published Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Delaware Tea Party

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

165
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

Great depiction of the effect the tea party will have on the GOP in November.

It reminds me of the when the Democrats got all ultra liberal with Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. The base loved it but independent voters did not.

Moderate Bill Clinton came along with his triangulation strategy and wrestled the party back from the far left.

The tea baggers don't seem to care that their slogan might as well be, "We're going to lose!" The neocons driving the movement believe they are on a crusade to save the political soul of the GOP and if it costs a few elections, well, so be it.

It's shaping up to be one of the most fascinating mid-term elections in quite a while. I'm just sorry Football is so distracting.

September 16, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Nah, the GOP will be fine.

September 16, 2010 at 12:21 a.m.
whatever said...

I think that's supposed to be Castle, the guy in Delaware who got that treatment from the Tea Party.

I'd like the Tea Party if there weren't so many less than desirable persons taking up its banner. And if I thought for a second that so many people claiming to be espousing its virtues actually meant it.

September 16, 2010 at 12:39 a.m.

yes the Tea Party is making a difference. By continuing to adhere to a two party system. They aren't changing the "establishment", just reinforcing it. Look if you want a real revolution, vote Tea Party candidates as that, a tea party candidate. Not a Democrat or Republican. Vote Libertarians in office, Constitutional Conservatives, Green Party. Have a real political revolution.

September 16, 2010 at 12:58 a.m.
nucanuck said...

The Tea Party is a bi-product of deep discontent,anger and frustration at the country's weakening condition. Like the Democrats and Republicans,the tea partiers have no workable answers to the problems before us. If we borrow and spend,we can't service the debt which would lead to an eventual collapse. If we don't borrow and spend,the economy will contract and collapse relatively quickly.

We are out of acceptable choices and in our anger we are turning against capable people solely because they are part of the government that got us here. Sending opposition dolts to congress will only make things worse. The Tea Party Senate candidates from Nevada and Delaware are a disgrace to the American political system and fall below the standards of this once great country.

We can,we must do better.

September 16, 2010 at 1 a.m.
Francis said...

" a disgrace to the american political system", "dolts", "less than desirable persons".....hmmm....you must mean obama, pelosi, reid, rangle, dodd, frank, waters, geithner, holder, biden, hoyer, dingle, cliburn, conyers, the judge in arizona, the judge in san francisco, the new black panther party, illegal aliens, elena kagan and so many more.

if not for all of them, there would be no tea party movement. they have my undying gratitude.

September 16, 2010 at 2:30 a.m.
librul said...

Right on, Nuc.

And Francis, to quote Christine O'Donnell, so much of what you say is "unfactual".

September 16, 2010 at 4:09 a.m.
Clara said...

I received a note from the DNC asking me to vote for Obama.

I replied that I'd vote for him if he got rid of Geithner and a few others, but if the President didn't, I'd probably not vote for anyone. It isn't apathy, it's disgust!

Trickle down?

Execs are still walking away with million dollar bonuses.

Sigh!

September 16, 2010 at 4:31 a.m.
rolando said...

My, nucanuck, you have come full circle. You started with the proposition that socialism works [which it never has] and touted all of its wonderful ideas [which have never worked]. Yeah, we know you will deny it.

Now that the Left-Progs house of cards is collapsing [as they always do] you are right up the in the forefront of the crowd abandoning socialism [as most socialists always do].

But we can rest assured that your favorite mantra, "It's Bush's Fault!" will continue to shouted out by Left-Progs throughout the land for yet another two years.

September 16, 2010 at 4:34 a.m.
rolando said...

Isn't it strange how the Florida Tea Party-favored candidate is hanging the Democrat/Independent candidates out to dry? Crist [former Repub turned Ind.] is splitting Dem vote NOT the GOP one.

Clay is absolutely correct with this cartoon.

The TEA Party DID whup-up on the Delaware GOP candidate. That is exactly what the TEA Party does...to both Parties. And neither party understands why.

As had been said all along, the TEA Party is made up of all types of Americans...especially the fed-up-to-here ones. They are a power to be feared by Incumbents who tax-and-spend.

September 16, 2010 at 4:45 a.m.
rolando said...

"Execs are still walking away with million dollar bonuses."

Clara, this is the one time [I think] when we are in agreement.

"Sigh", indeed. Especially when one of those execs is the government-approved CEO of Government Motors -- who received a $9,000,000.00 bonus [of taxpayers' money, no doubt].

It is sickening.

September 16, 2010 at 4:51 a.m.
rolando said...

As I pretty much said up there somewhere, Francis, the Left-Progs and the various partyline-voters just don't get it.

We finally , "...threw open the window, stuck our heads out, and shouted, 'We are mad as Hell and we aren't going to take it anymore!'"

God willing and the creeks don't rise, by the time Maobama is escorted out of office [with the WH silver, no doubt] Washington will again serve We, the People.

Maybe it is time to break out the old battlecry, "Power To The People!" [I never thought _I_ would say that.]

September 16, 2010 at 4:58 a.m.
rolando said...

Great cartoon, Clay. Can we expect to see something similar regarding the Florida Tea Party results/forecasts? [Rhetorical question.]

September 16, 2010 at 5:48 a.m.
hambone said...

Francis the talking Mule has a REAL problem.

September 16, 2010 at 6:08 a.m.
woody said...

Well, it's easy to see Rolando has found a subject in which to sink his teeth this morning. As long as it keeps him off the streets and out of trouble, so be it.

As far as "The Tea Party" is concerned, I will treat it as I would any other 'passing fad'. As the pediatrician told the frantic mother, after her toddler swallowed something other than food, "...and that too shall pass...."

Smile, Woody

September 16, 2010 at 6:14 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Number of registered voters in Delaware: 621,746 Number of registered Republicans: 182,796 (29%) Number of votes O'Donnell received: 30,561 That means she received: 16.7% of registered Republicans. Number of registered Democrats: 292,738 (47%)

Now, can everyone do the math on this one?

September 16, 2010 at 6:15 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"If we borrow and spend,we can't service the debt which would lead to an eventual collapse. If we don't borrow and spend,the economy will contract and collapse relatively quickly."--nucanuck

Uh, Bush borrowed and spent, yet the economy contracted. Obama borrowed and spent faster, and the economy contracted more. FDR borrowed and spent for ten years (well, nine) without getting unemployment under 10%. Maybe borrowing and spending doesn't work? Maybe Keynes is in Hell for his economic sins as well as his sexual sins? Turn to Jesus Christ, the libertarian.

As for replacing experienced politicians with rookies, sure there's a learning curve (Oliver North heard some bureaucrat refer to new appointees as "the Christmas help"), but the advantage Tea Party and Libertarian types have over big-government types, however intelligent and experienced, is the advantage of letting everyone under them use their brains instead of the geniuses at the top having to do all our thinking for us. The advantage of humility--facing one's limitations--over proudly biting off more than they can chew. That's how Reagan had a (flawed but) great presidency and Carter a disastrous one, even if--if-- Carter's IQ was higher. I'm not sure Sarah Palin knows this, but if she does, she can easily improve on President Obama.

September 16, 2010 at 6:20 a.m.
hambone said...

The Tea Party gives us more choices. The Party of NO and the Party of HELL NO!!

September 16, 2010 at 6:22 a.m.
EaTn said...

The Tea Party started out with good intentions until it was hijacked by a bunch of ditto head leaders and kool-aid drinking followers. Discontent is an emotion, not a solution, and they've blown a great opportunity to solve some of the country's problems. The end result is that it will have a similar affect to the GOP that Ross Perot did when Clinton beat Daddy Bush.

September 16, 2010 at 6:31 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

There have been so many kooky ideas to come from the Tea Party (the new GOP) this summer. Here are some of proposals they want to happen if and when in power, from their candidates:

  1. Privatize Social Security or Eliminate it all together
  2. Repeal the American Disability Act
  3. Repeal the Civil Rights of 1964
  4. Use empty prisons as poorhouses
  5. Abolish the Dept. of Education
  6. Abolish the EPA
  7. Tax cuts for the super rich
  8. Apologize to BP and other oil spill polluters
  9. Shut down the government
  10. Use chickens to pay for your cancer treatments
  11. Outlaw abortion even in the case of incest or rape
  12. Repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments
  13. No masturbating!
  14. No co-ed college dorms
  15. Threaten to secede from the union
  16. Use "2nd Amendment" remedies if you don't get your way.
  17. Make up stuff to fight scientific evidence, i.e. global warming is caused by sun spots not a rise in carbon dioxide.

These are a few of the ideas coming from the Tea Party candidates. I don't see limited government for individuals, especially in the bedroom. Nope, only the dirty corporations have it easy with more polluting and an uneducated American population for decades to come.

This is just a sample, please feel free to add some more crazy ideas to the list. There are plenty out there.

September 16, 2010 at 7:08 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando, I really hate to break it to you, but these Tea Party wins are not wins for the Republican Party. They are wins for the Democrats.

Each of those Tea Party candidates who have won are going to face Democratic candidates who will almost assuredly trounce them. In each of the states where these far-right leaning candidates have been nominated to run in November as Republicans, the chances that they will prevail in the general elections are very low, with one or two possible exceptions.

Rand Paul will not win in Kentucky. Sharon Angle will not displace Harry Reid. And the Tea Party darling of the week, Christine O'Donnell, will not be elected in November by the state of Delaware.

Karl Rove said the political newcomer does not "evince the characteristics of rectitude and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. There's just a lot of nutty things she's been saying."

O'Donnell, like Paul Rand, illustrated her propensity for making ill advised remarks by referring to mainstream Republicans who are not willing to throw their support her way by saying, "They don't have a winning track record. If they're too lazy to put in the effort that we need to win, then, so be it. We're going to win without them."

At best, a few key seats are in play. That's it. The Democrats have been sitting back, waiting to see how this is going to play out. Now the real fun begins.

Reminding the voters just how nutty and ultra-conservative some of the Tea Party people are will be a snap. All eight of them have come out publicly in favor of radical ideas that will never pass muster by not only Democratic supporters, but also not by more moderate Republican voters as well.

Sharon Angle wants to abolish the Dept. of Education, wants the United States to withdraw from the UN because it promotes "un-American ideologies," denies global warming, is against mothers working, opposes abortion in all cases, including where rape or incest are involved, and is against state pensions for the elderly.

Rand Paul is a mess and when he has to once again start talking again, he will seal his own fate. He too opposes abortion under any circumstance, is anti-government like his Pop, and publicly opposed Jim Crow laws and wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Utah's Mike Lee wants to abolish the Energy and Education Dept., as well as Medicare, favors a flat tax, and would deny birthright to children of illegal immigrants.

Joe Miller of Alaska, the candidate with the best chance of winning this November, would eliminate the Dept. of Education, all arts funding, foreign aid and has stated that the evidence for global warming is "dubious at best".

Tea Partiers are not going to overthrow our Government, but they will remain angry, I'm sure, come November.

September 16, 2010 at 7:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I can certainly understand people being tired of both parties and wanting smaller government, but an anti-masturbation extreme right wing Christian candidate? I'm not sure how that helps their cause.

September 16, 2010 at 7:30 a.m.
whoknows said...

whatever said: "I'd like the Tea Party if there weren't so many less than desirable persons taking up its banner."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd like to revise your statement just a hair, if you don't mind.

"I'd like the (insert any political party here) if there weren't so many less than desirable persons taking up its banner."

September 16, 2010 at 8:32 a.m.
Francis said...

"a passing fad"....like obama

September 16, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'd hardly call being elected president a "passing fad". A group wanting to depart with the status quo (for good and honest reasons) being lured by extremist social conservatives who have no chance to be elected and who are focusing attention in the wrong direction.

Pity, because there are good people and potentially good candidates among conservatives. People NOT like Palin. or Rand, McConnell, Bachman, Gingrich, etc.

September 16, 2010 at 9:15 a.m.
whatever said...

Isn't it strange how the Florida Tea Party-favored candidate is hanging the Democrat/Independent candidates out to dry? Crist [former Repub turned Ind.] is splitting Dem vote NOT the GOP one.

Nope, nothing strange about it. Crist is a center-moderate splitting the moderate vote. He and Meek do have a plurality over Rubio. If the state were a 50%+1 then it would be different, but it's not, and the state has been rather close in prior elections. It didn't get down to a few thousand, even hundred votes, purely by fraud.

So...what's strange about it to you?

"I'd like the (insert any political party here) if there weren't so many less than desirable persons taking up its banner."

Certainly, but trying to stay on topic here, and the topic is the Tea Party. They've convinced me they're a group of fear-mongering thugs who want to use the government to do nothing for me, but to do plenty to me. No thank you.

September 16, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.
whatever said...

Use empty prisons as poorhouses

Wait...where are these empty prisons?

September 16, 2010 at 10 a.m.
rolando said...

Here's one the dems would legalize:

  1. Man carrying SPORTS ILLUSTRATED swimsuit issue arrested for masturbating in WALMART toy aisle... see http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/cleanup-aisle-three
September 16, 2010 at 10:17 a.m.
whatever said...

Yeah, and you'd authorize the police breaking into his house because he was masturbating, and put him in jail for 20 to life.

September 16, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

"They've convinced me they're a group of fear-mongering thugs who want to use the government to do nothing for me, but to do plenty to me. No thank you."

Really? That seems like a stretch of the imagination to me. Fear mongering? No, they are unhappy with the current size and fiscal irresponsibility of the feds. They actually want to reduce what the gov't can do to you. If you disagree with that, please site your evidence for it. I thought we all agreed that the constitutionalists like as little federal involvement with our lives as possible (which I generally agree with). They don't want the gov't doing "plenty to [you]."

September 16, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

What part of rolando's post regarding someone in WALMART masturbating didn't you read correctly? He didn't say anything at all against anyone doing that in their own home. Don't be silly.

September 16, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Among the Tea Bagger proposals "sandyonsignal" provided (nice work by the way) are these three which everyone should remember:

  1. Abolish the EPA
  2. Tax cuts for the super rich
  3. Apologize to BP and other oil spill polluters

Perhaps some of you Tea Baggers think you are part of a grass root movement that arose spontaneously out of Obamaphobia.

You would be wrong.

The early Tea Party rallies were protests against proposed climate change legislation, laws that would cut green house gas emissions and increase taxes on fossil fuels.

Those rallies were generously funded and actively organized in part by a group called Americans For Prosperity. AFP designed websites, provided speakers, paid for buses, provided talking points, and so much more.

Billionaire David Koch is the Chairman of the Board and a founding member of Americans For Prosperity (AFP). Koch is a rich oil tycoon who likes to fund organizations that will promote his own financial self-interest.

Koch Brothers Industries is the largest privately owned oil and chemical company in the world.

Between 2005 and 2008 Koch Foundations gave AFP $5 million.

The Tea Party is not of the Republican Party. The Tea Party was founded by a filthy rich guy to protect the oil industry in the guise of a 'grass roots' political movement.

I’m sure many of you are either unaware or indifferent of your role as a pawn in a scheme to make the super rich even richer. Maybe you don't care that Koch Industries is involved because you are anti-masturbation activists.

In any event, the Tea Party is a scam, and most followers think they are part of something else. They have been taken, but if enough Tea Baggers win in November the rest of us will get taken, too.

September 16, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

You must have been wearing your tin foil hat when you posted that bw.

September 16, 2010 at 10:37 a.m.
whatever said...

Really? That seems like a stretch of the imagination to me.

So do many of the Tea Party Claims to me. Go figure. Anyway, I'd like it if I thought the Tea Party genuinely wanted to cut the budget and reduce the size of government, but I fear it's just rhetoric.

As for what they'd do to me, well, that comes from talking with them. All it took was one of them threatening me. Maybe that's just personal offense, but they earned it.

What part of rolando's post regarding someone in WALMART masturbating didn't you read correctly? He didn't say anything at all against anyone doing that in their own home. Don't be silly.

Silly complaints gets silly responses.

September 16, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
rolando said...

sandyonthehill's 15-point manifesto will certainly make a hit on the Hill...they have worked so hard to create the problem.

If they are In they are Out.

September 16, 2010 at 10:59 a.m.

actually EaTN is right. The Tea Party began as a good thing, the grassroots organization part of the Ron Paul Libertarian Revolution. To reclaim congress and the white house by abiding by the contexts of the Constitution. Then it got hijacked by morons, semi absorbed by factions of the Republican party and run by idiots like Sarah Palin.

September 16, 2010 at 11:01 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Musicman375 wrote:

"You must have been wearing your tin foil hat when you posted that bw."

That's your opinion. I see you didn't bother to challenge anything.

Nice drive-by.

September 16, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.
Duford said...

Good God, alprova.

You claim to want to protect the middle class -- do you even have a clue as to how the Federal Reserve systematically DESTROYS it?

Monetary policy controlled by a centralized organization -- that has the power to print and counterfeit money at will -- is probably THE most detrimental thing to the middle class. I highly advise that you study its history in the US and its consequences in depth.

Although I don't agree with your assessment on Rand Paul, I wonder if Kentuckians know what they're getting into. He's the manifestation of freedom, and that means respecting property rights of all kind, so it's safe to assume he'd be for drug legalization, ending the Fed, repeal of some of the anti-property rights legislation of the Civil Rights Amendment, and for the end of our foreign adventures.

And yes, the tea party is split between neo-con supporters of Sarah Palin and grassroots lovers of liberty who support Ron Paul. However, both parties agree that our government has grown out of control -- but -- if the "tea party" does get any representation in the upcoming elections, it'll be interesting to see which side wins out on the policy implementation.

September 16, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
InspectorBucket said...

Visit My Campaign Website: www.christine2010.com>

Christine O'Donnell for US Senate http://www.facebook.com/supportchristine#!/supportchristine?v=wall

**

What in the world?

Is this a gimmick?

Give you money? For what?

What are Christine O'Donnell's positions?

Ms. O'Donnell, this will not pass muster. Completing your homework is required before you can receive a grade or take a degree or aspire to high office.

Or is it? I am afraid the past presidents in living memory and host of legislators have made a specialty of fudging their homework and cribbing exams.

I am afraid I cannot judge Ms. O'Donnell's politics and ideas if she will not commit to publishing her ideas and politics.

Passion is necessary. But what sense is their behind the sound and the fury?

At this point Ms. O'Donnell is an example of celebrity politics. Much wind, little matter.

That is not to slight the enormity of her win. But her lack of solid credentials and a stated platform of coherent ideas would make me concerned, especially if I had just voted for her. Where does she stand?

Ms. O'Donnell needs to make a quick study and publish her positions if she wishes thoughtful people to take her seriously. If she does not make a commitment, she will be made a permanent laughingstock.

Not that thoughtfulness is required to enter the voting booth -- cf. the last ever-so-many election cycles.

Bring on the revolutionary candidates. But make certain that the candidates actually have more mettle, less bluff and bluster.

September 16, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Like you've never done the exact same to anyone. Get over it.

Now, I haven't ever heard of that trumpted up conspiracy theory before. Perhaps if you would like to cite some sorces or links, maybe I'll decide to reply. As for right now, it's not what the rest of the country views the Tea Party as being, so I don't care to give it any attention unless given better evidence of it even being remotely true. See rebelliousnature's post at 11:01 for the truth about how the Tea Party started.

September 16, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.
whatever said...

She deleted all her positions AFTER she got the nomination.

Can't have the past haunting here. Especially the distant pass of a few days ago.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:62nG-sHE36EJ:christine2010.com/why-christine/+positions+of+Christine+O%27Donnell&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

September 16, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.
whatever said...

See rebelliousnature's post at 11:01 for the truth about how the Tea Party started.

Started? Perhaps, but it sure got co-opted. They're far more interested in complaining than they are about sitting down and working on solutions.

And it has a negative rating, much as Democrats and Republicans do. Maybe America's just pissed at everybody.

September 16, 2010 at 12:06 p.m.
FM_33 said...

But we can rest assured that your favorite mantra, "It's Bush's Fault!" will continue to shouted out by Left-Progs throughout the land for yet another two years. Username: rolando | On: September 16, 2010 at 4:34 a.m.


That sounds like a line that somebody would say on FOX or CNN. Rolando could you have least said something new that we did'nt know.

September 16, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

MusicMan, MusicMan, where for art thou, Music Man?

You'll probably just trash this stuff as more liberal bias but I provided links because I care.

No, I don't care what candidates you support providing it's an educated choice. We can all learn if we investigate on our own and draw our own conclusions.

Yes we can.

Here’s Jane Mayer’s article which should help:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Here’s an article by Frank Rich:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1

And you might find this informative if you aren’t wearing blinders or have your fingers in your ears as you repeat the mantra, Palin, Palin…

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/cnn-koch-brothers-fund-tea-party

If you have trouble linking just google Koch Brothers tea party to get started.

Enjoy!

September 16, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.
FM_33 said...

The TEA Party DID whup-up on the Delaware GOP candidate. That is exactly what the TEA Party does...to both Parties. And neither party understands why.

Username: rolando | On: September 16, 2010 at 4:45 a.m.


No it is you who do not understand Rolando the bando.

The "Tea Bag Bastards" are right wing in nature and on the left the "Progressive Bag Bastards" are from the far communinst left of the bag.

Now which bag do you wont in your cup today ?

September 16, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Sigh", indeed. Especially when one of those execs is the government-approved CEO of Government Motors -- who received a $9,000,000.00 bonus [of taxpayers' money, no doubt].

It is sickening. Username: rolando | On: September 16, 2010 at 4:51 a.m.


(*$9,000,000.00 * bonus) Where did you get that figure from Rolando ?

September 16, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Great cartoon, Clay. Can we expect to see something similar regarding the Florida Tea Party results/forecasts? [Rhetorical question.] Username: rolando | On: September 16, 2010 at 5:48 a.m.


Rolando 54/12 already has a hit squad for all those tea bastards. There effect come Nov. will be next to nothing and the media is only letting them feel good before the fall.

September 16, 2010 at 12:32 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: September 16, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.


Thank you Blackwater48 the most intelligent poster on this site.

Good bye folks got somewhere else to drop a bomb at !

September 16, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

"Maybe America's just pissed at everybody."

Now that there sounds like a pretty valid theory. We seem to get deeper and deeper in our mess everyday. That's why I don't devote too much of my day to following politics, and instead remember to enjoy life as much as I can. There are plenty of conservative and democrats that I both like and dislike, but mainly I'm tired of ALL of the arguing and lack of bipartisanship among our elected officials. It's one thing for us regular people to disagree in our debates, but we aren't paid to fix the problems. That's what we pay the clowns (currently anyway) in public offices to do, and they're not doing it very well.

September 16, 2010 at 12:39 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

rolando complained about "the government-approved CEO of Government Motors -- who received a $9,000,000.00 bonus [of taxpayers' money, no doubt]."

First, from what orifice did you pull that number? Remember, you're suppose to be an anti-masturbation activist.

You were probably too busy yelling out the window, but here's what Reuters reported on April 21, 2010:

GM completed the repayment of its loans from the U.S. and Canadian governments by paying the outstanding balances of $4.7 billion and $1.1 billion respectively.

Okay, you can go back to the window now. Or whatever you were doing.

September 16, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.
whatever said...

I suggest comparing the GM CEO's salary to that of other comparable companies.

September 16, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
whatever said...

That's what we pay the clowns (currently anyway) in public offices to do, and they're not doing it very well.

That's because too often they don't get elected by offering solutions, but by offering complaints.

September 16, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
InspectorBucket said...

Okay. Now I see.

I have to read what Christine O'Donnell stands for in "cached" form.

Not a very bold stance, this bit of hide-and-seek, I must say.

The missing O'Donnell CV:

  • English Major
  • "marketing and media consultant"
  • "a social advocate in Washington, D.C."
  • "part of a delegation of journalists"
  • "a member of the Delaware Press Association"
  • "a frequent radio talk show guest-host" and guest
  • "a political commentator"
  • RNC Strategist
  • "Board of Directors for Birthright of Delaware until May 2008"

Oh, dear. Our public offices have been overtaken by Favorite Sons and Community Organizers and Beauty Pageant Contestants and Marketing Consultants.

**

About Christine http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9o85rGdLuRwJ:christine2010.com/meet-christine/+http://christine2010.com/meet-christine/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

**

Christine Counters http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UBQVOkOmWT8J:christine2010.com/blog/472-christine-counters/+http://christine2010.com/blog/472-christine-counters/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

September 16, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Thanks for the links, Oz.

Creative accounting has been the backbone of American enterprise since Alexander Hamilton.

Wherever the money came from, whether profits, other government loans or whatever, at least it was taxpayer dollars going back to Washington. We didn't loose as much and GM is still paying workers and making cars.

Any good links to what Wall Street and the banks did with George Bush's $700 billion going away present?

September 16, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.
whatever said...

Any good links to what Wall Street and the banks did with George Bush's $700 billion going away present?

Here's one:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/106195/wall_street_fat_cats_are_trying_to_pocket_billions_in_bailout_cash/

September 16, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.
hambone said...

Forget the senate race in Florida. The race for gov. has a real life con-man in it. Watch your jewelry and wrist watch Rick Scott will steal you blind!!

September 16, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
Duford said...

"Wherever the money came from, whether profits, other government loans or whatever, at least it was taxpayer dollars going back to Washington."

LOL!

An eye for an eye isn't justice. At least, supposedly, here.

September 16, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.
whatever said...

An eye for an eye isn't justice. At least, supposedly, here.

Charging interest, eh?

September 16, 2010 at 2:13 p.m.
memphisexile said...

The simple fact is that we need to reduce spending AND (temporarily) raise taxes. Sorry. No one wants to hear that but it's the truth.

There is no easy way to get rid of this debt the country has been saddled with due to the Bush era tax cuts on the rich and paying for 2 wars by borrowing from the Chinese. You can't get the tax revenue to pay off debt by cutting taxes. The only cuts we could make that would actually pay for the debt would have to come out of the 2 sacred cows SS and Medicare and this isn't going to happen because old people vote and baby boomers want the benefits they have been paying for their whole lives.

Also, please stop with the "higher taxes kill business." No it doesn't. Those businesses just pass the cost on to the consumers. Taxes don't kill business. Unsuccessful business go under because they aren't viable, not because they owe taxes. Businesses only owe taxes when they are making money.

Time to sack up and make some sacrifices people.

September 16, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
Duford said...

You're wrong memphis. Well, partially.

If you believe in the pragmatist, and not the realist approach to politics, then I doubt you'll acknowledge the inevitable FAILURE that Social Security and Medicare have (and has always been) become.

However, if you realize that these are simply Ponzi schemes, enriching the elite at the expense of the middle class, then you MUST make a stand against these entitlement programs that will ruin your kids lives, saddled with debt and obligations to foreigners.

So, yes. You COULD raise taxes and cover yourself. It's like opening a credit card and barely cutting back on spending to maintain your too-high standard of living. Sure, you'll get yourself outta trouble for a while -- but you're not solving the PROBLEM (and are in fact, making it WORSE, with even more debt).

Memphis, have you ever read an profit and loss statement, or a cash flow analysis statement? Taxes are a component of the costs it takes to manufacture goods. And, as the supply and demand law states, you increase the COST of something, inevitably, you'll reduce the DEMAND -- thus the PROFITABILITY -- of the company.

So yes, I agree -- we need to sack up and make sacrifices. But I doubt this country is truly ready to make dramatic cuts in entitlement programs and our warfare machine to make any long-term, economically viable difference.

September 16, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
SBrauer said...

Man, I'm glad I became a "Yankee". I have never in my life heard such a pourout of "rednecked" bilge.

September 16, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.
Oz said...

blackwater48...Creative accounting is a big problem.

Have you ever heard of any other corporation in the world claiming goodwill is worth $30 billion dollars? If goodwill is worth so much? The Salvation Army should incorporate and become a publicly traded corporation. They do far more goodwill than GM. Plus, they would be the richest corporation on the world.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-09/how-gm-made-30-billion-appear-from-thin-air-commentary-by-jonathan-weil.html

I never supported the $700 billion Bush gave to Wall Street.

September 16, 2010 at 8:20 p.m.
rolando said...

whatever said, "Yeah, and you'd authorize the police breaking into his house because he was masturbating, and put him in jail for 20 to life."

No, the SCOTUS said things like that are legal now provided it is done in private, dude.

But you Left-Progs would definitely change that to "anywhere"...take the Frisco-ites, for example, with their public acts of sodomy in broad daylight in the middle of their little parades.

September 16, 2010 at 9:14 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Congratulations, Oz, on not supporting the $700 billion dollar no strings attached gift Bush gave Wall Street.

Bold stance.

You seem to have your panties in a bunch over the term "good will." Nope, I haven't heard of any other corporation claiming goodwill is worth $30 billion. Maybe, just maybe, it happens every day. Maybe all corporations move money around to avoid paying higher taxes, to earn higher bonuses, or a thousand other reasons.

I'm not a corporate accountant.

Would you rather have GM go out of business and layoff even more workers?

September 16, 2010 at 9:22 p.m.
Clara said...

I wonder why people object to Social Security.

My former husband and I paid MORE than 60 years of Social Security Taxes combined. My ex-husband died at 65 so only collected a small bit back.

I wouldn't be alive myself if it weren't for Social Security, and I still pay back socially by engaging in volunteer work I find rewarding.

So? Someone tell me where they think Social Security went wrong.

September 16, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
whatever said...

No, the SCOTUS said things like that are legal now provided it is done in private, dude.

When did that ever stop anybody on the Right-Wing? They all believe activist judges must be ignored because they keep stopping the people from having the laws they want!

But you Left-Progs would definitely change that to "anywhere"...take the Frisco-ites, for example, with their public acts of sodomy in broad daylight in the middle of their little parades.

Whereas you Conservatives would change that to having the Sex Police carefully monitoring everybody's bedrooms for activity, frequency, and noise levels. Not to mention banning any use of Birth Control, as clearly that would offend God.

As for Goodwill? I dunno, Warren Buffet did say it takes 20 years to build a reputation and 5 minutes to ruin it.

September 16, 2010 at 9:46 p.m.
whatever said...

So? Someone tell me where they think Social Security went wrong.

First I have to invent a Quantum Leap Accelerator.

September 16, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.
Oz said...

blackwater48... I was not trying to sound condescending toward you.

Did I want GM to go out business? No. I just don't like the way it was done.

My uncle was a GM dealer (out of state) for 25 years and he was forced out of business. Numerous dealerships across the United States were forced out of business by GM. All of those dealerships provided jobs but these people did not have union representation in bed with the administration.

Fortunately, my uncle was able to purchase an import franchise and retain most of his employees.

GM is a sore spot with me.

This a good article about the GM mess.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/23/tarp-audit-on-dealer-shutdowns-ethnic-gender-issues-trumped-economics/

September 16, 2010 at 10:10 p.m.
acerigger said...

Oz,I think many share your view,Michael Moore opened a lot of eyes about GM.But they're another "too big to fail" operation in our country I suppose.

September 17, 2010 at 12:27 a.m.
whatever said...

They should have used my selection method. Darts!

September 17, 2010 at 12:33 a.m.
acerigger said...

Whatever,thanx for your posts,keep 'em coming.

September 17, 2010 at 12:50 a.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "Good God, alprova.

You claim to want to protect the middle class -- do you even have a clue as to how the Federal Reserve systematically DESTROYS it?

Monetary policy controlled by a centralized organization -- that has the power to print and counterfeit money at will -- is probably THE most detrimental thing to the middle class. I highly advise that you study its history in the US and its consequences in depth."


I'll tell you what, the day that any printed dollar does not allow me to purchase a dollar's worth of anything, let's revisit the subject.

I certainly have yet to read one person with millions or billions of American dollars whining that their stashes contain "counterfeit" dollars or that some of them are worth less than others.

A dollar is worth the same to both a poor or a rich man.


"Although I don't agree with your assessment on Rand Paul, I wonder if Kentuckians know what they're getting into. He's the manifestation of freedom, and that means respecting property rights of all kind, so it's safe to assume he'd be for drug legalization, ending the Fed, repeal of some of the anti-property rights legislation of the Civil Rights Amendment, and for the end of our foreign adventures."


And he'll receive his due worth in terms of votes come November. You can paint him anyway you want, but the man is a kook from the word go, and the minute he stated that businesses that serve the public should have a "right" to exclude patrons, he revealed his true "colors."

You may agree with him, and you're not alone, but that kind of crap will not fly with most Americans, and it certainly will not be supported by any majority of Kentuckians.


"And yes, the tea party is split between neo-con supporters of Sarah Palin and grassroots lovers of liberty who support Ron Paul."


Which have only accomplished in fracturing the Republicans, who should have told them both to fly a kite two years ago and a year ago, respectively.


"However, both parties agree that our government has grown out of control -- but -- if the "tea party" does get any representation in the upcoming elections, it'll be interesting to see which side wins out on the policy implementation."


The Democrats will be the winners, unless they make the same mistake, which some of them already have, in bowing to this imaginary pressure the Tea-Parties think they wield.

The Tea-Partiers are nothing less than modern-day body snatchers, who cannot subsist on their own and gain traction, so they invade and entrench, hoping to drive out those who previously ruled the legislative body, thinking they will overtake minds.

September 17, 2010 at 1:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "Memphis, have you ever read an profit and loss statement, or a cash flow analysis statement? Taxes are a component of the costs it takes to manufacture goods. And, as the supply and demand law states, you increase the COST of something, inevitably, you'll reduce the DEMAND -- thus the PROFITABILITY -- of the company."


Taxes are RARELY a factor in the cost of manufacturing goods. Business to business exchanges of products are not taxed, unless they are sold to a business as the end consumer of those products.

Taxes are collected ONLY on goods when they are sold to consumers. The only exception to that rule is when a business is assessed corporate taxes on the value of finished goods that are on hand at the conclusion of their declared tax-year ending month.

Most businesses beat that assessed tax by emptying their properties of finished goods for retail sale when that time rolls around, and by keeping a minimal inventory on hand at all times.

The retail price of goods sold, unless a businessperson is lacking in the brain department, will have any and all taxes that they will be or have been assessed, factored into that retail price.

Now, for sure, any increase in taxes will increase the retail price, but assuming that competitors use the same strategy to reduce their tax bite, taxes will be assessed equally on all who offer similar products.

Profit of course, is calculated by subtracting the total cost of manufacturing from the retail price. Profit is the difference between the two. Competitive forces may dictate that companies dicker with the retail price to persuade customers to buy from them, thus increasing or lowering profit.

Any manufacturer who can't compete, is doing something wrong. That may mean they are manufacturing products of deficient quality, that they are not competitively purchasing components that go into their products, that they may be paying their employees at rates that are higher than others, or that they have a poor method of marketing their goods to consumers.

No business has gone under in this nation as a result of corporate or sales taxes, just as memphisexile stated.

Many businesses HAVE gone under due to one or more of the four reasons I offer above.

September 17, 2010 at 2:24 a.m.
rolando said...

What went wrong with Social Security, Clara?

The day Congress moved the trust fund [or whatever] from the dedicated fund into the general fund [or whatever] and replaced it with worthless IOUs. It did that so it could spend the trust every year, which has essentially destroyed SS.

Clinton did the same thing with the US Civil Service trust so he could run his Bomb-Yugoslavia campaign...only he didn't even put in an IOU -- he just took it.

A second factor with the SS was when they started giving it to those who had paid nothing into the fund. Congress found out it was a good vote-buyer to give it to anyone and so we became where we are today. I have pretty well written off my 25+ years of contributions.

[Families whose breadwinner paid into the system became eligible upon his [usually] death. [Those two-earner families could/can [I think] draw on either contribution but not both. The 2nd earner's money was/is just lost.]

September 17, 2010 at 6:40 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "The day Congress moved the trust fund [or whatever] from the dedicated fund into the general fund [or whatever] and replaced it with worthless IOUs. It did that so it could spend the trust every year, which has essentially destroyed SS."


Total bunk. I've posted many times the facts surrounding the Social Security trust fund. Every penny taken into the Social Security Trust Fund must be converted to securities, by Federal law.

Those securities are far from being "worthless IOU's." The investments held by all Government trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The Government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The securities are just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal Government.


"Clinton did the same thing with the US Civil Service trust so he could run his Bomb-Yugoslavia campaign...only he didn't even put in an IOU -- he just took it."


The amount of pure BS that you can come up with is utterly astounding. Not only is that a total lie, for the simple fact that no President could begin to do such a thing, the CSRS currently has a balance in excess of $1.6 trillion.


"I have pretty well written off my 25+ years of contributions."


Why would you do that? You get your benefits each and every month, don't you? When they cut you off, or you fail to receive your monthly deposit so much as one time, then, and only then, will you begin to make such a claim with a straight face.

Have no fear Rolando...you'll be paid until you die.


"[Families whose breadwinner paid into the system became eligible upon his [usually] death. [Those two-earner families could/can [I think] draw on either contribution but not both. The 2nd earner's money was/is just lost.]"


Actually, the rule is simple. A spouse can draw either benefits based on his or her own earnings, or 1/2 of the deceased spouse's benefits, whichever is higher.

And yes, any remaining "balance," if any, is lost when someone dies, which is why Conservative politicians are considering raising the retirement age AGAIN, as a means to shore up Social Security. God knows they are not willing to find a way to provide the additional funds, if they are ever needed, to pay benefits to those who have earned it by paying into the system.

If the Republicans have their way, those now under the age of 50 may have to wait until they are 70 years old to begin to draw their full monthly benefit amount.

September 17, 2010 at 8:59 a.m.
Duford said...

"I'll tell you what, the day that any printed dollar does not allow me to purchase a dollar's worth of anything, let's revisit the subject."

Al, you really don't have any clue as to how our monetary system works. Needless to say, 99% of most Americans don't anyway. But that's not a good reason NOT to investigate it.

Seriously, you need to study what the difference between sound money and fiat currency is. We operate in a system, so corrupt, and so devoid of respecting property rights, that some arm of the government, which is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to audit and review, literally at a whim can decide how much our fiat currency is worth.

Do you know that banks operate under "fractional reserve banking." Do you even have a clue what that means? Basically, banks can take the money which you ENTRUST them to safeguard, and literally LOAN it to another, and keep the profit spread for themselves. And it's all protected by legal precedent.

There was a time when currency was backed by an objective value, ie, gold, and governments couldn't spend at such an extreme without accounting for the hard money it was backed by.

Al -- let's say you're a black man. A Ku Klux Klan member walks into your business establishment. Can you deny service to him, according to the law?

Al -- let's raise corporate sales by 50% or 100%. You honestly think that these companies ARE NOT going to have any profit-loss?

September 17, 2010 at 9:16 a.m.
librul said...

And all over America, homeschooling mothers stare into their coffee cups while trying to frame an answer to "Mommy, what's masturbation?"

September 17, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "Al, you really don't have any clue as to how our monetary system works. Needless to say, 99% of most Americans don't anyway. But that's not a good reason NOT to investigate it."


You know what you know because you have decided to opt the opinion of others. What you don't know for sure, is what I know and don't know.


Do you know that banks operate under "fractional reserve banking." Do you even have a clue what that means? Basically, banks can take the money which you ENTRUST them to safeguard, and literally LOAN it to another, and keep the profit spread for themselves. And it's all protected by legal precedent.


And this is a bad thing?

There's never been any secret in what you are stating.

I have CD's, that earn money while those funds are on loan to others who are in need those loans. Yeah, the bank takes a cut, and that's fine with me. Are you under some impression that banks are in business for their health?

Conversely, when I needed loans at times in my past, the bank made arrangements to assist me, and did so with funds on tap belonging to others who entrusted them with the bank, and who knew that the funds were loaned juduciously. I paid interest to the bank, who in turn distributed it to all applicable parties, including the bank itself.

I don't know about you, but I love my bank and my bank loves me, and we have been in love for more than 35 years. It is however a give and take kind of relationship that works out rather well for the both of us.


"There was a time when currency was backed by an objective value, ie, gold, and governments couldn't spend at such an extreme without accounting for the hard money it was backed by."


Which bothers me not for a second. The paper money we use is as good as gold. Yeah, I know all those arguments, and I'm worried about them as much as I am that the world is going to end in 2012 when the Mayan calendar expires.


"Al -- let's say you're a black man. A Ku Klux Klan member walks into your business establishment. Can you deny service to him, according to the law?"


Don't turn this around and use an extreme example to attempt to make a point. Rand Paul made it clear that he would like to reverse civil rights to allow businesses to refuse service to those of color. You heard, I heard it, and an entire nation heard it.

The only thing he didn't do was wear HIS bed sheet when he said it.


"Al -- let's raise corporate sales by 50% or 100%. You honestly think that these companies ARE NOT going to have any profit-loss?"


There ya' go with another unrealistic and extreme example that lends nothing to a debate. No one is talking about raising corporate taxes 50% or 100%. But the answer is the same, no matter the rate or percentage involved.

Corporations do not pay taxes. They always pass them on to consumers by embedding any and all taxes into the prices of their goods and services sold...period.

September 17, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.
alprova said...

Librul wrote: "And all over America, homeschooling mothers stare into their coffee cups while trying to frame an answer to "Mommy, what's masturbation?"..."


How many times in the past few days have the words WTF been uttered in regard to what comes out of that woman's mouth?

Check this out. I laughed out loud when I saw it.

http://i.imgur.com/jJ1Tn.png

September 17, 2010 at 10:26 a.m.
Clara said...

Thanks Al! I knew something was wrong with Rolando's post but didn't have the words or financial know-how.

September 17, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
Duford said...

Al, clearly you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to fractional reserve banking. Like, no clue whatsoever.

If it there wasn't something so enticing about arguing with a hard-headed, illogical ideologue like yourself, I wouldn't give you the time of day. ;-)

Fractional reserve banking means that a bank keeps a fraction of your reserves available in the bank. If Bank A has $1,000,000 in deposits, and the Fed determines the bank holding rate to be 10%, then the bank must hold at least $100,000 on hand.

The rest is loaned out -- but the problem comes in when depositors come in to redeem their demand deposits (checking accounts) and the bank doesn't have their money which they contractually agreed to return on demand. Thus, creating notorious bank runs.

You see, it's all fine and dandy for you to take your money to a bank, agree to lock it up for x# of years, and get it back at the agreed time.

But when the vast majority of depositors want ONLY to keep their money SAFE, away from robbery and theft, in a bank, and they find out the BANK is loaning it, running proprietary trading desks with it, and they lose BIG with it, to discover their savings are WIPED out, this is obviously theft and destruction of property.

You might mention FDIC as the solution, but that's what we economically-sound people call a "moral hazard" -- a "solution" (deposit insurance)that continues to unveil unintended consequences (unsound loaning standards at the expense of low- and middle-class depositors -- sound familiar?).

On top of that, fractional reserve banking functions as way to inflate the supply of fiat currency in the economy. More currency means businesses and individuals will bid up the scarce supply of goods, causing prices to increase without a reflective increase in the underlying hard money (gold, silver, whatever) that the currency represents.

And it's usually the rich, well-healed, and the political power-brokers who get first dibs at the increased supply of currency, and the poorer and middle-class who end up with higher prices and decreased purchasing power with their deflated value dollars.

September 17, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
Duford said...

Al -- I'll answer the simple questions for you, as you seem to be incapable of revealing the obvious disconnect between your beliefs and reality.

A black man would not be able to deny service to a KKK member, as Civil Rights legislation abrogates property rights. In essence, our government says a racist moron does not have first rights to the administration of his property.

The fact is is that racism is evil; but people are going to be racist, as druggies are going to be druggies, whether the government mandates it legal or illegal. The problem arises when government violates property rights at the expense of whatever greater good is in vogue.

My thoughts are that Rand Paul is not a racist, but respects the racist moron's RIGHT to his property.

This is a very important distinction you need to understand, Al. It's not complicated. I can respect property rights an individual has, whether he's tolerant or a racist. But, then again, if you have a distorted view like yourself of the sanctity and meaning of property rights, you wouldn't get this simple fact, right?

As far as taxes tied to income, you're right. But you cannot forget opportunity costs, either.

Taxes raise the opportunity costs for entrepreneurs interested in taking risks.

I'll ask you an easier question, Al. If you had the choice of (a), risking your savings and lifestyle on a potentially industry-changing logistics system that could revolutionize the trucking industry, or (b) work a 9-5 job that could make 75% of your income you could POTENTIALLY receive IF your entrepreneurial vision comes true, which would you take?

For the average, non-greater good person unlike yourself -- those who have self-interest -- they most likely would NOT opt for such high risks, which are made HIGHER by an intrusive, over-taxing government. And what if the system were to have worked, but you passed on the risk? American industry would have missed out on a cost-saving, wealth-increasing, productivity-enhancing system that would have freed up capital to be used on providing jobs, raising wages, or putting it to work on new, potentially profitable ventures.

That's the problem with over-burdening taxation; it reduces incentive, which is THE CORNERSTONE to our economy.

September 17, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Duford, you really "get it" on a much higher level of understanding than I or anyone else I have spoken with, but your ability to relate it so elequently increases the value of your knowledge by a factor of at least 10. Thanks for the posts.

September 17, 2010 at noon
whatever said...

I don't think we're going to go back to Full-Reserve banking.

As for the decision to be an Entrepreneur, I've found that the reason most people don't follow through on their ideas is a lack of capital.

September 17, 2010 at 12:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Duford, your arguments are completely hypothetical in substance, and are therefore not worth the time to debate. You can't cite so much as one realistic instance to substantiate your points.

If you don't like banks, don't use them. If you don't like civil rights, don't open a business to serve the public at large. If you want to vote for Rand Paul, move to Kentucky. And by golly, if you don't like taxation, then don't make any income.

I'm rather sure that the last one is already underway, because you seem to have a great deal of time on your hands to over-think just about everything.

So, I'll let my comments stand as they are, and I have no doubt that you will stand on yours. Your opinion of me and what you think I know, is of no consequence.

I again, reiterate the fact that you don't know what I know, or how deep my understanding is of a doggone thing. What I know is that it would be pointless to argue with you. You're 25 years old and you know it all.

I'm not impressed with anything you type, nor how you type it. So go try to impress someone else with your out-of-control arrogance and your college-spawned condescension.

The real world is out there waiting to prove to you that your education and understanding of certain things means exactly squat. You're in for a life of disappointment.

Just do the world a favor; When you find out that you are as insignificant as the rest of those around you, do us all a favor and try not to take anyone with you when you just can't handle it any longer.

Steal a plane and fly it into a building if you must. Just do it at night when no one is in there. You'll still get your fifteen minutes of fame.

Sheesh...

September 17, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
Duford said...

Wow.

I must have hit a nerve.

I ask simple, hypothetical questions that have a clear point behind them, in an effort to reveal and debate underlying moral premises, like:

-Should the government -- which has given the mandate to protect property rights -- abrogate them under any circumstances they deem for the "greater good"?

-Should the federal government in essence have dominion over the value of our currency?

-Should banks be able to dole out your banked dollars without your approval?

If you can't even debate these simple questions, and back them up with some type of moral ground, then quite simply your premises are incorrect, and your principles which ground your life are about as solid as a house on quicksand.

Al, with all due respect, our disagreements really are the line in the sand when it comes to the ultimate direction of our country (I guess that's why I can't help myself arguing with you =) ).

What's that moral question with which we must face? It is: Do you respect the rights of the individual and what it entails, or do you subordinate yourself to a government which will abrogate rights as it so chooses, in favor of some favored class.

Anyway, nice job with the shoddy attempt to character assassinate when you repetitively fail to argue cohesively and objectively against a kid who's half your age.

I'll let the participants in this forum decide who's arrogant.

September 17, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.
whatever said...

I'll let the participants in this forum decide who's arrogant.

It can be both. Or all of the above if you wish to go that way.

Two of your questions are answered in the US Constitution. though. One of those is outside any state's power, and the other is included in most, if not all, state constitutions.

The third is more ambiguous, but has been addressed in other laws. If you really want to utilized a bank that uses a full-reserve system you can feel free to do so though.

September 17, 2010 at 2:07 p.m.
Duford said...

Hi what,

Right -- but is the Constitution right? Clearly slavery was wrong and was changed. What about the income tax? Federal Reserve system? Etc...

As far as full-reserve system banks, I pretty sure, but not completely confident, no banks falls outside of the grasp of the Federal Reserve system, as we are forced to use FR bank notes.

It used to be that banks issued their own notes, which were backed by the gold stored in deposits. But not anymore.

I've always thought the problem should begin with what's right for the individual first.

September 17, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
whatever said...

Right -- but is the Constitution right?

If you want to hold a Constitutional Convention, I'm up for it. We can discuss it there. Along with other things.

Otherwise there's no point, if you're not willing to commit to it, why bother with an argument.

As far as full-reserve system banks, I pretty sure, but not completely confident, no banks falls outside of the grasp of the Federal Reserve system, as we are forced to use FR bank notes.

Well I'm sure you can't easily escape the rest of the world's financial systems, but there are options for your own money if you wish.

It used to be that banks issued their own notes, which were backed by the gold stored in deposits. But not anymore.

Thank goodness. Gold is far more useful in industry than it is in bank vaults.

I've always thought the problem should begin with what's right for the individual first.

First? Perhaps, but not only. Determining your priorities does not mean they can't be modified, and sometimes it's quite complicated.

September 17, 2010 at 2:31 p.m.
Duford said...

Hi what,

Gold has both monetary and industrial use. But it's monetary use is what it's historically bee known for.

It's no coincidence that gold is the preferred hard money asset for economies to use. It doesn't tarnish, it's malleable, it's easy to transfer, and generally the value is respected world-wide. That's why most advanced civilization prior to central banks used it.

The problem with having gold was that governments had to be accountable to it. If government issued paper currency, it had to guarantee a specific backing to it, so the people could trust it.

Well, as you know, government naturally is biased to grow, so the desire to spend freely without recognizing economic consequences grew.

Gold was actually confiscated from the people under FDR, and then effectively devalued to underhandedly with fiscal concerns. Eventually, gold was severed completely from the dollar, as foreigners demanded more gold in return for their dollars than the government had.

Now the only thing backing the dollar is its ability to collect taxes. If investors and creditors ever lose confidence in its ability to do that, then you can kiss our currency bye-bye.

You can do a google-search for Alan Greenspan's short writing on the benefits of gold. Just remember the sell-out Alan Greenspan who headed the Fed is a totally different monster than the Objectivist Libertarian he used to be.

September 17, 2010 at 3:14 p.m.
whatever said...

But it's monetary use is what it's historically bee known for.

Sometimes you have to realize history was full of people who didn't live today. I'd say about 99% of them. That's just a rough estimate, mind you,

I don't let their decisions control mine. Influence, maybe, but that can be more negative than positive.

Your other arguments are up to you, but me, I just don't like this obsession with the gold standard. At least come up with some alternative that won't screw over the computer industry.

Either that, or accept that if the point ever comes where you can't trust that the government will continue to exist, then you're screwed anyway. Deeply.

September 17, 2010 at 3:27 p.m.
Duford said...

History is full of civilizations where its rulers tampered with money, whether it was debasement of the metal itself or the replacement of fiat paper currency, with that civilization eventually going bust.

History ought to be listened to and respected.

And it's not necessarily the argument for gold. It's the argument for an objective value to your dollars in your wallet that's the point. Whether society decides that objective value to be silver, wheat, cows, or salt (all of which have been used), is up to them.

But just because our currency is generally accepted now, doesn't mean that history, as it often does with regularity, won't repeat itself.

Here's Alan Greenspan's treatise on Gold and Economic Freedom here. It's a quick and informative read why gold bugs are zealous fanaticals -- at the very least, you'll get a little more understanding as to why: http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

September 17, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "Wow.

I must have hit a nerve."


Not at all.


"I ask simple, hypothetical questions that have a clear point behind them, in an effort to reveal and debate underlying moral premises, like:"


No, what you want to argue are things that have never happened, nor are likely ever to happen, to make your obscure and unrealistic points.

For instance, the image of a fully dressed member of the KKK popping into a local ethnic diner to order a bowl of chitterlings is quite amusing, but it would never happen. They travel in packs like dogs, number one, and in this day and age they don't have the guts to pull off such a stunt.

So why debate something that will never happen?

On the other hand, discrimination in restaurants against black patrons STILL occurs today. Let's debate that. It's reality. Rand Paul wants to revive racism by reversing laws put in place to prevent such crap, and I suppose you support it, given your profound interest in the subject and the substance of your arguments.


"-Should the government -- which has given the mandate to protect property rights -- abrogate them under any circumstances they deem for the "greater good"?"


Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough times already?

"-Should the federal government in essence have dominion over the value of our currency?"


Yes.

"-Should banks be able to dole out your banked dollars without your approval?"


Your terminology is false and horribly misleading. Banks LEND money with the full WRITTEN and DISCLOSED knowledge of those who place deposits with them for extended and agreed upon periods of time. "Doling" suggests that money is given to others with no expectation of repayment, with interest.

And you know what? That's been the way banks have operated from day one. Who the heck just woke up to discover this awful system where customers can actually be willing and conspiratorial financial partners of a bank?


"Do you respect the rights of the individual and what it entails, or do you subordinate yourself to a government which will abrogate rights as it so chooses, in favor of some favored class."


From where I sit, the "favored class" is doing pretty well these days. The top 1% in this nation managed under Republican assistance, pre-2009 that is, to amass the greatest shift in personal wealth out of the pockets of the middle classes, into their own.


"Anyway, nice job with the shoddy attempt to character assassinate when you repetitively fail to argue cohesively and objectively against a kid who's half your age."


You're not interested in objectivity. And pardon me, but you think too much of yourself. And pardon me again, but your tinfoil hat is a couple of sizes too large for you.


"I'll let the participants in this forum decide who's arrogant."


I'm not actively running for the title.

You win.

September 17, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.
whatever said...

History ought to be listened to and respected.

History ought to be learned from, especially its mistakes. Believe it or not, things have changed over the years. I don't know why you're so obsessed with turning back the clock that you place the foundation of your arguments upon it, but all it tells me is that you're making foolish appeals to the authority of the past.

Perhaps you don't mean to come across the way, but really it doesn't serve your arguments as well as you seem to think. The more you repeat such, the more I'm convinced you're a fruitcake trying to take us back to whatever illusion you have of the good ole days. Which makes it even less desirable to talk with you.

That's a terrible thing to do to your own message, it really is.

It's the argument for an objective value to your dollars in your wallet that's the point.

Did you not read where I said:

"Your other arguments are up to you, but me, I just don't like this obsession with the gold standard. At least come up with some alternative that won't screw over the computer industry."

Or did you miss the meaning? Was it unclear?

September 17, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
Francis said...

great points rolando.

the tea pary exists because people have had enough...not just of democrats, but republicans who are simply a watered down verion of democrats.

i saw a utube video of a reporter asking a black american if he felt out of place at a big tea party rally in washington..i think it was in may, ........ the man laughed, and said, not at all..they're americans like me..not sure of the exact quote...but soemthing like that.

this movement did not start at the top with some demagogue, like obama, it's just people are sick and tired of being slapped around.

September 17, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
moonpie said...

Duford,

Exactly what points are you trying to make? It sounds like

1) You're arguing for a return to the gold standard.

As I have always understood the gold standard, there are nearly as many advantages as there are disadvantages. Basically, it protects against inflation, but in times of growth promotes deflation. In times of crisis, when people hoard values (such as the Great Depression) it places a boot on the neck of the economy.

It seems gold reserves do have a place in our economy, but given the relatively arbitrary nature of gold as a commodity of value, I think the economy needs variety. Any ecosystem or economic system is at greatest risk when it is a monoculture. (We can take lessons from history and nature on this one.) Diversity is a good thing.

2) You're arguing for the right of people to negatively discriminate against other peole on the basis of color. (Gender, religion, too?)

This is a real set up for tyranny of the majority, if you ask me. You're banking on the hope that we will not return to our past, and possibly believing that given how far we've progressed as a society that enough people will remain unbiased so that no actual harm comes to one group.

If such laws were passed, I would hope this supposition would be right. I think it's naive.

** Like Marxism, Libertarianism sounds pretty good on paper. It's in the practicle application that they fall apart. Human nature always gets in the way. It's human nature to want to take advantage of others.

At any rate, that's just my opinion, which I can neither prove, nor disprove.

September 17, 2010 at 4:11 p.m.
whatever said...

Human nature always gets in the way. It's human nature to want to take advantage of others.

For what it's worth, I agree with this opinion.

September 17, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.
alprova said...

Clara wrote: "Thanks Al! I knew something was wrong with Rolando's post but didn't have the words or financial know-how."


I missed this earlier.

You're very welcome!!

September 17, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
Duford said...

"-Should the government -- which has given the mandate to protect property rights -- abrogate them under any circumstances they deem for the "greater good"?"


Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough times already?

"-Should the federal government in essence have dominion over the value of our currency?"


Yes."

Good -- finally some clear answers.

...But what I really want to know is, why do you think this way? What set of standards do you operate by? That's what I've always been most interested in, but you fail to cite any type of doctrine/theology/thought-process in your view-points.

You know mine -- individual rights versus the collective. Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Austrian Economics. What are yours -- can you define them? Not in some murky explanation, but some type of objective set of rules would be best (in all due respect, of course).

That's why I ask the "obscure, hypotheticals" because they tend to reveal underlying premises, which is what I'd really, really like to examine.

As far as racial discrimination goes, it's summed up as such; just as people SHOULD be allowed to get high in their own property, racists have the right to be stupid and deny patronage to others.

Let's examine the consequences. Let's say the Honkey's Buffet says they don't serve colored people. Guess what happens? People, like you and me, who think racists are incredibly stupid, refuse to spend our hard-earned dollars at Honkey's. Whereas we MIGHT have if they respected other people. Their racist reputation increases, and, hopefully if there are people of character like ourselves, they stop eating at Honkey's, leaving the ONLY racists eating at Honkey's, or, leading them out of business.

Point being, I'm not a racist for wanting that part of the Civil Rights legislation removed; I respect men of any color. But I don't think legislating against property rights is the right answer. Stupidity spreads fast these days, and a reputation for it is enough to influence consumers.

Concerning banking, like I said earlier, I have no problem with contractual agreements that explain the relationship of the depositor, the bank, and the debtor. But it's demand deposits that get fleeced, since banks legally can keep a small fraction of their deposits on demand that I have a problem with. Which inevitably leads to currency inflation and higher prices.

If you're intellectually curious about this, I encourage you to read Murray Rothbard's explanation of FRB here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html -- if at least to understand my argument.

...And yes I'm interested in objectivity! It's what I YEARN for in these murky, pragmatic times!

September 17, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

This 'Party' sux!

I'm going to the Restore Sanity Rally!

September 17, 2010 at 7:06 p.m.
whatever said...

Your opinions on racism are misguided IMHO. People have decided that Racists are so incredibly stupid that we will consider such actions to be an offense against society. Thus instead of having to deal with reputation and individuals, we make an upfront commitment to saying it's wrong and won't be supported.

Why? Because compromising with these people inevitably leads to problems. Separate but Equal was a lie, and a fraud, and eventually became forced upon people even if they didn't want it.

So what we needed to say, as a society, was no way, this simply won't be done.

Trying to hang your hat on it as a support for freedom is just ignoring the consequences of it. It's like saying you support freedom by letting people urinate and defecate wherever they want. All that happens is everybody is forced to walk in it.

September 17, 2010 at 7:11 p.m.
Duford said...

Hi whatever,

Say if slavery was outlawed in Rome, and we lived in the 1800s during the rise of the Abolitionists. Would you have said my desires to free all men from bondage was a throwback to the authority of the past?

My point is is that history yields answers we should listen closely to. Some are lessons from mistakes, and rarely, some are lessons from things we did right.

And what, did you read the link to Greenspan's Article yet? Just curious if you had seen it...

And moon, gold ties down governments from freely spending without recourse. Without an objective value, which has historically been gold, then governments are free from the reigns to deficit-spend into oblivion, like nowadays under Reagan onwards.

Like I said, people are so nutty for gold because so many people believe it's valuable. That's why it has been a historically successful monetary unit. You can't tamper with gold, it pretty much stays the same.

Concerning discrimination, read my above post to Alporva for some perspective. Government should limit itself to protecting property rights, natural rights, and contracts. Anything else typically involves restricting/removing/confiscating the property of others. Which, if you think stealing is wrong, then it's wrong for the government to do it, too.

And it is human nature to dominate; that's why America was so different. We recognized the inherent danger in governments that have a monopoly power on force, and that's why it should be limited to what I stated above. Otherwise, we have people looting others for their own sake, many times over.

September 17, 2010 at 7:12 p.m.
Duford said...

I agree with you, whatever, that racists are stupid and society at large has agreed that is the case.

But should we really say that a racist's property rights are less important than a non-racist's?

If you're grounded in the principles of freedom and truly think about this, then there's no way you can restrict one's right to associate freely with whom he wants. Even if he's a racist moron.

Here's Walter Williams, a national columnist, libertarian, and black man, on what he thinks about discrimination and property rights (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=161057). I think you might be surprised...

September 17, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.
whatever said...

Say if slavery was outlawed in Rome, and we lived in the 1800s during the rise of the Abolitionists. Would you have said my desires to free all men from bondage was a throwback to the authority of the past?

No, I'd say this paragraph is based on a tortured exercise in logic that is itself fraudulent.

You really need to learn not to do that. Believe it or not, some of us can see them for how worthless they are.

My point is is that history yields answers we should listen closely to. Some are lessons from mistakes, and rarely, some are lessons from things we did right.

And that's not something I've said? Oh wait, it is! My problem is your automatic appeal to the past, which I find to be typically insipid and worthless. It'd be one thing if your examination were a broad-based perspective covering the pros and cons, but...you're not. You're trying to use it in a one-sided way to support your agenda.

Sorry but I find that objectionable.

Government should limit itself to protecting property rights, natural rights, and contracts

And people have only one idea how those are covered, right? Hmm...No.

September 17, 2010 at 7:22 p.m.
whatever said...

But should we really say that a racist's property rights are less important than a non-racist's?

But we aren't. This is the typical logical fallacy you trot out. But it's no good. Everybody has the same property rights. The same as you have the same rights if you care about where you poop as if you don't. Everybody is bound by the sanitary laws.

If you're grounded in the principles of freedom and truly think about this, then there's no way you can restrict one's right to associate freely with whom he wants. Even if he's a racist moron.

You are free to associate with whoever you want. You are not free to disassociate others. And that's what racism, apartheid and segregation were always about, disassociating people. Always.

Stop pretending otherwise.

I think you might be surprised...

That Walter Williams is an idiot promulgating bad logic and terrible arguments? No, I wouldn't be. I caught him in a lie once, a deliberate one, and I've decided to NEVER trust him again.

September 17, 2010 at 7:28 p.m.
Duford said...

Whatever,

I think you're missing the point.

Just because I appeal to the past, doesn't mean I automatically DEFER to the past as the means to which we handle problems.

That's the point of my supposed "tormented logical fallacy." Just because it happened in the past, DOESN'T make it any less important.

Explain why that's so fraudulent?

More-over, I thought this was a forum in which we test our own ideas to the fire, ie, a one-sided view-point? I make my case for freedom with evidence, facts, and logic; if you attempt to participate, I gladly look forward to your personal view, facts and logic. Then we debate.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, especially after we make our point. I may not agree with your ideological framework, but I do respect your opinion.

But you're wrong if you're claiming I do not tackle the other side or rebuttals; simply scroll up to read my responses, or look back at previous cartoons.

Please describe to me what is fallacious about, in essence, having the government protect one group's rights over another's, when we are supposed to ensure those rights for everyone?

In fact, you are free to disassociate from others. You do it all the time; the friends you choose, the restaurants you patronage, the car you drive. Every time you associate with someone you disassociate from another.

In fact, freedom to associate is the same thing as not free to disassociate.

You're confusing slavery and Jim Crow laws with free association. One is an abrogation of rights, and the other is an individual choice that free men make, that does not harm anyone else.

I stand completely against the the bondage of men on the grounds that men of all races are sentient individuals, thus it's self-evident that they must be respected. But I am for protecting the rights of a man, racist or not, to dispose of his property as he so chooses.

And yes; if you hang your hat on freedom, there are consequences. People will get high/drunk and damage property and kill others. Bigots will continue being bigots. Businesses will fail. But my point is is that this human action will exist anyway, in quasi-facist/socialist governments like ours, or in freedom-centered governments like we once envisioned. I'll take freedom any day.

Also, I'm curious as to what lie you're referencing; not that I doubt you, I'd just like your experience on how he's a liar.

September 17, 2010 at 8:23 p.m.
Clara said...

I really envy the ability for many of the bloggers here to present their case and debate so clearly. I wish I had the gift and appreciate the vast amount of good stuff I've run across and learned. Thanks!

September 17, 2010 at 8:46 p.m.
whatever said...

Just because I appeal to the past, doesn't mean I automatically DEFER to the past as the means to which we handle problems.

Yours did do it in this case. That's what I'm saying. Whether you do it automatically as a rule? I don't know. Don't care. You did here. That offends me because you aren't showing that you're looking at things in a level-headed open-minded manner.

That's the point of my supposed "tormented logical fallacy."

No, the point of that was to create a farcical strawman.

I decided to set him on fire instead of joust with him.

Just because it happened in the past, DOESN'T make it any less important.

Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it any more important. Why are we repeating ourselves?

Explain why that's so fraudulent?

Because it's entirely made up, based on nothing real. It has no basis in reality, it doesn't serve as any kind of metaphor. It's just you playing with logic, not just having a discussion.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, especially after we make our point. I may not agree with your ideological framework, but I do respect your opinion.

I don't agree with your ideological framework, and I can't respect your argumentation.

But you're wrong if you're claiming I do not tackle the other side or rebuttals; simply scroll up to read my responses, or look back at previous cartoons.

Not what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to tackle the other side. I'm asking you not to be so blind in how you present your own side.

Please describe to me what is fallacious about, in essence, having the government protect one group's rights over another's, when we are supposed to ensure those rights for everyone?

Because you're presenting all rights as universally equal. They're not.

In fact, you are free to disassociate from others.

Excuse me, but you did not read what I said very carefully, did you?

Let me present it again:

"You are free to associate with whoever you want. You are not free to disassociate others. And that's what racism, apartheid and segregation were always about, disassociating people. Always."

Notice what word you added? Why? Were you deliberately trying to change the parsing of my words, or did you simply not realize the importance of the distinction?

I said what I meant. You made it different. Don't do that.

Also, I'm curious as to what lie you're referencing; not that I doubt you, I'd just like your experience on how he's a liar.

Suppress your curiosity, I don't care to look it up again. You want to trust him? Go ahead. I never will again.

September 17, 2010 at 8:52 p.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "...But what I really want to know is, why do you think this way? What set of standards do you operate by? That's what I've always been most interested in, but you fail to cite any type of doctrine/theology/thought-process in your view-points."


And there's a good reason for that. I don't attach myself to any defined doctrine/theology/thought-process.


"You know mine -- individual rights versus the collective. Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Austrian Economics. What are yours -- can you define them? Not in some murky explanation, but some type of objective set of rules would be best (in all due respect, of course)."


Nope. I don't need a category or definition relative to what I believe, nor am I apt to adopt the beliefs of others. I do my own thinking.


"That's why I ask the "obscure, hypotheticals" because they tend to reveal underlying premises, which is what I'd really, really like to examine."


Do you have any idea how creepy that is? What are you, a Proctologist?

"As far as racial discrimination goes, it's summed up as such; just as people SHOULD be allowed to get high in their own property, racists have the right to be stupid and deny patronage to others."


No they don't. No one, and I mean no one has an inherent right to be an ass, especially when you serve the general public.


Let's examine the consequences. Let's say the Honkey's Buffet says they don't serve colored people. Guess what happens? People, like you and me,...(snipped)."


I don't think for one second that you are like me. You are however using the same argument that Rand Paul used on national television and it's disgusting.


"Point being, I'm not a racist for wanting that part of the Civil Rights legislation removed; I respect men of any color. But I don't think legislating against property rights is the right answer. Stupidity spreads fast these days, and a reputation for it is enough to influence consumers."


No. You're not a racist. You're a bigot. And because this country is still filled with far too many bigots, like yourself, who want to mask their bigotry behind issues like property rights, you're confident that there are enough bigots out there who would be happy to patronize establishments who are run by bigots, like themselves.

But that's not going to happen. You live in a Republic, where the rule of law overrides the whims and desires of any majority of bigots, who would love nothing more than to pick and choose their customers.

September 17, 2010 at 9:19 p.m.
Duford said...

"Because you're presenting all rights as universally equal. They're not."

Ah, the potential for a discussion, and not pointlessness. Explain your premise -- I'd enjoy the learning experience. I have a feeling you're more reasoned than alprova, and would clarify some of your underlying retorts mentioned earlier.

And you're not disassociating others when it comes to how you administer your property, assuming it's in a non-fraudulent, harmful manner.

"I don't attach myself to any defined doctrine/theology/thought-process."

That's your problem. And quite simply, the answer to any future premises/suppositions I request.

The fact you have no defined doctrine, theology, or thought-process means you have no bedrock to your thinking, any whims of thought you conclude, without regard to their epistemological/moral backing, are right.

So, I conclude, it's pointless to argue or debate with no moral compass -- or at least, the one that is non-definable, foundation-less.

September 17, 2010 at 10:43 p.m.
whatever said...

And you're not disassociating others when it comes to how you administer your property, assuming it's in a non-fraudulent, harmful manner.

You are. That's the whole point of it. It's inevitable and unavoidable, especially when your property is otherwise made available to the public. Heck, even letting you do it is going to eventually require the law to endorse your point of view. Why? Because you're going to want your authority to remove somebody from your property on the grounds of racism to be backed by the law. Which means that eventually somebody will eventually be in the position of making a police officer or a court enforce racism. And that I will not suffer.

I'd explain the part about rights in detail, but it'd take a far longer discussion than I'm up for this weekend. Plus a lot more precision with word usage.

September 17, 2010 at 11 p.m.
whatever said...

Ooh, strike on eventually.

September 17, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.
whatever said...

one that is...typo storm!

September 17, 2010 at 11:07 p.m.
Clara said...

I find I discriminate against child molesters, sexual predators, serial killers, liars, etc., etc. etc...of both sexes, especially if they've been indicted and found guilty.

September 18, 2010 at 3:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Duford wrote: "That's your problem. And quite simply, the answer to any future premises/suppositions I request."


While you may define it as being a problem, I don't consider it to be any such thing. You see, I don't find myself being at odds with our Government, nor do I have any problem at all in complying with defined property rights in this nation.

Duford, whom you allow in your home is one thing. Whom you allow in any business that you may come to own is another, that is if you operate that business in any manner that includes serving the public. You're perfectly within your right to exclude anyone from entering your home. You are not within your rights to exclude serving a member of the public, based solely on an any race, creed, or national origin, if they happen to differ from your own.


"The fact you have no defined doctrine, theology, or thought-process means you have no bedrock to your thinking, any whims of thought you conclude, without regard to their epistemological/moral backing, are right."


I am a Christian, first and foremost, but not one who is attached to any one defined religious sect or church. My morality is based on the teachings of Jesus. The bedrock I stand upon is what is right versus what is wrong...period. I attempt at all times to treat all people as I would like to be treated, until that becomes impossible due to their demeanor.

And I never judge a book by it's cover.


"So, I conclude, it's pointless to argue or debate with no moral compass -- or at least, the one that is non-definable, foundation-less."


You use that word "morality" quite a bit, but I fail to see the evidence that you are indeed a moral person.

I'd love to see how you define the word, or perhaps I should be asking one of the Pauls for that definition, since you seem to be a little more than enamored with mimicking their talking points that have come to define them as total kooks.

September 18, 2010 at 7:31 a.m.
Duford said...

Hi what,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

No problems on the typos; my final response last night was under the influence of a few Sam Adams Summer Brews, so I had wondered if I had logically made my point.

Though I'm pretty sure al might think ALL my responses I've made are under the influence... ;-)

I get the feeling point you're making about dissociation would be better clarified by your statement that all rights are not universally equal.

That's why I harp so hard on folks like Al who make a statement to back it up with some philosophy. All the talking heads on the radio and TV always argue symptoms, but never in philosophical principles. Part of me thinks they want it purposely that way, but on forums like this, there's a great chance for regular people like ourselves to really examine (no al, I don't have an enema, at ease) why we think the way we do.

As far as my view on property is, it is thus: private property is private property, whether it's a residence or a business. You have the right -- or should, in all cases -- to administer your property as you see fit. Of course, without harming others.

If you appeal that because you are serving the public, then you're subtly saying that a man doesn't have complete first rights to enjoyment and use of his property. Which means that property rights aren't really a right -- as there are no partial rights.

Again, the assumption here is that rights are all equal in my view. All animals are equal, with no animals being more equal than others.

Courts and the law in my view would not be enforcing racism; rather they would be respecting the private property rights of the bigot/racist.

Perhaps it sounds like splitting of hairs, but the ideological difference between what makes a right equal, or more important, is the defining solution to this debate.

And al... the Non-Aggression Principle here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggr...). Here's my objective explanation of how I define "morality."

Don't forget the 8th Commandment and its relevance to Government taxation (particularly, income taxation).

September 18, 2010 at 8:17 a.m.
FM_33 said...

I am gonna say something nice for a change. Everybody here on this thread * Jesus Christ * love's you all.

September 18, 2010 at 11:36 a.m.
FM_33 said...

I find I discriminate against child molesters, sexual predators, serial killers, liars, etc., etc. etc...of both sexes, especially if they've been indicted and found guilty. Username: Clara | On: September 18, 2010 at 3:09 a.m.


Clara by all means you should.

September 18, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.
FM_33 said...

Man, I'm glad I became a "Yankee". I have never in my life heard such a pourout of "rednecked" bilge. Username: SBrauer | On: September 16, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.


Awwwww.....shut up you " Yankee Neck " !

September 18, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.
FM_33 said...

Blackwater48 FM_33 wishes that i was as intelligent as you. Maybe one day i will grow up to be like you.

September 18, 2010 at 11:42 a.m.
FM_33 said...

What part of rolando's post regarding someone in WALMART masturbating didn't you read correctly? Username: Musicman375 | On: September 16, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.


Please face the music Mr.Musicman375. That is what Rolando does all the time which is why he never gets laid like the rest of us.

September 18, 2010 at 11:45 a.m.
FM_33 said...

I really envy the ability for many of the bloggers here to present their case and debate so clearly. Username: Clara | On: September 17, 2010 at 8:46 p.m.


Correction Ms.Clara if i may these people here are posters not bloggers.

September 18, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
whatever said...

I get the feeling point you're making about dissociation would be better clarified by your statement that all rights are not universally equal.

Well, I get the feeling that based on your failure to parse my statement correctly when I originally stated it that it just would be a long pointless discussion.

Sorry, maybe I'll feel like it some other time.

Also I'd disagree about the animals, because in life they are not all equal, but I know you're just trying to use a particular metaphor. It does reflect your confusion though, because it does seem to show you're confusing humanity with its rights. They aren't the same thing. Every human being has the same rights as others, and as such are equal to each other, but the rights themselves are not, and so when the rights do come into conflict, some take priority.

That is why you, the individual, don't have the right to disassociate others.

September 18, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.
Duford said...

That's fine, whatever. I understand.

...But I'm genuinely interested in your premises. Perhaps a link to a website or webpage that explains your thought-process? I'd appreciate it kindly.

What you must understand is that a natural right by definition exists in harmony with other rights. It cannot by definition exist at the expense of another right.

So, if your supposed right (access to my property) infringes on my natural right (my right to full usage of my property), then you're the one doing the infringing, as I have the right to not service you, no matter how stupid the idea is. Thus, your right is not a natural right, thus not a right at all, but an unjustified, forceful demand.

By me denying a service I so choose to voluntarily offer, for whatever reason, racist or not, DOES NOT infringe upon your rights, as you have no first rights to my property.

Sure, it's arguably cruel, but such a choice is not disassociating. Yes, a nation that enshrines into law that a certain group is an underclass and has restricted rights IS disassociation. But dispensing your own property, however you see fit -- as long as it causes no harm, no fraud -- albeit bigoted and racist, is NOT equivalent.

Not that I'm insinuating anything about you and what you believe in the following example, but this is the problem with the idea of universal health care as being a right. Is this supposed right self-evident? Does it exist without harming/infringing on another natural right? If the answer is yes, then it is not, by definition, a right.

September 18, 2010 at 1:03 p.m.

Andrew: "Turn to Jesus Christ, the libertarian...The advantage of humility--facing one's limitations--over proudly biting off more than they can chew. That's how Reagan had a (flawed but) great presidency and Carter a disastrous one, even if--if-- Carter's IQ was higher. I'm not sure Sarah Palin knows this, but if she does, she can easily improve on President Obama..." Amen to most of what you said.

Just a biblically-based clarification, Jesus, who walked on this earth and is documented that he did so-walked the walk and talked the talk..belonged to no political party or ideology. One can find many conservative or possibly libertarian ideals and precepts in the Bible, nevertheless, all humans are weak, flawed, corrupted and spiritually immature. He definitely is not. Libertarians and Conservatives did not invent Him, it's the other way around. No political ideology is perfectly sound and neither are the ones who espouse them-libertarians included. Some are brothers with the Far-Left who denigrate God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some are in bed with the Christian haters/bashers.

I find it hilarious and hypocritical at the same time that some posting above chastise us for what they call "anecdotal evidence" when we post facts, yet their posts are 90-100% anecdoctal and opinionated-on the wrong side of any issue. Of course the blind gnats..I mean Leftists all excuse themselves from having to do what they command the rest of us to do. And don't read or care what sense and truth comes from the Conservative posters. I also noticed how the Left-Progs pols are always so above any criticism, while the Tea party's are expected to wear halos. From one side of the mouth they preach about "evil, wealthy, slimy, Corporate, lobbyist-luvin' Repubs in DC, and from the other, they're denying those corruptors in the Dem-Left Party who are busily bringing down this country, on their own since..well Woodrow, FDR, Carter...etc.

September 18, 2010 at 1:07 p.m.
Duford said...

To clarify, I do understand what you're saying, and in essence, agree.

But the idea that we have to depend on a entity with monopoly power to infringe on natural rights, in order to promote desegregation, is the wrong way about it.

What's the other choice? Let racists be racists unto themselves, and let the sharp entrepreneur who sees an opportunity put them out of business. Let them live with the actions they choose.

September 18, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.

Duford posted: "I'll let the participants in this forum decide who's arrogant." Oh they do, and it's not themselves. Of course.

You are, especially if you're "half our age", a breath of fresh air and good facts, seasoned with a little chile pepper, but not too much. Never mind, you'll get there when you've lived too long, according to the young and the egotistical. I post Walter's writings but those ones above trash him as the Left, America wide, are wont to do with the Black Conservatives who speak the truth. Interesting, Williams, Sowell, Condi, Aveda King, and many Black Pastors are daily vilified in the media and on the Blogs for speaking the same truths we've pointed out, and called "sell-outs". Sell-outs to what-the Truth? Good on them.

September 18, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
whatever said...

...But I'm genuinely interested in your premises. Perhaps a link to a website or webpage that explains your thought-process? I'd appreciate it kindly.

I'm not aware of any offhand that expresses it, and I'm sure you can understand how "equal rights" get a plethora of terms that aren't related to the particulars here.

Sorry. Maybe you can find some discussion somewhere on the subject.

What you must understand is that a natural right by definition exists in harmony with other rights. It cannot by definition exist at the expense of another right.

I don't agree with your definitions at all, but you're overlooking something. Rights are one thing, but we're talking about actions. Actions can perform at the expense of another's rights.

It's not the existence, it's the action. That is what makes up the difference.

September 18, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

First, I have to say that you are calm and collected today, canary. Let me point out something that you said:

"No political ideology is perfectly sound and neither are the ones who espouse them-libertarians included. Some are brothers with the Far-Left who denigrate God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some are in bed with the Christian haters/bashers."

Most of the liberal people I know are not atheists. I am a rare person of unbelief in a strong Christian community. I take offense on their behalf for your assumption that Jesus is owned lock, stock and barrel by conservatives.

September 18, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007.

The day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and Senate, the start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those of you who believe the propaganda that the economic situation was caused by "Bush" consider:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 months of job creation.

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? Banking and financial services.

Thanks to the Dems for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% unemployment to this crisis by dumping 5-6 Trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank & Dodd-created insanities.

Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie, starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Barack Hussein Obama did.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? Barack Hussein Obama & the Democratic Congress did.

When someone tries to blame Bush, remember January 3rd, 2007, the day the Dems came into full power.

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering the vehicle they were driving.

Get the record straight on the Bush years Bubs. And his TARP 700 billion bailout (which many of us did NOT agree with). It was promptly paid off and Bush left us with a 200 + change billion dollar deficit. Now it's in the trillions. Frank, Dodd, Pelosi and Reid, et al, are pushing furiously to SPEND more and more of our money-especially towards "job creation". Translation=more Fed Gov't jobs, Departments, Pork projects and Perks aka as FGD & PPP's.

"It's not that Liberals, [ahem..they like the term "Progressive now"]...aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Reagan wouldn't be so nice today. Instead he might truthfully say, 'it ain't the Tea partiers who are insane folks, it's the ones calling them insane who really are insane themselves'.

AND who are doing most of the damage to this country and her people. If not all of it.

September 18, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
whatever said...

AND who are doing most of the damage to this country and her people. If not all of it.

I'm pretty sure it's the Tea Party type folks who are the ones who are all too willing to spit on the bill of rights.

Pretty sure. That's what I see as the most damaging to the country.

Fortunately they aren't being allowed free reign to vent their rage because somebody realized exactly what they'd do in the first place.

September 18, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
Duford said...

Thanks Canary.

Whatever, well, whatever!

Equally as we are concerned with natural rights, actions are obviously what anyone of liberty is concerned with, myself included.

Specifically, what actions violate natural rights? And how do you deal with them in a civil society?

Is smoking dope infringing on another's rights? Is committing suicide an infringement of another's rights? Is using your property as you see fit, without committing fraud or deceit to another party, an infringement on another's rights?

As I see, it's all the same thing; obviously they are personal decisions the individual makes, that have no effect -- perhaps beyond resentment -- on another's welfare. Therefor it should not be considered crime.

Clearly, any abrogation of rights committed by a persecutor, individual, group or government, should be tried in a court of law, amongst a group of his peers, to form an unbiased judgement.

Pretty straightforward logic, right?

Hopefully, one day you'll explain your premises in more depth. The impetus of civil, full, and transparent debate rests upon that idea.

September 18, 2010 at 2:16 p.m.

par usual ikey, you have no reading comprehension and choose to 'read into' what I wrote. I said nothing of the kind..."conservatives own Jesus lock, stock and barrel..".

Further, you have proved to us ample times how sequestered you are in your box world. Chattanooga and environs is not "a strong, Christian community", albeit it's not as bad as many parts of the country where the Left-Progs rule. It is a community full of hypocrites, the religious and non-religious equally. Take for instance Atheists, who like to tell me how tolerant THEY are, while bashing Believers and Creation belief/the Creator of same.

Note: it's the 'Liberals' who renamed themselves "Progressives", resurrecting Hitler's Hegelian Progressivism and Wooodrow Wilson's. They ARE the Left in America and they LOVE to hate and bash Christianity and its Followers. Read all about it daily in the MSM and on the blogs. If the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise...

My words above were: 'Some [the libertarians] are brothers with the Far-Left who denigrate God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some are in bed with the Christian haters/bashers'. That's the simple truth as can be verified right out of the mouths of the guilty.

September 18, 2010 at 2:19 p.m.

Excerpts from Thomas Sowell's Political Fables:

"President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

September 18, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats -- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right.

The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of "change." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.

Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election..." T. Sowell: PHD Economics, Author, Columnist, Research Fellow and Professor. Berkeley, CA 9-7-2010

September 18, 2010 at 2:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I don't live in Chattanooga, canary. And your words say EXACTLY that-"are brothers with the Far-Left who denigrate God the Father and Jesus Christ."

September 18, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
whatever said...

Is smoking dope infringing on another's rights?

Only if you exhale anything beyond the normal into the air they breathe. Which...in most cases, you are going to do, so yes.

Is committing suicide an infringement of another's rights?

Maybe. Depends on whether or not you owe any debts or obligations.

Is using your property as you see fit, without committing fraud or deceit to another party, an infringement on another's rights?

Potentially, yes. That's why we have zoning laws, among other things. If something only occurs on your property, that's one thing, but many actions do extend past your property without your control.

As I see, it's all the same thing; obviously they are personal decisions the individual makes, that have no effect -- perhaps beyond resentment -- on another's welfare. Therefor it should not be considered crime.

You're mistaken. I've shown you just how they can and do have an effect on another. Your faulty assumption that they don't is why your logic is fundamentally unsound, because your premises are false.

As for a fuller explanation, I'm sure there's one out there, but you'll have to look on your own, it's not worth it to me to seek them out further. The keywords are just not unique enough.

September 18, 2010 at 2:31 p.m.
Clara said...

FM, Thank you for the correction.

I was under the uninformed impression that the terms, blog, blogged, blogging, blogger, will blog, have blogged, should blog, etc. were neologisms... or newly invented words that it was permissable to engage informally or otherwise.

September 18, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
whatever said...

BTW, has anybody else heard that the default rates for mortgages went up with income level?

September 18, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.

whatever, whatever. Again. "I'm pretty sure it's the Tea Party type folks who are the ones who are all too willing to spit on the bill of rights."

Really? and the proof? My, my some memories are short. When it was Code Pinkies and the Left gang-bangers calling Bush Hitler and "Death to Bush", That was free-speech. When it was Obama's, Holder's and Andy Stern of the SEIU sanctioning New Black Panther violence at the polls and refusing to charge them because according to many DOJ attorneys, they were instructed not to "charge minorities for crimes against the dominant, White population"; THAT was Civil Rights being upheld.

Truth: The Left in America lie to our faces while time and again are caught on video and camera making speeches about "this is the time in History when we need to enact violent revolution...when you should pick up the shovel, the gun and the sword and use it to achieve our purposes.." The Muslim (Black) Brotherhood, 2010, the NBPP, SEIU et al.

September 18, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.

"I don't live in Chattanooga, canary. And your words say EXACTLY that-"are brothers with the Far-Left who denigrate God the Father and Jesus Christ."

Sigh. I didn't say you did, but I live in this area, where the TFP is printed and my comments about the Left in Chattanooga and in the rest of this country still stand as truth.

Again, you are ignorant of context-my words..."some [context=I was speaking of the libertarians] are brothers..."

The ones in this country who denigrate Christian/Jewish Believers on a regular basis are the Left, the Islamicists and the Atheist/Pagan community. [BTW, according to recent stats out, Jews have the highest incidence of hate/violent crimes against them, Muslims are at the bottom]. Not complaining, just the plain, simple truth.

If you can think of any others, be my guest. You completely, as usual, missed the whole point of the posting. But you are thin-skinned and assumed it was directed at yourself. Egotistical too. Hey...you and Barack. Bedfellows...

September 18, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
whatever said...

Really? and the proof?

Go take a look at the people protesting outside any Mosque being constructed. There's one a couple of hours away.

Ask them who they support. Go look in the letters page. Go to a Tea Party meeting yourself. The Tea Party has spent considerable effort trying to suppress the religious freedoms of others here in this country, they won't admit they are, but the substance of their opposition is apparent to anybody with the eyes to see.

They are, in fact, the reason why the bill of rights has to tell them no.

Truth: The Right in America takes a holier than thou stance while committing the same (or worse) offenses they claim others have done to them. They cloak their crimes in words that seem nice, but are really dark and scary when you realize what they intend to do. They are, in fact, just as much hypocrites as the ones they criticize.

You should know, you've spent several postings here bashing the Left while you yourself engage in such behavior.

I'm sure you feel you're justified and entitled to do it, but that's not fooling anybody. Your own antagonism is as much a crime as anybody else's.

September 18, 2010 at 3:08 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Just presenting your own words back to you canary. And thanks for apologizing for the slam against Chattanooga and for assuming that I live there when I don't.

September 18, 2010 at 3:11 p.m.
Duford said...

Whatever,

You're either ignoring or sparsing my points above.

You should scroll up to my former posts and see where I've already addressed your concerns.

Every instance you mentioned IS an infringement upon another's rights.

-Is the smoker poisoning you? Take him to court, set precedent.

-Committing suicide and have debts/obligations? Let's look at the contract and see if it addresses this concern. If it does and your the creditor, sue the estate. Or, next time, check with your attorney.

-Zoning ordinances an issue? Have you contractually agreed to uphold certain standards in lieu of you holding your property, and you break them? Let the county, neighbor, etc. sue.

Again, if you read carefully, if you carry out the enjoyment of your property "without committing fraud or deceit" and, I'll add here, damage to someone else's property/self -- which was addressed earlier -- then let the law do its work!

Do you honestly think I purport that anyone can do ANYTHING without any consideration of its effect on another? Have you not been reading my full posts? Or are you confused?

It's all up there... plain, understandable English.

At this point, I don't even know what you're arguing against. Clearly a government should protect an individual's natural rights if infringed on by another -- apparently, you agree with me.

If we both believe justice should be served in due process towards someone who's natural rights have been violated, then what do you have a problem with?

September 18, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.
whatever said...

Every instance you mentioned IS an infringement upon another's rights.

No, every instance you mentioned can be. You mentioned them, not me. You were just utterly wrong about them.

Take him to court, set precedent.

Oh so you want me to go through some tedious lawsuit? NO THANK YOU.

Certainly you are reasonable to ask that the potential for harm be proven, but they have been in the case of smoking. So rather than waste my time in the courts, I prefer that the act be prevented.

Now if I want to recover from you directly, that'd be something different, but we weren't talking about that, were we?

I certainly wasn't.

Tell you what, if you want to live in a society where that's the way you do things, do that, but me, I don't want you to impose that society on me. I refuse to consent to it.

If we both believe justice should be served in due process towards someone who's natural rights have been violated, then what do you have a problem with?

Hasn't it been clear? Your ideological premises, your faulty logic, and your terrible argumentation. It leads to terrible ways to handle problems, that are not going to resolve them, that are going to cause even worse issues.

Why? Because you hang your hat on false ideals. Might as well be arguing with Zeno.

Which is why I can't say I want to bother that much with you.

September 18, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.
alprova said...

Canary copied and pasted: "January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? Banking and financial services.

Thanks to the Dems for [snipped] dumping 5-6 Trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank & Dodd-created insanities.


Department of Housing and Urban Development – Andrew Cuomo, Secretary Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC 20410 HUD No. 00-317 FOR RELEASE Friday, November 3, 2000

HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation’s two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low and moderate-income families.

The historic federal regulations by HUD raises the required percentage of mortgage loans for low and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy annually from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent – a 19 percent increase.


Wasn't it a Republican dominated Congress and Senate, in 1999, who lifted the restrictions that led to investment houses, insurance companies, and banks to not only commingle funds, but to also bundle those mortgages as investment prospects, causing Wall Street to buckle under the weight of those time-bombed mortgages.

Yes it was.

Wasn't it three former Republicans who sponsored, introduced in 1999, and touted the piece of legislation, until it was passed by a Republican majority in both Houses that was signed reluctantly by Bill Clinton, rescinding the restrictions in place since the year after Wall Street crashed in 1929?

Yes it was.

Wasn't the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that rescinded the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933, passed in both Houses by a cumulative vote of 343 Republicans and 86 Democrats?

Yes it was.

Could Bill Clinton have vetoed it?

No he couldn't.

September 18, 2010 at 8:22 p.m.
alprova said...

Canary cut and pasted " EXCERPTS FROM THOMAS SEWELL'S POLITICAL FABLES:

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats -- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right."


Indeed, let's be sure to get those facts straight and those names right. It's not hard at all to prove either of them.

I refer you to my post above, which proves that this all began in 1999, not 2007. Dodd & Frank weren't on the scene.

Thomas Sewell, like the anonymous author of the other post that you copied and pasted, is lying through the tips of his fingers.

Representative James A. Leach, the Iowa Republican, was the chairman of the House Banking Committee and Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican, was the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in 1999.

Two co-sponsors of the legislation that allowed those time-bombed sub-prime mortgages to be dumped onto the backs of the investors of this nation through Wall Street, held top-ranking banking committee posts, and some people have the audacity to blame Dodd and Frank, eight years after the fact?

Amazing. Simply amazing.

September 18, 2010 at 8:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Top Ten Countdown - Christine O'Donnell Quotes

  1. "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

  2. "Drag queen balls celebrate the type of lifestyle which leads to the disease AIDS."

  3. "God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

  4. "We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS."

  5. "Condom use is anti-human."

  6. "Everything that he is saying is un-factual."

  7. "If he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

03."I dabbled into witchcraft -- I never joined a coven. But I did, I did... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do..."

  1. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

  2. "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."

September 18, 2010 at 9:36 p.m.
Duford said...

Hi what,

Did you not see the particulars of the non-aggression principle point, ie, "without harm, fraud, deceit," etc.?

Your concerns about how rights can be affected are clearly covered accordingly. Every point you made about smoking, suicide, etc., is covered fairly according to the non-aggression principle -- while NOT infringing another's.

Do you not know what the non-aggression principle is? Can you not scroll up and at least get a primer for what I was specifically stating earlier before you muster an unsubstantiated response?

Clearly if something has proof of causing harm, then allow the law to take its course. Your non-response of not wanting a lawsuit is obvious if we know its harmful (if, being the key word). Otherwise, forcing your will as you see fit, for whatever unfounded ideal you believe, upon another without their consent is unsubstantiated aggression at its finest.

If there is any argument absurd as you have referenced, it's your continued non-argument against the idea backed with proof that all individuals have rights that are equal, and should always be protected against infringement.

I'll leave you with this.

As soon as you can argue against my "false ideals" with a clear factual, logical, or theoretical basis, any response you muster is no more than the emotional grasping at straws many Tea Partyers are guilty for.

In the mean time, even if you don't like what I read, but decide to engage on some level, whether sarcastic or genuinely, at least spend some time re-reading my responses and clarifying points. Otherwise you hang your retorts on non-logic, based on sparsing of words as you see fit, selective cutting-and-pasting, in order to fit your one-sided view.

Which is fine if you admit any of your continued engagement will continue without proper illumination of your axioms.

September 19, 2010 at 7 a.m.
whatever said...

Did you not see the particulars of the non-aggression principle point,

You know what you said in your original examples? You did say they had no effect beyond resentment on another. Turns out you were wrong because you didn't apply any such principles to your own examples. Don't blame me when you fail to do that and I point it out.

As soon as you can argue against my "false ideals" with a clear factual, logical, or theoretical basis, any response you muster is no more than the emotional grasping at straws many Tea Partyers are guilty for.

Ok then I won't do it, because if as soon as I do it, then...

Or did you choose the wrong phrase up there?

But you don't get it, I'm not trying, I refuse to bother trying because I don't think it'd be worthwhile on my part.

Why? Because you haven't shown one sign of being able to understand my words here. You duck your own words way too much. And your choice of premises is so flawed I just don't think I could convince you to change them.

If you want to look for somebody to try with you, go right ahead, but me? I'd rather not.

Which is fine if you admit any of your continued engagement will continue without proper illumination of your axioms.

Sorry dude, this isn't Philosophical Debate 101. This is Random Internet Forum. You'll have to change attitudes or locations.

And that's yet another reason why I don't want to waste the time with you. This just isn't the place for it.

September 19, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.