A Fun Way to Mess With Obama

From Instapundit:

SPEAKING OF IDEAS THAT THE GOP COULD OFFER, I think a series of legislative proposals aimed at implementing promises Obama made in 2008 would be fun and politically profitable: Cutting the deficit in half, closing the revolving door between government and business (my USA Today column this week will be on that one), implementing greater transparency, etc. Just send one bill after another over to the Senate. . . .

Agreed – perfect idea.  Of course, Obama and his slavish media would try to pretend that all that is just rot…but if we did do it – and keep doing it – then it would start to impress itself on the public mind, and that would work to our benefit.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “A Fun Way to Mess With Obama

  1. 9306abcd January 28, 2013 / 8:31 pm

    What’s this “we” stuff?

    • M. Noonan January 28, 2013 / 8:49 pm

      “We” as in the generalized Conservative/Libertarian coalition working through our Representatives in the House….

    • Retired Spook January 28, 2013 / 8:59 pm

      What’s this “we” stuff?

      You mean you wouldn’t join in advancing Obama’s “promised” agenda?

  2. 02casper January 28, 2013 / 8:34 pm

    Mark,
    I think that’s a great idea. Start with closing the revolving door between government and business. Then go on with cutting the deficit in half. However, it would be nice if you have very specific proposals on how you are going to do that. Put down exactly what you want to cut.

    • Retired Spook January 28, 2013 / 8:57 pm

      Put down exactly what you want to cut.

      That’s easy –cut EVERYTHING (yeah, Defense too) that has increased over and above the rate of inflation since Obama took office.

    • M. Noonan January 28, 2013 / 9:02 pm

      Casper,

      There is a bit of a game of chicken going on with spending – Democrats don’t want to cut, but know that cuts must come (well, some of them do…some of them do seem dumb enough to believe that spending can go on like this forever); Republicans want to cut, but know that in a society of “gimme”, he who cuts off the government spigot will pay for it at the polls. Each side is, naturally, demanding that the other side step forward with a plan – so that the side making the first proposal can be (a) savaged in the media and then (b) blamed for the cuts when they actually take place.

      But there is a growing realization on the right – especially in people like Paul Ryan – that we can play this to our advantage. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) picked this up a while ago with his calls for a tax on the revolving door (I think its something along the lines of a huge surtax on incomes earned from lobbying for a set period of time after a person leaves government) and his call for ending the Hollywood tax cuts (various tax benefits that Hollywood gets…when Big Oil gets them, you liberals call them “loopholes” or “give-aways to the Rich”). My “wealth tax” is another of these ideas – a tax on wealth (of a certain kind; mostly involving government bonds) above a certain amount. If the GOP starts pressing these then we can work the “tax the rich” rhetoric to our advantage – doubly because not only would it actually tax the rich, but would smoke out your liberal leaders who never, ever want to tax the actual rich. That goes for the tax side – now for the spending side.

      Every government dollar spent has its constituency and most of the ruling class and the MSM will generate the “heartless bastards” meme against anyone wanting to cut spending – they’ll always have a heart-string-pulling story about how such and such cut will wind up killing granny, or a child. The key to our changing the debate to our advantage is to first go with “regular order”; pass regular budget bills out of the House and attach “Halve the Deficit” riders to it – first targeting spending which has been pre-broadcast as corrupt…find out what the lobbyists are defending, pick out the most egregious examples of waste, and attach riders to each appropriate budget bill to zero it out…won’t be much to start with (maybe a few tens of billions of dollars), but a carefully orchestrated plan will once again get us to the rhetorical point of 1980…when Reagan and the GOP made great play of government waste, fraud and abuse as a method of generating popular support for the reduction of the size of government…except this time our plan is to have in place by 2017 a GOP Congress and President who can actually do it (the Democrat House during Reagan’s terms killed any chance of genuine spending reductions).

      We realize post-2012 that we’re in this for the long haul and that Obama, himself, is trivial – if it wasn’t him wrecking the nation, it would just be some other liberal, or even a RINO just doing it slower. We have to change things fundamentally, and that will take a very long time.

      • 02casper January 28, 2013 / 9:15 pm

        Frankly Mark, to me it looks like you are all for cuts as long as your party doesn’t get blamed for them. The trouble is some cuts do have the effect of hurting real people.

      • M. Noonan January 28, 2013 / 9:44 pm

        Casper,

        Not at all – I figure we can reduce government spending by at least 30% and not only not reduce benefits to those receiving them, but actually increase their benefits. The amount of waste, fraud and duplication in our government is staggering – in point of fact, no one really knows where all the money goes; a review some years back revealed that over a 10 year period a trillion dollars in spending could not be accounted for, at all: no one knows where the money went. The trouble is that any cut in spending is portrayed by your side as a definite harm to poor or helpless people – this, of course, is a flat out, bald faced lie…but, it works, because most people aren’t really paying attention. They know that waste is there but they also don’t want anyone harmed…our task is to slowly and carefully instruct the American people that cuts can be made and all – especially the poor – will benefit from such cuts.

      • commontater January 29, 2013 / 5:34 am

        New to this site and liking it. Maybe when enough people realize that a family on the dole here gets as much as $50,000 a year, which is about as much as the per capita household income. Why on earth should anyone on the dole (legit or not) be on an equal income as the hard-working gainfully employed! That’s plain nuts. The source comes from Sen. Tom Coburn (on C-SPAN) when citing Jeff Sessions Oct. Report by the Senate Budget Committee.
        With the “safety net” of welfare equal to the average per capita family income, no wonder it takes away the incentive to better one’s self when you’re equal to everybody else in terms of your benefits. Hammer this to the public long enough and I guarantee there will be a reaction to this insanity.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 12:25 pm

        tater, welcome and thank you for your excellent points.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 1:37 pm

        Many of the “real people” who would be “hurt” by cuts shouldn’t be getting benefits in the first place.

        Yeah, I can see how it would “hurt” to have to work for rent and food and tats and cell phones and piercings and color TVs and air conditioning, etc. I know how much it “hurts”—-I’ve done it all my life. Well, not for the tats and piercings, but………….

        It’s quite a popular whine of the RRL Left that we must, we simply MUST, “take care of people”. Fine. Some do need help. Some need complete lifetime support, some need a landing place to regroup and put their lives on a different track, some need temporary help due to circumstances beyond their control, and some need a good hard kick in the pants to get them off the dole and in the habit of taking care of themselves.

        One of our problems is that we have no effective way of discerning who is in what category, and the Left fights every effort to establish such criteria, because the source of power for the Left lies in the dependency of the populace.

        The other big problem is that all of these categories have been dumped into the Federal budget. Wrong. There is not only nothing in the Constitution that allows such largesse from the public coffers, the Founders themselves pointed this out over and over again, repeatedly stating that charity was never intended to be allowed to the federal government.

        The federal tax rate should be no more than a third of what it is now, possibly less, to cover the actual enumerated duties of the federal government, and this would allow states to raise their taxes to provide the benefits the residents of those states have decided to fund. This would also bring administration of these benefits much closer to those who know and understand local problems and situations, and cut out a few of the levels of bureaucracy between the origin of the money and its recipients, reducing not only administrative costs but the number of fingers to which so much money seems to stick and the number of black holes into which it tends to disappear.

        Oh, and just as a bonus—-it would bring the nation much closer to actual adherence to our Constitution.

      • M. Noonan January 29, 2013 / 1:55 pm

        Amazona,

        There is, indeed, a great deal of that – people who are on benefits who really need not be. As I’ve long said, my standard for “disabled” in the sense of “incapable of any work” is quite high – because I had a friend of my who was horrifically disabled from birth and yet she managed to hold down a 40 hour a week job and was on management track when God called her home in her 30’s. To be sure, a lot of special accommodations had to be made for her, but she still worked – and worked quite hard. I also don’t expect everyone with horrific disabilities to necessarily show her grit – not all of us are built the same; a lot of people in better condition than her would probably feel justified in not working, and I’m ok with that. But there are a lot of “phew, me back ‘urts” people out there collecting disability when they could darn well work.

        I bet that a vigorous review of disability cases would result in at least a quarter of them being kicked off it – and that savings can be partially put for deficit reduction, partially to provide additional benefits for those who are in genuine need. Part of our task of winning on this debate is to show people – drawing them a picture, if necessary – that if we go after the waste, fraud and duplication in even the most beloved programs, the people in genuine need will get even more than they are now…that will put a lot of the “takers” on our side.

    • dbschmidt January 28, 2013 / 10:20 pm

      How about we cut all subsidies to all business including oil and agricultural but also green and everything else. As a part of that we also need to cut all mandates like that of 30% + of corn go to petroleum and other mandated government projects.

      Let free market decide. That would also include all of the Democratic banking rules that have hamstrung farmers, among others.

      Are you ready to let free markets?

      • Amazona January 28, 2013 / 10:55 pm

        db, can you list some “oil subsidies”?

      • bardolf2 January 29, 2013 / 1:28 am

        Amazona

        The government through the National Science Foundations regularly funds research into novel ways of oil extraction, numerical schemes, porous media studies etc. which benefit the oil industry. That is an government assistance to the industry.

        Forbes has an article on more general oil subsidies
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

        Certainly one of the main jobs of the US Navy is to guarantee shipping lanes are safe for oil tankers. That is a subsidy of the industry.

        Of course these subsidies also keep the cost of oil and gas lower for US consumers so there is a real benefit to the tax payer.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 12:04 pm

        dolf, did you read your link or just post it because the title looked like it might support a claim by you that you can identify “oil subsidies”? (I asked db because I know he is ethical and would give an honest answer, but of course then you had to chime in.)

        If you DID read it, you are a fool to then link to it, as it undermines the whine about “oil subsidies” and points out, among other things, that the very term depends on who is defining it.

        For example, your link says “Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a a page on fossil fuel subsidies which they define as “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.”

        First, this covers all “fossil fuels”: Second, it is compiled by a group with an anti-fossil-fuel agenda: Third, it simply defines terms according to that agenda: Fourth, the concept of “…“any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.”” is so broad and vague as to be laughable. It would include allowing tax deductions for business expenses, for example—-a category that is, interestingly enough, included in alleged “subsidies”.

        Moving on: The attacks on the petroleum industry seem to be coming from two directions; the AGW types, and the OWS types, the latter of which are focused on the class warfare aspect of the argument, or the claim that Big Oil is just too damned rich, part of that hated and hateful “ 1 % “. However, according to http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2007/09/18/who-owns-big-oil/ (emphasis mine)

        “’ It’s not who you think. As Congress debates national energy policy, a new study finds that ownership of oil and natural gas company shares is made up of a broad cross section of Americans.

        “This study disproves the popular misconception that ‘Big Oil’ is owned by a small group of industry insiders. In reality, across the oil and natural gas industry only 1.5 percent of shares of public companies are owned by company executives,” said study author Robert J. Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs under President Bill Clinton. “The data show that ownership of industry shares is broadly middle class, with the majority of industry shares held by institutional investors, often on behalf of millions of Americans through mutual funds, pension funds and individual retirement accounts.”

        API Chief Economist John Felmy added: “When politicians seek to punish these companies and ‘take their profits,’ they are not targeting industry executives but the hard-earned savings of working people.“

        (Of course we then get into the area of just who do these people think they are anyway, planning and investing for their own futures, when Big Brother has this massive “trust fund” of Social Security to dole out, which is really all anyone needs anyway.)

        What is the nature of these alleged “subsidies”? First, most that are listed by the activist groups are state and not federal regulations. Second, the top three are: The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the fuel tax exemption for farmers, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

        I doubt that the Left is in favor of removing the first. As a matter of fact, the Left is stridently AGAINST removing or even reducing this program. Take a look at what Chuck U Schumer and John F’n Kerry have to say about it. And let’s face it, calling it an “oil subsidy” is just plain stupid in the first place.

        The fuel tax exemption for farmers is hardly a “subsidy”. Fuel taxes are supposedly to build and repair roads, and farm equipment use of roads is so minimal, consisting (when it exists at all) of moving equipment from one field to another, usually on county roads, that not charging a fuel tax for fuel used by this equipment is, to use the term most loved by the Left, “FAIR”.

        And the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is also not a “subsidy” though the activists love to include it. It is a matter of national security. But it involves petroleum products! Get a rope!

        Speaking of national security, evidently you don’t seem to see a national security issue in keeping shipping lanes open. Of course, you also claim this is for oil tankers, conveniently ignoring the fact that all shipping uses these lanes, and all shipping contributes to the economic health of the nation.

        You’re picking up quite a bit of speed on that slippery slope, dolf, plummeting into total irrelevance and moving beyond quirky into outright weird.

      • bardolf2 January 29, 2013 / 2:32 pm

        Amy

        You conveniently skipped the first subsidy because it requires some reasoning instead of a internet search for pre-baked replies. BTW did you hear about the U-Texas prof forced to resign over a conflict of interest with the fracking industry? Another Amy hoax dispelled.

        I was reluctant to post the link to Forbes because, as usual, you troll through the list looking for gotchas instead of anything approaching reflection. Those are your ethics in action. No interest in conversation just wanting desperately to be the queen of B4V. You asked for some subsidies to the oil industry, I provided some.

        The protection of the shipping lane argument is not mine. Ann Coulter first used it to question the foreign policy wisdom of some of the GOP candidates. I don’t recall the last time the US Navy entered into a long term action to protect the flow of goods and the shipping lanes from China. At least lately the Middle East (which has 1 relevant export) is where all the action is. You’re simply dishonest. Bob Dole even called out Bush Sr. for his bs about the first gulf war being about freedom and said it was about protecting the supply of oil. Finally I didn’t judge whether the military subsidy of the oil industry was wrong for the American consumers.

        In the end you have pointed out correctly that your ethics lead you to define a subsidy in a purely ideological way. I think the free lunch program is good for students but it is also a subsidy for farmers. So I would say some subsidies are good and some are bad. You would simply redefine the useful subsidies as not being subsidies at all.

        Your continuing pop psychology analysis of posters you disagree with is a true cry of loneliness, I recommend going to church on Sundays.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 3:53 pm

        My goodness, dolfie, you are in a pissy little mood today. But no matter how badly you want your own unique reality to prevail, what you say is simply not true.

        I notice that in your little fit of spite and malice, you ignore what I said. And just how did I conveniently “skip” the first so-called subsidy? I brought it up, I mentioned that no one on the Left really wants it to go away, and I commented that it is ludicrous to call it a subsidy anyway.

        “BTW did you hear about the U-Texas prof forced to resign over a conflict of interest with the fracking industry? Another Amy hoax dispelled. ”

        I suppose this makes sense to you—-assuming that making sense is even a priority, something that is not clear from your posts.

        Wading through the whining of your second paragraph, we finally get to one of the things that may have your panties in a twist.. You say ” You asked for some subsidies to the oil industry, I provided some. ”

        Yeah, well, you really didn’t. You provided some highly biased redefinitions of “subsidies” which don’t really qualify as such, at least not according to standard, non-ideological, definitions.

        The online reference dictionary defines “subsidy”:
        1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
        2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
        3. a grant or contribution of money.
        4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

        The Business Dictionary has these definitions:
        1. Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.
        2. Indirect financial contribution by a firm to its employees, such as low cost meals or free transportation. Also called benefit.

        From Wikipedia:
        The dictionary [Concise Oxford] defines it as “money granted by state, public body, etc., to keep down the prices of commodities, etc.”. Environmental economists define subsidies as uncompensated environmental damage arising from any flow of goods and services. In a budgetary context, it may be defined as “unrecovered costs in the public provision of private goods”.

        Clearly the only ones subsidized through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program are the poor, not the oil companies. Clearly the set-aside of a certain amount of petroleum product in a reserve for national security is not a subsidy. Clearly the military presence in the Middle East, which happens to include keeping shipping lanes open for all commerce, is not a subsidy.

        The various state efforts may or may not be actual subsidies. I didn’t even read them in detail because we are talking about federal “subsidies”.

        Clearly I used the term in its most accurate, academic, literal sense, while your definitions seem to be the ideological ones. But then self-awareness is hardly a strong suit of yours, as shown by your assertion that I engage in “… pop psychology analysis of posters (I) disagree with …” and then you go on to a very simple minded pop psychology analysis of your own when you declare that this alleged activity is “…. is a true cry of loneliness…” (sob) and then prescribe “I recommend going to church on Sundays.”

        Sometimes I think you are posting parodies of yourself, as it is hard to believe that you really believe the bizarre things you post. But then I see the peevishness and pettiness and snottiness and I realize no, this really is dolf, and this really is how he sees the world.

      • dbschmidt January 29, 2013 / 5:38 pm

        Ama,

        As we both know there are no such things as oil subsides but that is what the Dems knowingly falsely call them. Most are faster write-offs on new equipment. Their (Oil) profit margins are low compared to other industries but have been plagued by the Liberal / Progressives as evil and taking advantage of common accounting practices aka “subsides.”

        I was just giving the Dems an opportunity to agree that if we change the rules for oil then we should across the board while also removing onerous regulations. The two that always come to mind is oil is evil but Apple is great–even though the profit margin is so much higher for Apple with known child labor out of China making it so. The other just happened to the owner of Whole Foods (strange–right after he called ObamaCare as fascist) would did a new store(s) promo in Illinois (IIRC) selling milk at $2.99 per Gal. / limit 4 but was shutdown and told that he could charge no less than $0.06 per Gal profit after his cost and shipping where taken into account.

        You will make a profit–you little capitalist pig! No loss leaders allowed after you have mentioned the manipulation of another market by this government..

        BTW, Bardolf,
        One of, if not, the primary duty(s) of the US Navy is to protect and keep open all naval shipping and in particular US interests. As a once upon a time member of a Department of the Navy, aka the Marines. We travel aboard US Naval vessels ever since Tripoli just to make sure of that.

  3. bozo January 29, 2013 / 9:13 am

    Either “kumbayah” or “ay caramba” would be appropriate for this post. Let’s all push for Obozo to do what he said he’d do. But you gotta promise not to block him when he tries to do what you ask him to. That’s just crazy.

    • neocon01 January 29, 2013 / 9:27 am

      lets START with a national sales tax…ALL PAY. Abolish the ATF, IRS< NEA, OSHA,etc etc etc.
      we dont want to "mess" with hussein we want to SMASH HIM and his leftist COMMUNISM.
      Anything else is playground childs play.

    • Retired Spook January 29, 2013 / 10:14 am

      Bozo — I was afraid you had died. Welcome back, and glad to have you on board the government accountability train.

      I absolutely promise not to try to block Obama if he sincerely tries to reduce the deficit? And I absolutely promise not to try to block Obama’s attempts to create greater transparency and ethics in government.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 12:13 pm

        I’m with you on this, Spook. I also promise not to try to “block” Obama if he tries to do what we ask him to do, and will save my “blocking” efforts for the things I not only do not want him to do but which I think are contrary to the best interests of the nation.

        In other words, nothing has changed.

      • bozo January 29, 2013 / 1:07 pm

        I almost died. I had an amoebic liver abscess the size of a baseball over Christmas time. Picked up the infection in the Philippines in late October, took the docs forever to figure out what it was and what to do. Almost went septic.

        Thank God for worker’s comp or I’d be homeless when all the bills come due since my own private insurance policy is a joke, with more exemptions than covered expenses.

        Moral of the story: even at the finest hotel in Manila – skip the salad bar.

      • Retired Spook January 29, 2013 / 1:43 pm

        I almost died.

        Well, we don’t agree on much, but I’m still glad you didn’t.

      • M. Noonan January 29, 2013 / 1:49 pm

        Bozo,

        And here we thought your silence was depression over Romney’s defeat…but, at all events, glad to have you back and in good health.

      • Amazona January 29, 2013 / 1:49 pm

        Glad you made it, though it sounds pretty grim. I make it a point to never eat anything that is not cooked thoroughly or marinated in alcohol when I am in Central or South America, and I would definitely include the Philippines (and Africa) in that list were I to go there.

        I was septic for nearly a week, with doctors telling me they were working on keeping me from going into septic shock but couldn’t make any promises, a year and a half ago, when a diseased gall bladder got so big it rubbed a hole in my small intestine. It kind of gets your attention and makes you realize how fragile human bodies really are. I was lucky in that my insurance picked up nearly all of the bill. I have a $2000 deductible and picked up another couple grand in associated expenses, but Blue Cross never blinked at the $70,000 or so they paid.

        Being sick sucks, surgery sucks, but recovery is hell. I felt great, once there were no more toxins being dumped into my system, but the surgical repairs to my liver and intestine meant enforced inactivity for months, and you are probably facing much the same thing.

        Use this time wisely, Grasshopper, and learn the wisdom of Constitutional government. The strain of continued support of the Obama Belief System will do you no good.

      • neocon01 January 29, 2013 / 3:09 pm

        blowzo

        skip the salad bar.
        UH HUH………… I have been there 🙂

        anyway glad you didnt croak, …….we need a good lib to kick around here 🙂 🙂

      • neocon01 January 29, 2013 / 3:14 pm

        Ama

        a very good friend’s 27yo daughter died the day after Christmas from a lung infection that went (septic?) went into the hospital sick and died the next day….UGH HORRIBLE!!
        systemic infections are bad stuff

      • bozo January 30, 2013 / 11:27 am

        Thanks for the kind words.

        I am sorry about your friend’s daughter, and can honestly say “there but for the grace of God go I.” My rational self says it was fortuitous circumstances, while my teenage Baptist self says Someone intervened on my undeserving behalf shortly before total disaster struck. Long story… thankful either way.

        At the risk of being “Captain Obvious,” health is everything – when it goes bad, not much else matters.

        The bad news is I’m hoping to be my cranky liberal self in a month or two, since it was my liver that got attacked. I’ve still got plenty of bile 🙂

      • Retired Spook January 30, 2013 / 11:44 am

        The bad news is I’m hoping to be my cranky liberal self in a month or two, since it was my liver that got attacked. I’ve still got plenty of bile.

        Bozo, I’m genuinely curious as to why that has to be the case. You’re one of the few Lefties who has ever come here that has shown a hint of being capable of honest debate.

      • Amazona January 30, 2013 / 3:29 pm

        My husband died of septic shock, and I was so stunned that I didn’t ask for an autopsy to find out the origin of the infection. He just felt a little crummy, then had chills and nausea, and suddenly reached the tipping point of infection where his body went into multiple organ failures.

        At the time the information I could find on the internet said that about 700,000 people a year die of sepsis or septic shock, but I am sure the number is much higher than that, as this was not listed on his death certificate and I later met two people who knew people who had had similar symptoms and then suddenly died, without being diagnosed as having been septic

        When I experienced brain fog followed by nausea followed by severe chills, and a little psychic nudge from my late husband, I set out several bowls of food and water for the cats, made a couple of extra litter boxes, and drove myself 5 1/2 hours to a Colorado hospital. It just so happened to be one which had recently started a special septic watch program, and during the 10 days I was there people were always popping in saying “You won’t see me but I’m on the sepsis team and we’re monitoring you 24/7”. There is no way of knowing, but I tend to think the same psychic nudge that told me to get to a hospital sent me to this particular hospital, instead of those I drove past and where I would have been taken if I had called an ambulance, and that it got me to the place that could save my life, instead of standing there watching me fail, which is what happened at the first hospital where my husband was taken.

        I’ve become rather evangelical about telling people to not ignore the combination of nausea and severe fever or chills.

      • Amazona January 30, 2013 / 3:31 pm

        “The bad news is I’m hoping to be my cranky liberal self in a month or two, since it was my liver that got attacked. I’ve still got plenty of bile”

        Is this an admission that bile is a vital component of Liberalism?

      • bozo February 1, 2013 / 9:49 am

        That is why I still think the extraordinary intervention that probably saved my life was fortuitous and not Divine, simply because I can’t believe I deserved it and your husband didn’t. Obviously I didn’t know the man, but you are clearly of formidable intellect, so I think the likelihood of you having married an “evil” man is around zero.

        Side effects of a brush with death: being grateful for intellectual adversaries (maybe superior, maybe not 😛 ) who are willing to pitch knuckle balls for me to swing at here on one of my favorite blogs. My batting average may be in the mid .200’s, but I do enjoy the game.

      • Amazona February 1, 2013 / 10:13 am

        Gee, bozo, thanks for the kind words.

        My spiritual beliefs do not include illness or death or misfortune as punishment for wrongdoing. Mine is a more Eastern philosophy, that God gives us challenges not to punish us but to give us the opportunity to learn lessons we need to know, to spiritually evolve and grow, and that each of has a different span of time in this life and it is not up to us to know what it is. Just because I don’t know the purpose of another’s life doesn’t mean it has not been fulfilled, so I don’t challenge the fact that it has been ended, and I certainly don’t see its end—on this plane—-as punishment.

        I also believe we are meant to learn from the experiences of others, as well. So what matters is not what happens to us, but what we do with it. Does it make us kinder, wiser, stronger, more generous, more loving? Does it nudge us into a different path, one we might otherwise not have taken, that leads us to new crossroads and decisions? Does it put us in a position where how we handle it and what we do with it affects someone else, teaches a lesson by example?

        My husband was a very good man. As I type this, I am looking at a large hand-crafted angel, which is simply gorgeous, and my most cherished possession. It was left on our porch years ago as a thank you to him, and when I pried the details out of him I learned that he had been four hours late getting to our ranch the day before because he had stopped to help an out-of-state family whose car had broken down. He took them to our mechanic and made sure they would be treated right, helped arrange a tow truck, took them to the other side of the county to get what they needed to rent a new car, took them to the car rental place, helped them unload their Suburban and then took the stuff that wouldn’t fit into the rental car back across the county to their rented condo, and for some reason in all this back-and-forthing had to stop by our house, so they knew where to leave their thank you. Their note to him is taped to the underside of the angel’s robe, and I am putting up a shelf in my bedroom so it will be the first thing I see when I wake up every morning.

        No, he did not die at a relatively young age because he was “evil”. His time here was through. I can’t presume to know why, but my job has been, since that day, to learn what I can from our life together and from losing him, so none of it will have been wasted. And I have tried to continue that generosity of spirit, one of the lessons I learned.

    • M. Noonan January 29, 2013 / 12:51 pm

      Bozo,

      Its pretty obvious that Obama was either flat out lying or was a pure idiot when he promised to halve the deficit in his first term – this is proved by the fact of his first, major legislative effort being to increase spending by $900 billion in just one year over and above all the increases already built in to the budget. As far as I can tell, he didn’t even try to do any symbolic off-sets to this new spending – it was just tacked on to all the other spending. But, it was a promise – and by doing this we can both hammer Obama and educate the American people about how spending works and what can be cut without throwing granny over a cliff.

      • neocon01 January 29, 2013 / 3:10 pm

        either flat out lying or was a pure idiot

        either? how about BOTH!!

Comments are closed.