tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post4880029210680566244..comments2024-03-28T06:32:24.557-04:00Comments on The Elephant Bar: We need to rebuild a coalition of civil libertarians of the left and right who agree to some basics, on some bright red lines that no government should cross. We need to provide a unified, bipartisan front on behalf of individual liberties and against any official from any party who would trample them. Deuce ☂http://www.blogger.com/profile/13472858446242700869noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-64437855890045323102013-06-03T03:18:57.094-04:002013-06-03T03:18:57.094-04:00Even though many direct The Student Loan People
t...Even though many direct <a href="http://youngbusiness.info" rel="nofollow">The Student Loan People</a> <br />techniques with digitally. Publicans have been advised that blackboards advertising <br />live TV coverage must not refer to the business are dealt with here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-42032182511686924562013-05-18T21:12:26.659-04:002013-05-18T21:12:26.659-04:00I see General Bunk is still b.s.ing.
I see General Bunk is still b.s.ing.<br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04145155737835511824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-60850870318683453432013-05-18T19:20:55.911-04:002013-05-18T19:20:55.911-04:00.
Should have read, ...as in (1a) above
..<br /><br />Should have read, <i>...as in (1a) above</i><br /><br />.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-45989463894424801162013-05-18T18:32:30.200-04:002013-05-18T18:32:30.200-04:00.
Once again, you ignore context rat.
You used t....<br /><br />Once again, you ignore context rat.<br /><br />You used the word 'sovereign' in the same context you stated <i>They own you, dimwit.</i> as if this was a nation of serfs and the devine right of kings were in play.<br /><br />From the <i>Free Dictionary</i><br /><br /><i>sov•er•eign (s v r- n, s v r n) <br />n. <br />1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as: <br />a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.<br />b. A national governing council or committee.</i><br /><br />From the context of your message and word choice, one could only assume you were using the word 'sovereign' in terms of either (1) or (2) above.<br /><br />Since "We the people..." have the ability to turn any of these bozos out through elections and/or, using our representives, impeachment, your word choice was either absurd or sloppy.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-76388305766801623472013-05-18T18:17:02.446-04:002013-05-18T18:17:02.446-04:00.
My second paragraph in my post at 11:31 was the....<br /><br />My second paragraph in my post at 11:31 was the result of a misreading of the last two lines of your post at 11:16. I took it to say you wanted to tear down the system.<br /><br /><i>I offer, advocate for, changes I think would improve the system.<br />You want to tear it down, but offer no alternatives.</i><br /><br />Sorry, for the mistake.<br /><br />However, on rereading it, I have to point out you are still in error. You are wrong in saying I want to tear the system down. The exact opposite is true. I merely want the system run within the rules set by the Constitution.<br /><br />I object to Roe v Wade for a number of reasons. I also object to Citizens United. However, I do not call either of these illegal or unconstitutional. They will remain both until they are changed either through the legislative or constitutional amendment processes or a change in the Supreme Court ruling. It's the process we live under.<br /><br />I also object to the AUMF mainly for its vagueness which leaves it not only open to interpretation but also open to the expansion of its original intent by both Bush and Obama. However, I don't call the AUMF law illegal. I do, however, object to what I consider 'unconstitutional' some of the powers Obama has assumed under the guise of the AUMF such as denying habeas corpus rights to Americans. Likewise, what I object to on moral grounds and consider consider illegal given our treaty obligations as sinatories to the Geneva conventions are practices such as double taps and signature assassinations that are again carried out citing AUMF as authorization.<br /><br />.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-79610651908828934682013-05-18T17:49:48.229-04:002013-05-18T17:49:48.229-04:00.
Or a Democrat.
..<br /><br />Or a Democrat.<br /><br />.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-2335548519342810342013-05-18T17:49:27.030-04:002013-05-18T17:49:27.030-04:00.
So, if you want to reduce the War Powers of the....<br /><br /><i>So, if you want to reduce the War Powers of the President, end the war.<br />I suggested that, you thought it a tad to difficult a project, considering your age.</i><br /><br /><br />If you remember the context of the discussion, what you really said, as I recall, was that "you should change the AUMF" which I took as a challenge for me personally to do my part in changing the AUMF. I responded that I had done what I thought I could in that regard. However, the fact that mine and others' efforts have been unsuccessful to date in bringing about the desired change does not negate the need (I would say obligation) for those who oppose Obama's use of the AUMF as an excuse for unconstitutional overreach to voice their disaproval.<br /><br />I also recall mentioning that those who see nothing wrong in Obama's actions need to re-read the Constitution and that those who do see problems and fail to disassociate themselves with his actions can rightly be called the sheeple.<br /><br />.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-76233446709621980592013-05-18T17:29:51.467-04:002013-05-18T17:29:51.467-04:00.
Ahhh... Q.
The citizen owns a piece of the gove....<br /><br /><i>Ahhh... Q.<br />The citizen owns a piece of the government, true enough.<br /><br />But the government owns all of you.</i><br /><br /><br />A silly argument. The U.S. government is a society formed for the collective benefit of "We the people". It can't be divided severaly in pieces that each of us own. It's a nation of laws and we are obligated to act within the constraints of those laws if we want to continue the privileges of citizenship. <br /><br />To say we are owned by the government implies a master/slave relationship which is absurd on it's face. We are not owned by the government but we choose to live under the rule of the Constitution that we have collectively agreed to. And as a republic, we have chosen leaders to govern for us, but we restrict that governance to the rules and checks and balances inherent and identified in the Constitution. Defense of the nation is one of the main responsibilities of government and the draft has been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS.<br /><br />Any time you want to opt out, merely give up your citizenship.<br /><br />.Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-42815674269133583072013-05-18T16:42:52.979-04:002013-05-18T16:42:52.979-04:0010% will just about catch it. Rather on preparing...10% will just about catch it. Rather on preparing to expand their use of biofuels, the oil companies bet big on Romney - and lost. Now, they're bumping up against the blend wall (not much invested in E15 or E85,) and stuck buying expensive RINS (Renewable Identification Numbers) from those Midwestern retailers such as Kum and Go, and Speedway that did invest in higher ethanol sales.Rufus IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297231055991566183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-88606196667491724432013-05-18T16:29:11.716-04:002013-05-18T16:29:11.716-04:00Figure at least 10% of their fluid energy is ethan...Figure at least 10% of their fluid energy is ethanol, that'd be the baseline.<br /><br />Wonder how much higher it really is.desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-24382674068466292722013-05-18T15:36:39.263-04:002013-05-18T15:36:39.263-04:00End payroll deductions.
Let each taxpayer pay the...End payroll deductions.<br /><br />Let each taxpayer pay the tax man. Directly.<br /><br />When I realized that as an employer I was responsible for collecting taxes from my employees, for the government, I quit being an employer.<br /><br />Watched that uncompensated for Governmental responsibility wipe out a number of people that I knew.<br />IRS seized homes and personal property.<br /><br />Easy to make bad decisions, with other peoples money.<br /><br />desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-51635551868724463602013-05-18T15:25:54.958-04:002013-05-18T15:25:54.958-04:00Health Care ...
End the income tax exemption on c...Health Care ...<br /><br />End the income tax exemption on company paid health insurance.<br />Make that insurance premium part of the employees taxable income.<br /><br />Do not subsidize health care for SOME, but not others.<br /><br />Why should the self employed pay for health insurance with after tax dollars, but the corporate employed get it, in untaxed dollars? <br /><br />Basic inequity in the pre ObamaCare system, that was never addressed.<br />Not by ObamaCare<br />Nor by any of the thirty some votes in the House to repeal.desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-41937833736629273182013-05-18T15:18:31.959-04:002013-05-18T15:18:31.959-04:00That is correct, Q.
I do not favor revolution.
It...That is correct, Q.<br /><br />I do not favor revolution.<br />It'd fail.<br /><br />I do favor the concept of limited government, but that too, has never succeeded.<br /><br />So, if you want to reduce the War Powers of the President, end the war.<br />I suggested that, you thought it a tad to difficult a project, considering your age.<br /><br />You want to limit the IRS intrusion on peoples' lives ...<br />Limit their authority.<br />End the numerous tax exemptions permeating the tax code. Make the tax code fairer. <br /><br />Eliminate the numerous deceptive and regressive taxes, paid at differing rates and income levels. And replace it with a single Federal tax, graduated by design, but one that ends the systematic FICA fraud that has been perpetrated on boobie.<br /><br />We could go, on and on.<br /><br />Want to end US involvement in the affairs of foreign lands, bring the boys home ...<br />Withdraw the US Army and Marines from Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates. In Afghanistan, the US should follow the Iraq model, post surge, leave.<br />Decommission 3 or 4 of the carrier battle groups.<br /><br /><br /><br />desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-50510423692663388862013-05-18T15:03:12.315-04:002013-05-18T15:03:12.315-04:00Ahhh... Q.
The citizen owns a piece of the governm...Ahhh... Q.<br />The citizen owns a piece of the government, true enough.<br /><br />But the government owns all of you.<br /><br />Or the US may well of lost WWII.<br /><br /><i>Induction Statistics for WWII<br /><br />Total number of inductees for WWII (1940-1946)<br />including draftees before Pearl Harbor<br />10,110,114<br /><br />By Year:<br />1940 - 18,633<br /> 1941 - 923,842<br /> 1942 - 3,033,361<br /> 1943 - 3,323,970<br /> 1944 - 1,591,942<br /> 1945 - 945,862<br /> 1946 - 183,383 </i><br /><br />Total number of draftees, those whose lives were conscripted to service to the sovereign ...<br /><br /><b>TEN MILLION</b><br /><br />Who owned those lives?<br /><br />The total population, that those ten million lives were drawn from ...<br /><i>according to the US Census figures. In 1945, it was about 139,928,000</i><br /><br />So, it seems about 8% of the population was conscripted to serve the interests of the other 92%.<br /><br />That's the reality of who owns what.<br />It has nothing at all to do with Obama.desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-23889313072848657482013-05-18T14:28:44.230-04:002013-05-18T14:28:44.230-04:00California continues to obtain approx. 21% of its ...California continues to obtain approx. 21% of its electricity from non-large hydro Renewable sources.<br /><br /><a href="http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20130517_DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf" rel="nofollow">CaISO</a>Rufus IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297231055991566183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-49501823622563644182013-05-18T13:48:16.933-04:002013-05-18T13:48:16.933-04:00.
You focus upon the cover up of the cover story.....<br /><br /><i>You focus upon the cover up of the cover story.</i><br /><br />As noted above it is the lesser of my concerns related to Benghazi.<br /><br /><br /><i>Dig deeper, you'll recognize the gold, when you see it.<br /><br />Benghazi was, for US, a CIA town.</i><br /><br /><br />Gold? I've asked you for a clarification on this before. What is the gold? What are you asserting? Give us a clue.<br /><br />Are you asserting that Benghazi was a center of CIA activity? Hell, we've know that since day one. Old news.<br /><br />That the State Department and CIA may have been involved in a joint operation? Again, nothing unusual. <br /><br />That the CIA wasn't doing their jobs, the jobs they are hired for, trained for, and deployed for? That Stevens wasn't doing his job?<br /><br />That this was some kind of a rogue operation similar to WiO's alleged NSA takeover of the Liberty? That higher ups in the CIA, State, and the White House weren't aware of what was going on in Benghazi?<br /><br />Give us a clue as to your thinking, rat. You throw out shit shit like "Who leaked ambassador Stevens location" with no follow-up explanation and we are supposed to figure out what you mean. The only thing I am sure about in reviewing your posts is that it has something to do with the CIA.<br /><br />Stevens was our ambassador. From the hearings we have testimony from people on the ground as to why he was in Benghazi on 9/11. To date, no one has denied that testimony. However, if it's all a lie, if for example Stevens met with the Turkish ambassador and all they were talking about is the transfer of Libyan arms to militants in Syria, so what. He was our ambassador and he was hung out to dry on the security issue. There were other State Department personell in Benghazi and they were hung out to dry on security. Even if there was only one employee there, a secretary for instance, and he/she was hung out to dry on security, it would have been wrong.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-31587014141433845702013-05-18T13:47:51.089-04:002013-05-18T13:47:51.089-04:00.
As for Benghazi, you bought into the cover stor....<br /><br /><i>As for Benghazi, you bought into the cover story.<br />The cover story fell apart, upon close examination.</i><br /><br />You brought this up early on in the Benghazi affair. But it was hardly new news. Everyone knew that the CIA was in Benghazi, their story being that they were trying to round up loose arms caches to keep them out the hands of the jihadists. As I recall, one of the three guys with Stevens was CIA and his job as reported in some of the stories at the time was to help in rounding up those loose arms. There were dozens of stories with this info in them as well as stories that suggested that the CIA might also be working on arms transfers. This is old news. There is nothing new. It was never ignored. That the administration might be covering up a different reason for the Benghazi facility is hardly surprising. <br /><br />However, while in your imagination is might provide some type of excuse, it ignores the reasons people are keeping this story going. Four Americans were killed because of inadequate security at a U.S. facility even after there had been numerous attacks and threats prior to the incident. People on the ground had been calling for more security for both Benghazi and Tripoli for months. Not only was additional security denied. It was cut. It doesn't matter if the four were diplomats, secretaries, Seals, garbage collectors, or CIA operating under a seperate cover story. They were Americans hung out to dry by their government for apparently political reasons.<br /><br /><br /><i>You want to blame "some one" for the cover story being kind of inept, but never ask what the INITIAL story was covering up.</i><br /><br /><br />My reasons for being upset are stated above under the 'hung out to dry' theme mentioned. The hearings in Congress are concerned with the cover up. They mean little to me except as they throw light on the culpability of those in the administration who willfully contributed to the 'hung out to dry' scenario. Of course, it is always pleasnt to see lying liars publicly identified as lying liars. <br /><br />I have no doubt that the GOP is pursuing the cover up for mainly political purposes. Also, as we all know, Congress gets especially irate when they are lied to. They even pass laws against it. However, beyond all that if hard to deny they are pursuing their oversight responsibility as defined by the Constitution.<br /><br />.<br />Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-2016806207309456942013-05-18T12:55:52.598-04:002013-05-18T12:55:52.598-04:00I'd been hoping you could give quot some off-s...I'd been hoping you could give quot some off-site instruction in the use of English, obviously though that would be beyond the limits of your lingual comprehension. desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-1986999380773903392013-05-18T12:51:49.578-04:002013-05-18T12:51:49.578-04:00Definition of SOVEREIGNTY
One that is sovereign; ...<i>Definition of SOVEREIGNTY<br /><br />One that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state </i>desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-67059310496097589802013-05-18T12:50:04.795-04:002013-05-18T12:50:04.795-04:00The word "country" is often colloquially...<i>The word "country" is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region.</i><br /><br />Sovereign polity, it is not limited to Kingdoms.desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-234582420140624832013-05-18T12:46:44.995-04:002013-05-18T12:46:44.995-04:00Tell me, boobie, is Israel a Sovereign state?
If ...Tell me, boobie, is Israel a Sovereign state?<br /><br />If so, does it have a King?desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-59873179383399178292013-05-18T12:43:19.013-04:002013-05-18T12:43:19.013-04:00That the Sovereign decides not to exercise its pow...That the Sovereign decides not to exercise its power, does not, boobie, mean it has renounced the power.<br />.<br />The Sovereign can reinstate the draft, whenever it feels the need.<br />It still retains the "Right" to use any life.<br /><br />The Federals have not renounced the power to force involuntary servitude to the sovereign, they just deem it unnecessary to exercise it at this time.<br />desert rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02369546288659566961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-79175535245267708782013-05-18T12:40:50.623-04:002013-05-18T12:40:50.623-04:00.
The argument is just...
Only in rat-world.
B....<br /><br /><i>The argument is just...</i><br /><br />Only in rat-world.<br /><br /><br /><i>But replacing the people at the levers, will not fix the system.</i><br /><br />No chance of that unless the FBI does its job. Obama's solution so far, allow a 'temp' whose job was up in six months to resign with full retirement benefits.<br /><br /><i>But you offer no program for change.<br />Advocate no alternative.</i><br /><br />You dumb shit, what is it about 'against the law' you don't understand? It's not the system that is corrupt. It's the people running the system who are corrupt.<br /><br /><i>As for Benghazi, you bought into the cover story.<br />The cover story fell apart, upon close examination.</i><br /><br />Another example of the pettifogging and distortion on the subject at hand, may I again say of changing the subject. Rather than the anology I provided of another example of the faux excuses the Dems and this administration use to cover their impropriaties, you switch over to a discussion of the Benghazi cover story.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><br />Quirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272168240606512672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-65655403848411362952013-05-18T12:39:16.419-04:002013-05-18T12:39:16.419-04:00The only King we've ever had was Elvis.The only King we've ever had was Elvis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21297199.post-7935418576704279552013-05-18T12:33:29.363-04:002013-05-18T12:33:29.363-04:00And, Bunk doesn't realize it was the people th...And, Bunk doesn't realize it was the people through their representatives that created the draft, and the people that got rid of it.<br /><br />......<br /><br />May 18, 2013<br />Phone call between Hillary and Obama may be 'genesis' of anti-Muslim video lie<br />Rick Moran<br /><br />Andrew McCarthy makes the case that the 10:00 PM phone call on September 11 last year between Hillary Clinton and President Obama may be the conversation that led to the bogus story of an anti-Muslim video setting off "demonstrations" in Benghazi that led to the deaths of Americans.<br /><br /> ((((((Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up.)))))) Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots -- they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.<br /><br /> Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration's deft handling of the Arab Spring -- by empowering Islamists -- had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was "Islamophobia" and the "violent extremism" it allegedly causes -- which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.<br /><br /> All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.<br /><br /> Even in the conservative press, it has become received wisdom that President Obama was AWOL on the night of September 11, after first being informed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in the late afternoon, that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. You hear it again and again: While Americans were under attack, the commander-in-chief checked out, leaving subordinates to deal with the crisis while he got his beauty sleep in preparation for a fundraising campaign trip to Vegas.<br /><br /> That is not true . . . and the truth, as we've come to expect with Obama, is almost surely worse. There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the "blame the video" narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.<br /><br />Jay Carney first revealed the existence of the phone call and the time in February. Hillary Clinton confirmed she spoke to Obama "later that evening." What was said between the two?<br /><br /> We now know from the e-mails and TV clips that, by Sunday morning, the White House staff, State Department minions, and Susan Rice were all in agreement that the video fairy tale, peppered with indignant rebukes of Islamophobia, was the way to go.<br /><br /> How do you suppose they got that idea?<br /><br />The theory makes sense. What's more, there may be a phone log of the conversation and what was discussed in the records of both principles.<br /><br />That would be a fascinating document to discover.<br /><br />Hat Tip: Ed Lasky<br /><br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04145155737835511824noreply@blogger.com