Tuesday Open Forum – December 7, 2010

Originally posted at the end of Friday Open Forum.
May we be inspired to love and cherish today.

Written by butchcracker.

Reading 1st paragraph of Friday’s open forum and the words YES YES YES resounding over and over again in my head!!! You are not alone!!! I am not alone!!! Ahhh..life..kids..jobs..marriages..bosses….homes…laundry…homework..meetings…family
…friends…pets…cleaning…paying bills…cant pay bills…no job…job sucks…ailing parents…loss of loved ones….sickness…parties at chuck “e” cheese (and show up on the wrong day, me today!)…lordy….the push and pull of “it all!”
What a challenge to engage life, as we should ,when literally there are RED ALERTS and just plain evil threatening our lives, our liberties ,our freedoms…. OUR AMERICA!!! The fear, oh the fear…How do we?? How can we?? How ARE we surviving??
By breathing, day at a time, with gratitude, hope, love and by turning that fear into faith! Heaps of faith, in our God, our country, most importantly ourselves! It exists here. The faith and strength found here is humbling! What a gift it is, what a gift indeed….

Thank you..
Gratitude…..we ask our youngens…”What’s in your attitude?”
What are we grateful for?
I’m grateful for sleeping children..
and always my sundance…..

202 Responses to Tuesday Open Forum – December 7, 2010

  1. Pat P says:

    This is funny, but odd:


    P.S.: Sundance certainly earned their supper yesterday. Truly inspired!

    • Integrity1st says:

      Sneaking in up here to say hello and that I survived today. Also to say, I love that post from Butchcracker on all levels= ) (did she mean us when she said: It exists here. The faith and strength found here is humbling! What a gift it is, what a gift indeed…. Thank you..) ???

      Tired, oh so tired. Gonna sleep, been so long, then I can’t WAIT to read this thread. My quick scan tells me it’s real good – like all the rest, but it’s such a pleasure to read HERE . . . always.

      Hope I’ll be moved to write all about today – – – tomorrow. It was very amazing. LOVE to all.

  2. Patriot Dreamer says:

    comment from yesterday’s thread:

    Jennifer H says:
    December 6, 2010 at 4:52 pm


    HHS is putting end of life counceling back into Obamacare –


    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      Some of you might not have seen this article in the Wall Street Journal from August, 2009:

      The Death Book for Veterans
      Ex-soldiers don’t need to be told they’re a burden to society


      • emmajeri1010 says:

        Oh, that’s a real charmer. Read through it when it first came out. If you haven’t yet, take the time to do it….and then, if there are any vets around your area who were alive and angry and scared 69 years ago today when the Japanese Air Force destroyed most of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, think about them~~look at them~~notice their brothers and sisters if there are sitll any of them around: SHOULD those vets “feel like a burden?”

        There must be some way to Alyskyize the question and put it to the pro-death forces (at either end of life): “Do you feel like the World War II veteran in his late 80′s or early 90′s is a burden? Do you feel like the Korean War (sorry, that was no “conflict”) veteran who has memories of the Chosin Reservoir and what happened there is a burden? Do you feel like the Vietnam Vet with no legs is a burden?…..you do? You should be ashamed of yourself. Shame on you!”

        If you haven’t read this vile piece of death-dealing garbage foisted on the veterans of our lifetime, you should. Be angry. Be angry with solid information. Be very angry. If they don’t value the lives of these veterans, it surelyl should not puzzle us that they want the seniors to lay down and die asap.

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      Remember how in the summer of 2009 they took out the end-of-life counseling from the Senate version of the bill due to public uproar:

      Breaking: Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill


      But now the Administration is using its rule-making power to put those provisions back in.

      • emmajeri1010 says:

        Which we knew they would. They never give up. They drop back, regroup and come back. Those who are pro-slavery, pro-death, pro-tyranny are very, very patient.

    • TXMom says:

      Thank you, Patriot Dreamer and Jennifer. ” Another related ominous tool, the POLST form–a kind of super DNR order:“Physician’s Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment.” ” Following this link in the article, http://www.lifetree.org/resources/polstInfo.html, a little more information is discovered. A few notes..

      Who funded it? The George Soros’s Project on Death in America was one of the earliest funders of the POLST venture. Another funder, the Cummings Foundation was also funding Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel for a study of caregivers’ burdens. Remember Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm and Obama’s health policy adviser? The “Complete Lives System,” a guide to select who has the right to live, according to his worth?

      POLST is not the traditional “legal transaction. Although a POLST form looks like a contract, usually displaying signatures of patient and provider, it is not a traditional legal transaction. Charles Sabatino says POLST reflects a “paradigm shift from [the traditional] legal transactional model to a communications model.”[4]

      * POLST does not require a physician’s signature; nor does it require the signature of the patient or proxy.

      Goal-oriented process. Whose goal? “Self-Determination” or Imposed Death? The problem with POLST is not that it allows patients to hasten their own death. The problem is that POLST facilitates imposed death. It creates an illusion of “self-determination” while fostering consensus ethics. It is vague as a legal document, and the iterative, goal-oriented process is designed to reduce the use of what some ethicists call “inappropriate” treatments, but what others may call ordinary and life-enhancing. The documents may be used by a wide range of health care workers, many of whom do not know the patient personally. In short, the POLST process rigs the system in favor of pressuring the patient and family.”

  3. zmalfoy says:

    Mmmm-hmmm, indeed!
    I was going to greet everyone is some super-cute Japanese this morning, and then realized that today is probably not the most appropriate day for that. Seeing as it’s the Day That Will Live in Infamy. Pearl Harbor was the first time since what, 1812?, that a foreign power had attacked our land, which then vaulted us into WWII.

    At least the Japanese had the honor to attack a military installation, unlike today’s baddies, who lack any honor at all, and so delight in attacking civilians.

    Some unpleasantness followed Pearl Harbor, but relations have vastly improved since those days. Now Japanese children sing American pop songs, and American children (and adults) enjoy Japanese cartoons (but honestly, not the naughty ones!) Goes to show how just a few decades can really change how two cultures interact.

  4. JRD says:


    This is so huge. I believe the Wikileaks fiasco is a distraction by the 0bamunist administration to deflect interest in Pigford. This is reparations front and center.
    Pigford is the reason Dumb-0 won South Carolina and the presidency in 2008. If this Ulsterman dude is real I believe that Pigford is what he is referring to. Pigford is capable of bringing down Dumb-0, Piglosi, and the Democrat party.

    Pigford is another reason to refer to Pelosi as Piglosi. It works for me.

  5. Library Countess says:

    Mornin’ y’all… it’s a positively balmy 36 degrees (or less) here in central FL… wunnaful, a-wunnaful.

    Among many things, I am grateful for Honeytrail because I do know I’m not alone in loving my country, my God, and wanting to see us again as an exceptional country (see Ronald Reagan and Marco Rubio), and if I’m feeling beaten down, there are lots of good people here to hoist me back up!

    I was (un)fortunate enough to catch Barky’s live speech on the extension of the tax rates and I was once again struck with how thin-skinned, mean, and nasty the Whiner-in-Chief is. He just couldn’t give up his attitude towards Republicans and conservatives at all… my fervent prayer is that he’s got to be gone in two years.

    • yomotley says:

      I don’t know if this was the speech I heard him yesterday on the radio but my blood started to boil. He said, “blah, blah………….three little words on each piece–Made in America.” Think about that. The difference between ‘Made in the USA” and “Made in America”. He was referring to things made here and exported around the world.

      Made in America vs Made in USA.

  6. Library Countess says:

    Article on Sarah Palin:


    From the article: “There are cautionary notes here both for the Left and for the Right. The Left should understand that their scorn for Sarah Palin is of the same stream as their scorn for a wide swath of fellow Americans. It does not show their good side. Progressives of good will can recognize, I think, that they dislike Palin in part because they dislike the kind of people who support Palin, the kind of people she represents. The stereotypes and prejudices made manifest in their hatred for Palin are deeply unbecoming, and only serve to fuel the devotion to Palin for many on the Right.”

    • JRD says:

      Yeah, but his last paragraph is this:

      Much though I appreciate what Palin has accomplished, much though I agree with her on many issues, and much though I resent the anti-religious and anti-conservative prejudices that have fanned the flames of Palin Enragement Syndrome, to this point I do not believe that she would, of the electable conservative options available to us now, make the best President. And that, to me, is the fundamental question.

      Wrong dude, next.

      • PhillyCon says:

        Also, notice the author does not disclose who would fit the bill in his eyes.

        Easy to knock on Palin, but even more difficult to argue affirmatively for “your preferred candidate.”

  7. PhillyCon says:

    Saying hi, my comment on the Palin is awaiting moderation. So, I’m posting on the open thread.

  8. AFinch says:

    Good morning Honeys!

    I received this in an email this morning:

    “With time, women gain weight because they accumulate so much information and
    wisdom in their heads so, when there is no more room, it distributes out to the rest of their bodies. Therefore, they aren’t heavy, they are enormously cultured, educated and happy. Beginning today, when they look at their butts in the mirror they will think, ‘Good grief, look how smart I am!’ And that’s where the term ‘Smart Ass’ came from!”

  9. PhillyCon says:

    Question for all the arm chair political strategists (who give Tokyo Rove a run for his $):

    Now that Jeb Bush has publicly stated he DOES NOT support the AZ law, do you think this hinders his chances of a Prez. run, other than his last name?


      • Menagerie says:

        Absolutely. AND here’s another question, since they ARE allowed on this blog, which is one reason why I love this place, and do post here. This is something I’m thinking of writing about, but need to clarify a few ideas. How do you feel about the much used phrase “vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable”? Agree, disagree, or case-by-case? I really would like as many opinions as possible. Sundance, where do you stand on this? It’s a really tough issue for me, but someone I really respect influenced me years ago on this matter, and I think I have seen the proof of his words on Nov. 2, and I think repubs are waking up to this. I disagreed with him for not voting for a republican during an election. Told him he threw his vote away by voting for the candidate he supported (obviously not the R or D). He vehemently told me I was wrong, that the most valuable right, responsiblity, THING he owns as an American is his vote, and it is his alone, no one else has control of it. If he GAVE it to an undeserving candidate, he gave up. He said the only currency a politician understands is a vote, and sooner or later, the ones they lose to other candidates makes them sit up and listen. Whether you agree or not, I’m very impressed by this reasoning from my son, who really makes me think sometimes. What do you guys think?

        Oh yeah, may I say again I love asking ??????????? without fear of being called a T word?

        • Debra says:

          Idealism in the primaries, pragmatism in the general. Not everyone can do that, I understand, but that’s how our house rolls.

          • sundancecracker says:

            Menagerie, my response to that “exceptional” and “highly pertinent” question would be too long to comment here. So I’ll write up a reponse later on and post at the bottom. That way folks don’t have to scroll (through all my jibberish) to get to the good stuff if they are not interested. Is that ok?

          • TNWAHM says:

            I agree. That’s what primaries are for. I’m in Tn-8 ~which I understand was the most expensive primary in the country, we had 3 “conservatives” running~ Here is where I explain my vote for the Republican instead of the Independent that our local Tea Party endorsed.

        • emmajeri1010 says:

          I do not mean my comment here to be snarky!!….but my immediate response to your question “How do you feel about the much used phrase ‘vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable’?” is…..

          The phrase is just words intended to influence people against their better judgment, so the phrase itself is secondary. The ideas behind the phrase are the “problem…” I would imagine in your ideas in writing about this, that’s probably part of what you intend to get in to…just thought I’d toss my response out. Personally…I hate that phrase, because it’s a deflection from the real problem: getting conservative candidates who love America and will fight for the Constitution and the rule of law. The horse is already out of the barn by the time that phrase is used, and it’s usually used to force someone to vote for someone they don’t completely trust. My pointy opinion.

        • stellap says:

          I crossed party lines during our primary this year, so that I could vote AGAINST my current member of the US House of Representatives. Unfortunately, it didn’t work, and he got the nomination, and won the general, where I voted AGAINST him again. Since I live in a predominantly Democrat district, this made sense for me.

        • PhillyCon says:

          I know in the vain you are asking the question; however, it has been “bastardized” by RINO types to mean, let’s run someone like McCain, Castle, Crist and so on.

          Plus, the word “electable” can be used in many ways, and mean different things to different people. Its a very loaded term. I am weary to use the phraseology of the establishment Repubs, b/c this is the same kind of talking point to scare off conservatives.

          My only concern at running as many “conservatives” as possible would be the potential for them to split the vote making way for a more “moderate” candidate such as Romney. This is why you see some folks such as David Frum pushing a Huckabee candidacy, to split Palin’s base to make way for Romney or Daniels.

          A point to remember: here in PA we were told by the same bunch in DC, that Toomey was too conservative, and that only Specter was the only R “electable” in PA.

          My 2 cent for what its worth.

        • AFinch says:

          I’m of the opinion that the fight over conservative candidates should take place in the primary and in that context conservatives should vote for the most conservative candidate, period. Who’s to say who is electable at that point?

          After that, vote for the R (99% of the time–the special circumstances in NY23 in 2009 do not exist).

        • AliRose says:

          I think your son makes a very valid point…the major difference in these approaches is long-term vs short-term goals. A lot of people are only capable of thinking short-term (which is why we’re in this current economic crisis). He’s thinking more in terms of the long-term, which is great, but begs the question, “Is there another way to achieve long-term goals without sabotaging the short-term?”

          It has been suggested that people unregister from the Republican party in order to send a message. This is a valid argument, as well. But…by unregistering, you may no longer be able to vote in the primaries (depending on your state), which would also, in effect, sabotage the short-term goals.

          One of the better arguments I’ve seen , is the idea of giving directly to candidates, rather than the party. We’re seeing this more and more. Politicians understand money just as much as they understand votes.

          I’m sure that there are other creative solutions out there, but it requires one to first recognize, then address both long- and short-term goals. Personally, I have always been of the “vote smart” mentality, meaning that I don’t “throw my vote away” on candidates that I know will lose. If someone is an underdog, but has a shot (based on polls), then sure, I’ll vote for them. But not if it’s pretty much a guaranteed loss. I agree with Debra…”Idealism in the primaries, pragmatism in the general.” I think that people who don’t get to vote in the primaries have an especially difficult time with this

          BTW…I just got my new Voter Registration Card. I’ll be voting in the primaries for the first time in my life…very excited!

        • Bijou says:

          “How do you feel about the much used phrase “vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable”?”
          Menagerie, FWIW, I agree with Rush, who has spoken about this at length.
          He always says that NObody knows who is ‘electable’ and who ISN’T.
          The so-called ‘polls’ are often rigged anyway, so why would anybody ‘write off’ a good candidate?
          The best bet is to vote for the best REPUBLICAN candidate.

    • sundancecracker says:

      Jeb Bush will NEVER support ‘tough immigration reform’ period. Jeb is personally and spiritually connected to the hearts and minds of latinos, so he is in a tough position. His ideology is based on his “personal” not political frame of reference. His wife is latino, his kids are latina, he is fluent (I mean like really, really fluent) in spanish as well as, portugese, venezulean, mexican and cuban dialects. His wife and her large family are strongly pro-immigration (legally), and you will NEVER see Jeb advocate for any policy that might incidently discriminate against latinos. Period. Jeb Bush is as close to Jesus in the latino community as you can get with an American politician. He has massive credibility. Massive. When Rubio caught all the flack from his “brief waffle” on immigration it was directly tied to Jebs endorsement which came with a specific qualifier not to compromise the latino community in any way, shape or form.

      The Decepti-con class is holding Jeb in reserve as the nuclear option against the leftist narrative being created by the Democrats that Republicans will soon be irrelevent because of the growing size, scope, and political influence of the latino community. Jeb is their Ace in the hole. They can break the emergency glass at any time and pull Jeb into the public eye and all the leftist arguments about republican anti-latino rhetoric will be diminished.

      But first they want to tackle immigration reform, and border security, so they will throw Jeb all the back room bones, and cotton to his every wish, so that he will stay quiet while they deal with the issue in a manner the majority of Americans want done. Jeb is personally genuinely and from the heart, attached to the Latino community. Jeb is also a professional politician, and knows how to leverage that influence for his own political advancement.

      So no. His public statements will do nothing to diminish his viability for a presidential run.

      It is a similar political dynamic like Sarah Palin speaking ‘brouskly’ against Scott Brown, in a liberal bastion state like Massachussetts it helps him. Sarah and Scott both know that and play that political dance exceptionally well together. Brown will snark at Palin (helps her credibility), and Palin will snark at Brown (helps his credibility), then they both get together with their families, eat BBQ and laugh about it…… privately of course. :)

      • AFinch says:

        Here’s the problem I have with that reasoning–isn’t it possible to be strongly supportive of the latino community AND be for tough immigration reform? The argument that you can’t suggests that all latinos are opposed to policies that make it easier for qualified applicants to immigrate legally (no more 10 year waits, pointless hoops to jump through) while keeping the line jumpers and scofflaws out. To me, it’s all about how you define the reform.

        • sundancecracker says:

          Finch, I agree with you completely. Indeed I believe it is indeed possible. However, I am speaking only to Jeb’s position. If he advances upon the hill of immigration reform his credibility/influence with “major” components of the totality caucus would be compromised. I’m not saying his position is right. I’m saying his decision is politically motivated. After all Jeb is more closely associated with establishment Republicans (Conservatives in Name Only) than with say… a Tea Party (conservative) position of ‘strict’ immigration reform. Jeb would be more concerned with the “New Mexico” electorate than “Montana” electorate. In essence he chooses to walk a tightrope position, not taking an aggressive position in either direction. Pragmatic I guess. That is why 2012 would not be his year to advance politically…. The atmosphere is too ideologically divisive for him to gain base conservative support. He’ll hang back and wait for things to settle down.

  10. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Warren Buffet, Life Insurance, and the Estate Tax


    Who wants the estate tax to return? Life insurance companies, do, that’s who. And who owns six life insurance companies? Warren Buffet. As usual, follow the $$$.

    • Jennifer H says:

      I have only one thing to say about him, P.O.S. !

    • JRD says:

      It’s time for these creeps to put their money where their mouth is. If they want to take all of their robber baron money and give it away to someone that is their right. However, all we want is for them to get their grubby little mitts out of our pockets.

    • Ad rem says:

      Another clown benefiting from the 16 billion given to the General Electric Company. (He’s considered a god at CNBC.)


      • JRD says:

        I can’t stand inept Jeffrey Immelt. Jack Walsh left him a profitable company that he ran into the ground. The GE Board of Directors should have fired this loser a long time ago.
        I also can’t stand Hank Paulson. He stinks to high heaven. Even after reading George W’s “Decision Points” where W tries to justify Paulson’s heavy handed directives during TARP I still ain’t buying the Paulson BS. Paulson is guilty of saving Goldman’s butt and he should be held accountable for it. We the people got screwed without even getting kissed. And George W allowed his Ivy League brothers to get away with the rape.

        • Ting says:

          Amen on Immelt and Paulson. Immelt should have been fired long ago, so you gotta wonder about that GE Board.

        • Menagerie says:

          It’s been two years (?) since TARP and my blood pressure still goes sky high at this word. I still email both my senators to remind them I will NEVER forget their betrayal on this vote. Rape is just the right word.

  11. Jennifer H says:

    Thinking about and praying for Integrety1st this morning….. I sure hope it goes well for her, talk about living a nightmare :(

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      I have no idea what’s going on with her, but I hope things go well.

      • Menagerie says:

        I am with you Patriot Dreamer. Have been following the comments, but don’t know the full story. I didn’t think I had missed a thread. I read this blog more than anything else. I’ll say a prayer. Can anyone enlighten us without betraying a confidence? Or tell us where to go read about it?

        • Jennifer H says:

          She has been stalked and misrepresented by her neighbors who did not want her to build on her property. The corrupt local’s are protecting “their own” instead of protecting the true victims (she and her family). She has not gotten her fair day in court and when I read about her situation I could not believe it was in our great USA that this situation occured- and is still occuring.

  12. Patriot Dreamer says:

    24 Countries That Have Smarter Children Than America


    I take issue with the headline, but it’s an interesting read.

    • yomotley says:

      But can the THINK? If they are programmed for communism, then they can do the math but are part of a collective brain and can not think beyond the academics.

      Academic Learning can make one dumber.

      • AliRose says:

        HA! That reminds me of a conversation I had recently with another mom at my child’s school. We were talking about cartoons and she mentioned that she wouldn’t let her kids watch The Backyardigans. When I asked her why, she explained that it doesn’t teach anything…numbers, letters, colors, etc. I said, “No, it’s designed to teach about imagination and creative play.” She just stared at me and I could tell that she didn’t get it. Apparently, the big push nowadays is to teach our children to think inside the box?

    • Ad rem says:

      Sputnik Crisis anyone? (Everything old is new again…..)

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      check out The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt


  13. IAmDagny says:

    Why has Drudge not had a single mention of or link to Pigford? Are Drudge and Breitbart enemies? Odd.

    • AFinch says:

      I don’t think so. I thought Breitbart was one of the people that got Drudge’s site up and running many years ago. That is curious though.

    • yomotley says:

      I have noticed this before on something but can’t remember what it was. Could they be coordinating so this gets “acorned”, instead of saturating all the sites with the story. This also allows them to go to the next level of getting the info out before damage control kicks in to fight the story. The next level is the left keeps checking into breitbart for the latest installment and while all the Leftovers are over there, Drudge puts up a new piece of info that is able to get out there and get farther away before damage control catches up the news site has changed . Then the team B&D reverse the game. This is the accelerated “acorned” approach. If they are not doing this on purpose then they are accidental geniuses.

      damage control (DC)—It’s called Washington DC, after all!

    • It is very odd, because Drudge DID infact participate in the ACORN story (he had banners up)…but I just ‘went’ over to the DrudgeReport, did a search on Pigford, and nada. Zip. Zilch. No posts or mentions at all.

      And that really is beyond odd.

      Lets just prayer that they are ‘tag teaming’ this story somehow.

    • Ad rem says:

      Ann.. I noticed Drudge never mentioned Obama’s trying to seize total budgetary control through executive powers either.


      Ann’s latest aticle…”Santa Clause: Bringing the Smackdown”


  14. AFinch says:

    Hey all. I just did a check of the spam/moderation que and there were several comments from regular posters hung up there. The common theme . . . Palin. All of the comments either attached an article from or mentioned Palin. Perhaps we should start using a code name for her. ;-)

  15. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Latino Leaders Meet Today to Oppose DREAM Act



  16. Auntie Lib says:

    Can somebody do some research on the unemployment benefits extension deal? I’ve heard some really contradictory explanations about what’s really going on. I’m just on a quick break and was hoping someone had commented on this. Seems bizarre…

  17. December 7, 1941
    Hawaii is attacked and America realizes that you can’t have peace when an enemy is at war against you.

    December 7, 2010

    Dr. Fukino unexpectedly departs the Hawaiian Department of Health, and all of America may soon realize that an ineligible usurper, who is at war against this country, hasn’t just attacked our country and our military, he is currently leading both!

  18. First of all, prayers for our friend Integrity1st! I know, from yesterday’s thread, she is going thru something pretty ‘big’ today…and she is in my thoughts and prayers.

    Now onto ‘news.’ More than ever I am beginning to think that WikiLeaks/Julian Assange is news now to cover for the IMPEACHABLE offenses of Pigford’s I and II.

    Why? Drudge’s headline involved Julian’s lack of use of a condom.


    The lack of use of, ahh, ‘protection’ is now Interpol manhunt worthy? Or, in some weird historical turn of our culture, is Julian’s Trojan avoidance our generation’s ‘we got Al Capone on tax evasion’ moment?

    I truly believe this is smoke and mirrors (look over here!!!). Pigford and Obama’s duplicity and conspiracy is the story that needs attention.

  19. Okay fellow honeys, if anyone who can cut and paste (I can’t get it to work from the computer I am using right now) but speaking of Matt, Drudge has a photo up of Barky, midpage. He looks awful (not sure if it is from yesterday or not) but in addition to the vacant eyes, he has a weird, squiggly veiny thingy showing on his forehead. He doesn’t look well.

  20. PhillyCon says:


    I had a feeling this was going to happen .. Christie’s PR honeymoon can only last for so long. It’s only a matter of time before he gets demonized too, just watch.


  21. Bijou says:

    And now for something completely different…
    Even though it’s Photoshopped (and very well done), I guaran-damn-tee it will make you smile!

    • Ad rem says:

      That was extremely well done.

      • sundancecracker says:

        Sadly a recognition of how far leftist we have moved the entire national dialogue when a two year tax rate freeze, a 35% estate tax, and an extension of unemployment benefits to 160+ months is considered a loss by the left.

        Think about it?

  22. Amsterdam Expat says:

    Once again Sarah Palin offers advice as wise as it is tough. Will Governors-Elect Moonbeam and Cuomo pay heed? (I know I ought to put limits on my rhetorical questions, but they’re so easy …)


  23. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Recent interview with Bill Ayers:

    December 1, 2010

    I Never Denounced W.U. Violence: Ayers Compares Weather Underground to WikiLeaks


  24. Patriot Dreamer says:

    I Want A Hippopotamus For Christmas

  25. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Ted Turner urges global one-child policy to save planet


    Coming from an elitist with five children.

  26. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Palin Success Triggered FCC Complaints
    Voting, hug angered “Dancing with the Stars” viewers


    • Thomas Hooker says:

      One complainant says “I want my Government to protect me the viewer from deceptive practices.” They don’t like something – there outta be a law!

      There are clearly plenty of people that want to live in a government-run zoo. They keep forgetting the government might change, and they might not like what it changes into.

    • Kristi says:

      What a bunch of dopes.

  27. Patriot Dreamer says:

    ObamaCare waivers double in 3 weeks:


    If it’s so great, then why does anybody need a waiver?

  28. Ad rem says:

    Okay…which one of us is going to crawl through the monitor and smack this ‘bony handed’ b@*#h upside the head? (Just be careful not to bruise her hands!)

  29. Kristi says:

    Elizabeth Edwards died today.

    • Menagerie says:

      Ad rem I think I saw you in this video. Were you the white kitty?

      • Ad rem says:

        I was the one playing with the blue package near the beginning. One of the crew put catnip in there and I went a little nuts. (I see my disgusting sot of a brother-in-law couldn’t keep his head out of the toilet.)

        Menagerie…was that you “fa-la-la-la-la-ing” at the screened door? (You threw in some fancy footwork too there!) ;-)

  30. sundancecracker says:

    Menagerie, in response to your previous query and opinions about “vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable”… Allow me to propose the following personal considerations. First, it is imperative that one would consider and recognize the ideological “tone of the time”. Indeed when William F Buckley coined the phrase that has recently gained so much traction, we were in a completely different ideological time. It can be argued, and I would support such argument, that the phrase is completely irrelevent in todays political climate. We have moved entirely too far left, away from center, for this phrase to hold the same level of merit. Additionally who is defining this position of “electable”.? The Media? Who?

    Consider this. Yesterday President Obama announced a 2 year federal income tax rate freeze, a 35% estate tax, and a 160+ month unemployment payment program, yet it was considered a loss (too far a concession) to his Democrat base. Think about it. WTF !! Those things are considered a concession.? Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot* indeed. Wake up and smell the coffee, step back and think about that, it’s madness from the position of financial conservatism. Yet the professional pundits “Rove”, “Morris” et al, called it a huge win for Republicans. Think about it. It sure as heck was a far cry from a win for Freedom. What would have been a “win” if those items are considered a “loss”? Think about it.

    If you were to use a scale to calculate ideologically politically defined freedom where -0- is on the left and represents absolute governmental control ‘totalitarianism communism’, 10 is on the right and represents absolute ‘freedom’ (*Anarchy), Socialism is around “2″, mainstream conservatism is around “6″, the founding principles of liberty (limited constitutionally strict government, a pure constitutional republic) would be around “8″. So in 1789 we were around an 8 on this freedom scale and stayed there for pretty much 130-140 years. Then around 1930 we moved to 6/7, then with the ‘new deal’ growth of government we moved to around 5 and maintained there slowly drifting in tenths of places toward the left until around 2003. Then with the patriot act we shifted to around a 4 and we hung there until recently when Obama quickly took us to around a 3 maybe even arguably a 2.5.

    But, so not to split hairs lets just agree that we have significantly moved left. Indeed, if renouned Democrats JFK, or Bobby Kennedy, were alive today their positions and political ideology would firmly plant them as conservative and a Republican. Period. Kennedy was NO fan of labor unions and saw them as capitalistic ‘socialistic’ control mechanisms, especially in the public employee labor market, where they were staunch opponents. OK enough with the history.

    So applying a historical context of William F Buckley’s quote to modern political ideological disconnect, the quote is better phrased “vote for the candidate that will reduce your freedom the least, and still get elected”. Did that make you go “YIKES”? ………….It should.

    Why do we have to choose a candidate based on our willingness to define, and give up, freedoms that are not endowed by government in the first place. (“Keep your hands off my junk”). But, that very question reflects the current disparity between “liberal progressives” and “Conservative fundamentalists”. Elites and Decepticons exist on either end of the scale and their primary commonality is despotism. They govern by rules of their own ideological establishment. They do not need the ‘consent’ of the governed.

    So what to do? Well, if fear of giving up more of your freedom is important to you then the primary position to take is to look at core values and throw out the considerations of traditional platform planks. This appears to be the connection that establishes commonality with the Tea Party. Specific social platform issues are secondary now, still attached to conservative ideology, but significantly less important. Ironically, the overall loss of freedom has brought modern day conservatives, closer to positions of tolerance if not outright acceptance on lifestyle choices.

    So to answer your question, in my opinion, the primary and most significant defining position for a political candidate today is a return to strict foundational principles of our founders. Liberty and Freedom must be re-emphasized and all other issues must first run through the filter of “will this increase liberty/freedom, or will it diminish it”? Will this candidate reinforce states rights, or will this candidate grow federal govt. The latter will most certainly lead toward greater socialism. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Fiscally this has become even more difficult because amid the electorate 47% of the voting citizenry no longer pay any amount in federal income taxes. And they have a vested interest in voting on various status quo positions. Indeed, the new beginning point base of income for tax collection is around $75,000/yr. Co-incidently the same financial definition Barack Obama places upon the middle class. Those individuals and families making between $75k and $150K per year. So any fiscally prudent, truely conservative candidate running for office now has to face the reality that the best interests of their state, or our national republic might run counter intuitive to the best interests of ‘those specific’ 47%. How many candidates can successfully stand on that principled ground and get elected.?

    This is not a time for pragmatism. We cannot stand at 2.5 or 3.0 on the freedom scale and seriously contemplate “concessions” while at the same time holding an opinion that in doing so we can save our constitutional republic.

    • Jennifer H says:

      Go Sundance, and imho I believe this should be a seperate post. *grin*

    • emmajeri1010 says:

      Your statement “this is not a time for pragmatism” is one worth throwing into conversations…. Thank you for your discussion on this…you expressed where I am, and help me understand why I’m there. Your comments reinforce my instincts. Thanks.

    • Ad rem says:

      Well said my fried. I’m tired of being forced to tolerate this steady march to the left. Both parties are headed in that direction…one just faster than the other.

    • Menagerie says:

      Thank you so much for such a well thought response. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Husband and I are down with the flu.

      I agree with everything you said. I believe that if many of the more well known democrats from the sixties and seventies were alive today, they would not recognize their party. From your scale above, it seems to me that the Dems are virtually “overlaying” the Socialists. The scale is sliding ever leftward, and Republicans (for the most part as a party) are shifting with this slide, ever more to the left. So that means we have become accustomed to and expected to vote for candidates, especially lifers, who are less and less constitutionally and fiscally conservatitive because we are told, look at the alternative.

      A crap sandwitch is still a crap sandwitch, whether it is served as an appetizer, or the main course. I believe the tea party has changed this dynamic somewhat, or at least shows promise of doing so. I also agree with the comment above in my original post that money is changing this scenario. Never before the last two years and my interest in blogs like this did I knowledgeably follow politics in other states, and people like me are now contributing financially to races we have no local or personal interest in.
      I agree with another commenter – so much of your choice depends on whether you are looking at the long term or short term result.

      We are so screwed by the elite political class, and the Liberal “I dream of Utopia socialists”. We are not going to stop this by electing ever more liberal Rebublicans. If we let them keep giving us The Poster Boy Rino and keep voting him in out of desperation, are we not pre WWII Europe giving ground to Germany? I am beginning to believe we must hurt these b*****ds enough to make them come around and hello, represent US. We cannot do it if we allow them to keep their office for the sake of immediate appeasement. We have some very hard choices to make.

      Thanks to all of you who gave me your ideas on this. How I value having this place to seek out your ideas and counsel.

      Off to doctor. Sorry for typos – I wanted to squeeze this in first.

      • sundancecracker says:

        Menagerie, at the heart of your recognition is the root cause for our nations ‘polarization’ and extreme differences. Damn straight Conservatives and Tea Party members (the six’s) are going to be a heck of a long way from progressives (the twos). Hence the reason the left calls us radicals, extremists, et al.

        If we would conceed our sense of freedom and allow ourselves to be a three or four they would just label us as ‘independents, or moderates’. But, actually taking exception to a loss of freedom and liberty now makes you a radical. Oh well, an extremist I be !!!

  31. WeeWeed says:

    I was going to post the very strange article about how the Mossad was responsible for shark attacks in Egypt. I’m sorry, but I simply couldn’t stop laughing long enough to hit the right buttons….haaaahaaaahaaaaaa! Yo, go Mossad! Haaahaaahaaaaaaaa……

  32. emmajeri1010 says:

    What we have on our plate today:
    1. Elizabeth Edwards has died, having been trashed by her husband.
    2. obama lost major ground to both dems and pubs.
    3. Assange arrested for not using a condom (apparently).

    4. Billions of $/worth of hundred dollar bills worthless because of incompetence.
    5. TSA still taking naked pictures of citizens.
    6. The pigs are lining up at the Pigford Settlement Teats.
    7. There is still no Federal budget for the FY.
    8. Taliban in Afghanistan are released after being captured by American forces.
    9. NOW Upton wants to change his mind about the stupid toxic curly bulbs????
    10. The Doc Fix is cancelled/postponed/ignored again….

    The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are two things I want affirmative answers to:
    Is somebody, anybody, somewhere, someday….planning to STOP obama?

    Are there any Americans in Congress who will STOP the spending?

    That’s all I want to know. It’s actually been a light chaos/news day, compared to some we’ve been through recently. Unfortunately, all that means is that for the moment we are drowning in 75 feet of water instead of 78.

  33. Glad I stopped by Tuesday’s thread, Wednesday morning…

    1. Very sad news; prayers for her surviving children, and may she rest in eternal peace.
    2. Any Barky loss is a gain for the rest of us!
    3. TrojanGate?

    4. Same ole same ole…
    5. TSA, making Khloe Kardashian newsworthy.
    6. Some pigs are waaaaaay more equal than others.
    7. We don’t neeed no steeenking budget…
    8. Prayers for our Troops…
    9. DOWN with Upton…
    10. I am too confusted by Doc Fix ;P

    And, we are in sooooo deep, we will never be in ‘shallow’ water again in our lifetimes!!!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.