Barack Obama, American

So civil discourse has disappeared? I would agree with that. People are very angry about what is happening to our nation.

The deficit in the president's budget for this year is so large, we could tax every individual taxpayer at a 100% income tax rate (take it all in other words) and the additional revenue would not close the deficit! And now the president proposes cuts in the budget of a mere $10 billion when the deficit is expected to be $1.7 trillion for the year--that proposed cut is less than 1% of the deficit! And get this, the Republicans are such geniuses they propose only $50 billion in cuts or 3% of the deficit. Nobody in Washington gets it except Ron Paul, and the media portrays him as crazy.

Folks we need cuts of $1.5 trillion to save this country. Otherwise the US dollar goes the way of every fiat currency that has preceded it; it will eventually become worthless, wiping out the savings of all americans.

I am not optimistic about our economic future.

As for civility, "Beware the ides of March!" Julius Ceasar was stabbed to death in the Roman Senate by 23 stab wounds while 60 senators watched in 44 BC. Yet they were all honorable men....eh?

Mike,

Alot of people are too cowardly to stand up and answer hard questions. They prefer to attack the one asking the question and try and twist words to evade answering. I find that incredibly incivil.

Some pusillanimous folks even try to justify thier point of view by claiming others do the same thing, and then turn around and condemn the other side. It is good to see that you do not.

It is nice to see that you have the courage, intelligence and willpower to answer all questions posed to you.

Mike - I have always enjoyed your selective memory and your selective indignation. The hate and the ugliness has always come from your side of the aisle.

I contend that the birth certificate issue is moot. To hell with the Birth Certificate, let's see some of his grades from college. Let's see one single paper Obama wrote in college. Just one. Let's see some medical records, records of how Obama paid for all these expensive schools with no visible means of support.

Ah well, you'll dismiss all that, I know.

What you Liberals, Communists and Socialists can not seem to get into your indoctrinated heads is this: Barack Obama's policies and actions are most definitely un-American.

His policies are so devastating and so ugly for the future of this country, one almost must conclude that he is doing damage to the country on purpose.

And Mike - try and understand this, government does not create jobs. The private sector creates jobs. Every job that government makes, two or three jobs, in the private sector, are killed.

Wise up, please. I know it's tough when you have spent all your life in one indoctrination center after another.

You've never made a payroll, have you Mike?

Never had to raise money to start a business, have you Mike?

That's okay, not everybody can do it, start a business, survive with crippling taxation, over-regulation and government interference.

Just try and have a little respect for those that do. You have such remarkable admiration for those who sit in classrooms all their life, but disdain for those who fight to build and keep a business, and employee people.

"You have such remarkable admiration for those who sit in classrooms all their life, but disdain for those who fight to build and keep a business, and employee people."

I do? That's news to me. Thank you for telling me what my opinion is. I don't know what I would do without you.

"The hate and the ugliness has always come from your side of the aisle."

Because we all know that you would never say anything hateful or ugly about anyone that disagrees with you Sam, well except for your post that follows that statement.

I think the main difference between yourself and I Sam is that you refuse to see the hate and ugliness coming from your own side, you in fact, in the past have called that very hate and ugliness that comes from your side as "civil". I at least recognize that it does come from both sides.

"I contend that the birth certificate issue is moot. To hell with the Birth Certificate, let's see some of his grades from college. Let's see one single paper Obama wrote in college. Just one. Let's see some medical records, records of how Obama paid for all these expensive schools with no visible means of support."

What does any of his college grades or papers have to do with medical records or where he was born? The entire paragraph really makes no sense. You don't want me to be dismissive? Explain what in the world you are talking about.

"What you Liberals, Communists and Socialists" well at least you managed to leave Nazis and fascist out of it. I had grown tired of being called something that wasn't even in the realm of political ideology reality.

"His policies are so devastating and so ugly for the future of this country, one almost must conclude that he is doing damage to the country on purpose."

Do you have proof of this or are you just making it up? Speaking of doing damage to the country, does it bother you that the Republicans $50 billion cuts are estimated to cost hundreds of thousands of people there jobs?

"Every job that government makes, two or three jobs, in the private sector, are killed."

Again do you have proof or are you just making it up?

"Mike - I have always enjoyed your selective memory and your selective indignation. The hate and the ugliness has always come from your side of the aisle. "

Sam - I have always enjoyed your made up facts, selective posted stories and hate and ugliness directed at anyone you consider to be liberal while castigating those same people for the very same hate and ugliness you direct.

Sam is right about jobs and government. The government is supported by the private sector, not the other way around.

If government can really create jobs, then we should get the government to hire us all achieve a 0% unemployment. But then how could the taxes pulled from those government employees at say 25 or 30% support 100% of their salaries.

You only have to think clearly for a few minutes to discover why Quantitative Easing does not work.

When you talk to a liberal, be aware that for them it's all about "feelings" and logic seldom enters into it.

They feel that we should take from the rich and give to the poor, so things are fair and they can feel good about it. But logic will tell you that if you take from the rich, the rich will depart for nations where they are treated more fairly. And then you are left with only the poor.

If you check the residence of many wealthy persons, you will find that they are residents of the Bahamas, China, Switzerland, etc in order to avoid taxes. The US is almost alone in taxing your worldwide income regardless of where it was earned.

Boomer they do that in order to avoid most if not all taxes not because they are overtaxed. I, for one, am not going to be told that I am supposed to feel sorry because the people making the most amount of money should be paying the most amount of taxes.

You talk about how for liberals its all about feelings and not logic, yet your very next statement is nothing but your feelings about taxes and you leave all logic out of the equation.

The rich, in comparison to the poor, pay substantially less in taxes in poor. While it is true that they pay more the level they pay percentage wise is less.

"The US is almost alone in taxing your worldwide income regardless of where it was earned."

Is this fact and logic based or just your "feeling".

Just another great example of someone knowing nothing of liberalism professing to be an expert at what liberals "believe".

I'm a liberal and I believe that we should pay taxes proportional to what we make. If we make less we should be pay less percentage wise in taxes. If we make more we should pay more. Right now is completely the other way around because of the belief in trickle down economics which is a proven failure.

Why don't you talk about the deficit and all the spending when there is a republican president Ocho?

Last time I checked the republicans spend dollars like its going out of style as well and the national debt has been an enormous number for quite sometime now.. Through many Republican and Democratic Presidents...

But its all Obama's fault though right...

The Bush boys didn't spend at all right??

Don't get your panties in a bunch with the national debt...

This country will be fine..

It has seen way way way way way way worse times and struggled and managed and adapted just fine.

JUST SAYIN'

Mike,

Have you ever made comments about the Bush's first term and legitimacy?

So when you complain against the people who are just looking for a cheap shot and not debating, are you speaking about yourself as well?

The government gave KBR billions in no bid contracts. Im guessing this created several jobs for KBR. So, did KBR create these jobs, or did the government?

I have little or no interest in giving my feeling on this subject that is being argued about, but I see you guys & gals if any, are talking about the rich. I was listening to a morning talk show that is very funny and they just happen to be talking about billionaires and how Bill Gates is no longer #1, so I looked this up when I got home and found this very interesting.

The World's Billionaires 2011.

This 25th year of tracking global wealth was one to remember. The 2011 Billionaires List breaks two records: total number of listees (1,210) and combined wealth ($4.5 trillion). This horde surpasses the gross domestic product of Germany, one of only six nations to have fewer billionaires this year. BRICs led the way: Brazil, Russia, India and China produced 108 of the 214 new names. These four nations are home to one in four members, up from one in ten five years ago. Before this year only the U.S. had ever produced more than 100 billionaires. China now has 115 and Russia 101.

Atop the heap is Mexico's Carlos Slim Helu, who added $20.5 billion to his fortune, more than any other billionaire. The telecom mogul, who gets 62% of his fortune from America Movil, is now worth $74 billion and has pulled far ahead of his two closest rivals. Bill Gates, No. 2, and Warren Buffett, No. 3, both added a more modest $3 billion to their piles and are now worth $56 billion and $50 billion, respectively. Gates, who now gets 70% of his fortune from investments outside of Microsoft, has actually been investing in the Mexican stock market and has holdings in Mexican Coke bottler Femsa and Grupo Televisa.

While nearly all emerging markets showed solid gains, wealth creation is moving at an especially breakneck speed in Asia-Pacific. The region now has a record 332 billionaires, up from 234 a year ago and 130 at the depth of the financial crisis in 2009. Sizzling stock markets are behind the surge. Three-fourths of Asia's 105 newcomers get the bulk of their fortunes from stakes in publicly traded companies, 25 of which have been public only since the start of 2010.

Regardless of the law, the DOJ should be required to enforce every law that is on the books. If the DOJ doesn't like a law and chooses not to enforce it, then why do you even need elected representatives if a bureaucrat can strip away the force of law, unilaterally? What if a Republican is elected President and chooses not to enforce the Health Insurance Reform Law? You don't get to choose the laws you will enforce. If there's a law you don't like as DOJ bureaucrat then encourage Congress to repeal the law. The President telling the DOJ to not enforce a law passed by Congress is a blatant violation of the checks and balances which were set up in this country, whether it's enforcing health reform by a Republican President or enforcing DOMA by a Democratic President. There is a process for repealing laws in the legislative branch or challenging their constitutionality in the legal branch but there is no injunction against its enforcement nor is there a bill that has repealed it. The Executive branch can not assume powers that it does not possess.

Mike,

"I'm a liberal and I believe that we should pay taxes proportional to what we make. If we make less we should be pay less percentage wise in taxes. If we make more we should pay more. Right now is completely the other way around because of the belief in trickle down economics which is a proven failure."

That's how our tax system is set up now. The lower income levels pay 10-15% on their income. Someone at the top pay 33-35% on their income. That looks proportional to me. So the real question is how much is enough for you? Once you add in a state income tax, you creep closer and closer to people at the top paying half of their income in taxes. So what is the ideal tax rate, Mike? Again, how much is enough?

The fact remains that the "rich" pay a super majority of taxes in this country. The "Rich" are already punished for having the audacity to be successful.

I just saw a T-Shirt that said: If I had one dollar for every time that Capitalism is blamed for something that is the fault of government, I'd could be a fat filmmaker wearing a ball cap.

As Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with Capitalism is SOME Capitalists. The problem with Socialism is Socialism."

Again, I make my point that a government worker paying income taxes, is not true revenue, not true taxes being paid. When a government employee pays income taxes it is therefore a refund of over-payment of wages.

I do not say this to offend, but we must, if we are ever going to find a solution to the mess created by liberals and their thirst for bigger and bigger government, we must be able to speak the truth.

Also, Barack Obama has run up more taxpayer debt in one year than the Bush Administration ran up in 8 years, and that includes the war effort you liberals use to try and scold. War is a legitimate function of government, welfare is not.

Don't put words in my mouth, I'd prefer not to have any wars. However, welfare, and a bloated runaway oppressive government, is more devastating than war.

War can liberate and defend. Bloated governments, and the push to create a liberal oligarchy, to enslave people to live in a constant state of need and government dependency, crushes dreams and destroys thought.

After all Michael, it is you who are here asking us to feel sorry for Obama. Poor poor Obama, he has been so mistreated. And yet, Obama has flourished, and made millions in a system you, and Obama, seem to hate so much.

Thus: Liberalism is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I beg to differ there Sammy....

Under the Bush administration and still to this day it is costing us Millions of dollars a day just to have our troops over in Iraq...

And what have we done over there??

Was there weapons of mass destruction???

Is there tons of oil over there??

Is Dick Cheney on the Board for Halberton Oil??

Are gas companies making millions off of oil??

So if you were involved with oil and had the power to influence sales and the ownership of foriegn oil it may be in your best interest to be involved and may make a profitable gain wouldn't you say???

Maybe Bush and Cheney we pretty smart after all??

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS A DAY!!!

You do the Math of whose spending whose $$$ at an uncontrolable pace...

Sam your Math just doesn't add up buddy!

So no I don't think any president will ever get close to the amount of money the Bush administration cost this country...

Now lets blame the guy and the people who are left to pick up all the pieces...

I don't know if they are doing right wrong or otherwise but that is left to be seen

It's like trying to keep up with cleaning manure on a 100,000 head of cow feed lot...

Thanks Bushy!!!

Halliburton is not an oil company it is a service company. All of the oil contracts in Iraq have gone to foreign companies also.

How was the war in Iraq over oil? If American companies are not producing and selling the oil?

Didn't say it was over oil.. Just sayin' makes you go HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

"I do not say this to offend, but we must, if we are ever going to find a solution to the mess created by liberals and their thirst for bigger and bigger government, we must be able to speak the truth."

Well when you do speak the truth I'll be on the edge of my seat Sam. Then again when you see everyone as liberal that believes differently than you I can see where you would believe that ONLY liberals pushy for bigger and bigger governments because that includes every President and Congressman we have ever had.

"Also, Barack Obama has run up more taxpayer debt in one year than the Bush Administration ran up in 8 years, and that includes the war effort"

Actually Sam no, the Bush numbers don't include the war effort. They left those numbers off every time they released a budget. Obama has included both wars in his budget from the very beginning. Having said that your numbers (though you don't actually offer any numbers just a vague "more") simply don't add up.

"After all Michael, it is you who are here asking us to feel sorry for Obama. Poor poor Obama, he has been so mistreated."

I'm not asking anything from you Sam because no matter how much proof is thrown at you, you will never believe that Obama is an American which is kind of sad really. All the things his opponents could go after and yet some still want to proclaim that he wasn't born here or raised here.

"War is a legitimate function of government, welfare is not."

For starters I would really love to hear your thoughts on why exactly you feel that war is a legitimate function of government. I would say that the military is a legitimate form, but war is sadly a necessary evil. Hardly a legitimate function.

If welfare is not a legitimate function of government then you have been against this government from the beginning. The federal government has had a form of welfare since it's inception.

"Don't put words in my mouth"

"And yet, Obama has flourished, and made millions in a system you, and Obama, seem to hate so much."

It's really interesting that you don't want words put in your mouth yet you have no qualms what-so-ever putting words in other people's mouths and thoughts in their head.

Wallis, you say that ALL the oil contracts in Iraq have gone to foreign companies, but that isn't exactly true, is it?

Occidental is a US company and owns roughly 23.44% of the Zubair field which is second among the companies that are on that field.

Exon, and American company, owns 60% of West Qurna 1 field.

The Unites States as a whole produces 16% of the field that comes out of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil#2009_Oil_services_contracts

That is a far cry from ALL is it not?

You are also splitting hairs with the Halliburton quote. While it is not an oil company per se it is an oil services company that deals in oil and natural gas.

Michael, you say everyone should pay taxes proportionately. How about the 47% of the people in the US who pay nothing on their income? The top 10% of taxpayers already pay over half--do you want them to pay for everything so everybody else gets a free ride? The top 10% paid over 70% of individual taxes in 2007 http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html

And if they earned part of their income in another country why should they pay US tax on it? You seem not to believe this, but I can guarantee it's a fact.

Who do you think the rich are? Most of them did not inherit it, they earned it in their lifetimes. And most of their kids will squander it if the government doesn't take it.

I don't ask you to feel sorry for the rich; I ask you to understand that it's in your own self interest to treat them fairly. If they leave for better places your taxes will certainly go up.

sam,

still looking for a republican who shrank government.

good one stinko, you uncovered a politican breaking a promise. A first im sure.

Ochosinco,

Shame on you for saying that teachers are not working. None of them are doing anything unethical. Ask Mike! I am sure he would be happy to answer any and all questions. He always has for me. He never cowardly dodges a question and tries to twist what I say into something else. And any other idiot that says it is unethical to seek redress from your government, poo on you! YOU ARE WRONG! I know there must be someone that has done it, because mike sez people are doing it! I know I didn't but someone else must have! But then again, if you are doing what you believe in, it is ethical, according to mike.

point of contention Michael re Wallis' comment. I know we think on opposite wavelengths, but I took Wallis' comment to mean that foreign companies also got oil contracts, that American companies were not the ONLY ones getting the contracts.

If that is what he meant doodle then please explain why he would say that "all" the contracts went to foreign companies? Better yet tell me how you came to the conclusion that's what he meant?

But at least something good has come from all of this, the FleeBaggers are coming home now!

They can, along with the teachers, get back to doing the jobs they are being paid to do!

And the SEIU goons can go home and get ready for another uprising, coming soon, to a place near you!

Be there or be square!

Makes me be ashamed to be a Democrat!

-- Posted by ochosinco on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 8:02 AM

First of all if you are so ashamed of being a Democrat because people are exercising their rights and freedoms and that Senators from a state you don't even live in choose to "strike" rather than allow the other party shove down their throats a bill that has no impact on the budget (which the Republicans did anyways by rebranding the bill they said was so important to the state's budget a non-budgetary bill) then by all means switch parties. It is allowed. I've never met anyone in either party that had so much disdain for their own party as you and then stay in the party.

But it does show just how much "balance" you bring to the argument. Show one side respect by remaining silent when they do unwise things and make "jumping to conclusion" remarks, but go on the attack when someone from your own (supposedly) party by calling them all kinds of names.

Then again I highly doubt you are a registered Democrat. After all it's not hard to make a claim that you don't have to back up. After all, Bill O'Reilly has claimed to have registered as an Independent for years despite the fact that every time he has registered he has done so as a Republican.

Michael, you could be correct re Wallis' comment, but I seriously doubt it. From reading his other comments, I believe Wallis has probably been in the oil business long enough to know whether or not foreign and American oil companies are receiving oil contracts.

"Then again I highly doubt you are a registered Democrat. After all it's not hard to make a claim that you don't have to back up."

Again, anyone who disagrees with Mike is a "liar"

It's easy for someone to claim they love dogs, but you haven't proven than you do love dogs, I think you're just lying again.

"It really doesn't matter what you believe, cause you will believe what you choose to believe, just as it is my right to do the same."

You are absolutely correct, just as it is your right to claim that you are a registered Democrat but only go after the actions of Democrats and perceived liberals while ignoring the actions of Republicans and conservatives it is my right to question whether you truly are a registered Democrat. Despite other posters constantly claiming that I have called you a liar I have not. Are you lying? I don't know, and frankly I don't care. I just bring this up to point out once again that you recently stated that you are trying to bring "balance" to this blog despite your comments doing quite the opposite.

You say you want to bring balance to the boards? Back up your claim and bring some balance.

So, from this point forward I am not going to talk or discuss those people who think that it is all fun and games when they use their eliminationist rhetoric for all to see. Just a few of the people that will no longer appear in my blog are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. Their words and actions over the last few years have lead to innocent people being killed. Their rhetoric over the last few years have been the final straw that have lead unbalanced people to take actions that they probably would not have without that rhetoric.

post by Michael 01/09/11

It's fairly interesting that Sarah Palin, who apparently does not like being thrust into the spotlight, has come out and said that a supposed boycott of her in the social networking world was actually good because now she can't be blamed for the uprising in Egypt. Swing and a miss.

post by Michael 01/31/11

They wont go away.........They wont go away...........They wont go away!!!!!!! arrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhh

Then again I highly doubt you are a registered Democrat. After all it's not hard to make a claim that you don't have to back up. After all, Bill O'Reilly has claimed to have registered as an Independent for years despite the fact that every time he has registered he has done so as a Republican.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 10:43 AM

and I know I missed a couple.

aaaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is one HUGE fact you are leaving out, sinco, I have never once claimed to be balanced. You, on the other hand, have.

Trying to change the narrative is always a good try but again you say you bring balance yet you don't practice what you claim.

"I have never once claimed to be balanced"

True you don't pretend to be fair either, however, you do claim to not be a hypocrite, this claim is not supported by your actions and words.

Mike,

Are you talking about mentally balanced? It all begins to become clear to me now.......

loathe as I am to defend Michael, he has written on occasion that he does, sometimes, indulge in hypocrisy.

doodle bug,

I have no problem with people who acknowledge their hypocrisy, but Michael spends much of his blog attacking others for the hypocritical things he does. I honestly don't remember him admitting his hypocrisy, I suppose it is possible that my memory is faulty or that I missed those posts. Could you refresh my memory?

I spent a good portion of time point out his blatant hypocrisy during his latest blog about hypocrisy which he tried to evade.

As I have stated several times, the deficits are the fault of BOTH parties! Both parties are performing like "Spenders Gone Wild" at a spring break party. And there has been plenty of uncivil rhetoric from both parties.

Since it is unsustainable, it will stop, either voluntarily or when it is forced upon us by creditors who will no longer lend to the US. If we choose the latter, our currency will be printed until it is worthless which will wipe out all the savings of our people. Inflation benefits the government and borrowers, and it ruins savers and investors.

But every time any cuts are proposed, a bunch of folks, who have a vested interest in the programs to be cut, rise up in vociferous protest. Like the teachers in Wisconsin, the teachers in New Jersey, public workers in California, AARP over social security cuts, farmers over subsidy cuts, cities over cuts to federal revenue sharing, the pentagon over cuts to defense spending. Nearly everyone in the country is receiving government benefits of some sort, and nobody is ready to relinquish any of them.

Easy credit always leads to tough times. So I believe tough times are coming in the next 5 years. I believe the riots in the Middle East could be headed for a city near you when the money runs out or becomese worthless. This would be a good time to start preparing.

I love how mike seems to be the one who gets the brunt of the assualts. I see less and less debate on what he has presented and more and more "ingore what mike said and attack mike". I guess when you are out of ideas you attack the messinger.

bigdawg,

Good advice, heed it. But realize, if you "attack ideas" really thin skinned people take it personally.

Mike,

I am tired of waiting for you to answer my questions on the older blog, since you brought up the question of ethics of the teachers calling in sick to protest, I ask again, was it ethical for them to lie about their wherabouts and go and protest? After all the unions told them to go back to work and keep the protests to the weekends. Were they being oppressed by the unions? Please don't try and twist my question into an attack on the institution of protest and seeking redress for legitimate grievences again. They are two different things.

For bigdawgs sake I will try to refrain from attacking you personally, I hope you repay the courtesy. Please answer my questions this time around. Feel free to ask me some too, I love talking ethics and morals. That goes for anyone else. Seeing the level of ethical thinking around here always amazes me.

Sir Didymus - The key to ethics is being consistent. I am amazed at the inconsistencies that is posted on this blog on a daily basis. Things can be typed and points argued, then Mike just pretends it is a brand new day.

I have two ideas as to why that is. One has to deal with focus and intelligence. The other deals with just wanting to fight for the sake of fighting. I sense that Mike is a smart guy so I lean towards the fight for the sake of fighting which is something I am not down with.

BTW I do enjoy your posts along with Ocho........

Wallis

I dont nesessarly think what is ethical is absolute across the spectrum of people. More of a moral relativism.

"since you brought up the question of ethics of the teachers calling in sick to protest"

Actually Didymus I didn't bring up the question of ethics with teachers calling in sick to protest.

But I did in fact, answer your question there and I have even answered them here, you apparently just do not accept my answers so you continue asking questions as if I haven't answered at all. As Wallis said you are apparently making these arguments for the sake of the fight and nothing else.

The other issue I have with you Didymus is that you ask leading questions purposely seeking to get someone to answer in such a way as you can go after them.

I will answer your question one more time, I have no issues and I see no ethical problems with people calling in sick to protest something that they see the government doing that may be infringing their rights. Whether it be union people or TEA Party people. The problem here is, ethics are not clearly defined, they have never been because people see different meanings to ethics.

I find it highly unethical for a Senator to hold hearings on the perceived threat of terrorism of but not of any other group. I also find it highly unethical for the same man to hold these hearings when he once supported the terrorist methods of the IRA. Other people see it as perfectly acceptable.

I only claimed to be here to provide "balance" to your rantings!

HUGE job, but someone has to do it!

-- Posted by ochosinco on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 3:15 PM

Considering that there are a host of other posters doing the exact same thing sinco it just seems to be more of adding on then providing balance.

Another point of your hypocrisy which you completely deny. You want me to show outrage over an emailed death threat against the Republicans in Wisconsin. While I do think it is unacceptable for anyone to threaten the life of any political figure, what I want to know is if you truly are here to provide a balance to me, if I did would you then show outrage over the death threats to Democrats or would you be silent yet again?

sw, sorry I dont have a specific post to point to (I am not going back through all of them), but I do know that Michael has admitted to hypocrisy. I dont think anyone can post without occasionally succumbing to hypocrisy (myself included).

That being said, I will also state that sometimes I find Michael's responses to be extremely difficult to follow (probalby senility on my part).

no doodle, not senility. Some of them are hard to follow or I just dont care enough to read it carefully.

bigdawg raises an interesting point about ethics.

"I dont nesessarly think what is ethical is absolute across the spectrum of people. More of a moral relativism."

If relatively speaking it is morally correct to fly a plane into a building or blow up civilians does that make it ethical to do so?

Mike,

If you have no ethical problems with protesters, why do you criticize conservative protesters and then criticize other posters for criticizing liberal protesters? Is it hypocritical to do this?

I would really like to know who says that it is morally correct to fly a plane into a building or blow up civilians SW?

transplant, this is mikes liberal blog. If he were to criticize union protesters then this would be a conservative blog.

When you ask such a large general question like that SW I could see why you believe I have done what you claim I have done. Since the claim has been made on this site that the TEA Party is not a conservative organization, I then have to wonder what conservative groups you think I have criticized.

I never criticized the TEA Party because I believed them to be conservative, I criticized them because they were protesting against things that had been done under Bush and blaming Obama for it.

Mike,

Forgive me, When you mentioned that some accused the teachers for being unethical for protesting in this blog, I thought it was a carryover from the last blog when you misunderstood what I was saying(I am being kind with that). Thats what I meant. I never really did get an answer from you about if it was ethical for teachers to call in sick to go protest or not. I still am waiting for the answer. You wiffled and dodged, but never answered. Statements like "Having said that, if a person is fighting for something they believe in and using their Constitutional rights to do so then no they are not acting in an unethical manner and therefore not violating their contract." are dodges. Well, wait. Let me ask you this. If a teacher violates his contract by calling in sick to go protest, then gets canned or not paid for the day, for abusing sick leave, do you think that he has any right to complain? Lets see how ethical and honorable you are.

And, no, you are wrong. Ethics ARE fairly clearly defined. There are different levels of moral reasoning and where you are says quite a bit about a person. I would hope that you undergo some ethics training in trying to become a full time teacher. Obviously you missed out in your pre-graduate work.

To speak for myself, if someone were acting at a low ethical level I would not trust them or want them to work in the same line of work I do. That is just me, maybe other folks don't feel the same way.

Just as a tip, google the levels of moral reasoning. There are people that do nothing but think about ethics and moral behavior, when moral behavior is defined with universal moral principles rather than cultural or sociatal principles.

bigdawg,

I am impressed! Don't take this the wrong way, but none of your comments that I have read on this blog have come across as childish. I kind of respect that.

But do look into universal principles of ethics and morals. There are articles out there that explain it better than I care to in long, rambling posts. Read what I wrote to Mike too, about the difference in universal and cultural mores.

I like to shoot low so no one expects much then BLAMMO, i try to sound like I know something.

Thanks, (i think)

You actually had me looking up stuff i had not thought about since college. Categorical imperitives etc..... Reading Kant again gave me a headache. thanks alot

If someone calls in sick to protest they are lying. If someone uses a day of vacation to protest they are playing by the rules.

If anyone sees it any different then that then they have a ethics problem.

Sick days are for when you are sick. Why would anyone use a sick day for anything other then what it is intended for??

wallis

Does that ethics scenario also apply to the oil and gas industry?

If a company continues to delay their environmental remediation obligations while at the same time posting record profits - is that procastrination or is that an ethics problem?

Why would any company that has an environmental problem that could be causing degradation to our environment and making people sick continue to put it off? Wasn't the environmental remediation expensing in last years legislation established to help industry offset their costs in this area and to create jobs?

Where are the jobs?

So is President Barack Obama, the American, doing anything at all to help Japan?

CPB

I believe he extended Japan our unconditional support in their time of need.

Japan is going through an assessment of damage and going forward with search and recovery as conditions allow - not to mention trying to eliminate some radiation escape issues at several of the Nuclear Power Stations.

He flew over in air force one and looked out the window chunky.

So Wallis would you consider falsely accusing someone of something they had not done and then demanding that the person be expelled based solely on the false accusation unethical?

perhaps they were sick, sick of walker and his attempts to bust the union.

"I would really like to know who says that it is morally correct to fly a plane into a building or blow up civilians SW?"

Members of Al Qaeda. I'm surprised you don't know that. Sorry, that isn't accurate, I'm not really surprised by your lack of intelligence any more by this point.

"Since the claim has been made on this site that the TEA Party is not a conservative organization, I then have to wonder what conservative groups you think I have criticized."

Even better, if not for philosophical reasons, why would you criticize ANY protesting group, if you then criticize others for doing the same thing? How is that not hypocritical?

Sorry if I was mistaken in thinking that you have criticized groups you thought were conservative, when in fact you did not believe they were conservative. My point remains the same regardless of affiliation, why can you criticize groups but then complain when other people criticize groups you support without it being hypocrisy?

I just want to clear the record here Mike, you do NOT think TEA Party is a conservative organization? What do you think they are?

I am anxiously awaiting the answer to this one.

ok transplant, lets try this. Mike disagrees with people that protest ideas he favors and agrees with people who protest ideas he dislikes.

He dosent have a problem with protesting, just the ideas behind the protest.

You get it now? Its not being a hypocrite to question the motives of people you disagree with and agreeing with the motives of the people you agree with. It is simply having an opnion. Its really quite simple.

Perhaps he wont respond to someone who says his blog is a waste of time yet continues to post here. Perhaps there is some hypocracy there if one looked for it.

bigdawg,

Could be, if Mike would just say that I wouldn't have any problem, however, he has called posters hypocrites for complaining about the teacher's unions protesters but not other protesters. That is what I object to, he calls people hypocrites for doing the same thing he does. And what is that a definition of?

I don't call Mike a hypocrite for having a different opinion, I call him a hypocrite for his hypocritical stances.

Do you think this blog serves some great social purpose or produces something valuable for society or something? I think all blogs are a waste of time, but as I said when you asked me, we all have to have things to do to waste time. I don't know why you seem to think wasting time is some great offense. Maybe you don't, but that is how I've interpreted your comments.

Earlier you said this: "transplant, this is mikes liberal blog. If he were to criticize union protesters then this would be a conservative blog."

I don't want Mike to criticize anyone he doesn't want to, I just want him to be consistent in what he says and the way he acts.

Mike,

If you have no ethical problems with protesters, why do you criticize conservative protesters and then criticize other posters for criticizing liberal protesters? Is it hypocritical to do this?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Mar 12, 2011, at 3:17 PM

I completely missed what you were saying here and I apologize. Since ethics and criticizing are not the same thing your statement has no actual bearing. I never said that conservative protesters were unethical, so to state that me criticizing a conservative protester is somehow hypocritical of my belief that there is nothing ethically wrong with protesting a huge stretch.

I have never, and will never, criticize protesters for the act of protesting and I will never consider someone protesting to be unethical because they are doing so. Where I criticize is when I don't agree with what they are protesting (ie TEA Party protesting against Obama for things that occurred under Bush, people protesting against the building of a mosque in a location it is not even being built, or planned).

"Members of Al Qaeda." I was just making sure that you weren't going to blame an entire religious group as morally supporting the acts of a militant minority group within their religious group. Then again you took the opportunity to "jump the shark" to once again attack my intelligence.

I just want to clear the record here Mike, you do NOT think TEA Party is a conservative organization? What do you think they are?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Mar 13, 2011, at 2:08 PM

I never said they weren't. You might want to re-read my post, you too doodle. Instead of assigning my beliefs you should really read what I say and not pretend to know what I think. What I said is that, on this site (site not on my blog but on this website) it has been stated by many posters that the TEA Party is not a conservative group. How you came to the conclusion that I was stating that I was in agreement with that statement is beyond me.

As bigdawg has perfectly explained to you and as I have tried to explain to you it is not hypocritical to criticize one group for their reasons to protest and not criticize other groups for their reasons. The hypocrisy comes in when you believe and you state that one group that is protesting should not be protesting at all and then believe and state that another group's protesting is perfectly fine.

I don't have to agree with a protester to believe that he/she has the right to protest, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with their protest and talk about it.

Under your definition of hypocritical, no one could talk, ever, because everything they said (in your view, apparently) they would be hypocritical.

bigdawg, I tend to agree with you that for someone who, in the past has called my blog a waste of time, and has publicly announced on four separate occasions that he was never posting on my blog again, and then continues to post anyways to be hypocritical. But what are you gonna do? Apparently they are that big a waste of time if he has the need to continue posting. I welcome it, personally.

"Do you think this blog serves some great social purpose or produces something valuable for society or something? I think all blogs are a waste of time, but as I said when you asked me, we all have to have things to do to waste time. I don't know why you seem to think wasting time is some great offense. Maybe you don't, but that is how I've interpreted your comments."

You were spinning your tires so hard trying to spin your own statements you got stuck in the mud. I think, and I could be wrong by the time you spin your comments again, if you actually read what bigdawg was saying was that you have called this blog a waste of time. He never said that wasting time was a huge offense, you chose to spin it that way. He asked you a very simple question, instead of answering you attacked him (something you supposedly can't stand).

"Could be, if Mike would just say that I wouldn't have any problem, however, he has called posters hypocrites for complaining about the teacher's unions protesters but not other protesters."

There you go again leaving the context out of what I have said to make it appear I have said something else. I have called them hypocrites for saying it was okay for organizations like the TEA Party to protest but not for the unions to protest. I have called them hypocrites because they had no problem with people being bussed around the United States to different states to protest for the TEA Party but objected to unions bussing in people from other states to protest in Wisconsin.

It does beg an important question: Did you even read my blog or did you just decide (again) what I had written and are basing all your comments on your thoughts?

The one example I think you are confused on, is that a poster said it was unethical for teachers to call in sick to go protest and then also stated that people in the TEA Party had not done that they only went on the weekends. When I pointed out that it was highly likely that people called in sick to go to TEA Party protests he then stated that those people were then unethical as well. I disagree with him, but at least he didn't change his argument to somehow allow that it was okay for one group but not for the other.

Mike, you say you believe we should pay taxes proportionate to what we make. I agree; everyone should pay the same percentage of their income. But you say those with higher incomes should pay at a higher rate--but that's not proportionate.

Why do you believe progressive income tax rates are so wonderful? With the bottom 47% paying nothing, and the top 10% paying 35% of their income? I know you believe progressive rates are "fair" but nobody has ever been able to justify this as "fairness"--it's merely income redistribution which is actually a type of theft.

It's the theft of funds by government process from one group to reward another group for political gain and votes. You can say it's not theft, but if I refuse to pay taxes for any extended period, a government agent will arrive to put a gun to my ribs to extract those taxes, in the same way as the mugger in the alley.

There are literally thousands of laws which punish the productive in our nation, and reward the unproductive. Karl Marx said it best, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Communism and Socialism have been tried as economic/political systems numerous times, and have been dismal failures everywhere and every time. Today, they like to call call themselves Progressives, but the game is still the same.

Yet, fools return to the same foolish ways. The US experiment with Socialism will fail, too. The reason is simple. You will work harder, smarter and more productively, if you receive a higher reward, than if everyone gets the same pay regardless of the effort they put forth. Nearly everyone is like that. When you get paid the same for working hard as you do for loafing, most people will loaf, because we all need proper incentives. Most people do things for selfish reasons, in order to improve their lot in life, not for the common good.

Utopian systems like Socialism fail unless we are all perfect and perfectly willing to work hard even when rewarded the same as the sluggard. When offered the choice of betting on mankind's adherance to self interest or common interest, you are advised to bet on the former.

well sw, we are caught by Michael again. Assigning beliefs to him. Maybe, as stated in his last paragraph from Sunday, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:17 p.m., we should just say "it is highly likely". And, as Michael pointed out in his last paragraph from Sunday, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:08 p.m., he stated that it is hypocritical to post something then go back on your word. OOOOOOOPS!! Didn't Michael post that the names Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck would never appear in his blogs again?

What I find highly indicative in all of this is that everywhere the TEA Party protests went the media followed them constantly letting us know how many people were at the protests.

The protests in Wisconsin have largely been ignored. There was a protest there today and 100,000 people showed up yet the major media outlets didn't really seem to care.

You got me doodle I am hypocritical over those four people. I vowed never to mention them again and I have. I apologize.

Though, to be fair, I have only mentioned two of them.

Of course none of them really compare to Michelle Bachmann, who doesn't even know that the Revolutionary War started, and the shot hear around the world, in Massachusetts, not in New Hampshire which she seems to believe.

boomer, I was just wondering if you know what percentage of wealth the 47% have and what percent of wealth the top 10% has in this country?

doodle, mike used those names again? Thats all you have, thats it? good job you really busted him on that one.

You are mixing up my words Boomer. I do think that everyone should pay their taxes proportionally to what they make which will therefor have the rich paying a higher amount percentage wise than they are now. Right now, percentage wise or proportionally speaking they are not paying the most.

"The US experiment with Socialism will fail, too"

Shouldn't the experiment start before it can fail. While the US has portions of its government that at best can be described as Socialism, we are not a socialistic country. There have been elements of socialism in our government from the beginning of this country. If that's the experiment I'd say it's working quite well.

"You can say it's not theft, but if I refuse to pay taxes for any extended period, a government agent will arrive to put a gun to my ribs to extract those taxes, in the same way as the mugger in the alley."

You're being a bit sensationalist don't you think? Try not to delve into scare tactics to get your point across.

"Communism and Socialism have been tried as economic/political systems numerous times, and have been dismal failures everywhere and every time."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Communism came out of a perversion of what Marx wanted through Socialism.

The truth is, no true system will ever work because it will take a perfect world for it to work. That is why the United States has thrived because over the years we have combined different forms of government and economy. We use a mix and we always have.

China was not very successful until they introduced a form of capitalism into their economy. Now they are quickly growing and will probably become the number one economy in the decades to come.

well Michael, maybe you're only half a hypocrite then. Good job, though, adding Bachmann.

and dawg, ya got me. I am truly sorry for pointing out Michael's hypocrisy. Maybe if he quit whining about it, I wouldn't point his out.

And we are all still waiting to hear who he thinks comprises the TEA party.

Mike, I didn't assign any beliefs to you. I clearly asked you a question about whether you considered TEA Party to be conservative or something else. You interpreted that as assigning beliefs.

"I just want to clear the record here Mike, you do NOT think TEA Party is a conservative organization? What do you think they are?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Mar 13, 2011, at 2:08 PM

I never said they weren't. You might want to re-read my post, you too doodle. Instead of assigning my beliefs you should really read what I say and not pretend to know what I think."

No you didn't say they were or they weren't so I wanted to know what you think. You implied that because some people claim they aren't conservative that when you criticized them you weren't criticizing a conservative group. You then asked me what conservative group I was talking about. I don't think I was out of bounds trying to understand your position, but then you decided to accuse me of things I wasn't doing....again.

I re-read your post and still think the same thing, maybe you should re-read it to see if you can understand why I was confused by your comments.

"Since the claim has been made on this site that the TEA Party is not a conservative organization, I then have to wonder what conservative groups you think I have criticized.

I never criticized the TEA Party because I believed them to be conservative"

I didn't say you criticized groups because they were conservative, only that you criticize conservative groups. When you exclude the TEA Party, I thought maybe you didn't think they were conservative, so I asked you two questions about it.

I would like to point out that mike evidentally is not ethical, or does not want anyone to know his personal ethics. Suprising, as a good liberal, Eh? Or maybe he is just mad because I suggested that some teachers aren't ethical. Who knows? Some people over react when thier Sacred Cow is gored.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

Michael, you referred to China and their turn to capitalism. Well, that is clear evidence that capitalism (an economic system) works while socialism (a different economic system) does not and never will.

You can have capitalism under a totalitariam political regime, probably easier than in a democracy. For democratic political systems normally dissovle into socialism, over time, once the voters discover they can vote themselves benefits, using the money of others to pay for those benefits. A totalitarian political system can keep the people from enacting such a redistribution of wealth, since the people cannot vote socialism into being, like they can in a democracy. Having no political power, they cannot utilize the government to take money for their benefits.

One of the first, if not the first, places this descent into socialism occurred in a democracy was in ancient Rome. It's nothing new.

I thought history was your strong suit. But you claim socialism has been part of this country since the beginning. I believe it was started by the Progressives and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. Lyndon Johnson's ideas in the 1960s about the Great Society and the War on Poverty brought us much further in that direction.

Any time the government declares war on something, whether it be Poverty, Illegal Drugs, Illiteracy or Terrorism you should count on much more of it. Since war was declared on Poverty, Illiteracy and Illegal Drugs in the US, we have a lot more of them. It seems certain Terrorism will increase, as well, since the government has promised to stamp it out.

It's interesting isn't it? Those that always attack others always, ALWAYS, respond the same way when people push back against there attacks. They call those they have attacked whiners, complainers, not able to handle critics. In other words, they call names.

Apparently, in their minds what they say is gospel and it is flat out sacrilege to question their attacks, or even worse defend yourself against their attacks.

Need proof? Wait and watch.

Mike,

Still waiting for an answer.

I've answered the best I can Didymus I'm sorry you won't or can't accept my answer.

Boomer you would be incorrect. We have had forms of socialism from the beginning when the government gave land to veterans of the Revolutionary War in the Northwest Territories.

You said my China example proves that Capitalism works best. Perhaps but I still believe that a mix works best.

You also surprisingly suggested that Capitalism probably works easier in a totalitarian system and that democracies eventually turn socialistic because of the PEOPLE not the GOVERNMENT which leads to a multitude of questions.

Mike,

What answer? Ah, well, I see where this is going. I have a pretty good idea of your ethics now.

"It's interesting isn't it? Those that always attack others always, ALWAYS, respond the same way when people push back against there attacks. They call those they have attacked whiners, complainers, not able to handle critics. In other words, they call names."

How does one decide what is attack, and what is retaliation and what the difference is? If someone describes someone with accurate words is it calling names or calling a spade a spade? Things to ponder perhaps.

Mike, you said:

"What I find highly indicative in all of this is that everywhere the TEA Party protests went the media followed them constantly letting us know how many people were at the protests.

The protests in Wisconsin have largely been ignored. There was a protest there today and 100,000 people showed up yet the major media outlets didn't really seem to care."

I think this is more highly indicative of the bias of the media you pay attention to. I am unaware of the number of people at TEA Party protests, I didn't see it reported constantly, maybe I missed it but I think you just spend a lot more time worrying about that sort of thing. IMHO this kinda sounds whiny. Aha! PROOF!

Michael, re your post dated 03/14/11 at 12:42 a.m. - have you ever been guilty of what you accuse others of doing?

doodle bug,

Of course not! I take umbrage at you attacking Michael is such a way! He would never do anything wrong, but some big meanies keep attacking him always, ALWAYS!

Oh, sorry everyone, I was channeling my inner bigdawg for a second there.

Mike,

"Boomer you would be incorrect. We have had forms of socialism from the beginning when the government gave land to veterans of the Revolutionary War in the Northwest Territories."

Can you further develop this theme that paying veterans for service with property is tantamout to the modern Socialist State that Boomer is talking about?

This seems a better example of simple payment for services rendered. Were other people supposed to work the land that the veterans received or was the produce of that land destined to support others in a way determined by the government?

Is the Homestead Act your next example of socialism? I see these as encouraging expansion only. This was not ecouraging the public control of resources, in fact the opposite occured. Public property was placed into the hands of private citizens in what I imagine was an attempt to further push capitalistic endeavor on the part of the new landowners.

the government owns amtrack, does that example satisify you on this waste of time blog?

bigdawg,

Satisfy me how? Are you asking if it makes me happy that the government owns Amtrack?

If however, you are holding Amtrak up as Socialism in America, I think you help to argue against socialism since Amtrak loses money. If that is socialism, I don't think most people want it.

This interpretation would also fail to resolve my question since it is a modern process not one that dates to the Revolution as Mike says.

I can understand why the politics of envy works. People covet what their neighbor has (a violation of the 10th Commandment), and they want to use the government's power to take it from him. It doesn't matter that he earned it. It doesn't matter that he deserves the fruits of his labor..it's just that he has more, and that's not perceived to be fair, by some.

Who buys the bonds that will be issued to pay for the new hospital in McCook? Is it the poor man or the rich man?

Who hires people to work in his business? Is it the poor man or the rich man?

Who invests in new businesses to employ others? Is it the poor man or the rich man?

Who has bought CDs at the bank which are then lent to businessmen to hire others? Is it the poor man or the rich man?

Who gives money to all the charities in the world to make it a better place? For animal shelters, abuse victim shelters, homeless shelters, cancer fund, etc. Is it the poor man or the rich man?

Who gave hundreds of millions to Rotary International to wipe out polio worldwide? Is it the poor man or the rich man? (Hint: a lot of the funding came from a major stockholder in Microsoft Corporation.)

I am NOT saying poor people are not important. I am saying it's important to have rich people, too. BTW I am not rich. I am just not filled with envy over somebody doing better than I.

Because someone has more money then me means he is doing better then me? at what?

I would guess at making or having money. But cheer up, you may be a better dancer.

If you are going to discount my example of socialism because it's not "modern" then don't you also have to discount Boomer's example of Rome?

Boomer, your theory that Socialism was the cause of the fall of Rome is severely overstating the cause. Mostly because there were alot of causes. One of the biggest causes was because the empire had grown so large that it became impossible to defend because it's army was stretched thin. Another cause is that the military, once the most powerful in the world simply failed to adapt.

"If you are going to discount my example of socialism because it's not "modern" then don't you also have to discount Boomer's example of Rome?"

Mike are you running away from discussion again? You made the claim that veterans receiving lands was socialism. I don't think it is, can you support or flesh out that claim? You complain you are attacked all the time, but here when I simply challenge your claim you appear to be running away or shifting the question. Do you want to discuss history and political theory or do you just want me to call you Mr. Pot?

How do you figure I am running away from the discussion? You joined in the discussion between Boomer and myself and declared my example was not an example of "modern" socialism. So I simply asked you if my example was no good then doesn't that mean the same for Boomer's Rome example.

As per the original discussion between Boomer and myself it was about forms of Socialism. You are attempting to "shift" the argument to just simply socialism. So no I am not running or shifting.

Please explain how your example is a form of socialism. You just threw a comment out without any support, all I want to know is your reasoning behind it.

You ran away from the question, by instead of answering my simple, direct question you shifted my response because you appeared to want me to challenge Boomer's offhand comment about Rome. But please I'm not interested in talking about how you evade questions I just want to know why you think the government giving lands to veterans is socialism

You said there has been socialism in America from the founding but don't give any support or further explanation. My problem isn't that it isn't "modern" my problem is that I don't see how it is socialism.

If it will make you happy and enable you to have a discussion without evasion, I also disagree with Boomer that any form of socialism had much if any to do with the fall of Rome.

"You are attempting to "shift" the argument to just simply socialism."

What I am trying to do is get you to support your statements. I'm sorry if you feel that a person wanting to understand another's reasoning is an attempt to shift discussion.

" declared my example was not an example of "modern" socialism. So I simply asked you if my example was no good then doesn't that mean the same for Boomer's Rome example."

No I believe your example is not an example of socialism in any form that is what I want you to address. I feel it isn't a good example because it isn't what you are trying to say it is, please elaborate.

I got to re-reading Boomer's statement, I misunderstood in part because I had read Mike's response to him. I think he was talking about the fall of the Republic when Caesar took over. However, I still don't think there was any socialism involved.

Boomer's statement:

One of the first, if not the first, places this descent into socialism occurred in a democracy was in ancient Rome. It's nothing new.

Your statement on what he "meant":

I think he was talking about the fall of the Republic when Caesar took over.

It's not what he said. He said one of the first descents into socialism occurred in ancient Rome.

You also originally stated:

"Can you further develop this theme that paying veterans for service with property is tantamout to the modern Socialist State that Boomer is talking about?"

What Boomer actually said:

"But you claim socialism has been part of this country since the beginning. I believe it was started by the Progressives and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s."

The first mention of modern socialism is made by you SW, not Boomer or by me. The term socialism is only a couple of hundred years old, but we can look to our past for examples of what socialism could have been. I believe giving land to people who have not paid for that land but merely because of a service they provided to the government to be a form of socialism (after all if Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security can be considered socialism so can this).

You seem to have an issue of socialism and modern socialism. Boomer and myself (whether he agrees with me is completely up to him) were giving examples of socialism from the past. You decided that we were talking about modern socialism and asked that I prove myself (while at the same time not questioning Boomer to prove how socialism had a role in the demise of the Roman Republic).

"I feel it isn't a good example because it isn't what you are trying to say it is, please elaborate."

Oh, no, since you seem to know what I am trying to say I will let you elaborate (though I already did above I just want to know what I am thinking from your perspective).

"You said there has been socialism in America from the founding but don't give any support or further explanation."

Actually I did, however, you rejected it and I guess in your mind if you reject a reason then that person that supported their reasoning really never did.

"I'm not interested in talking about how you evade questions"

If you aren't interested then why do you continue to make the claim that I do when I don't answer in whatever prescribed time you have given me to respond? If you really aren't interested in talking about how your decide that I evade questions why ask any questions at all considering that no matter how I answer the questioning you have already made the determination that I am evading or running away from the question.

I answer your questions (using my own time allotment) to the best of my ability, but you (like Didymus) have already made the determination that whatever answer I give will either be wrong or prove that I am evading or running away from the question.

So, in reality, when I do answer your questions I am actually responding so other people can see my answers, because apparently no matter my answer, you have already determined I am not going to answer the question.

Mike,

Why do you pull my name into your comments? To be honest, I dont know much about the history of socialism, and would not comment on it. I do know some things about ethics, and would have liked you to answer all my questions. You still havent. You seem to think that having a vague answer to one of my supposed questions and then twisting my words and ignoring me constitutes answering my questions. I have answered all that you posed to me. If I missed one, please point it out to me.

Mike, please I would just like to have a discussion about why you think Bounty Land grants are socialistic. You said you think so but haven't really supported with any reasoning. Please give me credit here, I'm trying to debate what you are claiming but you seem more interested in talking about inconsequential tangents.

"I believe giving land to people who have not paid for that land but merely because of a service they provided to the government to be a form of socialism"

Why do you think payment in property is socialism? If I worked for the government and I am paid by direct deposit, is that also socialism in your view?

"Actually I did, however, you rejected it and I guess in your mind if you reject a reason then that person that supported their reasoning really never did."

Do you think just making a claim is supporting that claim? Because this sounds a lot like your complaint of: "Apparently, in their minds what they say is gospel" Just saying something doesn't make it true, plese provide some context or support or admit you are just expecting a claim to stand on it's own ground.

"(after all if Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security can be considered socialism so can this)."

Do you consider those three to be examples of socialism? Why or why not?

I believe a strong argument could be made that Medicare is a program strongly rooted in "socialism" but I'm not so sure about the other two. After all, Medicaide is a program for people who can't afford medical care or that don't contribute financially to society that is paid for by the taxation of others. A similar claim could be made for the other two, however, I think that is a more tenuous link. With Medicare and Social Security an individual who works in thier career's lifetime pays into a program with the expectation that the funding they have paid will enable them to benefit from the programs at a later time. Naturally this view does not include SSI which while administered by Social Security would more reasonably fit into a "socialism" label in my opinion. Any thoughts?

Sorry I mistyped, I meant Medicaid in the first sentence of my last paragraph not Medicare.

I believe giving land to people who have not paid for that land but merely because of a service they provided to the government to be a form of socialism.

Why is it socialism rather than payment in property? What about it makes it socialism? The government took public land and gave it to private citizens, if the government kept the land and expected them to work it I could see that argument. Do you have any reason for your belief, or do you think merely restating your initial comment without support is sufficient?

What about the Homestead Act?

The government took public land and gave it to private citizens. That is your comment and I believe is the perfect example of why it is socialism. The private citizens did not have to pay any money for the land. The government did not have to buy the land. They simply staked out land and told Americans that they could have the land.

The Homestead Act was also a form of socialism.

I have to be clear here. I am not saying that these examples of just socialism. I am saying that they are forms of socialism.

Social Security is also a form of socialism (they share the same root word, social).

Not all socialism is bad, it can be good when used correctly as these examples, in my opinion, illustrate.

If you haven't guessed by now, when it comes to economics I follow the Keynesian model of mixed economics.

Michael,

AMEN

The extremes at either end would be the end of the nation I suspect.

There will most likely always be continued experimentation of what "mix" of economic models works best for our society/nation, but a mix is much more healthy than strictly adhering to ones "pure" belief.

Both nationally and here in the great state of California, the leaders of the Republican party insist on party principles purity.

So much so that Republicans are refusing to vote for a bill to allow a measure on the June ballot

to allow the people of the state of California to vote on whether or not to extend some previous tax increases to help balance the state budget.

A couple years ago when the leader of the Republicans in the state Senate worked with the then Republican Govenor and majority party Democrats in crafting a budget that included significant spending decreases along with tax increases as revenue had significantly fallen, Senator Codgill was blacklisted by his party and stripped of his leadership position and committee assignments.

We seem to have forgotten that compromise is often a desirable solution to a problem faced by more than one person. And compromise can, and frequently does in my personal life, end in a better solution than either of the opposing sides had proposed.

Lack of willingness to compromise undoubtedly plays a significant part as to why the Republican Party has less than 35% of the registered voters in California.

Then the current lack of a budget on the Federal level--compromise would be in the best interests of the country.

Here's to a return to civility in politics.

Donald Trump is now wondering how the President of the United States could have been off the grid for so long.

Why doesn't President Obama just produce a certified copy of his birth certificate? Everyone reading this has one. Why doesn't he?

All you can do is make up a reason why he can't produce it. Why can a bunch of folks that live or lived in McCook Ne produce one and the POTUS can't?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE...

I guess Obama has his war now. Interesting differences between Bush and Obama. Iraq had been blowing off sanctions by the UN for over 10 years. Libya for 1 day. Obama also has a Noble Peace Prize and Bush doesn't.

Bush was President 8 years.

Mike does North Africa still have nothing to do with the Middle East? Bahrain is picking up so is Iran. I have tried to talk about this for 4 weeks and you have no comment. Not really sure what you think is important.

Oil prices are higher and likely to climb further.

"Why doesn't President Obama just produce a certified copy of his birth certificate? Everyone reading this has one. Why doesn't he?

All you can do is make up a reason why he can't produce it. Why can a bunch of folks that live or lived in McCook Ne produce one and the POTUS can't?"

He does have one and has produced it you just won't accept it. Not too long ago you called me a fringe person for some of the political groups I was looking at outside the Democratic Party. How does this not make you an extremely fringe person. It has been proven without a doubt that he was born in Hawai'i, he has produced his birth certificate, yet you will not absolutely accept it. You, sir, are as fringe as they come.

I do have one question:

"Bush was President 8 years."

What does that have to do with anything? I think as you well know that I do not support President Obama and the strikes in Libya.

Mike,

Okay, are you going to use the same rhetoric that you would have used for Bush on Obama? I love exposing your hypocracy.

I for one am thankful our American President, Barack H. Obama, can enjoy his vacation in Rio without being bothered by this Libya thing.

I am just asking why he doesn't produce a certified copy and not what he did. Since he was born in Hawaii he has one. If he would produce it all of this would go away. That is my question. I actually think he was born in Hawaii. I just wonder why he has tarnished himself to so many Millions of people.

The United States has supported the revolution in Egypt. We have supported the revolution in Libya.

Are we going to support the revolution in Saudi Arabia and watch oil prices go to $200?

I think that supporting the side that is overthrowing the government could prove to be a sticky deal.

I would have supported Mubarak but not Gaddafi using that old in our counties best intetest clause.

I am just asking why he doesn't produce a certified copy and not what he did. Since he was born in Hawaii he has one. If he would produce it all of this would go away. That is my question. I actually think he was born in Hawaii. I just wonder why he has tarnished himself to so many Millions of people.

He has Wallis, you just won't accept it. Clearly you do not believe that he was born in Hawai'i. For the record I haven't made any excuses for why he hasn't presented one (whose making it up now). The only person I see making up excuses is you, for why you won't accept what he has presented.

McCook, I clearly stated that I was against the intervention. While it is a horrible situation in Libya we are the not policeman of the world. Libya poses no threat to us, just as with Iraq. This is not our fight and we should not be involved.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/lawmakers-execs-slam-obama-boosting-b...

How did we elect this fool?

Mike you still think that I am wrong and you are right and oil prices are NOT going to $130 WTI- $150 LLS??

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52064.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb

Mike- Read this story. This is you. You flip flop all the time depending on the party.

President Obama gave a speech yesterday about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil.

What a Joke! He has spent the last 2 years killing the domestic Oil and Gas business. Now that oil prices have risen and will continue to rise he is rethinking his policies of killing the GOM and killing Alaska and killing OCS production on the East Coast.

He is the Energy policy of the Democrats for the last 30 years. React to high oil prices after they have risen. Oil prices have gone from $8 bbl to $105 bbl over the last 12 years. The only time any Administration has attempted to deal with this the Vice President was accused of graft and corruption because he had the audacity to get input from energy companies when dealing with energy policy.

Mike you are just like President Obama. Clueless in the real issues of the World but you have a strong opinion none the less. Worse than that - you have the arrogance to proclaim yourself more knowledgeable in areas where you have no experience other than what you read on the internet and yet you call out folks that are professional's in their chosen fields.

So let's summerize - President Obama has passed the biggest entitlement program in the last 40 years with more loopholes now than when it was passed. President Obama has almost destroyed Offshore drilling in the Gulf Of Mexico and oil prices are over $100 again. President Obama has started a War in Libya and now he is lying to the people about our level of participation.

Yet you still support this guy? How?????? You are a hypocrite.

At least George Bush went to congress and they voted and approved Military action ( I was against Afghan and Iraq BTW).

Wallis

Wallis could you please refresh me and tell me when I have flip flopped according to party?

I am also very interested in this entitlement program you are talking about and how there are more loopholes now then when it was created.

Blah Blah Blah Mike. You and Obama are only lying when you are talking (or typing).

Wallis

What have I lied about, Wallis?

Interesting though, that when I challenge your flip flop allegation you just fall back to calling me a liar. Strange, for a person so concerned with false allegations as you have protrayed yourself in the past, you have absolutely no problems making false accusations yourself.

Wallis,

Only non-liberals are capable of lying.

SW,

Don't forget hypocrisy and bigotry too.

Tell me what I'm lying about. This seems to be a simple question yet all I'm getting are cheap insults.

What do you mean Michael? Only non-liberals lie, you are a "Proud Liberal" therefore you cannot lie.

Evidence is mounting that Obama is probably a non-American.

Another example of your lies Mike.

Evidence such as?

And how is that an example of MY lies?

http://www.bloomberg.com/insight/trash-gdp-indicator.html?campaign_id=investing_...

Told you that once we got your socialist comrades out of office the economy would rebound.

Mike your Socialist ideas are really for a bunch of losers in my opinion. I have yet to meet a Socialist that has a job and supports himself. Why is that??? Why do Socialist always have their hands out?

Just asking because your Socialist comrades have really damaged this country pretty bad. I blame you and your comrades for the heap of garbage that we are going to be dealing with over the next few years.

There you go again, Wallis, making claims you know you can't back up and when you are called on them you change the subject.

What have I lied about? You said I was a liar but you won't even name one thing I have lied about? That is very weird.

So, instead of answering how exactly I am lying, you make the statement that the evidence is piling up that Barack Obama is not American and that is an example of my lies.

Naturally you make no mention of any evidence what-so-ever and you still haven't been able to come up with an answer of how anything is an example of my lies.

Now this last post which is nothing more than a huge exaggeration on your part. How many socialists do you actually know? I'm guessing from you post above not very many or none at all.

Mike - Your whole blog is lies, lies and lies.

You have a twisted political belief that is absurd then you opine on foolishness that you decide to write about.

When is comes to politics or finance or things of substance most educated, working people on this blog think you are full of dung. Well, if people in a polite manner always think you are wrong at some point you have to tell the blogger (You) to stop with the lies.

Why do you lie all the time? I don't know but you do. It is funny in a way. You are such a homer when it comes to politics.

Wow that was quite the extensive post only to say nothing at all. It really is a simple question, what have I lied about? What specifically have I lied about.

For someone who hates baseless accusations as much as you claim that you do, you seem to have no problem making those same baseless accusations.

So how about it, are you going to inform me on what I have lied about or continue making baseless accusations?

Well, if people in a polite manner always think you are wrong at some point you have to tell the blogger (You) to stop with the lies."

wallis you don't do anything in a polite manner and never have. You went on a rampage about a poster asking you to go to a bar to the extent that you demanded that the poster be banned from the site. You want me to stop with the lies (that you can't even, or won't, produce any lies that you claim that I have made), yet you won't even ask politely so I guess you can't count yourself in that group.

"wallis you don't do anything in a polite manner and never have"

Here's a lie, I've seen wallis make polite posts.

Mike - You said a couple of years ago that the Pelosi led congress was making "fundamental change". I was afraid of inflation. You told me I was wrong.

Another lie Mike. Look at Gold, Silver, Corn, Wheat, Soy beans and Gasoline prices.

The policies you supported have caused food and energy prices to skyrocket. Maybe your party excludes food and energy when calculating inflation but everyone has to eat and heat and cool their home and drive their car.

Good Job Mike. Still have that Obama Yard Sign?

Mike I am polite. But you are the dude that starts these absurd blogs. When you make ridiculous statements expect a reaction.

You cannot go through life saying whatever you want to whoever you want and not expect a reaction.

As I said last time yes I still have it and I've already signed up fir 2012.

I believe you are projecting in your last post. You continually claim that I am lying yet when I challenge you to show when I have lied you offer up my opinions or statements I have never made. Yet you post that the evidence is piling up that Obama is not American and offer no evidence or proof of this "outrageous claim".

Apparently it is okay for you to make any claim you want to without offering any proof but if you believe someone else to be doing the same you fly off the handle.

Mike,

Remeber? opinions are either true statements or lies. You have made that point in the past. people can't be wrong, just lying.

Mike another lie of yours. You have given Bill Clinton all the credit for the budget surplus of the 90's (both sides do ignore the peace dividend and the reduction in military spending). If the Slick one indeed gets the credit then why are people all bringing up the fact that Mr. Newt was the one that forced the shut down and caused Slick to back down from his big government plans? Another Mike lie.

As for the last two years - I told you we were spending to much. You were wrong yet again.

Socialist always forget that you can't spend more than you make. But then again, most Socialist are the ones that sit on the couch and expect others to do all the work.

Why are most Socialists lazy dudes that want something for nothing Mike? I noticed that as a youngster. You do not need to answer the question as I know the answer. Most Socialists are indeed to lazy to actually work but are smart enough to attempt to justify themselves.

Please justify to McCook Gazette Blog land why you are a Socialist Comrade. It is sure to cause some belly laughs. Maybe you can throw in some organic food and the need to recycle with it. While you are at it you can push Solar power and tell us why we should all drive a hybrid car while you don't.

As an aside - Recycling is actually a net consumer of power. In other words it costs more to recycle than not to but that is the Obama way................

READY,

SHOOT,

aim?

BTW your proud liberal deal cracks me up every time I look it at. Not laughing with it but laughing at it.

Your moniker change is the epitome of your hypocrisy.

While the Dems had a majority in both houses you spout off we need to "coexist" to get your Socialist agenda done. Then as soon as the Socialist get thrown out of office "Proud Liberal" shows up.

What happened to all the evils of the two parties and the working together and all the other blah blah blah you wrote about? Another example of your lies. You didn't mean any of it. You only said it because you needed it to happen to get your Socialst agenda passed. You stated certain things and now you act as if you never said it (typed it).

A person that changes their STATED opinion when their perceived personal benefit changes is the worst kind of person in my book. I have made a career of not associating with people like that. They are snakes that cannot be trusted and will turn and strike you in a heartbeat just to benefit themselves. Good Job Mike!

"Apparently it is okay for you to make any claim you want to without offering any proof but if you believe someone else to be doing the same you fly off the handle."

Mike, who are you addressing here? This seems to be catching around these parts.

"Mike another lie of yours. You have given Bill Clinton all the credit for the budget surplus of the 90's (both sides do ignore the peace dividend and the reduction in military spending)."

Another one of your beliefs of my "lies" that seems to come out of thin air. I have never stated that Bill Clinton get all the credit. What I have done is give credit to Bill Clinton when people want to sit there and either claim that none of the credit should go to Clinton or want to claim that we had a surplus despite Clinton.

"If the Slick one indeed gets the credit then why are people all bringing up the fact that Mr. Newt was the one that forced the shut down and caused Slick to back down from his big government plans? Another Mike lie."

Here's the big flaw with this statement. You ask "why are people all bringing up..." and then at the very end you turn it into my statement. Maybe you should be the Slick one. Seriously, though, is that how you really remember that? Because people at the time and people still today didn't believe that. When the government shut down the majority of people blamed the Republicans for why the government shut down, not the other way around.

I am really, though, beginning to see your line of thought. All your examples so far have been what other people have stated or believed. You believe that I agree with them so you automatically assign it to me, and then you go on and make the statement that what someone else has said is actually my lie. It's very slick of you.

"As for the last two years - I told you we were spending to much. You were wrong yet again."

You know, for someone who can't stand it when they perceive that someone is telling them that they are wrong, you seem to have no issues saying that I am wrong at every turn. Of course, your statement leaves out some gigantic facts. The budgets I am assume (because you are making a general statement it's hard to determine how you are coming up with this information) you are getting this information from includes the wars that this country were already engaged in, so naturally by comparison it will look like spending is way out of control.

"Socialist always forget that you can't spend more than you make. But then again, most Socialist are the ones that sit on the couch and expect others to do all the work.

Why are most Socialists lazy dudes that want something for nothing Mike? I noticed that as a youngster. You do not need to answer the question as I know the answer. Most Socialists are indeed to lazy to actually work but are smart enough to attempt to justify themselves."

See, now this is a classic. Fox News uses this line ad nauseum. There is not actual question in it, as you clearly stated there was no need for me to answer. This is simply your opinion on what a Socialist actually is. Care to back up this opinion, other than to say you saw this growing up?

"Please justify to McCook Gazette Blog land why you are a Socialist Comrade. It is sure to cause some belly laughs. Maybe you can throw in some organic food and the need to recycle with it. While you are at it you can push Solar power and tell us why we should all drive a hybrid car while you don't."

Another classic slick move. You have assigned me as being a Socialistic Comrade and demand that I justify it. If I don't, you will, no doubt, go off on a rant because I can't justify a label that you attached to me.

By the way can you tell me why organic foods, recycling, solar power, and hybrid cars are so bad? I don't have a hybrid car, I do have a high gas mileage car. If you would rather own a vehicle that is low on gas mileage and expensive to fill that is your choice.

"BTW your proud liberal deal cracks me up every time I look it at. Not laughing with it but laughing at it."

Here is where the real bully in you really shows up. You demand that everyone respect you and your opinions but you make it a point to make fun of others beliefs at anytime you want. I am a very proud liberal, wallis, if you have a problem with that (and obviously you do) than that is something you are going to have to deal with. If making fun of me because of I am a proud liberal, I feel sad for you, but that isn't going to change my beliefs.

"Your moniker change is the epitome of your hypocrisy.

While the Dems had a majority in both houses you spout off we need to "coexist" to get your Socialist agenda done. Then as soon as the Socialist get thrown out of office "Proud Liberal" shows up."

Again, you are stating your beliefs and assigning it to me. Have you even asked why I changed my avatar? Of course you haven't. I didn't change my avatar because my socialist agenda wasn't accomplished (again because I am not a socialist, though I'm pretty sure that won't stop you from claiming that I am one). I changed my avatar because I am a proud liberal. It is my hope and will always be my hope that we can all live together and coexist, that just has not flat out changed. I see though, why you included that as one of "my" lies. I replaces avatars, you assigned my reasoning for doing so, then you could turn around and call me a liar for it. Again, very slick of you.

"A person that changes their STATED opinion when their perceived personal benefit changes is the worst kind of person in my book. I have made a career of not associating with people like that. They are snakes that cannot be trusted and will turn and strike you in a heartbeat just to benefit themselves."

Well thank God you don't believe this about me, otherwise you would have stopped talking to me long ago. I'm just guessing that this a very general statement of yours, because I know you are not talking about me. I change my opinions when the information comes in and my opinion is wrong. Not to do so, for me personally, is just weird and bullheaded. I think you very well know, that I do not change my stated opinions very often just through our discussions about global climate change. Then again, it also begs the question, if you believe that I do fit in this category and you then you said you have made a career out of not associating with people that fit that category, then why in the world do you continually talk to me?

It's right up there with saying that someone's blog is a waste of time and then not only continue to read but continue to post on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110331/el_yblog_theticket/obama-campai...

Mike - Told you when the Republicans posted the biggest landslide victory in the History of American Politics and booted your Comrades from office that Obama had better have a Birth Certificate. Donald Trump of all people is going to get him to show it.

My question to you and him has always been "Why not show it"? We all have one.

Ok Mike - You can go back to your TIVO'd episodes of "Countdown".

Wallis

Too bad Trump has been using the long debunked grandmother story. It's top bad that Hawaii has already proven his birth and the newspapers reported his birth. But you keep right on riding that horse.

By the way I'm still waiting on this "evidence" that is rolling in as you claim.

Why has Obama spent Millions of dollars to keep this quite? Guilty people act guilty Comrade.

Why did Obama meet with Lawyers on the eve of his swearing in and ask what would be the legal issue if it was proven he was not qualified for the office of President (perjury). If he has a valid birth certificate why all the legal games? YOU have a certified copy of your birth certificate. Why will he not show it? I mentioned after the election I hoped Obama had a copy and you called me a wingnut and a Tea Party teabagger and all of the other stuff. I guess yet again I was right and you were again wrong.

Mike have you noticed that over time most of your emotional responses have been proven to be WRONG. That is accountability. Over the last several years most of the propaganda you have spewed has proven to be wrong. That is because Keynesian Economics is a proven failure. A Socialist America (or Euro thinking think Revolution) has proven to be a failure also. Your Socialist buddies never had a chance. Please recall your YES WE DID post and several people on election night predicted all of this. You told us where to go and predicted the new path that America was going to take because we had a real leader going to the White House and America was going to change. When you were asked "How" you made a bunch of snarky McCain and Bush comments.

Inflation is real. Food prices are going up. Energy prices are going up. American debt is going up. Employment is still to high. Gold and Silver prices aren't in a bubble. The dollar is in trouble. So you can talk all your Socialist garbage but the Democrats in Government cannot continue to attempt to punish the workers and contributors in society to appease the non-contributors.

As a Socialist you should realize that the premise of the Socialist Society is we all work together for a more perfect world. The problem with that whole idea is human nature prevents that from happening. Why should someone who works harder than someone else receive the same as the person who works less? That works for the lazier workers but discourages hard work. That is the fatal flaw in your form of Government. Hard work is not rewarded. Humans are competitive by nature (most are any way) so for you to discourage competition you stifle growth and basically snub the last 235 of our country.

Where is the proof of this mythical meeting you are talking about? You wouldn't be lying would you? I know how much you despise liars, then again you continually lie when you insist on calling me a socialist, so maybe this us one of those times where you expect others to act a certain way but God knows you don't have to.

By the way I'm still waiting for the mounting "evidence" you claimed was coming in. I know you wouldn't lie about that.

Wallis, you levied some very serious charges against the President and yet you continue to refuse to back them up with a single factual piece of evidence. So I ask again, where is the mounting evidence you said was coming in?

Mike,

Why do you expect people to answer your questions when you so often refuse to answer other people's? Is this more of your hypocrisy showing?

SW,

Do you really expect mike to answer? Only non-liars don't have to answer questions. We all know that mike does not lie or succumb to hypocrisy. Other people lie about what he says.

Good point, Sir Didymus, how silly of me. Must have been me lying and assigning beliefs to him by asking him what he meant again.

I just listened to our President talk about oil prices. I cannot believe that we elected a person that is that ignorant.

Even me, Wallis Marsh, educated at MHS told Mike last September when oil prices were $75/bbl that oil was going to retest the old highs by July 4, 2011. If this MHS educated person was able to see that global demand coupled with the falling dollar coupled with the Obama Administration cutting off GOM oil would lead to a doubling in oil prices you would think that the POTUS would have a clue.

But I must remember that MIke told me I was wrong. Then Mike went on to say that oil prices in the US should stay low because MENA (Middle East/North Africa) don't matter because we get most of our imports from Canada and Mexico.

What is even funnier is there is manipulation of oil prices. The NYMEX is trading at a $13 dollar discount to Brent because of a strange storage deal at Cushing, OK. The Canadians are "dumping" their oil on our markets and causing prices to be artificially low.

Guys - oil prices are going higher from here. It isn't position limits or Goldman Sachs (they just shorted oil so they are losing on that trade). It is rising demand in the far East (China, India and the OPEC countries themselves). Oil production is declining in Mexico, Venezuala, Indonesia, North Sea plus supply is off in Libya. Year over year demand is up in all Nations that count. Japan is going to replace their Nuclear power generation with Crude oil and Gasoil. The declining dollar is also a negative as oil is sold in dollars but other countries use their currency which is stronger therefore making oil cheaper to them.

President Obama has doomed our country. During the Great Recession he focused on pushing his socialist programs that is going to kill us. More entitlement and business uncertainty. Now he is again avoiding the real issue by "investigating" speculation. Remember is the futures market their is always someone on the other side of the trade. If prices are to far out of whack someone will take the other side of the trade.

One last point. Artificially high prices lead to surplus. If prices are to high why is inventory dropping? Inventory should rise when prices are to high because producers would maximize production to benefit from the windfall.

So basically here we go again. 2008 all over again and the US is caught off guard once again by rising oil prices.

This will lead to another recession in the next 2-4 years as oil prices will get to the choke point to kill demand. The last 3 years were wasted as we lost the the opportunity to develop a real energy plan. Instead we created the Tea Party and set record deficits and split the country. Great job Obama. Hope and Change we can believe in. Same old crap just a little worse is what we got.

Wallis

So what is the solution? If oil prices, as you predict, are in fact going to continue to rise then why are we still willing to pay for it? It seems rather silly to me to continue as a nation to continue paying for a product that is going to continue to rise in cost. That's just me, though.

"But I must remember that MIke told me I was wrong." I do not recall that when you made your predictions last year that I ever said you were wrong. While we are on the topic, it seems rather foolish to blame one man, in this case the President, when according to your own numbers oil prices were going to double a year before hand, regardless of anything. But I guess you have to have your boogeyman.

"During the Great Recession he focused on pushing his socialist programs that is going to kill us."

You're being a wee bit over dramatic aren't you? Then again you predicted when the stimulus passed that it would have no long term good effects on the economy, yet here we are two years later, and not only has the economy improved but so has the unemployment rate.

It "humors" me that mike is bringing someone to task for over dramatizing some issue...

Sir Didymus,

Again how dare you?!!? Sesame Street has been shut down by evil, education fearing Repuglicans that is fact, not hyperbole.

So there it is. Obama's Long Form birth certificate. Exactly what Wallis, Boomer, Sam, and others have been clamoring for, for over two years.

Now that it has been released are you now satisfied that Obama was born in this country?

Michael,

I don't know if some people will ever be happy. Still makes me wonder why it took such a long time for such a simple act.

Still awaiting an apology

That's about the response I expected, how predictable. The birthers are happy he did it but wonder why it took so long to do it. No apologies. Heck, the Donald is even out saying that is solely because of him that this has happened. Of course now we get to see if he is a man of his words. He said that he would release his tax records when Obama released his long form. Now it has happened. Frankly, I doubt the Donald will.

Michael,

"That's about the response I expected, how predictable."

The response you expected was for me to state the obvious, that some people will never be happy?

"The birthers are happy he did it but wonder why it took so long to do it."

Since I said I wonder why it took so long for him to do so, are you calling me a birther? Or did you unintentionally imply that I am one?

"No apologies."

Well at least that is something you and the birthers have in common eh? See, everyone can find common ground to build on if you look hard enough. You know all about not apologizing :)

Still awaiting an apology