Open Mic Part 21

ocare2Another day closer to Spring !

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. @ Charlie……I hope this does not cause you to have a “plexy” today.

    1) A couple of noted liberal political activists, first Howard Dean and now Noam Chomsky, have found common ground with the most unlikeliest of individuals — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and admit she’s right on at least one key view: President Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of substance.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/21/leftists-say-sarah-palins-right-obama-lacks-substa/#ixzz2vYsq3SDu
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    2) And his support of the Mrs. Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, comes on the heels of more of the same from another noted liberal, Mr. Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman.

    Last month, the Inquisitr reported that Mr. Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “One major problem [with Obamacare] is the so-called independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/21/leftists-say-sarah-palins-right-obama-lacks-substa/#ixzz2vYtCZVu9
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    3) In October 2008, after Russia’s invasion of neighboring Georgia emerged as a foreign policy flashpoint in the homestretch of a heated campaign, Palin told an audience in Nevada, “After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

    4) Even on the liberal television show called The View,she even had Whoopi Golberg nodding in agreement that Obama has lacked the substance everybody was hoping for. Palin predicted 20% unemployment and the current “REAL” unemployment rate now stands at 21.4% ( CBO’s numbers including those who have quit the workforce and living on the government roles )

    Interesting.

    • D13, What do you think the end result of the Ukraine issue will turn out to be?

      • Well, Russia already has what they really want….Crimea. However, I do not think that the Bear is asleep nor in hibernation. The demographics of Ukraine show that roughly 18% of the population is Russian…I think that this is not accurate. I wonder how many Russian/Ukranians there really are. Like Belarus, I think that the Ukraine is more Russian than realized. ( This is my guess… I have nothing to back me up on this ). I think that Russia wants the Ukraine but has to take it by force and I think that they will.

    • Colonel, sir … when did I ever say Obama was anything but incompetent. The problem from your side of the aisle, sir, is that the lunatics they push to the front (or who grab the headlines) guarantee incompetence from the other side … all the Dems have to do is put up a pretty face, some level of charisma and ZERO substance and it’s shoe-in when you put it against the backdrop of Palin, Cruz, Rand, et al …

        • Hello Hillary in 2016 … and make no mistake, I’d much rather see Bernie Sanders in the white house.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Yes. How dare those gays bully the Christian Right. FOR SHAME!

          • Yes, how shameful for us to stand up for our rights. The LGBT isn’t just standing up for their rights-they are trying to put their rights above everyone else’s rights. Now I suspect you are going to say the same about the Christian right. Well good for you because that’s the point-if we are going to have a diverse population-we are going to have to figure out how to respect everyone’s rights. Not just pick a select group and say the hell with everyone else.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The LGBT isn’t just standing up for their rights-they are trying to put their rights above everyone else’s rights

              How thoughtless of them to want to get married. They should have known how that might impact your rights.

              Well good for you because that’s the point-if we are going to have a diverse population-we are going to have to figure out how to respect everyone’s rights. Not just pick a select group and say the hell with everyone else.

              As long as that group isn’t gay – because then we should pass laws making homosexual cohabitation illegal (now voided), making “sodomy” (ie, gay sex) a felony (now voided), prohibiting gay-marriage on a federal level (now voided), prohibiting gay-marriage on a state level (mixed progress), prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military (now voided), and specifically permitting government employees to refuse service to homosexuals (currently a bill in Kansas, but will probably pass before getting struck down).

              Meanwhile, of course, those mean, nasty, bullying gays have managed to sue (two whole times!) to force a business to serve them despite the owner’s desire to discriminate.

              Tell me again who is “picking and choosing” whose rights to respect?

              • So what outcome do you want Matt-in a few years I’m listing all the injusticies done to everybody else-Or do you want to try not to repeat the mistakes of the past?

              • Oh and the LGBT wants a lot more than just the right to get married!

              • Mathius™ says:

                I want two things:

                1) Equal rights for everyone irrespective of – amongst other things – sexual orientation. That is, if you cannot refuse service to someone because they are, say, Christian, then you cannot refuse service to them because they are gay.

                2) For the powerful groups of this nation – white, males, Christians – to stop acting like persecuted minorities. You/we are not. You/we are extraordinarily powerful and influential – disproportionately to all reason. This country caters to our whims at the expense of true minorities and the dissolution of our white/male/Christian-privilege in favor of a more egalitarian society does not represent an encroachment upon our rights but rather a redress of our encroachment upon the rights of others. If a big kid is bullying a smaller kid and the teacher makes him stop – that’s not discriminating against the big kid.

                3) I know I said two things, but I would also like a dutch apple pie. Just saying..

              • Is your stance that if a group of people are or have been discriminated against-anyone who isn’t in that group, rights are forfeit. Because that is the solution the liberals seem to be favoring by all their discrimination laws.

              • I have to go-so I want to make one more point before I do-I am conflicted when it comes to discrimination battles but I see truth on both sides of this argument. I see the danger to freedom in general when freedom of conscience is deemed unimportant-but you don’t seem willing to admit that discrimination laws are themselves discriminatory.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Is your stance that if a group of people are or have been discriminated against-anyone who isn’t in that group, rights are forfeit.

                My stance is that every group should have the SAME rights. Try it this way: any time you think of a scenario, replace “gay” with “black” – if it sounds racist to you, then you probably shouldn’t be doing it to homosexuals. For example: “I think that a bakery should be free to refuse service to an otherwise normal paying customer simply because he’s gay black.” Does that sound wrong to you? If so, then it’s STILL WRONG when applied to homosexuals.

                The (soon to be) law in Kansas – I shit you not – makes it legal for a hospital to refuse to admit a homosexual to the emergency room and, if he sues, not only will his case be immediately thrown out, but he will have to pay for the hospital’s legal bills. Now, if you’re thinking to yourself that this is ok, then ask yourself how you would feel if the law make it legal to refuse to treat someone because they’re Christian. If someone tried to pass that law, you would be apoplectic. If that sounds like a bad idea to you, then it’s STILL A BAD IDEA when applied to homosexuals.

                Same laws for every group. I honestly don’t really care which way the errors fall (too restrictive on the “rights” of bigots or too much leeway given to discriminate), just so long as whatever you can do to one group, they are also free to do to you.

                Because that is the solution the liberals seem to be favoring by all their discrimination laws.

                Liberals are not passing any laws to discriminate. They are striking down laws which enshrine discrimination. I know it’s tough to try to see it from the other perspective, but again, try replacing “gay” with “Christian” and see how you’d feel about the conservative laws floating around the country.

                Buy maybe I missed it, but can you point out any of those “liberal laws”? Give me a link.

              • Spice cake-I would like a huge slice of spice cake. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                Oh and the LGBT wants a lot more than just the right to get married!

                Yup. You are 100% correct.

                They want a little thing called Equality.

                It’s legal to fire someone for being black in zero states. It’s legal to fire someone for being Christian in zero states. It’s legal to fire someone for being a woman in zero states. It’s legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states.

                It’s legal for African-Americans to get married in 50 states. It’s legal for Muslims to get married in 50 states. It’s legal for homosexuals to get married in 17 states.

                EQUALITY. It’s not a tough concept.

                And if they could have some respect while they’re at it, that would be nice, too.

              • Mathius™ says:

                but you don’t seem willing to admit that discrimination laws are themselves discriminatory.

                What laws??

                Name for me ONE law passed by liberals which is discriminatory in favor of homosexuals.

                Seriously? Maybe I missed it? Is there one? Name the law. Give me a link to the text. Give me something, anything.

                You keep telling me that those dastardly liberals are passing “discrimination laws” and I don’t see any laws. The most the liberals have done is (repeatedly) strike down conservative laws, not pass any of their own that impact on the freedoms of, say, Christians who oppose homosexuality, in any way shape or form. Where is this law?

            • “Yes, how shameful for us to stand up for our rights”

              Is that what African-Americans once said with equal sarcasm back in the day?

              • Mathius™ says:

                No, because they were usually too busy getting lynched before they could finish that sentence.

  3. I decided to challenge the numbers that were reported on unemployment, so I went to the CBO site and found the following:

    1) Unemployment is determined by a variety of methods. The current trend to determine unemployment is using the false number of unemployment claims. It is reported that when the claims for unemployment insurance falls, the numbers of unemployed are revised downward…in other words…low claims equals an increase in employment, according to the gurus. Not so, the CBO says. There is NO direct correlation to the fact that when claims drop that there is an increase in employment. In the last, four years, it has been the opposite.

    2) The trend is that the less claims = (a) individuals dropping out of the employment market. When they drop out, they are erased from the formula. (b) When the number of jobs that are offered falls, there is no direct correlation to increased employment. What is not figured into the calculation is the fact that many companies have absorbed those jobs and are not listing them any longer.

    3) The CBO goes further and says that the formula now needs to reflect the following: (a) the fact that a majority of manufacturing jobs are moving over seas to China, Russia, India, and our neighbor Mexico, thus taking badly needed jobs away. The reason that these companies are moving overseas is that it is more favorable to do this due to (1) low tax rates or no tax rates at all, (2) protectionists policies to encourage investment, (3) very cheap labor rates. (4) cheap tariffs.

    4) The CBO goes even further: The increase in the SNAP program, extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and even further, subsidies for health care, and subsidies for housing and utilities has created an atmosphere of indulgence. The CBO states that there is no incentive for Americans to work.

    5). The CBO says that the numbers do not lie in the fact that every time you raise the minimum wage, you lose jobs and created an underclass.( Their words…got to see what underclass means ). Their formula is an increase of 50 cents = 1/10th increase in unemployment and a corresponding increase in welfare programs.

    So, a new formula, according to the CBO, needs to include all the factors and adirect relationship needs to be established. They conclude that the real unemployment is 20-22% and growing.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      D13THECOLONEL

      Good morning Sir. Hope the weekend went well.

      Curious why you went to CBO to challenge the unemployment data.

      CBO is not the one who generates that data nor the one who modifies it. Speaking of which, it seems the “adjustments” to the employment data are getting greater and greater. It Is hard to remember when there was such significant shift in the final numbers for so many quarters.

      There is one known relationship to unemployment and the number of jobs. A relationship which has been reported going back to the 80’s.

      In a long downturn those giving up looking for work increases and this drives “unemployment” down because they are not included in that data set.

      As the economy recovers and the number of jobs offers increases, these people start looking for work again. This “increases” the unemployment number.

      So one of the sure signs of positive movement in the jobs market is when the GDP is growing, jobs created is increasing, and the unemployment number suddenly jumps UP. This happened this past quarter.

      This would indicated that we are a little more than half way to recovery. On the other side is the historical record on the time between recessions. Here we are finally starting to pull out and another one is due soon, with a 7 to 9 year cycle.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m not sure I believe 20%. That’s 1 in 5 and, frankly, just doesn’t sound right. Unless you’re throwing everyone back into the calculation regardless of whether they intentionally don’t want to work or have “given up” (see the distinction there?). Or maybe I’m missing something?

      Anyway, it just seems inplausible. I do agree, however, that it’s higher than the number being reported.

      I’d also love to see some measure of UNDER-employment. I just got my MBA and can’t really move up because the job market sucks so much. I’m not unemployed, but I’m certainly not being used optimally. How many people are working retail/temp who could be doing more? I’d bet that number is easily in the 20-30% range though I have no idea how one might go about measuring that..

    • Canine Weapon says:

      ė̡̇v̈̇᷈e̍̇͑ȓ̇̒ẏ̵̘ṫ̼̒hi̶͖̇ṅ̵̝g is f᷊͗̇ȉ̇̈́n̜̑̇e ̙ͦ̇mȯ̲̂vè͈̇ ȁ̇̕l̓̇͆o͕ͫ̇n̍̇ͩg nȯ̇ͩṫ᷊̒h̩͛̇i̧᷿̇ṅ̳̎g to̗͋̇ ̬̯̇s͖͂̇e͏̇̃e ḣ᷂̰ë́̇͗ṙ̲̃e

  4. In other words -just get out of the way and let them enter the Country.

    Washington Bureaucrats Issue New Policies Limiting Use of Deadly Force by Border Agents on the Ground
    Katie Pavlich | Mar 10, 2014

    Late last week, new guidelines and policies about when Border Patrol Agents can use lethal force were released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office in Washington D.C. In a directive issued by U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, with the subject line “use of safe tactics and techniques,” agents have been ordered not to shoot at fleeing vehicles and have been urged not to put themselves in situations that require deadly force to survive.

    In the directive, Fisher acknowledges that since 2010, Border Patrol Agents have been assaulted by illegal immigrants and criminal aliens with rocks 1,713 times since 2010. Deadly force was used only 43 times, resulting in the death of 10 illegals engaging violently with agents. In response, the Mexican government and open border groups have demanded Border Patrol reassess their use of deadly force, arguing rock throwing, a potentially deadly tactic used to distract agents during drug smuggling runs, should not be met with lethal force. What is most alarming is Fisher’s urging of supervisors and agents to use less than deadly methods to combat assault, setting up agents on the ground for failure as they try to comply with a bureaucratic process during fast moving and dangerous situations. [Emphasis below is mine]

    In order to lessen the likelihood of deadly force situations and reduce the risk of injury or death to agents and others, I am implementing the following directive effective immediately, which clarifies existing guidelines contained in the CBP Use of Force Policy:

    (1) In accordance with CBP’s current Use of Force policy, agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances that deadly force is being used against an agent or another person present; such deadly force may include a moving vehicle aimed at agents or others present, but would not include a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents. Further, agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path.

    (2) Agents should continue, whenever possible, to avoid placing themselves in positions where they have no alternative to using deadly force. Agents shall not discharges firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles unless the agent has a reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances, to include the size and nature of the projectiles, that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious injury. Agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves from the immediate area of danger.

    Supervisors are instructed to address this directive at musters, to include using alternative methodologies, such as setting up controlled tire deflation devices, acquiring additional back-up, utilizing technology and less-than-lethal equipment, taking appropriate cover, and recognizing when to engage or subsequently disengage.

    When Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 15, 2010 in Arizona’s Peck Canyon, it was revealed that his highly specialized and trained BORTAC team came under AK-47 fire from illegal drug smugglers from Mexico after agents fired bean bag warning shots. They fired bean bag shots in order to comply with Homeland Security policy and received live ammunition fire in return. Those bean bag shots, or what Fisher would call “utilizing technology and less-than-lethal equipment,” got Terry killed and will only set up agents in the future for the same fate.

    “I cannot stress enough how important it is to physically and mentally prepare yourselves, so that when dangerous situations arise, you increase your chances of survivability while limiting unnecessary risk to others. It is anticipated that these initial steps will help reduce the likelihood of assault against our agents,” Fisher wrote.

    These new guideline “clarifications” won’t result in a reduction in assaults against agents, but instead will do the opposite by increasing them.

    The National Border Patrol Council, an organization representing 17,000 Border Patrol agents is pushing back against new regulations and overbearing policies that put agents in further danger.

    Restricting agents in their use of force, whether it is against rock or vehicular assaults, will only result in more criminals attacking Border Patrol agents. Criminals will know if agents are prohibited from using deadly force against rock or vehicle assaults, they will quickly employ those means against agents. This is evidenced by the Border Patrol’s previous pursuit policy that was overly restrictive. The vast majority of smugglers would fail to yield and evade agents, since they were well aware of the policy’s restrictions and that there were little to no consequences for fleeing.

    The Border Patrol, due to its strategy of putting pressure on smugglers and illegal aliens at the border fence, has contributed to the situation where criminals are emboldened to launch rock assaults from Mexico or just inside the U.S. Tactically this leaves agents little recourse as they are often caught unprotected in the open or between fences when assaults occur. Assaults would decrease if agents were allowed to make arrests away from the border fence, in areas of their choosing that are more tactically sound and with other agents for back-up.

    No Border Patrol agent goes to the field wanting to be involved in a deadly force situation. Agents are trained to protect themselves and be aware of their surroundings. No agent would intentionally put himself in front of a speeding vehicle or within range of rock throwing criminals so that they could use deadly force. Assertions to the contrary belittle the training, integrity, and professionalism of Border Patrol agents. These assaults happen for one reason only: criminals make a conscious decision to attack Border Patrol agents. Stop the assaults on agents and the use of deadly force would be unnecessary.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/03/10/border-patrol-issues-new-policies-limiting-use-of-deadly-force-n1806480

    • VH…..I posted on this several months ago. I even posted memorandum from homeland security to FEDERAL Agents……They have issued non lethal ammunition to the border agents. Their motto now is ” See a gun…..run”….This pertains to FEDERAL only. It does not pertain to States. There is what is called an “exclusionary zone” on the border. We, as a State and the Texas National Guard and the DPS and the Texas Rangers ( not baseball ) set up outside this zone. We do not use nor practice what you posted. We use black talon hollow point rounds designed to take you head off your shoulders. Since immigration is a Federal issue and the Feds control the crossing points…..Texas has no jurisdiction. But outside the crossing points and the actual border line itself, Texas enforces immigration law and we pay ZERO attention to anything put out by homeland security. New Mexico has adopted our procedure. Arizona and California have their own. Ours works…theirs does not. Let California have them…..and they are flocking there in huge numbers.

      Border agents and Border Patrol get attacked constantly…..the Texas National Guard does not…neither does the Texas Department of Transportation, The Texas Department of Public Safety, nor the Texas Rangers. Throw a rock..you die. Pull a knife…you die. Pull a gun, you are target practice. Run away….you die tired. We shoot an FN 5.7 armor piercing round.

      So, it is a State issue and Texas and New Mexico do not care what the Feds say.

      • OOPS….need to clarify…..handguns shoot black talon hollow points……rifles shoot FN 5.7 armor piercing rounds. We carry both handguns and rifles.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I’m not sure what this story is (there’s no article, just a headline.. perhaps something to do with my ad-blocking/spyware-blocking software??), so I’ll just take a stab at it, given the URL.

      The man bought insurance from a private company which charged him a premiums because they (somehow) knew he was a gun owner – this despite the fact that owning guns is legal. How did I go?

      Y’aaarg!

      • Close, they cancelled his policy because he was a gun owner. Apparently, having guns in ones house increases liability, so it appears this NY based company wants to charge more. This of course, doesn’t appear to apply to police. Strange, never had one of my guns jump up and cause damage, but kids, that’s another story LOL 🙂

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Allow me to ask, then. Is this a private company? If so, what is your complaint? That they’re stupid?

          • Just showing how insurance companies are starting to scam people out of more money with another bogus claim of liability that has no basis of fact. As I said, not a shock these days. I don’t do business with the company and likely never will. It’s fine if people want to pay for such things and it’s fine if the company wants to charge for such things. Not much different than making single men pay for maternity coverage under the ACA. Just one of those “look out for this when buying insurance” post’s. 🙂

            • I can’t wait for an insurance company to try that here.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Why? Would it be illegal or just that Texans would hound the insurance company into changing it’s policy or leaving the state?

              • LOL…not illegal……hounding would be a better word. We have such a love affair with our weapons, I would be willing to bet DPM’s Thor’s Hammer that 90% of those with weapons…would actually quit the insurance company.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I would be willing to bet DPM’s Thor’s Hammer that 90% of those with weapons…would actually quit the insurance company.

                A) My ship is not yours to wager. I left it in Laguna Madre in your care while I’m locked up – I will take it out of your hide if anything happens to it.

                B) I would take that bet. Most people are too busy trying to live their lives to stand up for principles. Especially in this job market, I’d be willing to bet that very few people would actually quit over ideology. It’s not even like the company is saying guns should be banned or anything, just that gun owners cost them more money in payments and therefore should be charged higher premiums.

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              bogus claim of liability that has no basis of fact

              This humble pirate is confused. You say they cancelled his plan and want to charge more (for a new one) and that this has no basis in reality?

              Now, I’m not going to argue with you over whether you should have a gun or not (or whether you have a right to have a gun – you do), but your claim that this has basis in fact is, in fact, baseless.

              I’ve never seen a swimming pool reach out and drown a kid. In fact, every time I’ve looked, they’re just sitting there, laying in wait. But, somehow 5,000 children under the age of 15 are hospitalized due to “drowning-related incidents” each year (of which 15% die and 20% suffer neurological damage. As a result, insurance companies charge more money if you have a pool.

              The same can be said of guns. Every time I look over at my handy breech-loading musket (“Ole Bessie”), it’s just sitting there, hurting no one*. Yet, similarly, somehow, quite a few kids manage to accidentally get shot. Especially if you have a teen in the home. Additionally, having a gun in the home increases the risk of violent death. Also, sometimes, you shoot a burglar and they wind up suing you for “excessive force.”

              It seems perfectly reasonable that a private company, given this, might reach the conclusion that a person with a gun should be charged higher insurance rates. Now, you don’t mention what TYPE of insurance. This doesn’t really make sense for car insurance, for example. But if it’s, say, umbrella insurance or home insurance or life insurance, it makes perfect sense to me.

              And, then again, even if it doesn’t make sense, it’s still a private company. Don’t like it, take your business elsewhere.

              ——————–

              *this is primarily because I’m locked up in a basement and have no access to black powder or shot.

              • I wasn’t intending this to be a subject of debate, It is homeowners insurance, for the record. Most states have laws against criminals suing homeowners when they get shot. So, we are left with what would cost the insurance company money because of a gun related incident. While incredibly rare, I guess that a child visitor could get injured or killed because of a irresponsible gun owner. Then again, we’re talking New York here, infested with Liberal’s, who lack in the area of personal responsibility 😉

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I wasn’t intending this to be a subject of debate

                That’s pretty rich, seeing as you posted it on SUFA 😉

                I guess that a child visitor could get injured or killed because of a irresponsible gun owner

                In a study of 286 parents visiting emergency rooms in North Carolina, […] only 57 percent said they locked away guns in a place where kids could not get access them.

                Irresponsible gun owner, you say? Boy, there sure do seem to be a LOT of irresponsible gun owners around..

                And, as an insurance company, how exactly are you supposed to know whether your client is one of the responsible ones or not? Surprise inspections?

                While incredibly rare, I guess that a child visitor could get injured or killed because of a irresponsible gun owner.

                Not as rare as one would like think.

                Anyway, how rare does it have to be for an insurance company to not want to shell out massive payments when http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/ChildGunDeaths/docAcc.pngthis or this happens (you might not want to read those..).

              • plainlyspoken says:

                G, Criminals who pull this off usually are suing under personal injury torts. That, when it gets by, separates the criminal action from the responsibility to maintain a safe property. It is hard, when employing common sense, to think a criminal has the ability to sue. Yet, it happens and what has to be looked at is whether there is a true condition that exists to sue over, or whether it is the actions of the owner to stop the criminal activity on one’s property that is the basis for the suit.

                That to me would be the difference – as a judge – as to whether or not I would even allow such a suit.

                Now, we could use the argument of “but for being on my property for an unlawful purpose….” no liability exists, but IF the condition would exist for owner liability for any person on the property lawfully, should the individual lose the right to sue just because they were involved in a criminal activity?

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                That to me would be the difference – as a judge – as to whether or not I would even allow such a suit.

                Plainly, that sounds, to me, like a finding of fact which should be left to the jury, no?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                In a study of 286 parents visiting emergency rooms in North Carolina, […] only 57 percent said they locked away guns in a place where kids could not get access them.

                Not a question I would even answer if asked! None of their damn business.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Not at all DPM. Judges determine the validity of suits all the time, it only takes a motion by the lawyer for the respondent to get a ruling. Just like criminal cases when judges rule on whether or not the prosecution meets enough of the burden to warrant trial.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I looked at the photo and saw the type of policy as being “Ultraflex” so I looked it up for that company – it appears to be property & liability insurance and for businesses it seems.

              Don’t see a problem here.

              • The company isn’t doing anything wrong, I was just pointing out that gun ownership could lead to higher premiums (which I think will happen). It’s also good to ensure one is not paying the higher premium if one DON’T own a firearm. Knowledge is power! 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I understand, but it does generate an interesting topic for discussion. 🙂

  5. Good morning, DPM. Out for your morning rounds?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      At the least it seems he gets his hour out for exercise and hygiene. 😉

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Apparently someone just donated 90k (originally earmarked for “farm subsidies – soil banking”) to the 529 for my captor’s kid’s college fund in exchange for giving me an iPad.

        Strange world we live in..

  6. plainlyspoken says:

    With the reporting on the two lost/stolen passports used on the missing Malaysian aircraft I got curious as to the number of US passports that go missing.

    I found this on the US Embassy in the UK page:

    During the period October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011, the State Department reported 253,037 passports as lost and 60,984 as stolen.

    http://www.usembassy.org.uk/americanservices/?p=4012

  7. Out of town for a while. Will be missing you all, have fun and don’t kill each other while i am gone.

  8. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Can whoever’s handling the moderation queue set add me to the approved list? I keep having issues.

    Thanks!

  9. ” This humble pirate is confused. ”

    pppfffttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. Plainly, RE: Lawsuits from criminals being shot.

    We have a Stand your ground and Castle law that prevents lawsuits from criminals being shot. Not all states have them, so I’m sure that States like NY may have this problem.

    DPM, RE Study. Where was the study hospital, urban or rural? What were the age of the kids in households that didn’t lock up guns? Were the kids with unlocked households trained in gun safety and it’s proper use? ABC Is just another Liberal media outfit that play to the Liberal agenda. I don’t lock up guns in my home, period. I don’t have any young kids. Visiting children are all above the age of 7 and all are trained about guns.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      G, that is a narrowing of the question I posed.

      Now, we could use the argument of “but for being on my property for an unlawful purpose….” no liability exists, but IF the condition would exist for owner liability for any person on the property lawfully, should the individual lose the right to sue just because they were involved in a criminal activity?

      Certainly castle doctrine would (and should) stop that type of lawsuit, yet that isn’t necessarily the only action that could be brought forth in a lawsuit. I am looking more at the question posed. What are your thoughts on that?

      • should the individual lose the right to sue just because they were involved in a criminal activity? Absolutely !

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Why? Obvious question maybe, but I am interested in your thinking. I also am not saying I don’t agree necessarily either.

          • I’m guessing that if a person is shot by a property owner, it’s because of being engaged in a crime. In this case, the rights of the landowner trump the criminals rights to not be shot.

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              And I’m guessing that your right to violence ends at the point at which the threat ends.

              Any corresponding lawsuit must refer to force used in excess of that right.

              To void the right of a person to seek redress for use of excessive violence is to void the right of a person who is the subject of unwarranted violence.

              Imaging someone breaks into your home and you shoot him while he’s holding a knife and running at you. He falls down and you disarm him and tie him to a chair. Fine, right? But then you shoot him in the kneecap. Not so fine, eh? Shouldn’t he have his day to make his case that you did him unnecessary harm? Or do you assert you had the right to do that extra harm because he was committing a crime?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            G, come off the narrow gun issue you inserted into the conversation. Maybe the crook fell through bad flooring and became paralyzed, slipped on the walkway up to the porch and broke his back?

            I clearly delineated between an action of the owner to stop the criminal activity and a condition that existed on the property.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      DPM, RE Study. Where was the study hospital, urban or rural? What were the age of the kids in households that didn’t lock up guns? Were the kids with unlocked households trained in gun safety and it’s proper use?

      Who knows?

      My point was only that there are a lot of people out there with guns who do not lock them up. Do you debate this point?

      How many.. well that’s open to some debate. And I’d point out that the study was at a hospital, so the kids there were already hurt – often by guns – so there’s a heavy sample bias here (doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and it would even be higher, but it’s just something to keep in mind).

      What age – I believe they were all under 15, but again, who knows? Who cares? The point, again, is that there are viable grounds to believe that having guns in a home may reasonably be understood by an insurance company to increase expected costs of payouts, and thus, necessitate higher premiums.

      • As I said, insurance companies are always going to find ways to make money. This may not even be new, although I’ve never been asked about gun ownership when dealing with homeowners insurance.

        As far as the claims your making about it being a problem for the insurance companies, what has changed for them to lead to this conclusion? Have they had numerous payouts due to this issue? Or, as I think, some politician mentioned it after Sandy Hook and poof! Here it is. Insurance companies are opening the door for more competition, which is good, since the ACA will all but destroy the health insurance industry.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Or it could be the insurance acting to prevent unreasonable (in their eyes) liability payments. My other question, is since this company statement said “we can tell you that we do provide firearms coverage, both liability and property, under our Homeowners and Business policies. When we write a Business policy, did the company give the owner an opportunity to pay an increased premium? If so, did the owner refuse?

          The article gives us no information on these aspects, making the story itself very one-sided.

          • Or it could be the insurance acting to prevent unreasonable (in their eyes) liability payments.

            That’s the question that should be answered. What happened that this is now an issue? Lawsuits? Big Payouts? I haven’t heard of anything of this nature or of any costly decisions, which would have certainly shown up in the MSM.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              which would have certainly shown up in the MSM.

              Ok, this made me chuckle. From the person who doesn’t trust what the MSM does or doesn’t report on? 🙂

              • If it would support the Liberal agenda, they’d be on it like stink on shit and harp on it for weeks. Chris Mathews would have a seizure and Maddow would grow a penis they’d get so exited 😆

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Who ever knows why they charge what they do? I’m convinced it’s some form of ancient alchemy.

          But if you’re going to suggest it’s political, I’m going to have to ask you to back that up with evidence. I can offer at least some evidence to suggest that gun ownership may cost insurance companies money.

          In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest solution is probably correct.

          • If this has been a problem, why wasn’t it addressed years ago? Because, common sense says that it wasn’t a problem for insurance companies years ago, and it’s not to clear why it is now (since this is the first I’ve heard of this issue). You brought up the issue of accidents, mostly with kids. So, having kids is inherently going to cause homeowners rates to go up, because guns are a minor issue when it comes to accidents. Kids will be kids and they will get hurt.

            But, where is the monetary evidence? You’ve only presented the obvious, but not the underlying expense that has led to this issue. I’m not saying it’s political, but that a suggestion of liability insurance for gun owners has been brought up by a office holding politician who, if my memory serves me, was a liberal democrat anti-gun zealot. 😀

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Because, common sense says that it wasn’t a problem for insurance companies years ago

              Can you support this statement? From 1976 into 1985 my parents had a business. The liability insurance my parents paid for specifically provided that no firearms could be on the business property or it voided the liability insurance. If my parents had wanted a firearm on the property it would have been more expensive for their policy. So, it isn’t anything “new” in my opinion, maybe just a bit more visible to the public at large because of the current state of affairs that the ACA has brought to our attention.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                There it is… Thanks Plainly!

              • Please read my posts! I was very clear that I do not know if this is a new issue or not, it is however the first I have heard of it being an issue under insurance policies. Am I not writing in proper English?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I have read your posts and you are writing English, quite clearly. Yet, because you have just started hearing of it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a part of insurance prior to it, it just means it hasn’t come to your attention and you subscribed a reason to it (the ACA for example) and the effects it will have on insurance.

                I just asked for support of you position.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BTW – I also pointed out information lacking from the article, which may well have put it in more of a proper light, or at the minimum given validity to the angle of the author in the piece. 🙂

              • In Texas, the castle doctrine extends to any owned property at any time. Including you office or work. Furthermore, the State castle doctrine strictly prohibits civil suit.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Colonel, the same goes here in Colorado. I have the affirmative right to defend myself or my property – up to and including deadly force if the circumstances warrant – anywhere in the State. Yet, doing so doesn’t absolve me from a determination by the law as to whether or not I was lawful in my actions and if not to stand before a court over it.

                I am not sure though on the civil suit portion in Colorado.

  11. I still believe that government workers should not be in unions: http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/03/another-bankrupt-city-cant-afford-unions/

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I don’t know that I can agree with such a blanket statement G. Is this the union’s fault? They are suing over raises, but what the article doesn’t speak to is whether these raises were guaranteed as part of a contract voluntarily entered into by the city and whether or not there was some clause in the contract allowing the city to withhold the raises in a case of a financial emergency?

      The city may have some fault for their problem as well. If a city negotiated with a provider for some service for some contractually provided compensation and said they couldn’t pay due to a financial emergency, would this mean the provider is at fault for the debt owed?

    • I think we have a big problem with the militarized police. I have said that often, usually linking a story about the abuse handed out by them. Remember Boston and how they went after the teenager? Next time they lock neighborhoods down, it may be to strip people of their natural rights. Urban areas are war zones in many places that the police can’t fix. I vote for militia’s, local one’s, not something that any government has control over. Most importantly, any militia is to protect the people, not harm them.

      • Let me clarify, protect the people from any government agency attempting to violate rights, and against any criminal entity or group involved in illegal activity. We can fix a lot of this by changing/eliminating bad laws. Fixing government is a much bigger problem.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I vote for militia’s, local one’s, not something that any government has control over.

        The who would control this militia? How would they be trained, or would that have to be something done if the militia was called out? Who would be insuring this militia was acting in accordance with the laws protecting one’s individual rights? (just for starters)

        • I would have veteran’s run the militia’s, under the same oath as taken upon military service. Use would be dependent on what occurs, I’m not going to attempt to play in a hypothetical fantasyland like some like to do. The Rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Who do those veterans answer to G? Where would their authority come from? The Constitution gives this authority for militia’s over to the State (designated authority), not to some individual (veteran or otherwise). And that is fantasyland at all.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              sorry.editor took the day off again. I meant “And that isn’t fantasyland at all.”

            • Whoops, sorry, I was thinking this was about guns. If a person enters one’s property, uninvited and falls or slips and hurts themselves, too bad in my book. I don’t think shooting a trespasser is needed, unless they are trying to steal or do damage. Ask what they want, then ask them to leave. People get lost in rural areas, so someone may need help. Why ask such a silly question?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Because I wanted you to employ common sense to your argument. Such blanket statements are just as silly.

                Now, Colorado has a make my day law allowing me to shoot someone on my property when they are presenting a threat or serious bodily harm towards anyone on my property (I only have to believe a life is in danger of death or serious bodily harm). Bang, they are dead – but that doesn’t mean I don’t get investigated to insure my action was lawful.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Any thoughts on the questions I asked here G about the veterans leading militia groups?

              • Not really, we have discussed the militia issue plenty enough, no need to go down that rabbit hole again.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I realize we discussed militia’s before, but I wanted to delve into leading these militia’s here in the context of the authority (and who enforces that authority) on a veteran leading a militia unit.

              • Why, It’s illegal, remember? We can’t have militia’s that aren’t under government control, at least that has what you and JAC have stated, so why bother.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I believe I said that militias not under the control of the State were not legal (I won’t speak for JAC).

                But for discussion’s sake, lets say they are and apply that to my questions.

              • For the sake of the question, those within each militia will ensure it’s using whatever authority it’s intended to have. It’s called self policing, something we need more of.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                But wouldn’t that be opinion of the militia? If another militia thought otherwise and deployed against the first militia who would settle the issue?

              • There is no correct answers when you pose hypothetical situations that may never exist. Let’s stick to reality.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well ok. But, if the beliefs of people need to change on this (or any topic) it takes some hypotheticals to clarify for people how it could/would work.

              • Since your the one who has the issues about controlling the authority, how would you solve it?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            You have a “no trespassing” sign posted on your property and a person walks right past it breaking the law. Is shooting him justified?

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Is he a threat to you? Do you THINK he’s a threat to you?

              Does it make a difference in your estimation if the person is a 6’4″ man wearing a mask and carrying a rifle in the middle of the night? Or does it make a difference if it’s an 8 year old girl school with a radio flyer wagon full of thin mints at high noon?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I don’t really know the answer VH. If the militia was under some government authority would the militia be called out to stop police overreach in the first place? Many questions would have to be settled before – in my opinion – one could answer this question clearly.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      The States are clearly NO LONGER FREE. Not since the Civil War.

      The States no longer have the organized means to counter Federal Military action against them.

      Reviving the “organized and well regulated” militia in each State would be a good thing.

      I think the author over states the role of the “militia” in what we consider “law enforcement”.

      Those instances where citizens organized to deal with LE issues would be more likened to a Posse.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        JAC, good morning.

        Why would an “organized and well-regulated” militia change this in the States? Is the lack of freedom not possibly more the result of the political will of States? Couldn’t the States manage through combined political will (I know this didn’t work for the Confederacy, but neither did war. I also recognize we are talking of modern America)?

        I am asking for opinion here because I wonder if it would really make a difference on Federal excess.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          plainly

          A well regulated militia within the State would give the State greater control over major events that might require their use. The article is correct in that the National Guard is used by Governors but is really under Federal Control.

          Besides, there are times when even using the Guard is over kill.

          The presence of a Militia would cause some in the Fed. Govt serious heart burn and might actually cause them to pause before taking some actions.

          But my reasons for having the Militia is NOT to stand AGAINST the Feds as much as having them for use within the State, and thus being able to NOT RELY on the Feds for help.

          The issue of State’s FREEDOM is partly a frame of mind and courage, but it is also a matter of Federal Law, in particular the Constitutional Amendments passed after the Civil War.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Well I can see that as reasonable thinking and can agree. The loss of independence of action within a state that a state militia would supply is an aspect of why the feds “help” so much in a state.

            I especially agree with the idea that it would give the feds heartburn and might restrain their meddling in State affairs – specifically to putting for teeth into the Tenth Amendment.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Couldn’t the States manage through combined political will

          States don’t matter. They are part and parcel the same thing as the Federal government. It’s like looking at the Student Body Government and wondering why it isn’t changing the rules of the school. It’s not that they lack the power, per say, it’s that it exists for the sole reason of giving you the delusion that you have a say.

          You have no say.

          The states won’t control the Fed because the states don’t want to control the Feds. The states are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Feds.

          They are an illusion. Your parents are giving you the choice between having a bath and having a shower – either way, you’re still going to do what they want, but you feel like you made the choice. HA!

          Give up on your states.

          Give up on your Feds.

          If your objection is that you wish to be free, returning power to the states might make you feel more free, but it really changes nothing. States will simply swell to fill the power-vacuum.

          Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

          If you wish for freedom, you must abolish State and Federal governments. If not anarchy, then a federation of city-states is your only real option for true change. And this can be achieved only through a collective act of will of The People.

          But The People lack the will.

          Because The People like their goodies.

          They like their nice comfortable fantasy land with their uniform federal currency and cushy over-consumption supported by a mountain of debt and a currency propped up by another bigger mountain of debt and security purchased with an aggressive military. Oh yea, The People won’t lift a finger.

          But, by all means. Fight the Feds on behalf of their minions, the States..

          Meet the new boss!
          Same as the old boss!
          YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

          Just keep on letting yourself get fooled, and fight the good fight.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Gee DPM, I guess we can abolish the States and just let feds run the whole show then huh? lol. You drank too much of that grog.

            • Mathius has said this before, and he isn’t that far off the reality we face today.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Maybe not. Universal rule is no different from universal healthcare of the Left – one size fits all and nothing further is needed for better society.

                I don’t happen to agree with that type of thinking. lol

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Well, I can’t speak for Mathius, of course, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

              • I don’t agree with that thinking either, but that seems to be the direction this country is heading in. As long as people apply the Supremacy clause to Federal laws that are not within the authority of the Feds, it will continue. Just like the ACA, the feds have ZERO authority to do this.

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Plainly,

              You’re arguing over who should run the student council. It’s the administration that’s the problem. That’s the Big Picture™.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Maybe DPM, but I can solve that too – no expansive federal government needed as it exists now.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                But you’re just going to replace them with an expansive federal state government.

                Or a small state government which would quickly inflate to fill the power vacuum.

                You haven’t changed anything. Meet the new boss…….

      • That’s all I could think of-a sheriff in an old western asking for volunteers to form a posse. Also thought about mops wanting to hang people without a trial too. 🙂 But I think the question is interesting-can we be free without the ability to literally fight the federal government. Plainly asks about fighting with political power of the states but one wonders if you can not back that up with military might -does the federal government really have to listen-if they choose not too. So do the states really have rights-when the federal has control of the military?

        • plainlyspoken says:

          VH, the Civil War answers that somewhat and they had military power as well. It would come down to the number of states involved I think. Then military resistance may not be necessary (but would help it if existed to make the feds stop and think).

          Do the State’s have rights? Yes, but they do not have the power to exercise those rights unless they are allowed to by the federal government. And, without a military structure under pure State authority, the State’s (working collectively) have no ability to assert those right’s against federal government will.

        • Mops wanting to hang people scares the hell out of me, LOL 🙂 But your right, the Feds don’t listen to the people, the States are no far behind in the corruption area and the local governments are going bankrupt on a daily basis. The only thing “we the people” have is the 2nd Amendment. That’s why so many are trying to take that away, absolute power.

  12. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here G.

    Since your the one who has the issues about controlling the authority, how would you solve it?

    By having militias structured, raised, trained, maintained and controlled by State authorities (a “national guard” without the feds involvement).

    • I see, you want one authority to oversee another authority. Then, DPM will want another authority to oversee your authority who oversee’s a smaller authority and before you know it, the only authority that means anything is the corrupt bastard at the top of the chain. No thanks, we already have that mess.

      • Why is it so many are brainwashed into thinking that the people NEED government? Afraid of your own shadow too!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        If you want no authority then are you not siding with BF’s anarchy theories?

        If you want the people to exercise authority, how would that work and have any stability in society (whether locally, regionally, etc)? What rules would then apply to any society?

        • Do I side with BF’s Anarchism theories? More and more everyday. Why do we need “authorities”? I’m not a damn cow that needs led around. Most communities get along just fine with almost zero interference in their lives from government, local or not. To claim they can’t survive without some authority is more scare monger brainwashing crap fed to the people for generations.

          Can we still have good roads, yes. Can we still have a police dept, yes. Can we do this without the entity we call government today, HELL YES! We don’t need them to survive, they do need us however. Life would go on just fine if DC was suddenly gone (and all the politicians with it). Just like the State governments, life would go on without them.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m not a damn cow that needs led around.

            Perhaps you aren’t. But 99.9% of the American population is.

            Most communities get along just fine with almost zero interference in their lives from government, local or not.

            Nonsense.

            Name one.

            Can we still have a police dept, yes.

            The police department is the enforcement arm of the local government. It is, definitionally, a part of government authority.

            You can’t have “no authority” and have “police authority” at the same time.

            We don’t need them to survive

            Perhaps you don’t. But that’s not true of most people. Most Americans would have no idea how to exist if they were suddenly confronted with Freedom™.

            Life would go on just fine if DC was suddenly gone (and all the politicians with it).

            For approximately 45.7 seconds. After which every would-be tin-pot dictator in the (formerly-known-as) US would come out of the woodwork and all holy hell would break loose until one of them won.

            And he would be our new Dear Leader.

            Just like the State governments, life would go on without them.

            State governments are a work of fiction anyway.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              They may be as long as we have a federal government. Since government is necessary I’d prefer a government “closer” to the people it serves than a federal one exercising authority vested in it by a large population that have their selfish interests.

              At the state level, or local level, I (with others) stand a better chance of overcoming those with their selfish interests I am in disagreement with..

            • Can we still have a police dept, yes.

              The police department is the enforcement arm of the local government. It is, definitionally, a part of government authority.
              Hogwash, Sheriff’s are elected and are not controlled by any government, at least where I live.

              Most communities get along just fine with almost zero interference in their lives from government, local or not.

              Nonsense.

              Name one.
              Mine and most around me. Any local governments are part time and do not interfere with the people. You live in NY, might as well live in old Nazi run Austria, your treated the same!

              The rest of your post, sadly, might not be far off.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hogwash, Sheriff’s are elected and are not controlled by any government

                What? The hell they aren’t G. They are elected to carry out the laws, those laws are enacted by government. The Sheriff is elected to lead that government agency of the county you live in.

              • THe Sheriff is NOT controlled by the local government, period. They cannot fire him/her. Yes, they uphold laws, but do we really need 10000000 laws? NO, we don’t. communities can determine what needs enforced, get rid of all govt, period. They are useless money eaters. They don’t care about those that vote for them, they care about moving up the chain to the top.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Really? So you Sheriff goes out and raises all the money to pay his salary? To run his department? Oh, wait…the County allots his budget each year….hmmmm.

                The Sheriff writes the laws the department enforces…..oh wait……the County or State does that…….hmmmmmm.

                The Sheriff doesn’t have to meet any requirements to hold office………oh wait, the State sets those….hmmmmm.

                The Sheriff breaks any laws and nothing can be done to him………oh wait, he can be held criminally for it……..once again through enacted laws from the government……hmmmmm.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BTW – a community setting those rules would be…..wait for it……a GOVERNMENT…..hmmmmm.

              • Bow to your government master slave boy! BWAHAHAHA!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                You can argue your way out of the corner you painted yourself into, so this is your only option left?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Who builds and pays for that road and if that road is to run on my property and I say no, will my property be taken anyway for your road? If so, then it is no better than government action to do the same isn’t it?

            If I have a dispute against my neighbor who decides which of us is right? A group of my fellow citizens? Is that group not a “government”?

            • Well, we don’t need many more roads, so I’m sure that won’t be a problem. If you have an issue with your neighbor, act like a responsible person and handle it, no one should have to hold your hand, or do you need that?

              • OH, without government to steal your land for a road, you need not worry.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So when I shoot my neighbor to settle the matter then it’s just between him and I?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                BTW – who would own that road and am I free to use it and not pay to maintain it in any way?

              • Oh my, you do need govt to help you live. Apply common sense and move on. If you don’t understand that communities can cooperate to deal with issue like roads then I feel for you. If you feel threatened by your neighbor, blow his head off, I DON’T CARE! Let me ask, do you fell that you are intelligent enough to make certain things work, like the road issue, by getting your community together and solving the problem by collecting the needed funds and getting a local company to handle it? OR, just elect a government and they can wield a gun to demand that problem gets resolved at ten times the cost?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                As I said above, those in the community getting together to decide those issues is a government.

                Ya don’t need any guns to do it either.

  13. Guess what SUFA? I decided it’s time to start making some money again, so I started checking out Craigslist this morning. Saw a two week gig offered by a printing company and figured that may be a good way to start. Went to their plant, took a math test,and a reading test. Couple minutes later I was asked to have a seat in THAT room. I was then greeted by the owner of the plant who interviewed me on the spot. Of course, I charmed my way right into that job. The company PRINTS ELECTION BALLOTS! This oughta be fun! 🙂

    • Good Luck! 🙂

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Congrats, ma’am!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Congrats

    • Thank you fellas. I almost started laughing when he explained what they print. Didn’t get into politics with him but he did tell me they started out small and after the whole hanging chad fiasco, they were given license to print election ballots. I hope to find out much more as these couple weeks unfold. Right now they’re working on county primary ballots. It’s possible this could turn into a long time thing. We’ll see, but I plan on getting as much info as possible while I can.

      • Anita. I am happy to see you able to find a job and get back at it. I just wish I could actually do some kind of work. I sure miss it and am going flat batdoody nuts sitting here. :sigh:

    • Damn, too bad you’re not a liberal and we could really do some fraud. Were you asked how you voted?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Congratulations….been looking for employment for 1 year now all over the world. I’ve had exactly 2 interviews in that time. The 1st one was for 1 job in Charleston SC, entry level shipping clerk, 13/hr and there were over 2000 applicatants. This morning, was called for an interview at a local store. The interviewer read from a script, stumbled over sentence structure and words. Had a really strong, accent, southern black. She was questioning whether I had the required customer experience to sell retail hardware or plants etc. at a local home improvement store. Geez, the last customer discussion I had was over a multi-million dollar annual contract with their global network. Worked on managing the contracts for over 300 clients with thousands of international sites. She didn’t think I had the customer skills required for the work. Think I can handle a hammer question??? Late 80’s put a quality improvement program, with specific areas to concentrate on, in place for a company I worked for. Our return was a 3.2B profit in 18 months in just one of our manufacturing lines. Overall we did 12.6B. We did 2X better than our nearest global competitor.

      • Was totally expecting to get a ‘thanks we’ll call you’ response. I was worried, having been out of the workforce for several years, that it would hold me back. I’m just thinking here that I’ve never been denied a job that I applied for. Lucky me. Good luck in your search.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Anita…I have been out of the workforce for 3 years. I was “retired” due to age and years of service. Last year really started looking for new employment so I can complete the restoration of my historical home. I was completely frustrated by the glut of degreed graduates starving for work and the companies could ask for outrageous requirements for jobs I knew did not require those qualifications because I’d done them for 40 years. Also with no long term career plans they were never interested. Going down the job tree, the companies were blown away with what I had done and was rejected because I was way over qualified and belonged in the corporate office. Catch 22. So I decided to completely switch paths. I’m going after my CDL, so in 5 weeks I’ll be in a completely new career path. The DOT for highway long haul drivers really starts cutting them out at age 63. Only leaves me 15 months. But I said I was not interested in that but wanted to get into the fracking side. Rural back country mostly. Not like driving into NYC etc. Make good money, send it home to have contractors finish off my house, sell it at it’s true value. Build up the nest egg again and then buy a boat and take off and see the world again.

  14. plainlyspoken says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, regardless of what you may think you are controlled by government constantly, whether it is the “government” from the head of your household (in which you may be the dictator) to the very federal government many of us disagree with.

    Bottom line, people are ALWAYS governed, from the moment we are born to the moment we die.

    That is not to say that all government is good and should have the powers it does, but none-the-less you are controlled by a government of some level.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A HOUSEHOLD is NOT a GOVT.

      Neither is a neighborhood group who decides to build a park or pick up trash.

      A Govt must have one thing no other institution has………….. The legal MONOPOLY on the use of FORCE. Including the INITIATION of FORCE.

      The more of this authority that is removed, the less the institution acts like a Govt.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
        2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
        3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
        4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.
        5. a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The prime minister has formed a new government.
        b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.
        6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one’s conduct.
        7. a district governed; province.
        8. political science.
        9. Grammar . the extablished usage that requires that one word in a sentence should cause another to be of a particular form: the government of the verb by its subject.

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government

        Don’t see the definition you give in there anywhere JAC. I am not here to argue the philosophical aspects (I know they are a part of government, yet my comments are not in technical error).

        • You may be the governor of YOUR family. I’m the LEADER of mine. Big difference. No government in my family.

  15. plainlyspoken says:

    G: Let me ask, do you fell that you are intelligent enough to make certain things work, like the road issue, by getting your community together and solving the problem by collecting the needed funds and getting a local company to handle it?

    I am perfectly intelligent to do that with my fellow community members – but it is STILL government.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      It is NOT Govt if your group has NO AUTHORITY over anyone else.

      Your group can act together based on cooperation. If it has no authority or power over those that dissent then it is NOT Government.

  16. I just love reading when people proclaim they NEED government when they have no idea what life would be like without them. Scared much? I support a form of Community management that cannot, let me repeat, CANNOT become tyrannical in any form. Governments have historically led to big problems and death to the people who are forced to follow their Rule! WE are all smart enough to see this and form a better society. But, because there is so much fear of change, it will never happen. We all know that our governments, at almost every level, are corrupt. Yet, we vote for more of the same. We, as a country are heading down the same path as the Roman Empire, which don’t have to happen, but most likely will play itself out in the same manner with far worse results.

    I have faith in people to do better. I’m not alone, but I’m in a minority. This I can accept.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Who said it has to be a government of elected representatives to be a government? Not me. If every member of the community got together to decide an issue of how to accomplish something how could they do that? By voting on the issue? Still a government, majority rules………but at least EVERYONE got a say in the matter DIRECTLY.

  17. I must profess to not being smart enough to decide the best form of Government (per se) to have. I do know that almost ANYTHING, but a Social Dictatorship of course, would be better than what we have now.

    This is not to say that the American form of Government is not the best on Earth. If we still had that form of Government, that is. What we have now though is a sad shadow of a once great form of Governance. When did this take place? Oh, I don’t know. It’s just that we have plainly gone off the damn rails somewhere. At some point we lost sight of what made this Nation the greatest, most free Nation on the face of God’s green Earth.

    It’s also sad to say that I don’t at this time see a way back. ESPECIALLY not if we vote in that Butch Bitch Hillary in the White House. But even before that, we have to survive the current Reign of our current Presidential King and the rest of the Establishment Dem and GOP Dukes and Earls.

    As I said, I don’t know the answer. But I know something has to give soon.

  18. Canine Weapon says:
  19. Well I’m off to watch my son play Baseball! I am outa’ here!

  20. There are some items in this article that shows how the R’s and D’s in DC are so much alike, if not doing the same thing. http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2014/03/10/why-matt-bevin-is-challenging-mitch-mcconnell-n1805453

  21. So according to Flores’ statement, anyone defending the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is despicable and lives in an alternate universe that is delusional. This clearly demonstrates just how little regard Democrats have for our founding document and everything this country has stood for over 200 years. I also find it ironic that virtually every politician is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, but clearly they don’t believe any of it and have no intention of living up the oath they swear to. If they can’t be trusted to keep their word here, then why would anyone trust them to keep their word in anything else, especially when it comes to their constituents?

    I really hope Donnelly gets elected governor of California, but knowing just how liberal and left wing many in the state are, I find it highly unlikely that Californians will elect anyone who stands for the Constitution

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4988/ca-gop-gubernatorial-candidate-compares-obama-stalin-hitler-others/#MlsScRTIGi0kytcO.99

  22. I expected this! We are part of the alternative media and our voice is being heard :

    March 8, 2014

    A showdown is developing between a sizable number of Connecticut state police officers and the politicians who passed into law highly restrictive gun control, gun bans, and bans on high capacity magazines.

    Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    A major news story on these developments is due to be published soon, but Hardy received an advanced notice via email from Tyler Jackson, the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers Association, the organization that sent the open letter.

    According to Hardy,

    “Tyler Jackson has emailed me an interesting story, soon to appear online (I’ll link to it once it does)– the gist is that the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers’ Assn has released an open letter stating that the police will not “be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law.” So far 250 LEOs have cosigned the letter.”

    Gunowners in the state have already ignored the mandate to comply with the new laws, refusing to register with the state government their possession of so-called “assault weapons” and forbidden magazines.

    It is estimated that over 300,000 gunowners have practiced civil disobedience in refusing to register and give up the newly forbidden items. Only roughly 50,000 citizens in the state have complied.

    But now these courageous citizens have key support in high places. With at least 250 law enforcement officers joining them in disobeying an unconstitutional law, the gunowners have a new weapon in their arsenal — the support of hundreds of police officers.

    Hardy reported that with the lack of support of police, Connecticut faces massive civilian resistance, with police officers refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is unacceptable in a free society.

    If such a thing can happen in a deeply blue state in New England, what would law enforcement encounter if they attempted such an ill-fated attack on Constitutionally-protected rights in Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah, or Kentucky?

    This is something that the political powers that be in government and law enforcement — and in the Courts — should think long and hard about before acting in such a knee-jerk fashion as Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have done.

    (Hat tip to Sipsey Street Irregulars).

    http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

  23. “There is no ‘Overkill’. Only ‘Open Fire’, and ‘Reload’.”

    John Ringo
    To Sail a Darkling Sea

  24. More fun facts for all a’yous … http://www.thedailyshow.com/

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Great editorial and sad commentary on the state of mind many Americans still have. As displayed by the comments of those who are stuck on the “image” and not the reality.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-leader-obama-wanted-t_b_4932145.html

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Not sure how long the Huff Po headline will last but LOOK closely at the photos of TWO guys who used illegal passports on the Malaysian flight. Then watch and see which photos are used after today.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  27. And then there’s the next GOP Nominee … straight from the Tea Party, Ted Cruz, drawing an analogy between the genocide of Native Americans with Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act … does that mean he’s in favor of giving back their land?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Could you do something for me? I would LOVE to see a comprehensive list of things they’ve compared the ACA to.

      -The Holocaust
      -Communism
      -Socialism
      -The genocide of Native Americans
      -Apartheid
      -Slavery
      -Watergate
      -Rape

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You mean like the list of things the Dems have associated with Social Security or Medicare reform??

        • Mathius™ says:

          I’d enjoy seeing that as well. Think it’s as hyperbolic?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            “He wants to push granny off the cliff”.

            “They want to starve the children”.

            “The republicans plan for health care is to have you die faster”

            I don’t know, you tell me!

            I could simply cut and past your list and we could probably find it matches up on some issue or maybe several issues.

            I am simply pointing out that idiocy of both sides using this tactic. So it seems to me any condemnation of the technique should include both sides.

            • Mathius™ says:

              “The republicans plan for health care is to have you die faster”

              That one’s my favorite 🙂

              By the way they use it for the “Republican plan for healthcare,” too.

              I am simply pointing out that idiocy of both sides using this tactic. So it seems to me any condemnation of the technique should include both sides.

              100% agree. But a comprehensive list would still be a lot of fun to read. Maybe with a split-screen with Blue shirts on the left and Red-shirts on the right shouting the same thing at each other.. maybe photoshop a little foam at the corner of their mouths or and crazy-eyes.. You could even have, like, a pissed off holocaust survivor in the background glaring at them in disgust.

              And now I know how I’m going to spend the rest of my day (time permitting)..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                great idea. wish I was technologically inclined. would make a great piece for ridiculing the partisan hacks.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.

    George Washington

    • Mathius™ says:

      I think the government forgot how to do this somewhere along the line.. I would appreciate it if they could give it another shot.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I posted this largely due to its variation on the theme of the other day, which is attributed to Washington and Jefferson. Raising the question of who really said it. But that was trading with all and entanglements with none.

        Note here that Washington is applying BOTH “good faith” and “justice” towards ALL. By using justice it allows the proper action/reaction to nations which violate our “good faith” or display “unjust” behavior”.

        But either way, we agree that our Govt, in fact the American PEOPLE, have lost sight of this important concept.

  29. Just A Citizen says:
    • Mathius™ says:

      Surrogacy is the use of a contract, by which a woman agrees to carry a gestating child in her womb for another party (usually an infertile heterosexual couple or a gay male couple), and also agrees to abandon the child to the couple who has engaged her services.

      That’s how I wound up with my two youngest sisters (buy-one-get-one-free). Technically (genetically), they are only my half-sisters (but there are two of them, so that’s one whole-sister, right?). Anyway, they have no idea about this, and I love them a great deal more than a few of my full-genetic-siblings.

      Like many things, surrogacy can be done morally and immorally, but the practice (on balance) is a wonderful thing and a fantastic opportunity for people to have children when they are otherwise biologically unable. 100% of those babies are WANTED by a family which has made a considered opinion that they CHOOSE to have this child, that they are READY to have this child. What could be better than affording such people the opportunity they lack?

      Much better than, say, putting a bunch of kids into orphanages and the foster system, no?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I got around to reading some of your article. I have to say it’s horrendous bullshit.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Left Wing Right to Choose: “A child does not exist as a person until it is born”.

        Left Wing Surrogate Rationalization: Surrogacy is good because the SALE of the child is desired by both parties. Or if needed, enforced upon one by the other via CONTRACT.

        You seem to miss the entire underlying concept is suspect, and as usual is contradictory to the stated views of the left on “personhood”.

        How can one enter into the SALE of a person?? They do not OWN that other person.

        What SERVICE is being contracted? To carry the child?? NOPE. To Transfer custody via SALE of SERVICES.

        So no, it is not horrendous bullshit. The article raises some serious issues over the concept.

        It also happens to raise a good point about how the “left” became trapped by their constant need to create victims.

        I find your argument about orphanages quite strange. The issue of surrogacy is a deliberate pregnancy. Arrangements made in ADVANCE.

        So I say, no it is not better. I say it has no bearing on the other.

        • Want to see how fast the Left will understand when life begins, have a surrogate mother change her mind and have an abortion at about week 7. Talk about confusing the Left Wing, 😆

  30. So, I went for a walk (day 8 of the absurd Medifast diet I am sticking to because I’m an obsessive-compulsive MF’er and can’t lose weight any other way) … I did a 10 minute walk with ZERO back pain (last week my back hurt after 7 minutes) … anyway, I’m coming back and see another walker approaching the door. He gets there first and holds it for me. I say, “Thanks, I got the next one.” And I proceed to hold the inner lobby door for him. He says, “Thanks.” I say, “It takes a village.” He nods and smiles. No, it isn’t turning into a love story. The point being (this is what goes through my whackjob mind sometimes): If both of us hold the door for each other (take turns doing so), neither of us can feel like we did all the work (and the other was a parasite living off our effort). Why doesn’t that make sense to people who insist that holding the door makes you either a master or a sucker (and the other guy a parasite)?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I have never heard anyone claim that holding the door for someone makes them a master and another a parasite.

      So maybe that is why it doesn’t make sense.

      Holding doors = common courtesy or manners.

      Taking my money under threat of force to pay for your stuff = Theft

      Which makes the “you” in that last one a parasite.

      • Not really, JAC … think of how macho you are! it would take great effort on my part to separate you from your cash. That’s work, son.

      • “So maybe that is why it doesn’t make sense.”

        Or you don’t get the analogy … not to worry, never thought for a second you could. 🙂

  31. @Mathius, per your discussion with VH, I’d like to state once again that homosexuals are NOT a protected class under Federal anti-discrimination laws. They NEVER will be either, as it would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Not sure if you saw the last time I posted this. 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      homosexuals are NOT a protected class under Federal anti-discrimination laws.

      Agreed.

      But they should be.

      They NEVER will be either, as it would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

      That’s what they said about African America back in the day. How’d that turn out?

      Not sure if you saw the last time I posted this.

      Sadly, I am unable to read everything posted to this site. But I do my level best, I promise.

      • That’s what they said about African America back in the day. How’d that turn out?

        Sorry my friend, race was never a religious issue that I can remember. This is not about race anyway, it’s about a choice of lifestyle, that, highly offends certain religions. IT AIN’T HAPPENING 😉

        • While I don’t care if people are gay, it should NOT be a protected class because religious freedom trumps personal decisions about sexual orientation.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Sorry my friend, race was never a religious issue that I can remember

          Perhaps 1954 was too long ago for you to remember, then.

          http://digilib.usm.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/manu/id/1880/show/1871

          Pages 8-13.

          And that’s about 10 seconds of Googling. There are clearer cases out there, but I wanted a primary source for you.

          • I wasn’t alive back then, But, you should remember that it was the Democrats who were against equal rights. It was the southern Democrats that made up the KKK. Even back then they were Liars. See how some things never change? I know of nothing in the Bible defending racism. While many Christians believe homosexuality is blasphemy, the big religious issue would be with Islam, as they just chop their heads of over in there neck of the woods.

            I’ll say it again, gays will never be a protected class, unless the 1st Amendment is repealed. The Democrats would have already tried to do it, they have not. That’s because they know it would fail on Constitutional grounds and that would just make matters worse for gays if that ever happened because of a SCOTUS decision. If I were gay, which I’m not, I’d take what I could get and be happy.

            • Mathius™ says:

              But, you should remember that it was the Democrats who were against equal rights.

              That’s true.

              Back then, the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the liberals. They’ve since flipped. The Dems no longer own the Old South, as you may have notices.

              I’m a liberal. Had I been alive back then, I’d have been a Republican.

              But I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that the Republican party of today is the the same Republican party of the 50 or that the same applies for the Democratic party. They’ve switched sides.

              The Republican party loves to proclaim itself The Party of Lincoln™, but that’s just not right. If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be a Democrat.

              I know of nothing in the Bible defending racism.

              Perhaps you missed it. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t out there in spades. There was no SUFA to help keep you up to speed back then.

              While many Christians believe homosexuality is blasphemy, the big religious issue would be with Islam, as they just chop their heads of over in there neck of the woods.

              We’ve been through this. I’m not going to fight you on it every time.

              Islam is not dedicated to chopping off people’s heads. A SMALL faction of lunatics who just so happen to be Muslim (or choose to couch their lunacy in Islam, anyway), seem to enjoy chopping off heads. Please try not to conflate these things as it makes me lose respect for you.

              I’ll say it again, gays will never be a protected class, unless the 1st Amendment is repealed.

              Keep saying it. You can buy me a drink when you’re proven wrong – in about 5-10 years.

              The Democrats would have already tried to do it, they have not. That’s because they know it would fail

              For now..

              […]on Constitutional grounds

              Nonsense!

              If I were gay, which I’m not, I’d take what I could get and be happy.

              If you were gay, which you’re not, you’d be screaming to high heavens about the infringement upon your liberties.

              If I were gay, which I’m not, I’d take what I could get and be happy.

              And, just for fun, let’s hop into the Way Back Machine to 1954 in Alabama:
              “If I were gay a negro, which I’m not, I’d take what I could get and be happy.”

              Now how does that sound to you?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                What the hell “LIBERTIES” are gays being denied??

              • Mathius™ says:

                For starters, the right to marry each other in 33 states.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I hate to tell you this but they are free to marry each other in ALL 50 states.

                There is no law prohibiting them from getting married.

                The issue is one of Govt privileges tied to “marriage” and the State’s recognition of said marriage.

                The State not recognizing your personal relationships is NOT an infringement upon your Liberty.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                No one should be considered a “protected” class, denoting being something extra special over someone who is not of a protected class. Everyone however regardless of race, creed, nationality or sexual persuasion, be treated equally, under “OUR” laws, period. One exception, persons here illegally. go through the process, become a legal resident/citizen.

            • Mathius™ says:

              If I were gay, which I’m not

              I always find it amusing how much everyone feels the need to point out, you know, that they totally aren’t gay and are 100% straight.

              I have no doubt, gman, that you’re straight as an arrow, but boy it sure does tickle my funny bone when people do the equivalent of shouting “NO HOMO!” every time they try to put themselves in gay peoples’ shoes.

              Methinks that some of them – especially certain politicians such as former Senator (R-ID) Larry “Wide Stance” Craig – doth protest too much.

              • I make things clear because we here at SUFA have hundreds of visitors a day, and most do not post. Just like I have stated that I don’t care if gays can or can’t be married, it matters nothing to me. If it’s based on monetary issues, then things should be equal. It doesn’t effect my life.

              • Oh, your are listening to way to much Liberal propaganda BS about the past, just like the BS claim that the Nazi’s were Right wing, which is total BS as well. Just more Liberal Lies my friend, just more liberal LIES 🙄

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Mathius,

        Question. Besides gays, are there any other classes of people who should be given protected status?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Yes. Whoever conservatives Republican-talking-heads decide are the next group they should be bigoted against for no apparent reason. I’m taking bets on who this is going to be, but my money is on atheists.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            No seriously. Do you see any other groups that should get protected status, even if they don’t need it now but may to be saved from those R’s?

            • Mathius™ says:

              No.

              There is no rhyme or reason why certain groups get singled out of the hate machine.

              The best I can reason, human beings are tribal in nature. We are social creatures who evolved as us-verse-them. When there is no good “them,” we simply invent one. African Americans, Native Americans, Muslims, women, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Germans, Jews (always with the Jews!), gypsies, homosexuals.. it doesn’t really matter who or why, only that they’re an identifiable class which we can deem to be separate and “other” from ourselves and then proceed to objectify and project negatively onto. It doesn’t matter the reason either – we’ll find one (“God says so!”) or, baring that, make one up entirely (“they’re poisoning the wells!”).

              Maybe it makes us feel better about ourselves (“at least I’m not.. whatever”). Maybe it makes us feel more cohesive as a group (“us whites gotta stick together”). Maybe it just gives us someone societally safe to project our hatred and rage onto (“we should kill them before they kill us”). Maybe it’s that they’re part of some broader societal change and we fear the loss of the culture of your youth (“when I was little, everyone spoke American!”). Maybe it’s all of these in some ratio or another.

              If it’s not homosexuals, it’ll be Hispanics, or atheists, or red heads, or short people, or people with blue eyes – it doesn’t really matter. Throw a dart.

              Mostly, I just consider it yet another glitch in our psyches which will have to get hammered out if we’re ever going to find a way to live in peace on this rock floating through space.

      • “Sadly, I am unable to read everything posted to this site. But I do my level best, I promise.”

        Which is why you should have your head examined.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Ooops

    Local Govt and Police turn corrupt. Who has to step in to get rid of them? The STATE.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/us/hampton-florida-corruption/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

  33. More on the Conn gun issue. I will make a prediction that the State will NOT attempt to confiscate any guns. That would be really stupid:
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/ct-cop-joseph-peterson-who-threatened-gun-owners-gets-suspended-but-not-before-pointing-out-what-gun-registration-is-all-about/

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I ran across my marriage license the other day. Thought you might find the wording of interest. Since it comes from those olden days of blatant discrimination where you think Gay Marriage was not allowed.

    Marriage License

    KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS CERTIFICATE: That any regularly ordained minister of the Gospel, authorized by the rites and usages of the church or denomination of Christians, Hebrews, or religious body of which he may be a member, or any judge or magistrate, or competent officer to whom this ay come, he not knowing of any lawful impediments thereto, is herby authorized and empowered to solemnize the rites of Matrimony between:

    GROOM AND BRIDE

    fill in here the names , addresses, ages, color or race, whether single, widowed or divorced and birthplace.

    The lower half of the document is titled: ” Marriage Certificate.”

    This includes the name and info on the person who conducted the marriage and performed the “certification” as required by the “Marriage License”.

    So you see, this “license” does only one thing. It AUTHORIZES the person conducting the marriage to “solemnize the rites of Matrimony between:” I think it safe to assume that such “solemnizing” was on behalf of the Govt.

    Of course it does raise the question as to what constituted “lawful impediments thereto” at the time. I do not recall any discussion of sexual orientation back then. Only that we were NOT related by blood as brother/sister or first/second cousins and that we were not “married” to another. Oh, and we HAD to undergo blood tests and pass “disease free” to get the license.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      follow up: The Definition of “solemnize” from Webster:

      Full Definition of SOLEMNIZE

      transitive verb

      1: to observe or honor with solemnity

      2: to perform with pomp or ceremony; especially : to celebrate (a marriage) with religious rites

      3: to make solemn : dignify

    • Just A Citizen says:

      follow up #2: Now we must deal with “matrimony” as that is what the license is allowing to be solemnized.

      From the same Webster:

      mat·ri·mo·ny
      noun \ˈma-trə-ˌmō-nē\

      : the joining together of a man and woman as husband and wife

      Full Definition of MATRIMONY

      : the union of man and woman as husband and wife : marriage

    • Mathius™ says:

      Only that we were NOT related by blood as brother/sister or first/second cousins and that we were not “married” to another.

      … and in certain states, of course, you had to be the same race

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

      In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.[3]

      In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage “between a person of African descent” and “any person not of African descent”; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920–1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between blacks and Filipinos or Malays.[4] While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, most western and plains states also had anti-miscegenation laws.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And why is that relevant?

        But notice the wording. Those laws prohibited the “solemnization” of these weddings and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies.

        Not sure how they could have enforced the latter if the “officials” were not cooperating.

        Now to an even more important point. Such laws remained in place for a long time, and long after the Constitutional Amendments were passed that are now being used to claim that banning State solemnized marriage of homosexuals is “unconstitutional”.

        So how is it that the Constitution did not apply and then suddenly, by magic it applied?

        • Good point. I’ve also noticed a couple times now Matt has said that ‘many’ states have banned interracial or gay marriage. That means that ‘many’ states have not banned it. To me,that compares to something like dry counties. You just can’t buy alcohol there. Why? It is pretty much tied to religion, per wiki:

          Although the Twenty-First Amendment repeals nationwide prohibition in the United States, it allows for prohibition under state or local laws. Prior to and after repeal of nationwide prohibition, some states passed local option laws granting counties and municipalities, either by popular vote or ordinance, the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow alcoholic beverages within their jurisdiction.[citation needed]
          Many dry communities do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol, which could potentially cause a loss of profits and taxes from the sale of alcohol to their residents in wet (non-prohibition) areas. The rationale for maintaining prohibition at the local level often is religious in nature, as many Protestant Christian denominations discourage the consumption of alcohol by their followers (see Christianity and alcohol, sumptuary law, and Bootleggers and Baptists). While state law does not allow for dry counties, laws designed to restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol are common in the mostly LDS (Mormon) state of Utah.

          soooo..gay marriage is a problem for many as a religious issue, just as alcohol is. States get to dictate weather gay marriage is going to be allowed. Your state doesn’t recognize gay marriage? Move to a state that does. Just like alcohol.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            G, why would gays having protected status be a 1st Amendment violation? I am not clear on your reasoning for this belief.

            (Go ahead an put your answer on tomorrows thread – I have to take off right now).

  35. The Naomster, blowing all a you’s out of the water again … 🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmDrHRfo2SE

  36. You know, It’s not that I don’t believe that the World would be a better place with clean air; it’s just the fact that I do NOT believe in the “man-made Climate Change crap. I surely though believe that the world itself would be a better place to live without all the Pollution in the air.

    What ‘chaps my behind’ though, is that OUR government not only untruthfully claims that it’s the next Aztec Apocalypse, but that they actually believe if the United States curbs all our Carbon emissions that we will singlehandedly SAVE the Earth! This is pure horsedookey my friends!

    1. We are not only NOT in Apocalyptic times, it wouldn’t make a drop in the bucket’s difference even if we cut off ALL harmful emissions TOMORROW!!

    2. Until ALL, and I mean ALL, of the Nation’s agree to cut their emissions, or at least curb them back in a drastic way, they AIN”T gonna be no change.

    3. How you gonna stick that HUH? The biggest Polluters in the World are not by far the United States, but China and India, and funny, but I don’t see them rushing to the Negotiation table.

    4. What do you mean WE have to pay for it all? Are you trying to crap down my leg? Why should the Government of the United States, through their TAXPAYING citizens I might add, foot the bill? Why should our Electric Bills “necessarily skyrocket”? ‘Splain why the taxpayers should stuck fixing the worlds climate. I don’t see any other Nation’s hands up in the air to volunteer their Countries money to the problem. We already pay too many taxes now and the stupid Asshats WASTE HALF OF IT! Use all the waste to pay for your stupid assed idea, don’t ask the people to pay even more.

    5 This rant is precisely BECAUSE of Congressional and Senate MORONS on TV, along with ‘ole Dipshit himself, Calling it the most deadly disaster known to man. And of course! Guess who is going to pay for their, shall we say, Passion, on the issue?

    • Liberals LIE, period. The evidence is indisputable. 🙄

    • If these people really believed in AGW, they would be selling land short in Kansas and buying long in Alberta. They always want to put someone else’s money where there mouth is.

  37. NOTE to all: New thread in the morning!

    For now, any NFL fans can post about your teams Free Agency signings. Dolphins sign 3 as of now, an OT, DT, and S. All good signings with Albert, the OT a much needed upgrade. Go Dolphins!

    The Bills, as usual, letting their best player go, no wonder they suck 😀

  38. The Falcons also have been busy. They are getting just what we need. Even one FROM the Dolphins.
    http://www.atlantafalcons.com/news/article-1/Falcons-Add-Soliai-Asamoah-Jackson/612f2862-35a0-4db4-8b2d-e79f381df1eb

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I thought it a great article.

      I assessed Mathius of getting his view of the AZ law from the media. I knew this was true when he kept claiming it “legalized discrimination against homosexuals”.

  39. Here’s one more-I suspect once a person labels freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of religion as nothing more than discrimination-one is wasting their time talking about freedom

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373053/progressivisms-war-winners-mary-eberstadt/page/0/1.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I had not considered the special “religious” exemptions we have carved out for small groups while trying to run down the beliefs of a LARGER Christian faith. Does make on wonder how long those groups will be allowed their freedom.

  40. Sounds bad-but alas it is a subject matter I know nothing about-a little help here, please.

    The White House Is Using the Ukraine Crisis to Rush Through a Massive Increase in the U.S. Contribution to the IMF
    By Veronique de Rugy
    March 11, 2014 4:42 PM
    Comments
    1

    Print
    Text

    A March 4 “fact sheet” from the White House called “International Support for Ukraine” seems to imply that, if we want to help the citizens of Ukraine, Congress has to agree to significant increases in the U.S.’s contributions to the International Monetary Fund:

    As part of this international effort, the United States has developed a package of bilateral assistance focused on meeting Ukraine’s most pressing needs and helping Ukraine to enact the reforms needed to make its IMF program a success. We are working with Congress to approve the 2010 IMF quota legislation, which would support the IMF’s capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine, while also helping to preserve continued U.S. leadership within this important institution.

    What’s the “2010 IMF quota legislation” the White House is talking about here? Well, among other things, it would double the funds that the IMF is allowed to loan to any country it wishes, without much limit. For the United States, it means a 100 percent increase in its contribution to the IMF from its current level, $63 billion. According to the Congressional Research Service, “this would be the largest proportional quota increase in the history of the IMF.”

    Moreover, the data suggest there’s no reason to require higher quota contributions in order to increase IMF support for Ukraine to the increase in quota contributions. In fact, according to the IMF, its forward-commitment-capacity figure (how much they can lend, basically) is “over $400 billion” at the current exchange rate. AEI’s Desmond Lachman explains:

    For there is little link between how much money the IMF can lend to Ukraine and the proposed increase in the IMF’s quota resources. With currently more than US$400 billion of uncommitted loanable resources at its disposal, the IMF can single handedly very comfortably meet Ukraine’s borrowing needs for the next two years. After all, the Ukrainian government itself estimates its total borrowing needs for 2014 and 2015 at only around US$35 billion. This would imply that at most the IMF would be called upon to finance Ukraine by between US$15 billion and US$20 billion. Such amounts would represent no more than 5% of the IMF’s currently available resources.

    In other words, the White House seems to be trying to use the Ukrainian crisis to push through changes to our IMF policies that Congress refused to adopt in the last spending bill.

    As John Taylor explained in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago:

    The $1.1 trillion spending bill signed into law by President Obama last month did not include a crucial change in the U.S. financial contribution to the International Monetary Fund. By refusing to accommodate the White House’s strenuous pleas to increase the IMF’s discretionary loan budget, Congress effectively rejected an international agreement brokered at the 2010 G-20 meeting—and set off cries in some Washington quarters of a new isolationism.

    Now, leaving aside the question of whether the U.S. should double its contribution to the IMF (it shouldn’t, since it would be fiscally irresponsible due to the massive debt explosion in our own future), there are other reasons to be opposed to the 2010 IMF quota legislation. This doubling in spending comes at a time when the IMF is already breaking its prior agreement to refuse funds to countries with unsustainable debts. Taylor explains:

    While the G-20 was reaching agreement on the funding boost, the IMF was quietly breaking an earlier, far-reaching agreement on how such funds were to be used. That agreement, called the “exceptional access framework,” set criteria for countries seeking access to huge IMF loans. The framework was put in place in 2003 as a response to the recurrent emerging-market financial crises raging since the 1990s. It barred the IMF from making new loans to countries with unsustainable debts. Such loans effectively bailed out creditors, raised the debt burden on a country’s citizens, encouraged irresponsible fiscal policy, increased risk-taking, and thereby created a crisis atmosphere.

    Since 2003, countries and their creditors had to restructure and write down debt to a sustainable level before the IMF would grant them any new loans. The point was to reduce the bailout mentality, and it helped improve the policies and economic performance of emerging markets. While this exceptional access framework was in force, few large crises originated in emerging-market countries, and these countries weathered the 2008 financial crisis far better than most expected.

    But then the IMF violated the agreement to bail out Greece:

    Then the Greek sovereign-debt crisis emerged in 2010. Rather than sticking to its rule—no loans to a country with unsustainable debt—the IMF simply changed the rule, perhaps under pressure from euro-zone countries and their banks, which held a large fraction of Greek debt. The IMF declared that it could make new loans if there was also a “high risk of international systemic spillover,” then claimed, with very little evidence, that such a spillover risk was high and approved a €30 billion loan to Greece without any debt restructuring.

    The change in policy came at the same time the Greek loan was approved, which was strong evidence that the rule was broken solely to allow for the loan. Some argue that the change was made surreptitiously: According to minutes of the May 9, 2010, Executive Board meeting on the Greek bailout decision, the Swiss representative to the IMF noted that the IMF staff had “silently changed . . . i.e. without a prior approval by the board . . . the exceptional access policy.”

    The Greek economy deteriorated sharply under its heavy debt burden after the loan, and by February 2012 all parties admitted that a restructuring was essential. Greek debt was written down by about 60%, with some arguing more may be required. An earlier and larger restructuring could have prevented much of this pain.

    This isn’t the IMF’s first idiotic move. For one thing, in most cases, it provides bailouts to governments after they make reckless and corrupt fiscal and monetary policies of their own, thereby facilitating corruption and encouraging moral hazard. The organization also spends a notable amount of time advocating for higher taxes in the U.S. — while charging the price to the U.S. taxpayer, the single largest contributor to the IMF.

    A letter to the editor by George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux sums up the reasons why the U.S. should maybe even be cutting its contribution to the IMF:

    The IMF’s original purpose was to help cash-strapped governments maintain their currencies’ fixed exchange rates as directed by the 1944 Bretton Wood system. But that system gasped its dying breath in the summer of 1971, when – with Pres. Nixon’s closing of Uncle Sam’s gold window – all pretense of an international system of fixed exchange rates was abandoned.

    Undeterred by the total disappearance of its purpose, the IMF – flush with continuing streams of subsidies, especially from American taxpayers – morphed into a “development” agency. The quotation marks around “development” are no mistake. There’s no evidence that the IMF’s efforts as a development agency have had any positive effects, unless by “positive effects” you include creating among many poor countries a culture of dependency upon foreign “aid,” along with propping up authoritarian regimes.*

    As my great teacher Leland Yeager observed, “self-important international bureaucracies have institutional incentives to invent new functions for themselves, to expand, and to keep client countries dependent on their aid.”

    Isn’t it time to close the window on funding for the IMF?

    There are even more other reasons for Congress to reject the 2010 IMF quota legislation: The Heritage Foundation’s James Roberts has argued that the changes would increase the voting power of certain emerging-market nations and “would chip off yet another little piece of American sovereignty—handing it and potentially billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars over to international civil servants at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out economically distressed countries.”

    Even if the package weren’t a bad idea, it still wouldn’t have anything to do with helping Ukraine.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/373113/white-house-using-ukraine-crisis-rush-through-massive-increase-us-contribution-imf

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Let me summarize as briefly, and sarcastically, as possible.

      The IMF = Major Wealth REDISTRIBUTION mechanism.

      On the surface it is Rich Countries sending money to Poor Countries.

      In reality it is YOUR wealth being sent to Other Countries.

    • FYI-I posted this before but no one commented so I thought i would post it again with a little description of the content-to maybe peck your interest-I found it very interesting-It is about bioethicists and how their writings are being used to effect our laws. In one recent case a judge based his decision on the writings of an ethicist. ” Even more than on case law, however, the Montana court relied on philosophical treatises. In particular, the authority it cited most frequently is the book Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (1993), by the attorney and bioethicist Ronald Dworkin.” It also talks a lot about “personhood”.

      And it’s not just about abortion 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I did not respond the other day because this story is so old for one. For another, it is slightly misdirecting the issue regarding the Montana Constitution.

        Not that there have not been some very BAD decisions made by the Montana Supreme Court on that matter.

        This article is 14 years old. I think some research on the current status is needed. I don’t think the State Legislature allowed this to stand as it would have violated other Medical practice regulations. But then I am not positive.

        I can tell you that it has other GOOD implication in Montana. You do NOT have to have a REFERRAL from your GP to see a specialist or a therapist of your choosing as you see fit. And because of those laws, the insurance companies cannot require the referral either.

        This reduces costs because you can go directly to the bone doc it that is what you need.

        As to the bigger issue, it is a valid concern that Courts and Legislators increasingly rely on “experts” on issues that are “philosophical” in nature.

        The end result is that ANY Moral standard, or lack of standard, can be rationalized by SOME EXPERT. The end result is that THE PEOPLE are EXCLUDED from the discussion in favor of the “expert”.

        This story also sheds light and confirms my old comments about how the “intellectuals” lead society. Which is why it is so important to deal with the corruption of thinking among the intellectuals, which includes us common folk willing to think.

        • Yes, it’s 14 years old. But they stated in the article that the broadness of the ruling probably wouldn’t stand. I just find it scary that judges are using the opinions written in a book to decide law. I also look at the progress they have achieved in those 14 years and wonder just how much progress they will make in the next 14!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            It does in fact deserve criticism and some research. Just don’t have the time right now.

            I am hoping to be back in Montana soon, so I can dig into this a little more then.

            JAC

            • Didn’t mean to imply it didn’t-I’m simply saying I still think it is relevant. My own personal problem is they bring up Dworkin but don’t mention anything about his actual stances.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                Sorry for any confusion.

                I am trying to agree with you.

              • Must be communicating badly today-I know you were agreeing with me 🙂

                It’s probably the fact that my dogs have been driving me and my husband crazy for a week now-female, although spayed still driving my male dog insane-I guess he is feeling compelled, He he he, at the moment.

  41. Paraphrased for space : President Barack Obama will issue an executive order today expanding the number of people who qualify for overtime pay under federal labor law, according to news reports.

    The move would “potentially shift billions of dollars worth of corporate income into the pockets of workers,” the New York Times said on its Web site. The Times quoted Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council saying the effort was part of Obama’s pledge to help workers thrive:
    The move is likely to infuriate business interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as congressional Republicans, who have accused the president of abusing his executive authority. In this case, the legal authority derives from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, under current regulations, guarantees extra pay to salaried workers told to work overtime if they earn less than $455 per week.Obama’s order would increase that salary level. The reports did not say by how much.“The proposed new regulations would increase the number of people who qualify for overtime and continue Mr. Obama’s fight against what he says is a crisis of economic inequality in the country.

    Ok, Mr. Obama, and progressives……economics 101 (kindergarten level)….You wish to compete globally. So, here is what you do?

    1) You raise the minimum wage, which is higher than the countries you wish to compete with. ( Duh ! )

    2) You expand the overtime rules to compete with countries that do not have overtime.
    {double Duh !!}

    3) You create tariff and trade imbalances that put you at a trade disadvantage. { triple Duh!!!}

    A Trifecta, if you will. Ok…….look. You wish to compete against China, India, Taiwan, and Russia. Do you understand that they do not have minimum wage? Do you understand that they do not have overtime rules? Do you understand that they do not have age restrictions on the working class (children). Do you understand that if the US makes a product for $100 and,with shipping, you can buy the same product for $50…..that no one will buy the $100 product?

    Is your Imperial whim so naive that you think the world will follow our lead any longer?

    Now….Socioeconomics 101….You wish to compete globally. So, here is what you do?

    1) Raise the costs to companies and corporations so that it is more profitable to close in the US and move to other countries that do not have the same costs? ( Unemployment occurs )

    2) Place tariffs and restrictions on raw material imports so that other companies close up shop and move to countries that do not have the same issues. ( Unemployment occurs )

    3) Institute a health care system that increases costs so much that a company can move overseas or South where the cost of universal health care is absorbed by other cost saving methods?

    4) Have a tax system to corporations ( job creators ) that is the highest in the world? And you expect these corporations to stay here? ( Unemployment occurs).

    When jobs move out and none move in…….ummmm…….even the new math shows that 10 out and none in equals ZERO…..and this is the economic advice that you are getting from academia, none of which has worked in a real job since birth ( or laboratory cloning ).

    Sigh!!!!

  42. Quick research shows……in FY 2010, The United States spent $7.8 Billion for funding the UN. $711 million for funding NATO, $50.4 billion in foreign aid, and another $67 Billion for agricultural improvements outside the US.

    Simple math here shows…..that for one year, the US sent 125.9 Billion out of country of tax dollars…..hmmmmm

    So a little extrapolation shows that over the 2014-2019…..that equals a savings of $629 Billion…………………………..so………………………………….minding our own business saves this.

    Now, the CBO’s latest numbers shows the cost of Obama care (2014-2019) is going to be upwards of $710…….hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..the new taxes that have been implemented plus savings by minding our own business equals to………………………………………..$1.4 TRILLION, with a “T” over that same time period.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm….so………..extrapolating further…………Obamacare paid for and change left over for infrastructure….

  43. One more to chew on. Curious about the Colonel’s take on this (although I’m sure he’ll say it’s propaganda from Isvestia):

    Wow, North Dakota is frack happily dumping radioactive fracking socks (which are supposed to be filters) … and of course, small towns and Native American reservations are being targeted … In Noonan, North Dakota, there’s this: Investigation reveals hundreds of bags of filter socks in Noonan, North Dakota. http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/noonan-mayor-angry-over-situation-with-radioactive-filter-socks/article_0b6e85a8-a9a1-11e3-b216-001a4bcf887a.html

    Here’s another article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/07/24/strange-byproduct-of-fracking-boom-radioactive-socks/

    [SARCASM VERY INTENDED]
    Why of course we can trust the oil companies doing the fracking. They’d never think of illegally dumping radioactive wastes! And when North Dakota is thoroughly radioactive and its waters poisoned (and its kids glowing in the dark), well, the oil companies will just have to move along and find another sucker state it can buy off on the cheap. In the meantime, North Dakotas has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. See, capitalism is just great!

%d bloggers like this: