Free Republic

Well, the longer this goes on the more suspect I am of the entire matter I become.

I think what we are seeing is "high theater" designed to make us think that Obama has been forced to finally come up with his true birth certificate.

Hmmm, but the attacks from the state controlled media are so mundane. I suspect that, if Sarah Palin had pulled such a trick, the state controlled media would be excoriating her to the limit. Not so for the Donald, which leads me to believe we are watching "high theater."

To what end, you may ask. Well, I think "the Donald" is Obama's Ross Perot. The Communist (presently called Democrats) are convinced that he can't win reelection so they are pulling out all of the stops.

For my two cents, you can add Ian Punnet (sp) to that list. He drives me nuts with his sputtering, stammering attempts to put an anti Christian, capitalist, white - spin on whatever the guest's book says.

I simply don't listen unless George Noory is hosting.

Government employees... ah, what to do, what to do with the taxpayer’s money.

Well, uh, just some random thoughts here.

The press and the government are quick to characterize the assailants as members of Mexican drug cartels, or gangs.

What if the victims were targeted because they represent what the United States stands for and once the deed was done, the assailants exchanged their sombreros for turbans?

Yep, what if this was an act of (this word is officially banned by the Obama administration) terrorism conducted by agents of Al Queda?

I don't believe that "going green" makes these people... shall we say aholes.

They were already aholes and use their "green lifestyle" as justification for being so.

In other words, they were at odds with societal norms already and needed a reason to explain, or justify, their actions.

...flies out to Finland today to see specialist Sakari Orava and goes under the knife inside the next 24 hours.

Does this mean that he isn't going to use the national healthcare system in England?

Imagine that, a wealthy person who doesn't want to use healthcare designed by politicians for the ignorant masses.

Here, let me help you with that:

I think I’m in a good position to access assess his intellectual capacity.

----------------------------------------------------

My new tag line:

A politician is an elected official whose primary goal is to enrich him/herself while appearing to represent his constituents; maintaining a degree of plausible deniability regardless of the results of his efforts.

Hell, he can always export grass clippings produced by the 30 million illegals that mow lawns every summer.

...the profits have come at substantial taxpayer expense while often delivering dubious benefits to students...

Excuse me, but this sounds a lot like the public school system.

Of course, there is one big difference. The taxpayers are not on the hook for generous retirement plans that go on for 30 years for teachers and administrators, like we are for the public school system.

This organization is being formed to physically oppose Tea Party demonstrations. They will show up and provide the muscle to stop Tea Party demonstrations and inject violence into peaceful opposition to the demoRats agenda. Of course, they will be portrayed as a grass roots activist by the media, but in reality, they will be the same SEIU, AFL/CIO, etc union thugs whose primary goal is to keep the theft of taxpayers money flowing into their coffers.

Those surveyed made it clear they hold greater disdain for Democrats, but they are also strongly opposed to tolerating Republican politicians who stray even slightly from the principles tea party activists hold dear. For the most part, those principles are fiscal restraint and limited government, but for a smaller group they include conservative social issues and a hawkish foreign policy.

It's always amusing to see how a leftist defines the betrayal of their constituents by a politician when voting for the Marxist agenda. It's just a slight deviation, but a betrayal none the less. I believe it's called "reaching across the isle." Unfortunately for their constituents, this has been a one way reach for the past 50 years.

----------------------------------------------------

My new tag line:

A politician is an elected official whose primary goal is to enrich him/herself while appearing to represent his constituents; maintaining a degree of plausible deniability regardless of the results of his efforts.

NO!

Obama's mentor, William Ayers, says it will take the deaths of 125 million US citizens in order to establish socialism.

O's primary goal is to install socialism. Like Pol Pot, he is willing to sacrifice the 125 million citizens in order to achieve his goal.

After all, these are the people who inflicted grievous social injustices on minorities and they are deserving of death.

----------------------------------------------------

My new tag line:

A politician is an elected official whose primary goal is to enrich him/herself while appearing to represent his constituents; maintaining a degree of plausible deniability regardless of the results of his efforts.

Marxism/socialism is so fragile that it simply can't logically defend itself from criticism. These types of societies always revert to censorship in order to maintain their hold on the people.

Think of the attacks on Fox News, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc by the Marxist (I've quit referring to them as demoRats - might as well call them what they are) here in the United States. If they don't have a rigged encounter (Sunday morning news shows, etc) where they can call you names and shout any criticism down, they are incapable of logically defending their actions.

----------------------------------------------------

My new tag line:

A politician is an elected official whose primary goal is to enrich him/herself while appearing to represent his constituents; maintaining a degree of plausible deniability regardless of the results of his efforts.

This is simply another version of the same tired Marxist ploy, which is: anyone who doesn't agree with me is too stupid to understand the fine details of the question.

Ultimately, all of these arguments are an effort to disenfranchise anyone in society who disagrees with them. In other words, eliminate political opposition.

----------------------------------------------------

My new tag line:

A politician is an elected official whose primary goal is to enrich him/herself while appearing to represent his constituents; maintaining a degree of plausible deniability regardless of the results of his efforts.

Sadly that one truly is Bush's fault.

I believe you are wrong about this. The following is linked to the source:

The Clinton administration is a staunch defender of ethanol. In June 1994 Clinton imposed new ethanol mandates on gasoline, relying on fatuous arguments that the corn-based fuel "would create thousands of new jobs for the future" and protect "our environment, our public health and our farmers."

Where have we heard about "green jobs" creation before?

On the subject of government madness and deceptive "green" policies, I have found some startling (at least to me) inconsistencies with ethanol use in my car.

First off, I keep meticulous records concerning the operation of it. This of course, includes mileage calculations on a tank by tank basis.

Before the introduction of 10% ethanol into pump gasoline, my car got 15% better gas mileage. Huh? Yep, the efficiency of my car's engine decreased by 15% as far as mileage goes. So what does that mean?

Well, it seems to me that instead of cleaning up the environment, I'm actually polluting more because it takes 5% more gasoline to go the same distance - ethanol causes me to use more gasoline to go the same distance.

So the introduction of ethanol into our gasoline looks like nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to Archer Daniels Midland (big corporate corn farmer) and of course the campaign finance accounts of numerous politicians.

Obama makes a considerable statement by sending the dufus Biden.

To me, it shows how little interest he has in the Middle-East peace process and sends a telling message to the Israelis, that they are on their own.

I believe you are correct about that...plus the human sacrifices to their hungry gods was not a pleasant experience either.

Absolutely.

It does not make any sense at all to sacrifice young females and throw their remains into a cenote (a sinkhole with exposed rocky edges containing groundwater). First off, it limits the gene pool for population expansion, and secondly, it eventually pollutes the water supply. At least that was what I understood from my visit to Chichen Itza.

Many people don't know this fact, but in the United States, women did not out number men until after WW II because so many died during child birth. It wasn't until the means to produce penicillin in sufficient quantities, and large numbers of doctors trained by battlefield experience, that our medical system was able to curb deaths by infections, due to child birth.

But, I'm beginning to ramble. Thanks for the interaction.

Thank you Von Mises. It's liberating, once it clicks.

I have been a student of the Austrian School of Economics for a number of years; and also a fan of Von Mises.

I didn't realize that it showed. And, yes, it's liberating while being so really simple.

Any time I hear a complicated economic explanation, I know it's a Keynesian / Marxist attempting to obfuscate the issues for their political and material gain.

The massive oppression, poverty and need Marxism creates is a promise. Next, the government will have to enslave these new farm owners to force them to produce the food the country needs.

I doubt that even the enslavement of the new farm owners will produce the desired results. The people who lived on the land before the white Europeans moved into South Africa never once considered farming the land and creating wealth. I think, as the article supports, that they will revert to living off of the land, just as their predecessors did.

I am convinced that great civilizations destroy themselves via government. The greater the number of people in a society who work for the government in relationship to those who actually create goods and services, the higher the probability the society will collapse.

The disappearance of the great Mayan society puzzles scholars. I contend that people simply could not support the government projects (intracity wars, building great pyramids) any longer, and simply moved away from the great cities for self preservation reasons.

The US in headed for a similar conclusion. We simply cannot support the massive government pension obligations and will simply move away from the taxing agencies and start living off of the land - see Detroit.