Presidential Czars

Funny have not seen comments from ExinternMike in a while maybe he scored himself a job as one of those Czars for being such a good lil Bama Booster.

I have read your material many times and found it informative and interesting. I am not convinced that this is the work of totalitarian, power-hungry, quasi-monarch man. How are his appointees to the Cabinet any different from those of the past? His strategy has changed, I will grant all of you that. No politician every in the history of human civilization has ever delivered on all of their campaign promises. It is a moot point because no matter who we elect now and til the end of time, they will be criticized for the same thing.

Thank you Twil for the kind comment about finding my work informative. I think that is exactly what I try very hard to do. I give the information that I find and let the reader decide for themselves what they think about it. Although, I do throw my opinion in there as well. I see that you are reading and trying to understand it all. I appreciate that you are not convinced about Obama's power-hungry agenda. I respect that. We will just keep reading and trying to understand.

Anything that grows the size of government is NOT healthy.

Whether or not taxes are levied is not the point?

Well.............I guess if you happen to be independently wealthy........bit then, Obama would help you out there too, and "lighten" your load.

Twil ol' buddy............I'm starting to think that maybe it would be ok for you to "nap" a little in some of those classrooms up there!

Twil............you seem to be pretty well versed in both theory and word structure.

May I assume you watched Obama's healthcare broadcast from the White House last night? His speech, plus the qustion and answer period?

Twil.......can YOU, (or anybody ELSE out there, for that matter), tell me WHAT IN THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?

Did he say anything?

What did he say?

He never told anybody WHO was gonna pay for all of this, and when asked about some specifics, he even told one reporter he wasn't sure "what was in the bill"

Here we go again..........ANOTHER friggin' bill that nobody reads but is expected to sign, and we're all supposed to get behind him.

Maybe I'm just ignorant. Am I by MYSELF here, or did any of you OTHER bloggers out there NOT understand what he was rambling on about last night?

I need some help here. Somebody clue me in, please.

One thing that IS clear about all this, is some of the lack of support from his own side.

He doesn't like it that the Republicans haven't been "on board" with THIS, the stimulous or anything else. He's labelled our side as being un-cooperarive and "not willing to work across the aisle."

What that means in English, is that our side won't just blindly endorse things on his "say-so." When you hand THEM an 1100-page stimulous package or this healthcare fiasco that is nearly 1,000 pages itself, those "non-conformists on the right" have the AUDACITY to want to READ it first!

But with a filibuster-proof congress in his hands now, he sholdn't need the GOP for anything, and even "Princess Nancy" told her fellow Dems NOT to include the Republicans on this health bill.

So why is Obama still having to "come before the people" trying to sell it? He automatically should have the votes, shouldn't he? H-m-m-m-m-m......

Seems that some of these new "Blue Dog Democrats", (many of whom have to go back home and try to get re-elected next year), aren't real keen on alienating taxpayers in their home states right now, and Obama is running into stiff opposition from his own "Majority."

But you'd think from his rhetoric last night that all was just fine.

But he still didn't explain ANYTHING, that made any sense to ME.....................DID he?

Welcome to the "Other Side". Apparently the president wants his blue dogs to go home and talk to their people as it seems that they are starting to listen to the "Other side" and looking at voting against BO's plan. And Princess Pilosi has told everyone when they come back from their break the will "WIN" on the healthcare plan. How do you win? Is this a battle where there has to be victor? I thought congress was there to represent US? Maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully congress wil lgo home and tak in a little light reading and actually have a clue to what they are voting on. Maybe they will check their answering machines and see that over 60% of the people in this nation DON'T WANT this plan as proposed. SO wouldn't that mean they have to vote for what their constiuents want and not what the president wants. Now there's a novel idea. A congress that actually represents those who voted them in instead of voting for whatever THEY want.

Unfortunately Bouncer, it's OUR fault.....collectively speaking.

"Little Johnny" will not only throw his fit in the store, but will talk back to us UNTIL we wail his butt!"

As long as the American people by and large keep re-electing these thieves................the assumption on THEIR end, is that they're doing a fine job.

One thing the Democrat supporters have NEVER figured out (and sadly, a lot on our side as well), you CANNOT make CAREER POLITICIANS out of these old crooks, and then TURNAROUND and COMPLAIN when you're continuing to be hosed!

Those who don't listen to the "answering machines" when they get home THIS time, might not have an answering machine to LISTEN to after 2010. I'd like to think that even the Dems in this country are getting mad enough to show a little brainwave activity, and some of OUR people too.

Any Republican who votes for ANYTHING without reading it first, or without taking the time to see what the people he REPRESENTS want him to do.........does NOT deserve our support next time around.

I have a hope that the Democrats, who traditionally will support ANYTHING or ANYBODY with a (D) after it's title, will remember WHO works for WHO, and check the voting records of ALL candidates before they vote. Putting the needs of the COUNTRY ahead of the PARTY would be a novel concept for most of them, but it COULD happen.

Pelosi's threats or not, I don't think Osama-Obama's socialist bill is going to pass. I don't think these "Blue dog Democrats" are are as "programmed" as the rest of the left is. There are some who WANT to have a chance at being re-elected next year...............and overtaxed voters on BOTH sides are begining to boil. If you're a Senator seeking re-election right now, you had BETTER be careful what you vote for.

When even the liberals figure out that it's not just Republican wallets that are being picked, we're gonna see a few surprises. Even the Dems understand money, or the lack thereof. The fleecing of America is happening to everybody.

As soon as both sides understand that (if they ever do), they'll start going to the voting booths as AMERICANS instead of "faithful little party members."

There are several cancer treatments, but the best way to get RID of it, is to REMOVE it. This is what needs to happen in D.C., but each of us old enough and conscience enough to register and cast the ballots our founding fathers gained for us............need to look in our mirrors first and ask ourselves WHO WE ARE.

AMERICANS.............or party followers.

If we DON'T throw them OUT, we're done. It's that simple. And our country is just about out of time, before she is no more. Anyone who can't see that, shouldn't be voting at all.

Two more must reads: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny".

I watched some of it. My take on it as that he does not have a firm hold on all of the specifics. It seemed as though he did not want to say too much so to avoid being "caught" or some idea like that.

This plan from what little I do know is flawed. Yes, everything in life has flaws. I dont expect this bill to answer all questions. It seems to me that they feel that Americans cant make good decisions when it comes to health care. I may be inferring the wrong point but that is my take.

In all fairness, it takes both sides of this to achieve optimal results. Neither is perfect nor any better than the other. The Pilgrims were progressive and I dont see any complaining about that. They chose not to endure living in the UK and so chose to move and not live by the status quo. The point is that nothing stays the same forever. There have been Republican or Conservative leaders (President, Senator, etc.) that have made plenty of blunders. Likewise there have been Liberal politicians/leaders that have left things worse than they were before. No group/party is perfect.

I think ya got sometin' there, Beau.............if the pilgrims HAD been "progressive", England would still be in charge here................(which might actually be better than what we have right now!).

But for the record...........there's an awful lot of P.O.'d people in this country right now, because of all these bills, all this newly-created debt and potential "health care" that has "lefthand fingerprints" ALL OVER IT!

Pilgrims or no pilgrims...........the CONSERVATIVES of today ain't buying into this horse.....!

And come next year at the mid-term elections, it's gonna be real interesting to see who Osama-Obama, Hidin'-Biden and Princess Pelosi try to point fingers at!

THEY'LL be the ones caught with their hands in the cookie jar, as long as our side doesn't do anything to aid and abet them.

I don't think both sides are needed at ALL. I've often said that we need some INDEPENDENTS in D.C., as in............FRESH OUT OF WORKING AMERICA, and get RID of the 2-party system, that has done nothing but create its own little empires.

Ted Kennedy is a prime example of lifelong fleecing and power...............and of a people too ignorant to vote him out.

Well................what we're doing NOW isn't working!, and no reason to believe it's going to.

.Awww Twil,

We can discuss "Conservatives (aka Republicans)" at a different time. BTW, Conservatives (aka Republicans) are not necessarily the same.

But for now let's concentrate on your assertion that the Pilgrims were progressive, aka liberal. The Pilgrims, were fleeing religious persecution in their native England. So I would say that they wanted to maintain their own 'status quo' rather than bow to the demanded changes of the Church of England. Yes, as you have agreed and stated in religious terms they were very conservative. In the 1600's was there that much of a difference between religious and political views?

Your argument that the Pilgrims were progressive (liberal) would have been better served IMO if you had used the terms of the Mayflower Compact as your basis.

Bazookaman,

".............if the pilgrims HAD been "progressive", England would still be in charge here................(which might actually be better than what we have right now!). "

-- Posted by bazookaman on Tue, Jul 28, 2009, at 8:14 AM

I don't know BM........but I think .....that ....the 150 plus years ....between the landing of the Pilgrims in 1620 .......and the eventual signing of our Decoration of Independence by our founding fathers in 1776 and the sacrifices of our warriors of the time to secure that Independence has little correlation ....... Other than ,......someone back in 1620 taught their children well. ....and so on....and so on ,and so on ..and so on.......

I have not read the entirety of the bill(s) but the proposed penalty or payroll tax for those who dont furnish health insurance is asanine. A 10% tax or penalty on those who dont comply or whatever verb one wants to use is terrible economics and poor politics. It would lead to the sure demise of most small businesses. I say this not because I want to provoke anger or fear. It is fundamental to any one who knows economics or just cause-effect relationships. I know that there is more to this than i have elaborated upon. From what i have read in the Wall Street Journal, it would be incredibly onerous on small businesses. Consumers would feel it too but I will leave it at this. Overall, I will be writing whomever I need to so that I can dissuade them from this ignorant idea.

Health care and such.... What Americans focus on is the accounting cost. That is what one sees on an Income Statement or Balance Sheet. It makes sense. If one reads the literature about this bill it seems from that point relatively benign. Yes, it will cost money but with just accounting costs factored in it seems to be people getting worked up over nothing.

Now, here is where the opposed gain traction. In life, one choice means that you give less energy to another. By choosing health care, we forego other possible beneficial items. I wont bore everyone with economics but what we would be giving up to make this happen outweighs the benefits. From a individual's point of view, most stand not to gain. From society's aggregate view, the numbers may work out. My argument to that is that individuals make up society and so we should start there. Statistics and high end analysis can get swayed by numbers that are far outside the norm.

For example 2,2,2,3,5,6,12121. Six out of seven are relatively small numbers but when averaged comes out to be 1734 which does not represent the group accurately. The point is that some areas of the countries which are in great need of the services offered by the bill do not represent the whole. Penalizing the whole to serve the minority is not the way to go in my opinion.

Your equating Hitler and Obama is laughable but I will let your delusion continue.

This current economic situation demands some stern, decisive, and extremely unpopular action. Republicans and or conservatives still have to be popular. They still have to care what the voting public thinks. They do not operate in a vacuum, oblivious to approval ratings. The point is that if McCain or whoever had been elected there would be serious opposition such as there is now.

If they had to chosen the path of thrift or lack of spending there would be vastly more unemployment. The number of people that would be out of their homes after failing to pay their mortgages and such would be higher. I support the path of thrift so dont misconstrue this. The point is that it would be trading one negative for another. The difference being that rampant spending without the assets to back it up will affect the future. Forcing the public to make better decisions and letting the economy settle back down to a natural level will be unpopular in the short term but will stabilize later. The government does not need to be the savior. The Federal Reserve is there to rescue banks in case of a bank run. They should not be factoring into everyday life.

Ok, so for another lesson in logic and economics.

One scenario.

Today's economy is in shambles as we all know. The government has two options. Be activist and try to tinker with it or do nothing and hope that things right themselves on their own. Government action would come in the form of stimuli (borrowing), changing interest rates by the Fed, or changing their own spending patterns. No matter who is in power, those are the options.

"FORCE? FORCE? FORCE the public to make better decisions?"

If the government takes no action, there will be consequences as we all know. Taking no action would mean that the economy would operate solely on the actions of consumers and businesses. Not all that is desired by individuals can be furnished. This is called scarcity. There is a limit to all consumer goods. Not everybody is going to get what they want. For the purpose of this lets propose that 15% of people cant make their mortgage payments. No action by the government means that they come up with the money or are forced to make another decision. They may have to move or sell the house or whatever. Limits are common place and have existed as long as this planet has.

No action by the government would mean that a new demand curve and a new supply curve would result. The choices made by the individual would have to change. They cant exist at the same living standard as before and so are forced to take less desirable options.

I feel that the government should stay out not because of politics. Actions taken by the Fed or the Treasury would come in the form of borrowing. Interest rate decreases having proved less than effective. Government spending cuts are not going to happen here. That being known, the cuts needed to help the economy are more than the entire Government section of GDP. Borrowing without the assets to back that up now and in the future has effects that will continue to grow.

Consumer actions and living on credit had a bigger impact than the inflated salaries in Washington. GDP is made up of 60% consumer transactions. With all economic activity included, that number grows. Govt. intervention would not be needed if consumers could keep their budgets balanced.

All of this occurs regardless of politics. Greece, Rome, England, and so on have had to grapple with these issues. Living on credit has never been wise. Plenty of conservative regular Americans refinanced their homes, maxed out their credit cards, bought overpriced real estate, purchased luxury goods such as big screen TVs, iMacs, etc. so poor financial decisions know no party line either. The point is that this current administration needs to take the unpopular step of allowing the economy to work on its own. This will be unpopular because more people will see their standard of living decrease. It's their fault after all. Politicians did not force them to refinance their home or undertake bad actions.

P.S. politicians had nothing to do with relaxing credit to consumers. There is plenty of evidence to support that. So please no blame game on this one.

You can believe what you want but senators and congressman did not force yuppies to refinance their homes and dig themselves into a debt that they could not afford. The relaxing of consumer credit occurred by way of the SEC and bank presidents. There is some sketchy evidence that minor bills passed during the Clinton administration made this occur as well. The issue with this is that these minor bills are ambiguous.

It is widely known and accepted by all intellectuals and individuals in the know that GDP breaks down in the following way. Consumption is 60%, Investment Spending is about 30% and Government Spending is 10%. Even during the most out-of-control spending times in US history this number has risen to 16% so again quite inconsequential in comparison to the bigger picture. The point is that consumer activities make a bigger difference than that of government.

Laws of supply and demand occur regardless of politics. Consumers with new credit resources demanded a more lavish lifestyle. Consumers (both Dem and Rep) chose to use these resources until a point where the liabilities exceeded the assets. This is not that complicated. Banks, lenders, real estate, etc. felt they could make a profit and so let bad investments go. When the default rate became too high they could no longer count on the safer investments to shore up the bad investments.

Now, answer some questions. Dont dodge them and dont come up with lame excuses.

Who defaulted on their mortgages?

Who maxed out their credit cards?

Who did not save?

I know that you will dodge this and come up with some lame conspiracy but I will hold out faith that you can answer basic questions. This is not a political argument. Debt knows not party lines.

Government waste or misuse of funds is going to happen. If it was up to me, I would only fund projects that would benefit everybody. This project would have to show tangible results in the near future.

I agree that these Senators dont spend a dime of their own to make these frivolous ventures come to life. The scientists and universities that propose these worthless ventures are equally as guilty. If they care so much, they should fund it on their own.

Back to the topic. Whether the government takes action or not, the culture needs to learn to be accountable for their actions. I agree that not only do consumers need to exercise better judgment but also politicians. I dont advocate that they should tell anybody how to spend their money. Bringing credit back to pre-boom levels would be a start. Not only would consumers have to change but also the lenders who prey upon these people. People make the decision to borrow so that they can afford season tickets to BSU and the lenders prey upon them by offering packages and interest rates that sneak upon them. Lenders took this and over-extended themselves.

The deficit was not created by consumers, you are right. My point is that consumers living beyond their means created this latest economic downturn. Consumers may have created it but it seems that those in control have tried too hard to rescue them. You cant help those who wont help themselves. If those in D.C. knew that what Americans really wanted to long term stability and not short term highs that will result in towering debt and eventual poor exchange rates.

YUP, I'm ready.

Twil I disagree with you on who caused this latest downturn. Actually it was places like Freddie and Fannie lending money like it was free. It was banks lowering their standards for credit so they could get more and more "customers" out there paying the minimum payment. Do I blame some of these citizens for taking advantage of the fact the bank tells them they can afford a $150K home when their paychecks say they can only afford $80K, Yes. But If someone walked up to you and handed you $100 and said pay it back to me at a a dollar a month, you'd take that. So now that the mortgage lenders say you can afford $150K, the realtors and builders decide that the house that cost them $30K to build is now worth that $150K you can afford instead of the $50-60K it should have been on the market for. So now the housing market is over inflated. People are paying interest only mortgages so when they do go to sell the house they have not paid a dime to principle and are trying to sell a house that isn't worth what they paid. So now the economy crashes. These people, mostly young couples, are sitting on negative equity. They now have three choices, keep the house and keep paying. Sell the house at a significant loss. Or what most are doing which is simply walking away from it. Far easier to do that when you don't have anything of your own invested in the house. The payment is due on the new Dodge Charger and Ram truck. The atv's in the drive way need a payment paid. The $15,000 camp trailer is close to going back to the bank. Now His job is eliminated due to poor sales at his work. She is working two part time jobs at minimum wage. they turn to the government for help. They are told one of two things. She makes too much money to qualify or they don't have enough dependants to claim. So she quits one of the jobs, or has more kids. Now they qualify for food stamps, welfare, free medical care. They lose the toys in the drive and now are driving a car the government wants you to turn in for a great rebate on a new car. DId they do this to themselves? Partly, they were young and were spreading their wings. They went in to the bank thinking there's no way they were going to get the loan for the $150K house, the new car and truck, the atv's and camp trailer. But because the government told the banks, "Go ahead and loan, we'll cover ya!" the banks and mortgage company threw money out the window to these young people knowing that they had them by the throat for the next 30+ years. The government didn't care it either got it's kick back from Fannie and Freddie or they got millions onto the welfare rolls which essentially gives the government control of these young lives.

So now these young people want reform. They want to know why they were allwed to get in way over their head, they want to know why they will be in this hole for years to come. Are they to blame, Yes. But only in part. A spending nation is good for the economic numbers. Now it's time to pay the bills and no one has the money. The banks have gone back to congress and said, "Hey, you said you'd help us out. We can't fail or the nation fails!" Congress now throws money out the window to prop up these banks to keep them from going under and dragging the economy with it. WHo's money do they do this with...YOURS. Congress created this mess. They were the ones pushing for more and more consumer spending. They are the ones that laxed the rules for lending. Banks took advantage of people who didn't know any better and wanted what their parents took years to get, NOW!

Twil, watch TV for an hour. Look at the commercials. Everything is geared towards instant gratification. No hard work or saving for it. Just get a laon for it. Everything from motorcyles to cars and wash and dryers, all offer low payments OAC. You can now take pills to please your mate. No doctors appointment. No tests, just take this pill.

Just take this pill..that should be congresses new Motto!

I have stated numerous times that this action (stimulus) is one spurred on by everyone wanting instant gratification. Everyone being consumers, businesses, and politicians.

So to paraphrase, the debate is really who to blame. Do you blame the shady salesman or the sucker that buys the product? I blame the buyer because research can be done. I think that Americans are smart enough to not get in over their heads. I have proven to be wrong in my assumption. If any improvements are going to be made, the standard of living and all that it entails will have to be adjusted. Not everybody can have the Range Rover, 4000 sq. foot home on the river, 52-inch TV, season tickets to BSU and all others, and a membership at the Country Club.

KIM.............KIM................KIM

What do you know about this latest "CZAR", Mark Lloyd?

Glenn Beck reported him to be what he calls a "Radio Czar." He started in this position on the 29th of July, and his intentions are to impose fees EQUAL to the annual operating costs of each conservative radio station and to impose fines of up to 250 million dollars if the radio station says anything derogatory about this administration......this is what I got out of it so far.

Also, Robert Gibbs is doing a HUGE diversional tap dance around these E-Mails being sent to people who have NEVER E-mailed any White House internet site. He HIMSELF accidently referred to a "list."

Obama held a townhall meeting in OF ALL PLACES............MONTANA, a HARD 2nd Amendment state, but when one guy stood up and told the "messiah" he was an NRA member and believed in our Constitutuion, only about FOUR people applauded...........

Tell me THAT meeting wasn't pre-set-up too as it was in New Jersey.

MONTANA............heavy militia............heavy "good ol' boy", heavy pro-gun, and you'd have thought the meeting had been held in San Francisco or something.

SET-UP!!

Most of the folks there were smiling, laughing at Obama's corny little quips, while everywhere else in the country (INCLUDING Pennsylvania), Obama's cohorts have been getting MAULED.

SET=UP!!

WHERE is "EX-INTERN"............jump in here, fella...........lecture us all some more about your "Annointed One" and how he is God's gift to this country!

And KIM.............please check this guy Lloyd on your Czar list, in case I don't have the info exactly right.

I watch Glenn Beck every day that I can. When did he say Obama was a racist? I must have missed that episode.

I know the "Un-American" and "Nazi" remarks from Pelosi & friends ARE true because it came right out of their facist mouths on live tv.

If you read Beck's book, "Common Sense", you'll see that he doesn't have a lot of good things to say about the Republican party either (post-Reagan).

If you watch his show OBJECTIVELY, it'll become pretty apparent that his main concern is the country, and where it's headed.

Hannity and O'Reilly are slanted to the right, but they at least have Liberal guests on their panels.................have you checked "fair & balanced" CNN, NBC or any of the OTHER leftwing stations recently?

The "right" has ONE major tv news network and a handfull of radio stations. The "left has ALL THE REST, almost EVERY major newspaper, and you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY university that has more than 10% of EVENLY-balanced faculty. The very vermin that teach "indoctrination"......not "education."

Used to be just Berkeley, but like cancer, it has spread unchecked.

And even with ALL THAT.............it STILL isn't enough for the Dems. Now they want talk radio banned.

The only message they want the public to EVER hear is THEIRS.

They bus the union goons and ACORN into the town hall meetings, and when Obama HIMSELF speaks, he is ASSURED a "friendly crowd", and most of those with genuine concerns are left outside, away from it.

Montana was an excellent example. ONE NRA member stands and states his allegience to the Constitution and only 3 or 4 people applaud him?

IN MONTANA?

It was rigged! Just like a portion of the ELECTION was, through ACORN, who'e motto was to "vote early and vote often."

Isn't it "coincidenc"e that all of the illegals will be COUNTED in the census next year. The more people, the more district representation the Dems can garner new seats for.

If they know where the illegals are, so they can COUNT them, seems to me they could DEPORT them just as easily.............except that the Democrats NEED them for their own purposes.

Twil.......if this regime was any more crooked, we could open wine bottles with it.

PS.....it might interest you to know that having read Beck's book TWICE now, I don't entirely agree with him. He says we need to take this country back peacefully. I say it's too late for that. There's been too much "discussion and rhetoric" already. It continues to cost us and nothing changes.

Gandhi's struggle was with England. OURS is with our own government...............Washington D.C........where the "war on terrorism" should rightfully START!

Well, as someone once said..........."Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst."

I still think it's gonna hit the fan.

April 6, 1919. All Indians ceased any economic activities. No one worked nor did anything productive. Nonviolent noncooperation. India has multiple languages, stronger ethnic divides than the US ever thought of, and religious divides that go back a thousand years. That pre-dates Europeans polluting the world by about 500 years. With those barriers, he was still able to bring the population together against a much-superior force (at least in terms of fire power, money, and resources) and ultimately win. He did not accomplish all that he wanted. Refusing to buy or sell English cloth was one step. Refusing to buy salt that came through British hands. Refusing to work for them in any way even though it meant tough times and possible starvation. The point is that with grassroots noncooperation we can change things from the inner core on out. Provoking the anger of those who have superior fire power and resources is foolhardy. Most people are not warriors. Nor have they ever been. The warrior class in Sparta was only about 20% of the population.

And twil.........a young kid with an M-16 who is barely shaving, is no match for an old seasoned elk hunter with a 340 Weatherby out at 600 yards. Especially an old combat vet who's "been there and knows the drill."

And fighting for your OWN freeddom takes on a whole different attitude, than fighting for someone else's.

"Superior firepower?" I think not.

Frankly, Twil, the only OTHER way to UN-corrupt this band of thieves is to VOTE them out, and I have my reservations whether or not we have ENOUGH people in the country who are SMART enough to do that.

There are an awful lot of "sheeple" who would just as soon NOT get involved............just close their eyes, ears and hope that somehow it'll all "come out in the wash."

I cannot STAND to see what is happening to what was once this country, and so many willing to not only stand by and watch it, but AID, ABET and ENDORSE these same thieves who are robbing us all, and going after our grandchildren next while all the time, filling their OWN bank accounts.

Sometimes I think I'm mad at the wrong people.......it AIN'T the politicians, it's the "walking breathing labotomies" that keep putting them IN there!

"Refuse to pay taxes?" Good one, Twil. Ever read our Constitution? I mean REALLY read it? We aren't required to pay most of the taxes we're paying NOW.

But the old......."Well, that's just how it is" and........."Well, the government says we have to".............has become a way of life now, and the Federal Reserve/IRS have grown into monsters that our founding fathers would never have allowed to exist.

Even TODAY...........the "highly-educated" THEMSELVES don't realize they're enduring this "Taxation", but WITHOUT "Representation"....EACH AND EVERY TIME our elected officials vote AGAINST what the people want...............the PEOPLE.............THEIR BOSS!

WE send them to Washington to represent OUR interests................NOT the SPECIAL INTERESTS.

But that's "OK" with US, isn't it!! 4 years later, we'll go in and vote "straight ticket" just like always...............they'll screw us some MORE just like always, and we'll do little more than squabble amongst ourselves........just like always.

We almost DESERVE what's happening to us.

Those of us who DO stand are "redicals, Un-American, troublemakers, NAZI's, racists, etc."

Those who oppose getting tough with the government are the same parents who would rather "reason" with an unruly child, than swat his butt like they SHOULD.

"Be kind, gentle, understanding, always easier to just let little Johnny have his way, than to escalate the situation with "brutality" (a good old fashioned spanking).

Years later, when that same kid is doing some time in the "big house," we can always blame it on the "system of society" that has failed the poor kid.

This government is going to do what it ia ALLOWED to do.

This government is going to do what it is ALLOWED to do

This government is going to do what it is ALLOWED to do

So if you're pleased with how everything is going, by all means listen to the "learned ones' and keep voting with the left.

I'm sure glad the Minutemen didn't think in terms of "political correctness"

Too bad it was all for nothing, because we're GIVING IT AWAY and continuing to thank Obama in the process.

PS......for the record, India is India. America is America

George Washington didn't advocate sit-down strikes. THEY RAN THE DIRTBAGS OUT OF HERE!

Twil, I am in agreement with you. Sorry Bazook, but nonviolent civil disobedience has been very effective and will be effective here. You can see it happening now. Read my lastest blog about the sinking ship. I support the people refusing to pay taxes and refusing to support the govt in any way until our representation is in line with the will of the people. Violent civil uprising is reserved for last resort, when there is no other recourse. Unfortunately, when that happens the people are so over-the-top angry that so many will die. Lives will be lost and massive chaos will prevail. Hold on to your anger and let's keep a level common sense head about this. We are gaining while the current administration's ship is sinking.

Yes people will choose the easy way. The easy way being apathy and hoping that those who care make the situation right.

Violent uprising is going to be supported by some because it is easy and rewards those who have traits such as courage,decisiveness, and single-track thinking. The nonviolent approach is subjective and does not always yield definite answers.

Yes. India is India. We are all human in the end. We all depend on the ATP reaction for life and energy. Culture may be different but the core needs of life are the same. If they can overcome the British Empire with nothing but refusal to cooperate, I dont see why Americans cant achieve a similar end.

You have stated on numerous occasions that the almighty dollar drives these "crooks". So why not attack them there. Provoking their anger and having a bloody civil war would simply reinforce these attitudes. Just like ignoring those who attempt to bully you is the best solution. If they cant get a reaction from you, what is it worth to them. If these politicians knew that we would be willing to sacrifice our lush lifestyles for this, they would listen. Our sacrifices would eventually lead to their fortunes crumbling. Their lavish lifestyles going down the toilet would force them to think. Revolting would put them a sink-or-swim, kill-or-be-killed mentality which would not change them. It has never helped me think clearer and neither has it anyone else.

Getting everyone to be cooperative and band together would/will be immensely difficult. I feel that showing how current/future economic policy will affect them directly. Trying to inspire them with fiery speech that sounds office gossip is not the way. Emotional, passionate, and heavily subjective tirades do not help to get the less concerned/motivated. We have to show that regardless of party, race, religion, geography, sexual orientation that this will affect them negatively. Spouting off he said/she said rhetoric does not work.

Appealing to someone emotionally rarely works. You have to back up things with sound logic and appear to have no agenda except for giving the facts and letting the person decide for themselves. I have experience with this and my message only struck home when I appeared to not have an agenda. When I was not trying to subtly discredit their current beliefs but rather show then logical, objective facts, the message seemed to last for more than .5 seconds.

Logic isn't common in theis country anymore. If if WAS, the U.N. would be out of here, the IRS and Federal Reserve wouldn't exist, the war would have been over on 9/12, the borders would have been shut down and someone like Ron Paul ot Mike Huckabee would be in the White House.

Our Constitution would be FOLLOWED instead of scrapped.

But it does have EVERYTHING to do with Obama. Obama has tried to affect change by using the things you say won't work. So in that frame of mind we should just shut up and let congress do what they will because it won't work??

As for posting the actual/probable effects of their decisions, once again have you been watching the news? Not one shred of truth from this administration or the lackeys in congress. All they do when attacked is to smear and slander. Sooo typical

My point is if average citizens are going to make a difference, those citizens need to rely on factual, objective data in order to persuade others to follow suit. It is possible to rise above that of politicians. If we are going to get the public to see the light, we cant rely on emotional appeals. I would feel that we have to be above that.

I watch the news but everything that one gets from the media has bias. It has been selected and edited for mass appeal. The appeal is not always what is formulative and relevant to average life.

I am not pro or anti-Obama. I am anti-bailout and against excessive govt. involvement in private economic issues. If we are going to get people to see the light of day, they have to know the actual costs/benefits of their decisions. It is hard to find tangible evidence of how and when it will affect them.

OK, here's one for you since you want to discredit me. If Obama's current health plan goes into action, what will be the cost to you? Now dont back down and give me rhetoric. Give tangible, hard numbers that show how it will affect YOU. Now I feel an escape route coming, so no using the totals gleaned from CNN, FOX, or any newspaper. If you are going to win this one, you will have to show that it is easy to find how the average citizen's standard of living will increase/decrease. Again no impassioned, reactionary rhetoric.

I know that it is difficult to determine the exact consequence. Average people know that the media colors everything. They leave stuff out on purpose. Too much info blurs the line, as we all know. Not everything enacted by government affects everybody equally. Talk radio has an immense amount of bias and opinion. Its good fodder for thought but for formulative decisions it offers little.

When you are advocating a cause, you have to appeal to someone with facts. A cause is different than running for political office which has vastly more elements in it. A single cause usually has a pro and an anti. Appealing on someone's emotions in order to persuade them is like telling a Catholic to suddenly become Jehovah's Witness.

And Twil............My priorities in life range far beyond "winning" any blog debates.

When a once-free nation is headed for total government control, there IS no "middle ground." I don't care WHAT those Marxist professors say up there.

This has GOT to be stopped!

I make no qualms that I dont support the current proposals regarding healthcare. I dont care who or what party proposes them. It matters not. Socializing it will have drawbacks that can be shown logically and without a bunch of rhetoric. All of these have been brought up by other fine folks on here so no need to rehash them.

"It is no secret how you feel about your grandfather. Under "Obamacare", how much is your grandfather worth to THEM? THIS is cost far beyond dollars."

I am not sure how to answer that. So, for now I will let it be.

I dont pretend to be all that educated on that topic. I am not pro-Obama on this topic. The elderly need care but I am not sure for the whole of America if the socialized approach is the best.

One thing has come to my attention that seems to be flying under the radar. That is the monopoly that the American Medical Association has. I am not sure exactly how it affects the cost of health insurance but a monopoly this large has to affect life in a negative way. Any input would be appreciated.

I dont work for the Treasury but it would seem that it's impossible not to execute this without increasing the debt or raising taxes. The supply of money and resources is not infinite. We all know this but some seem not to acknowledge it.

And that doesn't make him a liar, right? Oh no, he didn't say that he wouldn't raise the taxes of anyone making less than $250,000 by one dime, either. Again, not a lie, right? Oh, we could play this game for quite a while, couldn't we? But I'm too tired, so very tired. Liars will lie until confronted with it. Crooks will continue to be crooks until someone makes them pay for their crimes. Afterall, if you are speeding and see a policecar parked on the side of the road, do you not slow down and pray that he doesn't turn on his lights? But let's change that scene just alittle. Take away the police car. Just a man in uniform standing on the sidewalk with no means of transportation and you go speeding by, obviously breaking the law. That policeman can scream all he wants; jump up and down while shaking his fist at you to slow down and you will drive on by with a smile on your face and you may even go faster as you watch him in your rearview mirror. (How funny is that mental picture?) There was no fear of punishment, no penalty to pay so how effective was that cop? There must be an incentive to change the direction you are going in or there is no need to stop or alter your course. We must give the current administration an incentive to stop.

Exactly the incentive I had in mind.