Open Mic Part 23

thQXXZX400Thank God It’s Friday!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. As a reminder, I will be absent much of the day 😎

  2. plainlyspoken says:

    What’s going on at Air Force Academy? God’s word vs. Pentagon’s word

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/13/what-going-on-at-air-force-academy-god-word-vs-pentagon-word/?intcmp=latestnews

    A cadet puts a verse from the Bible on his whiteboard, which hangs on his door in the hallway and the anti-religionists get all offended, whining to this Military Religious Freedom Foundation. This foundation whines to the Academy, which “encourages” the cadet to remove the verse. But, that isn’t enough for this foundation – the asshole director of it wants the cadet court-martialed.

    Listen up you anti-religious whiners:

    1. There is no guaranteed right in the Constitution that says you aren’t allowed to be offended by the actions of others. Get over yourself already.

    2. The cadet’s constitutional right in the 1st Amendment outweighs your non-right of not being offended.

  3. I’m just curious-after all the talk about homosexuality being a choice or not being a choice-when it comes to gay marriage and other LGBT issues-if it was proven that your stance whatever it is-Is wrong-would it change your stances? I know this isn’t as simple a question as it sounds-but I’m in a hurry this morning. 🙂

    • I can give a simple answer- it doesn’t matter to me whether it is a choice/non-choice- I’m commanded to love them either way.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I know I’m on SUFA break – but I feel compelled to point out two things:

        1. I am not the above “Matt L.” He is not one of my multiple personalities.

        2. I wholeheartedly agree 100% with what he says.

        • I thought that WAS you when I read his comment.

        • I agree with the statement 100% too-but we still disagree on policy. So it must not be hate which drives us to disagree on policy.

          But anyway, the point I was trying to make is that whether or not it is a choice does not effect my stance-which is why I no longer enter in the debate when it comes up-I was just curious how much this one point of argument matters to other people-my biggest problem with the LGBT plan of action is gender neutrality.

    • I agree with Mathius.

      Why does the free choice of two people to choose whom they wish to entertain into their lives a matter of YOUR debate?

      You are neither of these people, so where do YOU get off in believing your opinion, debate agreement or not MATTERS one little wit??

      • The Galactically Stupid from Washington DC came to Texas for a border meeting. In this meeting were: one (1) representative from the US Justice Department and two (2) members from homeland security…. (mid level types)….From Texas, in attendance was one (1) representative from the State Justice Department, one (1) representative from the Department of Public Safety, a captain, one (1) representative from the Texas Rangers, a captain, one (1) representative from the State Adjutant General’s Office, a brigadier general, and (1) consultant to the AG’s office, a retired Colonel.

        Subject matter. The contiguous US border between Mexico and Texas.
        Date: March 13, 2014
        Location: Del Rio, Texas

        The subject was the continuing patrolling of the Texas State Guard, logistically supported and trained by the Texas National Guard. the patrolling of the border river, commonly known as the Rio Grande, by gunboats and the establishment of control points in and outside the United States Defense Zone.

        The Justice Department and Homeland Security representatives are taking exception to the patrolling of the Rio Grande, which is the US border under the Federal Protection of the INS and Homeland Security, the enforcement of US immigration Laws by State personnel, and the negative image that does not represent the current administration’s dialogue with Mexico. It seems that Mexico is very upset with Texas and New Mexico’s current border patrolling efforts. Mexico is very upset at the use of gunboats and the use of drones on both sides of the border. Mexico is very upset at the State control points that are set up outside the exclusionary zone and is very upset at the roving highway patrols that are stopping every licensed and unlicensed Mexican registered vehicle.

        The Homeland Security representative was particularly upset with the use of “lethal” ammunition, especially the armor piercing rounds currently in use by both the military and civilian authorities and the issue of same to the ranchers bordering the river. The representative issued a warning that the continued State patrolling of the Federal Border violates the law and it must stop. The Justice Department indicated that they would get a court order forcing the State to stop patrolling in what they call Federal Jurisdiction in the Defense Zone of the United States.

        The answer from the State Justice Department Representative was……” No”, to accepting that the Federal Border was not a State jurisdiction and “ok” to getting a court order.

        A flustered Homeland Security lackey did a finger point to the State Justice Department fellow and said that “we can force the parking of your gunboats”….to which the answer was..”ok, if you think you can do it”. The next statement from the Justice feller from up North was that violations of a Federal Order can be enforced with Federal agents if necessary and the answer to that was…”ok, if you think you can do it”, to which the general added….”try it”.

        The meeting lasted another 30 or so minutes along the same dialogue to which the State representative ended the meeting by saying words to the effect…..” as soon as the Federal Government enforces its own laws and gets the same results that we are getting in Texas, there is no further use in this discussion. Do what you must and so will we. Good day, gentlemen”……..and with that, the meeting was over. Our Justice Department did all the talking,,,,the brigadier general had 2 words…..the retired Colonel consultant just sat with a smirk and said nothing.

        I do not think that Washington appreciated our cordial reception.

        • Texas should secede from the Union.

          That’ll teach them.

          I always liked the ending to the TV series “Jericho” where the Texas ANG shoots down the “US airforce” jets trying to stop a diplomatic flight carrying evidence of an internal terrorist’s nuclear attack. That, IMO, truly implied the attitude of Texas.

          Gotta luv Texas!

        • Congratulations Texas!

          That smirking retired Colonel gets to have all the fun.. Gets to be king of the hill at the border, sits in on meetings with the Feds, rondevous with DPM, What a life!

        • Good for Texas. Keep your powder dry.

        • Seems to fit: http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/14/mobspeak-schumer-threatens-gop-no-more-deportations-illegals-will-stay/

          There is a simple way to fix all the issues (lies) that the Dems bring up about why we need to have amnesty. First, begin with some very serious welfare reforms, like none, unless you lose a legitimate job, and then make it temporary. Start by lowering the amount of aid so that work would actually mean something, like being able to eat. This needs to happen to our citizens, first and foremost. The welfare class is one of the greatest threats to this country. End it and end it soon.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        ayup. I’m with BF.

    • Whether it’s choice or non-choice, really doesn’t matter. I don’t care one wit, as it doesn’t effect me one bit. Let them get married, be happy, be prosperous etc. Best of Luck.

      That is me. If some folks have issues, due to religion or whatever, that is their business. Don’t want to know what a Devout Christian feels on the matter, don’t ask the question. In short, if people would mind their own business, most recent issues would not be issues at all. I know that Liberal politicians, and many Liberals, think they know what is best for their fellow man. My suggestion is to keep your opinion to yourself and leave your fellow man to their own success’s and fails, because it’s none of the Liberal’s business. If I need to hire a painter (which I don’t) I will choose whom to hire, not some politically correct horseshit made up by idiots that can’t mind their business.

      Rant complete! 🙂

  4. If I were a screen writer I would be busy writing a script about a Dreamliner being hijacked at sea and presumably down. The plane would land somewhere undetected. The passengers would be hostages. The purpose of the hijacking would be either to capture the plane and reverse engineer it in which case the Chinese would be the villeins or it would be the Iranians looking for a delivery system to bomb Israel. It would make a great action adventure film as rescue attempts could be made and possibly fail. Where’s Tom Clancy when you need him?

    • Ever see the movie TommyKnockers by Stephen King? This issue with the missing jet is rather strange. Way too many conspiracy theories out there, LOL. I’m not guessing at anything! 😀

  5. Jon Stewart on bullshit mountain (a.k.a. Fox Noise) spin on corporate welfare vs. food stamps: http://www.thedailyshow.com/

  6. For anyone interested, today’s foot surgery occurred with no problems. A two hour procedure left me with a 2 inch long steel plate, wrapped around two bones and 4 screws inserted to keep in place. There is some discomfort, but got some good pain killers I should manage to deal with it OK. IF NOT, I’ll break out the Apple Pie Moonshine 😆

    Quiet day for SUFA. Enjoy the weekend my friends! 🙂

  7. Do you, like 56 percent of the US population, believe that the US should “not get too involved” in the Ukraine situation? Do you think that the US administration putting us on a war footing with Russia is a bad idea? Are you concerned that the new, US-backed leaders of Ukraine — not being elected — might lack democratic legitimacy? Are you tempted to speak out against US policy in Ukraine; are you tempted to criticize the new Ukrainian regime?

    Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.
    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/14/against-ukraine-war-obama-may-seize-your-assets.aspx

  8. If you remember, last year I reported that Texas, through its chamber of commerce, and business’, developed a program for the hiring, training, short tracking of Mexican labor.

    Here is how it works. If an immigrant wishes to come to the United States legally for employment, Texas has developed a program in which non citizens can come to a job fair that is attended by over 200 employers, twice a year, This job fair offers employment as well as training and the issuance of a temporary state work permit to the non citizen immigrant for 90 days, During this 90 day time period, a background check is performed. ( Background checks are becoming routine since Mexico empties out its violent prison inmates and trucks them to the border ). The State of Texas has hired a Mexican Law Firm to perform these checks in Mexico and the State Justice Department runs background checks in the US.

    Once the 90 day probationary period has been fulfilled a one year renewable State permit is issued. With this State permit, the immigrant can apply for and receive a driver’s license that is tied to his work permit. In the meantime, the immigrant is assigned a sponsor. This sponsor helps the immigrant walk through the green card process on a fast track.

    The only caveat is that the immigrant is enrolled in an English class and is taught English as a part of his requirement to work. If the immigrant stays the 12 months, then his family is also enrolled in English class at no cost. The State of Texas has also allowed a franchise tax incentive to the companies that are part of this program. In exchange for the incentive program, the State of Texas requires that the employer pay a minimum starting wage of $12 per hour and observe all over time provisions of the State employment requirements.

    To be eligible for this program, the immigrant cannot have been arrested nor deported previously. Any falsehood on the application will result in immediate deportation to the border and their name added to a data base for Texas Employers. Texas has a database for all employers to check.

    Eric Holder has decided that he does not like this cooperative program and has filed suit to shut it down.

  9. “The biggest mistakes, the economists point out, occurred when they forecast growth rates in countries with a relatively high level of government regulation. This surprises the economists, though it won’t surprise anyone who takes a dim view of government regulation generally. The forecasters, good statists all, assumed that the regulations “would help to cushion financial shocks” in the highly regulated countries and would therefore aid recovery.

    The economists now say they failed to consider the damaging effects of regulation.”

    Wrong Again
    The economists’ confession.
    Mar 24, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 27 • By ANDREW FERGUSON

    It’s hard to find nice things to say about economists. Their detachment from the real world of human activity is matched only by their enormous influence over it, and by their unearned assumption that this arrangement is well deserved. That all changed last month, however. Now we can say something nice about at least some of the economists at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and it is this: They may not be very good at what they do, but they’re not afraid to admit it.

    Last month they released a report, “OECD Forecasts During & After the Financial Crisis: A Post-Mortem.” It is not beach reading, unless you’re the sort of person who works for the OECD or The Weekly Standard. The report’s watery tone and obscure nomenclature are common to the literature of professional economists—and are indispensable when it comes time to hide an unflattering conclusion from the prying eyes of laymen. The unflattering conclusion here, though, is straightforward, if understated. The OECD economists looked at their own work forecasting the direction of the world economy over the last several years and admitted: “GDP growth was overestimated on average across 2007-12, reflecting not only errors at the height of the financial crisis but also errors in the subsequent recovery.”

    The passive voice in the first clause of that sentence is squirmy; a flat assertion in the first person -plural would be more seemly and more accurate. But give them credit for the rest of the sentence. How big were the errors? Pretty big.

    In May 2010, for example, with one-third of the calendar year already over, the OECD economists predicted the U.S. economy would grow 3.2 percent for the year. As it happened, gross domestic product grew 1.7 percent. Note that this is not a small error. That 1.5 percentage point spread between the two numbers means the original projection was off by nearly half. It’s as if you thought you saw a car go by at 60 miles per hour while it was actually going 30.

    The new report is not solely an admission of error. It is also a catalogue of errors by type. The biggest mistakes, the economists point out, occurred when they forecast growth rates in countries with a relatively high level of government regulation. This surprises the economists, though it won’t surprise anyone who takes a dim view of government regulation generally. The forecasters, good statists all, assumed that the regulations “would help to cushion financial shocks” in the highly regulated countries and would therefore aid recovery.

    The economists now say they failed to consider the damaging effects of regulation. In the real world, regulations “delay[ed] necessary reallocations across [economic] sectors in the recovery phase”—which, translated from the Economese, means that government was retarding the ability of businesses to do what they do best: find a way to create value and make money even in calamitous circumstances. The concession is implied, but it’s clear the economists regret letting an ideological assumption in favor of government intervention overwhelm their forecasts as the recession swept the globe, raining on the regulated and unregulated alike.

    Failures of foresight are common among experts—commoner among them, probably, than among the rest of us, who are unburdened by the expertise that tends to bind rather than liberate habits of mind. The OECD economists are happy to point out that their failures in figuring out the economy from one country to the next are no greater than those of the profession as a whole, especially in the years before and after the recession. Yet no amount of publicity about such spectacular failures deters their clients, whether in government or business, from asking economists for more.

    In late 2009 the economist William McEachern impishly looked back at the previous year’s forecasts by the Wall Street Journal’s panel of economic experts. The Journal surveyed its experts in September 2008 when U.S. unemployment was at 6.2 percent; the average prediction among the economists was for the rate to stay more or less flat. By the following September the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent. At the same time, the average prediction among Journal economists was that growth for the last quarter of 2008—the quarter, you’ll note, that was just about to commence—would be 1.2 percent. Instead it was -2.7 percent.

    Economists, in other words, not only fail to predict the future, they can’t even predict the present. The OECD offered various reasons for its abysmal record. “The OECD forecasts,” the report says, “are conditional projections rather than pure forecasts.” Why this should let them off the hook is unexplained. The conditional projections, they go on, “rest on a specific set of assumptions about policies and underlying economic and financial conditions.” Oil prices, fiscal policy, the course of the euro crisis—all of these, they say, are beyond an economist’s control and bound to throw him off his game.

    And we shouldn’t doubt it. The oft-cited (by Democrats or Republicans, depending) Congressional Budget Office makes similar demurrals when it owns up to its forecasting failures, which are regular and very large. “Sources of large forecasting errors,” one CBO report says, “have included the difficulty of predicting: Turning points in the business cycle—the beginning and end of recessions; changes in trends in productivity; and changes in crude oil prices.”

    The world is a crazy place, no doubt about it. Most events that occur—even the actions of governments, sometimes—are beyond the control of economists, much as they might like to daydream otherwise. But isn’t that the point? This admission just begs the question of why anyone should pay attention to their wizardry to begin with. The forecaster’s chief conceit is that by feeding numbers into one end of a statistical model he can see the future come out the other side. The conceit touches off a phantasmagoria of argument in Washington, where politicians and policymakers sift the numbers from one set of econometricians or another, and then use their favorite figures to determine how they will orchestrate the activities of the folks back home. In thrall to economists, government policy-making is a fantasy based on a fantasy.

    Perhaps I’m wrong to say the OECD economists aren’t very good at what they do. They may be champs, for all I know. It’s just that what they are trying to do is worse than worthless. The fault, if that’s the word, lies with the people who are soliciting their forecasts, and why.

    In an autobiographical essay published 20 years ago, the left-leaning economist Kenneth Arrow recalled entering the Army as a statistician and weather specialist during World War II. “Some of my colleagues had the responsibility of preparing long-range weather forecasts, i.e., for the following month,” Arrow wrote. “The statisticians among us subjected these forecasts to verification and found they differed in no way from chance.”

    Alarmed, Arrow and his colleagues tried to bring this important discovery to the attention of the commanding officer. At last the word came down from a high-ranking aide.

    “The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no good,” the aide said haughtily. “However, he needs them for planning purposes.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wrong-again_784910.html?nopager=1

    • There are still lots of people calling for an economic collapse. Some say the end of the dollar as WRC is also coming to an end. So be it, if it happens. If it don’t, so be it. As a prepper, I plan for what is most likely to occur. A lengthy power outage due to inclement weather or a solar storm. There is nothing else that seems even possible to prepare for beyond that.

  10. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore. “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

    “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species,” Moore added.

    After co-founding Greenpeace in 1971, Moore remained active with the environmental organization through 1986. Moore testified that after 15 years as a top Greenpeace official, he left the organization because it had become more motivated by leftist politics than environmentalism. Moore observed environmental activist groups’ focus on global warming issues since the late 1980s fits this disturbing trend, with political agendas rather than sound science driving global warming alarmism.

    “After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
    http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/06/greenpeace-co-founder-testifies-there-is-no-climate-crisis/

    If we don’t start shutting down the EPA and all their BS, we are going to be in big trouble in the not to distant future. When the power blackouts get more frequent, it will do much harm to the already bad economy.

  11. plainlyspoken says:
    • Judy Sabatini says:

      I agree with you PS, & why should we keep special forces there, just to handle alqueda anyway, let them do it, after all, it’s their country, we’ve been there wayyyyyyyyyyyy to long as it is. Nothing is going to change there no matter what, they’re still going to do what they do anyway. My daughter in law just got back from there a month ago, after being there for a year & she said, her unit was getting ready for the next unit coming in. My feelings are, we lost way to many of our military as it is, why put more troops in there & for what. Nothing has changed in the past 1000 years there, & nothing will no matter what Karzai says. Their way of dealing with things, is to chop people’s heads off. Bring them ALL home, not just most & leave some there. Enough is enough already. But, that just my opinion on it.

  12. Paul Ryan And The Left’s Racial Code-Talkers
    March 13, 2014 By Robert Tracinski

    Yesterday, Paul Ryan spoke at length on a conservative radio talk show about the role of work in raising people out of poverty. Asked what the Republican plan was to end poverty, he replied:

    In a nutshell, work works. It’s all about getting people to work. And when you were one of the leaders of welfare reform in the 1990’s, we got excoriated for saying that as a condition of welfare, people should go to work and it should be a bridge not a permanent system. And it worked very well, but there were dozens of other welfare programs that didn’t get reformed that have sort of overtaken events and have now made it harder for people to get into work. We call it a poverty trap….

    That’s the tailspin that we’re looking at in our communities. You know your buddies Charles Murray or Bob Putnam over at Harvard, those guys have written books on this, which is we have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities in particular of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of hard work so there’s a cultural problem that has to be dealt with. Everyone has got to get involved.

    And the usual reaction comes in 3, 2, 1…

    My colleague Congresswoman Ryan’s comments about “inner city” poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated. Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says “inner city,” when he says, “culture,” these are simply code words for what he really means: “black.”

    That’s from Representative Barbara Lee. We hear something similar from Al Sharpton, who calls it a “dog whistle,” a message that is supposed to be inaudible to everyone else, heard only by Ryan’s secret racist audience. So how comes Sharpton and Lee are the only ones who can hear the whistle?

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Or rather, this is why we can’t have a civil and intelligent discussion about poverty or welfare reform. Or any discussion at all. Because every time someone on the right opens his mouth, he is immediately denounced as a secret bigot speaking in racial “code.”

    This is an obvious act of psychological projection, because it is the left that has long since converted all discussion of economic policy and the welfare state into mere place-holders for racial politics. They are the real code-talkers, and the motive is obvious: precisely to shut down discussion of these issues, leaving the unreformed status quo in place.

    While this may serve an obvious political end, it certainly does no favors to the poor to rule honest discussion of their plight to be out off limits. In fact, it validates Ryan’s argument that those who want to reform welfare are actually more compassionate than the average “progressive,” whose compassion begins and ends with voting for a politician who promises to throw other people’s money at the problem. As Ryan puts it, “if you’re driving from the suburbs to the sports arena downtown by these blighted neighborhoods, you can’t just say: I’m paying my taxes and government is going to fix that.”

    And the chart cited by Al Sharpton, that noted policy wonk, to refute Ryan actually confirms his point. Sharpton claims that the welfare state has reduced the poverty rate from 26% to 16%, but if you look at the fine print, it reads: “factoring in safety net,” i.e., welfare payments. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this means that many of those who have been “helped” by the War on Poverty are still unable to provide for themselves. The welfare state has not cured poverty, it is merely ameliorating the symptoms. Which is precisely what Ryan was talking about when he said that the welfare state is “a poverty management system.”

    All of this is an excellent example of my point about how “narrative thinking” has taken over the left. This is the underlying reason we can’t have a conversation about poverty and the welfare state. There seems to be no point in citing facts, data, or arguments about poverty and its causes. It’s a language the left can’t bring themselves to understand. Instead, they prefer to think in terms of images and metaphors, like “the bridge at Selma.” Needless to say, these are self-flattering metaphors, in which they’re all Martin Luther King, Jr., and their opponents are all Bull Connor.

    This is the real “code” spoken by the left, and it’s why they won’t allow a real conversation about welfare (and a great many other things) with those whose code is facts, reason, and the ordinary usage of the English language.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/the-lefts-racial-code-talkers/

  13. “But the zeal for zero-tolerance “Tolerance” is not so restrained.”

    Entertainment Reporter: It’s Time to Forgive Mel Gibson
    —Ace

    I agree with this.

    And not just because it’s Mel Gibson. I’d say this about anybody. There is a penalty to be paid for making un-PC remarks: But that penalty should fit the actual crime. Gibson’s crime was to say nasty things about Jews (“they start all the wars”) and rant insanely at his ex-girlfriend.

    These are grounds, certainly, for criticism and wondering if Gibson has anger and alcohol issues.

    But they’re not grounds for a nigh-complete boycott by the only industry he’s ever worked in.

    People have a tendency to take their Rules and push them too far, to the point of inhumanity.

    The Rule against anti-semitic remarks (or homophobic remarks, or misogynistic remarks, or racist remarks) is a good one. I support that rule. I try to abide by that rule myself (and I inflict it on others in the comments).

    But what should the penalty for deviation from the rule be?

    People take a sound enough rule but then make a mistake: They decide (possibly without thinking about it) that if the Rule is good, ergo, no amount of enforcement of it can be disproportionate; in fact, each additional ounce of punishment must be good.

    But this isn’t true. This is the thinking that leads to unfairly punitive mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession. The thinking goes, “Drugs are a social wrong; selling drugs is worse; ergo, the stiffest possible penalties must be just and good.”

    But that’s not true. There comes a point when draconian enforcement becomes a greater evil than the original ill one has sought to penalize.

    Gibson’s outbursts are upsetting, particularly for any of the groups he spoke about. And Gibson’s outbursts do indicate he has some anger issues to work on.

    But what tangible harm did he inflict on anyone?

    From the moment he berated that cop, he was marked as someone who would bear the stigma of being called an anti-semite for the rest of his life.

    That is in itself a heavy penalty. Racism, anti-semitism, etc. are now adjudged by most of polite society to be greater crimes than most actual crimes.

    So, he has already been penalized. He will carry the burden of being judged a monster until the day he dies.

    But at what point do those who go out hunting monsters become monsters themselves?

    Because, at this point: Who is it who’s actually working to deliver tangible, real harm and hurt on to another person?

    As far as I know, it’s not Gibson; it’s the thousands of high-placed rule-enforcers in Hollywood who are enforcing a boycott against him, probably without even thinking about it very much, probably without even questioning whether or not it makes sense to continue punishing him.

    Tolerance is a virtue — that is the animating notion behind the campaign to stigmatize, and penalize, intolerance.

    But this devotion to tolerance can itself become intolerant. And frequently does.

    Tolerance is indeed a virtue. And so is mercy and forgiveness.

    Another important virtue is this: a variation of the Golden Rule, to not inflict on others rules that one would find insufferable if inflicted on oneself.

    If most people in Hollywood would find it unfair if they themselves were blackballed over some objectionable outbursts — and I imagine most would — they should not seek to impose that penalty on others.

    It’s very easy to judge other people so harshly. And that’s why we do it. Because it’s easy. It’s also — and few admit this, but it is true all the same — pleasurable. To judge another feels good.

    Judging gives each person two wonderful feelings: The feeling that he is intrinsically superior to another human being (and this feeling is magnified when the person judged is of a high status, because it feels just great to know one is superior to a former $20-million-per-film movie star), and the feeling that he is living virtuously by enforcing a code upon another person.

    These things feel good.

    Which is why they must be restrained. Anytime something feels good, a person is in grave danger of over-indulging in it. Making a new sexual conquest feels good; the pleasantly warm oblivion of drunkeness feels good; calling out another human being for scorn and ostracism feels good.

    All of these things have a purpose. None of these things is necessarily bad, in and of themselves. But all of them will be over-indulged if not restrained.

    This is particularly a problem with judgment. Sex and alcohol are, of course, already taboos in society, regulated by various rules and restraints.

    But the zeal for zero-tolerance “Tolerance” is not so restrained. In fact, in many people’s minds, it’s an unambiguous good to indulge the urge to judge and punish as much as possible. There is no “mandatory minimum” sentence for a show of intolerance that they would consider excessive.

    After all, if doing a little ostracism/Otherizing/ritual scapegoating is good, then doing a whole lot of it must be even better.

    Right?

    No. Doing a bump of coke at a party once a year might feel good but do it four times a day for a year and you’ve got a serious problem.

    There are three contributing factors this ugly situation of never-ending scalp-hunting:

    1. Cruelty is more pleasurable than most human beings care to admit. In fact, they will rarely admit this to themselves. Cruel actions are justified as “doing good.” A gut-level, primitive-mammalian urge for dominance games is justified by ideology or philosophy, and hence is never recognized for being sadistic.

    2. Guilt by association. One can never say something like “I think drugs should be decriminalized” without people saying Wow, you must really like drugs.

    The assumption is that if you speak up in favor of a merciful attitude towards a social ill, then you must either not be opposed to that social ill, or are actually in favor of that social ill (that is, you don’t think it’s a social ill, but a social good).

    Thus anyone who thinks it may be time to decriminalize pot must like pot.

    Not true.

    And thus, anyone who argues that the penalty Gibson has paid for his anti-semitic outburst must be not think anti-semitism is any big deal, or must actually be in favor of anti-semitism.

    Also not true. I’m philo-semitic myself, and known to be anti-anti-semitism, but there does come a point at which the punishment seems to greatly exceed the actual crime.

    Nevertheless, there is a penalty that is imposed on anyone who would speak up for Gibson: The sneaking suspicion that anyone who says anything in his defense must himself be anti-semitic.

    And thus, Gibson has few defenders. Just this writer, Robert Downey Jr., and Jodie Foster, pretty much.

    Most people decide it’s not worth it to get branded themselves as anti-semites, so they remain silent.

    And:

    3. Social Competitiveness. Human beings love competing. They never stop competing.

    We especially compete in a social environment. Most of us aren’t athletes; many of us work in competitive fields, but few of us are really the best in our particular field.

    But we can always compete in the social environment — and, if we define the rules of the game to our own advantage, we can pretty much “win” according to our own criteria in every outing.

    This leads to the bad phenomenon in which people who generally agree with a basic proposition begin attempting to compete for the prize of who is most strongly in favor of that proposition.

    And so the bidding goes thus:

    South bids: Four diamonds. Gibson’s outburst was anti-semitic and unacceptable.

    West bids: Four hearts. Unacceptable, indeed! In fact, his outburst proves that he intended an anti-semitic message in Passion of the Christ, doesn’t it?

    North bids: Double. In fact, one can trace a relentless message of homophobia, misogyny, racism, anti-semitism and Holocaust denial in all of his films, if you look hard enough. Can’t you?

    East bids: Redouble. You’re certainly right — in fact, I think Mel Gibson should never work in this town again.

    You can see this dynamic in play in any meeting of people who basically agree on most things. Because they agree on the basics, they begin competing on another ground — how passionately they believe in the basic proposition, and what amount of indignation, outrage, and penalization they are willing to inflict on others in advancement of that proposition.

    Whoever is willing to do the most — whoever is the most outraged — whoever wishes to be the cruelest in vindication of that principle — well, he wins. He is The Most at This Thing.

    Now, this competitiveness — this competitive bidding in favor of the most extreme possible position — could be deflated and checked, were someone to venture the idea that “You go too far; you’re nuking Gibson over a fairly small matter.”

    But the trouble is, few will say that, because of Factor 2: Guilt by Association. Hey, if you hate Jews so much, why don’t you just join the Nazi party, buddy?

    In a well-functioning marketplace of ideas, more excessive statements of the idea would be knocked down, and a more moderate (and merciful, and humane) rule would prevail.

    But there rules are all set to privilege the least merciful and least humane rules, and they win most of the time.

    And so it goes.

    If anyone’s interested in this line of thinking, I’d suggest they read Douglas Preston’s 40 page essay, “Trial By Fury,” available as an e-book ($2 to buy it, free to borrow with Amazon Prime). It’s about a basic human desire for something called “altruistic punishment,” punishing people on behalf of others — that is, not punishing them for a harm they inflicted on the self (that would be self-interested punishment) but punishing them altruistically, for harms they inflicted (or are imagined to have inflicted) on others.

    Altruistic punishment is in fact a very useful phenomenon. It works to improve human cooperation and mutual trust. It’s a powerful tool we have, which generally has benevolent effects.

    And we are rewarded for altruistically punishing other people, because it feels good.

    But, like most things, it can be taken too far. It can be taken well past the point of a socially useful function and turn into pleasurable cruelty. And that cruelty will never be checked, because those indulging in the cruelty will never recognize it as such, but will instead call it “fighting the forces of evil” or whatnot.

    http://ace.mu.nu/

  14. The Conspiracy theory world is abuzz with ideas about the missing jet airliner. Here are a few of note from what I have read:

    1. The plane has landed in a secret location and is being outfitted with a nuke. Location of where the nuke may be going is any ones guess. I’ve read Israel (from Iran).

    2. The plane has landed and the passengers are being shot up with a bio disease and will be flown to a large hub to be further carried to home countries. This would be nasty, if the disease is fast spreading with a high fatality rate.

    3. Aliens abducted the plane and they plan to invade after getting biological information on best way to deal with our weapons (rather funny 🙂 )

    4. The plane crashed, the beacon in black box has failed, thus no beacon, unless in super deep water (not sure on this).

    What we all know, this passenger jet is missing with lots of people. At this point, it doesn’t seem likely that any one is alive, but we can all hope that it has made an emergency landing in some remote location and are surviving. Any thoughts?

  15. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/14/russia-west-collision-course-ukraine-talks-fail-london

    This is another crazy issue I can’t quite understand what this regime in DC is doing. I simply don’t trust these psychopaths to NOT get us in another dumb war. If, for whatever idiotic reason we end up in a war, the outcome can’t be good for anyone. Kiss the world economy goodbye if that happens.

  16. While we all want clean water and less pollution, the EPA has become the Eviro-gestapo and needs to be closed down, totally. Not only is their existence somewhat of a Constitutional question mark, the States should be able to do a much better job, if not the local communities. I think the whole “snail darter” issue in California should be cause enough to say goodbye to another part of the 8000lb gorilla called the federal Government.

    Notice I didn’t even cuss 😀

  17. http://conservativevideos.com/2014/03/democrats-funding-genocide-black-race/

    VH, thought you would like this. Can’t think of any way to tell the truth about black genocide through abortion than a black man 🙂

  18. You might learn something that John Stewart could never even possibly understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKXspt459LE

  19. Every once in awhile I come across an article that I think makes a point clearer-this is one of those-it may sound harsh and in reality you would probably get sued-but I think the point is made in away that maybe people will get it.

    How to avoid baking a gay wedding cake and get away with it
    11:07 AM 03/12/2014

    In the debate over the right of same-sex marriage opponents to refuse working gay weddings, LGBT advocates have consistently emphasized that one person’s religion must never override someone else’s civil right to public accommodation. I’m OK with that.

    But to me, the relevant aspect of the First Amendment is not the religious free-exercise clause – it’s the free-speech guarantee that everybody can proclaim their ideas however they want, with no government compulsion to express any particular opinion.

    Same-sex marriage supporters have questioned how baking cakes or taking photographs is a celebration of someone else’s beliefs. Perhaps the following questions will demonstrate precisely how forcing marriage traditionalists to accommodate same-sex weddings makes them endorse another person’s viewpoint:

    • Should it be legal for a baker who opposes gay marriage to write in icing on all the same-sex wedding cakes she bakes, “Marriage = One Man, One Woman” instead of “Mazel Tov Adam and Steve” or whatever?

    • Could a photographer legally show up to a gay marriage wearing a large button emblazoned with the Bible verse from Leviticus 18:22 prohibiting same-sex relations?

    • Must the government tolerate a Christian caterer asserting “This is not a real wedding” to every guest he serves?

    • Could a wedding band change the lyrics of a song like “Born This Way” to “Not Born Gay,” or from “I’m Coming Out” to “Please Go Back In” with no statutory repercussions?

    If LGBT supporters answer “no” to the above questions, then it becomes perfectly clear they are intent on silencing dissent, not equal public accommodations. If their answers are “yes,” then traditionalists have an easy out when a couple – or the government – forces them to celebrate an event they abhor: just follow one of the suggestions above.

    I’m certainly not telling man-woman marriage supporters hired for gay weddings to shout “God Hates Fags!” during the ceremony. There’s no need to be nasty. But if same-sex couples learn more traditionally-minded contractors are prepared to do just that if compelled to work the event, their gay bookings will dry up quickly – which is precisely the point. Gay couples who don’t want their weddings ruined will have to find a vendor who doesn’t object to same-sex marriage.

    But aren’t people obliged to fully honor contracts? Sure, but no business should be strong-armed into signing a contract that demands expression of any specific idea. And if a government does currently make every wedding vendor accept all commissions? Well, that’s a great argument for the recent controversial laws to protect people from being forced to serve gay weddings.

    Now, refusing to sell a bisexual a banana is not an expression of ideas in any way, and is already illegal in 21 states. As long as non-discrimination laws don’t impact the definition of marriage or people’s free-speech rights in any way, I don’t object to them. But the LGBT refrain that traditionalist American wedding vendors have been trying to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is just not true. Overwhelmingly, they’re trying to defend their right to continue conveying exactly one idea about marriage and no other – that it’s a union of a man and a woman.

    Of course some people think disagreeing with “marriage equality” is a terrible view that’s essentially identical to opposing interracial marriage. But the First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most obnoxious kinds of speech.

    Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the reverse of the expression aspect of wedding services: Can LGBT bakers be made to write “Kids Do Best With Both a Mom and a Dad” in icing atop someone’s cake? Can a Jewish caterer be prohibited from ever mentioning she believes in only one God while she’s at a Hindu union? Can an African-American photographer at a white supremacist’s wedding wear a “Black is Beautiful” button if he chooses?

    Most same-sex couples would like everyone to reinforce their belief that gay marriage is just as legitimate as straight marriage. I don’t begrudge them that wish. But they cannot force traditional people to smile, salute, and say, “Oh, yes! Brides and grooms are completely interchangeable.”

    Not in America.

    Supporters of same-sex marriage have exploited this controversy to paint themselves as victims of marriage discrimination when exactly the opposite is occurring. They want the government to punish people for the ideas they express – which in a free society is arguably worse than what gays claim to be facing, namely private individuals and businesses punishing them because of their identity.

    Marriage traditionalists should start focusing narrowly on free expression, not religious freedom. Doing that helps clarify the truly coercive vendor-related goal of same-sex marriage supporters – and gives a pass to people who really, really don’t want to bake that cake.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/12/how-to-avoid-baking-gay-wedding-cakes-and-get-away-with-it/#ixzz2w8ZJfVpi

    • Just one other remark about this-what the author suggests those who support traditional marriage do-is exactly what the LGBT does to them on a regular basis!

    • People, in general, don’t like being told what to do or what to think. trying to force their acceptance will only backfire in the long run and make things harder. They feel that using vinegar instead of sugar will get better results, and they will find out that it will fail. Look at how people are pushing back on government over reach in Connecticut on the gun registration issue.

      The cake baker, when forced to bake the cake, likely urinated in it. That’s what happens when one uses government force to demand acceptance. The photographer could have taken all blurry pictures, oh well, sucks to be the couple, but that’s what they get when they use government force to demand acceptance. Just Sayin 🙂

    • I find it ironic that individuals that judge others whose actions do not deliver one wit of consequence upon these individual’s lives now have to defend themselves from their own badly placed judgments.

      Here, this person rallies against the free choice of others – which the consequence is their own freedom is lost. Now, this person has to connive ways to try to maintain their own freedom of association – whom to serve – lost by their own demands to control OTHER PEOPLE’s freedom of association.

      Gotta love the way the Universe works.

      • I always wonder why we can’t just get along without all the drama. Too many brainwashed monkeys that can’t think for themselves I reckon.

        • “I always wonder why we can’t just get along without all the drama. Too many brainwashed monkeys that can’t think for themselves …”

          He said while staring at a mirror … 🙂

  20. Missing Jet Liner…….folks……………………………don’t think for a minute that every single square inch of the world is not watched from above.

    In the case of a civilian airliner that goes missing, why would you suspect that any country with technology will reveal what happened? For any country to step forward and say…..here is the airliner, they give up their technology advances……I will guarantee each one of you that military surveillance knows exactly what, when, and where……exactly. But…….to say so gives up secrets….and no secrets will be given up……all civilian airliners are acceptable losses in this world of high tech.

    through back channels….all of a sudden…..it will be found.

    • Could it have landed somewhere and is in a hanger of sorts?

      • Yep, aircraft theft – including big jets – is a common, but under reported phenomena.

        • Under reported, LOL I don’t remember to many planes full of people getting stolen. But in this day and age, one can’t dismiss anything 🙂

          • Actually, aircraft theft is as common as stealing Jaguars and BMW’s. The aircraft that I fly (BE 58/G) better known as a G58 Baron….is a sought after item and is stolen quite frequently. Usually flown to Mexico and used in drug trades. With tip tanks, it holds 190 gallons……leaned out it burns 16 gallons per hour per engine….true airspeed is 190 kts…(about 220 mph ground speed) …you do the math on range.

            It is not the aircraft so much as it is the avionics. Look up G58 Baron and you will see the avionics. I fly a 2012 model. It is a digital aircraft and the new airliners are digital…all GPS linked to at least 7 satellites at a time. Look up G1000 avionics and read about what it will do. The 777 is totally digital…..and uses the G1000 technology.

            Whoever took the flight has to have this type of experience. I sat through a G1000 familiarization course for 7 straight days and another 7 in a simulator to be G1000 certified. In order for the tracking to be turned off, it is not a simple switch. You have to know how to get into the flight computer, change pages to turn off certain data pings. The minute the transponder, which is a mode c , is turned off, it sends a signal over freq 121.5……that is the world wide guard frequency ( emergency )…..you do NOT turn off transponders inadvertently.

            Now, last year alone, world wide, there were 77 stolen aircraft over $10mm in value. Hundreds under this value are stolen all the time……Especially, short field, high wing aircraft.

          • You said “planes” – hijacking not included.

            • Correct….depends on your definition….hijacking in the sense of busting into the flight deck….correct…..hijacking using the same definition as car jacking….also correct. 99% of the stolen aircraft do not end in violence to the pilot or crew but some have been removed or stolen at gun point….

              It is easy to fly under the radar of local ATC….and turning off a transponder makes the detection of the aircraft analog….just a blip on the screen……but usually,,,,,these planes are stolen, flown under the radar to strips not far away…..N decals changed and logos put on……then flown to far away destinations and either stripped or sold to third world.where there is no registration of N numbers,…..like Argentina, Venezuela, Costa Rica….etc.

              • Most of the time…..these aircraft go to chop shops…..just like cars….

              • There is big money in avionics….on the under ground…..virtually untraceable. Flaps, ailerons, rudders, seats….do not have serial numbers. Engines have registered serial numbers….but a stripped engine does not.

              • One other thing on mode c transponders…..there are squawk codes preset. 7500 means hijacking, 7600 means lost communication, 7700 means emergency (roll equipment). It takes 1 second to hit these presets……All aircraft, with mode c (and it takes mode c to fly into controlled airspace) have these presets…..even the little Cessna 150.

  21. Watching the events unfold in the Ukraine and the introduction of Russian airborne troops actually on the ground in the far reaches of Ukraine, not Crimea….and watching the various discussions on the news and on the blogs…..and most people agreeing with the Crimean people’s choice….except the war dogs and government officials…

    I wonder what the general feeling would be in the United States if, and I will use Texas…..the Texas residents decided to become an independent sovereign Nation….voted to withdraw from the United States…..how it would be viewed in the present day world….not the 1860 mentality…but the present day world.

    Would those on SUFA support it or be against it. If against it…..why? ( Please do not throw Constitution at me….nobody cares about laws or constitutions overseas…so why here and the Obama administration has proven that they do not care about Constitutionality )….so?

    • If the people of Texas want it, I’m all for supporting them. I would like my little part of the world to do the same thing, LOL. The question I would have, what would the feds do to maintain the status quo?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Colonel. I enjoyed your summary of the meeting with DHS and DOJ.

      As for your very pointed question………… NO!

      And despite your rules I will throw the Constitution at you. Because it DOES matter. Maybe not to the asshats in charge but it matters to any sane person seeking to restore some semblance of our freedom and liberty.

      I would also oppose secession on the grounds of impact to Texas and the rest of the Saner USA. However, it should be up to the people of Texas.

      But that raises the next most relevant question. What about those in Texas that vote NO???

      Why should the majority in Texas decide “their” National Identity any more than the Majority in the US gets to decide for Texas proper.

      Besides, the greatest stumbling block to a clean and peaceful secession in the 1800’s has not changed. That is the dispute over OWNERSHIP of Federal USA property located within the “new” nation.

      The US would have to be willing to “give up” or “sell” all those “lands and buildings” it owns.

      One last point of opposition. I want TEXAS to remain as guardian on the southern border.

      • JAC….

        You speak of freedom and liberty but you would deny freedom and liberty to Texas.

        A Texas secession would certainly hurt the US but it would be minimal to Texas in my opinion. Texas is the 14th largest economy in the world and it has resources.

        All over the world, States and countries have voted and formed their own territories. Crimea, for example, just voted to join Russia…..it matters not what the US thinks or Europe thinks….they did it anyway. The people that live their that voted against Russian alliance….well…..they can move. They lost. I would say the same here….Don’t like Texas…cool…..go away.

        Federally owned land in Texas? Surely you jest…..Texas owns its parks and lakes. Even the Federal Military facilities are on leased land. ( Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, etc.) and that includes the Big Bend National Recreation Area……that is why Texas has patrol jurisdiction on the river and in the Big Bend Park…

        Now Texas recognizes that there is a National Boundary….ie: the border. But we claim jurisdiction as well as it was never ceded to the US. and that is why we have state personnel patrolling the border rivers and lakes.

        As to keeping a buffer zone…..we would be there anyway. Your problem is not Texas…it is Arizona and California.

        As to the Federally owned buildings…..we will agree…..the US can have them…take them when they leave.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          1. I have no desire to deny Texans their freedom from the USA. Just help us pass an Amendment that allows a State to leave on its own accord and I am with you on the legal point.

          2. I am not concerned about Texas on the border, I want Texas on the border because it knows how to deal with it. The other two you mention…………….I wish there was a way to Kick them out. Reminds me, I need to add a few more lines to that amendment.

          I am not familiar with Texas vs. Federal law over ownership. I know you did not have the massive Federal reserves we did. However, what you Texicans “recognize” may differ from what the Feds “recognize”. Just like they differed over Ft. Sumter.

          3. You did not address my question over “majority rule” FORCING people to accept Texas as a nation state. How is that different than the USA making such a vote on Texas itself??

          • HOwdy JAC…I answered it,,,,,,”All over the world, States and countries have voted and formed their own territories. Crimea, for example, just voted to join Russia…..it matters not what the US thinks or Europe thinks….they did it anyway. The people that live their that voted against Russian alliance….well…..they can move. They lost. I would say the same here….Don’t like Texas…cool…..go away. ”

            At least I thought it an answer……lol.

        • It was reported today that Latinos are the biggest ethnic bloc in CA at 39%. What happens when they reach 50% and decide to demand a vote to return the state to Mexico? Is it adios CA or will DC put up a fight?

          I realize that TX is special since it is the Republic State of Texas. There were some special agreements made during the annexation. I would dearly hate to see TX leave the union as it provides an example of sanity for the rest of us. I hope you have an open immigration policy for us redneck left coasters. If the country continues on its present course for another decade, I think there will be a decided push to break up the union. It would be sad to see this experiment fail.

          • The problem with CA……if they adopted the picture ID there…and quit sanctuary cities…the problem would not exist……however….with Texas and New Mexico aggressively enforcing border security….and eliminating sanctuary cities…..they are flocking to CA and AZ…..

          • , I think there will be a decided push to break up the union. It would be sad to see this experiment fail.

            Cali seems to be wanting to break up as it is, which isn’t a bad idea, but will never be allowed. The people were given a Republic, they couldn’t keep it. This experiment failed when the feds decided they were the masters.

  22. Question about Obama’s recent talk about HIM imposing sanctions. Aren’t sanctions and these sorts of things fall within the power of Congress? Who made Obama the fu#^ing KING anyway? And lastly, why do I think that these idiots in DC are gonna lead us into another war?

  23. First of all, the POTUS has the power to sanction. Secondly…no one will vote war.

    • And there is no strategic National interest in Crimea.

      • I certainly agree with you here. I’m just wondering why Obama and Kerry are sticking their noses where they don’t belong. Unless there is an underlying reason, like a war to cover up the upcoming economic collapse or something like that.

        • D13, do you think Russia will invade Ukraine?

          • No

            They will, like Georgia, force Ukraine to accept Crimean independence.

          • No, they do not have to. I do think that politically, within the next two years, that you will have a similar situation like Crimea…they will stack the deck and you will have a psuedo-independence movement and will be “invited” in.

            I disagree with the majority that believe that Russia does not want the Ukraine. Strategically it is very important to Russia, however, I think that Putin has time on his side….and NATO and the US currently is very weak and lacks resolve to defend Ukraine.

            As it stand today, there are Russian military troops in Ukraine….they arrived yesterday and have seized a couple of strategic passes. I do not look for them to move out.

    • It must be one of those secret powers not written in the Constitution then, LOL. Then again, he can change laws now too, so why not.

  24. More police state stuff similar to the Boston bomber search. http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/03/police-point-guns-people-massive-270-road-block/

    I think when the cops begin to violate the peoples rights, there cause is null and void. Peoples rights should ALWAYS trump any police action, period.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    It is MONDAY.

    Did Putin pull our of Crimea or Ukraine yet???

    I saw he was given a deadline of today, so I was just wondering if I missed something this morning.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    There is no reason to place yourself in time out. Next time don’t chase the skunk so far down the hole and you won’t get as frustrated.

    • It’s just too bad it took her so long to realize her error. Like most, she voted for him and then “went to sleep for a few years, then woke up and watched the news”. And she discovered what the rest of us had known ever since 2007. Obama is a MENACE TO SOCIETY.

  27. Just A Citizen says:
  28. Just A Citizen says:
  29. From the mouth of one of Obama’s heroes:
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.
    A. Lincoln

    Obama spoke today.

  30. Haven’t read all the posts yet, so hopefully no one has posted anything about this-if you have -Sorry.

    What does everybody think about the US giving up control of ICANN/sp? ? From my reading I’m not sure we’ve really given up anything.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t think it’s a major issue at this point V, we have much bigger issues, like trying to get all the monkeys to get along. 😀

  31. Way to go OBAMA……woo hooo………………….you announced the most comprehensive set of sanction against Russia since the cold war…..you have stopped 11 passports from being issued…..that’ll teach ’em. Let’s see…..you drew a line in the sand on Syria….and you got sand kicked in your face….you barely get the sand out of your eyes….when you draw another line on the Ukraine….perhaps you need to review what “COMPREHENSIVE” means, you dolt. You send a sum total of 6 fighter jets to Poland……Why?

    And, you have finally made it to the top……the French Foreign Minister saying that you must have gotten your Presidential training from the JOKER on the Batman series!!!! THE FRENCH for crying out loud….you are being ridiculed by the FRIGGIN” FRENCH !!!

    And finally…..you have out done Jimmy Carter on the world stage….holy cow…..and I thought NO ONE could be as lame and idiotic as Jimmy Carter…..

    Amazing…..simply……amazing.

    • He is about an idiot. That’s what happens when one gets a job he/she is unqualified for. As bad as this is, lets hope he don’t launch a nuke to try and save face.

      • He ain’t got the BALLS to launch a nuke! 😉

        Even though I don’t believe we should be involved to begin with, I can see where he has let his 747 Mouth overload his Jaybird ASS! 🙂

        • One don’t need balls to be totally stupid.

          • And what exactly do you guys think he should do?

            • RESIGN!!!!!!

            • Absolutely nothing.

              • Agreed….absolutely nothing,,,,,,except,,,,,,,,,,,,,SHUT UP and pull Kerry, Biden, Clinton and whoever the hell else is over there….and quit chewing on their feet. Even switching feet is not working….they are both soggy.

              • Ditto

              • A few more questions-Was there anything he should have done or did that caused this to happen or could have stopped it from happening-or was it just gonna happen at some point ?

              • Also Biden is already in Poland from what I’ve read vowing to protect our NATO allies, is that just rhetoric or what. And from what I’ve read Ukraine said they didn’t want to join NATO, yet they seem to still want us to protect them based on that other agreement.

              • oh, one other question-do you really think the people in this country would allow him to do absolutely nothing?

              • I would allow him to do nothing. If he would just shut the hell up. I am so sick of hearing Captain Gumflap run off at the mouth about stuff he cannot and will not do, it makes want to puke.

                1. I don’t WANT them to do anything.
                2. He ain’t gonna do jack anyway.
                3. All he’s doing is wagging his tongue and making idle threats.
                4. He is EMBARRASSING US IN FRONT OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. Go get’em Sarah! http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/palin-releases-new-trailer-reality-show-sportsman-channel

    Palin for Prez, just to piss off the haters!

  33. People keep saying the petrodollar is safe, I say BS: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/china-begins-trading-yuan-directly-new-zealand

  34. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/18/Study-NJ-s-Budget-Crisis-Fueled-By-Exodus-Of-Wealthy-Residents-Fleeing-Taxes

    CA may have similar high taxes but at least we have good weather. Mathius, ready to move back?

%d bloggers like this: