Forum: pol
Page 3616
Subject: Making A Mockery Of Conservatism


  Posted by: Pancho Villa - [597172916] Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 19:30

One of the main mantras of the modern conservative movement in this country is government spending, ever-expanding deficits and unsustainable programs like social security and Medicare.
For the most part, conservatives are right in their appraisal of federal spending. The concept of spending more than revenue received, resulting in annual deficits of more than a trillion dollars, borders on the insane. Eventually, the equations become so sideways that only the most radical measures must be considered in order to avoid economic anarchy.
Many conservatives believe we are already there, and there's evidence to suggest that, lacking immediate and severe austerity measures ala Greece, the roadblock to continued economic growth is real and imminenet.

That's why it's so hard to understand why a large contingency of conservatives make a mockery of the term "conservative" when it comes to the subject of energy, and oil in particular. It's hard to understand why they promote the same "spending like drunken sailors" they condemn liberal politicians for, when the equations are equally sideways when it comes to oil.

According to figures accumulated by Canadian geo-scientist
David Hughes

The facts of the matter are that no nation on earth is more dependent on imported oil than the U.S. Although consumption has declined somewhat, due to the Great Recession, imports accounted for more than 61 percent of U.S. oil consumption in 2009. Net 2009 U.S. imports of 11.5 million barrels per day exceeded China's TOTAL OIL CONSUMPTION of 8.6 million barrels per day by 33 percent. Americans, with a population of 310 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels per day in 2009 compared to China, a country with 1.32 billion people, which consumed a mere 8.6 million barrels per day. This works out to 22 barrels of oil consumption per American in 2009 compared to 2.4 barrels per person in China.

Although American oil production increased slightly in 2009 from a recent low in 2008, it is down 36 percent from its all time peak in 1970. Meanwhile oil imports are up by 358 percent since 1965. The vaunted 100,000 barrel per day growth in shale oil production by 2013 in Krauss' article, if it occurs, would amount to half a percent of current U.S. consumption.


What about those vaunted Alberta tar sands? Hughes thoughts from a more recent article.

The tar sands have become infamous due to how dirty the oil is and how energy-intensive it is to extract, along with the massive environmental devastation required in the process of extraction.

Scientific and environmental critics of tar sand extraction also argue that oil companies' glowing forecasts of how much oil is there, along with how long it will take to extract are fantastic, in a literal sense of the term.

Hughes, whose expertise includes 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as both a scientist and research manager, calls the forecasts "exuberant".
"They were at 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2010. Industry has tripled the forecasts in 25 years, which would put them at about 4.5mbpd. It's taken 40 years to get the tar sands to 1.5 million bpd and the surface scar is incredible. I can't imagine what that would look like if you tripled it."

Hughes explained the government of Alberta reports 143bn barrels of oil, but "90 per cent of those are too deep to be surface minable. Huge energy inputs are required to get to that. So energy return on investment is going to go down a lot as the tar sands progress. I'll believe they triple it when I see it … frankly I don't think it's possible. This is industry hype they are talking to their shareholders."

The oil in the tar sands also requires time-consuming construction of more infrastructure to support its extraction and delivery, which, along with the aforementioned factors, lead Hughes to believe the tar sands "can't be ramped up enough to offset declines of conventional oil".

link

As Hughes summarizes from the 1st link:

In summary, oil and gas are finite resources that are being consumed at unprecedented and growing rates. Despite what Krauss' article says, the U.S. is the worst offender and is highly vulnerable to future energy price and supply shocks. The growth trajectory of the already high consumption levels in the industrialized world and the rapid growth in consumption in the developing world is patently unsustainable. Articles such as this falsely promote complacency and thus are an extreme disservice to understanding the energy sustainability dilemma facing the World. The premise of this article that the U.S. is approaching “energy independence” could not be further from the truth.

Even the website Peak Oil Debunked has a

DISCLAIMER FOR IDIOTS: This site officially accepts that oil is finite, and will peak someday.

As well, the site offers

THE SOLUTION: ELECTRIFICATION + CONSERVATION

It's becoming increasingly clear that electrification of transport (combined with conservation) is the near-term solution to peak oil. Yes, there are liquid alternatives (ethanol, biodiesel, CTL, GTL), and they will help take the edge off petroleum decline, and play a role in niche applications where liquid fuel is essential.

Electrification = Hybrids + PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrids) + NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) + Small EVs + Full-size EV cars + Electric bikes/scooters + Segways + Electric motorcycles + Electric buses + Electric trucks + New electric trains + Electrification of existing diesel train lines

Plus

Conservation = Walking + Bicycles + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Carpooling + Van pooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Riding the tram/train/subway + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + NGVs + Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles + Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle + Buying a moped etc. as a second vehicle + Converting oil-fired generation to coal/nuclear + Jacking up CAFE standards + Increasing downtown parking rates + Lowering speed limits + Compressed work week + etc.


We hear plenty from conservatives about estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves....
Democratic obstructionism at every turn in the road to more domestic oil production


but when was the last time you heard a so-called conservative promote the concept of conservation when it comes to our consumption habits that are hurtling us towards an unsustainable economic future that dwarfs the problem of the federal budget deficit.
They mock public transportation, the idea of sustainable growth where communities are designed to accomodate energy efficiency, and laughably worship a politician whose husband races snowmobiles thousands of miles across Alaska and deem her a true conservative. What they're really doing is making a mockery of conservatism.







 
1sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 19:43
If I said, "Beautifully stated", would that be an understatement?
 
2Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 19:53
Let me get this straight. Do liberals believe alternative energy will eventually get here efficiently and in abundance...

...or is this just another argument in their effort to destroy civilization?

And if they do believe workable alternative energy tech will get here, why shouldn't we go get our oil now while we still need it?
 
3DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 20:03
"...or is this just another argument in their effort to destroy civilization?"

Sigh.

No, I don't give a crap if it's "outlawed".
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 20:16
We do, indeed, want to destroy this self-destructive oil dependence. While we still can, before it is forced upon us.

Since when is it "conservative" to hold extreme positions about the use of resources?
 
5Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 20:26
Plus, if oil prices are just going to go up in the future, why drill now and sell our reserves now. Let's save them for when oil is $400/bbl. We won't save any money on a gallon of gas since the world market controls the prices, but we'll get our own oil workers/companies more money from extracting it at $400/bbl than at $100/bbl. It's a no-brainer. In the mean-time, the US can build a dominant alternative energy industry. This is another tipping point for US industry like electronics, automotive, etc., were in the past. Once we were the leaders in those industries, but we let other countries subsidize them and so we fell behind. We can't afford to let another one pass us by.
 
6Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 20:31
It took all of two posts for Boldwin to eliminate himself from any rational, adult discussion on this subject - hence the thread title.
 
7DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 21:03
I'm quite disappointed -- I had the under on the "will it happen within 9.5 minutes" bet. Thought that was a pretty good line.

Then again, elimination from rational discussion may have officially happened a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm still a winner.
 
8Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Tue, May 29, 2012, 19:03
Well not a mockery of conservatives, but a mockery of House Speaker John Boehner.
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, May 29, 2012, 19:29
Surely the biggest problem for the Speaker has been the Far Right rather than the Democrats.
 
10Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Sep 23, 2012, 23:14
"What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live... And we want to protect and to preserve the land on which we live - our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it."

Ronald Reagan
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 298262322
      Sun, Sep 23, 2012, 23:47
Yeah, and he probably voted green party and was a heavy contributor to greenpeace too.
 
12Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 01:11
So, in your world, any politician who conveys a message that exults preservation and protection of the environment should be characterized as a green party voter and heavy contributor to Greenpeace.

Thanks for proving my point that you make a mockery of conservatism.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 298262322
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 04:20
Conservatives must operate outside the leftist conservation institutions because they are anti-human, more anti-west than pro-environment and pro globalist takeover.
 
14Perm Dude
      ID: 56832185
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 07:29
So preservation of the environment is entirely a leftist concern?
 
15Tree
      ID: 53555306
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 10:19
13 drives home the point of "we must oppose anything they are for, even if the person we hold dear as practically a saint was also for the same thing."

it's one of the many reasons the Tea party is one of the worst things to happen to American politics and the American people... no compromise, even at the risk of destroying our nation.
 
16Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 11:34
leftist conservation institutions....are anti-human, more anti-west than pro-environment and pro globalist takeover


This statement is further evidence that modern conservatism, as defined by it's author, is a complete abandonment of traditional conservative principles that Ronald Reagan advanced during his career. The statement is based on a hysterical, fear-driven ideology designed to prohibit honest communication.

Given Reagan's statement above, it would seem logical to conclude he understood there needs to be a balance between the interests of the extraction and motorized recreational industries and the environmental movements that want to stunt all growth through regulations and lawsuits. The preservation and protection of this country's ever-shrinking areas threatened by a population that has doubled in my lifetime, needs to be approached in terms that promote that balance. Claims of anti-human, anti-west and pro global takeovers have nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with radical obstructionism.
 
17Boldwin
      ID: 548462415
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 17:16
You two are engaged in Alinskyite tactic of trying to isolate the opponent.

Reagan was well aware that the green movement had been taken over as a tool of the far left.

The far left enviro-movement fought him tooth and nail on defending the west with minuteman missiles positioned in Europe and SDI. It didn't have anything to do with the environment. They just hated the west and loved whatever line Moscow was pushing.

Enviro-weenies went berserk when Reagan correctly pointed out that trees emitted hydrocarbons and that the EPA was out of control.
The Reagan Administration (1980–1989)

Ronald Reagan entered office skeptical of environmental protection laws and campaigned against harsh government regulation with the environmental arena in mind. As Reagan entered office, he was given two transition reports – one called "Mandate for Leadership" from the Heritage Foundation and one called "Avoiding a GOP Economic Dunkirk" from conservative Congressman David Stockman(R-MI) – that called for drastic changes in environmental regulation, primarily through administrative changes. In pursuit of this strategy, Reagan gradually reduced the EPA's budget by 30% through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, cut the number of EPA employees, and appointed people at key agency positions who would enthusiastically follow the administration line. Appointees such as Anne Burford at the EPA and James G. Watt at the Department of the Interior were overtly hostile to environmental protection. Through his appointments, Reagan changed the operations of environmental protection from stiff regulation to "cooperative regulation."

Under this administrative strategy of regulatory relief, environmental laws were written and interpreted more favorably for industry interests. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was also given new powers to write regulations. During the first Reagan administration, the OMB was given the power to require a favorable cost-benefit analysis of any regulation before it could be implemented. This was used to delay new regulations, and changes that resulted in regulatory relief often had this requirement waived. At the beginning of the second Reagan administration, the OMB was given more power- all regulatory agencies were required to submit proposals each year for all major environmental regulation- allowing it to reduce regulatory efforts before such proposed regulations became public.

Within few months from entering the White House, Reagan removed the solar panels that his predecessor Carter had installed on the roof of the White House’s West Wing. "Reagan's political philosophy viewed the free market as the best arbiter of what was good for the country. Corporate self-interest, he felt, would steer the country in the right direction," the author Natalie Goldstein wrote in "Global Warming." - wiki
But nice dishonest attampt to recruit Ronald Reagan into a war against his base. That sort of thing works in your own mind, and the howling liberal wolfpack on that bandwagon might convince a lurker who wasn't aware of the lopsided nature of this forum's representatives.
 
18Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 18:22
#17 - classic Alinsky tactic. Either that, or too lazy or too obstinate to properly absorb #16.

he understood there needs to be a balance between the interests of the extraction and motorized recreational industries and the environmental movements that want to stunt all growth through regulations and lawsuits

Nothing in #17 disputes that, except the possible appointing of Watt and Gorsuch. Watt, one of the most embarrassing cabinet members in history, resigned under pressure (translation -Reagan fired him) in 1983, a full year before the end of the 1st Reagan term, and replaced by the over-qualified William Clark, Reagan's long-time buddy and confidant, whose bipartisan credentials were buffeted by former president Jimmy Carter offering to testify at his confirmation.

Gorsuch, equally embarrassing, became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress for mishandling 1.6 billion dollars in Superfund money. Also resigned(read - fired) in 1983.

Two big Reagan mistakes that he remedied.

Upon his death, here are some remeberances;

Republicans for Environmental Protection, an organization that has been a staunch critic of Bush’s environmental record, posted a glowing In Memoriam to Reagan on their website Monday: “REP America joins every citizen in bidding a sad farewell to President Ronald Reagan. His wilderness protection achievements are an enduring legacy for the American people. President Reagan signed into law 38 bills that added more than 10.6 million acres of spectacular forests, mountains, deserts, and wetlands to the National Wilderness Preservation System.”

Also on Monday, the Los Angeles Times published an article praising Reagan for his environmental record as governor of California. The article quotes Reagan biographer Lou Cannon touting Reagan’s gubernatorial eco-legacy as one of the high points of his career: “To me, the environmental achievements are enduring. Who the hell remembers or cares what the taxes or the budget was in 1967, but long after, people are going to be able to use the John Muir Trail without having to hit a highway.”




 
22Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 18:50
I haven't said anything leftist. Your paranoia is a personal problem. I have no mob, am an individual with my own unique perspectives. That you fail to realize that also makes a mockery of conservatism.
 
24Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Sep 24, 2012, 19:06
the current 'environmental movement' run and overrun by marxist anti-human radicals

The current marxist anti-human Secretary of the Interior,
Ken Salazar

Colorado Attorney General

Colorado Senator

In 2005, Salazar voted against increasing fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE) for cars and trucks, a vote that the League of Conservation Voters believes is anti-environment. In the same year, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies

In 2006, Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[9]

In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the United States Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects


Several prominent environmentalist groups are wary of Salazar, noting his strong ties with the coal and mining industries. Kieran Suckling, executive director of Center for Biological Diversity, which tracks endangered species and habitat issues states "He [Ken Salazar] is a right-of-center Democrat who often favors industry and big agriculture in battles over global warming, fuel efficiency and endangered species."[21]

The nomination was praised, however, by Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. Upon the nomination, Karpinski said, "Throughout his career, Senator Salazar has campaigned on a pledge of support for 'our land, our water, our people.' With a perfect 100% score on the 2008 LCV Scorecard, he has lived up to that pledge. As a westerner, Senator Salazar has hands on experience with land and water issues, and will restore the Department of the Interior's role as the steward of America's public resources. We look forward to working with him to protect the health of America's land, water, and people in the coming years."

link

Has "marxist anti-human" ever been misused so thoroughly?
 
29Tree
      ID: 268282511
      Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 12:31
You two are engaged in Alinskyite tactic of trying to isolate the opponent.

i didn't even know who Alinsky was until you brought him up on this boards. I have no desire to study his tactics in depth, much less engage in them.
 
30sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 15:26
Those over paid teachers

By Author Unknown (if you know who wrote it, PLEASE let me know)

Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage.

That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET’S SEE….

That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 38847285
      Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 19:59
Yeah, that's as clever as a wife handing you a bill for half a million a year.

But is the kind of math Obama backers believe in. Each NEA union worker should have a hundred poor people lined up outside paying each teacher their entire disposable income.
 
32sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 20:02
The point is valid B. Teachers perform a task which is vital to the society and they are grossly undervalued in the doing.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 56832185
      Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 20:06
And each doctor should have ten thousand people lined up outside their door, by that logic.

Are teachers overpaid? By and large: No. Your union hatred doesn't change that.

Administrators, on the other hand (who are non-union)...
 
34Boldwin
      ID: 484290
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 05:46
Everyone performs a task that is vital to society or we would save our money and not hire them in the first place.
 
35sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 12:09
No B....the guy at the bowling alley? Not a vital job for society. The fella that owns the penny arcade? Not vital to society. The mini-golf course? Not vital.
 
36Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 12:34
Quant arbitrage leeches sucking to value from other people's hard work? Not vital. A huge negative on fact.

Scum real estate brokers squeezing their piece of the 6%? We would be better off without them too.
 
37Boldwin
      ID: 428282914
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 16:00
Do people actually hire arbitrage leeches? I thot they did their work pro bono.
 
38Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 16:48
Uh, yeah. 120k right out of college and a bottle of Dom.. 2 year contract. Work em a hundred hours a week, and teach em how to screw Americans til they are sore.
 
39Boldwin
      ID: 428282914
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 17:15
They don't all work in boiler rooms. Far from it.

You can make an arbitrage trade sitting in your kitchen.
 
40biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Sat, Sep 29, 2012, 17:30
Yeah, but you are missing the point.

Do you want to have our best and brightest teaching our youth math and building our country's foundation, or tearing our country apart skimming the value from those doing the actual work?

Pay them what they are worth and make their decision easy.
 
41Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 09:44
Nobody makes more a mockery of conservatism than the cartoonish Glen Beck. I can only imagine the anticipation his congregation felt last month when his new book,
Agenda 21 hit the shelves. At last, a meticulously researched documentation of how the UN is conspiring to control every aspect of our lives, destroying our freedoms, herding us into FEMA camps and generally enslaving us with their diabolical one world agenda.

Well, not quite.

Imagine how buyers of this book feel duped when they realize it's a hoax, and there's a bunch of them.

#7 on NY Times Fiction bestsellers
 
42Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 10:25
You're saying Agenda 21 was marketed as nonfiction?
 
43Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 11:12
It is hard to think of it as pure fiction MITH when Beck has assignments for the readers such as on the bottom of his book's webpage where you are told to look for this list of keywords regarding Agenda 21.

We need a tinfoil hat thread. But this has become one, I guess.
 
44Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 12:04
Here's an ad prior to the release on Beck's Blaze TV. There's no mention of it being fiction, nor any mention that Beck didn't write(or even co-write) the book.

It was after this and other ads appeared(right before the book was released) that the following appeared on Beck's website:

For weeks, a series of suspicious advertisements have been airing during the breaks on TheBlaze. These ads have been promoting pieces of Agenda 21, and advocate for eugenics and other horrible policies. Now, Glenn has been clear in the past that he is a capitalist, but would he really allow ads to run that advocated for Agenda 21, a U.N. program that he first discussed when he was on FOX News several years ago? Today, the truth behind the ads was revealed: Agenda 21 is a new fiction book written by Glenn Beck which looks at a future where Agenda 21 has been implemented to it’s full extent.

Written by Glenn Beck?

I'll leave it up to people's imagination as to the honesty of the marketing.
 
45Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 20:06
Speaking of Glenn Beck
 
46Boldwin
      ID: 29042213
      Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 20:52
You know who is closest to the truth by who Libs target the fiercest.
 
47sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 20:57
Few, of the far right media mouthpieces, would ever voice the truth B. I have no doubt they KNOW the truth. They couldnt all so completely avoid it, if they didnt know what it was. This of course, makes them deliberate liars.
 
48Boldwin
      ID: 29042213
      Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 21:25
Tell it to Jacques Derrida.
 
49Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 21:35
You know who is closest to the truth by who Libs target the fiercest.

#45 has nothing to do with Libs targeting Beck. It has everything to do with Glenn Beck making a mockery of conservatism, something Boldwin accomplishes daily here.
 
50Tree
      ID: 54382411
      Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 18:34
Former Romney Intern Arrested For Blackmailing Women Into Sending Him Nude Photos

He also has a Facebook profile full of photos of him posing with almost every Republican politician from the 2012 election cycle.

i so love buzzfeed.
 
51Mith
      ID: 29182720
      Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 07:17
Sam Smith with the headline of the week:

Former Romney Intern Arrested With Binder Full of Women
 
52Tree
      ID: 38322228
      Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 10:34
heh.
 
53Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 10:06
This is why he is the perfect todays-conservative representative. Loud indignation combined with a wealthy entitlement complex.
 
54Boldwin
      ID: 5752368
      Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 11:10
And if you have your way the family owning Hobby Lobby will be the most fined people in America...for following the tenets of your own religion.

 
55Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 15:30
53 Why is this guy not in a federal prison yet? Why are his gunmen friends not in the adjacent cell? What the hell does Hobby Lobby have to do with this?
 
56Boldwin
      ID: 5752368
      Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 16:39
My understanding is that his claim on the land preempts the more recent government regulations and it looks like the feds don't want to test that theory in court.

It is easy to pile up ludicrous penalties and fees when the government is out to terrorize a citizen.
 
57Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 16:59
The article says that the Bundy family bought the land in 1948 and started grazing their cattle in 1954 on then federal lands. The article further states that in 1998 the federal government started proceedings against Bundy for BLM fees. All of this begs a few questions.

1) When did the BLM start billing the Bundy family?

2) What was their response then and since to the billing?

3) What prompted the 1998 court case and did the Bundy family appear in court? If so, why?

4) Why has it taken the federal government over 16 years since the court ruling to settle this?

5) How does a criminal who steals over a $1M from the feds get away with it if he can round up a bunch of armed thugs?

How bout we arm some vets in need of medical care and tell them if they go confiscate this guy's cattle we'll sell it and pay for their medical care?
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 11:04
According to Bundy, he's never paid anything to the government for grazing rights.

The reason it has dragged out so long is that the law has a weak enforcement mechanism, and so a bully like Bundy can get away with it for a long, long time.
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 50546712
      Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 13:55
How bout we arm some vets in need of medical care and tell them if they go confiscate this guy's cattle we'll sell it and pay for their medical care?

Because they'd end up siding with Bundy and Reid knows it.
 
60Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 15:40
59 OK, lets see how Bundy funds the VA for them. At least they could eat his cattle for awhile, right?
 
61biliruben
      ID: 21841115
      Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 19:52
Racist, anarchist prick. Confiscate everything he's got.

If he chooses to ignore the rules of the government of this fine country, he doesn't deserve the fruit.
 
62Boldwin
      ID: 50546712
      Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 20:29
Scratch a liberal and find the sort of screaming tyrant inside who would steal 80% of the west right out from under the people they claim to love.
 
63sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sun, Jun 08, 2014, 09:32
steal? B just instantly takes the side of the anarchist against the govt. pssst, B, a hint for you...Bundy and his followers ARE the anarchists. Not vice versa. Bundy, owes over a million dollars in unpaid grazing fees. HE, is the one stealing. Stealing from you and I and every other taxpayer.
 
64Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Sun, Jun 08, 2014, 13:09
Bundy is not a conservative, he is a moron.

This was the first time I read the thread title and it is good to see Poncho can write something outside venomous rhetoric. Mopeds,walking, electric trains etc.. are a waste of time. If you ride a moped to work you are not doing anything of any proportion to help the environment. It is more like wearing a sign that says "Hey look at me I care about the environment." We just have to look to Europe for ideas to conserve oil. They have been battling the problem much longer and forcefully than we have. We need more energy efficient cars. Automobiles in Europe...

"An example of European cars' capabilities of fuel economy is the microcar Smart Fortwo cdi, which can achieve up to 3.4 l/100 km (69.2 mpg US) using a turbocharged three-cylinder 41 bhp (30 kW) Diesel engine. The Fortwo is produced by Daimler AG and is currently only sold by one company in the United States. Furthermore, the current (and to date already 10 year old) world record in fuel economy of production cars is held by the Volkswagen Group, with special production models (labeled "3L") of the Volkswagen Lupo and the Audi A2, consuming as little as 3 L/100 km (94 mpg-imp; 78 mpg-US).[5]

Diesel engines generally achieve greater fuel efficiency than petrol (gasoline) engines. Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30%, and petrol engines of up to 37.3%, but more typically 20%. That is one of the reasons why diesels have better fuel efficiency than equivalent petrol cars. A common margin is 25% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel.

For example, the current model Skoda Octavia, using Volkswagen engines, has a combined European fuel efficiency of 41.3 mpg for the 105 bhp (78 kW) petrol engine and 52.3 mpg for the 105 bhp (78 kW) — and heavier — diesel engine. The higher compression ratio is helpful in raising the energy efficiency, but diesel fuel also contains approximately 10% more energy per unit volume than gasoline which contributes to the reduced fuel consumption for a given power output."

Forget all the other crap, it just muddies the water and concentrate on fuel efficient vehicles.
 
65Boldwin
      ID: 50546712
      Sun, Jun 08, 2014, 14:57
I disagree, Sarge. I do not believe even 30% of Americans would vote to hand over 80% of the western USA to the UN and agree to a hands off decree. Look to the people doing that to find your lawless anarchists.
 
66bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 13:56
Shame on you sarge - wanting to give away 80% of western USA! Just what are you thinking?
 
67bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 14:04
Re the people who do side with Bundy - what have they been up to lately?
 
68Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 15:18
the people who do side with Bundy - what have they been up to lately?


You haven't heard?

The couple who shot two Las Vegas police officers to death in a weekend ambush before killing a bystander and themselves in a nearby Wal-Mart harbored anti-law enforcement, anti-government ideologies but are believed to have acted alone, authorities said on Monday.

The suspects, identified as Jerad Miller, 31, and his wife, Amanda, 22, expressed support in social media for renegade Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and the husband claimed to have been present at the standoff between federal agents and militia members at Bundy's ranch in April, police in Las Vegas said.

 
69Boldwin
      ID: 4253916
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 17:03
So that makes 99% mass killers are lib loons and every once in a blue moon the exception shows up.
 
70bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 18:12
Yeah, they may have gunned down a couple of cops and an innocent bystander, but they can't be all bad. First of all, they marched with Bundy, and most important: they weren't liberals.
 
71Boldwin
      ID: 4253916
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 18:49
Who said they can't be all bad?
 
72bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 20:24
I did.
 
73Boldwin
      ID: 4253916
      Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 20:55
They were. Even the people defending the ranch kicked these murder-plotting meth tweakers off of the ranch.

What more you want?
 
74sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 01:37
GOP whining about not enough loans being made to low income minority borrowers...

Hensarling was particularly vocal about the Dodd-Frank law's effect on minority borrowers, claiming a Federal Reserve study shows that "about one-third of blacks and Hispanics would not be able to obtain a mortgage," based on the rule's requirement that monthly borrower debts not exceed 43 percent of monthly income.

That's true, according to the Fed's 2010 data. It's also generally considered bad personal finance to have that much of your income tied up with debt payments.
 
75Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 12:04
Haven't these idiots learned anything? Not exceeding 43 percent of monthly income is fiscally smart. Barney Frank and the GOP members arguing this should be impeached for stupidity. Of course if stupidity was an impeachable offense, we would lose most of Congress and the president.
 
76sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 18:27
I think you need to put your unbridled bias away, and reread the article. Frank isnt asking for the 43% figure to be set aside. The Republicans are. Frank, merely commented how "schizo" it is for the GOP to be taking that posture now, after their previous position and allegations.
 
77Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:11
I skimmed through the article quickly. It was bad enough I had to agree with Obama on oil exploration, now I have to side with guy that caused the bank failures on this issue.

What the hell is going on? Alien body snatchers have to be taking over Washington. Obama is making intelligent moves on energy, Barney Frank is being fiscally smart and some on the GOP have completely lost their minds.If Sarge makes an intelligent post,then I will know the invasion is rampant and I am building a bunker.
 
78sarge33d
      ID: 206272417
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:15
Frank didnt cause the bank failures. That barn door was opened, by Graham-Leach-Bliley. Then GWBs deregulation of the SEC, started chasing the livestock out of the barn.
 
79Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jul 24, 2014, 20:22
I see there is no need for the bunker just yet.
 
80sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 01:54
link

After citing Justice Brandeis’ famous claim that America’s states are laboratories for democracy, Krugman turns to compare and contrast California and Kansas, noting that while the former state has seen economic growth and a successful implementation of Obamacare, the latter has had a stagnant economy and a ballooning deficit.

Not incidentally, these states decided to take opposite approaches to economic policy, with California embracing “a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage” while Kansas “went all-in on supply-side economics, slashing taxes on the affluent” only to see paltry growth and a darkening fiscal picture.

“If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers,” Krugman writes. “Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels.”
 
81Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 03:41
Comparing Kansas and California is comparing apples to oranges. California is much larger than Kansas. A better comparison would be ultra conservative Texas.Oops, California lost. That moron, Krugman, is better at propaganda than economics.
 
82Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 10:13
five more labs?

John Stewart featured this topic this week. Ten more democrat senators, wouldn't that be scary?
 
83sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 10:24
No Gator. Krugman and others have addressed TX growth, and it is not attributable to tax differences. You should really try reading before speaking.
 
84sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 10:48
Just as an aside,

since you find the KS example so discomforting and then blame the failure in KS on the states size, are you then admitting that it takes a large geography for the ideals to even begin to function? So that at the state level, unless we are talking TX, CA, AL, then the govt should not be conservative because its just too small?
 
85sarge33rd
      ID: 86272611
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 12:27
AL should be AK...the trouble with typing before coffee
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 21:28
"California lost." In what way, specifically?
 
88sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sun, Jul 27, 2014, 15:47
CA budget...balanced.
Jobs growth...ahead of the national avg.
Housing costs...3 times the national avg and THAT, is why TX job growth currently outpaces that of CA. TX incomes however, are below the national avg. Once folks move there and find out how badly it sucks, they'll leave again.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 86222917
      Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 18:27
California and Illinois are the laughingstocks of the nation with runaway public sector expenses. With their benefit packages so bloated and their underfunded pension plans already so far gone those states are dead men walking. Their bond ratings will someday make 2009 derivative junk bonds look like gold bars in comparison.
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 86222917
      Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 19:01
Do You Live In A Death Spiral State? - Forbes

If you said California or Illinois start packing.

The delusion of liberals is stunning. Imagine touting those states as successes!
 
93sarge33rd
      ID: 526262911
      Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 19:14
91 and 92, shining examples f selective hearing.

RWNJ dislike CA with such blind hatred, they will blindly deny reality even as it is documented. *shrug*

 
94Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 23:23
"Conservatives": Cherry-picking bad news since January 2009. Today's latest is an opinion piece from 2012...

Here's the actual latest from the same source (Forbes):

If it were a country, California’s $2 trillion economy would be the tenth biggest in the world. The state represents 13% of the U.S. economy. Though California has been under duress in recent years from the dramatic fall in home prices and reduced state tax revenues, its outlook looks bright. Economic and job growth are both expected to be strong over the next five years. Another plus is the $41 billion in venture capital money invested in California companies over the past three years, an amount which is almost five times the total of any other state.

source

Apparently venture capitalists aren't to be trusted. Unless what they do strokes the Right's confirmation bias about Obama, and they they are touted ceaselessly...
 
95sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 00:49
Conservative Navy SEAL Arrested For Fabricating Story About Being Shot By Black Mob


 
96biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 12:39
You're just pissed because your $40 of "Shock-N-Awe SEAL Whey" didn't inject success directly into your DNA.
 
97Seattle Zen
      ID: 576301411
      Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 12:49
Morton Downey Jr. Two, Electric Boogaloo.

Nice find, sarge.
 
98Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 13:36
<96> I am sure he will get some kind of reimbursement from the class action suit.
 
99biliruben
      ID: 561162511
      Tue, Sep 09, 2014, 14:57
"I injected success directly into my DNA!"

"No way!"

"Whey!"
 
100Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 14:15
And just to be sure we all understand that not every vet is an a$$hole worthy of your disgust.

There are these stories

Sweet Dreams kids, dont let the bed bugs bite.


 
101Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 22:20
Then, there's this story.
 
102Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 15:52
An absurd tradition for certain.

Takes a lot of nerve for the TSgt to make a stand, he may have waited if he were just an E-5, since making E-6 will allow him to retire once he gets his 20 years in.

I cannot bear witness to subjective discrimination that occurs against those who are vocal dissenters of the "perceived company line" in the military. I can tell you, that I would not welcome the distraction as a supervisor/leader. I've got far more important stuff than someone who has his/her pants in a wad over this crap.

Having been an officer, I have sworn in many of my troops (they choose who they want to do it). I cannot recall anyone having a problem with "So help me God". If someone had, I would hope they would have come to me and asked me to omit the words, and I would have been glad to do it.

I am both a Democrat and an atheist, I found no need to make a point to bring that to the attention of anyone while serving my country. If I had, it would have made my life a little more difficult, and would have distracted from the accomplishment of our mission. My philosophical beliefs just aren't all that fantastic, that I feel that I must implant them on everyone I have dominion over. They're like opinions and a$$holes.

The majority of my troops and fellow members felt they needed conservative political and religious affiliation to make them "whole", and if that illusion makes them better airmen then I say, go for it, just dont force your beliefs on anyone else. So, not an issue to me unless it violates Air Force Regulations and/or UCMJ. If someone came to me, and they never did, to complain about some perceived discrimination, I would have taken the appropriate disciplinary actions or counseling, and pointed them to the JAG if they thought I didn't go far enough.

I suspect the TSgt is very much like my older brother, a holier than thou atheist who doesn't know when to shut up. I always say to him, that maybe you don't need religion, but those poor SOBs do. And if we dont let them have it, they might not have a conscience, compassion, an ability to forgive themselves, hope, and a structure for an honest, good path in life. So, don't knock it, we may be surrounded by serial killers without it.
 
103biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 18:16
I didn't read anywhere that he was trying to not "let them have it".

He just wasn't much interested in lying to get along go along.
 
104Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 12:23
I will say this, if he doesn't win his case, it will be a sad day for this country. The change in regulations was a serious conscious mistake made by some misguided senior officer. It cannot stand.

When he wins his case, it will be a sad day for this country. Not because he isn't right, not because the issue isn't important, but because this is ONE BATTLE THAT THE MILTARY SHOULDN'T BE FIGHTING, YOU CIVILIANS WANT US TO WIPE YOUR ASSES AND KISS YOUR BOOBOOS TOO?. Take this whiny bullshit to the chaplain and get back to work. Or is that perspective just too hard to comprehend?
 
105Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 12:54
Hehe, why haven't the Republicans stepped up on this issue? Obama was CINC, US when the reg got changed, seems like a sure sign of his incompetence and failure to properly lead.
 
106Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 13:37
Just so we all understand how this stuff gets started, blame the meddlers, not the military
 
107Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 17:19
Take this whiny bullshit to the chaplain and get back to work. Or is that perspective just too hard to comprehend?

That perspective is very easy to comprehend. It's also very easy to completely disagree with it. From the author of the link in #106:

Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces

IOW, either be religious or be subjected to discrimination if you intend on being in the military. Belief or non-belief in religious dogma has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to properly fulfill their duties, unless that person happens to be a chaplain.
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 17:28
#106: From your link, the belief seems to be that this was an editorial mistake (their words), which rebuts your theory of "meddlers."

Nevertheless, the Air Force Academy has long had a history of religious bias.
 
109Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 23:19
<107> The real problem in my mind is that the American public doesn't know what it wants. If we are going to strike the word God from everything we have or do that is offical US government, then make that rule in congress and tell the US military what you decided and we will follow suit. Meanwhile, you have a whole bunch of people in the military just bending to political pressure from those outside on both sides of every issue.

The military has enough to do without the distraction of being the crucible for unresolved social issues. When the civilian world knows what it wants, congress provides direction then the rule is easy to follow.

Who gives a shit sarge, we got enough ammo?

 
110Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 11:13
<108> I live in Colorado Springs (home of USAFA), my father in law was a flying instructor to the cadets, and I am friends with two officers that have been instructors there. In case you were unaware, we have several large evangelist organizations based here, including Focus on the Family (my next door neighbor works for them). For most of our conservative citizens, this is all no big deal, because we are not trigger happy alarmists.

I dont agree with the views of the author of the link in 106. I presented the link so you would understand that the military is not allowed to operate in a vacuum. I also do not believe that a change like that could have been an accidental ommission, though it may have been a failure on the part of a supervisor of the perpetrator of the change to properly "edit" it. That's doubtful, given the concurrent removal of signs.

How the pressures from both the right and the left could result in such huge policy swings, due simply to a change of command of the organization is hard to comprehend.

What's absurd to me is how a simple policy of let the member decide what the oath says or doesn't say became such a political football that some misguided senior officer felt he/she had to direct HIS choice through an Air Force wide regulation change. What was wrong with leaving it as member's choice and avoid the entire silly argument? Who really gives a damn, shut up and color kids.

PV, PD, bili. Any of you ever served?


 
111Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 11:53
Briefly in college, in the Air Force ROTC program in Cincinnati.

My service is moot, however, in discussing a pervasive climate of religious pressure in an organization which should actively reject such pressures. But doesn't.

Maybe because some, like yourself, are convinced the problem is outsiders, while there is plenty of evidence that the pressure is within the organization and is nurtured and sustained in ways and levels that the other armed forces branches aren't seeing.
 
112Bean
      ID: 598101311
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 12:16
I would argue that context and familiarity are not moot. If you haven't served there are many things you don't understand. I am trying to ascertain how much explaining I must do to educate you.

In Mazlov's hierarchy, religious freedom is way the hell down there. We need to prepare these kids for something far more devastating than some name calling by their peers or their parents failure to teach them manners. We simply don't need the distractions that this issue brings.

Quick, what's the last word of the National Anthem?

If you need moral support son, go talk to the chaplain, we don't have time for this.
 
113biliruben
      ID: 258431310
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 13:50
Nope.

My dad was a pilot in the AF, and we buried my grandpa (amongst much religious pageantry) at West Point, but I don't know danky about athiests and foxholes and all that.
 
114Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 14:32
I think you are missing the point in your efforts to circle the wagons, Bean. Is there some context I'm missing that, were I an insider, that forcing people into a particular religion as a condition of being an airman is OK?

It is wrong to proselytize in the armed forces, and no amount of "you just don't understand because you aren't in there" makes it right.
 
115Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 15:14
re-read 102 and 104, I haven't missed anything.

What I am concerned with is that someone is trying to turn some BS issue into "the military is evil" and is conspiring to undermine the fabric of our civilization.

I dont see it any different than the view that the "militarization" of US police forces are somehow some kind of conspiracy to take away all of our rights. All of this is once again over reaction to some news that someone screwed up.

I say again, who gives a shit. Want to fix this, give the atheists their own chaplain, so when they start whining they know who to cry to. The chaplains have been trained in handling this stuff. The JAG knows the law and his door is open to everyone too. They'll stroke this child just right, he'll grow to be a man, and we wont have to wet nurse him anymore.

Let me give you another point of reference. My wife used to have a stuffed tiger in her kindergarten room. It's name was Tattle Tale Tommy the Tiger, we'll call him the Kindergarten Chaplain, OK?

Do you really have a problem with what I am saying to you? Am I not being sensitive to your needs somehow? If so, go see your minister and tell him about it and contact your lawyer so he can explain the law to you. Ask them both to kiss your booboo. I got more important stuff to do, like work on my fantasy football teams, hehe.
 
116sarge33rd
      ID: 118491316
      Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 17:49
Who gives a shit sarge, we got enough ammo?

Define "enough".


Having been Atheist my entire military career, and having returned to the Church just a few years ago, I can see both sides on this issue. To have the phrase AS AN OPTION, is as it should be. To REQUIRE it, is IMHO, unconstitutional and doomed to lose in court. An unfortunate waste of time and resources to try and defend.

Cant JCOS change this with a directive?
 
117sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Oct 04, 2014, 21:34
Denver Schoolboard member behind the proposed changes in the curriculum, showing just how fkn stupid she is...on FOX of course


What in the name of God is a "foundational father" and since when was Martin Luther King Jr one of them???
 
118Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, Oct 05, 2014, 00:10
She seems weirdly unable to articulate something she clearly wants us to think is incredibly important.
 
119biliruben
      ID: 39256112
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 09:10
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/remains-from-lincolns-last-day.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Did the real Republican party die on April 14th, 150 years ago?

Could the Republicans who control Congress in 2015, the party of no, ever pass a Homestead Act? That law, which went into effect the very day, Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln’s wartime executive order to free slaves in the breakaway states did, carries a clause that very few Republicans would support now.

Former slaves, “famine Irish,” Russian Jews, single women, Mexicans who didn’t speak a word of English — all qualified to claim 160 acres as their own. You didn’t have to be a citizen to get your quarter-square-mile. You just had to intend to become a citizen.

In that sense, the Homestead Act was the Dream Act of today. It had a path to citizenship and prosperity for those in this country who were neither citizens nor prosperous.

Consider the vision to stitch a railroad from east to west, an enormous tangle of infrastructure. In 1862, Lincoln signed legislation spurring construction of the transcontinental railroad. That same year, he approved a bill that led to the creation of land grant colleges.

Today, Congress will not even approve enough money to keep decrepit bridges from falling down, and has whittled away funds to help working kids stay in college. It’s laughable to think of Republicans’ approving of something visionary and forward-looking in the realm of transportation, energy or education. Government, in their minds, can never be a force for good.
 
120sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 10:28
The Republicans of today bili, are much more akin to the Confederates. Out to destroy the Federal governments power, disrupt the union, and ultimately neuter the national identity.
 
121Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 11:05
It is impossible to think of Lincoln spending 16 trillion dollars the country didn't have.
 
122Boldwin
      ID: 112382716
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 11:11
Or inviting in ten million welfare free-loaders who had no intention of assimilating.
 
123biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 11:20
That's exactly what the racists said in 1863, I'm sure.
 
124biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 11:23
But we were lucky enough not to have them in the Union at the time.

Now they are pretty much the heart of the Republican party.