“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, November 01, 2010

The Roots of The Tea Party

133 comments:

  1. Three years ago, Ron Paul told the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sacrifice liberty for security and you lose both.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The media scoffed and the American public laughed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is non-sense--

    Jury nullification

    Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man," Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[155]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is that nonsense when the law is so subjective when a judge says it is?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ron Paul was a Librarian when books were not cool.

    Don't be fooled by Republican dirty tricksters, vote for the "real thing".

    If there is a Librarian on the your ballot, vote for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DR: The GOP may win a majority in the Senate, but will not get to the magic number, 61 Senate seats. That is impossible for them to do. There are not that many Senate seats up for grabs.

    Baby steps. At the very least, Obamacare will now die a death of a thousand cuts as the House defunds it step-by-step in every bill. And if Obama turns into Mr. Veto, he will answer for it in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm a librarian, Abe. Lots of lesbians are librarians. But we voted straight Rossi, because this isn't a year to "send a message" this is probably the only real chance to boot Patty Murray that we'll ever get.

    ReplyDelete
  9. .
    Why is that nonsense when the law is so subjective when a judge says it is?

    The appeals process is often long and tortuous but in most cases it works.

    Juries in general lack knowledge of the intracies of the law. Going on gut instinct doesn't cut it. The law would depend on the individual jury. If you have a thousand different laws on an issue, you have no law.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you have every black, brown, yellow, red, white, gay, straight etc group in the country making decisions, in big cases too, on what they think, this particular day, what the law ought to be, you have chaos. Why have a legislature at all, since the jury has the final say.

    What Quirk says above is right.

    Jury nullification would destroy the country.

    Ron Paul may be right on a lot of stuff, but he's dead wrong on that.

    It's tough enough dealing with a jury anyway----OJ Simpson.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It one thing in olde England to fail to convict a man for stealing a chicken to feed his family, with a death penalty hanging over him, but you sure don't want to make it a general principle of jurisprudence.

    Given proper instructions, followed, I think the juries usually get it right anyway. Least that's what my judge lawyer guy told me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think you both made your argument and convinced me. Mea culpa.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The problem is philosophical. It depends on who you distrust the least?

    ReplyDelete
  14. .
    If you read Ron Paul's policy positions on his website, I find I can agree with about 90-95% of his positions.

    Given our form of government, the areas where I disagree with him would be unlikely to be passed anyway. A lot of what he says is just common sense, although like most libertarians, he tends to take his positions to the extreme.

    Given the choices that have been mentioned as serious contenders in 2012, I could consider voting for him. Unfortunately, at 75, he is getting pretty long in the tooth. Kinda looks like when his time finally comes, he won't be there to enjoy it.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Librarians or Libertarians, if they are running for office, they lie. I consider myself a Libertarian (tell me how much I owe and leave me alone), but I will not vote for them, not yet anyway.

    I voted conservative and will continue to do so. If those conservatives get elected and fail to make the needed changes, then shame on them (and me).

    I would rather have them in office and fail than what is there today. The "our bastards" scenario.

    DR's needle is stuck on this privatize Federal Lands thing. I disagree. If that property goes up for sale, the Ted Turner's of the world will own it and I will no longer have access. I trapse around on Fed Land (National Forest and BLM) all the time. I like it, leave it with the Feds.

    Besides, they are much better at managing the land than they are managing the money they would get from it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Although I would probably make a good Librarian too. And I'm not a Lesbian.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DR's needle is stuck on this privatize Federal Lands thing. I disagree. If that property goes up for sale, the Ted Turner's of the world will own it and I will no longer have access. I trapse around on Fed Land (National Forest and BLM) all the time. I like it, leave it with the Feds.

    Absolutely. And I can tell you the vast majority of people out this way feel the same. It may not be perfect but there are no No Trespassing signs.

    I like having a National Forest as my 'backyard'.

    ReplyDelete
  18. .
    I voted conservative and will continue to do so. If those conservatives get elected and fail to make the needed changes, then shame on them (and me).

    :)

    I didn't know we had a Conservative Party to vote for.

    If one calls the GOP that ruled under Bush conservative, one needs a dictionary.

    Neo-conservative is not conservative.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. What's Ron Paul's position on the National Forests?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm with Deuce, And Quirk. RP is right on about 90% of it. The Most Important 90%.

    He's the only one that calls out the Military Industrial Complex for what it is. For that, I'd vote for him.

    I really, and truly hate all Democrats, and Republicans from the bottom of my soul.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He wants out of the UN, probably a good thing, but out of NATO? Altogether?

    ReplyDelete
  22. All I can find is he's against subsidizing logging in the National Forests. Nothing wrong in that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ron Paul is like Pat Buchanan, Krauthammer and Sowell - you have to listen carefully and fully because they go off the rails in the blink of an eye. It's like the post by RWE@BC about Libertarians being very articulate and reasonable but totally insane. You meet someone like that at an outing and walk out to pick up coats or whatever only to discover that your new best friend is suiting up for his rocket back to planet Ceres.

    I heard on the news this morning that there's a new drug out to treat people who cry or laugh uncontrollably for no discernible reason. Should make a killing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Strong ISM Manufacturing numbers out of the U.S. and China.

    Consumer Spending, and this surprises me, is back to pre-recession levels.

    Oil up $2.07

    Fed to announce Wed that it's printing another $500 Billion.

    Interesting days.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was waiting for someone to call out the equivalence divide, as per Doug last post, especially given the hyper-partisanship of wretchard's site. It's easier to fault Progressives because their instrument is government. That's what they do. Conservatives are not-government - the Party of nullification.

    (At the federal level. Federalism as an election issue and sound bite isn't fully developed yet. It may never be.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think the Greatest Competitive Advantage the U.S. has in the world, other than the Constitution, itself, is the Bi-Annual Election Cycle.

    I, almost, wish we had an "Annual" Election cycle (half the house seats up for election every year.) That would keep at least half of the Crooks' minds focused pretty much constantly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Republican Party IS the party of the rich. And, they will keep the working classes poorer than dogshit if given a chance.

    The Dems ARE the party of Socialism/Communism. They WILL have us all living in caves (except for party leaders, of course,) if allowed to stay in power too long.

    Our only hope is to keep recycling the corrupt bastards as quickly as we can, and put every limit on their power that is remotely reasonable, or possible.

    If you can put an ism after it, Stay the fuck away from it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Things were better out here when the legislature met only every other year.

    That would be another way to do it Rufus.

    Give 'em a two year term but only one meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No where in my post does it say, "conservative party".

    My dad rated everyone on whether he would go fishing with them or not.

    Haven't met a liberal/socialist/progressive I would fish with, yet.

    ReplyDelete
  30. THAT, Bob, is probably the best solution.

    And, we could make all the lobbyists leave town when Congress isn't in session, too.

    Kind of like "last call" at the honky-tonk: "You don't hafta go home; but you can't stay here."

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Deuce: Sacrifice liberty for security and you lose both.

    Oct 21, 2003: "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein airbase or Dover base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

    Quirk If one calls the GOP that ruled under Bush conservative, one needs a dictionary.

    $4.33 trillion in new debt.

    $600 dollar per taxpayer giveaway in the spring of 2008.

    $700 billion dollar TARP bailout of large banks, GM, Chrysler, AIG, plus another $135 billion for Freddy and Fannie. Yes, that was Dubya, not Obummer.

    Invasion of a country that had no WMDs and no role in 9-11.

    Warrantless NSA wiretaps.

    Torture of prisoners of war.

    $15 billion dollar giveaway for AIDS relief.

    Firing US attorneys for political purposes.

    Medicare part D, which will cost $534 billion from 2006 and 2015.

    WITH CONSERVATIVES LIKE DUBYA WHO NEEDS FREE-SPENDING LIBRALS?

    Rufus: If you can put an ism after it, Stay the fuck away from it.

    Except lesbianism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You meet someone like that at an outing and walk out to pick up coats or whatever only to discover that your new best friend is suiting up for his rocket back to planet Ceres.

    Now that is funny. I am getting some interesting looks at Starbucks as I laugh a little more than is appropriate when sitting alone.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If that property goes up for sale, the Ted Turner's of the world will own it and I will no longer have access.

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A little reminder for you worthless, know-nothing, (thank you Senator Kerry) sorry-assed SOB's about just how far from reality you cock-sucking MoFos have strayed.
    (not to include Rufus, who slouches in a category all by himself, several rungs below the rest of you hapless morons.)

    Obamacare R.I.P.

    Americans head to the polls to reject socialist medicine

    Nov. 2 is the nation's referendum on Obamacare. No other issue has so polarized the public and shed light on the policy failings of the left. The midterm elections represent the last, best hope for millions of Americans who don't want to see the health care law's most onerous provisions ever take effect.

    While the president's veto power increases the difficulty of a complete repeal, Republican control of the House - and perhaps the Senate - certainly would deflate Mr. Obama's Democratic dreams. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, needs an estimated $10 billion to raise a well-equipped army of agents 16,500 strong to implement the individual health care mandate penalties. The congressional power of the purse is sufficient to send that agency into retreat.

    "Fall back" has been the most-heard cry on the campaign trail this season. Erstwhile Obamacare devotees have traded their hope-and-change banners for the white flag, ducking the issue and refusing to list votes in favor of Obamacare among their accomplishments.

    Rory Reid, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for Nevada and son of endangered Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the health care bill his father pushed through the Senate is riddled with problems.

    "There is potential for it to put significant pressure on states because Medicaid rates could go up significantly,"
    Reid the Younger admitted in a debate...

    ---

    The Washington Times
    5:41 p.m., Friday, October 29, 2010

    BLOOMBERG NEWS Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, declined to sign a letter to congressional leaders expressing support for health care reform, calling the potential expansion of Medicaid “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”

    ReplyDelete
  35. Can't wait to read your well-reasoned defense for this sort of monumental improvement in our quality of life:

    "$10 billion to raise a well-equipped army of agents 16,500 strong to implement the individual health care mandate penalties."

    ...and why black is white, and Dems are no different than Pubs.

    Jesus fucking Christ

    ReplyDelete
  36. .
    No where in my post does it say, "conservative party".

    Sorry, Gag. It's just when you said you voted conservative I had absolutely no idea who you were talking about.

    Selah's follow-up post pretty much says it all.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gitmo killer sentenced to 40 years; Obama admin deal cuts term to 8 years...

    Can apply for parole in 30 months...

    No different than Ashcroft...
    You gentlemen have finally educated me enough to see the light, and for that I am grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  38. .
    Americans head to the polls to reject socialist medicine

    Ridiculous.

    It's the economy stupid.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  39. We have to believe that this time will really honestly be different.

    OoooK.

    Hey man, if I wake in January, February or March and see that we are no longer in Kansas, I will be euphoric.

    Personally I hope we land in Missouri. What is their motto?

    "Show me mother-fucker?" or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. We never needed a Gitmo in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  41. .
    "$10 billion to raise a well-equipped army of agents 16,500 strong to implement the individual health care mandate penalties."

    ...and why black is white, and Dems are no different than Pubs.




    And under the Pubs we got a fifty percent growth in government.

    You want to talk IRS agents, I raise you with Homeland Security a completely redundant organization. They've probably spent more on furniture than the $10 billion you are talking about.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  42. I notice you mofos are sadly lacking in ability to refute my specifics in any meaningful way

    ReplyDelete
  43. Quirk @ Mon Nov 01, 04:03:00 PM EDT

    Citing the past as a reason to choose something worse for our future.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Does obseessively grousing about the Bush years really serve a useful purpose?

    Voting to stop Obamacare sure as Hell does!!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. If the trouble with Washington DC is debt, then the solution is better asset management.

    For those of you that love to "trapse around on Fed Land" there should be appropriate fees paid for that privilege.

    A couple of hundred dollars a day, same as at any other recreational resort.

    Those States that are mostly Federally owned, like Arizona and Idaho, should have proportional voting from the rest of the country. The people of PA and TX own the land, shouldn't they have a say in local government, too?

    bob thought that his wife's land ownership in Ohio qualified her to vote, there. Even though she did not maintain a residency. Should that be extended to all land owners?

    Why should the people of TX and PA pay taxes to support the lifestyle in AZ and ID and not be represented?

    Cause for revolt, in 1776.
    Taxation without representation.

    Those that want to "trapse around on Fed Land" are enjoying a "free ride" and there is no reason for it. The Founders sold assets to fund government. That was the simplest form of asset management.

    Today a more equitable fee structure should be implemented, one based upon normal market returns.

    Make those that enjoy "trapsing around on Fed Land" pay the market rate for that privilege.
    Instead of looting the National Treasury for the privilege.

    20% of the US owned by the Federals is just another form of welfare for the rich, as well as a rejection of capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ridiculous.

    It's the economy stupid.

    ---

    OK, but please tell me why none of the Dems that voted for O'care tout it, and all the Dems that voted against it brag about their votes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. .
    I notice you mofos are sadly lacking in ability to refute my specifics in any meaningful way

    What specifics, you moron.

    Duh, Dems bad, GOP good."

    You need to get you head screwed on straight.

    Have another mojido.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. Like I said, they may be Bastards, but they will be different Bastards for a change.

    I want Pelosi out. I want Reid out. I want someone new to criticize. I want someone new to kick around and blame. Out, Out.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No replies yet on why stopping Obamacare is not a worthwhile goal.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Quirk:
    Obamacare is a specific.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Welfare, price supports and subsidies for me, but not for thee.

    That is what I've read here, today.

    From the "conservatives".

    Those that oppose Federal interference in the market, except when it benefits them.

    ReplyDelete
  52. ...and considerably more adult than

    Dems absolutely no different than Pubs.

    ReplyDelete
  53. bob thought that his wife's land ownership in Ohio qualified her to vote, there. Even though she did not maintain a residency.


    But you see, I have told you the registrar determined she did have residency at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Does your guy Paul want to sell off the National Forests, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Go ahead DR, explain that last one?
    DR, the man behind the curtain.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Selling off the National Forests would create an unlikely alliance--environmentalists and conservative farmers. Plus about everybody else too, vs rat and the extremely rich.

    You could get a job out there from Ted Turner, mending fence.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Myself, I spend a great deal of time on the Forest Service lands.

    Enjoy myself, immensely, doing it.

    But do not kid yourselves, access to those lands is being diminished each and every year that goes by.

    Limiting vehicle use to "numbered" roads, then closing the roads to the public. Just the most obvious of the tactics used.

    Happens every year, now. More and more roads in the Forest are closed to private vehicles.

    That's what happens, with the "tree huggers" are in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  58. .
    OK, but please tell me why none of the Dems that voted for O'care tout it, and all the Dems that voted against it brag about their votes.

    I don't have to. That wasn't the premise of your statement. I was responding to:

    Americans head to the polls to reject socialist medicine

    Had you said Americans don't like the overall Obamacare package, I would have agreed with you. Do I think it has a chance of being overturned on constitutional grounds? Yes (50/50).

    Is it the reason most Americans are energized to vote in this year's election. No. It's the economy and jobs stupid.

    The one area of healthcare that affects their main concern is that the Dems and Obama pretty much ignored the economy for over a year while trying to push Healthcare through.

    If you want someone to agree with you get specific. This BS about GOP vs Dems is silly. Are they doing their jobs? Have they done their jobs in the past? Can we expect them to do their jobs in the future? Those are the important questions.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  59. The "last one" that the folks in NYCity are subsidizing your hunting trips to AZ and ID, gag?

    That being one of the "rich" allows you access to the lands, while the average taxpayer, in NY or PA, even TX does not have the time or the money to go.

    You are a welfare hunter, gag.

    Or you'd stay in TX and hunt on those private lands where the costs are capitalized by the users, instead of subsidized by taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  60. .
    Like I said, they may be Bastards, but they will be different Bastards for a change.

    Now that makes sense.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  61. Why would the USA after being attacked in NYC and Washington DC need to pick up Islamic garbage in Afghanistan and send them to Cuba?

    Some legal construct?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Arizona was home to "welfre ranches" for a hundred years.

    Ranches that made no economic sense, without the Federals subsidizing the land costs. Now those ranches are gone, after their cattle allotments were cut drastically. Now those ranches are just down to the islands of deeded land, mostly at the headquarters sites.

    The riparian areas given over to native species, with the roads to those areas, closed.

    Suits me, I and my friends use the land for recreational horse riding.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It was a cluster fuck because they were worried about lawyers and I assume the world court. Otherwise it is inexplicable. Any information that needed to be gleaned could have come from a conex box or better yet a helicopter, hovering at 500 feet.

    ReplyDelete
  64. We could sell the National Forests to the Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "They've probably spent more on furniture than the $10 billion you are talking about."

    In a case involving IRS agentss, it's not the money, stupid.

    (last comment I'm reading for the time being, I feel my intelligence waning under the assault of a wall of adolescent drivel)

    Later

    ReplyDelete
  66. Must have seemed like a "good" idea, at the time, Deuce.

    A way to avoid the law, while adhering to it.

    That Bush cohort, to clever by half.

    ReplyDelete
  67. For some reason 500 feet is scarier than 5000 feet because at the higher elevations it becomes surreal.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And you're a "welfare" horseback rider. Must make me a welfare fisherman.

    Sounds like multiple use, to me.

    ReplyDelete
  69. It may have something to do with being able to see the impact at 500 feet.

    ReplyDelete
  70. It is one way to pay off the debt we owe them, bob.

    The owners come and go, the land remains behind.

    30 Rockefeller Center, the perfect example of that.

    I'm sure doug-o could tell us of hotels that the "rich" Japanese bought, in Hawaii. Those Japanese are long gone, the hotels, they're still there.
    As are the jobs that they generate.
    Raw land does not emply many people, developed land does.

    Developed land is private land.

    Much of the development of the American West, attributable to English investors.

    As Mr Tunstall of Lincoln County, NM exemplifies.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Correct bob, I use the Federal system, collecting the welfare benefits, while advocating for change.

    You and gag, advocate for the status que, while bemoaning the Leviathan's march.

    Socialists in conservative cloaks

    ReplyDelete
  72. .

    Macho Man Country Singer Troy Gentry Kills Drugged Tame Bear in Bear's Fenced In Electrified Enclosure -- Ooooh Scary Stuff

    This video is disgusting and you may not want to view it. Suffice it to say I've seen a lot of these so-called macho hunters in the past. When I was in Purchasing one of our suppliers had a place he would take customers to for hunting pheasant. The way the place was set up they might as well have tied the birds down and shot them on the ground.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  73. In all fairness, bob, you should be sending a check to the Federals, about $200, for every day you wet your line.
    So should all those that utilize that Federal asset.

    Or that asset should be sold to someone that could charge the fee, and pay the subsequent taxes.

    The government obtaining the initial purchase price and the "fair share" of subsequent usage.

    The point being is that there are many sources of revenue available to the Federals, other than taxes.

    Sources that the Founders utilized to good effect.

    ReplyDelete
  74. It's like buffalo hunting. You may as well shoot a Ford Explorer.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Rat, your comments are laughable.

    I pay lots of Federal taxes every year. When I hunt out of state,I pay for hefty out of state licenses and buy equipment that has Robertson Pittman Tax added to it. I am taxed all the way there and all the way back. None of your fellow NEastern Socialists are paying for that..

    Go back to Jew Baiting, you are much better at it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. .
    last comment I'm reading for the time being, I feel my intelligence waning...

    Come on, Dougo.

    That's nothing new for you.

    :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  77. If you can put an ism after it, Stay the fuck away from it.

    I nominate that for a Bosco award.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Except in British Columbia, Deuce. Up there, the Buffalo are as elusive as deer.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's like buffalo hunting. You may as well shoot a Ford Explorer.

    OK, back atcha.

    Another nomination. That's funny.

    ReplyDelete
  80. .
    But do not kid yourselves, access to those lands is being diminished each and every year that goes by...

    That's what happens, with the "tree huggers" are in charge.



    Rat, you seem to be implying that this is merely a function of government action. In fact, the fasted growing branch of the environmental movement is the private, non-profit "Land Trusts" that have been being set up. If organizations like "Ducks Unlimited" are setting up land trusts, you can imagine the restrictions that will be set up on the land. The number of land trusts have doubled since 2000. Fifty more are set up each year. We are talking thousands of acres becoming restricted use.

    Most land trusts are funded by membership dues, fund-raisers, private contributions, grants, donations from businesses and foundations, consulting fees, and contracting their services to other agencies. Some are run like country clubs where only special groups enjoy them.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  81. .
    I nominate that for a Bosco award.

    Finally, some people are starting to take the Bosco Awards seriously.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  82. There's a program my neighbor is in with her land. Can't recall the name of it but it pays her some yearly sum to allow hunter access. It might be an off shoot of the Conservation Reserve Program. Anyway, an example of a program that opens up access to land for hunting, rather than restricting it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Two noteworthy examples of Obamanomics--

    National Enquirer and The Chrystal Cathedral file bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The payment of taxes, at the present levels, gag, is not enough to balance the books.

    You are not paying your "fair share". No one is.

    The debts from Federal operations are being passed on to our progeny.

    Now if you wish to argue that the Federal debt is not a problem, I am willing to listen. But to bemoan cash flow deficits, while not providing for an alternative, that is comical.

    We can either cut Federal expenditures, which is not likely. Or raise revenues.

    There are three ways to raise revenue, increase taxes on those that are already paying, increase user fees, or sell assets.

    Any combination of the three could be considered reasonable.

    But to deny US the opportunity to sell assets or raise fees, leaves increasing taxes upon those that already are paying.

    I'd rather sell assets that raise taxes. You'd rather we all pay a greater tax. I think that is the wrong way to go.

    Better to emulate the Founders and sell Federal assets.

    As for the Conservation Land Trusts, they are capitalism at work. Those folks buy the land and use it in what they consider their "best interest".
    I support capitalism.
    I support private ownership, not socialized ownership.

    I support the method of fiscal operations that was used by the Founders.

    I support welfare programs like the Land Grants advocated by Mr Lincoln and utilized by the Republicans that came after him.
    A program stopped by FDR, in his quest to socialize the United States.

    That "conservatives" now advocate for FDR style socialism, telling.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The reason that I know the election of 2010 will be a meaningless affair.

    FDR won the cultural battle.
    The Founders have lost.

    There is no going back, especially to the era of Jacksonian Democracy or before.

    Socialized land in perpetuity and the National Bank are now givens. All else will follow the socialist path, in incremental steps. As it has and will continue to.

    Enjoy life and do not sweat politics on a macro level, that is a done deal.

    The Progressives have won. Teddy Roosevelt sealed the deal.

    ReplyDelete
  86. .
    I never said that.

    Randy Moss just got fired for derogatory comments.

    There are often consequences and repercussions.

    Just saying.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  87. Explain to me how socialized medicine will result in the destruction of the modern medical system, but socialized land management is a boon to the country.

    How the ineptitude of the Federals is supposedly self-evident in medicine but not at all visible in land and resource management.

    ReplyDelete
  88. How the Federal management of the coastal plain that is the Alaska National Wildlife Reverve is superior to private ownership of that resource.

    ReplyDelete
  89. TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT SELLING PORTIONS OF ANWR FOR DEVELOPMENT

    1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Sale.
    The 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR could be sold for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR could remain permanently closed to any kind of development. Or sold at a later date, by future generations of US citizens.

    Copied and edited from
    ALASKA OIL DRILLING ANWR

    ReplyDelete
  90. The Founders, beaten by the Roosevelts.

    Interesting historical course, charted for US, by the Cousins Roosevelt.

    ReplyDelete
  91. .
    I'd rather sell assets that raise taxes. You'd rather we all pay a greater tax. I think that is the wrong way to go.

    Better to emulate the Founders and sell Federal assets.


    Short term thinking at best.

    There is not enough federal land to pay for anything close to what we spend. To assume there would be taxes generated from them to any large extend is to believe in the tooth fairy. One of the chief reasons for setting up private land trusts is to avoid pying taxes.

    It's been estimated that if all the federal parks and land were sold it would raise $3 trillion. A drop in the bucket. Two years of deficits.

    Once the land is gone, it's gone.

    If our kids are going to have to pay for our excesses they ought to at least get something in exchange.

    You would bequeath it to the rich.

    I don't buy it.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  92. But I think Rat is more right than wrong about the Roosevelts.

    ReplyDelete
  93. We need to get into space immediately ... and leave the past behind.

    ReplyDelete
  94. All 'isms' are context. FDR hated Joe Kennedy and his bootlegging criminality. Our history is one of radical extremes reaching for the middle, which is the way the Founders intended. IF we can pull it off.

    ReplyDelete
  95. We need to get into space immediately ... and leave the past behind.

    It'll be awhile, what with NASA devoted to improving relations with the moslems.

    ReplyDelete
  96. From dealing made with the Forest Service in land swaps, Q, 'd say that the #3 trillion estimate is off, by upwards of a factor of 10. Perhaps more.

    That low number is used, to discourage the idea of asset sales. Or to allow "land swaps" to go through, with private companies and Federal managers gaming the system.
    Not by any realistic appraisal of values.

    But some BLM appraisers claim the deal hinges on a false appraisal which sets the value of the federal lands at about $36 million. Because that value does not include the price of the oil that may lie beneath the land, the actual value should be set up to $117 million higher, critics charge.
    Independent Auditors Denounce BLM Land Swaps
    An article from 2002, but one that exemplifies the understated value of the Federal assets. This example by a factor of 3.

    Many other parcels are under valued, by greater factors, but this was the first article I found.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Even going into space might not suffice in leaving the past behind. Carol Brink, one of our local authors here, noted that if you go all the way from Europe and set up shop in "Opportunity" as she fictionally called our fair town, and you bring the old animosities, prejudices, greed,egotism and general grumpiness with you, you really haven't gone very far.

    ReplyDelete
  99. It'll be awhile, what with NASA devoted to improving relations with the moslems.

    Circumstances given, whether that be the collective collapse of sanity or the inevitable progress of socialist government, one need not be borderline insane to assume that clearer thinkers are pursuing alternative agendas - that do not propagate well in the current media environment.

    IOW, I am leaning towards the secret programs that send a select few into the future. The current arc of humanity must be adjusted. That may not happen. In time.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Is she Danish?

    Sounds like a scrooge.

    Who could use some god-inspiration.

    Space encounters open the book.

    To things not even Carol could imagine.

    Not that she has any.

    ReplyDelete
  101. But I wouldn't qualify.

    I need a better farm shop, build my own rocket.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I too would like to change the terms.

    And then we open up the cesspool that is the ME.

    I thought the 21st century would be rapid technological progress but I am seeing that the first half at least will be playing catch up for the Third World.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Vell, there's an exploration of inner space as well as outer; we should try to do both.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Oh dear.

    Is there something we don't yet know?

    Something new in the annals of history?

    ReplyDelete
  105. There couldn't be anything we don't know, we're all such smart asses.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The Idaho Supreme Court has made a good decision, by one vote, 3-2.

    They ruled the courts don't have any jurisdiction to be fooling around with the Idaho Transportation Department in the big dispute about huge wide loads going over to Montana.

    The loads---huge drums bound for the oil sands in Canada---may proceed.

    whoopie!

    (I thought they'd just rule the Transportation Dept was right, not that they themselves had no jurisdiction)

    ReplyDelete
  107. More bowing and scraping to the isms is what this generation needs.

    ReplyDelete
  108. The issue is power.

    That's all there is.

    ReplyDelete
  109. And contrary to Doug's assessment, you are a jackass.

    Big fish in small pond jackass.

    ReplyDelete
  110. This place should have been kept a male only bar. It made a lot more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  111. .
    From dealing made with the Forest Service in land swaps, Q, 'd say that the #3 trillion estimate is off, by upwards of a factor of 10. Perhaps more.

    Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure. However, I do know where the $3 trillion came from. It was on CNBC, they were estimating the cost/benefit of ways to pay off the federal debt. One was to sell off federal assets.

    They had a real estate expert estimate the cost of the land. As a proxy he took the price that was being asked in one of the states for a large portion of national park land they were trying to sell off before the deal got shot down.

    The price came out to $77,000 per acre. That times the available land came up to $3 trillion. Seemed reasonable to me as an average especially since with that quantity of land the average price per acre would be reduced just because of supply and demand consideration.

    I have no idea how your guys came up with their estimates. "The price of the oil that may lie beneath the land...?" Sounds a little iffy to me.

    Besides, assuming the $30 trillion is correct the same arguments apply. Just slightly less short term thinking.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  112. Come on; the vast majority of that gummint land is "scrub." The only thing of value on 99.999999999999999999999% of it is the trees. Well, that's kind of deceptive, because most of it doesn't "have" trees.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Rufus is right. All that land down in Nevada is really worth zero. No even cattle, only as occasional jackrabbit. No water, no nothing. Except it's beautiful to look at, if you like that sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  114. And up in Idaho, where there are trees, once they're cut, you're out of business for the next 70 years. So it's got timber value, which is a loser, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Nevada GOP turns in strong early vote tally
    Michael R. Blood

    Nevada early voting tallies show Republicans outperformed Democrats getting to the polls.

    Final tallies for two weeks of in-person voting and a preliminary count of mail-in ballots for the state's two most populous counties give Democrats about a 9,000-voter edge.

    The slim margin stands out because Democrats hold a 60,000-voter edge in statewide registration.

    The figures provide only a barometer of party turnout, but it's a worrisome sign for Sen. Harry Reid, who is in a tight race with tea party favorite Sharron Angle.

    ReplyDelete
  116. It's only a 9,000 vote edge, BUT it's Still a 9,000 vote edge. And, that's just in the early voting.

    I hope that's "positeve" (I really, really hate Reid,) but, for some reason, I'm not getting the "warm and fuzzies" off of it.

    I know Angle will be strongest in the smaller towns, but, the problem is, those town are really very small.

    I know Reid's been busing people in, plying them with food and drink, and whatnot. Maybe they've shot the biggest part of their wad.

    Here's hoping.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I don't know either. Article seems to think it's positive. I agree about Reid.

    Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day, Rufus.

    ReplyDelete
  118. This Nevada race is really interesting. Have been reading an article about Reid, which predicts he'll win a thin victory on the basis of loyalty. Seems he has helped lots of people, easier for a politician to do in a lightly populated state. So he can take kickbacks from hookers, and be very helpful to lots of people too. A man can be many things.

    ReplyDelete