A Big Question

For the record, this will be an Open Mic thread for a few days. I do have a question! I was thinking it may be fun and interesting to repost some older articles and rehash them (while maintaining an open mic forum).  It would be interesting to see how many of us may have changed our thinking over the years.  If Ya’ll would reply Yea or Na, I would appreciate it.  Thank You in advance 🙂



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m hoping to reignite some discussions that were really good in the past. Right now, the only politically related articles I can write would just be nothing but a hateful rant, so I’d like to avoid that. What say Ya’ll ? 🙂

  2. Judy Sabatini says:

    Just out of curiosity, I’d like to see that rant of yours, then go from there. Who knows, may be something everybody can talk about, but, then again, would be interesting to see what old articles you bring out & also see who changed their minds on what. Go for it.

  3. Sitting here watching a rousing game of professional “two below powder puff” football…Dez Bryant catches a TD pass, has a little celebratory “X” with his arms….then as he walks off the field, he does a slashing motion across his throat in front of no one……out comes the penalty flag for “throat slashing”. Really? Who the hell did he offend? Michael Myers of Halloween fame?

    You can’t spike a football, you can’t taunt, no more talking smack……you can’t lead with your helmet, no forearms, no wrapping up a player and body slamming……now a throat slashing gesture to no one…..football is getting boring.

  4. Never been a football fan, I know, this makes me suspect as not a true American but, I really wish my Dad who was quite a fan was still here to guide me. When cable TV first arrived in the ’60’s, he thought he had already died and went to heaven because he could now access High School Football,The “purest form of the sport” according to Nick Trynosky. I wonder if he would still feel that way today.

    I think that there are very real problems out there and all this balderdash about tactics is just that, balderdash. Correct me if I am wrong but have not football players more or less doubled in size in the past forty years? That I think is the problem. Getting hit by a 200 lb guy is a bit different than getting hit by a 340lb guy. The bones, muscle structure and brain pan stay the same but instead of a volkswagen, you are getting hit by an SUV. This is one of those things that I think people should really think on.

    In NJ we have these leagues for smaller pre-high school kids and they are being encouraged to “bulk up”. I only see problems with this thinking that will eventually lead to the destruction of the game.

  5. Judy Sabatini says:

    I don’t really watch football, & the only time I really do is when the 49’ers play because of Colin Kaepernick , since he went to UNR & played for the Wolf Pack, & my youngest son knows him. I would like to announce also, I am now a new grandmother, my youngest son & his wife had a baby girl last Sunday, & her name is Penelope Elisabeth,, & is so, so cute, I couldn’t be more proud. Hope you all are doing well.

    • Congrats. Hope to see you more often on here.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thanks T-Ray. I do come here & read the comments when I can, just don’t say anything really, for me, it seems to be the same rehashing of everything, just worded differently really, but, I do enjoy reading the kind of butting heads here from a few though.

  6. Liberty Amendment #1

    SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

    SECTION #2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

    • I object only to the name. I find it offensive when we give laws Orwellian names like PATRIOT, etc, that have nothing to do with the actual law. This is not about “liberty” per say, although, of course, that’s the ultimate goal. This is the Congressional Term Limits Act.

      Also, I’d love to see another paragraph in there about influence peddling.. just saying..

      • Agreed on both counts. I have been toying with the idea that no lobbyist should have private contact with representatives, and that when they do they should bring, not arguments or money to the table, but petitions. In other words, lobbyist power would be derived from them putting resources into convincing voters of the importance of a certain proposal or legal change, rather than convincing legislators.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Let me remind everyone, once again, that “lobbyists” provide a positive service in the name of Governance.

          The lobbyist is the primary messenger from a group of citizens who either need an action taken (much like your petition) or who will be negatively impacted by a proposed action.

          Quite often it is the latter role that is most often overlooked. Because proponents of action ONLY discuss THEIR benefits. Take Obama Care for example. By shoving that through quickly it prevented Citizens from identifying the BAD parts and organizing and retaining “lobbyists” to carry their case to Congress.

          If we are dealing with AMENDMENTS then this is WHERE to restrict MONEY.

          • I am aware of this, I dont have an issue with lobbyists, but with their methods and their permitted access. The power they weild should be voter’s voices via petition or direct contact rather than money and benefits.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I agree with the money issue but AGAIN, there are strict laws prohibiting giving AND “taking” of money and favors. Yet it seems to continue following numerous Congressional investigations.

              See the problem? The Foxes are investigating the Foxes.

              • Hence the permitted access issue. It needs to be supervised, or better yet, televised. May not fix everything, but there is bound to be ways to make corruption harder.

      • Matt, the “Liberty Amendments” term comes from Mark Levin’s book. You are correct, each amendment deserves an appropriate name. I do not care what you call this rose, it is the fragrance I am after. We have all seen plenty of legislators over stay their usefulness in Congress. They come from both sides of the isle. This is one amendment I would support. One might quibble over the permissible number of years but it is time to start moving some of these old fossils out. Also the longer they are in office the susceptible to corruption they become. They begin to feel invincible.

  7. Liberty Amendment #2

    SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.

    SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

    SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

    • Whatever.

      Somewhat unrelated, but I find it absurd that pissant states like Wyoming (population: 500k) have the same representation in the Senate as do the principles (CA / NY / TX, etc).

      I’m sorry, but you are one person and I am one person and there’s just no reason your vote should count for so much more than mine. Why should they get one rep per 288,206 people while we get one rep per 19.02 million?

      Disband the Senate! Proportionate representation!

      • ohhhhh…..not good…not good…..each and every state should be equal regardles of population and THAT should also count for electoral votes and house representation.

      • So basically you do not believe in federalism.

      • Matt, read some history. The House represents the people hence equal representation. The Senate represents the states, hence equal representation. The bond to the states was lost when the 17th Amendment was passed. The result was the ever creeping usurpation of federal authority over the states and the people. The federal government was meant to have limited authority with primary authority in the states. That balance needs to be restored.

        • The Senate represents the states, hence equal representation.

          I know WHY it’s that way. I just don’t like it.

          • If you held state governments as valid, you would not feel that way. In other words, you think this is ‘Murica, rather than a united collection of states. 🙂

            • In other words, you think this is ‘Murica, rather than a united collection of states.

              Right. I think of this as ONE country, not a collection of FIFTY pieces.

              I do not recognize the need for “states” in modern America. It is an anachronism.

              Sure, there’s some good natured rivalry. And it’s always fun to mock Florida and Texas. And there’s also the misery of memorizing the capitals in Elementary. But I am not a citizen of New York, nor of California. I am a citizen of The United States of America.

              Given this, I think that my voice in government should be exactly equal to your voice in government. A place where nobody lives is not as important as a place where millions of people live just because both happen to have some magical distinction of being “states.”

              • Then you don’t believe in countries either, if you don’t believe in arbitrary borders. You think the states are magical lines, then so is the border of the country. I can appreciate this view, but in that case no laws would be applicable, because no government would have jurisdiction. The fact that you dont see the states as states is irrelevant to what they are designed to be. It would be as if someone in the EU just decided to no longer care what the government of their country said because they just decided to only obey the laws of the EU itself.

                This whole attitude is only made possible by the fact that we have violated and ignored the 10th amendment. Even many constitutionalists seem to not pay much attention, either because it is so far gone they think it is a lost cause or because they are not wanting to lose the federal authority over things like marriage that they want to use for themselves.

              • Then you don’t believe in countries either, if you don’t believe in arbitrary borders

                Not particularly.. But, well, see below..

                The fact that you dont [sic] see the states as states is irrelevant to what they are designed to be.

                What they were designed to be is basically “little sub-countries” which had banded together for mutual benefit (The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming!) but today they are really nothing more than just divisions of the greater whole. What’s the real difference between TX and NY? A little less restrictive of gun rights, maybe? Maybe a little lower on taxes? But REALLY not a whole lot.

                If you asked someone from, say, Kamchatka*, to visit and tell you the difference, they might point out that Texas is a little hotter and has more cows.

                The US is a more-or-less uniform legal entity of a more-or-less homogeneous hodgepodge of a culture. Truth be told, other than the incomprehensible fact that you can’t get a rare burger there, Canada is basically the same country too.

                States are a distinction without a (real) difference.

                It would be as if someone in the EU just decided to no longer care what the government of their country said because they just decided to only obey the laws of the EU itself.

                If the Union doesn’t fall apart, they’re headed that way in a few more decades.

                What is the purpose/value of having a “country” such as Spain if the language, laws, ability to cross ‘borders,’ culture, money, et cetera are almost identical to your neighbor? What’s the point?

                This whole attitude is only made possible by the fact that we have violated and ignored the 10th amendment.


                So either reinstate the 10th and repeal all the violations, or stop insisting that we recognize as somehow special those pointless and unimportant imaginary lines.

                Whatever value the distinctions might have once had is gone. Give it up and let’s move on with our lives.

                Even many constitutionalists seem to not pay much attention, either because it is so far gone they think it is a lost cause or because they are not wanting to lose the federal authority over things like marriage that they want to use for themselves.



                * Sorry, everything I know about geography, I learned from playing Risk.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            But WHY don’t you like it?

            • Why do you think?

            • CA > TX > NY >>> WY

              States are NOT people. They do NOT have rights. They are a figment of a bureaucratic imagination. They are fictitious lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. States are nothing more than a collection of people who happen to live within a given region.

              People are real. People have rights. People have a say in how they are governed.

              And one person is equal to another person. You do not count double just because you happen to live in a less populated area.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Then you stand for Anarchy and the abolition of the United States.

              • “States are NOT people. They do NOT have rights. They are a figment of a bureaucratic imagination. They are fictitious lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. States are nothing more than a collection of people who happen to live within a given region.

                People are real. People have rights. People have a say in how they are governed.”

                Which is exactly why we all (everyone) better start thinking in terms of the greater good or we’re doomed. Nationalism is the bullshit used to engage in war … if JAC were a Palestinian, he’d be as like to be a terrorist as desirous of peace … he was born here (pure fucking luck–there but for the grace of God, etc.) … he takes to nationalism because it is in his interest (the same as anyone anywhere), but until he recognizes that borders (whether they be states or countries) are imaginary, he’ll continue to wave a flag and condemn what he feels threatened by (education, equality, viewing people as people rather than enemies) … JAC likes to think he has it figured out … it’s a false sense of security and permits him to be an arrogant SOB … sort of like his buddy, BF … what it is is silly 🙂

              • Charlie…You call someone arrogant for seeing things different than the way you see it? C’mon man! 👿

              • States have become less important as the federal government usurped their authority over the last century. However, they do serve a useful purpose. Rural states have decidedly different needs and attitudes from urban dominated states. The existence of states permits this diversity. Matt, you are from urban CA and now NY/NJ. I see things drastically differently being from rural IL and now rural CA. The differences between states permits much tension to be diffused as is evidenced by the numbers leaving CA for TX and other tax friendly states. Also the original intent of the Constitution was to drastically limit the authority and reach of the Federal government and to retain as much authority as possible in the states. Thus each state could experiment with whatever laws best suited their needs and the needs of the citizens. The Federal government essentially dealt with defense, foreign affairs, managing the non-state territories and other federal land, regulating commerce between states and nations (we will get to this one later), and a few other limited activities. We now have a grossly bloated government which reaches directly into our lives. This was never intended.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The STATES created the UNITED STATES. They have Civil as in Govt Rights.

        Senators being equal does not mean that Wyoming is equally represented in the Fed Govt.

        The House represents the people of each state and the Pres represents the people of the United States to some degree.

        Most of your personal concerns about the FED Govt, and I assume all Govt, stems from the EXPANSION of Federal Power. Yet you want the Progressive mass democracy model to win the day.

        You wonder why the Senate has become this “grid lock” of partisanship. Because the Senators are elected by the people of the States they live in. That is one of the real reasons.

        The reality is this, if the Senate is popularly elected there is no need for the Senate.

        Simply EXTEND the terms of the House of Representatives and provide for a bank of PERMANENT Bureaucrats to staff Congress.

        Next step will be to create the head of state as an elected KING.

  8. Liberty Amendment #3

    Section 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

    Section 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the first Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eight Year, and the Third Class at the end of the Twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth year.

    Section 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be denominated to a full term.

    Section 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

    Section 1: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

    Section 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

    Section 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.

    Section 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

    • I find it confusing that you have two Section 1’s.

      Also, hell no.

    • I am disappointed that no one commented on this amendment. I certainly would like to see some fine tuning. I am not happy with a president choosing 3 justices in one year. I am not happy with a 60% congressional or a 60% legislature override of SCOTUS decisions. I would lengthen the term of office to 15 years with only one justice being up for appointment in any given year. Congressional override of a SCOTUS decision is every bit as if not more important than overriding a presidential veto. I would put the threshold at 75%. The same goes for state legislatures as overriding a SCOTUS ruling is the equivalent of an amendment. I could be talked down to 2/3rds but 60% is just too low. I would also limit such overrides to constitutional issues.

  9. General Milley, Commander of III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, this weekend issued orders that all soldiers are to be armed while on post. He said that Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama have it entirely wrong…..Army posts and bases are not common work places…they are manned by trained soldiers and as soldiers, they should be armed. As Post commander, I have issued such orders. As an officer, we are not bound by orders that are immoral and unethical….being unarmed on military posts and bases is an immoral order and I choose not to follow it.

    Gov. Perry, not to be outdone, has ordered all the National guard posts and bases will likewise be armed at all times,

    • I sense that some are not happy with the status quo.

    • Are you telling me that a general is disobeying a direct order from his Commander in Chief?

      • Yes sir, I am,….I am telling you exactly that.

        • Reasoning: Any commander…a “green tab”..has the responsibility to his troops. Total responsibility. For example, a POTUS cannot go to any commander and take over his command. NO higher rank can merely because they are a higher rank. If a post commander makes a determination that it takes armed soldiers to create the atmosphere of safety, then that commander has the latitude to make that decision.

          For example, as a young company commander (Captain), even though I had operations orders issued from a full bird Colonel that was specific, as the commander on the ground I had the full authority to carry out that operations order in any manner that I determined best to accomplish the mission.

          Post and base safety is no less important. If the commander, feels that it is in the best interest of his command, he may do what is necessary. In view of the fact that the last 6 incidents have taken place in weapons free locales, the commander is correct.

          • So he’s not really “disobeying” an order so much as he’s disregarding an order which does not carry the requirement to be obeyed?

            In other words, sure he’s “disobeying,” but it’s in a way in which he is permitted to disobey. Yes?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes, but it also carries PERSONAL RISK along with that RESPONSIABILITY.

              He can be removed and disciplined by the higher ranking officers, including POTUS, for doing what he/she determines is necessary.

              But that does not remove the authority and responsibility to act as they deem necessary to meet the general mission.

              • Got it. But, just to be extra clear, this is not something that would merit, say, a dishonorable discharge, correct?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              On that point I am not certain. I believe they could try such a thing. But certainly could withhold future promotions and advancement.

              • No to both…….no dishonorable and no blockage of promotion….however, he is a general whose promotions are not warranted by other generals nor the POTUS……a general is nominated by Congress.

  10. So, you go to college, pay them $ 30,000 per year for an “education” another $ 15,000 to share half a room for nine months, leave owing a hundred thou at 7% and this is what they pay the people who teach you.


    One wonders where the rest of the money goes. seems that the tuition of one student pays the whole salary. What about the rest?

    What a racket!

    • It’s quite a racket. I felt that, much more than the actual class-learning, the value of college was in providing me a sort of half-way house to learn how to become (partially) self-reliant before moving into the real work and being wholly self-reliant. That may not be the case for everyone, but it certainly was for me. Additionally, it’s a good place to learn things, you know, from professors.

      But, really, the real value of college is a piece of paper given out at the end. I work in finance. Unless you are a child prodigy or a Nobel Laureate, unless you have a 4-year degree from a reputable school, we won’t even THINK about possibly considering maybe looking at your resume. That’s the real value of a degree – it opens the doors to the “good” jobs.

      • Question…….Why is that? What makes a piece of paper worth more than an individual? Don’t you think that, even in finance, on the job training could provide a better employee and one more dedicated?

        • I think that on-the-job training is more important. I learned 99% of what I needed to know for my job while doing it. That said, I don’t make unilateral hiring decisions around here and if I tried to hire someone without a degree, I’d be laughed out of the room.

          That’s not to say that a degree is intrinsically worthless (remember, I have an MBA and am starting my CFA), but their primary value is the ability to open doors. That is, their value is that they’re perceived to have value.

          • Correct o Mundo…..I have, likewise, an MBA in finance…..great for learning terms and definitions, but practical application is where the “rubber meets the road”….and despite the terminology espoused by colleges…..there really is no practical in the classroom.

            Using it to “weed out” prospective employees …..well, I am surprised that, absent a BFOQ, there is not a discrimination angle there.

      • Mathius, did you know that Hedge Fund employees will be blamed for a financial collapse in America? They will all be taken to Texas, where there will be a Raptor Bar-B- Que. The end result will be alot of sick Raptors, from eating hedge fund workers, at which time Texas will outlaw all hedge fund provided meals. 🙂

        • Hedge Fund employees will be blamed for a financial collapse in America

          Close. Hedge Fund employees managers will be blamed for a financial collapse in America.

  11. Egypt court bans Muslim Brotherhood, orders its assets confiscated
    Published September 23, 2013

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/23/egypt-court-bans-muslim-brotherhood-orders-its-assets-confiscated/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2fijXdadg

    Since all of this is done by the military…..and since Obama says that when the military overthrows a government it is NOT a coup……and since there are no elections scheduled and the person in power is put there by the military (it is no coup) and Jay Carney says that to call it a coup is inflammatory….(it is no coup)

    subliminal cut…..it is no coup…and so on and so on…….remember it is no coup.

    So, hmmmm…the Kingdoms have funneled a little over 15 million now directly to the military (it is no coup, it is no coup)….there is no reason to install a civilian government ( it is no coup )……………

  12. @ Mathius……..being under the age of 40, have you investigated and researched your own health insurance and what is going to happen to it on Jan 1?

    • I have work provided insurance. It’s pretty good coverage. I do not know what’s going to happen on Jan 1, why? Is something going to happen? I assume you’re talking about the ACA..

      • Yes I am talking about the ACA…..if your coverage is totally provided by your work place, you will probably not have a problem unless they decide to drop it. Estimated cost insurance increases for those under forty are going to be around 35% increase in premiums. The only reason that I mention it is that my daughter (age 36) also has work provided insurance and has been put on notice that on January 1, 2014, to expect to pick up the increased premium and that further costs implications are being conducted. She has been warned that if the projected premium costs are real, it would be more cost effective for her company not to provide insurance and to go to the Federal run insurance pool provided there is one in Texas at that time, which is doubtful. Her estimated costs in the Federally run program are said to be around $11,000 per year, with no federal underwriting available.

        The only other alternative is no insurance and pay a penalty.

        • How to fix the healthcare issue, according to Liberals. Destroy the system that covers 85% of the people, to help the 15% that don’t have coverage. In the end, noone will be able to afford health insurance unless they are the 1%. Way to go Obama!

  13. It is very interesting to post things on HUFFPO…….I asked the question as to whether anyone on Huffpo believes that Syria will turn over its chemical weapons……it is amazing how many people believe that Syria will do so and many said it would and many said that that it would also be because they are afraid of Obama.

    Wow….Saturday NIght Live cold not have done it better.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Since TRay has launched us into a discussion of the Constitutional Amendments of Mr. Levin, and given the discussion so far regarding People vs. States, let me offer up something I am guessing most of you have never seen.

    The ORIGINAL PREAMBLE of the Constitution as proposed before the Convention.

    “We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.”

    And to add to this, the draft of Article I

    Article I

    “The stile of the Government shall be, “The United States of America.”

    • Thanks JAC, I had never seen this. In the early years of the republic, states were very competitive and jealous of each other. The homogenization began with WWI, when militias took a lesser role in that war compared to the CW. By WWII, militias disappeared. They have come back some with the use of the NG in the most recent wars.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I read an interesting article this afternoon that claims the “homogenization” starts with LINCOLN. It identified three phases of our Republic.

        First, the original version with a Federalist Republican form of govt, it was called “These United States” in speeches of the day.

        Second, Lincoln’s declaration and the end of the Civil War which was designed to destroy or severely impair the State’s sovereignty and establish Lincoln’s vision of “THE United States”. This phrase is used in speeches following the war.

        Third, Wilson’s intervention in WW I. I disagree with this one and think it was Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. But in either case, this is the beginning of “THE” United States as an EMPIRE period. This is where we are today.

        It did not discuss the future but I believe the Fourth and final stage is DEMOCRACY. This has been the goal of the Socialists and Progressives since the 1800’s. Mathius reflects this view point in his comments today. This is why the deep partisanship exists today. The left sees its goal within reach. The right is fighting like hell to preserve the Republican Govt. The left and the Dem party they control are working overtime to denigrate anything and anyone who is standing in their way.

        Immigration reform, Obama Care, gun control, all is aimed at building a “lasting MAJORITY” that will then be used to eliminate the last vestiges of the Republic and replace it with a DEMOCRACY.

        The left, namely the socialist, fascist, Marxist, left has ALWAYS believed that if only we had a Democracy they would prevail and establish LONG TERM CONTROL of this country. Which will in turn cause many others to follow suit.

        This IS the New World Order that many have in mind.

        • JAC, I will not disagree with you that the CW changed us from “these” to “the” US. And you are correct in that the Progressives have had a relentless push to turn the country from a republic to a democracy.

          I am constantly reminded of the dangers of that when we have issues on the ballot here in CA. We had one a few years ago about the size of chicken cages for poultry framers. What does a city slicker know about raising poultry? Why should a few million city dwellers dictate to a few hundred poultry farmers on the size of their cages.

          Gov. Brown now has a bill on his desk banning lead ammunition. I believe he is inclined to sign it. Will this bill impact the punks in the cities shooting other punks? No it will impact the farmers, ranchers and hunters. They will now be criminals if they use lead ammunition.

  15. HSA’s with insurance for catastrophic care. Cards similar to food stamps provided to the non-able bodied poor that can be used similarly to HSA’s. We all become better consumers; medical providers become more transparent with costs. Tort reform. Done.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Sorry for being slow this morning but HSA’s???? What is an HSA???

      • Health Savings Accounts

        • Just A Citizen says:



          Now lets deal with the real issue.

          The HOW of fixing health care IGNORES the fundamental problem.

          Those who support any kind of Federal FIX are really saying that WE have an obligation to pay the health care costs of those who cannot afford their own care.

          That for some reason, ALL PEOPLE are ENTITLED to receive something they cannot produce, create or pay for.

          They rationalize this, at least for purposes of reducing its implication in totality by arguing that health care is different than other care or services. Although it appears they are willing to extend it to EDUCATION.

          Health Savings accounts are just another Trick. While more acceptable they set up Govt accounts that will wind up being used to fund Govt just like Soc Sec. is being used.

          Simpler would be that 100% of all health care and health “insurance” costs be 100% DEDUCTIBLE for EVERYONE.

          • Let me see if I can help you out here:

            WE have an obligation to pay the health care costs of those who cannot afford their own care.


            ALL PEOPLE are ENTITLED to receive something they cannot produce, create or pay for.


            Note: “Cannot,” not “choose not to” – important distinction.

            Although it appears they are willing to extend it to EDUCATION.

            Not really.

            Health care is a human right.. or at least, a moral obligation of a civilized society toward its less fortunate.

            Education is a societal good. That is, we don’t have to provide it, but we provide it because it’s in everyone’s benefit to make sure everyone else has it.

            Does this make sense? I’m not asking if you agree, but do you at least understand the distinction?

            Simpler would be that 100% of all health care and health “insurance” costs be 100% DEDUCTIBLE for EVERYONE.

            Not bad. I’d like to see this on a sliding (read: progressive) scale where it’s 100% if your income is less than X, up to 0 if your income is Y.

            I’ll leave the details of X and Y up to the policy wonks.

            But that’s still not enough. 100% deductible or not, someone making 20k / yr is not going to be able to pay for a 15k cancer surgery.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              What Society?

              You just argued that there should be NO National Boundaries and that Govt does not have ANY RIGHTS. Since Govt is the ONLY means of the mythical Society to enforce its views of “moral obligation” then it neither has the authority nor the right to enforce this “value”. Without Govt it could be argued there is NO SOCIETY beyond your neighborhood.

              “Cannot” produce includes those who cannot pay their own way. Regardless of the reason. Not smart, lazy, differing priorities, lack of good luck, you name it.

              Now how are YOU or your mythical Society with no Govt boundaries going to determine who the “cannots” are as opposed to the “will nots”???

              • You just argued that there should be NO National Boundaries and that Govt does not have ANY RIGHTS.

                I did?

                I’m pretty sure that I argued we should abolish the states, merge the US with Canada (and probably the UK too), and switch to fully proportional representation by population.

                “Cannot” produce includes those who cannot pay their own way. Regardless of the reason. Not smart, lazy, differing priorities, lack of good luck, you name it.

                “Cannot” produce excludes “will not” produce.

                He who will not work, neither shall he eat, right? Thessalonians (sp?), I think..

                But it’s important that it’s “WILL NOT” work. If you CHOOSE not to work, I don’t owe you anything. Go starve for all I care. If you just cannot work (or make enough when you do work), then Noblesse Oblige.

                Now how are YOU or your mythical Society with no Govt boundaries going to determine who the “cannots” are as opposed to the “will nots”???

                Well that’s a tricky question and, I think, the heart of the (real) divide between Red Shirts and Blue Shirts with regards to social welfare. Most Red Shirts aren’t the heartless bastards we try to make them out to be. They want to help those who CANNOT help themselves.

                I think, in general, to waaay over-simplify, Red Shirts err or the side of “not taking from the ‘makers’ at the risk that some truly needy not getting enough” and Blue Shirts err on the side of “helping some who aren’t truly needy at the risk of taking more than necessary from the ‘makers’.” It’s a balancing act. I know how much that hurts your head when things aren’t absolute blank-and-white, sorry.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So those with more money have less value to your Progressive Society I see.

              Apparently they are not full citizens or fellow members of your society. Why else would you feel that the $500 K Cancer treatment they receive is less deserving of tax exemption than the $500 K Cancer Treatment of the poor guy making $20K per year.

              Your willing the GIVE some guy the $500 K by taking it from me, but your not willing to give me a tax deduction for spending that $550 K to save my own life or that of my wife, or that of my children.

              How absolutely compassionate you Progressives are.

              • Why else would you feel that the $500 K Cancer treatment they receive is less deserving of tax exemption than the $500 K Cancer Treatment of the poor guy making $20K per year.

                Because they don’t NEED the exemption.

                He NEEDS IT or he will die.

                You WANT IT so that you’re more comfortable.

                Your comfort <<< his life.

          • {JAC} Health Savings accounts are just another Trick. While more acceptable they set up Govt accounts that will wind up being used to fund Govt just like Soc Sec. is being used.

            [T-Ray] I would object to HSA’s being held by the government as SS now is. These should be as they are now privately sequestered accounts managed similar to an IRA. In fact, I would like to see IRAs, HSAs, SS, 401Ks all consolidated into one savings account that is tax free.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Why not just make ALL SAVINGS contribution TAX DEDUCTIBLE. Along with the INTEREST and DIVIDENDS on earnings.

              The reason is because people will figure out how to save money and AVOID taxes, thus starving the beast.

              Thus the simplest and most equitable solutions are not considered.

              • This would give investment savings the same advantage as retirement and healthcare designated savings. Better yet go to a national sales tax and eliminate income tax altogether.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    “American political thought and experience after 1776 in fact highlighted a tension built into the Declaration of Independence which proclaimed in one clause that certain rights were “unalienable,” and in another that “Governments…derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not to be submitted to a vote or to depend on the outcome of elections; that is, not even the consent of the governed could legitimately abridge them. But representative, might sanction laws violation “unalienable” rights.”

    …..”Which principle had priority, that of the “consent” or that of “unalienable rights”??”

    Ralph Ketcham, in his introduction to “The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates”.

    Sound familiar? CONTRADICTIONS that were not resolved. Instead our founders constructed a system of compromise rather than deal with the conflicts. The debates we have started here, over just the issue of State Sovereignty are repeats of the same debates of the late 1700’s.

    This is not reason to continue and to attempt solutions. I just want folks to realize that the many core ideas have been around for a long time. Which may help you understand that “ultimate” solutions are not possible. We are to diverse to expect a “vast majority” to agree on the Core principles, let alone the details.

    So I return to the basic question I raised with “Resurrecting America”. WHAT is our Core philosophy? What are our Foundational Principles? These should dictate the “Amendments” necessary to the Constitution.

    I submit this Moral/Ethical “political” standard for consideration.

    The ONLY proper role of Govt is to defend the citizens against attack. This includes the power/authority to “retaliate” as needed to assure long term defense. It also includes incarceration or administration of justice to those who violate the standard that no person has a right or authority to IMPOSE FORCE upon an innocent person.

    This translates to Govt’s proper role as Military Defense/Retaliation and police powers within our boundaries. This includes creation and maintenance of a court system to adjudicate civil disputes and try persons for criminal action against others.

  17. Just A Citizen says:


    Before you go much farther in your babbling how about you provide us with YOUR DEFINITION of RIGHTS.

    What are Rights?

    Where do they come from?

    Who decides what Rights are protected?

    How are they protected?

    • Wiki says: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

      Charlie says: they are as fluid as any individual’s belief … and what that has to do with defining imaginary boundaries is beyond me, brother …

      Once you enter into a social contract (i.e., government), your rights are subject to the definition of the society wherein you live. Unless you want to babble on blogs about how you’d do this and you’d do that (particularly popular with the extreme right–talk is cheap) … once you get into ethics, though … oh, brother are you asking for it … because believe it or not, JAC, not everybody believes the world is black and white … now, smile, Ralph boy 🙂

  18. Just A Citizen says:


    So not only is my life not as important, you don’t even consider my disease as equal, even though it is identical. Somehow my desire to live is a want, but yours is a need.

    Again, WHO decides??

    “Because they don’t NEED the exemption.

    He NEEDS IT or he will die.

    You WANT IT so that you’re more comfortable.

    Your comfort <<< his life"

    • That’s a mighty nice strawman you’re constructing – sure to keep the crows away from the crops.


      So not only is my life not as important, you don’t even consider my disease as equal, even though it is identical.

      Your life and your disease are precisely equal to the other guy’s. That’s the thing.

      What’s not equal is your ABILITY TO PAY FOR TREATMENT.

      Therefore, you pay more for the same thing. Sorry. But hey, you both live.

      Somehow my desire to live is a want, but yours is a need.

      No. your desire to live is a need. His desire to live is a need.

      Your desire to have a new iPhone is a want. His desire to eat is a need.

      Therefore, you pay more and he pays less. You don’t get your iPhone, his children don’t starve.

      Again, WHO decides??

      Barack Obama will decide on a case-by-case basis. He will notify you of his decision by mail within 6-8 weeks.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        And when JAC and The Colonel sit in the White House we will send you a letter explaining what YOU will pay and when it is due.

        Hint, it will require foreign travel.

  19. Just A Citizen says:


    “You just argued that there should be NO National Boundaries and that Govt does not have ANY RIGHTS.

    I did?

    I’m pretty sure that I argued we should abolish the states, merge the US with Canada (and probably the UK too), and switch to fully proportional representation by population.”

    Yes you did. If you claim States do not exist as anything but an arbitrary and imaginary line on a map then the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT applies to National Boundaries.

    Why didn’t you include Mexico, Central and South America on the list for “merging”??

    West Hemispheria…………….The masses voting to ROBE others of the fruits of their labor to cover their wants. What could possibly go wrong with that philosophy!

    • Why didn’t you include Mexico, Central and South America on the list for “merging”??

      Because the culture, demographics, system of government, level of socio-economic development, et cetera are substantively different in Latin America versus CanAmerica. The difference between Canada’s government and ours is real, but puny compared to the US vs Mexico’s. That national border makes sense (until such time as we’re so similar there’s no real difference anymore there either).

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Since Govt has no Rights by what right/authority do you decide there is a “meaningful” boundary between the USA and Mexico??

        • It is my opinion that there is a meaningful difference between the government/economy/etc of the US and Mexico in such a manner as there is a NEGLIGIBLE difference between the internal US states and ONLY A MINOR difference between the US and Canada.

          Levels of degrees..

          One state is pretty much the same as the next.
          The US is pretty darn similar to Canada (except for the no-rare-burgers thing).
          The US is fairly different from Mexico.
          The US is VERY different from Saudi Arabia.

    • Matt,
      what has any government in history done that leads you to think that consolidating power would be better? In what way is consolidating power to a new north american government better? What benefit is there to centralization? I can see a few, such as defense and possibly some infrastructure and potentially financial uniformity for trade purposes, but what the heck else is useful? Heck I would even question if my three categories are really all that useful, especially in today’s world. I see so much problem with consolidation of power, so much greater potential for corruption, for mistakes in terms of one-size-fits-all policies, for inefficiencies due to the big-ships-turn-slow principle. What am I missing?

      • All I’m saying here is that states aren’t currently “real” entities. That is, they have almost no “real” power or distinction. One state is much like the next in 99.99% of the ways that matter. And no state has any real authority of substance relative to the federal government. So, my point: Why does this non-entity get a say in the federal system in a way which renders one tiny population state equal to a giant population state?

        If states were legitimate powers with legitimate roles and legitimate differences, I can see why they should have a say equal to each other. Much like the US’s vote in the UN is and should be equal to every other country regardless of how puny – one entity, one vote.0

        But they currently don’t have legitimate difference or legitimate roles. Currently, they’re just imaginary lines on a map arbitrarily subdividing a mostly homogeneous nation for no reason at all. It’s a distinction without a difference. Given that, a person voting in Wyoming isn’t voting on behalf of a state because the “state” is a figment of his imagination. He’s voting on his own behalf. As such, he vote should not count so much more than mine. He gets one vote per 290,000-ish people, and I get one per 9.8 million. That is absurd.

        Not asking if you agree here, but do you understand my point? Am I being clear? I feel like I’m being misinterpreted..


        So, AGAIN, reinstate the states as real entities, or stop pretending they’re real entities. Pick one – I don’t care.

  20. Matt, once again you have diverted the original discussion to something totally different. The issue was how to elect Senators not disband the states. States exist now and will exist in the future as there is too much infrastructure and momentum to abandon them. So then, how do we elect members to the Senate, a body whose original intent was to represent the states and their rights. Each state is a collective of individuals, hence a state as a whole does have rights in our system. Our current Senators are not beholden to their respective state governments but to the people of the state. Hence they no longer represent the “state” but the people in the state. As a result we get a federal government that dictates to the states who have no direct recourse. In the past they could recall or term out a Senator who ignored the wishes of the state government. I might also point out that that state governments serve at the wishes of the people in the state. Does it not make sense that if the Senate is to represent their respective state governments, then they should be appointed by those same governments?

    • States exist now and will exist in the future as there is too much infrastructure and momentum to abandon them.

      Agreed. Unfortunately.

      So then, how do we elect members to the Senate, a body whose original intent was to represent the states and their rights.

      By disbanding the Senate or replacing it with a directly proportional representation (ie, basically a second House).

      Hence they no longer represent the “state” but the people in the state.

      And you believe this?

      The members of the Senate Congress represent their political benefactors. If the needs of the state, or The People can be piggybacked onto the quest for self-glorification and power of the representative, then maybe they’ll get what they want too.

      • Mathius…..you said ” The members of the Congress represent their political benefactors.”

        Don’t you think this is the real problem and not the system itself?

    • Speaking of past discussions and whether or not we have changed our minds. I remember talking about this subject before and being for the people voting for our Senators. But somewhere in the discussions I changed my mind and agree that the States governments should choose.

  21. I will never understand the “greater good” argument. It is destructive in nature, violates natural rights, and breeds inefficiency. Sigh…..

  22. @ JAC……I think putting Mathius in charge of the money is exactly what we would need in our administration. I can promise you that he is a budget man and does not believe in deficit spending…no hedge fund manager would. I would put him in charge of the budget already decided….he has control of the nickels and dimes in accordance with the budget…he would not set policy. I think he would be perfect in that capacity.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I agree. I would even ask him to offer his ideas from time to time. A good thinker, just confused and contradicted when it comes to his core.

      He would be outstanding in dealing with problems which lend themselves to “pragmatic” solutions. 😉

    • I believe in deficit spending only under certain (very) narrow and limited circumstances.

      For example, if I am under attack and need to defend myself. Or, if I have built up a suitable savings and wish to spend some of it by running a (temporary) deficit. Or, if there’s an unexpected natural disaster, etc.

      I’m not so ideological that my desire to run surpluses/balanced means I can never run a deficit. But, generally, I really don’t like to.

      • But, budgets, create surpluses and rainy day emergency contingencies. Are you sure you do not mean debt…..how can one spend what they do not have? If Sir Mathius only has 100 bucks in the bank and he needs 110 bucks……it takes borrowing money to make up your ten bucks. That is debt……then you take that debt, and the absolution of that debt and build it into your budget. I know you do this. You are far to intelligent not to.

        • Take also the term cash flow…..only a government can run a deficit because they can “print” more paper to facilitate cash flow…..you cannot. I bet you a dollar to donuts that you manage a cash flow to take in any short term borrowing that you may do.

        • I hate running deficits.

          I really hate running debts.

          I, personally, am a big believer in “rainy-day funds,” but sometimes that’s not enough and sometimes it’s unfeasible. Insofar as possible, I would never run a deficit except to eat into my savings if I determine my savings are greater than necessary (this is deficit spending which will not lead to debt). Beyond this, I would never run a debt except in cases of extreme emergency where my rainy-day fund has been tapped out.

          then you take that debt, and the absolution of that debt and build it into your budget. I know you do this. You are far to intelligent not to.

          Debt service must be managed and accounted for. I have debt. Specifically, I have a mortgage (30-yr fixed at 3.125%.. BOOYA!). That is all the debt I have and it is, of course, collateralized by my home. My budget accounts for this. The first item each month is debt service. The second is non-optional payments (car, utilities, etc). The third is savings. THEN comes discretionary spending.

          But I do not believe in debt outside of a mortgage (and even then I’m not really happy about it).

          • See…….I knew it. Good synopsis. Interesting definition of yours on deficit spending….you would have a savings account but deficit spending in your budget is backed up by surplus in your savings……if only a government would do this.

            See JAC? I told you he would be the pick. His ideas of financial management are great.

  23. @ Mathius…….yes to your question….backward Arkansas deserves the same amount of Senators, electoral votes, etc. as Texas or California, or New York.

    Please explain why population density has any value?

    • Arkansas should have the same amount of electoral votes as Texas/Cali/NY?

      Oh, hell no.

      Please explain why population density has any value?

      Because we are one nation. The federal government represents ALL OF US and effects ALL OF US. If AK gets the same say as a populous state, then the PEOPLE of that state have more say per capita than you. That is not fair.

      • I also don’t think all States should have the exact same amount of electoral votes. But I also think it is unfair that large States have the ability to pretty much wipe out the votes of many smaller states. Seems like there could be a better solution than either being discussed here.

        • If you think about it, when a state is as large as say California-there are a lot of voices being wiped out in the state its self when it’s winner take all.

          • HUZZAH!

            Cali is deep-blue. But nowhere near 100%. All those red-shirts are completely ignored in the winner-take-all system.

            Same with all 5 of blue-shirts living in South Carolina and the dozen or so living in Texas.

            How is this fair?

            Everyone, everywhere, should have the same exact vote in congress.

      • Yes, Sir Mathius, we are a nation. A nation that is comprised and composed of states. The State of California or Texas has NO RIGHT to dictate terms to another state simply because the majority of one state thinks so. A populace area of Los Angeles or Manhatten has no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of Podunk, Ark. This is NOT the greater good theory at all….not in my definition.

        There are fifty states…probably soon to be 51 or 52…..A conservative vote of Montana should carry the same weight as the liberal vote of California. Sorry, my friend, but I discount the per capita argument. I don’t even like the electoral college and I line in a state that can sway elections with its electoral vote. I live in a populace state and do not think it is fair. States are geographical….people in those states are geographical with differing philosophies…..the philosophies of New York should never dictate the philosophies of Arkansas or Montana…..never.

        All states should have equal votes. To say otherwise is creating a disparate impact. In elections with 100 Senators…..make your case. if you sway 51…you win. The same should be with the House of Representatives……to do otherwise is stacking the deck.

        That, sir, is my opinion. And opinions are like butt holes………..everybody has one and can be one.

        • If the Federal government didn’t do things that the Federal government shouldn’t do-if the States had the power they are supposed to have -I think most of us would agree that the people should all have an equal vote when it came to the few things the Federal government was responsible for.

          • Perhaps.. But that is not the world in which we live.


            (1) reinstate the 10th, re-empower the states, and have a reason for states to have value and a 1:1 say in government or
            (2) stop pretending that a state is anything more than an arbitrary line on a map and assign say in government on a per capital proportional basis.

            But pick on. I’m fine with either option.

            • I’ll pick #1-But the fact that the Federal government has decided to try and make those lines arbitrary is the exact reason we need to make sure they are honored.

            • I pick #1 also. It would be an almost disastrous rollback of the federal government tho, so while I cheer such a rollback, I would support a 10-15 year period for the states to decide how they are addressing the things that would no longer be handled at the federal level. Also, major changes would have to be made to the budgets of both states and the federal to transfer all this stuff. Some of it would be pure savings, at least in some states, as many things would be abolished or run more efficiently, but regardless it will be a huge transition of money and power, one that is a long time coming.

        • I had a reply, but nothing really worth saying – you and I aren’t going to agree on this. So I’ll leave you with this:

          And opinions are like butt holes………..everybody has one

          Not everyone. (You probably don’t want to read that article).

    • This is where the problem lies as I work directly with it. The DPS is only going to be concerned about drugs and weapons. They are not concerned with illegals looking for work. Since the DPS are state troopers, they do not arrest for trespass. The locals have to do that. So the sheriff and constables have to come to get them.

      The farmer has it right. One of the biggest problems on the border is the lack of concern the illegals show for property rights and assets. They will cut fences, kill cattle, urinate and crap all over your property, leave trash, steal whatever they get their hands on. THIS IS NOT THE EXCEPTION…..they all do it. Most property owners try to be helpful but large groups of illegals have been proven to be dangerous in numbers. Especially the younger ones.

      Just because they are hungry or wanting work DOES NOT give them the right to do whatever they want in survival mode. I am sure that this farmer “glassed” them prior to anything. He was well armed and prepared to defend. But it is still his property and NO ONE has the right to trespass.

      The Federal Government will do nothing until the land owner presses charges and puts them in jail. People who do not live in the border have no idea what goes on….NONE. People sit in glass towers and office buildings and lament that borders are lines on paper and espouse all this rhetoric about the plight of the illegal….willing to look the other way when they steal to eat, cut fences and kill cattle because…..they are poor and hungry. They look the other way when barns get burned, houses get broken into, young women get raped, cars get stolen. Open up the borders they scream……they have NO CONCEPT OF WHAT GOES ON.

      This group in this article is lucky they were not shot. Most ranchers would have approached them with weapons in hand and order them off….if they do not go….drop the first one and give the order again. That is what it will take on this frontier. It is not civil and it is not fair but it is survival. The ranchers have just as much right to survival than the illegals that come across. Most ranchers are sympathetic to a point and that point gets reached in a hurry. This man still gave them water while waiting for the police and most will do the same……but you cannot become a sanctuary as the word will spread and all of a sudden you have tent cities.

      You actually have to be on the “frontier” to understand it. It is survival of the fittest down here and it is not getting any better. All these sanctuary groups that wander down here to help “with the plight of the immigrant (illegal)” are making it worse for them. It hardens our hearts completely and giving them EBT cards, in state tuition, and the like only encourages more freeloading and that is what it is……….freeloading. It is bringing them across and getting them killed but the progressive does not give a shit. Just votes.

  24. Just A Citizen says:
    • No, no, sir!

      This is them using your fingerprint, then using that to print out a high-res dummy finger which they can use to unlock the phone.

      My assertion is that the government will be (somehow) getting your fingerprint from the phones. That’s the opposite. In order to open the phone, they need your print first. I’m claiming they’ll steal your prints in order to fill out a database (although the literature is actually making this seem highly unlikely.. but we’ll see).

      Click me.

    • Two years ago, our elementary school installed a fingerprint scanner and tried to have all kids use it “to speed up the lunch line”. It was primarily for the assisted or free lunch kids.
      We refused. Did not want our kids in the school/state database. Were not on assisted lunches, so paid cash every time. I think they dropped it after a year.

  25. http://www.infowars.com/fbi-calls-half-of-populace-with-911-doubts-potential-terrorists/

    ” The FBI is instructing local police departments and “communities against terrorism” to consider anyone who harbors “conspiracy theories” about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist, in a circular released to local police departments.

    The memo thus adds 9/11-official-story skeptics to a growing list of targets described by federal law enforcement to be security threats, such as those who express “libertarian philosophies,” “Second Amendment-oriented views,” interest in “self-sufficiency,” “fears of Big Brother or big government,” and “Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties.” A newly released national poll shows that 48 percent of Americans either have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, or do not believe it at all. The FBI circular entitled “Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sleepers” says that people who should be ‘considered suspicious’ of possible involvement in “terrorist activity” include those who hold the “attitude” described as ” Conspiracy theories about Westerners.” The circular continues: “e.g. (sic) the CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands. ”

    What the hell? The US Government has just labeled 170+ million Americans as threats because they want to know the truth.

    How very odd. Perhaps they should consider, instead, the obligation they have to the people and launch a new official investigation. Maybe it would be best to hire the scientists from AE911Truth. They are all skilled reputable scientists.Their interest is in the truth. Who’s better suited for the task?

  26. Just A Citizen says:


    The REASON for States to continue to exist as co-partners in the Republic is division of power. That and while we are one nation, of STATES, we are a diverse people.

    Until recently the vast majority of Americans shared certain values that distinguished them as Americans. But those values were small in number compared to the ones that identified them according to regional or State customs and culture.

    Then of course are the geographic differences which inform a variety of needs and thus possible solutions.

    So the STATES need to be represented in the Federal Govt. That is why it was constructed in that way. The PEOPLE are represented in the House and in the respective State legislative body. The State Govt’s and overall State population is represented in the Senate. Each State has two seats to prevent large States from controlling Govt to their own advantage. Because Govt’s should have equal say while the PEOPLE have the populist body of the House.

    The division of power was swayed to the People’s side by requiring SPENDING to come from the HOUSE where the PEOPLE’s representatives reside.

    And let’s not forget, the Senate is but 1/2 the legislative body and 1/3 of the primary portion of Govt.

    Here is something to consider. TED CRUZ.

    I am watching with great interest and humor as the Dems and Rhinos try to denigrate and destroy this guys character. These attacks are because he has not “behaved” as a “Senator” should behave. They are correct. He is acting more like a Congressman than a Senator. He is the quintessential manifestation of the result of turning the Senate into just another populist Political Job.

    • He is a fire ball……

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Good morning my Texican friend.

        Yes he is, I love it.

        I watched Lawrence O’Donnell insult Cruz last night for several minutes. Calling him a moron, ignorant, on and on and on. I turned it off before he finished.

        While I listened I couldn’t help but think O’Donnell ain’t got the balls to go to Texas and say those things to Cruz’s face.

        The DESTROY CRUZ Machine is in full swing, as I predicted a month or two back.

        Meanwhile Hillary is laying low and letting her minions RE-INVENT her image in the media. The people are being PREPPED and they don’t even realize it.

        • I really like Cruz! We just need a lot more of his type. When both Dems and establishment Repubs are gunning for you, you know you are doing something right.

          • Orrrrrrrr……

            Or you know that the guy is really nuts..

            • Nope they leave the nuts alone. Note, no one goes after Biden anymore, Pelosi, Hank Johnson, etc. etc. You just shake your head and move on from their craziness. It’s when someone is right on target and threatening the status quo that the claws come out.

    • The REASON for States to continue to exist as co-partners in the Republic is division of power.

      That division no longer exists in reality.

      So either reinstate the distinction or get off my lawn!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is the purpose of the proposed amendment. Which you said you hated.

        You asked why we should return the status of State power and thus the Senate to State representation. I gave you a reason and your response is “it no longer exists”.

        Not very thoughtful of you.

        • the proposed amendment. Which you said you hated.

          You’re talking about “Liberty Amendment #2,” I presume? This would be the one where you propose changing the way senators were elected. If we can scroll that far up the page….. Yup, there it is..

          Mathius said: Whatever.

          #1 (term limits) I liked.
          #3 (messing with the Supreme Court) I hated.

          #2 (senate elections) I couldn’t care less because the whole thing is so irrevocably fraked up that I no longer care what you do to it.

          States do not exist in any “real” form anymore. So either reinstate “real” states and then it makes sense to have them be represented OR stop pretending they’re anything more than lines on a map and represent The People fairly. You obviously prefer the former and I, as stated repeatedly, could not care less. But in the name of all that’s holy, can we, as a society, please pick which side of the fence we want to be on?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I doubt it.

            We, Americans, picked a side many years ago. New Americans have been trying to change it ever since, while some New Americans have been trying to protect the original decision.

            Yes the State’s sovereignty and powers have been reduced, but not eliminated.

            The question is WHICH should it be. You say you don’t care………..I don’t believe you. Maybe I am wrong but this is one of the keystone issues that decide the form of our Republic. I find it hard to believe that you would not “care” about such an important point.

            If We the People no longer care about State power/rights/authorities, then you are correct that States will exist in name only. Dealing with mundane little issues while primarily carrying out Federal Programs and directives.

            • If We the People no longer care about State power/rights/authorities, then you are correct that States will exist in name only. Dealing with mundane little issues while primarily carrying out Federal Programs and directives.

              That is called “The Present.”

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Not quite there yet. Since you don’t care then I guess you will be fine returning the States to their Sovereign powers that existed prior to 1860.

              • Will the South be reinstating slavery / Jim Crow?

                How about pollution (which doesn’t stay within one state’s borders)?

                How does one state restrict weapons and/or drugs if/when a neighboring state is a free-for-all?

                Answer those three questions, and (unless I come up with more) you’ll have my blessing.

              • Slavery is no longer a state issue, or an issue at all in this country. All races are considered people and are therefore protected by the constitution. So, no

                Pollution which can be traced to another state will have to be cleaned up by the state or the creator of the pollution. Air would be the hardest, water and land would be much easier. Cleanup costs will be levied. However, with air, it will take some doing. Of course, that is the same issue a nation has. Border businesses or government offices on the “dump all the pollution you want states” (which I doubt will actually exist, you think too little of people) will soon find that it is cheaper to stay clean. They will either clean up or move to the interior of their state.

                Each state can restrict what they want, They will have to watch their borders just like the country does to enforce those restrictions. With the ability to go across the border as desired, persons who want drugs or guns will likely simply move. Non issue.

              • you think too little of people

                Jon, you think way too highly of people.


                They will have to watch their borders just like the country does to enforce those restrictions.

                Doing some math… Doing some math… Doing some math…

                There are 21,802.40 miles of internal border in the US.

                That’s a lot of expended resources, no? Thoughts?

              • Perhaps I do, but I find people perform better when you do that, and worse when you think poorly. Its sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meaning we are both right.

                Yes, lots of resources. So, either states will figure out that the math does not work on their over-regulatory attitudes, or they will find another way to do things. Also, not all those borders will be guarded, only the ones where they make a big fuss and play nanny-state. Those states, in my opinion, deserve the costs they levee on themselves. Hell, maybe the nation would learn something from that, rather than passing the enormous costs onto the nation that doesnt even want those regulations to start with.

  27. @Anita my love … come on, baby, I’m having fun … at JAC’s expense … and you have to admit, he is a bit arrogant. 🙂

  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    OK folks,

    I am not on here often anymore – life has been (and continues to be) busy. However, I popped in today to see how things are going here. Good to see that we still have some lively debates going on. A while back, I was asked to put together an article destroying AGW hypothesis. I MAY do that, although it is already done very well in other places, but it may be worthy of a lengthy post by me at some point in the near future.

    Before I agree to writing up such an article (which would be a long one, even with links and citations), I wanted you all to start thinking about some things to “get the ball rolling” as they say.

    So, here’s a few things for you all to think about and perhaps discuss:

    1. What is the ideal mean temperature for life on earth? The whole premise of the AGW hypothesis is that current warming (from 1850 to present) has not only been caused by humans, but it is also somehow HARMFUL. If we don’t know what the ideal mean temperature for life on Earth actually IS, then how can we know that the warming from 1850 to present is actually harmful in any way? (We know that conditions during the Little Ice Age from 1350 to 1850 were indeed harmful, disease, famine, exposure, and countless other problems that were clearly NOT ideal for life on Earth are well-documented during that time period).

    2. What is the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 for life on Earth? Photosynthesis is the biochemical reaction by which plants convert CO2 into “food”. One of the main byproducts of this reaction is the release of the “waste product” oxygen from the photosynthetic process. Hmm, wait a minute here…. animals inspire (breathe in) oxygen, and respire (breathe out) the waste product CO2… and then plants breathe in the CO2 and breathe out the waste product oxygen. GREAT STUFF, NO?

    Anyway, I got side-tracked there… over 3000 studies have shown that when there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, plants require less enzymes (therefore less nitrogen and phosphorous) and less water to perform the photosynthetic conversion of light and CO2 into carbohydrates (food). This means less need for fertilization, and more tolerance for drought. This is precisely why greenhouse owners frequently enrich the atmosphere inside of a greenhouse with (relatively) large concentrations of CO2, often exceeding 1000ppm (or 1 part per thousand). Increasing CO2 concentration to 1000ppm has been shown to increase crop yields by between 30-97% depending on soil composition, available moisture, and other factors. The important thing to note is that even in poor soils with low available moisture, crop yields were STILL INCREASED 30% by enriching the environment with CO2.

    So, what then, is the ideal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? The “organization” 350.org would have you believe that CO2 concentration MUST be kept below 350ppm, or we will have “runaway warming”. However, any reasonable botanist will tell you that at 350ppm CO2, the photosynthetic reaction becomes CO2 LIMITED, meaning that there is not enough CO2 for the reaction to proceed beyond a certain point, and then it simply stops due to a lack of CO2 (the limiting reagent in this case).

    3. Just because there is a mean temperature and a mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 that is IDEAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH, WHO IS TO SAY THAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE “NORMAL”????

    The Earth has had ice ages lasting 100,000 years, and the Earth has had “warm” interglacial periods which generally seem to last on the order of 12,500 years. One could, in fact, argue that the much longer ice ages are a far more “normal” condition for the Earth than the brief (by comparison) warm interglacial periods like the one we are currently enjoying.

    Civilization as we know it evolved during this current warm interglacial, and has tended to thrive when it is warmest. The Minoan and Roman Climate Optima are called Optima for a reason- it was the warmest during those periods and civilization thrived during those periods. The Sporer, Maunder, and other Minimums are called minimums for a reason, it was coolest (interglacially speaking) during those periods, and civilization had a hard time thriving.

    Furthermore, since at least some of you here would believe that the presence of life on Earth is due to the random cosmic accident of evolution, why would the Earth have any reason to remain in a relatively stable state that favors life? The “ideal” state for earth may not be anything like the current conditions!

    So, think about those things, and discuss away! In summary:

    1: What is the ideal mean temperature for the Earth, and WHY?
    2: What is the ideal mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 for the Earth, and WHY?
    3: Do you believe that current conditions represent “normal” conditions for the Earth’s climate system, and WHY?

    By the way, if you answered “I don’t know”, or “I will let the experts figure that out” to any of the above questions, then you are merely deferring to “authority” and not thinking this through for yourself. Authorities are frequently wrong. Before the 1970s, geologists thought that plate tectonic theory was COMPLETE BUNK, so don’t put blind trust in the “experts”. After all, X is the unknown quantity, and spurt is just a drip under pressure.

    Have fun with that, y’all. That might even bring Black Flag into the discussion… I noticed he isn’t present as much as he used to be either, but hopefully my series of questions will bring him out of hiding long enough to comment 🙂

    • I like your questions. I will ask those of other GW believers. Thats the best I got for ya….but I still want to see your article and see if there is anything I can add or stuff I havent seen… 🙂

      • Another aspect of GW is the economics. If we impoverish ourselves trying to stop CO2, we will not have the funds to build the infrastructure needed to compensate for the changes if they occur. This is covered in the book “Climate Coup” by Patrick J. Michaels.

        I doubt very much that the GW crowd can answer your 3 questions. As I have said before, if the GW crowd is so certain of their predictions, then they should be selling short land in Kansas and buying long in Alberta.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I have read in various places that Al Gore and others have been buying land in Africa, figuring that it will become temperate and fertile once the next COOLING cycle kicks in. I don’t know if it is actually TRUE or not, but it is certainly interesting if it is….

    • Have you seen this web site:

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Yup, I have indeed seen that one. http://nipccreport.com/ is pretty interesting as well. Of course, the NIPCC is part of the Heartland Institute, which will automatically mean “certain people” will completely disregard it just by association rather than read and attempt to critically analyze it, but it is still VERY good nonetheless.

    • Peter,

      1: What is the ideal mean temperature for the Earth, and WHY?

      It depends on who you ask. For Polar bears (and wooly mammoths), it’s at least a few degrees cooler. For reptiles and insects, probably a few degrees warmer. For human society as it exists today, probably a degree or two cooler. That’s because as it warms, sea levels rise and impact a huge percentage of the human population that lives in coastal areas. It also changes weather patterns that affect farming, forestry, insects and other pests.

      Our current society is based on the 1970-1990 climate (or sometime around there). So that is the “ideal mean temperature” for our human society on earth.

      2: What is the ideal mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 for the Earth, and WHY?

      300-350ppm. Again, because our current society is based on that range.

      3: Do you believe that current conditions represent “normal” conditions for the Earth’s climate system, and WHY?

      There really is no “normal” for the earth’s climate. It has been changing constantly.

      But the rate of increase for CO2 and temperature in the past 150 years is unprecedented, so current conditions are not “normal”. Yes – both CO2 and temperature have varied greatly in the history of the earth. But the historical rate of change has never been this fast.

      From 1960 to 2013, CO2 concentration increased from 320ppm to 400ppm. That’s 80ppm in 53 years.

      “…the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years…”

      Notice the difference in the time scale??

      Once again, the “normal” is what our current society is based on. Major changes will be very expensive – in both economic and human costs.

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    Will the South be reinstating slavery / Jim Crow? NO! The Federal Govt had the authority to BAN slavery prior to 1860. BUT, the States should have the RIGHT to secede from the Union if they choose. Something that was in dispute in 1860. When I say the authority of 1860 I am assuming that AMENDMENTS made after that time will still apply. But the SCOTUS and Congressional “interpretations” that diluted the State powers and created the over reaching Federal power will be negated.

    How about pollution (which doesn’t stay within one state’s borders)? Pollution will be handled via Interstate Compacts and remedy in Federal Court. Just as is often done today.

    How does one state restrict weapons and/or drugs if/when a neighboring state is a free-for-all? However they want to. California installed Check Stations at the border to keep fruit and veggies from entering the State. Perhaps they can do the same with guns and drugs.

    Answer those three questions, and (unless I come up with more) you’ll have my blessing.

    • One more: Federal Debt.

      How is this handled? Partitioned out to the states? Each state equally? Each state by population? Held by the federal government but paid off by a federal tax?

      If a state chooses to leave the union, should it have to take “it’s share” with it?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Debt is no different than Budget. Except in the case of secession.

        So if we tax on a per capita basis then the debt is per person and a state seceding would have to pay off its share on a per capita basis or else sign treaties assuring repayment.

        Originally our Fed taxes were assigned to the States on a per capita basis. I have no problem with this method. Then the State’s can decide how to tax their citizens.

        The remaining question is how does the Fed Govt enforce payment by the States.

        So I suggest a per capita tax collected by the Fed Govt directly from the citizens. But the Fed budget is for Fed programs only. Which leads to the next thing:

        OR………..We could limit the Fed budget to the taxes raised by import/export taxes.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          This causes an idea…………..how about any Fed funding of programs for particular states, as opposed to all states equally, that the funds be in form of LOANS to the States.

          No more General Fund allocations to special programs that do not have General Welfare benefits that are obvious.

  30. Boy, the world sure has Obama;s number. The Iranian Pres and Mr. Obama shake hands…and the news media, specifically the NY Post and Washington Times…..this is the new level of cooperation, they said. Headlines…….a thaw in the relationship of the United States and Iran since 1985, they all claimed….big headlines…………Obama has it right, they yelled…..

    and then….

    The President of Iran, after the headlines come out, says……well, no. there is no interest in meeting with Mr….yes he used the term Mr. Obama…at this time. It is not in the interest of Iran…..

    and now……

    the tabloids are silent as they stepped in the cow poop again.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Putting GMan’s conspiracy hat on for a moment. This might make a great novel.

      If we assume that the Soros’ of the world are in fact jerking the strings as they struggle to create their “new world order” then what would they do to fix the current problem with their “puppet” losing his popularity and “mojo”??

      Understanding Americans as they do, they would start to INSULT our President as often and strongly as possible. Hoping that the good ol’ American value of “he is OUR president” will kick in. We can make fun of him and call him names, even draw funny cartoons….but YOU better not try it or else………….

      After a year or two of this the American People start to “support” Mr. Obama, just as they did Mr. Clinton when it was felt he was being unfairly attacked. Didn’t matter that they personally thought he was repulsive, only that the attacks were unfair.

      Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder………mmmmmmmmmmmmmm !

      • Uh oh,…..you must have been snorting Charlie’s Plutonian Dust mite dust for you to don the “conspiracy hat”……………however………hmmmmmmmmmm. Using the right’s patriotism against them…..interesting theory.

  31. Just A Citizen says:


    You know the Lions are on the Jinx list when one of your best receivers breaks an arm trying to save his pizza from spilling on the floor.

    Shaking my head in disbelief.

    • Me too! Luckily, we’re at home against da Bears this weekend. It’s always somethin’. Sparty gave me heartburn last weekend too.

      Been watching Ted Cruz off and on today, he’s still at it..don’t see him getting anywhere with it though.

  32. Liberty Amendment #4
    Section 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.

    Section 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of the fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.

    Section 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

    Section 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.

    Section 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

    Section 6 : Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.

    Section 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such increase by roll call vote.

    Section 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

    • #1: AND all expenditures shall be included in the budget or shall not be paid without an amendment to the budget. All expected future outlays shall be pre-funded with accruals into a sinking fund (ie, if we know we’re going to owe 1T for SS in 15 years, we have to start putting money aside now – and that money has to be segregated from the general fund – the government may not borrow against this money, but it may be invested in domestic assets (stocks/bonds) or state/local governments by a blind-trust).

      #2: No. For fiscal hawks, this gives them incentive to sabotage the budget just to get their cuts. A better idea is that the President / Congress lose their salaries. Two repeated failures within a 4-year period shall cause all of congress to be up for election in the next cycle (provided it is more than 6 months away) or the cycle after that. A President who fails to pass a budget twice within a 4-year period shall forfeit the authority to veto budgets for two years.

      #3: What about emergencies? If we are attacked, for example.

      #4: Do you have a path to get down to that number, or are we just ripping off the band-aid? You have to do this slowly or you’ll kill the economy. Also, 17.5 seems rather arbitrary – is there a reason for this?

      #5: Wrong. “Outlays” absolutely does include debt service. That’s money out of your budget, sorry.

      #6: Fine. But then there should be a control so as to prohibit this from being an every-year thing. ie, Congress may not exercise this power more frequently than once every three years and Congress/President shall draw a diminished salary during this proportional to the twice amount by which they exceed the limit (exceed by 5%, congress is paid 10% less).

      #7: Excepting for mandatory debt payment which shall be paid automatically and in full regardless of all other budgetary concerns save for defensive war waged within US borders. (rephrasing: defensive war is paid first and in full and automatically, after which debt is paid in full and automatically – THEN anything else in the budget up to the limit – and if all the money is used up before discretionary, well then too stinking bad). Congressional / Presidential salaries are the last item to be funded.

      #8: It should phase in over time. 4 years isn’t enough for full effect, but it’s a good point at which to start. Give it 10-15 years to fully kick in.

      ADDING: #9: Upon payment of taxes, each citizen shall receive an itemized breakdown of their contributions to the federal government. In other words, if I paid $10,000 in taxes, I will receive back a note telling me that $2,000 of it was spent on war, $1,000 on SS, $500 on border security, et cetera. “Other” may not account for more than 5% of the total. The categories may be rolled up into generalities (such as “Military,” but may not obfuscate the meanings) nor may any acronyms be used. Requests for clarification shall be ‘reasonably’ granted upon request at a phone number/website listed on the note. This section shall also be binding upon the states.

      And, once again, stop giving things Orwellian names. This is the Budgetary Control and Fiscal Restraint Amendment.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The 17.5% of GDP is the average tax rate to GDP since about 1960. There are a few ups and downs but pretty much a flat line until recently.

        So if one assumes that a long term avg represents the general level of taxation acceptable to the voting public then you can use this avg to establish a general level of taxation MOST Americans will find acceptable.

        This of course allows for growth in Govt spending as GDP grows, but it would demand reductions in spending when GDP shrinks. Something the Keynesians would have a cow over.

        And as TRay said before, the name of the amendments is a reference to Mark Levin’s book. They are HIS titles so it is proper to use them here. We are discussing, or at least using HIS amendments as a starting point.

        • So if one assumes that a long term avg represents the general level of taxation acceptable to the voting public then you can use this avg to establish a general level of taxation MOST Americans will find acceptable.

          Fair enough.

          I would, however, suggest that The People are fine with higher levels if/when they get more in return and would, conversely, demand lower rates if they got less. So it’s not really so simple. But, yea, fair enough. Make it a round 20.0% to make me happy and you’ve got a deal.

          Something the Keynesians would have a cow over.

          Yes… true.. and I see some serious problems with this plan on Keynesian grounds. The only thing I would suggest is that, if you accept my suggestions to tie performance to congressional salaries, there will ALWAYS be room in the budget. Most likely, Congress will be forced to try to end the boom/bust cycles as they are no longer in their interest and, thus, stimulus spending would not be required.

          Plus, my suggestion to phase in over 10-15 years should soften the blow sufficiently.

          But maybe that’s just wishful thinking? I really don’t like debt..

          And as TRay said before, the name of the amendments is a reference to Mark Levin’s book. They are HIS titles so it is proper to use them here.

          Screw Levin.

          HIS titles are Orwellian, meaningless, and designed to drum up artificial support not predicated on the laws themselves. This is manipulative, deceptive, and should be illegal.

          I’m going to propose the America-is-Awesome-USA-is-the-Best-Iran-Sucks Act. Nevermind what it does, just go ahead and sign on the dotted line.

  33. Liberty Amendment #5
    Section 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

    Section 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

    Section 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

    Section 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

    Section 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

    • 1: No.
      2: Yes.
      3: No.
      4: I don’t think so.. but I’m open to your arguments.
      5: Sure, why not.

      • MAthius, you surprise me some on number three. I know the arguments from Charlie….but he has an excuse…he chokes on Plutonian Dust Mite dust,,,,,I do not believe I have heard your arguments as to the “death tax” because that is what it is. Or,,,,if you have offered argument before, I missed it. Would you please enlighten the gentleman from Texas as to what your argument would be on an estate that has already been taxed twice as to why there should be a death tax?

        • Well, first, a disclaimer: My father as well as one of my best friends are both estate lawyers. It is possible, however unlikely, that this has influenced my thinking on the topic.

          The answer goes like this: I’m a liberal, what can I say? I like to tax the rich. And, since the exclusion is $5mm+, you have to be pretty damned rich before one penny of your estate becomes taxable. This is a fantastically progressive tax, which makes it nearly ideal in my world-view.

          It’s a nice way to generate revenue, but even more importantly, perhaps, it prevents the formation of an American Aristocracy. These huge estates get broken up over two or three generation by the estate tax. If you are born into the top 20%, you will almost certainly die there. If you are born into the bottom 20%, you will almost certainly die there. There is something seriously flawed in The American Dream™ when economic/social mobility is a worse here than in India. The estate tax partially serves to force the unworthy* members out of the top percentiles and funds a government which (theoretically) helps the worthy* members of the lower percentiles rise. It restores some limited circulation to this process of letting the cream rise to the top.

          But, mostly, I just like taxing people.


          * to be clear, what I mean by worthy/unworthy is that they are productive, work hard, are smart, take good risks, etc. That is, you deserve / don’t deserve your success rather than you just had the fortune/misfortune to be born to the right parents. Does this make sense? You should be rich / poor just because of luck of the draw** – you should be rich / poor because you earned it.

          ** to be clearer, I don’t object to people being undeservedly rich. But if someone is going to be poor, I’d prefer it be good-for-nothing loafer heiresses like Paris Hilton rather than some poor schlub working two minimum wage jobs and living in a trailer.

          • First, a $5M estate is not filthy rich given the level of inflation over the last 30 years. A small family business, farm, etc. can easily amass that amount of assets and savings. Also there are many legal ways for people to avoid estate taxes such as setting up trusts. So the tax is unevenly implemented and does cause the dissolution of many small businesses. One saying my grandfather had was rags to riches in 3 generations and back in another 3. The grandchildren and great grandchildren often squander their inheritance so the aristocracy eventually dissolves. Also many of the super rich redistribute their funds through philanthropy which is often more efficiently spent than when spent by government. My home town (pop. 900 in 1970) had a Carnegie library in 1903. The Rockefeller Trust funded The U Chicago, Rockefeller Inst in NY, another Univ. in Atlanta, it attacked and solved hookworm in the US as well as many other things. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are know dispersing some of their funds.

            • Quit stealing my thunder………I had the thought first….you just were faster on the fingers.

              • Sorry Colonel for stepping on you. I looked up the price of crop land as was shocked. Had not realized it was over $10K/acre. So one section of good crop land is worth more than $6.4M. (Sorry never could understand why accountants use mm = million when the metric system is so well defines unit multipliers and has been around as long as the country.)

          • But, do you not see that this type of tax is doing exactly the opposite of what you desire? Example, the family farm or ranch that is employing people. The sons/daughters work hard along with their parents to preserve the farm and ranch…..most farms and ranches are worth far more than 5mm. How, in your viewpoint,do you extrapolate the Paris Hilton’s from the families that build something and then have to sell just to pay taxes…creating corporate farms and ranches in the process, thereby creating the very thing that progressives are against. You end up creating the very thing that creates the problems in Congress…..large corporate entities that buy influence…eliminating mom and pop.

            Would you support raising the tax free floor to 10mm or 15 mm…..in this inflationary world, that is not much and certainly protects the little guy…..I am familiar with the IRS codes that involve estate taxes and I am very familiar with the tax planning and estate tax planning that can protect assets…..put in place by influence peddling by the very people that can afford to do it. In the meantime, the small guy or family that works 40 years and wants to pass along something they built and they all work in it for the future…gets hammered.

            You said: “But, mostly, I just like taxing people.”
            D13 laughs: ” You need new bait to reel in a fish on that statement. I know good and well your position on taxes and that statement is utter B S….(notice flag fluttering to ground).

      • I am not sure what the correct percent of GDP the government should be able to tax. A 15% max sounds reasonable. I would like to see the federal government shrink substantially since many of their activities are unconstitutional. In the unlikely event they shrink, then % of GDP should also shrink. I have always thought it very wasteful for the feds to overtax the citizens and then return money to the states.

        I would add a clause that would permit Congress to suspend the tax and spending caps with a 2/3 vote for multiple years during a Congressionally declared war. Authorizations for hostile activities such as we have had since Dec. 11, 1941 do not qualify as a declared war.

        I would be OK with a national sales tax if it was offset by reductions in the income tax and/or elimination of the corporate (legal person) tax. I am not OK with a value added tax as there is too much paper work involved. A sales taxes imported goods as well as domestically produced goods thus making off shoring of production and profits less rewarding.

        As for the deadline for filing taxes, this would require a change in fiscal year for individuals from July 1 to July 1. I would put the filing date as the last day of October. This is close enough to the election but gives the tax payer a little breather so he can study the candidates. The tax bill will still be fresh in his mind.

  34. Another tidbit for you Obamacare supporters…….

    Seems that I remember something in a campaign promise. ” You get to keep your insurance and you get to keep your doctors…well, we now know that is bull shit. BUT……I also remember a campaign promise……” Preventative care is what is going to bring the overall cost down over the years. Catch the illness early…….”, the Messiah said.

    RUT ROH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Effective January 1, 2014, on the individual mandate…..

    Mammograms and prostate screening…….NOT COVERED? Oh,wait………it is covered by Obamacare……his “panel, which had no cancer expert on it, has now determined that mammogram screening…will not be covered until age 50 and ends at 74….regardless of family history. PSA and prostate coverage for the guys does not begin until age 55 and ends at 70.

    Seems to me that this is not preventative…….but perhaps I am mistaken. You can get friggin birth control pills and cell phones ( yes, cell phones are in Obamacare) paid for but not cancer screening until………..50? I wonder how many deaths are from breast and prostate cancer……that would be detected prior to this age?

  35. You gotta love tort reform….as previously mentioned in the past, Texas instituted tort reform some years back…..which included the elimination of lump sum awards, loser pays, and award limits. The result, lawyers left Texas in droves, especially personal injury lawyers. We sued to see on TV, a plethora of ads for personal injury…now that plethora has been reduced to only one or two ads. In addition, Texas can also hold parents responsible for dependent children’s actions.

    There have been recent awards given where parents were help liable for dependent children in traffic accidents and thefts and personal injury (fights, etc). An interesting statistic has arisen…..since the enactment of this law, the teenage deaths and caused accidents have dropped to historic lows…..from the hundreds per year to well below 100 per year…..there has been an increase in the last year because of texting while driving, but when a parent is help fiscally liable, more attention seems to be paid to safe driving and parental control.

    as Mathius says………….jus’ sayin’

    • uh oh…caveat…..there is sentence that did not read correctly…..tort reform INSTITUTED award limits…..it looks to read unlimited…but that is not the case.

  36. My seemingly never ending computer problems are over. I’m now typing on a bright shiny new one 🙂

    • and my problems are continuing…I’m seeing a new one in my immediate future too.

      • Take it to a shop. Unless it’s ancient (5+ years old) it’s almost certainly just an accumulation of clutter / registry error / spyware / malware. A good tech can clean it out and restore you to brand new condition in a day or so for much less than the cost of a new computer. It’s not impossible, of course, but it’s much less likely that you have a legitimate hardware issue requiring a new machine (and even if it is hardware, they still might just be able to swap out that one part).

        PS: Do not be fooled by sites like MyCleanPC – you want to take it to somewhere like Staples or a dedicated computer shop. Also, don’t trust your neighbor’s kid or a family friend – odds are they’re an idiot and will make things worse. Trust a professional.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Mine was 8 years old and I wanted better video play anyway.

          • Yea.. 8 years old.. time to take it out to the woodshed.

            Or, you know, the firing range. Whatever floats your boat.

            • Firing range

              • Somehow suspected that might be your answer.

                Fun fact, the old PowerMac G3’s were made out of the same material as bullet proof vests. That’s not to say they’re actually 100% bulletproof (but then, neither are vests). Still, it’d be interesting to see how big a round you needed to punch a hole in one. My guess is a 22 would be enough at close-ish range.

        • I have been thinking about doing just that, taking it to a shop. I’ve tried the free clean up sites but they only go so far. This is my second Dell laptop in 5 yrs. I have serious screen light jumping around stuff going on, same as the last Dell. It also won’t shut down correctly..hafta just click the power button off..hate doing that! I like the computer itself but two in a row with problems? Gimme a break. I’m going to buy my son a Chromebook so I guess I’ll see what a repair guy can do for mine.

          • Don’t buy a Chromebook – ever. If you must buy a PC, buy a Samsung (far and away).

            But, if you can afford it, buy a Mac. There’s a bit of a learning curve and the price is somewhat steep, but you’ll get a better and more reliable product which will last you years. My humble opinion, anyway.

            • hmmmm….don’t rain on my parade. Couple of his friends have Chromebooks and he’s determined have one..they’re only $250, not saying $250 is THE reason, but at the rate he downloads viruses, er, games..$250 ain’t bad. He’s been on a MAC for 3yrs, that was handed down from my Mom who had it for at least 6 or 7 that I can remember… the school is really pushing for all the kids to have a computer of their own..lots of lessons getting put online..in high school already…eeek! It was mandatory for my daughter to start at MSU with a computer..but high school now? I’m getting old fast!

              • Pretty soon it will be elementary school.. such is the way of the world.

                My little one is almost 15 months. We don’t let her watch TV or play with computers, but she still manages to get ahold of my phone every now and then – I had to put a password on it because she figured out how to call her Nana. 15 months old.

                Kids today..

              • Ugh! Let the poor baby watch PBS in the morning. Sid the Science Kid and Dinosaur Train ROCK!!! Sesame Street sucks anymore 🙂

  37. Just A Citizen says:


    I am trying to give due to your thoughts on reducing the power of individual States.

    So I ask the Gentleman from NY, also know to have inhabited that county called SoCal, what he thinks the proper role and authority of the individual States should be.

    • Excepting the Republic of Texas of course.

    • what he thinks the proper role and authority of the individual States should be.

      (1) Nothing whatsoever.
      (2) It should do anything/everything it wants so long as such power is not reserved to the federal government nor to the people. (see Amend #10). In such a case, it should raise funds, provide social safety nets (or not), build roads (or not), conduct drug policy, conduct marriage policy, determine alcohol policy, police themselves, regulate themselves, provide health care (or not), maintain well regulated militias, determine firearm policy, police their own borders, determine their own education policy (or lack thereof *cough* Texas *cough*), provide for the common good (or not), set tax policy (or not), determine local/state voting procedure/requirements, et cetera.

      I’m fine with either, but pick one.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are still avoiding meaningful discussion. Neither of your options is what we have Today.

        Yet you have indicated you like today’s situation. Maybe I am wrong there but I got that impression..

        So lets try a different approach. WHAT in your view is the PROPER Role of the FEDERAL Govt. Your number 2 option appears to leave NOTHING for Federal Control.

        • You are still avoiding meaningful discussion.

          I’m going to have to disagree with that.

          Neither of your options is what we have Today.


          Yet you have indicated you like today’s situation. Maybe I am wrong there but I got that impression..

          Not… wrong… but not right.

          I’m OK with today’s situation. I’d be a lot happier if we, as a country could decide whether we want to be one nation or fifty. Either way suits me, but I’m ok with the status quo because, well, I was born in a big powerful state and now live in a different big powerful state. If I lived in Maine,* I’d be much less happy.

          *I’d also be much less happy about freezing to death.

          So lets try a different approach.

          No, that’s the same approach.

          WHAT in your view is the PROPER Role of the FEDERAL Govt. Your number 2 option appears to leave NOTHING for Federal Control.

          Not “nothing.” But very little. Just the enumerated powers plus what the Amendments give them.

          The “Proper” role of the federal government depends on whether it’s the “real” government or just an umbrella for the 50 “real” governments (states). I was born in 1983, not 1783, so I’ve never known the later option. I can theorize to my heart’s content, but it doesn’t really help.

          I don’t believe there is a “right” answer or a “proper” answer. Both options have pros and both options have cons and saying this is right and that is wrong is akin to asking whether Bach or Mozart is better.

          But what’s NOT better is refusing to pick Bach or Mozart and playing both songs at the same time.

          Either states are real independent government unified under a narrowly defined federalist body or they are just anachronistic lines on a map. Answer that question and I’ll tell you what their “proper” powers/roles should be.

          • Ok, I will go with Real independent Government…….

          • Just A Citizen says:


            WHICH enumerated powers do YOU believe are appropriate for the Federal Govt?

            Given a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign States.

            • WHICH enumerated powers do YOU believe are appropriate for the Federal Govt?

              Given a [TRUE] REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign States.

              Ok, basically, the role of the feds in this version is to:

              (1) Regulate EXTERNAL interactions – wars / tariffs / treaties / piracy / etc.

              (2) Facilitate internal cohesion – common money / legal arbitration

              (3) Facilitate certain specific Greater Good services – post office / patent office

              (4) Ensure that states do not trample The People’s Constitutionally protected rights – Federal / Supreme Courts and, if necessary, national guard action (ie, Little Rock 9)

              (5) NASA. Just because.

              (6) Butt out of everything else.

              Know that, however, I would consider that the proper role of a state government in this scenario to be pretty expansive and pretty much akin to what the federal government currently does now (only with less invading of other countries).

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Thanks for the answer.

              Now on to the next one.

              What enumerated powers for the option of a Single Nation State? Assume the States continue to exist so explain what you consider the State role in such a Nationalized Govt Structure.

              • The converse:

                States’ job is dealing with mundane little issues while primarily carrying out Federal Programs and directives.

                Federal government is pretty much exactly as-is.

                Senate is abolished. House converts to truly proportional representation (1 vote per ~689k people regardless of state).

                People shut up about states’ rights.

  38. Canine Weapon says:

    Who here loves deer?

  39. @Mathius…..I will shut up about Texas and State’s rights…..you give up per capita representation and go with equal votes for all states….deal?

  40. I have got to search for the Chris Matthews interview I just saw trying to defend Obamacare’s exchanges….Just out on Rueters…..

    Instead of one insurance policy, there are now going to be three tiers. This means that the Feds are now going into the insurance business. Different costs for levels of health care…sounds like a private source to me.

    Tier 2,,,,aka: mid level tier……the cost will average $344 per person…..so a family of four will pay for a mid level tier or $16,512 per year. However, the fly in the ointment, according Rueters is that the levels of care per tier have yet to be determined and will not be until December.

    How interesting this is…..the Feds killed the private student loan programs and took them over and raised the interest rates and made over 20 million in the first year, Sounds like capitalism to me. So, are we now going to have the Feds backing up on their affordable universal single plan to offer three plans with varying amounts of care. Sounds like capitalism to me.

    Matthews, by the way, had no answer other than he doubts the figures. But they are now posted figures…am searching for them. Matthews also could not explain away the fact that the young people will pay the fine, which is substantially less the first two years but the penalty exceeds the level 2 tier in year three…for personal mandates. He also could not explain why there are exemptions in the health care and why the corporations, unions, federal workers, and Congress are delayed and/or lifetime exempted when the personal mandate is not.

    On the other side…Nancy Pelosi today slams Cruz for criticizing the ACA saying that he should be censored for revealing what was in the bill, before it was enacted, in a filibuster. EXCUSE ME? She said that a filibuster is not the forum for exposing a bill before it was enacted…..and the people of the Northwestern province of Mexico (aka California) elected this person.

  41. Mathius says: ” I had to put a password on it because she figured out how to call her Nana. 15 months old.

    Kids today..”

    Cell phones today….car tomorrow. Heh heh.

  42. Mathius, You say you want to tax people, yet you are not in government. Can you explain your thoughts, which are psychopathic at worst. 🙂

  43. Just A Citizen says:


    A little history for your consumption. I know, just another crazy wingnut claiming that our economic system is actually the socialism you crave rather than the capitalism you believe it to be.

    “The Webbs and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics in 1895. Faculty and students have included Bertrand Russell, John F Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, George Soros, Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin, Harold Laski (a later head of the British Fabian Society), George Papandreou, David Rockefeller and John Maynard Keynes. The Webbs visited the U.S. in 1888, and in 1889 Webbs’ Socialism in England was circulated at Harvard and other schools in the U.S. In 1905 they incorporated the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and by 1908 there were Fabian chapters at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania. But Harvard was considered the “transmission belt” for socialism — and specifically its Department of Economics. The most influential theory within the Department of Economics was that of Keynes. Keynes’ socialism advocates strict control of the means of production through the supply of credit and money rather than ownership advocated by Marx. This way the Fabian goal could change everything while maintaining the outward appearance of the sheepskin.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/never_call_socialism_by_its_right_name.html#ixzz2fwupAUH2

  44. Go green…….Recycle Congress

  45. Liberty Amendment #6

    Section 1: All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone-reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    Section 2: All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.

    Section 3: the Committee shall consist of seven members of the House of Representatives, four chosen by the Speaker and three chosen by the Minority Leader; and seven members of the Senate, four chosen by the Majority Leader and three chosen by the Minority Leader. No member shall serve on the Committee beyond a single three-year term.

    Section 4: The Committee shall vote no later than six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee. The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.

    Section 5: If the Committee does not act within six months from the date of submission of the regulation to the Committee, the regulation shall be considered disapproved and must not be implemented by the Executive Branch.

    • Section 1: Make it 10 years and you’ve got a deal. Plus stagger the dates so it’s not like year 10 rolls around and everything is up all at once. Also, I think the bar for RE-authorizing should be a lower – 40% to re-authorize. This means that only truly unpopular agencies expire and not just ones that a single party wants to kill for political points.

      Section 2: Don’t forget to peg that to inflation. What programs does this cover specifically? Maybe I’m just confused – can you clarify? Also, must he submit individual programs one-at-a-time, or all-at-once, or what? Also, once approved, they’re good in perpetuity?

      Section 3: .. and shall be prohibited from ever serving again on said committee. (not just contiguous). Additionally, I think that it shouldn’t be 4 from the majority / 3 from the minority – it should be 4 from the ‘other’ party and 3 from the Presidents’ party (with provisions in cases of 3rd party or independents – I could write this out, but you get the gist – the committee should be hostile).

      Section 4: A regulation which fails may be resubmitted with alterations and shall be voted on within 3 months.

      Section 5: Negative. The committee is there to exercise oversight. If they are unwilling to proactively block regs, then the regs should be automatically approved.

      ADDING Section 6: Similar to the Supreme Court, the majority of the committee must pen an opinion as to why they chose to authorize / reject. The minority must do likewise. Dissenting / concurring opinions are also permitted. But each member must have his name on one such statement.

      Section 6A: All statements are to be published online. Further, they shall be available by request (at cost) in written form.
      Section 6A.I: The site shall be designed such that a citizen may easily search opinions by topic, member, year, vote type, et cetera. Text of opinions shall be available via PDF as wel as plain text.

      Section 6B: If a conflict is identified (ie, a member approves one year and rejects the next), there shall be a petition section which may be used to compel said member to justify his/her actions in writing to be published along side his previous votes. 25k signatures shall be required to compel a response.

      Section 6C: A successful petition drive by 5% of the voting-age population shall suffice to permanently remove a member of the panel. He shall be replaced within 30 days by a member of the same party.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Most of this is not necessary.

      With all of these amendments we should ask……..What is the problem to be resolved.

      In this case it is the establishment of law via regulation that goes outside the legislation passed by Congress.

      So all that is needed to remedy that is to require Congress to APPROVE by majority vote ALL Federal Regulations promulgated by the Executive Branch that are related to implementing laws passed by Congress.

      Personally I am less concerned about a monetary threshold than some agency establishing Criminal thresholds for things that harm nobody. Like jail time for cutting to much firewood.

  46. Fort Worth, Texas…dit dit dit…….

    Young man from Illinois recently moved to Fort Worth, Texas, and decides that he needed a little money and food. and walks into one of the local McDonald’s. The lad pulls out a pistol with a roomful of people and demands money and food. Women, kids, patrons……he pulls the trigger, according to people, five times with no resulting BANG and all of a sudden found himself looking into the barrels of weapons of no less than four customers and one cashier. Flustered he yells and runs outside where is is captured. One mother of three had her weapon and asked why she did not kill him, she said I felt sorry for him because he became so flustered, he forgot to chamber a round in his pistola. When other customers were asked, they said there was no need as the situation quickly became controlled. Had the youngster tried anything else, he would have been dropped like a lead weight. Then he runs outside and fires his pistol in the air thinking that will scare people and keep them from chasing him. LOL.

    Moral of the story.

    1) If you come to Texas, you must understand that it is gun country. Mother’s of three have weapons and know how to use them.
    2) If you pull a weapon, BE SURE TO CHAMBER A ROUND.
    3) Do not yell and run flustered from the store, you could die tired.
    4) Do not think for a second that firing a pistol in the air is going to stop anybody…it will not. Emptying your chamber in the air was not the thing to do but it did save your life.
    5) Responsible gun owners and concealed carrying patrons knew that the situation was under control and there was no need to gun the man down.
    6) CCL holders know when and where to use a weapon. They were not trigger happy red necks.

    The only one that did not chase the would be robber out of the store was the mother of three. She simply put her gun away and finished ordering her dinner and the kids went on the play ground. The cashier put HER gun away and starting taking money…..the other patrons were given free Big Macs and everyone but the robber went home happy…..the robber became a guest of the county.

    ****Since the perpetrator was a black lad…wearing a hoodie,…..if he had been gunned down, I am quite sure the headlines would have read ” Young poor black man trying to eat gunned down by gun enthusiasts.”

  47. Oh…the Navy Yard shooter……killed all those people with a BROKEN shotgun. Had one person been armed………….(sigh)…………………………………….This man was able to reload a BROKEN three round shotgun enough times to kill numerous people.

    (Where is Charlie’s OY VEY when I need it)

    • Oh…just heard that the NAvy YArd shooter claimed that he was being controlled by low level electromagnetic waves….making him kill.

      ***ok, you conspiracy theorists….take this one and run with it.

      • That’s why you have to wear the aluminum pyramid hat at all times!

        • Tinfoil won’t help you.

          You really need something with a ferrous metal in it. Think less tinfoil and more Magneto.

          And don’t forget to wear it while you sleep.

      • The idea that you can control manipulate someone’s brain with electromagnetic waves magnets isn’t that farfetched, actually. Scientists have developed what they call the God Helmet which will give a person (though not necessarily a devout atheist) a deep feeling of peaceful spirituality and a sense that God/angels are with you. Different stimulation can cause anger (citation).

        What would be really surprising however, is if someone were manipulating you in this manner and you knew about it. Scientists right now do it by by putting a helmet on your head and turning on powerful electromagnets – I would never permit someone I didn’t trust to do this to me. Additionally, the effect is generally pretty short lived.

        If DARPA (who else would it be?) had figured out a way to do this remotely, however, or at a distance (they haven’t), then the effect should be invisible to the subject. See Anosognosia.

    • The guy’s crazy / psycho. What do you want from me?

    • In the comments section, someone makes an analogy to the Nazi doc’s like Mengle. Not far off the mark at all. there is something in their make-up that allows them to divorce themselves from reality. people are not people they are “subjects”.

      Over the years I have met a number of people whose personal lives are out of control this includes their living conditions. Professionally or out of the home, they appear perfectly normal yet, they are hoarders or worse. A young lady I once went out with seemed like quite a catch until I was invited to her apartment. Wall to wall filth with the roaches running the place.She dressed impeccably, had a great sense of humor, was very intelligent and had wonderful manners. She apparently never saw what I saw. I exited quickly, scratching all the way home.

      if we did not know what he did and he had, on his own, applied to the Clinton Initiative or to the Gates foundation. I wonder how he would have been received.

      • doc’s like Mengle. Not far off the mark at all. there is something in their make-up that allows them to divorce themselves from reality. people are not people they are “subjects”.

        I just finished reading QBVII (for the 2nd or 3rd time). I’m not sure if you’ve ever read it (or seen the movie), but it’s wonderful – Leon Uris is one of my favorite authors even if he does let his bias show.

        • Seen the movie. Anthony Hopkins, right? Read Exodus and Battlecry years ago.Certainly enjoyed those two books He knew of the things he wrote about which is kind of nice. Michner is the same way.

          • Hopkins is right. Exodus and Battlecry are great. If you liked Exodus, I cannot offer a stronger recommend then Mila 18 – it was excellent. About the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

            Michener is another of my favorites. I read:
            Texas, Mexico, Chesapeake, Hawaii, (all excellent) Drifters, Caravan, (good), Poland, The Source (painful). Probably a few others I’ve forgotten in there. At 1k pages a piece, it’s a big commitment to pick up one of his novels.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    A brief history and explanation of what we are up against. So as we try to construct “solutions” we need to keep in mind where we want to go, where we are, and just how far apart those two points are on the map.


  49. Just A Citizen says:

    The PC police keep on marching. The ultra sensitivity will drive us insane. I predict that if this keeps going it could eventually spawn violent backlash.


    • Admittedly his comments weren’t “that bad,” but how is is “PC police” to refuse to patronize / tolerate bigotry?

      Whenever you see a comment like this, try replacing the word gay or homosexual with “black” or “interracial” (as the case may be) and see how you feel about the sentiment and whether this is someone you would feel good about giving your business to?

      “I would never do (a commercial) with a homosexual interracial family, not for lack of respect but because we don’t agree with them.”

      Sure it’s “soft” bigotry, but that doesn’t mean we should let it go unchallenged.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    A good article on the need for Republicans to rethink what they are doing. But of course, some don’t want to rethink because they are doing what they want to be doing.


    • Politics AND Star Trek? It must be my lucky day!

      What the Republicans SHOULD do is eliminate gerymandering.

      Yes, this will hurt them.. a lot.

      But it’s like pulling off a band-aid. Right now, the only thing a Red Shirts has to worry about in his/her district is a Red-er Shirt primarying them. Fix that, and everyone gets pulled to the center (as it should be), the crazies are marginalized on both ends (as it should be), and if you have a winning argument, you can take it to the independents and win.

    • Oh, and further reading: He’s also against gay couples adopting. Because, I don’t know..

      Screw him. He made his bed and I have zero sympathy.

    • Ebony and Black Violence
      By Colin Flaherty

      White liberals may deny black mob violence but many black people are way past that: Today, its all about white racism.

      Ebony magazine’s latest issue is a good example of that. Ebony is upset that some are trying to score political points from the recent shooting of 13 people on a Chicago basketball court.

      Black violence in Chicago takes other forms as well,: some of it black on white. Some black on Asian. Or black on gay. Or black on young. Or black on old. Black on rich. Black on poor. Black on illegal immigrant. Black on tourist. Black on doctor. Black on lawyer. Black on Indian Chief? I don’t know about that one.

      But Black on woman is also popular. So is black on storekeeper. Some violence is individual. Some in a mob. Much of it is documented in White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.

      The reasons for this tsunami of violence are legion — and oft repeated: Family. Poverty. Housing. Education. Do I need to go on?

      Ebony magazine says No.

      Its easy to forget how influential Ebony is. “Ebony and Jet have been permanent fixtures on coffee tables in African-American homes for many years,” said Magic Johnson.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/ebony_and_black_violence.html#ixzz2g1UAmY6y
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      • While the election of Obama has been devastating to the whole country, hell, world for that matter, probably those that are most negatively affected are the black community. How different it could be in confronting and fixing the problems that are so common place within the black community if the first black president was someone of the Thomas Sowell, or even Ben Carson caliber.

        • Had the same conversation this week with an Obama supporter. He’s thinking about buying a gun for self defense…..I’m playing nice (for me) and simply trying to convert him from all those liberal urges….

        • Yup. you hit that one. He, the pres, has NOTHING in common with ordinary black folks nor their experience in this country. He is the antithesis of MLK’s Content of character vs.color of skin speech.

  51. Yep!

    “Ted Cruz stayed awake for at least 21 hours to debate Obamacare. Obama couldn’t even stay awake to find out what happened in #Benghazi”

    • Do you think cheap shots like this help or harm your side?

      Or is it just cathartic to trash the President?

      • A tweet I read. Simply the truth. That’s all.

        • Oh, if we’re just sharing tweets, here’s one I found funny:

          “I just dropped my iPad on the ground and shattered two glass corners. What to do?does one call Apple to come and pick it up or do I take it?” – Martha Stewart

          followed by:

          I am still waiting for an apple rep to come pick up my IPad. – Martha Stewart

          I love the utter cluelessness here. Yes, if you drop your iPad, someone is going to show up from Apple to pick it up for you.

  52. I would recommend everyone to read the ACA…….it plainly sates that if you go to the exchange…you do not get to 1) keep your doctor 2) pick your hospital, 3) pick your surgeon.

    • Suggest you read D. Kieth Mano’s “The Bridge” an oldie from the ’70’s but prescient. The logical outcome for what the “scientists” say is that we all discorporate voluntarily. For the good of the planet of course. Betcha I could start a movement now using trash like that to start the ball rolling. After the first few thousands off themselves the thing should take on a life of its own.

%d bloggers like this: