Open Mic 2014, Part 2

Every now and then, someone says something so ridiculous that one wonders how the person saying it gets on TV. Maybe that’s just how bad TV has gotten.  But it did make me laugh, so here’s it is in a nutshell.  Flipping through the channels to find something to help me fall asleep, I stopped on a talk show and the discussion was the Polar Vortex that was gripping the country in bitter cold.  This event is not new and has happened many times in the past.  Yet, one man was asked if this was global warming, and he said “of course it is, greenhouse gases trap heat, warming the air, warm air rises up and the cold air went down.   After I quit laughing, I turned on the H2 channel and fell asleep.  The question I have about this totally stupid ideology, is it the result of our poor education, including higher education?  Is it a prime example of how the Warmist’s really think?  Both?  Is the global warming crowd nothing more than a religious cult that needs an earth threatening boogieman?  Should the Warmer’s rescued on the ship stuck in the Antarctica be charged with a crime?  Or just charged with the cost of their rescue?  Or maybe they too think that the heat rose to the top (Arctic) and the cold fell to the bottom (Antarctic)?   BWAHAHAHA!   As usual, all subjects are open for discussion 🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. A new day 🙂

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      When MSM can not even match up the story with the events or pictures. Today, the headlines were about the chemical spill and contaminated water in VA??????Maybe in 1863 before WVA broke off. Since corrected by this evening. Last week the death of al-qaeda leader by a car bomb in Lebanon had the photo of the US cleric from the US that went to Yemen and had a missile delivered to his PO a few years ago. Can’t trust anything unless you see it yourself, and even then you’re accused of bias due to your previous experiences, brainwashing and ones corrupt and dissipated lifestyle. All sarcasm intended.

  2. Remember you are talking about the Bubblehead masses.

    Most went through a rotten, public school system whose primary goal is not to teach people how to think, but to train them to do mundane “jobs” competently, that is, enough to know how to take instruction and execute them, but not enough to understand what the consequences of that action may create

    Thus, the masses have been trained to mindlessly accept the proclamations of authorities without question or thought and of the few that are disturbed by this thoughtless acceptance of authority have so little scientific/philosophical/economic learning as to be unable to understand the topic in the first place

    • That’s the truth. By continuing to learn more and more about deer activity, I’m better able to put myself in a position to succeed. Deer movement changes about every 5 years, so changing with them is important. I incorporated more options in hunting locations by putting more ground blinds and tree stands in different areas. This will continue this summer as I move/add several more options. I’m hoping to get some great pictures as well.

  3. http://politichicks.tv/column/medicaid-abusers-using-911-car-service-expansions-will-make-worse/

    Actions have repercussions. Government actions have many more than most could imagine, this being just one of them. Ambulances becoming nothing more than taxi’s for the poor, how convenient.

  4. This poses a great question on responsibility, ethics and morals. I posted this video yesterday and since then the kids have ALL been taken into protective custody by the State. The question, should then State have the authority to take someone’s child?
    http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/thug-life-wont-believe-curse-words-coming-babys-mouth/

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Another GREAT example of what happens when core principles are not clearly identified and then carried forward into ALL aspects of our society.

    In this case, judges and many “modern liberals” are confusing and ignoring the core principles of FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The actual Force or Coercion is from those using the law to make others serve them or provide them with goods.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/does_the_constitution_force_bakers_to_bake.html

    • This is also what happens when people in a position of power believe that political correctness outweighs the law. The judge in these cases should be removed from office. Another reason why I say we need to take the whole Federal establishment down and apart and start over. It’s gone beyond corrupt to outright lawless. If that hasn’t been enough to open some eyes, nothing will> 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Political Correctness as you call it can only grow because the PRINCIPLES are cloudy, corrupt or non existent. That is the point that must be understood.

        There is no basis for removing anyone if they are not violating Accepted Principles. Since nobody seems to know what those values are anymore, you get most people supporting this type of thing, or even worse, being completely ambivalent about it.

        How can you claim “lawless” behavior on this? The Law writers and arbiters don’t even agree, although I expect MOST will side with the judge who ruled against the baker.

        So how are the LAW WRITERS and ARBITURES breaking the law or acting in a lawless fashion??

        Just declaring this to be true does not make it true. You must provide a rationale argument.

        • I simply agree with the Author on the Article 13 issue. When the State (government) demands a physical action by someone, that is equal to slavery (tyranny). The State has no power to do such a thing and it is not written that they can demand a physical action. However, the opposite seems true to me>

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            See, you have it all mixed up again.

            1. It is not slavery. It is “involuntary servitude”. Big difference and do not confuse the two.

            2. ” Involuntary servitude” AND “slavery” are in fact lawful and the STATE does have the power to impose both upon those living in the USA. The article states that slavery and involuntary servitude is not allowed except as “punishment” for crimes AND upon conviction for said crimes.

            So you see, the STATE does in fact have the power but in this case the STATE failed to convict the Baker of any crime first.

            • Apparently you do not believe I can read 🙄

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I assume you read just fine.

                But you certainly ignored the truth in making your comment.

                So either your simply being “inflammatory” for effect, or you didn’t understand the words you were reading.

              • JAC, you also know how I feel about all 3 branches of the Federal govt. The State govt’s are catching up as well, as I see it. I’m always going to be inflammatory when it comes to any area of govt decisions, especially when they are DEAD WRONG.

                On the brighter side, I do agree with your assessment about principles, or the lack of them, when it comes to this subject. I’d make the cake, replace water with urine and make it as pretty as could be. LOL 🙂

    • The bakery owners have just as much a right to refuse service based upon their religious beliefs as the gay people have a right to be gay.

      The only way to make people tolerate participating in something in stark contrast to their fundamental beliefs, is to force it. By forcing the bakery owners to bake a gay wedding cake, the law is forcing them to participate in a practice that is contrary to their beliefs.

      The answer is for the gay people to get their cake elsewhere as to respect the said bakery owner’s right to practice their beliefs. I am guessing there is someone who will bake them a cake somewhere for reasonable fee.

      They both have a natural right to self determination that does not require the violation of each other’s rights. There is no conflict other than what is being created by government forced intervention. …which is, at it’s root, justified by the ignorant position that rights come from government.

      Humans have the right to ‘be'(live) gay, but do not have a right to force others to help.

      Law cannot force it to be right.

      • BL, agree 100%.

        • ‘God’ by popular definition is the first cause, architect, creator, alpha, omega, beginning, end, omnipotent, one god of all, the natural universe and beyond.

          By order of the natural universe, by order of our creation, certain rights exist.

          We are naturally individuals with independent thought. At the center of rights and responsibility is individual choice. Free will choice is an unalienable gift from god. Try not to think or choose.

          We are also naturally social creatures, not independent by birth. We all have the same basic needs and fundamental behavioral patterns, and thus a built in need for self awareness and basic respect and compassion for each other. We are all stuck on the planet together.

          ‘Live’ is based in independent free will choice and inalienable rights, ‘let live’ is based in respect for free will choice and inalienable rights.

          The Golden Rule is It is rooted in reversing the Id for the Super Ego, the naturally learned function of self awareness and basic respect and human compassion.

          When you live in a system which is structured to act in force in contrast or imbalance/disharmony to natural order, you are creating conflict, friction, resistance. It is like driving with your emergency brake on.

          Trying to regulate free will is not much different than trying to regulate the weather. Should there be a law that it must rain a minimum of 38 inches of rain/yr. in farming states? What does the law say your favorite color is? What is your assigned favorite breakfast food or god?

          Law cannot regulate nature. It is not God.

          You cannot tell someone what to believe. If you force them to act in contrast such as the above example where they are peacefully exercising their rights, then you are violating them. You can only rightfully convince someone of their own free will to agree.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Well said BL.

        After reading the article I would comply with the judge’s order using two of the writer’s suggested actions. I would bake the ugliest cake I could of a male reproductive organ inside a female reproductive organ and price it at $25,000.00.

        Seems like a solution under such an ignorant order of a court violating the rights of the baker.

        • Here is an idea:

          Make the cake with cryptic references to the numbers 120, 18 and 22. …like make 120 icing flower things, 18 of them one color/design, and 22 of another color and/or design.

          Make it 18 inches high with 22 inch diameter/circumference/radius section, with the groom figures sitting in the 120 degree compass point of the cake…or whatever other creative cryptic ideas.

          Leviticus in Simple Gematria Equals: 120.

          Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

          • Make it all up nice for them… serve it to them with a smile… and just for fun, charge them for an itemized list for labor and materials that is broke down into 12.0 or 120 parts. Charge them $18.22

            …maybe even go so far as to make everything on the list be 18 of this or 22 of that. You could even go so far as to deliver it to them at 18:22 hours sharp.

            Let them eat cake.

            lol.

            • For a group that wants accepted in society, they sure are making alot of enemies recently. Not a very bright group of people if you ask me. 🙄

              • Well, Gman,

                You also have to keep in mind that this is a form of backlash from the gay community, in retaliation for those who have built a ‘Christian Nation’ via legal influence.

                The gay folks have been tolerating being forced to take a position of ‘denied abominations’ for a long time. I am not endorsing the idea of forcing people to sell cake, but rather that the can of worms was opened a long time ago.

                It is two sides having a legal arm wrestling contest over who gets to force who into what.

                It is like putting force, gay and religion into a blender.

                The answer is for each to tolerate the other’s right to free will and self determination. It doesn’t mean they have to hold hands and sing, …just that they should be tolerant in the interest of a peaceful existence and respect for free will.

  6. New definition according to Sheila Jackson Lee:

    Welfare: Transitional Living Fund

  7. Back from Ft. Leavenworth. Great trip, cold weather and a great time until the Airline, US Air, managed to cancel my reservation AND lose my baggage all within 45 minutes!

    Anybody watching this Chris Christie thing? Listened to his press conference and the Questions today. One would think that Christie, in addition to ordering personally the screw up at the George Washington Bridge, also;

    was behind 9-11
    was behind Pearl harbor
    Assassinated Lincoln and Kennedy
    led the “insurgents” at Benghazi
    Was the real Watergate planner
    Ran the NSA from his bedroom
    Started fast and Furious
    Advised Ollie North on Iran Contra
    Ordered the killing of Diem in Vietnam
    Ordered the Holocaust
    Caused the great flood
    Is behind climate change

    And of course anything else the Dem. press stooges can come up with to diminish him.

    The so-called conservative pundits are eating their own entrails right now in an effort to degrade him even more. Guess these guys really want Hillary in 16 or maybe Cuomo?

    • Looked at it briefly. Looks like one of his assistants has been caught red handed. Question is how he will & should deal with the situation. Dem’s/liberals will not be appeased by any action unless he resigns & quietly commits hari kari. Some of his supporters will doubtless be offended if the woman is punished at all…

      I would be happy if this kept him off the center stage. To me he is too close to a McCain or Romney. He’s not a true conservative & especially not a fiscal conservative.

      Glad the trip went well, might even give the airlines some slack…. This weather has taken a lot of people by surprise. We take for granted that mother nature works around our schedule when reality is we work around hers….

    • In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor’s lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

      In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, “Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/09/there-s-already-17-times-more-coverage-christie-scandal-last-six-mon#ixzz2pviNEtXG

      • Apparently the mayor who was supposedly pressured in Ft. Lee (a democrat) says he was not pressured!? Wonder if it was a his people talking to our people thing which never got to the bosses. This is what happens with a leader who chooses his people for extreme loyalty. Nixon did it. The result was a disaster. At least Christie is doing the right thing rather than trying to protect his underlings like Nixon did.

        Regarding his “conservatism” at least he did not throw gun owners under the bus. Had the chance to just rubber stamp the democrats but chose to veto them. Don’t like the guy personally, but would take him in a heartbeat over any democrat in the running.

      • The Elite have already decided that it will be Christie vs. Clinton in 2016. Mark my words 🙂

  8. For Anita who believes without violent men with guns, society would dissolve into nothing but violent men with guns.

    #2. Every Disaster Movie Ever Is Bullshit

    The most realistic bit of any disaster movie is the part where all hell breaks loose and society collapses into looting and riotous violence.

    You’re a panicking victim, a vicious predator, or a scheming Secretary of State with an evil plot to seize power. Real-life disasters seem to back Hollywood up. We all remember Hurricane Katrina.

    But people who focus on stories of robberies in the wake of major disasters often ignore that this shit goes on when there aren’t storms, too.

    There’s also the argument that a lot of “looting” was done by starving people trying not to die. Looting purists often argue that this doesn’t really count.

    OK, so people don’t steal as much shit as you’d think.
    At least not recreational shit.

    But that whole “society collapsing into anarchic violence” bit still seems plausible. Take away three hot meals and electricity, and the average person will shoot their own aunt with a crossbow inside of 48 hours. That’s not cynicism, just pragmatism.

    We tend to assume that order is a fragile thing held tenuously in line by legions of police officers and National Guardsmen.

    Wash those dudes away in flood waters or blow them up with a bomb, and we’ll make “Helter Skelter” look like “Imagine.”

    But these scientists interviewed survivors of real-life disasters and terrorist attacks and found something shocking:

    When a group of people are attacked, the shared threat gives them a common identity.

    Panic is extremely uncommon, and the majority of survivors tend to exhibit altruistic behavior. They look out for injured or elderly members of the group and help herd kids away from the danger.

    In any disaster you care to look at, good behavior is the norm, not the exception.

    #1. It’s Extremely Difficult to Make People Kill

    The modern world gives any of us the potential to be a mass murderer. We’re never short of examples of this. But murder is, on the whole, wildly uncommon. That’s probably just because it’s illegal, though.

    Give people a chance to kill some motherfuckers without those pesky “lawmen” getting all felony-y and you’ll see serious bloodshed.

    In the aftermath of World War II, otherwise known as “the best excuse people ever had to shoot at each other,” Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall decided to interview some of his soldiers. He asked them about this whole murdering Nazis enterprise they’d been working on and found, to his shock, that only about 15 to 20 percent of soldiers in the line of fire had actually shot at the enemy. These men were actively engaged in combat, being attacked by Nazis, and most of them couldn’t bring themselves to pull the trigger.

    This was apparently the first time in history a general thought to ask his men if they’d actually followed through on the whole war fighting thing. And the answer was a resounding “fuck no.”

    Marshall spread his study out to thousands of soldiers in 400 companies across every theater of battle, and the results were identical. People don’t like shooting other people.

    In 1986, the British military decided to take this study one step further. They looked into the “killing effectiveness” of units from more than a hundred battles across two centuries and compared that data to hit rates from simulated laser tag versions of those battles, because some British soldiers apparently had the best job in the history of both war and science.

    They found that kill rates from the simulated battles were vastly higher than the real ones. Conclusion: This whole “not wanting to kill people” thing isn’t a new phenomenon.

    Here’s the bad news (or if you consider the above paragraphs bad news, here’s the good news): Modern militaries have successfully nipped most of this pacifist nonsense in the bud. You can’t make people want to shoot the shit out of other random people, but you can make them rehearse the process so much that it becomes automatic.

    So there you go: People are inherently peaceful. Ish.

    • Why did you pick on me? You have me confused with someone. Ask G and Matt..I’ve told them both that they have no faith in people to act civilized. I agree with that post.

    • Why are there so many wars, crimes and disgusting violations all throughout the history of mankind as well as the current, if we are so inherently peaceful?

      What is it that drives men to willfully and eagerly do such evils?

      What is it that prompts people to disregard reason for violence?

      What is it that drives people to seek an unnecessary win/lose over others to the point of violating them?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        TRIBALISM

        • plainlyspoken says:

          JAC,

          I am intrigued with your response. Could you elaborate on it please?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            The conundrum of History is that BOTH BF and BL are correct.

            Humans living in peace is the norm. So WHY asks BL are there so many WARS or violence.

            The BIG stuff is over “Tribalism”.

            Even ancient cultures banned killing member of the city/town/tribe/clan for no reason.

            But when it came to the “guys down the road” it was OK. In some cultures it was even believed to be necessary for fame and to gain a seat with the Gods. Those would be my ancestors.

            Wars today are not much different. It is easy to convince people to hate “those” people. After all they are “different” from us.

            We are in constant battle with this ancient urge to form tribes and then defend those tribes against all other tribes.

            So the answer to WHY is Tribalism.

            • It’s now called “Patriotism” or “Nationalism”

            • While I very much agree that tribalism can and does play a part in such evil actions, I will posit that the capacity to do evil is rooted in human nature.

              Evil happens on a small scale among 1 or a very few individuals, …not only in large groups/tribes/nations.

              There is something about our primal selfish nature that drives it, and with nothing to govern it such as consequence or a sense of self awareness, reason and compassion, it can easily get out of control to manifest into some sort of evil or violence.

              It’s the human ego. People attach their ego to everything, …like nationalism, religion, money, clothes, etc, etc, etc. When that medium is threatened in some way, it threatens the identity of the attached self.

              Not that selfishness is so bad, because it is a part of our survival instinct and often serves us well when faced with a legitimate threat to our existence and well being. But what about when there is no threat, or a situation where it is only the ego at stake?

              • Tribalism is existed in the ancient world for root reasons.

                There was no commerce, marketplace, and little trade. If you could not make what you needed, you died.

                So those that could not make what they needed, to survive, stole it from those that could.

                The word “Stranger” in many languages also meant “Enemy”.

                Today, the marketplace provides a means where, in fact, no man produces all thing his needs for his life. He is now part of the division of labor where trade of his production gains those products for him to life, and then for him to thrive.

                Trade and production fundamentally has changed the course of human development where violence to survive is no longer necessary.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BL

                EGO is not the problem. Look elsewhere.

              • People are born evil, only to be taught a better way. We all have the ability to kill another, and can do so for hundreds of different reasons. We chose not to because we have been taught it is immoral. Tribalism may be the biggest reason why we aren’t all killers.

              • No,
                People are born good, and learn evil.

                Evil exists in contradictions. This is taught, it is not natural.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BL

                WHAT is Evil??

                The capacity to kill is NOT evil. Without it Humans may have perished from History already.

              • JAC,

                ” The capacity to kill is NOT evil ”

                Re-read. ” …evil or violence. ”

                I was careful to make the distinction between evil and violence, as physical violence can sometimes be justified(defense), and evil can come in many forms, ( theft, deception, etc.)

                ” EGO is not the problem. Look elsewhere. ”

                It is not THE problem per se’, but if not properly managed, can drive the desire for a win/lose that results in another being violated. It often does.

                Look deeper than tribalism. At the root of all human action is individual choice.

                We are hardwired with an inclination to protect and act in the interest of the self. What governs it, what keeps us all from being completely at war with each other, what allows us to interact socially is self awareness and compassion for our fellow man, …or consequences for not doing so(which is really selfish motive).

                What tribe was John Wayne Gayce or Ted Bundy a part of?

                If someone called your momma a bad name, why would it bother you? Is it somehow a threat to you? Is it a tribal thing?

  9. “Is the global warming crowd nothing more than a religious cult that needs an earth threatening boogieman?”

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/09/true-religion-americans-will-sign-global-warming-petition-during-polar-vortex/

  10. It is not surprising that the Left wing media and just about every Democrat alive are cumming all over themselves about the Christie issue. This is beyond sickening. What a bunch of hypocrite lying no good bastard M’Fer’s. Clink, Clink. 👿

    • Absolutely amazing, isn’t it? The SOB’s must really be afraid of him and what he can do to their girl or in my playbook, Cuomo.

      Christie is one of those guys like Reagan or Guilliani who prove my thesis. A Republican can win in a heavily Democratic City, State or even Country IF and only IF he/she is perceived to have values and principles which are rock solid and immutable. The voters may not even agree with those principles but they will support a candidate who does not waffle over one who does.

      “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

      • The MSM sure ain’t what it used to be. I miss the old days when Cronkite was on, LOL. Of course back then I was young and stupid 🙂

        • Uncle Wally left me cold. As a kid I loved him, after the Kennedy assassination he did a hatchet job on guns bending the truth to the point where it almost snapped. Tet was another thing. Regardless of anyone’s thinking on Vietnam,his commentary did not help American troops and only fueled the fires of hate at home. We still suffer from that today. While Johnson lied outright with help from JFK’s “best and brightest”, Tet was what the military had wanted for years. Mainforce VC units were crushed and unable to climb back out for years. After Tet, it was mostly NVA doing the fighting but the American will had been sapped by “the most trusted man in America”.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Stephen……Is it not possible that the North pushed the Viet Cong into the no-win Tet offensive, knowing full well they would be wiped out. The Viet Cong were definitely fighting the reunify Vietnam, but were they communist idealist like those in Hanoi? Would they have been the rebels and insurgency, the NVA then would have had to deal with when Communism became the rule of the land and Vietnam whole again…..just a thought

            • I agree,

              North Vietnam became Communist only because the non-Communist world abandoned them.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                You would be interested in explaining how the non-Communist world could have prevented this from happening – without violence or evil?

              • France in WW2 promised Vietnam independence if Vietnam defended French Indonesia.

                Vietnam did so.

                Post-war France reneged with US support. An independence revolution began, France installed a dictator and fought back, losing badly. The US stepped in and continued the fight for another 10 or 12 years.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Okay, fair enough – I can agree the French reneging on their promise of independence prompted the revolution. But, had France not there is nothing showing that – because of the Communist influence in that part of the world at the time – an communist revolution wouldn’t have sprung up is there?

              • No.
                Vietnam had revolted from Chinese domination early in the 18th century, but were overtaken by French colonialism.

                There is no way, other than the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” doctrine that brought Vietnam in Communism.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Can’t argue with the logic of that much BF. A “tried and true” method of not only Vietnam, but say Afghanistan. Ultimately it was that “doctrine” in the 80’s that ultimately handed the country to the Taliban. The mujahideen accepted help from the enemy of their enemy as well.

                A lesson the US Governments failed to learn from the debacle of Vietnam. Of course our government – as any government – fails to learn from the mistakes of the past.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Ho was a French educated for the most part. He was an ardent communist. He believed though that to fulfill the communist/social ideals you need to have a strong economy. You couldn’t just keep sucking the life out of the producers, like what happened in Russia with Lenin and Stalin and China under Mao. Russia is still coping with the legacy and pretty much has a dictator and only one product, gas and oil. Whereas China has totally embraced a strong global economy.
                BF I totally agree that a lot of deals were broken and France tried to restore their colonial empire worldwide. Losing ultimately in all cases by anti-colonial forces. Vietnam continually said they had no ambitions beyond their borders, and that stayed true. The only time they invaded a neighbor was to put an end to the bloody genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where the rest of the world and UN dithered and wrung their hands and did nothing. The US had this irrational fear of another Korea and another Stalinist regime. We as a government dealt with communist regimes within NATO for gods sake. Namely Italy and Greece at times. If Truman had pushed back on France and kept them from re-entering Vietnam, I believe our war there would never have occurred.

            • There has been a lot of speculation on that. I remember an interview with a fisherman in LA who was a VC Major. He, after fighting America, became a refugee because he felt his “cause” was betrayed by No. Vietnam. He apparently had the mistaken notion that No. Vietnam would allow free elections and give the South some autonomy.

              So what you suggest is quite possible. There was a book once that said that Francisco Franco got rid of his extreme Right Wing by volunteering them to Germany for the Russian front! Now, that’s sneaky!

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Stephen….the VC were the freedom fighters, obviously with some communist in the ranks, who I believe for the most part would fought the northern communists, upon their betrayal. They were sacrificed unwittingly, by the NVA who basically eliminated any future opposition. So in a nut shell I agree.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Attended a week-long conference quite a few years ago at USNA at Annapolis. One of the topics with a paneled discussion and debate was the MSM and the military. Also was a day spent on Vietnam. One of General Giap’s adjutants attended. He spoke very simply and fielded an afternoon of questions and then after talked with anyone. He came to about mid chest high on an average american, dressed in a suit that didn’t fit at all. But he ademently argued that they absolutely did not want a fight with us. He said just look at our history. That showed they would fight anyone who invaded their country for however long it took. BF noted the Chinese. There were the English, French, Japanese and French again and finally the US. Almost 200 years of continual fighting for independence against all colonial conquerers.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    Be inflammatory all you want.

    Just be accurate in your accusations.

    And of course, try throwing in some “reasons” sometimes when your flaming things.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    A Progressive is confused by the argumentative “style” of Progressives when it is turned on him.

    http://t.entertainment.msn.com/judd-apatow-and-lena-dunham-get-mad-over-girls-nudity-question

    KARMA can be a bitch.

  13. Buck, Mathius, With the job force now at a 30 year low, Democrats wanting to extend unemployment benefits and all the scandals, do you still think Obama is a good president? Was the recovery another LIE?

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Last night I about choked when I heard Bob Boekel, standard FOX “Liberal”, loudly claim that the Clinton years were the most “Robust period of Economic Growth in our history”.

    Yep, the left is now telling us that the economy during the Clinton years was the greatest ever. And of course, the Reagan growth NEVER happened.

    Well since the Dems weigh everything by the JOBS created, lost or “saved” lets look at the Job Participation Rate since 1978.

    Who had the greatest growth in job participation rate? Reagan or Clinton.

    Why did the rate slow after Clinton? Why did it start dropping before Bush II?

    Why did it continue to decline from Bush II all the way until today???

    What were the MAJOR Economic Policy EVENTS during the Clinton Years???

    • The one thing I remember from Clinton was him and the Douche bags screwing the military retirement program up.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Those of us that were graduating from school in the last 60’s, early 70’s and entering the work force had one other social change occur. Women were being driven to also go to college because staying home was slavery etc and you are not reaching your true potential. College, career and the OMG my bio clock is ticking I better have a kid. That choice created the dip in the % of workforce in the late 80’s and well into the 90’s and there was an abundance of jobs available to people available to fill them. If you wanted to work and could work you got top dollar. That all ended in early 2000 when deferred children, generation X came online. College degrees, no jobs, Outsourced for less expensive labor and lesser regulations. Stay in school, get and even higher degree, still no new jobs. Now a business can demand the most over qualified BA/MBA and up person for jobs that take a 3 week course to gain certification. And then pay crap due to the glut of available people for jobs available. Clinton didn’t do create any miracle, he just was in the right place at the right time. Now, I will add the Silver Zipper (Arkansas Nickname) was one hell of a lot smarter that the current administration and knew when to drop bad ideas and cultivate good ones regardless of origination.

  15. Just A Citizen says:
  16. Often I believe people judge my positions on topics, not because of what I say, but because it is me saying it.

    I found this quote from Mark Twain.
    What it interesting to me is that I calculated this same position independently, yet here is Mark Twain, in his words, saying the same thing.

    “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” — Mark Twain

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      It is not because it is you, it is because of your STYLE, aka; METHOD.

      Notice Twain doesn’t resort to telling someone they are a bubble head or directly accusing them of supporting evil.

      More explanation and encouraging of thinking about concepts may go farther.

      On the other hand, the message itself is quite disturbing to most. It is a direct assault on their Paradigm. One rooted on their entire life history and story.

      So to some extent, no amount of “nice style” is going to prevent some harsh backlash.

      I was also thinking about why so often people react to your challenges to think with “what is yours” and “why should we follow you” comments.

      Perhaps it is because they have accepted beliefs and convictions for so long they can’t make the jump immediately.

      By the way, I still disagree with your “Core Principle” as a selected principle of Moral/Ethic exploration.

      I think it may be a UNIVERSAL LAW linked to the Nature of Man. One that is TRUE in all times and in all situations. One that is tied to our Metaphysical “Right to pursue our existence according to our nature”.

      Thought I would share a few rambling thoughts this fine Sat. morning. As I site here watching the tress sway in the wind and the rain falling on my deck. Might have to put on a light jacket if I go out today. 🙂

      Best wishes to your family, my friend.

      • Twain did not speak to individuals.
        He wrote for the masses.

        Upon individuals, he was as vitriolic as I.

        • Your tongue can be as sharp as a good sword Pirate. I’m not sure if your methods are effective as they could be, you bring intelligence, but put people on the defensive, which takes away from your message. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but having been a real teacher for 12 years, I’ve learned that happy, interested people learn much more and much faster. Your somewhat negative vitriol is a hindrance from your apparent goal, to educate. Just sayin 😉

          • Taken in the spirit of delivery.

            However, I am not seeking followers.

            I am looking to make those who rarely exercise their thinking very uncomfortable and pained

            • Not claiming you want followers. Just don’t think thinking has much of an opportunity when anger leads the way 🙂

              • I am never (almost never) angry.

                If I provoke anger in others, they are the ones that seriously need to review why.

                It is often because what is read resonates in a manner which is contrary to their long-held, irrational belief.

              • Reckon so! I piss people off too when I go off on what an illusion Federal Elections are. Silly folks think they can change things that way 🙄

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “If I provoke anger in others, they are the ones that seriously need to review why.

                It is often because what is read resonates in a manner which is contrary to their long-held, irrational belief.”

                BF is right on this – speaking to myself only. When I get ticked at his pointedness I end up stopping and asking myself why I am mad at him and figure out it’s really me I am upset with.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    BL

    JAC,

    ” EGO is not the problem. Look elsewhere. ”

    It is not THE problem per se’, but if not properly managed, can drive the desire for a win/lose that results in another being violated. It often does.”

    The Ego does NOT need to be “managed”. It needs to be nurtured and built upon REASON. It is the damage to Ego which drives men to violence. Only when you have a poor view of yourself would you resort to a win or lose mentality.

    Look deeper than tribalism. At the root of all human action is individual choice.

    The root is lack of serious thinking. It is herd mentality. Yes it is action taken by individuals but there is often little “serous” choice involved. Tribalism is why “groups” of people INITIATE war on others. It is that simple.

    The next step is WHY do people fall for the Tribal view of the world? Is it inherent in Humans due to our Clannish heritage? Or, can we grow ourselves out of it. As indicated in BF’s comments regarding the development of Trade and Markets.

    We are hardwired with an inclination to protect and act in the interest of the self. What governs it, what keeps us all from being completely at war with each other, what allows us to interact socially is self awareness and compassion for our fellow man, …or consequences for not doing so(which is really selfish motive).

    Moral and Ethical Principles. And of course the COURAGE to live by them.

    What tribe was John Wayne Gayce or Ted Bundy a part of? The INSANE tribe.

    If someone called your momma a bad name, why would it bother you? Is it somehow a threat to you? Is it a tribal thing? Because I love my momma and wouldn’t want her to feel hurt. It is a FAMILY and thus Clannish thing.

    • ” The Ego does NOT need to be “managed”. It needs to be nurtured and built upon REASON.”

      Arguably, “nurtured and built upon REASON ” IS an example of a means of managing it. Another argument is that we humans have what psychology calls “Id”, which is the selfish self serving ‘reptilian’ part of our thinking. Regardless of reason, it is part of our nature to consider our own needs. That’s why those who have reasoned to believe Earth is overpopulated don’t commit suicide, …or still do have children.

      ” It is the damage to Ego which drives men to violence. Only when you have a poor view of yourself would you resort to a win or lose mentality. ”

      …then might I suggest there are a lot of people that have a poor view of themselves.

      Or could it be that some people are so selfish that they do not consider the needs of others in any capacity other than what they can get away with. They care not for anything other than what they can get out of it. They care not who they step on to win, just so long as they get their win.

      “The root is lack of serious thinking.”

      So stupidity is the reason why people do evil things? Does that make stupid people evil?

      No, …the root is the capacity to violate for self interest as a matter of nature. A lack of thinking is what allows it to go unchecked.

      “It is herd mentality. Yes it is action taken by individuals but there is often little “serous” choice involved. Tribalism is why “groups” of people INITIATE war on others. It is that simple. ”

      Fairies Wear Boots, …it is that simple…cuz I said so. 😉

      Please explain to me how social pressure negates/nullifies and/or alienates individual free will. Granted, social pressure indeed effects thinking of individuals, but they are nonetheless individuals.

      ” The next step is WHY do people fall for the Tribal view of the world? Is it inherent in Humans due to our Clannish heritage? Or, can we grow ourselves out of it. As indicated in BF’s comments regarding the development of Trade and Markets. ”

      I think ‘growing’ (as in evolving past) out of it will take a long time. Until then we only have to understand how to manage it.

      “Moral and Ethical Principles. And of course the COURAGE to live by them. ”

      Sure.

      ” The INSANE tribe. ”

      Yep. But on some fundamental level, they were willingly violating others for their own sick selfish perverted interests. Insanity does not necessarily negate this. But I would say they were more like sociopaths. ‘Insane’ people do not necessarily understand what they are doing. Sociopaths just don’t care.

      The real point, tho, was that their actions were of an individual nature.

      ” If someone called your momma a bad name, why would it bother you? Is it somehow a threat to you? Is it a tribal thing? Because I love my momma and wouldn’t want her to feel hurt. It is a FAMILY and thus Clannish thing. ”

      I can’t so much argue that it is not a clan type thing. But I can argue that it is as much an ego thing. You come from your mother, thus an insult to her is almost as much an insult to you. Whether it’s her her feelings or yours, or both… at the root of it is an insult, a bruising of the ego. …and insult that came from someone who is being inconsiderate of others.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Very interesting read given our recent discussions.

    http://news.msn.com/in-depth/where-life-has-meaning-poor-religious-countries

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Yes, interesting article. But don’t tell BF – he’ll be unhappy religion may be helping people be happy. 😉

      • “Religion” is the problem.

        There are many, many, many other means to accomplish the same goal.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          BF, I will agree that religion has its problems, but not that religious beliefs are necessarily the problem. While there are – in your views – many, many, many other means to accomplish the goals – religious beliefs (or religion) is also one of them.

          • Not “everything” that religion supplies is wrong.

            Religion is wrong.

            Look, the same argument of government.
            Government feeds people, put roads down, provides security, gives you water. Is food, roads, security and water “wrong”? No.

            Government is wrong.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Mmm, I know I am stepping into a quagmire here. Religion may be wrong (I’d have to explore that with you in more detail) and I am not saying religion is right either. It does do good things. Maybe I should say religious beliefs (and not all of those are right in my opinion either).

              • Evil does good things too.

                That is how evil grows.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I agree evil does good things and helps itself grow that way, but I do not subscribe religious beliefs in general to be evil. Unless of course you want to argue that Jesus was evil in at least some of his nature?

              • Do you think evil gains strength by doing just evil?
                No. People would run from it as fast as they could.

                No, evil is sweet.

                It beguiles the innocent by doing good in its name and form, so that people make the ultimate mistake of equating the two things.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BF evil comes from humans, is enacted by humans. Regardless of the area humans are involved in – like religious beliefs – there will be some evil that comes from it. That – in and of itself – doesn’t make the whole thing evil.

              • Yes, it does.

                Its PRINCIPLES are what makes it evil

              • Let’s hear it. What principles of religion make it evil? Here you go making it complicated.

              • an organized system about belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power;

                -it is a means of CONTROLLING the masses

                It presents a means for controllers to place the blame of one’s own condition to be on a fantasy, and that the solution to these problems rest on the following the dictates, based on this fantasy, to authorities within such a cult.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                It that the principles of a religion or the religious belief principles you are pointing at? Because they are not the same thing BF.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                ok, so you are pointing at religions – organized religious groups (like the Roman Catholic Church for example). A different story from religious beliefs from – as you put it – a superhuman controlling power – which I simply call God.

              • Then call it “beliefs”, minus the religion.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well I do – when those beliefs are not based on any religious teachings I subscribed to, which are religious beliefs (“religious” as the descriptor of where some of my beliefs come from).

              • You’ve accepted those beliefs, not by your own exploration, but by religious teaching</b. which why you continue to associate the two. Hence, religion by rote gave them to you, and you took them, not by reason, but by its delivery from an authority.

  19. Medicare has changed under the ACA, for those interested. My Pop’s is in the hospital, went Thursday night due to bad abdominal pains. Looks like Bronchitis, but here’s what happened. He needs O2 due to COPD 24/7. They actually took it off of him to prove that he needed it so that Medicare would cover the hospital stay. He’s been on O2 for almost a decade now, but had to suffer through that just because of new rules under Obamacare. All the nurses say they have to jump through hoops because of the law and insurance companies. It seems the insurance companies require the same. Health care is no longer in the hands of health professionals my friends, it’s now in the hands of the Feds. Welcome to 1984! 🙄

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Sorry to hear your dad is hospitalized. Hope he is doing better and gets well soon G. My prayers are with him.

      • Thanks Plainly. He should be home tomorrow, hopefully Bronchitis is the problem. Medicare was messed up, but much worse now from what hospital staff is saying. My gut say’s that it will lead to the healthcare folks lying to get people covered. Which in turn will lead to govt inspectors in hospitals, daily. The elderly will suffer the most, which I think is on purpose because the govt knows it can’t pay SS that will be needed in the future. Palin was right “death panels” will exist.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          It is a mess I agree G. My wife is an RN and sees the changes being brought about in emergency care alone. Not to mention she is finishing her masters to become a nurse practitioner and is aware of the changes to clinical practices coming down the pike as a result of the ACA. It won’t be pretty.

          • I fear there is only one way to fix it. Remove the problem from existence.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              It’s not only the ACA, as we both know. The problem is a lot bigger than just it and in this country there isn’t enough of the population willing to scrap it all and start over. They’d rather live in the misery they know than take on the unknown.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      G – Medicare was a mess before the ACA. It just made it worse.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      I agree with the Medicare & insurance crap & the hoops they have to go through in taking care of a person in the hospital, dealing with that with my mom now. First her insurance says they’ll cover her, then they won’t because she can no longer do any type of therapy, so, while she was in the rehab place they stopped paying for it, the place said they’d bite the bullet on that one. Then, they moved her over to the long term skilled nursing facility which is right across from the rehab place. They said & we have it in writing in her policy, that they will cover her for 100 days, 100%, but, oh, then said they wouldn’t, there was a mistake, then said they would. You call there, talk to 50 different people & get 50 different answers. But, if they don’t cover her, we will file an appeal & she will be able to stay as long as is needed until other wise noted. Right now, her doctor has said, there is nothing more they can do for her, that she might have at most 6 months left if that much, that’s how fast she’s gone down. I tried to get benefits for her through the VA about a year ago, but, after a year of waiting to see if she would get any or not, they sent a letter saying she was denied because she made to much on her SS, that, & because my dad didn’t die in service or wound related problems. But, I went back to the VA, told the guy there of the changes in my mom & what happened, he then said, it’s now a different story & to resend the packet in & she should be able to get something this time, but, what I have to do is, ask them is, since now she might have only about 6 months left to live, just how long would this take. If by chance her insurance doesn’t cover her like they said they would, then we would have to use her SS check & apply for medicaid for her in order for them to get their money. But, applying for medicaid, takes about 3 months just to see if she would qualify or not. Hell, by then, she might not be alive anymore. It’s no picnic watching a parent die, went through that with my dad, now having to go through it with my mom. But, there is some good days now & then when she’s awake & somewhat alert, then, there are days when she’s talking to people you can’t see, only she can. When she’s sleeping at times, she thinks she’s eating, then will open her eyes & ask you if you’d like to have what ever she’s having. She can no longer stand, walk or really able to feed herself, she has to be in a room with other people who are pretty much like she is. She has to have all pureed food, other wise she can start choking or aspirating. It’s so, so sad to see these people the way they are, knowing at one time, the life they must have had & how they are now. Insurance companies & medicare don’t give a rats patooty about anybody, just how much they have to cough up for people anymore. What good does it do to pay for something that they won’t let you use when you need it? Just like my mom’s room mate, she told me her insurance ran out, now she has to pay out of pocket every month & like most older people, live on a fixed income. Yeah, that’s Obamacare for you, look how well it’s working out.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I’m sorry Judy. I know how hard it can be as I went through it with my dad, mom and stepdad. Have you looked into hospice? When my wife was a hospice RN case manager she was able to get a lot more done for her terminal patients through insurance & medicare than the long term care facilities could do?

        Both my mom and stepdad were hospice patients at the end of their lives.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Thank you Plainly, & yes, we’ve been looking into that as well. My mom’s room mate keeps me update on the care they’re giving my mom, & she said, they come in & check every few minutes to make sure she’s doing okay, as well as all hours of the night. So, so far so good though, but will keep checking into hospice care as well.

  20. ” “Religion” is the problem.

    There are many, many, many other means to accomplish the same goal.”

    I concur, ..or rather that religion CAN BE a problem, …and have made the very same point on many occasions. Worship of a deity and adherence to dogma is not required to get along. …only that we respect each other.

    However, I will posit with a quote of something you have often mentioned…” the universe always eventually gets it’s way”

    I call that “God’s will”

  21. plainlyspoken says:

    Lets continue here if we could.

    BF – “You’ve accepted those beliefs, not by your own exploration, but by religious teaching</b. which why you continue to associate the two. Hence, religion by rote gave them to you, and you took them, not by reason, but by its delivery from an authority."

    *bzzzzzzzz* wrong my Pirate friend. I have spent my adult lifetime questioning those religious teachings and still will (including the Bible). You obviously have me confused with some other bubblehead. I don't even accept your positions without questions, reading elsewhere in research, and determining for myself if they have merit with me. The teachings I learned by rote (from the Roman Catholic Church) inspired my explorations, which lead me to discard a great deal of those very teachings and spurn Catholicism.

    It's like I asked you earlier – Is Jesus evil? Are His teachings evil? While you can – rightly – make the case that followers of religion accept the beliefs from the rote of their religion, you can not subscribe that to every individual who has beliefs based on religious teachings (well, I suppose you can, but that would be an evil in and of itself).

  22. I wonder were we would be as a country had we minded our own business (no wars at all) since WWII. Any thoughts?

    • Far more wealthy and far more free.

    • What would it look like with Cuba nothing but a Soviet, nuclear missile launch pad? Damned if ya do by minding our own business, damned if we don’t by letting a hostile aggressor conquer by peace meal…

      I think we had to/have to be active in countering Russia/China expansion thru conquest. At the same time, using it as an excuse for “nation building” probably creates enemies.

      • Russia has no want of expansion. They know, more than any other people and nation, what expansion costs in human lives.

        Their want is security and peace, but are afraid of American expansion, the latter being the fact. Russia doesn’t have bases in nearly 100 different countries.

        Same with China. China wants China. And they want to be left alone.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          You may be right about Russia but I think you are wrong about China.

          They may not want to claim territory as in the good ol’ days, but they certainly want to expand their power BEYOND China.

          Frankly, they want to become the USA.

          • There is absolutely no historical case that shows this.

            China, even as the world’s greatest power, never extended her territories beyond what is today. Historically, they sailed around the world and instead of demanding tribute, gave wealth away to demonstrate their superiority.

            There is absolutely nothing in the mindset of the Chinese that want to be Russian, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, etc. They want to be Chinese.

            I have “inside information” about the Chinese mindset, and it China no one wants a Chinese Empire.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Black Flag

              Read my post again. I did NOT say they wanted territory.

              I said they want to be the USA. The USA does not “take” territory any longer either.

              China is involved in Africa and other nations in the same manner as the US has been.

              Using economic power to gain further power and influence.

              Your inside information is not very good if you think they are not interested in becoming a WORLD POWER.

              • What a strange argument.

                So, as a nation, they want to participate in the global division of labor – an effort that enriches everyone.

                If they do not, they are isolationists, despots like N. Korea – who we complain is so backward and poor because they do not participate, for which we insist the solution is for them to rejoin the economic world.

                China – which was like N. Korea – agreed.

                Now, you complain that they have actually done what you insisted they do.

                Look, they are not the USA. They do not have military bases and troops in over 100 countries. No one Chinese solider has his boots in another territory that isn’t China (at least in China’s historical mindset).

              • So your argument is that by trade and production, they are successful – the rest of the world must fear China because they earned a dollar.

                If China becomes an economic “superpower”, that would be about the best thing that ever happened to mankind. They will make you rich as they become rich. Releasing the productive capacity of China upon the world – 2 billion hard working Chinese – will advance mankind to an order of magnitude; just as the release of the productive power of the USA did for the world in the past.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        And here we are almost 52 years later still punishing that small island for their government’s audacity to allow the Soviets to use the island as a base against the US. Never mind that the US tried to “surround” the Soviet Union to keep those “commies” in check.

        The embargo against Cuba is useless. Hell, in that “war” I give the Cubans the “win” for continuing to quietly show the US her middle finger.

        • Your understanding of Cuba is backwards.

          Because US surrounded and invaded and embargoed and threatened Cuba is why it went to the Soviets for aid.

          Don’t do the act in the first place, don’t suffer the consequences in the second place.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Naw, it isn’t.

            The United States and Cuba have not always been at odds. In the late 1800s, the United States was purchasing 87% of Cuba’s exports and had control over its sugar industry. [30] In the 1950s, Havana’s resorts and casinos were popular destinations for American tourists and celebrities such as Frank Sinatra and Ernest Hemingway. [31] By Jan. 1, 1959, however, revolutionary Fidel Castro had overthrown the US-backed President Batista and established Cuba as the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere. [32] From 1959 to 1960, Castro seized $1.8 billion of US assets in Cuba, making it the largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in US history. Depending on how interest is calculated, claims on the seized assets range from $6.4 to $20.1 billion in 2012 dollars. [85] The US government was also concerned about the threat posed by having a new Soviet ally so close to America’s shores. [30] On Oct. 19, 1960, President Eisenhower signed a partial embargo on exports to Cuba, the first step towards the US policy that exists today. [70, 71] Eisenhower ended diplomatic relations with Cuba and closed the US embassy in Havana on Jan. 3, 1961, saying “There is a limit to what the United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now been reached.” The former embassy building would later serve as the site of the US Interests Section (a de facto embassy) opened by President Carter in 1977. [83]

            President Kennedy approved a 1961 plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro’s communist regime, but the Apr. 17, 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed when the Cuban military defeated the outnumbered US-backed forces. [33] The situation became more dire when a US spy plane observed the Soviet Union shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba.

            On Feb. 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 (effective date Feb. 7, 1962) to declare “an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.” [35] The night before he signed the embargo, JFK sent his Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger, to procure as many Cuban cigars as he could find. Salinger returned with a stash of 1,200 Petit Upmann cigars.[38]

            (http://cuba-embargo.procon.org/#background)

            • *blink*

              Riiiggght.

              The US invading during the Spanish American on false pretense, turning into a colony, installing dictator Batista and his cabal, invading with the Bay of Pigs, etc.

              You need more Cuban history lessons…..

              • plainlyspoken says:

                *blink, blink*

                No BF, I don’t. The discussion comment was on the embargo itself, which is clearly laid out in the information I posted. My Cuban history is just fine in this case thanks. Unless of course you have evidence/reference materials that clearly support your reasoning for why the embargo happened?

              • So, to you, the cause and effect simply doesn’t matter.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BF –

                1. The cause and effect of the embargo is covered in my response. Now as to the cause and effect of all US-Cuban relations is a different topic. But then, just about any nations negative interactions with the United States can be pointed back to some US interventionism in said nation’s history I would suspect. In this case, the Cuban embargo, you went far beyond the scope of the comment.

                2. Your habit of changing the subject when you are not considered to be right by someone is showing again. At times you can be as annoying as Charlie when using this tactic.

              • “The cause and effect of the embargo is covered in my response”

                Not one bit.

                You believe you start in the middle, pick up from there, ignore the past and make specious claims about it.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BF – you believe (or so it usually seems) that in order to “explain” anything you have to enlighten people on the “history” of interaction back to Adam & the Garden of Eden (so to speak).

                When, clearly, it isn’t necessary, or becoming. Sometimes it is just annoying and conversationally destructive.

                Spending all day arguing this point on the Cuban embargo isn’t happening with me. Maybe you’ll get some other fish to bite.

              • What nonsense!

                If you have no understanding of history, don’t use it as the basis of your specious arguments!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                lolololol…..your two cents, which along with 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Denny’s.

                It’s always telling how wrong you tend to be when you begin your personal attacks on someone. lololol. Your understanding of what I do, or don’t understand, is your narrow and biased opinion. YOU are far from the only person to ever be right on a subject.

                Now, go spend your Sunday doing something constructive. lololol

              • Yeah, ok.
                Cover your ignorance by ignoring – that always works

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                A good read on this subject is a new book titled “Havana Nocturne” The US and other countries and businesses have still to learn the lessons taught here and other countries raped by business interests and then we cry foul and send the troops or other methods of reprisal when the people strike back. There is a huge laundry list.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Well, I would doubt that without seeing the demographics of those buying Hitler’s book. It could just as well be a bunch of neo-Nazi types looking for a blueprint to re-energize the hatred of those thought like Hitler.

      Most people don’t see a problem with this nation’s leadership – they aren’t interested in thinking for themselves.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Plainly……Most people don’t see a problem with this nation’s leadership – they aren’t interested in thinking for themselves.

        Following the dialog about the new healthcare regulations….people will hide behind rules and regulations to avoid having to make a decision, the healthcare industry will not be any different, for the most part….excuse when challenged is “well I was just following the rules and regulations” Try suing the Feds. The bureaucratic decisions are protected by law. Whether the rules are right or wrong, unethical, immoral, you name it. They provide a firewall for people to hide behind and have a clear concience. Talk to any OSHA inspector, restaurant inpector, building inspector etc. Earlier folks posted 40K plus new laws to regulate human behavior went into affect Jan 1 2014 on top of how many??? A simple businessman stands no chance ultimately against the rules set forth by the government for our benefit and safety. The NRA in 1933 was precisely enacted by FDR because as he said “there was too much competition” Look at the businesses that wrote the bill. All major corporations. Only they had the capability to wade through the rules and afford the cadre of lawyers required to survive in yesterday’s much less today’s “FREE MARKET” in the US. The small guy might have stayed in business because of charging 35 cents a laundered shirt, the law said they had to charge 45 cents. Hours were regulated. Against the law to put in that extra hour. Or go to jail. Did infact happen. Small inovative companies were forced to share their ideas with the large corporations. The little guy was wiped out accomplishing FDR’s ideal. Seriously extended the depression.

        Did anyone know that in 1939 only 6% of the wage earners paid Federal Income tax. By 1945 the number was 75%

  23. plainlyspoken says:

    Laws are the holy grail of the power structure. Those who “enforce” those laws on individuals and organizations do hide behind them. Doesn’t make the laws right and definitely takes away from the workers in the trenches – and I don’t mean all the bureaucrats of all levels – who are the ones without any power to ignore the laws.

    Society lost the battle long ago to control their future. The quality of life of the society has long been in the hands of mindless government. It’ll stay that way for a long time to come, long after I am dust.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Checkers of the checkers….the low level checker can ignore the BS if they wish to. Except its their little fiefdom to protect by arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. So they do not. Even the checkers have no capability to know all the laws they are to regulate and or interpret.
      I look at most liberal/progressive people as totally sckizophrenic. Example DDT, Birds are laying thinner shelled eggs. Ban DDT. How many millions of people have died as a consequence of that ban. Birds now are fair game and millions are being cuisinarted by the wind farms, but that’s OK for the greater good of reducing CO2. The last time I looked we are a carbon based planet, plants use CO2 becoming healthier and emitting O2 which man requires to exist. Cut rain forest for food, Bad we need it as a carbon sink, Cut it down even faster as long as you grow bio fuel plants for your F**** car and that’s good. Go figure. Lose 5 million acres of food producing land to ethanol plantings, plus 5 million more of conserved land, habitat for wild life, land deemed not good for food production. But by the save the earthers, and government policy, more released CO2 trapped in the soil, less habitat, cut off more mountain tops that do not re-grow. Pollute with fertiizers more to make that poor soil produce plants for ethanol. Use more water and so on. In Italian “Molto Potzo”

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Welcome the “Arab Spring” sprung forth in a simplistic explanation, by the people wanting food and not keeping up with the increases of those costs and JOBS. Only one of the myriad of reasons but a biggy.

  24. As a young man, I was proud of serving in the USAF. I still feel the same way, even if my government wasn’t very honest with me. That’s because I didn’t do what I did with “government” in mind. But rather, I did it for my family, my friends and all the Americans who worked hard and just wanted to be free.

    Times have changed, sadly. While I hope our men and women in the service still feel the way I did, I hope more that they see what their leadership is doing to those they really serve. The people, as most are completely ignorant of what’s going on, will eventually suffer gravely because of their ignorance, have really only one hope to see the next generation be free, that is those who will fight for freedom. The real enemy to freedom is clear, it is the ignorant.

  25. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    New scandal in NYC. The mayor eats a pizza with a knife and fork. How uncuth. NY is a barbarian city anyway and never learned the proper use of eating utensiles when fingers would do. Most Italians in Italy eat a pizza with a knife and fork, especially in Naples. Heaven forbid, De Blasio’s mother was from the province next to Naples. Forks used in southern Europe as an eating utensil since the start of the second millenium AD. Not until the 18th century in northern Europe.

  26. plainlyspoken says:

    Colorado’s recreational pot law boogieman stories begin:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/11/colorado-pot-shops-likely-targets-cartels-say-experts/?intcmp=latestnews

    Gee, guess no one chose to think ahead that could be a potential problem to deal with. People wanted to party with their pot legally and the state legislature rushed to make them happy.

    • There is a lot of speculation in that article. There are no ‘experts’ on what could happen because its a new frontier. Do you really think the cartels are worried? The black market will still thrive because it’s cheaper. Plainly, you surprise me with your resistance to this. Ann Arbor Michigan gave up their war on pot years ago. Have you heard any horror stories coming out of Ann Arbor? Chill, mon! It’s not the end of the world. Jus sayin….

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Anita my dear, you misunderstand my point. IF this is to be a problem (and I very much doubt it) it would be a mark against a legislature in Colorado who acts without much in the way of long term thinking.

        You are right, the article is full of speculation – in fact the only “facts” in it is the dude who will make his money protecting other people’s pot shops & cash. Some good free market entrepreneurship there, wouldn’t you agree?

        I find the article a joke. People want pot – more power to em. Hell, I could care less if they legalized ALL drugs and let the populace have at it. If they want to shove crap into their bodies it isn’t my place to tell them otherwise. Just do it in ways that don’t harm me or mine.

        The posting was tongue in cheek – which I apparently failed to pull off. lol.

  27. Here, if you want to learn about the methodology of modern power, what this:

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Just tried to watch it but it seems my satellite link wants to make it sucky for viewing (as usual), so I will watch it when I am in town at the library this week.

  28. Seems to me that our time would be better spent trying to solve today’s problems rather than be concerned with what happened many decades ago. 😉

    • If you do not know how we got where we are, how will you prevent it from happening again?

      • We are not in a position to worry about “again” just yet. You guys go ahead and argue over whose version of history is correct, I’ll see what I can do to end the problems we are currently experiencing (although my one self won’t be getting much accomplished, too many people pissing and moaning over shit that can’t be changed) 🙂

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Accountability Update.

    Carolina met my expectations and the Packers, while winning the division by default failed in round one. The Saints beat my prediction by making the playoffs but are now gone.

    The 49rs are turning out like I expected although I may have predicted Carolina would wind up going to Seattle in the playoffs. Can’t remember the details and don’t want to spend the time finding the exact wording.

    I did expect the Panthers to hold up better against SF today than they did. But SF is the TEAM TO BEAT right now. The other is those pesky Patriots.

    Denver struggled down the stretch with pass defense. As they have all year.

    Seattle has shown NO ABILITY to fix their lack of Offensive production.

    So the edge to SF even in Seattle. I hope I am very, very wrong.

    I think New England upsets the Broncos at home. Second failure in a row for the Broncos.

    Note: Despite all the talent the fact remains that when teams are as evenly matched as they are in the playoffs, THREE OF THE FOUR remaining teams have QB’s that are over 6’2″ tall.

    Another downside to Seattle’s chances.

    • Had no interest in any of the teams so I didn’t watch even one snap of the football all weekend. At this point for me it’s all about the squares on Super Bowl Sunday.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    Re:

    Black Flag® says:

    January 13, 2014 at 1:36 pm (Edit)

    What a strange argument.

    So, as a nation, they want to participate in the global division of labor – an effort that enriches everyone.

    If they do not, they are isolationists, despots like N. Korea – who we complain is so backward and poor because they do not participate, for which we insist the solution is for them to rejoin the economic world. YOUR ARGUMENT HERE, NOT MINE.

    China – which was like N. Korea – agreed.

    Now, you complain that they have actually done what you insisted they do. I INSISTED ON NOTHING.

    Look, they are not the USA. They do not have military bases and troops in over 100 countries. No one Chinese solider has his boots in another territory that isn’t China (at least in China’s historical mindset). THEY DON’T HAVE TO HAVE TROOPS AROUND THE WORLD TO BE LIKE THE USA IN TERMS OF THEIR POWER AND INFLUENCE.

    Black Flag® says:

    January 13, 2014 at 1:39 pm (Edit)

    So your argument is that by trade and production, they are successful – the rest of the world must fear China because they earned a dollar. NEVER SAID ANYONE SHOULD FEAR CHINA. AGAIN YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE.

    If China becomes an economic “superpower”, that would be about the best thing that ever happened to mankind. They will make you rich as they become rich. Releasing the productive capacity of China upon the world – 2 billion hard working Chinese – will advance mankind to an order of magnitude; just as the release of the productive power of the USA did for the world in the past. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT “ECONOMIC” SUPERPOWER. I AM TALKING ABOUT THEIR DESIRE TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL OTHER GOVTS/NATIONS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IN VARIOUS AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND IN CENTRAL/SOUTH AMERICA.

    OH AND BY THE WAY. TELL THE TIBETANS THAT CHINA HAS NO TERRITORIAL ASPERATIONS.

    • First, Tibet.

      Tibet is historical China. No debate here.

      Second, Tibet before China was being ruled by a Theocracy, who lived lavisously while the population lived in poverty.

      After China, the people have massively improved their living standards; civilized standards of water and sewage, transportation and food, etc., is substantial.

      China is far from perfect – and their “manipulation” of other regions is economic not military.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        I never claimed they were or wanted to use military. Only that their goals are global power oriented.

        Now, given that China is run by a Government, I would expect them to eventually fall into the same traps as the USA has, once their economic power is large enough. What the Chinese want will have little relevance. The decisions will be made by those coveting power.

        • I agree – they are a government, and will absolutely do what governments do.

          I am separating the argument from “government” and “economics”, and pointing the real problem – the former.

%d bloggers like this: