Open Mic Part 25

BlWEaYeCEAARHhVSpeeding things up! Feel free to bring any subject forward.



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. gmanfortruth says:

    BLM guilty of animal cruelty:

    Should they be arrested for violating animal cruelty laws? You and I would be, so HELL YES!

    • Is this how they plan on rounding us up when the time comes?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Only the “dead from the neck up” Sheeple. They’ll have to shoot the rest of us 🙂

    • Wonder where PETA is/sarc.

      I also read they shot 2 bulls that were locked in a pin-because they were dangerous. And destroyed water tanks and water lines-said they needed to return the land to it’s pristine state. So what does that mean all those grazing fees the man was supposed to pay aren’t really available anymore.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Yes, I continue to harp on this subject.

    But that is not all. A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.

    First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid.

    First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes apparent why the BLM, Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise.

    The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.


  4. gmanfortruth says:

    You can’t make this stuff up:

    The Fortify & Unite Communities to Keep Veterans’ External Threats Secure Act (H.R. 1874) which was introduced on Tuesday, would require military veterans to register with the Department of Homeland Security and periodically “check-in” with a case officer, in addition to going door-to-door in their neighborhood to notify people nearby that they are a powder keg of post traumatic stress, alcoholism, murder, and hate just waiting to blow.

    I need to learn more, so this is just a preliminary post until more info is available.

  5. Home Rule has passed first test in Dallas. It was required to have 25,000 registered voter signatures to get the issue before a public hearing. Has been accomplished.

    Very basically, this is a movement by parents to take control of school policies and education from the State and place it in the hands of local boards and parents. Home rule was established 20 years ago in the State of Texas and no one had the “cajones” to try it. Dallas is the first move. It is, of course, being fought but they have passed the first test. The supporters of home rule got enough signatures to force it on the ballot, It also forced the Dallas City Council and the DISD to have a special meeting to discuss the growing support.

    The supporters say that since each school district has differing problems, there is no one size fits all solution as in the past. A school district in San Antonio, for example, has totally different issues than the School District in Dallas. This movement, that is quickly gaining steam, says that under the laws of the State of Texas, each district has the right to establish home rule if certain conditions were met. Dallas has done the first step. Home rule would also do away completely with this “Robin Hood” approach that is still somewhat in effect…..taking taxes from one district and redistributing to another.

    The main detractors are……………………….the teacher’s unions. Home rule pretty much destroys them. Although there are no teachers unions in Texas, there are teachers associations that have some political clout in Austin in the legislature Home rule takes that power away from the State and puts it in the hands of local parents and local school boards. It allows the local boards to establish their own rules of teacher requirements and salaries and curriculum. The entrenched politicos are also fighting it because it does affect their manipulation of the tax codes….the money.

    Home Rule has a long way to go but even a turtle gets nowhere until it sticks it neck out.

    Go Texas.

    • The main upset with the Teachers Association’s disdain…….is that they are not in on the meeting of the parents. They are claiming that the normal parent is not an educator and therefore not qualified to know what is best for the children. The local movement says that the parents and local issues are more in the know and want to be part of any and all discussions of education and financing and not have it in the hands of a few. The Teacher;s Associations are suddenly wanting to cooperate and are now complaining that the movement is very secretive.

      The supporters of home rule say that the time to discuss the machinations of home rule need to be public in open meetings and not done behind closed doors like the past. A person that lives in Austin does not know, nor have the intelligence, to discuss the local issues without public meetings.

      The Dallas Mayor and most of the City Council is behind home rule and that has the entrenched politicians scared and suddenly want to discuss this. The home rule folks have said no….it needs to be on the public ballot and discussed openly with input from all sides. So, step one has been done and it has the professional politicians scared to death.

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Say it ain’t so? Democrats being hypocrits again?

    Buck, Mathius, How can you support these lying hypocrits? Then again, I can ask the same question of anyone who supports anybody in the Federal govt. So lets put this question to all of SUFA. How can you as an individual continue to support the lying, hypocrite, thieving politicians in the Federal govt with anykind of moral fiber?

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Good subject. Should the Feds bailout Detroit? There is much at stake, including people who are retired workers. There is talk of 100 Million reallocation of funds from another account. Opinions?

    • I am old school on this…..the City is Bankrupt….sorry. No bailout. As a nation, we owe nothing to Detroit.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        As I Colonel. But, I also believe that politicians that led this city down this road should be held accountable in a big time way. Those who are still living should forfeit any benefits from said service. Those who served for Detroit and now serve at the State or federal level should be fired from public office and also denied all benefits from any service since the service in Detroit.

        This will never happen, but it would stop a lot of BS from here out, and put politicians on notice that they need to fix their past mistakes or pay the piper. Without serious accountability, we will never have form of government that performs it’s proper role. That is one reason I stand much closer to Black Flag on the issue of government. It truly is evil because it can be. 👿

        • Actually, I am not so sure about the politicians….although criminal activity should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law……without selective enforcement.

          I think it should be a lesson to the population. In as much as there are not lynchings or real kangaroo courts anymore….and in as much as you and others feel that voting is useless….it was still the vote that caused the issue. The people are at fault for not removing nor staying conversant with law and administration. I will not accept as an excuse that the populace does not have the time…..quite the contrary…..they simply do not care….so let them freeze in the dark. The rest of the country should take note and I do not feel any moral obligation at all. None.

    • 100 Million, do the math, not a lot there. A Senior teacher pulls in $ 100,000 with benefits, possibly more. A retired cop with 20 years plus his benefits (health, dental, optical) about the same.

    • I don’t think it’s a bailout, it’s a payoff. Most likely to the unions. Will do little to help the city deficit.

  8. Our false preoccupation with pay equity is not costless, for it leads to bad labor market regulations that hurt all workers.

    Employment relationships will only form and endure when the gains from the deal exceed the costs of putting it together.

    Every time a government regulation imposes some new restriction on the contracting parties, it increases the costs of the deal and reduces the benefits it generates, thereby killing jobs for men and women alike

    • BF….I must admonish you as I do JAC… cannot be logical… scares people. How dare you try to explain common sense and logic and economics 101. Don’t you know that 2+2 does not equal 4 any longer?

      Case in point on the 7 million sign ups for Obamacare….aka ACA…..They count as signups, the people who had their policies destroyed and cancelled….over 5 million….What they do not count… the reason Obamacare was supposedly created to start with….to insure the uninsured and that total is…..according to the CBO….somewhere around 800,000. Figures do not lie but liars can figure….or use creative accounting.

      I hope you and yours are doing well, sir.

  9. The most astonishing thing about the extraordinary outpouring of growth and innovation that the United States and other economies have achieved over the past two centuries is that it does not astonish us.

    Throughout most of human history, life expectancy was about half what it now is, or even less.

    We could not record voices or speech, so no one knows how Shakespeare sounded or how “to be or not to be” was pronounced.

    The streets of the greatest cities were dark every night. No one traveled on land faster than a horse could gallop.

    The Battle of New Orleans took place after the peace treaty had been signed in Europe because General Andrew Jackson had no way of knowing this.

    In Europe, famines were expected about once a decade and the streets would be littered with corpses, and in American homes, every winter the ink in the inkwells froze.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Now, things seem to be worse. More wars, more famine, more diseases more corruption and much much more shitty government that cause most of today’s biggest problems. 😉

      • We have to be careful about what we think we see.

        We have more access to knowledge – which gives a false appearance to conditions when compared to the lack of knowledge our ancestors had.

        There are less major wars.
        There is far, far less people dying in them then before, though the threat of a real war will cost more lives then ever in history.

        There are far, far less people dying in famines. In the 1800’s 100 million Chinese starved to death – doesn’t happen anymore.

        There has been no pandemic since 1914.

        All of this has highlighted where progress has been the least – taming the State.

        As other human problems -caused by Nature- have been subdued, the evil of the State is rising in the consciousnesses just as a hidden dangerous rock becomes exposed as a tide recedes.

      • It is the 24 hour news cycle. Think back, we are now being drowned (bad pun) with stories on the Korean Ferry disaster. Two weeks ago we were being buried with stories of the missing jet . In the old days, those were local stories, not worldwide stories. They may have rated a column on page three if Americans were on board but that woudl be it. We have daily coverage of Syria, terrorists in Pakistan, and of course everything that the media can possibly get wrong about the Ukraine. A missing child in Peoria gets national coverage leading most to think it is an everyday occurrence on their block. ,

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    Why The Other Ranchers Support Cliven Bundy

    A statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner- a fellow rancher from Nevada.

    There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

  11. I suppose there will be many on here who will be happy to see this-but for me and mine-I think not-I have no problem sitting home on election day-if the repubs want to become democrats-what difference does it make. Hate to see our society ruined but if killing babies is not important anymore and freedom of conscience is of no importance- We don’t deserve to survive.

    Abortion, Gay Marriage Dropped From Republican Party Platform in Nevada

    By Katherine Weber , Christian Post Reporter
    April 17, 2014|12:04 am

    Nevada’s Republican Party decided to exclude language regarding hot-button social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, from their official political platform at their national meeting in Las Vegas this past weekend.

    Members of the Republican platform committee said at the convention that they chose to eliminate gay marriage and abortion from their party’s statement to agree with recent court rulings, both at the Supreme Court level and lower court levels, that found same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in June to eliminate a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and judges in several states, including Utah and Oklahoma, have ruled statewide same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional.

    Nevada’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was upheld by a federal judge in 2012, and the ban is currently being challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The decision to remove the social issues from the party platform was voted on by a show of hands at the convention. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the vote occurred later in the evening, when less than half of the convention’s 520 delegates were in attendance.

    The platform committee also said eliminating such social issues played into the conservative value of small government.

    “The issue was how can we back out of people’s personal lives,” Dave Hockaday, a member of the platform committee, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal over the weekend. “We need to focus on issues where we can have an impact.”

    Some members of the Nevada Republican Party fought against the change, arguing that excluding such language from the party’s statement would only further alienate socially conservative voters. “You don’t build the party by throwing out your base. If you throw out the tea party, the evangelicals, the Mormons, the Ron Paul-ites, who in the heck is left?” questioned Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R-Washoe) at a separate GOP convention held earlier this year.

    The decision to remove the two hot-button social issues from its statewide platform came after the GOP leaders of Clark County implemented similar changes to their party’s statement. Nick Phillips, the political director of the Clark County Republican Party, told The Associated Press that the group’s policy change was partly an attempt to attract a wider base, including younger generations of voters.

    “Younger people believe they’re getting screwed by the Democrats on fiscal issues, and screwed by Republicans on social issues,” Phillips told AP. “Take that away and you’ve got a party you can get behind.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      V, sitting at home is a good use of your time on Election Day. If abortion is to be stopped, it will take a Constitution Amendmend, period, there is no other option.

    • Nope, that is why we have to let the candidates know that if they’re Democrat light, we go elsewhere.

      There is a good chance to dispatch Cuomo in NY. Upstate is livid, he is a NYC candidate but, like Romney, the possible Republican candidates are afraid of offending anybody and will not go for the jugular. God how I wish every state had a Christie! Not a perfect candidate but one with guts and that’s a good place to begin.

      • I was so angry when I read this I missed this one little detail-“the vote occurred later in the evening, when less than half of the convention’s 520 delegates were in attendance.”

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Arctic Sea Ice 550,000 square kilometers below normal; however, it was 1.2 million square kilometers below normal only a few months ago, so that situation has IMPROVED by 650.000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Antarctic Sea Ice 1.4 million square kilometers ABOVE normal, and at a record for this date since satellite measurements started in 1979. Also, the increase in Antarctic sea ice has been at a RECORD RATE since it hit minimum in mid-March (in other words, the rate of increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice has exceeded any other year since satellite measurements began in 1979).

    To put the Southern Hemisphere in perspective, on March 15th, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 2.8 million square kilometers. On April 15th, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 6.01 million square kilometers. This represents and increase of 3.2 million square kilometers of Southern Hemisphere sea ice in a month, or OVER 100,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS of increased Southern Hemisphere sea ice EACH AND EVERY DAY since minimum was reached on March 15th.

    An increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice of that magnitude is unprecedented, and current ice area and extent in the Southern Hemisphere is well above 2 Standard Deviations above the mean value. For you non-statisticians, anything above 1 Standard Deviation has a < 5% chance of happening in a "normal" distribution, and anything above 2 Standard Deviations has a 64% iced over, most of it VERY thick ice. This is how glaciations start. Even in the record Winter of 1979, there was virtually NO ice cover on the Great Lakes by mid-April.

    You won’t hear about any of this in the “mainstream” media by the way – it contradicts their narrative far too much!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thank you, Peter 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Some of that post seems to have hit the dustbin… either that or I was typing faster than I was thinking!

      It should say that anything above 2 Standard Deviations above the mean has a <1% chance of happening in a "normal distribution. Nature isn't necessarily a "normal distribution" or "Bell curve" but it is pretty close, otherwise we wouldn't be on a habitable planet!

      Further, Lake Superior remains 64% iced over as of 4/15/2014 and most of it is VERY thick ice (The Marquette Michigan harbor reports 24 inches of ice thickness). The rest seems to have come out ok after that point 🙂

    • The Ukrainians have a very mixed record regarding Jews. Russians are not a hell of a lot better nor are the Poles. If you have never watched it, I suggest:

      After I first saw the movie, I urged my Dad to go see it. He did, came home and told me it was the most depressing movie he had ever seen. Reminded me that his father , a Russian Orthodox Christian left partially because of what he saw his neighbors and the government do to Jews. Powerful stuff!

  13. Interesting .. during this debate (which is too long and too boring because the guests avoid answering every question possible), some of the comments of the white supremacists sound very familiar to this site (from some/not all)

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Harry Reid and his supporters are subhuman morons and should be removed from public office, tarred and feathered on national TV then made to spend the rest of his miserable subhuman life serving food to the poor in soup kitchens:

    • Do they have recall in Nevada?

    • It really is eye opening-not that I needed my eyes open.

      1. Notice that all the so-called law abiding ranchers who paid their grazing fees are gone-The only man left standing is the man who decided to employ a little civil disobedience.

      2. Note that Harry doesn’t believe Bundy should be able to walk away from breaking the law-but illegal immigrants should.

      3. Notice that federal agents came with all kinds of weapons to use against American citizens but won’t use them on the border.

      4. Does anyone else see a resemblance to the way the ranchers, farmers, and others are being treated to the way native americans were treated.

      • My, my VH……the black helicopters will come and get you for telling the truth.

        • I figure if they go after the rancher,farmer, and all the other people they’re going after-they are coming after me. I remember once we had a discussion about our right to abolish our government and when it was acceptable to rise up armed to do so. So I ask-how far can you push people before it’s too far. I ask people to think about what they would do-if they were these ranchers and farmers who’s very livelihood is being destroyed and the laws used to do it-are constantly being changed for the express purpose of destroying them and their way of life.

          • What we will be left with in a few years is the “illusion” of freedom. We will have it pumped in our heads from cradle to grave that we are a free people with rights of all sorts. The reality is quite different.

            I do not have the ability to do so but I would like to juxtapose the image of the Russian troops in the Crimea with no identification and their faces covered with Balaclavas with that of the BLM “troops” in Nevada with no identification and their faces covered with balaclavas. Perhaps underneath we could place the word: Freedom?

  15. Judy Sabatini says:
    • 🙂 I do have to ask though-is this unusual-I would think this is the kind of post he would normally receive.

  16. Happy Easter to those who celebrate it…..
    Happy Easter Egg to those who celebrate the holiday time…
    Happy Easter to those who do not celebrate it….get over it…it is tradition.
    Happy Easter to the environmentalists…..hopefully Easter Bunnies crapping all over the landscape will not ruin your day…..
    Happy Easter to PETA ( People Eat Tasty Animals)….leave the bunnies alone.
    Happy Easter to the Easter Bunny, who is busy hiding eggs…..(watch out for PETA and the wolves)
    Happy Easter to all of us who crave chocolate/marshmellow filled treats….
    Happy Easter to the Politicians and thank you for not being in session passing ridiculous laws….
    Happy Easter to all the hens that laid the eggs in preparation……you deserve a couple days off…
    Happy Easter to the jelly bean crowd…..we suffer with the small jelly beans because the large ones are extremely hard to find…..
    Happy Easter to all on SUFA….may the winds be at your back and your days filled with pleasant thoughts….

    Happy Easter to all of the men and women standing watch…..

    And last but not least…Happy Easter to all of those that I left out or missed, whether intentionally or unintentionally…..

    There, that about does it……And this is D13 The Colonel ( stealing from Paul Harvey )………………good DAY!!!! ( Remember to put the inflection upon the caps)

  17. Couldn’t comment on gay marriage the last few days-I was too busy so let me sum up my opinion. You can talk about equality under law, discrimination, and rights all you want too-but that isn’t the real argument. Gay unions can and could take care of all those arguments-you are just arguing based on your idea of FAIR-well laws aren’t always fair and they don’t have to be-we have welfare laws-fair would mean the government gives every last citizen the exact same amount of money-but that isn’t the way the laws are written, is it, they are based on many factors to decide who gets what. Gay “marriage” arguments are about one thing gender, gender, gender.

    And no offense Sed. but freedom from religion is just a bad argument. You do not have to be religious to get a marriage license-the religious part comes in or not depending on what the couple personally wants-not the state.

    • Sedgewick says:

      You are rationalizing the legal argument in favor of mob rule over rights and principles on behalf of your idealism.

      Everyone has a right to a mind of their own, to choose what to believe, and practice those beliefs, …so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

      As soon as you attach a belief to the use of force, it becomes a forced belief…which violates the right of freedom from religion, which is supposedly protected in the USA.

      If you deny or alter legal contracts on the basis of religious values, you are imposing a religion via law/force. The right to freedom from religion is the right to not be forcefully subjected to the religion of another, therefore addressing the argument directly.

      This is not really just about polygamy and same sex marriages, but rather the whole idea of religious freedom and functionality of law. Much of what I am trying to demonstrate is the failures of law to protect freedom or regulate life.

      In states where polygamy or gay is illegal, their rights are not being protected. In states where the distinction is made, contract law is being altered with respect to a religion.

      If you argue in favor of not allowing gay marriage on religious values of the majority, you argue in favor of compromising religious freedom, whereby you set a legal basis for theocracy. If the religion of the majority shifts, or if the right cult gets a legal foothold, it turns into a legal jihad with a losing side.

      If you argue to make the distinction between heterosexual monogamous marriage per religion and alternative/civil unions, you’re arguing in favor of religious influence and specially granted civic rights over contract law.

      How many ways can that become a disaster? Different tax rates for different religions and/or sexual practices? Different or special treatment on custody rights, child support, etc?

      This all points to flaws and inconsistencies in law among the states and federal powers as well. It is a conflict between principles of law and wants/needs of the majority. Law works(or is supposed to) in favor of principle regardless of population.

      The only neutral answer I can see is to treat them all as contracts, accepting alternative lifestyles, or remove government from such contracts altogether.

      • Sedgewick says:


        What seems to be the hangup here is that much of this depends on the definition of marriage.

        What IS marriage?

        Between one man and one woman?

        Based on what exactly?

        This is where the block occurs, and the argument becomes why gays are wrong and all the justifications thereof, …to hell with principle and never mind other applicable lifestyles or beliefs. …That’s just the way it is.

        Why can’t I have three wives?

      • Your beginning argument is false. Prove to me Sed that our marriage laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman is based on -because God said so.

        • Sedgewick says:

          I think I already have.

          I keep asking for definitions of marriage. So far, the only definitions offered that would limit marriage to one man and one woman are of a religious nature or are premised upon religious standards.

          Any state that prohibits alternative marriages, and does not show a solid argument in favor of a definition irrespective of religion, is respecting an establishment of religion.

          The opposition to alternative marriages in the USA, are mostly of a Christian conservative origin and are arguing exclusive favor of Christian values, which, coincidentally, teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

          • You keep asking for a definition of marriage-marriage means different things to different people-the only definition that matters in this discussion is the law its self. Does this law in anyway make religion a basis for getting a license.

            I keep being told to exchange the words black and white to the gay marriage argument and I will see the light. Well, there is no difference between black and white except skin color. There are legitimate differences between men and woman. So one argument for marriage between men and woman and the one I believe was the basis for marriage being between men and woman is the fact that children are produced from the union-The government had a reason to support marriage between men and woman based on encouraging the birth of children and to encourage people to get married so they would raise and support those children. So there you go-a reason beyond religion to support one man one woman marriages. No offense to gays, but their unions DO NOT produce children. They may be able to artificially create one- or get a woman to give her child to them, using the woman as a manufacturing machine and denying that child a mother-but their unions DO NOt produce children. So why exactly does society have to promote them? I can’t think of any reason beyond just wanting to be fair-so civil unions with benefits should do.

            As far as why you cannot have 3 wives-it’s argued that it treats woman unfairly-so I’d say it’s a moral argument-but unless you are ready to say that only religious people can have moral values-I wouldn’t claim this is simply a religious argument either.

            • Sedgewick says:

              ” marriage means different things to different people ”


              ” The government had a reason to support marriage between men and woman based on encouraging the birth of children and to encourage people to get married so they would raise and support those children. ”

              If it were about all that, why did the government not make a law that EVERYONE had to be married and produce children?

              If it were about promoting population growth, why limit it to just one woman per man, when a man can theoretically impregnate two or more women a day?

              If it is about supporting the families, why not allow a rate of wives and children per measure of annual income? If man can support a thousand families, why not?

              • why did the government not make a law that EVERYONE had to be married and produce children? Because that just wanted to encourage the idea-not force people, at one time we actually thought liberty mattered.

                why limit it to just one woman per man, when a man can theoretically impregnate two or more women a day? I would think that would be counter productive-the idea was to promote family’s that would stay together.

                why not allow a rate of wives and children per measure of annual income? If man can support a thousand families, why not? again a moral judgement based on woman being treated unfairly-and I’m sure many other arguments.

              • Sedgewick says:

                We’re digressing a little, but it is still about legally prescribed happiness.

                What gives anyone the right to prescribe or decide what another considers happiness or should value?

                If you and your people worship a flying spaghetti monster that allows you to marry 2 men and 4 women, if no one is being harmed, if all parties agree, why should you not be permitted to do so?

                Why should the values of strangers be imposed upon your household?

              • Sorry-what does this mean-“but it is still about legally prescribed happiness.”

              • Sedgewick says:

                You happily accept and live by a set of values and/or standards that define marriage as between one man and one woman. This is your idea of happiness.

                If government regulates, inhibits, prohibits or alters your lifestyle choices against your wishes or best judgement, it is prescribing happiness for you. It is replacing your happy with it’s happy.

                If it does so based on the religious values of others, it is violating your freedom from their religion and prescribing you their idea of happiness.

              • .We our digressing-does the government have a right to pass laws that prohibits you from doing anything that doesn’t intrude on someone else’s rights-people will disagree on what intrudes and what doesn’t. That is a long and complicated discussion-one I don’t have time for right now.

                But back to the original subject-the whole western world was built around some basic values-People will argue where these values came from-Christianity, nature,philosophy/ or even learned them over time with basic trial and error. But these things are believed by a lot of people who aren’t religious, they agree based on their own reasoning. I have my own reasoning and I also make a distinction between my personal Christian beliefs and rights based on us being a free society. Your insistance that these things are a matter of freedom of religion or from religion simply because it goes a long with Christian values just doesn’t hold up.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” We our digressing-does the government have a right to pass laws that prohibits you from doing anything that doesn’t intrude on someone else’s rights-people will disagree on what intrudes and what doesn’t. That is a long and complicated discussion-one I don’t have time for right now. ”

                That’s simple. Government doesn’t have rights. People do. They are natural, unalienable and universal. Anything that deviates from respecting rights, is wrong.

                That’s what the Golden Rule is about; virtually foolproof universal standard.

                ” But back to the original subject-the whole western world was built around some basic values-People will argue where these values came from-Christianity, nature,philosophy/ or even learned them over time with basic trial and error. But these things are believed by a lot of people who aren’t religious, they agree based on their own reasoning. I have my own reasoning and I also make a distinction between my personal Christian beliefs and rights based on us being a free society. Your insistance that these things are a matter of freedom of religion or from religion simply because it goes a long with Christian values just doesn’t hold up. ”

                Sure it does. My argument and charges are valid.

                Basic values of the whole western world is inaccurate. You forgot about the population whose values differ, not to mention the idea of individualism. Arguing majority wish over rights and principles is only justification to deny someone[s].

                Until you can come up with a valid reason why a legal contract should make special exception for one man and one woman irrespective of a religious standard, and/or how it is not violating civil rights, my argument stands.

              • Then obviously we might as well end this conversation-the argument is should marriage be between one man and one woman but you disregard any argument based in reason-that is based on one man and one woman because it is also a religious standard.

              • Hate to say it but pure BS. The government does things that benefit the greatest number and are perceived to have positive rather than negative impact on society. You can argue about this until the proverbial cows come home but it does not change the fact that that is the purpose of government. The “laws” and “rules” we voluntarily live under are designed to keep us from killing each other. The goal should be fairness to all but that is not possible. We have already decided that having sex with underage boys or girls or having sex with people who are intoxicated is not good yet there are those who would say that because some states and countries allow marriage at ages well below 18 the line for adult/child “consensual” sex is blurry!


                Hence we have laws against drugs and improper use of intoxicants. Thrown into this mix are the clowns who impregnate 17 women who all have babies and when dragged before the courts for child support claim (correctly) they are broke and YOU have the responsibility of taking care of the results of their hobby.

                In the libertarian camp there are the pure unadulterated breed who want no restrictions on anything. I, more than most, would love to see heroin, cocaine and meth distributed free on street corners and hope that the users will OD and solve the problem for the rest of us. This is considered not practical though it is in fact the logical outcome of pure freedom.

                The whole stupid debate on the impossible issue of “gay” marriage is a short circuit in the basic purpose of government. I find the usual argument given by the courts that there is nothing in state constitutions prohibiting it ridiculous because prior to 20-25 years ago the mere thought was laughable. Including it in a state constitution would have been roughly equivalent to a provision requiring married people to have children. When states and even the federal government pass laws to regulate marriage, the courts knock them down on spectacularly idiotic reasons. If one believes strongly in freedom and in justice one can believe and support equality. Equality does not necessarily include the term “marriage” it merely precludes people from being denied certain societal rights under the law hence, civil unions.

                Now, what I want you to do for me before this dance goes any further is to state your position, clearly, on multiple Heather has two dads and one mom or Bobby has four Moms. Just askin? ,

              • Sedgewick says:

                Can you make the same argument of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman, and do so exclusive of religion?

                If it is ALSO a religious standard, what is the OTHER NON-religious standard that defines marriage as between one man and one woman?

                Do contract laws apply equally when this standard is introduced?

                If it is based upon gender, is unequal treatment considered gender discrimination?

                If it is based on reproduction, how does this apply to polygamy?

              • Sedgewick says:


                Your entire argument is based in moral relativism, persists with fear …and equates alternative marriages with social decay, drug use and statutory ‘rape’. …Nothing but rhetoric.

                Last time it was Pink Nazis.

              • Somehow the magic reply button has been disabled so, Sedgewick, I think I have done it outside a religious context. It is not a good idea, period.

                You seem to insist that I have a problem with male-male or female-female unions. I don’t like them, but I am not hostile I merely point out and you merely ignore (in company with the courts) that the term for it cannot be marriage.

                So taking religion out of the equation and opening up your new definition of what is marriage, how do you really feel about Polygamy? Keep in mind that at least two of the world’s religions, Islam and traditional Mormonism, support it.

    • Preach it V! 😉

      • Hey Anita-where the heck is Kathy?

        • She went underground as soon as her Badgers lost. I’ll dig her up….. 😉

          • I got this huge elbow in my ribs all the way from Michigan telling me to get the heck over here! Still hurts.

            I’m here and doing the same. Helping people lose weight, stay healthy, get fit. Family is all good; finally getting a spring here in Wisconsin and looking forward to adding biking and golfing back into the mix.

            Politics – blah! Didn’t have much hope with this current adm. but even I could not imagine just how comfortable with evil they would be. It is who they are and I group their supporters in with them. You either figure it out and decide it’s not who you are and part ways, or you are a willing partner in the corruption and deception. Period.

            Will be actively working on re-electing Scott Walker……again! My view is states rights are our only recourse so will spend my time there.

            I try to keep up with reading along but have probably missed some good stuff. Still need to work on that SUFA gathering!!!

  18. Sedgewick says:


    You aren’t a bigot, …just human.

    You are only exhibiting symptoms of the disease ‘Simia-iacerent-fecalitis’, also known as the human condition.

    It’s a hereditary neurological disease creating an imbalance between the Id and Super Ego. Idealistic tumors form in areas of the brain affecting perception. The body’s reaction can often result in tissue growths that form between the cornea and conjunctiva. Various optical conjunctivitis type impairments such as; Faggotosis, Negresitus, Islamo-fib-erosis, Kiketosis and Blanco-Superioralis can occur.

    Behavioral symptoms can include Narcissism, Paranoia, Delusions of the supernatural, and in extreme cases, violent outbursts.

    Because of it’s hereditary nature, there is no known cure for Simia-iacerent-fecalitis. There are, however, psychiatric treatments available which have shown to be quite effective in suppressing and managing symptoms. Some test subjects even show complete clearing of conjunctivitis and shrinking of tumors, with no regrowth after many years.

    The most effective treatment, known as Regula Aurea, requires daily thought exercise where the Id and Super-Ego are reversed or exchanged, directly reducing Narcissism Paranoia and aggression. This eventually leads to a shrinking of tumors and subsequent growths on the conjunctiva.

    The time between beginning treatment and apparent results varies between patients, usually over a span of months, sometimes years. If left untreated, it can lead to complete blindness, paranoia, mild psychosis, hysteria and extreme violent behavior.

    Patients who begin regular treatment of the drug Libertine at an early age show little or no sign of conjuntivitus or violent behavior well into adulthood.

    One area of particular concern is the widespread use among Simia-iacerent-fecalitis patients, of the prescription drug ‘Forceitonall’ produced by GVT Lawson Corporation.

    It appears that Forceitonall has a direct effect in aggravating Idealistic brain tumors and only increases behavioral symptoms in untreated patients. It has shown to affect 100% of Simia-iacerent-fecalitis patients who regularly use Forceitonall, as they all demonstrate a willingness to engage in violent or threatening behavior.

    Effects on patients is often permanent, and sometimes deadly. Libertine combined with known psychiatric treatment has shown to have some positive effect in reducing inflammation of tumors, but reducing growth is usually slow, however effective.

    I would recommend you check with your local pharmacist to see if Libertine is available. It’s over-the-counter most everywhere. I think you can even order it on the internet. The treatment regimen can be found online in various languages. Also try doing an internet search for Regula Aurea Treatment Program. It seems to be the best remedy.


    • Ha! I think I just got cussed out. I could have said all that with just a few words 🙂 At least I’m not a bigot, I’m just going to keep my opinion. I’m in the hate the sin not the sinner group.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” Ha! I think I just got cussed out. ”

        Nah, I’m just making fun of humanity in general.

        ” I’m in the hate the sin not the sinner group. ”

        I’m in the ‘I don’t care what they do,but it makes for good conversation’ group.


    • Sedgewick says:

  19. I find all these agencies having people with guns a problem-we have a police force-why do agencies need armed men?

  20. My son reminded me. On this day, 69 years ago, the entire United States Army lost a buddy:

  21. Sedgewick says:

    Down here SKT,

    “…I think I have done it outside a religious context. It is not a good idea, period. ”

    You are arguing recognition of sexual ‘deviancy’ and alternative lifestyles of a few leads to social degradation in the form of drug crimes, statutory ‘rape’, Pink Nazis, etc., thus justifying the denial of equal protection of rights?

    ” You seem to insist that I have a problem with male-male or female-female unions. I don’t like them, but I am not hostile I merely point out and you merely ignore (in company with the courts) that the term for it cannot be marriage. ”

    What is marriage?

    Between one man and on woman?

    According to … ?

    If that definition includes religious values, and is then applied to contract law, it is respecting the establishment of religion. Is freedom from religion properly protected in the USA?

    ” So taking religion out of the equation and opening up your new definition of what is marriage,…”

    I assume you mean if it were a legal free for all concerning marriage.

    “…how do you really feel about Polygamy? ”

    I don’t care what people do.

    ” Keep in mind that at least two of the world’s religions, Islam and traditional Mormonism, support it. ”


    • How do you feel about Polygamy? Should laws prohibiting it be adjudged religion based and thrown out?

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” How do you feel about Polygamy? ”

        I don’t care.

        ” Should laws prohibiting it be adjudged religion based and thrown out? ”

        Yes, include those too.

        • Might I ask-should laws about murder, thief, and bearing false witness also be thrown out-because they too are religious standards?

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” Might I ask-should laws about murder, thief, and bearing false witness also be thrown out-because they too are religious standards? ”

            Yes. Throw them(laws) all out.

      • Black Flag® says:

        What’s wrong with polygamy?
        If one appeals to “tradition”, it leads by a mile. Why should there be laws against it?


    For those worried about Fukushima.

  23. Interesting……those that showed up to support Bundy in Nevada are now called domestic terrorists but the snipers that showed up and the government law enforcement that showed up was not over kill……the occupy wall street supporters are just exercising their rights but the tea party are on the domestic terror list.

    Now, the New York Times is linking returning Veterans to the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups in the US…….

    And the progressive movement wants to be taken seriously. I am taking them seriously…..the undermining of traditions and laws is what the progressive movement is about….not promoting harmony and trying to help anybody but their own interests.

    • Colonel, Colonel, Colonel … “And the progressive movement wants to be taken seriously. I am taking them seriously…..the undermining of traditions and laws is what the progressive movement is about….not promoting harmony and trying to help anybody but their own interests.”

      As opposed to the wingie movement that is for maintaining traditions and the suppression of people … promoting harmony amongst those who see it their way and ignoring those who don’t share their interests.

      It’s ALWAYS about whose ox is gored, Colonel … your side is no different …

      • I am not claiming allegiance to the right either, Charlie…..I never have.

        I seriously do not think that you associate Harry Reid and his ilk with your progressive movement. Even you, with your head full of Plutonian Dust Mites, sees the difference. I know you do and I understand that you like to rile the folks like Gman…..but I know that you understand that THIS particular administration has done more to create a permanent underclass than any administration ever. ( Please do not point to Obamacare, you and I both know this is an unmitigated disaster that has created a larger divide and has NOT resulted in the uninsured being insured. In fact, it is doing the opposite ).

        But, where you and I differ……..immensely… that you were a harbinger of the OWS crowd and they could do no wrong when they claim full allegiance to the progressive movement and vice versa…..and, admittedly, I have my dander up over this domestic terrorism issue but as long as the progressive movement claims allegiance to this….it will not and cannot be taken seriously. IF and that is an IF the progressive movement really is for the masses,,,the people…..then it cannot possibly be for the issue of using government thugs and the progressive movement is claiming allegiance to this latest move by the government.

        Ok, I want you to shake your head really hard….slap the side of it…..dislodge the dust mites….and follow me carefully. Ok….ready?????

        Here goes……please do not associate me with the Tea Party…..I am not that. I support SOME of their points just as I support SOME of the points from the progressive movement….ok… it now?

        I know you pretty well, Captain Canoli…pretty well. I have read your blogs and writings…..Just like Mathius and Buck…..they give this tacit support to this progressive movement but do not walk the walk. I would share my last drink of water with the three of you because at least there is a respect that both of them have. They are young and have new children and I know that they dislike what they are seeing and the debt that is being passed to their children…and I know that they do not like it even though they do not say so on here. They are pretty easy to read, as I am. So……Charlie…..I will ask you a really serious question here… puns… ambush…..

        Where….has the progressive movement actually helped, in your opinion. I mean ACTUALLY….not lip service. You and I can have a civil discourse without name calling…we have done it.

        • Oh……if you answer me, kind sir, I will not be back until last this afternoon….have a wonderful day. And….try to stay away from the dust mites today.

  24. April 19, 2014
    ‘EPA Caught!’
    Charles Battig

    PBS recently ran a retrospective of the Dave Clark 5. While enjoying a trip back to another era of music and culture, I became fascinated by one tune, “Catch us if You Can.” In the current era of governmental policy seemingly driven by arbitrary dogmatism and tailored science used to achieve social and political goals, the song spoke out as a challenge. We are the government, “Catch us if you can.”

    In at least one area of federal activity, that challenge has been met. An article by Barbara Hollingsworth: EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules catches the Federal government promulgating clean air regulations without all the data to back up the claimed science used to impose increasingly expensive federal regulations. What if those burdens are unnecessary and without demonstrable health or economic benefits?

    Former EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified about fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less (PM2.5) before Congress in September 2011: “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It is directly causal to you dying sooner than you should,” and “If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.”

    Yet when the standard of scientific research protocol is imposed on the EPA to provide the data that support such claims, and allow other scientists to replicate the EPA claims, the current EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, is unable to do so as this article documents.

    Hollingsworth notes: “Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA’s “secret science.” Also, “We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data.”

    EPA, you have been caught…next?

    • It does not matter, the blathering chatterboxes on TV will repeat the fake data ad nauseam and the sheeps will buy it. Truth no longer matters because everything has become subjective hence my fight to save the meanings of words.

  25. plainlyspoken says:

    My, my… much going on. 🙂

    1. Yes, I am finally free from the hospital (as of 4 pm yesterday). It is good to be home and with nothing more than the required followups with various docs to make them happy I am going to live to pay my bills to them (and the government happy that I will be around to pay my taxes a bit longer).

    2.The Nevada Republican party platform change brought up by VH. Yep, I have been waiting for this and in the not-to-far future the National Repug platform will change too VH. Sad to say they no longer wish to fight the battles over social issues – regardless of what the issue is.

    3. Gay marriage wouldn’t be an issue if the government got out of the marriage license business. The “laws” on marriage have always been unequal and it should be for the persons involved to decide (being the two – or more – people and the person performing the ceremony – which by the way is also discriminatory). It is discriminatory because we allow common law marriages in most states where just two people living together can decide they are “married”. The “benefits” bestowed on married couples by government (like tax breaks, insurance “rights” and such) do not need the government deciding who may, or may not, marry. Those “rights” and “privileges” can be legislated outside the context of marriage. If two – or more – people get together and call themselves married and then break up, then they can fight it out in the courts as to who owes who what (done quite nicely in CA in the seventies in the “palimony” suits argued in the courts there). It is a civil matter the government can be involved in outside the issue of marriage. I know what marriage is for me and my wife and could care less what others think of it for us. If the government decided tomorrow that I couldn’t be married to my wife, it wouldn’t change the commitment she and I have to each other.

    4. Clive Bundy. I have stayed out of this fight mostly. While I support the ideals Bundy is standing up for and against the governments oppression, there will be only one solution that will bring about any strong resistance by the people against government. When the government has destroyed the food industry enough and people are starving in those wonderful cities that can not sustain themselves then the government will get it’s ass in a crack and people might, just might, decide that enough is enough and toss the whole government out and start over (and I could care less how the government gets thrown out – peacefully or violently). Until then folks, the government holds all the cards.

    5. Equal rights for all (as Sedgewick is generally arguing) is nothing more than propaganda for the masses. There will never be true equality among people. To have that people must fundamentally change and remove their own prejudices about other peoples and their beliefs. It ain’t going to happen by government action since there will always be the next “inequality” that the government “needs” to end – continuing social unrest among peoples. Live and let live won’t happen as long as two people disagree over some aspect of human society. You can be compelled to live a certain way but it doesn’t change your internal thinking/beliefs – only your outward behavior.

    6. Government, while necessary to some small degree – will always grow into an uncontrollable animal, devouring the very society it governs. It is as inevitable as death, it comes to us all sooner or later, so sooner or later government becomes the society and people are allowed to exist within it only.

    Well, that should catch me up I think.

    Happy Easter to you all – and I mean that in the Christian way of the resurrection – not some fictitious rabbit leaving eggs for all to find. I know that may offend the non-religious, but tough – get over yourself.

    • Glad you are home. Happy Easter!

    • Sedgewick says:

      “Live and let live won’t happen as long as two people disagree over some aspect of human society. ”

      Live and Let Live is precisely what allows people to live peacefully in disagreement. The “Let Live” part is apparently what people have so much trouble with. Id takes precedence over principle.

      To devalue the rights of others, is to devalue rights as a whole, including your own. But few see it. If it is not their rights at stake, they do not care because the inherent nature of man is to serve the self. When it IS their rights at stake, it gets their attention. But they still do not see because their perspective is all in defense of the self.

      Many cannot see the win/win, the other perspective, and therefore the neutral universal balance in whatever circumstance. Many don’t look. But they certainly see a win for themselves, which is part of what prevents it.

      It is our animal nature, the beast within us all, …the reptilian, ‘if it feels good – do it’ part of our psyche. It often prevents us from recognizing evil, and therefore discernment between good. It can, and often does, render one blind and helpless.

      True evil is rarely apparent.

      • Black Flag® says:

        Exactly the human problem.

        To achieve peaceful freedom for one’s self requires one to let peaceful people be free as well – even if you do not like how they exercise it or you disagree with their choices.

        But many people cannot help but judge the peaceful actions of others – end up magnifying the issue to a point “…we cannot allow that…” and then use violence on these peaceful people to force their compliance to the general whim – not realizing they have equally sown the seeds of their own enslavement to the whims of others.

        It is a slow process over centuries for men to come to realize this. It is getting better, but often it is two-steps forward, one step back … with the back step measured in the slaughter of millions.

        Evil is truly silent, relentless and sweet tasting – and too late is it seen to be deadly poison

        • Then again there just might be some things that simply shouldn’t be allowed. Maybe evil creates evil and one shouldn’t be so afraid of losing their freedom that they simply allow evil to grow.

          • The challenge, V.H., is your definition of evil.

            You apply it to non-violent human action – other people’s decisions about themselves that do not apply to you.

            By such a definition, you have granted everyone to define your non-violent human action – actions which do not apply to them – to be equally evil.

            As I said above, the consequence is REAL evil is then applied by you upon others, and others to apply REAL evil upon you.

            but you merely see the latter – the evil done upon you – and you cry. You do not see that it was all your fault to begin with – your choice of evil in the first place to correct someone else’s non-violent behavior – that resulted in your own enslavement.

            • I understand your argument BF-I just know that their are those who simply can not speak for themselves-I will speak for them.

              • It matters not who you speak for, but what is said.

                Promoting evil on the behalf of others does not diminish evil.

              • Well there is no argument to that statement. 🙂

                So I”ll write another one -Promoting good on the behalf of others does diminish evil.

                This one I think is debatable.

              • Like Sed said:
                What is “good”?
                What is “evil”?

                The problem is most people have no clearly formed principles from which to make such definitions; their definition of good then typically becomes “what ever is ‘good for me’ is what is ‘good’ and whatever I do not like is ‘evil'”

                With such unthinking principles, these people advocate for REAL evil to achieve benefits and only rage against this evil when it turns against them.

                But once they have given right to evil, they are powerless to stop it when it is used against them.

                They end up trapped into enslavement with no recourse, since to argue against the use of evil when it harms them, argues against the same evil when it benefited them.

                But they still want the benefit, so their arguments to free themselves are dismissed – and the chains of enslavement become permanent.

              • Oops, I left out the not-does not diminish evil-that was what you were actually saying right.

              • Fine-the question still remains-in our present world -how does one ever outlaw an evil and please don’t just give me a definition-infringing on someone’s rights can be as subjective as anything else.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Define evil.

                As long as people do nothing to you, what do you care?

                So the only evil is when someone does something – a real action – upon you; “violence”.

                So, the “Non-violence” principle.

              • Is abortion an evil-if one has an abortion are they perpetrating an evil on me-personally? Does this mean I should just let this evil grow? And just for the record I don’t limit the definition of evil to what is done to me personally.

              • Black Flag® says:

                A principle is something that applies to all.

                Example: violence on me is the same as violence on you.
                No violence on me is the same an no violence on you.

                The former is NOT consensual. The latter is.
                If you believe in freedom, you believe in consent.

                The former destroys freedom. The latter does not.

                Abortion, as it is NOT by the consent of the baby, is violence.

              • One more question-then I must go to bed. Do you believe that there are some actions that are so exploitative in and of themselves that one simply can’t really consent to them.

              • Black Flag® says:

                No one answer solves all issues on something so complex

                However, either you believe you own your own mind or … you don’t.

                If you believe you own your own mind, then equally others must own theirs. If they are uncaring about themselves or their own mind, but they own it, is it not the same as if they cared less about their -say, car? If they don’t take care of their car, what is it to you? It’s theirs to do what they want with it.

                Obviously, if your kid owns something but doesn’t know how to care for it, you help, right?
                But after awhile, its not your job anymore – otherwise, you’ve simply seized their property under your control, not theirs.

                Same with their minds. At some point, you have to say “It’s yours to take care of…”

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” Then again there just might be some things that simply shouldn’t be allowed. ”

            Like what? …Why?

            ” Maybe evil creates evil and one shouldn’t be so afraid of losing their freedom that they simply allow evil to grow. ”

            What evil? What makes it evil?

            Using god as a justification for judging the peaceful actions of another, and then exerting force accordingly, is an exemplary example of the true nature of evil.

            You do not see the evil in it. Your god and the culture you were raised in says you are righteous and just. No matter the reasoning, and irrespective of a different perspective, you see coercive actions on nonviolent people as good.

            Happy Easter, by the way.

            • The irony, Sed, is here we have people celebrating a man who was arrested, punished, demeaned, and killed not because of what he did to others, but because he merely stated that men should not do to those actions upon others.

              These same people will, no doubt, in remembrance of this man’s plight, praise him today but then tomorrow go and condemn their peaceful neighbors, demanding action needs to be done upon those neighbors to stop their such action.

              And they do so without even a hint of angst or see the pharisaism of their beliefs.

    • Happy Easter Plainly,

      May we all reflect on the gifts God has given us and offer him praise.

      “3. Gay marriage wouldn’t be an issue if the government got out of the marriage license business. ”
      But it’s all about the money. Government uses marriage to decide who you are allowed to share benefits with thru SS, military, etc.. They could fix this by allowing you to choose your beneficiary but don’t/won’t…. Could cost them a lot of money so they will use it as a political issue but neither side has any desire to “fix” the problem.

  26. plainlyspoken says:

    Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands (Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands)

    About time, but is it going to be “too little, too late”?

  27. Welcome back, Plainly.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    A Great Big Happy Easter to all 🙂 For those who do not celebrate Easter, enjoy a nice quiet Sunday with family 😀

  29. Wish the Easter Bunny would have fixed my furnace on his way out last night. Not cool to wake up to cold floors and a cold toilet seat!

    Thanks be to God for allowing Plainly to rise from the dead this weekend. :). That’s kinda creepy though Plainly.

    Happy Easter friends.

  30. It seems that there is no middle ground for the Colorado pot smokers. Police, employers, and others are treating pot smoking the same as drinking alcohol….isn’t that what it was all about….legalizing pot just like alcohol? Now, you have people complaining because they are still being drug and alcohol tested as a condition of employment. Ok….so…you get tested for alcohol in your system and it is present, you are not hired. You get tested for drugs in your system, you are not hired. so….where is the problem? You show up for work with either in your system, you are fired. Being under the influence of anything while on the job or applying for a job will not get you hired… or illegal. There is a law suit pending to try to get pot smoking separated from alcohol now……under the guise that marijuana, even recreational, will remain in your system…you test positive and an employer does not want this…..where is the problem? First, they want it treated just like alcohol… they want it different than alcohol….sigh.

    NOw, you have the continuing exacerbated problem of license plate profiling being raised. Drive outside the state of Colorado and you are going to be surprised if you get stopped and checked? Texans have been used to this for years in Colorado….Texas plates get stopped all the time, especially during the holiday skiing season. So, this is no surprise.

    Pot smokers must remember that it is still a Federal controlled substance. It may be legal in Colorado but until the law is changed on the Federal level,like alcohol was… better get used to being stopped. It is still illegal on most states….and, yes, your license plate will be profiled…..right or wrong…it will be profiled. Live with it or get the federal law changed. It will be considered a perfect source of revenue if you are caught under the influence….and, as on Oklahoma State trooper said…….all we need is reasonable suspicion. If we see a Colorado plate, it is a natural assumption that you are most likely carrying an illegal substance or under the influence. Transportation of marijuana across State lines is illegal. So, therein lies……reasonable suspicion….more so if you seem to be driving erratically or violate a driving law in Oklahoma.

    I guess it falls under the same protocol about he horse thief complaining that he is about to be hung by a new rope.

    • Sedgewick says:

      …more examples of how law turns a victimless act into a mess.

      • Predict what?

        The vast majority of fatalities are caused by “normal” people. But “normal” people are statistically illiterate, so they make such illiterate statistical assumptions as exampled.

        • Balderdash!

        • You rarely confuse me sir…..but you got me on this one….explain please.

          • It is pre-established conclusion hunting for statistical causation.

            The facts that “sober” people cause more accidents and deaths – vastly more – is ignored because the pre-established conclusion regarding “impairment” was made ad hoc.

            Thus, the stats always are re-formed to fit this already-made conclusion, and people buy it.
            The media steps in, and rarely announces accidents made by “sober” people – but front page news if it happens to be a “impaired” person. This reinforces that “so many accidents” are caused by such “impairment”, when statistically, they are not. Front-of-mind strategy.

            But a review of the stats actually does not show this conclusion.

            What the stats ACTUALLY show is the level of EXPERIENCE is the greatest determination of accidents (or lack of). But this would impact most of the driving public, since most people are not well trained to drive. Getting a driver’s license, based on ability, is a joke. And, hence, 40,000 people a year die on the roads.

            But the statistically illiterate population are duped into thinking an incidental component is the primary component – jump on the bandwagon of “more laws!” like SK does, and the end result – little impact.

            But it makes great press and comedy.

            • Thank you.

              • Black Flag® says:

                And, of course, since most people fall into the “sober” crowd, but are killing a war’s worth of people on the highways a year, they cannot accept it is THEM doing the killing and are looking for a scapegoat.

                They do not want to evaluate their own poor driving skills – that would mean a cost – so are in need of pointing an external factor as the “key” to solving the problem. It’s a easy one to target, since it is abnormal – and therefore, in their simple minds, abnormal means “the cause!”

                Government -which cares not about the deaths – seizes this, charges gobs of money to prevent such “abnormality” and everyone claims “success! We’ve found it! More, more more money and we will eliminate it!” – now the abnormality is “pot smokers!”

                Yet, 40,000 people continue to die every year.

            • I think the “logic” is that the accidents caused by drunks were preventable of “might” not have happened if they had been sober. If you test over the legal limit and are in an accident, you are found guilty, even if the other vehicle caused the accident. But the one’s you hear about are where someone is driving in the wrong lane, runs a red light or hits a parked car.

              I think distracted driving might be the worst problem. I would have hit a parked car years ago if a friend hadn’t shouted a warning. I was playing with the radio. Now with the cell phones & texting, too easy to be distracted. And you hear about women putting on make-up during the morning commute….

              • Black Flag® says:

                The logic is badly flawed.

                As I’ve posted before, it is an attempt to declare that me impaired is a worse driver then you sober. But, as I’ve tested this, I’m not – my training raises my skill to overcome whatever impairment occurs (to a limit, of course, but the training demonstrates that limit, and I don’t exceed it – because part of the training is “do not exceed the limits of your ability”.

                Yes, distractions are always an issue – a few seconds and you’ve covered hundreds of feet without noticing. But again, experience – a merciless teacher – shows this and I bet after that heart attack, you were and still remain (even slightly) more aware.

                Heck, where I work, where a collusion with almost everything here is death – lost my attention for a moment – missed a 400 ton truck (hidden by a blind spot… how you cannot see a 400 ton truck, but amazingly, dust and all, you can!)… I started to pull out to hear a 120db horn solid…. not that I was in real danger of being crushed but I caused him to make an emergency dodge…. believe me, my heart stopped and now ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS triple check my blind spots…. 🙂

                Sadly, not everyone survives their teacher…..

              • Black Flag® says:

                … more on that incident…

                I went and met the driver (policy) whenever there is a “near miss” to discuss, and his first words were: “..Bet you need an underwear change!…”

                We are required to report near misses, but he insisted that it was no big deal as he was always in full control. I advised him to write up a near miss, as I would be doing the same on myself.

                I got called to the carpet about the incident with the Superintendent (the BIG boss) who read my report and said “…wow… I’ve never had someone report themselves before…” and then stated “… bet ya won’t do that again, right?” I agreed. (Whew! Since he could have suspended me…)

                PS: It’s kinda a funny we call it a “near miss” … “that bullet nearly missed ya” actually means it hit ya!

                It should be called a “near hit”… but the management didn’t like the idea that a “hit” may have occurred, so called a “near miss”! Funny….

              • Black Flag® says:

                PSS: I know most can’t imagine the terror, but the tires on a 400 ton truck are 25 feet in diameter and blowing by you at 40mph 20 feet away is …. well, the word scary isn’t enough.

              • Lesson learned! I’m still trying to picture you driving a rig that big. 25 feet in diameter? Forgive my simple mindedness but isn’t that like 12.5 feet wide? WHOA!

              • Black Flag® says:

                Diameter is across a circle.

                From the bottom of the wheel to the top of the wheel is 25 feet tall. Yes, taller then most houses.

              • Black Flag® says:

                The height of the truck is 50feet, and 80 feet to the top of the bed when it is raised.

              • Black Flag® says:
              • Black Flag® says:

                These are the shovels that load that truck – makes that truck look small.

                1700 tons of machine, that shovel…. top speed 2.5mph 🙂

              • Black Flag® says:

                … the shovel is called the “BOSS”
                “Big Oil Sand Shovel”

              • Black Flag® says:

                This picture still doesn’t convey the size of that beast. It’s tracks can drive over my truck with feet of room on either side of it… you’d not know a truck would be underneath.

                Each link in its tracks weighs two tons.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Digging thru sand, well think “sandpaper”

                The teeth on the shovels wear away – we go through an amount of steel in wear on the teeth equal to a car every day.

              • Holy Smokes BF! Dang! I drove a 26ft straight truck for 5 years, thought I was pretty tough. I guess not 😉

              • Black Flag® says:

                The trucks are amazingly easy to drive. Corner like a Porsche, and even loaded (for a total weight of 1,600,000 lbs – 800 tons) can reach top speed in 180 seconds (level ground). V-24, quad turbo charged engine producing 4,000hp.

                They do growl going up hills tho… they are so heavy that they pulverize rock under their wheels.

              • Black Flag® says:

                More BiG facts.

                The tires on the truck each weigh 11,000 lbs. There are 6 of them.

          • No less than claiming “my god, more than half of all fatal accidents are caused by brown-eyed people!! We must make a law against them driving!”

  31. Yo BF, I had to gawk some more at that shovel!. The pic with the shovel loading the truck….it’s loading that pile of sand. So then ..there’s oil in that sand?

    • They’d have to make the shovel on site, no?

    • Black Flag® says:

      That is a generic picture – it is doing “overburden” removal.

      Oil sand is black – asphalt (or “bitumen”).

      In fact, the first use of the oil sands was road construction – under pressure and air, it turns to a stiff, hockey puck substance.

      A bit of chemistry: hydrocarbons are carbon atoms surrounded by hydrogen atoms.
      Methane is one carbon and four hydrogen (looks like a cross)
      Butane is two carbon and six hydrogen (carbons take on arm of the cross and the rest of the arms have hydrogen)
      Octane (your car fuel) is 8 carbon 14 hydrogen
      Dectane (diesel) is 10 to 12 carbons, and so on.

      But the longer the chain, after kerosene, the molecule begin to curl on itself, raising its viscosity (sticky).

      Bitumen is a chain of 100’s to 1000’s of carbons. As such, thick like a hockey puck. But mixed with sand, keeps it somewhat crumbly.

      It is dug out, then goes to BP (Bitumen Processing) crushes it, then saturates it with super-hot steam and naphtha to make it flow. 90% of the sand is then filtered out. It is then piped to “Primary Upgrading” = PUG.

      Here they begin “cracking”. Adding lots of heat causes the long chain to vibrate and break into usable smaller chains. Here, the rest of the sand is removed, and the naphtha and steam recovered.

      Then it goes to Secondary Upgrading. (SUG). Here they take methane and super-super heat it – in a thing called a “coker” – which knocks off the hydrogen off of the carbon, ending up with “coke” (pure carbon)and free hydrogen.

      When the chain breaks, it cracks at the carbon bond, leaving an unbound carbon arm. If this cools, it will rejoin back to the long chain. So, it is flooded with this free hydrogen atoms which completes the unjoined arm of carbon.

      So out of the back end comes a whole lot of different small chains, that is then remixed together for pipeline shipping to other refineries (to add the fuel additives or make plastics, etc) – this product shipped is called “Synthetic Crude”. At these other refineries, they take the mix bundle and then sort it (by heat) into the products that eventually you buy.

      So, 10,000 men a 12-hr shift, 24 hrs a day and an investment of $18 billion – we produce about million barrels of oil a day and for the next 50 or so years (we sit on our lease of 6 to 10 billion barrels of oil).

      A truck of oil sand carries about 250 barrels of oil in the sand.

      • More BiG facts:

        Last year we moved 200 million tons of stuff – equal to the weight of all the garbage produced in the US, and half the weight of all humanity on Earth.

        This year, will probably move closer to 300 million tons.

    • Black Flag® says:

      This what the sand looks like

    • Black Flag® says:

      And PS:
      it is NOT “tar sands” – tar comes from coal.
      It is OIL sands …. anyone who calls it “tar sands”, you can assume they don’t know what they are talking about.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Close up of the sandy goo:

      • Yuk!. I bet its smelly too. Thanks for the lesson, and keep stacking the dough.

        • Black Flag® says:

          “Aromatic” – yes.

          In the mix of bitumen is of course all the other chains, and those that are smaller chains will go vapor under normal pressures – it kinda smells like a mix of diesel and kerosene.

          But we up here say:
          “It smells like money!”

    • No sir……it could possible be from our intelligence. Since the picture shows Border Patrol agents….we do not work with them. They are Federal. This was probably in the exclusionary zone….which means within 3 km of the border. We work further in.

      However, the story line is what we see a lot of. These people pay $5 to $8 k to be “escorted” across the border and are then left to die Happens all the time. The women are indeed raped as are most of the children. If they are “mules”, they are killed out right so there are no witnesses. Usually we find women that are destined for the whore houses in Chicago, New York, Detroit, and Atlanta. They are processed into those cities and then “sold” to other cities.

      Make no mistake about it…..human trafficking is larger than drugs on the Texas border.

      • The sick part about it…….there is a DEMAND for children into prostitution. We often pick up girls that are aged 10 to 15…..boys to that are destined to the seedy parts……..however, as bad as it is here…..Europe has us beat.

  32. @ BF….great analogy on near miss……or hit.

    In the air, we are supposed to report “near miss” in our reports. Usually the transmission is an inadvertant..Holy Shit……..over the airwaves. Anything less that 500 feet is a “near miss”….I called one in several months ago when a non English speaking pilot from Central America flying a Cessna Skymaster flew under me as I was turning to final….I even had TCAS on board but the aircraft from Central America did not have a transponder and did not put out the signal….everyone, including ATC saw it and the control tower saw it….To me….I was nearly clobbered… them it was a near miss…..I guess it is the half full or half empty glass,,,,,,ATC and the tower both contacted me….as the plane, without a transponder is nothing but a blip….no altitude information. It DOES get ones attention.

    • And a new pair of shorts

    • In addition, people under-estimate a go around in cost….Applying full power to a Baron and initiating a go around costs between 80 and 140 bucks…..applying full power to a commercial jet…and initiating a go around cost over 1,000 bucks…..and that is in clear weather….if IFR…and we are assigned hold positions, it may be another 15 to 30 minutes to land….costs escalate.

    • Last night at another site near us, a worker was killed.

      Sadly, in this case, his “teacher” was merciless.

      It is a good case of coop-itition. All other sites will be involved in the investigation so to share the lessons learned and to -if necessary- adjust policies so to prevent an occurrence here and else where.

      • I think you & I are close on driving while impaired, etc… You wonder why they don’t do more reporting of information that might help reduce accidents, but more paperwork means more costs on those doing the accident reports. More work for them but no “reward”. More time spent questioning people on the side of the road while the urge to go do something productive works on you… And your special interest groups don’t want some information released. If only 10% of accidents involve drunks, MADD might see a decrease in fund raising. None of the phone companies would want numbers of people talking or texting while driving to be part of a standard accident form…

        • Black Flag® says:

          There are a lot of vested interests in traffic deaths – lots of money spent on trying to mitigate other issues other then the most significant cause. This way they can ask for more money endlessly as a solution to the problem, but it doesn’t go away – since the real cause is shoved aside and hidden. The money train keeps on running.

          Almost all the improvement in traffic safety comes from the car manufacturers making cars safer. Then the government comes in with MPG laws that undermine car safety – forcing manufacturers to make thinner, weaker cars that do not survive collisions.

          Road design could easily be improved – but that directs money away from “drunk driving awareness” so road design hasn’t changed for 100 years.

          Proper driver training -more then learning how to park a car and drive at 30mph – costs thousands of dollars; who wants to pay for that? Very few. So its not done, and the youth of the nation are slaughtered.

          It is no lie that professional drivers on a racetrack feel safer whilst going 200mph inches from other cars then driving home from the track after the race.

  33. Wow-I have a major problem with this-my private information given to the union or anyone else-are you kidding me.-what happened to privacy! And I sure don’t want a union thug standing at my door!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  34. Sedgewick says:

    @ Flag

    You make the point that we should press on in the interest of what it right.

    …seems like a waste of time. Why bother?

    • Black Flag® says:


      Yes, at times the battle appears futile. However, if we believe in the future, who will be the ones carrying the torch?

      It is not so much that we will get mankind to achieve real freedom, but to achieve it needs men of principles who do not falter.

      The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and “practical” programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the goal of freedom.

      He who confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether, for example. Those that cheer taxation as a principle given in to his modest demands, and by such a grant, eliminate the discourse about taxation writ large, and the resistance to taxation on the whole. When that resistance is eliminated, the tax rates are increased since there is no longer resistance to them.

      By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate goal, and therefore the point of being a free man in the first place.

      If we few, free men refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will?

      The answer is no one.

      If not now, when?
      If not us, who?

    • Black Flag® says:


      “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.

      What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibility of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible.

      We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization.

      They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. . . .

      Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may rouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere “reasonable freedom of trade” or a mere “relaxation of controls” is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.

      The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and thereby an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote.

      Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.

      Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark.

      But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.”

      • Sedgewick says:

        There is no question of the value of freedom, and indeed, someone needs to ‘fight’ for it.

        I was thinking more in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Is trying to get through to a hand full of people on a thread somewhere going to make enough of a difference? Is it fast enough? Will it suffice?

        I posit that it is grossly insufficient, thus a wasted effort.

        You either need to shake the whole world up to provoke abrupt change, or kill almost everyone and start new.

        The latter is not our place. We’re only ordinary men. The former is futile?

        Why bother?

%d bloggers like this: