Open Mic Part 7

groundhog dayHappy Groundhog Day!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. plainlyspoken says:

    Sure, sure….start a new thread just as I post on the other one. sheesh.

  3. plainlyspoken says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/01/law-enforcement-agencies-ready-security-plans-in-preparation-for-super-bowl/

    So, do you think the TSA is doing any better of a job at the train station in New Jersey?

    This whole thing is just outrageously stupid,. America has truly lost its mind. This nation is certifiable.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      quotes from the article:

      Meanwhile, the Defense Department said Friday it would be playing a major role in Sunday’s game with F-16 fighters patroling a temporary flight restriction zone over the stadium, in addition to ground troops, a flyover and other contributions, Politico reported.

      Yep, last I heard the Taliban got an air force (so they are powered by rubber bands and less than 12 inches long – they have to be stopped) and had a base camp in the slums of Newark. Get the military – INVADE, INVADE and protect America!

      Despite no specific terror threats against the game, officials say suicide attacks on a trolleybus and a train station in Russia that killed more than 30 people within weeks of the Winter Olympics have raised worries among authorities, Reuters reported.

      Yes, you see if we pretend it is a nervous time we justify the EXCESSIVE waste of taxpayers money while convincing the sheeple that we are performing an important function for the national security of the nation!

      Officials estimate between 12,000 and 15,000 passengers will ride the train between the Secaucus station and the stadium.Officials estimate between 12,000 and 15,000 passengers will ride the train between the Secaucus station and the stadium.

      Gee, what about the other 67,566 – 70,566 potential bombers or terrorists? Doesn’t the TSA care about them? The stadium holds 82,566 fans, oh wait – my god, have I just revealed classified government information? Will I be getting a visit by the yoyos from Homeland Defense? Of course it will be fund throwing them off my property.

      Ok, I’ll stop here. I think you get the absurdity of it all

      • plainlyspoken says:

        ok, still need a copy editor…..lolol

      • Don’t forget that book/movie twenty five or more years ago where the brainwashed Vietnam vet POW (Bruce Dern) stole the blimp and was going to set off the worlds biggest claymore over the superbowl! Somebody must have showed it to Homeland Security.

        • Black Sunday – Loved that book. But the movie was weak.

          • Yea, but Bruce Dern was spectacular as usual doing his usual crazy psycho. Outside of him and Hugh O’Brien, I don’t think anyone else ever killed John Wayne in a gunfight.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Twern’t no gunfight pardner…….Dern shot him in the back, Wayne was unarmed. The Cowboys, 1972. 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Oh and as for Hugh O’Brien. That was the movie The Shootist (1976) and O’Brien wounded Wayne, but after the shoot out in which Wayne killed O’Brien, it was a blast from behind by the bartender with a double barrel shotgun that killed Wayne.

              And yes, I like John Wayne westerns….

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I agree, the book was much better.

  4. I brought this subject up a few days ago, about Obama changing laws without the legal authority. http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/01/31501-obamas-gun-confiscation-begins/

    I also checked the privacy issue in the law, it’s the LAW, not some made up thing by the HHS. The HHS added to it somewhat, but did not take away. Let me pose the question again, being sure it’s part of LAW, if the doctor violates the LAW based on an EO, can the doctor be held liable? While I don’t think this is fair to the doctor, he/she should know that EO’s can’t change laws and ignorance of the law is no defense.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      lol….they might have been shown it. They were probably told it was intelligence gathered by the NSA (who don’t spy on America) and is actionable intelligence as well.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      Your source this time is as WRONG as the last one.

      “According to Obama’s newest unconstitutionally enacted law, healthcare professionals are now required to violate HIPPA privacy laws and submit medical data to the government. The illegally obtained data is then used as justification for gun confiscation by the federal government.”

      1. The POTUS directive is to the agencies, not to Citizens. It is do ALLOW doctors to share psych information relative to them being a risk. But not “forced” to share.

      2. There is NOTHING in the directives that I linked to or have found that includes “confiscation” of guns. It deals with using the information in the BACKGROUND Checks already authorized by law.

      Now to your question. Once again, NO the Doctor cannot be sued for violating the law. Because he did not violate any law. The Secretary has the authority to issue NEW Regulations, which is what the Directive is about. Directing the Secretary to develop new regulations.

      The Doctor is not following the Executive Order, he/she is following the Federal Regulations. The EO is directed to Govt agencies, NOT TO CITIZENS.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        You’re really taking his fun away. 😉

        Though, I do think that HHS complying with the EO to put regulations in place for allow physicians to decide whether to report someone flies in the face of HIPAA. Plus, I have to wonder that if once denied for mental health reasons if the person can ever have that undone should they be cured, or has a way been found to unfairly penalize people for life?

        • LOL, Not really. JAC likes to state the obvious. I think we all know what EO’s do and who they are pertinent to. The source was just to remind of the subject, not provide facts, it’s just another web site like so many others that take stuff and twist it all around, you know, like HuffPo 🙂

          You and HV brought up some good scenario’s that plays into my original question, but remember, my question was about doctors, who frequently make mistakes. Despite the EO and the HHS, if a doctor provides wrong info (as they may be willing to do if they fall into the anti-gun camp) which denies someone the right to purchase, then the victim should have the right to sue, maybe the Doctor and HHS. But, I’m no lawyer, so I ask dumb questions 😉

          The law itself is forever long and boring to read as well as hard to understand all the legal BS talk they write these things in. Now, as far as VH’s concern about “not providing”. That’s an interesting position, which could lead to doctors giving info, wrong or right, just to save there asses against the government coming after them. Who would they rather fight in court, a patient or the Feds?

          I also never thought this new stuff would be used for gun confiscation (unless the question is asked by the Doctor). To go in for a foot problem should not lead to this question, but, I’m not a trusting person when it comes to the fed’s.

          However, by seeing what California has been doing with their confiscations, this is ripe for abuse both by doctors (protecting themselves from the fed’s or a lawsuit) and the Govt. Let’s say JAC is reported by a doctor and cannot buy a gun. They could effectively use this list for confiscation because they know he owns a gun or guns prior to the doctors report. Next thing you know, SWAT is at his door wanting all his guns because he’s been deemed not mentally stable to own guns.

          I think you can see how this could be used for all the wrong reasons. I can add more on the California issue if needed.

          • It is just another bullshit excuse to further violate rights.

            Assigning liability to a doctor for the actions of their patients is like assigning liability for malpractice to the college professors of the doctors.

            They have no direct liability/responsibility. In the event of a safety concern, the best a doctor can do is inform the next of kin, allow them to decide how best to handle it.

            ‘Barbara has been hearing voices telling her to shoot her children. Inform her husband so that he can take the guns to his brother’s house, and have gramma or a daycare watch the kids for a while.

            If there is no support structure for a patient, warn local police to keep an eye on them. If Billy starts acting suspicious, it is because he thinks aliens want him to kill children at the local park.

            And besides, there are numerous ways of killing people. It doesn’t necessarily require a firearm. If someone wants to kill, they are going to.

      • Seems to me that in a lot of this JAC-you are right in the details and G is right in the bottom line. They may not be “forcing” the doctors to comply but since in reality they will probably be sued if one of their patients kills someone for deciding not to share the information. The not being forced part seems almost moot.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Your assessment is pretty good. I am addressing the legal issues and FALSE accusations about exactly what it is that Obama is doing or how the law works.

          The next issue is the Honor and Integrity of those involved. But the weakness that can cause the issues Gman raises could occur even under the existing system. A Psychologist is not prevented from notifying Police if a patient is believed homicidal. HIPPA simply makes sure the patient information is not freely available to others.

          Doctors could be sued now if a patient of theirs goes on a killing spree and they KNEW they were a psychopath and did nothing.

          I share the concerns about where this could lead, given the known intention of those pushing it. However, we have all stated our desire to address the issue of the mentally ill from getting hold of guns. If their Doctors cannot share pertinent info to the data base then how do we do this??

          And this brings me back to my permitting proposal. In that case you have to get the Doc to sign off on you getting a permit. But NO INFORMATION has to be shared other than a Yes or No recommendation.

          The only other solutions are:

          1) Total Confiscation and ban.

          2) Do nothing and don’t worry about the risks. Instead spend money on armoring places where crazy people will try to kill innocent folks. Our malls will look like the streets of Jerusalem.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I don’t believe you will ever get doctors to willingly sign off on gun permits – it would be too risky of a legal liability for them. Or, are you willing to provide them unqualified immunity under the law from any liability?

            Basically I do agree with Gman in the aspect that people will not seek help for their problems as willingly if the doctors will be providing information (voluntarily or not) to the feds for background checks. And, when I do go, if asked about guns in my home I’ll answer with “none of your business.”

            While I suppose #1 could be tried, #2 seems extreme.

            • Plainly is right on this — I don’t see many doctors willing to sign off on allowing someone a gun permit. If you think otherwise, just try to get a doctor to sign off on someone’s incapacity! Not always the easiest thing to accomplish…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Gentlemen

                The Doc is not actually signing off on a permit. They are making a DIAGNOSIS of the persons mental state. So their “liability” should be no more or less than it currently is for DIAGNOSING mental state.

                I know of no other way to do this. It in fact requires nothing more than the current plan to have Doctors SHARE their Diagnosis with strangers.

                In this case they just check off that XYZ DOES NOT EXIST in this patient.

                If this barrier cannot be overcome then there is NO REAL solution to preventing the mentally ill from getting guns.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Physicians, PA’s, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Nurse Practitioners, ect., are not going to risk the liability JAC. I wouldn’t, even with unqualified immunity from any liability They would be idiots to risk all for this issue.

                So, really, there is no way past it that I can see.

              • There is no real solution to preventing the mentally ill from getting guns, that’s a fact and nothing will change that. Doctors do not need to be in the mix, except for clearly mentally ill people. For the record, I do agree that the dangerous mentally ill people should not have guns. However, when some politicians come out and say that ALL vets are mentally ill for this purpose of gun ownership, I can see how I’d rather just deal with the nuts on the street than count on government. Counting on government for security is plain stupid.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Plus, I don’t see it from doing much better at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Many of them can get around gun locks, gun safes, etc., in their homes – it isn’t rocket science. The angle being taken by the feds to try and block purchases by the mentally ill by allowing doctors (eventually) to forward medical information to them is just plain wrong. Not every mentally ill person is forever mentally ill and not every mental illness requires the need for the patient to be restricted from firearms. Plus, I really don’t see the feds having a way to remove one from the ban once put there, not their style.

              • Plainly, I agree. Laws mean nothing to those hell bent on killing. No guns? No big deal, they’ll find a way. The only thing that changes with taking away the rights of good people is lowering their life expectancy.

              • JAC — above you wrote specifically that docs would need to sign off on getting a permit. What am I missing about your proposal here?

              • Buck, you are missing nothing, that has been JAC’s proposal pertaining to permits for gun ownership.

              • G – I’m largely with JAC’s proposal for permits. I just don’t see getting a doctor to sign off on getting the permit.

              • I don’t really know how to fix the problem of the mentally ill getting a gun. But I don’t like the idea of a doctor having to sign off on every person who wants a gun. I suspect in most cases when people are mentally unstable their families know it-there is usually some type of legal problems on their records. Somehow this information should matter-maybe it can somehow be used to decide who needs to be signed off on. But I think the main problem with the mentally ill part of our society isn’t them being able to get a gun-it’s their families not being able to get them help before it comes to these horrible situations.

  5. Saw this in a comment section-Couldn’t agree more and have never seen it stated so well.

    “Government grows in response to its own failure.

    PackerBronco on February 1, 2014 at 11:55 AM”

  6. This is eerie, at the end listen to the question asked, sounds like someone we all know and love 😉 http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/01/boom-piers-morgan-debates-state-senator-created-gun-bill-name-chagrin-senator-logical-video/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Something smells fishy here. Maybe NM has an entirely different system of LE than I have ever seen.

      The Sherriff, in other states, has NO AUTHORITY over a Town’s Chief of Police. In fact, the Sheriff’s office doesn’t patrol the town, unless there is a signed AGREEMENT for such patrolling. Some towns PAY the Sheriff’s Office for this LE service.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        It may be a case of the town being on a reservation and the situation similar to this town right down the road from the one in the article.

        The Department is staffed with a Chief of Police, a Lieutenant, four full-time tribal and state-certified sworn police officers, one Criminal Investigator who also handles regular patrol calls when needed and one part-time officer. Through special commissions issued by the State of New Mexico and by the Sandoval County Sheriff’s Office, all officers have full authority to enforce Tribal and State criminal and traffic laws. Major felony crimes are investigated and prosecuted in conjunction with the Albuquerque office of the FBI.

        Maybe the same case in the story and the Sheriff has the authority to revoke the commissions.

  7. A proper lesson on militia’s and gun ownership. JAC was correct when he said the “people” are the militia. And as I said, the States can nullify any unconstitutional law, period.. Watch and learn my friends:

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/molon-labe/

    • JAC, a good summery of “THEY” as well.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Too damn long to watch on my connection.

      • Bummer. Great educational documentary about just being American and the Constitution. A lot of our discussion about militia’s were covered in detail. Two things, the people are the militia, and what we talked about, the different groups, except those against tyranny, do qualify, as I had suggested. That’s not the point though, it’s deeper.

        We, all of us who are and can own and possess guns legally, should do so, learn how to use them, practice periodically and live our lives. I don’t think it should be mandatory. But some pretty smart people in the movie made some good points about militia and it’s true purpose. We wouldn’t have guns if not for the Constitution today, that I believe. I also think the permitting issue is still bullshit and not needed. Maybe I can find a copy and send it too you!

        Good documentary. Good history lesson as well, for those who aren’t brainwashed beyond stupid 🙂

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Sure they can nullify (“ignore”) any law they want, but that isn’t a legal nullification. Ultimately for federal laws to be declared unconstitutional you’d need the federal court system and in the end the Supremes to rule it so and nullify the law (unless Congress wanted to do it legislatively sooner).

      I have said it before, I will again, the feds will ignore what a state does over federal laws unless or until the feds feel the need to force the issue (like enforcing federal pot laws). And regardless of what others think, the feds need no help from state/local authorities to do it (though it does make it easier). They can pull the resources together if they choose too. Notice – the “choices” are on the federal side of the equation in the end.

      • Yes, you are correct for the most part. Without seeing the movie, you cannot see my point. I don’t have the education credentials that they did in the movie, so won’t even try, LOL. They did see the DHS as nothing more than the Nazi SS and KGB, which I agree with.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    On the subject of Obama going it alone via Ex. Orders, etc.

    This is a GOOD editorial on the subject, Obama’s legacy and includes the very situation I mentioned the other day as an example of how Clinton/Gore pulled it off, then the Courts Knocked Bush down for doing the same thing.

    When you OWN the referees all you need to do is force the other team onto the field.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/here-s-how-obama-can-go-it-alone-20140130

  9. Last year this weekend, I made two predictions, one on the damn groundhog, which is also true for this year, he saw his shadow. Then I predicted the Super Bowl, here’s my post:

    My predictions: The damn groundhog will see his shadow, which is supposed to mean 6 more weeks of winter, yippee 😦
    I’m picking the Ravens over the 49ers 34 to 31. The 49ers will mount a huge comeback to tie the game at 31 only to watch the Ravens move the ball quickly into field goal range to win it with no time left on the clock. John, the oldest brother, will get the family bragging rights at least for a year. 🙂

    I was very close with most of the prediction, except for the FG winning it. This year is tougher because it’s outdoors in New jersey, where the weather can play a role. All looks good for the game, so here goes.

    Seattle comes out fired up and takes a lead into halftime. The second half will belong to Denver as Manning takes over the game and the Broncos take the lead for good late in the 3rd quarter and never look back with a 17 point 4th quarter output to win the game and the Championship, Denver 37 Seattle 31.

    It will be nice to take a break from all things political and have some fun this afternoon, enjoy friends 🙂

  10. @Buck, Yes, I’m sure you agree with the permit process. It’s here and not going anywhere. As I have stated before, I don’t see how they really accomplish anything at all, except giving a list to the government. No matter now. Later ?

  11. plainlyspoken says:

    Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

    So we ban 26.2 percent of the population each year from gun ownership or possession. At current population estimates that would mean a potential 63,361,703 Americans would be banned. (That is the percentage of Americans 18 and older)

    • You have point. In the olden days,, we were pretty sure who was crackers and who was not. Mild depression, ADHD, Autism spectrum, and most PTSD should NOT be disqualifiers. Years ago, NY State had a requirement that mental Health professionals inform the State Police of people who were a potential danger to themselves or others so that pistol licenses could be checked. But, as I said, we knew who the nuts were. The growth of the mental health industry over these last 50 years has brought in “Professionals” who are probably more nuts than the average patient they see. The wife and I were discussing children she has taught who have the misfortune to have psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors as parents. Sort of a 2 to 1 split on the kids being screwed up.

      The other problem of course is the fetish the industry has over confidentiality. I can easily see them turning you in if you own a gun as being nuts (assuming they don’t like or fear the mere idea of a firearm). On the other hand you can be stark raving bonkers and they will protect your right to be and act that way and never turn you in if the issue of guns does not come up.
      i

  12. Interesting information: The US just went to the top of the list in oil and gas production……no thanks to Obama. The kudos go to the privater sector and private land owners since the Federal Government has shut down Federal Lands and is issuing no permits to drill or even explore. Kudos to Pennsylvania who is only buying USA produced oil.

    There is a new movement in the House to wean totally off foreign oil. The Democrats in the Senate have vowed to fight this movement. Texas has three new permit requests for the building of three new refineries that will employ over 1400 and the EPA has said no new fossil fuel refineries will be allowed to be built despite the fact that Green energy is an absolute failure. The Texas attorney general has indicated that Texas may pursue building the refineries without Federal approval.

    I hope we do not back down.

    • What is there rational for objecting to refineries?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Building them with federal okay will be one hell of a poke in their eye with a sharp stick. Sure to get some kind of response out of them. lol.

      It will most like cause one huge fight between Texas and the feds. I’ll put my money on Texas.

    • I thought the whole purpose of the DOE when Carter created it was to make us energy independent. If they are not doing this, then they should be shut down.

      Col., thanks for the information on the new refineries. I knew that several ethylene steam crackers were on the drawing boards. These use copious amounts of NG since they operate at 2000°F. What companies are planning the new refineries?

      • http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/teapots-boiling-in-texas-as-shale-spurs-refining-revival-energy.html

        Looks like most of the planned refineries are what we call toppers. They are small plants that skim off the light ends and send the rest to other plants. I also heard about a new processing method recently where they crack the crude directly without first distilling it. Could be a major energy saver and a cheaper way to get light components for gasoline and diesel. All of this is good news in that it signifies a resurgence of the oil industry at home after a 40 year stagnation.

        Obama took credit for this in the SOTU but he has had nothing to do with it.

        • T Ray…two of the refineries are for the production of light crude/shale and the other refinery is for the refining of heavy oils for industry use and plastics and things like that.

          The categories are:

          Liquefied Refinery Gases, Finished Motor Gasoline, Distillate Fuel Oil, Jet Fuel, Residual Fuel Oil, Asphalt and Road Oil, and Other Petroleum Products.

    • D13, All good news. I also think that the future prosperity of this country will require States to tell the EPA to shove it. They’re insane BS concerning CO2 is just that BS. Maybe that States can pass a law or two that keeps the EPA out of State business 😉 Nullification is overdue, on many fronts.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Buck says:

    February 1, 2014 at 9:57 pm (Edit)

    JAC — above you wrote specifically that docs would need to sign off on getting a permit. What am I missing about your proposal here?

    Buck, I did not use precise wording this time and that is the confusion. My original post on this idea was that the person wanting the permit must get a psych eval that shows they do not suffer from mental illness that would cause concern over gun ownership.

    Thus in effect the Doc is signing off on the permit but that is not the actual process. The Doc is evaluating the patient and certifying that at that time the patient does not have any Violence related mental illness issues. Not all mentally ill people are dangerous.

    The point you raised on liability and Docs being willing to make these decisions raises an even bigger potential problem. That is I see two concerns with the Docs.

    1. Integrity……..namely making objective diagnosis and not declaring people unfit because they don’t support gun ownership or the opposite. I am reminded of the Doc’s issuing Sick slips for Union Teachers in Wisconsin because the Docs supported their picketing the State House.

    2. Fear of Liability……they won’t clear anyone because they don’t want to suffer being sued. Or they simply refuse to issue any diagnosis. In effect preventing anyone from getting a permit.

    This leaves only one solution I can see. That is that the Govt must identify the SPECIFIC mental illness diagnosis that would prevent gun ownership.

    Of course, this is almost as equally risky from my view as the Doctors who are not objective.

    I think this mental exercise highlights the problems with most of the rhetorical solutions proposed short of the two option I presented above. Namely 100% ban and 0% control.

    While everyone jumped on the “deal with mental illness” band wagon we find that it will be just as hard, and subject to misapplication, as the current system. Although I still like the idea of permitting people and dumping all the intrusive and costly data bases that must be integrated across jurisdictions.

    • Everyone is born with the natural inclination to self preservation, and the inalienable right to defense.

      No one has a right to deny, interfere with, or encroach upon the right to defense.

      Start there. Do not deviate.

      • For many people, that’s impossible. They NEED government to make them feel safe with ridiculous laws that accomplish nothing as to what they want the safety from.

        Strange, some actor was found dead of an OD of heroin. Yet, to protect themselves from people on hard drugs, they don’t think that legalizing and controlling the potency is a good idea. Just like the pre-conceal carry law fantasies of the Wild west coming back, many think this idea would make more people run to the store and become addicts. Fear is an amazing thing.

        • ” For many people, that’s impossible. They NEED government to make them feel safe with ridiculous laws that accomplish nothing as to what they want the safety from. ”

          Agreed.

          We are indoctrinated into a society that sees force as a default solution, rather than a last resort. For some, it is difficult to break free and think outside of that box.

          If someone wants to conceal a weapon or use it to murder, a sticker on a door or piece of paper in a file somewhere is not going to stop them.

          Government cannot keep up with the real world. For every government edict, there are countless creative means of circumvention.

          • Breaking free is a great concept, some people should try it 🙂 During the debate on CCP, while I thought that JAC’s fears were silly, to him they are very real. But over some time, I have thought about what other people may fear, like the spread of the AIDS virus. People fear of getting the disease just from being around gay’s (which is ridiculous). What happens when people want a restaurant permit to ensure no gay’s with AIDS eats there (all based on senseless fears)? Most of us a smart enough to see how ridiculous this is, is it any more ridiculous than thinking that a sign will keep some permit will keeps guns from the hands of Nuts?

            I don’t think we can fix the problem of the mentally ill killing people, we can, limit how many people they do kill by trusting honest people to exercise their rights as they choose, without government involvement.

            It is NOT my opinion that it is my Right to keep and bear arms, it IS my Right. Why should I be required permission to exercise that right?

            • ” Why should I be required permission to exercise that right? ”

              Why should permission be required to exercise any right?

              • We shouldn’t! There are some Rights that don’t require any permission that may come in real handy, real soon. Making sure your ready for a lengthy problem with buying things that you are used to buying. I like to use a SPRING storm that knocks out power for several weeks or a couple months to motivate me (we have a huge powerline that crosses the front of our property, so seeing trees take out the power is normal). Too many frauds being perpetuated, like global warming and the economic recovery, will soon come home to roost. 😉

  14. Congrats to the Seahawks and their fans on a dominating BLOWOUT!

    • It’s all good too! Seahawks win their first Super Bowl and Pete Carrol gets his due a s a coach!

      • A superbowl win is Pete’s Carroll due? Hardly! Pete the Cheat’s due should have been to stay at USC after his Reggie Bush mess and deal with it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I suppose you have locked that Bronco’s win prediction up in the same trunk with the “Obama will not let the 2012 elections happen”??? Bwahahahaha

      GO HAWKS.

      • Not quite Charlie, er, I mean JAC. The way Pres. Smokey Pants can seemingly change things with his pen I will not put anything past him in the future. 😉

        Great game by the Hawks, They dominated from the start, which will NOT make it a memorable game for most fans. I’m sure the Hawk fans were elated though!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          In my home WE were Happy, Happy, Happy.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            My kid is a Broncos fan, while I am a Packer backer and my wife is a Chiefs fan. My kid was upset from the first snap – what a look on Manning’s face as the ball flew by…..lmao – since her mom and I laughed our butts off at it. She didn’t have a great game with both of us in the room at all! 🙂

          • Congrats JAC..thought about you for the second half that I watched.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              Thank you my dear.

              I am befuddled by all the internet comments today complaining about what a lousy game and terrible Advertisements.

              In my house we enjoyed the WHOLE event. From start to finish.

              With one exception……………..who the hell were the dudes without shirts that interrupted that nice young man’s halftime show?? I could have slammed the cat’s tail in the door if I wanted to hear that kind of screeching. 🙂

              • I only saw the lead singer..couldn’t look elsewhere for some reason. Those guys have been around forever..but I confess..I had to ask the 20somethings in the house who they were. I couldn’t believe the geezers were still jumping around like that! Don’t be jealous 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                The old geezer played a pickup game of basketball Friday afternoon.

                The others were all in their 20’s and 30’s. Yours truly had two steals, two rebounds, and scored 4 of our teams 12 points.

                Of course ONE game was all I could handle 😉

                P.S. It took most of Saturday to recover……….

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              Almost forgot. Things remaining on my list:

              1. Cubs win the World Series.
              2. Lions win the Super Bowl, unless of course they are facing off against the Seahawks.

  15. 🙂 a little fun and interesting reading with your morning caffeine

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370159/monogamy-made-us-human-william-tucker

  16. Way to go USA…….you headed up the release of $500 million dollars in Iran in exchange for a halt in their nuclear program…..only to find out…..that I ran has declined the deal after they got the money and announced today that they are going to build more centrifuges….

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    At the end of the 6 month period, Iran gets 4.2 billion and the IAEA does not inspect. Sigh.

  17. Just A Citizen says:
  18. Bill O verse Barrack O..

    Bill O:
    “Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world [Benghazi] was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”

    Barrack O:
    “And they believe it because folks like you tell them that,” Obama said. “These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them.”

    Touchdown!

    I laughed so hard I had to sit down. Bills face.. oh man.. priceless..

    • I laughed too! Amazing how Obama always has someone else to blame but himself or his Administration. Also amazing how Obama just proved that all the other MSM outlets are in his pocket. They knew it was terrorism, went out 5 days later and denied it, that is the only FACT that needs to be talked about. Four dead American’s, nobody held accountable. That’s a true shame.

      Mathius, hope today finds you and your family happy, healthy and warm 🙂 More snow coming, keep your shovel handy!

      • No kidding! “Dammit, Fox, I have the rest of the networks covering my ass and the Mathius of the world believe it”

    • Actually……I viewed it the opposite,my captor friend. I call fumble…..and here is why. I interpreted the answer to mean….that Fox News and O’Reilly are not in bed with the President. I see it as one of the few news organizations that do not take the POTUS word for it and no news agency should take ANY POTUS word for it They are politicians….not statesmen. The statesmen died a long time ago.

      That said…..I also know that Fox News and O’Reilly have their agenda of conservatism…and like CNN, MSNBC, etc…..will slant their views to fit each agenda.

      Now, a question for you…..why do you view it as a touchdown? You signaled touchdown but I want a booth review. AND, why do you feel that a tv station, any of them, should not keep unanswered questions on the surface? Do you, as Mathius, the captor of the pirate, believe the President?

      • I believe that this, if nothing else, is a cut an dry issue. There is a clear record. He called it an “act of terror.” Act of terror is just a linguistic / stylist difference verse “terrorism” and any sane / rational person would accept that. Bush, himself, used it frequently and interchangeably with terrorism calling 9/11 an “act of terror” more times that I care to remember. Regardless, Obama clarified (if I recall correctly) the next day or day after once Fox lost it’s schpadoinkle.

        Yet Fox had to blast him for it as if he was denying that it was terrorism. And, as if, amid all the condemnation of the attack which Obama heaped on, his failure to use that one magical word somehow meant that Obama condoned or lessened the severity of the event.

        In this interview, Obama was pointing out that the reason “some people” thought that was because Bill O, himself, had told them so. And here’s Bill accepting no personal responsibility, nor even claiming to agree, as if he’s some passive third party to a debate “well, yea, that’s what ‘they’ believe, but I’m sure I have no idea why. Care to comment?”

        So yes, Obama hit this one out of the park by calling Bill on his ROYAL bullsh*t.

        In this one exchange, Bill O was Denver and Barrack O was Seattle. And I laughed heartily.

        ——————

        That said, I actually take exception to the idea of (at least upfront) calling this terrorism. Not everyone who attacks American forces / embassies is a terrorist or is committing an “act of terror.” Especially in the early moments while there was a lot of uncertainty about the nature and root-cause of the attacks.

        We have a military which is so powerful that weaker forces would be insane to attempt to directly challenge us. What do you expect Al Queda to do? Get in boats, sail to Washington and attempt to storm the capital? Of course they’re going to use *ahem* “alternative” *ahem* methods of attacking their enemies. Some of these methods are, in fact, terrorism in the classical sense. Some of them are not. Yet we, in America, persist in casting a wide net in our use of the term because it gives us the cozy sensation of good versus evil.

        I find it flat WRONG when, for example, Iraqi militants blow up some US soldiers and are claimed as terrorists. That’s WRONG. They’re not terrorists. They’re soldiers/militants/fighters/guerrillas who are trying to defend their country (as they see it). They are (attempting) to wage war, not “terrorize.” They may be on the ‘wrong’ side. They may be indiscriminate (and therefore evil), but they aren’t terrorists, per say. (or at least, all of them aren’t terrorists – some, no doubt actually are). And I think, when it was unknown WHY the embassy was attacked (or at least when it wasn’t definitely known), that calling it terrorism is inappropriate.

        It cheapens the word. It maligns the perpetrators who had (may have had) legitimate grievances. It takes an overly-simplistic view of geo-macro politics. And it is just an excuse for US citizens to assume the mantle of “good guy” being unfairly assailed by the forces of evil.

        The idea that the President should be required to utter the shibboleth every time there’s an attack of any sort as a knee-jerk reaction – or be lambasted for his failure to do so (or, even, his perceived failure to do so) is not a positive feature of modern America.

        I, personally, wish the President had refrained from calling it an act of terror until all the facts were in. Just because someone attacks a US embassy doesn’t automatically make them at terrorist. But that kind of nuance doesn’t play very well on Bill O’reilly’s show, now does it?

        • Buuuuullllshit!

          Denial = 100 yard penalty..Touchdown BillO. Call it guilt by association then. Al Queda=terrorists=jihad=caliphate!

          • Nonsense.

            Al Queda is an organization which, among other things, engages in terrorism.

            Jihad is not at all what you (seem to) think it is.

            Caliphate is also not at all what you seem to think it is. Huh? What? What could this possibly have to do with anything?

            Sigh…

            • They’re on a mission (jihad) to claim king of the world (caliphate) in the name of Islam..not by way of peace, but terror!

              • I know we’ve been over this, but Jihad is not synonymous with “mission.” A Jihad is, first and foremost, a battle with the SELF against your inner demons and unholy behavior/thoughts. It’s a fight INTERNALLY to make yourself the best Muslim you can be. There are other meanings and one of them, albeit a minor one, is a DEFENSIVE war to protect the faith. Anyone using the term otherwise is using it wrong.

                A war to install a “king of the world” is NOT a Jihad and CANNOT be a Jihad by definition.

                It can be CALLED a Jihad to give it cover and to pretend it is something it’s not. But a spade is still a spade, and a campaign of world-wide terrorism is not Jihad – and it doesn’t matter how much people repeat it, that won’t change.

                ——————-

                A Caliphate is not the “king of the world”n. A Caliphate is to Islam what the Pope is to Catholicism. He is the head of the church.

                Mohammad was the first Caliphate. His son was the second and his son the third. After that, I get hazy, but there was a nephew and some cousins. Around the 8th Caliphate, there was disagreement in the ranks over succession with one group claiming it was the last guy’s son (it had to be a genetic relation) while others claimed it was a close friend. The disagreement branched Islam into the factions of Sunni vs Shiite. From there, the respecive Caliphs have issued varied edicts and the faiths have diverged somewhat (think Catholic v. Protestant).

                With that in mind, a “war to establish a Caliphate” might well explain Sunni-Shiite civil wars with both trying to foist their opinions on the others. It does not explain why they would attack the US. That is nonsensical.

                They’re attacking us because we are (A) a convenient straw man (B) a frequently legitimately hostile force in the middle east (C) overtly manipulative of local politics, et cetera. They attack us, when they do, for political and economic reasons, not to “establish a kind of the world.” And certainly not for Jihad.

        • . They’re not terrorists. They’re soldiers/militants/fighters/guerrillas who are trying to defend their country (as they see it). They are (attempting) to wage war, not “terrorize.”

          You make a good point. So how do you view the Fort Hood shooting? Terrorism? Act of War? Workplace violence, which is what’s it’s termed?

          • Life, as always, is messy and complicated, isn’t it?

          • I realize you deserve a better answer to a legitimate question. I wasn’t being snide (above), but I think I owe you more than that.

            I don’t know 100% what happened with Ft. Hood. I honestly didn’t follow the story that closely. My understanding is that (A) the guy was mentally unstable and (B) Muslim and (C) in contact or attempted contact with AQ.

            Ft. Hood is a military target. Regardless of any other consideration, I think you’ll agree that it’s “more right” for someone who views the US as an enemy to attack soldiers in a military base than it is for them to, say, crash civilian aircraft into civilian towers in the middle of a civilian population.

            That said, if you’re going to attack a base, it’s not like they’re going to storm the gate. That’s 100% guaranteed failure. Why would they ever utilize a doomed tactic. The better approach is to get inside legitimately and attack where you have the greatest odds of success.

            I find that the easiest way to think about these things is to try to remove the loaded context from the equation. Imagine that the Germans had a base inside occupied France. The French resistance has the choice of attacking from the front or passing off a s German soldier and sniping at them from the inside. Well, that guy’s dead either way, but you’d probably be calling him a hero for his efforts.

            Terrorism is a tactic. Its goal is to SCARE and TERRORIZE people into conformance. That’s why its so effective. The actual harm it does is minuscule. Even 9/11 was essentially harmless to the US (hardly a blip on radar versus, say, deaths from heart attacks or building damage from hurricanes). What was dangerous / effective is what it did to our national psyche. The GOAL of terrorism is to make people behave a certain way because they are scared of you. It’s NOT to do actual damage or harm – if you can get that, too, it’s just a side benefit.

            I don’t know WHY the Ft. Hood guy did what he did, but my understanding is that he was nuts. Just plain vanilla crazy. In truth, the story probably should end there. Crazy is as crazy does.

            The question I would ask is (if he wasn’t just nutso) what was his GOAL in perpetrating the attack? Was he (A) trying to scare the US into a more pro-Muslim stance or a specific policy or behavior or (B) trying to kill as many of his enemies as possible?

            If (A), then terrorism. If not (A), then not terrorism.

            • Fair enough Mathius. The Fort Hood shooter yelled “Allah Akbar” (or whatever they yell when it’s for Allah) before he started shooting. Whether that makes it terrorism or an act of war, it most certainly was more than workplace violence, which it has been designated by the Government. The main outrage on this particular matter is that it screws the victims out of promised benefits. In the shooters eyes, he believes he was saving lives of fellow Muslims. He was a US Army Major who also didn’t want to deploy to the Middle East.

              • The Fort Hood shooter yelled “Allah Akbar” (or whatever they yell when it’s for Allah)
                Allahu akbar – “God is great(er)”

                This is essentially boilerplate. It’s part of the standard greeting, part of daily prayers, it’s central to the Islamic faith. To be clear, the point isn’t “[my] God is greater [than your god],” it’s that God is a higher power. Islam literally means “to submit [before God [who is greater]].” As a battle cry, this is tantamount to “I am surrendering my life for my God in submission to His will.”

                But if you point is that he was (probably) religiously motivated, then yes, I will stipulate this, certainly.

                Whether that makes it terrorism or an act of war
                It doesn’t really change it either way. It certainly implies he had a religious motivation, but it doesn’t say whether he was just trying to kill his enemies or whether he was trying to scare the US into (for example) leaving the middle east or whether he was just run-of-the-mill nutso and shouting about God was just something that bubbled up through the toxic sludge of his damaged mind.

                I know this might seem pointless or nitpicky, but calling things terrorism when they’re not leads us to a black-and-white good-verse-evil overly-simplistic view of the world. We are NOT perfect innocent little angels who are “hated for our freedoms.” They – whoever “they” is – have some very legitimate reasons for wanting us dead. Simply calling them terrorists and and writing them off like is not beneficial to anyone.

                it most certainly was more than workplace violence
                Well it’s certainly more than goes on in my workplace..

                which it has been designated by the Government.
                I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with me when I say that I don’t give two shits what the government has or has not designated this.

                The main outrage on this particular matter is that it screws the victims out of promised benefits.
                This is the first I’ve heard about that. Again, I didn’t follow this one closely.

                But I can’t speak to this matter as I am ignorant of such.

                However, I’d disagree with you that that’s the “main outrage” – I think the main outrage is probably that a Muslim “terrorist” shot and killed a bunch of unarmed United States soldiers.

                In the shooters eyes, he believes he was saving lives of fellow Muslims.
                I think it’s hard to say what was and was not going on in his eyes. He’s dead and, again, he was mentally disturbed. But, sure, I’ll stipulate that he thought he was saving Muslim lives – what of it?

                He was a US Army Major who also didn’t want to deploy to the Middle East.
                Well who DOES want to deploy to the Middle East? It’s 120 degrees over there, tons of people are trying to kill you, and camels are mean and smelly. That doesn’t sound like my cup of tea either.

                Joking aside, I take it that you’re implying he didn’t want to go for religious reason (ie, he didn’t want to fight other Muslims) – and I’ll accept that on face value as (probably) true.

                ————-

                All that aside, the question of terrorism is a question of the goals of the tactic. Was he trying to TERRORIZE (ie, instill terror) in the US such that we would alter out political behavior?

                I don’t know if we can answer that. My gut says he was crazy as a shithouse rat. And crazy is as crazy does.

                If a man kills people because he’s nuts (regardless of how), that doesn’t make him a terrorist – that makes him a crazy person.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          One very glaring FAULT in your argument, and Obama’s.

          If either of you ever actually watched OReilly you would know he personally was the LAST person on Fox to openly question the “HONESTY” of Clinton or Obama.

          All he ever asked up until recently was WHY the Administration sent Susan Rice out to spread the lie about a VIDEO being the cause of the attacks.

          • FINE!

            Then ask THAT question.

            Bill asked what Obama thought about “some detractors” who thought that Obama didn’t call it terrorism.

            And that’s BS.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Not BS, just a stupid question.

              You presume the question is about using the word terror. It was about how the President couched his responses during the election.

              But see my comment below regarding O’Reilly’s interviewing “style”.

        • Ok…thank you for your response.

        • He called it a response to a protest and then alluded to a vague reference that there will always be acts of terror. Good lord, even Candy Crowley, after she tried to bail him out during the debate, had to backtrack on this.

          Do you really want to revisit this? I recall this is when you went chasing the rabbit down it’s hole is trying to find timelines, indict Romney on his “outrageous, not his place, press release” following the murder of the four Americans.

          There is a story with Benghazi. A bad one. One that Americans should agree that finding the truth is of the utmost importance. And yet the dodge continues.

          • I keep wondering what this truth is-that we haven’t found! They did nothing to protect these people before the incident and worse Yet-they didn’t do anything to help them during the incident. So what truth’s are we looking for-that we don’t already KNOW!

            • How about WHY wasn’t there better cover for the embassy and WHO sent the stand down order?

              • And WHO is going to take the fall for it?
                And WHERE are the survivors?
                And WHAT about this shipment of arms to Turkey?
                And WHAT about Patreus, he got thrown under the bus
                I’m sure there’s more?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Why do you think this is a touchdown? Just because he gets “tough”??

      Is this the same psychological rationalization that occurs when the left screams “HURRAH” when Obama threatens to act without Congress?

      A large majority of Americans think Obama and the Administration was not honest about the Benghazi attack.

      Most of those people DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS. And the networks that most of them watch have done very little coverage of the hearings which showed the Administration was NOT HONEST.

      So Obama is playing a calculated game here by ATTACKING a Fox Interviewer. And it apparently has had its desired affect. It make the left feel all pumped up and “in your face”.

      • A large majority of Americans think Obama and the Administration was not honest about the Benghazi attack.

        Fine, whatever.

        But then ask him about the (imaginary) cover-up and blah blah blah blah blah conspiracy theory blah blah blah blah blah blah tinfoil hat blah blah blah lizard people blah blah blah Kenyan Manchurian candidate blah blah blah blah contrails blah blah blah fluoride blah blah blah Alex Jones blah.

        Don’t ask him whether he called it terrorism or not. That’s a matter of factual record. He did. It’s right there on the transcript. The reason Obama’s “detractors believe that [he] did not tell the world [Benghazi] was a terror attack” is because Fox told them that Obama didn’t.

        O’Reilly was playing to his base and asked a stupid stupid stupid pandering question where he pretended not to have any part in the ignorance of his viewers and Obama bashed him over the head for it.

        “Yeah, well, that’s what “they” believe.. care to comment? You know, not that I think that, but you know, they think so.. oh lawdy, it’s so strange, I do declare, I have not the faintest inkling why they reckon so.” – Bill O’Reilly

        “Yes, I care to comment. They are wrong – factually and unambiguously – and they are wrong because you – you personally – and your channel in general have broadcast this bullshit smear. And now you have the audacity to sit in front of me and ask ME what I have to say about the lies you told about me while pretending you don’t know anything about it? Go f*ck yourself.” – Barrack H. Obama

        Final score Obama 43, Bill 8.

        • Interesting….you surprise me some.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          So your entire argument and belief is centered on the use of the word “terrorism” or in other words “act of terror”.

          I agree that O’Relly’s question sucked in that like many of his questions, he just repeats “rhetoric” that is floating around in public. And I agree that the use of the word itself is a matter of record. But so is the following weeks where they tried to claim this was in response to a video. And the months afterwards where they have tried to escape any accountability or actual responsibility. And there is NO DOUBT the public response was driven by the fact it was getting late in the Election Year.

          But here is the thing. MOST of us are not hung up on the use of the words. WE KNOW that is not the real issue. To focus only on the word to CHEER Obama is nothing but a rationalization in my view.

          It is the context of the entire thing that is bull shit, as Anita so aptly stated.

          O’Reilly is a crappy interviewer in my opinion. He likes to portray it as two “Alphas going at it”. Well it is supposed to be a JOURNALIST asking hard and informative questions of the President. He needs to stop asking for responses about what “the people” or “some people” think and ASK HIS OWN DAMN QUESTIONS.

          • But so is the following weeks where they tried to claim this was in response to a video. And the months afterwards where they have tried to escape any accountability or actual responsibility.

            FINE!

            Then ask him about that.

          • But here is the thing. MOST of us are not hung up on the use of the words. WE KNOW that is not the real issue.

            Agreed. But Bill O had the opportunity to ask better questions and he chose to ask this.

            He got what he deserved.

          • Alice in Wonderland, here we come again…….

            O’Reilly is a horrible interviewer. Horrible. Agree JAC. He wants too much to be liked, instead of getting answers. Quit straddling the fence O’Reilly. Just ask questions. Too much arrogance and narcissism in that interview to get anywhere.

            • Agreed.

              But I also consider it shameful that he and his organization feed such BS and then ask questions about it without ever acknowledging their culpability in it.

              Not that O’Reilly / Fox are exclusive in this – but they just happen to be the example at hand. O’Reilly is calling Obama out on a BS “story” / rumor which Bill, himself, helped spread. He deserves to be taken down for that, no?

              • I haven’t watched the interview but based on your complaints No, he shouldn’t. Lets look at this through my eyes-Obama saying an act of terror while claiming it was in response to a video means they were claiming that it wasn’t started by a terrorist group-it is the same as saying it wasn’t a matter of terrorism-I can call a rapist raping a woman an act of terror. Obama said an act of terror the next day to cover his butt, but he wasn’t really calling it terrorism at the same time. He wanted to make sure he gave the libs and the media to claim the meaning was the same but it clearly was not.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Kathy

              I am with you. This was not two Alphas facing off but TWO arrogant narcissists.

              REAL Alpha Males are not arrogant nor narcissistic.

          • He needs to stop asking for responses about what “the people” or “some people” think and ASK HIS OWN DAMN QUESTIONS.

            Asking about “what some people think” is a convenient way of asking about factually wrong or biased thing in such a way that you give a nod to your support without having to surrender your position of “objective journalist.”

            “Some people say you’re a reptile shape-shifter. No me, of course, that would be silly. But do you have any response, you know, to them?”

            This way, Bill doesn’t have to appear – personally – to believe Obama is one of our Reptile overlords, but he can still feed the red meat to his viewers.

            Does this make sense?

            But, in general, of course I agree with you completely.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I think your comment is a little to focused on O’Reilly and Fox, which leads you to conclude the interviewer is trying to avoid their connection.

              If you watch you will find this method of “questioning” wide spread among the “MODERN” media. Including the Mainstream Media.

              It is simply LAZY journalism and has led us to GOSSIP JOURNALISM in virtually every issue. Political operatives know this and can thus drive the News Cycle by leaking rumors, accusations, etc. It forces the “other guy” to respond without having enough information, usually resulting in an awkward answer. Which of course makes great comedy on a lopped campaign video.

              “People” are saying………………………. what is your response?

              The one guy, like him or not, that had the proper response to this type of question was Donald Rumsfeld. He would ask “who are these people? When you tell me who they are then I can respond”.

            • Watched bits and pieces of the interview. never expected much. The president dissembles, he is responsible for nothing. You are all over Fox and O’Reilly and accusatory that ‘they” set the agenda that, as the pres says, they make people think these things. Well the apostrophe O asked the big O some questions on the IRS and he flat out made up his answer. His own DOJ says the investigation is “ongoing” yet he says there was no scandal, and no corruption. Not with hesitation, not with a caveat, but flat out there was no scandal. If the investigation is still not complete and DOJ cannot even answer Congressional questions how does the pres possibly do what he did?

              You are young, I think you still believe in fairy tales or perhaps, like me at your age you still see honor where none exists (Watergate sure as hell disabused me of that notion at age 29). All I can point to is the media frenzy last week, especially “The NY Times” over the new revelations about Chris Christie, what he knew and when he knew it. There is the perfect example of what you accuse Fox of. There is the paper of record trashing a reputation with no proof and while they backtracked on the story today they issue no apology for jumping the gun, fudging the facts or outright lying.

              There will never be an interview in my lifetime where Obama is nailed to the wall the way Nixon was. He is too smart as are his handlers. The only right leaning journalist who has ever interviewed him has been O’Reilly and everything O’Reilly did in the past or does now is aimed at getting the next interview. There is no Dan Rather nipping at Obama’s heels the way he did at Nixon and we do need a Dan Rather equivalent here.

              I still think we need to know:

              Why the video maker was accused
              Why the hell we were meddling in Libya to begin with (and Egypt)
              Why there was no plan ever to track the Fast and Furious guns
              Who ordered the IRS investigations
              Why he lied about keeping your insurance
              Why he lied about keeping your doctor
              Why nobody was ever prosecuted for mortgage fraud in Fannie and Freddie
              Why nobody has ever been fired for the above screw-ups

              and a few more things

              • No heads rolled for Benghazi.
                No heads rolled for Fast and Furious.
                No heads rolled for the IRS scandal.
                No heads rolled for Healthcare.gov.
                Amb. Susan Rice virtually called a foreign head a state a liar on national TV and was promoted. This is diplomacy?
                No heads rolled at the NSA.
                No heads rolled for APgate.
                Conducted an illegal, unauthorized war in Lybia.
                Wanted to go to war illegally in Syria.
                Is ignorant of any scandal that unfolds.
                You can keep your Dr. & Ins.
                It was a video.
                No one told me the website was broken.
                If he were a CEO at a major corp., he would have been canned years ago.

  19. Last nights bowl game sure makes me look good…..I had Seattle -14 pts. Some considered it a long shot as did the bookies….18 to 1 odds for $1,000. Cool….steaks on me

    • So this wasn’t you?

      • Mathius, you should know D13 don’t vote Democrat, so it can’t be him BWAHAHAHA

      • Nope….I wish I was that young tho……without the body art.

        • I do wish I had the guts to take the other long shot…..I did not. It would have taken a minimum of $20,000 at 25 to 1 odds. However, you had to lay one fourth of the bet.

          • Well.. I suppose you could have been this guy:

            Disclaimer: He has denied that he did this, but Fox reported it, so it must be true, right? Right??

            • Oh wow…..is this really true? It could not be…..it is a funny spoof, however. But, alas, ’tis not me, myself, nor I. People who have $20mm do not fritter it away…we buy necessary things like yachts, and planes,and big homes…..

              • He gave an interview where he disclosed his net worth (approx 300mm) – apparently, he keeps it all in a single checking account. I winced when I read that.

                Anyway, 10.4mm would be painful, but hardly fatal to someone like that. But he had denied it.

                $20mm.. though, huh? Don’t suppose you’re looking to hire someone to comment on a blog all day? I can do it for $150k/yr (bonus eligible, of course). Hell, I could even see my way to allowing DPM out of his cage..

              • LOL….I knew you could be bought…..it is just a matter of price now…..negotiations….

  20. Would some one please take the time to answer a question for me? I was listening to Nancy Pelosi and the POTUS who use the term “under insured”. Someone smarter than me please explain “under insured” and how it is determined that someone is “under insured”.

    Thanking you in advance, I remain, sincerely….D13.

    • I think that under-insured is a buzzword for NOT redistributing you money correctly. Single men needed to have maternity coverage and done of them did, so they were under insured 🙂

    • “I was listening to Nancy Pelosi “

      Well that’s your mistake, right there..

      I’m sorry, my old friend. There’s nothing we can do for you now. Would you like me to notify your next of kin?

      • True…true…..but there is hope….I sanctified myself with a hardy shot of Tequila ( minus the worm ) and a slug of grog….followed by a healthy does of Jalepeno fajitas…..it probably did not kill all of the bugs but most of the serious ones.

        • Well, if you find yourself fighting the urge to buy a Prius or get rid of your guns, consult your doctor immediately.

    • Someone smarter than me please explain “under insured” and how it is determined that someone is “under insured”.

      The idea is that there’s “insurance” and there’s insurance.

      Think of it in terms of car insurance. Sure, you can have a $5,000 deductible and $10,000 worth of insurance. But do you really have “insurance” at this point? I guess? But you’re “under insured.” If you hit that Lambo, you’re le screwed.

      What Obama/Pelosi are getting at here is that insurance which won’t help you if something “serious” happens isn’t really sufficient. If you have insurance, but you’re still going to go broke and be unable to afford treatment if you get cancer, you’re not sufficiently insured.

      • What Obama/Pelosi are getting at here is that insurance which won’t help you if something “serious” happens isn’t really sufficient. If you have insurance, but you’re still going to go broke and be unable to afford treatment if you get cancer, you’re not sufficiently insured.

        I beg to differ, since one can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions, one can always get a better policy if he/she falls ill. Care to try again? 😉

      • The deductibles on the so called bronze plan seem to be excessive leading TO UNDERINSURANCE.

      • Interesting analogy there…..so you are telling me that I need to insure against hitting a Lambo……even though I probably wont even see one?

        • Maybe not the Lambo.. but how ’bout a nice Beemer?

          You should have $100k+ in auto insurance. It’s not implausible to assume you’ll have one major accident in your lifetime. And you should be protected. I have 500k in collision + 500k in auto-related medical + 1mm in umbrella. And, frankly, even that doesn’t make me particularly comfortable. I’ve been considering upping it another mil.

          You should have enough health insurance to take care of a probable diagnosis (cancer / heart disease / stroke / et cetera). These aren’t black swans. Unless the stroke takes you out quickly, your cheap policy isn’t going to do much for you – that’s why it’s cheap.

          The Dems like to (snidely) joke that the Red Shirt plan for health care is this: Die Quickly.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I think you are mis-interpreting what they mean.

        Many of the policies that are undermined by the ACA were catastrophic only type plans.

        It seems to me that what they are really talking about is the comprehensive coverage of ALL medical or “health” related expenses.

        You are underinsured if you have to pay dollar for dollar for ANY medical services.

        Let’s not forget that the POOR had several “insurance” options available to them before the ACA. Including Medicaid and CHIP and CHIP II.

  21. Ok…the Keystone Pipeline……just out by Jay Carney……the POTUS will review it AFTER the other agencies have a chance to review this latest finding of little or no environmental impact. When asked how many agencies need to review this decision….the answer was eight (8).

    Let’s see….8 governmental agencies to review what another governmental agency just did…..ok Vegas…..give me some odds.

  22. Started digging around for info to help me duke it out with Matt up above..got sidetracked and found this…haven’t even read the whole thing yet but if we’re talking Bengazi today it may be helpful.
    http://shoebat.com/2013/06/30/benghazi-turning-a-blind-eye-for-the-blind-sheikh/

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Did you happen to see the whole interview between Obama and O’Reilly that happened BEFORE the statement by O’Reilly regarding terrorism and the election?

    I suggest you watch the entire piece up to that point, including Obama’s attack on O’Reilly, or “people like you”.

    Now read your first post this morning on the topic and tell me if you still think it was really justified for Obama to go on the attack.

    • I watched the whole interview. I didn’t like either person. I’m not an O’Reilly fan at all and don’t watch his show. Obama is a compulsive liar, that is all he knows. If he were a Republican, I would say the same thing, WPE = Worst President Ever 😦

  24. Very interesting comments about Al Queda today………….from John Kerry. I wonder if he is going to be censored in the future. According to Kerry, Al Qaeda is very much a threat. It is growing and it is controlling. In Iraq, with Fallujah and Ramadi gone and firm;y in he hands of Al Qaeda, there is little hope that the Iraqi Army can stem the tide. As usual, the Sunnis are getting pounded ( which is ok by me ) and the Shiites are next ( also ok by me ) Al Qaeda is leaving the Kurds pretty much alone…at least for now. When the United States pulled out of Iraq, it left a tremendous power vacuum. That was predictable and also predictable was Al Qaeda’s move to fill that vacuum. Supplied by Iran…..( Russians ) there seems to be no stopping them.

    @ Mathius…re: your comments earlier about Al Qaeda. They are not a splinter group and they are not a faction of independent Militant Islamic Muslims…but you are partially correct in that they are not ” just terrorists “. Al Qaeda forms splinter groups loyal to them.They employ terrorism as a weapon because that is primarily their only means right now but they are fast becoming a very powerful and recognized army with leadership and a firm chain of command. They are also mercenaries….which makes them worse.

    Fast forward to Syria. Even John Kerry, who barely knows enough to get out of the rain, has stated that Syria will become an Al Qaeda state unless the US arms the rebels. Al Qaeda has moved into several countries in Northern Africa and is moving into Central Africa.They are organized, well financed, and will soon be as strong and powerful as the Revolutionary Guard is to Iran. Al Qaeda has been formed into battalions and brigades with identifiable officer leadership trained in Russian and Iran. There is a Russian equivalent to our OCS training program established in the naval facility located in Amol on the Caspian Sea, Birjand in the eastern provinces, and Asaluyeh located on the Persian gulf. These are Russian financed and operated and manned by Russian Officers training specifically Al Qaeda members. SPECIFICALLY. This is not an off shoot or splinter group.

    Al Qaeda will become the Revolutionary Guard ( per se ) outside of Iran. Watch and see. Al Qaeda even has a moral police force responsible for beheading and killing Muslims who do not “follow the faith”.

    From John Kerry ” the regime of Bashar al Assad is failing to uphold its promise to give up its chemical weapons according to schedule; that the Russians are not being helpful in solving the Syrian civil war; and that the Geneva 2 peace talks that he helped organize are not succeeding. But according to the senators, Kerry now wants to arm Syria’s rebels—in part, to block the local Al Qaeda affiliates who have designs on attacking the U.S.” Kerry acknowledged that the chemical weapons [plan] is being slow rolled, the Russians continue to supply arms, we are at a point now where we are going to have to change our strategy, He openly talked about supporting arming the rebels. He openly talked about forming a coalition against Al Qaeda because it’s a direct threat. Kerry also acknowledged that “‘The al Qaeda threat is real. It is getting out of hand.’”

    There is a greater ethnic cleansing going on in Syria under Assad backed by A Qaeda than there was in Bosnia in h 90’s.

    This is real and it is here. These are NOT extremists ! Al Qaeda is a well trained arm of the Iranian structure. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is happening.

    The question now remains……..with he US becoming less and less dependent upon ME oil…….is there a national security threat in the region and does it become our fight.

    • Had not the West in its eagerness to “make the world safe for democracy” not intervened here and just let things take their normal course, would not this whole thing be over by now? The hope/promise of aid and our involvement encourages the rebels. We have no stomach for another long drawn out war, even a proxy one. All our involvement seems to guarantee is a lot of deaths.

      Libya and Egypt are excellent examples of doing it on the cheap. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of doing it the hard way. In neither case do we know how to make it work.

      • Nope…we do not know how to make it work. National Security is a buzz word. If the so called “civilian” experts would just ask the military……we would have no problems. Every military leader will tell you….( those that are non political )…that if you move to take over a country…you better be in it for the long haul. You must go in to win and control or stay out. Most military leaders will tell you that the military is not an occupying force and should not be. It is a force designed not to be political but to Kill. Period. The military is a defense weapon primarily. National Security is a buzz word developed by politicians. We are nothing but a chess piece to be moved about.

        • Sorry….forgot he reason I answered…..The West should not intervene but economics drove it….under the disguise of National Security,

          Now, I am not as docile as Mathius. I do not view the ME groups hostile to the US as little splinter groups with no designs in place. They are financed by big boys. I would support that if an Al Qaeda group attacked an US interest….I would make their benefactors flat, black, and glow in the dark. ( non nuclear, glow in the dark ).

        • Colonel, Gonna go off on my three credits of sociology here. We have a really bad case of ethnocentrism in this country. We judge other societies by our own and assume that what would work for us would work for them . As Robert Heinlein famously said in “Starship Troopers” people are NOT the same all over.

          the Japanese in WW 2 were not like us. The reason their defeat worked and they transformed was solely because of the Emperor. MacArthur was either very smart or very lucky in the course he chose. Germany of course is another story, despite their atrocities, they do think like we do and could be defeated and transform, themselves. Future historians though will have fun with the idea that they really never took their eye off the ball when it came to conquering the rest of Europe. They just did it economically instead of militarily.

          The banana wars should have taught us something. Certainty Korea and Vietnam should have really taught us about fighting other cultures.

          The only exception to the rule that I can think of was the Philippines. After putting down the insurgency things calmed down. I wonder what the factors there were?

          As a bonus, here is an interesting list of quotes from “Troopers” hard to believe Heinlein was a Naval Academy graduate. Different navy back then I guess.

          http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2534973-starship-troopers

          • plainlyspoken says:

            MacArthur was either very smart or very lucky in the course he chose

            MacArthur, while a prima donna in some ways, he had one thing going for him than any other senior military leader or any US political leader at the time – he understood the culture and mind of the Japanese people where their Emperor was concerned. So it would be he was more smart than anything else.

          • MacArthur understood culture and the importance of keeping Japanese Culture intact with the Emperor.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Good points Colonel. It isn’t any of our business though. When is the last time that we supplied arms to “resistance” groups or governments that it worked out to our desires? We failed in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. We haven’t gotten it right before, why should we expect to now? We have failed to learn from our own mistakes and likely will continue to fail at learning.

    • Mathius™ says:

      @ Mathius…re: your comments earlier about Al Qaeda. They are not a splinter group and they are not a faction of independent Militant Islamic Muslims…

      I’m not sure where I claimed this..

      AQ are a group of militant extremists who engage in a wide variety of unsavory tactics and behaviors.

      Muslims as a WHOLE are not like this, but my understanding is that AQ is.

      but you are partially correct in that they are not ” just terrorists “.

      Well, seeing as that was my whole point, I’m going to content that I’m more than “partially” correct.

      • You may not have claimed this by intent, my friend…..I drew that conclusion from what I was reading…

        “AQ are a group of militant extremists who engage in a wide variety of unsavory tactics and behaviors.” I interpret your meaning here as you feel as if they are insignificant and do not amount to much. You are mistaken, if you think this.

        Your point was correct…they engage in terrorism….but they are far more than just simple terrorists……far more.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I interpret your meaning here as you feel as if they are insignificant and do not amount to much. You are mistaken, if you think this.

          Of course they’re insignificant.

          They lack the capacity to do ANY real harm to us.

          Only we can do harm to ourselves.

          I keep going back to the analogy of a bee sting. Doing their absolute worst, 9/11, AQ did an insignificant amount of actual damage to the United States. Literally, almost negligible amounts of damage when viewed in context. They took down a few buildings, a few planes. In all, they killed approximately 0.001% of the population. In terms of damage (aircraft, WTC, Pentagon, cleanup), it’s about 7.2 billion (0.05% of GDP).

          What did the damage? Our reaction. Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera.

          AQ is no threat to us. We are a threat to ourselves.

  25. @ Mathius….Re: Insurance and the term under insured. You have proven a point in that insurance is a subjective issue. It is individual. One hundred thousand with over rides? I think not. If you wish to insure yourself against the unlikely event that you will smack a Beemer or Lambo……that is cool. But to suggest that others do the same? Nah….

    Same with health insurance. It is individual and one size does not fit all. I am 66..I do not need medical pregnancy coverage nor do I wish to pay for it. To force it on me is wrong….flat out wrong. For Obama/Pelosi.. (they drink from the same trough) to say that 30 million people who are losing their insurance were under insured is hypocrisy at its finest. Utter nonsense and complete hypocrisy. My opinion of course.

    I see it no different than homeowners insurance where you choose the deductible you wish and whether or not it is sufficient in the case of a total loss. Some people choose structure only. Some people choose contents and structure. Some people choose total replacement costs. Some people choose higher deductibles while some do not. It is the same with any insurance, including health insurance.

    My point is that it is subjective and should be an individual choice. If you do not take enough insurance out……that is your problem….too bad. If it breaks you and you lose your home because you under insured….sorry….you screwed up. I see it no different than……………….are you ready for a rumble…………health insurance. If you do not take enough insurance out and you have to sell your assets…..tough nuts bucko.

    ( Ok..I am ready for a fight…but use caution…..DPM agrees with me and while you have him bottled up….do you have enough resources to keep him there or are you ” under insured “?)

    • plainlyspoken says:

      to say that 30 million people who are losing their insurance were under insured is hypocrisy at its finest. Utter nonsense and complete hypocrisy. My opinion of course.

      An opinion I agree with. A couple of people I know who told me about their health insurance nightmare because their employers dropped their plans, said it was all economical – the business pushed all the healthcare costs off onto the employee by pushing them to have to go and sign up with the feds for insurance. Profits were more important to the businesses in question.

      • Business is about profit and I understand that……………we are in business. A business’ sole reason for existence is profit. It is not to be a nice guy. However, prudent business practice also dictates, that if you want good employees, be a cut above the rest. ( Salary, benefits, etc).

        The introduction of Obamacare made it very simple economics…..business no longer has to provide healthcare…..simply push them to Obamacare. It is a bottom line option and mush simpler. In doing this, not only is it cheaper….but they do not need additional employees just to manage a healthcare program.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Yep, can’t say as I blame the business owner one bit – it is smart business. Yet, for the people crowing about the great thing Obamacare has done, and to do so unjustly by ignoring what is happening to workers because it is economically sound for the business, is ridiculous.

          Though, I wonder to myself if this aspect is a “boon” to those who are steadily working for, promoting, and desiring a national healthcare plan for all?

          • Of course it is….but it will end the same. Those nations that have so called national healthcare also have private healthcare available only to the elite. Canada, England, Cuba, Spain….etc. Even Finland and Norway…….

  26. plainlyspoken says:

    JAC – you’ll like this story. Though note the comments on the ability to really enforce the law on the private sales background checks. Is this what we now want cops spending their time on instead of more important undercover work?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/30/colorado-gun-laws-enforcement/5055523/

    As to the magazine restriction of no more than 15 rounds, you aren’t really hurting handgun purchases with that one, just the assault rifle category. Plus, if you need more than 15 rounds, hell more than 10 rounds, in your handgun to take down your target then maybe you shouldn’t own a gun.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      plainly

      I think the Colorado law is wrong and does nothing of real value using the Progressive approach of Cost/Benefit.

      The issue of private sales was what led me to the personal permit idea. Then the only time a check is needed is if someone is seen with a gun in public or uses a gun. LEO can simply ask to see the permit.

      I would not use LEO’s to enforce even the Colo provision. There is not crime unless the gun is used in a crime. At that point the “LIABILITY” of the damage can pass to those who did not do the background check. No “criminal” action should be taken.

      Meanwhile I will remain thankful that it is the crazy right wingers who are buying all the guns and NOT the loony left. Can you imagine the violence that would ensue if a large group who believed they should force others to comply with their views actually became armed??

      • plainlyspoken says:

        The only big problem JAC, is at some point you have determine if that individual is allowed to purchase a weapon (after all, would you want to give a permit to a nut or a criminal) which brings in some centralized – meaning government database – system of making this determination.

        We have seen lawsuits going after gun manufacturers, trying to make them liable for some action by an individual, which makes no more sense than going after an auto manufacturer for building the car than was involved in some incident/accident. It’s stupid.

        It is the person doing the wrong that is responsible, no one else. The father is not responsible for the sins of the son.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          plainly

          I have already admitted there are still problems with my proposal. The liability issue, however, is largely resolved. And the manufacturers are NOT culpable in any way. Those law suits are an attempt to use the Tobacco litigation as precedent for product liability.

          Now, lets look at a broader concept that is informed by our discussion on gun permitting.

          Perhaps if a LAW cannot be simply stated and enforced in a similarly simple and straightforward manner, then NO LAW should be passed.

          If a LAW creates loopholes and serious enforcement complications, then it is probably trying to address an issue that is not RIPE for legislation of a law. Or it is trying to address an issue that the LAW can NEVER address.

          Now lets take this approach with Guns.

          The leftwing theory of banning all gun ownership FAILS the test. It violates the basic “privacy” rights of every citizen.

          However, banning all “possession” of guns in “PUBLIC” is straightforward and easy to enforce. Perhaps that is why the oldest laws dealing with gun regulation were simple bans on “possession” and not attempts to control what people owned.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            However, banning all “possession” of guns in “PUBLIC” is straightforward and easy to enforce. Perhaps that is why the oldest laws dealing with gun regulation were simple bans on “possession” and not attempts to control what people owned.

            And this can easily be abused as well. Anytime you move a firearm from one point to another it is in “public”. Years ago I found out that I was breaking a Massachusetts law for having a firearm in my car (unloaded and secured in the trunk). Apparently, as I was informed, just moving around with a firearm without a permit was against the law (I was taking it for repair to a gun shop just over the state line from New Hampshire).

            So, banning all “possession” in public is just as problematic it would seem. Now it you go down the route of “well it’s okay if you are taking it somewhere for a legitimate purpose” type thing – then what’s to stop you from deciding to use it unlawfully during that movement/use?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              plainly

              It is NOT problematic at all.

              You claim it is only because you want a variance of some kind.

              So now you require a PERMIT to transport the gun you own from YOUR PROPERTY to another location.

              So if you are stopped and have no permit you could be jailed or fined. If you have your permit then no problem.

              The question is whether the law is straightforward and simple to enforce without creating issues over other violations of rights and freedoms.

              I do not see how such a law is subject to “abuse”. It is very simple and applies to everyone.

              NO GUNS IN PUBLIC…………………unless you have a PERMIT TO TRANSPORT.

              Your transport permit could require that GUNS IN TRANSPORT not be loaded.

              Notice that under such laws there is no need for background checks or restrictions on the types of guns anyone wants to own. YOU can own anything you like. Just keep it on your property.

              • JAC, how does your LAW protect good people from bad people who don’t give a rats ass about a stupid law? The good people ain’t the problem, but you want THEM to jump through hoops over some idiotic law that just empowers the criminals. Sounds like more government stupidity that accomplishes nothing.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gee, so why even have guns? Ban them all why not? You want to permit having ANY gun in public and REQUIRE it not be loaded. Hmm…..simple you say. What is the point if you can only keep/use a firearm on your own property? You may not technically infringe on the 2nd Amendment with such rules, but you pretty much infer guns in private hands are unnecessary for the “safety” of society.

                BTW – just had a thought how to get around your public permit law. I should become a licensed dealer with a mobile store that travels to ones property and sell them the firearm on their property. No permit needed to have a gun in public for the buyer.

          • However, banning all “possession” of guns in “PUBLIC” is straightforward and easy to enforce

            That’s about as wrong as it can get. Have you not studied there those laws exist and the crime rates?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I doubt it has anything to do with crime rates.

              Much of that is speculation on cause and effect.

              However, the issue is not whether it stops crime but whether the law is simple to enforce without creating all kinds of problems with the enforcement.

              ANYONE with a gun in public would be subject to jail or fine. PERIOD. Very straight forward and simple to enforce.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              I want to point out how the Anarchist arguments that have been presented here in the past, and at other sites, creates a faulty argument. One that is based on a pre-conceived view point about Govt and not necessarily on the reality of the situation.

              Lets take your comment: ” Considering we have more people in prison than most nations combined, can’t we find a more effective way to deter much of the stuff putting people in jail other than to deny one the basic right of self defense by threat of government force and add them to the long list of criminals? ”

              Notice the tone of the claim that our “basic right of self defense” is gong to be taken by “threat of government force”.

              The implication is that Govt is acting completely ALONE, in a void, absent any contact with the people who grant that Govt the authority to act.

              It also ignores the reality that our Rights can and have been “willingly” set aside or conveyed to Govt by We the People before.

              That is the essence of Law Enforcement or POLICE. We grant them the authority to act on our behalf in enforcing the laws. We pass those laws to create ORDER in how criminals are handled and crimes prosecuted.

              So you see, the Govt doesn’t just take your right, it is your friends and neighbors who have decided to mute that right by “delegating authority” to Govt.

              There is truth in the statement that we give up certain rights when we delegate power to Govt. We are granting Govt the authority to act on our behalf. In order to prevent the type of “disorder” that can arise from Vigilante Justice, or the Justice of Revenge by Clan.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                My questions to you JAC would be – but what do “We The People” do when government is quite content to regularly exceed the authority granted them by the people? How do we contain such excess exercises in power over the people governed in any timely or rational manner?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                And please, don’t just give me the “we vote” line. It isn’t that straight forward in my opinion.

              • I do see your points. I’m not advocating Anarchy, although in many ways most of what it stands for is good. Let’s see if we can agree on some things. 1. Government can’t protect the people, no matter how many laws they pass. 2. We are certain unalienable rights that our current govt CANNOT infringe upon. 3. We do NOT live in a democracy where the majority rules when it comes to those rights. 4. Those rights CANNOT be inhibited or made impossible to achieve by any other method or laws that would “disenfranchise” any group or groups of people. 5. The laws we have are basically a failure and do not keep people from becoming victims.

                As far as your permit to own a gun, we already have that and don’t need permission. It, on it’s face would be unconstitutional to require a permit for something we already have the RIGHT to do and the govt can’t change that, period.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Gentlemen

                Moving this to the bottom.

  27. plainlyspoken says:

    With a nod of thanks to Stephen for bringing up Heinlein’s quotes from Starship Troopers – this is for you Gman (I’m sure you’ll love it. 🙂 )

    “When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And this one as well G.

      “There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
      ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    After reading your descriptions of Islam to others here I really do wonder WHERE you get your information on Islam and its history. I suspect it is from very heavily Americanized sources because it is not consistent with actual history.

    Lets tackle your claim that a “caliphate” simply refers to a PERSON. Sorry there mate, but refers to an EMPIRE. The Caliph is the person, who RULES the Islamic Empire. From Wiki:

    “A caliphate (from the Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning “succession”) is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. “successor” – to Muhammad and the other prophets of Islam. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as “caliphates”. Conceptually, a caliphate represents a theocratic sovereign polity (state) of the entire Muslim faithful (the Ummah, i.e. a sovereign nation state) ruled by a single caliph under the Constitution of Medina and Islamic law (sharia).[citation needed]

    In its earliest days, the first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, exhibited elements of direct democracy (shura).[1] It was led, at first, by Muhammad’s immediate disciples and family as a continuation of the religious systems he had introduced.

    The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[2] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”, Muhammad’s direct descendents). From the end of the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first of these was the Umayyad dynasty, followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid and finally the Ottoman dynasty.

    The caliphate was “the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries”.[3]”

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Here is a little MAP to go with the article. Notice any similarities to the various “actions” going on that involve Al Qaeda today??

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

    • Mathius™ says:

      Lets tackle your claim that a “caliphate” simply refers to a PERSON. Sorry there mate, but refers to an EMPIRE.

      Well, let’s ask our old friends at Dictionary.com, shall we?

      cal·iph·ate [kal-uh-feyt, -fit, key-luh-]
      noun
      the rank, jurisdiction, or government of a caliph.

      See that? Right there? THE RANK […] of a caliph. That’s like referring to Obama as “the President.”

      I see your interpretation (“jurisdiction, or government”) there as well which would make EITHER interpretation of Anita’s comments valid. That is, without clarifying, “caliphate” could mean either a caliph himself or a 7th century theocratic empire run by a caliph.

      HOWEVER, we do have some context:

      They’re on a mission (jihad) to claim king of the world (caliphate) in the name of Islam..not by way of peace, but terror!
      -Anita

      See that? “King of the world (caliphate).” Her words.

      From this, it’s clear to me that she’s referring to the CALIPH himself (referring to him by rank) not his government or empire.

      As such, I addressed my remarks to the idea of “claiming” a “king of the world” / Caliph. Because “King of the World” is not readily an interchangeable phrase for “empire,” now is it?

      I really do wonder WHERE you get your information on Islam and its history

      Extensive study, first hand experience, a cover-to-cover reading of the Koran, and sources more nuanced than Wikipedia.

      ————

      Pedantry aside, if the assertion is that AQ is attempting to “establish a caliphate empire ruled by a caliph,” then that’s just a completely nutso assertion – especially coming, as it did, in the context of the attack on the Syrian embassy shooting.

      It’s even more nuts that suggesting they’re doing it to establish a Caliph. That’s at least nonsensical and bizarre. Suggesting they’re trying to establish an empire which will conquer the world by killing our ambassador is just loony toons.

      Try this thought experiment: (phase 1) JAC drives over the the Swedish embassy, shoots the ambassador. (phase 2) ? (phase 3) Sweden is now part of SUFA’s empire.

      Is that the great big bogey man everyone is worried about with the “they’re trying to establish a caliphate”? ::yawn::

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I see your still playing rhetorical word games.

        Apply some logic to this supposed “definition”.

        A caliphate is supposed to be the “rank” of the caliph. The CALIPH is the RULER. That is a given by Historical Meaning. So how can a Ruler have any rank that is not RULER??

        The suffix in this case ….ate… dictates that the word refers to something related to the Caliph, or “ruler”. It is not synonymous with such words as Potentate. The Caliph is KING and the Caliphate is his KINGDOM.

        And your attempt at logical fallacy by attacking wiki not withstanding, there are many historical sources that support the information as presented.

        Your claim that Caliphate refers to a person is ludicrous without including the concept of the “kingdom” that is tied to that person.

        So the only REAL question should be “what” does the Caliphate they desire look like. Oh, and Al Qaeda does in fact wish to create a new Caliphate. The shooting among the various tribes of Islam is not over “whether” but over “who” is going to get to be Caliph. There is also some dispute ongoing over “where”. This will be dictated by the “who”.

        The violence we see play out daily is all part of that grander game. So while I agree it is difficult to categorize each act as part of some “singular” grand plan, each act is part of a grander plan. But there are competing plans.

        War has been declared upon the USA by a group of people claiming Islam as their guidance. The USA is still struggling with how to deal with a such a war. We want to call it “criminal action” and thus the use of “terrorism” to describe it.

        You don’t like using that word, and I agree it is often misused. But to deny using that word would force us to accept we are at WAR with a fanatical RELIGOUS group. One that shares much more ideologically with millions of other Muslims than I think you are willing to accept. The implications of accepting that we are at WAR as opposed to dealing with some radical “TERRORISTS” is dramatic in terms of the potential for loss of life and treasure.

        Whether their religion “actually” preaches this is not relevant at this time. What matters is how many believe it does. And that is not just a small group of “crazies” per your other comments.

        • Mathius™ says:

          But to deny using that word would force us to accept we are at WAR with a fanatical RELIGOUS group

          We are not at war with a fanatical religious group.

          A fanatical religious group is at war with us.

          This is akin to my 9 year old sister in a cage match against Cain Velasquez.

          From our perspective, it absolutely is closer to legal matter of finding, catching, and punishing transgressors than it is of war. The fact that we have this big scary demon in our heads – spooky words – TERRORISM!! and Caliphate and Allah – causes us to waaay overreact to the threat. Like a body going into anaphylaxis following a bee sting – the threat isn’t the sting, but the body’s own reaction.

          One that shares much more ideologically with millions of other Muslims than I think you are willing to accept.

          That’s true. I’m not willing to accept that idea.

          Primarily because it’s false and, frankly, stupid.

          Whether their religion “actually” preaches this is not relevant at this time.

          Of course it’s relevant.

          If you’re going to insist on painting 1.3 BILLION people with the same brush based on their religion, you better be damned sure you know what their religion actually says.

          What matters is how many believe it does. And that is not just a small group of “crazies” per your other comments.

          Of course it is. On a percentage basis.

          There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If a large percentage of them wanted to kill the infidels, we’d be in deep manure.

          The fact of the matter is that the biggest concentration of Muslims happen to live in the Middle East. And that, conveniently is where a lot of oil is located. And that means that the US is going to dick around with their politics for our own benefit. For example, we might arm and train the Taliban, or we might support local dictators who are friendly to our interests, et cetera.

          So when these people live in terrible conditions, are dirt poor, and their leaders are pointing the finger at us, the individuals are ripe for extremism. It’s not that they’re Muslim – it’s that their lives suck.

          Religious extremism is nothing unique to Islam. Take a look at “The Troubles” of Northern Ireland if you need an example.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            So a few million people declare war on us but we are not at war with them. It is just a matter of law enforcement.

            So tell me, when does it become a war?? Do they need to have a Nation State under their command first?

            Approximately 35% of the Muslim world resides in the Middle East and northern Africa.

            You know full well I am not labeling ALL Muslims with my discussion. You know this because I have previously stated that at its heart, these conflicts are tribal in nature. Arabs vs. Turks vs Persians, vs Egyptians, vs Syrians, etc, etc. That is enraged by the various factions of Islam that derived from those differences. But in the end, they will unify under Islam if given a Caliph, and little other choice.

            So what the Religion teaches, as YOU PERCIEVE it, is not relevant. What mattes is what those 35% believe, and more importantly what the “majority” or the “minority with guns” believes.

            Oh, and their lives suck because of their Muslim history. American Oil Companies did not create the modern “dark ages” in that region. It was their own doing.

            Now fast forward and I will agree. We have involvement but the entire stew is not our making alone.

            To try and blame the USA for what is going on in the middle east and northern Africa is to deny HISTORY and the realities of that region.

            By the way. The beginning of this hatred for the west does not begin with oil. Not the organized effort we are dealing with. It begins with their religious leaders being offended by the “moral degradation” they personally witnessed in the USA.

            So you see, to some extent it really is about a war against “our freedoms”. More precisely, a war against the Progressive and Libertarian views of Freedom.

            • Mathius™ says:

              We have involvement but the entire stew is not our making alone.

              I’ll agree with this, at least, it’s not our making alone.

              But we sure haven’t helped matters.

              And the fact that we’re so involved makes us an obvious target, non?

            • Mathius™ says:

              Not the organized effort we are dealing with. It begins with their religious leaders being offended by the “moral degradation” they personally witnessed in the USA.

              BAH HUMBUG!

              Bah humbug, and balderdash!

              People don’t form militias and dedicate their lives to living in caves so that they can one day attack a country on the other side of the planet because they were offended by the moral degradation of it. And, even if some stark raving lunatics do, you certainly don’t get millions thousands of followers to join you in that quixotic quest.

              You strike out for REAL, TANGIBLE reasons: you’re poor and you blame us; you’re hungry and you blame us; you’re sick and you blame us; your home was stolen from you and you blame us; you live in a hovel and you blame us; you think we’re attacking you and you’re defending yourself.

              I find it offensive that some women are required to wear a hijab. I find it absolutely wrong and evil to force this on them. I will speak out. I will complain. I will donate. But like hell am I willing to hijack a plane and crash it into a building over it.

              People all over the world are very different, but in some things we’re pretty similar. They value their lives and aren’t going to do something radical without (perceived) good reasons.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathus

                Read my words again. The root, as in that thing that helped all this get started.

                It is the movement that became the Muslim Brotherhood which in turn is the root of the militants we now see trying to use the sword to spread their view of “traditional Islam”.

                It is this movement that has used those teachings to contrast and thus enrage people against the Western world. Which is why they come to resent our mere presence in their “lands”. Even if we are not actually doing anything to harm them.

                So your humbug has been squashed my friend. Bugs simply don’t hold up well under the hood of a raging stallion. Unless of course they are some form a parasite.

                Apparently you are not following WHO these “jihadists” are. Many if not most are coming from pretty well healed families. I think your belief that these are just poor people striking out in anger over their economic condition is poorly founded. As in founded on myth or wishful thinking.

                Now, it is valid that poverty and hopelessness can be used by the wicked to motivate people against something. A selected target. I’m sure some of the jihadists fit this description. It certainly explains the euphoria among the general populations whenever some event against the USA occurs. But you are not well informed if you think this is the primary motivator for those engaged in this “violent” movement.

                Why are al Qaeda fighters who are NOT Iraqis now returning to fight in Iraq?? We are gone. Iraq certainly is not responsible for their plight in Saudi Arabia. And they certainly cannot claim that Iraq was historically aligned with the Saudi royal family.

                How about their presence in Syria?? A country we have had noting but animus over for decades. What did the Syrians ever do to the al Qaeda fighters? They are not Syrians.

                As I said, I think your description of the issues in the region are grossly over simplified and you ignore the other major factors at play.

          • You guys didn’t cover the definition of jihad:

            noun
            1.
            (among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers

            I stand by my oh so simple statement. Points for Anita! 😉 😉

            • Mathius™ says:

              Our friends a Dictionary.com:

              jihad or jehad (dʒɪˈhæd)

              — n
              1. Islam a holy war against infidels undertaken by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith
              2. Islam the personal struggle of the individual believer against evil and persecution
              3. rare a crusade in support of a cause

              ———–

              Your idea of a Jihad is a Western / outsider interpretation of what is a very sophisticated and nuanced Muslim concept. It certainly CAN be a war or struggle against non-believers, but really only in DEFENSE of Islam, not impose Islam. In fairness, there is support for the idea that you can force people to convert to Islam in the Koran (sword verses) if you care to look for it – but doing so is not a jihad.

              And, again, 99% of Muslims view this section the same way you might view an instruction to burn witches from your holy texts – that is, an antiquated and ignorable part of their faith. Remember, there’s plenty of support for killing the non-believers in the Old Testament, but Jews (by and large) just ignore those parts – same with Christians, same with Muslims.

              Surat Al-Kāfirūn (109):
              Say, “O disbelievers,
              I do not worship what you worship.
              Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
              Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
              Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
              For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”

              Now THAT’S more like it, huh?

              • Then why do infidels keep ending up dead? What is the end game?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Then why do infidels keep ending up dead? What is the end game?

                ::sigh::

                Because some people are nuts.

                When a Muslim kills people, it’s because Islam is evil, and Muslims are murdering psychopaths who adhere to a violent religion.

                When a white/Christian kills people, he’s mentally ill, or unstable, or some other write-off.

                —————–

                I’ll let you guess which kill count is higher: innocent Muslims killed by US forces or civilians in 9/11. I don’t have the numbers, but I’d lay good odds that it’s the first one.

                Oh wait, I do have the numbers!
                http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ seems to be telling me that US led coalition forces have killed 14k civilians in Iraq (8644 of whom were children or elderly). Note: this is an AMAZING website with transparent and extractable data.. god, I wish the census and HHS would do this.. seriously.. this is amazing!

                Anyway.. we do it and they’re accidents, collateral damage, mistakes, errors, rouge individuals, et cetera. Did you ever think that, to them, we look like the murderous psychopaths? We excuse ourselves for everything.

                We responded to an attack on our civilians with an attack on a random country which resulted in more than 2x the civilian casualties in CHILDREN AND ELDERLY alone – 4x if you include adults. And, I’d be willing to bet, much, much higher if you include the number of civilians who we’ve classified as hostiles but who were just in the wrong place.

                And that’s just Iraq, not Afghanistan.

                I’d also like to remind you that the government has a lovely little policy of classifying any male age 18-35 (or some such) who gets killed in a drone strike as a terrorist – so if you get hit by a stray blast, or you’re in the wrong place, you’re not a civilian casualty (aka murdered), you’re an eliminated terrorist enemy combatant. Helps keep the stats down, you know.

                But yea, the infidels keep winding up dead..

                Where’s Black Flag when you need him?

              • http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm

                They don’t seem to like Christians very much. While I don’t view Muslims as all being evil terrorists and Christian/Jew haters, the silence of the peaceful is very telling.

              • Mathius™ says:

                the silence of the peaceful is very telling.

                You mean this silence?
                http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

                or these?
                http://www.mediamonitors.net/riadabdelkarim3.html

                or these?
                http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

                or these?
                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html

                Third, in our digital age, it is an act of egregious ignorance for a human being to actually verbalize the words: “Do Muslims condemn terror?” Here is a suggestion from a lowly immigrant: try this thing called “googling.” Start with using the search terms “Muslims condemn terror.” This was the first hit for me, how about you?

                If you’re only going to click one link, start with the first one and just scroll down to see all the links.

                The claim that Muslims have been silent is, frankly, utter bullshit.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think it’s safe to say that MOST people hear nothing of this in today’s media. Would you like me to post some video links of the violence of Muslims by Muslims? Like I said, I hope they are a peaceful religion and try hard to believe that, but they ain’t helping. They ain’t screaming about it either, are they?

              • Mathius™ says:

                They ARE screaming about it to high heavens. Nobody is listening.

                It’s not making it through the media filter. What do you want them to do? How should they get your attention? Should they have taken a spot out during the Super Bowl?

                Do they need to start going door-to-door like Jehovah’s Witnesses?

                Yes. There are murdering psychopathic Muslims out there beheading Americans at every opportunity. But you claim – your words – “the silence of the peaceful is very telling” – and that’s moronic. Sorry, but there it is. That is ignorant and moronic.

                “The peaceful” are shouting at the tops of their lungs and you’re sitting there with your fingers in your ears singing “la la la I can’t hear you” and then you have the audacity to hold their “silence” against them.

                I don’t even know what to say to you about this. Honestly, I don’t.

              • It’s not making it through the media filter.

                I BELIEVE YOU! Here’s where I can slammed all the time as well. The government doesn’t want this info to be public, they control the media, and now you can hopefully see that all the Conspiracy stuff may not be that far off. They don’t want Americans to view Muslims as anything but the boogieman. One they created, funded and control. The silence is “telling”, it’s telling everyone what a bunch of liars those that have been elected really are. Can you finally see through the lies?

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought for the day.

    As I listen daily to the cries of outrage over the Syrian Govt killing those rebelling against the Govt and the US’s “lack of meaningful intervention” I have to wonder……………….

    What would they expect the US Govt to do and how would they expect it to act if all the CRAZY RIGHTWING “TEAPUBLICANS” took up arms against the US Govt??

    Based on their rants on various internet web sites I would expect them to conduct themselves much the same as the Syrian Govt. is doing.

    • They expect us to be as stupid today as in the past……I have one good thing to say about Obama…..other than SF….we do not have boots on the ground…..I hope he keeps it that way…..what worries me is Kerry’s observation that we need to arm the rebels….with arming the rebels comes boots on the ground.

    • I’m curious, who’s crying about helping the rebels in Syria? It isn’t any of us here that I know of. But, to answer your question about what the Govt would do, it depends on WHO is actually taking up arms against them. Without a major event to trigger such an event, nobody will do anything like that WITHOUT military support. But the term CRAZY fits those who want to do such a thing.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      You are probably correct JAC, our government would act not much differently to preserve itself – regardless of who was in charge of the government (Republican, Democrat, Independent).

      Plus, I feel like a general uprising is totally out of the question, primarily because society is too well “trained” to against such behavior. It likely won’t happen unless there is a complete implosion of the federal government. At which point I still find is probable that it won’t happen due to the layers of government from the local to state level that would continue to govern.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    I TOLD YA’LL this was the plan from day one of her created fame.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/sandra-fluke-congress_n_4722582.html

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And her whining about covering birth control is pure political BS.

      $9 Monthly cost of some generic versions of the birth control pill ($108 a year)

      $90 Monthly cost of some brand-name versions of the pill ($1,080 a year)

      $55 Monthly cost of vaginal ring or birth-control patch ($660 a year)

      $60 Annual cost of using a diaphragm and spermicide, including mandatory doctor’s exam

      $150 Annual cost of using condoms, twice a week

      $220-$460 Annual cost of getting a birth control shot (Depo-Provera)

      $600-$1,000 One-time cost of getting an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted (effective for up to 12 years)

      $350-$1,000 One-time cost of a vasectomy (male sterilization)

      $1,500-$6,000 One-time cost of female sterilization

      http://theweek.com/article/index/225451/the-cost-of-birth-control-by-the-numbers

    • I do recall your prediction. I’m sure she’ll get plenty of votes too!

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    I have posted before about my theory of a PRIME Natural Right, that being a Metaphysical TRUTH.

    That is that all living entities have the RIGHT to pursue their existence according to their nature.

    This leads necessarily to “what is our nature” as humans.

    Well given all the angst over “revolution” against “Government” lets look at a critical component of human nature. At least one that seems to show up throughout history and across cultures.

    It appears that it is human nature to Create and Support a Hierarchical Structure of AUTHORITY.

    We as humans are predisposed to expect and in fact seek out, LEADERS.

    The paradigm shift of the enlightenment that led to the UNIQUE American Theory of Govt is in the location of the primary authority and the nature of how WE construct the Hierarchy based on that location of primary authority.

    So you see, that is why we have always had and will always have some form of GOVT. It is how HUMANS have come to organize in order to maintain stability and “order”.

    Anyone remember the discussion of Ordered Liberty??

    • We will always have government of some form, I agree with you. We could certainly change a lot of things about government that would stop Democide, which I’m sure your familiar with. I can think of many things that government is good for, and many more that they really suck. Killing their own people should be the #1 goal in limiting governments authority over the people. We are far beyond that threshold and if they chose to do so, they could wipe out half of our population in short order.

  32. plainlyspoken says:

    So you see, that is why we have always had and will always have some form of GOVT. It is how HUMANS have come to organize in order to maintain stability and “order”.

    I agree completely with this simple statement.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    plainly

    Re: what do we do to address tyranny.

    First we need to recognize its source. It is not just “from” Govt or “from” certain individuals or a “party”.

    It is an “ideology” that is in conflict with the “ideology” on which our nations was founded. The latter is the one many of us think of when we argue that tyranny exists.

    But it does not exist to the Progressive. Because they have adopted the “belief” that the Fed Govt should RULE over all Americans and that the Constitution should be flexible to the point of being pointless. They accept “the ends justify the means” and the “few can be sacrificed for the good of the many”, etc, etc.

    So you see it is an IDEOLOGY that we are at war with. That is why it appears to many that voting is fruitless. You are getting variations of the same bankrupt “ideology” most often.

    However, VOTING does have its place. Especially where you can find people who will run that are far more Tea Party than your standard Dem or Rep. In the end, however, it will only matter if the war over Ideology is won by our side.

    This WAR must be waged in academia, in the public schools, in the newspapers, magazines and on the internet. It is a WAR for the “hearts and minds” of Americans themselves.

    Engaging in the political system is required as well. You cannot rid the corral of bull shit without getting into the corral with a shovel in hand. You cannot trust others to do the shoveling alone.

    The outcome of this “war” is uncertain. Especially given the late “awakening” of many Americans and the international reach of the “P” progressive power structure and ideology. However, it WILL win if we do not resist. The only chance to win is in gaining a “majority” view in the USA.

    If we remain the “minority” view then there is NOTHING that can be done except to protect our families from the potential results. In other words, we will have to learn to play “THEIR” game as well or better than they do. But it WILL BE their game, not ours.

    So in summary:

    Education
    Political activism
    Voting
    More Political Activism………accountability for those you elected.

    And if all that fails you have two choices:

    Blend in, or Take up Arms against your fellow citizens.

    • In short, Status Quo, suck it up or get ready for a big fight.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Blend in, or Take up Arms against your fellow citizens.

        There will be no fight.

        There will be no pitched battle.

        There will be no taking up of arms, nor confiscation thereof.

        The pendulum will swing back and forth, back and forth.

        What you have today in the United States is not tyranny. To call it such is to make a mockery of the lives and living conditions of North Koreans. What you have is a life of (slightly) less freedom than you had (remember having) in the halcyon days of your youth.

        The people will not rise up, no matter how much rhetoric is spouted. Underneath all the bloviation and 18th century regalia, The People are pretty content with their lives here in America and aren’t inclined to have a revolution for the sake of some fantasy ideal.

        And there will be no need to “blend in.”

        You are not persecuted.

        You will not be persecuted.

        You may be ridiculed, but no one is going to jail you for speaking out.

        ————

        Do me a favor. Go into your kitchen. In one of your drawers, you might have a brown paper bag of the sort you might use to pack a school lunch. Place the bag over your nose and mouth, tilt your head down, and breathe deeply for a few minutes.

        Now repeat after me: the world is not coming to an end, the world is not coming to an end, the world is not coming to an end.

        There.. feel better?

        • the world is not coming to an end 😆 People couldn’t make the world end if they even tried, just like they have nothing to do with any changes in the climate. 🙂

          There will not be an uprising anytime soon, that I agree with. It will take something super bad for that to happen. That bad thing may need even be because of the Feds, it could be a natural issue or a silly cyber attack.

          You can rest easy, don’t worry, don’t prepare for any kind of emergency, even a small one, the government will always be there to protect you and your family. I’m sure if we had just a few hundred more laws you wouldn’t even have to worry about becoming a victim of a crime. Obama is the Messiah and the Feds are his flock. All will be well in the world, even after Hillary becomes the next Messiah 😉

          • Mathius™ says:

            People couldn’t make the world end if they even tried

            I bet you we could.

            Detonate all the nukes at once.. probably wipe out 99% of life on Earth.

            Give it a concerted effort and a century of technological advancement and I bet they could crack the planet in half like a walnut.

            just like they have nothing to do with any changes in the climate.

            I’m not going to touch this one right now except to say that I could really do with some warming right now..

            a silly cyber attack.

            Cyber attacks are much more dangerous than people realize.

            Consider this. How much of the country’s food supplies rely on just-in-time delivery to make sure that grocery stores are stocked, etc? Probably 90+% at this point. Imagine a cyber attack that causes deliveries to miss their targets by, say, 3 days. You’d have nation-wide food riots.

            3 days – that’s how long it took for New Orleans to descend into chaos. Now imagine that on a national scale. Can this can be done by some kid sitting in a computer cafe in Taiwan, not an army, not a government, an individual.

            Maybe this is a little hyperbolic, but I think you get the point: Cyber attacks are scary, not silly. Trust me.

            Actually, I just remembered: Go watch Die Hard (2007). Sure it’s dramatized, but it’s not really that far off the mark in terms of the damage that could be done and the possibilities that exist.

            You can rest easy, don’t worry, don’t prepare for any kind of emergency, even a small one, the government will always be there to protect you and your family. I’m sure if we had just a few hundred more laws you wouldn’t even have to worry about becoming a victim of a crime. Obama is the Messiah and the Feds are his flock. All will be well in the world, even after Hillary becomes the next Messiah 😉

            Ok, good.. I’m glad to see you’re coming around at last 😉

            • Like I said, don’t be concerned. The electric grid will never go down, the economy will never collapse and the dollar will always be the most wanted currency in the world. The banking system is perfect and the 17 trillion dollar debt will just blow away in the wind. Nothing at all to worry about.

              We have about a foot of snow coming tonight and tomorrow, that’s no problem either, just some pretty white stuff to hide the lines on the roads 😆

        • plainlyspoken says:

          What you have today in the United States is not tyranny. To call it such is to make a mockery of the lives and living conditions of North Koreans.

          I don’t believe that. The decision to believe you live in tyranny isn’t based upon the life/culture of some other nation, but the national behavior of the government of the society in which one lives. While the North Koreans live in horrible conditions, that’s not our problem. To use it as a way to define tyranny here fits in well with the Left thinking of caring about the rest of the world. If you are so concerned about the North Koreans, why not go there and become a part of their society and work to improve their conditions? It is not OUR responsibility. Our responsibility extends only to our nation.

          The people will not rise up, no matter how much rhetoric is spouted. Underneath all the bloviation and 18th century regalia, The People are pretty content with their lives here in America and aren’t inclined to have a revolution for the sake of some fantasy ideal.

          For the most part I would say you are right. But, why are they content?

          And there will be no need to “blend in.”

          I had to chuckle here at this. I’d say you are wrong. America – that great melting pot – has always had a goal of blending into the society created and maintained here, regardless of who is, or has been, in control of the government. lol.

          You may be ridiculed, but no one is going to jail you for speaking out.

          Not completely true, as I believe we both know. Did Snowden “speak out” with his revelations? Does the government want the chance to punish and jail him for it? What about journalists who get jailed for refusing to reveal sources? How about Assange, does the government want a crack at jailing him? So, your statement isn’t completely true at all. And while they’ll let Gman rant to his heart’s content, it doesn’t guarantee that he can’t – at some point – be jailed for his speaking out.

          There will be no taking up of arms, nor confiscation thereof.

          First part of this (before the comma) is pretty much true. The second part, maybe or maybe not. Depends on the direction of continue law making to restrict guns. While unlikely at this point in time, it’s a lot more likely than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

          • Mathius™ says:

            But, why are they content?

            Because they’re physically secure.

            There’s food to eat.

            The currency is (relatively) stable. (note: relatively.. we’re not, say, Argentine)

            We have plenty of creature comforts.

            Fresh water.

            Good sanitation.

            Clean air.

            Freedom of assembly / press / speech / religion.

            The social safety net mean that people don’t starve and don’t freeze and can get emergency medical care if they need it.

            All in all, we have things pretty good here. Even in this lousy economy, life in America ain’t so bad.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Because they’re physically secure.

              Physical secure from whom? From outside attack of another nation? From the acts of criminals in society? From some personal deprivation? “Physically secure” is awful broad.

              There’s food to eat.

              Having food to eat versus having plentiful food to eat are two different things. Look at children in America alone:

              According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life

              http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx

              So, while there is “food to eat”, tell that to those not getting what they need to provide stable nutrition. Again, your statement was a broad generality.

              The currency is (relatively) stable. (note: relatively.. we’re not, say, Argentine)

              I’m willing to concede this on it’s face.

              We have plenty of creature comforts.

              I will go one farther – creature luxuries. Yep, we shut our kids – and ourselves – up with doodads, meaningless toys in which we lose ourselves in some other world while ignoring the world we actually live in.

              Fresh water.

              For the most part, yes. But would you willing go to a river and pull out a glassful and drink it without hesitation?

              Good sanitation.

              Yes, but is it government that is the only way to provide for this? In others words, humans are incapable of being sanitary without the government?

              Clean air.

              Sure, we just let the polluted air float over the Pacific from China. lol.

              Freedom of assembly / press / speech / religion.

              Of which every one of these freedoms comes with restriction. Assembly by permit only in some cases, press by compelling revealing sources at times, speech as long as it isn’t calling for government overthrow or yelling fire in a theater, and religion as long as it isn’t out in front of an abortion clinic or in schools, courts, governmental structures. So a restricted yes to this.

              The social safety net mean that people don’t starve and don’t freeze and can get emergency medical care if they need it.

              That is so broken we see stories in the press about not bothering to every want to become self-sufficient. Just take the handouts, it’s easier.

              All in all, we have things pretty good here. Even in this lousy economy, life in America ain’t so bad.

              As – once again – compared to elsewhere in other nation – yes we do. Yet, we must – again – keep the measurement within our own nation, not some North Korea, or Somalia, or any number of other nations.

              • Plainly, Just smile and say OK 🙂 One day they will wake up from their fantasies that the MSM tells them about the people. I would say that most people are relatively OK. If they ever learn about the garbage they get from grocery stores, the chems in their drinking water, the chems put into the atmosphere that they breathe (not just pollution) and all the lies they have been fed, will they understand . The Dollar, what a joke that is. It can fall anyday and become worthless, just like any other fiat currency. It’s important to tell them it’s all OK and everything is fine (just like the Feds and the MSM are doing). If we tell them they are being brainwashed they will just call us names and tell us we’re crazy.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I see your posting the theory of how to boil frogs.

          Logical fallacy to claim that we have no tyranny because North Koreans suffer a harsher version.

          Tyranny by American standards most certainly exists. Power taken without explicit permission.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      This ideological war has been going on for almost my whole life. The Progressives have done a great job of screwing up the minds of enough Americans that they no longer “fight” for their own lifestyle. I don’t see it ending. Getting Tea Party types elected in any number to truly effect the behavior of Congress will take decades – decades I don’t have remaining to me.

      All the last 40 years of this “feel for everyone else” and “care for the world” crap has worn me down to the quitting point – politically. Our kids are firmly – for the most part – are at the mercy of the twisted education establishment that only wants to compel them to fit into Progressive society. They are also working outside their established authorities – in my opinion of course (I’m sure the Left would say differently), and they’re winning.

      I feel like the Left wants one government, the federal one, to be in complete charge of all of America, wherein state/local governments exist to carry out the federal rule over society. In college I had to write a short paper supporting a one-world government and found it in the research I did on the Left/Progressive agenda. What I think American Progressives are content with at the moment is to get a one-America government.

      Those who enjoy the fight will keep fighting – kudos to you. Yet, I prefer to write off a large part of the federal government as nonredeemable. I prefer to keep my efforts at the local and state level and just live as best I can to my desires for life. As to my kids – well I lost one completely to the Left (he hasn’t spoken to me in over 5 years now) and all I can do with the last one at home is to teach her to use her head and not become a member of the unthinking crowd that wants “one for all, but screw the individual.”

      Good luck with your education, activism, and voting to improve the federal level of government. Me, I will show my “no confidence” by withholding my vote at the federal level.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I don’t see it ending. Getting Tea Party types elected in any number to truly effect the behavior of Congress will take decades – decades I don’t have remaining to me.

        Decades the Tea Party doesn’t have remaining to it either.

        The thing is going to crash and burn, baby. Crash and burn.

        The second the economy turns around (which, admittedly, is taking its dear sweet time), the whole impetus of the political extremism that is the Tea Party (relative to mainstream American politics) will disappear.

        Once there are jobs again and people feel financially safe and secure, people will calm down.

        And calm people don’t dream about overthrowing the government to replace it with an untested libertarian fantasy world.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Mathius, even if the Tea Party doesn’t go away – which is questionable – it will succumb to the same problems that the R’s & D’s have. They’ll get just as corrupted politically as the parties are now.

        • Really, when you reckon that’s gonna happen? The CBO just came out with a report that says Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of the labor market.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Tyranny does not have to be cruel or oppressive….

      The following list does not preclude either political party

      The methodology of tyranny

      The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

      Control of public information and opinion

      It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it “public information” or “marketing”.

      Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers

      It doesn’t matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

      Undue official influence on trials and juries

      Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

      Usurpation of un-delegated powers

      This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.
      Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force
      The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of “protecting” the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

      Militarization of law enforcement

      Declaring a “war on crime” that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.
      Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform
      Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

      Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers

      When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

      Use of the law for competition suppression

      It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters’ competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

      Subversion of internal checks and balances

      This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

      Creation of a class of officials who are above the law

      This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are “following orders”.

      Increasing dependency of the people on government

      The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, and then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

      Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them

      When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

      Use of staged events to produce popular support

      Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes this called a “Reichstag plot”.

      Conversion of rights into privileges

      Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

      Political correctness

      Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against, disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

      From an article by Jon Roland

      Alexis de Tocqueville goes to great lengths in describing how a tyranny can be formed in a democratic nation, in his book, “Democracy in America”

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    gman

    I will take your points one at a time. My response in caps.

    1. Government can’t protect the people, no matter how many laws they pass. THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. GOVT PROTECTS US ALL THE TIME. IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER TO CLAIM THAT GOVT CANNOT PROVIDE ABSOLUTE PROTECTION. OR THAT IT IS MORE EFFICIENT OR PROPER FOR US TO PROTECT OURSELVES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SUCH AS BEING ABLE TO CARRY HANDGUNS WHEN VISITING PLACES WHERE VIOLENT CRIMES IN PUBLIC ARE COMMON.

    2. We are certain unalienable rights that our current govt CANNOT infringe upon. FALSE. THIS IS AN IDEOLOGICAL CLAIM BASED ON NATURAL RIGHT THEORY. BUT IT IS MISTATED BY YOU. OUR “NATURAL” RIGHTS CANNOT BE TAKEN, BUT GOVT CAN CERTAINLY PREVENT YOU FROM EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS. THAT IS IN FACT WHAT THE ENTIRE GAME OF GOVT IS ABOUT. A DECISION BY SOME REGARDING WHICH RIGHTS WILL BE SUBDUED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE.

    3. We do NOT live in a democracy where the majority rules when it comes to those rights. TRUE, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. HOWEVER, OUR REPUBLIC IS ACTING MORE LIKE ONE ALL THE TIME, THANKS TO DELIBERATE EFFORTS TO UNDEMINE THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVT.

    4. Those rights CANNOT be inhibited or made impossible to achieve by any other method or laws that would “disenfranchise” any group or groups of people. FALSE. THIS IS DONE ALL THE TIME AND WILL CONTINUE. WE CAN MAKE ANY CLAIM WE WANT AGAINST HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

    5. The laws we have are basically a failure and do not keep people from becoming victims. TO BROAD A GENERALIZATION. WATER POLLUTION STANDARDS ABSOLUTELY HELP KEEP ME FROM BECOMING A VICTIM. EVEN SOME BAD GUYS MAY BE DETERED FROM USING A GUN IN PUBLIC, PER THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS. IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL SUCH CRIMES ARE PREVENTED BY PASSING LAWS.

    As far as your permit to own a gun, we already have that and don’t need permission. It, on it’s face would be unconstitutional to require a permit for something we already have the RIGHT to do and the govt can’t change that, period. FALSE. SINCE YOU AND I DON’T GET TO DECLARE WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT WE DON’T GET TO JUST DECLARE PERMITS ARE SUCH A VIOLATION. THE SCOTUS DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU AND SO YOUR VIEWPOINT IS MOOT FOR NOW. IF YOU WANT THAT CHANGED YOU WILL HAVE TO START VOTING FOR THOSE WHO WILL UPHOLD YOUR VIEWPOINT.

    • JAC, Shall Not Infringe is pretty basic and simple. I don’t give a rats ass what 9 wizards in robes say, If they fail the Constitution, they are no longer a viable part of the government. Remember, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and NOTHING that violates it is a law, it’s a joke. We do have permits for CCP, I’ve made my points on them so no need to go there again.

      All laws are violated, period. Accidents happen, period. Good people abide by laws, bad people don’t, period. No law can change that. Your claim is false about government protection. Laws mean nothing unless good people adhere to them (and in some cases, report those who don’t) It’s not the cops that protect the people, or the laws. The people protect the people. I know you can’t see the simplicity in this, but that’s OK.

      Tyranny, as I think Plainly speaks of, is very visible all over the place, just open your eyes, it’s there. I can provide link after link to show this. Ignore at your own peril 😉

      The bottom line is this, government is the one single entity that has murdered more people than all the criminals and wars combined. I’m hoping that a few people can see that it isn’t long before Americans fall within this list on a large scale. I don’t call that protection.

      I do hope that you and yours are happy and healthy over there on the left coast 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        My claim about govt protection is NOT FALSE.

        You need to drop your pre-conceived notions and bias and do some real research.

        For example, there are ACTUAL studies involving interviews of criminals who stated that they chose NOT TO USE a gun in their crime due to Gun Laws. Not the prohibition of having one but the added sentence of using one in a crime. Which of course included violating the laws on carrying one.

        Water pollution standards have in fact protected us from much of the pollution that was occurring in the 60’s. Same for air pollution standards. To deny this is ABSURD.

        Why do you keep telling me to wake up or open my eyes. Seems to me I was one of the first here to provide examples of the abuses we face each day. It was me that led a discussion on what was needed to “resurrect America”. Your constantly accusing me of being some left wing plant is wearing thin.

        Natural Rights are a human concept. As conceptualized they exist as “principles”. This does not mean they cannot be violated. The concept is that the right itself cannot be taken or destroyed. However, your FREEDOM or ability to EXERCISE that right most certainly can be taken and/or forfeited by you voluntarily.

        If you don’t believe this then just think about absolute tyranny where you are imprisoned and starved to death. What matter are your RIGHTS at that point?? What good is claiming that your Rights cannot be violated if you are starving to death as a prisoner??

        I hope this helps clear up the discussion of Natural Rights and those “rights” which are really freedoms that a particular society has decided are sacred or immune from society’s actions.

        • I guess we will see who is right and who is wrong sometime down the road. You can trust government and vote all you want, I’m hanging out with plainly, wondering how so many people that know nothing about what’s going on in the world will vote for someone chosen for them, to rule over them. But it’s all good 🙂 The big cities will still be shitholes with a crime problem after they vote, the Democrats will make sure that stays the same, those who see things for what they are will go huntin and fishin, grow a big garden, store their goods as they can and work hard to be ready to pick up the pieces when they decide to clamp down on the people.

          But enough of all that mumbo jumbo. It’s much easier to just get along and try and live as we each choose to live. Just got my Red Tag for this winters doe hunt. Our pig is at the butchers and we’re gonna make our own sausage products this year, including snack sticks. Planning on mixing venison and pork in some of the recipes. Might make our own bologna as well. Trying new things is fun and provides for some good eats 🙂

  35. @ Mathius…..re: AQ…………..I am NOT saying that AQ is trying to take the world or become the Caliph, power. or anything else. AQ is merely the muscle…nothing more.

    Watch Iran…….I know that you nor BF agrees with me on it….but so far I am 100% in my predictions that I made three years ago…right here. I even drew a map as to what would happen and I predicted the fall of Syria and Egypt and the northern Africa coast. But, just watch. What is going to be more interesting is if the US uses its economic power of ME oil….and quit buying it…..what would happen.

    What I do know, as history is being written as we watch it……the peaceful Muslim/Islam religion, belief, whatever……..is very silent on it. If there are billions of peace loving people…why are they sitting idly by while a mere several thousand, as you seem to believe, are wreaking havoc?

    But, I guess that is much the same as here. We are watching a fundamental transformation of the US and not doing anything about it except lip service.

  36. Here’s some of that important government protection (what a laughable joke that is).

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/cops-swat-innocent-family-destroy-home-security-cameras-to-cover-up-evidence.html

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Note: Based only on the story:

      When did law enforcement become so afraid that they seem to continually resort to SWAT teams for other than executing warrants or making arrests on suspected violent criminals?

      Where has “knock and announce” gone? I remember the days when we had to specifically get the judge to authorize a “no-knock” warrant.

      Ah America – as Mathius stated – aren’t you content in your physically security?

  37. I will be starting a new thread to speed up the process very soon! 🙂

  38. HMMM! Seems there’s more to the story than just a big black man feeling bullied: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24429201/report-thousands-of-jonathan-martin-richie-incognito-texts-revealed

%d bloggers like this: