What OWS Got Wrong…and What We Have to Get Right

 

I don’t often say that a video is “must see”, but this one is.  It lays out what is wrong with our financial and government system.  Our task is to educate the American people about the fact that what has happened is that Big Government and Big Corporation have got together and screw everything up.  The OWS people were shouting about the banks…and demanding that government fix it!  Government carefully and diligently assisted the bankers in ruining the economy.

Free markets are the silver bullet to fix what ails us – politically and economically.  We must have a revolution so that we can ensure that anyone who wants to participate in either market can do so without let or hindrance from a corporate or government bureaucrat.  If we want to occupy something, then we should be occupying the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury – that would set us on a path back to rationality.

Advertisements

122 thoughts on “What OWS Got Wrong…and What We Have to Get Right

  1. neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 10:17 am

    What OWS Got Wrong…and What We Have to Get Right

    OWS = leftists = communists = WRONG

    what we have to get right is a no brainier. US Constitution 101

    • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 10:20 am

      We must have a revolution so that we can ensure that anyone who wants to participate in either market can do so without let or hindrance from a corporate or government bureaucrat. If we want to occupy something, then we should be occupying the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury – that would set us on a path back to rationality.

      national sales tax….ELIMINATE the IRS, would be a HUGE step in the right direction, then…………

    • 01canadianobserver January 22, 2013 / 10:09 am

      Sad day for all you Regressive folk, I know, but an absolutely glorious day for the rest of us. Looking forward with joyful anticipation to Barack Hussein Obama’s next four years as President of the United States of America and Leader of the Free World.

      • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 10:42 am

        Well, that’s interesting—the supposedly Canadian non-observer has given up pretending to engage in political discourse and has decided to try extravagant sarcasm.

        I’d still offer the same advice—“Don’t quit your day job”—-assuming, as a radical Liberal, he even has one.

      • Retired Spook January 22, 2013 / 10:56 am

        Geez, Co; careful you don’t wet yourself.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 22, 2013 / 11:42 am

        Canadian,

        I’m puzzled — you ostensibly live in a country that, by all accounts, has one of the best run economies in the world, and yet you admire a man who is in the process of destroying the largest economy in the world. Can you explain the rationale behind that? There are millions of people in America who, I’m sure, would be delighted to swap Obama for Harper.

      • 01canadianobserver January 22, 2013 / 12:52 pm

        J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)
        January 22, 2013 at 11:42 am #
        ————————————————————————————-

        Yes, I am truly fortunate to call Canada my home, J.R. One of the reasons I admire President Obama is, not because he is in the process of destroying the largest economy in the world, but because he is trying to RESTORE the largest economy in the world. An economy that was brought to its knees by the policies of a President y’all would sooner forget; George W. Bush.

        If Republicans would put aside their obstructionist views and join the President in implementing policies that will be beneficial to the country they profess to love, they would certainly regain some of the respect that they’ve lost over the last 4 years.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 22, 2013 / 1:29 pm

        but because he is trying to RESTORE the largest economy in the world.

        Obama’s policies haven’t worked so far, Canadian. The unemployment rate is the same as when he began his first term, and that’s only been achieved by not counting millions of people who have given up looking. Economic growth is the lowest since they began keeping records in 1930. Do you think continuing on the course set in his first 4 years will eventually restore the U.S. economy? If so, on what do you base that assessment?

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2013 / 1:42 pm

        You mean restore, like this?

        So much for the latest “recovery.” While everyone continued to forget that in the New Normal markets do not reflect the underlying economy in the least, and that the all time highs in the Russell 2000 should indicate that the US economy has never been better, things in reality took a deep dive for the worse, at least according to the Empire State Fed, the Philly Fed, and now the Richmond Fed, all of which missed expectations by a huge margin, and are now deep in contraction territory. Moments ago, the Richmond Fed reported that the Manufacturing Index imploded from a 9 in November, 5 in December and missed expectations of a 5 print at -12: this was the biggest miss to expectations since September 2009…

        So, by “restore” you mean “send the United States back in to recession which will, by the way, drag Canada down with it, now that China’s imploding economy can’t absorb Canada’s goods”….

      • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 1:47 pm

        And once again we have the conundrum of the radical Left: Do they really believe what they say, or are they just saying things they know are not true to try to advance their cause?

        Take CO, for example. First we get the compulsion to write in, apropos of nothing here on the blog, to attack those who do not agree with Obama (and furthermore to use a term, “Regressives”, which can only apply to the Left in its relentless march toward the past and its litany of failures) and then to gloat over the swearing-in of Obama.

        Not content with that, he dives even further into delusion, with the far-fetched and unsupportable claim that Obama “…is trying to RESTORE the largest economy in the world…” It is understandable that he blames Bush for the pre-Obama economic collapse—-to acknowledge the true causes would be to simultaneously indict Leftist social engineering experiments for the economy-killers they are and abandon the desperate need to blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

        But to claim that Obama is even TRYING to “… RESTORE the largest economy in the world…” flies in the face of the evidence before us, and to believe that he even could if he wanted to, without recourse to the capitalist free market small government system he hates, is just plain nuts.

        “If Republicans would put aside their obstructionist views and join the President in implementing policies that will be beneficial to the country they profess to love, they would certainly regain some of the respect that they’ve lost over the last 4 years.”

        Ahhhh, a pious little lecture on both love of country and how to gain the “respect” of the Left. Too funny.

        I have yet to see one single policy of Obama that can be seen as “…beneficial to the country…”, and I see love of country exhibited in every single effort to block Obama’s agenda of “fundamentally transforming” this nation into something it has never been, was never intended to be, and which would render it unrecognizable as the bastion of economic prosperity and personal liberty it has been for more than two centuries.

        Loving the United States of America means loving what it stands for, what it was created to stand for, and what made it great. The hypocrisy of a foreigner scolding us for not going along with dismantling all of that to create a new, alien, nation based on a political model that has not only never been successful but which has, when fully implemented, led to economic misery and loss of liberty and too often the slaughter of tens of millions, is too bizarre to accurately describe.

      • 01canadianobserver January 22, 2013 / 2:08 pm

        J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)
        January 22, 2013 at 1:29 pm #
        —————————————————————————–

        Without much cooperation from the Republicans, J.R., the President was able to get the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed which prevented a Bush depression and Improved the economy. Seems that everything he tried to do to aid in the country’s economic recovery was impeded by Conservatives. Why would they not want to participate in restoring their country’s economic health?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 22, 2013 / 2:31 pm

        Without much cooperation from the Republicans, J.R., the President was able to get the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed which prevented a Bush depression and Improved the economy.

        Well, except that it didn’t and it hasn’t.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 22, 2013 / 2:33 pm

        Seems that everything he tried to do to aid in the country’s economic recovery was impeded by Conservatives.

        Like what? He got his stimulus; he got Dodd-Frank; he got ObamaCare.

      • Retired Spook January 22, 2013 / 3:00 pm

        If Republicans would put aside their obstructionist views and join the President in implementing policies that will be beneficial to the country they profess to love, they would certainly regain some of the respect that they’ve lost over the last 4 years.

        CO, many Obama supporters and surrogates are advising, nay, imploring him to use his political capital to destroy the GOP, using such terms as “pulverize”, “go for the throat”, “go in for the kill”. If he takes that course, what should Republicans do? What would be the common ground in such a scenario?

      • 01canadianobserver January 22, 2013 / 3:30 pm

        Retired Spook
        January 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm #
        ——————————————————————-
        Those are the voices of the extreme element, Spook. Based on the President’s pass behavior of trying to work with his opposition, I doubt he would go that route. However, if the Republicans stubbornly refuse to show even a particle of cooperation I would hope that he would show some backbone and proceed accordingly..

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 7:24 pm

        kanuckUnoserver

        I would hope that he would show some backbone and proceed accordingly..

        Duhhhhhhhh

        HE CANT!!!
        we have a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with elected REPRESENTATIVES…..OUR ELECTED GOP ****REPRESENTATIVES*** WHO WE DEMAND to OPPOSE the muslim, marxist, usurper, POS

        we have GUNS to STOP a tyrant from acting “accordingly” capice you FOREIGN twit!

      • ricorun January 22, 2013 / 8:01 pm

        It took a while, but people seem to be responding to the actual substance of the present topic. And I think it’s interesting that Mark is recognizing something I’ve been saying for quite some time, which is that the Tea Party movement on the one hand and the OWS movement on the other are basically talking about the same problem, but blaming only one of the elements responsible for it — which is to say blaming big government exclusively on the one hand or big business on the other. IMO (to re-state it again), the two are supporting each other. That sort of unilateral focus won’t solve anything, so I applaud Mark in his first attempts at pointing it out.

        I think Hannan got many things right. Most particularly I think Hannan is right when he says that “there’s a world of difference between being pro-business and being pro-market… Corporatism is not the same as capitalism.” I also think he’s very right when he says that big government and big corporations too often support each other. That, I think, is the fundamental problem. One thing I think he got particularly wrong is to say that corporatism would simply disappear in the absence of governmental regulation. Since the early 18th century, which could be considered the dawn of corporations that could be considered “too big to fail”, until now, virtually all of the evidence suggests the opposite — that left unchallenged by a locus of power different than themselves, big corporations will continue to aggregate influence until something so drastic happens that when things finally break, chaos ensues. Think East India Trading Company, or Carnegie Steel, or Lehman Brothers, or so many other examples. And that’s really bad for everyone involved.

        Just today, on this very thread, JR Babcock said (to Canadian), I’m puzzled — you ostensibly live in a country that, by all accounts, has one of the best run economies in the world, and yet you admire a man who is in the process of destroying the largest economy in the world. Hopefully included the quote in its complete context, but my question relates to the “one of the best run economies in the world” part of it. Specifically, what do you think saved Canada from the worst effects of the recent financial meltdown if it were not for their effective regulation of that industry? More specifically, as I understand it, Canada did a very good job of preventing the financial institutions within their control of vertically integrating to the extent that the loaning institutions also had significant sway over the secondary and tertiary markets for their products, of preventing the insurance institutions who should objectively oversee such transactions, but who were instead significantly involved in the entities making those transactions, and also preventing institutions with a public interest (e.g., retirement funds for public employees, etc., etc.) from investing in those secondary and tertiary markets.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 22, 2013 / 9:11 pm

        One thing I think he got particularly wrong is to say that corporatism would simply disappear in the absence of governmental regulation.

        I watched it a couple times, Ricorun, and I’m afraid you’ll have to identify the point in the speech where he said that, because I can’t seem to find it.

        Specifically, what do you think saved Canada from the worst effects of the recent financial meltdown if it were not for their effective regulation of that industry?

        You hit, knowingly or unknowlingly, on the answer to your own question: “effective regulation”. I read somewhere a couple years ago that the primary difference between financial regulators in Canada and those in the U.S. was that the priority of Canadian regulation is making sure lenders are sound, while American regulations are geared around encouraging borrowing. Of course it’s much more complex than that, but that, I think is a major difference.

      • tiredoflibbs January 22, 2013 / 9:41 pm

        co, as usual gets it wrong: “Those are the voices of the extreme element, Spook.”

        So the extreme element is in charge of CBS news…

        CBS News’ political director John Dickerson advised President Obama to “go for the throat” and to “destroy the GOP,” during his last term in office which began on Sunday.

        Dickerson, writing on Slate.com, abandoned any pretense of impartiality by urging Obama to go for the jugular and “pulverize” the Republican Party before the “lame duck” label hinders his ability to see his legislative agenda through.

        The “news” media abandoned any impartiality long ago when they were determined to keep the left in firm control of Washington.

        As usual, co worry about what is north of our border. Those who elect Canadian officials who have put Canada in the poor predicaments they are in have no business meddling in our affairs. You screwed up your country, stay out of ours.

      • M. Noonan January 22, 2013 / 10:31 pm

        The Honorable East India Company was a government-sponsored company which was given a de-facto monopoly on trade with India (initially, actually, all British trade from the Cape of Good Hope to the Straights of Magellan). Our Revolution was partially sparked when the British government essentially awarded the East India Company monopoly rights to export tea to the American colonies. And the reason the Brits did that was because the East India Company had become “too big to fail” (meaning too many very rich and politically connected people would be ruined by its failure) and it was going broke – the tea tax was designed to restore the Company to solvency…an early example of using the taxpayers to bail out a firm. As for Carnegie Steel, large as it was it was continually under fierce competition from US Steel and other major players in the industry – and that leaves out the global competition by British and German steel firms (a great deal of the rails used to criss-cross the United States were manufactured by the Krupp firm in Germany).

        The bottom line is that corporatism – meaning the sort of corporations that all and sundry admit don’t work well and/or don’t have the best interests of the people at heart – is only possible when government gets together with corporations. When rich corporations buy a politician or when a politician volunteers to help a corporation in return for a well-paid position either for the politician or a crony. While I can see some need to ensure by law that corporations don’t become too large, a free market really does ensure against it – provided it is really free. Generally, once a firm gets so big it starts to die because the people running it by that point are not those who built it and don’t really care about it…they are just sucking all the money they can out of it for as long as it lasts. In a free market, such firms would be quickly killed off by competition and new, upstart firms would take their place.

      • ricorun January 23, 2013 / 12:37 am

        JR: I watched it a couple times, Ricorun, and I’m afraid you’ll have to identify the point in the speech where he said that, because I can’t seem to find it.

        It doesn’t matter anymore, because as you astutely pointed out (knowingly or unknowingly) that eliminating regulation is not the answer. The answer is establishing effective regulation. Assuming you said that knowingly, then we certainly have some common ground. That ground is noticeably different from those on the one hand who suggest that any and all regulation is bad, and from those on the other who suggest that any and all regulation is good. If we can agree on that, then let’s go from there…

        You said, “I read somewhere a couple years ago that the primary difference between financial regulators in Canada and those in the U.S. was that the priority of Canadian regulation is making sure lenders are sound, while American regulations are geared around encouraging borrowing.” Well yeah, but that’s a very superficial explanation. I was much more specific about how they pulled that off; i.e., how they integrated that outcome into their overall regulatory scheme. To reiterate what I said, “Canada did a very good job of preventing the financial institutions within their control of vertically integrating to the extent that the loaning institutions also had significant sway over the secondary and tertiary markets for their products, of preventing the insurance institutions who should objectively oversee such transactions, but who were instead significantly involved in the entities making those transactions, and also preventing institutions with a public interest (e.g., retirement funds for public employees, etc., etc.) from investing in those secondary and tertiary markets. If a substantive conversation is really what you’re after, and especially if you disagree with any aspect of what I said, then it is encumbent opon you to formulate a reasoned, substantive reply to what I said.

      • ricorun January 23, 2013 / 1:03 am

        It appears that Mark and I have considerable common ground on this issue. He says, The bottom line is that corporatism – meaning the sort of corporations that all and sundry admit don’t work well and/or don’t have the best interests of the people at heart – is only possible when government gets together with corporations. I agree with much of that, especially the last. But it seems important for me to stress that I think that both government and business are essential components of modern society, and to the extent that one is eliminated the other will fill the void. You can call that condition communism, fascism, monarchism, banana republicanism, or whatever else you want, but the fact remains that ANYTIME government and business DON’T work to counterbalance each other, markets suffer.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 23, 2013 / 9:46 am

        If a substantive conversation is really what you’re after, and especially if you disagree with any aspect of what I said, then it is encumbent opon you to formulate a reasoned, substantive reply to what I said.

        It’s not encumbent on me to do anything, particularly after I caught you in a lie, and you blew it off by saying it doesn’t really matter any more since I suggested that you really answered your own question. I see now why no one here likes you. It would be very difficult to have a substantive conversation with you about anything.

      • Retired Spook January 23, 2013 / 11:01 am

        That ground is noticeably different from those on the one hand who suggest that any and all regulation is bad,

        Rico, I realize I always engage you at my own risk, but could you validate your straw man and cite an example where someone on this blog has ever suggested that all regulation is either good or bad?

      • ricorun January 23, 2013 / 6:49 pm

        JR, if it’s so important to you, I’ll answer your question… Starting around about 5:21 Hannan says “it was the cost of compliance that drove the small providers out of the market. It was the regulation that forced the consolidation which is what created this wretched too big to fail phenomenon in the first place.” Now, I suppose one could argue that he was really talking about ineffective regulation, but he didn’t say that. Nor did he ever mention, at any point in his talk, any role for effective regulation. He also aligned himself with Ron Paul, who as we know has come out against most forms of regulation. So I think I’m correct in interpreting him as I did.

        But again, I agree with him that “the ideal system, the one we should aim at, is not a system where a bank can’t fail, but a system where a bank can fail without it being a problem… in other words where there is a plurality of small providers, each striving to provide a better service.” But that’s not what we have because “we don’t allow the market to take its natural course”. He didn’t mention anything about how he thought that “natural course” could be achieved. And that’s very unfortunate, because it really goes to the heart of his argument. So you get to the heart, and there’s nothing there.

        Fortunately you and I have offered something — effective regulation, using the Canadian system as a model. And that model definitely includes regulation, it’s just that they were more effective with it. And I explained the fundamentals of it. Is there anything you would like to add?

      • M. Noonan January 23, 2013 / 7:08 pm

        Ricorun,

        It will be interesting for you to engage on Spook’s point – has anyone, ever said that all regulation is bad?

        But, once you answer that one…

        I think we should define our terms – a hazardous activity these days because, as Belloc wrote 80-odd years ago, “the modern mind is as averse to precision in ideas as it is enamoured of precision in measurement”. But, here goes:

        There are three types of regulation:

        1. That which is for the necessary safety of the public (so, a regulation against stacking gasoline drums next to an open fire).

        2. That which is necessary to ensure a free market (so, a regulation against two or more companies combining in secret to keep prices high).

        3. That which is necessary only for corruption (so, a regulation against the sale of raw milk across State lines – which is no one’s business but it is in place at the behest of large, corporate milk producers/sellers who don’t want the competition – and, yes, it is illegal to sell raw milk across State lines. There was even a vastly expensive government sting operation of late against an Amish farmer who was doing just that).

        It is the last, of course, which is bad regulation – and probably 75% or more of our regulation these days is type 3.

        When we look at a regulation we should always ensure that it meets either type 1 or type 2 and that it never strays to type 3.

        As I’ve said, most regulation is type 3 – and most regulations proposed are in service of type 3. Our whole system of government, indeed, is highly geared towards ensuring the maximum amount of corruption and the least amount of free market (and they even compromise basic public safety in order to ensure that regulations in favor of corruption are in place).

      • ricorun January 23, 2013 / 11:13 pm

        @Mark: I suggest you consider two other types of regulation: (4) That which is necessary to account for negative transactional externalities (i.e., costs of a transaction which are not accounted for in the transaction itself), (so, a regulation to account for the health costs associated with burning coal to produce electricity) and; (5) That which is necessary to ensure against any company, or group of companies, becoming so powerful as to bring the entire economy to its knees in the event of failure (so, a regulation preventing a company from holding any interest in any other company whose task it is to rate, insure, bundle, or otherwise oversee the products produced by the first). That last one is really what we’re talking about here, isn’t it?

      • M. Noonan January 24, 2013 / 12:29 am

        Ricorun,

        Type 4 is precisely the sort of regulation designed to ensure corruption – it is impossible to define such things. Saying that “burning coal causes X deaths per year” is an absurdity…unless you can completely study, for the whole life time, the persons who die in a particular year you can’t assign the portion of coal burning to a person’s death. Those types of regulations are the sort of regulations which are put in place usually at the behest of large corporations which can afford the freight (by passing it on to consumers) while they curtail the ability of new comers to enter the market.

        Type 5 is type 2 – but you aren’t regulating to stop a corporation from getting to a certain size but regulating to ensure that whatever size it is, it doesn’t try to fix the market to its own advantage.

      • ricorun January 24, 2013 / 1:49 am

        Spook: Rico, I realize I always engage you at my own risk

        In what sense am I different in that respect than anyone else?

        but could you validate your straw man and cite an example where someone on this blog has ever suggested that all regulation is either good or bad?

        I didn’t intend to limit my comment to people on this blog. But I’m guessing that bringing up the issue got some people on this blog to think. As for people who are inclined to believe that all regulation is bad I would include everyone that have a very simple Adam Smith 18th century concept of free market capitalism, specifically one which assumes such a system is always self-correcting and thus has no need of regulation. In that group I would include the Pauls, both Ron and Rand. I would include anyone who sincerely believes in Grover Norquist’s edict that the government should be “shrunk to the size where it could be drowned in a bathtub”. Because at that size no regulatory agency could function no matter how lean and mean it was. That is not an edict propounding effective regulation. Rather, that is an edict which virtually ensures that there could be no regulation at all. I hope that’s clear.

      • ricorun January 24, 2013 / 2:19 am

        Mark: Type 4 is precisely the sort of regulation designed to ensure corruption

        I respectfully disagree. Rather, I regard it as designed to address a very real problem here in the 21st century, and precisely the sort of problem that a simple Adam Smith 18th century concept of free market capitalism is not designed to address. Granted, negative transactional externalities may be hard to quantify, but there is no question that they exist. Are you saying that we should ignore them because of it? To me, that makes no sense.

        Type 5 is type 2 – but you aren’t regulating to stop a corporation from getting to a certain size but regulating to ensure that whatever size it is, it doesn’t try to fix the market to its own advantage.

        Okay, let’s assume that. So what’s your point? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 12:00 pm

        ” I’m guessing that bringing up the issue got some people on this blog to think.

        You can stop preening over your self-perception as the guy who got “..some people on this blog to think…” What we usually think when we wade through one of your ponderous, polysyllabic lectures is that you are a pinched-mouth scold.

        “As for people who are inclined to believe that all regulation is bad I would include everyone that have a very simple Adam Smith 18th century concept of free market capitalism, specifically one which assumes such a system is always self-correcting and thus has no need of regulation.”

        Except, as we keep pointing out, NO ONE “…believe(s) that all regulation is bad…” I know, this straw man is quite beloved of the uber-regulatory Left, but it is a fantasy, an invention, a creation set up to provide a focal point for insisting on extensive regulation.

        The sad and simple fact is that NO regulation can stop people who set out purposely to lie,cheat or steal. Efforts to regulate so thoroughly that no one can subvert the system can result only in a tangle of stifling regulations that cripple effort and initiative and strangle industry.

        Criminals break laws. It’s what you might call a definition. There is no way to create a network of regulations so comprehensive and complete that a dedicated criminal cannot wriggle through them to break the law the regulations are supposed to support.

        Regulations should be simple, concise, and designed to protect the unwary and from the incompetent. Beyond that, the only recourse is to have clear and precise laws and to punish, severely, those who purposely violate them.

  2. Cluster January 21, 2013 / 11:52 am

    Slightly Off Topic – MSNBC begins advocating authoritarianism government, which I am sure Obama will fully support:

    RICHARD ENGEL (Chief Foreign Correspondent, NBC News): …….. I think the Chinese model is one that appeals more and more in the developing world. People see that an authoritarian state can hold onto power, can hold on to stability and can drive the economy forward.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/21/richard-engel-chinese-authoritarianism-appeals-more-developing-world#ixzz2Icr8EDyk

    • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 12:01 pm

      The election, and then the reelection, of Obama have emboldened radical Leftists to come right out and say what they have been thinking. They see the acceptance of Obama as acceptance of their radical central government control authoritarian goals.

      What we see is an election, and a reelection, which cleverly avoided any reference to these goals, so the belief that the elections were a mandate for a shift to the Left, politically, is simply not correct.

      The problem is, we have never had a candidate or party representation which has explained the choices to the electorate. We have let the Left define the terms of the elections, and they have defined them in terms of personality, in a series of bizarre lies.

      I still have faith that if the American electorate is faced with a decision between the Constitutional model of small central government and huge central control, it will vote for the former.

      We need to find voices that can articulate this choice, and that can go on to explain that a choice for a small central government is not automatically a choice for fewer government programs—they simply must shift to the states.

    • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 12:19 pm

      cluster,
      Engel was acting as a reporter. He wasn’t advocating authoritarianism government, he was reporting on how it is being perceived in other countries.

      • Cluster January 21, 2013 / 12:53 pm

        Casper,

        Don’t be naive. Krugman, Engle, Matthews, Maxine Watters, etc, etc have all at one time or another voiced support for centralized control.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 1:03 pm

        Cluster,
        In the link you supplied Engel isn’t advocating for anything. he is reporting. If I state that it is cold outside, I’m not advocating for winter.

      • Cluster January 21, 2013 / 1:24 pm

        Casper,

        You have always been one to have blinders on when it comes to the leftist agenda. Believing that it’s all rosy, feel good, love your neighbor kind of thing. You might want to ask the Chinese what they think of centralized control.

        The following is another quote from Engle that can certainly be considered as support for authoritarianism.

        MR. ENGEL: But you don’t hear people talk about the United States the way they used to. You don’t hear them talk about the U.S. in this idea that, sure, people would like to come here and set up their– you know, get– you know, get visas and green cards. But the U.S. just doesn’t seem to have that kind of clout.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 1:50 pm

        cluster,
        “The following is another quote from Engle that can certainly be considered as support for authoritarianism.”

        No it’s not. He is reporting on what other people are saying. If I mention that a large group of people like basketball, I’m not advocating basketball.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 2:57 pm

        some of catspukes union thug compatriots,,,,

        Cops Nab 5-Year-Old for Wearing Wrong Color Shoes to School
        YahooNews ^ | Jan 18, 2013 | Suzi Parker

        In Mississippi, if kindergarteners violates the dress code or act out in class, they may end up in the back of a police car.

        A story about one five-year-old particularly stands out. The little boy was required to wear black shoes to school. Because he didn’t have black shoes, his mom used a marker to cover up his white and red sneakers.
        A bit of red and white were still noticeable, so the child was taken home by the cops.

        The child was escorted out of school so he and his mother would be taught a lesson.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 3:11 pm

        “neocon01 January 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

        some of catspukes union thug compatriots,,,,

        Cops Nab 5-Year-Old for Wearing Wrong Color Shoes to School
        YahooNews ^ | Jan 18, 2013 | Suzi Parker”

        It’s not a teacher’s policy, it seems to be a state wide policy. I’m sure you would like to join the ACLU and the NAACP in trying to end the policy.

        http://naacpms.org/extreme-discipline-targets-minority-us-school-kids-report/

      • Cluster January 21, 2013 / 4:11 pm

        Casper,

        That’s not reporting. That’s called an opinion.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 4:22 pm

        catspuke

        I do not have to join some racist, anti American commie group to combat your leftist liberal lunacy.
        The states will take back their authority and tell the kenyan muslim’s homosexual pervert czar in DC to shove it where the light dont shine.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 5:01 pm

        neo,
        The policy that led to a five year old being sent home in cop car comes from state or local authority. It certainly isn’t a Federal policy nor is it something advocated by any teacher’s union. Considering how conservative Mississippi is and has been, I’m guessing the policy was one instigated by Mississippi Republicans. It is nice to know that you agree with the wonderful folks at the NAACP and the ACLU that the policy is wrong and should be overturned. I agree with you 100% on that. It’s nice to know we agree on something.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 5:03 pm

        Neo,
        I’m sure my fellow teachers and other members of my ilk would also agree with you on this.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 5:45 pm

        NO catspuke……….THEY REPORTED IT!!!!!!

        the teacher to the principal, the principal to the police, is this SHIT what we pay you morons for?
        the new nazis

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 5:51 pm

        However, since a society can’t directly leap from capitalism into communism, Marx reasoned that a dictatorial socialist state would be a necessary transition in order to develop the required material base, help to spread the revolution around the world, and to condition the people’s minds by uprooting greed and selfishness (or to eliminate those individuals who can’t be conditioned).

        Leaving the debunking of utopian follies for another time, let’s just say that the totalitarian socialist state is where they always get bogged down. Despite their ideal of a stateless future, the leftists invariably become ruthless and uncompromising statists. It no longer matters whether it’s a doctrinaire Marxist socialism or “corporate” fascism; if the end result is evil, original intentions don’t count.

        In Russia, the communists used to demonize their opponents long before the Revolution, which made it easier for them to physically eliminate the opposition later. As soon as they were in full control of the government, they began to demonize entire segments of the society, subcultures, and classes of people whom they deemed incapable of change.

        Observe a visual example of communist demonization: an agitprop poster titled “Enemies of the 5-Year Plan,” more broadly interpreted as “enemies of socialism” and, by extension, “enemies of the people.”

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_collectivist_mind_game_part_1_demonizing_the_non-

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 7:33 pm

        americanthinker

        I can use that as an example of an oxymoron. Thanks.

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:06 pm

        meow

        You really are a pissy little thing, aren’t you?

        Whenever I see your name popping up I know we will see a litany of petty sniping, which you evidently think is the same thing as actual discourse.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 8:09 pm

        “Amazona January 21, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

        meow

        You really are a pissy little thing, aren’t you?”

        You have taught me well Obi-Wan

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:19 pm

        Ooooh! A meow and a hiss and feeble little effort at a bitch-slap. Oh, cappy, you are soooooo manly!

      • M. Noonan January 21, 2013 / 9:14 pm

        Casper,

        Only a slave would have written what Engel wrote…

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 9:49 pm

        “M. Noonan January 21, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

        Casper,

        Only a slave would have written what Engel wrote…”

        Slaves usually weren’t allowed to learn how to read and write.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 9:52 pm

        “Amazona January 21, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

        Ooooh! A meow and a hiss and feeble little effort at a bitch-slap. Oh, cappy, you are soooooo manly!”

        Sorry, I already have a wife. Besides which you aren’t my type.

      • M. Noonan January 21, 2013 / 9:54 pm

        Casper,

        That was in older and more honest times – these days we pretend our slaves are free and teach them to write so that they can act like lickspittles to their masters…

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 10:13 pm

        “M. Noonan January 21, 2013 at 9:54 pm #

        Casper,

        That was in older and more honest times – these days we pretend our slaves are free and teach them to write so that they can act like lickspittles to their masters…”

        Those were honest times? You really don’t know much about slavery or history do you?

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 11:56 pm

        Wow, cappy—another meow, another hiss, a feeble little spit, yet not even a flutter of testosterone.

        And of course I am not your type—-I am intelligent.

      • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 12:00 am

        Really, casper? A “state-wide policy”? Are you claiming that Mississippi does not have local school boards?

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 7:39 pm

        catspuke

        americanthinker

        I can use that as an example of an oxymoron. Thanks.

        and ill use casper-teacher for mine

      • 02casper January 22, 2013 / 8:17 pm

        “And of course I am not your type—-I am intelligent.”

        Actually, I find intelligence very attractive. My wife was valedictorian in a class of 630. She completed her first degree in two and a half years and added a masters since then.

    • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 5:51 pm

      neo,
      Once again you and I agree. There are some conservative policies teachers shouldn’t have to follow. As for myself, I don’t have the power to have a student sent home in a police car, nor have would I use it on a five year old if I had it.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 5:52 pm

        once again you are a LIAR

        . There are some ***conservative*** policies teachers shouldn’t have to follow.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 5:55 pm

        More neo leftist PC garbage and union thuggery

        5-Year-Old Suspended, Labeled a ‘Terrorist Threat’ for Threatening to Shoot Friend With Toy Bubble Gun

        ​”This little girl is the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania”

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        There are some conservative policies teachers shouldn’t have to follow.

        Yeah, this is about what we can expect from cappy. He doesn’t know what “conservative” really means, but he does love to toss the word around if it lets him strut his peevishness and pettiness and abject ignorance.

        I’m sure he tittered about what he seems to think is wit but what we see as witless.

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        ” There are some conservative policies teachers shouldn’t have to follow.”

        Such as??????

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 9:53 pm

        “Amazona January 21, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

        ” There are some conservative policies teachers shouldn’t have to follow.”

        Such as??????”

        Kicking kids out of school for not wearing the right color of shoes.

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 11:54 pm

        “Kicking kids out of school for not wearing the right color of shoes”

        THIS is what you call a “conservative policy” ?

        Seriously?

        OK—what about a school policy on the color of students’ shoes is in any way related to the conviction that the United States must be governed according to our Constitution>

        What part of this asinine rule is connected to a belief that the federal government must be restricted as to size, scope and power?

        What the HELL are you babbling on about?

        BTW, you have already proved, over and over again, that you are utterly and abysmally ignorant about politics, so I doubt that anyone actually expected you to be able to back up your asinine comment, but since you offered this bizarre comment as an example of a “conservative policy” you might as well dig yourself in a little deeper.

    • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 1:55 pm

      And yet he still got 51% in the only poll that counts, the election.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 21, 2013 / 2:08 pm

        And yet he still got 51% in the only poll that counts, the election.

        I’m betting that, in reality, he actually didn’t.

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 2:18 pm

        catspuke

        you and your ilk

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 2:37 pm

        Obama Tweets from Church: `Let’s Go’

        getting too hot for the anti Christ?

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 2:39 pm

        OT

        one of the forkers????? LOL

        Wanted: Harvard seeks ‘adventurous woman’ to give birth to cloned Neanderthal baby…

      • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 4:18 pm

        WOW …..this explains it allll…….:) 🙂 🙂

        Brief History of the World: Where Liberals (and Conservatives) Came From…
        Reaganite Republican ^ | 21 January 2013 | Reaganite Republican

        “For those that don’t know about history,
        here’s the condensed version…

        Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer, then would head down to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

        The two most important events in all of history were
        1 the invention of beer and 2 the invention of the wheel.
        The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.

        These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

        1 Liberals and 2 Conservatives.

        Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

        Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night… while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement…

        Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

        Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men.

        Some note worthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided

        Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass, for obvious reasons.

        Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. Tofu and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

        Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.

        Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots, bikers and generally anyone who works productively.

        Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

        Conversely, Liberals produce little or nothing. Rather, they like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production.

        Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America .They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing…

  3. Cluster January 21, 2013 / 5:49 pm

    Something again very interesting:

    >> * In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
    >>
    >> * In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. Another statistical impossibility).
    >> * In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
    >> * In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
    >> * The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
    >> * Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.
    >> * In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.
    >> NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

    • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 7:10 pm

      “In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).”

      It might be improbable, but it’s not impossible to get 100% of the vote.

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:16 pm

        “….it’s not impossible to get 100% of the vote.”

        Well, at least it’s not impossible to COUNT 100% of the vote for one candidate—-and to the Left, it’s all about who does the counting.

      • M. Noonan January 21, 2013 / 9:19 pm

        Casper,

        To get 100% of 10 votes; easy. To get 100% of 100 votes; very difficult. To get 100% of 1,000 votes; gotta be a million to one shot…that it happened multiple times is probably billions to one against. Thing is, this also happened – for sure, because I read the data – in 2000 when Gore tried to steal the election. I’m sure it happens in every election…

        But, it is entirely our fault – we have resigned the cities to the liberals and thus they can stuff the ballot boxes to their heart’s content. I don’t think that ballot box stuffing won it for Obama – even if a million or two votes were manufactured, Obama’s margin was higher than that…but Democrats do (and always have) manufactured votes so that if a race comes down to thousands of votes, they can pull out as many as they need to win…the Democrats were manufacturing ballots just in case, say, Ohio decided the election and Obama and Romney were essentially tied.

    • watsonthethird January 21, 2013 / 10:58 pm

      Cluster:

      Something again very interesting:

      >> * In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
      >>
      >> * In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. Another statistical impossibility).
      >> * In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
      >> * In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
      >> * The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
      >> * Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.
      >> * In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.
      >> NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

      Cluster’s been getting email again. Cluster, for crying out loud, you’re supposed to be a political commentator. Do you ever research anything? It’s not that hard. By the way, did you get the emal from the guy stranded in Africa who definitely needs your help? If you will just send him $10,000 he will give you millions when he is safely back in the states. Do it now. Don’t delay or NeoClown might beat you to it.

      • Cluster January 22, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        Watson,

        I thought for sure by now you would have been back to factually refute these numbers. After all, they are of public record and if wrong, would be easy to demonstrate. Got anything yet?

    • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 7:03 pm

      j1369

      But ACORN did steal it for him………BWAAAAHAHAHAH

      yup, TWICE BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHA

    • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 7:33 pm

      stolen election??

  4. j6206 January 21, 2013 / 6:39 pm

    and HI

    • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:17 pm

      Well HI to you, too. Having a nice day?

  5. Jeremiah January 21, 2013 / 7:12 pm

    Obama won, and that’s all that matters. As long as I can get my free welfare and disability check each month.

    And now you know the rest of the story.

    Stupid liberals.

    • neocon01 January 21, 2013 / 7:29 pm

      Stupid liberals.= useful idiots = murdered citizens.

  6. dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 7:48 pm

    For being the “smartest person ever to live” and “The One we have all been waiting for” he really is one dumb SOB.

    “Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action,” –President Obama

    • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 8:15 pm

      To Obama, EVERYTHING requires a collective effort. Even spiritual salvation and redemption, the single most individual and personal and intimate undertaking of all, is seen by Barry as requiring a collective approach.

    • M. Noonan January 21, 2013 / 9:20 pm

      Freedom is slavery; war is peace; ignorance is strength…

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 9:56 pm

        “M. Noonan January 21, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

        Freedom is slavery; war is peace; ignorance is strength…”

        Good to see you embrace the Republican agenda.

      • M. Noonan January 21, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        Casper,

        Nice try, but Orwell’s vision was a vision of what the left would bring, not the right…

      • dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 10:21 pm

        Here you go Casper–some straw man arguments from Obama’s speech. Most are lightweight so even you can beat them up. Give it a shot–at least till you get tired.

        Straw Man #1:
        “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”

        Straw Man #2:
        “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

        Straw Man #3:
        “We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.”

        Straw Man #4:
        “We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”

        Straw Man #5:
        “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

        Get the other 5 obvious ones at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/21/can-you-guess-how-many-straw-man-arguments-were-in-obamas-speech/

        Oh, that’s right–kill the messenger rather than the message.

      • 02casper January 21, 2013 / 10:39 pm

        M. Noonan January 21, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

        Casper,

        Nice try, but Orwell’s vision was a vision of what the left would bring, not the right…”

        No, Orwell’s vision was what a totalitarian government could bring, right or left.

      • dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 11:03 pm

        Casper,

        Are you really that stupid? I gave you more credit than you deserve. On the scale from Left to Right– Right is just shy of anarchy while all forms of totalitarianism (socialism, communism, fascism, etc). are all LEFT models devised of the Liberals and Progressives in their “ends justify the means” beliefs. You understand it well–don’t you?

        This country was founded right of center and only your BS beliefs and mind control (brainwashing of students) over 30+ years has brought us closer to our ultimate downfall. Hope you enjoy your new masters as they will not be mine.

      • tiredoflibbs January 21, 2013 / 11:05 pm

        cappy the clueless: “No, Orwell’s vision was what a totalitarian government could bring, right or left.”

        From Wikipedia:

        Nineteen Eighty-Four is a novel by George Orwell published in 1949. It is a dystopian and satirical novel set in Oceania, where society is tyrannized by The Party and its totalitarian ideology.[1] The Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.[2] Their tyranny is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good.[1] The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.[3] Smith is a diligent and skillful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother.

        Wow, cappy, are you so blind that you cannot see the current parallelisms of the left?

        omnipresent government surveillance – with this administration, we have surveillance drones flying in our airspace.

        public mind control – or commonly known as politically correct speech.

        English Socialism – Socialism? no explanation needed.

        “under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes” – what party is pro-individual?? ’nuff said.

        Independent thinking – again, drones on the left regurgitate dumbed down talking points.

        “an intense cult of personality” – ’nuff said.

        “Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good.” – uh, “the greater good” is littered throughout obAMATEUR’s speeches.

        “His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.” obAMATEUR and the left are revisionists. They rewrite history in their speeches in pathetic attempts to paint the opposition negatively and themselves as saviors.

        Gee, cappy, at one time 1984 was mandatory reading in many a school (at least in my area).

        cappy, these parallelisms are too obvious not to miss, unless you are willing to overlook them, for which you are famous. Too many times, you refuse to see the obvious because you are scared of the truth – hoping that if you ignore it, it will go away.

        Pathetic.

      • dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 11:19 pm

        Cluster,

        If I wasn’t such a mensch of the all-seeing Liberal party of mind control and collectivism, I might have been offended by your editorial stating “under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes”

        Nevertheless, my MasterBlaster has told me not to mind your words and we are okay with this disparaging comment towards our collective.My idiotic misunderstanding and be blessed on your continued effort my collective brother.

      • dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 11:21 pm

        Oops, meant Tired in lieu of Cluster. My “Collective” Liberal mind malfunctioned once again. My bad.

      • Amazona January 21, 2013 / 11:45 pm

        casper, your feeble attempts at wit, or withering commentary, are pathetic. I do understand that this is all you are capable of, but still, you do yourself no favors by constantly spotlighting your vapidity.

        Really—-I don’t like you and even I am embarrassed for you.

      • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 12:05 am

        Hey, guys—don’t forget, casper is a TEACHAH!! Can you imagine how he might teach his poor victims students if they were to study “1984”? It is hard to imagine how anyone could come out of a class of his without a thoroughly scrambled concept of anything he tries to “teach”, given his inability to process even the simplest information and his blind worship of All That Is Left.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 7:33 pm

        catspuke

        MURDER is “choice”
        SODOMY is “civil rights”
        COMMUNISM is “liberal freedom”
        Christianity is “evil”
        islam is “good”
        God is to be “booed”
        LYING is “truth”
        TRUTH is “lying”
        WHITE CONSERVATISM is “racism
        LEFTIST RACISM is “equality”
        RIGHT TRUTHFULNESS is hate
        LEFT HATE is “speaking truth to power

        glad you embrace the left catspuke you must be sooo proud of your self. (USEFUL IDIOT)

  7. dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 10:31 pm

    President “For Everyone (we like) Obama,

    The first couple walked past the FBI building, before stepping back into the limousine before reaching Freedom Plaza.

    Freedom Plaza is the site of one of the only authorized demonstration zones, where a strip of the plaza is designated a free speech zone.

    Guess he did not want to hear from those he refuses to represent.

  8. dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 11:11 pm

    5 shot on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. in New Orleans…
    5 shot in the “Chocolate city” on MLK day on MLK Blvd.

    Someone must not have passed the word.
    Maybe I can get a job at the Federal prison that will be required to hold the Governors and Mayors of all of these individual “Utopias” that violate Federal laws.

    • dbschmidt January 21, 2013 / 11:30 pm

      Potential “good news”;

      …from a security camera showed the attacker opening fire from a vehicle on people standing outside a grocery store near the intersection of MLK Boulevard and Lasalle Street.

      No life-threatening injuries were reported; the shooter was seen fleeing the scene in a late-model white vehicle.

      How this happened is anyone’s best guess, since routes for government-sanctioned parades are designated gun-free zones by Louisiana law.

  9. Retired Spook January 22, 2013 / 10:34 am

    Completely OT, here’s what good ol’ American ingenuity does with an European-built electric car that has encountered a series of problems in its development.

    One of the engineers mused: Somebody at Fisker should just drop a Corvette ZR1 engine in the Karma and be done with it.

    Villarreal thought: I know how to do that.

    What came next blows my mind. It is such a wonderful tale of resourcefulness, common sense, blowtorch engineering and the love of the automobile. Villarreal called his flying buddy and partner in a watchmaking venture, former GM executive and famed car guy Bob Lutz, to ask if he could get Fisker’s consent to such a conversion. At a lunch meeting in Los Angeles in July, Fisker agreed to sell 20 Karma “gliders” (cars without powertrains); his only condition was that the finished cars be visually distinct from the EV Karma.

    And that is how the world came by the VL Destino, a very bad Karma indeed, with the supercharged, 638-horsepower Corvette engine shoved, but barely, under a new, Vette-like hood bulge.

    • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 10:48 am

      That is, a European-built with American taxpayer money car with a series of defects.

      So far the only thing Fisker has been good at is proving the observation that “Karma is a bitch”.

    • Amazona January 22, 2013 / 10:51 am

      Fisker’s got some cute names for their cars. There is the “glider” mentioned in the article, but there is also the “brick”, or the name for an extravagantly expensive car with a battery that is fully discharged and then can never be recharged—sounds like a pretty big design flaw to me.

      Doesn’t look like anyone in DC did much research before handing over a few billion American taxpayer dollars to be taken overseas.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 8:02 pm

        Clueless, Classless, Crass……

        elbows on the table, leaning over plate shoveling it in, making monkey faces at a formal dinner….gawd no wonder the queen ignored these inner city thugs when they ATTEMPTED to raise a toast.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 8:33 pm

        commies on the move

        Reid to Senate Republicans: Filibuster deal in 36 hours or face nuclear option
        The Hill ^

        Reid to Senate Republicans: Filibuster deal in 36 hours or face nuclear option By Alexander Bolton – 01/22/13 03:29 PM ET

        Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is giving Republican colleagues 36 hours to agree to a deal on filibuster reform or he will move forward with the nuclear option.

      • neocon01 January 22, 2013 / 9:09 pm

        Klayman noted in his biting statement:

        “The biggest fraud in the history of the nation has been perpetrated against the American people. Since Republicans have refused to stand up to Obama’s fraud, which has put him in office now for two successive terms, my clients and other voters around the country have been forced to take legal actions challenging his eligibility to be president.

        “Obama, a man who holds little allegiance to our country, and in fact has taken many actions in the last four years which have harmed the national interest, must be held to account in a court of law under the rule of law. Despite judges having thus far been afraid to confront the substantial evidence of Obama’s fraud for fear of retaliation by the Obama administration and other establishment interests,
        we are hopeful and confident that eventually the truth will be widely known through our ongoing election challenges and other legal actions and that Obama will, like President Richard Nixon during Watergate, be forced to resign. The future of the country and our children and grandchildren hang in the balance.”

      • watsonthethird January 23, 2013 / 12:29 am

        Cluster said, “I thought for sure by now you would have been back to factually refute these numbers. After all, they are of public record and if wrong, would be easy to demonstrate. Got anything yet?”

        Google is your friend, Cluster. You should try using it some time.

        Of your claims, the only one that is factually true is the one about 59 Philadelphia percents receiving no votes for Romney. However, contrary to your email’s claim, it isn’t “a mathematical or statistical impossibility.” And the Philadelphia Inquirer went looking for Repbulicans in those precincts.

        http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/178742021.html

        But you know, newspapers are part of the mainstream media…

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 11:42 am

        “But you know, newspapers are part of the mainstream media……”

        Do you have a point? Yes, most newspapers ARE part of the ‘mainstream media”. So are network TV and more and more of the cable channels. So?

  10. Amazona January 23, 2013 / 11:50 am

    Here we have rico saying it doesn’t matter what he said because he is saying something else now, the wattle refusing to back up a claim that someone posted something that is wrong, and the supposedly Canadian non-observer declaring that it is “encumbent” (sic) upon someone else to overcome his inability to engage in a coherent discussion.

    And so the meltdown of the RRL trolls continues……………..

    • ricorun January 24, 2013 / 12:22 am

      Amazona: Here we have rico saying it doesn’t matter what he said because he is saying something else now, the wattle refusing to back up a claim that someone posted something that is wrong

      Actually, I (the wattle) did explain my statement, and I (the wattle) am not saying something else now. I haven’t changed anything. I (the wattle) even explained why I (the wattle) thought it didn’t matter. I mean really, who doesn’t think that effective regulation is better than no regulation at all? If you disagree, please go on record in stating that. I’m sure Spook would love you for it. I (the wattle) even explained why I (the wattle) thought the Canadian regulatory system is better and more effective. What I (the wattle) haven’t heard is any coherent rebuttal, just invectives (with the exception of what Mark added to the conversation). And yet somehow I’ve been labeled as a liar — and a wattle. I don’t see the reason for that. And it’s especially curious considering that my position does not appear to be very different from many others here — including those inclined to cast me in a negative light. Unless, of course, they really do believe that all regulation is bad, but just can’t bring themselves to say it.

    • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 11:38 am

      Oh, rico, do stop your incessant whining and learn to read. I listed three separate things. If you could pull your head out of your rear end, where you seem to be constantly admiring the view, and learn a little about punctuation, you would see that I said “Here we have rico saying it doesn’t matter what he said because he is saying something else now, the wattle refusing to back up a claim that someone posted something that is wrong, and the supposedly Canadian non-observer declaring that it is “encumbent” (sic) upon someone else to overcome his inability to engage in a coherent discussion.”

      Let me dumb it down for you.

      “Here we have rico saying it doesn’t matter what he said because he is saying something else now and the wattle refusing to back up a claim that someone posted something that is wrong, and the supposedly Canadian non-observer declaring that it is “encumbent” (sic) upon someone else to overcome his inability to engage in a coherent discussion.”

      Better? Now go have nice lie-down and try to pull yourself together.

      • Retired Spook January 24, 2013 / 11:54 am

        Amazona,

        Actually I can see how someone as self-absorbed as Rico would mistakenly think he was a “Wattle”. I mean “Wattle” is sort of an all-compassing term, like doofus.

    • 01canadianobserver January 24, 2013 / 1:03 pm

      For someone who prides herself on posting accurate remarks, Amazona, I find it strange that you would write…”and the supposedly Canadian non-observer declaring that it is “encumbent” (sic) upon someone else to overcome his inability to engage in a coherent discussion.”

      When, exactly, did I declare that it was “encumbent” (sic) upon someone else to overcome an inability to engage in a coherent discussion? I will apologize profusely if you can point to this declaration on my part.

      • Amazona January 24, 2013 / 4:15 pm

        You are correct, I DO pride myself on posting accurate remarks, and in that vein I admit to a mistake. Thank you for bringing this to my attention,

        In fact, the comment was made by rico in his post of January 23, 2013 at 12:37 am.

        Profuse apologies on your part not necessary but thanks for offering. I offer my own apologies if this error in reference caused you any distress.

  11. Amazona January 26, 2013 / 7:36 pm

    This comment by the major pain, posted January 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm, in the Second Amendment thread, is so important that I am going to post this on every thread, because I don’t want it to be overlooked:

    The Constitution was not written to protect the people; it was written to preserve the Union and the rights of, initially, white men who owned property.”

    Looking past the racism that permeates all of the major pain’s outlook (there is another reference to “white Americans” in the same post) and the fact that I thought all posts from the forkers were to be deleted because of the rampant bigotry that marks them, we need to look at this precise statement:

    THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, IT WAS WRITTEN TO PRESERVE THE UNION—that is, the government.

    What could be a clearer statement of the core belief of the rabidly radical Left? Get past the fact that to believe this means a complete inability to understand fact, language or history—–it is a summary of the credo of the Left.

    That is, that nothing is more important than the government, nothing is less important than the individual.

    Now, those of us who have read the Constitution, those of us who have studied it and read not only the document but the supporting, contemporaneous writings of those who created it, those of us who understand the goals of the Founders and the events that led up to the writing of the document, all know that the Constitution is NOT about protecting the Union, but about protecting the people FROM the Union.

    The rabidly radical Left simply ignores fact, history and language because they are so deeply committed to the concept that government is always more important than people.

Comments are closed.