                It’s not just about disagreeing. Did you actually read “my definition that’s way too wide”?

                And then there’s the Nazi reference…always a good sign…

              • Stephen, it’s a typical tactic of a weak minded leftist. They twist the meaning of words so that they can create a strawman because facing reality reveals their ignorance.

                Like in this instance. They want to make people with morals look like bigots because they (the left) don’t like the morals of that person, in reality the leftist is the bigot because they hate to see a strong moral person stand up to them for what they believe.

                That mix of ignorance and hatred is what is destroying this country, unfortunately they have infected the education system with their brand of bigotry so it will take several generations to weed it out.

              • This is hilarious. You’re more upset about my definition then whether it applies to you!

                Here, follow this LINK and type in “bigot” and pick a definition. 😉

                My moral standard is that men should not engage in sex with an animal, a child or with another man.

                Ok, I’m fine with that.

                Your morals may be different and as long as you keep your morals out of my life, then you are free to do so.

                And I’m fine with this.

                But, the problem is, you don’t live your life by this standard. You want to apply your morals to others, and not allow them to marry, simply because you think it is wrong.

                Why don’t you “keep your morals out of their life?

                If bigot too strong as word, how about hypocrite?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        FLP, You know you have won the smart battle when all they can do is call names. Take the high road, as you have been and ignore the ignorant. I laugh my butt off when supposedly grown adults act like 3rd grade school yard bullies. I won’t waste my time trying to debate with someone who probably needs to see a Shrink. 🙂

        • The flip side to what G said, FLP, is you know you’re a moron when a more intelligent class of people (usually lefties) finds your comments either so offensive or dumb, they see no purpose in addressing them, other than to call them what they are (in your gay question–something a moron might ask). But I understand that your guiding light comes from a book loaded with fairytales (and not very good ones), so the scope of your intelligence is drastically hindered (blind faith kind of precludes an open mind) … so either you’re looking to stir the “left pot”, so to speak (and if so, I applaud your stirring–sometimes it’s draw people out of the afternoon snooze) … or your intellect is seriously hampered either by your blind faith in fairytales … or, as pointed out earlier (and more than once), you’re a moron. 🙂

        • Once I realized the charlie is not a serious debater and just another leftist hack, I filter out his comments for what they are… an ignorant brain fart.

  8. Ray says to FL (again,m because he’s a gentleman): I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

    Charlie says to Ray: Because he’s a friggin’ simpleton … and I mean seriously simple

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    On the subject of taxes, here is one issue that should be discussed:

    $1.4 BILLION DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE OBAMA FAMILY LIFESTYLE!

    You read that correctly, the lifestyle required by our first family costs the American taxpayers more than 20 times more than English tax payers!

    Sink One For the Middle Class Tax Payers Mr. President!

    What are some of the things we are paying for?

    Security and secret service are obviously the most important.
    5 chefs on Air Force One.
    2 Projectionists that operate the White House movie theater.
    Star filled private concerts at the White House including Justin Timberlake.
    118 rounds of golf the President has played since being elected.
    All of the first family’s vacations (over 17 in 4 years) across the world including their 2012 Christmas in Hawaii that has a known cost of at least $4 million dollars but estimated costs are up to $20 million dollars.
    http://smna.conservativecontacts.com/track?t=v&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWlkPTEyNDQ5Jm1zZ2lkPTgwMjMmZGlkPTEwMDAmZWRpZD0xMDAwJnNuPTE2NzgzMDI4JmVpZD1nZnJjMkBhb2wuY29tJmVlaWQ9Z2ZyYzJAYW9sLmNvbSZ1aWQ9Z2ZyYzJAYW9sLmNvbSZyaWQ9MzgyOTgmZXJpZD0zODI5OCZmbD0mbXZpZD0mdGdpZD0mZXh0cmE9&&&2100&eu=200&&&

    Is this what our taxes (and new debt) should be paying for?

    • Kind of reminds me of the life style of the Czars just before the revolution.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If this were Bush, There would be no MSNBC, all their heads would have exploded 😆

        • No MSNBC? That brings a smile to my face 🙂

          Then again, who would really miss them, they have almost no viewers when you look at their ratings. (Todd, that is an exaggerated for comedic reasons, you can put down your calculator and spread sheets on cable “news” ratings)

    • G-Man – a different perspective on those “points”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-barack-obama-has-a-14-billion-a-year-presidency/2013/03/17/bb5f3ea2-8f40-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_blog.html

      An excerpt:

      The dog walker is the silliest claim. This refers to Dale Haney, the White House groundskeeper. Gray includes in his source list an Associated Press article on Haney, which states:

      “Haney is often spotted walking Bo, the Obama family’s Portuguese water dog. In fact, he’s tended to every White House pup since King Timahoe, Richard Nixon’s Irish setter. . . . Before Bo came along to romp on the South Lawn and roam the White House hallways, Haney spent a lot of time walking and playing with President George W. Bush’s Scottish terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley. Haney was most fond of Spot, an English springer spaniel whose mother, Millie, belonged to Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush.”
      In other words, the White House groundskeeper — whose main job is caring for more than 18 acres of lawns, trees and gardens — happens to like dogs and has been doing this for every president since 1972.

      As evidence of sloppy research, Gray at one point in his book refers to the White House paying $102,000 to a man who walks Obama’s dog, saying that one point the “handler” was flown to Maine with the dog. (This anecdote also ended up in the Daily Caller article.)
      This appears to refer to Reggie Love, then the president’s personal assistant, who was once spotted taking the dog off an airplane. But the local Maine newspaper initially misreported that Love and the dog were flown on their own airplane. The article was corrected, but not before the blogosphere looked up Love’s salary and went wild with the tale of the $102,000-a-year dog handler.

    • While the points raised are dubious in their claims to varying degrees – it is worth noting a near complete lack of transparency in expenses. I don’t need details on the security budget, but I think when you’re asking so many people to pay more and more in taxes you better be as transparent and conservative in your own spending. Use that website for more than just petitions.

  10. People have completely lost their minds.

    Students Asked to ‘Argue That Jews Are Evil’ and Prove Nazi Loyalty in Assignment Linked to Common Core
    Apr. 12, 2013 3:34pm Tiffany Gabbay

    Students Asked to Argue That Jews Are Evil and Prove Nazi Loyalty in New Albany Common Core Assignment

    A screenshot of the writing assignment asking students to argue the Nazi case.

    Students in some Albany High School English classes were asked to participate in the unthinkable this week as part of a persuasive writing assignment. The objective? Prove why Jews are evil and convince the teacher of their loyalty to the Third Reich in five paragraphs or less.

    “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!” read the description on the assignment, which the school superintendent said reflects the kind of sophisticated writing expected of students under the new Common Core standards and was meant to hone students’ persuasive argument abilities.

    The TimesUnion reports that students were asked to digest Nazi propaganda material, then imagine that their teacher was an SS officer who needed to be persuaded of their loyalty by arguing that Jews are the root of all the world’s ills.

    “I would apologize to our families,” Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard said. “I don’t believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith.”

    The TimesUnion explains more of the reasoning behind the offensive assignment:

    Vanden Wyngaard said the exercise reflects the type of writing expected of students under the new Common Core curriculum, the tough new academic standards that require more sophisticated writing. Such assignments attempt to connect English with history and social studies.

    She said she understood the academic intent of the assignment — to make an argument based only on limited information at hand. Still, she acknowledged that it was worded in a very offensive manner. She did not identify the English teacher or discuss whether the educator faced any discipline.

    Students were asked to draw on elements of the great philosopher Aristotle, and frame their arguments as either: “Logos” (persuasion by reasoning), “Pathos” (persuasion by emotional appeal) or “Ethos” (persuasion by the author’s character).

    Nonetheless, a reported one-third of the Albany students refused to complete the assignment.

    Whether school faculty chose this particular subject matter for the writing assignment, or if the subject matter came directly from Common Core remains unclear (it could have been the justification and not a direct lesson), but the amount of controversial lessons administered under curriculum system is indeed mounting.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/students-asked-to-argue-that-jews-are-evil-and-prove-nazi-loyalty-in-assignment-linked-to-common-core/

    If I wasn’t totally convinced before-I am now-if I ever have grandchildren-I’m gonna be real upset if they are sent to public schools.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Makes you wonder why the taxpayers don’t have a whole lot more say in what is taught. V. do you think we as a nation need some major changes. I’m speaking politically, education, less govt in our lives etc?

      • We need geniuses like you and FLP, G … that’ll solve all our problems, no doubt. Like stepping off a cliff in the middle of the night on a moonless sky … the abyss 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Chuckles says “We need geniuses like you and FLP, G”
          Your right ! If we had people like you in charge we’d still be living in grass huts and drawing on cave walls. Your whole outlook on life has already been proven a miserable failure. But, yet, you still stick with it, thinking that if we do it the same again the outcome will be different. We all know that is the definition of insane 🙂

          The good thing that’s going on, nobody has to call you names like stupid and moron, you are proving that all by yourself without our help 😆

    • So long as the assignment wasn’t a “requirement” (i.e., students could opt out if they felt it was too offensive), I think it’s a GREAT exercise. For one thing, it might help students learn how to disect obvious propaganda (like all the “liberty” bullshit that flies around SUFA) …

      • I’m not a psychologist but it doesn’t take much to see that the idea was to have the kids think up reasons for why the Jews were bad. Creating negative ideas specifically. they weren’t asked to just write about the Nazi’s or what happened in that time period to see what the children actually believed-they were asked specifically to come up with negative ideas about Jews specifically.

        Watched a tape by a woman who owned abortion clinics and part of what she did to increase business was to go to schools and teach sex education-and yes I know I talk a lot about abortions-but bare with me. She said-we would go in to the younger children -get them into a circle and ask them one question. “What do your parents call you’re private parts? We asked this question knowing that parents had numerous names for children’s private parts and that by the time we had gone around the circle the children would start to question whether or not their parents knew what they were talking about. then she said we would send them outside for recess and we would watch while the children talked about their private parts-smiling because we knew we had just successfully broken down the modesty barrier.

        All this stuff isn’t just innocent ideas meant to make children think-a lot of it is simply using psychology to produce the desired, in this case, evil intentions.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I see your point! As a parent, I would have been upset knowing that a stranger was allowed in school and talked about kids private parts. That’s just too much for me. It’s the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex and things like that, not some stranger who is looking for a few future abortion patients. UGH! I do agree with you on the education issue!

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Speaking of our education system, everyone should remember this killer!

            A 17 year old “animal” named De’Marquis Elkins shot and killed an innocent 13 month old baby in a stroller and injured the mother in Brunswick, GA this week.

            De’Marquis Elkins is not a member of the NRA

            He did not use an assault rifle

            He did not get his stolen pistol from a gun show

            His favorite music is rap

            He did not attend Christian school, nor was he home schooled

            He did attend multicultural public education, and was not instructed in the Ten Commandments

            His Momma was on welfare, got food stamps, and lived in public housing

            His daddy was not around, and his two brothers have a different daddy

            He already has a record for violent crimes

            He is gang member

            His mom, grandma, and Aunty all voted for Obama.

            He never earned his hunter safety card, nor did he shoot CMP, Junior NRA, or 4H Air Rifle Competitions

            He was never instructed in gun safety from his father or grandfather

            His public education and family taught him that the white man owes him something. He went to collect it

            He has no plans on getting married, but does have a “Baby Momma”, and no, he is not supporting her baby

            He smokes weed

            He does respect Kayne West

            While he has no job, nor was he looking for one, he is well fed, and does not need a job. He has no skills outside of crime

            He speaks Ebonics, and is not capable of doing a professional interview, even though he spent 11 years in public education.

            He is one of millions. When Obama breaks the economy, they are coming for you.

            This is the end result of Liberalism.

            • De’Marquis Elkins is not a member of the NRA – Irrelevant

              He did not use an assault rifle – Irrelevant

              He did not get his stolen pistol from a gun show – Irrelevant

              His favorite music is rap – VERY Irrelevant

              He did not attend Christian school, nor was he home schooled – ALSO VERY Irrelevant

              He did attend multicultural public education, and was not instructed in the Ten Commandments – ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD POINT THIS OUT, also Irrelevant

              His Momma was on welfare, got food stamps, and lived in public housing – Ever hear of the Uni-Bomber, moron? Also Irrelevant

              His daddy was not around, and his two brothers have a different daddy – What a friggin’ moron you are, G … and Irrelevant

              He already has a record for violent crimes – FINALLY, something relevant

              He is gang member – somewhat relevant

              His mom, grandma, and Aunty all voted for Obama. – Here you go again, dumb as rocks … Irrelevant

              He never earned his hunter safety card, nor did he shoot CMP, Junior NRA, or 4H Air Rifle Competitions

              He was never instructed in gun safety from his father or grandfather – totally Irrelevant

              His public education and family taught him that the white man owes him something. He went to collect it – how do you know what his family taught him, dumbass? Irrelevant

              He has no plans on getting married, but does have a “Baby Momma”, and no, he is not supporting her baby – also Irrelevant

              He smokes weed – Irrelevant

              He does respect Kayne West – maybe he’s just stupid. You should know something about that, G. also Irrelevant

              While he has no job, nor was he looking for one, he is well fed, and does not need a job. He has no skills outside of crime – most of this is Irrelevant, but I doubt you know any of this to be true (because you’re a racist and can’t help yourself) 🙂

              He speaks Ebonics, and is not capable of doing a professional interview, even though he spent 11 years in public education. – You speak dumbass, but we assume you went to school too. Irrelevant

              He is one of millions. When Obama breaks the economy, they are coming for you. – One can only hope he knocks on your door first, but also Irrelevant

              This is the end result of Liberalism. – Your usual absolutely absurd generalization, PER SUFA … AND ALSO IRRELEVANT

      • I like it better in the hypothetical, why red haired people are the cause of the world’s evil. Been done before in social science classes and is effective and frightening. Researching for a paper on Jews would almost automatically take you to wacko sites where you would be exposed to the “Protocols of Elders of Zion” bullshit. I don’t know if teens have enough maturity or knowledge these days not to fall into that trap. Argue it from a Rwanda of Hutu/Tutsi perspective because, to westerners that really makes no sense. Almost like that “Star Trek” episode where the opponents were half black and half white, just on opposite sides of the body.

  11. Exactamundo, G (whatever you say) … I just don’t understand how the world has yet to recognize your smarts … must be global warming.

  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

    Please, G, explain this one with your special brand of acumen …

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    FLP, Todd, Ray, et al

    Re: Continuation of the Homosexual discussion.

    FLP, among many others, believes homosexual behavior is “immoral”. Since the issue of Morals was raised I thought it a good time to review the Philosophical Meaning of morality. From the Stanford School of Philosophy:

    “The Definition of Morality
    First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011

    The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

    What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

    Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God.

    Dictionary definitions of referring terms are usually just descriptions of the important features of the referents of those terms. Insofar as the referents of a term share the features that account for why that term refers to those referents, the term is not regarded as ambiguous. Referring terms are ambiguous when the referents of the term differ from each other in sufficiently important ways. The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively.

    “Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory’s account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory’s normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept.”

    • Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are “good” (or right) and those that are “bad” (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with “goodness” or “rightness.” Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4] An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

      Imagine paying attention to this last bolded example.

      Okay, you kids play nice together … I look forward to seeing G’s breakdown on Ted K …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        OH MY! Charlie says this (to everyone’s disbelief) An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

        Imagine paying attention to this last bolded example.

        Yes, You should really go back and read what you post and live up to those standards because YOU are the worst violator on this site 😉

        Working on the Ted thing. Not sure why my opinion of a criminal is important, but I can amuse you if you desire 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Here is the link for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

      It contains the full discussion on Morality.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

  14. Colonel,
    We seem to have the same “questions” about Income Mobility. It’s basically lining everyone up in economic order. I might move “up” because my income went up, but I also might move “up” because your income dropped, even if mine did not change.

    That’s why I felt it important to include improve (or lower) their economic status. The simple ”movement of an individual or group from one income level to another“ doesn’t really tell us anything.

    However, to broaden the definition of “mobility” to include the ABILITY to be able to move from one quintile to another is a cause/effect proposition. Because the quintiles are fixed at 20% and they are ever shifting, it seems to me that it is all a false argument.

    I don’t understand your obsession with the word “ability”? Or the “false argument”?

    For example, if a low income person is in the bottom quintile, and gets a substantial raise to the next quintile above…..that is considered upward mobility. If a person in the highest quintile makes a bad investment and his/her income is lowered and, consequently, falls into the next lower quintile, then that is graded as downward mobility. Pretty easy definitions to follow…

    Yes, both are income mobility.

    EXCEPT..the percentages that define quintiles do not change.

    Yes, I agree, but I don’t understand why this a big issue?

    So for purposes of the discussion of income mobility…..we shall keep the discussion centered on income…….and drop the social aspects of it. Social mobility, often associated with income mobility, is what we pilots call a false horizon.

    I know – the word “Social” just scares you. That’s OK, we’re talking about “Income”, so you can relax…

    I will address your broadened definition to include the ability to move from one quintile to another…..or, in layman’s terms, to make more money.

    I don’t think my definition is “broadened”, I think it’s more focused.

    Your definition: the movement of an individual or group from one income level to another.

    “Movement” could mean up or down or splashing around…hey, that sounds like a song!

    My definition: Income mobility is the ability of an individual, family or some other group to improve (or lower) their economic status

    I put improve (or lower) their economic status in bold because I think that’s the important part. Just “splashing” around from 18% to 22% and back is not “improving” anything. We need to see real improvement over time.

    I found this quote really interesting:

    Europe is a continent with high marginal tax rates, a plethora of public service jobs, and generous social services. As a result, many highly talented Europeans choose to pursue careers that don’t pay much. However, their equally talented children may choose otherwise.

    In America, in contrast, high-ability individuals of all generations will almost invariably choose occupations in which they end up earning high incomes. To the extent that intelligence and ability are either hereditary or result from high-quality parenting, children of high achievers will also tend to be high achievers.

    First, you didn’t include the link: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/09/the-mirage-of-income-mobility

    Second, seems like a – I don’t know – kinda “conservative” source. Kinda goes against your whole “I prefer to do my own research, not hyperbole of opinion” stuff.

    Third, the “argument” – if you can call it that – is absurd: We’ll just assume the first generation of Europeans were lazy, so it was easy for the second generation to surpass them…seriously?

    But if the first generation was lazy, wouldn’t you expect them to raise slacker kids?

    And what about the third generation? If the second generation was so great, wouldn’t it be hard for the third generation to pass the 2nd?

    The “arguments” for America are just as absurd – in reverse…

    It seem the only way “you guys” can feel better is when you’re tearing down someone else. Kinda sad.

    Here’s an idea – look at the bottom part of the glass. It really is “half full”…

    Ok, now to the “meat & potatoes”…

    PEW research says “the image of the United States as a rigid class society results from looking only at relative measures of income mobility, i.e. moves among different income strata of the society. A look at absolute income mobility provides a more cheerful picture. Eighty-four percent of Americans have incomes that exceed what their parents earned at a similar stage in life, according to the study. The figure is 93 percent for those raised in the bottom quintile of the income distribution.</blockquote

    Didn't see PEW in your links? That's Ok.

    So 84% and 93% exceed their parents. That's good. But do they list by how much? Because that's important too.

    There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2008 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period. Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2008.

    This is good too, but again movement amongst quintiles can be deceiving. The half that moved up – did their income increase, or did others decrease? Did their economic status improve?

    Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2008. The median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.

    Well don’t cry for them. Being in the top 2/100 of 1 percent ain’t bad… 😉 I’m not too concerned with people “dropping from the top.” They had their chance and blew it…or someone else passed them…

    Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2008. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation.

    This is good!

    The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period.

    This is good – for 2/3’s of all taxpayers…sucks for the other third. I’ll guess some of the 1/3 is the wealthy, whose incomes tend to fluctuate, but they don’t make up anywhere near 1/3 of all taxpayers. And the rest of this 1/3 is probably in the lower quintiles…

    In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

    This sounds great, but they don’t define “increased”. Percentage? Dollar? I’m guessing percentage, because that’s most commonly used. And a 100% increase in income in the lowest quintile doesn’t come close to a 5% increase in the highest quintile.

    In contrast, since 2008, the impact on the quintiles with the current administration have fallen…..even more so for the lower quintiles. They have regressed due to the policies that have changed since 2008…namely namely the erosion of the private enterprise system, and the existence of barriers to economic opportunity for the poorest. In the present economic, political, and ideological environment, entrepreneurial success is difficult to achieve, and when achieved, it is taxed, regulated heavily, and sneered at in the infamous “you-didn’t-build-that” style.

    But all of your links are from before 2008. How do you make this assessment?

    And you should really stick to facts, and not spout off your personal opinion, because it’s comments like this that make me question you economic knowledge…or at least your ability to objectively evaluate them.

    It seem the only way “you guys” can feel better is when you’re tearing down someone else. Kinda sad.

    You seem to gloss over a certain person from Texas…Geez, you never even mention his name…that says a lot…

    D13 discounts economist theories because they are like belly buttons….everybody has one…however, D13 asserts that this is relatively on target

    So I guess you only discount things you disagree with? No surprise there. This also sounds like a little “pre-emptive strike.” If I were to quote some economic theory you don’t like, you can say “I told you I don’t like those…”

    which also points to Todd’s broadened definition of ABILITY.

    I still don’t understand your obsession with this, why you think it “broadens” things, or why it’s a big deal? Is it the only thing you could find to pick on and it makes you feel better?

    Is the ABILITY there for ALL income quintiles to move upward. All of the studies and evaluations show that until 2008, all the faactors were in place for upward income mobility.

    I’m not sure where you draw this conclusion from?

    Did the rich get richer…..of course they did. Why? Because they had more to invest and, therefore, greater income. Did the poorest of the poor get richer….the data says yes…… Everyone had greater purchasing power, more money and bought more goods and services than ever before THROUGH 2008…

    Ok, but there’s a lot of caveats on this. Maybe I’ll get to those. But first…

    ESPECIALLY THE LOWEST QUINTILES. The lowest quintiles had the greater upward income mobility than the higher quintiles.

    Here’s where you start to leave reality Colonel. Or maybe it’s that “Income Mobility” isn’t a great way to measure this.

    First, let’s get the top quintile out of the way. Not much movement? So? “Oh no, my income has been STRUCK at $2,000,000 per year for the last five years. How will I feed my children????”

    And there’s no where to go. If you’re in the 100th percentile, you can’t move to the 101st percentile…Low “Income Mobility” in the top quintile is good for those already there – it means they’re staying there – and others are not moving into the top quintile.

    Back to the “The lowest quintiles had the greater upward income mobility…” Maybe “Income Mobility” – as in splashing around in the same 18%-22%, but your links show a very different story.

    The H02 chart that you referenced shows that the “Shares (percentage) of aggregate income”, from 1967 to 2011, dropped for the Lowest fifth, the Second fifth, the Third fifth, and the Fourth fifth. Guess who that leaves? The Highest fifth sucked it all up…

    So the lowest quintiles might have had greater upward income mobility, but they’re “slice of economic pie” is getting smaller.

    The H03 chart shows the same thing – all increased, but the top increased at a high percentage – and a MUCh high dollar amount.

    So, Todd, it is apparent that income mobility was moving in the right direction until 2008. Everyone had a piece of the pie, so to speak, because there was a bigger pie. When you strangle competition, business, and entrepreneurship, you reduce the share of the pie.

    Crashing the economy in 2007 certainly didn’t help. Your blame is mis-placed…

    but there are barriers purposely put into place to keep the poor……….poor.

    Yes, but you mis-represent (or don’t understand) who puts those barriers in place…

    I think that the discussion on the barriers that limit upward mobility is where the subject needs to be…..because you have to attack the root problem. The prevention of upward mobility by design.

    At least we agree on this last statement…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      The question is whether economic “mobility” exists in the USA.

      So why is the relative value of the increase between groups of any importance relative to that question?

      Why did you chastise me the other day for raising this question by saying you didn’t bring up the issue. Now here you bring it up once again with a different person?

      The data d13 provided was inflation adjusted. So while the gain of the lower groups may look small it means they GAINED something. If that continues the increase will itself increase. A basic truth of math that favors bigger numbers. That and the availability of “compound” returns that become more available with increased income.

      If mobility has declined, as in becoming less available for new generations, then it should show up as a reduction in the Inflation Adjusted income of the lower brackets. But the data shows an increase. The RATE of change from year to year doesn’t decline either, except in hard times. Which it does for everyone.

      You make a mistake in claiming the lower bracket has a smaller piece of the pie. That is if your trying to infer that they have less income, wealth, etc because the higher brackets took the money. And that is what your comment looks like to me.

      Again, the question was whether mobility exists. Can poor people actually move up in economic “group/class/percentile/status” during their lifetime. It sure looks to me like mobility still exists in the USA. The data indicates this mobility is much more than you are implying by making rhetorical comments about the 1/3 that didn’t or the value/largeness of the increase of others, etc.

      Mobility exists.

      Now lets discuss if this mobility is decreasing or will decrease. If so, then why do we think this will happen. Are the “popular” solutions put forth by politicians “REALLY” solutions or just political rhetoric?

      • JAC,

        Why did you chastise me the other day for raising this question by saying you didn’t bring up the issue. Now here you bring it up once again with a different person?

        Because at that time I wasn’t making that point. You made an assumption about what I meant, and used that in your argument. If you had asked me if that was part of my point, I would have said “sure”. But you didn’t ask.

        I was playing the game you play quite a bit.

        The relative value of the increase between groups is important because in order to move up, you have to be…moving up…

        This is the “Shares (percentage) of aggregate income” from 1967 to 2011 from D13’s H02 link. The forth line is the percent change – 2011 divided by 1967:

        Year   1st    2nd     3rd     4th     5th    Top 5%
        2011   3.2    8.4    14.3    23.0    51.1     22.3
        1967   4.0   10.8    17.3    24.2    43.6     17.2
               80%    78%     83%     95%    117%     130%

        So the 1st quintile is just barely catching up to the 2nd. But they are both falling behind the 3rd, all three are falling behind the 4th, all four are falling behind the 5th, and everyone is falling behind the top 5%.

        The relative value of the increase between groups is important because the gap between the groups is getting bigger, meaning there is less mobility.

        Does that make sense?

        This is the “Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent, All Races: 1967 to 2011” from D13’s H03 link. The forth line is the percent change – 2011 divided by 1967:

        (All numbers are in 2011 Dollars)

        Year    1st      2nd      3rd      4th     5th     Top 5%
        2011  11,239   29,204   49,842   80,080  178,020  311,444
        1967   9,420   26,100   41,667   58,300  104,919  165,503
        	119.31%  111.89%  119.62%  137.36%  169.67%  188.18%

        So everyone is increasing, but it’s the same pattern as above.

        And remember, this is over 44 years. So a 19% increase is less than 1/2% per year. Not exactly much of a raise in the standard of living.

        The data d13 provided was inflation adjusted. So while the gain of the lower groups may look small it means they GAINED something. If that continues the increase will itself increase. A basic truth of math that favors bigger numbers. That and the availability of “compound” returns that become more available with increased income.

        The data d13 provided was inflation adjusted.

        Yup.

        So while the gain of the lower groups may look small it means they GAINED something.

        Ok. Go nuts on your 1/2% annual increase on $11,239 – that’s $56 per year. Don’t spend it all in one place…

        If that continues the increase will itself increase.

        Yeah, except everyone else (ok, except for the 2nd) is increasing faster…

        That and the availability of “compound” returns that become more available with increased income.

        How much investing do you think they’re doing with $11,239 per year? Ooooh – but it will be $11,295 after your raise!

        If mobility has declined, as in becoming less available for new generations, then it should show up as a reduction in the Inflation Adjusted income of the lower brackets. But the data shows an increase.

        It doesn’t have to be a decrease. If the increase is smaller than everyone else, they’re falling behind…

        The RATE of change from year to year doesn’t decline either, except in hard times. Which it does for everyone.

        But the RATE of change from year to year is lower than everyone else.

        You make a mistake in claiming the lower bracket has a smaller piece of the pie.

        No I don’t. But now it’s your turn to back up your claims. Show me how you arrived at this conclusion.

        That is if your trying to infer that they have less income, wealth, etc because the higher brackets took the money. And that is what your comment looks like to me.

        I wouldn’t say “took”, as in stole it from them. The stupid “theft’ argument is yours. But the wealthier people continue to get wealthy, while the poor continue to scrap along the bottom.

        Again, the question was whether mobility exists. Can poor people actually move up in economic “group/class/percentile/status” during their lifetime. It sure looks to me like mobility still exists in the USA.

        Yes, some Income Mobility does exist. And some poor do move up. But not as many, and not as far up the “ladder” as most people think – or you imply.

        The data indicates this mobility is much more than you are implying by making rhetorical comments about the 1/3 that didn’t or the value/largeness of the increase of others, etc.

        No it doesn’t, and you’re just dismissing the 1/3 with no justification. Provide some data to back up your claims.

        Now lets discuss if this mobility is decreasing or will decrease. If so, then why do we think this will happen. Are the “popular” solutions put forth by politicians “REALLY” solutions or just political rhetoric?

        No, before you move on to your solutions, you have to understand the problem, which you clearly don’t.

        Let’s see you provide some data to back up all the claims you made above. If you can’t do that, you aren’t qualified to talk about solutions…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          I thought we all agreed it was not appropriate to use the 1/5 percentiles. D13 had to present the data that way because the govt displays it in that fashion.

          The point is mobility. IMPROVING ones condition. If 2/3 of any group move to another group that is pretty substantial mobility. Hell if 2/3 of Americans agreed on your views you would be calling it a “mandate”.

          Or is 100% your standard?

          You seem to imply that the SAME people are in the lower group before and after. It is an income group, not a group of people. Hell, 100% of the people in group A could move to B and an entirely new group move into A from Mexico. Using your logic this would prove no mobility or at least “insignificant” mobility.

          Come to thing of it, exactly what is it your claiming about mobility? You say the percentiles are bad then you nothing but the percentiles in your argument.

          Oh, and yes, I understand your point about the percentage changes within each group and between groups. I am not convinced the difference between groups is necessarily relevant to the point of mobility.

          I am curious what those percentages look like if you use the 2007 data instead of 2011…which is in the middle of the Great Recession.

          Which brings me to another point. This is a complaint on all such analysis, not just yours. I do it myself. We use a linear relationship or difference between A and Z but ignore all the ups and downs in between. The linear does not accurately reflect the change in a persons income, wealth or economic status over time. It doesn’t recognize period rates of change that have a compounding affect.

          One possible data set that would be helpful I have not found yet. I can for a year or two but not going back 30 or 40. That is the income breaks between the Brackets.

          You are always using millions to make fun of the upper 1/5. But I think the top 20% of incomes break point was below 100,000 not long ago.

          • JAC,

            I thought we all agreed it was not appropriate to use the 1/5 percentiles. D13 had to present the data that way because the govt displays it in that fashion.

            I’m using D13’s links. Find some others if you’d like.

            The point is mobility. IMPROVING ones condition. If 2/3 of any group move to another group that is pretty substantial mobility.

            This part wasn’t about Income Mobility. D13 strayed from Mobility to Rising Incomes. Here’s the quote:

            Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2008. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.

            The 24% is all taxpayers. So it includes all 5 quintiles.

            The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period, but it doesn’t say how that increase was spread across the quintiles.

            This quote seems to come from PEW research, but D13 didn’t provide a link.

            This is all good news, but you have to know how it applies to the quintiles to know how it impacted income Mobility.

            Or is 100% your standard?

            Now who’s making fun?

            You seem to imply that the SAME people are in the lower group before and after. It is an income group, not a group of people. Hell, 100% of the people in group A could move to B and an entirely new group move into A from Mexico. Using your logic this would prove no mobility or at least “insignificant” mobility.

            I’m saying if the bottom quintiles have slower income growth than the upper quintiles, movement from 1-2 isn’t all that great of a sign.

            Immigrants significantly skew Income Mobility measures. If an entirely new group move into A from Mexico (I’m assuming A is the lowest group?), it would push everyone else up, with no real income change. So that, all by itself, would seem to show a lot of Income Mobility, when none actually occurred. The group that moved from A to B did not move because their economic status improved, they moved because other low-income workers pushed them up. Does that make sense?

            Come to thing of it, exactly what is it your claiming about mobility?

            That Income Mobility is a tricky subject. Many things impact the quintiles. I might move “up” because my income went up, but I also might move “up” because your income dropped, even if mine did not change.

            You say the percentiles are bad then you nothing but the percentiles in your argument.

            The H02 and H03 charts are not about Income Mobility. They are just raw income stats divided into the common quintiles.

            And you do nothing but complain about my analysis but do none of your own. Please feel free to provide your own analysis that supports your claims…

            The quintiles

            Oh, and yes, I understand your point about the percentage changes within each group and between groups. I am not convinced the difference between groups is necessarily relevant to the point of mobility.

            Please feel free to provide your own analysis that supports your claims…

            I am curious what those percentages look like if you use the 2007 data instead of 2011…which is in the middle of the Great Recession.

            That charts go from 1967 to 2011. Please feel free to provide your own analysis for any timeframe…

            Which brings me to another point. This is a complaint on all such analysis, not just yours. I do it myself. We use a linear relationship or difference between A and Z but ignore all the ups and downs in between.

            The data’s all there. There aren’t any BIG ups and downs. It’s pretty smooth. But please feel free to provide your own analysis…

            The linear does not accurately reflect the change in a persons income, wealth or economic status over time. It doesn’t recognize period rates of change that have a compounding affect.

            Yes it does. It’s year after year after year, taking the previous year into account for each year…it’s $47 in 1967…up to $56 in 2011…

            You are always using millions to make fun of the upper 1/5. But I think the top 20% of incomes break point was below 100,000 not long ago.

            Yeap – if you don’t like my analysis, stop complaining about it and…Please feel free to provide your own…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd and D13

          Some reading to help with any insomnia you may have.

          The real meet is the 2009 study highlighted. Click on that and then download the pdf file. This report supports my argument that conclusions depend on who picks the metrics. It also supports many concerns I have expressed over the use of the Govt data.

          This is more in inequality or “gap” than mobility. But some interesting information.

          http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/10/5-reasons-why-income-inequality-is-a-myth-and-occupy-wall-street-is-wrong/

          • JAC,
            Paragraph two:

            Really? Just think for a second: If inequality had really exploded during the past 30 to 40 years, why did American politics simultaneously move rightward toward a greater embrace of free-market capitalism?

            They have that backwards: Inequality really exploded during the past 30 to 40 years because American politics simultaneously move rightward toward a greater embrace of free-market capitalism. It all started with Reagan…

            And this explains the rest of it:

            AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy. More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.

            Sounds like they’re trying to justify their policies…

            But I’ll read it for fun.

            But first you provide your analysis JAC…

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              I didn’t provide the link to discuss the content of the link itself, but to provide the connection to the REPORT issued on behalf of the BEA.

              I don’t need to provide any analysis. The data shows that improvement in income earned is broad and large in the number of people………2/3.

              Mobility to me is not measured by quintiles. It is measured in real growth of income.

              It can not be measured accurately by looking at group averages. It can be reflected to some degree. I agree with that. But that is not the picture in and of itself.

              But the issue is whether individuals who are poor can move up and improve their “lot in life” over time. Can they become wealthier than their beginning or even rich.

              The evidence is YES, they can. No further analysis is required to address the question.

              There are no PERMANENT CLASSES in the USA. There are people stuck in the low income areas. All evidence is this is due to non institutional factors.

              Such as single family parents vs. married parents. Being single has the largest correlation to income level among all factors. Including where you start out.

              Your arguments involved placing a valuation on the degree of improvement. As if there is no mobility unless some threshold is exceeded. So if it is not 100% then what is it?

              You see, any analysis by me or anyone else would be irrelevant without knowing what the “criteria” was for the analysis.

              Which leads me back to one of my original points on this whole issue. The conclusions are dependent upon the analysis criteria. And like you know what, every economist and pundit has one. Including you and me.

              • JAC,
                Where is the 2/3’s improvement in income reference in the report (seriously, I couldn’t find it)?

                I agree “Mobility” is best measured in real growth of income. I didn’t bring up “Income Mobility”. But I was curious what the numbers show (and don’t show).

                I agree individuals who are poor can move up and improve their “lot in life” over time. But I think further analysis is required to address the questions of why many don’t, what barriers exist, how they can be reduced, etc.

                Technically there are no PERMANENT CLASSES in the USA. But where you start has a big impact on where you end up…

                Yes, my arguments involved placing a valuation on the degree of improvement. So 2/3’s improved. That’s great. But how much? If 80% of this 2/3’s only had a 1% growth in income, that’s not so great… And what about the other 1/3? That means 100,000,000 had no improvement. I think that’s an issue…

                On to your link. So they have a new way to measure income inequality? Is it better or more accurate? I’m not sure. I understand the basic ideas they were presenting, but some of the terms and formulas and other “stuff”…uuugh!

                But this – the 3rd of their 3 main arguments, I found rather “lacking”…

                Third, an emerging literature documents an exaggeration of the rise of inequality due to the use of common price indexes across income groups. Several important recent articles document that prices paid by the rich have been increasing more rapidly than prices paid by the poor. The implication is that almost all studies that use a single common price index across all income groups overstate growth in real income at the top and understate real income growth at the bottom.

                Seriously? We have to “discount” the Rich’s income because they buy expensive “stuff”? That’s (pretty close to) the STUPIDEST thing I’ve ever heard. How they spend their money is their choice. They could live in a trailer and shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted. But they don’t want to – and they have the resources not too.

                So, if the poor started to buy more expensive “stuff”, then we could compare their income’s 1-to-1?

                I can’t imagine someone making this argument…

                There’s a lot of interesting info in the paper, but I have a hard time taking it serious after they make that argument.

  15. G: This is your version of a debate … “Yep, he just shot a baby in the face for the hell of it ..”

    Wow … very informed.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That is what Elkins did. His background is explained, you claim that his background has nothing to do with his actions, you know IRRELEVANT. Since you don’t feel his background has anything to do with his actions, what else is left? What is your reason why he shot a baby in the face?

  16. @VH: Are you then saying the entire point of the teacher’s methods was to teach evil? Is that REALLY what you believe? Are you too becoming a conspiracy theorist like knuckleheaded Gman? Do you really think the public school system is out to turn everyone into liberal parasites?

    Come on, VH … that’s just silly. The public school system (and university systems) is/are doing what they need to do to survive in a capitalist economic system gone awry (wherein all the gelt is concentrated more and more day by day), but that’s another argument for another day (intensifying their bureaucratic nature). I don’t think the teacher was vying for evil students … but what happened to all the angst against political correctness here at SUFA as regards this situation? Something tells me you’re a bunch of cherry-pickers … 🙂

    • Alright charlie-I’m gonna come up with a lesson plan and I want to know if you think this one is good or evil-or if it’s just a lesson in handling propaganda.

      Now students I want you to pretend that I, your teacher is a slave owner-now I want you to go out and find all the negative information you can about black people and write a paper convincing me that slavery was a good idea.

      • I have ZERO problem with that lesson plan (just like the other one) so long as you suggest to the students beforehand that if the lesson plan is offensive to them, they need not take part. I think it’s a great way to engage young people; making them take a stance one way or the other, do the research to back their claims, and then construct an essay. No problem whatsoever.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Charlie, My take on the Unabomber, for your entertainment my friend 🙂

    A high IQ child prodigy. I’m guessing, based on place of birth, education and his eco-terrorism (for lack of a better term) is was left of center politically. That doesn’t matter, as I see it, his participation in the MKULTRA program was his mental undoing.

    So there you have it Charlie. It comes down to his history as to why he did what he did. But it was not his family upbringing in my opinion, as I stated above.

    Seems you are looking for a character for a new book?

    • “A high IQ child prodigy. I’m guessing, based on place of birth, education and his eco-terrorism (for lack of a better term) is was left of center politically. That doesn’t matter …”

      Of course it doesn’t. That’s the point, G … he was a genius who lost it … went nuts … off the reservation … like the whack job in CT who killed all those kids … wouldn’t make a difference if he was a genius or a moron, he was off the reservation … whacko, etc. …. so the kid who shot the baby, probably a sociopath (violent/criminal history)… the fact he was black or liked rap music or anything else doesn’t play into the end result … or I’d think you’d have a lot more babies being killed, no? So, for you to put all that shit out there was either a) to insight the lefties on this site (and again, if so, good job–shit stirring keeps people awake) or b) because you’re a racist and can’t help yourself … I hope it’s #1. 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        He was whacko for sure and stayed that way. But looking at his early years, I feel something triggered his problem, like I said. But that is not provable, so on with the other post. I DO STIR the SHIT! It’s in my nature to pull your chain as hard as I can. As long as your head don’t explode, you’ll be fine 🙂

        The post had some relevant issues. Gang member, no sense of reponsibiity, no father around, raised poor for the most part. The other were just for you 🙂

        • And I agree that the loss of family hurts children more than we know …. a major contribution to no sense of responsibility, etc., but that is a social issue that involves way too many variables to ever entertain the idea it is fixable by a more conservative sense of morality. What if the father was a drug dealer, pimp, bank robber, etc.? Good stirring, though … I only with FLP was a stirrer more like yourself. What scares me about FLP is his self righteousness … that only comes from religious zealotry … and those people are just scary in general. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Let’s look deeper. By your comparison, you are saying that De’Marquis Elkins was mentally ill ? Or are you saying that he was temporarily insane at the time of the murder? Go to the bottom for reply please 🙂 OH, you shouldn’t be afraid of anybody, it shows weakness 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            G – ” A high IQ child prodigy. I’m guessing, based on place of birth, education and his eco-terrorism (for lack of a better term) is was left of center politically. That doesn’t matter, as I see it, his participation in the MKULTRA program was his mental undoing. ”

            Charlie – ” Of course it doesn’t. That’s the point, G … he was a genius who lost it … went nuts … off the reservation … like the whack job in CT who killed all those kids … wouldn’t make a difference if he was a genius or a moron, he was off the reservation … whacko, etc. … ”

            BL – Charlie, what you have to consider is WHY and HOW they were whacko. That’s where G’s focus is directed.

            Allow me to break this down for you…

            You see these situations and think, “Why did they do these things?” Your answer is “…because they went nuts.” Gman is taking it a step further and pondering ” Why did they go nuts?” …which begs the question “How?”. G is attempting to understand causality.

            To answer these questions, you have to go digging. You have to collect a lot of data in order to recognize patterns and/or common experiences and/or differences….then ponder why and how these patterns/differences influence the situation. Each time you arrive at a conclusion, ask why and how of that conclusion. Eventually, you will have connected enough dots to have a deeper or definitive understanding.

            What G has identified and is demonstrating, is the difference and/or relationship between two different data sets. One of them being cultural influence, while the other is evidence of experimentation consistent with what is known as the MK-ULTRA program.

            We are a product of our environment, molded and shaped as a result of various influences. The guy that shot the baby perhaps rationalized that his social identity was ‘young urban black gangsta’ and associated it with an idealized or expected behavior of rejection of the subsequent oppression bestowed in him by ‘crackers’ and class warfare, …whereas the Unibomber and others acted out as a result of deliberate influence such as hypnotic programming and/or experimentation.

            G’s probably onto something. And the only way you will see it is to go digging and think deeper into it rather than simply rejecting or being dismissive of what appears to be ridiculous theorizing.

            I have done an enormous amount of research with regard to the more obscure methods and experimentation of mind sciences, and will assure you there is something much deeper to the whole mind control conspiracy ‘theories’ than most even begin to consider.

            I’ve identified a somewhat unique and separate, but related, data subset only because I am somehow directly involved.

            I haven’t got it all figured out yet, as it is rather complex, …but I’m onto something BIG that is somehow related to occultism, ancient religions/practices, secret societies, cryptology, bloodlines, aliens, ESP, telepathy/psychokinesis, mind control, astral-projection/remote viewing, technology, etc, etc…

            Simple hypnotic induction and programming is just the tip of the iceberg of what is really going on. Just know that when some whacko freaks out and does something horribly violent, it is quite possibly a result of being tampered with.

            Also know that people’s willingness to be dismissive is part of what allows it to continue.

            • BL … yes, to a point. But when a person is a sociopath (see my answer to G further below), there is little one can hope to find no matter how far they dig. I “think” this kid is a sociopath. Was he born that way? Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. Okay, so what are the factors in his becoming one (if he wasn’t born that way)? Hard to say … I doubt it’s rap music … or that he’s black … or that he didn’t get the proper gun training and wasn’t an NRA member, etc., etc. … could a conglomeration of all those factors suggest something? I suggest, only if you want it to … I’m sure you can decipher any crazy person and/or sociopath’s background and “think” you’ve dug deep enough to come to a somewhat informed decision, but let’s face it, there would be how many more babies shot dead in their strollers if any of those variables actually did lead to something conclusive. David Berkowitz was told by a dog to kill young women in NY back in the day. Dig all you want, he was nuts. A white, middle class upbringing … who may well have listened and liked Paul Anka … you see what I’m saying?

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” …you see what I’m saying? ”

                Absolutely. Your points are legitimate. I don’t mean to invalidate, but rather contribute.

                Was it was because he was black? – No.

                Was it because he THOUGHT it was because he was black, or because he grew up with too much angry black man gangsta in da hood propaganda? – I dunno.

                I equate it to the guy wearing a big hat and belt buckle, flannel shirt and cowboy boots, who rarely rides a horse, that gets hammered and beats a guy to death at a bar because he grew up watching cowboys kick ass on TV, …or the people in high school that thought they were a 90210 character.

                Take 10 incidents. Most of them will be someone flipping out over their ego or money or something. A few will snap because they’re just plain nuts. But there may be one or two who were motivated by something different.

                It’s that one or two who get dismissed as someone who’s just plain nuts, when in reality it is because they were tampered with in some way. There is a certain criteria, that if you understand and know what to look for, you can identify and discern which ones.

                Learn about dissociative disorder, hypnotic induction techniques and programming methods, the process of thesis – antithesis – synthesis, and the history/development thereof, …then pay attention the next time a bunch of innocent people get slaughtered. As information is learned and shared publicly about the perpetrator and crime, seek evidence of that criteria, and you may just find it.

                Note the pattern of people who fit the profile of a being programmed, who go to a public place and execute an assassination or mass kill suicide strategy.

                Why? …How, What, When, Where, Who?

                …you see what I’m saying?

  18. gmanfortruth says:
  19. gmanfortruth says:

    This needs discussed. Should those of us who believe in Liberty boycott companies in Conn and NY ? Personally, I think the law makers should be arrested for treason and hanged.
    http://godfatherpolitics.com/10347/connecticut-gun-maker-leaving-state-over-new-anti-gun-laws-possibly-more-following/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      This is what I consider an “appropriate” use of boycott.

      No national outcry, campaign, etc. Just a business owner making his own decision to not partake any longer.

      YES, there should be more of this. Montana still needs a hundred thousand freedom loving Americans.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m not surprised by the politicians actions. The citizens will decide if they are right or wrong in the long run, maybe. Sadly, it seems as though the same corruption that has enveloped the Federal Govt may have also infiltrated the State level folks as well. I think our problem is the two parties are bought and paid for. This, I think is where the change should occur vs. an outright Revolution. I just doubt that it will happen and eventually it will all come to a head and explode.

        As far as Conn, NY and Co. , I will do business with a company in any of the states. As more Liberal politicians take their states in that direction, the more states I will add to my no buy list. All actions have repercussions.

        The really big question I have, has even one politician explained how they plan to take the guns from the criminals. So far, they are only affecting the law abiding folks. Maybe we should ask them 😉

      • “Montana still needs a hundred thousand freedom loving Americans.”

        This one made me laugh …reminded me of SArah Palin’s “terror loving terrorists” … or was that Tina Fey?

    • I think Remmington & Colt will move, just a matter of time. Suspect that will have a major impact on Conn. NY has started gun confisication. I wonder when someone will resist force with force and they have their own Ruby Ridge….Expect the media & politicians to milk it for more gun control.

  20. gmanfortruth says:
  21. Interesting reading at SUFA today.

    It was Todd today but I’ve noticed the other lefties use this tactic..’You only discount’, or ‘it’s only immoral’, or ‘it’s only evil’ because you disagree. Uh, yeah! If that’s the only way you can see it. There is usually some good reasoning mentioned, but since the left doesn’t like the reasoning, they use the ‘only because you disagree’ line and claim to be right.

    FLP..holding his/her own against Captain Cannoli. Go FLP!

    I know I really shouldn’t give Charlie any kudos on this, but he sure can throw out some good insults. I have been lol ing since I started reading. Charlie, my man..take your Ritalin, please 🙂

    GMan, sorry bro, but you always accuse Charlie of name calling, but you dish it out pretty good yourself..first comment up top sets the mood for the day.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      HEHE, I call that getting a head start 🙂 Charlie couldn’t debate with a bag of hammers, so he just attacks people like a 7 year old girl not getting her way. I would agree to stop raggin him if he would stop calling names, but do you think he will agree? I’d have to start a pool on how long he would last if he did agree. It’s his nature. But I still like Charlie. I think deep down he’s a good guy.

      Hope you are well this evening my dear! 🙂

    • FLP Holding his own? Anita, my love …. caffeinated, please.

      Or do you believe homosexuality is a precursor to beastiality too? I’m thinking it’s more a heteorsexual urge …

      Charlie declared back in the BF (are he and USW running for office or something?) days he wouldn’t waste his time unless he saw some sense of genuine common sense … as for rational thinking, I think I squared this away a long time ago … but feel free to feel foolish again: http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/12/black-vs-white-when-rational-thought.html

      • Charlie, Charlie,

        Women have know there are some men who will screw anything, anytime, anywhere. Their only “requirement” is it doesn’t run faster than them.

        “Or do you believe homosexuality is a precursor to beastiality too?”
        Well gee, I wonder if there is any link out there…….(look Todd, critical thunken)

        http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm

        • That’s your “proof”? Dude, please try again. Show me conclusive evidence … and then show me how it was a homosexual male who had sex with a monkey and not a heterosexual male … and then show me a definitve statistical analysis of how many homosexual men engage in bestiality vs. heterosexual men … etc., etc., etc. …

          • Errr, there’s a worldwide epidemic linked to animal/gay sex. The men in the US who first were documented with it were openly gay (at least as far as treatment/medical info) The link shows the science is sure it came from human/primate sex. If it makes you feel better, sure, the first case could have been from a hetrosexual. Bi-sexual would be a better bet.

            “Show me conclusive evidence …”

            Sorry Charlie, I have no animal sex, gay sex or other video evidence to show or share. Reminds me of that movie, ” Me, Myself & Irene”, where the guy’s(white guy) wife (white woman) gives birth to a black child. And again, in that movie, I could not prove the wife had sex with a black man, but I can reach a reasonable assumption.

            • LOI,

              The link shows the science is sure it came from human/primate sex.

              Did you even read the link? It doesn’t even mention “human/primate sex”.

              Is this your definition of “critical thunken”?

    • Anita,
      Where have I used this tactic?

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    The sad education system and, just for Todd, a slam against Liberals (not by me this time)
    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/04/bevis-and-butthead-education/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Let’s have a debate on the education system and fixing it, cause it’s broken big time. Let me know if your interested 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Don’t tell the Democrats in Wisconsin, they will storm the state house and demand a ban on food 😆

  23. I read it took them 20 minutes to get the woman out of the building because they couldn’t get through the halls and the emergency exits were locked. 20 friggin minutes. Guess it’s a real good thing a fire didn’t break out in this hell hole.

    States are passing new abortion clinic regulations *because* of Kermit Gosnell’s atrocities.
    This was known already, by the way.

    By: Moe Lane (Diary) | April 12th, 2013 at 11:21 PM | 9

    RESIZE: AAA

    Before we go any further: here’s a section from the grand jury report on the Kermit Gosnell atrocities (“Mrs. Mongar” is Karnamaya Mongar, one of Gosnell’s adult victims).

    Investigators found the clinic grossly unsuitable as a surgical facility. The two surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary – Agent Dougherty described them as resembling “a bad gas station restroom.” Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed. There was no functioning resuscitation or even monitoring equipment, except for a single blood pressure cuff in the recovery room.

    Ambulances were summoned to pick up the waiting patients, but (just as on the night Mrs. Mongar died three months earlier), no one, not even Gosnell, knew where the keys were to open the emergency exit. Emergency personnel had to use bolt cutters to remove the lock. They discovered they could not maneuver stretchers through the building’s narrow hallways to reach the patients (just as emergency personnel had been obstructed from reaching Mrs. Mongar).

    Now that we’ve established the background: it turns out that a particular faction on the Left – please note the qualifiers – have finally realized that the Kermit Gosnell atrocities are finally making headlines; and it seems that some of them may be feeling stung about the (fully justified) outrage and disgust that has resulted from it. Understandable, if not particularly forgivable; and I think that some of these… people… are going to make the best of a very, very bad hand and try to pretend that they’re the ones who have been concerned about unambiguously murdered and unambiguously babies, all along. In fact, some of them are going to try to bareface this one out and parrot out the talking point So where was the pro-life movement, all these years?

    The answer, of course: pro-lifers were in Virginia…

    The Virginia Board of Health voted Friday to require clinics that perform abortions to meet strict, hospital-style building codes that operators say could put many of them out of business.

    The 11 to 2 vote represented the board’s final say on the matter, which has taken unexpected twists and turns since the General Assembly voted in 2011 to regulate abortion clinics like outpatient surgical centers. The regulations went straight to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who quickly certified them. They now go to two state agencies and Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), who is expected to sign off on them.

    …and Pennsylvania…

    In 2011, the Gosnell case was mentioned frequently as Pennsylvania’s General Assembly passed a law that put stricter requirements on abortion clinics. Now most clinics in the state are held to the same standards as outpatient surgery centers. That means abortion clinics must have doors and elevators that can accommodate a stretcher in case something goes wrong.

    …and Alabama…

    The law, which takes effect July 1, also sets tougher building requirements, such as wider halls and better fire suppression equipment.[snip]

    Proponents said it also picked up support after Alabama’s oldest licensed abortion clinic, New Woman All Women in Birmingham, closed in May 2012. The operator agreed to shut down after being cited by the state health department for violations, including two patients being given overdoses of drugs and needing to be taken to a hospital.

    …and Kansas…

    Trust Women attorney Robert Eye said Tuesday that contractors are modifying the clinic to make sure hallways and interior spaces are big enough to comply with the requirements of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. He says once the work is completed and the building is inspected and licensed, the clinic would open for services.

    …and pretty soon, in Texas:

    The bill would require abortions, including those induced by drugs, to be performed in so-called ambulatory surgical centers. The regulations for such facilities include specific sizes for rooms and doorways, and additional infrastructure like pipelines for general anesthesia and large sterilization equipment.

    In short: what pro-lifers have been doing since the Gosnell revelations is to go out and make exceedingly certain that the appalling conditions that were found in Gosnell’s abattoir would not be replicated in their states. And, note? – These exceedingly common sense reforms were fought by the same pro-abortion* groups that are now trying to preen for the cameras.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/12/kermit-gosnell-abortion-clinic/

  24. @FLP “They want to make people with morals look like bigots because they (the left) don’t like the morals of that person, in reality the leftist is the bigot because they hate to see a strong moral person stand up to them for what they believe.”

    Morality is a relative term, my overly self-righteous friend. One man’s morality is another man’s despotism. Up above JAC mentioned “don’t want them to to push on them in public” … what a narrow minded assumption (that a homosexual is going to “push” himself or herself and/or their sexuality on him (or anybody) … why, because they might embrace and kiss the way straight couples do and his or your kids might see it?

    What a liberty loving person you must be to demand that level of censorship. It’s not that we “hate to see a strong moral person stand up to them for what they believe.” … it’s more we don’t believe your sense of morality should overule the rest of society. If you want to live under a rock, be our guest. Live inside your church, if that makes you feel better, but don’t, like the church, be the cause of so much oppression of others.

    On the other hand, please keep YOUR sense of morlity up front in the next set of elections … it’s what keeps the lesser of two evils (democrats vs. republicans) one up in general elections … why? Because this is 2013, not 1776 or 2000 BC … and there are only a handful of you self righteous types here at SUFA; not nearly enough to ruin it for everyb ody else. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      charlie

      The essence of the debate: ” It’s not that we “hate to see a strong moral person stand up to them for what they believe.” … it’s more we don’t believe your sense of morality should overule the rest of society.”

      But here is the part you left out. You want to impose YOUR sense of morality on the rest of society.

      Who is “WE” in your statement? Generally speaking it means the “majority”. But if a “majority” decide that Homosexuals should not be granted “marriage” or that Govt should not recognize such “marriages” then this is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

      Your only chance in such a debate is to somehow show that FLP’s morality is a great “minority” or that homosexuality is not a moral issue at all.

      By the way, while you ridicule religions as the source, historically speaking Morality of a Society is usually broader and more all encompassing that morals established by religion. So if a “society” views homosexuality as “immoral” it is probably rooted in something larger than religion.

      • http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/10/poll-minority-says-being-gays-a-sin/1825461/

        I hear you, JAC … but morality of anyone be damned if we want to use the constitution you so adore as something more than a cherry picking device (the way it was used against blacks, for instance). There should be no need for AMENDMENTS to a constitution for any human being, end of story. Here is where I can agree with your black and white hypothesis … it’s a simple black and white issue to me (the mother of all gray areas guy) … we are born equal as regards rights under a system of government or we are not. No 1/3 … 2/3’s … no only if we’re straight … only if we don’t have big feet, etc. … we are or we aren’t. People can hold their own standards or codes of morality, but there’s no veering away from a simple conceptual fact: all men are created equal … there should NEVER be need for an amendment to clarify it for morons.

  25. @SUFA … JAC says: FLP, among many others, believes homosexual behavior is “immoral”.

    And that’s why there’s no debating from Mr. Stella … it is impossible to debate with someone wwho’s single self-righteous authority is an imaginary friend in the sky.

    Otherwise, what is the basis of his claim that homosexual “behaviour” (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) is “immoral”? Does he have scientific proof? No, morality isn’t a scientific issue. Has he cornered the market on morality? Only in his very narrow world view is that possible (i.e., he doesn’t get to speak for the world the way the Catholic Church (or other churches) attempt to speak for the world. Who is he to claim someone else’s sexuality is immoral? We “might” all agree pedophiles act immorally … yet there are cultures where it is not deemed so. If he learned one of his kids was gay some day, would he attempt to pray it away? Would he treat that child any different than his other children? Would he shun the child? Just curious … love to hear his and other answers …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, As you know, morality is gained not only from how a person is raised, but through religion as well. FLP is a Christian who has Christian morals. You don’t agree with that, OK. Is it possible that your rant above and your questions you asked here are vilifying those who believe that Christianity is under attack?

      So let’s ask SUFA. Was Charlie’s verbal attack on FLP equate to an attack on Christianity? Is this attack proof that there is a war against Christianity?

      Let’s see what people think 🙂

      • Most people on SUFA (the wingies anyway) don’t have to think. They already know. They have the word from on high … 🙂

        I was brought up Catholic … was an altar boy … would LOVE to believe … but do not believe … but even if I could find a way to believe someday, I would NEVER enforce what my sense of morality is on another person, never mind society.

        But make no mistake, I have little to no use for “christianity” … it’s way too hypocritcal (or practiced that way) for me to give it blind faith respect.

    • Charlie, do you believe in sin? I’m not saying homosexuality is a sin, so don’t even jump on me for that. I’m saying that sin and morals go hand in hand. If you claim that no one should have the upper hand on morals, it follows that you don’t believe in sin. If you don’t believe in sin, then you have no morals. So then how do you organize your life?

      • I don’t know if I can distinguish sin vs. morality, Anita, my love. Especially with someone else’s version. I believe in right and wrong, what I perceive them to be, but I can guarantee that my perception differs with yours; that yours will differ with my Uncle, his brother-in-law, etc. That’s my point, I guess: we all have different perceptions of morality … here I ask you to return to my post on my blog about black vs. white vs. gray areas. There is no black and white, no matter how hard JAC, BF and/or Ayn Rand need to believe that for their positions to hold any water. The “universe” does not get to delineate right from wrong, people do. In some cultures (and I was shocked to learn this, trust me), mothers will perform felatio on their infant sons to get them to sleep through the night). To me that’s insane! Yes, it is something some women practice (even in France!) … which means even here in the good old US&A … I won’t harm an animal unless I’m attacked. I’d harm a human in a heartbeat if I felt offended enough, never mind attacked. Does that make me immoral? To some, no doubt. To others, they might want to know how I was offended … you see what I’m trying to get at here?

        • I understand. Morality is a tough subject. How about Natural Law? Do you believe in that?

          • I guess that too, even though it’s not supposed to be, is nevertheless subject to individual interpretation … I think we all agree killing is wrong, against natural law, yet we write it into our laws (state capital punishments) … and we believe in self-defense … some believe in abortion, etc. Higher laws, natural laws, etc., are still and will always be subject to interpretation. It will always depend on who’s ox is gored, I guess. I, for one, believe abortion to be killing, yet I respect a woman’s choice in the matter. Many feel that exact opposite regarding choice; that killing is killing is killing is murder, etc.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, V.H. and FLP, This article covers all the areas that have been discussed, education, homosexuality, beastiality, abortion, everything. Check it out and let’s talk about it.

    http://lastresistance.com/1875/bradlee-dean-homosexuality-the-political-battering-ram/

    • G: Sorry, nothing to discuss. I read this far: “The lid has yet again been blown off of the radical homosexual agenda.”

      The bolden statement made above it (government interest) was enough, this extra bit of propaganda (“radical homosexual agenda”) sealed the deal …

      I’ll make it easy for you. I believe homosexuality is perfectly fine, dandy and normal. Because they are human beings, they deserve EXACTLY the same rights and benefits of society that I or anyone else deserve. I do not believe their sexuality is immoral. I believe those who judge it to be so are, in fact, immoral … and merely proving my disguest with Christianity (at least those who claim to practice it). There’s nothing to discuss in that article. It is front loaded right wing bullshit that sits perfectly fine for the high-fiving SUFA crowd, but that MOST of the rest of the country, thank God or Allah or whoever is paying attention) ignores for being not only hypocritical to the constitution you all seem to adore so much, but downright stupid. Lefties, HIGH FIVE! 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie, go back and read the part about what is being taught in NY schools. That was my main point, which I failed badly in expressing, sorry. Then if read that part maybe you will have something to say. By the way, I think all people should be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation. I have nothing against gays, it’s their life, let them live it. 🙂

        • That’s the libertarian side of the argument I totally agree with (the social side) … my only beef with libertarians has to do with economics … I do not believe unrestrained capitalism can lead to anything good, not without way too many victims along the way. I’ll read later, have to head out to the gym now …

          By the way, did you see my weight lifting post? I missed your wonderful opening comments everyone else noticed … Kim Jung Un … ha, I have twice as much blubber as that little shit.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            HAHA 🙂 I thought you’d like that 😆 Let’s focus on the education part of the article and leave out the rest, just for debate purposes.

      • USWeapon says:

        Careful, Charlie…. you are vastly generalizing here when you say what sits just fine with the SUFA crowd. As the SUFA CREATOR, I am firmly in the camp that has no issues with homosexuality and believe they, as human beings, deserve every single right that anyone else enjoys. I don’t believe they are “immoral” or “broken.” Some are, just as some from any group are. But that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. As a staunch advocate for gay rights, I take a small bit of umbrage when you make a statement that oppression of gay rights sits just fine with the SUFA crowd.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          USW

          Ellllllll I’lllllllllll Beeeeeeeeeeeee.

          EMR a USW.

        • Hey, did I draw you out or what? Took you long enough, by the way! I’ve been acrediting the SUFA crowd with way more than just this. I figured you were running for office or something.

          It’s the libertarian side of the argument I’m in full agreement with, USW …

          Now, for more important things: What did you make of the Rutgers disaster?

        • But what rights does society have? (shouldn’t have started a post on gay’s with butt)
          Do we have the right to object to public nudity? Public sex? If it is (and should be) legal in the bedroom, why should it not be OK to do so on any street corner? I object! We object. I don’t want my or any children raised in a anything goes environment. I object to schools trying to teach sex education to K, 1,2,3,4 graders and including homosexual is normal as part of the lesson.

          I agree they should be able to form partnerships equal marriage. I do not agree they can change how marriage has been defined for thousands of years. Five percent of our population is gay. The numbers tellingly state it is not “normal”. Changing the definition and FORCING me to call two gay men “married” is not truth, justice or the American way.

          The other big issue, why does the government refuse to honor civil unions or allow a person to designate a non-opposite sex partner to recieve their SS or military benefits? Wanna bet, if the government got out of the way, all the hoopla would fade away…
          It’s all about the money.

          • But what rights does society have? (shouldn’t have started a post on gay’s with butt)
            Do we have the right to object to public nudity? Public sex? If it is (and should be) legal in the bedroom, why should it not be OK to do so on any street corner? I object! We object. I don’t want my or any children raised in a anything goes environment.

            You can object to anything you like. What you cannot do, is refuse to allow others the same civil liberties that you enjoy. Don’t want gays to be “married”? Then don’t let government define marriage for you. Had marriage been left in the church’s domain exclusively, the church would get to define it. But that wasn’t good enough. The church crowd wanted special recognition within the realm of government for married people. The second that happened the church lost the right to define marriage any longer.

            I object to schools trying to teach sex education to K, 1,2,3,4 graders and including homosexual is normal as part of the lesson.

            I disagree with schools teaching sex ed before the 7th grade or so in general, but there are worse things that could happen. Including homosexual as a lifestyle lived by a statistically significant portion of the population only makes sense. And for the record, you don’t get to decide what is normal for someone else.

            I agree they should be able to form partnerships equal marriage. I do not agree they can change how marriage has been defined for thousands of years. Five percent of our population is gay. The numbers tellingly state it is not “normal”.

            The numbers also tell us that only 1.2% of the population in America is Native American or Alaskan Indian. Are they also not normal? Only 13% of the population is black. Is being black not normal either? What percentage of the population do you set as the cut-off line for what is considered normal?

            Changing the definition and FORCING me to call two gay men “married” is not truth, justice or the American way.

            Here is where your largest mistake is. Gay people are not changing the definition. GOVERNMENT already changed the definition. This is where you many on your side of the argument get confused. There are TWO definitions of marriage in this country. The first is the church definition. No one cares about this definition except those in the church. The second is the government definition. It has NOTHING to do with the church. It has to do with a marriage certificate issued by the government. Go ahead and get married in the church before God and fail to get the government issued license. You and I both know that your marriage will not be valid in government’s eyes. Your church has the right to deny people their definition of marriage. Separation of church and state ensures that your religious beliefs CANNOT be used to deny the government’s definition to anyone. Actions have consequences. The church GAVE AWAY THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE the second they involved government.

            The other big issue, why does the government refuse to honor civil unions or allow a person to designate a non-opposite sex partner to recieve their SS or military benefits? Wanna bet, if the government got out of the way, all the hoopla would fade away…

            Wanna bet that if churches got out of the way, all the hoopla would fade away? Stop worrying about what other people do with their lives. You will be surprised how quickly this becomes a non-issue. You don’t want to call them “married”, then don’t. They could care less. They want recognition in the eyes of the government. They really don’t care to change your mind. The government also at one time failed to allow a person of color or women to vote. Does that prove then that those groups shouldn’t be allowed to. You either believe all are equal or you don’t. Failing to allow others to have the same CIVIL LIBERTIES as you is not truth, justice, or the American way….

            It’s all about the money.

            Yes it is. It is about the money the government gives away to people awarded the status of “married” by government’s definition.

            • USW! USW! USW! I think it’s time we get you on the Green Party ticket! 🙂

              • LOL Charlie…. I won’t be on any tickets anytime soon. I would change the world if I could. And I would certainly offer drastic changes to our government that would scare both parties. The political machine would never allow anyone who actually respects true liberty for all into the halls of power. Sad, isn’t it?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              USW

              My old friend. I am afraid I am going to have to make some corrections to your argument.

              Marriage is a “social institution” and thus its meaning is dependent upon Social Norms. Cultural and Social norms are the essence of what “marriage” means in EVERY society.

              Religion may or may not play a role in determining those norms. But it is not religion alone that has defined marriage. The fact is that only a few societies or cultures have recognized marriage as being anything other than between men and women.

              More importantly the cultural and social norms on which OUR society is based have never included homosexuals in the “definition”.

              I find no evidence that Religion ever turned the meaning of marriage over to any government. Willingly, deliberately or otherwise. It is more correct to say that Govts have adopted the social norms of marriage of the society in which those Govts are established.

              Now since most of us accept Govt as a necessary entity, we are necessarily stuck with this reality.

              This of course leads to issue of whether marriage is a civil “right” as Justice Warren argued in Love. The answer in our society is YES. Marriage is a civil right. The Govt has no good reason to stop people who wish to marry from doing so.

              But here is the PROBLEM. MARRIAGE in our Society/Culture DOES NOT include homosexuals or polygamists. It is one man and one woman. This fact is also recognized in the Love case as Warren mentions men and women and race but NOT sexual orientation.

              So your argument that Religion turned the role of defining marriage over to the Govt is blatantly FALSE. It may have not opposed Govt’s role, but that is because that role predates Christianity and the traditions of Anglo European cultures which informed our society/culture and thus our Govt.

              This leaves us with the question of then HOW do we change this norm so that Homosexual unions become recognized by the vast majority of our society as “Marriage”.

              You have only two ways, and we have discussed these with respect to many other issues. Abortions also being one.

              Either you let the normal evolution process occur, or you use Govt to FORCE a change on everyone.

              The Gay Marriage battle has been aimed at the latter for some time. But it has also been working on the former. So we see a broader acceptance of the concept today. I would submit, however, that some of this “acceptance” is also coerced. The use of the PC police to threaten people who don’t agree, instead of making a moral argument, has become standard.

              So now we have the SCOTUS charged with deciding. But in order to allow homosexuals to marry the Court must CHANGE the meaning of the Word MARRIAGE. It must FORCE that definition on the people. In reality, the Court will have to decide to FORCE a cultural NORM upon the Society it is supposed to be serving.

              This is the absolute antithesis of the role of Govt we have discussed before. Once you give Govt this kind of authority, all bets are off.

              Here I want to note the comment made by Roberts in the recent testimony on the California case. In response to the defenders arguing that public opinion has changed, Roberts stated that they should not confuse public desires with reaction to political pressure and that such pressure has been very great in recent years.

              The proper solution to this is to continue the public discussion and effort to gain acceptance among the majority of the population. Make the “freedom” argument in light of REASON rather than the historical norms. It is all part of changing the paradigm. A much more complicated but long lasting change than using the Govt to just make things what we want.

              And yes, I know this sucks for homosexuals who want to get married. But look how many states are poised to pass Civil Union laws to address all the other issues linked to marriage. I say let that go forward and within a decade or two there will be little opposition to moving towards REDEFINING Marriage.

              • JAC,
                You go to great lengths to justify the discrimination against gay-marriage.

                No matter how you cut it – DOMA is unconstitutional. It grants specific privileges to certain individuals, and excludes others.

                MARRIAGE in our Society/Culture DOES NOT include homosexuals or polygamists.

                In the past and right now – yes. But things can change.

                Or do you feel things should NEVER change?

                Ok – then we’ll keep that bloated, wasteful, intrusive Federal Government. And will make sure it keeps GROWING – because that’s kinda been the “norm” as of lately…

                Taxes = Theft? Nope. The only thing certain in life are death and taxes. I heard that saying when I was a little kid, so taxes have been around for a long time – and people have been complaining just as long. So you keep complaining, and us terrible Liberals will keep using FORCE and EVIL to collect taxes from you – it’s an American Tradition!

                And you know, taxes used to be a lot higher. So we’ll be upping the rates – so we can “take our country back” to about 1950. 90% here we come.

                Any questions?

              • My old friend. I am afraid I am going to have to make some corrections to your argument.

                I am always willing to listen. But as is my way…. I will of course make some corrections to your corrections 🙂

                Marriage is a “social institution” and thus its meaning is dependent upon Social Norms. Cultural and Social norms are the essence of what “marriage” means in EVERY society.

                I disagree. Marriage, in this country, is a LEGAL STATUS. While the church and society may have a “norm” for what marriage means to them, the fact remains that in terms of civil rights in this country, it is a legal status and little more.

                Religion may or may not play a role in determining those norms. But it is not religion alone that has defined marriage. The fact is that only a few societies or cultures have recognized marriage as being anything other than between men and women.

                I will agree that “few” have recognized such. Although there are 13 countries and counting (France and Uruguay recently approved). And religion alone has not defined the term. Societal norms have done so as well.

                More importantly the cultural and social norms on which OUR society is based have never included homosexuals in the “definition”.

                Much like, at one time in our history, cultural and social norms on which OUR society is based had never included blacks or women as “equal.” There comes a time when society must realize where it is wrong. We reached that point eventually with blacks and women. We are getting there with homosexuals.

                I find no evidence that Religion ever turned the meaning of marriage over to any government. Willingly, deliberately or otherwise. It is more correct to say that Govts have adopted the social norms of marriage of the society in which those Govts are established.

                The church didn’t fight government’s intrusion into marriage because the church did not have the foresight to realize the future consequences of their actions. At the time, the church figured the “societal norms” would never change and thus it was OK to allow government to take over defining marriage. After all, in their short-sighted view, government’s definition would never be different from the church or society. Plus, for not fighting this, they were happy to have special status awarded to those who the government deemed married. Lower taxes, special privileges and as an added bonus, since the church was so “in control” of many government entities at the time, additional power.

                Sadly (for the church at least), societal norms began to shift, the church lost a vast amount of control within the government, and suddenly they are upset that the special privileges and status means that they cannot deny it to others who they disagree with.

                Now since most of us accept Govt as a necessary entity, we are necessarily stuck with this reality.

                Further…. if the church never gave up this power to define marriage to the government, then what is the problem? If government calls same sex couples “married” what does the church care? After all, they never gave the government that power, so they are free to ignore it.

                This of course leads to issue of whether marriage is a civil “right” as Justice Warren argued in Love. The answer in our society is YES. Marriage is a civil right. The Govt has no good reason to stop people who wish to marry from doing so.

                EXACTLY. And that is correct. It IS a civil right so long as special status and goodies are attached to it.

                But here is the PROBLEM. MARRIAGE in our Society/Culture DOES NOT include homosexuals or polygamists. It is one man and one woman. This fact is also recognized in the Love case as Warren mentions men and women and race but NOT sexual orientation.

                So your argument that Religion turned the role of defining marriage over to the Govt is blatantly FALSE. It may have not opposed Govt’s role, but that is because that role predates Christianity and the traditions of Anglo European cultures which informed our society/culture and thus our Govt.

                I already addressed them giving up the role of defining marriage. And for the record, it isn’t that they gave up the role as much as they stood by while government created a DIFFERENT DEFINITION. That definition is special status with special goodies. No more and no less. Government doesn’t care what God recognizes. It cares only about IT’S definition, which is very different from the church’s definition. And to be clear, I argue for the GOVERNMENT’S definition to be available to everyone. I could care less about the church and their definition. That is between the couple and the God they choose to believe in.

                This leaves us with the question of then HOW do we change this norm so that Homosexual unions become recognized by the vast majority of our society as “Marriage”.

                I don’t think most on my side of the argument cares one iota whether marriage is recognized by the vast majority of our society. They care whether it is recognized LEGALLY (as in recognized by government as a union equal in every way to the one man/one woman marriage). But for the sake of discussion, I will play along 🙂

                You have only two ways, and we have discussed these with respect to many other issues. Abortions also being one.

                Either you let the normal evolution process occur, or you use Govt to FORCE a change on everyone.

                The Gay Marriage battle has been aimed at the latter for some time. But it has also been working on the former. So we see a broader acceptance of the concept today.

                Agreed, although I submit that there is a third way. Remove the idea that government is in the “marriage” business. Eliminate government’s recognition of marriage and replace it with civil unions, for EVERYONE, including “traditional” couples. Leave marriage to the church. Leave the status and goodies to the government under a different term. Is this the best answer? Who knows, I just thought it up….

                I would submit, however, that some of this “acceptance” is also coerced. The use of the PC police to threaten people who don’t agree, instead of making a moral argument, has become standard.

                Sadly, I totally agree.

                So now we have the SCOTUS charged with deciding. But in order to allow homosexuals to marry the Court must CHANGE the meaning of the Word MARRIAGE. It must FORCE that definition on the people. In reality, the Court will have to decide to FORCE a cultural NORM upon the Society it is supposed to be serving.

                It doesn’t have to. It can take my third option above. Eliminate the government goodies and status from the word marriage and leave that term to the church.

                This is the absolute antithesis of the role of Govt we have discussed before. Once you give Govt this kind of authority, all bets are off.

                Which is why I like my option 3 better. Better yet, let’s just eliminate the status and goodies that go with government defined marriage and eliminate the government from the equation altogether.

                Here I want to note the comment made by Roberts in the recent testimony on the California case. In response to the defenders arguing that public opinion has changed, Roberts stated that they should not confuse public desires with reaction to political pressure and that such pressure has been very great in recent years.

                The proper solution to this is to continue the public discussion and effort to gain acceptance among the majority of the population. Make the “freedom” argument in light of REASON rather than the historical norms. It is all part of changing the paradigm. A much more complicated but long lasting change than using the Govt to just make things what we want.

                And while I love the sentiment, the sad reality is that the freedom argument doesn’t seem to work any longer. The vast majority of Americans have no concept of liberty or freedom and they give it up with little fight. You and I both know this as we fight against it every day.

                And yes, I know this sucks for homosexuals who want to get married. But look how many states are poised to pass Civil Union laws to address all the other issues linked to marriage. I say let that go forward and within a decade or two there will be little opposition to moving towards REDEFINING Marriage.

                We will see, brother. I understand completely that you value freedom and see my points. I hope you can see mine. I also understand that you are not as opposed as you may seem to those who are not trying to understand your arguments.

        • USWeapon,
          OMG – HE’S ALIVE!!!!! 😉

        • @ USW…….good morning Brother…………………..I never take Charlie much to task anymore on his remarks of SUFA crowd….as I simply do not give a rat’s ass what homosexuals do or whom they wish to live with or marry, But, sometimes, it is better to just laugh it off.

  27. @G “Let’s look deeper. By your comparison, you are saying that De’Marquis Elkins was mentally ill ? Or are you saying that he was temporarily insane at the time of the murder?”

    Neither. He’s a bad kid, plain and simple. Whatever mitigating factors there are in his life/story, I doubt they can explain what he did or why he did it. He’s clearly a sociopath to kill so easily. Sociopaths come in all sizes, shapes and colors. I know several personally from my past and today. Unfortunately, there’s simply nothing much society can do with them until they act violently or commit some other crime. Last night on 20/20 was a story about a guy who fleeced women across the country (gigolo basically). That’s a brand of sociopath; he chose to rob women rather than shoot babies. So it goes.

    I’m curious though … does FLP have a name he’s not ashamed of … or is he a typical SUFA coward hiding behind a fugazy one? 🙂 I know you’re not a coward so hats off, mon frer …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Great answer and I tend to agree. There are a lot of Sociopaths out there. Next question, do you believe that a person or persons who initiate violence (with intent to harm or kill) without cause of any kind? If a person or persons initiate violence against another person when they could have peacefully walked away, are the Sociopaths?

      I ask because I’m trying to define a Sociopath based on certain actions. It is obvious that there are many Sociopaths in Chicago, would you agree?

      • G: If a person or persons initiate violence against another person when they could have peacefully walked away, are the Sociopaths?

        I ask because I’m trying to define a Sociopath based on certain actions. It is obvious that there are many Sociopaths in Chicago, would you agree?

        Those are tougher questions to answer, my man. I don’t know. Haven’t a clue. I know “some” in Chicago “probably” are sociopaths … others just losers without a measure of respect for life, includng their own. A guy walking up a hitting someone suggests maybe he’s got bigger issues than being a sociopath (like a need for violence). Not all sociopaths are violent … not even close. Many are just getovers … a kind of “villains, thieves and scoundrals union” (name that cartoon and win a cookie). I have a few sociopaths in my family … dont’ think of anyone but themselves. Could care less about the consequences of anything they do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them walking around these days … some on Wall Street, that’s for sure.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Once again we seem to agree 🙂 You said ” A guy walking up a hitting someone suggests maybe he’s got bigger issues than being a sociopath (like a need for violence)” If the guy initiating the violence in you example, could have walked away peacefully, does that qualify as a person with problems as you put it?

          • “If the guy initiating the violence in you example, could have walked away peacefully, does that qualify as a person with problems as you put it?”

            Not sure I understand. Are you saying a guy throws a punch and then walks away? or the guy who gets hit walks away?

            I think the guy who throws a punch for no reason has issues, end of story.

            I think the guy who takes a punch and walks away is an angel (as opposed to the devil I am). I’d throw one back (and this has happened to me, sort of). Back in my bookmaking days, I was going to meet wife #3 at a friend’s restaurant and had just left the office with all the paperwork (betting slips) … I was crossing 34th and 1st Avenue and some whacko who must’ve just gotten out of Belvue looked up at me staring. I did my best to look away … a few steps from the curb on the south side of the street, I heard footsteps and turned to see what was going on. He spit a luger the size of a grapefruit and hit me in the neck. I was enraged and proceeded to kick his ass from the middle of 34th to the northeast corner, eventually running him into a pole by his backpack. It was right in front of a synogogue and 3 women came out, saw me hurting the guy and they starting yelling for someone to help. As luck would have it, a cop car was heading east on 34th as I tried to walk away. I crossed 1st Avenue to the northwest corner of 34th, still holding my bag filled with betting slips, and the cop waved me over. As I was heading toward his car, the lunatic across the street threw a bottle from a garbage can and pieces of it hit the cop car. Problem solved. The cop told me to get lost. And for that alone I should believe in a higher power 🙂 footnote: I scrubbed my neck with a brush until it was raw afterward …

            • gmanfortruth says:

              OK, my pont was, a person, who could peacefully walk away with no altercation, initiates violence against another person that is posing no threat. You mentioned that some people don’t care about the consequences of their actions because they have problems (mental). I totally agree with you. 🙂

              You say : “A guy walking up a hitting someone suggests maybe he’s got bigger issues than being a sociopath (like a need for violence)” and “I think the guy who throws a punch for no reason has issues, end of story.”

              A guy spit at you, which I believe qualifies as an attack, and you defended yourself, well done. When people attack, there may be consequences even worse than an ass whooping.

              Now I will ask you to take all we have discussed and apply these thoughts to the Trayvon Martin case. Then maybe you can see my side of that story 🙂

              • I had a feeling you were headed there … okay, consequences have to be held in proportion to the initial situation (or an attempt be made to do so), no matter the circumstances … so, I definitely went overboard … and had those 3 women not walked not called for help, I might’ve done something I’d regret the rest of my life. The guy was clearly nuts, but my immediate response was rage … I was wrong. ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY WRONG to do more than pop the guy in the mouth (running him into the pole was out of line). I neither controlled my temper nor handled the situation the right way. Had I seriously hurt the guy, I’d’ve been justifiably accused of an assault. I was lucky that never happened.

                Trayvon Martin … I cannot see the other side of the story for the simple reason it was the aggressor (Zimmerman) who went looking for trouble. A) I don’t believe for a second that his life was in danger. It may well have been, but that assinine law precludes us from ever knowing the truth. Like I’ve said all along, Zimmerman went looking for something he couldn’t handle and then used his gun because he couldn’t (if we’re to believe his story at all) restrain a kid 11 years younger than he was. He might’ve caught a bad beating for being a punk who needed a gun to defend himself, but had he just listened to the police (he certainly didn’t walk into the situation innocently), none of this shit would have happened. Without the dead guy to defend himself in court, at the least, this was a case of manslaughter. That absurd law (which is now being used by thugs to kill people) is just another justification for killing, nothing more or less.

                In this case, Zimmerman used all the racial stereotypes to kill an innocent kid (or at the least a kid acting innocently before being pursued as a criminal) by Zimmerman (a 28 year old punk with a predisposition to use a gun). That’s how I see it … and I think Zimmerman will be better off getting convicted of manslaughter than being set free … because then I think he’ll wind up the victim of some righteous vigilantism.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Continuing the chat. I understand your point of view. I do not think you were wrong in giving the guy an ass whooping. You may have pushed too far, but that’s the past. I know that if you hit a person after you knocked him on his ass, that would qualify as assault and going to far. Your actions are not a concern of mine, I would have like beat his ass thoroughly as well.

    Now, the facts of Trayvon issue. Age has nothing to do with it, that is a strawman argument and you know it 🙂 Zimmerman was doing hin neighborhood watch thing and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. The 911 call that NBC altered to make him sound like a racist has been totally debunked. He said nothing racist on that call. So to claim he is a racist is also bullshit.

    Now, my main point about bringing up this issue was because it was similar to the actions of Elkins. Martin could have peacefully walked away. He didn’t! Now he fits your description of someone with a problem (the need for violence), Here is where your side fails the equal test. Martin was 6’3″ tall and about 190. He attacked Zimmerman, who is 5’8″ and a little overweight (fat). When Zimmerman was knocked to the ground and Martin got on top to beat his head into the pavement, that was assault with intent to kill. The self defense of shooting was was equal to the assault with intent to kill.

    Martin failed because he didn’t walk away and then initiated the violence. The Law worked as intended. After our chat today, you should see how clear this is. It was not a racist event at all and that has been proven.

    I do see it as you do, but when I dug deeper into the happenings, I made my decision to support the actions of Zimmerman. Martin would be alive if he would have peacefully walked away. HE had a problem, just like Elkins.

    Great discussion with you today my friend, I hope we can continue to have more like this 🙂

    • Zimmerman was doing hin neighborhood watch thing and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. The 911 call that NBC altered to make him sound like a racist has been totally debunked. He said nothing racist on that call. So to claim he is a racist is also bullshit.

      Well, now you’re cherry picking. The 911 call that specifically told him to back off was a big deal. It was THE ONLY deal as far as I’m concerned.

      And he totally profiled, G … and you know it.

      “Now, my main point about bringing up this issue was because it was similar to the actions of Elkins. Martin could have peacefully walked away.”

      Huh? What was similar? Are you smoking weed again? The kid walked up to the woman, threatened her with a gun, then shot her kid. That’s similar to Martin & Zimmerman? How?

      “Here is where your side fails the equal test.”

      Oy vey.

      “Martin was 6’3″ tall and about 190. He attacked Zimmerman, who is 5’8″ and a little overweight (fat).”

      You saw this “attack” in person? You saw this kid “attack” Zimmerman? Really? You need to speak to the Fl police, G.

      “When Zimmerman was knocked to the ground and Martin got on top to beat his head into the pavement, that was assault with intent to kill. The self defense of shooting was was equal to the assault with intent to kill.”

      Oh, you saw all of that too, huh? Seems to me, the only person who can tell us the “other” version of what “might have happened” is dead. Too bad for him, huh?

      “Martin failed because he didn’t walk away and then initiated the violence.”

      Let me get this straight. Martin was at fault because Zimmerman thought he was 007. A) Zimmerman had no right to assume Martin was a thief (which he did). B) the POLICE told him to back off and he didn’t. C) NOBODY knows what happened after that, except for Zimmerman shooting Martin to death. Those “vicious scratches” Zimmerman had could just as easily be self-inflicted. In fact, I’m suspicious of one on the top of his head. Did Martin bounce him on his head before Zimmerman was “knocked to the ground”?

      “It was not a racist event at all and that has been proven.”

      You are now the official replacement for Black Flag … all knowing and all wrong. NOTHING has been proven to me, G. NOT A SINGLE THING.

      “I do see it as you do, but when I dug deeper into the happenings, I made my decision to support the actions of Zimmerman. Martin would be alive if he would have peacefully walked away. HE had a problem, just like Elkins. “

      I suspect your proclivity to support all things to the right are why you came to the conclusion you did. In fact, I remember you coming to this conclusion when the case first drew national attention, before any of us could “dig”. But, fair enough, we disagree.

      “Great discussion with you today my friend, I hope we can continue to have more like this.”

      Only when I have extra time like today and yesterday … and when you highlight posts dedicated to my ever increasing weight … but Kim Jung Un? Idi Amin, maybe …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I glad you expressed your points as well as you did. So let me go through them and you can see my side better. Then we can just disagree if you like, that’s cool.

        Well, now you’re cherry picking. The 911 call that specifically told him to back off was a big deal. It was THE ONLY deal as far as I’m concerned.

        He never confronted him and was at his SUV when confronted by a man who had left his sight. That’s not cherry picking, but the only known facts.

        And he totally profiled, G … and you know it.

        Good! He was a stranger to the neighborhood that had been hit with theft recently. Profiling NEEDS to be done. Political correctness has old people in wheelchairs getting searched at airports, give my a break on the profiling crap.

        C) NOBODY knows what happened after that,

        Yes, but you have one story with some witnesses that say it’s true, the black kid was on top of the other. But since NOBODY knows what really happened, it’s OK for you to cry foul? Isn’t our society based on being innocent till proven guilty? You convicted him from day one, not knowing what really happened, except for what the Liberal loser media told you. You let NBC make a fool of you because they altered the 911 call to MAKE it look like he was racist. Do you want me to find the whole 911 tape and link it?

        NOTHING has been proven to me, G. NOT A SINGLE THING.

        Again, you have Zimmerman convicted, so your statement is a blatant lie. If nothing is proven, then how can you claim Zimmerman was wrong?

        Oh, you saw all of that too, huh? Seems to me, the only person who can tell us the “other” version of what “might have happened” is dead. Too bad for him, huh?

        There was a witness, documented, but not much was reported by the liberal media hacks, it didn’t fit their racist story. They do ignore the facts when it makes them look like idiots.

        I suspect your proclivity to support all things to the right are why you came to the conclusion you did. In fact, I remember you coming to this conclusion when the case first drew national attention, before any of us could “dig”. But, fair enough, we disagree.

        Correct, because it fit the profile of the typical inner city black kid. Sorry, but that gets proven on a daily basis. Yes my friend, we can disagree. Today we have managed to do so without any name calling, and thats the way it should be 🙂

        • What, no name calling? Shit, man … you’re taking the fun out of this. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes my friend! It was nice to actually talk to you as an adult 🙂 Name calling is for sissy’s, I think your better than that 😉

        • Gman,

          Correct, because it fit the profile of the typical inner city black kid.

          Yes, because according to your “politically correctness,” inner city black kids are back and gun-toting white folk are good…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Todd, I did not say or infer that. You can play the race card all you want, it just makes the rest of what you say irrelevant. Inner city black kids have their own special attitude. If you don’t believe that, feel free to go into an inner city neighborhood that is mostly occupied by blacks and find some of the young teenagers and ask them if they have a special attitude.

            After you get out of the hospital you can let us know what they said 😉

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    A link to some online gun safety literature. Great for teaching kids!

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/gun-safety-literature-advice-for-yourself-and-the-little-ones/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      @Anita, I got a blowgun as well 🙂 Going to get the darts with broadheads on them and sight it in 😉

      • Alriiiight! Now we just need some warmer weather for some critters to come out. Only thing moving around here is squirrels and rabbits, dont want to target practice on them. Let me catch sight of a June bug….I hate those things. or my yellow lab is good at digging up ground moles, I’ll have no problem putting a dart between those eyes! I’ll have my eye on some stupid snakes at the lake too! 🙂

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    I have thought a lot about this article. Earlier today, I asked Charlie if his verbal attack on FLP was possibly an attack on Christianity. While he has not answered yet, and may not, which is OK, I wanted to bring up another possible attack on Christianity, but this time by the DHS. Yes, our wonderful Govt. I do not find this unusual, as they have done the same with veterans and just about every other conservative grouping out there. This time they openly hit religion. Here’s the article: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/6181/evangelicals-could-be-put-on-watch-list-denied-guns

    Now, if I’m mistaken, please correct me, but this action should be a violation of Article 1 (Freedom of Religion).

    Todd, how do you see this action, as well as past actions by the DHS?

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    On the educational side of things, I do not agree at all with what this teacher did. Opinions?

    http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/duval-teacher-tells-4th-graders-give-constitutiona/nXKxm/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      1. I don’t think 10 year olds are ready for a class on these types of issues/concepts.

      2. I can’t figure out what the point/purpose was of having them write this note.

      It might make sense if it was followed with a game/exercise where they could experience what that might mean. This could then be tied to our founders warning against giving up freedoms for the illusion of security.

      3. Seems to me the exercise could be viewed as Patriotic just as easily as “treasonous”.

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    I was in Florida the other day and I saw a bumper sticker on a parked car that read: “I miss Chicago.”

    So, I broke the window, stole the radio, shot out two of the tires, added an Obama bumper sticker and left a note that read, “I hope this helps!”

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    I should not post this, because I could be a racist. I could also be accused of PROFILING and intolerance. OH WELL!

    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/04/06/two-christians-beheaded-in-new-jersey-by-muslim-man-media-silent/

    This is sick. Is this motivated by religion? If so, can this religion be tolerated in America?

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    @ VH. This is for you because he is speaking for you and those who are sickened by the actions of this abortion doctor. I agree, where the hell is the media? If this guy walked into a hospital and killed a bunch of infants with an AR -15 they be all over the story. But he did it with scissors so it must be OK with them. The MSM are worthless!

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/04/rep-rips-media-on-gruesome-abortion-trial-if-the-doctor-used-an-ar-15-you-bet-theyd-care/

  35. Got you, BL … good stuff.

  36. @G: “Again, you have Zimmerman convicted, so your statement is a blatant lie. If nothing is proven, then how can you claim Zimmerman was wrong?”

    I have no idea what happened, but … I’m not saying he committed first degree murder. I’m saying he committed manslaughter (which he did–he admits he shot the kid). What makes him guilty in my eyes (not the court, not FOX and not MSLSD) is the fact he was told specifically to back off and he chose not to. I refuse to take “his” word for anything because he shot the kid he “claims” was trying to kill him. The kid had a soda and candy. Zimmerman had a gun.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Ok, the kid should have kept walking. Instead he turned around from his intended destination and initiated violence. Are you claiming that I am wrong with this statement?

      • Why should he have kept walking?

        What evidence do you have that Martin initiated violence?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The evidence is from Zimmerman. The evidence is also found in the autopsy report. I have posted all of this stuff before. If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to do your research and present some facts.

          This whole discussion was actually about people who intitiate violence without cause, just as Elkins (the kid who shot the baby in the face). Charlie and I both agreed that there is a mental problem with these people. Would you agree with that assessment Todd?

        • Bada-boom, bada-bing. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The kid had a soda and candy. Zimmerman had a gun.

      This is correct! If the kid, who was 6’3″ and had an inner city attitude knew that Zimmerman had a gun, would he have kept walking like he should have? I know you want to protect the poor black kid, but he was far from “kid” looking like all the pictures that the lying media puts out. Come On Man! What would have done with a big black guy pounding your head into the pavement? Really ask yourself that question. You and I were not there, but I can see you getting pounded into the pavement like a ragdoll by a much bigger and stronger young man, and you have a gun. Would you be smart enough to save your own life?

      • Gman,

        would he have kept walking like he should have?

        You’ve made this argument several times.

        But you also stress constantly that you would never back down in a fight – against the government, thugs, or whatever.

        Why do you feel Martin should have backed down, when you never would?

        If someone threatened you, and you didn’t walk away, would they then be justified in shooting you?

        a big black guy pounding your head into the pavement?

        The only “evidence” of this is Zimmermann’s statements. His injuries indicate 2 people rolling on the ground in a fight, not a big black guy pounding your head into the pavement .

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd, Maybe you should read up on the subject more so as not to make a fool of yourself. Martin had walked “out of sight” as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. Martin was not confronted at all and had he just kept walking he would be alive today. Instead he turned around and confronted Zimmerman at his vehicle. Then he struck Zimmerman knocking him down, at which time (according to a witness) Martin was on top of Zimmerman cracking his head into the pavement. The witness was clear the the black man was on top of the white guy. The injuries are consistant with this activity.

          What I would do is a Strawman argument and irrelevant, I certainly would not have walked up to a stranger and punched him. Martin was never threatened, so can you please show where or when that occurred?

          At least Charlie has some of his details correct 🙄

          • gmanfortruth says:

            OH, I would have shot Martin as well. It’s a clear case of self defense.

          • “At least Charlie has some of his details correct.”

            Oy vey … Todd, don’t fall for this line of crapola (it’s a BF tactic–changing reality). The lame street media (Happy G?) didn’t go near this case until some concerned citizen put it on Youtube. So much for the great conspiracy. Yes, NBC played with the video/audio/whatever … so what? Who takes the news serious anymore (any news)?

            For me it’s about the law … although I just watched a movie (of all things) The Brave One about a woman, etc…. but on a train with a kid holding a knife to her throat (and he asks her if she’d ever been “fucked by a knife”), she pulled a gun and killed him and 1 or 2 others. Fiction, but it sure can happen. In the movie scenario, I have no problem with her shooting to kill the guy with the knife … and maybe the other(s) … I can understand a person in such fear they would use a weapon (those gray areas) … the difference with Zimmerman is, of course, he pursued on his own and against the direct request by the police. And NOBODY KNOWS if he was “attacked” or not subsequent to his disobeying the law. Maybe he started the fight he lost. Who knows? Why I opt for manslaughter … but more importantly, getting rid of the law that permits people to shoot based on “their word alone” when there isn’t a video to see what actually did happen (so to speak).

            Paraphrasing BF: Therefore you’re wrong and I and Todd are right? 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Zimmerman did not break any laws and 911 operators are not police officers. Making stuff up again I see 🙂

          • G-man,
            There are times when you can have a decent conversation. But the minute someone questions or challenges you, you go into a “defensive” assault.

            You attack people personally, exaggerate, and make invalid arguments – and then you accuse them of doing all of these. I pretty sure it’s an attempt to “get out in front” of the argument.

            If you’re concerned someone might call you a racist, you point out how they’re the “REAL” racist first. It throws them off-balance and you get the upper hand. It also changes the subject – now you’re arguing about who is the racist, not the original question -which you didn’t have an answer too.

            If someone questions the actions of a “Conservative,” you throw out 2 examples of stupid Liberals (seriously – I could more examples of stupid Liberals than you do!) and demand a response to their actions. Again, it avoids the question/issue/topic you don’t want to talk about.

            You get abusive and down-right mean. People don’t want to engage with you, and you think that means you “Won.” But you didn’t.

            And these are the times when you seem happiest here – you feel best when you’re tearing down someone else. Kinda sad.

            There’s a reason so few people post on SUFA…

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Todd, Maybe you should read your own posts, then read Charlies posts after that. I don’t care if I win anything. Can I be tough on people, you bet, I’m not one to just be nice to those who are not nice to begin with. You play the strawman argument all the time, and it is irrelevant, and above, about how I handle things, has zero to do with the subject, so why do you even type it?

              If you don’t like debated the same way that you debate, that’s fine. But look in the mirror first because accusations and name calling are a big part of the left’s tactics. I forgot to mention how often things are cherry picked to try to change the meaning of the sentence/paragraph. Your posts are a classic example of that, aren’t they?

              Todd, please try and demonize me a little more, it’s classic leftist actions in real time. Saul Alinsky would be very proud of you 🙂

      • I have to agree that the published photo was a brazen attempt to “steer” the conversation. All credibility in reportage was lost at that point. Believe nothing.

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    Are blacks prone to violence? Not all of them, I’m sure of that, but……http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/rowdy-black-chick-throws-her-baby-to-fight-another-chick/

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    Yesterday, Charlie took offense to a part in an article that said “radical gay agenda”. I happen to agree that there is no radical gay agenda. Gays are nothing but puppets in a much bigger war, the war on Christianity. This war is especially true in schools as kids are being forced to violate their beliefs or face punishment.

    Here is yet another example of how the war is being enacted : http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/11447-high-school-boy-suspended-for-telling-a-classmate-that-he-believes-homosexuality-is-wrong/

    The whole subject of homosexuality is a non-issue to me, because I really don’t care, it doesn’t affect me in the least. I do however, respect the views of others, unlike some around here. Each is entitled to their opinion and what their views are based on. To attack those views and it’s basis, just proves that the war is ongoing and it’s real.

    HAPPY SUNDAY 🙂

  39. USW: “The political machine would never allow anyone who actually respects true liberty for all into the halls of power. Sad, isn’t it?”

    The political machines wouldn’t allow anyone to speak their mind ever, I don’t think. We are in a very sad state these days. As a new Nonno (grandpa), I worry for my granddaughter more than my kids. This was the latest garbage we all swallow with nothing more than a few yucks from Jon Stewart. Very sad.

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Good day old man 🙂

    You said ” For me it’s about the law” So I must ask why the law is a problem for you? It gives law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. I do think I know your issue, it’s because gang bangers can use it to get away with killing another gang banger. While I agree that the law has this flaw, so what? Why take away the rights of good people because of this minor flaw. The gang banger will go back out and either kill more gang bangers or get killed by one. Who really gives a rats ass if these idiots off each other?

    So Charlie, please explain why you are against the “Stand your ground” law. We have it here in PA and we happen to like it. Ohio has it too, and they like it as well. Except for the criminals of course, they think it violates their rights 🙄 So what say you Old Man ?

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    Some comedy is always good for the soul 🙂

    THE ONLY WALMART INTERVIEW
    YOU NEED TO HEAR!!!!

    Jennifer, a manager at Wal-Mart, Shell Knob, Missouri, had the task of hiring someone to fill a job opening.. After sorting through a stack of 20 resumes she found four people who were equally qualified. Jennifer decided to call the four in and ask them only one question. Their answer would determine which of them would get the job.

    The day came and as the four sat around the conference room table, Jennifer asked, ‘What is the fastest thing you know of?’

    The first man replied, ‘A THOUGHT..’ It just pops into your head. There’s no warning.

    ‘That’s very good!’ replied Jennifer.

    ‘And, now you sir?’ she asked the second man.

    ‘Hmmm….let me see ‘A blink! It comes and goes and you don’t know that it ever happened. A BLINK is the fastest thing I know of.’

    ‘Excellent!’ said Jennifer. ‘The blink of an eye, that’s a very popular cliché for speed.’ She then turned to the third man, who was contemplating his reply.

    ‘Well, out at my dad’s ranch, you step out of the house and on the wall there’s a light switch. When you flip that switch, way out across the pasture the light on the barn comes on in less than an instant.. ‘Yip, TURNING ON A LIGHT is the fastest thing I can think of’.

    Jennifer was very impressed with the third answer and thought she had found her man. ‘It’s hard to beat the speed of light,’ she said.

    Turning to BUBBA, the fourth and final man, Jennifer posed the same question.

    Old Bubba replied, ‘After hearing the previous three answers, it’s obvious to me that the fastest thing known is DIARRHEA.’

    ‘WHAT!?’ said Jennifer, stunned by the response…

    ‘Oh sure’, said BUBBA. ‘You see, the other day I wasn’t feeling so good, and I ran for the bathroom, but before I could THINK, BLINK, or TURN ON THE LIGHT, I had already shit my pants.’

    BUBBA is now the new greeter at a Wal-Mart near you!

    You probably will think of this every time you enter a Wal-Mart from now on.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    Come on AUSSIES…………….. What a finish under pressure and in the rain.

    • Agreed…. great put on 18 to take the lead and a great iron shot from Cabrera to get even. Another phenomenal putt on 10 in the second playoff hole. Those two putts from Scott were impressive given his history of putting being the weakest part of his game.

      Was fun to watch!

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    @Todd and Charlie.

    I have an honest question for both of you. I often hear about your problems with income inequality. Maybe the best term is wealth inequality. I actually understand that this exists, but I must ask this, The inequality that you so complain about is everywhere on the planet, how do you really think it can be fixed?

  44. Contrary to comments made here, “Most employers to continue offering health care coverage”:

    http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130410/NEWS03/130419983?template=mobileart

    What a bummer…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I saw that yesterday or the day before.

      In reality I think it is too soon to tell what the affects are going to be.

      I could see businesses moving to exchanges or govt insurance if the cost differences get very large. So that is the remaining question.

      I think they will given TODAY. But we all know that politicians will tweek things if needed to make it work as predicted. So NOTHING is static when it comes to health care/insurance.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Not a bummer at all Todd! If the 950 out of ? thousands of companies feel that way, it is awesome. Just a question, what 950 companies were asked? Those on Wall St.? or those on main street?

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    TODD

    JAC,
    Where is the 2/3′s improvement in income reference in the report (seriously, I couldn’t find it)? IT WAS IN D13’S REPORT AND YOU USED AS WELL. I RECALL IT WAS IN REFERENCE TO “INCREASED INCOME” BUT NOT CHANGING QUINTILES. BUT IT MATTERS NOT BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE AGREEING ON THE GENERAL CONCEPTS. AS LONG AS WE “QUALIFY” OUR STATEMENTS WITH WHICH CRITERIA WE ARE USING.

    I agree “Mobility” is best measured in real growth of income. I didn’t bring up “Income Mobility”. But I was curious what the numbers show (and don’t show). SORRY, I THOUGHT “MOBILITY” WAS THE REASON FOR THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION. WHAT WE NOW KNOW IS THAT LIKE ALL THINGS ECONOMIC IT IS HARD TO HAVE AN ACCURATE PICTURE. PIECES YES, BUT THE WHOLE PIE IS NOT SO EASY.

    I agree individuals who are poor can move up and improve their “lot in life” over time. But I think further analysis is required to address the questions of why many don’t, what barriers exist, how they can be reduced, etc. COMPLETELY AGREE. ADD TO THAT WHAT THE REAL IMPACTS ARE TO VARIOUS LEVELS/GROUPS. FAR TO MUCH GENERALIZING AND STEREOTYPING IS DON ON THIS SUBJECT.

    Technically there are no PERMANENT CLASSES in the USA. But where you start has a big impact on where you end up… ABSOLUTELY. I DID CROSS ONE STUDY SHOWING THE SON’S ECONOMIC GROWTH IS 1.5 OF THE FATHER. MEANING THERE IS A 0.5 AFFECT. DON’T ASK ME WHAT THAT MEANS IN REAL TERMS. THE PAPER DIDN’T EXPLAIN IT WELL.

    Yes, my arguments involved placing a valuation on the degree of improvement. So 2/3′s improved. That’s great. But how much? If 80% of this 2/3′s only had a 1% growth in income, that’s not so great… And what about the other 1/3? That means 100,000,000 had no improvement. I think that’s an issue… IT MAY BE AN ISSUE OR NOT BE AN ISSUE. WE DON’T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED. I AGREE THAT A VERY SMALL INCREASE IN REAL INCOME IS NOT AS GOOD AS GREATER GROWTH. AGAIN IT COMES TO THE DETAILS WE DON’T HAVE ANSWERS TO YET.

    On to your link. So they have a new way to measure income inequality? Is it better or more accurate? I’m not sure. I understand the basic ideas they were presenting, but some of the terms and formulas and other “stuff”…uuugh! AGREE AGAIN……..UUUGH! I TOLD YOU IT WOULD SOLVE YOUR INSOMNIA. FROM MY CHECKING IT IS PROBABLY MORE ACCURATE WHEN COMPARING THE VARIOUS CRITERIA. NOT NECESSARILY OF REAL INFLATION BUT IN TERMS OF MAKING AN APPLES TO APPLES ASSESSMENT.

    MY FAVORITE ECONOMIST ASSURES ME THAT NOBODY HAS AN “ACCURATE” OR “PRECISE” MEASURE OF ACTUAL INFLATION. EVEN USING THE MODERN DEFINITION.

    But this – the 3rd of their 3 main arguments, I found rather “lacking”…

    Third, an emerging literature documents an exaggeration of the rise of inequality due to the use of common price indexes across income groups. Several important recent articles document that prices paid by the rich have been increasing more rapidly than prices paid by the poor. The implication is that almost all studies that use a single common price index across all income groups overstate growth in real income at the top and understate real income growth at the bottom.

    Seriously? We have to “discount” the Rich’s income because they buy expensive “stuff”? That’s (pretty close to) the STUPIDEST thing I’ve ever heard. How they spend their money is their choice. They could live in a trailer and shop at Wal-Mart if they wanted. But they don’t want to – and they have the resources not too. YOU MISSTATE THE CONCLUSION. IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY BUY EXPENSIVE STUFF, BUT BECAUSE THE THINGS THEY BUY HAVE HAD A HIGHER “INFLATION” RATE THAN OTHER ITEMS PURCHASED BY LOWER INCOME GROUPS. SO AN ADJUSTMENT OF INCOME FOR INFLATION SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR VARIATION IF A TRUE INDICATOR OF “GAP” IS DESIRED.

    THE SAME HOLDS TRUE AT THE OTHER END OF THE SCALE. IF GOODS PURCHASED BY THE POOR ARE INFLATING FASTER THAN THOSE PURCHASED BY THE RICH THE DATA SHOULD REFLECT THAT DIFFERENCE. BUT THIS AGAIN IS ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING ACCURATE COMPARISONS OF ONE CRITERIA TO ANOTHER. IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE WAS PRODUCTIVITY VS. INCOME.

    AGAIN, THE METHOD IS GOOD FOR THE INTENDED USE BUT NOT FOR CALCULATING AN ABSOLUTE OR PRECISE MEASURE OF ACTUAL INFLATION. NOBODY HAS ONE OF THOSE. AT LEAST NOBODY IN GOVT PRETENDS TO HAVE ONE.

    So, if the poor started to buy more expensive “stuff”, then we could compare their income’s 1-to-1? NO! AS I EXPLAINED, YOU MAKE THE WRONG CONCLUSION.

    I can’t imagine someone making this argument…IT IS A BETTER METHOD.

    There’s a lot of interesting info in the paper, but I have a hard time taking it serious after they make that argument. YOU ARE SAYING THAT ACADEMIC WORK BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD SHOULD BE NOT TAKEN “SERIOUSLY” BECAUSE YOU DON’T “LIKE” THEIR APPROACH DUE TO WHAT REASON? COULD IT BE MORE EMOTION THAN LOGIC?

    I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THE INFLATION ADJUSTMENT A LITTLE. I DO WONDER IF IT IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE VARIATION IN DEFLATORS AND THAT FACT THE CPI BASKET OF GOODS METHOD IS NOT REALLY INTENDED TO MEASURE “TRUE” INFLATION.

    PER MY FAVE ECONOMIST, AGAIN, THE CPI GOODS WERE SELECTED DUE TO HIGH CORRELATION IN PREDICTING FUTURE ECONOMIC TRENDS. NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE ACCURATE MEASURES OF ACTUAL INFLATION.

    SO OBVIOULSY, USING THEM TO ADJUST INCOME TO A FIXED TIME IS PROBABLY NOT GIVING US AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF IMPACT TO PEOPLE OVER TIME.

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    Something far more important than personal differences and liberal demonization 🙂

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/dod-issues-instructions-on-military-support-of-civilian-law-enforcement.html

    I have posted a lot of stuff within the same subject. Ignore it at your own peril, but you cannot say you have not been informed and warned.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Serious CONUNDRUM.

    If when the Govt tells us Man Made Global Warming is blame we all yell LIARS, then what do we do when the same Govt tell us it is NOT AGW??

    Or…………how can you trust anything from someone you believe to be a liar?

    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/14/study-man-made-climate-change-2012-drought/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The great news is the Polar Bear population never decreased, but actually increased. Imagine that? After all the fear mongering (lying), everything is just fine and the world will not be ending. Yippee 🙂

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    TODD

    JAC,
    You go to great lengths to justify the discrimination against gay-marriage. ONCE AGAIN YOU TRY TO ACCUSE ME OF SUPPORTING SOME POSITION JUST BECAUSE I POINT TO THE FLAWS IN SOMEONE’S ARGUMENTS. I DON’T NEED TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING. OUR GOVT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISCRIMINATE ALL IT WANTS. IT’S ONLY LIMITATION IS THE TOLERANCE OF THE PEOPLE. OH, AND THAT LEADS BACK TO CULTURAL VALUES.

    No matter how you cut it – DOMA is unconstitutional. It grants specific privileges to certain individuals, and excludes others. I NEVER OFFERED AN OPINION ON DOMA BUT I WOULD SAY YEST IT IS. BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE MARRIAGE NOR TRY TO DEFINE IT. HOWEVER, AS IT COMES TO GRANTING PRIVILEGES THEN I DISAGREE. THERE ARE NO PRIVILEGES WITHHELD TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MARRIED.

    MARRIAGE in our Society/Culture DOES NOT include homosexuals or polygamists.

    In the past and right now – yes. But things can change. YES THEY CAN, AND THEY ARE CHANGING RIGHT NOW. I JUST DON’T THINK ENOUGH TO WARRANT USING GOVT TO FORCE THE FINAL STEP. AT THE CURRENT RATE IT MAY NOT EVEN TAKE TEN YEARS. JUST LOOK AT THE PAST TEN.

    Or do you feel things should NEVER change? HARD TO BELIEVE YOU HAD TO ASK ME THAT QUESTION. OF COURSE I WANT IT CHANGED. BUT BY IT I AM NOT REFERRING TO GAY MARRIAGE. BUT IF MY “IT” WAS CHANGED GAY MARRIAGE WOULDN’T BE AN ISSUE FOR GOVT TO DEAL WITH ANYWAY.

    Ok – then we’ll keep that bloated, wasteful, intrusive Federal Government. And will make sure it keeps GROWING – because that’s kinda been the “norm” as of lately… PROBABLY. UNLESS MY SIDE CAN WIN OVER ENOUGH PEOPLE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

    Taxes = Theft? Nope. The only thing certain in life are death and taxes. I heard that saying when I was a little kid, so taxes have been around for a long time – and people have been complaining just as long. So you keep complaining, and us terrible Liberals will keep using FORCE and EVIL to collect taxes from you – it’s an American Tradition! YES IT IS. BUT IT ALWAYS HASN’T BEEN TO THE EXTENT IT IS NOW. BUT AS YOU SAID ABOVE…….. THINGS CAN CHANGE.

    And you know, taxes used to be a lot higher. So we’ll be upping the rates – so we can “take our country back” to about 1950. 90% here we come. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. I WON’T EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THE WHOLE CONCEPT IS SILLY FROM AN HISTORICAL POINT.

    Any questions? MANY, MANY, MANY! BUT IT IS SUNDAY EVENING AND I HAVE BEEN STUDYING MORALITY, THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE, AND ECONOMIC REPORTS ON INCOME/WEALTH FOR THREE DAYS. SO I THINK I’LL JUST TAKE A BREAK FOR A WHILE.

    HOW ABOUT YOU? ANY QUESTIONS?

  49. gmanfortruth says:

    Cool pictures of the Italian volcano! But I have a question 🙂

    http://photos.denverpost.com/2013/04/12/photos-mount-etna-volcano-in-italy-erupts/#1

    Todd, This eruption is putting more CO2 in the atmosphere everyday than an entire generation of humans could. Should we not see some major “WARMING” now, because the last 15 or so years haven’t quite qualified. BWAHAHAHA!

    • G-Man,
      If you have been a victim of the rumour, persistent in some circles, that volcanic CO2 emissions dwarf those of human activity, now is the time to be liberated.

      According to the British Geological Survey: The contribution to the present day atmospheric CO2 loading from volcanic emissions is, however, relatively insignificant, and it has been estimated that subaerial volcanism releases around 300 Mt/yr CO2.

      The US Geological Survey estimate is lower still: Volcanoes emit … about 130–230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

      These different figures show that the precise contribution of volcanoes to atmospheric CO2 levels isn’t accurately known, but what is clear is that humans emit much more – around 100 times more.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    USW

    This is the error in your argument.

    “I already addressed them giving up the role of defining marriage. And for the record, it isn’t that they gave up the role as much as they stood by while government created a DIFFERENT DEFINITION. ”

    Govt NEVER changed the definition, it never created a definition. Not until recently do we see our own Govt trying to issue a proclamation on the “meaning”. This of course in response to efforts to gain equal treatment.

    What Govt did was set govt standards for those who could be married.

    The laws against interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage. They set restrictions on those who could be married under the traditional definition. Namely men and women.

    The example of blacks and women relative to rights and freedoms is different than marriage. While rights were withheld by govt, it was never suggested that women were anything other than women. Slavery never changed in meaning. It was simply outlawed. It was not unique to color, race or religion. When Govt finally outlawed slavery it did not change the definition of slavery.

    In addition, and separately, I think you are also confusing the moral argument of the Christian, etal religion and the Human Norm, which is longer and broader. This is the norm that is changing. Even among many who are Christian.

    The Chrisitan definition of marriage did not differ from that of non Christians except in a few cases. The “definition” was adopted into the Christian tenants.

    We forget this because we think of our own cultural heritage as being so linked to the Judeo/Christian values. We fail to remember that our values extend farther back in time.

    The issue of religion in this matter relates to the classification of homosexuality as “IMMORAL” or a “SIN”. This is not a “definition” problem. It is a problem of where do our moral values come from and how do we encode them into common and Govt laws.

    Must get some sleep now so I hope we can continue later.

    Best wishes to you and your family.
    JAC

  51. What will they think of next? Check out this site..I’ve only gotten through the gadgets page so far..so many cool ideas. http://www.takemypaycheck.com/?a6

%d bloggers like this: