Making a Deal With Iran

It is hard to say what the real goal here is – it is clear that no matter what Iran does, while Obama is President we won’t go to war to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Come what may, no amount of non-military pressure on Iran will succeed in convincing the Iranian government to give up their nuclear ambitions.  Given this, why make a deal, at all?  What is it that impels Obama and Kerry to seek a deal?

By making any sort of deal, all we do is increase Iranian legitimacy in the eyes of the world, alienate Israel and lower our prestige among both friends and enemies – the world will see that, in the event, we daren’t attack Iran…that we are, in some sense, afraid of them.  The Gulf States will either make the best deal they can with Iran, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey obtain nuclear weapons of their own to counter the Iranian force.  Can it be that Obama and Kerry, ignorant academics that they are, simply believe that a deal is better than a non-deal?  That the results don’t matter so much as the process, itself?

And here’s the bad news – an Iranian nuclear force is an existential threat to the life of Israel…just how long will the Israeli government hold off from saving themselves from extermination?

41 thoughts on “Making a Deal With Iran

  1. Retired Spook November 9, 2013 / 12:01 pm

    That the results don’t matter so much as the process, itself?

    Great single sentence description of modern Leftist thought.

    • Amazona November 9, 2013 / 7:04 pm

      Obama, and the way his adoring fans see him, is a perfect example of this. Results, or lack of results, simply do not matter. They do not affect his popularity with them one bit. All that matters to them is the process he claims to be going through—that excruciating, frustrating process of trying, TRYING, trying oh so hard, to do something, only to have his sincere efforts blocked by the Bad Guys On The Other Side

      He was hired (elected) to do something, yet he impresses his fans merely by swanning about in a constant state of agitated helplessness, bemoaning the refusal of others to simply let things happen.

      Even his speeches are rife with this helpless passivity. He even depends on the passive voice. It is not “You are in this position because you believed what I told you”. No, it is that these people FIND THEMSELVES in a position, which evidently just happened to them out of the blue. Wow. No one is more surprised than Barry to learn that some people have mysteriously FOUND THEMSELVES in trouble, regarding health insurance. And there can’t possibly be any connection between that position and the law ramrodded through Congress without a single Republican vote, or the litany of lies told by Barry to lure people into making one of the stupidest decisions any of them have ever made. (Topped only by the decision to double down on their stupidity in 2012.)

      In a fair world, only those who put this bozo in office would FIND THEMSELVES without affordable health care, and the intelligent, responsible citizens who voted against Obama would not be forced to share the misery we all knew he would bring with him.

  2. Amazona November 9, 2013 / 6:56 pm

    OT, but…what is the rule on ending commentary on a thread? There have been several times when I wanted to respond to something on a thread only to find that comments are no longer allowed.

    • M. Noonan November 10, 2013 / 12:55 am

      Checked with Matt – 7 day limit on comments on a blog entry as an anti-spam measure.

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 3:11 pm

        Well, it also limits participation.

  3. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 9, 2013 / 7:43 pm

    Here’s my take on this whole thing from what you all would describe as a socialist. Here we are in 2013 and Iran still has a nuclear program as they are still enriching uranium. America sees this as a burgeoning nuclear weapons program and has for some ten odd years now. Mark you appear to support some sort of preemptive strike against Iran and don’t care about any consequences and you also think President Obama is “weak on Iran.” Well, why didn’t the Bush administration launch a strike against Iran’s enrichment facilities in 2003? or 2005? or 2007? When all the military assets were there to absorb the regional backlash that is sure to come from Iran’s terror based supporters? If there is a diplomatic way out of this mess, which really isn’t a mess at all because Iran has just as much right to build nuclear weapons as anyone else, why not try for that solution vice plunging the Middle East into yet another American caused war?

    Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

    Moderator’s note: This same post was also posted under the name of Diane Valencen. It appears that Amazona’s reference to Frederick posting under different names and personas is spot on. Another post at nearly the same time was from Majordomo Pain. Evidently the pitchfork contingent is only one person with many identities.

    • M. Noonan November 9, 2013 / 8:16 pm


      Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah Blah Bush Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah?

    • Amazona November 9, 2013 / 9:35 pm

      “…Iran has just as much right to build nuclear weapons as anyone else…”

      Yes, let’s just ignore the oft-repeated intent of Iran to completely wipe an entire nation off the planet and the understanding that having nuclear weapons will make that possible.

      Let’s just ignore the fact that the religious belief of A-Jad is that worldwide chaos, millions of deaths and blood in the streets must occur to bring about the return of the 12th Imam, and therefore that it is reasonable to have concern that he might see himself as the agent of such events, which would also make him the agent of the triumph of Islam over the entire world. What could possibly go wrong if someone with such a perception of the world and his religion were to be allowed the means to make his fantasies reality?

      Let’s just ignore the fact that these are the people who have talked, very seriously, about wishing for a world with no America in it.

      Let’s just ignore the fact that Iran is the home of some of the most rabid of Islamic extremists, whose religion demands the deaths of all who do not follow it. What could possibly be a problem with these people having the ability to kill off millions of these infidels at a time?

      To carry Freddy’s insanity just a tad bit farther, mental patients have just as much right to own weapons as anyone else. Anyone has just as much right to own fully automatic weapons or suitcase bombs as anyone else.

      Oh, we need to limit what people can eat, or drink, or how fast they can drive their own cars, or what kind of toilets they can have, or what kind of light bulbs they can use (I am waiting for my dining room to be ventilated after dropping a CFL bulb, the last that will ever be allowed in my home) or what is acceptable speech or what symbols they can place in their front yards or to what extent they can practice their religion.

      But to limit who can have weapons of mass destruction which can kill millions and poison the planet, because they have talked at length about what they would like to do with such weapons? Hey, to Freddy, this is unreasonable.

      But we have to stop and consider the fact that Freddy also tries to establish his creds by speaking in an invented language which is allegedly that of demons. That kind of puts all of his nonsense into perspective, doesn’t it? Lives in Hell, screws men and women and the undecided and indeterminate, “works” for an invented “newspaper” in a fantasy world, and speaks a pretend language.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 10, 2013 / 7:31 am


        I’m not ignoring anything that Iran has done or is planning to do but you are ignoring history. In America’s blind drive to get where it thought it would be in 2013 the American government overthrew m any governments. It is very likely you were alive when the US CIA overthrew the Mossadegh government in 1953 over the product of oil. This was okay because America wanted an ally in the region to fight communism and access to the petroleum riches in Persia. The return of the corrupt Pahlavis was the cause of the Iranian revolution just as America’s support for Bin Laden was the eventual cause of 9/11. None of that matters to you as a modern far right conservative you simply choose to ignore all of this history and fact because it doesn’t fit neatly into what your fathers thought the world would be today.

        Ahmadinejad is no longer the President of Iran and I do not believe the ultimate goal of the Shi’a Iranian government is anymore unreasonable than the ideals held in the minds of religious Americans that they need an Israeli state to exist so that they can be raptured. Both are ridiculous and irrational notions especially when you consider that I am a Jew. My question is what happens to my people if your people are the “chosen ones?” The triumph of Christianity? The triumph of Islam? Why not the triumph of defeating poverty? Of defeating illness? Of defeating war with a triumph of Peace?

        Mental patients can get guns in most places in the United States. This is one of the things that actually does make me angry about the state of my former country. I have to go back to the creeping fear that lies in the minds of the children of those men who could not stand a world that had men like Mossadegh and Allende in power and let’s not even mention Castro or this comment will get far to detailed for you to tolerate ideologically. You see communist and socialist aren’t slurs to me and never will be. I honestly do believe that America would be a better country if you solved problems with diplomacy and language vice shooting someone in the head even if that someone is your ex wife kids and dogs.

        Laws are made, they should be made to better Society as a whole not to reinforce the beliefs of the majority. Those outside the majority have rights as well. You want guns to hunt? Fine You want guns to kill innocent people and steal from those who have more than you? Not so fine. I have no idea why guns are so important to Americans simply because a document says you can bear them. But, whatever, keep your guns and keep killing each other off because of divorce, or drugs or stupidity or the moral decay of inhumanity that creeps in to your mind when you realize you’ll never rise to be a second class citizen in a first class nation. Yes, I would take your guns away. Lucky for you I don’t make the rules. Yet.

        So what makes your rights, sovereign, to have an arsenal or firearms any different from another nation wishing to have weapons either offensive or defense to protect their own national interests? Would you be keen on the idea of the Swiss determining that gun violence is a threat to global commerce and thereby demanding that China, France, England and Russia sit down with a delegation of American diplomats to figure out how to disarm the American people? Oh and let’s just throw in the sanction that would cripple America—no more oil imports until the problem is resolved. I bet you’d be crying from the top of your barn for green energy solutions then.

        I get that someone like you is appalled by the facts of my own social life and that I am not “ashamed” of what I am. Sorry for your bad luck in that because you are simply one Human Being among seven plus billion and your opinion while it counts out to several decimal places has no bearing in power on how I live my life nor should it. I work for Liberal ideals of Peace and Freedom not the Conservative ideals of Control and the Power that can be accumulated from that Control. The language of my homeland? Really? Why do you care? Who I sleep with? Why do you care if not to want to use it as an archaic means by which to shame a currency that is losing value more and more among the two demographics that conservatives can never win back in your dwindling lifetime—the young and women. It is you Amazona not me that is living in a fantasy world one driven by religion and ideas that have long since been cast aside in the new digital technological age. Sit down and talk to an 18 year old from a place with more people in their suburbs than you have in your county and you’ll see what America has become while you worshipped Reagan’s method and knew nothing of his means. That conversation will wipe the scales from even your eyes if you can put aside your fear long enough to listen.

        As always I’ll sign off in Hellac:

        Profexus ut Liberj [Progress and Liberty]

        Puerje futurux [The children are the future]

        Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil! [May you never suffer!]

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 11:01 am

        Not a word of your blather contradicts the fact that you don’t care that Obama lied. You tried to drag Bush in, as usual, claiming that he also lied, but you are so deep in your delusions that you seemed oblivious to the fact that even if you were right, if Bush DID lie, you apply a different standard to his lies than you have to Obama’s. On one hand you claim you find it acceptable to have a politician lie if it is in the pursuit of something he has decided is in the best interest of the nation, and on the other you condemn another man for what you say is lying without consideration that if he HAD lied he did so because he thought it was necessary to do something in the best interests of the nation.

        I am sure your response is that Bush did not do what he did because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation, which would really only be adding another brick to your wall of delusionary belief—that you have the ability to discern the beliefs of someone you have never met.

        But what IS relevant to the original discussion is that you do not care if a man lies to gain what he wants. This is, actually, quite consistent with what you have shown us of the rest of your life, a life where fact and truth evidently have no value but which is built around a set of bizarre fantasies in which you have importance, stature and acceptance—-which you clearly do not have in the real world.

        So you do not consider the United States as your country any more, you consider yourself a resident (if not a native) of an imaginary country while living in and partaking of the benefits of the country you have mentally rejected, you hold an imaginary position on an imaginary newspaper in your imaginary country, you speak in an invented language known only to the few fellow delusionists with whom you share your residence in your imaginary world, and you find yourself compelled to deluge us with your mental droppings as if there is the slightest reason to find them any more sane or lucid than the rest of your life. The more I read of your ramblings, opinions and conclusions the more I wonder if you are not writing from the safety of an institution, or at least I hope you are, as it is rather disconcerting to think of someone so deeply vested in the bizarre fantasy world you show us in your posts also walking among us, perhaps accompanied by invisible disciples and preaching to the masses about what has been “revealed” to you.

        You would be merely as sad and pathetic figure if it were not for the steady current of irrational hatred that runs through your posts, defines your posts as clearly as does your insanity, and seems to define you. I had thought of this deep-seated anger, hatred and resentment of others as hallmarks of the political system you seem to support (thought I doubt that you understand it or actually prefer it as a system of government, instead being drawn to its validation of personality disorders) but I have come to realize that even aside from the political system you defend they are such defining characteristics of you as a person that they have caused a break from reality, and a retreat into a fantasy world where you are OK.

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 11:26 am

        One grounded in reality, and not hiding from it in fantasyland, would realize that the Liberal political model which you appear to support is one based on control of others, and the Conservative political model is one which is based on no control at all but merely basic protection under the law so people can pursue their own goals and dreams and lives.

        It is Liberalism/Progressivism that has, in the short time it has had any power in this nation, brought about an oppressive and punitive income tax, controls over what people can say, restrictions of freedom of religion, a Thought Police state in which an attributed motive for a crime can be determined and applied adding to the original crime an entirely new and subjective offense, restrictions on private activities such as what kind of light bulbs people can use, what kind of toilets they can flush, how large their soft drinks can be, how much salt they can have on restaurant meals, how fast they can drive, how much they can drink before they drive, and so on. It is the Liberal/Progressive model that wants to, on one hand, not let people do what they want to do, and on the other forces them to do things they do not want to do——-support people who do not choose to take care of themselves, buy products they do not want or need, enter into contracts against their will and punish them if they do not, as some examples.

        The mindless, the easily led, may buy into the silly mantra that conservatism is about control, but to do this they have to set aside the truth, and what is obvious to anyone intelligent enough and curious enough to examine facts. To do this, they have to also set aside the definition of “conservative” and replace it with a fantasy definition, based upon negative assumptions and stereotypes.

        As you have been posturing as a student of history, why don’t you take a close look at the Constitution of the United States, and the subsequent Bill of Rights, which are the foundation of the conservative movement. Why don’t you go through the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, and tell us which of those imposes control over the population. Why don’t you examine the Bill of Rights and tell us just how any of these 10 amendments are based on control of others.

        Then you can examine the other 17 amendments and tell us which of those are based on the goal of control of others, and go a little deeper if you find any to see which political movement sponsored and supported any of those you find onerous.

        Do I think you will do any of this? Not for a moment. I think you are so deeply invested in an elaborate series of delusions and fantasies, which have formed the structure of an existence which makes you feel significant, validated and perhaps even important, that you will never do a single thing which might put a chink in that armor of delusion which forms your entire identity. Even what you tell us is your name has to be bolstered with an array of invented titles and credentials, in a sad and pathetic effort to make you look important. There is no way you are going to let facts penetrate that shield of pretense that is now your identity.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 10, 2013 / 1:59 pm

        Amazona I thought we were discussing Iran’s nuclear program not me or my personal life.

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 3:06 pm

        I am merely pointing out the absurdity of taking seriously anything said by a person who has chosen a pretend country in which to live, who has invented a pretend job with a pretend company in this pretend nation, who feels the need to tack a list of pretend credentials onto what is probably a pretend identity, and who likes to pretend to speak a pretend language.

        The additional fact of your being a non-gender-specific person who has talked about being totally indiscriminate in sexual relations when it comes to gender or gender identity merely adds to the overall portrait of a seriously disturbed, seriously delusional, person. Which then leads to the obvious conclusion that what you say is equally unrelated to reality.

        But do get back to us with your analysis of how adherence to the Constitution equals control over the lives of people while allegiance to Leftism promotes individual liberty.

  4. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 10, 2013 / 2:06 pm

    Amazona I feel deeply about America. I want people to be free to live as they wish. I don’t think your view of what America should be will win out in the near or far future. While I don’t believe you are a racist you are making the same arguments those who were against the civil rights movement fifty years ago.

    • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 3:01 pm

      Well, you are a confused little bunny, aren’t you? In just a few words you have managed to say you care deeply about a country you have rejected in favor of a pretend place you call Hell, you say you want people to live freely as they wish while you support a political system that is predicated upon the government taking away that freedom in favor of imposing government control over them, you say you don’t think my view of what America should be will win out yet you have no idea of what that view is, and then you drag in the old slavery/civil rights crap the RRL tries to conflate with anything the Right tries to say.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 10, 2013 / 6:42 pm

        Amazona I understand your political beliefs fully you want America to live by the tenets of the Constitution as you understand it.

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 9:05 pm

        If you understand it differently, explain.

        If you disagree, explain.

        But do not hide behind the ridiculous canard that believing in the principles of government codified in our Constitution is in any way a defense of slavery or of denying equal rights to people of color.

        And do not pretend that the structure of this nation’s government, as designed by the Founders, is one that gives control over the lives of citizens to the federal government, much less that the structure of the Leftist model you promote is designed to increase personal liberty.

        Even you ought to be able to understand that the Founders, after risking their lives and their fortunes to rebel against a government based upon a Central Authority—-the monarchy of England—made it their highest priority to design a form of government which guaranteed, as long as it was followed, that our own federal government could never achieve more power than that specifically delegated to it in the enumerated duties of the Constitution.

        They then backed that up, in a belt-and-suspenders approach, by writing the Bill of Rights, ending with the 10th Amendment. Just to make sure, they made a point of saying that if something is not specifically delegated to the federal government, it is forbidden to the federal government, and is the responsibility of the states, or the People, unless it is forbidden by the Constitution, in which case it is simply not allowed at all.

        When we followed the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, we moved from being a ragtag collection of disorganized communities to being a powerhouse of economic progress and a beacon of individual liberty, leapfrogging over older and more established governments all over the world. It was only when those original principles were attacked, eroded and compromised that we started to disintegrate into the death spiral of increasing Liberalism that is beginning to define a once-great nation.

      • Amazona November 10, 2013 / 9:15 pm

        Do you want to hear something really funny?

        You, a person of indeterminate sexual gender and orientation, who lives an elaborate fantasy life complete with its own history and language, whose lifestyle is aberrant compared to most of the others in the world, would still be a conservative if you believed that we should govern the nation according to our Constitution.

        You could be a lesbian Wiccan, a cross dresser, a transgendered PETA officer, and still be a conservative, if your political philosophy happened to be that we should run our nation according to the principles upon which it was founded and the laws which are supposed to govern it.

        This is what you, and most people, simply do not get. You are so hung up on defining political philosophy by non-political standards that when it comes to defining an actual political point of view you are bumfuddled, and incapable of understanding that it is about government, only about government, and about nothing BUT government.

        Political demagogues have cluttered the terms that once defined actual political philosophy with various social, personal, religious and cultural beliefs and characteristics, which serves only to make it easier to manipulate people through their emotions.

        And it has worked. You define “conservative” in totally apolitical terms, and you have said that you think Progressives are all about moving forward when Progressivism as a political model is entirely dependent on moving backward into an always-failed kind of system. If you are that easily misled, you are hopeless.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 11, 2013 / 11:58 am

        Where in your Constitution does it say that I must be ashamed, denigrated or hide my sexuality for the comfort of those who disagree with how I was formed by G-d?

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 1:45 pm

        Freddy, take a breath and calm down. My goodness, you are a frantic little thing, aren’t you?

        The Constitution doesn’t say you MUST be treated any way, other than as a free person with the freedom to live as you wish as long as it is within the protections provided. Surely you are not claiming that anyone says the Constitution mandates that you be insulted. Nor does it mandate that anyone else has to find your choices acceptable.

        You whine that you were made the way you are by God. Well, I disagree. A person can be born with a tendency to become angry quickly but how he deals with his inborn traits is how his character is defined. By your standard, anything can be excused as merely being “made that way by God”—–theft, animal cruelty, murder, it’s all because of some inborn trait beyond one’s control. Millions of men find lots of women attractive, but not all of them betray their marriage vows and act on their impulses. Millions of people would like to have something that is owned by someone else, but not all of them steal. Millions of men are born with no attraction to women and sexual attraction to men, but who do not live lives of wanton sexual activity with any orifice that wanders by.

        You are not judged, when you are judged, on how you were made, but on what you do. And no, I do not buy into a claim that God made you a person who will screw a woodpile on the chance there might be a snake in it. You DECIDED to be self-indulgent and indiscriminate. And my personal belief is that someone whose personal life is the chaotic, undisciplined, mess you have described, ruled by sexual urges, is not someone I would respect or trust.

        And that’s not even taking into account the pretend identity with the pretend credentials and the pretend citizenship of a pretend place with a pretend language, or the pretend position with a pretend business.

        But my reaction to all of this is my own, and is not mandated by any law or rule. I understand the basic rules of society and I understand that if I make the choice to ignore them, or flout them, people will see me a certain way, whereas if I try to function as a productive part of that society I will be seen differently. What I choose, and why, is a personal decision, but it is MY decision, and it sometimes requires discipline and effort. But I take responsibility for my choices, and my actions, and if I make a choice that offends others it is still my choice, not something that just happened to me because God made me that way.

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2013 / 2:19 pm

        Our liberals claim that all they wish is to be able to live their lives – but the truth of the matter is that what they want is the fawning approval of those they hate, and they’ll go about oppressing them at every opportunity if said approval is not forthcoming. What does it matter to, say, a gay couple if one, small bakery declines to bake them a “wedding” cake because the owners have a religious objection? There are almost certainly other bakeries in the area which would happily bake the cake…heck, maybe even feel proud of themselves they baked the cake! But, no, our liberals won’t leave it at that – they then go after the bakery and not only take them in to court, but launch a vicious social-media campaign to try and hound the bakery out of business. They hate the fact that a Christian might object but they desperately crave the approval of the Christian…its a bizarre, twisted thing (and, also, very revealing about their psychological state of mind).

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 2:46 pm

        Good analysis, Mark.

        It also goes to the fuss about gay “marriage”. On one hand we are told that being homosexual is fine, good, wonderful, special, and on the other that it has to be defined the same way heterosexual relationships are.

        The hysteria about the use of the word “marriage” is just proof that gay people are really NOT comfortable with who they are, or how they live, and are desperate to find words that will allow them to pretend they are something else.

        I have never understood why gay couples, who are so proud of their orientation and their status, have not come up with a gay equivalent to word “marriage”, equal in every way as they claim they are and want to be, but separate in one special way, as they are. A special word especially for that special relationship.

        The fuss is partly due to the demagogic efforts of the always-alert Left, which is constantly on the prowl looking for something, anything at all, they can use to further divide Americans into conflicting camps. But it also reflects the internal conflicts of so many gay people and their desire to pass to some degree as straight, by adopting the nomenclature of straight relationships. I have seen interviews with gay people who hate the whole “gay marriage” thing for that reason—they are not ashamed of being gay, and don’t feel the need to imitate other kinds of relationships.

        I thought of this the other night, watching an episode of “Modern Family”, in which the gay couple had to deal with the inclination of their families to assign male and female roles to the two men. But this is what happens when a couple is MARRIED—marriage has always been defined as consisting of a husband and a wife. It is ridiculous to try to assign a word with this kind of historical and accepted meaning to a relationship in which there can’t reasonably be that kind of description of the partners.. But the rather pathetic efforts of some gay couples to graft a socially acceptable word onto their relationships, to imitate other relationships, illustrates the kind of internal conflict you describe.

      • M. Noonan November 12, 2013 / 12:01 am

        It often comes down to “I want what I want”…and consistency is not required (indeed, any demand for consistency gets the left angry – they point out, correctly, that a “white students union” would be racist, but insist that the “black student union” isn’t).

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2013 / 6:58 pm

        I usually don’t reply to those from the land of make-believe.

        “Where in your Constitution does it say that I must be ashamed, denigrated or hide my sexuality…”

        It doesn’t. But, it more like a personal choice due to personal feelings of inadequacy and shame, since they know their behavior is unnatural. Amazona nailed it.

      • Amazona November 12, 2013 / 9:57 am

        I don’t usually reply to them, either. But you have to admit it is kind of fun when “them” is really just one “it”. According to a recent moderator note, “Frederick” is also “Diane”. And I had already noted the same words and themes in “Frederick’s” posts that had recurred in posts by the old Major Pain, who at least has the honesty to admit to its multiple identity crisis by referring to “we, ourselves” (though capitalized, to show how very very special We, Ourselves, is/are)

        There is a reason I once posted this video as an example of the Pain and its imaginary cohorts in its imaginary land, where they have imaginary jobs on an imaginary newspaper and speak an imaginary language, and where their allegedly political views are as well grounded in fact or reality as the rest of its life/lives.

  5. Amazona November 10, 2013 / 9:39 pm

    “I want people to be free to live as they wish.”

    Does this mean I can sell, or buy, raw milk because I think it tastes better, or is more nutritious?
    Does this mean I can choose and buy an insurance plan that fits my analysis of my own needs?
    Does this mean I can follow all the tenets of my chosen religious faith, including not paying for things that my faith forbids, such as abortion or birth control, or that I can mark the site of an accident which took the life of a loved one with a cross?
    Does this mean I can buy and use incandescent light bulbs because I dislike the light emitted by florescent bulbs and have concerns about mercury getting into the soil and water table from discarded CFLs?
    Does this mean I can put a wood burning fireplace in my new house?
    Does this mean I can drive at the speed I have determined is safe for me and my vehicle and the roadway?
    Does this mean I can own guns and ammunition with no interference from the government?
    Does this mean my child can wear a T shirt to school that has an NRA emblem on it, or a cross, or a political sentiment?
    Does this mean if I travel abroad and find a medication that works for my condition, I can bring it into this country and use it?
    Does this mean I can buy a car in another country and import it and drive it here?
    Does this mean I can decide who to hire or not hire?
    Does this mean I can name a sports team what I want to?
    Does this mean I can determine my own charitable contributions instead of having my money confiscated and then redistributed in ways with which I do not agree?
    Does this mean I can publicly support the Constitution of my own country without being labeled by its Ruling Elite as a terrorist, an extremist, or a danger to others?
    Does this mean my communications are my own, private, and not intercepted by government officials?
    Does this mean how I am treated by government agencies will not depend on my political affiliation?
    Does this mean that consideration for a job, a college entrance, or any other application will be made purely on merit and my qualifications and not on race or gender or other protected status?

    This is only a partial list of freedoms I would like to have, freedoms which have been taken away by a Central Authority. And when I examine the 17 delegated duties of our federal government, I do not see any of these restrictions upon my personal liberty stated or delegated.

    On the contrary, each and every one of these restrictions on personal liberty has been promoted and implemented by a political system which is dependent on a Central Authority which has no restrictions on its size, scope or power.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 11, 2013 / 10:43 am

      On the questions yoi have raised I have answers:

      Raw milk go for it I have been a supporter of raw milk for sone time and think the seizure of dairy farms by government agents is a crime.

      You still have the right and the power to buy whatever kind of insurance you wish.

      No federal funds are being used to pay for abortions see the Hyde amendment. As far as birth control goes I doubt if the fraction of your taxes that goes toward federal grants to supply it amounts to a sum you could physically hold in your hand. Keep in mind citizens don’t have a line item veto on what is done with their tax money save for the ballot box. As far as the accident cross goes it’s up to local jurisdictions to determine the legality of such memorials.

      On speed limits you can drive as fast as you want if you are willing to pay the ticket. Driving is a privilege regulated by the states not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

      As you state it about guns no. I’m sorry Amazona I do not think you or anyone else in America should be able to have guns with no federal restrictions.

      The kid with the NRA t shirt is a local matter.

      Medication from abroad is an import and the government does have a right to inspect imports. The problem here is America is a rich nation with the ability to pay Big Pharma’s R & D bill.

      You can import a car as long as it meets US crash test standards.

      You can name a sports team anything you like but federal law has nothing to do with public outrage.

      Take the next one up with the charity board of governors.

      How you define supporting the document cannot determine how others view that support. Negative argument.

      IRS “scandal” and affirmative action? What no Benghazi!!!!!!!

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 12:59 pm

        Federal interference says I can’t buy raw milk, I can’t have an insurance plan that meets my specific needs, new insurance regs include having to pay for a plan that includes birth control, federal funds DO go to abortion providers and these funds are fungible, my state is not allowed to set its own speed limits without federal interference (though you are correct in stating that is not a federal duty), there are fewer and fewer “local” matters as the feds are taking over what used to be federal, if I am not selling the meds my cousin in France sends me then why should the feds get involved (and the bogey man of Big Pharma has nothing to do with it), if I am the one driving the car then whose business is it if it does not meet someone else’s standards and besides imports are not restricted solely on the grounds of Big Brother watching out for my safety, the claim of “public outrage” is bogus, the dodge about taking something up with a “charity board of governors” is stupid as I am talking about the FEDS confiscating my money to redistribute which means I have little left to discuss with any such private board and you know it, and general you have tried to skip over the admittedly partial list of personal liberties removed by our tyrannical federal government.

        Surely not even you, in the throes of your frantic denial, can pretend that Benghazi represented a dilution of my personal freedom. No,that was a completely different kind of corruption, made possible by a powerful and corrupt central authority which is not held accountable for its failures. Love the way you tried to dismiss the federal use/abuse of a federal agency to limit the free speech of citizens, though. So darling, so predictable.

        Sorry, Freddy, but it is your own beloved Libs who have instituted these invasions of privacy, intrusions into personal decisions, interference in private contracts, attacks on state sovereignty, and assumption of federal control over things never assigned to the federal government.

        I asked: “Does this mean I can publicly support the Constitution of my own country without being labeled by its Ruling Elite as a terrorist, an extremist, or a danger to others?” and you replied that “How you define supporting the document cannot determine how others view that support. Negative argument.” I take that to mean that in your mind, if my definition of supporting the Constitution is not the same as yours, then I have no right to free assembly or political freedom of speech without retribution from the government.

        That’s pretty much what I expect from a Big Central Authority kind of guy, but thanks for making an actual statement to that effect.

        You Libs may try to duck and dodge questions about your political philosophy, but I have learned that if the dialogue goes on long enough, these beliefs surface, as yours just did. You clearly believe that the government has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong, to overrule the wishes of the people, and to impose restrictions on what they do, what they say, and hopefully how they think.

        That is, if this government is the one you like. I am sure you did not feel this way in 2000-2008.

        And I notice you have not explained how YOU view the Constitution, or what you think it means, or its role in the governance of this nation.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 11, 2013 / 3:52 pm

        I view the Constitution this way. It is a document of powers. It enumerates the powers of the federal government as those 18th century minds saw fit to assure the government maintained the status quo of those enfranchised as citizens.

        Fast forward to the Modern Era keeping in mind judicial review, executive order and the living nature of the document and I still feel that America’s unique document of governance is being followed and when it is not there is a path to address unconstitutionality.

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 6:06 pm

        Well, your view of the Constitution is highly subjective and not supported by objective fact or analysis.

        The original Constitution was a document of duties assigned to the central authority, the federal government. It laid out what the government MUST do. These duties include things like national defense and international diplomacy.

        It was quickly followed by the Bill of Rights, which laid out what the central authority, the federal government, CANNOT do. It cannot establish a state religion, it cannot force people to allow soldiers to live in their homes, it cannot interfere with free speech, it cannot abridge the right to own and bear arms.

        Not a word of any of this has, or had, the slightest thing to do with maintaining the status quo of enfranchised citizens. My goodness, where do you GET this crap you spout?

        Following the Bill of Rights, the Constitution worked as it should, being amended to explain specific Constitutional rights or protections. But these amendments expanded those rights and protections, for the most part. Prohibition did not do this, but its repeal did. Changing the way we elect Senators did not, nor did the 16th amendment which allowed taxation on income.

        Your so-called “Modern Era” is really a move backward toward an all-powerful Central Authority, which in the days the Constitution was written was called a monarchy. It was later, under the kind of government you seem to espouse, called a dictatorship. But in any case it has been a move backwards, to a Ruling Elite, no matter what you call it at any time in history.

        You gloat over Executive Orders, which are really just steps backward toward a “modern” monarchy, as they impose the will of one person over that of the people. And you call this “progress”. You are smug about judicial review, which is the imposition of the will of five unelected political appointees over the will of the people. And you call subversion of our rule of law merely examples of the odd belief that that rule of law was never intended to be a contract between government and the people, binding on all parties, but just a kind of floppy, formless, infinitely mutable “living document”.

        As Spook has so often said, I’d like to see your reaction to a sales contract which is identified as a “living document” that can be changed at will. You would not even play poker if the rules were not codified, but were subject to change as the game progressed, and according to who might benefit from a change.

        No, the blather about an outdated Constitution and a “living document” is what the intellectually lazy throw out to try to hide the fact that they are both ignorant and too indolent to even learn what they are talking about.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2013 / 7:07 pm

        “Fast forward to the Modern Era keeping in mind judicial review, executive order and the living nature of the document…”

        Wow, all mechanisms bastardized by the left to circumvent the Constitution.

        Judicial review was intended to validate or not the Constitutionality of a law and not rewrite it from the bench (obamacare’s fine rewritten as a tax).

        The Constitution as a living document is completely false and shows the ignorance of the left and is used by the left to again circumvent the Constitution without amending it.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 11, 2013 / 3:58 pm

      Amazona you were the one who used the word aberrant. But it’s nothing new to have Americans who call themselves conservative to vent their spleens on blogs. All Progressives want is for Conservatives to speak and speak loud and often. Your worldview was outdated 25 years ago. It just took a new generation to grow up and see it our way. The game’s over lady and your side lost.

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 5:50 pm

        So all you have is more blah blah blah blah blah.

        You want venting of spleen? Check out the Lib commentary on radio, television, and blogs. The level of vitriol is astounding, but then it is negativity that is the foundation of what passes for political philosophy in those who support the Left.

        You don’t have any idea of what my “worldview” is much less how it supposedly became “outdated two and a half decades ago.

        However, since you want to look in a rear view mirror, look at the history of Progressivism/Liberalism. You sneer that the principles of government laid out in our Constitution are “outdated” and not relevant any more, yet you promote a system that is old, tired, and which has never succeeded when fully implemented. Even when it has been partially put in place, it has failed.

        It is really funny to see you falling back on that tired old “it takes younger people to see things clearly…” whine. This is a meme that is constantly repeated, as young people think they have invented something new and exciting, something they can think of as “PROGRESSIVE” and which is supposed to leave the old ways behind. I’ve been there. I’ll bet most of us have been. There is nothing so arrogant as a new generation convinced that knowledge and wisdom were just waiting for them to arrive, and every new generation thinks it is the brightest, smartest, most innovative, most creative, most competent.

        But it’s a belief that depends on ignorance. In your case, ignorance of history. Couple that ignorance with arrogance and your innate hostility looking for a target, and you have a newly minted Lefty.

        So you can preen about the amazing accomplishment of simply having fewer years on the planet, as you have done in other personas as well, as if immaturity is an achievement. But don’t expect to impress anyone who has seen this kind of smugness dissipate as it is introduced to experience and reality..

        You simply cannot tell me why the principles of governance set forth in our Constitution are outdated, no longer relevant, or do not apply to today’s world. And you for damned sure can’t tell me why or how collectivism is a better system, where it has resulted in a better way of life or economic prosperity or individual liberty.

        You have made it clear that you realize this, which is why you won’t even try, simply falling back on ageist bigotry and worn-out platitudes. I know that part of this is the fact that the system you support by attacking its opposition is simply indefensible, but I also know that part of it is that you don’t HAVE allegiance to the political system but are merely indulging in knee-jerk emotion-based hostility to a poorly understood and mostly invented Other.

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        Aberrant: Deviating from the proper or expected course.

        Unless you are going to argue that being of indeterminate gender or sexual orientation, ready to hump anyone of any gender or identity who is not moving fast enough to get away or be screwed by anyone desperate enough to want to IS the “proper or expected course” of human sexual behavior, I’d say the word is quite accurate.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2013 / 7:13 pm

        “All Progressives want is for Conservatives to speak and speak loud and often. Your worldview was outdated 25 years ago.”

        Sure they do… Just as long as it is approved speech by the pRegressives.

      • Amazona November 11, 2013 / 7:46 pm

        Pregressives…….I like that. Mind if I use it?

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 11, 2013 / 4:01 pm

      Okay Mark then if an auto shop refused to service your car because you are Catholic, something wholly different from gender identity, you’d simply go elsewhere?

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2013 / 11:59 pm

        Of course; its not for me to argue with someone over their own decisions in life. I’m certainly not going to butt in where I’m not wanted. People do have rights – including the right to be bigoted, perverse and stupid.

  6. dbschmidt November 12, 2013 / 11:07 pm

    Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] has to be one of the most ill-informed person(s) I have had the pleasure of trampling through the minefield of misinformation spewed on this thread by a single? poster. The apex of the low-information voter.

    As a very simple example–this one in history–the painting of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware has several folks in his boat that are not taught about in schools to include people of color and women. But I am sure you knew that. Or that it was one of the Progressive idols–Pres. Woodrow Wilson who segregated the Federal workforce. I am sure you knew that also. How about the job taken by the first slave to earn his freedom? Why, he became a slave owner. But it was whitie, whitie, white crackers. Nope.

    Maybe you should actually learn something about the Constitution and history before you claim you know anything about it. First, and foremost, is that the Constitution was not intended to interpretation (aka. living document) unless you are speaking of the amendment process. We can also thank President Wilson for the change from Constitutional law to Case law, the Fed. and several other underpinnings of the destruction of the US.

    Try Hillsdale College — plenty of good information and free. All of it is already paid for by other people–just so you have an opportunity to actually learn something.

    • M. Noonan November 13, 2013 / 1:47 pm

      They don’t know much, do they? I think they are also unaware that when they get on their “we’re smarter than those Bitter Clinger types” high horse we’re usually laughing at them for their ignorance.

Comments are closed.