Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 8:44 PM:
Has a problem of lying.
Replies (226)
Old habits are hard to break!!!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 9:46 PM
Who was the bully tonight? As far as lying, your guy Mitt wins the prize. He is so full of bs! I loved when Romney questioned/attacked the president about the terrorist attack line, and he got schooled by the Prez AND the moderator. LOVED it. I am a happy camper tonight!!!
-- Posted by donacita on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 9:52 PM
"How's your pension doing?"
-- Posted by donacita on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:01 PM
At least I managed to stay awake this time.
Right off the bat Romney made me cringe when he implied college should be easier to finance instead of made less costly.
Both candidates continue to claim good paying manufacturing jobs are the key to raising the stakes of the middle class. Are factory jobs the road to success for the middle class? Most of those jobs I see in this area start near minimum wage.
Obama said bankruptcy would have cost a million jobs. How many auto manufacturing jobs are in America? At least I don't think GM employed a million people. Correct me if I am wrong.
And is it just me or did anyone else see a wiff of smoke coming from the president's trouser legs on a couple of occasions?
Oh and let me counter CSM's spin in advance with this equally intellectual response.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:) :) :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:02 PM
Nothing was said by either candidate which will change my vote.
I will vote for Romney/Ryan.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:11 PM
You were going to vote for Romney as soon as he was selected as the candidate, and if you are honest you will admit that is so. He carries an R by his name.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:16 PM
"He is so full of bs! I loved when Romney questioned/attacked the president about the terrorist attack line, and he got schooled by the Prez AND the moderator."
And Donacita, if Obama was in truth calling it a Terrorist Act, why did he continue to call it a Spontaneous Act because of the movie trailer, six times I believe in the UN and why did he send his stoolie out on a Sunday morning to lie to the American Public?
As far as the Moderator schooling anyone, that was where she was wrong. She had no business of standing up and defending either candidate.
You have little to be happy about... but then it doesn't take a lot to make a lib happy when they are trying to make something of nothing.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:26 PM
Libya is still a huge problem for Obama. The Ambasador and other Americans died and Obama lied.
Hilary falling on her sword will not solve his problems here. At the very least, if Obama was telling the truth, then he would have to be totally incompetent as Commander in Chief.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:30 PM
Reasoning, if you were paying attention, you would know that Voyager was going to vote AGAINST Obama before Romney was selected. He made no secret of that for months and months. And guess what, there are many more just like him.
Some of us were smart enough to recognize him as an empty suit in early 2008. Nearly four years now he has been whining abou the 'mess he inherited'. Can you honestly tell me that is Presidential. Should he win now, who is responsible for the mess he is going to inherit.
And if Romney wins, I would give you odds that he has more class than to whine about what he will inherit.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:35 PM
: )
-- Posted by Deb56 on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:42 PM
: )
-- Posted by Deb56 on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:50 PM
The President was amazing tonight. Blooming amazing. : - )
-- Posted by donacita on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 11:25 PM
donacita, I too am amazed at what he says compared to what he does.
There have been so many issues that before the public can understand one, the media has moved on to another. I expect that before any real facts hold him accountable for the most recent screw-up, there will be something else to lead the news.
If Obama wins another term, get ready for more go around congress executive orders like you would never imagine.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 11:54 PM
Old John
Donacita seems to have had a Chris Matthews moment. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:01 AM
Breaking news - ALL presidents in recent times, have use executive orders, including Bush and Reagan.
I think you might want to fact-check Mit - probably not though, it wouldn't fit your storyline.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:03 AM
Wheels, Was Walter there? I didn't see him or Ryan in the crowd of back slappers afterword.
He who got stumped on where it says enter screen name here, Which one used an exectucive order to buy a prison after congress refused to fund it?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:27 AM
I didn't see him either, but I was being a good doobie and doing some bookwork while listening to the show.
John, I believe the one that got stumped has had so many name changes on here that she was truly stumped as what to put down, so like one of her students she copied what was in front of her.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:31 AM
Sometimes my attention to such important events wants to drift and I don't think I am alone. A few times I became focussed on the people the camera showed while the important talk was going on. I think they too share my short comings. Just wonder if anyone else let the thought of Romney and Obama taking a swing at one another distract them from the all important words. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 1:06 AM
I turned the tv in my bedroom on while passing through. Romney was on a roll about China being a "currency manipulator", and that he would push for tariffs on goods imported from China into the US.
The lyrics to an old Concrete Blonde song came to mind: "devil pour me another shot".
We're screwed.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 5:13 AM
Rick,,,you really need spell check,,,,,consicisirist,WHAT.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 6:01 AM
"How's your pension doing?"
-- Posted by donacita on Tue, Oct 16, 2012, at 10:01 PM
I agree. I thought it was funny to see Obama try to block Romney and then cringe when we found out HE had some of his millions invested in China, the Caymans, and other places he accused Romney of having.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:43 AM
Thank you, Wheels, you have a remarkable memory for facts and straight thinking.
You are right. I have never denied that I declared for Romney on the day he declared his candidacy in the Republican Primary even though several others were acceptable.
My reasons were simple. He was more "moderate" than the others and would stand a better chance of winning the General Election. The removal of Obama from office was and is paramount.
And I'm sure that Wheels will remember I have always been a strong advocate of Republicans winning both houses of Congres. That is as important, if not more so, than Romney's victory.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:43 AM
It just struck me during the debate; how the hell did we even get to this point, where Romney is a contender? Nobody wanted Romney, not even the Republicans. He got here by default because everyone else was horrible, and yet he's being taken seriously.
He's the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Bush.
-- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:54 AM
He's the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Bush. -- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:54 AM
Because people vote on quick sound bites and don't look any deeper - that's why. People like Obama because he's "cool", "hip" and does good with a teleprompter - don't look at unemployment, deficits, debt and the middle east. Just focus on his good looks.
If you would check some facts you will see that Romney is the current nominee because he won the most votes in that thing called a primary.
Obama couldn't run a candy store in a day care. But hey - he's cool!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:01 AM
@Dug-
I know exactly how our Representative Democracy and Electoral College works, I don't have to 'check my facts.' Your comment about voting on 'sound bites' could just as easily apply to current Republicans as Democrats; nothing new there.
Romney is still the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Bush.
(As he himself reminded me last night when I watched the debate.)
-- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:33 AM
Romney is still the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Bush. -- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:33 AM
And look where we are... massive debt/deficits, record unemployment, record gas prices and a world on fire. Thanks for making my point - Romney should have won the first time.
I was not a McCain person in 2008. I was a Romney person then. McCain is too liberal for me and Obama is so far in left-field he's outside the stadium.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 10:19 AM
It just struck me during the debate; how the hell did we even get to this point, where Romney is a contender? Nobody wanted Romney, not even the Republicans. -- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:54 AM
I know exactly how our Representative Democracy and Electoral College works -- Posted by SmokeRing on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:33 AM
If you know exactly how then you shouldn't be asking how Romney is a contender. Are you confused?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 10:31 AM
This is a cross post:
-THE TRUTH HURTS-
There is only one promise that Obama made that actually happened. That is the death of Osama bin Laden. Although, I would like to see habeas corpus in the matter.
Other than that, under his administration the state of the nation has greatly worsened.
You people who think he needs more time are either insane or don't study current affairs. Anybody try finding a new job lately?
The price of gasoline question never got answered either. Hello? Knock, knock. It's double what it was in 2008. A 2lb block of cheese was $4.98. Now, it's $7.98.
-Unemployment was 5%, now, 8%.
-Yearly GDP has increased about 1%. Not anywhere close enough to keep up with population growth or the way this administration spends money.
-People receiving food stamps was 32mil, now, 46mil.
-Personal bankruptcies have increased by almost 50%.
-foreclosures are up and home sales are down.
-Consumer confidence dropped from 87% to 65%.
-Federal spending is up.
-Annual federal deficit went from 458B to 1.33T.
-Cumulative public debt has risen from 5T to 11T.
Need more proof that the current Prez is a big lying smoke blower?
I'm ready to give somebody else a shot. Doing the same thing over and over is not working. Hello?
Blow some more smoke if it makes you happy, but don't expect silent ascent from the disenchanted crew here.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:37 PM
And by the way, I don't give a care what letter is next to the name. My 8 year old could run this country better than Oh Bummer. If she had some failings, at least we could rightly blame it on her age. What's his excuse? He says things are going good.
I've still got that mule for sale, too. I think maybe I'll raffle him off. $50 per ticket and only 100 tickets sold. Donacita? How many tickets would you like? Reasoning? It's a good deal...come on!
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM
I guess I'm just dumb, but why did the President need 3 days (12 hours a day) to prepare for a debate? After all, he's been running the country for 4 years. Shouldn't he be able to answer the questions without practicing for 3 days? Or was all that time spent looking for ways to attack Romney since Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on?
-- Posted by countryfolk on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 3:31 PM
John, I believe the one that got stumped has had so many name changes on here that she was truly stumped as what to put down, so like one of her students she copied what was in front of her.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 12:31 AM
Queerly, I haven't seen either of you say a word about Rick, BC or Regret's name changes (they've all had several too). What's that say about you two guys? BTW - I've had a lot fewer changes than Rick and Regret, and about the same as BC. Wheels, you look so intelligent when you make a big deal of it though. LOL
-- Posted by Deb56 on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 4:30 PM
User
Did we leave out the Liberal's name changes on purpose?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 5:40 PM
I'm still wondering how Candy had that Rose Garden transcript so readily available. A tip?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 6:26 PM
Regret,
According to this article, it's mostly staged and held to a prearranged set of guidelines agreed to by the two parties.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 6:33 PM
Queerly, I haven't seen either of you say a word about Rick, BC or Regret's name changes (they've all had several too). What's that say about you two guys? BTW - I've had a lot fewer changes than Rick and Regret, and about the same as BC. Wheels, you look so intelligent when you make a big deal of it though. LOL
-- Posted by username1 on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 4:30 PM
All of the people you mentioned have never made it a secret they changed their names.
You however appear to want to hide the fact, so I like to point you out as a fraud, Suelynn.
"Wheels, you look so intelligent"
Oh thank you, thank you very much. It is hard to be humble... when you are perfect in every way. ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 6:59 PM
Dang...don't hurt your arm Wheels! :)
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 7:45 PM
DC
You did notice the wink I hope. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 7:56 PM
Wheels, yes sir I did. Just kiddin' around!
Hey...all I hear from the Obama camp is the sound of crickets. Interesting.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:06 PM
DC
As I said the other day... I thing we better put their pictures on milk cartons.
If Romney wins, they may never recover.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 8:30 PM
"women rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms".
But the organization does not have any mammogram machines at any of its clinics.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:00 PM
So what are you going to do for women?
O.. Well I'm going to give women free birth control.
R... Well I'm stupid enough to fall for this question so I'll tell you how I solicitated women into my employ to make me look good to women voters.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:53 PM
Then there's the whole question of "equal pay for equal work". Romney missed the slam drunk on that one. He could have pointed out the fact that Obama has women on staff that are paid less than the men he has on staff doing the same jobs.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 9:58 PM
"If we want to keep our nation's secrets a 'SECRET' then we should store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate."
Gov. Mike Huckabee
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 10:02 PM
I have had to make username changes due to the fact I have been banned , by another poster who is a coward and hides in the shadows with their sock puppet name , so many times I have lost count .
If you watch my posts , they are not all anti-Democrat/Liberal .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:07 AM
Rick, I don't really care how many times someone changes their name - but for some reason, Wheels makes a big deal of mine when plenty of others have done the same...including his "buddies". And I want you to know, I've never had any part in getting anyone banned.
Hey Wheels, Suelynn wasn't my 1st or 2nd name, and it's not my "real" name either, but you have my permission to use it anytime. I find it queer, but I'm sure it impresses those you're trying to impress.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 3:54 PM
User
Did we leave out the Liberal's name changes on purpose?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 17, 2012, at 5:40 PM
No, but feel free you list them if YOU want. Or list all your past names and get Wheels up to speed - up to you. Just know, for wherever odd reason, it seems to be a big deal with him. Maybe just a quirk...
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 4:01 PM
I find it queer,
-- Posted by username1 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 3:54 PM
You seem to be finding a lotof things queer lately... I rather enjoy finding things 'normal'.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 4:05 PM
User, or whoever you are. My biggest objection to people hiding behind a name change is some have tried to fool the rest of us by making us think they are a new poster. I always like to know who I am dealing with. I don't like phonies.
Rick has had no choice in changing his name because he is dealing with somebody with a screw loose it appears. Others make no secret of it.
Facts are even though the name change, rarely does the personality.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 4:30 PM
I guess some people have a good reason for using a screen name. I think some just want to hide. Either way it doesn't bother me much.
As for me, What you see is what you get. The "d" stands for David. The "c" is the middle initial. DC is is what I was called when I was a kid because my deceased bio-father's name was also David. The last name follows the d and the c.
Not trying to fool anybody. I am responsible for what I type and it wouldn't take much of a search to find me. This is no big deal to me. I'm just another person with just another opinion and most folks don't give a hoot anyway! :)
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 4:33 PM
You seem to be finding a lotof things queer lately... I rather enjoy finding things 'normal'.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 4:05 PM
Only as they relate to you Wheels. Seems you are the only one with a name issue and yes, I do find that queer. I'll continue to point that out as it relates to your comments about my name and not others.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 5:38 PM
Is Obama gay?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 5:47 PM
I quote my niece: "Don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff". (I have NO idea what this means.)
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 5:50 PM
DC
I only use a screen name to protect the guilty. As for me, the 'Innocent', I don't want people telling me "Wheels, you look so intelligent" in person. I'm just too modest. ;-) ;-)
Suelynn,
I already explained how I felt, if you don't find that explaination satisfactory... I don't know how to help you. So carry on in any fashion you feel comfortable with.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 6:19 PM
Actually, the moderator also got it wrong on the 'act of terror' comment. He did use the term 'act of terror' in the Rose Garden, but never specifically identified the Libya attack as such.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 6:25 PM
Wheels, how virtuous. :)
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 6:45 PM
Suelynn,
I already explained how I felt, if you don't find that explaination satisfactory... I don't know how to help you. So carry on in any fashion you feel comfortable with.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 6:19 PM
Queer Wheels and so have I. So I'll continue to remind you of that every time you bring it up. Carry on....
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 7:07 PM
Actually, the moderator also got it wrong on the 'act of terror' comment. He did use the term 'act of terror' in the Rose Garden, but never specifically identified the Libya attack as such.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 7:18 PM
If Obama was sure of it being a terror attack the day after the killing of the Ambassador, why did he pull out all the stops to convince the World that it was the fault of that dumb movie trailer.
He was lying!! And he made others lie to try and convince the World. At the very least Obama is incompetent.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 7:36 PM
The Fox link also has the transcript. As I said, and Fox said, (and CNN says), he used the term 'act of terror', but did not specifically refer to the Libyan attack as such.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 7:51 PM
Say what you want, but this is CNN report that supports President Obama and Candy.
"However, the transcripts of the debate and also the president's Rose Garden address, as well as subsequent comments, show that, in fact, Crowley was correct."
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 8:06 PM
Crowley works for CNN. CNN defends her.
CBS defended Rather. That didn't work out well in the long run.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:06 PM
Where Crowley was not correct. She was the Moderator not the fact checker right or wrong and it was not her job to help either candidate.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:07 PM
Crowley DID get to choose what questions got asked. And she didn't allow follow up questions. What I saw was she gave Biden a very long chain.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:16 PM
UH DC
I believe Crowley moderated the Presidential Debate #2. She did give Obama a long chain and I assume that is what you meant to say.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:21 PM
"He did use the term 'act of terror' in the Rose Garden, but never specifically identified the Libya attack as such."
President Obama was talking in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, after he had sent FBI agents to investigate the attack. Of course he was taking about Libya.
What in the world do you think he was referring to?
Governor Romney got it wrong again. Talk about grasping at straws.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:36 PM
Crowley works for CNN. CNN defends her.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:06 PM
Good lord, I read it myself and what did you expect FOX to say? It's FOX.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 10:12 PM
Yeah, I know, when your man loses, it's always the moderator's fault.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 10:17 PM
Crowley DID get to choose what questions got asked. And she didn't allow follow up questions. What I saw was she gave Biden a very long chain.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:16 PM
Wrong debate.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 10:23 PM
The talk in the rose garden evolved into Obama stroking the folks about his Biden termed back bone of steel concerning his tough stance against those that would do harm to Americans.
Terror was a term in part of a broad gerneral defense of his overall failures leading to a perception of his weakness regarding politics over substance.
He also talked in the rose garden about those that took the Ambassador to the hospital and those America loving [because of him] people that fought along side U.S. personel against the attact. That is questionable.
A radical Muslim planned attack by the people that he sided with as the depressed victims.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he gave a big hand of U.S. support to the Philipine deal to give the radical Muslims a hold over the government there.
Spin it how ever you want, I think I have demonstrated on these forums to be open to other opinions, but so far I think this president does not have well wishes for America in his agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 10:29 PM
I believe he does.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 10:47 PM
Obama lied and has continued to lie about the Benghazi al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. Obama said in the rose garden speech on Sept. 12th that regarding the anniversary of the SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation". He was talking about Sept. 11, 2001. Read the speech.
Remember, this is the president that called the Ft. Hood terrorist act by a Muslim radical yelling "Alluha Akbar" repeatedly while he killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 29.... an incident of "workplace violence" and not terrorism.
Your president, not mine. He's a political animal and a disgrace.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:00 PM
Old John
He said in one of his books that if it came down to it, he would side with the muslims.
And this country was dumb enough to elect him President.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:04 PM
Wheels, I think we have been conditioned to tip toe around our suspicions. Sometimes it time to call a spade a spade.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:25 PM
He is my president and he did not say that he would side against the United States and with the Muslims (as you imply). I will vote for President Obama again, because I can't stand the Rep. after Bush.
Dug you are wrong - again.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:28 PM
"He is my president and he did not say that he would side against the United States and with the Muslims (as you imply)."
OK User
Now that you made that statement, why don't you tell us what you think he said?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:57 PM
user, I did not imply he said, I just pointed out what in my opinion is an agenda that doesn't have the greatness of America included.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:02 AM
wheels, that false statement has floated around for a long time and been proven false. Look it up if you care.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:11 AM
User
This is from Snopes who definitely has left leanings and it appears to me that he said he would stand with the Muslims should the United States not treat them as he thought they should be treated.....
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:43 AM
He is my president and he did not say that he would side against the United States and with the Muslims (as you imply). I will vote for President Obama again, because I can't stand the Rep. after Bush. -- Posted by username1 on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 11:28 PM
A typical liberal response - if you can't debate someone's point, make something up? a) I did not imply he sided with Muslims - you did. b) get off MSNBC and you'll find out that Bush is NOT the president now.
Now back to the facts that you can't refute therefore you spin. After 13 soldiers killed and 29 injured by a radical Mulsim terrorist at Ft. Hood that yelled "Aluha Akbar" repeatedly as he shot them Obama says "This is not terrorism. It's work place violence". What YOU can't stand is the fact that YOU support HIM - therefore when you are called out on the numerous traitorous statements like "work place violence" you get embarrassed. If you don't want to be embarrassed don't vote for this political animal and a disgrace.
You have a personal problem - Obama loyalty - that only you can fix. I can't help you with that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 9:40 AM
UH DC
I believe Crowley moderated the Presidential Debate #2. She did give Obama a long chain and I assume that is what you meant to say.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 18, 2012, at 9:21 PM
Urrr, yes. I don't know why I typed "Biden". Ooops and thank you.
-- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:07 AM
"...numerous traitorous statements like "work place violence"...
How is "work place violence" a 'traitorous statement?"
What happened was clearly a matter of a Muslim Army Major committing a tragic mass murder. He was a fanatical, insane, criminal. As horrifying and frightful as his actions were, the President of the United States was not "terrorized," the DOD was not "terrorized," the US Army was not "terrorized" the soldiers at Fort Hood were not "terrorized," almost all Americans were not "terrorized," I was certainly not "terrorized."
Why you were "terrorized" is an issue you have to handle yourself.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:25 AM
How do you define 'terrorized'. I'm not 'terrorized' when a bus in Tel Aviv is blown up or a cruise ship in the Aegean is hijacked, but it certainly is a terrorist act.
I would suspect that the families of those soldier's so murdered were 'terrorized' by the action. Does their terror not count? What level and by what faction of society does one have to be 'terrorized' before an violent act becomes a terrorist one?
Terrorism is generally defined as a violent act intended to intimidate or coerce, usually for political means. Certainly the Fort Hood attack was meant to intimidate, and the shooter's motivations appear to have been political. He didn't shoot his fellow soldiers because he was drunk, he was angry over a woman, or he simply felt like shooting someone.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:47 AM
Why you were "terrorized" is an issue you have to handle yourself. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:25 AM
And the people on Sept. 11 2001 weren't terrorized. The firemen and police were not terrorized. It was just a few planes flown into buildings by radical Muslims screaming "Aluha Akbar" - or "workplace violence".
It's traitorous to me because our men and women in uniform place their lives in harms way to defend the country selflessly. And Obama chose to protect radical Muslims from criticism so decided it was "workplace violence". Like these people in the Army did something personally to the Major that he felt deserved killing 42 people. What else did Hassan say ?
"Weeks before he conducted the attack, Hasan "began wearing 'Arabic clothing.'" The morning of the attack he handed out Korans and gave away his furniture. And just before opening fire on his fellow soldiers, he shouted "Allahu Akbar,". So he handed out Quran's because he was mad at coworkers? He wore Arabic clothing because he was mad at his coworkers?
Protecting a radical Muslim and his faith from criticism by blaming his actions on his coworkers - US militiary - is traitorous. Weakness is Obama's only strength.
He was a fanatical, insane, criminal? Not according to his military records. He was, however, a fanatical Muslim terrorist. Workplace violence? WHy didn't Obama just blame it on an anti-Muslim cartoon that appeared the year before? I'm sorry, that's what he did when our Ambassador was killed. He played that card this year. Workplace violence? 1 year old anti-Muslim videos? What next?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:43 PM
A typical liberal response - if you can't debate someone's point, make something up? a) I did not imply he sided with Muslims - you did.
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 9:40 AM
I didn't say YOU implied (my response was to Wheels who did imply). I said you were wrong, Dug
And speaking of Wheels, Snopes said it was a false/misleading statement and so did the fact-check I looked at. And THANK YOU for printing it so you get the context...sure makes a difference. Did you read he was talking about AMERICAN citizens he would side with, and NO mention of religion at all...referenced the Japanese-Americans during World War II. If we've learned our lesson, all Americans will side with them.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:54 PM
Obama says "This is not terrorism. It's work place violence". What YOU can't stand is the fact that YOU support HIM - therefore when you are called out on the numerous traitorous statements like "work place violence" you get embarrassed. If you don't want to be embarrassed don't vote for this political animal and a disgrace.
You have a personal problem - Obama loyalty - that only you can fix. I can't help you with that.
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 9:40 AM
Can't find that quote anywhere and I'm not embarrassed. I totally stand behind President Obama. Now, I would have been embarrassed if I had voted for McCain/Palin or Bush - 2 times. What YOU can't stand is YOU can't bully me or others to support Mit. I can't help you with that and don't want to either. Sounds like a personal problem that only you can fix Dug. Perhaps, take a chill pill?
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 1:28 PM
To condone this action only as a defense to Obama makes me take a step back and scratch my head .
How committed can people be to Obama ? What sort of mysterious hold does he have over people ??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 1:32 PM
I didn't defend President Obama, just said I can't find a quote where President Obama made that statement. Sounds like something FOX would make up. If the defense department calls it that, they probably have a reason I'm unaware of.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 1:38 PM
"I think the people who were shot were terrorized."
Why are those people different than people involved with Columbine, Virginia Tech, Denver, Iraq, Afghanistan, thousands of traffic deaths, hunreds of suicides, etc. etc.
As I said, you're welcome to become "terrorized" by the actions of fanatics. As for me, and most Americans, I refuse to become "terrorized."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 1:49 PM
"Why are those people different than people involved with Columbine, Virginia Tech, Denver, Iraq, Afghanistan, thousands of traffic deaths, hunreds of suicides, etc. etc."
But Mr. Obama did identify the Aurora shooting as a terrorist when he said: "We may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this" following the shootings there.
Suicides are not terrorism. It is rather inconceivable that anyone would be terrorized by a person taking their own life.
"He was a fanatical, insane, criminal."
He was an officer in the United States Army. If we have fanatical, insane criminals in positions of authority in our military, then I am terrified. Particularly so given that part of his duties were to determine the sanity of other officers in the military.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 2:04 PM
"He was an officer in the United States Army."
Members of the military, even officers are not immune to any variety of mental illnesses, changes in ideology, or even operating covertly, and he was definitly not in any manner of command position. Because there was one does not reflect poorly on the other 99.999%. One crazy officer does not "terrify" me.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 2:25 PM
So, how is that you place yourself in a position to evaluate his sanity? You assume him to be insane by virtue of his actions, killing a large number of his fellow soldiers. But, military personnel are trained to kill other people, though we prefer them to be on the other side.
What makes you so certain he was insane, and not merely a soldier using his talents and citizenship to place himself in a position to effect damage to soldiers in manner that would undermine confidence in our abilities? A subversive act, if you will. A terrorist act in some eyes. Psychological warfare, given that he was trained in psychiatry and psychology.
What better means to undermine our military than create an atmosphere in which they cannot trust their fellow soldiers. The Germans did that in World War II. It did not constitute insanity. In fact, it might be argued that it is a very sane way to undermine your enemy's capability.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 3:01 PM
"...or even operating covertly..."
I only included insanity as a possibility. I also stated he could have done it intentionally.
However, I do not in any way believe he was successful in "undermin(ing) confidence in our abilities" or that of US military officers.
He was equally unsuccessful, in my opinion, of convincing our soldiers to mistrust "their fellow soldiers."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 3:13 PM
I only included insanity as a possibility. I also stated he could have done it intentionally.
No, you said "He was a fanatical, insane, criminal."
Now you are suggesting other possibilities. But that was not your original position.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 3:15 PM
"But that was not your original position."
It was my opinion. If you think he was sane, fine, you're welcome to your opinion also.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 3:26 PM
As for me, and most Americans, I refuse to become "terrorized." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 1:49 PM
You sound selfish enough that when 3000 people are killed in NY you say "Well, that's OK. I'm not terrorized and it wasn't in my back yard. Keep moving - nothing to see here".
As howdy and other liberals like yourself you all have such a "me" attitude like your president. You only care about things if it affects you. Very, very telling.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 3:39 PM
He'll probably be Biden his time...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 4:56 PM
Rick, that's just what I thought when Bush was re-elected.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 4:59 PM
"You only care about things if it affects you."
You could not be further from the truth. Of course the response to 9/11 was completely appropriate and timely. I have said nothing about my being unconcerned because a tragedy was not in "my back yard."
I have no idea where you could come up with such an absurd notion. My reaction to an event is not to become paralyzed and "terrorized" but to support doing something about it.
As I said, "I refuse to become terrorized." If you prefer to, that's your choice.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 5:04 PM
As I said, "I refuse to become terrorized." If you prefer to, that's your choice. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 5:04 PM
Reread your posts. You only accept an act as one of "terror" if it affects you. You did say that - as if to say that the people in Ft. Hood couldn't be terrorized or Major Nidal Hassan couldn't be a terrorist because..... it didn't affect you. Again, reread your own words.
Workplace violence if it doesn't affect you, terrorism if it does? Not for me. What Major Nidal Hassan did was an act of terror even though it didn't terrorize me. It sure as hell wasn't "workplace violence".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 5:20 PM
"...an act of terror even though it didn't terrorize me."
As usual you're welcome to your own opinion. No matter what...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 7:06 PM
Isn't "workplace violence" when a disgruntled worker walks into the business he got fired from and opens fire? Is it terrorism? By definition, yes.
How about when some maniac opens fire in a crowded subway station? Terrorism, yes? Or when some idiots attack our Ambassador and kill him.
It seems to me this terminology is just meant to divide us. Apparently it's working. Right, Common? Dug? Shapley? Or am I missing something?
-- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 7:38 PM
As usual you're welcome to your own opinion. No matter what... -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 7:06 PM
And you are welcome to eat your words as well. Doesn't taste good does it?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 9:46 PM
And you are welcome to eat your words as well. Doesn't taste good does it?
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 9:46 PM
Really?
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 10:49 PM
I think terrorism is recognized in the context of guerrilla warfare tactics of constant distraction to make an enemy weary and give in to demands or weakened to the point of submission.
When an Army Major with ties to recognized terrorist idealism kills indiscriminately, I will call him a terrorist.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:14 PM
When I complained that a particular political cartoon was offensive, I was chided for being thin-skinned. I did not call for its removal, threaten to burn an embassy, or put a bounty on the cartoonist's head. I merely commented that it was offensive. Basically, I was told to grow a pair. The cartoon in question was rather anti-Catholic, in my humble opinion, showing the Republican elephant crucified under the name of Mr. Santorum. It ran in many major newspapers. There was no comment from the White House on its offensive nature.
No major U.S. Newspaper ran the infamous Muhammed Cartoons, though the gave lip service to the free-speech rights of the Danish cartoonists.
The Obama administration tried to get Google to remove the offending YouTube video. They apologized for it, and ran ads on Pakistani television denouncing it. The filmmaker was rounded up by our government on trumped-up charges.
Yes, America has been terrorized. There was no danger of Catholics storming embassies, so crosses can be freely dunked in jars of urine, elephant dung can adorn images of the Virgin Mary, and elephants can be depicted on crucifixes with no fear.
It's easy to say that this ain't a hill worth dying upon, and therefore to tread lightly around the issue. A little sacrifice of free speech, and a little government intervention to quell the masses, our Constitution can survive that. After all, why pour gasoline on a fire, right?
But, there are those willing to die upon that hill. There are those willing to commit blasphemy even in the face of death. They have the freedom and the right to do so. We used to champion such acts. Today, we cower and hide.
Yes, we as a nation are terrorized, much to our disgrace. You can say we weren't terrorized, but the actions of our government show otherwise. When you denounce free expression in the name of security, you're terrorized. You should at least have the fortitude to admit it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:59 AM
"A little sacrifice of free speech, and a little government intervention to quell the masses, our Constitution can survive that."-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:59 AM
We now have "Free Speech Zones" here in the USA. Permits are required in many places to demonstrate or assemble a protest group. That's a "hill to stand on" in my opinion. We need a permission slip to exercise our 1st amendment right? Non-sense!
As far as terrorism goes, I think the generally accepted definition of Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Websters online reads: "Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
Then of course there is Eco-terrorism, Cyber-terrorism, Narco-terrorism, religious terrorism and the like.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 10:35 AM
"The Secret Service are now allowed to arrest protesters at political events as Felons ."
.Rick.
I was not aware that they could charge with a felony. But apparently this is correct...for "protesting" the President. Without digging too deep, I found numerous mentions of this online.
I wonder how long this abuse of power will be tolerated by the people.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 12:11 PM
"When you denounce free expression in the name of security, you're terrorized."
I disagree. First of all, free expression was not denounced, content was. This is a major distinction. As mentioned above, Americans I know are not "terrorized," and they are certainly not "cowering and hiding."
It is somewhat unclear why this video is being seized upon as such an egregious violation of first amendment rights. There was no prior restraint by the government, and no direct attempt to restrict or prevent production or distribution.
Pointing out that a certain action is a dumb thing to do, is not a violation of anyone's rights, nor is requesting that an internet distributor limit access. It is fortunate for some that the Constitution has no restrictions on stupidity.
A reasonable question to ask would be why such a video was even made. Apparently some of the actors were totally embarrassed to have been in it and shocked that it was released at all. They also stated that some of the dialogue was dubbed in after filming. To produce it to intentionally irritate 7 th century Muslims appears to have been the sole motivation in making the first place. Only a few years ago, the entire episode would have been ignored.
Unfortunately, today videos can go worldwide in next to no time. Furthermore, the understanding in much of the world of American freedoms and limits on government is sorely restricted and inadequate. It is therefore wholly appropriate for the US State Department to release announcements declaring that our government condemned such productions and had no part in producing them. There are people in the world that believe that virtually anything created in English is made by the US Government or supported by it. It is inconceivable to many people that the US Government could not or would stop an action it disagreed with.
Some that profess to be terrified by the purported loss of "freedom" may have misconceptions on the state of societies and the interaction possible in the world today. This "loss of freedom" is highly overstated and exaggerated, and can easily be described as a "chicken-little" attitude.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 12:18 PM
Common,
Government sponsored coercion by threat of incarceration can certainly be synonymous with terrorism.
Restrictions on 1st amendment, i.e. H.R. 347 that limit protests wherever government officials that require Secret Service escort are or an NSSE('National Special Security Event'). This term was reportedly invented by B. Clinton.
Why is it so difficult for you to recognize the fact that Americans are being 'legally' being hushed?
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 2:38 PM
"...limit protests wherever government officials that require Secret Service escort..."
This does not infringe on 1st amendment. It does not limit assembly, just the location, which has always been the case. You can't assemble on the floor of Congress, you can't assemble on an Interstate highway, etc.. You're making a molehill out of an anthill again.
You may think you are "'legally' being hushed,"
I do not believe I am.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 4:12 PM
"...State Capitol Legislation Floor?"
They assembled in the capital rotunda which is open to the public.
And it is not a "ho-hum" attitude, it is an absense of paranoia
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:38 PM
"it is an absense of paranoia"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:38 PM
No. It is absence of a firm grasp on reality. What I posted was "H.R. 347 that limit protests wherever government officials that require Secret Service escort are or an NSSE". That could be a parking lot, a college and guess what...the Capitol rotunda where any government official that requires Secret Service escort is, as well. It could be the US Capital Mall where the President might be addressing a crowd.
I don't need to make stuff up. Reality is bad enough. If you study what these laws actually say then you must certainly understand how they erode our liberties. And if you understand what they do, and you still maintain your position that it's okay, then you are a fool and an enemy of the sacred freedoms that all lovers of liberty have fought and died for and their descendants continue to hold dear. It is spiritual, mental and physical slavery that you endorse out of the pretense of intellectualism.
That is the reason we differ, because you seem to be just fine with being controlled and regulated and told when, where and how you may have a redress of grievances by the very same government that is supposed to work for us. I am NOT fine with it.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 8:47 PM
"...you seem to be just fine with being controlled and regulated and told when, where and how you may have a redress of grievances..."
No, I seem to be just fine becaue it appears that 99% of this "control and regulation" is in your vivid imagination. I guess it's not paranoia if you're really convinced that the government is seriously "out to get you."
It is a bit unfortunate when people are so scared of shadows, which may be the result of living too far in the past.
I am curious as to how many grievance you have personally been prevented from redressing, and how many assemblies you were prevented from attending. This is clearly your business and if you cannot or do not want to release this kind of information, because someone may be listening, I understand.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 9:54 PM
Common, how many grievenaces do I have?
I have 10 and I will reveal all of them...after the election.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 10:01 PM
And speaking of Wheels, Snopes said it was a false/misleading statement and so did the fact-check I looked at. And THANK YOU for printing it so you get the context...sure makes a difference. Did you read he was talking about AMERICAN citizens he would side with, and NO mention of religion at all...referenced the Japanese-Americans during World War II. If we've learned our lesson, all Americans will side with them.
-- Posted by username1 on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:54 PM
User,
I have been mostly unable to be on here since noon Friday and missed your posts.
Below is again the words from Obama's book.
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Yes, he was speaking to American citizens. American Muslim citizens by the way, did you see the reference about their country of origin. Where do you think the authorities go for information after 911, the Red Cross?
And Obama said if the winds shift in an ugly direction he would stand with them. Stand with them against whom, the United States?
And I don't believe there is any comparison to World War II.
It appears like you are not all that analytical.
And somewhere in all of your drivel I read something to the effect that some of us were sore because we could not convince you to come over to our side.
Let me make it clear. I do not care who you decide to follow. If you choose to vote for Obama, it is my contention your vote is wasted anyway. Missouri is not going to go for Obama this time, as they did not go for him the last time. Therefore your State's electorial votes will go to Romney. I'm sure that pleases you.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 11:20 PM
"I guess it's not paranoia if you're really convinced that the government is seriously "out to get you."
It's not my fault, I don't like Socialism.
"I am curious as to how many grievance you have personally been prevented from redressing, and how many assemblies you were prevented from attending."
Six to the first part and three to the second.
"...if you cannot or do not want to release this kind of information, because someone may be listening, I understand."
Feel better?
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:33 AM
"A reasonable question to ask would be why such a video was even made."
Why is that reasonable to ask? What does it matter? The filmmaker wanted it made, and so it was. Why was 'Teletubbies' filmed, and who cares? Why was a crucifix dunked in a jar of urine? Are you suggesting that freedom of speech is limited only to speech that has an approved reason for being spoken?
"Apparently some of the actors were totally embarrassed to have been in it and shocked that it was released at all."
More actors ought to be embarrassed by the films they are in. Pity the poor actors that were in 'Manos: The Hand Of Fate'. Sean Connery probably rues the day he agreed to do 'Zardoz'. Why does that matter. They accepted pay to appear in a no-budget film. The content is not theirs to question.
"They also stated that some of the dialogue was dubbed in after filming."
A very common practice in film-making. Apparently you've never heard of the 'Spaghetti Western' in which the actors were frequently filmed not even speaking the same language to one another. The filmmaker added the dialogue after the filming was complete.
Since the film, as seen on Arabic television stations, was translated to Arabic, all of the dialogue heard there was dubbed after filming.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM
By the way, there's no music, singing or dancing at the Lincoln Memorial...not even on his birthday...Capital police will arrest you. Don't even look like you might be dancing.
" Since the film, as seen on Arabic television stations, was translated to Arabic, all of the dialogue heard there was dubbed after filming."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:55 AM
That's an interesting point. I wonder how the final version came out and what the Muslims actually heard in the video.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:59 AM
"That's an interesting point. I wonder how the final version came out and what the Muslims actually heard in the video."
I asked that question early on. The news reports did not say who did the translation. As far as I know, no reporter has questioned nor reported on the accuracy of the translation.
But, it probably doesn't matter. The majority of the rioters were reportly whipped into a frenzy over the video by instigators, with most of them probably never have seen it, translated or not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 10:22 AM
"You're making a molehill out of an anthill again."
Kinda like what those idiot liberals using the word "binders". I mean they are so stupid they don't know what a binder is. What a bunch of idiots. Right?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 7:27 PM
"If you don't mind the Federal Government running your life and telling you what to do , that's your problem , not mine."
Sorry, once again you are wrong. The Federal Government is not running my life, nor is it telling me what to do. Where do you come up with such absurd claims?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:38 PM
.Rick. and Regret,
It doesn't matter how many facts you show them. They are willfully blind. Dumb on purpose. Trying to converse with one of them is an exercise in futility.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:09 PM
The Federal Government is not running my life, nor is it telling me what to do. Where do you come up with such absurd claims? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:38 PM
Really? I think you live in a spin-dream world where there are rivers of chocolate and rainbows of gum drops.
Quit paying any federal taxes and don't file a tax return next year. Let us know how that turns out in your belief that "the Federal Government is not telling me what to do". You are not right and you are simply clueless...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:42 PM
"Dumb on purpose."
"...and you are simply clueless..."
As I said, where do you come up with such absurd claims? Once you resort to name calling, you've lost, period.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 10:30 PM
Common,
I didn't see where he was calling you a name. It looked more to me like he was commenting on your mental stability.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 10:40 PM
A claim is something that hasn't been proven. When shown proof you holler that it's absurd or it's not happening to you. Since you've proven repeatedly that you don't have the slightest idea what the truth is, or worse, you don't care, you've lost...because you love a lie.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM
"When shown proof..."
I have been treated to opinions galore. It would seem that you define "truth" as whatever you want to believe.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:22 AM
It would seem that you define "truth" as whatever you want to believe. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:22 AM
Now, instead of another "run and hide" comment answer this question. You said "The Federal Government is not running my life, nor is it telling me what to do. Where do you come up with such absurd claims?"
Now answer this question: Quit paying any federal taxes and don't file a tax return next year. Let us know how that turns out in your belief that "the Federal Government is not telling me what to do". Does the federal government tell you what to do on taxes? Do you pay them?
I'll await your usual "no response" on this one.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 7:53 AM
"Does the federal government tell you what to do on taxes? Do you pay them?"
No, the Federal Government does not tell me what to do on taxes. The Constitution of the United States does, and I pay them. It happens to be one of the conditions and obligations of American citizenship.
The requirement to pay taxes is in actuality a Constitutional requirement (see Amendment 16.) I do not consider following the Constitution as being "told what to do by the Government." Before you ask further, I also obey municipal, state and federal laws, and do not consider this being "told what to do by the Government."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 8:35 AM
Really? Show me in the constitution where it says a) what rate you have to pay b) when your taxes are due and c) what the penalties are if you don't.
I don't think the constitution tells you anything about that. The federal government tells you that and you obey. Correct?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 8:37 AM
One thinks that tax rates have to be written in the Constitution, the other thinks the government is going to make us feed every person in a zip code.
Absurd, yes. I rest my case, give it up guys...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 10:46 AM
Common,
You said, "I have been treated to opinions galore."
I agree with this statement. We have all been treated to opinions galore. That's not what I am referring to. I showed you a law that restricts freedom of speech in places where the president or other government officials may be that require Secret Service escort. That could be a parade or any other 'public' place.
You said, "This does not infringe on 1st amendment. It does not limit assembly, just the location, which has always been the case." This is the place where we split. The 1st amendment doesn't restrict when or where this freedom may be exercised. Okay? It has not, as you say, "always been the case". And it still isn't the case. Here's how the 1st reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Then you said, "It would seem that you define "truth" as whatever you want to believe."
In a sense that is true, because I most definitely want to believe the truth. I am always looking for the facts and the documents. I need evidence. That doesn't mean I am infallible. Heck no! Far from it. I hold to a belief until proven wrong.
Please understand, I don't always disagree with you...just when when I am very sure you are wrong. In those cases I will do my best to prove my point by showing you supporting evidence.
So if I say we are being oppressed, I will almost always have the reference to the law or the Executive Order. It's not just my opinion. So if you are going to say that I am wrong, I ask that you be ready to show me that the law I reference doesn't exist or how I am interpreting it wrongly. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I can read.
If you would be willing to stop insulting me I will do the same. Fair enough? Because I don't think this is fun. My hope is that we can all gain true understanding of what the laws our government implement mean, and how they affect us all. This bickering doesn't help.
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 10:57 AM
All I've said is the government has turned free speech into the culprit. It has requested of Google that they find an excuse to remove access to the video (Kudos to Google for refusing to do so), it arrested the film-maker on trumped-up-charges, and it spent taxpayer monies running ads in Pakistan denouncing an exercise of free speech.
That you do not feel impacted by these actions does not mean they are not significant. The nation, after all, does not revolve around you.
People were griping and moaning that the government might actually have access to what books you check out of a public library when President Bush was in office. Yet, those self-same guardians of freedom turn a blind eye to the transgressions of the current occupant. I, myself, did not see it as significant that the library might keep records of who checked out what book. If you want your reading habits kept secret, buy your own books rather than obtaining them from a public facility.
Freedom of speech is protected the Constitution. That our government is denouncing an exercise thereof should be troubling to champions of liberty. Yet, too many who claim to be so are joining the fray against the 'stupid film'. Apparently, free speech is all well and good as long as it doesn't offend anybody that might actual do something about that offense.
And, yet, they claim they are not terrorized...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 11:08 AM
Common, I posted this above, but it took me so long to get it cranked out you, and several others had posted already. So, this is a re-post:
Common,
You said, "I have been treated to opinions galore."
I agree with this statement. We have all been treated to opinions galore. That's not what I am referring to. I showed you a law that restricts freedom of speech in places where the president or other government officials may be that require Secret Service escort. That could be a parade or any other 'public' place.
You said, "This does not infringe on 1st amendment. It does not limit assembly, just the location, which has always been the case." This is the place where we split. The 1st amendment doesn't restrict when or where this freedom may be exercised. Okay? It has not, as you say, "always been the case". And it still isn't the case. Here's how the 1st reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Then you said, "It would seem that you define "truth" as whatever you want to believe."
In a sense that is true, because I most definitely want to believe the truth. I am always looking for the facts and the documents. I need evidence. That doesn't mean I am infallible. Heck no! Far from it. I hold to a belief until proven wrong.
Please understand, I don't always disagree with you...just when when I am very sure you are wrong. In those cases I will do my best to prove my point by showing you supporting evidence.
So if I say we are being oppressed, I will almost always have the reference to the law or the Executive Order. It's not just my opinion. So if you are going to say that I am wrong, I ask that you be ready to show me that the law I reference doesn't exist or how I am interpreting it wrongly. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I can read.
If you would be willing to stop insulting me I will do the same. Fair enough? Because I don't think this is fun. My hope is that we can all gain true understanding of what the laws our government implement mean, and how they affect us all. This bickering doesn't help.
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 11:26 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 10:46 AM
Again more worthless, pointless deflection with no answer.
Tax rates, due dates and penalties are forced on you by the government. People read your posts and can see the futility of your arguments. To say that taxation is "an option" and not forced is, quite frankly, naive at best and propaganda at worst. You've not proven a single point in this entire thread. Just babble and spin.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:25 PM
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:29 PM
"...has requested of Google..."
It was, as you say, a request, not any kind of order or demand. Do you think that Google should have promoted it, maybe translated it so more people could receive the benefits of American culture and religious thought?
"...on trumped-up-charges..."
He violated bank fraud probation conditions. Are probation violations automatically "trumped up charges?" I would say not, but you can think so if you prefer.
"...spent taxpayer monies running ads in Pakistan denouncing an exercise of free speech."
The ads did not denounce free speech. They denounced the content and specifically that, contrary to beliefs in many countries (and apparently in SE Missouri), the US government does not control content of free speech products.
If fanatics in Pakistan rant against a video and blame the US for producing it, why should the State Department not rebut those charges and print the truth?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:42 PM
"If you would be willing to stop insulting me..."
I apologize if you feel I insulted you, but I do not really see where I did. I was merely objecting when you claim that I am being "controlled by the government."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:48 PM
Maybe not so much direct contro but certianly manipulation IMO.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:58 PM
I apologize if you feel I insulted you, but I do not really see where I did. I was merely objecting when you claim that I am being "controlled by the government."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:48 PM
I don't feel you have insulted me, but I don't think our discourse has been necessarily been respectful.
Question: Why would you object when I pointed out you are being controlled by government?
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:07 PM
"Do you think that Google should have promoted it, maybe translated it so more people could receive the benefits of American culture and religious thought? "
I think Google should be free to promote it, translate it, diseminate it, and/or delete it as they see fit. I think citizens should be free to protest it, to request its removal, to support it, to ignore it, or to promote it as they see fit. That's what free speech is all about. However, when the government makes such a request, it begins to cross the boundaries of censorship, given that the government, unlike citizens, has the power to enforce its wishes.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 2:15 PM
"...pointed out you are being controlled by government?"
Very simply because I am not. You seem to consider obeying the Constitution and laws that stem from it as being "controlled."
That is what I object to. Other comments harken back to the Minute Men, implying that they would not have successfully resisited the British, if they could foresee that we would obey the Constitution. Times change and it is not in anyone's best interests to pretend that nothing has changed since 1776. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we have to live in the world we have, not the one we would like to have.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM
"I think citizens should be free to protest it, to request its removal, to support it, to ignore it, or to promote it as they see fit."
I agree totally and it works perfectly for American (and most other) citizens. Unfortunately the 7th century Muslims see things differently. I do not see any reason to plunge a hot stick in their eye and wiggle it around. If you do, I'd be curious to see how you'd justify that. It must be something other than, "We'll teach those ignorant heathens a lesson."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:18 PM
"You seem to consider obeying the Constitution and laws that stem from it as being "controlled."
Not exactly. What the 1st amendment says is "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Any 'law' that therefore "abridges" the freedom of speech, etc., is automatically un-Constitutional. So, H.R.347 is not a law that stems from the Constitution.
There has to be some order and control, which implies self control, and if people don't control themselves and disturb the peace, then we already have laws that address that.
So, I'm not against order, only tyranny and abuse of power by my government. The larger balance of power must remain in the hands of the people. Otherwise they are stepping out of their scope.
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:32 PM
"Unfortunately the 7th century Muslims see things differently."
That does not matter. Freedom of speech includes freedom to commit blasphemy, regardless of whether or not someone 6,000 miles away may not appreciate the concept of freedom that permits it.
"I do not see any reason to plunge a hot stick in their eye and wiggle it around."
That would be violence, which is not constitutionally protected. We're talking about freedom of speech, not freedom of actions.
But, of course, you're talking figuratively. No one is telling you to poke a figurative stick in anyone's eye. But, you have no right to tell someone else that they can't poke the figurative stick in someone else's eye, and still claim to support freedom of speech. If someone can shout down unpleasant truths, or those things that someone perceives to be an unpleasant truth, under the guise of preventing possible violent reactions by someone 6,000 miles away, then there is no real freedom of speech, is there?
"If you do, I'd be curious to see how you'd justify that."
I just did. "All great ideas began as blasphemies", we're told.
"It must be something other than, "We'll teach those ignorant heathens a lesson"."
Nobody's talking about teaching them a lesson. We're talking about the freedom of ideas. The freedom to express ideas that others, perhaps, would rather not confront. If the only ideas that can be expressed are those aren't likely to inspire violent reactions, then few noble ideas will ever be expressed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:46 PM
Per your post, the founding fathers should never have signed the Declaration of Independence, given that it plunged a hot stick in King George's eye and wiggled it around. It certainly invoked a violent response. How dare that minority of men impose violence upon innocent people who were perfectly willing to continue to submit to British rule rather than risk violence. The British, with their 10th Century attachment to the idea of soveriegn rule, certainly could not have understood the concept of freedom and republican government. How did they justify that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:51 PM
"There has to be some order and control, which implies self control, and if people don't control themselves and disturb the peace, then we already have laws that address that."
There you go. If every person in the country (or world) had sufficient "self control" there would be no reason for H.R. 347. Freedom to speak and assemble are not abridged, the locations of such freedoms require a measure of control because poeple don't control themselves. Rather than arresting them for "disturbing the peace," rational restrictions are put in place to satisfy everybody, well almost everybody.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 7:38 PM
.Rick., you are correct. The shedding of ones blood is the absolute most they can sacrifice. It IS life.
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 7:44 PM
Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:02 AM
"...essential liberty..."
There is the key term. Holding your assembly and speaking freely at location B instead of location A, is not giving up "essential liberty."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:08 AM
"essential" doesn't mean fuzzy or weak liberty. You clearly don't understand the meaning of "essential". From the Webster dictionary:
"of the utmost importance".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:22 AM
"Holding your assembly and speaking freely at location B instead of location A,..."
That tactic is most certainly used to defeat the purpose of the assembly. Case in point:
During one protest against USDA a few years back, we were not allowed, under threat of arrest, to protest on the sidewalk or the lawn in front of a building in Jeff City or anywhere near the door, or anywhere near the building itself. Police essentially broke up the peaceful and polite protesters by forcing them/us to move to the far side of the parking lot, which was roughly 150 yards away. This completely defeated our purpose to be visible to attendees and to be able to offer our materials, which we simply held out to people, harassing no one, containing our complaint.
So, I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion, based on my several thwarted attempts to peaceably assembly to protest an arm of the government for redress of grievances, that the current laws do not interfere with the 1st amendment.
Do you understand what I mean now and why I have this view?
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:23 PM
Liberty is essential to maintain one's freedom.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 6:29 PM
Heck Rick I remember him saying he would stay at his desk until the economy was fixed.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 8:37 PM
"Let the Disciples at the Temple of Government tithe..."
Rick, I find that I very seldom disagree with you. I say, if men are not honorable, they deserve to be ground into the dust from which they came. Let them "tithe" that and we would all be better off.
Me, I answer to a higher Authority. One day, I will have to give an account of my actions because that judgement comes for all. However, my temple is not some white washed building in some city full of dishonor, but it is the beautiful Creation that is all around me as far as I can see. Reds, oranges, yellows mixed with greens and browns...the horned owl that came to me a week ago with a rabbit in it's talons...the wind..the rain. And when my friend says he will do a thing, he will, by God, do it.
I have much to be grateful for. But none of it comes from Washington.
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:37 PM
"...working in the White House..."
I'm sure that you really are aware of the fact that Air Force One also has a desk with all of the same capabilities as his desk in the Oval Office. Why would you assume that he is not working behind that desk?
I can fairly well guess what your answer will be, and others may even chime in.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 6:38 AM
Does he have a desk on the golf cart?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 6:46 AM
Does he have a desk on the golf cart? -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 6:46 AM
OUCH!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 9:08 AM
(Common, are you done talking?)
"Holding your assembly and speaking freely at location B instead of location A, is not giving up "essential liberty."
That tactic is most certainly used to defeat the purpose of the assembly. Case in point:
During one protest against USDA a few years back, we were not allowed, under threat of arrest, to protest on the sidewalk or the lawn in front of a building in Jeff City or anywhere near the door, or anywhere near the building itself. Police essentially broke up the peaceful and polite protesters by forcing them/us to move to the far side of the parking lot, which was roughly 150 yards away. This completely defeated our purpose to be visible to attendees and to be able to offer our materials, which we simply held out to people, harassing no one, containing our complaint.
So, I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion, based on my several thwarted attempts to peaceably assembly to protest an arm of the government for redress of grievances, that the current laws do not interfere with the 1st amendment.
Do you understand what I mean now and why I have this view?
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 9:34 AM
"...a desk on the golf cart..."
No. There's also no desk in his shower. So what?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 10:57 AM
"...my several thwarted attempts to peaceably assembly to protest an arm of the government for redress of grievances, that the current laws do not interfere with the 1st amendment."
I would suggest that the fallacy in your conclusion is the idea that every single instance of free speech in every conceivable location is to be permitted or allowed without any question, limitation or restriction.
Somehow I don't consider the 1st amendment to be so inclusive that there never will be instances that you must "demonstrate" down the block.
There have been numerous Constitutionally valid restrictions on free speech utilized by the Supreme Court over time. Among these were "prior restraint," the "bad tendency standard," a clear and present danger standard," the gravity of the danger standard," and the "preferred position standard."
The latest position of the Supreme Court is that the "preferred position standard" means the 1st amendment rights should be abridged only reluctantly and if they are in conflict with other rights or the rights of others.
In the case of your example, it is conceivable that the police felt that your demonstration rights would conflict with the rights of others to use a sidewalk. Anecdotal examples don't prove the case.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:27 AM
No. There's also no desk in his shower. So what? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 10:57 AM
If you don't know the difference between a shower and a golf cart.... :-)
Showers are necessary. Golf isn't.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:19 PM
"The latest position of the Supreme Court is that the "preferred position standard" means the 1st amendment rights should be abridged only reluctantly and if they are in conflict with other rights or the rights of others." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:27 AM
That's an odd interpretation of the Supreme Court case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), where this comes from. It established the preferred position doctrine, which states that "freedom of speech, press and religion are in a preferred position, indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative, especially in court trials. And more specifically that, "It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that." http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html
Now, this case addresses a city ordinance that required a permit to pass out religious tracts.
It does nothing but support the 1st amendment. I'm not sure what your point is. It doesn't indicate that the rights guaranteed by the 1st should be "abridged" in any way.
"In the case of your example, it is conceivable that the police felt that your demonstration rights would conflict with the rights of others to use a sidewalk."
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote thoroughly. What I said was, "the sidewalk or the lawn in front of a building in Jeff City or anywhere near the door, or anywhere near the building itself." By the way, this was a side entrance as well, that led into the conference area, not a busy area really. We were very polite and not pushy. Mostly just standing there holding signs. No chanting, no yelling, no blocking, no obstructing.
As far as my account of what happened being, in your opinion, "anecdotal" or unreliable, remember you said, "I am curious as to how many grievance you have personally been prevented from redressing, and how many assemblies you were prevented from attending."
So, I give you an example and then you say it anecdotal? Unfortunately, this seems like baiting to me. Is that all you can do? Ask me to tell my side, then say my comments aren't necessarily true?
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:19 PM
Common,
If you have never tried to testify before a congressional subcommittee, you don't know what you're missing. They tend to give lobbyists 5 minutes to state their case and regular citizens 1 or 2...if you're lucky. But, it's all up to the committee chairman whether a bill moves for a vote or not. Chairs of committees tend to be highly sought after by lobbyists who wine and dine them and give them 'incentives' to push for or against certain legislation.
I can go to the House Chamber and instruct the doorman to go get my representative off the floor so I can speak to him or her. The doorman will do it as long as the rep. isn't in the process of addressing the House members. It takes a while to build a relationship with a rep. Once they know you have reliable information, and IF they are really trying to do the right thing by the people, it can be very helpful.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:25 PM
No. There's also no desk in his shower. So what?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 10:57 AM
Does he take 7 hour showers?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 4:25 PM
DC
Next time you decide to protest in Jefferson City, use Wayne Cryts for a consultant. An organization I helped found and which still is in operation had an issue in Jefferson City. It took two years but we got legislation passed that gave our industry relief. Service Trucks gathered from all over the state and drove around the Capital for a good amount of time, following all traffic laws and there were no arrests, threats of stopping us or anything of the kind. On the leaders cue everyone withdrew to the rallying point where the trucks were parked and buses hauled the participants in their work uniforms to the State Capital where they spent the balance of the day visiting their State Representatives and Senators Offices. It was orderly, peaceful and got attention.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 4:46 PM
"Ask me to tell my side, then say my comments aren't necessarily true?"
I certainly did not mean to say your comments aren't true. I believe events took place exactly as you described them, but individual examples are by definition "anecdotal," and there is nothing wrong with that.
My point all along has been that the 1st amendment freedoms are basic rights, and the fact that minor infringements occur sporadically doesn't portend the end of democracy as we know it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 5:51 PM
Wheels,
Thanks for the tip about Wayne Cryts. It sounds like he has good ideas.
We have rallied at the Capital several times without problems. In fact, Capital staff has assisted in making it more 'rally friendly' by helping get a stage and podium set up with chairs for people to sit in the rotunda.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 9:16 AM
DC
Our work there happened about 15 or 16 years ago. I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Mr. Cryts and was impressed with some of the things he did. I will say this about him, he was determined and had the power of his convictions to move him forward. The government tried making an example of him but they never broke his spirit.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 9:48 AM
Common,
First, I know what anecdotal means. Just so everybody knows, here it is:
an·ec·do·tal/ˌanikˈdōtl/
Adjective:
(of an account) Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
"Individual examples" are also known as testimony in a court room and often used to obtain convictions.
It sounded as if you were implying that I wasn't necessarily aware of the facts in a protest I was involved in.
"My point all along has been that the 1st amendment freedoms are basic rights, and the fact that minor infringements occur sporadically doesn't portend the end of democracy as we know it."
It seems to me you don't want to support what you feel may be an over reaction to a normal course of events. Understood.
My point is that when peace officers who are charged with upholding the Constitution and laws of the land show a disregard of the rights that are guaranteed by that Constitution even in a little way, if tolerated, can lead to larger infringements.
So in conclusion, I think it's correct to be in opposition to and intolerant of said infringements. Not that the whole "the sky is falling", maybe just a little piece of it.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:07 AM
Wheels,
I don't suppose you have his contact info, do you? You could post it or e-mail me at dchannes@hotmail.com
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM
"I wonder how this would have played out in the 1960's when 1,000's of people were marching to Washington DC for their "Civil Rights" ?"
.Rick.,
There were over a million protestors in D.C. at a rally a year or 2 ago. The press reported there were "thousands". Ha. They had the whole place shut down. We had people there. They said it was a sea of people. They did a count by having people there call a special number from their cell phones.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:13 AM
"They said it was a sea of people."
If I remember correctly, that was the time that there was an African-American multi-family reunion going on simultaneously on the Mall. Probably may have confused the organizers...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 11:47 AM
"I wonder were the new Felony Police were on that one ?"
They were up on the rooves of surrounding buildings with their weapons handy.
"If I remember correctly, that was the time that there was an African-American multi-family reunion going on simultaneously on the Mall."
I don't know about that. The one I'm thinking of is the Taxpayer March on Washington in Sept. 2009.
At the time, I heard reports of over 1 million attendees. This wiki article shows a claim of up to 800,000. Still, that's a bunch of people.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 12:35 PM
" A Government Police State will put a stop to this non-sense .
We have a good start with Felony charges on protesters...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 12:07 PM"
HR 347 should be of great concern to people like me who tend to question authority en masse. It's hard to protest in a prison cell.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 12:39 PM
My question is how can I be made a criminal for exercising my 1st Amendment rights? I don't know how that's possible, but I DO know that once they turn protesting into a crime, 'rights' are denied for sure.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 12:42 PM
.Rick.,
I'm not trying to pick a fight with common, but he may as well throw his 2 cents worth in.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 2:41 PM
The date of the Taxpayer Rally on Sept 12, 2009 seems odd though. One would think April 15 would be a better date.
Anywho, that's what I found out.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 2:43 PM
dc, Re Mr Cryts, I remember thinking that case was akin to a hotel being being siezed by the feds and selling folks luggage to go toward the hotels debt and then finding out that the luggage had a lein on it to guarantee the hotel bill in the case the guest couldn't pay.
It got more complicated as it went on but the first judge being wrong in the opinion of most folks snowballed the whole thing to where it need not have went.
The farmer still owned the grain regardless of what contract of future sale he had entered into.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:02 PM
He was no "Chief" in any way , shape , or form .
Only in his own mind , that is all ...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 2:57 PM
I'll trust you on this one. I meant no disrespect to you or Mr. Means. I do not believe he presented himself as "Chief" to Doreen. It was just my assumption. My apologies.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:20 PM
Old John,
I guess I must be confused. I'm not connecting the dots here regarding Mr. Cryts.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:36 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:02 PM
Old John,
I had a lot of appreciation for Wayne Cryts. He had enough guts and belief in himself to take on the Federal Government.
I had the opportunity to ask him.... did the thought cross your mind that those Federal Agents were armed and one of the nervous nellies might shoot you when you were going after your grain. He said yes that thought had crossed his mind.
But he had the courage to do it anyway. Not sure if I would have or not.
DC
Google Wayne Cryts... I believe this whole scene played out probably when you were pretty young. It is an interesting story.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:43 PM
I was at the Ristine that day in support of Wayne. The deal was all over an Arkansas judge declaring the grain was owned by an firm there owned by a friends son if I'm right.
Wayne was caught up in the land bust and the Jimmy Carter days and was going down anyway, but he did stand for what he thought was right.
The bottom line is the government sold Wayne out. I always have respected him for taking that stand.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 5:24 PM
BTW that is the first time I saw some of those fancy network TV trucks. It was a big deal.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 5:26 PM
I was on a bus enroute to the St. Louis AFEES station to join the Navy on the day Mr. Cryts broke into the Ristine elevator and took his beans, if I recall correctly. The bus passed through Ristine as they were there. Between Ristine and Sikeston we saw the Highway Patrol enroute to Ristine to stop them.
The farmers had been camped across Highway 61 for some time before the 'raid' on the elevator that made national headlines. I used to pass them by daily as I traveled from my job in Sikeston to my home in New Madrid. I stopped once to visit, as I knew some of the farmers taking part in the vigil, though we discussed things other than the bankruptcy during that visit. That was some weeks before the raid. I don't know if Mr. Cryts was there at the time. They were keeping vigil to ensure the government did not send trucks to load out the beans in order to settle the bankrupt elevator's debts.
I met Mr. Cryts some years later, when he was signing copies of his book at Barnes & Noble. I respect what he did, but I've disagreed with him on enough other issues as to not support him in his candidacy.
Regarding the situation, the farmers owned the beans, not the elevator. They paid rent on the beans and were not in arears on the rent, thus the elevator had no claim upon them. The judge that ruled the beans could be used to satisfy the debts of the elevator operator was wrong, pure and simple.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 9:22 AM
Shapley, From a common sense perspective the court had no right to say the grain was an asset of the grain co. From a purely legal stance Wayne was wrong. Too many courts and too many judges.
I was in a similar situation when I sold products to a business that had it's building repossessed by a local bank. I held UCC1 and all proper documentation to lien on the products but the bank padlocked the facility. Later the bank transferred the product to storage and held it as collateral.
By the time the courts got involved the business owner filed bankruptcy and after driving to St Louis three times to witness the postponement of the proceedings, I figured the productive time I was losing wasn't worth what I stood to gain back.
Later the guy sued the bank for all kinds of losses and got a settlement and my products back.
Last I heard he sold all that stuff for cash.
Another time I sold a $3,000 item to a man on Friday, financed with all proper paper work and got his bankruptcy filing notice in the mail Monday. The lawyers and court got all but a few dollars of that one and I never got paid the little amount I was awarded.
In a case even more telling of justice in America, I sold a $300 item on credit to a guy and when I left he took it directly to a pawn shop. The pawn shop said too bad so I went to talk to the prosecuter at the county court house. He laughed at me and said I should have known better, but what goes around comes around sometimes and this low life was later arrested for failure to return a couple of rented movies. Upon his arrest they found outstanding warrants and he got a new address.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:09 AM
Old John,
I don't disagree with the legal aspects: the courts ruled wrongly, but the ruling had the backing of the law behind it, thus Mr. Cryts and the rest of the farmers broke the law in reclaiming their beans.
My best recollection is that they had camped out across from the elevator to make sure no effort was made to move the beans while the order was appealed. When the appeal failed, they moved in to take what was theirs, despite the ruling.
I seem to recall a similar case in California against one of the you-store-it facilities. The owner went bankrupt and the facility was padlocked. In that case, however, the owners of the goods inside the facility were given a week or ten days to remove their goods from the facility. Anything left after that period was considered property of the owner and sold as part of the bankruptcy settlement. However, unlike the grain elevator case, the facility owner had not used the contents of the storage facilities as collateral on his debts, so there was no claim against them by the debtors, as there was in the grain elevator case.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:38 AM
Maybe this is good news.
Maybe that is how Obama works. Fails the first time, succeeds the next.
So....If he were elected to a second term, maybe he will be successful.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM
Old John,
I don't disagree with the legal aspects: the courts ruled wrongly, but the ruling had the backing of the law behind it, thus Mr. Cryts and the rest of the farmers broke the law in reclaiming their beans.
My best recollection is that they had camped out across from the elevator to make sure no effort was made to move the beans while the order was appealed. When the appeal failed, they moved in to take what was theirs, despite the ruling.
I seem to recall a similar case in California against one of the you-store-it facilities. The owner went bankrupt and the facility was padlocked. In that case, however, the owners of the goods inside the facility were given a week or ten days to remove their goods from the facility. Anything left after that period was considered property of the owner and sold as part of the bankruptcy settlement. However, unlike the grain elevator case, the facility owner had not used the contents of the storage facilities as collateral on his debts, so there was no claim against them by the debtors, as there was in the grain elevator case.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:44 AM
A Sam Walton, Obama is not!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:00 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:09 AM
It's about the same as Obama moving the union ahead of the bondholders and suppliers of GM.
Shap
We are talking around 30,000 bushels of beans they had state issued receipts for. Basically they stole $250K from him. The grand jury would not indite him but they ended up jailing him for not snitching on those who helped get the grain. I think the Rusellville mayor gave him a key to the city while he was in jail.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:05 PM
So....If he were elected to a second term, maybe he will be successful. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM
If you pay attention to trends you can see that the debt, deficit, unemployment (one blip does not make a trend) and worsening GDP growth this year than last year - all because of Obama's policies that he is doubling down on in this election - the only way to "Hope and Change" is to elect Romney.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:39 PM
Maybe this is good news.
Maybe that is how Obama works. Fails the first time, succeeds the next.
So....If he were elected to a second term, maybe he will be successful.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM
This is actually funny. The only part of it I agree with is the admission that he has failed. If this would be a business he would have been out on his rear end a long time ago.
Businesses do not reward failure with another contract and neither should the American people.
Maybe the Presidency should be handled like a business where he has a probationary period and if he doesn't cut it and act presidential in the first 90 days, adios, sayonara, goodbye!
And that is no goofier than the idea that since he failed in the first four years, maybe he will succeed in the next four should we be dumb enough to elect him again!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:22 PM
So....If he were elected to a second term, maybe he will be successful.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM
That's what scares me the most.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:53 PM
"...pay attention to trends you can see that the debt, deficit, unemployment..."`
That's actually not a bad suggestion...
During the President Bush administration the economy went into recession.
During the President Obama administration the economy is recovering.
---------------
During the President Bush administration the stock market collapsed.
During the President Obama administration the stock market doubled.
---------------
During the President Bush administration unemployment fell to 4.5% and then jumped to 8%.
During the President Obama administration fell from about 10% down to about 7.5%.
---------------
During the President Bush administration the debt grew because of a trillion dollar unnecessary war.
During the President Obama administration one war was ended and the second is drawing down.
---------------
During the President Bush administration a dictator was taken out for that trillion and 5000 American lives.
During the President Obama administration a dictator was taken out for a billion dollars and 0 American lives.
---------------
During the President Bush administration spent a trillion dollars on a tax cut that included the middle class.
During the President Obama administration wants to save trillions (over time) and save the tax cut for the middle class.
---------------
During the President Bush administration grew the debt by wars and spending overseas.
During the President Obama administration grew the debt by spending on jobs and improving the economy here.
---------------
Governor Romney appears to favor the same policies as were in place during President Bush's administration. So why should anyone support his candidacy?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 8:17 AM
Common
You appear to be getting desperate. How many people's minds do you think you will change with those BS lies?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 8:39 AM
And now we return to commons "common" theme - it's Bushs fault. Too bad Bush isn't running 4 years later isn't it? Here are some "inconvenient truths" you left out...
-----------
During the '08 election Obama promised to cut the deficit in half to get votes
We now know he more than double the deficit pace of Bush and it is now $16 Trillion
-----------
During the '08 election Obama promised to close Gitmo in his first year
We now know it is still open
-----------
During the '08 election Obama promised to turn the economy around
We now know that he set a record for long-term unemployment, inflation is rising and 2012 growth is WORSE than 2011 growth which was WORSE than 2010
The Obama administration was warned by the Libyan government 1 week, 48 hours and 24 hours before the Benghazi attack that a TERRORIST attack was imminent
Before the attacks the US Ambassador AND security people on the ground repeatedly asked for more security
When the attacks began the administration knew immediately of the attacks - where, what, when -- and Obama heard the requests in the situation room while monitoring it
There were drones and military ready to go to fight but the president denied their involvement.
The US Ambassador was murdered along with 3 brave Americans that tried to help him on their own
To save the president in an election year the administration spun a huge lie to the American people about a 1 year old tape and claimed "we didn't know - this was spontaneous". This is criminal and impeachable. This lie will not go away and Obama looks weak - very weak. Just like his disastrous foreign policy.
-----------
Most Americans are seeing that 4 more years of Obama's clueless efforts will destroy this country economically.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 9:28 AM
"During the President Bush administration the debt grew because of a trillion dollar unnecessary war."
One trillion dollars, spread out over eight years. Mr. Obama's deficits for every single year that he has been in office have exceeded a trillion dollars.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 10:14 AM
"During the President Bush administration unemployment fell to 4.5% and then jumped to 8%.
"During the President Obama administration fell from about 10% down to about 7.5%."
Actually, unemployment did not reach 8% during Mr. Bush's term. Mr. Obama proposed his stimulus bill, saying that its passage would keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. Instead, it went to over 10%.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 10:16 AM
"During the President Bush administration spent a trillion dollars on a tax cut that included the middle class."
A tax cut is not spending. I do not understand how it is that you can't comprehend that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 10:18 AM
Since when do we send ambassadors overseas without providing for their safety?..............Security for many embassies has been out-sourced to foreign organizations. Since when do we allow American territory and American representatives to be attacked with no response? The firefight in Benghazi went on for hours, drones fed streaming video of the attack, requests for support were denied. Why?
Gunships from Italy could have been on-scene in shortly over an hour but were never sent. Are there no standard operating procedures established for such a situation?
Heads should roll over this; beginning with the POTUS!
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM
"During the President Obama administration the stock market doubled."
No, when Mr. Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was over 8,000 points. Today, it stands at a little over 13,000. That is a long way from 'doubling'.
If you're going to measure from the lowest market point in his presidency to the highest, then Mr. Bush saw an increase from 7,286 (Oct. 2002) to a high of 14,164 (Oct. 2007, just before the Pelosi recession), for an incrase of 6,878 points.
Mr. Obama saw an increase from 6,547 (Mar. 2009) to 13,279 (May, 2012), an increase of 6.732. Thus, Mr. Bush oversaw an even greater increase in the market than did Mr. Obama.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 10:28 AM
"...- it's Bushs fault."
I did not claim that anything was anybody's fault. I simply pointed out trends, as you suggested.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 12:19 PM
Sometimes I'm reminded of a petty dispute where one child finally says ok, it's not worth arguing about, you can have the sucker.
I don't think that is going to work when the prize is the future of our children, grand children and country.
Common, you can have your sucker but don't expect to convince anyone to vote for him with your constant reiteration of rhetoric already defeated.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 12:45 PM
The liberals can squeal all they want, if they live in Missouri they end up voting for Romney in the final analysis.
I feel good about that.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 12:58 PM
Rick, Plenty of sticky fingers on both sides in Washington DC. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 1:14 PM
"I did not claim that anything was anybody's fault. I simply pointed out trends, as you suggested."
Speaking of trends, here's one I've noticed:
The Economy flourished with the Republicans in charge of the legislature, but under Republican and Democrat presidents.
The Democrats regained control of the legislature, and the economy tanked. They also regained control of the presidency, and it got worse.
The Republicans regained control of the House, and the economy began to recover, but not as quickly or as well as it did when they controled both houses.
That's a trend that seems to be worth noting.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 2:09 PM
"That's a trend that seems to be worth noting."
So when there's a republican president, the buck stops with Pelosi and the Congress, when there is a democratic president and Boehner as Speaker, the buck goes back to the president.
Republicans appear never to be responsible for anything, they always seem to find someone else to blame...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 4:23 PM
" Republicans appear never to be responsible for anything,"
This is the same for Democrats.
Common,
You seem to like referring to conservative and libertarian minded people that are against another Obama presidency as "Republicans". That is prejudice and anecdotal in my opinion.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 7:43 PM
Just took a look at the 20 news items on Yahoo a couple of minutes ago. Of the 20 shown, 5 have Obama's mug on them. Romney is not shown once. It appears that the liberal rags are doing their finest to push Obama as I would expect of them. What do they call that... subliminal advertising? Would hope at least the Obama re-election committee is paying them, they are certainly working for him.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 7:49 PM
"Just took a look at the 20 news items on Yahoo a couple of minutes ago. Of the 20 shown, 5 have Obama's mug on them."
Wheels, that's why I quit Yahoo and went to Hotmail. I got tired of seeing all the Obama crud plastered all over.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:22 AM
"I admire commonsensematters for hanging in there..." -- Posted by .Rick. on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 9:38 PM
To me he's an enigma wrapped in a mystery. I don't admire him though.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:28 AM
Rick, Maybe KC is waiting for all the military absentee votes to be lost in a plane crash and late on Nov 6 a box of misplaced votes for Obama will show up on a box car in Deluth.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:28 AM
"So when there's a republican president, the buck stops with Pelosi and the Congress, when there is a democratic president and Boehner as Speaker, the buck goes back to the president."
I didn't say anything about the president in that post. I merely pointed out a trend.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:00 AM
That's actually been Mr. Obama's argument, by the way. Everything good that happens on his watch is because his policies are taking effect. Everything bad that happens is either because of what he 'inherited' or because the Republican Congress is blocking it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:02 AM
The liberals can squeal all they want, if they live in Missouri they end up voting for Romney in the final analysis.
I feel good about that.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 12:58 PM
Not this liberal! Should Romney win, I will be your reminder!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:59 AM
Not this liberal! Should Romney win, I will be your reminder!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:59 AM
Reminder of What? You live in Missouri, your electorial vote goes to Romney. Think you can stop it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 9:48 AM
(Holding my ears because of the shouting)
I will definitely vote to see to it that the liberals vote in Missouri ends up going to Romney. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 10:50 AM
I think Caddy may be broke down in Moosonee Ontario waiting for the big freeze so he can drive back to the States on the ice. He may miss the election.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 1:45 PM
Not this liberal! Should Romney win, I will be your reminder!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:59 AM
You were certainly gushing over Obama winning last time. So what did he do for you?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 6:34 PM
I am better off now than I was 4 years ago. I am working the same job, but my insurance has gone down and my credit rating has gone up. Good Times!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:17 PM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:17 PM
I, too, am doing well. But that's not how I measure national success - again, liberals and the "me" thing.
Real economic growth during the recovery -- now three years old -- has averaged 2.2%, less than half of the historic average for post recession rebounds - the worst recovery ever and is even worse than the recovery from the great depression
There are 1.1 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls today than when President Obama took office.
The unemployment rate was above 8% for 43 consecutive months, the longest period of sustained high unemployment IN HISTORY
If the labor force participation rate had remained unchanged, the unemployment rate would now be above 11%.
An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps;
A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;
An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;
A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;
A 34%, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1% to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.
Again, glad to see you're doing well... now, about the United States?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:40 PM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:17 PM
You are a teacher. A bad economy isn't going to affect you unless you just started.
Must be nice to have the state to cover the increases in insurance. You can thank us taxpayers for paying that for you. I have a friend whose son is a teacher in Jackson and his insurance did go up quite a bit and he has to pay for the increase out of his own pocket.
Credit ratings are a personal thing. Since you had the same job it should've already been 700+.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:41 PM
"The unemployment rate was above 8% for 43 consecutive months, the longest period of sustained high unemployment IN HISTORY"
Dug
Isn't it amazing how the unemployment suddenly dropped below 8% two week ago?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:44 PM
Dug Isn't it amazing how the unemployment suddenly dropped below 8% two week ago? -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:44 PM
It wouldn't surprise one bit if unemployment drops to 2.8% on Monday, gas drops to 39 cents a gallon and stores start giving away free chickens. I wouldn't even blink if they announced that! :-)
Do you know Reasoning? Is that sue-lynn?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:55 PM
Yes.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:57 PM
Menu
Has a problem of lying.
Replies (226)