How Do You Want To Be Remembered?

Back in January, 2003, The BCS National Championship college football game was played between the undefeated and number 1 ranked Miami Hurricanes, riding a 34 game winning streak, and the also undefeated and 2nd ranked Ohio State Buckeyes. In one of the most exciting games in college football history, the 2-touchdown underdog Buckeyes won 31-24 in double overtime.  On the eve of the big game, an avid Buckeye fan wrote what he thought would be representative of the pre-game speech that Ohio State coach Jim Tressel would (or should) give and posted it on an Internet message board.  It took on a life of its own, and many people to this day believe it’s Tressel’s actual pre-game speech.  Regardless of the illegitimacy of the speech, it contained a memorable line that everyone, at some point in his life should ask himself: “how do you want to be remembered?”

Does anyone think Barack Obama has ever asked himself that question?  How will he be remembered?

Will he be remembered as the president who did more to advance the cause of racial harmony than any previous president?

Will he be remembered as the president who eliminated tedious and burdensome regulations, reined in the out-of-control bureaucrats at the EPA, lowered the corporate tax rate and unleashed the American entrepreneurial spirit to create a new era of prosperity for all?

Will he be remembered as the second coming of FDR, with numerous large public works projects funded by his trillion dollar stimulus?

Will he be remembered, as so many had hoped, as the President who ushered in a new era of world peace, gaining increased respect by both our allies and adversaries alike?

Will he be remembered as the president who achieved what every president since Carter has only talked about and put America on the path to energy independence, opening up federal lands to energy exploration and approving the Keystone Pipeline?

Will he be remembered as the president who finally fulfilled the century-long progressive dream of providing comprehensive, affordable healthcare for everyone?

Will he be remembered as he promised, as the steward of the most transparent and honest administration in American history?

There are so many great things that he could be remembered for, but my guess is that, if historians are honest, the Obama era will go down as one of more missed opportunities than any president in modern times, perhaps than any president period.

 

 

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “How Do You Want To Be Remembered?

  1. bozo May 27, 2014 / 12:45 am

    I love Q & A’s!

    Will he be remembered as the president who did more to advance the cause of racial harmony than any previous president?

    Yep. You can’t fix racism without first dragging it out into the light of day. His election did that. His re-election showed how far we’ve come. But it’s really more about us as a nation than anything Obama can do personally.

    Will he be remembered as the president who eliminated tedious and burdensome regulations, reined in the out-of-control bureaucrats at the EPA, lowered the corporate tax rate and unleashed the American entrepreneurial spirit to create a new era of prosperity for all?

    I HOPE NOT! Removing burdensome regulations brought us the banking collapse and no end of predatory capitalist disasters. The EPA, a stupidly weak organization, is the only thing standing between clean rivers and coal ash sloughs. And they’re not doing a very good job of that. Lower corporate taxes have been great for the DOW, but wages…not so much “prosperity for all.” He wasn’t elected to do any of these things (I assume you are implying low corporate tax rate = prosperity for all).

    Will he be remembered as the second coming of FDR, with numerous large public works projects funded by his trillion dollar stimulus?

    Confusing. Do you not want this? Roads, bridges, power grids, sewage treatment, education, technology – you don’t want these funded?

    Will he be remembered, as so many had hoped, as the President who ushered in a new era of world peace, gaining increased respect by both our allies and adversaries alike?

    Politicians posture, but where the rubber meets the road:

    Remember the Syrian War to dismantle the largest stockpile of WMDs on planet earth? Sadly, there will be no ticker tape parade for a war won without firing a shot.

    Will he be remembered as the president who achieved what every president since Carter has only talked about and put America on the path to energy independence, opening up federal lands to energy exploration and approving the Keystone Pipeline?

    I hope not the pipeline, but yes, we produce more oil than we import. Keep up. It’s right there on teh Google machine. How anyone can claim Obozo is soft on oil production is amazing.

    The weird thing is that the pipeline y’all are so fond of won’t do a darn thing for us. It’s Canadian oil being shipped to a Texas enterprise zone for processing and shipment to the highest bidder, probably China. The oil isn’t coming from, or going to, us. You all cool with that?

    Will he be remembered as the president who finally fulfilled the century-long progressive dream of providing comprehensive, affordable healthcare for everyone?

    Yes, but it’s not his fault Republicans dubbed it “Obamacare.” It should have been called TeddiCare” as Kennedy championed it his whole life. It’s not there yet, but more private insurers have announced they’re joining the exchanges next year. Supply goes up, with honest disclosure of terms for equal policies, prices come down. Everyone can argue that their idea is better than the PPACA, but no one can reasonably argue that we’re not better off now than eight years ago. But you will anyway. “I know this guy who knows a girl who got screwed by bla bla bla.”

    Will he be remembered as he promised, as the steward of the most transparent and honest administration in American history?

    That’s a very low bar you’re setting there. He’s following “I did not trade arms with Iran,” “read my lips,” “I did not have sex with that woman,” and “let there be no doubt, Saddam has WMDs. – Woops, they’re not over here…heh, heh, heh.” Still LOVE that GW skit. Honest government, as Chomsky would say, is an oxymoron. Probably the one thing you might agree with him about.

    The main premise of this post, “Will Obama be remembered for achieving a totally Republican agenda,” is odd. Did anyone expect that?

    Let the tomatoes fly. I gotta get back to work.

    • Amazona May 27, 2014 / 7:16 am

      Wow. What a steaming pile of unicorn s**t. In a way, it was kind of charming to see that someone still believes in fantasyland. On the other, it’s alarming that fantasies are electing our president.

      Oh, well—-we see how bozo sees himself and the image of himself he wants to project to the world, and now we see what the voices in his head tell him. His voices and people like Chomsky. (No surprise there…..) I hope his giddy beliefs give him great pleasure.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:35 am

        Bozo is a good example of what you call the “unexamined liberal”. There are so many untruths, and misperceptions in his post that you have to wonder if it is intentional, or just willful ignorance. Let’s take a few of them:

        Syria – not only does Syria still possess chemical weapons, they are using them again on their citizens. And Obama’s weakness on this matter, emboldened Putin and allowed Putin to come off as the stronger statesman.

        Keystone and oil production – first of all, the vast majority of current domestic oil production is being done on private lands in ND, MT, OK and TX. with no credit to Obama. There have been recent discoveries of huge shale oil, and natural gas reserves right here in the US and Canada that equal that of Saudia Arabia. With these findings, we could turn our economy around almost over night if we had a proactive President who understood how a joint venture with private business could create for safe extraction, great paying jobs, and resurgence of American strength. Also, if Bozo at all considers himself an environmentalist, he would definitely want the Keystone oil to come through the US and fall under safe regulation. If it goes to China through Canada’s west corridor, the environment will suffer due to China’s lack of regulation.

        Taxes – There are so many loopholes and tax shelters for corporations now that it doesn’t even matter what the tax rate is – they all play games with it. We need tax reform badly, cut out the loopholes and shelters, lower the rate and actually make them pay it.

        Regulations – have increased ten fold under this regime, most of them senseless and very costly.

        Healthcare – I can easily argue that I am personally worse off than I was 8 years ago, and even after full implementation of the ACA it is projected that 20+ million people won’t have insurance, and those that do have insurance will have less providers to choose from. It’s debatable whether or not over all costs will come down, but if they do, it will be due to an inferior system, low reimbursement rates, and lack of access.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:50 am

        Speaking of willful ignorance. Below is recent comment from an unexamined liberal:

        Republican rule under the Bush administration is going down as an unmitigated failure in the history books. There’s simply no denying it: Iraq was folly, there were no WMD’s, and Bush left this country on the verge of a great depression. Those are historical facts.

        Not only was Iraq supported by Democrats at the time, the country was on the verge of becoming a beacon of light in the ME until the Democrats found that withdrawing their support and calling it a failure could win them an election. It was also Bill Clinton, and his CIA appointee George Tenet who convinced everyone that WMD’s existed based on credible intel that the French, Brits, and Germans also supported.

        The recession, which was isolated to the financial sectors and was way over hyped by Democrats, was brought about by irresponsible mortgage lending. A cause championed by Democrats and warned about by Bush on several occasions. It also needs to be noted that Democrats supported tax payer bail outs of those irresponsible lending institutions instead of allowing them to use bankruptcy laws.

      • Retired Spook May 27, 2014 / 9:01 am

        and even after full implementation of the ACA it is projected that 20+ million people won’t have insurance

        Actually, closer to 30 million for the foreseeable future. I guess we’ll see 5 to 10 years down the road. Government projections of future events and costs have proven, historically, to not be worth a bucket of warm spit.

      • watsonthethird May 27, 2014 / 1:58 pm

        Speaking of willful ignorance…

        Regulations – have increased ten fold under this regime, most of them senseless and very costly.

        Where did you pull this data nugget from, Cluster? According to the Congressional Research Service, which measures these things, you’re off by about an order of magnitude.

        Number of final rules published, as reported by GAO in its Federal Rules Database:

        2001-2004: 14,387
        2005-2008: 12,398
        2009-2012: 13,049

        Number of “major” final rules published:

        2001-2004: 234
        2005-2008: 266
        2009-2012: 330

        So even if you try to portray this data in the worst possible light for President Obama, you’re original statement is — what did you say? — full of untruths and misperceptions. It also makes me highly skeptical of your other statements.

        Also, your use of the word “regime” implies that you don’t think President Obama’s administration is legitimate. Can you expand on that?

      • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 5:35 pm

        Watty cherry picks data again…..

        Let’s see from the same report referenced:

        For it to be a MAJOR rule it has to result or is likely to result in:
        (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
        (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
        (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic and export markets. The term does not include any rule promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the amendments made by that Act.25

        So obame’s regulations has affected the economy (money diverted to comply with the regulations rather than on employment, infrastructure, expansion, etc):

        In just those four years, obame has diverted $33 BILLION OR MORE from the economy, not to mention adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, major increase in costs for consumers, industries, etc. etc.

        Yes, WILLFUL IGNORANCE, YOU display it again. Obame has affected the economy more than you are willing to admit.

        Or another look at CFR, here is a breakdown of the Code of Federal Regulations for the past decade:
        Year CFR Pages Pages Added
        2000 138,049
        2001 141,281 3,232
        2002 145,099 3,818
        2003 144,177 (922)
        2004 147,639 3,462
        2005 151,973 4,334
        2006 154,107 2,134
        2007 156,010 1,903
        2008 157,974 1,964
        2009 163,333 5,359
        2010 165,494 2,161
        2011 169,295 3,801
        2012 174,557 5,262
        2013 175,496 939

        Sort of puts a new perspective on it when you dig below the numbers.

      • watsonthethird May 27, 2014 / 6:20 pm

        Watty cherry picks data again…..

        Actually tired, I did include the number of major rules in my summary, but perhaps you didn’t get that far. I also included the link to the report so that you could examine where I got the data, as well as anything else in the report.

        But even if we look at the total number of pages published in the Federal Register as the barometer for how much regulation takes place in each administration (which I have linked to for the benefit of all readers), we see that the number of pages increased 7% in each of George W. Bush’s terms, and 10% during Barack Obama’s first term. (And by the way, basing your criteria solely on number of pages is not a good way to judge the amount of federal regulation, as explained in the CRS report I cited previously.)

        But to get back to my main point about Cluster: He said “Regulations – have increased ten fold under this regime, most of them senseless and very costly.” Aside his specious and unsubstantiated claim that most of them are “senseless and very costly,” to increase the number of pages in the Federal Register by ten times would result in a Federal Register consisting of about 1.75 million pages. Even judging by the data you cite, his claim is nothing more than BS.

        Sort of puts a new perspective on it when you dig below the numbers.

        Maybe you aren’t good at math, but a “ten fold increase” means taking the original number and multiplying it by 10, not increasing it by 10 percent.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 7:01 pm

        ….over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce. In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 
 None of these metrics are ideal measures of the growth of the regulatory state, but the available research suggests an “incredibly intense period of regulation” in the Obama years, Holtz-Eakin said.

        Watson, you really scored one for the home team in taking the “ten fold” comment literally and proving us all wrong. You are one hell of a useful idiot. Keep up the good work ass hat.

        Read more: http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/317485-regulation-nation-obama-expands-the-regulatory-state#ixzz32xZ9Dxql
        Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

      • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 6:29 pm

        “I did include the number of major rules in my summary,…”

        Duh, you listed the number AND NOT THEIR MEANING. As I said, when you dig down below the meaning it puts a whole new perspective on what you are trying to say. It shows that attempting to trivialize numbers is more important to you than the actual meaning behind them. Just like obame’s “unemployment” numbers. The attempt to portray unemployment at a low, does not look at the fact that more people have been forced to leave the workforce and have given up looking for work and subsequently are not counted in the overall calculus.

        Again, willful ignorance of the leftist looters, moochers and drones is in many forms.

        Nice try……

      • watsonthethird May 27, 2014 / 7:33 pm

        Watson, you really scored one for the home team in taking the “ten fold” comment literally and proving us all wrong. You are one hell of a useful idiot. Keep up the good work ass hat.

        It just goes to your mendacity, Cluster. You rattle off statistics like this without a second thought, as though they are obviously true. Why should I believe that anything else you said is more factual, given how easily it was to refute this claim. While I have many issues with Matt and Mark’s book, at least they did provide their sources, and they didn’t inflate statistics.

        And by the way, I stand corrected. You exaggerated by two orders of magnitude. It’s rare to see someone get it that wrong. And when called on it, you revert to insulting me. How about a thanks for the correction.

        In addition, the article you quoted in response to my refuting your assertion includes this paragraph:

        To be sure, the explosive growth in federal rule-making did not begin with the Obama White House. The 13,000 rules finalized during the president’s first term, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), were slightly fewer than those published during former President George W. Bush’s first term.



        So your entire premise that President Obama has dramatically increased the regulatory environment as compared to his predecessors is simply not true, even by the sources you cite.

        Duh, you listed the number AND NOT THEIR MEANING.

        Tired, I didn’t think I would need to provide the meaning or major rules–especially someone has knowledgable as you. But I made it easy to look up because I provided you with the source that explained the meaning of major rules. You act as if I had something to hide.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:02 pm

        Real simple question Watson. Have regulations and costs increased or decreased under Obama? Knowing that your back on the site again, I will be sure to try not to offend your delicate sensitives and your obvious man love for the President.

      • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 7:54 pm

        Ecsuses watty excuses.

        “But I made it easy to look up because I provided you with the source that explained the meaning of major rules. You act as if I had something to hide.”

        You did hide them. You did not cite the rules in your post. You conveniently overlooked them. You simply skipped over details that made your pResident and his policies the worst influence on the economy, business and industry.

        Willful ignorance at its best and typical of the left.

        “So your entire premise that President Obama has dramatically increased the regulatory environment as compared to his predecessors is simply not true, even by the sources you cite.”

        Really? Not true? Placing $33 BILLION in additional regulations on the economy, not to mention the other NEGATIVE affects and costs to businesses and industry is, according to watty is not “dramatically increasing the regulatory environment”.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:37 pm

        The only thing people like Watson have left to argue are semantics. Their entire ideology is collapsing in front of their eyes, so they argue on semantics and throw in the race card every chance they get. They can not point to one constructive, positive result their ideological policies have brought about and the day is coming where they will have to admit that.

      • watsonthethird May 27, 2014 / 8:07 pm

        You did hide them. You did not cite the rules in your post. You conveniently overlooked them. You simply skipped over details that made your pResident and his policies the worst influence on the economy, business and industry.

        Actually, it was just the opposite. I cited the major rules in addition to the final rules because there was a greater percentage increase in major rules than final rules. If I was trying to hide something, I wouldn’t have mentioned the major rules at all. But again, it was no where near a ten-fold increase–which Cluster claimed–or even a one-fold increase. Why do you not question Cluster as to why he told such a whopper?

        As for hiding things, why is it that you use the number of pages in the Federal Register as the defining statistic without describing the limitations regarding the use of that statistic? That seems like a pretty big omission considering the standards you wish to apply to there. Since you seem to be hiding that information, I’ll help everyone else out.

        As noted above, the number of pages in the Federal Register may be only a rough approximation of regulatory activity each year for several reasons. First, the section of the Federal Register devoted to publishing final rules is relatively small, because the Federal Register documents other non-regulatory activities as well. For example, in 2011, approximately 32% of the total pages were in the “Rules and Regulations” section, which is where final rules are published. The other portions of the Federal Register are used for such items as presidential documents, proposed rules, notices, and corrections. Other than the proposed rules, these additional sections typically have little, if anything, to do with federal regulations. Over a thousand pages each year are blank pages or skips, which are designed to leave room for other materials and to maintain the integrity of the individual sections.

        Second, while the Federal Register provides a compilation of governmental activity that occurs each year, including new regulations that are issued, many of the final rules are amending rules that have been previously issued and therefore may not accurately be considered to be new rules.

        Third, when agencies publish proposed and final rules in the Federal Register, they include a preamble along with the text of the rule. The preamble often include such information as statements of the statutory authority for the rule; information and history which the agency deems to be relevant; a discussion of the comments received during the comment period; an explanation of the agency’s final decision; and in some cases, information about certain analyses that may have been required during the rulemaking process. It is possible, therefore, that the actual regulatory text provided in a rule could be relatively small compared to the size of the entire rulemaking document in the Federal Register. For example, a rule issued on January 25, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Affordable Care Act modifying Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and other regulations was 137 pages in total.47 Of the 137 pages, 121 pages comprised the preamble and 16 pages actually amended the Code of Federal Regulations. Much of the preamble discussed the comments received following the NPRM, as well as estimates of costs and benefits and a list of the associated information collections.

        Finally, the number of pages in the Federal Register may also not be an accurate reflection of the amount of regulatory burden that stems from a rule. For example, a short rule could impose a very large burden on a large number of regulated entities. On the other hand, a lengthy rule could contain less burdensome requirements but greater detail and only apply to a small number of entities. Because the preamble to the rule contains detailed information about the rule itself and the agency’s response to the comments it received, the number of pages of a particular rule in the Federal Register could be related to other factors such as a large number of comments received or an in-depth cost-benefit analysis completed by an agency.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:21 pm

        Watson, what is this childish game of parsing words? Who the F**K cares if it’s ten fold or five fold or one fold? We’re essentially arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. My ten fold line was a throw away. Your literal interpretation is mind numbingly stupid. The fact is, costs and regulations have increased under this president stifling the economy and jobs, and yet here you are arguing about the rate if increase as if it even f**king matters. Here’s a little more information for your childish mind to absorb:

        As long as the Obamacare statutes are, its implementing regulations are now five times its length. With the publication of two new regulations in the Federal Register on February 27, 2012, we calculate Obamacare regulations to contain 2,163,744 words compared to 425,116 words in the Obamacare statutes.

        You are a good reason why the majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. We don’t want people like you around.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:28 pm

        Here’s another lie by your President Watson from July 2011:

        “I’ve ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them,” the president said.

        I am giving you the same challenge I gave Mersault. Show us the regulations that Obama has fixed that has increased labor participation rate.

      • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 9:29 pm

        Watty presents:

        “Finally, the number of pages in the Federal Register may also not be an accurate reflection of the amount of regulatory burden that stems from a rule. For example, a short rule could impose a very large burden on a large number of regulated entities. On the other hand, a lengthy rule could contain less burdensome requirements but greater detail and only apply to a small number of entities.”

        without once believing the obvious can be true.

        “The number of pages in the Federal Register may be an accurate reflection of the amount of regulatory burden that stems from a rule. A short rule could impose a very large burden on a large number of regulated entities. Also, a lengthy rule could contain more burdensome requirements with greater costs to a larger number of entities.” (i know this is not what was stated – so don’t bring it up).

        Based on the number of MAJOR RULES imposed by obame, based on the definition of a MAJOR rules that I have listed (and watty conveniently ignored), and based on the halting of the “recovery” that obame claimed to have had, leaving us with a stagnant economy and pathetic economic growth, I would tend to believe the latter in this particular case.

        $33 BILLION in direct costs to enforce the regulations imposed by the ONE WHO WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR, not to mention the all the other costs regulations imposed, both direct and indirect, is not as trivial as watty tries to make it seem and cover up. Watty is so desperate to cling to some victory over an exaggeration made. I am sure he would not scoff at a tax cut “costing” $33 BILLION.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 2:20 am

        Watson, what is this childish game of parsing words? Who the F**K cares if it’s ten fold or five fold or one fold?

        Because it’s not ten fold or five fold or even one fold. It’s barely more than preceding presidents. Yet you make it out to be a “ten fold” increase without batting an eye. You’re just lying, making stuff up. Don’t lie and then I won’t care.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 7:06 am

        So I am assuming that you were unable to identify the regulations that Obama “fixed” to increase labor participation rate. I would think you would be more concerned with the Presidents actual lies, than some bloggers exaggerations, but “at this point, what difference does it make”? Right Watson?

      • tiredoflibbs May 28, 2014 / 9:15 am

        “I would think you would be more concerned with the Presidents actual lies…”

        Cluster, that would depend on many things:
        1) They believe the pResident is capable of lying.
        2) If they believe that he is capable of lying, would they even look for lies?
        3) When he lies, would they be willing to recognize it as one?
        4) Would they be willing to discuss the lies?

        Remember, to these drones, when pResident obame said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. Period.”, he did not lie.

        “I won’t sign the healthcare law if it contributes to the deficit” – not a lie.
        “Healthcare will lower the deficit” – not a lie.
        “Under my plan, the average American family will see a $2500 reduction in healthcare costs.” – not a lie.

        The list goes on and on. These drones will never, ever acknowledge a lie by this pResident. We have had Dennis come here and state that he will not criticize obame here under any circumstances. At least he had the guts to say so, not like drones like watty, cappy and the creepy clown.

    • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 1:02 pm

      The creepy a$$-clown “answers” are nothing more than propaganda regurgitated by the common Low-Information-Voter (LIV) of the left.

      We see the usual, Bush’s fault, deregulation, low corporate taxes, racism, etc. etc. mantra common to all LIVs. He and his ilk have been asked time and again to show us the “deregulation” that caused the lending industry induced recession. They have never responded with an answer, much less a coherent one.

      So, creepy, I will ask again. What Bush deregulation legislation caused the recession? Would it help that the last banking DEregulation legislation was signed by Bill Clinton? No, it won’t because creepy cannot look past the dumbed down stupidity he keeps regurgitating time and again.

      Another LIV myth, “lower corporate taxes”…. wow, where does he get his information? He must suffer from the “it’s on the internet, it must be true” syndrome.

      Unbelievable…. yet so pathetic.

      • bozo May 27, 2014 / 7:14 pm

        One of the really weird Bush initiatives that helped crash it all was THIS.

        But you’re right about Clinton. When Bill sat down and single-handedly wrote the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act of 1999 and then shoved it through by executive order, shutting out all debate by his veto-proof supermajority Republican House and Senate bla bla bla…I can’t justify Bill’s actions, though. He could have been tougher. He could have vainly vetoed it all. Very corporo-friendly, he was. He, like most truly powerful people, are – and will continue to be – very chummy with banksters.

        I’d be relieved to know if Republicans have express remorse over the GLB Act like Clinton, who now wimpily claims “the Republicans made me sign it.” Maybe I missed that Republican press release and they now regret the error they wrote.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 7:59 pm

        Bozo, how many times have we been over this issue? Yet you never seem to learn. Here is a brief synopsis:

        February 2003:The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

        September 2003: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

        September 2003: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration’s assessment, saying “these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

        There is nothing wrong with loosening some standards to make home loans available to lower income folks. Some risk is good. But when the problem was ignored, continued, and then “no doc” loans became the rage in 2005, and people bought more house than they should have – the house of cards came crumbling down, when folks stopped making mortgage payments.

      • bozo May 27, 2014 / 7:16 pm

        So I did my own Googling for “Republican remorse GLB Act” and Google returned this:

        The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services … by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by …
        Missing: remorse

        Ok then.

      • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 7:45 pm

        wow, creepy assclown, you give us another dose of proggy regurgitation of dumbed down talking points. You do realize:

        “When Bill sat down and single-handedly wrote the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act of 1999 and then shoved it through by executive order, shutting out all debate by his veto-proof supermajority Republican House and Senate bla bla bla…I can’t justify Bill’s actions, though. He could have been tougher. He could have vainly vetoed it all. Very corporo-friendly, he was. He, like most truly powerful people, are – and will continue to be – very chummy with banksters.”

        And yet, you still weasel about and blame Republicans even though you admit it was all Clinton from start to finish. Typical drone mentality.

        You do realize that lending practices have been modified and forced by the left with threats of racism. Institutions were forced to lend money to those who could not pay in the long run, those who were high risk and those who simply had a pulse. If they did not, they were threatened with accusations of racism, were not allowed to expand or merge with other institutions, etc. etc. It all started with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act – signed by Jimmy Carter. It was later expanded by guess who……Bill Clinton. This was the start of whole collapse. Lending money freely without the prerequisites of proof of income, 20% down payment (common to most mortgages) and making high risk loans with adjustable rates that can make payment very difficult when the principle payments became due. Suddenly, people found out that they could no longer afford to make the payments of their homes. The ease of acquiring mortgages, thanks to the federal government allowed homes’ values to skyrocket artificially. When the bottom fell out of the market, these banks were left holding worthless loans and undervalued homes.

        George Bush on the other hand wanted to REGULATE Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for their practices of securing loans with unregulated credit securities. He was STOPPED by the Democrats. The one piece of REGULATION LEGISLATION on two uncontrollable and unaccountable institutions that was surely needed was thwarted by Democrats.

        Imagine that. You and the Democrat looters in Congress push for regulations and when pet programs are threatened with REGULATION, they turn away with a blind eye.

        Nice try.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 2:55 am

        One of the really weird Bush initiatives that helped crash it all was THIS.

        Bozo, we’ve brought up the whole Bush “ownership society” and his initiatives to make home ownership easier before, but the conservatives here just act like it never happened. You can present the videos with the words coming out of GWB’s mouth. You can quote GWB’s own speeches, as archived at whitehouse.gov, but it doesn’t matter.

        That said, I do like the timing of when that youtube video was posted: September 24, 2008, the same day President Bush spoke to the nation about “a serious financial crisis.” “Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed,” he reported, going on to describe why it happened. Of course, nowadays conservatives look back on it as just a minor recession and not the financial collapse that even President Bush was forced to acknowledge.

        It seems pretty appropriate to look back at this in a thread entitled “How Do You Want To Be Remembered?”

      • Amazona May 28, 2014 / 12:30 pm

        BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, IT IS ALL BUSH’S FAULT! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

        Hmmmmmm—–I wonder when they will catch on to the fact that claiming that every single thing that happens in this country is the fault of someone who not only had a Democratic Congress for much of his presidency but who followed a Democrat (and inherited quite a mess, though he was too much of a man to whine about it) and who has not been president for more than five years, is really just trumpeting the fact that Obama is an inept, impotent fool, helpless to fix anything and merely swept along on the uncontrollable currents of history.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 12:55 pm

        Watty, cherry picks again, while ignoring once brought up facts. Home ownership drives did not start with Bush. Again, we go back to a Democrat, who expands on government.

        From the article you cited, tired (my emphasis added):

        President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

        What were me and bozo saying about Bush’s Ownership Society? And who controlled Congress for most of the Bush administration? Did you listen to the video bozo linked to, in which President Bush talked about how down payments were a barrier to home ownership and needed to be eased? The exact same practice this article criticizes President Clinton for doing?

        Anyway, thanks for proving our point. Maybe next time read the article before you link to it.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 1:37 pm

        When you run back to your little sewer and claim that you win every argument, please cite this as one of many arguments you have lost. And miserably.

        As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions taking on a certain amount of risk to avail low income people of home ownership is a good and noble thing, as Bush spoke of in 2002. When the risk ratio becomes too high, as it began to in 2003, sensible people take note. As Bush did when he began warning Congress in 2003, and then again in 2004, 2005 and 2006. It was the ranking member of the House Financial Services committee Barney Frank, along with many other Democrats that shrugged off those warnings and continue to push the GSE’s to encourage sub prime loans. In 2006, a product called “stated income” loans were introduced which were loans made available with no supporting documentation or verification needed. The ignored warnings, and stated income loans, were a recipe for disaster, and Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Jamie Gorelick, and Franklin Raines can almost take sole credit.

        Now run along.

      • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2014 / 12:56 pm

        I see watty.

        Bush continues something Clinton started. It fails after repeated attempts by Bush to regulate out of control government agencies responsible. Stopped by Democrats.. Proggy conclusion …. It’s Bush’s fault.

        Obama continues something Bush started. It fails. Proggy conclusion….. It’s Bush’s fault.

        The problem watty is that you don’t want to blame liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever they call themselves nowadays. You are so easy to figure out in this respect.

        Really pathetic.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 1:56 pm

        When you run back to your little sewer and claim that you win every argument, please cite this as one of many arguments you have lost. And miserably.

        Too funny. At least you are no longer making the absurd claim that President Obama increased regulations ten fold. Now you’re reduced to hoping I’ll do more research for you because you don’t have any more talking points. No dice, Cluster. If you want to prove a point, go find the data to prove it.

        As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions taking on a certain amount of risk to avail low income people of home ownership is a good and noble thing, as Bush spoke of in 2002. When the risk ratio becomes too high, as it began to in 2003, sensible people take note.

        Apparently, President Bush wasn’t one of them. On July 16, 2008, for example, he still claimed the economy was “fundamentally sound” even as it was collapsing beneath his feet:

        With three more financial outlets collapsing under the economical meltdown last week, queues of angry people outside banks with no access to their money, inflation at its highest rate for 27 years and scores of economists predicting a recession may tip into a full blown depression, president Bush reacted by declaring that the economy is still fundamentally sound.

        “I think the system basically is sound, I truly do,” Bush said. “And I understand there’s a lot of nervousness. . . . But the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It’s not as good as we’d like, but . . . to the extent that we find weakness, we’ll move.”

        As for continuing this thread, we all know what will happen. You will continue to demand answers to whatever questions pop into you head. You will continue to hurl insults. If you really want to continue, you can click on my name above this comment and comment there. I know you read every word we write there.

        I will also remind you that your pal, Spook, wrote this post in the hopes that people who disagree with him would respond. So we did.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 2:01 pm

        I have already posted the data on numerous occasions. I have posted the warnings from Bush on numerous occasions. Your ignorance of them is not my fault. This is a 5 year old argument – you lost it then, and you continue to lose it. Why you beat your head against the wall is beyond me.

        Oh and I read your blog from time to time, when I need a laugh. It’s a lot like watching the Melissa Harris Perry show on MSNBC.

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 2:09 pm

        I will also remind you that your pal, Spook, wrote this post in the hopes that people who disagree with him would respond. So we did.

        I merely posed some questions about things that either Obama probably hoped he would be remembered for or things that his supporters hoped he would be remembered for, so I’m not sure “disagree” would be the correct term, Watson. Besides, you just came here, as usual, to pick fly sh*t out of the pepper. Doesn’t that ever get tedious?

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 2:33 pm

        Spook, you wrote, “I wrote this in the hope that someone like Bozo would respond.” Would you consider Bozo to be someone you typically agree with? A few threads earlier you were more explicit in asking for “progressives” to respond.

        As for picking flesh*t out of the pepper, why is it that you never call out your pals, even gently, when they make up stuff out of thin air? You had a career in Naval Intelligence. You, of all people, should appreciate the need for accurate data and, um, intelligence when analyzing issues. Anyway, I realize that to you guys, I’m at fault for Cluster making up sh*t. Whatever.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 3:43 pm

        It’s Obama that makes sh*t up. Not exaggerations for effect, but actually lies right through his teeth. How come you Watson, never call him out? I would really like an answer to that one. But not expecting one.

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 2:52 pm

        As for picking flesh*t out of the pepper, why is it that you never call out your pals, even gently, when they make up stuff out of thin air?

        Cluster’s 10-fold comment was so inflated I kind of took it as hyperbole, not as a deliberate (or even non-deliberate/uninformed) misstatement of fact. But your MO has always been to come here and find a minor point that you can take issue with. I can’t even remember the last time you actually debated about something significant. I think Amazona has you pegged exactly right; you have no core values or principles that guide your life. I’m guessing, if you were ever put in a position of having to defend what you believe with your life, you’d be in a real pickle.

        And I was hoping someone like Bozo would respond because his response was illustrative of the loony irrationality of thought on the Left. I just wish there were some way I could post it on Billboards around the country for everyone to see.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 4:25 pm

        I kind of took it as hyperbole, not as a deliberate (or even non-deliberate/uninformed) misstatement of fact.

        You didn’t take that comment literally? You know I only wish people like Watson would take Obama’s comments literally. They might then realize what a liar he is.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 7:12 pm

        This is quite the revelation from Watson actually. Who knew he was such a stickler for “substantiated assertions”. I wonder back in 2008 when he voted for an inexperienced guy who promised to heal the planet and cause the oceans to recede, if he was voting for “substantiated assertions”? I mean we now know how important that is to him.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 5:35 pm

        Cluster’s 10-fold comment was so inflated I kind of took it as hyperbole, not as a deliberate (or even non-deliberate/uninformed) misstatement of fact. But your MO has always been to come here and find a minor point that you can take issue with. I can’t even remember the last time you actually debated about something significant. I think Amazona has you pegged exactly right; you have no core values or principles that guide your life. I’m guessing, if you were ever put in a position of having to defend what you believe with your life, you’d be in a real pickle.

        Yeah, Spook. This blog is so representative of what passes for actual debate. As for Cluster’s hyperbole, I think you’re wrong. He really meant it and only backed off when called on it. If you want to have a debate, it’s important to use facts and substantiate assertions. That’s why it’s worth pointing out examples of Cluster’s mendacity. It’s a pattern. But I guess it does speak to the topic of your post, which is how he wants to be remembered.

        Speaking of which, since you brought up the topic, how do you want to be remembered? Your MO is to pose these questions without every explicitly stating what you think about the topic.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 6:46 pm

        If you want to have a debate, it’s important to use facts and substantiate assertions.

        You should heed your own advice. You should also tell Obama to heed that advice. By the way, any comment on the Obama lies? Is that something you would like to address now, sometime in the future, or not at all – your choice. Also, any comment on Barney Frank’s Fannie Mae claims? Or Franklin Raines contribution? Anything at all? Or is that too best left unaddressed?

        Speaking of hyperbole – I am in a discussion about the outlandish claims of the global warming “scientists” dating back to 2007 with your buddy Rusty. It was predicted back then that by 2013, the Arctic summers would be ice free. Now in your opinion, is this hyperbole, or substantiated assertions? And even more, Obama claimed in 2011 that the average family would save $2,500 on healthcare insurance – was this hyperbole, or substantiated assertions? Obviously you deem yourself as the expert in this area, so I am just hoping to clear a few things up. I appreciate your help, and by the way, I think everyone knows how you will be remembered. And trust me, remembering you can’t come soon enough.

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 7:26 pm

        Speaking of which, since you brought up the topic, how do you want to be remembered?

        Pretty simple. I’d like to be remembered, by all who know me, as someone who was honest, worked hard, and shared generously what I have with others who are less fortunate. I’d like to be remembered as someone for whom the principles of honor and trust played an important role throughout my life.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 7:56 pm

        Pretty simple. I’d like to be remembered, by all who know me, as someone who was honest, worked hard, and shared generously what I have with others who are less fortunate. I’d like to be remembered as someone for whom the principles of honor and trust played an important role throughout my life.

        Not too different from me. My first thought was I’d like to be remembered as someone who did right by his family, friends and neighbors.

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 8:08 pm

        Not too different from me. My first thought was I’d like to be remembered as someone who did right by his family, friends and neighbors.

        And yet you support an ideology that will afford your family, friends and neighbors less freedom and less prosperity. Help me out here, Watson, because I don’t understand that.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 8:50 pm

        And yet you support an ideology that will afford your family, friends and neighbors less freedom and less prosperity. Help me out here, Watson, because I don’t understand that.

        Well, I just don’t see it that way, Spook. First, you don’t know anything about my actions with respect to my family, friends and neighbors, nor do I know about yours. And that’s as it should be, since we’re anonymous posters here.

        As far as supporting an ideology, you are referring to the fact that I have a more liberal political view than you do. I personally think it leads to more freedom, but the difference likely lies in what kinds of freedoms come to mind. I don’t think a gay person, for example, would find that your ideology leads to more freedom. On the other hand, I don’t think my next door neighbor should be able to operate a chemical factory in his backyard 24 hours a day. I guess you could say that’s less freedom for him, but it also means I’m free to actually enjoy my house as a home. 🙂 There will always be an inherent tension in things like that, don’t you think?

        I personally think we collectively, as a society, have a minimum obligation to all of our citizens. I believe that we should not throw our elderly to the gutter. I believe that we should make a basic level of health care available to all Americans, even the poor ones. I believe in a basic and reasonable safety net. I believe that certain projects or initiatives are best done by government for the betterment of society as a whole. I like having food inspectors. I like having roads and airports. I believe that education is so important that all American children should receive it for free. I believe that, to the extent that laws protect anyone, they should generally protect the powerless from the powerful, and not the other way around. I believe in paying taxes to support this stuff. I think most Americans agree with me that this isn’t some sort of radical ideology.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 10:38 pm

        Hyperbole or substantiated assertion? Hmmmmmmm, that’s a tough one.

        Spook, do you “like having roads and airports”? And have you thrown any elderly into the gutter recently?

      • M. Noonan May 28, 2014 / 10:39 pm

        You bring up straw men and then eagerly destroy them: no one wants chemical plants in neighborhood backyards, nor does anyone want to throw any poor person in the gutter. By putting up these straw men, you allow yourself – quite as much as the President – the ability to think that you are in the reasonable mainstream.

        We don’t want to know if you are opposed to chemical plants on Main Street – we want to know if you agree, or disagree, with the federal government conducting undercover sting operations against an Amish farmer for the “crime” of selling raw milk across State lines?

        We don’t want to know if you want health care for everyone – we want to know if you’re ok with VA bureaucrats deliberately fudging the wait-time numbers so that they can obtain bonuses? Are you additionally ok with the VA investigating itself on this matter, or would you prefer Congress or an Independent Counsel to look into it?

        Answer the actual questions. Delve into the actual issues. Look at things as they are – not as liberal propagandists pretend they are.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 10:59 pm

        Well, thank you, Mark.

        I don’t know anything about the undercover sting operations on Amish farms. Are the farms breaking the law?

        VA bureaucrats deliberately fudging the wait-time numbers so that they can obtain bonuses should be fired and prosecuted if they broke the law.

        The point of my post is that government, including the federal government, has a role to play in providing the things I described. I have absolutely no qualms about that. You dismiss these things as straw men and fail to address them in any meaningful way. I believe you when you say you don’t want to throw any poor person in the gutter, but you don’t say how. I also believe that many conservatives would never personally throw a poor person to the gutter, but they’re quite willing to do so indirectly. I made it pretty clear that government should play a role on behalf of society as a whole. Maybe you think charity will do the job, I don’t know, because you failed to address it.

        As for your examples of alleged abuse, any large organization, public or private, can abuse its power. Such abuses should be dealt with. You apparently think your friends, neighbors and relatives who work for the government are inherently evil; I don’t.

        Of course the chemical plant example is an exaggeration, but the point remains that individual freedoms can be conflict, which leads to things like, oh, rules and regulations.

        And finally, Mark and Cluster, why don’t you join Spook and me and tell us what how you want to be remembered.

      • M. Noonan May 28, 2014 / 11:36 pm

        There is no meaningful way to engage on your points – no one wants to build chemical plants in neighborhoods. For you to bring it up – or anything remotely like it – is to bring up a straw man which you claim we support so that you can destroy it and feel that you’ve bested us in debate.

        What I want to know is whether or not you think its ok for the federal government to do sting operations against Amish farmers who sell raw milk. Whether it is against the law or not is irrelevant – do you support such things happening?

        What I’d also like to know is not whether or not you want to support the poor – what I want to know is if you think it wise to have 20,000 bureaucrats siphoning off welfare money before it even gets to the poor?

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 11:20 pm

        I think most Americans agree with me that this isn’t some sort of radical ideology.

        I would agree. In fact, it isn’t an ideology at all, but it does explain a lot. On the one hand, you seem to assign opposition to all the things you support to Conservatives in general, while on the other hand, you seem to think that Obama supports all the things you listed. That’s so irrational and misguided on so many levels, I can’t begin to even wrap my head around it. It does appear, though, that you’re not easily disappointed, so I guess there’s that. I’m glad I’ll never be in a position to have your back, and vice-versa.

      • watsonthethird May 28, 2014 / 11:41 pm

        On the one hand, you seem to assign opposition to all the things you support to Conservatives in general, while on the other hand, you seem to think that Obama supports all the things you listed.

        No, I told you what I think. Not what I think Obama thinks. Not what conservatives think. Again, like Mark, no actual response to anything I said, just insults. Sorry if such a simple statement is so hard for you to wrap your head around. As for you having each other’s backs, I think you’ve made it pretty clear in the past that you’re prepared to shoot at people like me, so the idea of you having my back is rather laughable.

      • M. Noonan May 29, 2014 / 12:47 am

        Watson,

        You have yet to make a response or, indeed, a point. And we will all note – with great care – that you have refused time and time again to actually take a stand on an issue or provide your views on concrete matters of policy.

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 1:56 am

        What I want to know is whether or not you think its ok for the federal government to do sting operations against Amish farmers who sell raw milk. Whether it is against the law or not is irrelevant – do you support such things happening?

        Sorry, but the circumstances _are_ relevant to me. It sounds like a case of overreach that should be stopped, but I don’t know the details. Is the farmer selling raw milk to other states? Is there a law against that? (I think there is.) These details are kind of important, if you ask me.

        But what are you getting at? This is yet another example of the federal government coming to get us all? Do you think that by me wanting to understand the circumstances, it indicates some lack of ideology? If so, good. I wouldn’t want to have an ideology that just jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions.

        What I’d also like to know is not whether or not you want to support the poor – what I want to know is if you think it wise to have 20,000 bureaucrats siphoning off welfare money before it even gets to the poor?

        Now you’re creating a straw man. You’re engaging in the typical conservative tactic of equating a government program with a bureaucracy, which must by definition be bad, so therefore the entire program is bad. If nothing else, the number of bureaucrats is meaningless without knowing how many people they serve, don’t you think?

        But let me try again to make it clear to you. I am willing to pay for a reasonable level of support for our poor, elderly, sick and disabled Americans, paid by taxes collected from my income, administered by the federal government. I don’t a priori assume that because a program is administered at the federal level, that it is inherently bad. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, it’s probably the best way. Furthermore, taking care of the weakest among us is the morally right thing to do, and I have no problem at all using the federal government as an instrument to do that.

        And we’re still awaiting your answer to the question at hand: How do you want to be remembered?

      • Cluster May 29, 2014 / 8:10 am

        Watson, allow me to address your “hyperbolic” statements. When you say things like you don’t want to throw the elderly in the gutter, you imply that conservatives do, which is just ridiculous on the surface directly, or indirectly. What conservatives want, and progressives ignore is accountability and effective governance. When we see disability and welfare programs accelerating at alarming rates, we would like to audit the programs, determine how and where the money is spent, and do our best to help those who actually need it, and wean those people off the program who don’t, and trim the bureaucratic fat. And this is not a one time audit, programs such as this require on going performance reviews primarily designed to get as much money as possible to those truly in need and hopefully make it very effective. Progressives seem to just want to throw money at the problem absent any level of accountability or measure of effectiveness and then demonize those oppose them.

        Conservatives want sensible, lightly regulated private markets that create a safe environment for private business to prosper, expand, employ and succeed. Progressives seem to think that regulations are their way of punishing and rewarding the business environment based on those business’s allegiance to their agenda.

        Conservatives are all about results and accountability, but that I will admit that that doesn’t always show. Progressives are all about feel good rhetoric and good intentions with zero regard for consequences or results. That type of thinking leads us to the current environment we are in – a nonsensical foreign policy, an historic low labor participation rate, a confusing tax code, high poverty levels, and increasing costs of living.

      • M. Noonan May 29, 2014 / 1:25 pm

        Watson,

        What you’re not answering is the basic question which runs to the actual power of the government. This is why I ask: do you want the government to have the power to conduct undercover sting operations against Amish farmers who sell raw milk across State lines? And this is the question you refuse to answer – you want to know if it’s illegal, as if that is at all relevant. It is not what I’m asking – pretend it never happened at all: is this the sort of power you want your government to have? That is what you refuse to answer.

        Getting back over to welfare, you are still avoiding the issue – in point of fact, I want the poor to have even more resources than is currently provided. More than you can well imagine – and more than you’d like, because the resources I’d give them would put them on a path to property ownership and thus an end to their dependency. But I can’t get these resources to the poor because the bureaucracy is so large and has such a vested interest in keeping the poor dependent that I cannot obtain the resources necessary to cure the ills.

        And this is where your routine resort to straw man arguments gets so tedious – we’d be more than happy to engage in a debate on the best means of helping the poor (and, indeed, I’ll bet dollars to donuts in a free and flowing debate about actual ways and means you’d find yourself in alliance, at times, with this or that other member of this community even though you are liberal and they are conservative). But you don’t want to have that debate – hardly anyone on the left really does (a shining exception to this is the liberal Mickey Kaus). You want to merely frame the issue in an us-vs-them and you’d better back the left because those evil, wicked Republicans want to throw poor people in the gutter. That doesn’t help.

        Don’t tell us you want government support for the poor – tell us what, precisely, the government should do. I’ll start the ball rolling – I’d terminate 10% of the Department of Commerce and use the resultant money 20% to pay down debt and 80% as grants for business start-ups among people making 150% or less median income in their zip code.

        And as for how I want to be remembered – to me, it is an irrelevancy. I’m bound to be forgotten on this world in the by and by. I only hope that God proclaims me a good and faithful servant in spite of all the times I have failed to be just that.

      • Retired Spook May 29, 2014 / 9:22 am

        No, I told you what I think. Not what I think Obama thinks. Not what conservatives think.

        My bad, Watson — I thought you voted for Obama and were an Obama supporter.

        Again, like Mark, no actual response to anything I said, just insults.

        I don’t know — you make generous use of strawmen, and then don’t like it when you get called out on it. Call it insults if you like, but either you are not bright enough to understand the strawman argument, or you’re just playing your usual word games. Either way, Mark nailed it: “There is no meaningful way to engage on your points.” And I suspect that’s by design.

        think you’ve made it pretty clear in the past that you’re prepared to shoot at people like me, so the idea of you having my back is rather laughable.

        Now you’re really off the rails. The only times I’ve EVER referenced shooting ANYONE would be someone who was shooting at or threatening me or my family. So, are you threatening me?

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 11:24 am

        Now you’re really off the rails. The only times I’ve EVER referenced shooting ANYONE would be someone who was shooting at or threatening me or my family. So, are you threatening me?

        Then my apologies. And once again, you and me are alike. I remember you once asked what would cause me to pick up arms or something like that. I told you when there was an existential threat to me or my family. But Spook, you have made repeated references to being prepared for some sort of eminent violent confrontation that is soon to occur here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Intentionally or not, you paint a picture of yourself as a guy sitting in his rocking chair on his porch with his rifle in his lap, just waiting for the bad guys to make the first move. Maybe you can explain what it is that you are so worried about, that will require a violent intervention.

        As for voting for President Obama, yes, I did. I suspect you voted for George W. Bush. Did he speak for you? Did you support everything he did? When it comes to a presidential election, we’re essentially left with only two choices, none of which perfectly represents our individual views.

      • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2014 / 2:27 pm

        No watty, once again, you have taken what someone has written and distorted it in an attempt to get a pathetic little gotcha. This is your MO. You lie about what someone has written. You intentionally leave out and ignore information that will make you and your party look bad. I have called you out on it several times. In which, you try to weasel out of it with no success.

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 11:29 am

        What conservatives want, and progressives ignore is accountability and effective governance…

        So then I take it you’re not ideologically opposed federal programs to help care for the elderly and so on. Good. Neither am I. See? Again, we’re not that far apart. As for efficiency, of course they should be as efficient as we can make them. Of course there should be accountability. If we’re so similar in our views, why do you work so hard to pit “progressives” against “conservatives”?

        And by the way, Cluster, we’re still waiting for you to answer the question of this thread: How do you want to be remembered?

      • Cluster May 29, 2014 / 1:10 pm

        I have not seen one effort by progressives or Democrats to be accountable for anything or to measure the results of anything. I simply see misguided compassion with a mean streak towards anyone who opposes them.

        In re: to how I want to remembered. Honestly, I haven’t give it any thought. I just hope my wife remembers me as a good husband and my kids remember me as a good dad. If that happens, than I won.

      • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2014 / 2:31 pm

        Because progressives only want to hold the opposition accountable. Just like you and the clown want to hold Bush accountable for the mortgage collapse and not the originating legislation or party that started it all. The only time you hold the starting party accountable is if they are non-progressive. Again, I have called you out on your cherry picking of history.

      • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 11:38 am

        watson says:
        “I personally think we collectively, as a society, have a minimum obligation to all of our citizens. I believe that we should not throw our elderly to the gutter. I believe that we should make a basic level of health care available to all Americans, even the poor ones. I believe in a basic and reasonable safety net. I believe that certain projects or initiatives are best done by government for the betterment of society as a whole. I like having food inspectors. I like having roads and airports. I believe that education is so important that all American children should receive it for free. I believe that, to the extent that laws protect anyone, they should generally protect the powerless from the powerful, and not the other way around. I believe in paying taxes to support this stuff. I think most Americans agree with me that this isn’t some sort of radical ideology.”

        OK, so far so good. Now let’s look at this list, which is by the way I believe acceptable to nearly everyone, if not everyone.

        (1) “I personally think we collectively, as a society, have a minimum obligation to all of our citizens.”

        No argument there. This is a basic rule of civilization.

        (2) “I believe that we should not throw our elderly to the gutter.”

        Duh. Of course not.

        (3) “I believe that we should make a basic level of health care available to all Americans, even the poor ones.”

        (A) There is a difference between health care and payment for health care. This is a distinction either not understood or simply ignored by the Left.
        (B) Obviously health care should be available to all Americans, and in fact it is, except for possibly in some very remote areas where there are simply no doctors, or in places where the need exceeds the number of health care providers.
        (C) As for paying for this health care, we should have a society in which, when a need is identified, it can be met through the marketplace, without being unreasonably hampered by government interference. This had already happened in this country, and the need for a system for paying for health care was met through private enterprise: ie, the insurance industry. This met the needs of most Americans. Many states, if not all, had state or local programs which filled in many of the gaps, such as Colorado’s plan to make health insurance available to those who had been turned down for coverage. And throughout the nation, people have been able to be treated in hospitals even when they could not pay, at least for “basic” health care needs, such as emergencies.

        (4) I believe in a basic and reasonable safety net.
        And I believe nearly all, if not all, agree with this.

        (5) I believe that certain projects or initiatives are best done by government for the betterment of society as a whole.

        While the term “for the betterment of society as a whole” sounds quite noble, it depends on the definition of the term, which is quite subjective. However, giving qualified agreement to this general concept, the real question is whether this is best done by a massive Central Authority, or by more localized governments, which are more in tune with the needs of the region and more able to provide oversight and controls. This, by the way, is not just a philosophical question, but a reference back to the 10th Amendment—-which is, I remind you, as part of the Constitution, the law of the land.

        (6) I like having food inspectors. I like having roads and airports.
        Yep. So do I. I just refer back to my answer to # 5—–“…the real question is whether this is best done by a massive Central Authority, or by more localized governments, which are more in tune with the needs of the region and more able to provide oversight and controls. This, by the way, is not just a philosophical question, but a reference back to the 10th Amendment—-which is, I remind you, as part of the Constitution, the law of the land….:

        (7) I believe that education is so important that all American children should receive it for free.
        Without a doubt. But this has to be taken to the next step, which is having in place a mechanism to ensure the best education possible. History, as well as any study of human nature, teaches us that without a counterbalance to any authority that authority can and probably will be abused. This has certainly been proved to be true regarding public education. Without the counterbalance of options for parents and children to choose who will do the teaching and what will be taught, the public education system has had no oversight with enough power to effectively restrain it.

        This is why I believe that in every school district in the nation, the amount of tax money allocated to pay for the education of a single student must be part of a program in which the parents can choose how that sum is applied—that is, to what school. This gives the family the option of making its own decisions about how its children will be taught.

        It also levels the playing field, giving children from poor and disadvantaged families the same educational opportunities and options available to children in more affluent families.

        (8) I believe that, to the extent that laws protect anyone, they should generally protect the powerless from the powerful, and not the other way around.

        This is so obvious, it spurs yet another “DUH!” It also seems to indicate a belief that there are laws which protect the powerful from the powerless.

        (9) I believe in paying taxes to support this stuff.

        Yep. Taxes are certainly an important aspect of paying for all this.

        (10) I think most Americans agree with me …
        So do I.

        Where the “radical” aspect comes in is your belief that all of this should be the responsibility of the federal government, not that of the States, or the People. The “radical” aspect is that you support a massive and extremely powerful Central Authority, instead of the Constitutional approach to these issues. The “radical” element of the belief system you laid out, above, is your assumption that vast numbers of bureaucrats and political appointees near the seat of vast power can not only accomplish these goals, but can accomplish them in a better and more economical and efficient way than local governments and oversight could—and that, in pursuit of this belief, we should just ignore not just the Constitution itself but the entire body of contemporaneous writings of the Founders and Framers who explained in great detail that the structure of our government was very specifically constructed to make such centralized power and authority impossible.

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 2:15 pm

        Amazona, I’m moving my reply to the end of this thread just to make things easier. 🙂

      • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2014 / 5:50 pm

        watty fails reading comprehension again: “Did you listen to the video bozo linked to, in which President Bush talked about how down payments were a barrier to home ownership and needed to be eased? The exact same practice this article criticizes President Clinton for doing?

        Anyway, thanks for proving our point. Maybe next time read the article before you link to it.”

        Uh, I know what the article said about Bush. My point is that you low information voters will point to the opposition party for an action that contributed to a financial disaster and IGNORE the SAME CONTRIBUTION that YOUR OWN PARTY DID! This is what I mean about cherry picking historical facts. You place the blame squarely at the opposition party like a good little mindless drone.

        “A recently re-exposed document shows that his (Clinton’s) administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.”

        But again the whole point is government interference with the lending process. Circumventing safe lending practices that resulted in the longest recession. Now after spending TRILLIONS, obame policies have failed to bring us out of the recession. But all you low information voters can do is jump up and down and say “IT’S BUSH’S FAULT! IT’S BUSH’S FAULT! IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” – facts be damned.

    • tiredoflibbs May 27, 2014 / 9:12 pm

      “Actually, it was just the opposite. I cited the major rules in addition to the final rules because there was a greater percentage increase in major rules than final rules.”

      No. You cited THE NUMBER of major rules and NOT THEIR MEANING.

      You like to play with words don’t you? Either that or you are truly ignorant and cannot understand the written word. It is not a first for you.

      Numbers are MEANINGLESS without their meaning listed and defined. You could not show the true meaning of “MAJOR RULES”. It would have shown cluster’s point to be correct. Regulation has dramatically increased under obame. You could not stand for that. Therefore, you presented numbers and ignored their meaning. Failing to list their meaning is the same as ignoring. It is in short, a lie – typical tactic of the left.

      obame likes to brag about his low unemployment numbers. But when you look behind the number you see a different picture. People who have stopped looking for work in this poor economy are IGNORED – not counted in the calculus. obame and the left MUST cherry pick data to make their “recovery” real to the low information voter. It is a lie.

      The number of pages simply shows the extent of the regulations added and an example how you must look below data to find the real meaning. I know that the number of pages can have different meanings. As an example, the entire country was founded on a document that is only a few pages in length. The number of pages were significant. Today Congress and the pResident can hardly present legislation that is so short. Of course, it is a document dump where politicians would not and could not read the entire bill before a vote was forced. That is how he was able to push through the stimulus act and health care (at least through the House, he had to resort to other underhanded means to get it through the Senate. We know you are scared of the truth when it comes to obame. You must be a loyal foot soldier, ask no questions and repeat the propaganda and parse words whenever you can.

      I grow bored arguing with you about your deceptions, spins, lies and omissions.

      Pathetic.

  2. Retired Spook May 27, 2014 / 8:29 am

    Amazona,

    I wrote this in the hope that someone like Bozo would respond. As Rush likes to say, “I know these people like the back of my formerly nicotine-stained fingers”, and I could have written Bozo’s response before he did — well, all except the Chomsky part, but even that part wasn’t surprising. “Unicorn s**t”, indeed. What’s kinda funny, in a sad, pathetic sort of way, is that when Bozo’s fantasy all comes crashing down, and it will; his response to that is also predictable: “well, at least we tried.”

    • bozo May 27, 2014 / 7:37 pm

      Hey, that’s not very nice. By implying that Ammo has never seen “unicorn s**t” you are implying that she has never seen a unicorn, which are attracted to virgins, ergo… :o)

      Wonder what this “crash” will look like? If you mean the mid-terms, yeah. That could go badly. Republicans do well when 30% show up to vote in mid-terms and Dems do well when 50% show up in presidential election years. But in that scenario, the “crash” will be caused by the undoing of this administration’s small, hard-won victories, which you seem to be looking forward to.

      There are two kinds of people in this world: those who build sand castles, and those who kick them down. I’ll keep building even though I know you’ll never stop kicking.

      At least I’ll try.

      • Cluster May 27, 2014 / 8:04 pm

        You are a selfless, magnanimous piece of humanity Bozo.

    • Amazona May 28, 2014 / 11:53 am

      Well, what an informative little post by the clown. First of all, Spook did NOT “imply” that “….Ammo has never seen “unicorn s**t” ” He agreed that clowny’s post IS unicorn s**t.

      Second, how telling that clowny believes that some reference to a woman who was happily married for 26 years is not a virgin is :o-worthy. “Oooooooh—guess what? Tee hee titter titter.”
      Didn’t Mummy and Daddy ever sit you down for The Talk? You know, “When a man and a woman really love each other…….”

      Or maybe it’s the “woman” part that has you so bumfuddled.

      In any case, thanks for that creepy little insight into what you think is shameful, even though it does show an abysmal (though hardly surprising) ignorance of normal human relationships.

      This is why the bragging about spending time building sand castles is so appropriate—–bozo’s range seems to be from infantile to juvenile. When he said he had to go to work I figured that included buttoning up his onesie.

      As for the steaming pile previously referenced, it was just a tired old collection of same old same old: Adoration of his Dear Leader, excuses for his antics (his obsessive focus on stirring up racial hatred and resentment is just the first step in “fixing racism” !), an homage to “Teddi” (and a feeling that when he writes the name he puts a little heart over the “i”), and general blahblahblah, and of course the mandatory jibe at Bush.

      If he objects to this being referred to as “unicorn s**t” we can just describe it, quite accurately, as SSDD.

      • bozo May 29, 2014 / 2:30 pm

        She noticed me! If only I weren’t already happily married…

      • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 8:43 pm

        “…If only I weren’t already happily married……” To a virgin, no doubt. (And who could blame her? Him? ????)

        Often the most noticeable is what needs to be scraped off the bottom of your shoe, after a stroll through the pasture.

  3. shawny2011 May 27, 2014 / 1:37 pm

    As a president, he should be remembered as an overtly anti-American Trojan horse, a domestic enemy. As a betrayer, a traitor, a liar, a shame and disgrace to the office he was privileged to be elected to. As Commander In Chief …I have wept for those under his command, trying to imagine how they must have felt when no one came to the aid of those in Benghazi, how they must have mourned over the deaths of friends lost to rules of engagement their enemies were not shackled with, how they must have been outraged knowing that Obama was arming and training some of the same Islamic terrorists in Libya and Syria who they had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. How he has denigrated, weakened, demoralized and demonized our military, made our national security an international joke. And not satisfied with creating dissension, division, chaos and fear here at home, how he has destabilized the middle east, befriended our enemies and betrayed our allies. As a common criminal whom, even in a suit, with a motorcade never rose above the street hustling con he is.

      • shawny2011 May 27, 2014 / 4:57 pm

        Rules of engagement only apply to Americans. The terrorist are being armed and trained to win. Anyone tired of this horsecrap yet?

      • Amazona May 28, 2014 / 11:58 am

        But Shawny, didn’t you read the post by the person who is intent on showing the world how he sees himself—-as the ugliest and stupidest clown in the world?

        He refers to the disaster in Syria as “…a war won without firing a shot…” and mourns the lack of a ticker tape parade for The One We (“we” meaning radical Islam) Have All Been Waiting For to honor his success.

  4. Cluster May 28, 2014 / 7:55 am

    How will MSNBC be remembered? From the YCMTSU file, I present to you Melissa Harris Perry and her opinion on the NBA:

    “You can’t really talk about (slavery) reparations and ignore the modern day wealthy Americans who own teams made up predominantly of black men and profit from their bodies and labor.”

    So how much more in reparations would LeBron James need on top of his $20 million annual salary to bring about economic justice?

    • Amazona May 28, 2014 / 12:24 pm

      Yeah, black men who have spent their lives yearning to be part of this athletic elite, who reap vast rewards from their activities, and who have not only the freedoms associated with great wealth and fame but the ability to walk away from this occupation.

      Only a true moron could claim that a man who has chosen his path in life and dedicated his life qualifying for it, who lives in mansions and drives luxury automobiles, who is a celebrity, and whose talents are sought after and bid on, who can take the riches he has amassed and walk away from his profession at any time, is a slave.

      I don’t know how Melissa Harris Perry can even eat, as the taste of every bite she takes must be tainted with the poison that is so much a part of her very being.

      Here’s an idea! Let’s dismantle the NBA and free these poor slaves to wealth and fame, and give them the freedom to work with the common folk.

      • Cluster May 28, 2014 / 1:24 pm

        Here’s an idea! Let’s dismantle the NBA and free these poor slaves to wealth and fame, and give them the freedom to work with the common folk.

        And let’s pay them $10.10 an hour – because it’s only fair.

  5. Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 10:27 am

    In all seriousness, I suspect one of the things Obama will be most remembered for will be the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. That will be difficult for historians to spin in a positive way.

    • Amazona May 28, 2014 / 12:19 pm

      I wonder. After all, we can recover from an economic depression. I think the lasting effects of this miserable eight years will be the horrible damage done to race relations in this country and the international effects of his disastrous foreign policy, as well as the other aspects of Leftist governance.

      We had reached a point in this nation where black people WERE judged on their personal attributes—character, ambition, intelligence—–and not on their skin color. The revelation of racial hatreds in the black communities most integrated into American society and the determination of this administration to stir up racial discord at every possible opportunity—even inventing opportunities, such as commencement addresses—-has generated distrust not just from blacks of whites but in other races of black people, who are now showing that at the first indication of permission from above they are quite willing to engage in racial bigotry and overt violence.

      How long does it take to rebuild national security? How long to rebuild respect abroad for principled and strong leadership? How long to overcome the admission of America-hating immigrants into this country, where they can imbed themselves to provide ongoing threats to our citizens? How long to overcome the damage done by allowing terrorist madrassas to flourish in the heart of America, creating enemies and educating them in our destruction from within?

      How long to recover from three generations of Americans who were not educated but indoctrinated, who are woefully ignorant of their own history as well of that of the world and who have been taught from childhood a series of lies designed to erode love and respect for their own country?

      How long to rebuild an infrastructure allowed to deterioriate as funds were funneled to buy votes by building a Dependent Class? How long to drag the children and grandchildren of those dependents into the Productive Class?

      Of all the myriad disasters that can and will be laid at Obama’s feet, I think the economy is the most easily fixed.

      And I suggest that we look at how AMERICA will be remembered for this period, and I suggest that it will be remembered as the Stupidest Era of our nation, the era in which people were so blind to the consequences of their actions that they let themselves be duped, over and over again, and voted on the basis of hatred and stupidity.

      • Retired Spook May 28, 2014 / 1:12 pm

        Of all the myriad disasters that can and will be laid at Obama’s feet, I think the economy is the most easily fixed.

        That kind of depends on who the next president is. As Dennis Prager noted in a great oped that Cluster posted recently, the Left isn’t really interested in economic prosperity. Good times where more and more people become independent of government only shrink the Democrat voter base.

  6. shawny2011 May 28, 2014 / 2:07 pm

    I’m old and nostalgic about the vision of America I wanted to keep always, even with all of its warts and illusions. And I would guess that hundreds of civilizations over thousands of years and different ideologies believed they knew something, they were something more lasting than just the next layer of interesting artifacts in some future archeological dig trying to understand who they were. But we aren’t that sturdy stuff of values, morals, loyalty, self-sustaining, inventive pioneer stock that conquered a new frontier against near impossible odds any more. That we survive our leadership choices at all from the little box we’ve allowed ourselves to be trapped in will be astounding. But it will not be without great personal sacrifice and acceptance that change will continue and the best we will ever be able to do if we are fortunate is help to reshape it and help ourselves and others to survive our fools, foolish choices and those changes as we always have, refusing to let them destroy us. I read an insightful debate recently that added some stunning clarification to the larger situation we find ourselves in and I’d like to share it. http://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html The insignificance of Obama and what he will be remembered for becomes apparent.

  7. watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 2:21 pm

    Amazona said:

    Where the “radical” aspect comes in is your belief that all of this should be the responsibility of the federal government, not that of the States, or the People. The “radical” aspect is that you support a massive and extremely powerful Central Authority, instead of the Constitutional approach to these issues. The “radical” element of the belief system you laid out, above, is your assumption that vast numbers of bureaucrats and political appointees near the seat of vast power can not only accomplish these goals, but can accomplish them in a better and more economical and efficient way than local governments and oversight could—and that, in pursuit of this belief, we should just ignore not just the Constitution itself but the entire body of contemporaneous writings of the Founders and Framers who explained in great detail that the structure of our government was very specifically constructed to make such centralized power and authority impossible.

    First off, Amazona, thank you for the thoughtful reply to what I said. I expected that someone would bring up the Constitution, but I was surprised that it took so many replies before someone actually did so. While we could get in a detailed discussion of each of the points you raised in your reply, the conclusion, which I quoted above, is, I think, the real heart of the matter as far as you and I go.

    As I tried to make clear, I do not object to many of these programs being carried out by the federal government. Nor do I find that to be an unconstitutional approach. I don’t make the assumption that 50 bureaucracies would always be better than one. I highly doubt that Social Security, for example—or more generally, modest support for our elderly—could be more efficiently accomplished by 50 bureaucracies rather than one.

    As to the Constitutional issue, I understand how you interpret the Constitution, but it isn’t the only way. The Founders started arguing about what the words meant pretty much from the time the ink was dry. As you know, it was Alexander Hamilton—who authored more than half of the Federalist Papers—who successfully made the argument for implied powers during the George Washington administration. As you also know, it was John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who wrote the defining case for implied powers in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819. You probably think things went downhill from there. 🙂 But in general, the more liberal interpretation as originally espoused by Hamilton and Marshall has carried the day, despite swings back and forth. So in that sense, I have a more liberal, broad or loose view of the Constitution than you. I would call yours a strict interpretation. I guess that’s what makes you a conservative and me not a conservative. If that makes me a “progressive,” then fine by me.

    Yep. Taxes are certainly an important aspect of paying for all this.

    Sometimes I wonder about conservatives, though, when they equate paying taxes with “confiscation” of their money. Or when they complain about the “moochers,” as they frequently put it.

    • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 7:51 pm

      “I don’t make the assumption that 50 bureaucracies would always be better than one. I highly doubt that Social Security, for example—or more generally, modest support for our elderly—could be more efficiently accomplished by 50 bureaucracies rather than one.”

      But you do seem to make the assumption that one massive, bloated bureaucracy located thousands of miles from the problems it is allegedly trying to solve, which also means many more hands through which any benefit has to pass (with money sticking to each of them) is for some reason better than smaller agencies in touch with the specifics of local problems.

      When I argue for state sovereignty and local control, I always say “it’s a lot easier to fire a bad governor than a bad president” and I think that is the point. It’s a lot easier to fire a bad state senator who has screwed up in your district, where the voters had to experience the consequences of his screwup, than it is a national senator whose mistakes only impact some of his constituents, and who may be protected by a strong party presence in an area where the consequences of terrible legislation are not felt. So I argue that yes, 50 small bureaucracies ARE better than one giant one.

      The problems in Colorado are not the same problems that are faced in Rhode Island, or Florida. The issues facing coal mining in Wyoming, where it is open pit mining, are not the same as those in West Virginia’s underground mines. Agriculture in Texas is far different from that in North Dakota or Alabama. One size does not fit all.

      This country leapfrogged over every single nation in the whole world, and skyrocketed from being a ragtag assembly of contentious and fiercely independent former colonists who could hardly agree on anything but a determination to never let their nation become anything like a monarchy to the most economically prosperous country in the world, with the highest standard of living, the most robust scientific community, the best education, and the most personal liberty of literally any civilization in the history of man. We had art, we had music, we had inventions, we had ENERGY. This happened in about 100-120 years. The country did experiment for a short while with expanding the scope of federal size and power, and quickly voted to return to a more literal interpretation of our Constitution.

      Then we hit the era of the Progressives, and as the integrity of that Constitution was eroded, our economic progress slowed, our personal liberties diminished, and the more and faster the old restraints on the scope and power of the federal government were diminished the faster the health of the nation went downhill.

      You say “The Founders started arguing about what the words meant pretty much from the time the ink was dry” Actually, the Founders themselves didn’t argue among themselves so much as they argued with people who did not like the Constitution as the Founders wrote it. Yes, Hamilton argued for expansion of the delegated duties of the federal government, but he was outargued and outvoted time after time and often butted heads with the other Founders. He defended the Constitution in the Federalist papers, but then spent the rest of his life trying to make it into something it never was and was never intended to be, because of his inherent belief that what the nation needed was an extremely strong and powerful central government. Even that belief was limited to finances. He was a money man, focused on the financial aspects of government. He never argued for the federal government to expand into social engineering or charity. His long time personal association with Washington undoubtedly contributed to his influence over the first President and Washington’s temporary agreement on making the federal government more powerful. We have ample examples of bad legislation and merely pointing to the fact that a lot of people did something does not make it right. What you have to do is look at the results of the efforts.

      As for “confiscation” this applies to funds that are taken for redistribution to others in the pursuit of social engineering schemes and agendas. We all expect to pay federal taxes for national defense and to cover the costs of delegated, enumerated, duties. We object to being forced to pay taxes for things outside the scope of those delegated, enumerated duties. And we feel that if those plans and policies that fall outside the boundaries of those delegated, enumerated duties are picked up by state and local governments, we not only have a better voice in what to do and how to do it, we have the option of moving to another state if we really hate what our state is doing.

    • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 8:06 pm

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      When this amendment was ratified, it became an integral part of the Constitution. As is true with every other amendment, it cannot be separated from the whole. It was designed—-it was DEMANDED—-to deal with concerns that the wording of the Constitution was not strong enough, that merely delegating duties to the federal government was not enough of a deterrent to later decisions to just add to those original enumerated powers. The only reason the Constitution was ratified was because the people were promised that an amendment would soon be passed to provide a belt-and-suspenders approach to restricting the powers of the federal government. That is, the original wording said to the feds “you have to do THIS” and then the 10th Amendment said to the feds “if you are not told you have to do something, you CAN’T do it—but if it’s not prohibited then it falls to the states, or to the people, if they want it.”

      Progressives love to refer to McCulloch vs Maryland because it is a ruling that they can claim supports their desire to expand the scope and power of the federal government by inventing powers (“implied powers”) that simply do not exist in any form of our Constitution. They claim it is, and want it to be, the first time that something was attributed to the Constitution which simply does not exist anywhere in it, to justify the assumption of powers that are not and never have been delegated to it. But it refers to the implied power to make laws to be able to execute enumerated powers.

    • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 8:19 pm

      When you admit to having a “…broad or loose view of the Constitution ..” I wonder, as Spook has so often asked, if you would agree to a “broad or loose view ” of any other contract.

      If you and I have a contract for you to buy my house for a certain amount of money, with a certain date set for closing, and when the closing is completed you go to the house and learn that I have removed all the cabinets and doors, would you tolerate my excuse that the contract did not specifically prohibit me from doing this? I could go through the whole contract and never find a specific prohibition naming cabinets or doors.

      As Spook has asked, would you play a high-stakes poker game with the understanding that I reserve the right to exercise a “broad or loose view” of the rules? After all, I don’t think the rule book actually states that I can’t walk around the table to look at your hand.

      The purpose of a Constitution is not to provide a general “framework” of suggestions saying, in essence, “it would be great if you were to do this but if you don’t feel like it, that’s OK too”. The purpose of a Constitution is to provide a structure which is solid and subject to as little wiggle as possible, to assure the people that they can count on it because it means what it says. Once the structural integrity of the foundation of the country is compromised, once the people learn that there is nothing objectively reliable about its construction, then the country becomes weaker.

      There is a process for changing the Constitution if the people decide it needs to be changed. This process has been enacted 27 times. This establishes a means for making necessary changes, and its purpose is to also, at the same time, eliminate capricious changes based on the dominance of any particular political party or agenda of the day.

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 10:23 pm

        When you admit to having a “…broad or loose view of the Constitution ..” I wonder, as Spook has so often asked, if you would agree to a “broad or loose view ” of any other contract.

        I am reminded of the words of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, who famously wrote, “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” in the unanimous decision of McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819 that formally set forth the principle of implied powers of the Constitution. We don’t need a Constitutional amendment regarding implied powers because the existence of such powers was settled nearly 200 years ago.

    • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 8:56 pm

      Alexander Hamilton was hardly a liked or respected member of the founding class of America. From a biography: (I will come back with a reference later. Emphasis mine.)

      “They (Jefferson and Madison) viewed the Secretary of the Treasury (Hamilton) as an uncontrolled force with the backing of powerful, monied men from the northeast. Cries of a monarchical conspiracy by Hamilton were heard and most likely originated from anti-Hamiltonians, like Madison, who were present for Hamilton’s speech at the constitutional convention. They determined that emergency measures needed to be taken to prevent Hamilton and his “monarchists” from taking over.

      On an intellectual level they were perfectly matched; politically, however, they were diametrically opposed. The issue on which they differed was to become the most divisive in American politics: states’ rights.

      Their disagreement was a matter of experience. Hamilton, the immigrant with no grounding in a particular state, understood only the destructiveness of localist politics from his time as a staff officer in the war, and during his tenure as a government employee and congressional delegate. He felt that, at most, states could be helpful in the administration of federal objectives on the local level, but state sovereignty had long been an absurdity to him.

      There you have it—–Hamilton thought that state sovereignty was “absurd” and argued for a very powerful central authority—so much so that he was referred to by some of his contemporaries as a “monarchist”.

      He was also something of a loose cannon. When Madison got fed up with him and his striving to vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government, and with his dismissive attitude toward states’ rights, Hamilton did not acknowledge that this was based on his (Hamilton’s) own actions and attitudes, but whined that somehow Jefferson had taken Madison away from him.

      Jefferson, who had once admired the intellect of Hamilton, grew to have no use for him, and tried to have him impeached on several counts of malfeasance in office.

      If you are going to make a scorecard, so far we have me on the side of the Constitution as it is written and you for a “broad and loose” interpretation of it, you a Hamiltonian and me a fan of Madison and Jefferson, you a Central Authority guy and me a states’ rights person, you a Progressive who argues that if something is not specifically prohibited to the federal government in the Constitution it is OK and me a strong Tenth Amendment advocate and believer.

      By Jove, after about 8 years of me nagging Lefties to engage in an actual political discussion, I do believe we have at least nibbled around the edges of one! And with watson, to boot!

      Who woulda thunk it?

      Maybe now we can get to a side-by-side comparison of the successes and failures of Leftist (Central Authority) governance vs the strict Constitutional model. Ya think?

      • Amazona May 29, 2014 / 8:59 pm

        Quotes from A Biography of Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)
        By Lisa Marie de Carolis

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 10:10 pm

        Amazona, you can attack Hamilton’s character all you want, but I don’t see that it’s particularly germane to our discussion. It is curious, though, that you have frequently cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive, contemporary source for understanding the Founders’ intent. Hamilton wrote about 60% of the Federalist Papers and yet, judging by what you wrote above, I guess we should simply dismiss those parts?

        But character attacks aside, clearly Hamilton had a pro federalist, pro commerce and manufacturing view as compared to Jefferson. That difference is essentially what lead to the first political parties in this country. As I said, the ink wasn’t hardly dry before arguments broke out about how to interpret the Constitution.

        Maybe now we can get to a side-by-side comparison of the successes and failures of Leftist (Central Authority) governance vs the strict Constitutional model.

        Knock yourself out.

      • Retired Spook May 30, 2014 / 9:13 am

        Hamilton wrote about 60% of the Federalist Papers and yet, judging by what you wrote above, I guess we should simply dismiss those parts?

        Watson, only a handful of the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton were related to state sovereignty. Why would we dismiss the majority that were not? Oh, wait, I know — because that’s what you would do. And there’s a difference between dismissing and disagreeing with; something else that you don’t seem to be able to grasp.

      • Amazona May 30, 2014 / 10:13 am

        Well, I see the first steps toward actual political discourse were doomed to be the last, as well. It didn’t take long for watson to start redefining my comments as character attacks, trying to move critiques of policy and political philosophy into the more comfortable arena of personality, where the Left chooses to reside. The only thing I said that referred to Hamilton as a person, rather than to his attitudes and opinions, was when I pointed out that he was a “loose cannon” who did not acknowledge that his preferences for a powerful Central Authority put him at odds with those who had fought so hard to create a government model that would prohibit the rise of such a monarchical approach to government, instead claiming that Jefferson had stolen Madison away from him, putting a serious political difference into the context of a schoolyard squabble and petty jealousy.

        To characterize my various comments on Hamilton’s political philosophy as character attacks merely shows the ways early Progressives and today’s version are linked by their inability to see anything in terms other than emotional.

        watson also misstates my references to the Federalist Papers, falsely claiming that I have identified them as “a definitive” contemporary source for understanding the Founders’ intent. I have referred to them as part of an overall body of contemporaneous writings by various Founders, all of which should be considered when trying to define their intent. As Hamilton did write very passionately about the need to ratify the Constitution, this would have to be put into the context of his belief in a very strong central government, as his other writings and his entire political career focused on his conviction that a strong central government should have powers not delegated to it in the Constitution.

        The Federalist Papers were written, as I am sure you know, to encourage ratification of the new proposed Constitution. Aside from the conviction that this Constitution had to be ratified as quickly as possible, Hamilton was not in agreement with the other Founders on much of anything, and after the Constitution was ratified his increasingly strident claims that the only things not allowed to the federal government were those specifically prohibited put him increasingly at odds with the rest of the Founders. I see you are trying to ignore the totality of Hamilton’s role in the framing of the Constitution, focusing solely on the fact he helped write the Federalist Papers. HIstory, and the contemporaneous writings of his fellow Founders, make it clear that his opinion was not shared by the others, and in fact drove them farther and farther apart as time went on, so citing him as the authority for your own personal opinions just because he was influential at the time in a specific aspect of history, that of getting the Constitution ratified, is hardly compelling.

        And pointing out his political beliefs is hardly the same as attacking his character, though this is a distinction unknown to Progressives, who also think that disagreeing with the policies of Barack Obama are either character attacks or proof of racism.

      • tiredoflibbs May 30, 2014 / 11:00 am

        “And there’s a difference between dismissing and disagreeing with; something else that you don’t seem to be able to grasp.”

        Spook, that is what watty does. He dismisses facts and history he does not agree with. He is famous (infamous?) for cherry picking facts as he tries to make his pathetic points. Points that change with the direction of the wind. If the point fails, he deflects to something else. As we have seen time and again. If watty did not have double standards, he would not have standards at all.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 11:45 am

        Amazona, you said he was hardly liked or respected, a loose cannon, and a whiner. To me, these are unnecessary adjectives that you brought into this discussion. As for the Federalist Papers, I’m happy to be corrected that you “referred to them as part of an overall body of contemporaneous writings by various Founders, all of which should be considered when trying to define their intent.” All of which. Not some of which.

        But I don’t see that this line of attack matters. As I said already, the existence of implied powers was settled nearly 200 years ago by McCulloch vs. Maryland. There will always be a matter of interpretation regarding whether specific laws fit within the expressed or implied powers. That is why we have the concept of judicial review, which Chief Justice John Marshall also established in Marbury v. Madison.

        So while I recognize that your strict interpretation of the Constitution is a valid one, it is not the only one.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 12:33 pm

        Actually, let me readdress my previous comment. If, Amazona, it is your contention that there are no implied powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, then I would have to say that your position is not valid because it flies in the face of Constitutional law that has existed for nearly 200 years.

        My point was that the extent of implied powers can be debated, and some people, including at least three of the current Supreme Court justices, take a narrower view than others. I recognize that. But in general, your arguments about the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment never acknowledge the possibility of implied powers, and never recognize the possibility that Constitutional interpretations other than your own are valid. Because of this, you present the position of a hyper-partisan intent not on debating, but simply proving your position is the only authentic one. Given that, it is not a surprise that you keep coming back to the word ideology.

      • Amazona May 30, 2014 / 3:11 pm

        watson, you have already established your position as a defender of and believer in the Hamiltonian approach to the Constitution, which is why you interpret McCulloch v Maryland as you do. (following emphasis mine)

        “One of the basic axioms of constitutional law is that Congress may take no action that is not authorized by the Constitution. The most obvious source of congressional authority is the enumeration of specific powers in Article I, section 8. The doctrine of implied powers allows Congress to exercise authority that is implied by these specific grants of power.

        The textual justification for the doctrine of implied powers is Article I, section 8, paragraph 18, which provides that Congress shall have authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers.” The scope of this Necessary and Proper Clause was a subject of heated debate in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Thomas Jefferson argued that the clause gave Congress authority only to enact measures absolutely necessary to implementation of the enumerated powers; Alexander Hamilton, by contrast, contended that the clause empowered Congress to adopt any measure having a natural relationship to the subjects specifically mentioned. The dispute was settled by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). There, finding that Congress had authority to charter a bank, the Supreme Court clearly adopted the Hamiltonian view: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional” (p. 421). “

        What you seem to take as an absolute truth is the following statement in this article: ” Thus, the doctrine of implied powers became firmly established as a significant source of federal authority.” I do not agree with the spin put on the ruling by answers.com., and probably your sources as well, that this ruling “…clearly adopted the Hamiltonian view..” as it did say that the end had to be “within the scope of the constitution” and “…plainly adapted to that end…” as well as “…consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution…” The ruling, in other words, found that the establishment of the bank was a necessary and proper end to an enumerated duty, not an expansion of enumerated duties.

        http://www.answers.com/topic/implied-powers#ixzz33DkLLvAG

        You choose to view McCulloch v Maryland as the basis for expansion of federal authority, when, as Law Professor David Engdahl wrote in an article for the Heritage Foundation, the McCulloch Principle is that to “…… invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause, a law must be “plainly adapted” to an enumerated end“. The McCulloch ruling does NOT expand the scope of federal powers, as you seem to be saying, but merely elaborates on the ability of Congress to do something which is “plainly adapted” to achieve an enumerated power.

        Once again, I turn to the words of one of the framers. Again, from Professor Engdahl’s article: (emphasis mine)

        “At Pennsylvania’s ratification convention, James Wilson, the author of the clause, explained that the words “necessary and proper” are “limited, and defined by the following, ‘for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.’ It is saying no more than that the powers WE HAVE ALREADY PARTICULARLY GIVEN, shall be effectually carried into execution.” It authorizes what is “necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted.” Congress thus can make laws about something otherwise outside the enumerated powers, insofar as those laws are “necessary and proper” to effectuate federal policy for something within an enumerated power. Although not independently valid under another enumerated power, such laws are supported by this clause to the extent that they constitute a means by which federal policy can be executed under an enumerated power.

        He goes on to say:

        “It should be emphasized, however that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to enact laws that are “appropriate” and plainly adapted for carrying into execution Congress’s enumerated powers; it does not authorize Congress to enact any law that Congress thinks is “reasonable.”

        And

        The Necessary and Proper Clause does not confer general authority over a matter simply because its regulation in some respects might serve an enumerated-power end; it only supports the particular regulations that have such an effect. For example, what mattered in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) was not that steel manufacturing impacts interstate commerce, but rather that applying the particular NLRA provisions prohibiting those factories’ unfair labor practices would promote Congress’s policy of uninterrupted interstate commerce in steel. Similarly, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was held applicable, not because hotels affect interstate commerce, but because prohibiting racial discrimination by hotels promotes Congress’s interstate commerce policy of unimpeded travel.”

        And finally, for this post, let us revisit the words of Thomas Jefferson that the Necessary and Proper Clause …gave Congress authority only to enact measures absolutely necessary to implementation of the enumerated powers. That is an unambiguous statement. It is not open to interpretation.

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:23 am

        Watson, only a handful of the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton were related to state sovereignty. Why would we dismiss the majority that were not?

        I didn’t dimiss any of them. It seems that Amazona would like to, though.

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:28 am

        watson, you have already established your position as a defender of and believer in the Hamiltonian approach to the Constitution, which is why you interpret McCulloch v Maryland as you do. (following emphasis mine)

        I’m hardly the only one. McCulloch v. Maryland is considered one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in Constitutional law, for the reason that it established implicit powers.

        And no, I didn’t go to answers.com, but thanks for quoting it. And since you brought it up, here’s another quote from that answers.com article:

        Ever since the founding of the United States, scholars, lawyers, judges, and political leaders have argued about the scope of implied powers under the Constitution. Since the decisive opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall, however, the doctrine of implied powers has been solidly established as an important source of federal government power under the Constitution.

        A nice summation of what I have been saying.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 12:02 pm

        Yes, I KNOW this is a summation of your opinion of the ruling. I even referred to the spin put on this ruling by other Hamiltonians:

        Your first mistake is in claiming that McCulloch vs Maryland “ESTABLISHED implicit powers”. No, it did not. It is far beyond the scope of the Court, or at least it used to be, to ESTABLISH any power. The ruling merely confirmed, in a formal setting, the existence of federal authority that is not explicitly stated but is allowed by the Necessary and Proper Clause—–that is, to enact laws to enable the execution of enumerated duties.

        You actually say this: If, Amazona, it is your contention that there are no implied powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, then I would have to say that your position is not valid because it flies in the face of Constitutional law that has existed for nearly 200 years.” Yeah, but I didn’t say that, so it is not my “contention”. My argument is the extent of implied powers, not whether or not there ARE any.

        It’s a lot easier for you to argue with a position that was never taken, isn’t it? This is what we are talking about when we refer to your habit of constructing straw men so you can cut them down.

        I said: What you seem to take as an absolute truth is the following statement in this article: ” Thus, the doctrine of implied powers became firmly established as a significant source of federal authority.” I do not agree with the spin put on the ruling by answers.com., and probably your sources as well, that this ruling “…clearly adopted the Hamiltonian view..” as it did say that the end had to be “within the scope of the constitution” and “…plainly adapted to that end…” as well as “…consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution…” The ruling, in other words, found that the establishment of the bank was a necessary and proper end to an enumerated duty, not an expansion of enumerated duties.”

        Rather than just parrot one point of view, in a copy-and-paste pseudo-response, I quoted not only part of the ruling itself but other quotes and comments and made my own summation.

        And it is that no matter how the ruling may be taken by some, the ruling itself contained language that does not support your interpretation of it. That is, it says:

        “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional”

        …..Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution…..LEGITIMATE and WITHIN THE SCOPE, not expanding the scope.
        ….consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution…..with the LETTER and spirit…

        Assuming that the Justices base their opinions on careful research of not only the words of the Constitution but the contemporaneous writings of the Framers, one can assume that they took into consideration words by the Framers which are, if not echoed, referenced in the ruling.

        ““At Pennsylvania’s ratification convention, James Wilson, the author of the clause, explained that the words “necessary and proper” are “limited, and defined by the following, ‘for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.’ It is saying no more than that the powers WE HAVE ALREADY PARTICULARLY GIVEN, shall be effectually carried into execution.” It authorizes what is necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted.”

        So the ruling in McCulloch vs Maryland, while acknowledging in a formal ruling the existence of implied powers, does NOT rule that these powers can be extended beyond what is appropriate or not within the scope of the constitution or inconsistent with the letter as well as the spirit of the constitution.

        To repeat my quote: “Law Professor David Engdahl wrote in an article for the Heritage Foundation, the McCulloch Principle is that to “…… invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause, a law must be “plainly adapted” to an enumerated end“. This is wholly consistent with the ruling.

        What you have done is misstate the actual nature of our disagreement. You are now claiming that it centers on whether or not there ARE implied powers in the Constitution, as referenced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, but it is actually on whether those implied powers extend beyond the very limited scope of enabling the execution of the defined and enumerated duties delegated to the federal government in the letter of the document.

        You also misstate the meaning of the McCulloch ruling.

        Yes, there are implied powers. The Clause says so. The Framers say so. The author of the Clause says so. Jefferson says so. McCulloch vs Maryland says so. That is not the issue.

        The issue is the effort and determination of the Hamiltonian point of view to misstate all of this as an extension of the scope of these implied powers to things not part of the enumerated duties, beyond the scope of these enumerated duties, beyond THE POWERS ALREADY GIVEN.

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:27 pm

        My argument is the extent of implied powers, not whether or not there ARE any.

        Right. And the argument has existed since the very first presidential administration and still exists today. My broader point is that in all of your Constitutional writings on this blog, you paint a picture in which only your argument regarding the extent of implied powers is valid. This is not true, no matter how much you wish to be. You reject any other interpretation of implied powers as coming from someone who wishes for a federal government of infinite scope. Talk about arguing against a position never taken. Nevertheless, you rely on making up such arguments as a necessary crutch in your attempt to diminish and dismiss any interpretation of the extent of implied powers that does not agree with you. Then you further attempt to diminish me by claiming that I am simply parroting answers.com. You’re so charming!

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 4:04 pm

        YCMTSU.

        Now watson is claiming, referring to me, “My broader point is that in all of your Constitutional writings on this blog, you paint a picture in which only your argument regarding the extent of implied powers is valid. ”

        What is so funny about this, if you are comfortable laughing at the mentally impaired, is that this whine follows a lengthy chain of posts in which I have quoted person after person, including the very man who AUTHORED the Necessary and Proper Clause, a Founder and Framer who helped write the Constitution in which it was contained and who was also a President of the United States, a Constitutional scholar, the person who wrote the ruling in McCulloch vs Maryland, and the 10th Amendment, which was written by many, ratified by the states, and is part of the Constitution itself.

        THIS is what watson refers to as “…a picture in which only (my) argument regarding the extent of implied powers is valid. ” Well, yeah—–if by “only my argument” you mean the argument of the guy who wrote the clause, a Framer and former President, the Constitution itself, and every Constitutional scholar who rejects the after-the-fact efforts of some to invent powers not only not enumerated but not even implied.

        You lie (among other lies is this: “…in general, your arguments about the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment never acknowledge the possibility of implied powers..” ) and you refer to a ruling which supports the explanation of the clause given by the author of the clause as actually supporting its antithesis. You support the Hamiltonian view of expansion of federal powers beyond those enumerated and those necessary to execute those enumerated while bleating that no, you are NOT arguing for the expansion of federal powers, etc.

        And by the way, as yet another example of your abysmal reading skill (or your honesty—-it is often so hard to tell which is which) you claim that I “attempt” to “diminish” you ( a job which I think you have accomplished admirably on your own) by “…claiming that (you are) simply parroting answers.com.” Nonononono, that is not what I said. What I said is that you are misstating the meaning of your quote from answers.com, in claiming that it proves the establishment of implied powers that extend beyond those necessary to execute the enumerated powers “ALREADY PARTICULARLY GIVEN” , or what is “necessary to render effectual the THE PARTICULAR POWERS THAT ARE GRANTED” . I don’t know just what the folks at answers.com took that quote to mean, but I do know that as it stands it does not prove your assertion of implied powers extending beyond those “necessary to render effectual the THE PARTICULAR POWERS THAT ARE GRANTED”

        Your arguments are so scattered that it is hard, I admit, to know when you are lying and when you are just confused, when you quote things like this, and make the claims you make. I do, however, know of enough lies you tell to know that you do qualify as a liar. The issue of befuddlement does not eliminate the proof of dishonesty.

        You have proved yourself here to be a fraud, a phony, and a liar, and now you sum it all up by falling back on what I guess is supposed to be a scathing comment about the level of my charm. Well, I would hardly expect you to be charmed by someone who has bested you in discourse, much less by someone who represents your opposite in political philosophy, so let’s just say that your snarl about my charms leaves me remarkably unmoved.

  8. watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 4:42 pm

    What you’re not answering is the basic question which runs to the actual power of the government. This is why I ask: do you want the government to have the power to conduct undercover sting operations against Amish farmers who sell raw milk across State lines? And this is the question you refuse to answer – you want to know if it’s illegal, as if that is at all relevant. It is not what I’m asking – pretend it never happened at all: is this the sort of power you want your government to have? That is what you refuse to answer.

    Mark, it’s because you pose this question, without any facts or details–of something I’ve never heard of–as some sort of litmus test regarding how I feel about the actual power of the federal government. I got that the first time. You want an answer without the facts. Typically conservative, I suppose. It’s like asking me, “Do you think federal agents should round up the cattle of private ranchers?” In Cliven Bundy’s case, the answer is yes. Yes, Mark. Not only should his cattle be removed from the public’s land, he should probably be thrown in jail for stealing the public’s resources.

    And on top of that, I already answered you. I said, “It sounds like a case of overreach that should be stopped, but I don’t know the details. Is the farmer selling raw milk to other states? Is there a law against that? (I think there is.) These details are kind of important, if you ask me.” Did you not read that?

    • M. Noonan May 29, 2014 / 10:48 pm

      And that is no answer. I’ll provide mine: no government on earth for any reason whatsoever should have the power to stop a farmer from selling milk.

      Now, give us yours.

      • watsonthethird May 29, 2014 / 11:25 pm

        If a farmer produces milk that makes people sick, then he should be stopped.

        Further, it seems perfectly reasonable for government to establish food production regulations so that we collectively can feel reasonably confident that we can consume food without fearing of getting sick or worse.

      • M. Noonan May 30, 2014 / 1:28 am

        Watson,

        Define “reasonable”. You can’t. It can have an endlessly elastic definition. What can properly be banned is the sale of any food product which causes people to be injured or killed. That is the only food regulation we need. Period. End of story. We don’t need an FDA to run sting operations on Amish farmers because they are selling common products to willing buyers.

      • GMB May 30, 2014 / 12:22 am

        The issue with the milk. This was not an issue that the customer did not know he was buying unpasteurized milk. The customer wanted unpasteurized milk. The customer knew he was getting unpasteurized milk.

        Amish and other Mennonites have been selling unpasteurized milk for three hundred years in this country with no problems. Until king putt took over.

        You are creating more Bundys every day and for that I do thank you.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 1:03 am

        GMB, the ban against interstate sales of raw milk for human consumption was adopted in 1987. By “king putt,” were you referring to President Reagan?

        As for Bundy, he’s stealing from the public.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 1:35 am

        Define “reasonable”. You can’t.

        Even the Constitution uses the term “unreasonable,” as in “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I personally prefer to have regulations that safeguard against things like E Coli and salmonella, but that’s just me.

      • M. Noonan May 30, 2014 / 2:55 am

        The Constitution is more than 200 years old and we’re still defining “unreasonable”. Because it can’t be defined. The Founders put it in there because they knew there had to be searches but they didn’t want the government to have blanket authority to search…so, the put that qualifier in there and left it up to future generations to figure out where the line is.

        My position on food, though, is much more straight forward: if it isn’t poisonous, then the government has no right to interfere with the transaction. We don’t need inspections. We don’t need labels. We don’t need anything beyond a prohibition against the sale of poisonous food – put a stiff jail sentence on anyone who does it and call it a day.

      • GMB May 30, 2014 / 7:08 am

        GMB, the ban against interstate sales of raw milk for human consumption was adopted in 1987. By “king putt,” were you referring to President Reagan?

        As for Bundy, he’s stealing from the public.

        First off, there must be a comprehension problem, I did not say anything about who started what. I stated that under the rule of barkus dorkus the first, is when the problems began.

        Your rules. regulations, and laws that were designed to put the Ranchers out of business is the only reason you can claim he is a thief.

        Nice try though. This country needs more thieves like Bundy. You are providing them. Keep up the good work.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 11:29 am

        The Founders put it in there because they knew there had to be searches but they didn’t want the government to have blanket authority to search…so, the put that qualifier in there and left it up to future generations to figure out where the line is.

        Right. And I put the world reasonable in there because there needs to be standards for safe food production, but I don’t want the government to have blanket authority to do whatever it wants to farmers. The case you are referring to is in court. If the courts determine that the government’s actions were unreasonable, then they won’t be able to do it anymore. That’s how current and future generations figure out where the line is.

      • M. Noonan May 30, 2014 / 8:07 pm

        Watson,

        Why do we need standards for food? Who says? It is said that true human beings have been in existence for about 100,000 years – and in all that time, human beings have been producing and eating food and somehow or other managed to struggle through from one day to the next without the FDA making and enforcing “standards”. Are you that infantile that you can’t tell good food from bad? Or is it that you think that food producers – who do need living customers – are out to kill people? Is there somewhere in your mind the vision of a farmer or rancher who is going, “you know, if I sell this bad food, people will die: but, hey, at least I’ll make some money, today!”.

        Do you know why we have food standards? I know you’ve read the story about how heroic, progressive journalists exposed the wicked food industry and thus standards were created to save us from poison food…but the fact of the matter is that before the standards hardly anyone died of food poisoning and after the standards people continued to die of food poisoning. We can’t be perfect in any of our endeavors and thus no matter how much you regulate it, some bad food is going to get into the mix. But we have these standards, don’t we? Why? Well, the best way to answer any question of why something happens is to ask the question, “who benefits?”. The people who benefit the most from food regulations are the largest food producers – in other words, Big Corporation…because they can afford to carry the freight of regulations while small operators can’t.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 11:47 am

        First off, there must be a comprehension problem, I did not say anything about who started what. I stated that under the rule of barkus dorkus the first, is when the problems began.

        Yes, there is a comprehension problem. I don’t know what you’re talking about when you use clever phrases like “barkus dorkus” and “king putt.”

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:31 am

        Why do we need standards for food? Who says?

        We, collectively, do, Mark. Most people want there to be a certain amount of oversight that the food they eat won’t poison or kill them.

      • M. Noonan May 31, 2014 / 2:58 am

        No, we didn’t. No more than we demanded a Federal Reserve, or an EPA or a Department of Education. These things were foisted upon us by a political class when there was no demand for them in the general population. Same thing with food regulations – especially those which allow the FDA to raid an Amish farmer over milk sales. Trust me on this, if there was a bill in Congress to authorize the FDA to raid Amish farmers over milk sales, it should be rejected by a nearly unanimous vote.

        You seem to think that because the President is elected, everything he does – or is done in his name by the bureaucracy – has legitimacy. Ditto actions of Congress – as if anyone ever reads the bills and fully understands them before voting – and that is before the bureaucracy gets at them and starts to legislate from within the agencies by means of writing the actual regulations (the means by which Obama broke his “if you like your plan, you can keep it” promise was the bureaucracy – likely at Obama’s behest – willy-nilly altering the law to make existing plans non-compliant with ObamaCare). Add in court decisions made buy judges who have no conception of law and you’ve got a government which entirely out of the people’s control – day by day we haven’t a clue what they are up to.

        Of course, neither does Obama. Neither does anyone. This is the fundamental problem of Big Government – it gets so large that no one can manage it and thus it starts just doing what it pleases (or is bribed to do). With the best of intent and the highest possible amount of executive experience the President simply cannot control the beast – though if he had just a bit more spirit than Obama has, he could at least cajole it into carrying out specific Presidential policies…like carrying out his 6 year old promise to reduce VA wait times – with fewer veterans using the VA system and a massively increased per-capita budget, reducing VA wait times should be Obama’s easiest success…it wasn’t because he simply let the matter drop, presuming that increased budgetary authority would do the trick, never realizing that a bureaucrat’s primary function is to protect the bureaucrat and the bureaucrat will only be stirred to proper action – absent a sublime amount of self-sacrifice – if he fears for his job.

        But even if he had done that, there would still be a thousand other places of government where things are going wrong simply because no one is watching. There are nearly 2.8 million employees of the federal government. No one can manage that many people. Omar Bradley commanded 1.2 million soldiers and having at his disposal military discipline and the ability to shoot people for failure to carry out orders, his command still made a hash out of things – and Bradley was a pretty good general, as far as generals go. But, think about it; his troops wasted vast amounts of supplies (and I’m not talking front line troops – I’m talking rear-area troops who were just profligate in their waste) which greatly hampered his ability to fight. He was caught flat-footed in the Battle of the Bulge and suffered the second largest single capitulation of American troops in history – and they capitulated to an enemy which would be crushed to pieces a mere 5 months later. He was granted the greatest gift a senior commander can get, twice, and blew it – when we got the bridge over the Rhine at Remagen with absolutely nothing to stop an immediate break out, he failed to push his immediate advantage. Worse came later when we got a bridgehead over the Elbe and were 50 miles from Berlin with simply no German troops between us and Berlin…we could have been there in 72 hours and war over, without the subsequent loss of hundreds of thousands of Russian and German lives when the Russians crashed into Berlin a couple weeks later.

        I bring all that up not to denigrate Bradley, but to demonstrate how impossible it is for a man to run a massive organization. The trick simply cannot be done – it is beyond human capacity. At best, a human being with a good staff can manage 150,000-200,000 people, and even then usually only under the emergency situation of war. For day to day affairs, probably not 50,000-100,000 can be effectively managed. That is about the size the federal government should be – because any larger than that and no one is really minding the store.

        And, so, when I say I don’t want the government to have the power to raid a farmer for selling milk, it is simply a reflection that the government cannot successfully do what it is intending – it is intending to keep food safe, but all it is doing is making a hash of things. There is no way to manage it so that it won’t be a hash – so, its best just not to have it done.

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 12:27 pm

        Mark, the types of illnesses contained in raw milk was recognized in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, as scientific advancements (gasp!) revealed. It was a public health and safety issue which led to pasteurization and the banning of the sale of raw milk in many states. Look, if you want to get a cow and drink its raw milk, go ahead. If you want to go into business selling it, that’s another matter.

        It’s not that I put all this faith in bureaucracies doing whatever they want. It’s that, to speak generally, we realized how people–especially children–were getting sick, that we could do something about it, and so we did.

      • M. Noonan May 31, 2014 / 2:44 pm

        Watson,

        ROFL – you are acting as if Pasteur was working at the behest of government. This is just silly beyond words.

        Anyways, we all know that pasteurized milk is safer. I wouldn’t drink raw milk if you paid me to – but, it still remains a common product which humans have consumed for 100,000 years without being forced into extinction. If someone wants to buy raw milk and someone wants to sell same, I don’t see how its any of your business – or government’s.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        There was a time when, theoretically, a family that could not afford a cow would be forced to buy milk from only one source. Lack of transportation to another source of milk might narrow the market to only one farmer or dairy, meaning that people had little choice. And in this time the origin and nature of any illness suffered by this family would be hard, if not impossible, to pin down to any specific origin.

        If we accept a scenario in which there is no way to determine if milk is carrying disease pathogens, there is no way to identify the nature of an illness which may or may not have been caused by drinking contaminated milk, there is no market that lets consumers choose among milk purveyors to choose what they think is the most wholesome and safe milk, and treatment for milk-borne disease is lacking or inefficient, then I suppose it makes sense to rule that all milk, wholesome or not, must be treated to eliminate the risk of pathogens which might exist in untreated milk. In this scenario, I supposed the trade-off of making milk less nutritious, overall, is a fair one.

        But in a world in which disease pathogens can be identified in raw milk, in which the existence of potential pathogens is dramatically reduced by medical advances which keep them from existing in the general population to be transmitted to the milk, in which a disease can be quickly identified as well as treated, and in which there is a marketplace that makes it easy for consumers to make their own decisions about which milk is best, it seems that a sweeping, One Size Fits All, law that infringes not only on state sovereignty regarding the ability of a state to make its own laws about issues not involving interstate commerce but on personal sovereignty in letting people make their own decisions about their own lives is not only not necessary but is wrong.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 1:18 pm

        To those who want the Central Authority to have jurisdiction over every thing that might affect our health or safety, I recommend checking out the “OSHA cowboy” cartoon.

        One site, which includes the OSHA-approved bull rider:

        http://www.sam-hane.com/sass/oshacowb.htm

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 4:18 pm

        I’ve become used to the taste of pasteurized milk and now I prefer it, though as a child I drank raw milk every day, and ate cream and cheese and butter made from raw milk, with nary a sign of illness.

        But my employee prefers raw milk and drinks a lot of milk, and I would like to try making different cheeses, as well as homemade butter, so I am looking into buying a share of a cow. This is the only way to get raw milk now—-if you buy a share of the cow, then you are just paying for your share of the cow’s upkeep and the labor to milk it, not for the milk and cream. I’d buy a cow, but none of us wants the daily job of milking and we could not use as much milk as we would get.

  9. 02casper May 29, 2014 / 11:33 pm

    “no government on earth for any reason whatsoever should have the power to stop a farmer from selling milk.”

    Even if the milk might hurt someone”

    • M. Noonan May 30, 2014 / 1:26 am

      Everyone knows you can’t sell something that poisons someone – if you think a milk seller is selling bad milk, please report it to the police…but if you don’t have probable cause on such an issue then just mind your own darn business and leave people the heck alone.

    • Amazona May 30, 2014 / 12:11 pm

      “Even if the milk might hurt someone”

      Anything “might hurt someone”. People have died from drinking too much water. Driving “might hurt someone”. Eating beef “might hurt someone”—-look at the e coli outbreaks in the past few years, in beef and chicken as well. watson preens, from his assumed position of assumed moral and intellectual superiority (having abandoned the debate on Constitutionality when it was clear all he had to support his position was the position of a discredited early Progressive scorned by the Framers for his Big Government monarchical leanings) “…I personally prefer to have regulations that safeguard against things like E Coli and salmonella, but that’s just me…”

      Ah, the darling little smirk of “…but that’s just me…”

      Anyway, we HAVE “…regulations that safeguard against things like E Coli and salmonella…” and you know what? We are constantly having outbreaks of e coli and salmonella. Even pasteurized milk can be contaminated.

      To support the claim that people should not be allowed to make their own choices about what to eat or drink, based on their own analyses of information, because Big Brother Knows Best, is the core belief that lies at the very heart of Leftist dogma—that nearly every decision should be a government decision, and that people are not competent enough to decide things for themselves.

      We need to remember that pasteurization has only been practiced since the late 1800s, and it came into popularity because heating raw milk killed tuberculosis, which had sometimes (not always) been carried in raw milk. Modern testing of raw milk has found no TB. As a matter of fact, TB has pretty much been eradicated in this country, and is therefore highly unlikely to get into milk in the first place. And aside from the TB scare, people had been drinking raw milk, in conditions far less sanitary than modern farms, for centuries, without outbreaks of death or disease attributed to it.

      This whole thing is based on an assumption, which is false, that raw milk is not safe to drink and, as casper tried to say (I think—it is so hard to tell, sometimes) it “might hurt someone”. The real solution to a perceived problem—that is, of dangerous pathogens in raw milk—could easily be addressed by simply initiating random testing of raw milk samples. Right now, in this time and place, there is not only no indication that raw milk is a health hazard, it is proved that pasteurization kills off beneficial enzymes.

      But Big Government never addresses a specific problem with a specific solution. Rather it then applies the specific problem to nation in general, and comes up with a massive, sweeping, Big Government intrusion “solution” that is complete overkill and creates more problems than it was intended to solve. (Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn’t it? But Big Government is nothing if not consistent.) So instead of a simple process for testing raw milk, we have a sweeping ban on selling raw milk. (And no, it does not matter in which administration this happened, or which Congress presented which president this legislation to sign. It does seem that the feds had no jurisdiction except in cases of interstate sales of raw milk.)

      And, of course, the nature of legislation is to constantly make new laws but never revisit the old ones to see if they ever did any good, if they are still relevant, if they have been replaced or amended by other laws, etc.

  10. Retired Spook May 30, 2014 / 10:54 am

    But Spook, you have made repeated references to being prepared for some sort of eminent violent confrontation that is soon to occur here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Intentionally or not, you paint a picture of yourself as a guy sitting in his rocking chair on his porch with his rifle in his lap, just waiting for the bad guys to make the first move. Maybe you can explain what it is that you are so worried about, that will require a violent intervention.

    Watson, I’m not quite to the rocking chair stage yet, but the fact that I am prepared for whatever lies ahead means I’m no longer worried. I’m sure that probably doesn’t make sense to someone who isn’t really concerned about the future as long as there’s a strong central government in charge to intervene on your behalf. That does beg the question, though; given that the thrust of both political parties, Democrats more so than Republicans, has been to grow the federal government in terms of size, scope and power over the last century; do you see a point where you might say to yourself, OK, that’s enough? Because that’s the point that all my preparation has been geared to. I can’t describe exactly what that point is or how it will be manifested, but like the famous line about pornography, I think most people will know it when we see it.

    Even the American Revolution didn’t just happen overnight. Many events over a prolonged period led up to it, but eventually the colonists said no more. And I have full confidence in Progressives that they will eventually step over a line where the majority will say, OK, that’s enough. After all, that’s what Progressivism is, progress toward some vaguely or undefined goal, but always progressing. And everywhere it has been allowed to progress to the extreme, it’s ended badly.

    • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 11:55 am

      Spook, be explicit. What happens when you finally decide, “that’s enough”? You say, “that’s the point that all my preparation has been geared to.” What kind of preparation? You certainly give the impression that you are preparing for some kind of armed conflict, so correct me if I’m wrong. Who will you be in conflict with? Other Americans? Will you use arms against them?

      You say, “And I have full confidence in Progressives that they will eventually step over a line where the majority will say, OK, that’s enough.” So it’s the actions of progressives that will push you to the point of “that’s enough,” when you carry out your preparations?

      You think I’m a progressive, therefore you think I’m one of the people that will push you to the point of “that’s enough.” Previously I said it sounds like you are preparing to shoot at people like me. You said, “The only times I’ve EVER referenced shooting ANYONE would be someone who was shooting at or threatening me or my family. So, are you threatening me?”

      Since you think I’m a progressive, then in your mind, the answer apparently is yes. Stop being vague, Spook. Do you think I’m threatening you because you think I’m a progressive? Who will you be in conflict with? Other Americans? Will you use arms against them? Against people like me?

      • Cluster May 30, 2014 / 12:33 pm

        I think Spook will just start building Chemical plants in his neighbors yards, and throwing the elderly into gutters. I know that’s my plan.

      • watsonthethird May 30, 2014 / 12:34 pm

        Haha. Good one, Cluster. I don’t care we say about you, you do sometimes show a sense of humor.

      • Retired Spook May 30, 2014 / 12:47 pm

        Since you think I’m a progressive, then in your mind, the answer apparently is yes. Stop being vague, Spook. Do you think I’m threatening you because you think I’m a progressive? Who will you be in conflict with? Other Americans? Will you use arms against them? Against people like me?

        Watson, you’ve posed some valid questions. You never quite get around to describing what progressive policies and ideas you support. Obama’s one of the most progressive presidents, perhaps THE most in American history, and you say you voted for him, so I’d have to think that you support at least some, if not most of what he’s done. I don’t think I’ve been all that vague — certainly not as vague as you are most of the time, but I’ll come right out and say it: the progressive policies and ideas of this current administration ARE a threat to our way of life. I’m still of the old-fashioned (used to be called traditional) belief that I want my descendants to have a better, more free, more prosperous life than I’ve had. The Progressives currently in power are a direct threat to that, and here, I think, the majority of Americans agree with me. Does that mean I’m going to go out and start shooting people like you? Of course not.

        As much as I’d love to have one, I don’t have a functional crystal ball, and there are lots of possible scenarios that could play out in the foreseeable future. One that I think is most likely to happen is that government agencies of all stripes, which have been heavily arming themselves and forming SWAT teams, are going to begin flexing their muscle like in the Bundy confrontation more and more. Eventually, just like when the British came for the colonist’s arms at Lexington and Concord, there will be a violent confrontation. It’s not a matter of if, but when, and once that happens, I think the floodgates will open. How it ultimately plays out will depend, to a great extent, on how the military and state national guards react. The BLM SWAT team came heavily armed and ready for action at the Bundy Ranch, and only backed down when they realized they were surrounded and outnumbered 3:1. All of the sudden it didn’t matter that they were better armed. Plus, I imagine someone at or near the top of the Obama Administration didn’t want a bloodbath of that magnitude so close to an important mid-term election.

        I hope that gives you a clearer idea of where I’m coming from.

      • Amazona May 30, 2014 / 1:08 pm

        Oh, wattle, please stop your infantile effort to bait Spook into saying something you can then whinge about ad nauseum. I will not answer for Spook, but I will tell you some of the things people like us have talked about that might push us to armed resistance.

        Riots. That is, the kind of thing constantly promoted by Leftist groups ranging from the Occupy crowd to the New Black Panthers. I remember Korean shopkeepers finally shooting down black looters in Los Angeles, and thinking it was about time someone stood up to the mobs. Show me a threatening mob, whether it be threatening because of race, or lack of food, or being pissed off that I have a nice house, or whatever, and you will be showing me a reason to start loading my weapons. If you are getting your panties in a twist fretting that you might be in my cross hairs, then stay out of any mob threatening me and I think you will be OK. In the meantime, people like me pay attention to the Executive Branch refusal to even sanction race-based vigilantes offering cash bounties for the murder of white people, the tolerance of race-based violence such as the Knockout Game, the constant efforts of the President and his wife to stir up racial animosity and resentment, the government-ordered withholding of water from necessary agriculture in California, the efforts to derail oil and gas production, the deterioration of the economy—–all things that can lead to civil unrest at the level of actual violence and rioting.

        The use of our military in some sort of attempted coup. Don’t whine that this is impossible in this country. Every nation that has experienced this kind of thing has had people like you assuring everyone that “it can’t happen here”. We look at some events that are presented as isolated, discrete (NOT “discreet” but “discrete”—-look it up) events, and understand that if they are not isolated and discrete but part of a pattern they are ominous: The gutting of the traditional military structure, getting rid of old-school leaders and keeping Left-leaning officers; the attitudes of the military academies in bowing to demands to stop referring to God; the government purchase of billions of rounds of ammunition by agencies not usually associated with weaponry needs (such as the Social Security Administration); the assumption of legislative powers by the Executive Branch, the open defiance of properly legislated laws by the highest law enforcement official in the country; and general erosion of usual and traditional roles of government and the military, and/or restraints upon them.

        Other threats to me or people around me, or to my property

        As for using arms against “people like you”, I guess that is up to “people like you”.

      • Amazona May 30, 2014 / 1:20 pm

        Spook, I forgot to mention the militarization of our police forces. I find that ominous if not threatening. I don’t have an objection to having a police force that can deal with major problems, but as the old saying goes, if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail, and if you have armored personnel carriers and trained commandos with major armament, you are going to want to use it all.

        Since when did the Bureau of Land Management turn into a paramilitary force, enforcing land use regulations with the force and power of an army, against nonviolent citizens, over MONEY? Since when is it appropriate for a government agency to have snipers in ghillie suits keeping non-violent civilians in their sights, over an alleged debt to the government?

        When a notorious race pimp like Sharpton owes the government more money than Cliven Bundy, and is celebrated, has a TV show and the ear of the President, and his debt is simply ignored, it alarms law-abiding citizens when they see someone like Bundy, who (while kind of a jerk) is far less offensive than Sharpton, whose alleged debt is less than Sharpton’s, facing a SWAT team and seeing his wife and children put in harm’s way.

        This is a message that people are not equal under the law in this Brave New World, but at the mercy of the powerful and connected, of the ruling elite, and that any of us could be looking down the barrel of a gun for an alleged offense if the powers that be decide to flex their muscles.

      • Retired Spook May 30, 2014 / 2:05 pm

        As for using arms against “people like you”, I guess that is up to “people like you”.

        ROTFLOL!! Excellent.

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:38 am

        Amazona said: Oh, wattle, please stop your infantile effort to bait Spook into saying something you can then whinge about ad nauseum.

        And here we were having a pleasant, respectful conversation about constitutional powers, etc.–which you claim to have waited eight years for! And then… snap. You revert back to name-calling and insults.

        If you want me to read your comment, much less, respond to it, then drop the insults and condescension.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 12:37 pm

        More whining: “And here we were having a pleasant, respectful conversation about constitutional powers, etc.–which you claim to have waited eight years for! And then… snap. You revert back to name-calling and insults.”

        Oh, dear, watson, you have clearly missed the effort of the Teachable Moment you provided.

        When you write with respect and give the impression of being willing to engage in actual discourse, you are called by the name you have chosen. But when you play stupid games, lying about what other posters have said (such as claiming Spook had written about a desire to shoot “people like you”) or trying to bait people into saying things you can use as a springboard to more stupidity, you get a name that reflects the persona shown in those posts.

        Maybe if you were to pay a little more attention to the way you come across, you might be able to connect the way you are seen, and referred to, to the nature of what you write. If you want to be treated with respect, earn it.

        As for your silly threat to simply not read my posts, that’s fine by me. Personally, I think that is just an effort on your part to find an excuse for not engaging with me, as the efforts shown in this thread show that your arguments are not very compelling, and seem to depend on what someone else has told you is the real meaning of the quotes and rulings you cite. If you can’t do your own research and thinking, at least ask for a better playbook. It sounds like you are saying “Well, I’m not afraid to take on Amazona in a head-to-head debate, really, I’m not——- but I’ve decided to set up conditions she has to meet first.”

        Yeah, like THAT’S convincing!

      • watsonthethird May 31, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        Hilarious. Now it’s my fault you couldn’t help yourself and reverted to your true, name-calling self. Are you that easily manipulated in real life? Look, if I respond to you in kind, the moderator will delete my comments on the grounds that I am insulting you, while keeping your insults of others intact. So there’s no point in going any further. We all know how you play the game.

        As for me baiting Spook, he has made many, many illusions of preparing for some kind of armed conflict, which he has indicated many, many times that he thinks may happen very soon–as in before President Obama’s second term expires. I’ve always wondered what the heck he was talking about. I thank him for responding.

        As for:

        As for using arms against “people like you”, I guess that is up to “people like you”.

        ROTFLOL!! Excellent.

        That make be a joke–hard to tell with you guys–but it just creates more doubt about Spook’s true intentions. Apparently he has some line in his head that, if crossed by someone he considers to be a progressive, like me, will cause him to take up arms against me.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 3:31 pm

        watson, do try to get a grip. It takes so little to send you flying far beyond the gravitational pull of reason.

        First, try to stop whimpering. You lied, you tried to make a big deal out of something so you could carry on about it, and you got caught. Man up and quit sniveling.

        Unless, of course, you really DID find a threat in this exchange:

        As for using arms against “people like you”, I guess that is up to “people like you”.

        ROTFLOL!! Excellent.”

        You claim that this only MIGHT (make: sic) be a joke, and then go on to whimper “…it just creates more doubt about Spook’s true intentions. Apparently he has some line in his head that, if crossed by someone he considers to be a progressive, like me, will cause him to take up arms against me.”

        Again, the lie—that anyone might feel inclined to “take up arms against” ANYONE just for having a different political viewpoint. This implies that Spook would “take up arms” for merely being crossed by you or someone like you.

        OK, I admit, the Left has not only expressed this view, regarding conservatives, but under many Leftist governments this has come to pass, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions of political opponents, but let’s just rein in our discussion to the 21st Century United States. And that means, drop it! This is not only a lie, it is a stupid lie, and a vicious lie, and an effort on your part to indict conservatives as violent or potentially violent opponents.

        If you truly believe this, then you need to snug down your tinfoil hat and scoot off to some goofball place where your kind is more welcome.

        I think you really don’t believe it, but are just a troublemaker, or a wannabe troublemaker.

        Spook outlined what it would take to spur him to action and it all centers around defense of his family, his home, his country, and himself. I have done the same thing. You can persist in lying about what was said, or in pretending that you truly believe it means something else, but all you would be doing would be confirming the impression you have already created here of an inherently unbalanced and dishonest speed bump wannabe with no respect for fact or truth.

        As in the comment ” I guess that is up to “people like you”, the decision is yours.

        So, let me make it perfectly clear just what I meant by that comment. Oh, I am sure you understood it, but I am going to explain it nearly syllable by syllable so if you refer to it again there can be no doubt that you are not just incapable of understanding the written word, you are a stone-cold liar.

        I explained that I would consider arming myself if threatened by violence. Surely even you got that—-riots, military overthrow of the government, or “Other threats to me or people around me, or to my property” This is very similar to the threats outlined by Spook.

        So as long as you are not part of a mob rioting and posing an imminent threat to me or mine, as long as you are not part of a military coup trying to overthrow our government, and as long as you are not posing a threat to me or people around me or to my property you are in no danger. I understand that the concept of personal choice and personal responsibility for those choices is antithetical to Leftist thought processes, but if you are going to try to talk to people who do believe in these things you are going to have to step outside of your comfort zone and at least try to understand it, even if you don’t believe in it.

        To put it bluntly, if simply being a lying blog vandal pimping for a political model you probably don’t even understand because you get off on attacking people is considered a legitimate reason for taking up arms against you, you would have reached room temperature a long long time ago.

        To put it bluntly, you are seen here as the farthest thing from being a threat. It may satisfy your ego to think that there is anything about you that might concern anyone, but the reality is, you are seen here as a wimpy, spineless, blustering mouthpiece for a corrupt system, attracted to it not by its true ideology but by its validation of your innate need to attack people and its stroking of your ego. You are not even “opposition” but nothing more than a wind-up noise machine. I think that even if you WERE marching up my driveway with a gun or a club in your hand, I’d be laughing at you too hard to even consider reaching for a lethal weapon. (A mirror, perhaps, in the spirit of Cervantes, so you could see how ridiculous you are.)

        So if you want to be part of this blog, you might try to stick to your pretense of discussing the constitution, if you think you can manage to rein in your compulsive need to lie about what the other side is saying so the discussion can be relevant to what is actually said and believed.

        If, as I think, you have just played the game to establish a plausible (to you, anyway) reason to be allowed to post here, shored up by your whimpering that you might be kicked off merely for providing an opposing point of view but really with the goal of disrupting the blog, you may have overplayed your hand.

        We’ll see.

      • Retired Spook May 31, 2014 / 6:19 pm

        Apparently he has some line in his head that, if crossed by someone he considers to be a progressive, like me, will cause him to take up arms against me.

        Same, exact line as Amazona:

        So as long as you are not part of a mob rioting and posing an imminent threat to me or mine, as long as you are not part of a military coup trying to overthrow our government, and as long as you are not posing a threat to me or people around me or to my property you are in no danger. I understand that the concept of personal choice and personal responsibility for those choices is antithetical to Leftist thought processes, but if you are going to try to talk to people who do believe in these things you are going to have to step outside of your comfort zone and at least try to understand it, even if you don’t believe in it.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 7:20 pm

        As far as the feeble effort to imply he is not a Progressive, this falls into the “if it walks like a duck…..” category.

        I don’t know if he is trying to weasel out of that identity because he is ashamed of it and knows it brands him as one of meager intellect, or because he just hasn’t bothered to learn anything about the political model he supports in his silly sniping at conservatives, or if he is playing the Lefty game of posturing as a “moderate” to dilute the distrust so natural of radical Leftists.

        No matter—he espouses Progressive agendas here, and I understand he tones down his radicalism quite a bit when he comes here, so I can just imagine how over the top he is when preaching to his own choir. It boils down to this—-Progressive is as Progressive does.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 7:30 pm

        watson’s feigned fear that his politics might make him a target of an armed Spook reminds me of the faux shudders of feigned outrage at Sarah Palin’s “targeting” of certain Dems for additional attention in that election.

        “oooooh!!!” shivered the trembling Dems, peeing down their legs in abject terror, terrified by the very word and having nightmares about the (gasp!) VIOLENCE !!! inherent in that savage term!

        There are not enough !!!!!!!s to convey the horror!!!!!! (Ever so much more threatening than an overt offer of a substantial cash bounty for actually killing a named man and posting his address to make it easier for the vigilantes to find him and his family. That was just Business As Usual. But to “target” an opponent for electoral defeat? Too frightening for words!!)

        And now rises the specter of Spook coming out of his peaceful retirement, to hunt down an impotent little pipsqueak because he has “crossed” him in a blog discussion! How can he sleep at night !!!!??????

      • Retired Spook May 31, 2014 / 10:20 pm

        And now rises the specter of Spook coming out of his peaceful retirement, to hunt down an impotent little pipsqueak because he has “crossed” him in a blog discussion! How can he sleep at night !!!!??????

        Well, first of all, Watson is in California, and I’m in Indiana. Quite frankly, he wouldn’t be worth the cost of the gas to drive out there and “hunt” him down. Besides, I think that people like him, call them Liberals, Progressives or whatever, that support this criminal enterprise currently running our country, are going to get what they deserve in the end. I’m a firm believer in what-goes-around-comes-around. He may very well get to a point where he actually does have trouble sleeping at night. If he has an Obama-Biden bumper sticker on his car, I’d suggest he might want to consider scraping it off — just sayin’.

      • Amazona May 31, 2014 / 10:37 pm

        Now now, Spook, it’s not nice to try to give the poor boy the heebie-jeebies. He is twitchy enough as is without looking over his shoulder for stealthy conservatives stalking him as he drives around in his Pious Prius.

        Next thing, you’ll be sneaking up on him and yelling “BOO!!”

  11. Retired Spook June 1, 2014 / 10:29 am

    I am giving you the same challenge I gave Mersault. Show us the regulations that Obama has fixed that has increased labor participation

    For that matter, show us the regulations that have held government agencies and employees who break the law accountable. Show us the regulations that have had any positive effect on economic growth. Show us the regulations that have been pro-freedom. Show us the regulations that have done anything except punish people and groups that don’t toe the liberal line.

    • Amazona June 1, 2014 / 3:54 pm

      As labor participation has decreased, this would be a tough challenge. Is someone actually claiming that not only has it increased, but this is due to some act of Obama?

      Forget laws and regulations. He don’t need no steeenkin’ laws, just a decree. So let’s lower the bar a little from actual, legal, legislation, and see if there have been any pronouncements that have helped the labor/unemployment situation.

      We know the words——shovel ready, stimulus, created, saved—but where are the results?

      In a similar vein, anyone else fed up with the references to things slowing or reversing “the recovery”? WHAT “recovery”? There has been no “recovery”—-unless we all agree to always put the word in quotes.

  12. tiredoflibbs June 2, 2014 / 5:37 am

    In the closed thread “Hitler and Stalin”‘ the creepy ass clown demonstrates his moniker. The creepy clown responds as usual with lies or is he Inapable of understanding the written word?

    “So you’re ok with calling the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum “dumbed down leftist talking points” and even “propaganda” that I fall for every time?

    Ok then.”

    Uh, no. You made the tired old claim that Nazism is “right wing”. “Dumbed down leftist talking points” and “propaganda” referred to your silly little claim that is easily debunked with a simple search. Only your usual tactics of lying about what is said could you come up with the conclusion you did above.

    That is how YOU will be remembered…. And your creepy avatar…. Nothing more.

    Pathetic.

    • Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 9:36 am

      Uh, no. You made the tired old claim that Nazism is “right wing”. “Dumbed down leftist talking points” and “propaganda” referred to your silly little claim that is easily debunked with a simple search.

      Tired, it’s the only way the Left can claim that Conservatism, when taken to the extreme is equally as totalitarian as Socialism when taken to the extreme. It was one of the most masterful history re-writes ever. The problem is that Fascism just has so darn many socialist facets, and almost nothing in common with modern day Conservatism, and, as you note, the simplest of searches will reveal that.

    • Amazona June 2, 2014 / 9:40 am

      This “SOOOOOO, you are…..” ploy is a tired old Lefty tactic, used only by those who don’t even try to appear as anything but mindless noise machines. It’s one of casper’s favorites, and it is no surprise to see it hauled out by such as the self-identified bozo. (casper tries to posture as an intellectual, what with being a teacher and all, but the clown doesn’t even try, admitting he is just a bozo and showing us what he sees when he looks in a mirror.)

      It’s what they have to do, because they have nothing else. His chosen role in life is to be a speed bump, never thinking or contributing but merely harassing those who do. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, awareness of him is like discovering you have s**t stuck to the bottom of your shoe—-a minor annoyance, though stinky at the time.

      And remember, every one of these snipes is really another example of his ignorance, such as his claim that Nazism was “right wing”. Yeah, everyone knows that the National Socialist Party, based upon a massive Central Authority that quickly morphed into a totalitarian dictatorship, COULDN’T be “left wing”. I have actually seen Lefty trolls argue that the word “Socialist” in the name was just a “coincidence”. Which takes us back to another example of ignorance, one I point out all the time.

      That is, that these mindless trolls can’t even define “left wing” or “right wing”. They are politically illiterate, merely parroting what they hear from those spiteful and malicious enough to qualify as their heroes and sources of their “information”.

      What did “right wing” mean in Germany in 1939? In the world in 1939? In the world today?

      The only thing that we talk about is what the term means in terms of 21st Century American politics, and that is the belief that the Constitution of the United States must be the template for governance of this country. Here and now, it is about a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and a nation in which most of the authority is left to the states, or to the people.

      “Left” on the other hand, has always meant concentrating power in a Ruling Elite, a small core of power with extreme if not total control over all aspects of the country and its people. And in this sense, not just because of the word “Socialist” in the name of Hitler’s Party and the source of the name “Nazi”, Nazis were without a doubt far-Left radicals.

      • tiredoflibbs June 2, 2014 / 11:54 am

        “His chosen role in life is to be a speed bump, never thinking or contributing but merely harassing those who do.”

        Oh come on Ama, that is completely unfair…..

        …. to the speed bump. A speed bump actually serves a purpose.

        To the Left, “right wing” has many different meanings. It depends upon the instant in time that the comparison is being made. To these mindless drones, the TEA party has gone from a minor annoyance without any “grassroots” whatsoever to “American Taliban” and “Domestic Terrorists”, depending upon who is regurgitating the talking points. While the protests of the TEA party are respectable and non-destructive, the protests, of their favored heroes – the so-called 99%-ers or the “Occupy-” whatever movement (“movement” is a good term), have been riddled with vandalism, destruction, defecation, violence, etc. etc.. Yet, they still repeat the talking points of those who are heroic (occupy) and those who are terrorists (TEA party). Re-writing history and re-defining terms are what they are all about. Without it, they cannot fool the Low Information Voters, like the creepy clown.

  13. Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 9:24 am

    Maybe Obama will be remembered for the Obama Doctrine.

  14. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) June 2, 2014 / 12:12 pm

    A while back Charles Krauthammer had an excellent observation on how a great many people will remember Obama:

    “How can Obama be so surprised so often? It’s as if he wandered into the White House on a tour and discovered he’s President.”

    • Cluster June 2, 2014 / 8:46 pm

      Krauthammer is one of my favorites. His analysis is always spot on

  15. Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 2:27 pm

    I’ve been thinking for a couple days about Watson’s fear that there will be a line that, when crossed, where I and people who share my views will start shooting people like him. First of all, I have trouble just wrapping my head around that kind of paranoia, but the longer I thought about it the more I realized that, should things really go south during the remainder of Obama’s term, just how will people who were vocal about supporting him be treated by the rest of us. How does Watson believe he should be treated if things really fall apart because of Obama’s policies? Can people like Watson be assured that people like me will say, “you know what; I realize your heart is in the right place, and I forgive you.” Or will people who supported the fundamental transformation of this country be ostracized, maybe forced to wear a symbol, like the Jews in 1930’s Germany, identifying them as being responsible for the dire straits in which most people find themselves? I think there’s a good chance we’ll find out, and probably sooner rather than later. If we end up where I think we might, shooting may be too easy an out for enablers like Watson.

    • Amazona June 2, 2014 / 2:38 pm

      I am glad you brought this up. I have never really disliked anyone for having a bumper sticker, unless it is really gross and profane, but I find myself looking at people who drive cars with Obama stickers with great contempt.

      I have no use for them. It is that simple. When they were faced with the reality of what their emoting had wrought upon the nation, and had the chance to try to if not fix it at least stop it from getting worse, they doubled down on stupid and justified their stupidity by saying, in effect: “If you think I was stupid for voting for Obama just because he is black, get this—–this time I voted for him because of the GOP’s War On Women! Can’t get much dumber than that!!”

      They are the ones who set up this mess, and although I don’t think they should be stoned for it, or fired, or anything like that, I do think they should experience the scorn we have for their abject stupidity.

      • Retired Spook June 2, 2014 / 2:59 pm

        I re-posted this in the current thread because I think it’s a valid discussion point, and it certainly dovetails with the topic of the current thread.

      • Cluster June 2, 2014 / 8:43 pm

        LOL. I do the same thing. I have a few times in the recent past pulled up next to an “Obama” car at the intersection, and I rolled my window down and just stared at them. I am sure they thought I was a little strange and they got a little uncomfortable but that was my intent.

Comments are closed.