What is the right/wrong way to tell a person that his words are hurtful? Is saying that homosexuality is a SIN really such a surprise? While the LGBT community wants accepted into society and to have equal rights, the very avenue they need and use to champion their cause have come under attack, by non other than themselves.  It’s the use of free speech and not being allowed to be censored that has helped the LGBT make the gains in equality that they so desperately seek.   I have no problem with gays being treated equally across the board when it comes to common things like schooling, employment and all other social needs and wants that heterosexuals experience.  But I also respect religions and the beliefs that people carry because of those religions.  Sins don’t come with categories like 1 star up to 5 stars like a game show, they are ALL just sins according to the teachings of the Bible.   If the Bible says that beastiality is a sin, then so be it.  If the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, then so be.  The LGBT community cannot change the Bible, nor can they claim the higher ground by demanding censorship.  While to many, this may seem like a minor issue, it’s part of the destruction of American’s rights to be free.  Both the Christians and the homosexuals have a right to their opinion. and both have the right to be heard.  Many say that being heard can carry consequences, and that has been proven true.  Many say that being gay can carry consequences as well, and that has put them on a list for favoritism in the eyes of many, including the courts, many times wrongly.   Neither has the right to NOT be offended, and that’s where far to many act hypocritically in defense of the other.  Just a few words to get this Open Mic thread going.  I will post a Christmas thread on Christmas Eve so we can all share pleasantries and Christmas wishes, even with our Jewish friends  🙂



  1. BL and Dale 🙂 Saw your comments.

    • I think it’s a bad time of year for the politically correct Left to pick a fight with Christians, they’re already fed up with the Atheists. Just sayin 😉

  2. Actually, I do not see this as a religious issue. From what I understand, he was asked a question…he answered the question. Let A&E do their thing….the Dynasty family will probably stick together and another network will pick them up. The market place will correct. I have never watched the show and, quite frankly, it does not appeal to me but I know plenty that do watch it. Just leave it alone…it will prosper just fine.

    Now, I wonder if A&E will retract?

  3. Interesting issue on Obamacare…….now, they are saying the minimum standards no longer apply if your insurance rates went up…..you can now have a lesser plan that does not meet the new criteria for Obamacare…..

    The hits keep on coming….lol

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The biggest problem with this whole thing is that the law as passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court has now been arbitrarily, whimsically, and fundamentally changed BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH whenever a “problem” comes up.

      As far as I know, the Executive Branch doesn’t have the authority to actually do that.

      Where are all of the Democrats who, only a few months ago, were going around yelling “IT’S THE LAW OF THE LAND”. Shouldn’t those same Democrats be telling Obama he cannot violate the Constitution by making Congressionally unapproved arbitrary changes to the LAW OF THE LAND by Executive fiat?

  4. @ BL……..re: drones………rumor has it that the technology is pretty simple. The drone, at least the EPA drones, are only a carrying mechanism and that you can recover the digital camera and simply plug it in with a USB cable and watch what they have been photographing. Rumor has it, of course. Heh heh!

    • Yeah, I was really just mentioning something else on the list steadily growing and working against our freedoms…be it another avenue of surveillance.

      Right now it is one thing. What will it be in 20-30 yrs?

  5. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Beware if you are deemed eligible for Medicaid under the “ACA”, you may end up leaving all of your assets to the government instead of your heirs when you die!


    • Good morning, Peter. Actually, this is nothing new. There are many states that administer Medicaid and tie assets to Medicaid. Some with pretty tough restrictions….what the Federal plan does is no restrictions.

      My own state of Texas does it but with some pretty tough restrictions on the government to prevent abuse. I have read very thoroughly the provisions of Medicaid in Texas and I agree with it. It is one of the reasons that Texas can control its cost and remain in budget, which it has to because of a constitutional requirement.

      The main difference is that the Fed rule, which does not affect states that administer a state run Medicaid program, has no restrictions whatsoever. For example, in Texas, you cannot dispossess related disabled persons, after the principal dies….but the Federal system does not have that restriction.

    • The Colonel’s right – nothing new here in the slightest.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Buck and D13,

        While I agree that it is “nothing new”, the problem is that it is a provision which MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE OF whether it is “new” or not. There are potentially millions of people who are suddenly becoming medicaid enrolees due to the ACA, and most of these people have no idea what they are getting in to. Many of the people getting enrolled in Medicaid under the ACA may actually own their own homes, and even have other assets that would fall under this provision.

        I would be willing to bet that if you polled ALL of the people already on Medicaid, 95% of them would be completely unaware of this.

        • Ignorance of the law is no defense.

          Though I do agree that there are serious ramifications here that really should be better advertised at the onset.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            When the Medicaid regulations are probably 1500+ pages long, and the regulation about forfeiting your assets to the government when you die is probably buried in the middle of page 963, is it really fair to expect that people signing up for Medicaid be aware of every provision and regulation involved?

            Basically, you need a qualified financial adviser in order to make sure you don’t screw yourself under the ACA, and most people either can’t do that or won’t realize that they SHOULD be doing that.

            • As I said, I agree that there are serious ramifications here that really should be better advertised at the onset.

              Also, a number of states are taking steps to curb the medicaid lien issue.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Yes, a number of States are doing what they can to alleviate or eliminate this, which is good. I am in essential agreement with you here on this issue. The one thing which I think SHOULD happen (which will NEVER happen) is that the healthcare.gov website should make it PERFECTLY CLEAR to anyone getting newly diverted into Medicaid that this provision exists and could well affect their assets. The so-called navigators should also be instructed to inform people of this as well.

                As I said, never gonna happen.

              • Agreed

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Buck….I rarely wish to respond to any of your comments but your statement “Ignorance of the law is no defense” needed a response. When polled, I believe that NO legislator and including the executive branch read it in its entirety and understood the ACA when they passed it into law. To quote Pelosi, “You have to pass it to see it” Then please explain to me our governments defense when each day brings new revelations and the administrations excuses of how they didn’t know or understand how the law was written. Out of honor they should repeal it, but there is no honor among thieves.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As far as Censorship goes- A&E is part of a private company and is free to hire or fire anyone they like, for whatever reason; however, it is possible that the members of Duck Dynasty could claim religious discrimination in the suspension of Phil Robertson (which I think would make a VERY interesting court case btw…)

    However, as a private entity, A&E is free to pander to whatever market it wants to. If I were the Robertson Clan, I would simply sever ties with A&E completely and market the show to other outlets, with the stipulation that they can air whatever views they want to on “their” show. Some national cable network will pick them up, and whichever network that is, the ratings of that network will go through the roof.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      When I thought of censorship, I was referring the the LGBT crowd. Just saying

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Well, the LGBT crowd are a bunch of hypocrites, so of course they are FOR censorship of any ideas they don’t agree with, but they are completely AGAINST censorship of any and all ideas that they DO agree with.

        As Black Flag would no doubt point out, their entire philosophy is based on a contradiction.

        • But the same could be said of Christians. One of the arguments I’ve seen is to boycott A&E, a private business, for a business decision they made. Last year the Christians were standing up for Chik Fil A, saying it was their right to run a business as they see fit, again, claiming their religious rights were being trampled! Can’t have it both ways- what works for one, works for the other, no matter whether the Christians believe it or not.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            @Matt L

            Many Christians have a philosophy that is based upon contradictions as well, so this really shouldn’t be any huge surprise.

  7. Here’s a fun game to play whenever pondering questions like this. Simply replace “gay” with “black” and “gay sex” with “interracial sex.” Then things become much clearer. The things he said were, frankly, abhorrent. Was the the worst offender? Nope. Not even close. Further, from what read he seems rather well spoken and was making some effort to be nuanced, so I appreciate things as far as they go. But that doesn’t excuse the bigotry. (and let’s not forget that he also opined that blacks were better off before all that civil rights nonsense). No, screw this guy.

    That said, as I’m sure we’re all aware, A&E is a private company which can fire these guys for whatever reason it wants. Even though this is a show about backwater hicks, and no one should be surprised that a backwater hick thinks and says these things, the publicity of such a view becomes a stigma on the station in its entity. I cannot fault the station one iota for defending itself and seeking to sever ties.

    By the way, I’d like to take this opportunity to mention that Louisiana, deep in the heart of Red-Shirt country, “sodomy” is still illegal. That’s right.. those small government types still have laws on the books against men doing the horizontal mambo together. Because, you know, freedom and liberty and don’t tread on me, ‘MURICA! USA USA! NUMBER ONE! ‘MURICA F**k YEAH! TREE OF LIBERTY AND STARS AND BAR AND BIG GULPS AT THE PIGGLY WIGGLY! IT’S A GIRL, MY LORD, IN A FLAT BED FORD SLOWIN’ DOWN TO TAKE A LOOK AT ME! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      It is a stretch to say that expressing one’s religious beliefs is “bigotry”. It is also a stretch to equate “gay” with “black” or inter-racial. Last I checked, “gay” is not a “race”.

      • It is no stretch at all.

        If your religious beliefs are bigoted, then they are bigoted. The origins of such beliefs (“that 3,000 year old book says so!”) does not change the facts. That same book tells you that women are worth less than a man. Does holding this opinion not qualify as wrong simply because the old testament says so?

        And, no, “gay” is not a race. But it is a collection of people whose lives have meaning and value and who want to form bonds and love one another. And to disparage them as an entire class because of some backward ideology is no worse than saying the same of “all black people” or “all Jews.”

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Most “current” definitions of “bigotry” list “intolerance” as a synonym. As such, don’t members of the LGBT community have an equal responsibility to be tolerant of a person’s religious beliefs? After all, I thought that we had freedom of religion??? If your religion says that being gay is a sin, and you are a devout follower of your religion and truly believe that being gay is a sin, should you not be allowed to talk about that???

          I don’t think you should have any logical expectation that anyone is necessarily going to agree with what you are saying, but shouldn’t you still have the right to say it as a believer and as a proponent of your religion?

          You have natural rights – you have the right to life, you have the right to liberty, and you have the right to pursue happiness.

          No where does it say anything about “you have the right not to be offended”.

          If a percentage of the population (whether it be 5% or 95%) is offended by what Phil Robertson said, they are free to do any and all of the following:

          1. Write him, call him, email him, or find other ways to inform him that they find his ideas offensive.
          2. Tell A&E (his employer) that they find his views offensive
          3. Write blog posts, articles, tweets, etc. telling people that they find his views offensive.

          Etc. etc. etc.

          What NO ONE has the right to do is tell him that he cannot say what he said. Each and every one of us can say whatever the hell we want, even if it the most offensive thing in the universe. However, we also should realize that there can be consequences for us saying whatever the hell we want to say.

          For example, when I am at work, it would probably be a VERY bad idea to say certain things, because I could get reprimanded or even fired, depending on what I said.

          Free people in a free society have literally thousands of ways to deal with offensive people, without having to resort to censoring them or creating “laws” to deal with the situation.

          • As such, don’t members of the LGBT community have an equal responsibility to be tolerant of a person’s religious beliefs?


            This is a very tired trope.

            We do not have to be tolerant of your intolerance. Stop it.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Yes, actually you DO have to be tolerant of anyone and everyone’s intolerance. That is what freedom of speech IS my friend! Certainly, you can use YOUR OWN freedom of speech to loudly denounce my intolerance, but YOU CANNOT PREVENT ME FROM SAYING WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT TO SAY.

              If you try to prevent me from saying whatever the hell I want to say, then it is YOU who is being intolerant.


              • That is what freedom of speech IS my friend!

                Not at all.

                Not for one solitary second is this correct.

                Freedom of speech means that the government cannot muzzle you.

                It does not for one half of a heartbeat mean that you can spew whatever nonsense if floating around in your backwater brain onto a national platform and face no consequences.

                YOUR OWN freedom of speech to loudly denounce my intolerance, but YOU CANNOT PREVENT ME FROM SAYING WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT TO SAY.

                I can’t prevent you.

                But you should know when to shut up.

                Then again, maybe you don’t know when you should shut up. And then you’ll go ahead and spout off. And I can’t stop you. And I wouldn’t stop you even if I could.

                But I sure as hell will punish you for it.

                I’m not the government. I’m a consumer. And I will make you pay if I can.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              You see, it is very easy to demonstrate that you do not want freedom, and you also do not want equality. If someone believes that homosexuality is offensive, it is not ok for them to express that, but if someone thinks that homosexuality is fine and dandy, they should be free to express that all they want…

              Why the contradiction? The contradiction is unnecessary. Let both people express their views, and let other people decide for themselves which view is valid and which view isn’t. That’s called FREEDOM!

              For example, let us just postulate for a moment that Phil Robertson’s religious belief is ACTUALLY CORRECT.

              If it is actually correct, then would he not be doing others a SERVICE by expressing his beliefs?

              Or, on the other hand, let’s say his beliefs are actually COMPLETELY WRONG… is his expression of his beliefs (even though they are wrong) actually HARMING anyone, simply because he expresses them?

              (By the way, I know that you will already argue that the answer to that last question is “yes” even though the real answer to that last question is clearly “no”).

              • If someone believes that homosexuality is offensive, it is not ok for them to express that, but if someone thinks that homosexuality is fine and dandy, they should be free to express that all they want…

                No, it’s not “OK” to express it. But neither is it (nor should it be) illegal.

                They’re perfectly “free to express that all they want” and they’re perfectly free to suffer the backlash of other free men and women who consider him a bigot.

              • For example, let us just postulate for a moment that Phil Robertson’s religious belief is ACTUALLY CORRECT.

                And further let us postulate that the sky is purple, pigs fly, and Charlie is action a peacock who has somehow learned to type.

                If it is actually correct, then would he not be doing others a SERVICE by expressing his beliefs?

                Sure. If that were the case, then yes. But that STILL DOESN’T MEAN that the rest of society (who find his views abhorrent) should sit idly by.

                If they find his views abhorrent then, even if correct, he SHOULD suffer the backlash of vocalizing such an unpopular opinion. If he is right – WHICH HE’S NOT – then the truth will eventually out.

                Or, on the other hand, let’s say his beliefs are actually COMPLETELY WRONG… is his expression of his beliefs (even though they are wrong) actually HARMING anyone, simply because he expresses them?


                Suicide amongst homosexuals is substantially higher than non-homosexuals, especially amongst teens. Want to guess why?

                How do you think people feel, doing nothing wrong, but constantly being told they’re abominations?

                What beliefs, do you think, are fueling the Westboro types?

                What happened to Matthew Shepard?

                Bigots need to be shamed and held accountable for the evil they unleash on the world. Do you think these evils come from a vacuum? People like this are the SOURCE of it. It is their backing which legitimizes the hate, the violence, the bullying, and the self-loathing of INNOCENT homosexuals whose only crime is having a different sex-drive than this guy and his old book consider normative.

          • If your religion says that being gay is a sin, and you are a devout follower of your religion and truly believe that being gay is a sin, should you not be allowed to talk about that???


            You should believe whatever you want, but you should SHUT. UP. ABOUT. IT.

            Just like, if your religion informs you that black people are inferior, you should also shut up.

            Don’t spew your idiocy and poison. Keep it to yourself, and let the next generation have a shot at being free of such stupidity.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “but you should SHUT. UP. ABOUT. IT.”

              NO NO NO Mathius, don’t be a fool. Even if you think my beliefs are stupid, wrong-headed, and bass-ackwards, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO SHUT UP ABOUT IT.


              Once you hear my stupid ideas, you are free to TELL ME TO SHUT UP, but part of being free is that people have every right to spew idiocy, just as YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT to tell people that you think their ideas are stupid backwards hill-jack idiocy.

              I personally thought that quite a bit of what Phil Robertson said was exactly as you characterize it – bigoted hill-jack stupid garbage. That doesn’t mean I think he should be PREVENTED FROM SAYING IT. However, he should, 100% of the time, have to FACE THE CONSEQUENCES for saying it, such as losing his job at A&E if they think that his behavior warrants it.

              I fully support Phil’s right to say what he said, even though I disagreed with a vast majority of what he said. I also fully support A&E’s decision to “indefinitely suspend” him, and I also fully support the LGBT community in making complaints about him. Further, I fully support the people who are agreeing with Phil Robertson and saying that their religious beliefs mirror his. Any and all of that is perfectly fine.

              • Seems you’re not reading what I’m writing either..

                Mathius: “but you should SHUT. UP. ABOUT. IT.”

                Peter: NO NO NO Mathius, don’t be a fool. Even if you think my beliefs are stupid, wrong-headed, and bass-ackwards, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

                Where am I forcing you to do anything. I’m suggesting that you SHOULD shut up. Not that you HAVE TO shut up.

                I feel I’ve been pretty clear on this.

              • That doesn’t mean I think he should be PREVENTED FROM SAYING IT


              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                You most certainly didn’t make it sound like a “suggestion”… more like an order.

                If you believe that the next generation should have a chance to be “free of such idiocy” then it is your responsibility to explain to them why my bigotry is wrong-headed and ignorant. It is not my responsibility to shut up.

                You have to remember, I am basically fairly libertarian/anarchist in a lot of my views. Therefore, I totally agree with you that it would be nice for the next generation to be free of such idiocy – I simply realize that the only way to do that is to allow someone else to spew such idiocy and then explain to the next generation why it is idiocy.

                When someone says “What he just said should not be tolerated”, what does that mean??

                If it means that we should denounce him because he said it, fine.

                If it means that he should not be allowed to say it in the first place, I have a real problem with that.

          • You have natural rights – you have the right to life, you have the right to liberty, and you have the right to pursue happiness.


            And I have the right to condem your bigotry.

            And A&E has the right to worry about its business interests.

            And, in worrying about its interests, it has the right to can your hick-ass.

            Why do you seem to believe that this bigot has the right to pursue his happiness, but that everyone else just has to accept the consequences of his actions like lambs to the slaughter without trying to protect their own interests?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              My friend, you MUST learn to read my posts more carefully, because you are agreeing with me and then accusing me of saying things that I didn’t say in order to claim that you are disagreeing with me!!! PLEASE STOP IT!

              1. You have EVERY RIGHT to condemn what you see as my bigotry (or Phil Robertson or whoever), and you should do so! I highly encourage this!

              2. A&E has the right to worry about its business interests, and has the right to hire and fire whoever it wants to for whatever reason. If they feel that Phil Robertson’s comments about Homosexuality are offensive, inappropriate, and/or harmful to their business, YES INDEED they should shit-can his hick-ass as quickly as possible.

              I NEVER EVER SAID that people had to accept what the bigot said and not try to protect their own interests. FAR FROM IT. If someone says something offensive, and you feel like they should be called out because of it, BY ALL MEANS CALL THEM OUT! Make them look like idiots!

              Just don’t try to LEGISLATE what people are allowed to say and what people are NOT allowed to say!

              If you think that someone is talking like a back-water hick dumbass, by all means, LET THE WORLD KNOW that you think they are talking like a back-water hick dumbass, that’s perfectly FINE!

              • Sorry.. juggling this same argument with multiple people.. sometime I get muddled.. mea culpa..

                1 & 2 agreed.

                3 also agreed even though you didn’t number it.

                Just don’t try to LEGISLATE what people are allowed to say and what people are NOT allowed to say!

                Who is trying to legislate this? Where? Give me an example. No one is trying to make this illegal anywhere.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Every hear of HATE SPEECH LAWS and HATE CRIME LAWS?? Yes indeed, people are trying to make things like this illegal in various countries, even here in America.

              • Buck! Calling Buck!

                Hate speech, if I’m not mistaken, only kicks in when it incites to violence.

                Hate crime is an exacerbating circumstance to an existent crime (as opposed to an extenuating circumstance). That is, if you graffiti on a wall, you’re committing a crime. If your graffiti meets certain specifications, it is WORSE and so is punishable by harsher sentences. But you still have to commit a crime.

                NO ONE IS TRYING TO MAKE IT A LAW THAT YOU CAN’T SAY HATEFUL BIGOTED THINGS. They have laws against DOING certain hateful things.

              • Mathius, you are correct in that:

                1) Hate speech requires some element of inciting imminent violence; and
                2) Hate crime speaks to the motivation behind the crime thereby resulting in a harsher sentence.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                You see, the problem with hate speech is that whole element of inciting “imminent violence”. How do we CLEARLY define imminent violence? What if someone, TODAY, were to go out and assault a gay person, and claim that they attacked the gay person because of reading the interview given by Phil Robertson to GQ?

                I know legally it would be a stretch, but I am sure that even if they couldn’t make the “hate speech” charge stick to Phil, someone might try to bring a civil suit against him!

              • I’m not an expert in this area by any stretch of the imagination but I believe there is an intent requirement behind hate speech. At least I would hope there is.

                Either way, I agree with you that it is a dangerous area.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                There is one addition to Buck’s ruling of what constitutes “Hate Speech”. 1) “Hate speech requires some element of inciting imminent violence” true, but the additional phrase in the hate speech legislation is that it has to be targeted against a “protected individual or group”

          • What NO ONE has the right to do is tell him that he cannot say what he said.

            No one is saying that he didn’t have the right to say what he said.

            No. One.

            What they are saying is that he’s a moron for saying it.

            What they are saying is that he SHOULDN’T HAVE said it.

            What they are saying is that he should have declined to answer that. If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all – didn’t your mother ever teach you that?

            What they are saying is that, having said it, he made his own bed and now gets to lay in it.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Yup, I agree with everything you just said there. However, the topic was CENSORSHIP for today, and I am merely expressing my belief that although he is a moron for saying what he said, he should not be CENSORED from saying what he said.

              Should he be “punished” by being indefinitely suspended from the Duck Dynasty show by A&E, absolutely. Should the LGBT community vociferously complain about what he said? Absolutely. Should other people who agree with Phil be allowed to say publicly that they agree with him if they believe that homosexuality is a sin? Absolutely.

              • Peter, I’m a bit confused by this whole circle of a conversation you and Mathius have going. Who is censoring Robertson here?

                It seems we all agree – he had the right to say what he said, A&E had the right to sever ties with him as a result, the gay community has the right to say what they want about Robertson as well.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                See Below. The topic today was “Censorship”. I am not accusing anyone here at this website of wanting to legislatively censor Phil Robertson, but I do believe that there is a percentage of the population that would like to see laws passed that would prevent someone from saying exactly what he said in his GQ interview.

              • Understood — there probably is a decent percentage of people that would like to legislatively censor Robertson. I’m in full agreement this is not the way to go.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      There are actually quite a few States which still have anti-sodomy laws on the books. They are silly laws, but then again, an alarming percentage of laws are silly… just look at the ACA!!!

    • Is there a different number of chromosomes in a black person? I never knew that. C’mon, that’s like an apples and oranges argument.

      • What does chromosome count have to do with whether two people love each other?

        By the way, males and females have the same number of chromosomes (46)

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Mathius said,

    “I can’t prevent you.

    But you should know when to shut up.

    Then again, maybe you don’t know when you should shut up. And then you’ll go ahead and spout off. And I can’t stop you. And I wouldn’t stop you even if I could.

    But I sure as hell will punish you for it.

    I’m not the government. I’m a consumer. And I will make you pay if I can.”

    Hang on there Mathius, you just AGREED with everything that I said about freedom of speech, but you CLAIMED THAT MY DEFINITION WAS WRONG.

    I don’t get it!

    • We seem to be talking in circles then.

      You agree with me.

      Moving on.

      The only sticking point, as I just posted above is that you seem to be arguing against (presumably liberals) muzzling him by law. (maybe I imagined you’re saying this?)

      Who is advocating for this?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        As I said above, so-called hate-speech and hate-crime laws make attempts to muzzle people like Phil by law.

        You see, with a thing like “hate speech”, where do you draw the line? Certainly, if Adolf Hitler says “Jews are inferior and all of them should be fed to the gas chambers”, that would be an incredibly valid example of hate-speech. However, should Hitler be legislatively prevented from saying this, or should he be roundly condemned for saying this without having to resort to muzzling him legislatively? I realize that this is a really extreme example, but it is an extreme example that REALLY HAPPENED, which is why I bring it up.

        Certainly I think that there are SOME (albeit not a huge percentage) people who would classify what Phil Robertson said as “hate speech” and would wish him to be punished by the legal system just for saying what he said.

        I am not saying that YOU PERSONALLY would advocate for that sort of thing – we seem to be in fairly good agreement on this issue for the most part, although I do disagree with a few things which you said earlier; but in the main I think we are basically on the same page here 🙂

        • Try to understand that hate speech is about ACTION. That’s why they can legisate it. That is, when Hitler called for the extermination of the Jews of Europe, he wasn’t “just talking” he was doing something. That is, he was inciting violence. CAUSING the violence. He wasn’t simply pontificating that the Jews should die, he was TELLING PEOPLE TO KILL THEM.

          Just like a mob bass can’t call it “protected speech” if he orders a hit.

          It’s not “just words,” but the instigation of violence.

          The courts have been very clear – you’re allowed to say whatever you want under the protection of the 1st Amendment UP TO THE POINT of clear and present danger or inciting violence.

          This guy, moron that he is, is not inciting violence. There are no laws against saying what he said. No such laws would survive a court challenge. No one is proposing such laws.

          There may be a TINY lunatic fringe who wants to try to pass such a law, but they’re insignificant and have no chance of success.

          There is a slightly larger group who grumble “there outta be a law.” But they don’t mean this in any serious way, of course.

          So, I ask you, WHO is trying to LEGALLY muzzle this guy. Who? Give me a name of a single politician, organization, et cetera. Hell, for this one, I’ll even accept some random blogger in his parents’ basement or, worse, a celebrity.

          I have no doubt you’ll find one or two.

          But probably not much more than that.

          And I’ll even make you a trade: for every source you site of someone saying we should seriously legislate against this guy’s right to say stupid things, I’ll find you three saying that the things this guy is saying should be the law.

          The “right” is up in arms over the muzzling of this guy and NO ONE IS MUZZLING HIM. I saw a montage this morning of Fox hosts claiming this guy had his First Amendment rights violated. It’s absurd.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    If I have a RIGHT to speak what I want then there can NOT be any “ramifications” or “consequences” caused by others as a result of that speech.

    My ownership of property does not cause others to react to my ownership of said property.

    My right to defend my life does not cause others to react to my self defense.

    So the error here is either that SPEAKING is NOT A RIGHT, or.

    Those claiming it is OK to REACT in a manner OTHER THAN SPEECH in response are WRONG.

    Mathius: A&E should not be FEARFUL of its business interests because there should be no action taken against it. As I have said before, “Boycott” is the use of force.

    • Sorry JAC, but there most certainly can be ramifications and consequences for one’s statements. You say what you want; I have the right to criticize your statements or not to do business with you or to refuse to associate with you as a result of your thoughts. I also have the right to call Mathius and say “Hey, you’ll never believe what JAC just said – you shouldn’t do business with him anymore”. And Mathius has the right to tell me to go to hell and keep doing business with you or to similarly refuse due to your statements.

      We’ve been down this rabbit hole before. You didn’t make sense last time either! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I made clear and perfect sense before. I argued that boycott was COERCION.

        I provided the proof that it was, in the form of definitions and the historic use of boycott.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Certainly, in boycotting a commercial entity, you are trying to coerce that entity to behave in a way which you wish it to behave.

          However, if I am your customer and you treat me like crap, I have every right to tell anyone and everyone that you treated me like crap and I also have every right to recommend to anyone and everyone that they stop doing business with you as well, at least until you stop treating people like crap. That’s the way the free market works. If I am lying and you didn’t really treat me like crap, and my lying causes harm to you or your business, then that is a different story.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You can not do business with me if you choose.

            You have no “right” to ask others to do the same.

            When you cross the line from personal choice to attempted recruitment you have moved to trying to use FORCE upon me when I have done nothing to you deserving of such force.

            Free markets have nothing to do with issues of ethics or moral conduct. Except that they will reflect the presence or absence thereof.

            Note you example involved me actually acting a certain way towards you. Not simply “speaking”.

            • How is it “force” to use my words to ask a person to join me in not buying from you?

              That makes no sense.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                You are conspiring to use Coercive force on your target.

                Why would you ask someone to join you if they have not been harmed?

                Your using their “empathy” as a tool against them. You are trying to muddle their mind by playing on their empathy and sympathy.

              • What FORCE?

                There is no force.

                I am conspiring to refrain from give them money in free market transactions.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Coercion = Force

                You cannot escape this reality.

                You are conspiring to cause them harm in hopes of MAKING them behave the way you want or to PUNISH them.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I would love to get Kent’s take on the Boycott issue, but I dunno if he hangs out around here much anymore….

        • Of course a boycott is a form of coercion — in organizing a boycott of your business I would be attempting to reach out to others, educate them about my grievances and try to get them to participate. Each individual then has the right to decide whether they agree with me (and stop doing business with you) or disagree with me (and tell me to go to hell and continue to shop at your store.

          What, specifically, is wrong with this? Isn’t this the free market at work? Or is it that in your free society you would be seeking to limit individual freedom?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            My “free society” would not be forcing you to do either.

            My hope is that YOUR ethical standards would prevent you from acting in a manner inconsistent with the defense of your person and property.

            So someone spouts anti Homosexual things. What is the actual harm? NONE. You want to spourt anti anti Homosexual things back at them, no problem.

            But when you take the next step to inflict harm, especially for the purpose of FORCING them to comply with YOUR views, then you have crossed the ethical line.

            One that moves us from the realm of “free will” and “non force” to one where we allow force to “impose” our will upon others.

            As I said to Peter, this is not about “free markets”. The Market is free of Govt force then it reflects the people who participate.

            So how is it that this one and only “RIGHT” carries this BURDEN of Suffering the Consequences that no other RIGHT seems to have.

            • What is the actual harm? NONE.

              Tell that to Matthew Shepard or the hundreds of gay children bullied to the point of suicide.

              Oh wait. You can’t. Because they’re all dead.

              Read this article. Sure, it’s a little maudlin, but go ahead. Tell me that this kind of thing doesn’t hurt anyone.


              • Just A Citizen says:


                We are talking about a person SPEAKING about their beliefs.

                NOT about actual action which is what bullying is all about.

                Words can be used to bully, but the nature of that speech is beyond expression of one’s belief system or their opinions. It always involves verbal attacks directly aimed at the victim.

              • It is his speaking of those beliefs – and of people LIKE HIM (*cough Michelle Bachman *cough*) speaking of those beliefs which lead to things like this.

                What? You think this comes out of no where? You think these kids just magically acquire a sense that these gay kids are evil sinners who deserve to be bullied? And you think the bullied kids magically acquire the idea that they deserve it? And you think that the school magically just happened to have a policy in place which made it dangerous for teachers to try to help these kids. And you think, when the kids tried to organize a safe support organization to help them, that it just magically failed to happen after being being so staunchly (and maliciously) opposed by the local paper which called it a sex club?

                One group of kids is led to belief it should bully another. The victims are led to believe they deserve it. The authorities are prohibited from interfering in any meaningful way. The kids are denied the ability to form an organization to support each other. And how many suicides are a result?

                Where does all this come from?

                Letting assholes (*clink* another quarter in the jar) get away unchallenged and unpunished by public backlash when they say things like this – especially on the national stage – is tantamount to condoning their message. It tells homosexuals that we, as a society, consider them to be immoral, evil, inferior, sinners, et cetera.

                And we don’t.

                Because gay people are human beings of equal worth to any other human being, and that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality regardless of what any backwater bumpkin may have have to say about it.

                And I, and others, choose not to sit by with our fingers in our ears singing zippity doo-dah and pretend that it’s just peachy for him to have his say.

              • All that the backwater bumpkin said is that he thought it was a sin. Why do you have such an issue with that? Much less in a magazine article that is not exactly on the teenage reading list.

                One more thing. The elitist, professional, prejudiced Left like to paint the scraggly-bearded Robertson as a redneck rube from “Loosiana.” He’s anything but.

                He was an outstanding athlete who beat out Terry Bradshaw to quarterback the Louisiana Tech University football team, where he attended on a football scholarship (Bradshaw, you may remember, went onto to quarterback the Pittsburgh Steelers to four Super Bowl titles; Robertson went duck hunting).

                He has a bachelor’s degree in Physical Education and a Master’s in Education, and he spent several years teaching in Louisiana schools. The success of Duck Dynasty came on the success of Robertson’s ingenuity in developing the various duck calls upon which he built a successful franchise.

                I’ll take a rube like this any day over some sniveling progressive who prefers the authoritarianism of Stalin over the compassion and tolerance of Christ.

                Backwater Bumpkin is damn smarter than you or I will ever be, 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                When you condemn speech due to your paranoia over what might come of that speech you create the case for Controlling Speech.

                You see the action is wrong, the speech obviously caused the action, therefore the speech is wrong as well. Thus we have established the moral/ethical standard from which ALL forms of Controlling Speech are now JUSTIFIED.

                How do you know that Homosexuality is NOT a Sin or is NOT IMMORAL??

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I am going to have to agree with Buck here. If JAC says something I don’t like, I am free to cease any and all association with him, including any business relationship that we may have. Further, I am free to tell others that JAC said something I did not like, and I am free to recommend to others that they cease doing business with JAC.

        I am NOT free to legislate that no-one can do business with JAC, and I am NOT free to legislate away JAC’s right to say what he said.

        I don’t see how Boycott is force, because as long as the boycott is freely organized and executed, there is no use of force involved. Certainly the people involved in the Boycott are trying to use their leverage as consumers to force a business entity to do something (or stop doing something), but it is still the choice of the business how it reacts (or doesn’t react) in the face of a boycott. As a consumer, I am free to either participate in a boycott, or not participate in a boycott, depending on whether or not I agree with the reasons for it.

        Let’s say, for example, that A&E had decided not to do ANYTHING in reaction to Phil’s GQ interview. Further, let’s say that some people were calling for a boycott of A&E to try to force A&E to fire Phil (or whatever). As long as I, as a consumer, have a choice whether to support the boycott, or the choice to publicly support A&E in their decision to do nothing, I see no problems there.

        If the government were to step in and shut down A&E because A&E refused to fire Phil, then I would have a big problem with that.

        • 100% Agree.

          I’d just like to harp on one point.

          If the government were to step in and shut down A&E because A&E refused to fire Phil, then I would have a big problem with that.

          It seems to be being suggested that there are efforts being made to do this – that is, that people (presumably liberals) are trying to legislatively ban Phil from saying stupid things.

          I have seen zero support for this implication. Liberals are condemning him but, as far as I know, no one is trying to pass such a law. Yet “the right” (yourself included) seems to be up in arms. I can’t figure out why.

          Can you clarify? Please cite and actual statement from someone on the left as support.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I do not believe that CURRENTLY the government is trying to acquire the power necessary to shut down A&E if A&E refuses to fire Phil. All I am saying is that there is a small minority of the population that WISHES that the government had the power to do so, and that scares me enough already!

            But no, I am not insinuating that anyone is currently trying to legislatively ban Phil from saying stupid things, and I hope it stays that way.

            • So “the right” is up in arms because.. some “small minority” of people “wish” that the government “had the power” to muzzle this guy?

              Did I get that right? That’s what all the outrage is on Fox and the Blogs?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                I dunno what all the outrage is on Fox and on the Blogs. I try to ignore that @%#! but anyway… both sides like to try to make hay out of issues that are essentially non-issues… nothing new there.

  10. interesting ! I’m so curious as to what is so offensive when a Christian says that Homosexuality is a sin. So Fuc%!*g What? The Muslims stone the gays to death or simply lop their heads off. If Robertson was Muslim, we wouldn’t hear a damn peep from the Left. Know why? Because it’s trendy to attack Christianity these days. The left know the Christians are a forgiving bunch, so attack away. But a Muslim, well, they ain’t so forgiving and rather violent, but they live in this country with actual hate in their hearts for gays. Everyone here knows this, the LGBT knows this, and not a damn peep, ever! Cowards!

    Now, I feel better. To those who actually know a little about the teaching of the Bible will also know that NO ONE is without SIN. That’s right, no one. Homosexuals just might be sinners, so are lawyers and politicians and bank CEO’s and on and on. SO WHAT?

    Mathius, you have won the BIGOT of the day award! Congratulations. PR never said one single thing that would lead anyone to believe he treated gays differently than anyone else, but rather the exact opposite. The Left have this whole matter twisted into total LIES once again. Get a grip, would YA! 🙄

    • I’m so curious as to what is so offensive when a Christian says that Homosexuality is a sin. So Fuc%!*g What? The Muslims stone the gays to death or simply lop their heads off

      I don’t understand why you got upset that I robbed your house. Other people would murdered your family.

      Just because one thing is WORSE does not excuse the other.

      By the way, “The Muslim” do not stone gays homosexuals to death or simply lop off their heads. SOME Muslim extremists do this. There are 1.4+ BILLION Muslims and the vast majority have to desire to murder anyone.

      If Robertson was Muslim, we wouldn’t hear a damn peep from the Left.


      It’s luck of the draw who gets shamed for saying stupid things on any given day. Phil hit the winning numbers on the media lottery and got his ass handed to him. It had nothing to do with his religion other than the fact that his interpretation of his religion led him to a biased and backward opinion.

      Know why? Because it’s trendy to attack Christianity these days. The left know the Christians are a forgiving bunch, so attack away.


      We’re 70% or more of the population and control almost all the wealth. We control all the media and once spent a few weeks demonizing a community center calling it a “terror tower” because it was near the WTC. We have a hissy fit when people try to say “happy holidays” instead of “merry christmas” and we insist for no goddamn reason that both Santa and Jesus were white. To seriously run for President, you have to offer constant protestations of faith and belief in the lord Jesus Christ – your personal savior. Muslims are “randomly” selected at airports at 5x the rate of other faiths. But yea… Christians are the ones getting attacked.

      The left know the Christians are a forgiving bunch, so attack away. But a Muslim, well, they ain’t so forgiving and rather violent, but they live in this country with actual hate in their hearts for gays. Everyone here knows this, the LGBT knows this, and not a damn peep, ever! Cowards!


      SOME Christians are forgiving.

      SOME Christians are not forgiving.

      SOME Christians are start raving murderous lunatics.

      SOME Muslims are forgiving.

      SOME Muslims are not forgiving.

      SOME Muslims are start raving murderous lunatics.

      I’d be willing to bet that if you could control for the fact that we (predominantly) live in a rich country that bombs the poor countries in which they (predominantly) live, you’d find that there’s not a lick of difference between Christians and Muslims in terms of how “forgiving” they are.

      To those who actually know a little about the teaching of the Bible will also know that NO ONE is without SIN.

      If Jesus died for our sins, but we live our lives without sinning, then Jesus died for nothing.

      PR never said one single thing that would lead anyone to believe he treated gays differently than anyone else, but rather the exact opposite.

      Did anyone accuse him of treating homosexuals differently?

      My understanding is that he’s accused of saying abhorrent things.

      The Left have this whole matter twisted into total LIES once again.

      Oh. Please, do tell me, what lies are those?

      His statements are a matter of record.

      • Mathius, after living in Saudi Arabia for almost a year, I can tell you FIRST hand you don’t have a clue about Muslims.

        Have you actually read the whole article in GQ? Let me guess, NO!

        Did anyone accuse him of treating homosexuals differently? YES, YOU and many others. Being a bigot requires action, which would mean he treated them differently 🙂 Dude, your so full of contradictions today you should consider changing your name to Contradiction 😆

        • Did anyone accuse him of treating homosexuals differently? YES


          I demand you provide a quote.

          Being a bigot requires action


          Being a bigot requires stubborn intolerance of thought or opinion. I can’t help the fact that you’re relying on a definition that’s 60+ years out of date to play word-games with me. I called him a BIGOT because, by the MODERN CURRENT definition, he is one. I did not call him a bigot by your 1950’s definition (which seems to require action) because I do not subscribe to your asinine insistence on assuming that words mean the same thing they did 30 years before I was born.

          • Being a bigot requires stubborn intolerance of thought or opinion.

            So, the LGBT, GLAAD and YOU are bigots by your own definition. Thanks, you are forgiven. 😉

            • I hope you’re enjoying your word games.

              • You said ‘goddamn” up a few posts 😉 I let you slide the last time but I am keeping track.

              • Thanks Anita.. I’ll put a quarter in the swear jar and try to be better 🙂

              • I’m clearly quite correct Mathius, just read it with an open mind. In the last two days I have stated that A&E aren’t doing anything wrong, I stand by that. I’m just pointing at another example of the intolerance of the gay movement to what others believe. They chose to attack freedom, you chose to jump in line and walk lockstep with them. It is what it is. The LGBT movement will not tolerate anything against them, religious or not. THEY are the bigots in this case. That’s by YOUR written definition. I’m just agreeing with you.

            • Go GMan! Doin a fine job! 😉

  11. Gonna go back to my 1950’s dictionary here. Back then, people had a more common sense attitude towards language and words and the meanings of words were not subject to change on a whim or fad.

    bigot n. One who is blindly attached to a particular creed and intolerant of the beliefs and practices of others. -ed adj. Intolerant, especially in matters of religion. Syn. Fanatical, intolerant, oppressive, prejudiced, tyrannical. Ant. Broad-minded, tolerant.

    bigotry n. Religious intolerance: fanaticism.

    intolerant adj. Bigoted, unable to endure

    intolerance n. Lack of forbearance, narrowmindedness with regard to the opinions and beliefs of others; inability to endure, as, intolerance of noise or violence.

    Now if you take the time to read and study this you can pretty much see that anyone using the word bigot to describe someone’s opinion is totally off the mark. I would say that you would have to act or urge others to act or in some way cause some harm to qualify as bigoted or intolerant. But then again, it is just so much easier to throw the word around when you do not like an opinion contrary to yours.

    I referenced the word bigot to Matt before. I did it in the sense that what I read of his when talking about the opinions of a religion on homosexuality might cause me to throw around the term anti-religious bigot and apply it to him.

    Whatever Phil said is Phil’s opinion. You are free to agree or to disagree. Phil however did not advocate violence. If I read correctly he advocated love. One can really hate the act without hating the person committing the act.If that person takes offense then he or she is merely doing the same that the other is. If the person offended advocates violence (physical or otherwise) against the others opinion, then in fact they become the bigot in the real sense of the word. Simple, no?

    • BRAVO SIR 🙂 Mathius, can you now see why you won the award? It fits your remarks perfectly. Be careful my friend, throwing rocks from inside a glass house to come back to. 🙂

      Quit following all the haters and come back down to earth, we are a kind bunch who will look after you when you are wrongly attacked by the real BIGOTS! 😉

      • Sorry, but I don’t adhere to 1950’s definitions – it’s 2013 and a lot’s changed since then. Let’s see what our friends at Dictionary.com have to say.

        big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
        noun, plural big·ot·ries.
        stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

        That would be a more reasonable definition in my book.

        So is our friend Phil showing stubborn and complete intolerance of beliefs / opinions different than his? YUP!

        Bingo: bigotry.

        • Sorry Mathius, he is not under YOUR definition. He was asked a RELIGIOUS based question, what is a sin. The term what is very important here. He said, withing a long list of whats, that homosexuality, the thing, is a sin. Homosexuality is not a creed, belief or opinion, it is a THING in the context of the question. What is a drunkard? What is a swindler? Very open ended if you ask me. You on the other hand, have shown your intolerance for Christians and their beliefs today. I know you are a much better person than that 😉

        • Just A Citizen says:


          And why is GLAAD not equally a BIGOT??

          Just because they threw the name first??

          “intolerance of any creed, belief…..” OK, so a Religious BELIEF is that homosexuality is a Sin and violation of God’s Law.

          A man states that as a Christian this is his BELIEF.

          The Homosexual Advocacy Group cries Bigot and calls for his head on a platter.

          They are “INTOLERANT” of his BELIEFS.

        • Can’t play with the meaning of words and have the words and have the words mean anything. Kinda like the 2nd Amendment argument. Militia at the time of the Constitution was you and me. Today it is not. Does that change the intent?

          PS what is their definition of intolerance? I read your definition as “hostile”. The word opinion should NEVER be used in a definition like this. If you can’t have an OPINION,you might as well have a lobotomy.

          I am afraid, that as I have always thought, there are way more people who are bigoted and intolerant on the other side of this and most political arguments. For example let;’s talk about Republicans wanting the poor to starve and die from lack of medical care. See what I mean?What’s the converse of that and who says it? Do me a favor, don’t bring up Ayn Rand. She was and is fringe. Most young people, libs and conservatives tend to dabble with her and then quickly outgrow it. There are diehards and there are a couple of her ideas that are not totally off the wall. All liberal atheists share her views on God and how silly the concept is. Does that make them Randites?

  12. Just for the hell of it:

    tolerant adj. Forbearing; patient with the ideas or acts of others.

    tolerance n. Liberality toward the opinions of others; patience with others

    tolerate vt. To endure, permit, put up with : to refrain from opposing

    Matt, sorry, you are not tolerant. Neither is Charlie.

    • Actually, I would argue that I am. I have been arguing with lunatics here for over four years. I’ve held extended and civil discourse with those whose views are completely bonkers.

      To suggest that I am not “patient with the ideas” of others is somewhat insulting.

      Charlie on the other hand…. well… 😉

  13. On Thursday’s Laura Ingraham radio show, liberal feminist professor and columnist Camille Paglia slams the backlash over the controversial remarks made by “Duck Dynasty” standout Phil Robertson:

    “I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall Rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so,” she said. “And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It’s the whole legacy of the free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

    Now Mathius, you gonna argue with a lesbian?


  14. By the way gang, great discussion today 🙂 Tough subject that hits each of us a different way. Keep in mind we are all friends, despite our different opinions And to Mathius, I LOVE YOU MAN 😆

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      It is always a great discussion when I find things where I agree with Buck and Mathius… usually that demonstrates that they do actually have some understanding of (and desire for) freedom, although it doesn’t necessarily extend to all aspects of life for them, which is the root of a lot of their contradictions.

      That’s ok though. The fact that Mathius, Buck, and I are agreeing about several different things today is encouraging!

      • Glad you came aboard today Peter. You’ve been a great protector of freedom, I’m guessing you saw this subject as I did. 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mostly I see this issue as a tempest in a teacup, but the important thing is that EVERYONE, regardless of their own positions, opinions, etc. should have freedom of speech.

  15. ” While to many, this may seem like a minor issue, it’s part of the destruction of American’s rights to be free. ”

    Exactly. Your statement demonstrates the core of what this is really about.

    It is somewhat of a minor representation of a larger issue regarding the overall management of our society.

    When you cannot voice your opinion or celebrate your beliefs without ridicule and opposition, or are being denied the freedom to choose your beliefs values and place in life because of whatever social expectations, when you cannot be yourself in spite of it harming no one, it suggests something is imbalanced within your society.

    It suggests that individual freedom of choice is not being valued or honored. And everyone can identify with the unalienable individual free will to choose.

    I guess I take a somewhat objective view. I try to forget all the labels and categories we attach to our social identities. I, instead, try to think of humanity as 7 billion individuals stuck on a blue marble together with a lot in common…including the many flaws we share.

    Who cares if someone is a African/Asian/German mix Pagan hermaphrodite Republican upper middle class tree hugging tri-quad-penta-sexual preacher. What is it’s name? What is the content of it’s character? Does it treat you with basic respect and human dignity?

    • What get’s my goat is when small groups demand action from other because THEY don’t agree with someone’s personal opinion. That is CENSORSHIP in it purest form. Buck states that there can be consequences, which is very true today, but there are also consequences to those demanding consequences when they butt heads with FREEDOM.

      This is all about freedom, not about gays or some famous quack maker who answered a question. I won’t tolerate censorship against anybody or any group, regardless of whether I agree or disagree.

      • We all tolerate and even promote censorship to a certain point-we simply call it shunning. The problem in my opinion isn’t that shunning exists-it’s that it’s become a profession. Multiple organizations that push and push and push-to the point that freedom is grossly hampered, people are unfairly intimidated or quite frankly in some instances forced to submit or be destroyed-people scared to voice their opinions-not because their neighbors will shun them but because all these big politically powerful organizations will.. Don’t know the answer either-I just know something that isn’t in and of it’s self wrong-is being used to much and with too much power behind it.

        So all the calls of A& E can do what they want may be true-but it isn’t getting to the root of the problem-it doesn’t address the underlying reason so many people are being Punished these days by all the A & E’s.

        • And it’s the reason Matt-that people keep talking about freedom of speech and pointing to the liberals as freedom stealing dangerous people. You may not be looking at a specific law right at this moment to shut people up that you don’t agree with, but considering all the discrimination laws and the hate speech laws which the progressives support, even that statement is questionable, but you are using every tool you can to shut people up.

          • Do you remember HUAC?

            Compare and contrast.

            • That was, 50 yrs ago. By the way, the collapse of the Soviet Union and access to their intelligence files more or less demonstrated that we and the Brits were thoroughly infiltrated by Soviet Agents. Look up Whittiker Chambers and Alger Hiss. Sometimes, where there is smoke, there actually is fire.

  16. Oy gevalt!

    “In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians,” Bayne said in an email to supporters.

    “What Parks did was courageous,” he added. “What Mr. Robertson did was courageous too.”

    -GOP congressional candidate Ian Bayne

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    There is no RIGHT to boycott, just as there is no RIGHT to use Force.

    There is a Right to self defense. The MEANS of that defense should then be tailored to the initiating force being defended against.

    So lets tackle this by digging deeper. I see all this discussion about Rights and Freedoms, etc and Bigotry and Tolerance.

    But HOW do you know these things.

    WHY are these claims true.

    WHAT are the underlying CORE PRINCIPLES or Standards from which they are constructed?

    Just take the notion that we have a “right” or are “free” to boycott someone we don’t like, and/or to ask others to join in the effort.

    What are the Core Principles which support this claim?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Question…who is the lawyer, Mathias or Buck? Or any others?

      • Buck is the lawyer

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Will remember this when putting together my comments. Tutored law students in the past on research techniques and logic. Participated in Maines law school practice cases plead before the State Supreme Court. So with that I have to put that hat on again and make sure my cases are logical, and sustained by fact not hearsay.

        • Don’t sweat it. Buck practices in New Jersey, so it’s not like he practices “real” law.

          Just like they don’t have real driving laws, or real pollution laws, or real *ahem* waste management *ahem* laws – They just have suggestions that the government makes and the people do or don’t follow depending on their mood.

    • Let’s just go on your assumption for a second. Coercion is unethical.


      How does your society operate? How are ANY society norms upheld?

      • Duh…. any other means other than violence.

        • Flag, sir, I think you jumped into the middle of the argument without seeing the beginning.

          Jac’s assertion seems to be that a boycott is unethical because the act of banding with other free individuals in an effort to change his business’ policies is an act of coercion which is an act of force.

          My assertion is that there is no VIOLENCE involved and that, as a free individual, I am free to withhold my business or to try to convince others to do so as well. That is, non-violent coercion is not inherently unethical. (that’s a triple negative, for those keeping count).

          My further assertion is that if I cannot engage in a boycott by means of asking others to boycott with me, then how can the libertarian dream society exist? I seem to recall in the halcyon days of yore (when you were more active) that you suggested that shunning and boycotts would be the primary driver of the enforcement of social norms. Yet, JAC seems to be saying that a boycott is A-OK, but only if each member decides to on his own and not if he is asked to by organizers.

          Black Flag: Perhaps you could shed some light, as this makes no sense to me.

          Then again, JAC, perhaps I have it mixed up?

          • Black Flag® says:

            Freedom of association is a fundamental exercise of human rights.

            If one is for freedom, one must also believe others own their own minds and actions.
            If your ability to articulate your complaint lends others to join you, good for you. They do so from their own mind, not from your gun.

  18. CLINK.. I saw that!

    • My back is pretty bad this morning (it’s been good for a long time, I forgot how much this sucks). I think I’m going to run out of money from that stupid jar. *clink*

      • Truth be told..the cuss jar was only meant for the G D word. Plainly extended it to all cuss words. I’m sure I’ll be doing my share of clinking.

        • By Odin’s beard, my back is smarting today!

          • Don’t know the root of your pain…but ask the doc for SOMA… I am terrible at taking pills, force myself to take my Levothyroxine daily, but those SOMAs ? When I’m at that point..I’ll race to that bottle and gladly take it. Sympathies to you today.

            • Bulging disk in a lower vertibrae pinching a nerve. It’s loads of fun. I’ve been enjoying it on-and-off since 2002

              I take synthroid. Levo messes with my stomach for some reason. You’re much better with the non-generic for this one. There’s the added problem that the dosing in the generics is constantly changing whereas Synthroid is stable – it’s one of the only drugs where it does really make a difference. As your doctor.

              Soma? Que es? I’ve tried lots of pain killers but they just don’t work. Vicodnen, Oxy, Percoset, hydrocodone, muscle relaxers, and more. I might as well be popping pez – they just don’t process in my body for some reason. The only drugs that really work for me are alcohol (but it’d be problematic to be drunk all the time) and morphine (but it’d be problematic to be addicted to morphine). Aleve can (sometimes) slightly take the edge off if I down a handful, but that’s about it.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Know how you feel. Was a passenger in a car that was run off the road X-mas Eve 1985. Broke my back in 3 places and also fractured my neck. Have had 4 surgeries to repair the damage. Everyday reminds me of that time and one has to be thoughtful of every move you make. Be well. Distrust of Dr’s. The hospital refused to admit me and turned me out into a blizzard in northern VT. Saying there is a hotel across the street. My wife had 6 broken vertebrate, fractured skull, dislocated jaw, broken femur, smashed knee, shoulder messed up. They discharged her 1 day later saying well your neighbor is a Doctor. They later said after all her injuries and mine were discovered later, well she kept passing out when we tried to take x-rays. They also destroyed all records that we were even there.

              • Sounds like you had a pretty nasty experience. My experiences with hospitals has been substantially better. Perhaps a lot has changed since 1985? I wouldn’t know – I was only two at the time, so my memories aren’t particularly reliable.

                All I can recommend for you, sir, is a brutal lawsuit.

                one has to be thoughtful of every move you make.

                Yup. Well put. That’s the worst part of the whole thing. You have to constantly think about HOW you’re going to move instead of just doing it. Oh, you want to pick that up off the floor? Ok, well let’s first get something to lean against, then we can go into a deep crouch.. et cetera. ::sigh::

                Well, I have hopes that in 20 years or so, they’ll just grow me a new spine in a lab and I’ll be as good as new. Good luck to you, though!

  19. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Just glanced back at the headlines. Obama is confident that the NSA isn’t snooping and he’s try to build public confidence………..“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

  20. JAC, on your point of boycott. I think boycotts can be very effective for the right reasons. It also eliminates the need for government force to achieve a specific goal. They can also backfire, which a few have recently. It is a good way to see exactly where the people stand on some issues that are devoid of BS polls we hear about everyday. Actions speak louder than words. The Left threatened a boycott against the advertisers in this recent tizzy. That would have failed miserably, just like the one against Chik -F-lay (I think that’s the one). If A&E would have stood pat, they would have quickly discovered where they stood, because the boycott by the Left would have been countered. I believe that the Left’s boycott would have been crushed quickly, thus ending the desired effect of shutting Christians up again.

    I generally don’t engage in boycotts. I don’t watch A&E anyway, so saying I won’t watch them now would have no effect. I don’t think they were wrong, but it would have been fun to watch the Left get crushed in their lame boycott. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I submit this proposition. Boycotts fail because they are NOT founded on Societal Principles for starters and certainly not on Rational Ethical Standards for closing.

      If the PURPOSE of boycott were truly a DEFENSIVE action against ACTUAL harm, there would be far greater support and not half the country on opposite sides.

      As for A&E, they have had a rocky and tenuous relationship with the Robertson’s from the beginning. A constant push and pull over their “RELIGIOUS” values and practices. A&E is owned by Corporate types who long ago got on the HETEROPHOBIA band wagons. My only surprise in this was that A&E didn’t dump Phil after his Youtube video went public where he rips into Abortion.

      Apparently the SandraFluke Association of Free Birth Control for All just doesn’t have the awareness and clout as GLAAD or other HETEROPHIBIC groups.

      And yes, I am being deliberately “provocative”. 😉

  21. Just A Citizen says:


    From the ACLU:

    What Is Censorship? (2006 resource): Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

  22. Something smells really bad here! http://patriotupdate.com/articles/see-radicals-expect-forget/

    Yes, it involves gay’s, but the point is the political failures. California is a cesspool of corruption, can we lease them to Chine to clean it up some?

  23. Question, is Piers Morgan a US citizen or here on a VISA?

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    If it is not OK to legislate against certain behavior then it is not OK to take personal action against the same behavior.

    If it is NOT OK to take personal action against certain behavior, then it is NOT OK to legislate against that behavior.

    ref.; JAC’s Theory on The Moral Authority of the Stick.

    • JAC, you may want to rethink your words. I am free to take personal action against behavior that I don’t like, period. Whether it’s self defense or defense of my property, or choosing not to shop at Target because of who owns them and the behavior that they espouse, that is my freedom of choice. That is my moral authority to wield the stick.

      • Personal action and legislation are two way different things. Have a cocktail and think about your words 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I have thought long and hard on my words. I am prepared to be proven wrong, but nobody has yet offered any good reason to abandon my view.

        You are FREE to do what ever you want in life. BUT, certain actions will cause you to suffer more than others.

        Whether you are ABLE to do something is not the question. It is whether you SHOULD do something.

        And how do you know that something is proper?

        If you use the stick to beat on someone for what they say, then they are free to use that stick on you.

        If you use that stick to harm someone for what they say, then they are free to use that stick on you in the same manner.

        As for legislation, the point is that Govt will follow the SAME ethics as Society and Society will follow the same ethics as Govt. It is the latter which is, in my view, the source of much of our current problems with unethical behavior in this country.

        When the leadership is immoral, do you expect society to remain moral?

        When Society itself becomes rotten, how can you expect the Govt made up of the people to be righteous??

        • When the leadership is immoral, do you expect society to remain moral?

          When Society itself becomes rotten, how can you expect the Govt made up of the people to be righteous??

          I think we are witnessing both, as we wake each day. I have expressed my opinion on our government and what can and can’t fix it, I also think society backs my thinking up. When people persecute someone because of his religious beliefs, like we have just seen, and intelligent, smart people think it’s OK, society is not much different than government. Actually, government is exactly what society has become. Maybe my ideas of fixing things can be altered, and I’m willing to have an open mind, but society as a whole in this country needs to wake up and lose the immoral BS. People like Miley Cyrus sell tickets now, that’s why she wasn’t banned from being on ABC in the near future, but A&E (half owned by ABC) can commit religious persecution against a man who did nothing to harm anyone but answer a question honestly. This country is morally corrupt, just like the government is totally corrupt. Together, the fix is almost impossible. 🙄

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Here is a series of quotes from de Tocqueville that comes close to summing up I believe what has been discussed here for the past few days. These come from the chapter titled
            “Despotism in Democratic Nations”
            “Upon this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood.It is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, for sees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their plearsures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the decent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of thinking.
            Thus it every day renders the exercise of free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrow range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things, it has predisposed men to endorse them and often to look on them as benefits.
            After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. Itcovers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters can not penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and quided; men are seldom forced to act, constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence, it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extringuishes, and stupfies a people, till as a nation is reduced to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd”. Alexis de Tocqueville 1835

  25. This is someone’s hero, how sick:
    Celebrated homosexual and homosexual-rights activist Dan Savage, on the other hand, does go out of his way to harm others, and Democrats pat him on the back. Savage once detailed how he tried to give the flu to Gary Bauer, who campaigned for President in 2000 and who said, “Our society will be destroyed if we say it’s okay for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.”

    Voicing an opinion? Horrible! Savage, who at the time had come down with severe influenza, was visiting Bauer’s campaign headquarters in Iowa. Here’s what he did while there, in his own words:

    I go around the room licking doorknobs. They are filthy, no doubt, but there isn’t time to find a rag to spit on. If for some reason I don’t manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary’s hands at the conference, I want to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I can, and hopefully one of them will infect the candidate. I lick office doorknobs, bathroom doorknobs. When that’s done, I start on the staplers, phones, and computer keyboards. Then I stand in the kitchen and lick the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack. I grab my coat and head out.

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4094/libs-hold-duck-dynastys-phil-different-standard/#fzf3pmd2e5RJaIZj.99

  26. V,

    ” …getting to the root of the problem… ”

    Here’s my take;

    It’s DNA. Keep following the ‘why trail’. Everything about the civilization we’ve built is ultimately a manifestation of human nature, which is [largely] dependent upon DNA.

    The question now becomes How do we deal with our predisposition to exist as we do?

    Coincidentally, there are a great many holy books and forms of communication conveying a very similar message as to do exactly that. They may vary by culture and language, interpretation, etc, …but the general underlying message often contains a universally applicable message about humanity.

    I think it starts with letting go of our ego. The ego gets us into trouble. It is the root of our animalistic reptilian way of thinking and serves as a false prophet, so to speak, ..that fools us into valuing the things that lead us away from godliness.

    If we can let go of our egos, it allows us to be more self aware, to begin to see and consider other perspectives, to become more tolerant, understanding and less fearful or anxious. ( I think it’s a golden rule thing)

    Maybe all these things fall into place to eventually create a better, more evolved, peaceful society. If we can do this as a matter of our own god given free will, then we will have learned a bit, and perhaps can be ready for the next lesson and/or level.

    …just a thought.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You claim that letting go or our “ego” is the beginning of greater understanding. That the “ego” gets us in trouble. While certain egos may in deed lead us to trouble I submit to you that letting go or abandoning “EGO” will lead to far greater TROUBLE.



      noun: ego; plural noun: egos

      1. a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

      “a boost to my ego”

      synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence

      “the defeat was a bruise to his ego”


      the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.


      (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.”

      Seems to me we would all be better off trying to dig deeper into EGO to make sure it is valid rather than abandoning it altogether.

      • I wasn’t exactly trying to make a technical argument about it, only trying to share and convey, …but I suppose I will clarify just what exactly I meant by “let go of the ego” and why.

        We humans are hardwired to be somewhat egotistical. It is simply part of our survival instincts to protect the self. We end up attaching our ego to everything as part of it’s value. If we fail to relax our egos, if we fail to keep it in check, then we fail to see beyond our own wants and needs, and thus deprive ourselves of a better understanding of our environment as it relates to others.

        This gets us into trouble as it promotes a win/lose mindset that often leads to acceptance and justification of whatever protects the ego, up to and including violating others.

        Solutions require tolerance and understanding. If we never bother to set aside and relax our egos long enough to see the position of others, we deprive ourselves of said solutions and only foster a potential for conflict

        I am not suggesting that ego is a bad thing, only that it needs to be kept in check.

        I think it is a relevant point to the current topic as you can see there are a lot of people who are not so concerned with finding a win/win solution according to everyone’s needs, but rather competing to protect THEIR way above and/or against others.

  27. @ Peter and Buck…….there is irony here….no one, especially the left, seems to pick up on on thing about the Medicaid issue here. Who does it affect? It affects the poor. Everybody worries about disenfranchisement on voter I’d…..but no one cares that this law disenfranchises the poor. The wealthy and middle class do not go on Medicaid….they will not lose their bank accounts nor property. Only the poor. Therein lies more hypocrisy.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      How are you this fine evening my Texican friend?

      Hope all is well on the home front.

      Wanted to propose calling off our bet this year. A couple MORE things have cropped up that I will have to deal with in the coming few months.

      I would feel honor bound to pony up should I lose but would be under much strain to perform.

      So I propose we keep to our original agreement to have dinner under more relaxed conditions, rather than as payoff. What say you?

      I would be willing to entertain a wager of something less cumbersome. Maybe another box of syrup and jam??

      • Doing fine, sir. The bet was intended for dinner…not payoff.

        But syrup and jam would be fine also…..but let’s keep it dinner.

        I did not see your response as to are you closer to Salt Lake or Reno?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Dinner is a done thing, regardless of what those Ducks and Longhorns do.

          I am closer to RENO than SLC. Apparently you missed me jabbing you about knowing where Portland is located. What’s the matter? Don’t leave Texas much??

          By the way, what you thinking about going to Tahoe for anyway?

          • Is Portland in the US? Hell, for that matter, is Oregon in the US? You are next to California and osmosis is real. I forgot that you are from Portland.

            As to Tahoe, skiing, casinos, and a beautiful lake….a good place for a visit. I am going to look up Portland right quick…see how long it would take us to get there from Tahoe.

            • 386 nautical miles….2 hrs 1.9 minutes at 190 knots……

              Hmmmmm….thinking throw in the skis, fly to Tahoe, a visit to Portland, fly to SLC for some skiing, drop down to Santa Fe….a little more skiing….back to Texas.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Ah I see, you are a skier. Used to do that myself until the knees went out.

                Is Portland in the US?? I am not totally sure. But at least many people here speak English.

                The Osmosis infected Oregon long ago, as well as the rest of the west coast all the way to Vancouver, B.C.

                We will be on the road for the next two weeks. Relatives to visit and oldest is about to have our first grandchild. Then the MOVE starts for earnest.

                So keep me posted on your travel plans.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Trick question here d13 and JAC…..which city is furthest west….. San Diego, Los Angeles or Reno?

    • Screwing the poor is not an issue for the Left, just power and votes. That’s why nothing is being said about it. It’s easier to talk about some hairy guy with Christian values who pissed off a few gays. Like I said earlier today, Most Lefties are cowards, but there are exceptions.

  28. Mathius, et al…….on the subject of bigotry. everyone sure throws that word around easily. I notice that it is only used when one disagrees with another.

    Why is one person’s choice another persons bigotry? On the LGBT issue, if I disagree with it and choose to disassociate myself from that lifestyle…why does that make me intolerant and/or a bigot? If I pick my associates within my belief or my standards, why does this fit any degree of intolerance or bigotry. Is it not bigotry to force someone to accept something that is not his/hers beliefs?

    Is it not bigotry, by all the definitions, to claim that the south is full of ” backwater, ignorant morons”?

    There is no answer and words do have meanings……

  29. plainlyspoken says:

    Well goodness gracious.

    I was out for a walk and found myself in the neighborhood. I see the discussions carry on. As I read through these comments I felt like each was standing on their front lawn, drink of choice in hand, winding down from hard days at the office. 🙂

    Nice to see all of you. It seems not too much has changed. lol…..seemed to me like I may have heard these various opinions stated somewhere before. Though, I note Anita may have to get a wagon to pull around carrying that swear jar – it seems like it might be getting heavy. 😉

    Anyway, hope you are all well and prepared for the holidays quickly approaching. I myself continue to sit quietly on my mountain and let the rest of the world have it’s way with each other.

    I shall endeavor to wander the streets here for a few days while I have the chance. All of you take care and may peace be with you all.


    • Glad to hear from you old friend. The more things age, the more they stay the same around here. Crazy discussion today, I expect it to be much quieter today. I have some running to do myself to finish up things before the holiday. Stick around for awhile 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I’ll be around for a few days since I have some “down time” now from the cares, concerns and needs of the family. lol

        • I am hoping your health is better?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            It is thanks. Seems the smart doctors weren’t so smart. Finally got in last year with a more than competent neurologist who was able to figure out the problem. Basically my mind plays tricks on my body that mimic Parkinson’s to a degree – that coupled with essential tremor tend to cause my mind to lie and say I have a physical issue. He taught me how to control the problem by – basically – telling my mind to knock it off and behave.

            That turned out to be the least of the issues I – and my family – have had to deal with these past couple of years. One of the biggest problems was finalized on Dec 16th. The (“clink” – paying in advance) asswipe who sexually assaulted my step-daughter for almost a year when she was seven was sentenced to 12 years to life in prison. Based on the sexual offender “treatment” program he must complete before any parole is possible we figure he’ll be in prison for a minimum of about 20 years.

            • That is all great news 🙂

            • Yo Plainlyyyyyy! Good to see you. man. Glad to hear your family troubles worked in your favor, Chalk one up for the good guys! To celebrate, I UN CLINK your penalty and offer several CLINKS to pay for the toast to continued good health for you and peace of mind for your family. I bet I could set those tremors off..wanna talk NDAA? heehee 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hello Anita. Hope you and yours are well? Thanks for return of the penalty, I’m sure I might need it in future. 😉

                And what’s on your mind about the NDAA these days? I’ve taken my blood pressure meds already today…..lol

              • Oh, we don’t need to go there again. No sense in beating a dead horse, The cuss jar would get filled up quick though 😉

  30. Sometimes this stuff does not even make the news anymore. A Federal judge has determined that the Utah ban on Gay marriage is unconstitutional since the applicable law does not show how heterosexual marriage is harmed. Note: “A judge has decided”. Mormons ought to love that one.

    Item the second….. You no longer will have to go to the bunny ranch in Nevada to seek female companionship, the kind that you pay for, legally. The Supreme court of Canada has thrown out the anti-prostitution laws of the country. The country has a year to appeal or correct its laws to conform to whatever the hell the judges think is OK.

    I think the entire West needs a major economic meltdown followed by a World War so that it has something else to worry about besides this BS.

    PS, anybody out there catch Putin’s speech yesterday on the State of the State? Didn’t go looking for it but it was on C-Span opposite The big O’s Christmas message to the American people (joke) . Quite a juxtaposition. While I am sure Putin will be dismissed out of hand by folks who probably never bothered to watch or listen, his points were well made, including those on Homosexuality. I don’t remember his exact quote but it went something like this. “Of course what we have done is conservative. Conservative does not mean that you oppose progress and going forward. It means that you oppose going backward and sliding into the morass”. Very interesting.

    • Saw that with some remarks it opens the door for polygamy. Wont that be interesting?
      Canada? Brrr…
      Putin has made some interesting, thoughtful remarks that everybody in the world except the American media (& public) are listening to…. How bad is/was the KGB & compare that to the NSA/CIA. What is America under Obama? A champion of freedom, spying on the world & it’s own citizens.

      • LOI,

        I think we are heading in the direction that the Russians are coming from. There is this peculiar change going on. Someone just jumped all over me with Putin as the new “czar” for life in Russia. I merely pointed out FDR in our past. Had the guy not died in ’45, how long would he have stayed?

        • SK,

          I can see us going in the communist/socialist direction in some ways. In others it looks more like aimless wondering & stumbling. They tried to ramp up their productivity with central control, we are discouraging people from working & rewarding more & more people for being a parasite. I think Putin has handed Obama his a$$ on foreign policy. But Putin is not without his own problems.

          • Absopositively!

            I have always felt sorry for the Russians. they have absolutely no history in the democracy business, they start from scratch. Years ago, when I studied the language (highly unsuccessfully I may add), I remember reading a piece about how Russia was semi-oriental, not fully western but not eastern either.

            70 years of Charlies vaunted Communism (30 million dead) and two World Wars (45 million dead) that hit them harder (by far) than any other country involved left them a basket case. No wonder Vodka is the national drink.

            We could have helped, we could have been there for them. I certainly think we would have had Reagan even been compis mentis after leaving office. But Bush, the Right and especially those old cold warrior neo-conservatives would never accept that the Soviet Union was gone in a flash!, In many ways they miss it and are still fighting the battle. Just listen to them.

            We are going to pay for that in the long run. It was, in it’s own way as dumb as when Wilson and the West sent Allied (and US) troops into the Soviet Union after WW1 to support the White forces. Did you know that? Almost nobody does. I learned it by being a patch collector. It is one of the most coveted patches one can get that was issued by the US Army. Fought our way, on the losing side, from Western Russia, all across the country until we finally evacuated out of Vladivostok. Russians/Soviets never really trusted us after that genius move.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              The White forces (czech) were approaching Yekaterinburg assumed to be attempting to free the czar and his family when they were ordered shot by the bolshevik leadership in Moscow. They arrived a week to late, but were actually sent to protect the trans-siberian railroad.
              One of the sad things about Russian history is that they were trying to really implement land reform, with eliminating the concept of serfdom on the grand estates. Trying to move to a system more like the UK and the US with tenent farmers. However the bolsheviks kept assasinating those that were trying to reform. And what came out of that. We all know the communists instituting an even more draconian system of the commune and KILLED anyone who resisted. Example the Ukrainians under Khrushchev’s benevolent leadership. Note the sarcasm.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Does anyone remember the last time the US officially invaded Nicaragua and how and why the name “Sandinistas” became the term used by the revolutionary forces against Somoza. I do, just wanting to know if anyone else does.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        An American Marriage: Mormons, Polygamy, and Federalism
        Lee Trepanier and Lynita K. Newswander
        When the Mormons could no longer escape the jurisdiction of the federal government in Utah Territory, they applied for statehood, hoping that they would gain a measure of autonomy and the space to practice as they believed. In this process, the question of what constituted marriage became both a legal and cultural issue in the country.
        However, the federal government in the nineteenth century was not the recognized authority on the matter of marriage and lacked the specific regulatory power to implement its commitment to monogamy because marriage fell under the purview of the states. The Mormon practice of polygamy therefore brought the issues of federalism as well as the relationship between church and state to the surface. When Utah applied for statehood, the question of whether the federal government could regulate marriage could no longer be ignored. In all the previous applications for statehood, the federal government had never before dictated the standard of marriage for the prospective state.
        The one area where the federal government did have direct authority and the means to implement monogamy was in its relations with the Native Americans. The principle of monogamous marriage was a significant aspect of the policy of Native American assimilation. The states themselves had established different standards for marriage (most of the differences regarded interracial marriages), but all of them adhered to the criterion of monogamy. Still, even after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, a single national standard did not exist for marriage until the controversy about the entry of Utah into the union.5 The attempt to eradicate the Mormon practice of polygamy consequently was not only the first time the federal government played a direct role in defining marriage as monogamous, but it would also change the balance of power between the states and the federal government on social public policy, in favor of the latter.

  31. I think it helps to start with what he actually said, not just what all the talking heads say he said….

    Robertson described in the interview how sin is becoming acceptable in America and that the country needs to turn back to its Christian values.

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” Robertson told GQ. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” The patriarch of the Robertson family said just putting one’s faith in Jesus will help problems be solved.”

    Now wonder who should be offended..
    the adulterers,
    the idolaters,
    the male prostitutes, (wonder why he skipped female prostitutes?)
    the homosexual offenders,
    the greedy, the drunkards,
    the slanderers,
    the swindlers

    And his offensive statement is that the above “-they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”
    If they are Christian, they already believe the truth of his statements and that only thru Jesus will they be saved. Robinson also said it is not his place or intent to judge nor treat anybody poorly, but to offer (not force) the word of Christ & it is for God to judge.

    The thing I really wonder is if this is a PR stunt to drive their brand? All their fan’s have been exposed to Phil’s viewpoint & are not likely to be offended. Therefore, most of their advertisers are marketing to that base. They have offended the five percent that either don’t watch their show or only watch to make snide remarks about rednecks. Intentional or not, the results make it look brilliant. A&E can reap the rewards by letting Robertson have a victory dance.

    • One other thing that has happened, the Gay community has been slapped down hard. They will be quiet for some time now with their petty demands. 🙂

      • Err, my experience is the more you slap them, the more & louder they whine. lol

        • Maybe, but they just made millions of enemies that they didn’t have two weeks ago. Most Americans simply ignored the gay movement, they didn’t really care one way or the other. Now, that has changed. I don’t think it will cause more people to be anti-gay, but it will put more people on alert and ready to fight should they err again. All most people want is left alone, but when dumb shit like this happens, the camel’s back may have just been broken when it comes to the Left and their chronic whining. I for one am tired of hearing about it, and I’m far from being devout Christian.

          I also have no problems with the gay community per se, they can live as they choose, no matter to me. When they start demanding how people think is crossing the line. I’m tired of the “think our way or else” attitude from the Left. Just Sayin 🙂

    • Guess I’m waiting for the real protest to start. There are supposed to be less than 10 million homosexuals in the US. Compare that to 60 million married couples. Supposedly 60% of men & 40% of women cheat on their spouse. How many million adulterers would that make?
      And if the drunks join in with all their beer sponsors it could get real ugly. Think about all the mass protests with drunken adulterers turning into orgies in the streets. We should pray for Phil to recant & retire, else we may be looking at the end of times….Hey, Miley Cyrus can be the spokesperson!!!!Has she covered “Sympathy for the Devil” yet?

  32. December 12, 2013
    The Decline and Fall of American Deterrence

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/the_decline_and_fall_of_american_deterrence.html#ixzz2o7kOeeL5

    Good article. China & Japan are saber rattling, Iran is talking/not talking about it’s nuke’s while Israel & the Saudi’s prepare for war. Is the US just buying Iran time? Every foreign policy decision seems to strengthen those hostile to us & peace. Is there an ally we haven’t offended? And here at home our government seems to be deliberately pissing on everyone in the military, maybe to discourage anyone/everyone from volunteering to serve?

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Well it is time for me to pack up the truck and hit the road. Off to visit relatives for Christmas and hopefully spend some time with oldest son after the birth of our first grandchild.

    Could be gone two weeks so don’t worry about my absence until after that. Just in case anyone started wondering… ha, ha, ha.

    Anita…………I’ll be pulling for the Lions for now. Obviously the Seahawks get my affections once the playoffs begin.

    It will be hard cheering for Stanford against Sparty. Never cared for Stanford much but it is a PAC 12 team.

    I hope with all my heart that everyone here has a wonderful Christmas and happy holiday season the next couple of weeks. And of course, I wish for a Happy New Year filled with MORE freedom than the one before.

    Best Wishes and Merry Christmas to one and all.


  34. Weren’t there rumors about CIA weather control? I’m thinking our current flooding is an Obama plot to wash Ark/LA/MS out to sea to get rid of us.

  35. Question for anybody….

    When you use a credit card or debit card, is there a reasonable expectation argument about security?

    I am noticing that there are class action suits being filed against Target and I am wondering why? Anytime you CHOOSE to use a credit card, you are subject to having your number or banking information compromised….that is a risk……the same risk as walking into a ballpark and catching a foul ball in the mouth.

    Every time you swipe your card, is it not like pulling the handle on a slot machine?

    Just asking…..

    • Good question Colonel. I know of no law or precedent, but I believe that if an establishment is going to accept card(s) for payment, they hold the responsibility to ensure the security of that information. Just my opinion though 🙂

      • Possibly…..I do not even own a credit card but I do have a debit card. I do not use it for very much except gasoline purchases but I also accept the risk that my number can be compromised….that is why I keep a very low balance in that account. If I pull into my local Shell station, use my debit card, and then my number is compromised….I consider that my hard luck. I put it out there….why be surprised it was stolen. It is not Shell’s fault. I am under no expectation that my information is private.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Follow the same practice. Eliminated credit card use years ago. Only keep enough money in the debit acount that I know I will be using in the next day or two. Other than that it’s all cash. I also can see the final transaction online for several days before it is actually transfered to the vendors accounts. The problem lies in the OTHER information on the strip on the back of the card. Which can lead to purchases that only will show up on the credit report or when you get a bill from a company and you say “WHAT THE H***”

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Golly, just for old times sake:

      I don’t believe they are being looked at by four states attorney’s general/sued over a breach that resulted in possibly having credit/debit card information stolen, but that Target waited too long to notify people.

      From the LA Times:
      “Target — one of the country’s largest retailers — is facing accusations that it waited too long in disclosing that its system had been hacked, exposing some 40 million of its customers’ credit and debit card accounts. The Minneapolis company waited until Thursday to confirm that a break-in occurred between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.”

      From the Huffington Post:
      A customer in California filed a class-action lawsuit against the company late on Thursday, the first of what lawyers said could be many such suits.

      Samantha Wredberg said in a court filing that she was a regular shopper at Target and had used her credit card at a company store on December 8. Besides seeking damages, Wredberg asked the court to certify the lawsuit as class action.

      She also asked the court to explore whether “Target unreasonably delayed in notifying affected customers of the data breach”.

      Plus, I agree with the Colonel – you risk your information every time you swipe the plastic – ain’t it a shame that cash money has gone out of vogue? 🙂


    • You can expect some or maybe a lot of security. Doesn’t mean it always works. Target was supposedly hit by foreign hackers, such as we have seen out of China. We usually pay cash but have one credit card that has been hit twice this last year. Both time Visa called and asked if a purchase was valid. When we said no (no women’s clothes purchased in the Middle East) they canceled the card & no charges made against us.

  36. What’s Going on in North Korea
    By Eric Margolis

    What’s going on in murky North Korea? I’ll bet even the US National Security Agency doesn’t know.

    The world was shocked last week to learn that North Korea’s boyish dynastic leader, Kim Jong-un, has ordered the public arrest, then swift execution of his uncle by marriage, Jang Song-thaek. Jang was viewed as the North’s second most powerful person.

    With usual gentle understatement, North Korea’s news agency called Jang a “despicable human scum.” His crime, it seems, was “trying to cover the sun (i.e. Kim Jong-un) with his hands.” Meaning angering the young sun king.

    North Koreans must be very confused. Wasn’t the glorious Kim dynasty, which supposedly descended from the sun, sacred? How could a senior member be a “scum” and merit execution? A religious outrage.

    Jang’s very public arrest and execution strongly suggested a grave power struggle in Pyongyang. Shooting your aunt’s husband, no matter how irksome he was, is a big no-no in traditional Buddhist culture, even in bizarre North Korea. It may have been more a sign of young Kim’s weakness than power.

    As a long-time Korea watcher, I’m being asked to try to decipher the mysterious business in Pyongyang.

    Jang was most likely plotting to oust the erratic young Kim with help from senior army officers. But that was only part of the story.

    Behind Jang, I surmise, was big brother China. Jang was well known to be close to Beijing. He was a proponent of North Korea following China’s wildly successful capitalist economic reforms begun by its late great leader, Deng Xiaoping. But such reforms would run directly counter to the Juche (total self reliance) philosophy of North Korea’s founder and Kim’s god-like grandfather, Kim Il-sung.

    China has clearly run out of patience with Kim Jong-un even though Beijing supplies all of the North’s oil and much of its food and arms.

    The normally discreet Chinese regime has launched scathing criticism of close ally North Korea for its nuclear and missile tests and armed provocations of South Korea, an increasingly important trade and technology partner of China.

    Beijing is very angry that Kim’s sabre rattling and immature bombast have allowed Japan, China’s bête noire, to begin building offensive forces just as the two nation’s are at daggers drawn over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.

    China just made a foolish blunder by creating a so-called air defense zone over the disputed islands (Japan has one there, too). Challenging China, the US promptly flew two unarmed B-52 bombers through China’s new ADZ. All Beijing did was fume and lose face while the Japanese had a big laugh.

    North Korea’s warlike noises – even a threat to nuke the United States – were just hot air, but they gave the US a perfect excuse to move new air and naval units into or around the Korean Peninsula, which is very close to China’s important naval bases at Dalian and Lushun (former Russian Port Arthur), the back door to Beijing.

    Pyongyang even attacked the withered Jang for “womanizing” and, far more important, for creating an economic catastrophe. This was a rare open admission that the North again faces economic melt down, even mass starvation.

    North Korea’s descent into economic ruin is of enormous concern to Beijing and Seoul. A collapse of the Kim regime would lead to chaos and bloodshed across the north. South Korea dreads this event as “unanticipated reunification:” 25 million starving North Koreans pouring south. South Korea cannot afford to feed and rebuild North Korea as West Germany did with East Germany.

    China worries the collapse of the North would lead to South Korea taking it over militarily. And that, to Beijing, means US bases in the North, next to Manchuria’s industrial heartland.

    Japan would be no happier with Korean unification: a united Korea would one day be an even more serious trade competitor to Japan and, perhaps, even a military threat.

    Beijing was happy with the Korean status quo until the unruly young Kim took power. China usually avoids interfering in its neighbors. But run out of patience, Beijing was probably behind a coup attempt led by Jang, or at least blessed it.

    Kim Jong-un will now have to fend off the US, South Korea and China – a tall order even for a sun god.

    • Let China have it.

    • Would S. Korea want it? Bigger problem might be refugee’s overwhelming them. China might not want them either. They made for good cannon fodder if China ever got into a war & for the US, a two front war. N. Korea can never be free to another country, it can only be an expensive acquisition needing constant support.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      For some, it’s a choice I believe, for other’s, it’s in how the genes are formed, they get that one extra chromosome, but, then, you already knew that.

    • Judy is on the money here. Check out the change in lifestyle orientation of NYC’s new 1st lady. She was a Lesbian activist back in the old days, a preacher of “born that way” and then she met Bill. Interesting how the news ignores it. they do stories but no digging or anyone bothering to ask eh question “What, How?”

    • Research “Oedipus Conflict” and “Electra Complex”

      I don’t think Freud had the definitive answer, but he was definitely on to something with regard to early childhood development and gender role assignment.

      Little boys need an alpha to emulate. Little girls especially need to feel secure, accepted and loved. Without a male role model present to fulfill this need, a small child may have difficulty defining male gender and typical/normal behavior.

      • Freud was right about a great many things. A few months back I had occasion to revisit his writings. He was no one size fits all guy. He believed (as I do) that some are born with different “wiring” and he also believed that some could be converted/coerced. He actually refused patients and commissions from parents of patients whom he felt could not be dissuaded of their homosexual inclinations. He took and was successful in treating others with the caveat that they had to want to be “cured”.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Right on. Role models are so incredibly important on the development of a child. Isn’t it a high probability that if a man beats his wife the children are very likely to repeat that behavior when they grow up. Other patterns are studied I just used this form of abuse as an example. Years ago I saw a news program in NYC touting how great it was for homosexual partners to be allowed to adopt children. While filming the “family” the child, a boy, was clearly emulation his two fathers. Physical motions and speech. The child was no more than 4 at that time. However, the end conclusion was it was better to have two homosexual parents than none. REALLY? The question has got to be, if 2-4 % of the population identifies as being gay, and let us assume by a genetic defect, chromosome imbalance. It would then follow children born would have the same percentage with the genetic issue. There is a claim by the gay and lesbian crowd the stigma put on them by society and gender confusion they have is the reason for all the psychological problems in the group. Suicide, domestic violence etc. which are way above the statistical norm for the “straight” population. Aren’t they creating the similar problem for the 96-98% straight children they adopt? Studies are now starting to show, by the way for the past 10 years, that children adopted by gay couples are having huge gender identification problems which are also leading to a higher suicide rate in teen, drug abuse etal. The PC objections were that the studies are all inconclusive because they hadn’t been going on long enough. Some studies were over 10 years in length. I did help a college student with research on this subject. None of the data ultimately presented in the paper, with all citations credited, was logically argued by the college. All they did was called her homophobic, a bigot, racist religious nutcase and severely reprimanded by her professors for hate speech. She was very affectively censored.

        • Science sure as hell does not mean what it used to mean. As an 8th grader entering a good Catholic High School in ’60, I was given a summer (required) reading list. On it was “The Microbe Hunters” (1926) Paul de Kruiff. My first exposure to the scientific method. I am the last guy in the world to tout my scientific credentials, did only slightly better at it than I did at math, but I developed a passion for scientific information. When they preached Global cooling in the ’70’s I thought it was tripe, when the preached global warming in the ’90’s I thought the same.

          So Second Hand smoke, 100% born gay, is all a bunch of baloney as far as I am concerned. Just reading some learned papers supporting the ideas allows you to ask tons of “why” questions that ere not addressed in the study.

          Participated once in a very large scale college experimental Psych experiment designed to “back up” a previous published study. It was a semester long project more or less designed to show how tobacco use lowered your sensory perceptions. 180 test subjects later, we proved the opposite. Startled the hell out of out Prof. He was a good guy though and went back to restudy the original research.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Stephen…liked your response. My degree was in Environmental Science area before they officially existed. My work career revolved almost entirely around statistics though. Statistics is all about “proving the negative” That you did in your study. Glad someone remembers the “Global Cooling” in the 70’s. By the way the “Global Warming” hype was brought to us by the same cast of characters. Obama’s science advisor Holdren, proposed blanketing the Arctic with soot to absorb the heat from the sun and melt the ice spelling DOOM to us all in the near future. When I talk to people who by the way were rabid Global Warming proponents can logically explain the 1000 year “Roman” warming period, where by empirical science it has been determined to be 5 degrees F warmer than today. What human activity caused that. They can not explain the 750 year drought that wiped out the SW indian cultures. How did human activity cause that. Their only response has been, “You’re a F***en Idiot and stupid and ignorant. They can not explain the really severe flooding in the NE in the 30’s where rivers like the Susquehanna flooded close to 40 feet above the recent disaster floods. Over the years I’ve worked on any number of models. When the results did not fit the model after the data was entered for the study period, either the assumption was right or wrong. Is the model a good predictor of future events given the same factors. The “global warming” fraud scientist did and were caught at it was deleted data that didn’t fit their assumptions an model. Extracting extreme outlyers is one thing. By the way Russian were the first people, with standing, to really challenge the global warming results. They knew what data they sent the scientists in the UK and the UN groups. They demanded to see the data and how it factored in the results. They found out most was deleted because it didn’t fit the assumption. Then the leaked papers etc. started the erosion of the “Global Warming” hype. But what’s in a name, Now it’s just generically called Climate Change, so they’re covered no matter which way it goes.

            • Black Flag® says:

              I was an “expert reviewer” for the IPCC latest report, focusing on the models.

              Dale, you’re absolutely right.

              When the models were reviewed, they all pretty much matched historical trends, though varied in the future (but all showing an “upward” trend”.

              So one of the our skeptic group violently changed the starting conditions and *Lo*, the models continued to match the historical trends (though, of course, the future trends went wild).

              When confronted, the modelers admitted they had tweaked the systems to return to the “mean” of historical data, regardless of the initial conditions! They knew their models couldn’t match the historical at all, so the fudged it!

              Nothing but a lot of total nonsense comes out of the AGW/AGCC group – incoherent babbling.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Any way I can become and “expert reviewer” for the next IPCC report?

              • Absolutely.
                When it is announced, just “ping” me and I will send you a link to the application.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Good to see you BF! I hope being an “expert reviewer” for the IPCC wasn’t a complete waste of time, but I am sure they didn’t spend too much time going over your critiques…. They don’t like for a lot of logic and honesty to creep in to their process.

              • Black Flag® says:

                It was interesting and enlightening.

                The vast majority of IPCC is actually skeptics – not pro-AGW and not pro-anti-AGW… the “We just don’t know” category – but that never leaks out.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Will do.

        • ” Right on. Role models are so incredibly important on the development of a child. Isn’t it a high probability that if a man beats his wife the children are very likely to repeat that behavior when they grow up. Other patterns are studied I just used this form of abuse as an example.”


          Creating a child is a human miracle.

          When all things line up, when it is right, two become one to do such a miraculous thing, and there is something spiritual happening. That’s why it feels so right.

          It is an extension of you as one, the continuation thereof, another link in the chain of eternal life.

          By order of nature, it is a process of development that doesn’t stop but continues in cycles. It requires teaching them how to properly continue the cycle of life. Parenthood doesn’t really stop until you are dead. IMHO, it is an awesome thing. There is something sacred about it…the whole concept of the nature of a family unit. It blows my mind how people abuse it.

          In a manner of speaking, children are like little gods and goddesses running around.

          When you deprive them, interrupt or confuse development, or violate it, it can and does have long lasting disastrous effects. It is essentially condemning or limiting them, stifling and/or destroying your own cycle of eternal life via your progeny. And it continues on a transgenerational run until the dysfunctional cycle is broken.

          Mistreat your wife, ..your karma is watching your daughter cry when she is a young woman, because she has been abused by a guy like dad. Did their daughter see it? Is their son going to beat his wife/bitch when he’s drunk too?

          ” Suicide, domestic violence etc. which are way above the statistical norm for the “straight” population. ”

          I believe that there may be a percentage of homosexuals who are born that way by order of some natural occurrence, but I think the majority are a result of some sort of discrepancy in their development. Whatever mental process that determines sexual identity, gets skewed or disrupted and results in homosexuality. It is to suggest that for many, homosexuality is a result of something else, from an underlying ‘issue’.

          As I understand, their rate of suffering childhood abuse is a bit higher as well.

          ” Studies are now starting to show, by the way for the past 10 years, that children adopted by gay couples are having huge gender identification problems which are also leading to a higher suicide rate in teen, drug abuse etal. ”

          Of course. They are being taught to accept gay as normalcy, as the ‘right’ way.

          Is it a ‘better’ option than the kids ending up wild in the streets getting into all kinds of trouble? Growing up with homosexual tendency verses being a drug addict and/or getting raped as a homeless teen prostitute?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Now G….Missouri is the “Show Me” state. 😉

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        FYI….Taken from a justice.org site…reviewing this because of the gun debate

        Preventable Medical Errors – The Sixth Biggest Killer in America

        According to the Institute of Medicine, preventable medical errors kill as many as 98,000 Americans everyyear, and injure countless more. If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were to include preventable medical errors as a category, it would be the sixth leading cause of death in America. Yet despite this, much of the medical negligence policy debate has revolved around indirect factors, such as doctors’ insurance premiums. Any discussion of medical negligence that does not involve preventable medical errors ignores the fundamental problem. Preventing medical errors will dramatically lower health care costs, reduce doctors’ insurance premiums, and protect the health and well-being of patients.

        My notes taken from the FBI’s site. The deaths due to firearms averaged over the years 2007 – 2011 was 9262.6 with 2011 at 8583.

        The deaths due to gun toting bible hugging crazy’s was 1/10th the deaths caused by medical negligence “practicing” physicians.

        This whole debate is not about wrongfull death but government control.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Sarcasm noted……lived and worked in the Netherlands in 2001. They have “very” strict gun laws. One day while buying my subway ticket, from a live person, not a machine. Long line of people in the queue behind me an immigrant from North Africa tried to rob me. Stuck a gun in my face. I being used to having firearms and ex military recognized the gun could not fire. I did resist the robbery and defended myself. The perp, eventually ran away. NOBODY even tried to assist, NOBODY came up to me aferwards and asked if I was OK, Everybody stood there like deer in the headlights with their thumbs up their A!!’s. Got back to my apartment in the old downtown district on the Amstel River, changed into casual non work clothes and went to my local. The bartender asked me how my day was and I related my adventure. He said that I was lucky, and that didn’t I see all the cameras in the station. I said yes I saw them, it was broad daylight. He then asked if I hurt the perp. I said no and he answered that if I had I would have been the one arrested not the robber, because I was 1) white 2) and clearly advantaged. Next part of this story is later teaching in the UK an elderly farmer went to prison for shooting robbers who had on two previous occassions entered his home, beat him within an inch of his life and then casually robbed his house. Third time he used his shotgun (within) his house. The surviving robber successfully sued the farmer who was now in prison for the rest of his life. Used to have a saying in the Navy, “I don’t mind being screwed but I’ll be damned if I’ll supply the vaseline” The police were actually telling people let them do whatever, rob you, break in etc. don’t even bother with alarms like ADT, we can possibly respond in time.

      • Black Flag® says:

        Shoot shovel shut up, the the “S’s”

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Had to read your response a couple times before my dim light bulb went off. Providing you do have a back yard or basement though.

          • Black Flag® says:

            Shoot, jackhammer, rent cement mixer, shut up

            • Shoot – dissolve in Acid – pour

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I do have both a basement and a backyard, plenty of shovels and picks, no problem here.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                When I was in Italy, 1970’s a civilized country, for 2 years there were a a number of events. A few years prior to arrival attacks, on the terminals and two aircraft. I just looked it up, listed as arson. PC revision and denial anyone. Palestinian terrorist. If you were in the airport afterwards there was a catwalk above the passenger area with machine gun toting military personnel continually aiming their guns on the crowd below. While there, we had the Aldo Moro kidnapping. If traveling with YOUR car outside of the registered province you could be guaranteed to stopped every few kilometers by one officer in the road and another behind some obstruction aiming a machine gun at you. You did not ignore the request to stop and check your papers. A “crash” of an Alitalia airliner off the coast of Sicily. We all knew it was a shoot down and thanked our lucky stars it was not the US doing it. Discovered with the wreckage years later were two Libyan Migs. Personal protection by Italian Marines. Eventually reduced to personally carrying a machine gun to the beach, restaurants, store and movie theater, especially when with my adapted family. You always knew when the local mafia don was at mass. The square was surrounded by uzi carrying bodyguards. Even though its been 35 years I still sit when in public so I can see what’s coming at you, back to the wall. Trying to always be aware of my surroundings. Lapsed briefly at the ticket booth in Amsterdam in 2001, but saved me 3 more times from mugging or worse while teaching in Amsterdam. Paid protection for my house and property in Italy. This was not an by an alarm system, but by an armed guard with a lupara. Skull and crossbones on my gate but also a sticker on my car. Cost $4.80 per month. Never had a problem after that concerning the property, best insurance policy I ever had. He guaranteed I would never get robbed. Not like our “To Protect and Serve” logos on the police vehicles here. The damage has already been done when they show up. Became liable by my command to insure that my people did not hang out consistently in a place letting it get to be known as a place where Americans hang out. Marines shot while climbing the perimeter fence instead of going through the gate. The bodies were still on the wire in the morning when we came to work. Rocket attacks on the fuel dumps. The rockets went over my head as I left the base. Rule was after an attack, do not attempt to come back until notified. There were always plenty of duty personnel at hand. That was my experience in a gun free country in Europe.

              • Amazing world – almost every question has a solution

                After You Shoot: Your gun’s hot. The perp’s not. Now what?


      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Forgot about running into a road block one evening taking some friends from the US to dinner at a resort in Naxos/Giardini Sicily. No warning, nothing, turned the corner and you were looking down the cannon barrel of a tank. Instantly surrounded by armed military police. My id got us through easily but this was in a world popular resort town.

  37. Judy Sabatini says:

    They’ll do anything to get guns away from those who legally own them, one way or another.


    • They can pass laws all they want. Let them try and take ’em and see how fast those stupid laws change

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Oh, I know, but, just wanted to post this. Just like with what you posted about having parents tell whether or not they own any guns at their kids schools before enrolling them. Like I said G, they’ll try anything & everything to confiscate everybody’s guns one way or another.

  38. Today’s rumblings. Scientist’s say second hand smoke NOT a cancer risk. CDC had NO scientific evidence to back their claim that second hand smoke causes cancer. Government caught LYING again. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t the second hand smoke issue championed by the Left? The end’s justify the means. Know who to believe!

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Personal data point…..My Father died from cancer a few years ago. The pathologist after sectioning the cancer cells stated to him, and I’m a witness, “now aren’t you sorry that you smoked”. The cells were scientifically identified as smoking /tobacco related. He never smoked a day in his life, grew up in a relatively non smoking home. Couldn’t afford them in the depression. His entire work career, including WWII service was surrounded by smokers. Plane travel, offices, meetings, restaurants etc. He was retired for years before any work place laws regarding smoking were put in place. I’ve personally quit two well paying jobs due to “smoking” in the workplace.

      • Black Flag® says:

        First, there is no way in hell they can make that determination.

        All they know is what type of cancer he had, and statistics based on life style over the population what may be the contributor.

        It is as likely he got it from road dust during the war, or other times, as back then dust was not thought to be “harmful”. “Air Particulates” are now one of the “causes” of such cancers.

        Correlation is not causation. Worse, them making up stories about second hand smoke -where there is NO correlation at all- is ethically immoral.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Like radon gas on causing cancer. In reading papers and CDC reports on how radon “caused” cancers show up, they say the cancers look like cancers in smokers. Only relating what I’ve read in medical journals. I personally believe that is the most likely reason for the cancer, not second hand smoke. My Mother died a year after my Father, same diagnose and my Fathers brother also 6 months after that again the same. They all lived for the longest periods of their lives right in the middle of the geographic area noted for the most “radon” related problems in the country. They all lived in modern homes sealed up tight so the house couldn’t breath and vent the hazardous chemicals and gases. Genetics in the family can be discounted. Most of their immediate family lived on average 10 – 20 years longer if not still alive. So my personal research is taking me down the path of all the toxic chemicals used today, inside and outside, in food production, building homes to conserve energy and those that are naturally occuring in nature etc. Smoking though does not help.

  39. I am having a little problem with all this censorship issue with A&E and the Duck Dynasty patriarch……

    Ummmm”……… Somebody please explain to me why would you suspend this guy……but you still air all the shows with this guy still on there? And now, you are going to run a Duck Dynasty marathon…….with this same guy plastered all over tv.

    Does hypocrisy fit here? ( sarcasm intended )

    • The guy said some things out of ignorance, as well as made some pretty good points. He spoke his mind, pushed some buttons, and got ripped for it. I don’t so much see him as bigoted or whatever, just a simple man trying to live right.

      They are only trying to straighten out a mess.

      I wonder though, why, if there is such a concern, didn’t those involved take discretionary measures to maybe edit it prior to airing if they thought it might cause a stir.

      Maybe the people producing the shows could have approached him and said…’ We’re not sure how people will react to the Jim Crow comments, so we’re gonna edit that part out if you don’t mind.’

      I also wonder why people, in general, feel the need to fry the guy instead of trying to understand, and maybe reach out to him, point some things out to him, educate him, give him a little perspective.

      • BL, Those on the left DEMAND that people agree with their views or they try to fry them. That is their MO, it won’t change. The only way to deal with them is to fight back hard, as you have witnessed the last few days 🙂

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        No…it’s a gotcha statement, fully solicited by the interviewer, knowing full well how it would be answered.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      This whole Phil Robertson issue is much ado about nothing. A mountain has been made out of a molehill as far as I can see. Something for people on both sides of the argument to waste time arguing over.

      Phil Robertson and everyone else are exercising their 1st Amendment rights to free speech, while Phil also exercises his right to practice his religion by expressing his religious views.

      Everyone, on both sides needs to get over it and move on to issues that will truly affect their lives.

      There, now I have wasted my time on the subject too…….moving on.

  40. I just emailed my HoR Rep about Obama changing the ACA law illegally. If I get an answer, I’ll share it 🙂

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Wouldn’t be nice if Obama, after his staffer signed him up “symbolically” for the Bronze plan on the governments healthcare web site, actually receive the care he signed up for the next time he goes to Walter Reed.

    • ” I suggest you read the entire bill and learn exactly how many constitutional rights have just been stripped from you and your family. ” – Senator Ted Cruz

      snap..snap ..snap… WAKE!. UP! AMERICA!

      • It won’t help BL, most are brain dead 😉

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Agree with Gman, no help coming. If any more needed writings/reading are required on this subject. I posted part of de Tocquevilles chapter on “Despotism in Democratic Nations” I did not post the last parts. Those go into a thorough analysis on the dicotomy of two conflicting passions. Happy reading.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            When 57.5% of the eligible registered voting population actually voted in the 2012 presidential elections, and you figure that Obama got 51.1% of that. We in a country of 310M+ are being ruled by roughly 20%. Tyranny of the minority anyone. Obama’s take is not any attempt to reach across the aisle to the opposition, but to say ” I won, get over it”

            • Black Flag® says:

              Voting is pointless and a farce.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The only voting in the general elections I have wished to do over the past decade or more is “NONE of the ABOVE”. I understand some States are considering such a category. That makes a clear statement of disapproval and leaves no doubt in the politicians mind it is not laziness, inconvienience of polling places, open time for voting and any other excuse they choose to use. By the way I truly agree with you on this point with one exception, my local elections for city government. Above that point pure BS

  41. plainlyspoken says:

    Now, here’s something to try and stir debate on a different subject. I wrote this on my blog and I place it here now in order to get the views of others.

    One of the most difficult aspects of the whole problem we encountered in bringing Cardman to “justice” was the long drawn out time period from his arrest in June 2012 to his sentencing on December 16, 2013. The long road could be shortened considerable, not only in this case, but in many others if our society took a more common sense approach to dealing with those charged with criminal activity. The key to this improvement is one item: confessions!

    Cardman confessed to his crimes against my step-daughter, so why should he be given the right to have a trial where he is innocent until proven guilty? Why should he have the right to drag our family through more pain and anguish in having not only to wait, in our case, through two trials? Why should he get the right to have a defense attorney try to smear all of us and the police witnesses (I’ll be writing about the – in my opinion – lack of ethical standards his defense attorney used in the two trials to convince the juries of Cardman’s innocence in future posts)?

    To me it would make more sense to have only a “trial” on one aspect – the confession itself. Let there be a hearing wherein the only question to be answered is whether or not the confession is legally valid. If the court determines that the confession was obtained lawfully, within the rights of the accused, then the accused should be immediately found guilty – negating the need for a trial. Should the confession be determined not to be valid, then by all means proceed with a trial – if there exists enough other evidence to place before a jury to determine guilt.

    Now, there will be many who will scream that such an idea is ludicrous and violates the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution. Technically true, as the US Constitution is currently written. Yet, it can – and should be – changed. Plus, whenever the government pleases the US Constitution is ignored anyway. For instance, the 4th Amendment states (in part), “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…“, even though there now rages a national debate on the spying on of US citizens by the National Security Agency. Let us not forget the famous Patriot Act as well that eroded the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution.

    So I say to those who would scream – “so what“? The individual confessed and that confession was found to be legally obtained. Therefore there is NO question of the individual’s guilt. Sentence the offender and call the next case. Save the taxpayer, the victims and their families the torture of going through a trial where the only real goal is to protect the defendant.

    Remember, it’s common sense that should be the rule – not the complicated, intertwined, and twisted legalese that should rule the court system.

    I’ll be interested to hear arguments about this thinking.


    • In a vast amount of cases, I would agree with you. The person admitted to his crime, go to court and let a judge put him on the stand and ask him/her if they stand by their confession. If the confession is legal, the judge can render a verdict and sentence in one trial. The right to appeal still stands. This may not always work, considering the number of mentally ill people in this world. I can certainly understand your experience, and find it not necessary. With a legal confession, the game should, and I say should, be over. If the criminal recants, then that changes everything.

      I also feel that all criminal trials take too long. If someone has been charged with a crime, they should be tried within a month. If the prosecution needs more time, maybe the arrest should have not been made. There’s way too much BS when it comes to this. That’s what comes with a complicated government structure that makes so many laws everyone is a criminal and don’t know it.

      In short, your case should have never had a trial that went beyond the admission of guilt. Blame the judge on this. I’m guessing that the judge was likely a Democrat, please correct me if I’m wrong.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        If the individual is found to be mentally incompetent, normally by a hearing before the judge with witnesses to show their mental competence or lack thereof, then the confession would be no good anyway as the individual wouldn’t be competent to stand trial. So that handles that issue I think. If they are found competent AND the confession is found to be legally valid, then game over.

        I don’t believe that a confession should be allowed to be recanted (again, if there is an issue of competency – see above). Once made and found valid – tough for them if they want to try to recant. They’re guilty – sentence them.

        The time for trial isn’t the fault of the judge. It’s all the laws and case law in states and the federal courts that forces cases to be delayed. Plus, the defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial, which many do to give the defense all the time they can get to build their case. The judge in our case (I don’t know his political affiliation) actually told the defense before the first trial that he would accept no more motions to delay the start of the trial any further. So from arrest to first trial was June 2012 to April 2013. The second trial started as soon as possible based on the court docket. I found the judge (who was a criminal defense attorney before joining the bench) to be fair and impartial. I won’t even argue against the sentence he imposed (12 to life). While I would have liked the minimum to be more (the judge could have gone up to a minimum sentence of 24 years), I feel like the sentence will prevent that waste of humanity from being free for at least 20 years – long enough for my step-daughter to be well into her adult life.

        So that’s my further two cents.


        • I think it’s fair to say that our Judicial system is far from perfect. While many trials take way too long to happen, our system is still much better than many others in the world. Can we fix it? Sure, as soon as we can remove the criminals in DC. Then we can fix real problems instead of making problems that then need fixed. 😉

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Example….Ft. Hood, no further comment needed

  42. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-21/us-sailors-assisting-fukushima-clean-crippled-cancer

    This may be the biggest crime ever committed. 👿 And OUR government is silent, shame on them.

  43. Mathius had made mention that gay teens commit suicide more often than straights and IMPLIED that it was do to victimization. I didn’t argue his point, till now. I checked a few studies, none of which show that victimization is a major cause of suicide (attempts of otherwise). Having read several different studies, here’s the link to Wikipedia (don’t even try to crop the sentences and changing the meaning, I’ll be watching): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

    All studies said that LGBT teens have a much higher rate of mental illness than straight’s. So here is what I have concluded. Gays have higher suicide rates because they are confused about their sexuality. Being shunned by family and friends also contributes. Bullying is a small factor as compared to other reasons. More work needs done by Psychologists to help gays deal with their mental issues, beginning at an earlier age. All this trendy “it’s OK to be gay” stuff is not helping matters for these people, but making matters worse when they find that acceptance ain’t so easy. I say, Live and Let Live!

    • Being shunned by family and friends also contributes

      Yes. I’m sure it does.

      And the families and friends are rejecting the kids because they are bigots who grew up and were surrounded by other bigots who spouted nonsense like this Duck Dynasty guy. Their teachers were bigots Their preachers were bigots. Their friends were bigots. Their parents were bigots. The newspapers were run by bigots. The may was a bigot. Of course these people grew up bigoted.

      THAT’S WHY he needs to be called out. Because he’s endemic to a system of bias and hate and the only way to root out the bias and hate it to play whack-a-mole with every backwater yokel and Cletus who pops his head up to spout off such nonsense until the whole thing is stamped out.

      It has to be challenged at every turn. It can never be allowed to go UN-challenged. Just like you cannot walk by with your fingers in your ears if a man is calling another man a n*gg*r. Some things are not acceptible in the 21st century. Does it do explicit and specific harm? Yea, probably. But more to the point, it’s a cancer on the goodness of modern society. Some of us see that and refuse to turn a blind eye.

      All this trendy “it’s OK to be gay” stuff is not helping matters for these people, but making matters worse when they find that acceptance ain’t so easy.

      The problem isn’t that it’s “not helping” the gay kids. It’s that it’s tough to make it sink in into the thick skulls of the hillbillies they’re surrounded by. It’ll get through eventually, give it another generation or so.. well.. this..

      • You can’t see through your own bigotry. Said with much love 😉

      • plainlyspoken says:

        “And the families and friends are rejecting the kids because they are bigots who grew up and were surrounded by other bigots who spouted nonsense like this Duck Dynasty guy. Their teachers were bigots Their preachers were bigots. Their friends were bigots. Their parents were bigots. The newspapers were run by bigots. The may was a bigot. Of course these people grew up bigoted.”

        Really? Methinks you espouse BS with such a generalization good sir.

        Further, your intolerant hatred for all who do not meet your standards of righteousness shows you to be a bigot yourself Mathias. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

        big•ot•ry (ˈbɪg ə tri)

        1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          dang it! My apologies for the misspelling of your name Mathius. I failed in my proofreading.

  44. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Today’s real-world update:

    Northern Hemisphere sea ice – 700,000 sq. km. below normal
    Southern Hemisphere sea ice – 1,700,000 sq. km. ABOVE normal

    Total Global Sea Ice 1 million square kilometers ABOVE normal.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled deprogramming 🙂

    • Any ideas on the disparity?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Antarctica is a large landmass surrounded by Sea Ice, whereas the Arctic is an ocean with no central landmass. As such, the Antarctic is usually around -50 to -60 Centigrade year-round, while large parts of the Arctic are actually above (slightly above) freezing for at least 3 months of the year.

      When the Global Climate starts to cool, as it is doing now (Solar cycle is very weak, next 2 solar cycles projected to be almost non-existent, PDO is in the negative phase, AMO is getting ready to switch to negative phase), the cooling usually shows up in the Antarctic first.

      If you liked the winters of the 1960’s and 1970’s (remember 1978 anyone?) get ready for a few decades of that coming up again soon.

      • OK, now you have me worried. Up to now, I’m 67, I have been able to handle a snow shovel really well. You are telling me I’m probably going to need a snow blower. Crap!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Stephen K.

          Yeah, if you are 67, I would recommend investing in a snow blower if you live in an area that experienced a lot of snowfall in the 1960’s and 1970s. At best, my prediction is accurate and you get a lot of use out of it (and save your lower back some pain in the process). At worst, my prediction isn’t too good, and you spend $500 as a precautionary measure but it isn’t a terribly good investment.

          However, I would be willing to bet this 10-year old holiday fruitcake that keeps circulating amongst my family as a gag-gift that my prediction ends up being pretty good.

      • Those were the days! Bring it! I’ll gladly suit up and build some igloos with my granddaughter!

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Snow forts! Build em, then take water to wet down the outside and let freeze. Acts like mortar and makes it tough to climb as well……. 🙂

          • I know that trick!. pack snow into milk crates..stack snow blocks to form walls..been there,done that. Peter is talking 78, but I was much younger when we’d burrow into snow drifts to make huge caves. Eight kids in the family 7 kids in neighbor family..someone always had to be the lookout in case of cave ins. Good times….

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I lived in Southeastern Wisconsin in 1978… 91 inches of snow for the season, with no days above freezing to melt any of it at all… We had some great tunnels down both sides of the driveway, and some great snow forts too. Freezing the exterior walls for extra strength and extra interior warmth was excellent.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                They had to bring ice-breakers into the Chesapeake. The James was frozen. Oil barges couldn’t reach the distribution pipelines. Shut down of government offices due to no heat. Had a house off base and had to take in base housing families until it warmed up. The base water tower froze solid. Those were the days.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Those were the days. just make sure you don’t make them on school grounds, you’ll be expelled and given a record for hostile behavior.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Some addition comments on the cycles of warming and cooling. The Arctic warmed. Ice melted. Said ice the older it is is mostly fresh water. The less dense water floats on top. As the warmer, more dense, more saline gulf stream goes north it sinks. Causing in time a cooling trend. Well documented as one of the major causes of either mild or harsh winter conditions in Europe. Thermoclines, used by fishermen for years and submarine forces.

        • See, there you have gone and done it. Talking science again.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Good science rules. Read your post in the next topic and the letter from your son. Peace would really be a nice break wouldn’t it?

            • sadly true.

            • Peace would really be a nice break wouldn’t it?

              I’ve never known peace in this lifetime.

              Maybe some day.. but I doubt it.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Unfortunately war for war’s sake appears to hard-wired into human nature. Never known peace in my lifetime either. But hope does spring eternal.

              • Black Flag® says:

                I do not agree. Peace and Freedom is hard wired.
                It takes a tremendous amount of energy to turn humans to war.

                Further, do not simply review “Americanism” – which is profoundly warlike. The rest of the world is not so much

              • There will be peace on Earth when there are no humans on Earth.

              • Neither have I, sir Mathius……..Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Bosnia, gulf wars I and II, and soon to be Syria…..

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Black Flag…..I’ve read your response and decided to look at articles either to confirm or refute your disagreement with me about Human, war and being hard-wired. Here is an interesting article about human psychology, society and evolution. Talks about the distinction of violence and war etc.

                After reading your comment and also this paper, I started thinking about a very specific comment made by economists prior to the 1st gulf war. This was in rebuttal to all the talking heads about the massive war machine and capabilities of Iraq and how awful it will be to go to war with them. The economists point was that there was no way that Iraq had consummed, and conserved the excess resources required to wage a war. Much less expect to win. The economists said, if this is true, we as a nation should sit down with the Iraqis and learn a thing or two from them, because they have created an economic miracle. They just plain did not have time to accumulate and stock pile the material needed on top of their daily national consumption.

                The paper states that war is a relatively new phenomenon, after society moved on from hunter gatherers to an agricultural society where excess resources could be generated. Therefore war itself is NOT HARDWIRED into the human psychy. This paper tried to make a distinction between violence and war. Two different animals, so to speak.

              • Black Flag® says:


                Not much to disagree with in your post, though I believe -from evidence of observation- that violence is not so “hardwired” either, otherwise progress and civilization would be impossible.

                Violence is a “choice” usually made by men who are unreasoned or inarticulate – that is, those who cannot provide a valid reason for their demands or by those who cannot competently communicate or convince others of their demands, however reasoned.

                Reasoned men rarely chose to initiate violence. Again, its a choice NOT to use violence, even though the reasoning of an action may be correct. Reasoned men understand consequences, and though they may not get their reasoned way, see that the risks of such violence probably outweighs the benefits.

                Violence is a massive part of the Universe – the destruction wrecked by nature shows that violence is, indeed, a methodology of change.

                But men are not rocks and fire merely bound to obey external forces upon them. We can reason and we can establish principles to surround our own action.

                The first animal humans domesticated was himself.

              • Operative phrase: “Reasoned men”

      • I’m with you Peter, but weather is fickle. NASA say November was the warmest year recorded since 1880….


        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Sure, NCDC and NASA GISS are claiming it was the WARMEST NOVEMBER EVER… and then you look at the UAH and RSS satellite data, and you realize that globally, November was either 0.20 or 0.22 degrees C above normal, making it about average for the past 30 years.

          What NASA GISS and NCDC both did is they took very warm data over parts of Russia, warmed it even more than it really was, and extrapolated it to parts of Russia that had no reporting weather stations, thus over-averaging in the Russian warmth, and allowing them to claim a global temperature anomaly of around +0.653 degrees C. Notice the BIG DIFFERENCE between the NASA GISS data of +0.653C and the ACTUAL SATELLITE DATA of +0.220….

          NASA GISS and NCDC only TRIPLED the actual global temperature anomaly for the month in order to be able to make that claim… but you can go ahead and believe it if you like, it’s a free country.

          • Equally, NOAA subtracts an average of 1.7 degrees from temperature readings pre-1970 – because I guess people in the 1930’s were incapable of reading a thermometer accurately, and misread by that amount.

            So, suddenly, during the 70’s cooling period, people wised up, got reading glasses and better observed the thermometers in the same measuring stations.

            It couldn’t be that to make today’s reading appear “abnormal” they had to reduce the warming period of the 30’s ’cause if you don’t subtract the 1.7 degrees, today’s warming just isn’t remarkable at all – a case of “gotta make the data fit our conclusion”

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Sir…This will be my last post in this section on Censorship, and will move on to Decisions Decisions. Several years ago at the beginning of the GW scam a writer “quoted” a story from the NY Times about how the climate is the hottest since records had been kept, and all gloom and doom for the future. It could have been read as a current event. However when the writer stated the real introduction to his paper was the date the NY Times article actually was from 1898. The rest of the his paper was devoted to the cycles of weather and the hype created by the newspapers and the headlines were all from the NY Times. He posted 20 such headlines of natural cycles over the past century of “doom” to ice, then followed by “doom” to warming and the hysteria that was caused by the perveyers of true. please note the sarcasm. I will try and scare up the paper.

          • “but you can go ahead and believe it if you like, it’s a free country.”

            That cuts a little. Had thought I was an established skeptic on AGW. Been seeing where RAW data is being altered going back as far as 1860’s. So I will keep believing where science matches established historic events such as the “Little Ice Age”, “Medieval Warm Period” & Roman times, you have something close to the truth. And that will tell us only that modern weather events are mild when compared with the weather mankind has endured in the past.

            • Remember the Spanish Armada of 1588? Maybe the storms of the Little Ice Age saved the UK?

              It was here that the Spanish Armada encountered its most dangerous foe. An unusually severe September Atlantic storm had formed off the Scottish coast, and the returning Armada fleet was caught in its fury. Many Spanish ships left formation and straggled away. Some beached on the Irish coast, with the Spanish sailors being captured or deserting and melting into the Irish population. Other stragglers managed to rejoin their squadrons, or wander back to Spain on their own. It was this storm that caused nearly all the damage and loss-both shipwrecks and casualties-that we associate with the Armada. 15-20,000 Spanish sailors perished, and close to 60 ships were lost or damaged beyond repair before the remnant of the force finally succeeded in returning to Spanish ports,


            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Sorry I was mistaken about moving on to Decisions. Well said. I’m following research on the Sahara desert. Space exploration and the photos of the earth have shown artifacts of 3 separate times the Sahara alternated between desert and wet, estuaries, back bays etc. Scientists like geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers, and many other disciplines have calculated that roughly a 7 thousand year cycle occurs there. Their findings also indicate that we are only part way through the “drying” out period. What they are without editorializing stating we are in a NATURAL, not man made cycle of climate change. My editorial here, and all this can change in an instant by and event like the super volcano in Yellowstone deciding to blow, or an asteroid strike. Events that will ruin our days castastopically and leave no room for adaptation, like moving to higher ground. Genetic research also confirms that there have been several times that MAN has been nearly wiped out by castastrophic events leaving very few reproducing pairs to start over. Rambling here, during the drought/dust bowl in the mid west of during the 30’s, not all caused by nature, but helped by bad farming techniques. The northeast was experiencing record rains and flooding, not matched since that time. Water is a constant, it is either in liquid (water), solid (ice) or gas (water vapor) While in college, I worked on oceanographic ships off the coast of California gathering the “EVIDENCE” to either support of refute the theories on how far the ocean levels were down during the last ice age. Our findings in that area were in excess of 400 feet down from current levels. So what is Miami going to do when they find themslves no longer beach front property. Petition the government to turn the spigot and raise the ocean levels.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Dale, Weather has always been one of my subjects that I enjoy studying. Also find interest in an asteroid or whatever striking Earth and what would come of things. The recent event in Russia is certainly a precursor to things to come. Just beginning to look at our current comet. Interesting stuff there 🙂

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Gman…I thought you were out sitting in a tree stand today. Or are you using your IPAD while waiting for the action to begin? This morning like many others lately were like the 4th of July here. The waterfowl hunting on the river behind my house is at a full roar.
                I really hope you find what I am posting interesting. Like I find yours and others on the site. I do find it interesting how the topic of “Censorship” morphed into this side topic of climate change. As it turns out how does the “left” usually argue and debate. There is none. They just start calling people names like, racist, bigot, denier and other derogatory labels and the people in opposition usually shut up, because 1) it’s pointless to continue the discussion, it is futile. 2) And the opposition is usually confused on how to react to those labels because they are not any of the above. Censorship of free thought and speech is then accomplished. The government by its over-reach on their survelience (sp) practices are causing people to bury their thoughts and not freely express them as often as they did by phone or email.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                “I really hope you find what I am posting interesting.” Absolutely Yes! It is hard sometimes to get a good discussion going. I also agree that Global warming/Climate change, being man made is utter hogwash and as far as I’m concerned, it is an attempt to defraud the people.
                Being shut down and silenced doesn’t happen to me, I won’t appease those who choose to debate with name calling. Much of that kind of activity seems to have been stifled here at SUFA. I hope it stays that way too 🙂
                I usually hunt till near lunchtime, but it’s quite cold with a brisk breeze flying through, hopefully the breeze will subside for tomorrows hunt. I hunt in any temperature, but the wind keeps the deer down and I generally don’t move much. Plus I’m dressed to stay warm when sitting, which doesn’t bode well for walking, if you can understand that.
                Censorship cannot be allowed, ever. Whether I like what is said or not, the speaker has the right to share his/her opinion. We shall continue to express ourselves, at least until we are arrested for it 🙂

              • “Our findings in that area were in excess of 400 feet down from current levels. So what is Miami going to do when they find themselves no longer beach front property.”

                History & science indicate Roman times were a couple degree’s warmer than today. It also appeared to be a very prosperous time for the human race. Even the Little Ice Age was pretty good for most. (ignore Greenland & the Vikings, the French Revolution can also be attributed to food shortages caused by cold weather & poor wheat crops) In history, only a true ice age will cause the sever climate shift the doomsayers rave about. It’s so funny they scream about oceans rising where data shows it to be the ground sinking.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I definitely do understand about dressing warmly for sitting as opposed to walking. You wind up looking like the Marsh Mellow Stay Puff Man and walking is reduced to a waddle. When a new study comes out that contadicts the findings or behavior of previous years on of the first things I do is try and find out WHO funded the study. There are to many cases for it not to be a coincidence that the findings support the opinion or desired for actions of the origanization providing the funding, be it the Government, groups like PETA or business. Putting together stats for the newest topic. Credit fueling the economy, 11X the money supply than what existed in 1970, to what affect other than the illusion of wealth. The average price of a car in 1970 vs 2013 is right at 10X, The cost of annual tuition and Room and Board at CSU is 11X for an out of state student what it was in 1970. My personal income followed roughly a 10X increase with no additional buying power. The average price of gasoline was $0.36/gal, last year exactly 10X, bread 1970 for 1 lb loaf $0.24 now 12X plus. Nimitz class carrier 1B, today 12B…..its all an illusion of wealth where in reality the “harder you work the behinder you get”

              • …and add on top of that tax bracket “creep”. Interestingly, deductions on your taxes have not matched inflation, nor the brackets for the oxymoron “progressive” tax brackets.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Well said. I’m sure that you can see the illusion of choice when voting in Federal elections (I don’t vote in said elections). When one understands the illusions put forth before them, it’s easy to see why things are so screwed up. Let’s take the illusion of government helping the people. Why then would they prepare so much to fight them?

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                LOL….you are right on all your historical comments. In some areas the ground is springing up, like in SoCal, which has an emergent coast. You can see in the Santa Monica Mtns the stairstep patterns where the beach caused erosion at some time or another. Other areas subside, all we have to do is study plate tectonics and the continual folding of the earth crust, the trenches etc. IE the Hawaiian Islands are moving northward on the plate which is moving over the one volcanic outlet, where the big island is today. It will move off the fissure, someday be where Oahu is where as Oahu will someday be be at the most northern reaches of Hawaiian islands today barely above the surface. Follow them along under water and they fold into the Marianas Trench if I remember correctly. Most ocean rising we have to do something alway put their argument in terms of the real estate losses. The poor islands in the Indian oceans. What are we going to do with the resorts there. Miami, same argument. In my lifetime you saw beach front property being rather disposable to oh my god the government has to save my property. The beaches are in continual motion, where man has tried to stop the natural motion they F***ed up even more.
                The Vikings went adventuring when the warming in Scandanavia allowed surpluses of food, enabling a greater population. The stories of Lief Ericson, his Father got driven out of Iceland, moved to Greenland and Lief started from there to North America. There was settlements and farming in southern Greenland until the mini ice-age. There was 500 feet of ice added in greenland since WWII.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                LOL….Marie Antoinette pretty much lost her head due to her stupid ignorant statement, “If they don’t have bread let them eat cake” The people were rioting because there was no bread due to there was no wheat due to the failed wheat harvest due to the cold and wet climate. Wasn’t the childrens story about Hans Brinker ice-skating on the Amstel River in Amsterdam not referencing really the ice skating in the winter but that it was actually during the summer months.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Going to wrap two discussions into this one reply…..GMAN and BF…I forgot that the median home price in 1970 vs today is just about 10X-11X with having an even higher spike before the implosion.
                To LOL, my ex-father-in-law who was very elderly recalled times in the late 1800’s when he was a child of summers that never were. Crop failures due to frost and sometimes snow in the summer months in VT. Only food was what they had put up the previous year and had not consumed and hunting for game.

              • Good point about Greenland! That P-38 Lightning they recovered from the squadron lost in 1942 was under 250 feet of ice. I been preaching that 1,000% inflation for the past few years also. Do think that Real Estate, College and Medicine have exceeded the 1,000% significantly and that is because of government involvement, Student Loans, Freddie, Fannie, Medicare and Medicaid. Time wise they all started spiking after the government started the programs. College was about $ 1,000 per year for me ’64 to ’68, Northern NJ homes about $ 20,000 in the mid ’60’s can’t tell you about medicine but would imagine the cost of a hospital stay would be over 2,000%. A healthy delivery for a baby would entail about 1 week’s stay for Mom and Baby. Today they have cut it to two days at best. So, the comparison should be cost per day not just cost.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Stephen……I used the number of 500 feet of ice added since WWII to Greenland from that expedition to recover a P-38. A member of the team was the brother of my Jaguars mechanic. He said 500 ft was what they mined through to reach the planes. Upon looking at the web sites and articles they alternated between 25 stories and 260 feet. An architectural building height calculator has a 25 story office building at just under 400 feet, a residential building under 250 and a mixed use was in between. I hate, even against my own posts, to do this but besides adding snow and ice to the surface of Greenland could the planes also have sunk into the existing ice by “regelation”?

                If your Mother is still with us, ask her how much it cost her to give birth to you. I will bet < 100$. That is what my Mom said when I asked her and affirmed by a friend on her 3 children. No insurance picking up the costs. They said it was considered natural and just routine. My nephew's wife is a Dr. and her last child was born 3.0 years ago. No complications, and she was of "normal" child bearing years and the charge to the insurance company was over $20K.

                What are the ages of the folks participating on SUFA? I'm 62. Stephen, I assume your 67-68?

              • When we were cleaning out Mom’s apartment, we found the Hospital bill for 10 days. Catholic Not for Profit. It was $ 60.00 in 1946. Doctor was I believe about $ 40.00 Grandkids are running in the $ 20,000 range and even with a C-section, the girls are kicked out in 3 days. Regarding the planes. they supposedly did not try for the B-17’s because they were crushed. Fighters were built stronger.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              LOI, I wasn’t necessarily claiming that YOU personally believed it, I should have made that more clear 🙂

              • No worries! I think I know a lot about the climate debate. What is great about SUFA is when you, Flag, T-Ray chime in & I learn more. It’s like hanging out with a bunch of rocket scientists. Dale A.A. is looking impressive as well. Reflecting on all that is going on, I think the key to most issues is economic. (may be bastardizing something Flag has said here)
                AGW is being used to drive economic policies. Our QE, China & everyone else’ s currencies manipulations are also all about seeking economic advantage. On AGW at least, revealing that lie MIGHT end that manipulation. Hope it’s not just cutting one head of the Hydra….

  45. BL, as I mentioned above, Liberals only know how to demand and threaten when they don’t get their way. Here’s another example. http://joeforamerica.com/2013/12/charlie-sheen-threatens-duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson/

    Message to Charlie Sheen: Shove it up your ASS!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie Sheen is a blatant womanizer and crazy drug addict. Perfect role model in today’s society.

      Who would win in a battle of Charlie Sheen’s mouth vs. Phil Robertson’s shotgun??? I think Charlie Sheen better keep it muzzled if he gets anywhere near the Robertson Clan….

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        But who takes Charlie seriously anyway. The only role model message he should represent is what not to do with your life. One picture of him is worth a thousand words.

    • Personally, I define marriage as something very natural and spiritual, and by order of God’s will, …between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with paper or legal regulatory force, or any religion, dogma or even ceremonial practices. Although it is very much in line with several religious ideologies.

      I have every right to think, exercise, celebrate and express as such.

      I don’t care what other people think about how I define marriage, nor do I care how they define marriage. As long as they do not violate me or interfere with my pursuit of happiness, I don’t care that they do.

      I have no right to make them agree with me or practice as I do, by order of legal edict or any coercive action or otherwise. I am no better than them and thus am not in the position to look down upon how they define their god or individual values. I only expect them to extend me the courtesy of simple human dignity and respect.

      Live and let live.

      If they find themselves in some sort of dilemma in regard to defining their values, I don’t mind to share my views and/or opinions if I/they think it will help them in some way. My 2 cents is free of charge.

      Otherwise, I will treat them with whatever tolerance and respect I wish from them, and try to exhibit at least some level of basic compassion and empathy for another human being.

      Golden Rule.

      Now, compare that to what everyone else is doing.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Well said BL.

        • Thank you.

          I don’t mean to sound snobbish when I make the comparison comment. I fully recognize that I am just some nobody turd trying to get through life. I am just as much a hypocritical monkey as anyone else.

          I suppose what I am really trying to say is that I think I found that mutual social universal balance in those two basic concepts. I am only trying to demonstrate.

          Take any social situation or issue, great or small in scale. Consider the entire chain of cause/effect and everyone who was involved, taking into account their role/responsibilities.

          Now, replace it with everyone making a genuine honest individual effort to practice a live and let live/golden rule standard regardless of any laws or labels/groups or nonsense that would otherwise impede.

          Viola’ – Balance – Harmony

          …which ponders me to consider…what if…

          …everyone, or as many as possible, would agree to take a day to do exactly that:

          to make a genuine honest individual effort to practice a live and let live/golden rule standard regardless of any laws or labels/groups or nonsense that would otherwise impede.

          What would happen?

          If you tried it with enough people, if it worked out, even if for only for one day, it proves just how much nonsense we live with and just how easy it is to get along. It sets a precedence of righteousness.

          And if we can do it for a day, we can do it for two or three days, …a week.

          If we can do it for a week, we can do it for a month. If we can keep doing it, we just learned something as a whole.

          …just an idea

          • plainlyspoken says:

            And it is an idea as good as any I’ve heard on dealing with the lack of respectful behavior between people that seems to now be the “normal” behavior.

            Regardless of how or why it has happened, life in society has declined in it’s values on the treatment of others. Basic human respect has been buried under the ideas that you only get somewhere when you are very vocal and uncivil.

            I’d sign on with your idea.

            • I don’t mean to make it out like a big deal or anything, but simply an everyday personal choice kinda thing…just to see if it does any good.

              Who knows?

              It seems to work for me. When I am out and about mingling with others, I tend to ignore the laws and social standards, and try to focus on those two simple concepts. It doesn’t usually cause problems.

              …just sayin’

              BTW, I wish you and your family the best with all that you have been dealing with.

              • plainlyspoken says:


                Thank you for your best wishes. Our family works every day on healing some more and trying to restore all of our lives to happiness.

                I also agree it’s not an issue to make a big deal out of, it should be just a way people choose to act daily in their lives. We try to in our lives and it is one reason why I choose to live away from so many who seem to feel the world revolves around them and they deserve the respect they won’t give others.

                Society has “advanced” itself in just as many negative directions as positive ones. It’s a shame too.

                Peace and a Merry Christmas to you and your family.

        • I echo that, very well said…

  46. Good read on consumerism. Focuses on consumerism and black culture. Don’t agree with the author’s kudos to Kanye, because Kanye is doing the exact same thing he’s *clink* bitching about. We’ve tossed this topic around here before, but it’s nice to see it in the mainstream. Maybe, just maybe, we’re getting somewhere.

  47. It is amazing how the market place works…..the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain pulled Duck Dynasty paraphernalia…….for 72 hours……the backlash and loss of business over three days changed their mind.

  48. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    The following are sections of a speech made by a Governor of Maryland over 60 years years ago. They were found in a book called “Midcentury Journey” by William L. Shirer. The chapter the speech was in, was “A Coming Home” Granted the specific reasons for the speech quoted in this chapter were different, the McCarthy era,

    all one has to do today is replace words like communist with terrorist, for example, or today being called a racist or bigot and the entire chapter is a mirror of today.

    ” I have witnessed with deepening concern the development in recent months of this new danger to personal freedom. It is not the danger of forcible repression by government; it stems from action by individuals or groups exercising a pressure not less powerful than that of the government….Its method is not direct interference with freedom of expression but it is not less destructive of that freedom because it intimidates men.
    The threat is not that they will be arrested, but that they will be stigmatized. Duress by name calling is more cruel and unjust, for while arrest leads to trial under legal safeguards, the smear is employed without restraint or responsibility and the victim is punished in the very process of being accused…..The result is that men who can not be silenced by authority are gagged by fear, for they they know that offtimes the penalty of forthrightfullness is character assasination, economic ruin and social ostracism
    The tragedy is that the attack on freedom is often made in the guise of a defense of freedom, and Constitutional rights are destroyed in the name of patriotism….I am thinking not only of revolting instances of men being publicly called communists or fascists without proff and other men not daring to speak in their defense. There is a deplorable intolorance which characterizes much of our so-called public discussion. It is conducted not on the level of debate; it decends to name calling and mud slinging.
    Related to the technique or the smear and the big lie is the sly innuendo sowing suspician against integrity and good faith of the opponent. This, too is a method employed by the fascist and the communist to discourage independence of thought. This alarming totaliarian tendency to inhibit free expression can be halted if the people are aroused to its inherent danger.”

    Another section of writings can relate to the abuses by the government, NSA, FBI etc. by Lloyd K. Garrison.

    “…..Americans, in their zeal to defend themselves against foreign agents, espionage and sabatoge, have gone far forward reviving the hated inquisitions of the Middle Ages. We have passed from guarding against overt acts to punishing peoiple for beliefs both real and imaginary, and in our zeal to stamp out the heresy of communism, we have let loose forces that are threatening the very freedoms we seek to save.”

    The chapter is well worth reading as is the whole book. ” Midcentury Journey” by Willia L. Shirer.

%d bloggers like this: