Ideology Open Thread

It’s been a while since we’ve had a purely ideological debate. Just for the sake of discussion, and in light of the new welcoming of progressive views here at B4V, let’s say that Conservatism as a political movement just folds up and gives Progressives free rein to do whatever they want. In one generation will America be more free or less free? Will America be more prosperous or less prosperous? Will American students graduating from high school and college be more educated or less educated? Will our air and water be cleaner or dirtier?  Will we make a seamless transition to alternate/renewable energy?  If so, will that mean abundant and economical energy or undependable and expensive energy?

I’m not looking so much for opinions on these dynamics as I am on evidence, either anecdotal or historical as well as new ideas, or, at least new approaches to old ideas that have never worked before, to support how a totally Progressive society might evolve over a generation. So have at it.  Liberals, here’s your chance to strut your stuff.  The only comments that will be deleted are those that resort to vulgar language and name calling.

Advertisements

157 thoughts on “Ideology Open Thread

  1. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2013 / 10:38 am

    It all depends on how fast Progressives can stack the Supreme Court and repeal the 2nd Amendment. I can visualize how Conservatives might become a long term, if not permanent minority, but that doesn’t mean we’ll just go hide in a cave.

    • James0601 April 9, 2013 / 10:56 am

      how can the 2nd amendment be repealed? in this day and age, it’s virtually impossible to repeal any amendment. Hell, we can’t even pass basic laws with the way our system is set up.

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 11:44 am

        You apparently didn’t comprehend the context of my post, James. It’s predicated on your side having unlimited power to do whatever you want. You don’t think repealing the 2nd Amendment is at or near the top of the Left’s wish list?

      • James0601 April 9, 2013 / 12:00 pm

        its not on top of my list to be honest. many more things wrong with this country. Guns aren’t really part of them. I would make gun purchases extremely difficult and limit them like they do in Japan, or Europe, but not ban the 2nd amendment.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 2:27 pm

        jimmah

        like in your home country Iran?
        sniff sniff does any body smell goat?

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 4:04 pm

        I would make gun purchases extremely difficult and limit them like they do in Japan, or Europe, but not ban the 2nd amendment.

        James, so you wouldn’t repeal an amendment that “guarantees” that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; you would just infringe that right. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

  2. James0601 April 9, 2013 / 11:10 am

    Spook,

    The main difference between people like you and myself is that you have a fundamentally different view of the constitution and the nature of government.

    You believe that the constitution is as infallible as the bible, and that it can only be interpreted a certain way and that it must not change with the times UNLESS you specifically change the wording or add amendments to the document.

    I disagree on a fundamental level with that view. I believe that the constitution is a framework with certain enumerated duties that the federal government MUST do. The rest is up to interpretation. That interpretation comes with the change in our society and societal norms.

    I don’t believe the constitution is a perfect document that has to be adhered to in its original format or context, I believe the constitution is simply a tool for us to progress society to a point where we are happy with it.

    Now, that’s a purely ideological view, from a political view there are certain things you can’t do or say without losing elections.

    I will always vote for candidates who believe in a bigger more protective federal government. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in hard work or personal responsibility, I just believe in a more robust federal government that is large enough to help citizens when they need it.

    Like Bill Clinton said during his speech at the DNC, I believe we are all in this together, not that we are all on our own. If I have to pay 2% more marginally on my income taxes so that we can have more funding for education or healthcare, then so be it. If I have to pay more property taxes to my county so that we get better funding for our schools and roads locally, then so be it.

    Do I believe that medicare should be turned into a voucher program? No. Instead, we can raise taxes on the younger generation to help subsidize the older generation.

    The reason I don’t see there ever being a compromise is because there is no compromise to be had with your side. I will gladly win this “war” through the political spectrum until the day where you are a permanent minority, or are so small that you can’t make a difference. If you resist through force as so many of you have indicated you will (neo, jeremiah, gmb) then you will be destroyed, simple as that.

    Now, that won’t probably ever happen, you’ll just go on losing elections, and eventually you’ll be dead and the newer generation who is thankfully much more socially and fiscally liberal than your generation was will take over. we can see some of those changes already happening.

    Overall, all this banter on this site is good for one thing….entertainment. nothing you or I say will change the course of history. That’s already being changed through elections and the younger generation.

    the only thing you have to do is decide, either join us, or be irrelevant.

    • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 11:59 am

      Spook, The main difference between people like you and myself is that you have a fundamentally different view of the constitution and the nature of government.

      That is about as true a statement as you have ever made on this blog, James.

      You believe that the constitution is as infallible as the bible

      That’s not true, James. Other than Jesus Christ, nothing that man has ever done has been infallible. I do see the Constitution as a rigid set of rules with a built-in means of change, that is the best governing document ever produced by man. So you and I will just have to disagree on that.

      If you resist through force as so many of you have indicated you will (neo, jeremiah, gmb) then you will be destroyed, simple as that.

      What a curious statement, James. Who or what force do you think will destroy those of us who would, without hesitation, lay down our lives for liberty? Tyrants have used force to destroy liberty over and over for 6,000 years, and yet the yearning for liberty is more an inherent part of the human spirit than ever.

    • James0601 April 9, 2013 / 12:02 pm

      if you really believe that liberals want to take away your liberty than you’re delusional.

      I don’t care about your liberty, have it, enjoy it. I care about governing effectively and so that the will of the majority is respected, and right and wrong is respected.

      You talk about freedom as if you’re the only person that has it or wants it. Last I checked, most of the world’s people have freedom these days.

      The problem is how you interpret freedom and what you associate with freedom.

      • Cluster April 9, 2013 / 12:13 pm

        James,

        I really don’t see your concern for governing “effectively” as you put it. Currently, the federal government is anything but effective. As a conservative I long for effective government, and having run and owned several small business’s, the federal government is a long ways away from achieving effectiveness.

        I do support SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but those programs are in serious need of reform, however, not one single democrat has made the effort to do so, and honestly not many republicans as well.

        I long for the days of effective government – I wish you, and other liberals were on board.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2013 / 12:42 pm

        I care about governing effectively and so that the will of the majority is respected, and right and wrong is respected.

        What standard do you use to judge the success of those things, James?

      • James0601 April 9, 2013 / 12:52 pm

        well one example would be when 92% of the country in some polls favor one thing, and yet, government does nothing about it or does the opposite.

        There are some things that are clearly subject to public opinion due to social and cultural changes. And then there are things that are not subject to popular opinion due to their constitutionality. One such example is gay marriage or abortion.

        effective government is one that meets people’s needs and helps people reach their goals. I think that’s a pretty simple metric.

      • Cluster April 9, 2013 / 1:46 pm

        That’s an emotional metric James, and means nothing. Effective government means measuring results, reviewing process’s, staff levels, productivity, etc., etc.

        It’s too simplistic to say that “I want government to meet peoples needs.”. “Effective” government requires a lot more than that.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2013 / 2:07 pm

        “Effective” government requires a lot more than that.

        Not if you’re a liberal.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2013 / 2:11 pm

        well one example would be when 92% of the country in some polls favor one thing

        I would bet that if legislation was proposed to give every American a million dollars that would get pretty close to 92% approval. Is that something the government should do if 92% are in favor of it?

      • watsonthethird April 9, 2013 / 2:28 pm

        Actually, I bet it wouldn’t get 92%. But that’s a silly hypothetical. In the real world, polling shows that 90% of Americans favor universal background checks on gun purchases, and yet we have Republican senators who are afraid to let the greatest deliberative body in the world even bring it up for discussion.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        jimmah

        The problem is how you interpret freedom and what you associate with freedom.

        freedom like they have in iran?
        then GO back if you dont like ours.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 3:28 pm

        Watson,

        SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,…….NO discussion required.

        but you want to rule by poles,
        lets redirect and REQUIRE background checks held in a central data files on ALL voters, PROOF of citizenship, medical records, licenses, permits, taxes, insurance etc etc

        NOW!!

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        Watty the majority of Americans are against obamaCare, but I don’t see you or tommy-boy James calling for the greatest deliberative body to debate it repeal either.

      • M. Noonan April 9, 2013 / 7:34 pm

        James,

        I think, then, that you need to define “liberty” for us – from what I can see, my liberties are greatly eroded from just my father’s time, let alone my grandfather’s. How did grandpa start a business? By starting it – he’d get an idea in to his head and set to work. These days? A bucket of forms and licensing to do before you can even get started – and the cost of these forms and licenses prices poor people out of the small business market…for a vast number of Americans, probably a majority, owning a business is something they no longer have the liberty to do.

        That is just one of a hundred examples. I believe that for a lot of you on the left, “liberty” only means the ability to be strange and, of course, obtain an abortion. Even if I grant that those are species of liberty, they aren’t any liberties I wish to exercise…but all those I do wish to exercise are curtailed to a greater or lesser extent precisely by the liberalism you claim as a defender of liberty.

      • Amazona April 10, 2013 / 3:45 pm

        “effective government is one that meets people’s needs and helps people reach their goals. ”

        And here is a distillation of the Leftist concept of government—–an entity with the responsibility of “helping people reach their goals”.

        The conservative, Constitutionalist, idea is one of a government that ALLOWS people to reach their goals–provides basic protections, a framework within which people have the freedom to pursue their goals.

        The power and authority to HELP people achieve their goals is too vast and widespread to allow for much in the way of personal liberty.

        Look at dolf’s wish list. He yearns for a federal government with the scope and power to take over one-sixth of the nation’s economy and by controlling how health care is accessed and paid for guarantee equal (and, one hopes, quality) health care to all.

        And a paragraph or two down the list, he wants a government which does not interfere in the personal decisions of people, in the area of drug use.

        So he thinks, I guess, that it would be possible to have a huge federal government with the power and scope and authority to administer one of a person’s most private responsibilities, that of personal health care, but without the power or authority to interfere in another area of personal responsibility But drug use affects health care, so the huge federal authority over health care should be able to extend that to drug use. The only thing stopping it would be that they just decide not to.

        What a lovely, wistful idea.

        But of course it runs right up against those who want the government to be powerful enough to stop people from making decisions like using drugs—or salt, or high fructose corn syrup, or incandescent light bulbs—and which will, in fact, step right in and regulate those as well.

        A discussion on ideology would be one about willingness to live with the irresponsible decisions of some in the pursuit of more liberty for all, as opposed to enforced standards chosen by a ruling elite.

      • Cluster April 10, 2013 / 8:17 pm

        Great post Amazona. Well said. Where in hell have you been?

    • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2013 / 5:10 pm

      First tommy-boy says: “The reason I don’t see there ever being a compromise is because there is no compromise to be had with your side.”

      Then says: “the only thing you have to do is decide, either join us, or be irrelevant.”

      First off, how can “our side” compromise with a party that has the MO of our way or no way. We can see it in the past debates for the “fiscal cliff”, “the sequester” and other fiscal debates.

      Secondly, his ultimatum “join us” or be “irrelevant” shows that proggies like him are strangers to compromise. It is their way orno way.

    • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 1:24 pm

      “I disagree on a fundamental level with that view. I believe that the constitution is a framework with certain enumerated duties that the federal government MUST do.” -James

      The US Constitution, as well as State Constitutions, are a list of what the States, and Federal Government cannot do–not what they can, or must, do.

      Everything after that is built on a false premise–even the One understands this. President Obama understands this, while in the Illinois senate, in a 2001 interview, said that the Chief Justice Earl Warren court failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the US Constitution.

      I believe his exact quote was “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution… that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

      • Amazona April 10, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        db, I respectfully disagree with your comment that “The US Constitution, as well as State Constitutions, are a list of what the States, and Federal Government cannot do–not what they can, or must, do”

        My understanding of the enumerated duties of the federal government, as laid out in our national Constitution, is that it IS a list of what the federal government must do. The Bill of Rights states what it CANNOT do.

        Therefore, it must provide for national security, but may not infringe upon the rights of citizens to bear arms. It must regulate the currency but may not establish a state religion or interfere with the right to worship.

        A Constitution must lay out the responsibilities of the state or nation. These cannot be left to chance, constant reinterpretation, or be determined by the process of elimination.

      • Amazona April 10, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Obama’s statement is proof of his misunderstanding of the Constitution, which is pretty alarming as he was supposed to be teaching Constitutional law.

        He completely misstated the nature of our Constitution, though he did parrot the Leftist version of it. But he was simply wrong.

      • Amazona April 10, 2013 / 3:31 pm

        db, upon reflection I can understand that one might see the enumerated powers of the Constitution as granting the authority to do something without stating that it must be done. I don’t agree with that, but I can understand it. I suppose that there could be a situation in which there is no need to do something regarding the 17 enumerated powers of the federal government, but the power to do it if necessary has been enumerated.

        However, I think the commonly accepted understanding is that the enumerated powers are assigned, or delegated, duties of the federal government, not options.

        Madison, in Federalist 45, said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…"

        While I see the word “delegated” as imposing a duty, I can see how it might be seen as merely granting a power.

        Under either interpretation, the Constitution is NOT merely “…a charter of negative liberties…” or something that “… doesn’t say what the federal government ………… must do on your behalf.”

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 5:57 pm

        Ama,

        This was another “My Bad” moment because I wholeheartedly agree with you and the creators of these documents like Madison. I should have made it clear that I was only responding to James’s comment about what the government MUST do when it was clear he was commenting on duties the government perceives as their duties outside of those enumerated.

        I was thinking of Madison, among others, but just fumbled the language football again. Need to re-read my posts more than once from now on.

  3. Liberty At'Stake April 9, 2013 / 11:56 am

    “Liberals, here’s your chance to strut your stuff.”

    You, dear author, can take that long overdue vacation now. You won’t miss anything.

    • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 3:28 pm

      liberty

      ROTFLMAO!!

  4. Cluster April 9, 2013 / 12:05 pm

    Excellent thread idea Spook. Having voiced the conservative position here on several occasions, and will so again shortly, I am hoping our liberals can strip away the emotional aspect of policy and just get to the nuts and bolts. Politics should not be an emotional club used to advance legislation in haste, and that is exactly what has happened over the last several years. The stimulus, Obamacare, the bail out, etc., have all been done in a rush using the emotion du jour to build the consensus, and as we are witnessing, every one of those pieces of legislation was not done well.

    One current issue I would like to comment on is gun control – rather than add more legislation to the voluminous body of legislation already in existence. How about if we review the current legislation and tweak, or not tweak what may or may not make sense. The how about if we actually identify the problem, and make those revisions to actually address the issue? As it is, our elitist government (Sen. McCain can you hear me?) is simply adding more redundant legislation and deriding anyone who opposes. It’s insanity.

  5. watsonthethird April 9, 2013 / 2:14 pm

    Only time for a quick comment, but I think it would be very detrimental to the nation if either conservatives or progressives disappeared and their opposites had “free rein to do whatever they want.” In either case, the nation would be less well off.

    As far as Cluster’s comments about effective government, I see the fault lying more with conservatives than progressives these days. Which is sad (to me) because conservatives could do so much better. So to paraphrase Cluster, I wish you conservatives were onboard.

    • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 2:34 pm

      Watson,

      what a pantload, there was NO mistake by our founding fathers, and 200+ years of constitutional liberty and freedom.
      In the 1960’s when marxist communism poisoned the political well is what has almost managed to destroy our country, and you young cool aid drinking tools and useful idiots have lapped up the SHIITE sandwich and think it is steak…you have NO clue!

    • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 2:40 pm

      Watson,

      Which is sad (to me) because conservatives could do so much better.

      YEAH!
      “better” like you? we could murder our children in the womb, flush Christianity, have a homosexual romp on every street corner, STEAL hard working peoples money and give it to the porch sitters and women with 10 kids from 10 dogs, open borders, union thugs and goons in every business ? sorry I’ll pass.
      you keep your FAILED leftist ideology and the fools who embrace it.

      • Majordomo Pain April 9, 2013 / 2:49 pm

        We thought this was going to be a civil discussion?

      • watsonthethird April 9, 2013 / 4:33 pm

        Well, Spook did say, “The only comments that will be deleted are those that resort to vulgar language and name calling.”

        We’ll see if he lives up to it. It would be a refreshing change, indeed.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 4:39 pm

        Major,

        like this?

        mitchethekid Says:
        28/03/2013 at 16:40

        If anyone deserves to be tortured to madness, writhing in agony. it is Wayne LP. I bet he has the old persons smell about him. The kind you need a handkerchief, drenched in cologne to thwart. What a despicable waste of protoplasm.

    • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 2:50 pm

      Which is sad (to me) because conservatives could do so much better.

      Could you expand on what you mean by that, Watson? BTW, I don’t disagree with the premise. The problem is that true Conservatives don’t hold the reins in the GOP.

      • watsonthethird April 9, 2013 / 4:32 pm

        Cluster said, “I am conservative who prefers to use brains rather than bleeding hearts to resolve issues.”

        Don’t disagree with using brains versus “bleeding hearts.” I often talk to my engineering friends that if these problems were engineering problems instead of political ones, we’d arrive at better solutions and do so much faster. And if it needed changing after the fact, we’d do that. The solutions to most of America’s problems aren’t black and white. Everything consists of tradeoffs. The trick is finding the solution that best balances those tradeoffs to optimize its benefit. That’s why having politics entirely dominated by one ideology is a bad idea. It would lead to the worst excesses of extremism, in my view. It’s just a non-starter.

        You can say like neocon1 does (I’m using his actual name instead of name-calling as he continues to do, even on a thread in which Spook promised name-calling wouldn’t stand) that “shall not be infringed” is black and white, but even the First Amendment isn’t so stark, is it? Neither is it so for the Second Amendment. And if we want to toss around phrases pulled from amendments, neocon1, we can toss around the phrase “well regulated.”

        As far as Marco Rubio, he isn’t much more than a grandstander in my view. He’s one of the senators who’s afraid to even debate gun regulation. I read the Townhall article you cited. It is nothing but generalities aimed at the typical Townhall reader. It really does nothing to enhance Rubio’s status among the general population.

        Nowadays nothing gets done largely because of polarized politics. I mean, look at the disaster that is the United States Senate. They act like a bunch of children.

      • Cluster April 9, 2013 / 5:24 pm

        Watson,

        Don’t disagree about the children. But Rubio’s article was spot on. Number one, neither Rubio, nor I, nor really any conservative objects to back ground checks. In fact there are laws already on the books. Granted some sales go unchecked but they are the few, and that can be addressed by tweaking the legislation already in place. What we do object to is first of all this continuous push for more and more legislation, without any regard to what’s already in place. Secondly, passing legislation that doesn’t resolve the problem. More invasive back ground checks will not resolve this issue, period. So it too is a non starter.

        Rubio spoke to the fact that the second amendment is in fact part of the solution, not the problem. I read an article from a retired police officer on this issue, and he was at a school and played a real life account (Columbine I believe) of a school slaughter, and for several agonizing minutes, gunshots and screams were heard, and he told the audience that the police still wouldn’t have been on scene. However, an armed teacher, principal, or other professional, could have stopped the slaughter when it began.

        First responders take minutes to respond. A smith and wesson responds in milliseconds, and that is how criminals should be taken care of.

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2013 / 6:43 pm

        Watty:”As far as Marco Rubio, he isn’t much more than a grandstander in my view. ”

        Oh, the irony.

      • watsonthethird April 9, 2013 / 7:19 pm

        Well, I re-read Rubio’s Townhall column, and again, I think it’s light on specifics. He says, “[A]ny effective plan to deal with future violence must focus on addressing mental illness and identifying those Americans who should be forbidden to own guns.” Great. But he doesn’t offer any proposals for how to do this.

        He says, “Since a disregard for law is the very definition of criminality, criminals will not be deterred by Congress’ efforts to restrict their access to firearms.” And yet, the statistics I read indicate that existing background checks have blocked nearly 1.8 million gun sales. He talks and families, motherhood and apple pie. It’s really just a missive for his true believers. Meanwhile, he is afraid to let the senate debate universal background checks, which 90% of Americans favor. He’s just playing childish games in my opinion. I wish he had more substance and courage than he is showing.

      • M. Noonan April 9, 2013 / 7:46 pm

        Watson,

        A blocked sale is not necessarily – and probably hardly ever – an event which is preventing an actual criminal from obtaining an actual weapon he plans to use in a crime. The trouble with background checks is that it is (a) useless as a crime preventative and (b) it presumes guilt on the part of the weapon purchaser until proven otherwise. Furthermore, It is not the government’s business to interfere in the business transactions between two law abiding citizens who are buying/selling a legal good or service. If you think that someone is selling guns to criminals then by all means, launch a criminal investigation and if a crime has been committed, arrest the perpetrator(s), bring them to trial and let’s see what a jury of his peers has to say on the matter…but you’ve no business sticking your nose in when two people are engaged in honest transactions.

        But I’d still go along with universal background checks if, at least, some evidence was outstanding that actual crimes are prevented by the action – but there isn’t a shred of evidence. I could probably obtain an illegally purchased weapon within hours of setting out to do so…somewhere in downtown there is a person who will sell me a weapon, for cash and no questions asked…and he’s not going to have me fill out a form. That is what we need to go after – and universal background checks won’t do anything in that effort.

        Finally, all the efforts directed on this subject – gun control, in total – are all directed at things which aren’t the problem. The problem is not guns; the problem is crime, societal breakdown, collapsed families, a popular culture which glorifies pointless violence, poor police practices, a destroyed education system, a notion that hard work is a fool’s effort…all of these things, and more, are what leads not just to things like Sandy Hook, but the massive body counts racked up annually in some of our cities. Now, why, then, do you liberals go after guns? We can figure two different reasons:

        1. You’re either extremely foolish and simply haven’t thought about the problem.

        2. You want to confiscate the guns of the American people.

        Until your side starts thinking seriously about the real issue, that is all there is – and that is why we’re not about to go along with you because we won’t participate either in folly or in an attempt to disarm ourselves.

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 1:46 pm

        Watson,

        I purchased my first pistol in 1978 and underwent a background check. Same for every purchase since. There are no real “gun show loopholes” as depicted by the MSM. If you have more than 3 firearms to sell at a gun show–you need to be a FFL dealer.They do not allow sales in the parking lots–at least all of the ones I have been to all over this country.

        The NRA asked the Federal government (BATFE specifically) back in, IIRC, 1995 to set up a booth so even non-FFL gun sales could be completed with a back ground check and were turned down on that idea. At last, for now, do you remember why the mental illness centers were emptied? ACLU and patient’s rights–good or bad that also has kept mental illness records from being included in the Instant background check that is in place today. Would have stopped the several of the previous massacres.

        Lastly, two points for you to review; there was 15,000 (IIRC) blocked sales last year–could be higher–but only 40 prosecutions. Why? England did exactly what the Progressives wanted–register, confiscation (unless you were rich & elite) and made extremely difficult to get. What happened to their crime rate afterwards. Give you a hint: skyrocket.

  6. Majordomo Pain April 9, 2013 / 2:47 pm

    In one generation will America be more free or less free?

    We, Ourselves, of The Collective, study this issue in great detail and have made a few projections. Freedom encompasses a broad index of measures. If a Human Being is more healthy he is more productive. If that same person is more productive he has greater wealth from that work. If he has greater wealth then in those hours he or she is not working more pleasant pursuits can be entertained. Is this not the essence of Freedom? Given the initial premise, We believe that Obamacare will over a generation contribute to better health for Americans, especially American youth and thereby Americans will be more free.

    Will America be more prosperous or less prosperous? Will American students graduating from high school and college be more educated or less educated?

    We do not feel that any political structure or ideology can guarantee prosperity. These matters are in the hands of those who control the means of service and production.

    Will our air and water be cleaner or dirtier?
    Likely there will be little change.

    Will we make a seamless transition to alternate/renewable energy?

    This will not happen until global oil reserves are depleted so not in the next twenty Terran years will there be any such transition as oil interests globally are too great. However, there may be a push to CNG automobiles by 2030.

    If so, will that mean abundant and economical energy or undependable and expensive energy?

    • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 2:53 pm

      However, there may be a push to CNG automobiles by 2030.

      That is at the top of my energy evolution wishlist. I hope it happens before 2030.

      • Majordomo Pain April 9, 2013 / 3:03 pm

        And in this We, Ourselves are in agreement with you. As an automobile fuel CNG would make the United States energy self sufficient. We do not understand why this has not been undertaken from a national security standpoint if for no other reason.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 3:31 pm

        Major Pain,

        from a national security standpoint if for no other reason.

        with this regime?? LOL
        that is the plan….the destruction of America as a world power.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 3:38 pm

        meanwhile back at the wraunch…..

        drudge
        Ahmadinejad Orders Launch of 5 New Reactors…

        WAR DRUMS: Navy Deploying Laser Weapon Near Iran…

        VIDEO… REPORT: US held secret meeting with NKorea in March…

        NKOREA ‘TO LAUNCH MISSILE TOMORROW’…

        ———————————————————————————-

        Another Exclusive Party at WH — at Taxpayer Expense…

        Will White House release guest list?

        *********10th ‘command performance’…************

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2013 / 3:50 pm

        As an automobile fuel CNG would make the United States energy self sufficient.

        Actually it would do more than that. It would also provide an abundant source of ECONOMICAL” transportation fuel, which would do more to ignite the economy than anything I can think of.

      • neocon01 April 9, 2013 / 3:55 pm

        Spook

        but utilizing CNG we wouldn’t send TRILLIONS of dollars to our islamic enemies so they can threaten us and Israel with nukes and armies bought with OUR $$$

        silly you….LOL

  7. bardolf2 April 9, 2013 / 8:25 pm

    “Suppose progressives free rein to do whatever they want.”- Spook

    Not sure how progressive these ideas are but I’ll give it a try.

    1. Implement basic universal health care for everyone similar to Canada. Make it very hard for the uninsured to visit emergency rooms for basic services. This also removes a barrier to competition for small companies to attract good people even if they can’t afford health insurance. It’s artificial to be having companies limit the number of hours or people they employ to get around health insurance issues. Unfortunately this would limit the power of unions as one of the only benefits they typically can get is health insurance. US taxpayers pay more in taxes for health insurance per capita than in Canada.

    2. Take away most of special tax deductions, no marriage benefit or penalty. No deduction favoring homeowners over department dwellers. Unfortunately things like this make the whole gay marriage discussion irrelevant and keep certain people without a record of financial stability from buying houses they can’t afford.

    3. End military excursions into countries not directly threatening America. Basically, anything post WW2. Make Europe pick up its own tab for defending itself against itself. Trillion dollar savings.

    4. Make immigration as easy as 100 years ago. Basically, if someone isn’t a criminal and wants to come to the US let them. BUT to pay for this the associated ‘welfare’ would need to be similar to 100 years ago or like it is in most of Europe today, that is almost no welfare. This saves money by eliminating most of the government programs to stop illegal immigration. The impact on unemployment is not clear, but certainly a young labor pool will be guaranteed in the coming decades so the US won’t face the problems of an aging Japan.

    5. End the criminalization of most drugs. Anyone in prison for drug related crimes alone is released. Massive savings and limited downside to society. Gets rid of the cartels and much of the violence in the inner cities as well.

    6. New Deal programs for new infrastructure. Put money into detailed mappings and give tax advantages to people who buy cars which drive themselves. This means no more drunk driving and as self-driving cars become ubiquitous they can communicate and actually decrease the pressure on the highway infrastructure. Push for rural power generation using a variety of alternatives and non-alternatives. Don’t give any Solyandra type corporation a big check, but encourage lots of tinkering at the local level.

    7. Push for a 28 hour work week, 4 days of 7 hours of honest work as standard. Adjustment of wages by appropriate factor and >28 hours would generate overtime. Not 28 hours where 1/2 the time is texting or trying to meet the paperwork for the latest regulation, but 28 hours of physical work. Maybe Monday-Thursday could be standard, even for schools. Savings on busing, school lunches, unemployment would go up because of the increase in the minimum wage, but go down because of the number of people needed to do the work would increase. Schools could assign more serious homework and people with free time could try to start business on their own. The sad truth is that the huge costs at minimum wage places like Kmart are not labor costs, but energy costs, items not purchased etc.

    8. Make traditional banking a utility. Have the banking equivalent of the electric company for standard products like mortgages, savings accounts, checking accounts etc. with standard procedures for most procedures. The government shouldn’t be insuring bank accounts with FDIC at places which are allowed to gamble on the market. If an enterprise wants to take big risks its not a utility bank.

    • 02casper April 9, 2013 / 9:08 pm

      Bardolf,
      Interesting post. Here is my take on your ideas.

      1. Agree. The U.S. spends far more than other developed countries for health care.

      2. Agree, although I’m not sure it would end the debate over gay marriage. I don’t think it’s just about the tax benefits. I would also end most deductions for large businesses.

      3. Agree. Close most of our overseas bases.

      4. Agree again.

      5. Totally agree. I would add that we tax drugs just as we do liquor. Time for those dirty hippies to pay their share.

      6. I agree again, this would kick start the economy.

      7. This is one area I disagree with. A 28 hour work week? Keep it at 40. Your ideas on No. 7 would get more people working.
      AS for schools, schools need the students more not less. Assigning serious homework won’t do any good if the students either don’t understand what they are doing, or don’t do the homework.

      8. I agree. I would love to end the too big to fail banks.

      My ideas to add:

      Guns- Require background checks on everybody. Require that anyone purchasing a gun pass a gun safety class. Anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon should be required to go through some training and qualify at a shooting range the same as our military and police officers do.

      Add an Office of Deregulation at the federal level whose purpose is to identify laws and regulations that need to be eliminated.

      • Cluster April 9, 2013 / 9:36 pm

        Stool and Casper,

        In the new spirit of B4V, I withhold my sarcastic comments, which will be difficult as they would be plentiful. But allow me to chime in:

        1. Canada has one tenth the population of the States, a very homogenous population, and quite a bit more in income taxation which includes everyone, even the 47%, so the comparison just doesn’t float. America needs a blend of private and public health care – public being a REFORMED Medicare and Medicaid program that includes means testing, and a private system hat allows the consumer choices to buy insurance across state lines and hospitals that publish costs and compete for business.

        2. A mortgage deduction encourages home ownership and is not playing favoritism. I would however cap it.

        3. Agreed for the most part. I would definitely close some bases but would never abandon allies completely.

        4. Streamline LEGAL immigration, secure the border and come down hard on illegal immigration. We can’t just let everyone in that wants to come here stool. The impact on unemployment IS clear. If we just let everyone in and cut off assistance and had mo jobs, we would have Hoovervilles all over the place.

        5. I would not jail small time marijuana users, but certainly the dealers. The only way other drug users can avoid jail would be rehab.

        6. Self driving cars? Where do I get one of those? And more money for infrastructure? Really? Lets find out where the previous trillion went first. Ok?

        7. So you want people to work less, get paid more, and allow for a free flow of illegal immigrants? What could possibly go wrong?

        8. The banking industry simply needs more competition.

        And Casper, tell me how your proposed gun legislation will stop the murder rate in Chicago.

      • 02casper April 9, 2013 / 10:04 pm

        cluster,
        1. No other developed country spends a much as we do on health care. The private sector is hurting us more than helping us.
        2. I’m good with keeping the mortgage deduction with a cap.
        3. We don’t need bases to support allies.
        4. disagree
        5.Legalize and tax it. Jail those that supply drugs illegally.
        6.”spend more money for infrastructure? Really? Lets find out where the previous trillion went first. Ok? ” How about the money we get from taxing drugs?
        7.”So you want people to work less” I don’t.
        8.”The banking industry simply needs more competition.” The big banks need to be broken up.

        “And Casper, tell me how your proposed gun legislation will stop the murder rate in Chicago.”

        Did I say it would? Universal background checks might help, but I’m more interested in making sure that people that buy guns know how to use them properly. There are thousands of gun accidents every year because there are gun owners that have no idea how to use their guns. I’m for responsible gun ownership. Their are a lot of idiots out there giving us all a bad name.

      • Cluster April 9, 2013 / 10:08 pm

        Casper,

        The whole crux of the gun control debate is to stop senseless murder, or at least I thought it was. If you just want to regulate what free, law abiding citizens do with their constitutional right, and ignore what’s going on in Chicago then I would have to say you definitely are “progressive”.

        Health care costs began to sky rocket when big insurance and big government got in the way, so I think you have that backwards.

      • 02casper April 9, 2013 / 10:26 pm

        “Cluster April 9, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

        Casper,

        The whole crux of the gun control debate is to stop senseless murder, or at least I thought it was.”

        Which is why I want universal background checks and before you claim they don’t work, how do you know? We don’t have them now.

        “If you just want to regulate what free, law abiding citizens do with their constitutional right, and ignore what’s going on in Chicago then I would have to say you definitely are “progressive”.”

        First, I consider gun ownership both a right and a responsibility. I have the ability to kill 20 to 30 people with what I have in my gun safe. I’ve taken gun safety courses. I’ve been trained by law enforcement officers and exmilitary on the use of firearms. I know what guns can do which is why I don’t think anyone without some kind of training should have access to them. If that makes me a progressive, then so be it.

        “Health care costs began to sky rocket when big insurance and big government got in the way, so I think you have that backwards.”

        Name a developed country with private insurance companies that spends less on health care costs than us.

      • bardolf2 April 9, 2013 / 11:52 pm

        Clueless

        1. “America needs a blend of private and public health care.” I didn’t say differently. I said car companies should worry about making cars not putting together health care packages. Also, Europe as a whole is as heterogeneous as the US and manages to have universal health care. The economic problems are from people cheating their taxes not health care, see Germany and Sweden as opposed to Greece and Portugal.

        2. There is no data to show home ownership would decrease without the tax write off. What would happen is people would buy a home they can truly afford and the whole Sallie Mae fiasco might have been avoided. Moreover home ownership is not the be all and end all if e.g. you live in a city with decent public transportation. By definition the homeowner deduction is playing favorites in that it discriminates against renters, especially those who are saving money to buy a home without a bank loan.

        4. Umm no, 100 years ago immigration wasn’t an issue and the country was doing fine. The Hoovervilles have to do with the massive centralization of the economy, especially the majority of financial services essentially being run from New York and DC.

        5 Why would you jail the dealers? People own their bodies and if they want to take cocaine and someone wants to sell it to them go ahead. Clear the taxpayer supported jails of people for selling stuff.

        6. Self-driving cars exist.

        The money to pay for sensors in roads for self-driving cars would be offset by the savings from a more efficient use of the road system.

        7. I want people to do work at work. I don’t want Neo spending 15 hours doing paperwork and 25 hours repairing things. I want him spending 3 hours doing paperwork and 25 hours repairing things. The actual amount of useful work many people do in a week is far less than the official 40 hours. A lot of places like Google give their employees 1 out of 5 days to work on their own ‘projects’. I think that idea should be encouraged among all groups of people, not just the white collar people with engineering degrees.

        Here I disagree with Casper. I know far too many teachers who spend time buying snacks, worrying about the students happiness, testing, etc. and who don’t spend time preparing lessons. Italian schools are 6 hours, 5 days per week. The kids who don’t do the HW get a big F and are invited to attend the same grade the next year.

        The question of how to prod society toward a regular 4 day week is difficult. Still, the mentality of working x number of hours vs. producing x amount of goods is what should be discouraged.

        (BTW Spook asked how to extend freedom and getting to work in the yard BBQ 3 days a week is not the worst definition one could imagine.)

        I only mentioned minimum wage earners being scaled for obvious reasons. The 5 day work week doesn’t apply to anyone who wants to make a million bucks a year so a 28 hour week wouldn’t either.

        Is there something inherently ‘natural’ about 40 hours or 5 days a week?

        8. Home loans aren’t rocket science and the government should only provide FDIC insurance to utility type boring institutions. If there are 10 Starbucks on the same street that doesn’t mean there is competition for coffee houses. Investment banking needs to be separated from run of the mill banking.

      • tiredoflibbs April 10, 2013 / 5:29 am

        cappy: “1. No other developed country spends a much as we do on health care. The private sector is hurting us more than helping us.”

        That is ASSUMING, on your part, that the level and quality of health care in those countries is comparable to ours. They are not. The “decline” of health care began when government interfered with the system – states (and now obAMATEUR) started setting minimums on what insurance had to cover. Gone are the catastrophic plans that healthy people relied upon.

        cappy: “Which is why I want universal background checks and before you claim they don’t work, how do you know? We don’t have them now.”

        We do have background checks they started with the passing of the Brady Bill and have evolved more since then – at the state level. Another level of bureaucracy will not prevent events like Sandy Hook and the federal government has said so. The information is out there if you are willing to look and not be so lazy.

        Cappy, you are seriously misinformed and ignorant of most issues. “Feelings” and passion are your driving force, nothing more.

      • Cluster April 10, 2013 / 8:32 am

        Stool, and I mean that affectionately, you did not in fact say that America needs a blend of private and public health care. You did say that we need a system like Canada’s which is strictly public. UHC is currently bankrupting France, and has been nothing more than a model of mediocrity wherever it is in place. I want better than mediocrity for Americans.

        And people cheating on their taxes is the origin of our economic problems? Really? Sounds like a good argument for tax reform.

        The mortgage deduction is not discriminatory (although bless your heart for finding the victim – you’re a good liberal). The deduction does not allow people to buy more home than they can afford, that would be tied to DTI’s. what did allow people to buy more home than they can afford is no doc loans.

        Do you think immigration 100 years ago was maybe a little different than today? Do you think the intent and assimilation was the same? Think about that for a minute Mr. Professor.

        Why would I jail drug dealers? Oh I don’t know. Maybe because they perpetuate addictions, destroy personal lives, kill to protect their territories, have little regard for human life and assist the decline of our society. Other than that, they’re great people.

        And how about if we put solar panels on the self driving cars? Just think of the cost savings in ridding ourselves of the electrical grid. Lets try that tomorrow shall we?

        Increasing productivity and keeping the 40 hour work week would do a lot more to advance quality of life and promote well being than scaling back hours, in my opinion, and paperwork is not necessarily non productive. The more one engages in the work process, the more one thinks of more productive, innovative ways to conduct their job. Besides there are 168 hours in the week – asking someone to work 40 of those hours is not draconian.

      • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 8:37 am

        Which is why I want universal background checks and before you claim they don’t work, how do you know? We don’t have them now.

        I’ve asked the same questions on several threads and still haven’t gotten a comprehensive answer, although Watson did take a sort of half-hearted stab at it the other day. What exactly would universal background checks entail? How would they be enforced, and who would comply with them except people who wouldn’t break the law under any circumstances anyway? How would they have stopped Adam Lanza or any of the other mass shooters over the last 35 years?

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 1:58 pm

        Casper,

        The FBI has had it since I purchased my first firearm in 1978.

        The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
        from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

      • Amazona April 10, 2013 / 3:10 pm

        casper, please tell us the difference between the background check system we now have in place and the”universal” background check you support.

        And please tell us how someone who has inherited guns from friends or family long gone can prove ownership if he wants to sell them. When the legal language of a will is “personal possessions” which would include guns but not itemize them, or when guns are inherited because of verbal commitments honored by the family, just what would you do about a man who, for example, inherited his grandfather’s collection of Civil War, WW I and family hunting weapons, and now needs to sell them?

      • 02casper April 10, 2013 / 8:44 pm

        “Amazona April 10, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

        casper, please tell us the difference between the background check system we now have in place and the”universal” background check you support.”

        According to the link dbschmidt posted, the current system covers 30 states. I would want all 50 states covered. I would also extend background checks to all gun sales regardless of who is selling them.

        “And please tell us how someone who has inherited guns from friends or family long gone can prove ownership if he wants to sell them. When the legal language of a will is “personal possessions” which would include guns but not itemize them, or when guns are inherited because of verbal commitments honored by the family, just what would you do about a man who, for example, inherited his grandfather’s collection of Civil War, WW I and family hunting weapons, and now needs to sell them?”

        The background checks are on the buyer not the seller. I have a couple of guns given to me as presents over the years. There is no way I could prove ownership of either. One was gift from my grandfather and I would like to someday pass it on to my grandson. I would also exempt guns passed down within the family.

        I also strongly believe that anyone purchasing a gun should be required to have taken and passed a gun safety course before being allowed to purchase a gun.

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 9:32 pm

        The jist of what Casper, among others, do not know or understand is the provisions in Reid’s proposal for ‘Uniformed Background Check’ which differs from the current NCIS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is the preface to a national registry. Sounds a lot like England to me.

        Congress has attended carefully to the concern about a federal gun registry in the past. Thus, for example, section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) regarding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) provides:

        No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–

        (1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

        (2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922(g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or State law, from receiving a firearm.

        Unfortunately, the Reid legislation deviates from this strong guarantee that protects against misuse of the NICS process to start a national firearms registry.

        Title I of the Reid gun control bill purports to “fix gun checks.” The proposed “fix” in section 122 of S. 649 is to take away an individual’s right to sell or give away a firearm to another individual unless, in most cases, the individual uses a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer of the firearm.

        In a departure from section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159, section 122(a)(4) of the Reid bill enacts a new section 922(t)(4)(B)(ii) of title 18 of the U.S. Code to direct Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations “requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor (sic) and an unlicensed transferee.”

        Thus, the loose language could be construed to allow the Department of Justice itself (or another agency specified by the Attorney General) to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. Any provision of a bill relating to firearms that authorizes the Attorney General to issue regulations should explicitly be made subject to section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159 to eliminate any risk of misconstruction of the provision to allow creation in whole or in part of a national firearms registry.

        from http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/03/loose-language-in-reids-gun-control-bill-allows-the-beginnings-of-a-national-gun-registry/

        Also, Casper, among others should note that the link was to the FBI’s NCIS which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation which covers all 50 states as is the NCIS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). As a previous FFL holder, everyone who still is a FFL holder can use the system–it is the “civilians” that cannot. Well, us (now) and even some State and local police departments. This goes on the pile with “Why does the government not prosecute those attempting to illegally purchase firearms?” pile. Wonder if it could be because Eric Holder and his team are the largest gun runners in recent history?

        Plus, I will reiterate a previous posters question (Cluster, I believe) which asked– why not a NIVC (National Instant Voter Check)? Guess they wouldn’t enforce that either as long as they voted Demmocrap.

      • 02casper April 10, 2013 / 10:17 pm

        “dbschmidt April 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm #

        The jist of what Casper, among others, do not know or understand is the provisions in Reid’s proposal for ‘Uniformed Background Check’ which differs from the current NCIS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is the preface to a national registry”

        Did I say I supported Reid’s proposal? The suggestion I made are my own.

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 11:06 pm

        Casper,

        You stated, and I stand corrected, with “Did I say I supported Reid’s proposal? The suggestion I made are my own.” which I respect. You never stated you supported Reid’s proposal; however, you never opposed it either. Your comment was possibly taken out of context when you stated “Universal background checks might help, but I’m more interested in making sure that people that buy guns know how to use them properly.” which the “people who buy guns know how to use them part” I fully agree with. I always question government and even more so when they try to pass a new law that already has an effective one in place.

        There is a great deal we can agree on but it takes a solid look at who, why & how things are implemented–that whole unintended consequences thing. I would settle for the NCIS be required (which is a great leap against my principals) in all 50 States as long as all mental illness records are required in the database and I am not talking about minor depression and the like. Nevertheless, I am against this at the moment because of the way our government is acting and this is no Dem v. Rep thing as I am a Libertarian.

        I could continue where we agree, at least in the basics, like #5 but would the shops also be held liable like a bartender serving an intoxicated person? But, at this point, I just wanted to clear things up. After all, it is the “new” B4V. 😉

      • tiredoflibbs April 11, 2013 / 5:28 am

        db, that is the problem with most proggies… THEY DON’T LEARN FROM HISTORY.

        Somehow they believe that if they try the same old worn out ideas that have repeatedly failed in other countries that they will have better results. The same goes for gun control.

        Einstein’s definition of insanity.

    • bardolf2 April 10, 2013 / 10:48 am

      Clueless

      Canada has private clinics and private health insurance in addition to the public health care system.

      I said that the economic problems in Europe are in those countries where tax evading is rampant. I said that the bankrupting of those countries is NOT because of the health care system.

      It is utter nonsense to pretend the US health care system is better than that of France. You can find particular cases of long waits or specialized operations … but having had exposure to it and knowing the Italian and Canadian systems as well, it is simply not true that the average person gets better health care in the US. Of course I have an advantage in that I have actually lived in other countries and used their public services so don’t need to get my info from the web.

      The mortgage deduction discriminates against me for having paid my house off so quickly. It also raises the price of houses since realtors take it into account when finding a house that you can afford.

      If there is a tax deduction for people who listen to mariachi music it discriminates against people who don’t want to listen to mariachi music. Your logic would say it is open to everyone, except it favors a particular mindset. Like gays can marry people of the opposite gender just like everyone else. That’s crazy.

      No, I don’t think immigration was different 100 years ago than today. The whole assimilation thing is a red herring. The Chinese didn’t assimilate 100 years ago and they don’t today, big deal. The Mexicans living in Colorado all learn English by the next generation, in fact you probably can’t find a Mexican-American who can properly write Spanish on the streets of AZ. Moreover there are more illegal aliens returning to Mexico than coming because of the economy so I don’t fear an overrunning of the country. Maybe the could work in the Bakken oil fields!

      “Why would I jail drug dealers? Oh I don’t know. Maybe because they perpetuate addictions, destroy personal lives, kill to protect their territories, have little regard for human life and assist the decline of our society. Other than that, they’re great people.”

      People are responsible for their own ingestion of substances. By your logic liquor store owners should be jailed. More of the scare tactics with the whole kill to protect territory, but guess what? Legalization would end the protecting of territory argument. The decline of society is also assisted by the gambling in Las Vegas and at lottery at every supermarket in the US. It’s in the fast food restaurants and TV and movies …

      BUT this is a free country so take your nanny-state liberal mentality home.

      You obviously know 0 about technology. You were wrong about the self-driving car. It’s not 5 decades away but 1 decade away. It will also lower the pressure on the highway system and reduce fatalities.

      So in my progressive world. You could get stoned, get in your self-driving car, go buy some tacos and get home safely. Not something to do everyday!

      Solar energy is currently not competitive so that would be foolish to try and use on a large scale. You know what else is a big waste of energy $$ and supported by the GOP? Yep, ethanol subsidies. 18 gallons per acre. Fortunately science presses on and biofuels from algae have a real chance to make a difference. Farmers could start growing algae farms which would compete with the price of oil if oil got too expensive. Again with the Bakken fields and other large energy deposits it doesn’t make sense to do another Corn experiment.

      “Increasing productivity and keeping the 40 hour work week would do a lot more to advance quality of life and promote well being than scaling back hours.”

      Agriculture is the most productive it has ever been. Do you think the average American’s diet is the greatest it has ever been? No, that productivity has made food so affordable that there is rampant obesity. I don’t know how you would spend a million dollars, but I would use them to increase my free time before buying a bigger house.

      The vast productivity gains should be accompanied by a reduction of time spent on those kinds of tasks. I am not saying that people should only spend 28 hours a week doing productive things. You may be right that most people, if freed of 12 more hours per week would just watch 12 more hours of TV. I think more people might start tinkering with new projects, trying to create better neighborhoods etc.

      The FUNDAMENTAL problem is how to get the majority to engage in the make/mine/build process. The GOP solution of tax breaks is not a solution IMO. Maybe there is no solution. Still it seemed when the work week was reduced to 40 hours and TV hadn’t yet swallowed all the extra free time that creativity increased at all levels of society.

      What FREEDOMS would be enhanced in my progressive world?

      freedom to choose work based on the desire work and not on basic health care, freedom for small businesses that can’t afford to pay for basic health care to be competitive in hiring the best employees

      Transparency in the tax process, not using taxes to skew the markets, hence letting markets be free of government tax influence.
      Maybe even a flat tax above a certain level or a sales tax IF everything was on the table that was bought and sold.

      Freedom for people in the military from being killed so that some mythological Afghan girl can go to school. Freedom from drone strikes. I would also repeal the Patriot Act and defund the DHS, but that is less progressive and more libertarian.

      Freedom of movement of people, also makes the free market a more competitive place as labor can move freely to go where it is needed and rewarded. As a bonus, freedom from worries about the demographics of aging as is taking place in Japan and Europe. More people in the job market supporting all those old people on Medicare.

      Freedom from being shot in drug related violence. Notice there are no alcohol gangs controlling territory. Big $$ savings from the ending the imprisonment of people for personal choices.

      Your body (and only if it really is just your body, so abortion isn’t included) becomes your private property. Sounds like freedom. Go ahead and use it as you see fit. Want to take steroids so you can lift 400 pounds, knock yourself out.

      Freedom from drunk driving, time saved by allowing the daily commute to be faster due to technological efficiencies and more productive since the car is self-driving. As a bonus, an increase in states rights. The federal government couldn’t pressure states to have 21 as the drinking age via highway funds being curtailed.

      Actual more free time proposed so that people can invest in themselves. Of course the 28 hour plan is doubtful if one assumes most people are lazy and have no desire to raise themselves. But if that is the assumption no anti-poverty plan would work anyway.

      Freedom from the centralization of the private/public financial sector. Banks which talk about being ‘local’ are still completely dependent on the NY financial landscape. More banks is not more competition. Different types of banks is more competition. This would also play into states being more independent.

      As an analogy, if someone wants to risk solar panels to get their electricity they can go ahead, maybe even a little government encouragement. For those of us who want a standard product an electric company, a very low risk taking utility is best.

      • Cluster April 10, 2013 / 1:11 pm

        Stool,

        You live in an analytical ethereal world, hence my nickname for you – Mr paralysis by analysis. I prefer world real thinking and real world applications. Self driving cars are not even close to a mass produceable, affordable product, and the infrastructure for them so far out on the horizon, it isn’t even worth mentioning as a short terms solution, and trust me, we need short term solutions at the current pace of decline this president has us on.

        Drug dealers do kill for territory, and do promote their products to new people. They are business people just like everyone else and they want new customers with money. Legalizing isn’t a bad idea, since it can be taxed and controlled, but again, that day is a long ways away for the drugs that do the real damage, excluding marijuana.

        Canada’s health care system is a mess and I know that from first hand accounts. Several of my clients are Canadian, and they deplore their system. Several recent articles clearly show that France’s system is strangling them financially, and I think you’re insane to think that America’s system is inferior. What we need in our system, is more competition. Competition improves everything stool, everything – from people to product, to services. And that would be the case with our health care. As it is now, government is strangling competition.

        I don’t disagree with some of your libertarian views, but I prefer real world applications to short term problems, and drilling for domestic oil in favor of self driving cars is just common sense.

      • bardolf2 April 10, 2013 / 4:35 pm

        Clueless

        “Several of my clients are Canadian, and they deplore their system.”

        Well I have many Canadian friends who live in the US and they deplore our system. That is called an anecdote. Here is another.

        My church wants to hire a good teacher for the day school. The school can’t afford to provide health care and a competitive wage with the public schools. It has been lucky to find teachers with ‘a calling’ in the past, but now teachers are becoming more ‘real world’. The market outcome is poorer qualified candidates.

        I noticed you said first hand accounts and not first hand. That would make me more ‘real world’ since I have actual first hand experience, personally, myself. I have lived in other countries. I have personal experience with Europe’s health care and education system. That is e.g. why I know most of the liberal solutions to education are pure bunk.

        If the metric for health care is Child Mortality or Life Expectancy then indeed the US is way behind many Western Countries. YOU are insane judging the US system as superior because the doctors have nicer looking offices or friendlier dispositions or shorter wait times. Here is some data to go with your anecdotes.

        “U.S. patients of doctors who went to medical school outside the country and weren’t American citizens had a 9 percent lower death rate on average than those whose doctors trained at home, a study showed.”

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/international-doctors-in-u-s-perform-better-than-home-grown-physicians.html

        BTW the whole premise of Spook’s thread is if progressives had complete control. Hence your arguments about legalization being far away are irrelevant. Also, you’ll see self-driving cars being standard in your lifetime. When they are, think of me and my crystal ball!

  8. Jeremiah April 10, 2013 / 12:56 am

    I got an idea, Spook…

    Let’s all us Conservatives go into hiding; don’t work, don’t go anywhere, don’t pay any taxes, don’t contribute in any way to the economy, just sit back and watch for one month and see what happens, and see how liberals like it.

    Let’s watch Wall Street go into hysterics, watch people panic because they didn’t get their welfare check, food stamps, and disability checks.

    • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 8:30 am

      Be careful what you wish for, Jeremiah.

      • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 8:34 am

        I see the common denominator of our libs, Cuba and OPM. gained by decades of indoctrination.

      • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 8:39 am

        Spook

        I have posed a question several times and none of the progs will address it.

        Lets drop guns and make the same conversation voting.

        Universal background checks, huge government databases with that info, voting insurance, voting ID’s, voting licenses, voting taxes, only voting by standing in line in person….on and on .

        Amazing how they can pizz on the part of the constitution THEY dont like, but would writhe on the floor to protect t!**y dancers, and pornography under the first amendment.

      • 01canadianobserver April 14, 2013 / 7:35 am

        neocon01

        Lets drop guns and make the same conversation voting.

        Universal background checks, huge government databases with that info, voting insurance, voting ID’s, voting licenses, voting taxes, only voting by standing in line in person….on and on .
        ——————————————————————–

        That would make sense, neocon, if casting your vote could result in the injury or death of another human being. The purpose of voting is to elect your representatives, not to kill them. Do you consider your vote to be a lethal weapon?

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2013 / 11:26 am

        ” Do you consider your vote to be a lethal weapon?”

        Doesn’t matter, rights are rights regardless of possible outcomes.

        There is no right to vote for President guaranteed by the Constitution, but the left has bent over backwards to make voting (and illegal voting) so convenient that any “infringement” in the name of validating a voter is deemed a violation of rights. Therefore, when there were poll taxes and other such means of “qualifying” for the right to vote and even such actions to remove people from the voting rolls were rightly deemed an infringement, these were ruled unconstitutional.

        The gun comparison is accurate. Now our GUARANTEED Constitutional right to keep and bear arms are infringed with waiting periods, fees, taxes, background checks, etc. etc. all in the name of “public safety” are too excessive and restrictive. Common sense tells us that enforcing EXISTING laws should be the priority. When felons are caught with firearms it is within the law to send them back to jail. But, the left does not – citing “overcrowding” as the reason or other such nonsense.

        Votes can be a “lethal weapon” to a republic or democracy when a majority pushes their will on the minority. When the majority are made up of people who vote for candidates that promise and provide them free cash or entitlements to the point of threatening a weakening system that many disabled people rely on for their survival.

        Alexander Tytler, 1747 – 1843:

        “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

        “”When the people find they can vote themselves money,
        that will herald the end of the republic.”” – Benjamin Franklin

        The Second amendment did not come with conditions or restrictions. It is very clear.

  9. Cluster April 10, 2013 / 9:03 am

    James and Watson have come the closest to revealing the liberal agenda when they advocated a bigger government that takes care of people’s needs, but didn’t expand on what that would entail or how much it would cost. Liberal ideology is very emotional, quite immature, and extremely vague and that is why we always see how the ends justify the means. Liberals have no clue how to actually achieve their desired results, therefore anything they try is deemed noble regardless of how disastrous it is.

    Conservatives are more analytical, more measured and more results oriented. A few things that I have long advocated – cut every federal department by a minimum of 5%, review every federal departments mission statement, scope of work, and staffing levels. Reform entitlements and tax codes – this is paramount and our elected representatives are criminal for not addressing this issue. And finally, lets raise the bar and expect more from everyone. It is amazing what individuals can accomplish when pushed. As I said the other day, we can’t expect progress when we constantly lower the bar of expectations.

    • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 9:31 am

      Cluster,

      One thing I noticed in this thread is that none of our Lefties is willing to predict what a purely Progressive society might look like after a generation. That’s very telling.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 10, 2013 / 7:36 pm

        Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows,
        Everything that’s wonderful is what I feel when we’re progressive,
        Brighter than a lucky penny,
        When we’re liberal the rain cloud disappears, dear,
        And I feel so fine just to know proggies’ in charge.

        My life is sunshine, lollipops and rainbows,
        That’s how this refrain goes, so come on, join in everybody!

        Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows,
        Everything that’s wonderful is sure to come your way
        When we’re all so tolerant today.

        All we are saying,
        Is give peace a chance.

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 9:46 pm

        Spook, and Ama,

        It is very telling because they have no idea of ideology–just feel good crap. I mention Ama because of an earlier post to this issue. Being a Constitutionalist, in the original intent, we have seen the greatest nation in the world be slowly eroded by Progressives over the last 100 years (since Wilson).

        Every time they push hard and come out and speak openly–everyone like me pushes back. Unfortunately, the Progressives have always gained ground through nefarious means or the tactics of bullying and force.

        If they (Liberals & Progressives) honestly believe their ideology would work–they should be able to clearly state that ideology and give examples of where it worked without killing millions of innocents that “disagree.” They can’t but I can–it is in the Founding documents. Time to hit the “Reset” button.

    • 02casper April 10, 2013 / 9:07 pm

      Cluster,
      “Liberal ideology is very emotional, quite immature, and extremely vague and that is why we always see how the ends justify the means. Liberals have no clue how to actually achieve their desired results, therefore anything they try is deemed noble regardless of how disastrous it is.”

      Interesting, in that that’s the way I see conservative ideology. Most seems to be very emotionally driven especially the emotions of hate and fear.
      As for cutting government, I’m all for that, but not at a flat 5% rate. There are some areas that could be cut much more and others that may need additional funding. All of it would be worth looking at.

      • Amazona April 11, 2013 / 11:19 am

        casper, what is it about the belief that our nation must be governed by its Constitution do you find “…emotional, quite immature, and extremely vague ..” ?

        Where do “hate” and “fear” come into the picture?

        What I have noticed about you is your sweeping characterization of a political movement in terms that are quite cartoonish, and totally irrelevant to the actual political philosophy which motivates it.

        As a staunch conservative, who associates with many other staunch conservatives, I have found neither hate nor fear in any of them. I have never seen a politician who describes himself as a conservative try to drum up hatred or fear, but this is a common tactic of the Left. (Check out the references to TEA Party people as “domestic terrorists” as one example, as well as the race-baiting and class warfare tactics of the Left, all examples of trying to instill fear and distrust of groups which can be isolated and identified as targets.)

        You can take a look at the Democrat presidential campaigns to see examples of hate mongering and fear mongering on the Left. The WAR ON WOMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is a prime example. The claim that Mitt Romney wanted to DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is another. The lie that conservatives wanted to outlaw birth control. These are all examples of using trumped-up fear to drive voters. Then there are the divisive tactics, both of race and of class. Just who came up with the term 1 % ? And used it constantly? It is the Left who have worked so hard to stir up resentment, anger and even hatred toward people they describe as “rich”. The race-baiters are all on the Left.

        Conservatism is a simple, pragmatic, objective allegiance to a certains specific form of government, which is clearly laid out in our Constitution. It is unemotional and has no component of fear or hate. It is blind to race, gender, religion or ethnicity. It is antithetical to hatred.

        An excellent example of a contrast between the two is the way the subject of Obama’s eligibility for the presidency was handled. Conservatives said, rather mildly, that because there were questions about his eligibility, on so many fronts—–not just his place of birth but the definition of “natural born citizen”—–this should be determined in an orderly and legal fashion before dragging the nation into a situation which could only create conflict and confusion. It was a pragmatic, unemotional effort to identify a potential problem and come to a resolution. But the Left spun it in hysterical invective, centering on
        shrill accusations of racism, name-calling (“birthers”) and so on, until what should have been a straightforward procedural issue became so mired in fear and hatred and confusion that it will always be a mess.

      • Amazona April 12, 2013 / 11:26 am

        casper says “…..conservative ideology. …..seems to be very emotionally driven especially the emotions of hate and fear.”

        I wonder if he means something like this: (anyone ever hear of a conservative professor “teaching” things like this?)

        “A University of Southern California professor attacked Republicans as old, white, racist losers in his lectures, a shocking video has shown.

        The rants by Professor Darry Sragow were secretly captured over the course of several weeks by 20-year-old student Tyler Talgo, who used a camera disguised as a shirt button.

        “They’re really stupid and racist,” Sragow said during one lecture. “The Republican Party is increasingly the last refuge of old, angry white people who don’t like what’s going on in this country,” he told his students.

        “Old white guys are stubborn sons of bitches,” he added.

        At one point, Sragow also appears to endorse the illegal suppression of Republican votes.

        “You lose their information on the election in the mail,” he suggested when a student asked how to discourage Republicans from voting. “I mean, there [are] lots of ways to do it.”

        A teaching assistant in the class suggested putting Black Panthers at polling stations to intimidate Republican voters. The comment was supported by Sragow.

        When questioned by Fox News, Sragow told the network he stood by all his comments. “I have said them many times to many audiences, and if the student had told me he was taping my comments I still would have said them,” he said.

        Talgo told Fox News he taped the classes to show that university campuses are hostile places for nonliberals.

        “There are definitely some classes where professors give no regard to the other side, and it’s a class that slanders people who disagree with them,” he said to Fox. “The professors are oftentimes so intimidating you can’t bring up your own point of view. And even if you do, you risk your grade being retaliated against.”

        Talgo said he hopes other students will take a stand and help expose other liberal professors.

        “My major concern is that these professors are indoctrinating students,” he said.”

        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/california-usc-professor-republicans/2013/04/

  10. Amazona April 10, 2013 / 1:18 pm

    What I have noticed here is that no one from the Left or the middle seems to know what “ideology” means. Even our resident academics are talking about outcomes, not about the underlying political philosophy of government that should guide every approach to achieving any outcome.

    We have been over this so many times on this blog, yet it remains a mystery to most–that is, that a goal is not an ideology.

    Most on the Left and Right share the same goals—that is, the average Dem voter and the Right. I don’t include the hard-core Left because their goals are quite different, and seldom openly revealed.

    Leaving out the hard-core Left, I can name many goals shared by Dems and Republicans alike. Unfortunately for our nation, there has been a quite successful campaign to shift discourse away from the best way to achieve those goals to the acceptance of the idea that The Other has very different goals. I think this accounts for most of the distrust and divisiveness in the nation.

    I can give a very basic example: hunger. We all want people to have enough to eat. Yet one side believes that the best way to assure that is to give food to people, while the other believes that it is to teach people how to earn their own bread, and to have a government structure that allows them to do this. Instead of a civil and rational discussion, which would go back to the underlying political philosophy of each, and which would focus on the best way to make sure no one is hungry, what happens is that those who find simply handing out food to be a poor approach to the problem are then identified, demonized, as simply not caring if people are hungry. The reaction shifts, quite rapidly, from evaluating the differing suggestions to dismissal of an opposing point of view because it has been identified as morally wrong.

    If the discussion were to be based on ideology, or the philosophy of how best to govern the nation, it would start with the role of government in the lives of individuals—there would be acceptance of the fact that both sides want to avoid suffering, and would simply focus on the best way to make that happen.

    Ditto for approaches to health care, guns, etc. We have forgotten to start at what should be the foundation of our political decisions, or the commitment to a certain form of government (ideology) and just leapfrog to what we want to happen. Dolf’s list, for example, is a hodgepodge of extreme government control and intrusion and some libertarianism. I suggest that a list that is based upon a coherent political philosophy would be, well, more coherent.

    • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 2:20 pm

      Amazona,

      You have described exactly what happens when you have an educational system that teaches people what to think instead of how to think. Our lefties here consistently avoid answering any question or broaching any subject that might require them to engage in self-examination of what they believe — and, more importantly, why they believe it.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 10, 2013 / 2:44 pm

        Spook,

        It appears that the prospect of a generation of unbridled Progressivism is too much for even the lefty trolls to contemplate.

  11. Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 2:25 pm

    Just heard a sound clip of Obama on the news saying (I’m paraphrasing) that the wealthy in America are not going to be able to continue utilizing tax loopholes that are not available to ordinary Americans. Did all those loopholes just get into the tax code on the wings of a flying pig? Is it illegal for someone to take advantage of provisions of the tax code that mitigate their tax liability? Geez, someone just shoot me now and get it over with.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 10, 2013 / 3:41 pm

      Spook, I don’t know why you’re surprised, coming from the same man who said this:

      “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

    • watsonthethird April 10, 2013 / 4:10 pm

      Some comments:

      Cluster said:

      James and Watson have come the closest to revealing the liberal agenda when they advocated a bigger government that takes care of people’s needs, but didn’t expand on what that would entail or how much it would cost.

      I did? Please tell me where in this thread I said anything even remotely like that. And if you fall back to the claim that I’ve said so in the past, then by all means quote me and include the link. This is why it can be difficult to discuss things with you, Cluster. You respond to things you wish others had said instead of what they actually said.

      Spook asked me to explain my comment, “Which is sad (to me) because conservatives could do so much better.” In my opinion, conservatives are more interested in looking like a conservative to their base than in actually governing. That is, they grandstand like Marco Rubio while at the same time are afraid to even in engage in debate on the senate floor. In my opinion, today’s conservatives are more responsible for government’s inability to deal with serious issues than moderates or progressives.

      In the context of discussing universal background checks, Mark said, “It is not the government’s business to interfere in the business transactions between two law abiding citizens who are buying/selling a legal good or service.” It is illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun. Ditto someone who is a severely mentally ill, and someone convicted of domestic violence. Therefore, by your definition–“law abiding” being the key phrase–it _is_ the government’s business.

      dbschmidt claims that “There are no real ‘gun show loopholes’ as depicted by the MSM.” I think you’re just quibbling about semantics. As I understand it, private sales of guns are not subject to background checks, even if that sale occurs at a gun show. Is that not true? As far as background checks not working, I keep reading statistics that millions of gun sales have been stopped via background checks. So they’re stopping somebody.

      Finally, I would like to ask Spook what he meant by “The only comments that will be deleted are those that resort to vulgar language and name calling.” There’s been plenty of naming calling in this thread. In fact, little has changed compared to other threads. You and Cluster keep referring to this new B4V. What is it?

      • Cluster April 10, 2013 / 4:16 pm

        Forgive me Watson. I guess then you really haven’t said anything that would even resemble an ideology or agenda. Just more mindless pap that you are famous for.

      • watsonthethird April 10, 2013 / 4:25 pm

        Your response is a fine example of the second reason it is difficult to discuss things with you, Cluster.

      • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 5:01 pm

        cluster

        @ Watson, Just more mindless pap that you are famous for.

        BINGO!

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 6:17 pm

        Private sales are limited to 3 guns–anything more would require an FFL dealers license. BATFE refused to set up booths at the gun shows to close that “loophole”–ask them why.

        And while I am on the question of on the question of why you correctly stated “As far as background checks not working, I keep reading statistics that millions of gun sales have been stopped via background checks. So they’re stopping somebody. but my response is why were there only 40 prosecutions last year–it is a felony to attempt to unlawfully purchase a firearm. Personally, I would like to know why a felon was trying to purchase a firearm.

        Just so you know, personally, I would not sell or transfer any of my firearms to anyone I do not know basically leaving family and a few close friends. If I do dispose of them outside of family or close friends–they will be sold to a FFL dealer.

      • Retired Spook April 10, 2013 / 6:23 pm

        There’s been plenty of naming calling in this thread. In fact, little has changed compared to other threads. You and Cluster keep referring to this new B4V. What is it?

        Perhaps you could point me to the name calling, Watson, because I can’t find it. No vulgar language either, and no deleted comments or banned posters. Sorry, if you don’t like the new tone. No one is holding a gun to your head (no pun intended) to come here. You certainly don’t contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

      • Cluster April 10, 2013 / 7:02 pm

        Spook,

        Let’s take for example this from Watson:

        In my opinion, conservatives are more interested in looking like a conservative to their base than in actually governing. That is, they grandstand like Marco Rubio while at the same time are afraid to even in engage in debate on the senate floor.

        How are you suppose to engage in dialogue with someone like this? His delicate sensitivities notwithstanding. This is a guy who supports the current party and Harry Reid who won’t even bring anything to the floor to debate. Hasn’t passed a budget in four years, wont even consider House legislation, actually shut down debate on the health car bill, etc., etc., But to Watson, it’s the conservatives fault.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 10, 2013 / 7:26 pm

        I keep reading statistics that millions of gun sales have been stopped via background checks. So they’re stopping somebody.

        First off, it’s just over one million; of those 60% (578,000) were rejected because of “criminal background”. Since these are persons who knowingly tried to purchase weapons after being convicted of felonies, which is unlawful, why have there been no criminal trials as a result of these attempts?

        Next, 94,000 had warrants for arrest pending, yet none of these 94,000 were arrested in connection with the attempted purchase.

        Why are these people talking about adding more laws and more restrictions when they do not enforce existing ones?

        What type of background check universal or global for that matter, will prevent a stolen weapon from being used in commission of a crime of any type? Since all of the high profile massacres were committed with stolen weapons, why are even debating this?

        Oy Vey, such a problem!

      • tiredoflibbs April 10, 2013 / 8:01 pm

        watty, your response is the perfectly, accurate example of why no one will take you seriously.

      • watsonthethird April 10, 2013 / 11:03 pm

        Spook said, “Perhaps you could point me to the name calling, Watson, because I can’t find it.”

        You’re right, Spook! No more wapstooge and all the other childish nonsense. Congratulations.

      • watsonthethird April 10, 2013 / 11:06 pm

        Raven said:

        First off, it’s just over one million; of those 60% (578,000) were rejected because of “criminal background”. Since these are persons who knowingly tried to purchase weapons after being convicted of felonies, which is unlawful, why have there been no criminal trials as a result of these attempts?

        I don’t know, Raven. It would be a great topic to research.

        Nevertheless, whether or not convicted felons are prosecuted for attempting to purchase a gun is a separate question from whether there should be universal background checks. In fact, your post acknowledges that background checks do work Why would we not want to do that for all sales?

      • dbschmidt April 10, 2013 / 11:14 pm

        Watson,

        I would agree with you on two conditions; 1) It is the NCIS law standard be used with all critical mental illness records included, and 2) all attempts at illegal purchases are fully prosecuted.

        All Federal firearms laws should be strictly enforced–starting with Eric Holder who has killed more innocents than all gun related massacres in the last decade.

      • watsonthethird April 10, 2013 / 11:16 pm

        Cluster said:

        Let’s take for example this from Watson:

        In my opinion, conservatives are more interested in looking like a conservative to their base than in actually governing. That is, they grandstand like Marco Rubio while at the same time are afraid to even in engage in debate on the senate floor.

        How are you suppose to engage in dialogue with someone like this? His delicate sensitivities notwithstanding. This is a guy who supports the current party and Harry Reid who won’t even bring anything to the floor to debate. Hasn’t passed a budget in four years, wont even consider House legislation, actually shut down debate on the health car bill, etc., etc., But to Watson, it’s the conservatives fault.

        How are you suppose to engage? Well for starters you could rebut my claim that Rubio is a grandstander by citing his legislative accomplishments. Or his business accomplishments, since that seems to be very important to conservatives. You could explain why Rubio is threatening to filibuster legislation including background checks, despite the fact that 91% of Floridians favor background checks. You could try making a non-emotional argument for why he is on the right side of this.

        Or you could just say you disagree with me. Fine.

        But instead, once again you make up stuff. You say, “This is a guy who supports the current party and Harry Reid who won’t even bring anything to the floor to debate.” I haven’t commented on Harry Reid, and Reid wasn’t even a part of this thread. You brought up Rubio, not me.

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 8:29 am

        Lets drop guns and make the same conversation voting.

        Universal background checks, huge government databases with that info, voting insurance, voting ID’s, voting licenses, voting taxes, only voting by standing in line in person….on and on .

        Amazing how they can pizz on the part of the constitution THEY dont like, but would writhe on the floor to protect t!**y dancers, and pornography under the first amendment.

      • Amazona April 11, 2013 / 11:43 am

        I went back through several watson posts and found that he is right, he never does commit to anything.

        This poster is not here to present a position, defend it, debate it, and engage in political discourse. The one thing that stands out so strongly when you look at page after page of watson posts is that this person is here only to fight.

        Every conservative comment is met with quibbling, nitpicking, and negativity. But watson is slippery, never committing to anything, never contributing anything, seeking only to (as far as I can tell) be a speed bump.

        It’s hard to know if this is a tactic to interfere with the blog or just a symptom of a need-to-fight pathology, but no matter where it comes from it is annoying. Then we can factor in the constant whining about civility—yes, I do see the irony in this coming from a blog vandal—-and the overall effect is not very pleasant.

        As an example, watson whines “..Your response is a fine example of the second reason it is difficult to discuss things with you, Cluster…” This is, I guess, supposed to imply that it watson has any desire to “discuss things” with anyone. But I never see discussion, just carping and sneering and sniping.

        As profoundly as I disagree with James, at least he has the integrity to know what he believes in and then openly state it.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 5:02 pm

        Watson,
        That’s exactly the point; these checks are NOT stopping anyone!

        These are numbers of inquiries.

        If there were actually real felons attempting to purchase guns there would be real arrests!

        If a fugitive with an outstanding warrant tried to purchase a weapon anywhere in the United States the jurisdictions (and bounty hunters) would be all over the applicant like a cheap suit.

        There are no arrests because there aren’t half a million felons trying to buy guns at gun shows or gun shops or on-line.

        Felons and fugitives don’t fill out forms then go home and wait to be arrested.

        You’re sooo gullible!

  12. Jeremiah April 10, 2013 / 8:14 pm

    How bout we get some female weapons inspectors?

    • neocon01 April 10, 2013 / 9:05 pm

      How bout we get some female weapons inspectors?

      THIS is my rifle, THIS is my gun…………THIS is for killing, THIS is ………

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 9:05 am

        OOH PULLLEASE…..tra-von 11

        Michelle Obama Tears Up While Pushing Gun Control in Chicago: ‘Hadiya Pendleton Was Me and I Was Her’

        “And these reforms deserve a vote in Congress.”

        ————————————————————————————-

        listen MOOCH, you ARENT an elected official so STFU and do what you do best, vacation and spend hundreds of millions of OPM

        you obviously know LESS than the POS usurper of American constitutional law GO AWAY!!

        Psalm 109:8

  13. Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 9:55 am

    Two days and over a hundred comments, and none of our resident Progressives could answer any of the basic questions I posed in the original post. The two basic dynamics they can’t get past are that, as government grows and becomes more powerful, freedom and prosperity shrink. And they wonder why we don’t take them seriously.

    • James0601 April 11, 2013 / 10:25 am

      Again, that is not true.

      You ask a question that you already have an answer for. No matter what someone else tells you, whether on this blog or not won’t matter to you.

      do we have less freedom today than we did in 1965? 1935? No, i don’t believe so. Regulation is not always an evil thing, more laws to limit certain things aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

      You extreme ideology and belief with regards to freedom puts you in line with anarchists who don’t want any form of government.

      If I told you I believe in limiting high capacity magazines and clips from being sold legally, you’d say i’m infringing on your freedom to bear arms. But to the majority of Americans, that’s a reasonable concession to make if you want to own guns.

      Therein lies the problem, you’re an extreme even in your own party.

      The truth is, just because you have to fill out more paperwork to get a gun, or open a business, or rent an apartment, doesn’t mean you have less freedom as you Mark stated earlier.

      If you want true freedom, go live in a lawless country and make your own little enclave.

      • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 10:51 am

        James, it appears that you and I have completely different concepts of freedom. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

        Therein lies the problem, you’re an extreme even in your own party.

        I’m an Conservative Independent with Libertarian leanings, James, so your comment makes no sense. Actually most of what you write makes no sense. If anyone is an extremist it’s you. Your stated beliefs sound like a hodgepodge of wishes, wants, needs and desires that have no relationship with either reality or any known organized set of societal rules. But, in the spirit of the new tone at B4V, we appreciate your input.

      • James0601 April 11, 2013 / 12:05 pm

        look at what you just wrote…you’re a conservative independent with libertarian leanings? really?

        when is the last time you voted for a democrat on a national level?

        I know exactly what my beliefs and ideology is, unfortunately for you, I don’t believe you know. You just yearn for 1960’s america, the nation you grew up in and the nation that you thought was so great back then.

        look around sport, its not the same world, nor is it the same nation as it was in 1965.

        you accuse me of not making sense? yet every prediction whether it was politics, economics, or other that you’ve made has been not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong. look in the mirror sport.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 11, 2013 / 12:11 pm

        do we have less freedom today than we did in 1965? 1935? No, i don’t believe so.

        Not sure on what you base that opinion, James, but unless you were around back then or are a serious student of the history of those times, you can’t possibly have an informed opinion about the comparative level of freedom then vs. now. I wasn’t around in 1935, but I was in the 7th grade in 1965. Throughout the late 60’s, I’d frequently ride my bike out to the edge of town to a farm where I had permission to hunt and fish with either my squirrel rifle or my fishing pole across my handle bars, a distance of around 5 miles. Sometimes I’d take my sleeping bag and camp out next to the railroad tracks where I’d shoot the breeze and share a can of beans with hobos. My parents never worried about me being kidnapped, molested or killed by some psycho.

      • dbschmidt April 11, 2013 / 12:16 pm

        James stated “If I told you I believe in limiting high capacity magazines and clips from being sold legally, you’d say i’m infringing on your freedom to bear arms. But to the majority of Americans, that’s a reasonable concession to make if you want to own guns.

        Therein lies the problem, you’re an extreme even in your own party.”

        which is a falsehood to begin with on several fronts. First is that Spook & I may be Constitutionalists like several others on this blog but as far as party affiliation goes Spook has stated he is an Independent while I am a Libertarian.

        Next is your claim against “high-capacity” magazines. What is high-capacity defined as? NY 7 rounds which needed to be amended for the NYPD you think will save you or the original designed magazine for the weapon you purchase?

        But let us finish with your diatribe about “You extreme ideology and belief with regards to freedom puts you in line with anarchists who don’t want any form of government” which fully displays your ignorance of history and the founding of this country.

        No one here, to my knowledge, has ever stated that regulations are all evil and should be abolished but over regulation is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

        BTW, how do you feel that the IRS now feels it can intercept your personal e-mail without regard to your 4th amendment rights in order to tax you into oblivion? Sounds good, right?

      • James0601 April 11, 2013 / 12:25 pm

        JR,

        wonderful for you that you’re able to do all that without worry of being molested….

        that’s exactly what I am talking about, you yearn for the old days…when in reality the old days weren’t great at all.

        In your eyes, just because you don’t see kids riding 5 miles to the edge of town to fish without a license and shoot the shit with hobos by the tracks…the country is going downhill.

      • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 12:29 pm

        when is the last time you voted for a democrat on a national level?

        For Evan Bayh for U.S. Senate in 1998 and 2004. Also voted for Bayh when he ran for re-election as Indiana Governor in 1994.

        I know exactly what my beliefs and ideology is, unfortunately for you, I don’t believe you know.

        I can only take you at your word, James, and you’ve been the only Liberal here who has been pretty clear in spelling out what you believe. I just disagree with pretty much everything you believe.

        look around sport, its not the same world, nor is it the same nation as it was in 1965.

        You’re absolutely right on that James. Because of technology our standard of living has increased exponentially, but our culture has also declined exponentially. Out-of-wedlock births have increased by a factor of 10; 20 if you’re black. Sexually transmitted diseases have skyrocketed. We have open gang warfare in most of our major cities. By every measurable dynamic it’s tougher being a parent, being a kid, and being in business or starting a business. When I was a kid, we didn’t have home or car alarms — hell, we left our doors unlocked at night, and left our car in the driveway with the keys in it. You have no concept of what true freedom is, James.

      • James0601 April 11, 2013 / 12:29 pm

        which is a falsehood to begin with on several fronts. First is that Spook & I may be Constitutionalists like several others on this blog but as far as party affiliation goes Spook has stated he is an Independent while I am a Libertarian.

        again, you can call yourself a feminist for all I care. When is the last time you voted for a Democrat on a national level or even state level. If you’re an independent, you should have a pretty mixed record of voting for both sides of the aisle.

        Next is your claim against “high-capacity” magazines. What is high-capacity defined as? NY 7 rounds which needed to be amended for the NYPD you think will save you or the original designed magazine for the weapon you purchase?

        Again, you can debate the details on a bill while still agreeing on the basics. Those basics are that beyond a certain amount of bullets in one magazine or clip, the purpose of the gun changes. You want to own a gun for hunting, go ahead and get a rifle. But if you want to own a 9 mm handgun with a lasersight and extended clip, then you’ve gone to far.

        But let us finish with your diatribe about “You extreme ideology and belief with regards to freedom puts you in line with anarchists who don’t want any form of government” which fully displays your ignorance of history and the founding of this country.

        No one here, to my knowledge, has ever stated that regulations are all evil and should be abolished but over regulation is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

        Again, another lie on your behalf. You say that some regulations are good and needed, but have never stated which regulations you’re in favor of? tell us please, what regulation do you believe are necessary and would support as opposed to the ones that aren’t needed.

        BTW, how do you feel that the IRS now feels it can intercept your personal e-mail without regard to your 4th amendment rights in order to tax you into oblivion? Sounds good, right?

        Have any sources on that? you’re the same kind of person as Spook…older, and all you do is predict doom and gloom, and none of it actually comes to fruition.

      • James0601 April 11, 2013 / 12:38 pm

        You’re absolutely right on that James. Because of technology our standard of living has increased exponentially, but our culture has also declined exponentially.

        Our culture has changed exponentially, declined is your opinion.

        Out-of-wedlock births have increased by a factor of 10; 20 if you’re black.

        that’s absolutely true…why do you think that is? because all of a sudden in a period of one generation women turned into sluts? or it is just because that casual sex is now accepted when 50 years ago it wasn’t?

        Sexually transmitted diseases have skyrocketed.

        I don’t know how you can say that…are there any stats to back that up? I really don’t know if they have or not.

        We have open gang warfare in most of our major cities.

        again, this isn’t true, its a myth. I have lived in a top 5 city in the nation based on population, and there are good and bad parts like any city in the world. no open gang warfare as you claim it is.

        By every measurable dynamic it’s tougher being a parent, being a kid, and being in business or starting a business.

        true.

        When I was a kid, we didn’t have home or car alarms — hell, we left our doors unlocked at night, and left our car in the driveway with the keys in it.

        Does that mean the world or nation was a better place? Its exactly these nostalgic anecdotal bs that makes the younger generation cringe. What’s next, you’re going to tell me that you walked uphill in the snow to go to class each morning? come on.

        just because my car has an alarm and I lock it at night in my driveway doesn’t mean the nation is any worse than it was in 1965 from a cultural point of view, or any point of view. I said it once, and I’ll say it again…you are a dying breed and if you look at historical trends, every culture has some resistance when it’s changing or evolving from the older generation. Once they go, the changes are implemented much easier.

        You have no concept of what true freedom is, James.

        neither do you. your vision of freedom is being able to not lock your house and cars. It’s superficial and shallow.

        I stand by my statement that in EVERY way, our nation is better off than it was during your time…in the 60’s and 70’s.

      • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 12:38 pm

        If you’re an independent, you should have a pretty mixed record of voting for both sides of the aisle.

        Actually, that’s a good point, James. I’ve voted in every general election since 1966 and every primary except one. The first time I voted a straight Republican ticket was 1994. Since that time the Democrat Party has veered so far left at the national level, that I can’t hold my nose tight enough to vote for a donk.

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 12:40 pm

        jimmah

        weapons HAVE NO CLIPS!!!! PERIODdo attempt to educate your self when you want to sound like you know what you are talking about capice?

        especially when you wand to shred the constitution…….hey how about that voting eh??

      • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 12:40 pm

        What’s next, you’re going to tell me that you walked uphill in the snow to go to class each morning? come on.

        Yup, uphill (both ways) — bare foot.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 12:41 pm

        You want to own a gun for hunting, go ahead and get a rifle. But if you want to own a 9 mm handgun with a lasersight and extended clip, then you’ve gone to far.

        Oy Gavalt!

        First; “Hunting” isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.security is.

        Next, a “clip’ is neither high capacity nor low, a clip is used to fill a magazine. You should really learn about what you’re trying to control.

        Finally, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 12:42 pm

        I actually voted for jimmah cartah …ONCE

        EVERY donk since then has been a drug using, commie, sexual pervert.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 12:44 pm

        I’m a moderate who hasn’t voted for a democrat since Tom Bradley. I haven’t voted for a Communist, a Socialist, a Greenie, or a Klansman either.

        I won’t vote for David Duke or Bernie Sanders.

        An open mind doesn’t mean a hole in the head.

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 12:44 pm

        ROR

        do you not understand?

        Obviously NONE of it.
        cept the poor boy is from Iran so go figure why he doesnt…LOL

      • Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 12:45 pm

        neither do you. your vision of freedom is being able to not lock your house and cars. It’s superficial and shallow.

        No, James. My vision of freedom is to be able to pursue happiness with the least possible amount of government intrusion, and that’s what this country largely had until LBJ’s Great Society and War on Poverty in the mid 60’s. Forty-eight years later our society isn’t so great, the poverty level is little changed, and government plays an ever increasing roll in the average person’s life.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 12:47 pm

        Prob’ly thinks we should ban “Assault Weapons” b’cuz they’ve “gone to (sic) far!”

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 12:48 pm

        I stand by my statement that in EVERY way, our nation is better off than it was during your time…in the 60′s and 70′s.

        from someone who wasnt even alive then…..Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
        ALMOST as funny as bmitch calling in air support in a war that had ended 2 years before……..
        you trolls are pure entertainment!!

      • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 12:53 pm

        jimmah-sasan

        google detriot in the sixties, and in 2013……..then get back to us eh kid?

        PS a dying breed?? who told you that>

        out of OVER 120 million votes al ubama “won” by LESS than six million and that was with 10 million LESS voting for mitt than mcLame. We have the House, most state houses, most governorships. yeah dying breed….
        PS, I have this property in Fla……

        Please return to math 101

      • dbschmidt April 11, 2013 / 1:11 pm

        George McGovern (72)–actually helped campaign for him. Nowadays, I am glad he lost. They rest of your crap really does not earn any response except I am glad that regulations are in place to clean up some of the dumping companies have done in the past. I see no reason to measure cow farts or dust as they cross they great plains.

        Your ignorance is astounding because you have no idea what you are even espousing. I will agree with Spook, JR and others that at least you have stated ideas of yours which most will not but you need to educate yourself before spewing.

        I grew up a Democrat in Florida where you needed to be a member of one of the two major parties to vote in primaries. When I left Florida for NC (2005)–I changed to Republican because they better fit my beliefs. After educating myself and the elite RINOS took over the party–I changed to Libertarian because here in NC I can vote in primaries without needing to be an (R) or (D). The reason was really two-fold; 1) I could still vote in every election including primaries, and 2) (Constitutional) Libertarian is more where my beliefs lie now.

        As far as the IRS–turn on any non-MSM media and it is front page.

      • dbschmidt April 11, 2013 / 1:24 pm

        Neo,

        IIRC, I believe one weapon used a clip for loading–was it the M-1??? Before my time and above my pay grade.

        Nevertheless, Mitchie’s plane could not have bombed anything because all of the bombs would have be held in place by the vacuum it needed to fly. Could be wrong again. One never knows.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        AND the M-1 was Semi-Auto, making it an “Assault Weapon”.

      • dbschmidt April 11, 2013 / 1:47 pm

        BTW James, from your previous response emulating “Those basics are that beyond a certain amount of bullets in one magazine or clip, the purpose of the gun changes. You want to own a gun for hunting, go ahead and get a rifle. But if you want to own a 9 mm handgun with a lasersight and extended clip, then you’ve gone to far.” which I know of no one wanting an “extended” clip for general or CCW use; however, I would have to assume you are okay with 17 round clips that are standard with quite a few 9 and 10 mm weapons these days? As well as the standard 30 round clip on AR-15 look-alikes?

      • Amazona April 11, 2013 / 5:43 pm

        James illustrates the political illiteracy of his kind, showing us once again that he does not understand the difference between ideology and identity.

        Ideology is a commitment to a specific political philosophy, while identity is just the name of the party to which you belong. In a perfect world, all who belong to the Democrat Party would belong because of an objective commitment to the political philosophy of unlimited expansion of the federal government to accomplish, or at least try to accomplish, whatever new feel-good whim that comes down the pike.

        In fact, many who identify as Dems also, when the question is asked, say they favor following the Constitution and prefer a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power.

        Anyone who complains that a libertarian does not vote for a Leftist political model is just plain ignorant, and the term “independent” has nothing at all to do with ideology and everything to do with identity—that is, a person who chooses not to adopt a certain identity, no matter what his political ideology may be.

        Spook said he is a conservative (naming an ideology) independent (refusing to align himself with a party identity) with strong Libertarian leanings, which is just a reinforcement of the conservative ideology. For someone like this to vote for any of the current Dems would be dumb.

      • tiredoflibbs April 11, 2013 / 8:01 pm

        “AND the M-1 was Semi-Auto, making it an “Assault Weapon”.”

        I keep losing track… does it have to have a pistol grip to be an assault weapon? Oh, wait, it does have a bayonet lug.

        Both attributes are COSMETIC. The removal of either one does nothing to change its function. The proggies are scared of scary LOOKING weapons regardless of their function.

        Pathetic.

  14. Retired Spook April 11, 2013 / 1:24 pm

    How about this, James? Is this going too far?

    • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 3:50 pm

      DB
      a “clip” was used to speed load the MAGAZINE on an M1

    • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 4:00 pm

      F&^%$^@K the gop and the horse they rode in on!!

      Senate Democrats, *****joined by 16 Republicans,******* were able to overcome an attempted filibuster by GOP senators

    • neocon01 April 11, 2013 / 4:21 pm

      ROR

      we shall see, hope you are correct. Im afraid you are not though.

      • GMB April 11, 2013 / 4:30 pm

        Exactly how could a filibuster have hurt the 2nd Amendment cause? Looking through the list of repub defections, all the usual rinos are there.

        Expecting the rats to vote against it or the Supreme Court to overturn is pure wishful thinking, in my opinion.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 4:44 pm

        This the the bill that Reid has been pushing; it has Zero Chance of becoming law.

        Let it go forward and fail; a filibuster only appears as whiny crybabies who are trying to stop something from being debated. They don’t look like they’re protecting anything only throwing a public temper tantrum.

        If this filibuster had gobne forward, then when there is a real threat to the 2nd Amendment (Manchin -Toomey) there wouldn’t be any support for the Crybaby Brigade.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 5:22 pm

        I should also point out that Senators Chambliss (95% conservative rating) Coburn (96%) Burr (86%) Flake, Wicker (83%) and Ayotte are all reliably conservative. Even Toomey is over 80%.

      • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 7:43 pm

        The point is, anytime McLame and Grahamnisty join with Coburn and Chambliss there might be something more than Us vs. Them going on.

  15. The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 5:04 pm

    Watson writes “ your post acknowledges that background checks do work

    That’s exactly the point; these checks are NOT stopping anyone!

    These are numbers of inquiries.

    If there were actually real felons attempting to purchase guns there would be real arrests!

    If a fugitive with an outstanding warrant tried to purchase a weapon anywhere in the United States the jurisdictions (and bounty hunters) would be all over him like a cheap suit.

    There are no arrests because there aren’t half a million felons trying to buy guns at gun shows or gun shops or on-line.

    Felons and fugitives don’t fill out forms then go home and wait to be arrested.

    You’re sooo gullible!

  16. GMB April 11, 2013 / 6:17 pm

    Zero chance of passing? You are taking a awful chance with my liberty. 51 votes are now all that is required for this to become law. Factor in the gang of 14 top rinos and all you need is 37 rats to vote for it.

    The stooges in the HoR will ram this through and a big government loving Chief Justice will uphold.

    And you are worried about appearing as a “crybaby”?

    • The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 6:38 pm

      You’re a real half-empty kind of guy aren’t you?

      I think I understand; Chambliss and Coburn are RINOs to you so i assume anything less than dueling on the White House Lawn would be full capitulation to your arch enemies.

      You know you’re in for a lifetime of disappointment, right?

      • GMB April 12, 2013 / 9:21 am

        Anyone that plays loose with the Constitution is a progressive in my mind. What part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

        Having a “half full” attitude has gotten us where we are today. You must me very happy about that. Right?

      • The Return of Rathaven April 12, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        So, who in government is “conservative” enough for you?

        I mean if Tom Coburn, the most conservative member of the Senate with a 96%-100% Conservative rating and the least liberal #100 with a 0% Liberal rating is a “progressive” in you book, how can anyone ever satisfy your standard?

        And, if your standard is so completely beyond reason, and so seriously unmanageable why would anyone take your positions seriously? No candidate will ever campaign for the GMBs of the world; no politician will ever propose legislation with GMBs in mind, and no voter will ever listen to the point of view of a GMB since GMB is in a minority of less than 1.

        I’ll bet even GMB finds GMB too damn liberal for GMB. He’s just another Commie Pinko!

  17. The Return of Rathaven April 11, 2013 / 6:45 pm

    “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian.”
    Henry Ford

  18. Amazona April 12, 2013 / 11:22 am

    Records of gun owners, details on background checks, etc. would never make their way into federal data bases, no sirree! Nothing to worry about here, folks, just keep moving…..

    ‘cept……

    MO Highway Patrol Contradicts Gov Nixon On CCW Leak

    By: Dana Loesch (Diary) | April 11th, 2013 at 06:17 PM

    “Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has some explaining to do. Earlier today during a hearing led by state Senator Kurt Schaefer, Col. Ron Replogle of the Missouri Highway Patrol confessed that Missouri state law was violated (which I shared yesterday here) and the full list of conceal carry permit holders was sent to the federal government:

    The head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol on Thursday admitted something that Gov. Jay Nixon has denied multiple times. Col. Ron Replogle told a Senate committee that a list of Missourians who have conceal-and-carry weapon (CCW) permits was sent twice to the U.S. Social Security Administration.

    On Wednesday, when Nixon was in Springfield for a news conference on a different subject, Nixon was asked whether the Department of Revenue had shared copies of personal documents with the federal government or third-party companies. He said no.
    Nixon didn’t just say “no,” he implied that it was a conspiracy theory and said “no documents are being sent to a magical database somewhere and called it a “distraction.”

    The head of the Missouri Highway Patrol admits that the CCW list was twice (that we know of) sent to the federal government and its a “distraction?”

    Nixon also falsely claimed that the suit was “thrown out.” The judge did no such thing. The request for a permanent injunction was denied. The case is still going forward. Nixon only serves to implicate himself when he makes demonstrably false statements such as this one.

    Missouri didn’t just share the CCW list: they emailed it once and the second time they dropped into an envelope a disk full of Missourians’ private information and sent it to the feds via USPS. I’m not kidding. Replogle made no guarantees that no one other than the intended federal recipient received the disk or had access to it. All against Missouri law.
    I spoke with Sen. Schaefer earlier today and he explained how part of the reason the feds used in asking for the list was to arbitrarily judge or not any of Missouri’s CCW permit holders had any mental illness which would make them ineligible to possess a firearm. If it sounds like a crazier, unofficial and Missouri-illegal version of the already suspect SAFE Act, then you’re right.”

    Well, let’s take a look at this, shall we?

    Supposedly confidential, state, information sent out in the mail, with absolutely no control over who would get it or see it once it left the state office.

    The feds trying to compare CCW permits to mental health records. Not that I think this is a bad idea, but it does violate the beloved HIPPA laws that supposedly protect privacy.

    A state governor misstating, in great detail, the facts of his state’s violation of the law.

    And this is early in the war on gun ownership.

Comments are closed.