A Couple Months Too Late, But People are Waking Up…

From Pew via Hot Air:

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree…

Perhaps it took the way Obama has become increasingly arrogant since re-election to get people to understand what is going on?  I don’t know of a re-elected President who went with more of a “my way or the highway” attitude upon being re-elected.  The general run of things is at least some sort of attempt to bridge the partisan divide and extend some sort of olive branch to the defeated…all we’ve got from Obama is demands that GOPers cave in, and, also, accept blame for everything that is going wrong.  Not exactly the way to appeal to us…

For the longer term, this poll encourages me greatly in thinking that our future battles should be fought out over personal liberty – even if it means we have to engage in tactical retreats on some issues.  If our strategy is to restore America then key must be re-energizing the spirit of ’76…that one-time ardent American desire to just live free or die.  It is the basis for reducing the size of government, creating a genuinely free economic market and, of course, allow us in our localities to run our own affairs without let or hindrance from the federal government.  This is not necessarily the time to emphasize what we are against but, instead, to emphasize our commitment to personal liberty…after all, if we believe that freedom is best and that our ideas are true (and I answer “yes” to both) then we must believe that if given a genuinely free and fair debate – impossible under current, tyrannical conditions – people will come over to our side.  That is, people will come to understand that freedom really is the freedom to choose to do the right thing – and that, in the end, wins for us all down the line.

But, meanwhile, we’ve got a government more and more out of control – remember, we have a Raisin Administrative Committee – and ever more determined to curtail our rights.  Unless all of us who believe in freedom unite – and that includes uniting with people who have widely divergent views – then we’re doomed.

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “A Couple Months Too Late, But People are Waking Up…

  1. Cluster February 1, 2013 / 9:15 pm

    Amen Mark. I have a feeling Obama could leave office in 2016 with the lowest approval rating for any President ever. 169,000 people left the labor force in January, and since Obama took office in 2009, 8.5 million people have left the work force, yet they still want us to believe that the economy is just fine thus there is no need to renew the jobs council, and that gun control and climate change are the real problems.

    I think a lot of people are really starting to understand that Obama isn’t really all that concerned about their daily lives and their ability to get ahead, or even put food on the table.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/01/85-million-americans-left-labor-force-obamas-first-term#ixzz2Jehi6Wet

    • M. Noonan February 1, 2013 / 11:17 pm

      Cluster,

      As I went about my business yesterday is did suddenly occur to me that Obama just doesn’t give a darn about we, the people of the United States. And I’m not just talking about knuckle-dragging, ossified conservatives like myself who are bitterly clinging to the Bible (I’d cling to my guns, too, if I had one)…I mean even those who most ardently supported him (and who, I note with great care, waited until after the election before slapping the Obama sticker on their cars – seriously, pre-election I saw one or two cars with Obama stickers…since then, I’ve seen a lot)…he appears to think that we ok “enough” for our desserts and he’s got bigger fish to fry than worrying about what we’re up to.

      • Amazona February 1, 2013 / 11:28 pm

        “… who, I note with great care, waited until after the election before slapping the Obama sticker on their cars – seriously, pre-election I saw one or two cars with Obama stickers…since then, I’ve seen a lot)…”

        You noticed that too? For a while I thought I was imaging things, but I commented before the election on how few Obama stickers I saw. Until I went to Boulder one day I don’t think I had seen more than half a dozen, all over the state, and there were lots of Romney stickers. All of a sudden, I am seeing new-looking Obama stickers.

        What makes this really odd is that now, as the impact of his reelection is starting to sink in, I would expect the older stickers to be scraped off, because no one would want to be blamed for the fiasco we face every day.

  2. Carmel Miller February 1, 2013 / 9:32 pm

    Comment: Contact your representatives and tell them this is unacceptable! Is it or is it not treason? These are Sunni Muslims.

    http://api.ning com/files/mcq2LgXfiPG1NzIXs0xTiuN2VVyv9QZF53psBGXGwe-t-Y0r40uBbcyERC2C4sVgKk5 iBGHsCMuQ4SB-14vNxxfxNEhQjJ0/2a.jpg

    MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD INFILTRATES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

    Our soldiers die and here at home treason runs rampant in the White House. The foxes are brought into the hen house by a vindictive Obama. These Muslims are not here to be Americans and share or adopt our laws or culture. They are here with the smiles of a wolf or Cheshire cat to play we the people as suckers. It is an act of treason for Obama to bring these people into our government to warp and twist our policies. Their goals are for their Muslim cult needs and practices. They aren’t loyal to America. I’ll bet they didn’t even take an oath. I’ll bet they were brought to America illegally and educated by welfare dollars.
    “Six American Islamist activist who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood Operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S.policy.”

    • Amazona February 1, 2013 / 11:20 pm

      The Muslim Brotherhood did not infiltrate the Obama administration—they were invited in. I don’t see how they or the administration could be tried for treason as there is no war with the Muslim Brotherhood. While common sense tells us they are part of a demographic that wants to destroy the United States, without an official and legal designation as enemies of the State I don’t see a basis for the legal crime of treason.

      Hyperbole and guesswork such as “I’ll bet they were brought to America illegally and educated by welfare dollars.” does nothing to make your complaint sound any more rational.

      All we can do at this point is try to educate Americans so they don’t continue on the path of utter stupidity they illustrated in the last election.

  3. Retired Spook February 2, 2013 / 8:47 am

    This is not necessarily the time to emphasize what we are against but, instead, to emphasize our commitment to personal liberty

    It is never not a good time to emphasize liberty, and, for all their rhetoric, it’s rare to hear a Leftist talk about either liberty or prosperity. The two go hand in hand — you really can’t have one without the other. And yet from the Left we get such phrases as “level the playing field”, “spread the wealth”, “shared prosperity”, “collective salvation”, just to name a few. I realize we don’t have and haven’t had too many ideological Leftists on this blog, but think back; can anyone remember a Lefty coming here and stating that he/she is a Progressive because the Progressive movement wants to expand personal liberty and ensure that America continues to be the most free, most productive, most prosperous nation on the planet? Just once I’d like to have that discussion.

    • Cluster February 2, 2013 / 9:35 am

      In all my years here, I can’t ever recall any progressive arguing that expansion of liberty and prosperity is at the core of their belief system. Progressivism is simply the effort to divide the population, identify the victims (perceived or real), and champion their cause in the name of fairness, and in the ultimate pursuit of “collectivism”.

      • Amazona February 2, 2013 / 11:26 am

        Cluster, when we bring up liberty and prosperity the Libs here just ignore it. It’s as if these concepts do not exist, other than in the context of limiting the prosperity of “the rich” and espousing liberty only in ways that limit the liberty of others.

        I think most who vote Progressive, and even use the word, never think beyond the most superficial level. They think they are espousing “liberty” if they are for the ability of gay people to call their relationships “marriage” or the ability of a female gestator to kill off her inconvenient child or making sure an atheist has the freedom to never have to see a symbol of God on public property or if a person or company is forced to pay for contraception or even abortion for someone else.

        They preen in their imagined superiority because they have advocated these “freedoms” but never go beyond the appearance of liberty to the cold hard truth.

        They lack the will to look deeper, to realize that the freedom to kill an unborn or recently born child deprives that child of its most important and essential freedom. The look the other way when it is pointed out that forcing someone to do something against his religious beliefs is taking away his liberty to worship as he pleases.

      • watsonthethird February 2, 2013 / 1:08 pm

        Since you consider me a liberal, let me just say that I’m all for liberty and prosperity.

        As for Amazona’s concern that our superiority over her is imagined, let me be the first to tell her: it’s not. lol

      • Amazona February 2, 2013 / 1:22 pm

        Oh, you can be the first to claim it, wattie, but you sure can’t support that claim. I know it is this delusion that validates, in your mind, your ceaseless attacks on strangers just because they share a commitment to a political system you are told you should not like, but it’s still a delusion.

      • Cluster February 2, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        You can say that Watson, but you can’t live it. Actually supporting liberty and prosperity, is having the courage to allow people to fail and to allow people to be offended. It also requires the courage to see people for the individual that they are, and not the category they fall into.

      • neocon01 February 2, 2013 / 1:46 pm

        waspstoogethet*rd

        “liberalism IS a mental disorder”

        Dr. M. Savage

        I concur!

      • neocon01 February 2, 2013 / 1:48 pm

        waspstoogethet*ud

        communism, islam is not liberty.
        redistribution theft, and welfare is not prosperity

      • Retired Spook February 2, 2013 / 2:44 pm

        Since you consider me a liberal, let me just say that I’m all for liberty and prosperity.

        I know you have claimed not to be a Liberal, Watson, but I’ve never seen you present any views that would contradict that label. That aside, what policies (at any level, and either public or private) do you advocate that would result in the expansion of liberty and prosperity?

      • M. Noonan February 2, 2013 / 2:59 pm

        I’m with Spook – let’s hear it, Watson…what policies do you back which you believe would advance the cause of liberty and/or prosperity.

      • watsonthethird February 2, 2013 / 4:11 pm

        Spook said, “I know you have claimed not to be a Liberal, Watson, but I’ve never seen you present any views that would contradict that label. That aside, what policies (at any level, and either public or private) do you advocate that would result in the expansion of liberty and prosperity?” I don’t really care what you label my views, Spook. Labels are just your way of creating division, conflict, fear.

        As for policies, I’ve certainly stated some before, particularly on blog posts that you wrote. But I can understand that you forget. And I’ve said it before, capitalism has been very good to me. But as to some specifics:

        1. Revise our visa and immigration policy to attract the world’s best talent to to American universities businesses. I want them here, working for us, instead of another nation. I think an educated and skilled workforce is hugely important to the United States going forward. We are competing with emerging nations that are becoming much more highly educated and skilled themselves.

        2. Implement something like the Dream Act. It is not in America’s best interests to shut young people–especially smart ones–out of the system simply because their parents came here illegally.

        3. When I was in school, the classes were set up so that the fast learners could go as fast as they could, rather than being held back by the rest of the group. This seems to no longer be the case, I guess because of the idea that we have to be fair to all. I think we’d be better off going back to something like that. Let’s not penalize the fastest and brightest or hold them back. We need them to go as far as they can in order to not only remain competitive on a global basis, but to be a leader.

        4. Provide more vocational training. I have a relative who runs a manufacturing business. He has a difficult time finding skilled workers. No workers eventually means no manufacturing business. We need to provide opportunities to train those workers. Not everyone needs a college education or should go to college. When I was in school, both my junior high and high schools had shop programs. Today, the local schools in my area do not. It makes it hard for young people to even be exposed to the possibility that there are trades and crafts that can provide them with a living.

        5. Revise the federal student loan program. It was well intended to help students without financial means obtain a college education, but it has saddled many students with enormous debt and little means to repay it. Further, the program has been distorted by lower quality educational institutions whose sole objective is to get their hands on government money. The program, in its present form, is doing more harm than good.

        That’s a start.

      • Retired Spook February 2, 2013 / 4:45 pm

        That’s a start.

        That’s a great start, and I can’t imagine any Conservative here finding much fault with any of your points. In fact, all of your points are pretty much conservative in nature, which begs the question, why are you so critical of other Conservatives here if you essentially believe in the same things? Even the Dream Act, if done correctly, would not be a bad thing. Rubio has some great ideas along those lines. WRT immigration, I heard someone the other day offer a great line: (I’m paraphrasing) We need to close the back door and make the front door bigger.

        As for policies, I’ve certainly stated some before, particularly on blog posts that you wrote. But I can understand that you forget.

        We’ll see how your short-term memory is when you’re closing in on 70, heh.

      • watsonthethird February 2, 2013 / 9:01 pm

        No worries on the memory, Spook. You ask, “In fact, all of your points are pretty much conservative in nature, which begs the question, why are you so critical of other Conservatives here if you essentially believe in the same things?”

        Because there are many things stated here that I don’t agree with. For example, when someone says words to the effect that doing away with regulation and that will lead to prosperity. That’s a simplistic, non-starter. I think many of the writers on this blog have an irrational hatred of President Obama, which I find pretty ugly in the ways it is often expressed here. Many writers here apparently think some sort of revolution, armed or otherwise, is just around the corner. I don’t. I could go on.

        Oh, another one. I don’t think it is right for government, at any level, to take taxpayer money and hand it over directly to a private individual or business to improve that business. That’s just wrong. Maybe THAT makes me a liberal, because when we had this discussion before, you all agreed that so long as it isn’t the federal government, they can do whatever they please. I don’t know what kind of principle that is, but it doesn’t seem like a good one to me.

        And another one. I don’t think it is in America’s interests to let its old people go without health care, or go bankrupt trying to get it. So I support Medicare and I’m willing to pay for it. In fact, as you know, I do pay for health care of senior citizens right now. I must be a socialist.

      • Cluster February 2, 2013 / 9:26 pm

        Geez Watson, you did so well in the first post, then the wheels came off in the second one.

        that doing away with regulation and that will lead to prosperity. That’s a simplistic,….

        No, what’s simplistic, is you claiming that conservatives want to do away with regulation. To you I guess it’s all or nothing right? Conservatives want effective, non duplicated and enforced regulation and we have said that repeatedly.

        And if you don’t ant your government handing out money to private corporations, then there is no way you can support Obama. Think GE and the solar industry. I can’t believe you actually said that.

        And we all support Medicare Watson. In fact I even voted to reform the program to my own detriment to see that it became sustainable. Liberals like you are he’ll bent on it going broke.

        You are a moron of the highest order.

      • Cluster February 2, 2013 / 9:29 pm

        Watson, after reading your post for a second time, I gotta say that it is the most juvenile, idiotic compilation of non truths and il informed perceptions of conservatism that I have ever read. No wonder you’re a liberal, you obviously don’t think for yourself.

        Oh and sorry to be so offensive. I know how sensitive you are.

      • Retired Spook February 2, 2013 / 11:12 pm

        Because there are many things stated here that I don’t agree with.

        And then you proceed to list a bunch of things that are NOT stated here, at least not by any of the regular Conservatives, with the exception of several of us acknowledging the possibility of some kind of armed revolution, and you have to be terribly naive to think that’s not a possibility. It’s like you have a split personality disorder, Watson — one side of you espouses conservative principles and the other side denounces them. Which side are we to take seriously? And how do we have a rational conversation with someone like you when you put words in our mouths that we never said and then condemn us for saying them.?

      • M. Noonan February 2, 2013 / 11:49 pm

        Watson,

        My critique will be that you didn’t lay out much in the way of policies which would advance liberty. I have a long list of them:

        1. Break up the States to allow better representation of people/interests (taking one thing with another, there should be about 70 States).

        2. Expand the House to 600 members so that Representatives will be more in tune with the people.

        3. Abolish property taxes for primary residences (at least below a certain value) to ensure that wise people will eventually own their home free and clear and no one can take it from them as long as they remain wise.

        4. A modification to the 1st Amendment to state, “nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prohibit the free exercise of religion on public property, nor shall it be construed to allow government to command the people to do things in violation of their conscience”

        5. A modification to the 2nd Amendment – changing “a well regulated militia” to “the ability to oppose tyrants”.

        6. A modification to the 4th Amendment to ensure that law enforcement agencies may not collect any data on any American citizen – even from public records and/or the internet – without first obtaining a warrant as part of an on-going criminal investigation; also prohibiting government from disposing of a person’s property unless that person has been convicted of a felony.

        7. A modification of the “takings” clause to prohibit government from taking property from one citizen and transferring it to another (this is a repeal of the monstrous Kelo decision where the property of citizens was taken from them for no other reason than the government felt it could collect more taxes from a different set of private owners).

        8. An amendment which would allow the several States to determine the number of terms their House and Senate members may serve.

        9. A State’s Rights amendment making it so clear that even the most obtuse, liberal judge will never find it in the Constitution that a State law may be voided unless it clearly violates a provision of the Constitution (this ends Roe, and a lot of other idiocy, as well).

        10. A prohibition against transferring public funds to a private business except for services rendered to the government (no more bail outs).

        11. Abolish the Federal Reserve and re-institute a gold-backed currency.

        And so on…where are yours?

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 12:20 am

        And Cluster shows us yet again that he can’t have a conversation without becoming an ass. At least you remain true to form, Cluster.

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 12:40 am

        Spook said, “And then you proceed to list a bunch of things that are NOT stated here, at least not by any of the regular Conservatives, with the exception of several of us acknowledging the possibility of some kind of armed revolution, and you have to be terribly naive to think that’s not a possibility. It’s like you have a split personality disorder, Watson — one side of you espouses conservative principles and the other side denounces them. Which side are we to take seriously? And how do we have a rational conversation with someone like you when you put words in our mouths that we never said and then condemn us for saying them.?”

        So perhaps my phrasing was too strident. It is absolutely true that folks on this board have harped on regulation as a job killer for years, and have complained that President Obama has created an environment of more regulations than ever before. But perhaps we can agree that regulation is necessary, and the amount of regulation is a matter of degree. Do you agree with that?

        It is absolutely true that many posters here, not necessarily you, have an irrational hatred of President Obama, and state it in ugly terms. Do you really think this isn’t the case?

        As for armed revolution, the possibility is infinitesimal. But then, I’m not calling you names because you think it more possible. But I am curious, if you are willing to engage: Who’s going to lead this revolution? Revolution against who? Against what?

        So what is your position on Medicare, Spook? Is it socialism or is it not?

      • dbschmidt February 3, 2013 / 1:21 am

        Watson,

        I will try to keep this short and to the point; nevertheless, I really do not expect you to grasp the gist of it. Even though I do not fully agree with your first post–there are some good and valid points that could be used as a starting point towards further discussion. Alas, your second post went off the rails and I have a feeling it is because your emotions and lack of reasoning. Not meant as an insult but just as a lack of a truly objective outlook and application of facts. Real facts, not beliefs, rumors or wishful thinking.

        Yea, even stanchy old conservatives believe in science, facts and proven methods. For example “Intelligent Design” is a theory just as is “Evolution”. Personally, I believe it is a mix of the two theories but I put all of my faith in one. Now, let us look at your last post starting with a simple fact. The more money government (public sector) takes out of the private sector–the worse it is on the overall economy. Government does not create wealth (unless you are connected) — government destroys personal wealth.

        So now you state “For example, when someone says words to the effect that doing away with regulation and that will lead to prosperity” which aside being inherently misleading is somewhat truthful if you are willing to look at the facts like;

        the Obama Administration has imposed new regulations costing $46 billion annually, with nearly $11 billion more in one-time implementation costs. of the burden of new regulations under President Obama. It’s most striking finding? The cost of added regulations under President Obama is now estimated to be $488 billion.

        “Based on data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and regulations published in the Federal Register, the Administration has published more than $488 billion in regulatory costs since January 20, 2009 – $70 billion in 2012 alone,” reads the analysis from AAF (American Action Forum).

        That $488 billion is not going towards improving the economy, nor deficit reduction but acting like an anchor on the private sector which is “prosperity.” Simplistic, maybe, but factual; nevertheless, I would leave the term simplistic to describe Obama’s economic plan ~ or maybe non-existent. BTW, “an irrational hatred of President Obama” is total BS–if you want an accurate view of hatred of a President just look at GW Bush. I do not know the man (Obama) but if anything I disagree with his policies. Making a movie about assassinating a sitting President would seem a little “hateful.”

        Later you expose that Many writers here apparently think some sort of revolution, armed or otherwise, is just around the corner. Yes, No, Maybe. Well Watson knows that the only time revolution was needed was way back in the 1700, or 1800’s and that old dusty document we refer to as the Constitution should be scrapped when it gets in the way. Why the last time the general population had to take up arms against it’s government was 1946. Wait, don’t you mean 1746–nope the 1946 uprising known as the McMinn County war. This might sound familiar after this last election but a generic description is “On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss.” This is an example of how citizens have had to go to war against corrupt Democrats as recently as 1946 to depose tyrants.

        Following that you claim “…you all agreed that so long as it isn’t the federal government, they can do whatever they please. which is just another little fact getting thrown under the bus. Everyone, or most, I see here clearly state that the Federal Government has 17 enumerated duties–no more ~ no less–that are their purview. Everything else should be done at State level or lower. No one, to my knowledge, ever stated anything close to “they can do whatever they please” but will remind you they (the State) has a lot more leniency as to enacting programs which are approved by the members of the State through voting. Nevertheless, they (the State) cannot just do whatever they please.

        Lastly, in part I agree with the ideals of you comment “I don’t think it is in America’s interests to let its old people go without health care, or go bankrupt trying to get it. So I support Medicare and I’m willing to pay for it. Hoping here your paycheck is about $1.2 Trillion a week in order to pay for Medicare (not including Medicaid or SS). Okay, a little facetious but not by much. It is going to take a lot of pain for everyone to even partway right that ship but it appears that Reid & Pelosi want nothing to do with it–or any type of cuts prior to the next election or the one after that.

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 2:28 am

        db said, “I will try to keep this short and to the point; nevertheless, I really do not expect you to grasp the gist of it.”

        Well, thanks for that, I guess.

        I don’t think you actually know what a scientific theory is. You might want to study the subject, though I really do not expect you to grasp the gist of it.

        If you don’t see an irrational hatred of President Obama here, then you just aren’t paying attention, db.

        As for revolution, I’m sure there are a small number of extremists out there planning for the idea. But the idea that they would have any widespread support is very naive.

        Anyway, thanks for you comments.

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 8:36 am

        Spook – Cluster

        I smelled the BS in waspstoogethet*rd’s first line. It was a vain, feeble attempt to throw us off his trail of hatred and venomous bile he spews here.

        this is for watty

      • Retired Spook February 3, 2013 / 9:03 am

        So perhaps my phrasing was too strident.

        Yeah, if you could overcome that habit, we could have some great discussions.

        It is absolutely true that folks on this board have harped on regulation as a job killer for years, and have complained that President Obama has created an environment of more regulations than ever before.

        The first is true; I doubt anyone here will deny it. The second needs a qualifier. There were a lot of new regulations during Bush’s 2 terms as well, but, unless you get all your news from Media Matters and NBC/MSNBC, you know that the regulations under Obama are significantly more onerous. I could point you to a number of reports and articles that support that contention, but I think it will have more impact on the way you view the regulatory process if you do the research yourself. Your assignment is to research major regulations initiated by the Obama administration and report back as to which ones are constructive and which ones are destructive.

        But perhaps we can agree that regulation is necessary, and the amount of regulation is a matter of degree. Do you agree with that?

        Yes and no. I agree to the extent that, given the fact that humans are flawed, some regulation is necessary. I disagree that it is a matter of degree. For starters, the regulatory process just needs wisdom and common sense and a total absence of political correctness. Regulation should be about two things: making sure everyone plays by the same rules, and that those who don’t are prosecuted and punished.

        It is absolutely true that many posters here, not necessarily you, have an irrational hatred of President Obama, and state it in ugly terms. Do you really think this isn’t the case?

        Well, Neo has made it pretty clear what he thinks of our “POS, COMMIE, MUSLIM USURPER” President, heh, but I think even he would admit that it’s Obama’s policies that we hate. I’ll grant you that it’s safe to say no Conservative here LIKES Obama, but I don’t think most of us HATE him; certainly not in the same way the Left hated Bush. I’m hard-pressed to think of anything he’s done in office that I support or admire. If you read all the back stories, even the Bin Laden raid happened in spite of him, not because of him. In the end, it’s sort of like hating a lion because he ate your best friend. That’s just what lions do. Obama is simply doing what Progressives do. It’s likely that any Progressive would be doing the same things.

        But I am curious, if you are willing to engage: Who’s going to lead this revolution? Revolution against who? Against what?

        Whether or not it would end up being a “revolution” would depend on some variables. There are a number ways it could play out. I’ve sort of thought all along that one of two things would be the trigger: (1) either the economy collapses (virtually unavoidable given both history and present economic policies) and those who have been riding in the wagon decide to take by force that which they’ve been getting for free; or (2) Obama (or some future president) engages in a major violation of the Constitution, ie. confiscation of firearms or confiscation of IRAs and 401Ks, and the blow back escalates. I’m hoping against hope that the latter doesn’t happen. My thinking all along has been more in line with the former: a societal collapse similar to the inner-city riots back in the late 60’s, only on a national scale. And whether or not something like that would escalate into a revolution would depend on how the government reacted.

        So what is your position on Medicare, Spook? Is it socialism or is it not?

        Well, the basic premise of it is socialist in nature, but it’s certainly not free to those of us receiving it. I’ve paid into it since 1965. From 1983 to 1991 I paid 1.45% of everything I earned. Since 1991, I’ve paid both the employee and employer’s share or 2.9% of everything I earned. I’ve very fortunate that, because I’m retired from the Navy, TriCare for Life acts as a very low cost Medicare supplement, but my parents paid exorbitant premiums for their Medicare supplement insurance — close to $5,000 per year plus a couple hundred more a month taking directly from their SS payments. I know we’ve had this discussion before, and I realize it doesn’t impress you, but it’s a fact.

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 9:41 am

        Spook

        Well, Neo has made it pretty clear what he thinks of our “POS, COMMIE, MUSLIM USURPER” President, heh

        I read his book and believed it…. 🙂
        Oh, we both forgot DOPER,LOL

      • Retired Spook February 3, 2013 / 9:48 am

        I read his book and believed it….

        Neo, that’s a great point that we often forget. He described exactly how he feels about America in his book, so it isn’t like there’s no basis for the way Conservatives feel about HIM.

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 10:13 am

        Watson,

        I will continue to be an ass to liberals who put words in my mouth, and of whom have no concept of what conservatism is, like your self. If you want to have an adult conversation, I welcome that and will be more than cordial.

        db and Spook, thank you for your excellent responses. I have nothing to add.

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 10:24 am

        Watson,

        Is Randi Rhodes your girlfriend? She is definitely on the same intellectual level as you, so you might want to look her up.

        The people they’re serving, the 3 million viewers, and that’s what they have at Fox News, 3 million viewers, sad but it’s true, the 3 million viewers that they are catering to are radical, separatist, uh, survivalist, I don’t even know what to call them anymore. They’re white supremacists who believe that they understand the government, the Constitution, the intention of the Founding Fathers, which in their minds was, we’re going to take this whole country into a war to win our independence from the evil British and then after that we’re going to set up the Articles of Confederation and then when that fails we’ll finally have a Continental Congress and we’ll set up a Constitution whose premise is domestic tranquility and then we’ll lay out the rules of road.

        And one of those rules of the road is, you’re all going to get guns so you can kill us, if you don’t like what we’re doing. Really? And those are the people that are being super-served by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Sean Hannity, the whole, the whole crowd over there, OK? That’s who’s being served, a bunch of far right, male, mostly Southern, paranoid extremists who are preparing for armed revolution against their government ’cause the South’s gonna do it again. Mark my words! The South is gonna do it again. They are! And you know, this time, I would say, if they wanna go, let’s not stop them. I just don’t think it’s worth it.

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 10:32 am

        Spook

        Glen Beck said ( a few years back)” the left will tell you who they are and what they are planning.” you just have to listen.
        I post things with no explanation sometimes, I want THEIR words to be heard not mine. THEY have been talking revolution, war, overthrow, for years and since bath house barry it has ramped up a 1000 fold.
        From union leaders to former tzars, the evil reverends, to NOI, NBBP, and flash mobs in the streets the air is full of threats.

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 10:45 am

        waspstooge

        THIS is what we are talking about….the ENTITLEMENT mentality backed up by violence.
        Do you honestly not think what will happen if the economy collapses and all the govt hand outs stop to people like this??

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 10:50 am

        Spook

        . He described exactly how he feels about America in his book, so it isn’t like there’s no basis for the way Conservatives feel about HIM.

        that, and 20 years in front row seats at trinity, buddies with mobsters, killers, revolutionaries and domestic TERRORISTS there is little room for any other observations.

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        Spook:

        The first is true; I doubt anyone here will deny it. The second needs a qualifier. There were a lot of new regulations during Bush’s 2 terms as well, but, unless you get all your news from Media Matters and NBC/MSNBC, you know that the regulations under Obama are significantly more onerous.

        As I understand it, there were more regulations during the Bush administration than under President Obama’s, though the ones under Obama supposedly cost more. Given that the Bush years ended with the worst economic disaster in this country since the Great Depression, it doesn’t surprise me that a consequence would be more regulation. The financial sector, for instance, made it painfully obvious that they will run amuck without regulation. In any event, I think it’s a natural response to such a crisis and I don’t think the impact of the regulations of either administration are significantly different.

        I’ll grant you that it’s safe to say no Conservative here LIKES Obama, but I don’t think most of us HATE him; certainly not in the same way the Left hated Bush.

        We’ll just have to disagree there.

        I’ve sort of thought all along that one of two things would be the trigger: (1) either the economy collapses (virtually unavoidable given both history and present economic policies) and those who have been riding in the wagon decide to take by force that which they’ve been getting for free; or (2) Obama (or some future president) engages in a major violation of the Constitution, ie. confiscation of firearms or confiscation of IRAs and 401Ks, and the blow back escalates.

        If there is a complete breakdown of the economy and society, then it won’t be a revolution; it will be chaos. As far as President Obama engaging in “a major violation of the constitution, I think your fears are greatly overstated, to the point of nearing irrationality. By the way, I think President Bush did violate the constitution, but nary a peep from conservatives. So we’ll just have to disagree on this one, too.

        Well, the basic premise of it is socialist in nature, but it’s certainly not free to those of us receiving it.

        I have never claimed it is free to you, but it greatly subsidizes the health care of elderly people. To the point that without it, a very high percentage of the elderly would first go bankrupt, then go without. Do you agree that it is redistribution as well?

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 1:29 pm

        Cluster said, “Is Randi Rhodes your girlfriend? She is definitely on the same intellectual level as you, so you might want to look her up.”

        I’m only vaguely aware of her and never heard or seen her. (I think she has a radio program.)

        Is Glenn Beck your boyfriend?

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 1:49 pm

        The financial sector, for instance, made it painfully obvious that they will run amuck without regulation. – Watson

        Tell us Watson, were there no regulations on the financial sector? This is what I mean by having an adult conversation. You are incapable of thinking through an issue clearly. Sorry once again if I offended you.

        And you have never heard of Randi Rhodes? You want me to believe that? Then again you prove me to nearly everyday how ill informed you are, so maybe that is true.

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        To the point that without it, a very high percentage of the elderly would first go bankrupt, then go without. Do you agree that it is redistribution as well? – Watson

        It certainly is redistribution, and conservatives like myself would make even more redistributionist by supporting means testing. And this is what I mean by thinking clearly on an issue. What did seniors do for health care in the 50’s before Medicare? Did they all just go bankrupt and die? What do you attribute the rapid rise in health care to Watson? Do you think that it might have something to do with Big Government and Big Insurance?

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 2:56 pm

        Cluster said, “What did seniors do for health care in the 50′s before Medicare?”

        Why don’t you research the history that lead up to Medicare? And why don’t you research the history of health care costs?

        As for Randi Rhodes, I told you I was vaguely aware of her. I think she has a radio program. I’ve never heard it. I don’t know if it’s still on. I don’t care. That’s not the same as claiming I have never heard of her, as you put it.

        Now, I answered your question, so answer mine: Is Glenn Beck your boyfriend?

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 3:17 pm

        Watson,

        Yes, Glenn Beck is my boyfriend. I was hoping to get that one past you, but you are too razor sharp.

      • Amazona February 3, 2013 / 4:02 pm

        “Is Glenn Beck your boyfriend?”

        Another example of what seems to pass for wit on the Left, yet which really just illustrates their cluelessness and hypocrisy. First, the only effort at a rejoinder to the Ranty Rhodes comments is a limp and feeble version of “Oh, Yeah! Well, uh, so are you!”

        Cluster linked his Rhodes question to the similarity in outlook and opinion between wattie and Rhodes–wattie tried to imply homosexuality in his/her response. This is the hypocrisy. The Left, which claims to believe that the Right is homophobic, is represented here by someone who thinks it is a witty insult to ask a man if another man is his ‘boyfriend’.

        S/he also illustrates the Left’s dependence on simply redefining terms to suit their argument, without any interest in whether the terms are accurate. So s/he falsely claims that the Right “hates” Obama, either projecting his own criteria of emotional response to politicians onto others or simply inventing something. No, I think very few “hate” Obama. But there is disdain for his blatant dishonesty, distrust of him because of the deceitful way he tries to get things done, disgust for his attitude that this is an Imperial Presidency in which he can simply legislate with his pen via Executive Orders, and rejection of his political philosophy on the accurate grounds that it is detrimental to our nation.

        And it is not only NOT “irrational” it is the only rational response to him and his antics and his actions.

        His/her posts reek of dishonesty and a knee-jerk personal dislike of strangers because they think differently than s/he. S/he, for reasons within his own pathology, is driven to scout the Internet for people who self-identify with a political system he hates without understanding, so he can barge in on their discussions and attack and insult them.

        And then he accuses US of “irrational hatred”

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 4:46 pm

        Amazona said, “Another example of what seems to pass for wit on the Left, yet which really just illustrates their cluelessness and hypocrisy. First, the only effort at a rejoinder to the Ranty Rhodes comments is a limp and feeble version of ‘Oh, Yeah! Well, uh, so are you!'”

        Oh, my, Amazona. You got me there. Your little buddy Cluster asking me if Randi Rhodes is my girlfriend was obviously a sincere question his part.

        You said, “So s/he falsely claims that the Right ‘hates’ Obama, either projecting his own criteria of emotional response to politicians onto others or simply inventing something.”

        What I actually said is, “I think many of the writers on this blog have an irrational hatred of President Obama, which I find pretty ugly in the ways it is often expressed here.”

        Writers like you and your pal, NeoClown. You’re just a wordier version of him.

      • Amazona February 3, 2013 / 9:03 pm

        wattie, do you EVER quit whining?

        Hint: ask Spook for a short tutorial on the Rule of Holes, When you get called on something, don’t dig yourself in deeper by whimpering and trying to explain it or justify it.

        The real issue is your compulsion to be so intolerant of strangers you have sought out specifically to attack and insult, on the flimsiest of pretexts.

        You admit to some ideas that are quite consistent with conservative political philosophy but you are so hung up on your strange obsession with trying to slime and smear and insult people who call themselves conservative you can’t get past that.

        Clearly, all that motivates you is negative and spiteful emotion. And when you get called on it you snivel.

      • watsonthethird February 3, 2013 / 10:04 pm

        Little Amy said, “Clearly, all that motivates you is negative and spiteful emotion. And when you get called on it you snivel.”

        You described yourself perfectly. Congratulations. You know, Spook and I were have a perfectly reasonable conversation. Then you and Cluster came along.

      • Amazona February 3, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        Rule of Holes, wattie, Rule of Holes.

        And BTW you are not the Blog Boss, and every thread is open to everyone.

      • Amazona February 4, 2013 / 1:42 am

        Poor little lying, snarling, miserable little wattie. First, to say what you said requires overt lying, as anyone who reads this blog knows full well that I write many many posts that are upbeat, that discuss the founding of the nation, that quote the Founding Fathers, that express optimism about the future of the nation, etc.

        I do this, as a conservative, on a conservative blog, where I go to find like-minded people with whom I can share ideas, ideals, and observations.

        I do not prowl around looking for people with whom I know I will disagree, to spew hostility at them, to snarl at them, to attack them, to insult them. So to say that I am like you, wattie, in any way, is simply an utter lie. I could not be more different from you, from actually having and understanding a coherent political philosophy to being quite happy to engage in spirited and rational discourse when actual ideas are presented to having a solid political, historical and literary foundation to support what I believe.

        No, we have nothing in common, so when I describe you and you simper your silly little “Ooooh, you described YOURSELF!” you are simply lying.

        And you know it.

        Now look at what you did. I tweaked you for being frantic about your desperate need to say something nasty, so much so that when you had no intelligent response you still came back with a version of “Well, yeah, uh, duh, well so are you!”

        And how did you respond to THAT? Why, with another example of “Well, yeah, uh, duh, well so are you!”

        You are so focused on being snotty that you gleefully dive into examples of stupidity if you think they might let you exhibit a little more spite and malice.

        Yet you never contribute anything. You flatter yourself that you and Spook were having this cozy little gabfest but what I saw was you spouting off, as usual, with your usual charming toxicity, and simply refusing to answer his questions. Perhaps you ARE so delusional that you think a comment like his, to you—” It’s like you have a split personality disorder, Watson — one side of you espouses conservative principles and the other side denounces them. Which side are we to take seriously? And how do we have a rational conversation with someone like you when you put words in our mouths that we never said and then condemn us for saying them.?” is an indication that he has any respect for what you say. I saw a comment that you simply cannot be take seriously because you say one thing and then turn around and say the opposite, that he can’t have a rational discussion with you, and that you simply lie about what conservatives say so you can sneer at your inventions.

  4. Cluster February 2, 2013 / 9:42 am

    This is interesting:

    Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival featured a documentary celebrating four “amazing” abortionists who evacuate wombs in the third trimester of pregnancy. The critics in attendance loved it. The Philadelphia Inquirer boasted it drew “two standing ovations — one for the doctors.” Sundance attendees in Utah were greeted by police and armed sheriffs in green jumpsuits that made a show of force outside the the theater. They had to have their bags searched and were inspected with hand-held metal detectors. After the movie was shown, two police officers stood at the front of the auditorium as the directors and the four abortionists featured in the film answered audience questions.

    So, progressives are ok with protecting abortionists with armed guards, but not our school children. Calling them vile and despicable would be kind in my opinion.

    • Amazona February 2, 2013 / 11:39 am

      I think this is the most vile and disgusting thing I have ever read. Not that some murderers have perfected another way to take an innocent human life—we will always have evil among us.

      No, it is the CELEBRATION of this that turns my stomach.

      I noted the theater performance of ostentatiously posting a cadre of armed guards, as if an audience that would give a standing ovation to “doctors” like this would pose a threat to them, unless the stampede to revere them for their savagery might create the danger of being crushed by adoring fellow worshipers of butchery.

      I noted the effort to diminish the horror by calling this procedure the mere “evacuation of wombs”. But all the weasel words in the world can’t sterilize the harsh reality that this evacuation cost a human being his or her life, or cover up the fact that many of these third-trimester children could probably have survived if “evacuated” in a different manner, or the reality that these pathologically selfish women only had a few more weeks of inconvenience before giving birth to children they could then abandon to loving homes.

      I don’t always feel deep and profound disgust for others, but there is not a single person involved in this travesty that does not stir this in me. From the abortionists to the movie makers to the Sundance committee that picked the film to the sub-human creatures who celebrated it, these people are disgusting.

    • Amazona February 2, 2013 / 11:50 am

      It’s too bad no one made a movie about the guys who developed the shower-like gas chambers used by the Nazis. If the glitterati are thrilled by seeing advancements in how to destroy innocent life, they would have been beside themselves with giddy glee at being able to see a documentary on how people went in willingly, thinking they were going to get nice warm cleansing showers, only to be gassed to death en masse.

      And the thrill of actually being able to SEE these inventors in person, to actually be able to ask them QUESTIONS about their techniques and the problems they faced in pursuit of their goals!!! It couldn’t get much better than that!

    • M. Noonan February 2, 2013 / 12:51 pm

      They are just worshipping their god, Moloch. A bit of historical perspective in all this is to remember just why the Jews fought so often and so hard against others in their area – the non-Jews were sacrificing their children. The reason why the Romans were such bitter enemies of the Carthaginians – the Carthaginians were sacrificing their children. There seems to be a thing in those who start to worship nature – as our modern liberals with their environmentalism – is that they eventually turn towards a worship of death (often combined with a worship of sex for the sake of sex, alone). While most so-called “pro-choice” people aren’t like that (most “pro-choice” views are founded not upon immoral wickedness but, rather, upon moral cowardice), a good portion of them are…and they are becoming more fanatic in it…there really are people out there who want us to legalize killing children outside the womb…

      • neocon01 February 2, 2013 / 12:58 pm

        MURDER = EVIL, Abortion = murder, liberals/commies love death and abortion, = liberals = evil.

      • neocon01 February 2, 2013 / 1:09 pm

        EVIL – SCUM!!

        REID BACKS MENENDEZ AMID UNDERAGE PROSTITUTION CHARGES…

      • Amazona February 3, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        More of the carrion eaters of the Left celebrating death…when I looked up articles on the killing of Chris Kyle, I found dozens of the most vile, toxic, virulent celebrations of the fact he had been murdered.

      • M. Noonan February 4, 2013 / 1:07 am

        Amazona,

        Those who worship death are also against heroism…once again, to take it back a bit, when Carthage finally got a general who could beat the Romans, they starved him of troops and funds because, well, heroism is bad for business and they had other things to think about than saving their civilization…the troops would get on ok, wouldn’t they? Hint: Carthage wound up thrown down so not stone stood upon another and their soil was sown with salt…

      • Amazona February 4, 2013 / 1:53 am

        Mark, two examples of your comment on being against heroism:

        1. The hateful comment about John McCain, that all he did in Viet Nam was “crash airplanes, get caught and rat out..” that was in a line of similar posts about the Hagel hearing. I don’t like McCain’s politics or his personality, but I can’t deny that he was a hero.

        He had the courage to strap on a rocket and go hurtling through the sky to fight for his nation as it honored its commitment to its treaty partner, South Viet Nam. He did not “crash planes” but was shot down. There is video of him jumping through flames when another pilot crashed his plane on the deck of a carrier and the debris hit McCain’s plane, creating an inferno from which he barely escaped. When he was offered his freedom from a North Viet Nam prison camp where he had been tortured and starved, where his arm was permanently crippled, he refused to go unless his men were also released, and as a consequence was punished even more severely.

        This is not only ridiculed by Lefty mouthpieces but cruelly distorted through vicious lies.

        2. Yesterday another American hero was shot to death at point blank range, and the carrion eaters of the Left celebrated his death, ghoulish in their glee at seeing a hero killed.

        Who DO they revere? People who devise ways to butcher innocent unborn children who have done nothing to deserve being deprived of the most basic human right, that of the right to live, simply because they were conceived in the wombs of pathologically selfish females who don’t even deserve to be called “women’—-and the filmmakers who glorify their butchery.

  5. Cluster February 2, 2013 / 2:24 pm

    So the President admits that “bad decisions” in Washington has hampered economic growth, but fails to acknowledge what those bad decisions were. Of course we all know that he will soon blame Republicans for those bad decisions. And I love his statement that everyone needs to focus “not on politics” ……. when do you suppose he will start doing that?

    “This week, we also received the first estimate of America’s economic growth over the last few months. And it reminded us that bad decisions in Washington can get in the way of our economic progress,” ……….”2013 can be a year of solid growth, more jobs, and higher wages. But that will only happen if we put a stop to self-inflicted wounds in Washington. Everyone in Washington needs to focus not on politics but on what’s right for the country; on what’s right for you and your families. That’s how we’ll get our economy growing faster. That’s how we’ll strengthen our middle class. And that’s how we’ll build a country that rewards the effort and determination of every single American,” said Obama.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-blames-economy-bad-decisions_699231.html

  6. Cluster February 2, 2013 / 2:35 pm

    NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I want to say a word about Hillary Clinton. Every time, you see how great her presence has really been, what a successful Secretary of State she’s been……….

    I have heard and read a lot about how successful Hillary was as SecState by the liberal media, but for the life of me, I can’t think of one single positive accomplishment. Her “reset” debacle with Russia was embarrassing and Putin has zero respect for this administration, our relationship with Israel is at an all time low, the ME is literally in flames, Iran is more emboldened than ever, and China continues to walk all over us.

    Maybe some liberal can set me straight.

    • M. Noonan February 2, 2013 / 3:03 pm

      Cluster,

      Liberals consider the act of setting someone straight to be homophobic, so you probably won’t get any takers. But, you are right – where are the achievements of Hillary at SecState which can be pointed to as a success? Even a minor one?

      She’s credited with traveling to a lot of countries – but what on earth is that supposed to accomplish? While she’s traveling she can’t spend time on her actual job: running the foreign policy of the United States. She’s not supposed to be a globe trotter – her job requires her to mostly be in the United States, carefully monitoring foreign developments and ready at a moment’s notice to respond to an international crisis…perhaps if he wasn’t traveling so often she would have had time to read the reports regarding the deteriorating situation in Libya? A SecState should only go to a foreign nation in order conclude a major agreement – something already done by subordinates and now getting the prestige imprimatur of a Secretary of State coming to sign the final deal…she wasted her time for four years, our foreign policy is a mess…but in keeping with “Clinton’s can do no wrong” our liberals are insistent that she’s right up there with the greatest of Secretaries of State…

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 8:44 am

        Klintoon and bathouse barry have lost the entire ME,
        NK has nukes, iran is about to have nukes
        the world is on fire
        people murder our diplomats with NO repercussions

        yeah GREAT Fn Job, d a bot o ya!!

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 10:11 am

        FAKE!!!!

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 10:54 am

        RIP….Brother!!


        Former Navy SEAL & ‘American Sniper’ Author Chris Kyle Reportedly Killed at TX Lodge

        WFAA: Shot point-blank while helping another soldier

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 11:49 am

        the REAL

      • GMB February 3, 2013 / 4:11 pm

        I should have known better than to click on one of Neo’s pics. You would think after so many disappointments that I would have leaned.

        Nope.

      • neocon01 February 3, 2013 / 4:43 pm

        GMB

        LOL

        good to see ya back buddy

        ANY BODY Super Bowl predictions?

        mine 49’ers

      • Cluster February 3, 2013 / 6:12 pm

        NINERS!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.