Freedom’s Throttle

A simplistic but established definition for communism is, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.  That “selfish” people expect to be rewarded for their efforts makes such an ideal totally unworkable and is fact that seems lost on America’s Democratic nominee for president.

Because the word communism is attached indelibly to the arch enemy Soviet Union Ronald Reagan so accurately attributed, “The evil empire”, its usage is profane in modern politics and is discounted as some sort of hyperbolic epithet if voiced.

I’ve been nave enough to point out that many facets of American society have been subjugated to government control mirroring the “communist” model Americans abhorred and fought the cold war to avoid, only to receive looks of disgust for my audacity.

Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “Words mean things” and works his audience with intellectual provocation, parody, and humor attempting to communicate foundational American concepts and historic insights to his listeners.

Unfortunately, the “intellectual” angle sways few when much of our society has such a poor knowledge of history or has learned an inaccurate portrayal promulgated in institutions of higher learning dominated by “liberal” professors.

I’ve written about conservatism’s intent in protecting the Founder’s vision of freedom and liberty for America, only to be told the Founding Fathers were liberals in reply, with my opponents never engaging my point that liberty, freedom, and the right to pursue happiness are God given rights over which government does not have jurisdiction.

While we strive for intellectual comprehension and communication on the right, the left, aided by the elitist class, scowls at our “immature” and “simplistic” views explaining how our “complicated” world is too difficult for noble but stupid “Nascar Fans” to understand.  Then they dish out a healthy dose of emotional propaganda to a constituency agreeing that the right is dumb yet can’t tell you that Congress is made up of two houses or that the Judiciary is a branch of government.

Progressive and liberal are new labels for the same old philosophies described by socialism, collectivism and communism.  They all embrace a core belief that power should and must be lifted from the American citizen and transferred to bureaucrats for society’s own good.  Making that accurate articulation is always greeted by insult with detractors spouting some nonsense about fairness.

The left wants people to feel their efforts, not comprehend them.

Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists in any society. In “capitalistic” countries and in “communist” countries we find idealistic attributes embraced which are inherent in the other.  The difference lies in how the competitive spirit is encouraged by each system.  In our system, defined by America’s Founders, excellence is the final arbiter where awards are presented due accomplishments that aid society revealed by a free market.

In the anti-American socialist system competition still exists, however the field is monopolized by government and award goes to those best able to maneuver a structure which demands that accomplishment never crosses party line to insure the privileged class is never unseated.

The proclamation that our current political evolution is a move toward communism may be offensive, but where my deference to public sensibilities fails, one thing is for sure, it is impossible to argue convincingly that today’s movement is toward more freedom and liberty.

This Presidential election we have two choices; in one the ascendant will use the full powers of the office to enthusiastically take away liberties in exchange for more arbitrary and mediocre government services, destroy our military, and punish wealth in the name of fairness.

Our other choice presents a man who will continue to proclaim limiting free speech is good to insure fair elections regardless our Bill of Rights, who enthusiastically proclaims he is against “obscene profits” piling on against oil companies for doing their jobs well, and who embraces the imagined threat of man-made climate change to encourage stifling regulation, but promises not to stop killing terrorists.

My study of America’s Constitution has never revealed freedom or liberty allowably limited, controlled, or throttled because of some bureaucrat’s interpretation of fair or fairness.

Do you think it is by accident that the Founders neglected to include fair into the text of their premier document, even one time?

If we are going to be stuck here at home sacrificing more liberty to government control regardless who becomes our next president, then what difference does it make whether or not we beat the crap out of Al Qaeda which only wants the same?

Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo

54 thoughts on “Freedom’s Throttle

  1. Most people aren’t ignorant because of “liberal domination of education” but because the things they learn in high school are irrelevant to their day to day lives, or they thought they were irrelevant while they were students, or they’re just plain stupid. America has an awful rap for education, compounded by a bizarre anti-intellectual culture. If the “liberal domination” was to blame, then wouldn’t America’s education system be doing better than much more liberal countries, like Europe and Canada? I mean, those are countries where there IS NO DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE because they KNOW it’s not.

  2. I also don’t get your accusations that “the left wants you to feel and they use emotion; the right uses cold logic and is always right.” That rhetoric makes no sense to me, because it is the right that uses emotion as a cornerstone of their platform every single election. Gays want to marry! Oh no! And conservative protesters of, say, abortion, use highly emotional displays like huge banners of dead fetuses or bus ads with embryos on them saying “THIS IS A LIFE NOT A CHOICE”. Appealing to traditional moralism is not cold and logical. The justification for social liberalism is “everyone deserves equal rights and utmost freedom, even if you think two dudes/a black and a white going at it is icky” It also logically defines what is a person, and logically says that embryos and early-stage fetuses are not people. And social liberals logically argue that braindead people [Terry Schiavo] is never coming back from the dead, because her brain is a fine protein paste now. Pull the plug. Do you even know what you’re talking about when you call liberals emotional feelies, or are you just completely ignorant of who is on the left or right?

  3. Crumb,

    Why use rhetoric such as fairness to explain why your plan is to raise taxes to 59% when all history shows it will hurt the economy and hurt those at the bottom of the class welfare spectrum more than those at the top?

    Because you want to appeal to the emotion of poor people who just want to get the rich guy, never mind making their lives better which raising taxes never does.

    Also, I would consider showing the pieces of a baby removed from the womb after 8 or 9 months gestation quite a reasonable method of demonstrating the barbarism of abortion, emotional or not. In this case emotion is used to demonstrate a truth.

    The left uses emotion to subjugate the truth.

    You mean to tell me liberal policy is designed to do something other than transfer power from people to government?

    Why is every demographic targeted by Johnson’s Great Society statistically worse off now than when his programs were instituted?

    Try staying on point buddy boy.

    Are you a communist, do you really think government morons are better equipped to decide how much people should pay or sell things for than the people in the market desiring goods?

  4. “Because you want to appeal to the emotion of poor people who just want to get the rich guy, never mind making their lives better which raising taxes never does.”

    Have you ever met a supporter of welfare? The ones who need social security nets support it not for an emotional reason, but because they believe the government exists to serve the people, and that they need government support to be more productive and lead a better life. The middle-class supporters of the welfare state see it as, at worst, a leveller. It brings benefits to the working class who keep America running. People depend on medicare not out of laziness, but out of necessity, and many other government programs aid people in genuine need.

    The most radical welfare state supporter [more radical would be Stalinists probably] think that the wealthy make a disproportionately large amount of money at the expense of the poor, and again see taxes and the welfare state as a leveller, that can bring benefit to the poor without robbing the rich of opulent lifestyles. Whether or not higher taxes hurt the welfare state doesn’t factor into people without education in liberal economics. To simplify support of the welfare state as “Poor people hate rich people huhuhu” is false. People genuinely believe that the welfare state will improve the lives of the working class, not that the wealthy have to be punished, even if it takes everybody down with them. Middle class people are not suicidal, they are too boring for that.

  5. My gut “feeling” tells me that we are rapidly approaching a schism in this country where our differences are so totally irreconcilable that there can be no compromise. What I mean is that our world views are so polar opposite that we can’t make them meet. Do you believe in freedom and the power of the individual and LAW (as opposed to mob rule) or do you believe that government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians should decide how you should live?

    I know where I stand and I would just assume fight a socialist than to debate him.

    I am already to the point where when I take applications from potential employees, I try to get a feel for who they might try to put in power (watch your stupid-ass “when clinton lied no one died” bumper stickers). I will in no way hire someone that holds the same world view that leftists hold and I will not pay wages to someone that wants to elect a criminal that wants to steal from me to fund their “new deal” ambitions or subjugate the very ideals that made this country the miracle that it is.

  6. You haven’t addressed what I said about the “right” using emotional appeals all the time. Appeals to moralism and tradition are nothing BUT emotional appeals, and make up almost all of conservative social policy by default [conserving the old ways in a new time]. Do not confuse morals with ethics; ethics are reasoned-out and flexible: they’re not based on mummified concepts and reflexive xenophobia.

    To counter your vague stock-conservative rhetoric of “Socialism makes the poor poorer!”, I present the vague stock-socialist rhetoric of “Capitalism makes the poor poorer!” I think you’ll find that outsourcing is a fun contemporary example of capitalism making the poor poorer, and the Iron Law of Wages an older example [though Wal*Mart is keen on reviving it].

  7. Your response that “In this case emotion is used to demonstrate a truth.

    The left uses emotion to subjugate the truth.” does not prove itself.

  8. “Do you believe in freedom and the power of the individual and LAW (as opposed to mob rule)”
    Yes. But way to go on selecting job applicants not based on their skills, but on their possible political affiliation!

  9. Crumb,

    You dumb ass, you answered your own question.

    Where do the richest poor people in the world live?

    America!

    There goes your theory that capatilism makes the poor poorer!

  10. I find it curious that the richest parts of America are the blue states and the most-welfare-suckinest are red states. Not only that, but the blue states are much more urban, diverse, and above all cosmopolitan, what with a megalopolis stretching from Boston down to Jersey. It would be interesting to see where an American “schism” would lead.

  11. Crumb,

    You obviously haven’t built your own company, worked 100 hours a week for years on end, sacrificed leisure time while buddies were out on vacation.

    I agree 100% with Raul.

    No way in hell I would employ someone who felt I should pay even more in taxes.

    Why should I help someone by employing them when they want government to punish me for my years of hard work and effort which has given them the opportunity of a job.

    Never hire a liberal!

  12. Well, considering that person would vote for the liberal candidate whether or not you employed them, I don’t see how you’re helping yourself by reducing the skill pool.

  13. Now for once, could someone actually engage my arguments instead of deflecting?

  14. Crum-dum-ass,

    What the hell are you you doing on this site? Although your babbling just proves the conservative points more times than not, it is quite obvious you are a devoted and unsavable communist. As I’ve learned in the past, it does no use to anyone to enage your so called arguments as you are flying blind as a bat and have no ability to comprehend anythng but your left wing ideology.

  15. “I’ve written about conservatism’s intent in protecting the Founder’s vision of freedom and liberty for America”

    “take away liberties in exchange for more arbitrary and mediocre government services”

    Why do these liberties not extend from the economic to the political realm? Any explanation?

  16. I don’t understand your question Matt.

    Freedom is pretty straight forward. As long as I am not acting in such away as to infringe on the rights of others I should be left alone by government.

    For example, if I am dumping toxic chemicals into a river government should have jurisdiction, since I am assaulting the quality of life of others.

    But no credible argument can be made that government should be allowed to take 35 or 45 or 59 percent of my income. This is clearly an assault on my freedom regardless how much money I make.

    You probably believe it is a reasonable assault, ergo you believe communism is a preferable form of government to American capitalism.

    I disagree.

  17. “You don’t see taxation as extortion ERGO you are a commie pinko, no middle ground”

    Strange how it always comes down to this.

    Can you provide strong examples of “the left” being rooted in the realm of “the emotional” and “the right” being rooted in the realm of “reason” or are you just going to bandy about shaky rhetoric? Better question: Are your values ever incorrect?

  18. “Have you ever met a supporter of welfare? The ones who need social security nets support it not for an emotional reason, but because they believe the government exists to serve the people,…”

    Why do they BELIEVE government exists to serve the people? Why don’t they know, or understand a just government exists to protect the rights of the individual and that is its ONLY legitimate function. Could it be they have been fed collectivist pablum by the education, press, and political establishments in ever larger and gooier globs for so long they don’t know any better?

    By the way Crumb, define “serve the people” for me. Just what does that mean? Who decides and how do they decide what “serves the people?” Does that mean ALL the people? If so, how does one with such belief reconcile transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who haven’t?

    “..and that they need government support to be more productive and lead a better life.”

    No concept of WORKING and maybe going to school to learn to become more productive and taking responsibility to EARN a better life?

    “The middle-class supporters of the welfare state see it as, at worst, a leveller.”

    Leveller of what?

    “It brings benefits to the working class who keep America running. People depend on medicare not out of laziness, but out of necessity,..”

    Any thoughts about why it is a “necessity?”

    “…and many other government programs aid people in genuine need.”

    Explain to me why it is government’s job to aid people in “genuine Need.” While you’re at it, define genuine need.

    “The most radical welfare state supporter [more radical would be Stalinists probably] think that the wealthy make a disproportionately large amount of money at the expense of the poor,..”

    Upon what evidence do they base this supposition?

    ” …and again see taxes and the welfare state as a leveller, that can bring benefit to the poor without robbing the rich of opulent lifestyles.”

    But robbing them, none the less. They believe it’s OK to rob them just a little? They don’t think they have to destroy the lifestyle of the rich, just pinch a little of their wealth for themselves? Such moral lassitude!

    “…People genuinely believe that the welfare state will improve the lives of the working class,…”

    Has it? Where is the evidence to support their belief?

    “…not that the wealthy have to be punished, even if it takes everybody down with them. …”

    Yet that is the ultimate result of the policies proclaimed and supported by both presidential contenders. And that Crumb, was Jim’s point – neither candidate despite their differences, is a suporter of freedom or capitalism. Both are collectivist and statist in their policies.

  19. “Why don’t they know, or understand a just government exists to protect the rights of the individual and that is its ONLY legitimate function.”
    It could be that their interpretation of a government run by the people is that the government serves the people, not vice versa.

    “By the way Crumb, define “serve the people” for me. Just what does that mean? Who decides and how do they decide what “serves the people?” Does that mean ALL the people? If so, how does one with such belief reconcile transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who haven’t?”
    Well, I am not every person in the United States, so I cannot answer this question!

    “No concept of WORKING and maybe going to school to learn to become more productive and taking responsibility to EARN a better life?”
    I guess you’ve never heard of student loans. Or debt. Or poverty?

    “Any thoughts about why it is a “necessity?””
    People get sick. Not all people can afford private insurance. Sick people need health care to get better. But, I guess you’re right. Health care is not necessary for sick poor people.

    “Explain to me why it is government’s job to aid people in “genuine Need.” While you’re at it, define genuine need.”
    Orphans.

    “Upon what evidence do they base this supposition?”
    There are rich people who are very rich and poor people who are very poor. The poor people work for the rich people, and the rich people profit by their labour!

    “They believe it’s OK to rob them just a little?”
    Yes, if they’re justifying it as levelling, i.e. the rich make tons of money off the labourers, they didn’t really earn it by being cheap and it won’t hurt them to see it gone, then I guess they do believe it’s OK to take a little.

    “Has it? Where is the evidence to support their belief?”
    Apparently every first world nation other than America, where apparently poor people get more poor because of the welfare state[???]

  20. I probably shouldn’t have responded to you, since I did it all sarcastically and you weren’t even addressing my real issue. Plus you have no empathy or compassion, you heartless Randroid you.

  21. Crumb,

    You were complaining no one was responding to your questions. So I took one of your posts and responded to nearly every point. Now you tell me your subsequent response wasn’t serious – just all sarcasm. Make a lot of friends that way do you?

    Since the majority of your posts imply you are describing what “others” think, how does one tell which issues are yours?

    You are right. I have little empathy or compassion for those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives and instead blame their failures in life on those who they imagine have exploited them.

    Cheers.

  22. People genuinely believe that the welfare state will improve the lives of the working class.

    Crumb,
    Who are these idiots who believe this?
    Do you know anyone on welfare? I live in a blue state and welfare abounds in my area. I ll give you two examples. I have a cousin who at one point was collecting welfare from two different states at the same time. Was she working class you ask. She could be. But lo and behold she was smart enough to know that she could suck the welfare system.
    Is there anything wrong with her physically or mentally? No. She is just too damn lazy to do anything but make kids.
    One of the people I work with has a kid to a former girlfriend. He gives her money to take care of his child. She dumps the kid on his family all the time. She and her present boyfriend dont have jobs. They could be working but why do that. Welfare pays the rent, the electricity, the gas in their vehicles and they are paying for her to go to school. Her ex boyfriend is going to school too but he is working while taking his classes.
    Please define working class for me Crumb because these welfare recieptients do not match my idea of what working class is all about. Welfare such as ACCESS or food stamps does not have anything to do with the working class.

    People depend on medicare not out of laziness, but out of necessity.

    What necessity would that be? When you are 65 you have to join Medicrap whether you like it or not. It is the law. I know because my father had to join up with it in 2006. It does NOT take care of a lot of medical costs. If you are in the hospital more than five days, guess who pays after that>? You do. If you have a prescription that Medicrap does not want to cover, guess what? You re paying.

    The government raised taxes twice during the Great Depression. 1932 and 1936. If you want to look yourself go to the Treasury Department and look at the fact sheets about tax rates history. You can also read what those tax hikes did.

  23. Who believes in the welfare state? Well, I guess it’s the people who say they support the welfare state. And the welfare state is more than just money for the unemployed and impoverished, it’s all the social programs run by the government for the purpose of helping people with their problems.

    Now, can someone actually address what I want addressed and tell me how “the left” is an emotional hysterical crazy and “the right” is a cold, logical demigod? Because I am still seeing the opposite as true as long as you’re talking in terms of “left” and “right”.

  24. GBaker: sorry to have been sarcastic. You did respond and I did ask for that, but I meant responding to what I had originally brought up, instead of derailing into COMMUNISM!! Thanks anyhow, it’s appreciated.

  25. “Upon what evidence do they base this supposition?”
    There are rich people who are very rich and poor people who are very poor. The poor people work for the rich people, and the rich people profit by their labour!

    “They believe it’s OK to rob them just a little?”
    Yes, if they’re justifying it as levelling, i.e. the rich make tons of money off the labourers, they didn’t really earn it by being cheap and it won’t hurt them to see it gone, then I guess they do believe it’s OK to take a little

    Crumb,
    I am full of questions tonite. Where did the rich people get their money to build their businesses and employ all these poor laborers? Inheritance, maybe bank robbery, their own innovations, new products, stalwart investing, their own personal drive? Could you please provide us with a list of all the poor people who have ever had the money to start their own business and provide other poor people with jobs. Were the poor peoples lives made better by working for the rich or would they have been better off if no one was there to provide any kind of employment? If a person is rich by their own hand and employs no one, should they still be subjected to levelling when they have not made any of your ‘Poor laborers’ labor for them? Should they still be a subject of class envy? Would they employ ANYONE if they thought they could do all the work themselves and reap all the benefits? Historically as tax rates rise, rich people dont see the benefit to provide jobs and employment opportunities go down. Poor people dont create jobs.

    I think we need a new American Revolution in this country. If Barack has his way, can you say the 70s. Economic stagnation anyone? The 70s are also the last time that the top tax bracket was 50 percent. Maybe no one learned any history in our liberal education classes, otherwise maybe they would have learned……and remembered.

  26. Unless, I am mistaken, Crumb is engaging in discourse. Something that is sorely lacking in this nation at anywhere near the level it should be present. It is our duty as citizens to engage in healthy debate, and a Free exchange of ideas. To those of you who question why “Crumb” is even on this site, better to ask yourselves why you are unwilling to have conversations instead of constantly preaching. If you surround yourself only with people who agree with you, you leave no room for intellectual growth and will cease to analyze your decisions. Yes, the vaulted Founding Fathers were men of action, but not of action without thought. There is such a rich historical and textual legacy of their viewpoints and VARIED opinions, precisely because they took the time to reflect on their views and were unafraid to debate
    and even mudsling. Where is the freedom in entrenching yourself on “sides” and adhering to the rhetoric and narrow principles of either Left or Right? One of our unassailable rights takes the form of a freedom to dissent. We have brave and dedicated, underpaid, undersupported by the CURRENT administration, servicemen and women risking their lives in actual warfare so that we can remain free on our own soil to exercise democracy the best way we know how. And those that speak of “schisms” and define tensions in society as “Culture Wars,” do a grave disservice to the purported “Miracle” that is this nation by creating and fostering an environment wherein the narrow-minded, regardless of political or ideological allegiance, will surely continue to resort
    to violent action and pseudo-militaristic discourse as a means to effect change in society. And that is the worst form of terrorism threatening our way of life. We, the people, are the government. If we expect Congress to get anything done and make choices that benefit the largest segments of our mutual society, instead of serving the whims of the few, then why not lead by example?

  27. Wow, what a wonderful country you have there! You truly are the envy of the world. A few points of which I’m particularly enamoured:
    The fact that anyone can grow up to be president. Unless of course you weren’t born there – you wouldn’t want some foreigner running the country now would you?
    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
    Just don’t aspire to high office or expect help when you’re down.
    In most so called civilised countries health care is simply doled out willy nilly to anyone who needs it.
    America is strong enough to say “if you can’t pay go away.”
    The wonderfully quaint Fahrenheint system. Abandoned almost immediatley in it’s native Germany and by the rest of the world by the 1960s – your stubborn resistance to the ludicrous Celcius system is inspirational.
    In Australia we know when something is made in America because, thanks to your loyalty to the old British imperial measurement system, it doesn’t fit anything. So much easier to say .196 of an inch than 5mm.
    The marvelous “world series” baseball, which demostrates America’s outward looking perspective by including all countries called USA.
    Anyway, what I’m trying to illustrate is that America has slipped so far behind the rest of the world in even the most basic things like weights and measures and universal health care that debate on the relative merrits of Capitalism seems a bit mute.
    A glimmer of hope is that, amazingly, someone who was raised by an atheist/muslim and who is not particularly religious and seems to have a social conscience is about to become your president.

    Cheers from the lucky country.

  28. L Alverez wants to prosecute where there is no evidence of a crime, and believes her emotional need for action to be sufficient to create new laws where none existed before.

    (GWBush had Congressional authorization to use force, and the legal and moral imperative to remove Saddam Hussein are still valid.)

    On the other hand, if L Alverez wants to create new laws, then let us prosecute her for wanting to require 25 million Iraqi citizens remain enslaved by Saddam Hussein. Sounds like a hate crime to me. Maybe a decent punishment would be to send her to live in a country with a similiar tyrant – someone like Mugabe.

    L Alverez is suffering Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and has suffered a total loss of ability to reason (but then again, since she referenced Democrat web sites, it is obvious to the casual observer that she is certifiable.)

  29. Richard – we certainly are the envy of the world, because look how many people would willingly flee their country and try to come to this country. And how many Americans seek to leave America for “a better place”? The number is much smaller than the other number!

    Yes – we Americans have a few quirks – retaining the “English” units is certainly one of the more obnoxious ones, but it is certrainly a fairly minor nuisance. Heck – even American produced cars have more metric parts than English – so we are slowly changing over. (And I can’t get worked up to worry about sports team issues.)

    As to health care – hospitals can’t legally turn people away who need emergency treatment. That’s why over three-fourths of the births in many border hospitals are to illegal immigrants. On the other hand – I would suggest you not try that in Mexico, because you won’t get treated at all, and if you are in Mexico illegally, the treatment is far more harsh than how illegal immigrants are treated in America. And remember that Canada, with its “wonderful system” has long waiting lines, and many Canadian citizens come to the US for treatment – and sometimes the treatment is life-saving treatment that the individual would die without – and waiting lines in Canada would mean death before treatment.

    We might be behind the world in “universal health care treatment” – but remember how everyone touts the “free care” of Cuban hospitals, but treatments there in run-down hospitals is a joke. England “rations” health care, and senior citizens are often denied life-saving treatments due to rationing. The US is still on the cutting edge of developing new medical procedures. Yes, we have this quixotic desire to allow the free-market to work, and a small majority of the citizens are not quite ready to embrace Marxist doctrine that provides an equality of suffering, believing that capitalism has done far more to provide improvements to everyone’s living situations.

  30. Earlier this afternoon, I was on this site and voted in a poll. That took me to a John McCain site, on which I was joining something to support him. I had to quickly get offline because of a storm and lost everything I was doing. I’d like to get back to that site. Can you direct me to that same place? I’d appreciate it very much.
    I had been talking to my sister in North Carolina and telling her how much her state seems to like Obama. She is not one of those people, but sadly said to me “there’s nothing we can do to stop it.” I told her I can’t do anything financially, but I can sure as heck send information to everyone I can think of to support John McCain, and to read everything I can find online and pass that on. I told her that this is the most important election in my 64 year lifetime, and that regardless how much the media pushes Obama, I don’t think the “silent majority” will allow our country to be disgraced and embarassed by electing a man like him. I just can’t imagine the group of people he and his racist wife will bring into the mix. We’ve all seen the kinds of folks he’s been hanging out with in Chicago all these years, and we’ve heard her real opinion of our country. Do the Dems in the house and senate really think they’ll be able to control him and he’ll do their bidding? They want control so badly they’ll jeopardize this country for Obama?? Hopefully, the majority of Americans will see this for what it is and vote for McCain. Please send anything to me to send to others and to help John McCain get elected. He would not have been my first choice for this position, but he’s our only hope now.
    Thank you.
    Vernetta Johns
    Indianapolis, IN

  31. The World Series of baseball is named after The World newspaper. I think it was a Hearst paper.

  32. Can you provide strong examples of “the left” being rooted in the realm of “the emotional” and “the right” being rooted in the realm of “reason” or are you just going to bandy about shaky rhetoric? Better question: Are your values ever incorrect?

  33. Richard,

    You apparently do not follow American baseball. We have Koreans, Japs, Canadians, Australians, and all kinds of Latinos. Our National Hockey League has a good crosscut of most northern countries from Russia to the Czech Republic. You Europeans have what, soccer? I have tried to watch soccer. I woke up several hours later and the score was still 0-0. Boring. You should check out American football. It ll make soccer and rugby look like tag in kindergarten.

    Crumb,

    Think about global warming where hysteria meets fact. I m not saying that we conservatives dont get hysterical sometimes. The left i. e. Al Gore claims that global warming is fact and then runs around proclaiming that we have to get rid of all emitters of CO2. But Al has been challenged to debate global warming by Steve Milloy. Al refuses. If he is so sure of his facts, wouldnt he gladly accept rather than traumatizing the world with a scare tactic. Let me try hysteria on you. Antarctica added 1.8 million square miles of ice last year. The buildup of ice on the bottom of the earth will soon throw the earth out of its normal rotation much like a spinning top crashing.

    Feeling worried yet?

  34. The National Hockey League isn’t America’s, it’s a joint venture.

    I don’t really care about Al Gore. And I would hardly call global warming a scare tactic – what’s it trying to achieve? What’s it trying to scare people into doing? Stopping global warming?

  35. Conservative? Liberal? Whatever you are, come show your support for your candidate, ours was the only poll that gave Obama away as the Democratic nominee-Three months before it happened! Come vote, it takes only a second http://www.votenic.com
    Run By A Kid.

  36. So you are already a victim of left hysteria. I feel your pain. If a scientist came to you with evidence that global warming is not as it seems then you would just turn your back on him.
    There is scientific evidence that the fourth century A. D. was warmer than the present day. Must have been all those gas powered chariots. There is also evidence that Antarctica was void of any ice five thousand years ago. Caveman and his damn fires. You are a true liberal Crumb. Congrats.

  37. Nevin,
    No, I don’t follow American baseball, anymore than I expect you follow Australian Rules Football. But a quick internet search proves that the “World Series” is still only played by US teams and one Canadian club. You may be thinking of the World Baseball classic which has been played only once in 2006. You didn’t read my post very closely as I’m in Australia not Europe. You’ve obviously never seen a rugby league/union or Aussie rules match or you’d realize the reverse is true of you’re kindergarten comment.

    Crumb,
    World Series is an abbreviation of World’s Champianship Series – nothing to do with a paper.

  38. Mike,
    Well done on the metric front.
    America is pleasent first world country. People in unpleasent countries “flee” to better ones like the US, Italy, New Zealand, Australia etc etc etc.
    People aren’t turned away from Australian hospitals either and they don’t pay to be treated.
    Yes, Canada has problems with hospital waiting times and people sometimes go to the States for elective surgery. What about Americans going bankrupt because of medical bills? What about Americans going to Canada to by drugs they can’t afford at home? Why not compromise between the two systems instead of dogmatically supporting a failed experiment?
    It ‘s rediculous to compare the US to third world Cuba and Mexico then say “see, our system is best!” Why not compare apples with apples. Bear in mind that Australia (AU) has a nationalised health system and all state and federal governments are now left wing. An OECD study shows: Life expectancy – US 77.8, AU – 80.9. Infant mortality (per 1000 births) – US 6.8, AU 5.
    Number of nurses/1000 people – US 7.9, AU 10.4 and the list goes on. Cleary the “user pays” experiment has failed. You don’t have to be a Marxist to want to help your countymen. I’d have thought it was just good old fashioned right wing Christian ethics.

  39. Richard,

    I was simply refering to the diversity of players who are part of our old national pasttime. You seem to imply that they were all from just the US.

  40. Richard,

    You didnt mention surgery outsourcing. Many Canadians and Americans are now having their surgeries take place in Thailand and India at the insistence of their insurance companies. Canadians are also going to the PR China but some of that looks somewhat unethical.

  41. I find it very distressing that , at least in this election, no one has brought up the fact that this election has been totally controlled by two factions that i shall leave nameless. I leave them nameless because when i don’t everyone rises up and says, “oh my God you can’t say that”. What is it exactly that makes the truth so terrible. I have never truly been involved in an election before and truly believed that we actually had some type of say even if there was a certain amount of corruption in the process. Wow was i wrong! It totally shocked me just how the media was being “used” to beat Hillary and by who. Moreso it completely shocked me when i found out exactly why Obama IS running for office when he said he wouldn’t. He wasn’t supposed to. Another man from the same area was supposed to but he got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Obama was the only one left in the group that could not be found guilty. If you truly do your research you will find that a 4,000 year old war has made it’s way to American soil and all of us are just pawns in the process. If you know what it is that i am speaking of, or if you find out what i am speaking of and you know of a way that we can turn this in favor of those that are real Americans please email me at candcantiques@yahoo.com I am willing to join in the fight to save America

  42. I read your Charter and one specific point made me stop and say wait a minute , “Separation of Church and State is a perversion of the 1st Amendment to take religious influence out of all government business when it was designed only to keep government influence out of religion.” I submit that anyone who thinks that there is no measureable influence of religion in our government needs to do a bit more research. As i said in my previous post this is the first election i have actually been active in, at least in the way of research. I am very good at research as i am an antique dealer and i don’t make any money at all if i can’t identify what it is that i have positively. It didn’t take me long, two weeks, to prove to myself beyond a shadow of doubt that their is an overwelming influence in our government that is completely religious in nature. A continued investigation shows that the same faction controls the media slanting the news in ways that they choose for us to think. I have been kicked off of many web sites recently because i have spoken like this but i love my country and i don’t believe that the founding fathers meant for our government to be controlled by religious factions. Nor did they mean for our news and financial institutions to be controlled by the same. I wait to see how this blog reacts. God bless us all. Chris

  43. If ten people tell me that I should not play on railroad tracks because there is a train coming in fifteen minutes, I will take precautions. If one person tells me that the train will come in half an hour and I don’t need to worry, or that the tracks are abandoned, I’m still going to be careful, just in case he’s wron and I get splattered.

    Past climate trends are useless now, because our infrastructure and technology and civilization are far advanced of the Dark Ages. If there was a large-scale climate shift now, our planet is too interdependent and expensive to deal with enormous trade route fluctuations and coastal damage in our most expensive and important and irreplaceable cities. If climate change gets as nasty as it can be, which the recent rash or hurricanes indicates is pretty bad, we could be having more tornadoes in Chicago, more hurricanes in NYC, and Florida could very well be smashed to little bits like New Orleans. It’s not like our homes are all cheap-ass thatched roof huts anymore. It’s not like our economy is based on walking down the road to trade goose down for buttons anymore.

    Better safe than sorry is a pretty good motto, and one that has been used to justify many things, such as the War in Iraq, the War on Terror etc. I don’t see how I’m being an emotional roller coaster by looking ahead and wanting to prevent potential disaster.

    So, any real evidence of “left=emotional right=logical”?

  44. How is climate change even a “leftist” idea? What does it have to do with anything that you ascribe to “the left”?

  45. Clarification: How is climate change exclusive to “The left”? What makes it ideologically [and according to you, rationally] impossible for “the right” to acknowledge climate change? Does it say abortion is ok? That homosexuality is fine? That the war on terror is misguided? That supply side economics don’t work?

  46. Past climate trends are useless now, because our infrastructure and technology and civilization are far advanced of the Dark Ages.

    How are they useless when its our technology that says the fourth century A. D. was warmer than the present? There were very few carbon dioxide emitting devices at that time period so you completely missed the point.

    If climate change gets as nasty as it can be, which the recent rash or hurricanes indicates is pretty bad, we could be having more tornadoes in Chicago, more hurricanes in NYC, and Florida could very well be smashed to little bits like New Orleans. It’s not like our homes are all cheap-ass thatched roof huts anymore. It’s not like our economy is based on walking down the road to trade goose down for buttons anymore.

    How nasty can climate change get? Where is the evidence that hurricanes and tornados are products of global warming? We have not had any hurricanes in the United States in the past two years. Why is hurricane damage so bad? Because Florida and places like New Orleans are so much more heavily populated than they were say fifty years ago. You have more houses and more people in the path of a storm. If environmental hysteria harms our economy enough, you might be headed down the road from your thatch hut to trade goose down.

    Do you know who invented the term global warming and for what purpose?

  47. “How are they useless when its our technology that says the fourth century A. D. was warmer than the present? There were very few carbon dioxide emitting devices at that time period so you completely missed the point.”

    No, YOU completely missed the point. The point is that

    “Florida and places like New Orleans are so much more heavily populated than they were say fifty years ago. You have more houses and more people in the path of a storm.”

    Imagine how densely populated they were…. 1700 years ago, in the fourth century AD. That is why past trends are useless, because even if past people lived through climate changes, their civilizations are not as complex, populous or extraordinarily expensive to replace.

    A short term drought of severe hurricanes doesn’t indicate that the climate change issue is over by any means. Remember 2005? Remember Katrina and Ivan and Charlie and all those awful storms ripping through Florida? Hey, remember that there’s a world outside of America, and hurricanes and tornadoes and monsoons and typhoons have been wandering around the planet? Remember how hurricane season starts later in the year than this? Or how tornado watches and tornado touchdowns are occurring much farther north and east and more frequently, including one that landed in southern Chicago a few weeks ago? Remember how this past winter was extraordinarily cold after months of being a very warm winter? Climate change means more than “welp! Everything is warmer, all the time!”

    Better safe than sorry. I can’t believe you value the economy’s short term benefit over the ACTUAL LIVES of thousands, millions of pople that could be destroyed by the changing climate.

  48. Crumb,

    We went after Sadamm Hussein for WMD,s, but turns out there weren’t any.

    But that’s OK, better safe than sorry, right?

  49. Climate change is something that, if it is real, can be a catastrophic threat to global civilization. Not just America, not just Europe, but everyone, everywhere. If something can be done to prevent a climate shift, then it should be done to preserve our civilizations. If it cannot be prevented, then we should try to limit the damage it causes.

    If we do nothing now, because we want big companies to save money [who here has a direct interest in the profit margins of big manufacturers? Do you really put other people’s interests ahead of your own? Do you really think laissez-faire is a philosophy worth sacrificing everything for?] and we want prices to stay low in the short term, then we may well damn ourselves to jurassic summers and ice age winters, global flooding and massive drought and famine.

    If climate change is not a real problem after all, and the majority of scientists are wrong, then our efforts to prevent it either worked, or were unnecessary. In either case, they’re certainly worth the gamble.

    Now back on topic:

    tell me how “the left” is an emotional hysterical crazy and “the right” is a cold, logical demigod? Because I am still seeing the opposite as true as long as you’re talking in terms of “left” and “right”.

  50. Jim,
    “I don’t understand your question Matt.”

    I was referring to your (and your colleagues’) support for torture and your rejection of habeus corpus, which I’m sure you will agree are musch greater infringements on liberty than taxation, which, after all, enables greater liberty than it prohibits.

    Sake Mike,

    “We went after Sadamm Hussein for WMDs, but turns out there weren’t any.

    But that’s OK, better safe than sorry, right?”

    On this logic America could invade almost any country because they ‘might’ have WMDs. We should all be glad that people like Sake Mike will never get into government.

  51. I heard this rumor once that Iran bought old nukes from Russia! Also Libya was making nukes once, what happened to that? and what about Mongolia? Nobody’s heard anything from there in years…seems pretty secretive and sneaky for a so-called “peaceful” country…

Comments are closed.