Nabble - American Solutions, Newt Gingrich and Real Change

Re: Should Government be humane?

2009-11-21T05:43:37Z

Hj DA:
Very complex questions and full of potential conflicts. On one hand we say we are a nation of laws while acknowledging that there is the "Letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". We say that there is separation of church and state while we castigate and disavow certain religions through our legal structure.

Our nation went through an evolution during its early days beginning as a full blown Theocracy in the boston area and a commune in the Plymouth locale. The first to fail was the commune resulting in migration into what is now Conn. and north towards the north shore of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the Theocracy was having its own problems and the idealogical center was in continual movement towards a civil government. The great Migration which occurred between 1630 to 1640 brought a number of different "sects" to our shores and the business of administering these sects through the Plantation administration began as a religious based governance and as you may imagine, this management of the various grants within the Plantation was difficult. The move away from a Theocracy towards civil government was fueled by the inability of the administrators to reconcile the various segments with universal laws.

So our country was founded on religious principles which subsequently morphed into a civil government as a result of the shortcomings of the religious model and to this day, there are still laws on the books based upon that period.

Your question on "Universal human rights" is an interesting one, what do you mean by that? Is it life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? or is it something else? Our founders also gave us a firm legal grounding in property rights meaning what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours and when someone says to me that I must participate in and contribute my property to his idea of the greater good - well, this may be a negative to my pursuit of happiness.

In the early days of our country, property rights were even more important because if you didn't own property, you had no voice and there is a basic validity to the argument for this as it was thought that if people who didn't have skin in the game had a legal voice, there was no downside to positions in opposition to the property owner's interests. A current equivelant to this may be the 46% of the people in America who pay no federal taxes. I can picture a politician working to appeal to this by saying that his policies, if elected, will benefit this segment by giving/transferring costs from them to the tax paying segment so his base constituancy is 46% of the population and if he can get them all to vote, he only needs 5% to win.

Should Government be humane?

2009-11-21T01:01:53Z

I believe that this blog, in its essence, is about very basic beliefs of men. What is government, law, society, culture and where do we fit into the equation?
Well, what do you think? What IS government? Why should there be government at all? Do we really need it? What is the purpose of government? How much power should it have? What are its responsibilities? What is law? Do the laws of a government overrule the laws of a religion? What if my government tells me to kill, but my religion tells me to forgive? What if my personal beliefs conflict with my governments expectations? Its laws?
Or, does our government operate legally and ethically in accordance with our Constitution? Is our Constitution still relevant? Should we need to make amendments to a Constitution that is based on universal human rights?
Let me know what you think.

Re: Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-21T01:25:14Z

P.S. Or ethics in general. Why should scientists be any different from politicians, ambitious men, or you, or I? What are your motives? What are mine? Nobody knows.
What are all those question marks about?
Assume for a moment that I do not trust you and that I have questions regarding your motives. What factual data (verifyable) can you offer?

Re: Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-21T06:17:05Z

The Green-Fascists wouldn't be in power if you regressives hadn't cost tens of millions of Americans good paying jobs to your "free trade" and "open borders".

Slavers.

Globalists.

Re: Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-21T03:01:30Z

Article as it appeared in English Newspaper, Link was through yahoo but can't find now.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files - including 1079 emails and 72 documents - you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails - supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory - suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations - the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal - are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because - though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room - he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September - I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - Hadley CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which - in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community - spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it's a blow to the AGW lobby's

Re: Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-21T01:16:49Z

Hi RP,
I get news from several sources, but to date, I have not heard of this conspiracy theory. Can you provide a link or a source?

Re: Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-20T19:09:09Z

Well Put

Global Warming Conspiracy Exposed??

2009-11-20T12:25:02Z

Someone hacked the servers for the U.N.'s pet climatologist organization and published 1079 Emails discussing how to hide data, tricks to falsifying data, Sceptic suppression techniques, etc.

Interestingly, the motivation amongst these "scientists" seemed to be money driven more than reputation leading me to believe that these people regardless of their claims of educational and professional integrity are, in reality, a bunch of scam artists who have developed a recipe for their success in the "alternative energy" businesses they have heavily invested in.

The most interesting Emails were the ones dealing with scientists in opposition where there was much discussion on "trashing" reputations.

We seem to, in general, be in the middle of a challenging period regarding personal ethics and there are parallels between this failure and the failures in our political system. As I look at Obama, the lack of ethics and courage come to mind and I have the same conclusions when contemplating another hero - AlGore (as Rush would say). There seems to be a lot of slimy people produced in the 60's which are now coming home to roost. Back when we were experiencing the transgressions first hand, we should have put them down like the animals they were.

Re: Precursers

2009-11-21T05:58:51Z

Hi DA
I got an Email from a friend yesterday talking about the crass tone of the public conversation and his search for a more benign replacement for his favorite expletive. He then went on to tell me that he had graduated from the original "Bullsh**" in his early period to BS but was still not happy. I am happy to say that he has now found a suitable replacement and is content.

The example went - What is this Pelosi as he has come to the conclusion that Pelosi is the epitome' of bullsh**.

So how does this relate? Well, I was just tired of all the Pelosi yesterday.

Re: Precursers

2009-11-20T22:21:50Z

Hi RP,
I have never heard you sound so feeble. Prone to bouts of depression, anxiety, and helplessness? What happened? What's all the "Year 2525" cr@p? Did you listen to some Leonard Cohen or something? "I've seen the future brother,.... it is murder". Not a good idea, especially if you are using marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Yeah, it used to happen to me too. Hey, stop worrying so much. To quote another songwriter..."Don't let it bring you down". What, do you want to live forever?
You should concentrate on your strengths. You're pretty good on business and micro-economics.
But I would suggest that you try and stay in the present. Your a lousy Shaman. Always remember; that crystal ball you like so much is actually made in China...out of plastic.

Precursers

2009-11-20T10:24:58Z

Last week we had the "suggestion" of moving breat exams to age 50. Just a suggestion, nothing more - and, Oh we really didn't mean it as a new guideline. Today, they are in the womb - Pap smears not necessary every year and this is also just a suggestion.

In 2013, the tone will change, it will be:
1. It is illegal to perform a breast exam before age 50
2. Annual pap smears are outlawed and subject to criminal penalties.
3. Cholosteral is a personal problem with your genes and heritage and testing will no longer be available.
4. Chest pains are signs of indigestion and ambulances will not be available for calls for this symptom. Buy Alka-Seltzer.
5. Intestinal exams are not helpful - results of analysis by our panel show mixed results so we will be discontinuing this procedure.
6. etc.

So what is the source of these suggestions - they cannot wait to get at you. The cannot wait to begin exerting control over you. They are chomping at the bit.

The New age of Aquarious is upon us - Don't worry - Smoke more weed, it fixes everything.

Re: Democrats, The Permanent Majority?

2009-11-21T06:21:28Z

yes.

Democrats, The Permanent Majority?

2009-11-20T07:01:30Z

The new preamble: Of the Dems, By the Dems, and For the Dems.

I'm a little down today mostly because it is a bad day for America. We have arrived, we have a completely unresponsive government acting in opposition of overwhelming poll numbers with our representatives unashamedly buying votes on the floor of our congress - and they are doing it with our money.

All of the phone calls, the letters, the Emails, the town halls, the protests, the Tea parties, have had no effect. The illegal acts by our congress are there for all to see but apparently the lawyers are all in the pockets of the Dems because I see no pushback, no legal action, no efforts to bring these criminals to court.

We do have the vote coming up but will our ballet have any effect? We have the "new black panthers" the SEIU thugs, ACORN, and all of the lesser Democratic party enforcers whose only mandate during the election cycle will be to thwart the will of the people and sustain our lack of representation.

I will be amazed if the vote on Saturday does not pass as we, in the person of H Reid, have spent Billions this week to buy enough votes for passage. I wonder how the people living in those states whose reps have been bought feel? Are the ashamed? They should be.

Re: Polls

2009-11-20T08:16:12Z

As is noted on the Rasmussen report site, unlike most other polls, these are the results of polling likely voters. Most other polls are indiscriminate. Other polls also apply weighting as a result of some nebulous demographic info with the extreme being NBC whose poll weighting is approximately 20% in favor of the Dems.

Polls

2009-11-19T09:11:11Z

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-21T06:15:34Z

Democrats spend, Regressives refuse to raise taxes, both parties are EQUALLY at fault for being so reckless.

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-21T04:07:25Z

Hi DA
The government employs an accounting trick which is called "The Social Security Trust Fund". The reason for the trick is that dollars collected are not to be used as part of the general fund. The way it works is Treasury bonds are issued to replace the money in the SS lockbox so if you physically looked into the lockbox you wouldn't find dollar bills, you would find Treasury bonds. As you know, these bonds are in reality promissary notes for future repayment and we call them IOUs. The current state of SS is that it is fully funded through 2042 (last projection I found-2007) but - we have entered into a new economic reality since then and I believe the deficits will occur much sooner as a result of the shrinkage in the private sector. Keep in mind that the government sector is exempt from paying into this system and they are the largest employer in the nation by far.

Anyway, the lockbox has $36 trillion in treasury bonds in it and all of that real money has been transferred to the general fund to pay the government's way. This is not a reportable item on the government's balance sheet since the gov owes it to itself.

The "raiding" you speak of is a normal part of doing business the government's way and happens every year.

Another issue is the current push for an accounting of the Federal Reserve Bank. The reason for the push is the real concern that the Fed's balance sheet is twice as bad as Social Security. There are some who say that the actual current debt is in the neighborhood of $105 trillion and so far I haven't seen anyone contesting that assertion.

The government is required to report the "Public Debt" but has no requirement to report funds it owes itself through misappropriation.

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-20T23:39:35Z

Wow!
I am just beginning my research and this is fascinating! Just look below at the historical precedents for Social Security....In chronological order! Regardless of ones beliefs this is great stuff. This is an history of governments attempting to act in a humane manner. Shouldn't government be humane?

1900s - 1920s

1900 Spain enacted an accident compensation law.

1901 The Netherlands, Greece and Sweden adopted accident compensation insurance laws. Belgium inaugurated the Ghent system of unemployment insurance, under which subsidies were granted from public funds to trade unions which provided "out of work" benefits for their members.

1902 The first State workmen's compensation law was enacted in Maryland; it was declared unconstitutional in 1904.

1903 Illinois passed a law authorizing special pensions for the blind.

1905 France established a system of government subsidies to voluntary mutual aid associations offering unemployment benefits to their members.

1905 Workmen's compensation legislation was defeated in Illinois.

1906 The American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) was founded.

1907 The first Federal employment service (forerunner of the United States Employment Service) was created in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Commerce and Labor.

1908 A workmen's compensation system was established for civilian employees of the Federal Government.

1908 Noncontributory pensions were instituted in Great Britain by the Old-Age Pensions Act.

1909 Credit Unions first acquired legal status in the U.S. when the Massachusetts legislature passed a law providing for the chartering and organization of credit unions.

1909 The first public commission on aging was established in Massachusetts.

1909 A new science, geriatrics, came into being.

1909 Norway introduced a compulsory sickness insurance system.

1909 A Conference on the Care of Dependent Children was held in Washington, D.C. at the invitation of President Theodore Roosevelt. This was the first of the White House Conferences on child welfare.

1909 The first Federal old-age pension bill was introduced in Congress.

1910 Health insurance plans, which offered medical protection in the form of medical care for industrial workers in isolated areas, and disability benefits, were first introduced by commercial and nonprofit organizations.

1910 The first major survey of the economic conditions of the aged was conducted in Massachusetts.

1911 The National Insurance Act was passed in Great Britain. It provided for: 1) An unemployment fund from compulsory contributions by employees and employers, with the government contributing one-third; 2) A national health insurance system the cost of which was also shared by the workers, the employers and the government.

1911 Italy introduced a centralized national compulsory system of insurance for maternity of wage-earning women.

1911 The first State laws for "mothers' aid" (forerunner of aid to dependent children were enacted in Missouri and Illinois.

1911 The first workmen's compensation law to be held constitutional was enacted in Wisconsin.

1911 The first contributory system of pensions covering all State employees was established in Massachusetts.

December, 1912 A Social Insurance Committee was created by the American Association for Labor Legislation.

1912 The Children's Bureau was established in the Department of Labor by an act of Congress. Among the functions of this Bureau was the safeguarding of the health of mothers and children.

1912 The first State minimum wage law was enacted by Massachusetts.

1912 The Progressive Party platform called for the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old-age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use.

1912 The first division of child hygiene was established in a State Department of Health in Louisiana.

June, 1913 The American Association for Labor Legislation sponsored the First National Conference on Social Insurance in Chicago, Illinois.

1913 The American Association for Labor Legislation's Social Insurance Committee issued a Report favoring a State-run compulsory health insurance system.

1913 A national pensions system was introduced in Sweden.

1914 The first State law providing old-age pensions was enacted in Arizona. It abolished almshouses and provided pensions for aged persons, persons incapable of self support because of physical infirmities, and certain mothers with children. It was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court in 1916.

1914 The first text book on geriatrics was published.

1915 The American Association for Labor Legislation and the American Medical Association drafted a "Standard Bill" for compulsory health insurance modeled after German legislation.

1915 The first old-age pension legislation not challenged on the grounds of constitutionality was enacted in the Territory of Alaska.

December, 1916 The American Medical Association Insurance Committee, headed by Dr. Alexander Lambert, recommended a compulsory State-run health insurance system.

June, 1917 The American Medical Association's House of Delegates approved a resolution stating the principles to be followed in Government health insurance plans.

October, 1917 The War Risk Insurance Act was passed. This legislation set up the first government life insurance program.

1917 The first Federal legislation establishing grant-in-aid provisions for vocational education was enacted.

1917 The first State Department of Welfare was established in Illinois.

1917 A cooperative Federal-State program of cash grants for public health services was inaugurated.

November, 1918 California voters defeated a referendum to permit the establishment of a State health insurance plan.

1918 The Employment Service was established as a unit in the Department of Labor to help place workers in vital industries.

1918 The first Federal grants to States for public health services, for prevention and control of venereal diseases were instituted.

April, 1919 The New York State Assembly defeated a health insurance bill previously approved by the State Senate.

1919 The International Labor Organization, a League of Nations agency, was established. It was made responsible for dealing with the general subject of Social Security.

1919 John R. Commons and Arthur J. Altmeyer wrote an article, "The Health Insurance Movement in the United States." This was an appendix to a report on Health Insurance and Old-age Pensions issued by the Ohio Health and Old-age Insurance Commission.

1920 A Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund was established for Federal employees.

June, 1920 The Vocational Rehabilitation Act (commonly called the Smith-Fess Act) was one of the first Federal grant-in-aid programs passed by Congress. It was originally conceived as a vocational training and counseling program for industrially-injured civilians. (The restoration of medical and physical ailments were not introduced as parts of this program until 1943.)

1920 The American Medical Association made its first official declaration of opposition to any compulsory scheme of health insurance controlled by any State or the Federal Government.

1921 The Sheppard-Towner Act was enacted. It provided Federal grants to States to promote maternal and infant welfare and hygiene for a specified number of years.

March 5, 1923 Montana's Old-age Pension Law was enacted. It was the first such State law to withstand the test of constitutionality.

1923 Old-age assistance laws were passed in Pennsylvania and Nevada. They were later declared unconstitutional.

1923 President Harding was unsuccessful in his attempt to establish a Department of Education in Welfare.

1924 Chile adopted the first national compulsory insurance law in the Western Hemisphere.

1925 Old age pension benefits and compulsory insurance for widows and orphans were introduced in Great Britain with the enactment of the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925.

1926 The Japanese National Health Insurance Law of 1922 became operative.

1927 The International Conference of National Unions of Mutual Benefit Societies and Sickness Insurance Funds was established at Brussels.

1927 The American Association for Old-age Security was established by Abraham Epstein.

1927 The Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act set up a workmen's compensation program for certain maritime and related industries workers who could not be covered under State programs.

1927 The Committee on the Costs of Medical Care (CCMC) was "organized to study the economic aspects of the prevention and care of sickness, including the adequacy, availability.

1929 In June, the Sheppard-Towner Act was allowed to expire. (See above in 1921.)

1929 State laws for workmen's compensation were in effect in all but four States.

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-20T22:56:01Z

Hi RP,
There are some very interesting numbers being "flung" about here. I am especially interested in the $36 trillion Social Security debt. Is this current debt or projected debt? Over how many years? I am not a statistician, or an economist, so please crunch some numbers for me here. Also, feel free to name the sources of any numerical data used.
Also, I am sure you are aware that Social Security funds have been "raided" from time to time. It would be invaluable information to know when, how much, who was President, what historical events were going on, and who controlled houses of Congress on these occaisions. I am intrigued. I will research this if you will do your numbers thing.

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-20T07:22:16Z

Hi 77
You are lowballing the number - Social Security all by itself has a $36 trillion debt, the congress gets around this by calling it an "unfunded mandate". The 2008 deficit was in the $400 billion range. Obama's first year deficit was $1.49 trillion.

You are mixing deficit (an annual operating number) with the public debt (an accumulation of annual deficits) So Obama has tripled the deficit in one year (actually 350%).

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-20T06:44:20Z

On the day Obama took office, Bush left a $10.6 trillion deficit - and between the years 2000 and 2008 the debt ceiling was raised seven times in the 8 years the Republicans were in the White House.

It is so nice that now, in 2009, the Republicans are concerned about raising the debt ceiling.

Republican hypocrisy is exceeded only by their stupidity and ignorance.

Wingnuts on the loose.

Palin/Bachmann - 2012 <--- that's mavericky !!!!!

Re: Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-19T05:38:27Z

It would be even better if it wasn't allowed to pass. Isn't that what caps are for? Obama speaks out of the right side of his mouth about conserving and control of the debt while the dollars fall by the bucket load from the left. Maybe he has a split personality - Barack & Barry; Barack wants to be fiscally responsible & Barry wants all of your wealth to play with?

Increasing the statutory limit for public debt

2009-11-18T16:36:44Z

Projections are the public debt will reach the statutory limit sometime around mid-December and Congress will, of course, pass a bill raising it.

It would be great if this wasn't allowed to pass unnoticed and there was some form of protest. Has anyone heard of any being planned?

Re: Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T10:54:09Z

Hi Grouch:
If you don't think there is anger out there check the threats against this president. It is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a time where the government oversteps - and given the anger, the pushback may indeed be well beyond what could be construed as a "normal" response. Remember Kent state? The victims didn't have guns but that may not be the case this time around. I don't know that it would actually happen but I see a lot of anger out there which puts it in the realm.

You will note that I did make a point of saying "figuratively" and the bloodbath I was referring to is the demise of the democratic party.

Re: Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T10:15:04Z

"I also think that if they continue pushing, there will be domestic violence because at some point people are going to look around for the causes of the issues which have been foisted them. The striving of the administration in its pursuit of the last dollar from the citizen will figuratively, be a bloodbath."

Do you really think so? Tell the truth. All this "Lock and Load" talk is diverting people's energy into a fantasy that could be better used elsewhere IMHO. But it is fun and a good release. What it is saying is we destroy and rebuild America. I get the destroy part could be done, I just don't think the rest of the world would let us rebuild. Do you think a Chinese army the size of our whole population would sit by?

Re: Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T10:55:11Z

"It is not the form of government that it is in question but the administration of our form of government."

The simple answer was government incompetence and I missed it?

Re: Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T10:37:21Z

Hi Grouch:
It is not the form of government that it is in question but the administration of our form of government.

Simple question: Our president said this morning during an interview that the accused would be found guilty and get the death penalty. Aside from the obvious question of why put them on trial if we already know the judgement, just what do you think the president's statement does to the presumption of innocence? Here is the highest representative of our government pre-judging the defendants.

What do you think this is doing to our legal system???
Trial after no miranda???
Trial after the president's defined torture???

Re: Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T10:05:50Z

I am aware of all the issues about the trials. But I have great respect for and faith in our form of government also. What we are saying is our courts and court system is not capable of delivering justice in this situation. That sticks with me and is bothering me a lot.

Are You Afraid???

2009-11-18T08:12:21Z

The president thinks you're afraid, The AG thinks you're afraid (he said the American people were cowards). Holder's testimony defending his venue and judicial selection goes to the point of your fear as he seeks to reassure you that there is no danger and daddy will protect you.

I think he is correct in that people out in the "wilderness" meaning beyond the beltway are afraid.
They are afraid for their country
They are afraid for their way of life
In their uncertainty, they are afraid of making wrong decisions.

What they are not afraid of is "people" like Eric Holder, of people like the majority of our current crop of elected representatives. The emotion here is anger and hate. I use the quote marks around people in describing Eric because there are qualifiers here and maybe "creature" would be more appropriate. He is a creature of the administration and he sure as hell doesn't share my values.

Of course the president chimed in on the fear factor yesterday from wherever he is as they move further and further away from where the idealogical center of the country is. Rasmussan showed a 5 point drop in Obama's base support today to 25% - this is his core support, not the casual "isn't he a nice man" support but his core constituancy and if the Dems in the house think there are going to be coattails to ride next year they had better think again. One of the unintended consequences of this administration will be the emergence of a leaner, meaner electorate and I don't think the Dems are going to fare very well with their typical social bullsh**. I think its going to be right there where the rubber meets the road and any tire slippage will be a result of the oily pols getting between the two.

I also think that if they continue pushing, there will be domestic violence because at some point people are going to look around for the causes of the issues which have been foisted them. The striving of the administration in its pursuit of the last dollar from the citizen will figuratively, be a bloodbath. Obama has proven to be a devisive figure interjecting race at every opportunity as a fundamental in his playbook. He obviously doesn't realize that race is no longer an issue in this country and he is being judged on who he is (and isn't) rather than his color. His assertion that we are fearful of these proposed trials is also well off the mark and he has completely misread the basis for concern. Doesn't that give you, the voter, a lot of confidence in this person?

These people are traitors.

Corruption in Congress

2009-11-17T23:55:59Z

As you may have heard, a report just came out rating countries on corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan were in the top four. This should come to no surprise to anyone who has been following what out military has to cope with there.

What may be a surprise to some was that corruption in Congress is viewed internationally an issue for the United States. The truth is it gets reported more in other countries than it does here. But then you don't believe the main stream media gives you all the facts, do you?

Quote:

"The United States, which was in 19th place compared with 18th last year, remained stable despite Transparency's concerns over a lack of government oversight of the financial sector. The report also pointed out that the U.S. legislature is another reason for concern, as it is "perceived to be the institution most affected by corruption."

Americans are suckers for politician's speeches. They give them, the media does a good business debating their meaning and we are lulled into focusing on them.

I will tell you what a politicians speech means -NOTHING! No one in a thousand who follow the speeches has any idea what the politician actually does. Even if you know the bills a Representative votes for, no one knows what is in the bill The names they are given don't always tell you anything. You hear snippets of what is in a particular bill from some people who are using it for a political maneuver at best. Most of the time it's I'll close my eyes and vote on your bill if you will vote on mine. It sounds like I am stating the obvious, but the point is it has gotten out of control - both parties.

This is a true story Senator Edward Kennedy liked to tell. He was a first term Senator in his first week in the Senate. He was very nervous and intimidated. He listened to a speech by a famous Senator who had been there for years calling a particular bill the worst he had ever seen and made it sound like if it passed the country was doomed

But the Kennedy watched the Senator vote FOR the bill. Senator Kennedy when to him and asked why? The famous Senator said "My district is split on this issue. When I go back, I pretty much know who I am talking to. Half of them I show them the speech, the rest I tell them how I voted."

As Kennedy tells it he lost his nervousness and intimidation as one thought came to his mind "Damn, what a place, I 'm gonna do great here"

And he did for 40 years.

If less people spent less time watching cable news and more people went to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and followed what Congress really does, the country would be much better off. Congress is not held accountable and it is our fault.

Re: New Medical News - Obama's Approach to HC

2009-11-18T04:18:46Z

Apparently the Chinese have asked Obama how he was planning on paying for his HC plans during their meeting. Must be getting concerned about getting their money back from this debtor nation. Must be hard to maintain international gravitas when you owe all these people money. Also puts you at a significant disadvantage.

Re: New Medical News - Obama's Approach to HC

2009-11-18T03:37:00Z

OBAMA Now Reduces Early onset Cancer by making people wait untill 50 so they really dont need treatment only counciling thus reducing health care costs. WHEN IS IT GOING TO STOP? It is now 6:43 am and I know this Slime ball will have a new surprize today for his subjects.

Biden survives NYC Car Crash... Thank God O sorry Thank Obama!

Re: New Medical News - Obama's Approach to HC

2009-11-18T00:22:51Z

Here's the numbers:

Over 50, one cancer is found for every 1100 mammograms. Between 40 and 50, one in 1900 mammograms. So somebody put a number on people's lives.

Re: New Medical News - Obama's Approach to HC

2009-11-17T12:37:39Z

Under Obamacare the lumps would not have been found as mammograms won't begin until 50 at one every other year. You also couldn't pay to have it done because the HC policy would not allow it.

New Medical News - Obama's Approach to HC

2009-11-17T08:14:52Z

I agree RP. My wife was 30 years old when two lumps in her breast were discoverd and removed.

Under Obama KillCare, the "Government Death Panels" would determine that she is a white female and probably tell her to "take a pill" (as President Barry Soetoro likes to say).

Government can't supply H1N1 vaccine in large enough quantities but want to take over and run 18% of the U.S. economy.

Marxist swine.

Soetoro-Obama/Biden 2012 - Now that's thugy.