The Death of the Republic

Mike,

I have no opinion on the historical content of this blog. But I will continue to point out some of your personality characteristics. I find it interesting that before you place out any justification for your theories you imply that the majority of your readers here on the blog see you as "comrade mike" and would not listen anyway. That is a new one for me. Have you every talked to a professional about your feelings of persecution?

I have another question, Do you feel that any modern country can be a republic? You seem to imply that the shift from agriculture to industry and then capitalizm make it impossible. If, however you are saying that we can never go back to the republic as it was in 1781 than this whole blog seems to me to be a set up for a "poor me, all these hicks from nebraska are idiots" post to some of your sympathizers. Enlighten me please.

Mike,

I see one huge flaw in your theory. If the person that grew their crops then sold the extras... wouldn't they be participating in capitalism???

Mike,

Before the Industrial Revolution and the Civil War, how would you categorize the economic system in the United States? The other day you mentioned that Bounty Land Grants were a form of socialism, do you think the "hyper-subsistence" farming is also a form of socialism or something else?

You also mentioned that voter participation was extremely high, but failed to mention the voting restrictions that existed then, what do you think the correlation between vote turnout and the voting restrictions may have been? Why do you think voter turnout fell, and it's effect on the fall of the Republic as you say?

Do you believe there is something inherent in industry or capitalism that is incompatible with a Republican form of government? Or was this fall simply coincidental?

Finally, you said: "A word of caution. It is impossible in the economic system we have today to ever return to that time. We have progressed for better or worse." Do you believe this progress has been for the worse and desire a return to "hyper-subsistence farming"?

I must agree with your initial words, about Capitalism being what went wrong with our Republic form of government, Mike, but only to the point you so neatly snipped off the scenario's capability to be scrutinized from all viewpoints, other than yours.

Perchance, Capitalism, as does ANY other form of human lifestyle, has the very best chance, of all forms, for man to have the freedom, and security, desired by our forefathers? Each form of lifestyle/government, has some good aspect, and bad aspects, as you, studied in History should know (probably do, but ...). I will only cite Capitalism (as I understand the original, historical definition to be), is, as proudconservative has already stated. I paraphrase, but: 'Enough to live comfortably on, plus security in being able to supply the need of others, through sales of individual production.'

Capitalism has one serious flaw attached, Greed. As long as everyone adheres to playing by the rules, and considerations of Pure Capitalism, the system is perfect; and with God's help, PERFECT. As a child, most all the businessmen in McCook had an attitude of Fair Play, even Hesteads(sp?), Woolworth, Sears, J.C. Penney. Montgomery Ward anon (the 'Biggies'). No one tried to pillage and plunder an unfair part of the economy, until, IMO, sometime in the 1960's, or maybe late Fifties, when technology truly began to explode, and people decided they could expand on the borrowed dollar, to make more than their fair share of the market dollar. yadda yadda yadda. That is as far as I will go to lay blame, other than to say, we all allowed this to happen.

You are right, Mike, we cannot go back to farming with a hoe, and a horse, but we may have to. If this happens, so be it, Nebraskans will have the space to grow what we need, to live on and help others to do the same. The big cities will be full of dead people, who are afraid to go out from behind the sky-scrapers they feel protects them. rant rant rant!

I'm done.

You have a gift of thought and words. Please try to use them for constructive results, not fault finding, without constructive offering.

Navy,

Most systems in their prescribed form are perfect. Unfortunately humans have gone a long way in screwing up those systems. Pure Capitalism would work, but as you said greed get's in the way of that. I don't ever see greed being taken out of the equation.

As proudconservative asked yes hyper-subsistence in a way does resemble Capitalism, but it lacks in one very important area that does not make it capitalism. Hyper-subsistence was not about making money, or scarce resources, or demand. It was first and foremost about families raising enough crops to feed themselves until the next crop came in. If there was extra it was then sold.

I disagree with your statement Navyblue about the pillaging and plundering not starting until the 50s and 60s. It started in the 1780s when the steel companies started buying up every single competitor they could find. They often would increase prices and lower wages to maximize their bottom line. It continued until the first part of the 20th Century when laws were put in place to prevent monopolies. In the United States form of capitalism; greed and pillaging have gone hand in hand from the beginning.

Sw,

I do not believe hyper-subsistence to be a form of socialism because the crops were grown for the individual families. The system was subsistence.

"You also mentioned that voter participation was extremely high, but failed to mention the voting restrictions that existed then, what do you think the correlation between vote turnout and the voting restrictions may have been?"

I would ask that you rephrase the question because I'm not really sure what you are asking me. Are you asking if voter turnout was high because of voter restrictions or if I believe that voter turnout fell because voter restrictions were lifted.

Obviously I do not believe that the rise of Capitalism and fall of the Republic were coincidences otherwise I wouldn't have listed Capitalism as a cause for the fall of the Republic. The true form of the Republic that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers was incompatible with Capitalism for one reason it gave men who did not technically own anything power. Power was originally intended for land-owners and farmers. With the rise of Capitalism it gave much wider power than had been intended.

I personally believe the progress we have seen as positive. We, as Americans, have continually adapted to the changes throughout our history and it has made us a stronger nation.

You are right, in a book way, I just remember many of the people I talked to, in the Forties, and Fifties, and compared them to what you are saying. Big business did snuff the mom and pop shops, to where we are now, so you are probably righter than I am. (how's that for good englitch??)

What has changed in this country, more than anything else, is the government's role in our lives. In the 1920s there was no Social Security program, no Medicare, no Unemployment benefits, no Welfare, no Farm Program, no Federal Dept of Education, no Environmental Protection Agency, no SALLLIE MAE, no FANNIE MAE, no FREDDIE MAC, no FHA, no SBA, no IRS, no FTC, no FDA, no School Lunch Program, no FDIC, no FSLIC, no FAA, no Dept of Health & Human Services, no FEMA, no FCC, no USDA, no BATFE, no FCIC, no BLM, no DEA, no Homeland Security Admin, no HUD, no NLRB, no USGS, no NOAA, no NASA, no United Nations,....the list is endless. (I used acronyms so the list would not get too long but I left out literally hundreds.) The Progressives (hiding from the Socialist word) say this is wonderful progress, and that we are better for it. Every problem being an opportunity for more government.

Folks who are employed by someone else, they don't have to deal with all the baloney put out by all these agencies. But for the people who own the business that employs them, trying to provide goods or services to the public, and make a profit at the same time, so they can remain in business, all these government agencies are strangling them. What is left is LARGE businesses that have achieved sufficient size to deal with all the government regulation. In fact, big business is the chief beneficiary of more regulation since it drives the smaller rivals out of business and raises huge barriers to entry, keeping startups out.

Every time a new law or regulation is passed you lose some freedom, some money or both. The costs are hidden in the cost of everything you buy. It's also why most things are not made here anymore.

I hope and pray you are right, Michael, about our people being able to cope with this change. What I fear is the unintended consequences of all this change; real wages in the US (adjusted for inflation) have been in decline for several decades.

Mike,

Do you believe that any economic system would have led to the continuation of the Republic and allowed for progress?

Since I know you will be all over the real wage decline claiming it's not true: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

Please note the decline since 1974.

When Madoff used part of the funds from new investors to pay out nonexistent earnings to the older investors, this is called a Ponzi Scheme (named after a famous fraud, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison). When our government does it, it's called the Social Security system. Both collapse when you run short of new investors or when too many people withdraw funds. Being one of the old investors in Social Security I am worried, with substantial reason. Just this year the money going out of Social Security exceeded the funds coming in; this was not supposed to happen until 2015 or 4 years later. But a surprising thing happened. As people began running out of unemployment benefits in this Great Correction, they started to retire early or to discover it was a good time to become disabled. So the cost side of the equation erupted. BOOM!

What's next? I believe it will be two things. One, raise taxes to increase the revenue stream. Two, implement a means test to cut down benefits. If you spent everything you made working before retirement, you get your Social Security, but if you saved your money, you will be deemed to have sufficient resources to fund your own retirement and, thus, not in NEED of Social Security and you get nothing. (Even though you probably paid into the system more than your retired neighbor who gets a full Social Security check--it will be another income redistribution scheme.)

When you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's vote.

When you print $100 bills in your basement that are really worthless, it's called counterfeiting. When Ben Bernanke does it, it's called Quantitative Easing which is deemed by some to be a wonderful boon to all mankind. In both cases the dollar declines in value. An honest government would hunt down and imprison perpetrators of such a fraud, instead of putting them in charge of the Federal Reserve and all the nation's banks.

Again, I hope for the best, but I fear the worst. Time will tell if I am a realist or simply a worrying fool.

Actually, Boomer, I wasn't going to jump all over you because of the decline of wages. I know it has happened. Where we disagree is why the wages have decreased.

Sw, to be perfectly honest I don't know if there is or was a system that could have led to a continuation.

I would tend to say, that no, there isn't (or wasn't historically speaking). Humans progress from one economic(or political) system to another always looking for improvements. The Republic that died during or shortly after the Civil War was probably going to go out of existence eventually but in this case I believe that it was a perfect storm of voter apathy (if you will) and Capitalism that caused it's collapse when it happened.

hey boomer, when you make alot of money you can almost opt out of social security. I would reccomend working harder and puting in more hours to make 200k a year. then you dont have to worry. become rich.

"When you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's vote." Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Mar 16, 2011, at 6:35 PM

The quote of our lifetime, sadly. Thanks Boomer62.

"hey boomer, when you make alot of money you can almost opt out of social security. I would reccomend working harder and puting in more hours to make 200k a year. then you dont have to worry. become rich."

Bigdawg, do I detect a bit of sarcasm here? I said I was worried since I have paid over $100k into a system that seems destined to rip me off. So I should just work harder and not worry about it? Sounds like the pig talking to the horse "work harder" in Animal Farm--one of my all time favorite books.

If you make $200k, btw, you pay the FICA portion of 12.4% on the first $106,800 but the 2.9% Medicare portion on the whole $200k.

Total is over $19,000. Paying that, in addition to income taxes, does not seem like opting out of the system to me. Can you explain it, almost.

Navy, I mean to address a comment you made the other day and sadly I am just now getting to it.

"Mike, but only to the point you so neatly snipped off the scenario's capability to be scrutinized from all viewpoints, other than yours."

There was no intention on my part to snip anything away. I posted my blog with my idea and theory as to why we no longer have a Republic and reasons for that.

I would very much be interested in hearing ideas and theories as to why we still do have a Republic or even if there is agreement that there isn't a Republic why that belief is if there is disagreement with my theory.

I'm curious how you can make a legitimate comparison of voter participation between the Civil War era all the way up to today. We have had constitutional amendments and a complete re-haul of civil rights laws between now and then which means we have a much more diverse group of people involved in the process than we did 150 years ago. Not to mention other factors such as the rising population or increased longevity and people getting married at older ages which means younger people have a longer time before they start worrying about politics. It's just impossible to compare voter participation today to voter participation 150 years ago with any level of legitimacy because it's apples and oranges. I would highly doubt the author's credibility just for suggesting it.

Actually McCook you just gave the perfect example of how you can compare voter participation throughout our history. Before the Civil War voter participation was extremely restricted to white land-owning males. Since that time the voter restrictions have been lessened to the extent where just about any American aged 18 and older can now vote. Yet voter participation has dropped. One would think that as restrictions are dropped participation would go up, this is not the case.

The only apples and oranges comparison that you mentioned that is correct is the comparison between voter participation and when they vote. Just because people vote at a later age has nothing to do with voter participation. It has no affect on it.

It is not an exact science, however, there have been upticks since the Civil War but the general trend in voter participation in elections has been in decline.

Voter participation reached a high of 81.8 in 1876 which was the year before the End of Reconstruction. Since that year there was a steady decline and from 1900 there has not been a participation of above 70% one time. In fact since 1900 there have been only two times when voter participation topped 65% and those were in 1904 and 1908.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0877659.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763629.html

Even the election of 2008 only saw a participation of 61.6

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

The great mid-term election of 2010 saw less than half of registered voters turn out to vote (41.6) which was only a .3% uptick from the other great mid-term election of 2006.

People vote when they think it makes a difference. When spending and deficits go up whether Democrats or Republicans are in office, one wonders if voting is an exercise in futility. I have voted in every election since I could vote (you had to be 21 in those days), but I accomplished nothing.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A democracy with a 2nd Amendment freedom is 2 wolves and a well-armed lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Socialism is 2 wolves arguing about why there are no lambs left, and lobbying for the government to provide more lambs.

Mike, I said: "... "Mike, but only to the point you so neatly snipped off the scenario's capability to be scrutinized from all viewpoints, other than yours." ... "

I just went back and reread your article, and for the love of me, I cannot remember exactly what it was that caused my comment. So, I have to say sorry, as it probably wasn't solid enough for my old echo chamber to keep the thought at home.

Should I remember, I will bring it up, if I can remember long enough to spin up the PC, which is more and more limiting, the older I manage to get. Ha. Forty eight hours is a long time for me to remember a comment.

FWWIW, I don't see our country pulling out of this nose-dive. The wings are about to pull off this air-ship, and then we will be figuring out how to relearn 'Barter.' Nuff-Said.

Ochosinco, you rock! Mother Clinton in an F-16 over Libya; I laughed out loud at the image. I thank you so much.

As a libertarian I agree with you on legalizing drugs. Let fools be fools; they're gonna do it anyway. If we're gonna outlaw fools, I will be in grave danger.

Just sayin'

Mike,

I don't know, and really I am not suggesting it means anything. But I am curious has there been any apples to apples comparisons? What I mean is, You said that before many of the voter reforms it was "white land owners" that could vote. Are there any numbers on the percentage of "white land owners" that have excercied their voting rights over the years? I am just curious, and since you seem to be knowlegable on the topic, what is your insight?

We can argue semantics, and often that is allot of fun, but let's cut to the chase, and get right to the rat killin'.

In this past century, the usual fight has been the constant effort by non-producers to enslave the producers.

Excuses are for losers, and the non-producers always have some excuse for their lack of productivity. Most often they will cry foul, or whine about unfairness.

However, the evidence supports a simple truth Liberals refuse to see. Anyone who is willing to work hard and play less will usually succeed. Repeated failure often leads to success. Many are afraid to fail, they lack the heart to strive for success.

When they see others achieve, they grow envious. And failing to admit that they had lacked the courage to achieve, or the discipline to succeed, they turn instead to politicians in hopes of getting a guarantee of success in the midst of their failure.

The guy living under the bridge is homeless, in most cases, because of the choices HE made. He choose to party instead of study. He chose to watch television instead of work. He choose to go into debt for instant gratification rather than to embrace patience.

Once the fruit of his poor decision making hits him in the face, you have liberal politicians, in search of power, arriving to tell the man that it is all the Koch brothers' fault, and that someone else is to blame for his poor decision making.

As always, when talking to liberals, and you are trying to get some sense through the many layers of indoctrination, you have to state the obvious.

OF COURSE, there are SOME people, who through no fault of their own, face calamity. Naturally, a benevolent government and society, should be ready to assist in those cases.

Having several children out of wedlock, when you are uneducated, undisciplined, and unskilled, is not an unforeseen calamity. That is stupidity.

And therein lies the problem. Liberals love to excuse stupid behavior and punish true achievement.

Why? For votes and power, and for control.

The Republic will die, if it is not dead already, because INDIVIDUALS have been granted immunity for their own personal stupidity, and laziness, by power hungry greedy Liberals and Socialists.

And that is why it is so frustrating talking to Liberals. Utopian idealism makes them intellectually impotent.

True Hope and Change will come only through individualism, self reliance and a real faith in truth and goodness. That is the path to true national health.

You talk a lot about excuses and how apparently (once again) it's all liberals fault. You tell the homeless man that it's his fault that he's homeless even if it's not.

Maybe the problem with you is that you aren't concerned with finding solutions to our shared problems you are only concerned with finding blame.

Another interesting point is that you want to find excuses (something again you say only liberals do) for the Koch brothers while at the same stating publicly how evil George Soros is. I'm sure the fact of who they donate to has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I also find it very interesting that you are able to put a victim status on the "producers" (though you don't actually define who they are).

right on boomer62. as I dislike dating myself, I will state that I am a '62 high school graduate. If you're not adverse to divulging the info, are you also a '62 graduate?

a couple of points Michael. I am as loathe to defend Sam as I am, you. In, what I see as, fairness, Sam addressed a couple points that you replied to. He posted that the homeless man, in most cases (he did not say all) was there by choice (and I agree). Sam also stated that he believed the government should be there for those who were homeless through no fault of their own. As I see it, there are too many government programs (that may be good or bad) for ANYONE to be homeless (without shelter) except by choice.

Well said, Sam. The whole goal of unions is to extract superior wages for average work. The goal of liberals is to suck funds from the achievers to aid the nonachievers; to make things "fair" in their minds (it's really so they can feel good about themselves, pursuing what they perceive to be justice). Please don't bring up personal responsibility in any discussion with a liberal--such a thing is irrelevant to them.

A second goal is to extract money from the achievers to fund things the liberals like but they are to cheat to pay for it themselves.

Can't you just feel the love in here? I've finally figured it out with the help of Sam and Boomer. Our problem isn't that we have problems. The problem is that we have people like Sam and Boomer who only want to blame without offering solutions and they can only find blame with one segment of the population (liberals).

As much as they want to preach to you how only liberals can show hate and disdain they have no problem showing their hypocrisy and practice that same hate and disdain.

Finally they will offer information that can not be backed up with facts or proof and no matter how much you ask them for proof they will not give it but they will continue pushing their "proof" as gospel.

Michael, there you go with that "hypocrisy" caca again!! Please stop. Also, I dont see any "solutions" coming from your blog either. I dont believe the folks you castigated are purporting their allegations to be "facts" (of course I'm from the opposite side of the political spectrum as you); I take their statements as personal opinions. Are those not to be stated on "your" blog?

the woman with 5 different children that cant afford housing should live on the street. she made her bed and now her and her children have to lie in it.

The homeless vetran can get off his arse and do something or live in the streets and starve and beg for money.

They made the choices, now live with them.

on a side note, anyone know what the bank of america ceo made last year? or how much the company he is in charge of got in the bailout?

bigdawg,

Nice leading statments. There is a difference between "helping" and "enabling". It is a fine line and not alot of clear answers. Your first example of the woman with 5 children... what are the other factors there? There is too much unsaid. The vet? If he truly won't(not can't) get off his arse? What do you suggest to help him that isn't there already? The bank of America CEO? Well, I don't know, and I don't care. It is nice to see that you are expresing universiality in your concern for your fellow man.

Ah, Michael, I can't remember saying I hated anyone on this blog. I AM disappointed with people who want to use government to take from me and give to things I don't approve of. I don't hate them, I just believe they are wrong.

Michael, I think you're wrong in many ways, but I reserve my hatred for true evil.

Have you seen Music Man yet? I hear it's great!

"And that is why it is so frustrating talking to Liberals. Utopian idealism makes them intellectually impotent."

Isn't that all you talk about Sam is the utopian you want to exist in this country? Reading your blogs and your statements you lead people to believe that for you this country will only be great once all liberals are gone, Christianity is allowed to run the government, and Capitalism runs supreme. By your words anything less than that is downright wrong and evil. Yet you chide liberals for utopian idealism?

"In this past century, the usual fight has been the constant effort by non-producers to enslave the producers."

Oh so that's the reason CEOs (the so-called "producers") continue to make millions while their companies go bankrupt, businesses continue to get all the tax breaks that they want while the lower classes continually paying more taxes and pay higher prices for just about everything.

"Having several children out of wedlock, when you are uneducated, undisciplined, and unskilled, is not an unforeseen calamity. That is stupidity.

And therein lies the problem. Liberals love to excuse stupid behavior and punish true achievement."

You've made some pretty bad broad statements in the past but this one is just ridiculous. Show me one liberal that excuses this behavior. Just show me one.

This is almost as bad as all the children going to indoctrination centers (public schools) because they don't teach what YOU want them to teach.

"I've finally figured it out with the help of Sam and Boomer. Our problem isn't that we have problems. The problem is that we have people like Sam and Boomer who only want to blame without offering solutions and they can only find blame with one segment of the population (liberals)."

So people like Sam and Boomer are the problem in your opinion Mike? How is your statement different than Sam's statements that Liberals are the problem?

There is a solution inherent in the comments of Sam and Boomer; however, I'm not surprised you don't see it. It appears to be anathema to Liberals like you. Personal responsibility doesn't usually show up in Liberal's comments. You can disagree with personal responsibility being a solution, but what solution have you offered that is better?

Back to the original topic of this blog.

I disagree, I don't think the Republic has fallen, and your arguments haven't persuaded me it has. In your opinion, what do we have, since we don't have a republic?

I feel we still have a republic, because we are represented in government by people we choose to represent our interests.

Since you said there is no economic system that could have saved the Republic in your view, do you contend then that all republics are doomed from the outset?

Law professor Glenn Reynolds on his InstaPundit blog, Sept. 23, 2010:

The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we'll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren't causes of middle-class status, they're markers for possessing the kinds of traits--self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc.--that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn't produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.

***

Sir,

I reread sams post and I didnt see him spell anything out either. I threw out generalizations just like he did.

@Ocho I hope you know the CIA has been involved in the Cocaine trade for many decades already. I'm sure that heroin would be just as profitable, if they aren't already involved.

Keep in mind, the Taliban outlawed poppy production. It wasn't until American's stepped foot on the soil that production really cranked up.

bigdawg,

Hmm.. I guess I am of the mind that when I see someone in a way that I do not like I tell myself I won't emulate them. I generally try not to, anyway. Especially when it comes to just spewing meaningless hot air.

That is also targeted at anyone that pulls the "oh yeah? Look what the other side does" B.S. when defending some bad behavior of a group that they support. You see that on these quasi-political blogs all the time.

oh, im sorry. Am I right about that? Did you call me out and not sam? I didnt notice the generalizations until you pointed them out. I guess I assumed you did not notice sams either since you did not point them out earlier. I can see you are going to hold me to a higher standard and that is fine.

Like I said, I do find it interesting you found fault with my post and pointed it out on here and gave sam a free pass. At a minium you can try for some constency.

bidgawg,

It's kind of funny seeing you requesting consitency.

bigdawg,

You can say I called you out if you like. I was really just making an observation. If you see it in yourself and you don't like it, only you can change it. If you have no problem with the things you are doing, why fault me for pointing them out? I am pretty sure from reading some of sam's stuff he has no problem justifying his actions. None of it was really geared towards anyone. If you are honest enough, its all over these boards.

Let me start this morning by stating that I am against any American intervention in Libya. Our military is already spread too thin.

bigdawg, watch out these guys love to point out all the inconsistencies and errors of non-conservatives but the second it is pointed out that they willingly ignore the same mistakes by conservatives they bend over backwards to excuse themselves and those conservative writers. They will then take umbrage that you dare bring that to attention.

"watch out these guys love to point out all the inconsistencies and errors of non-conservatives"

That's not fair, if I pointed out all of your inconsistencies Mike, I wouldn't have time to do anything else. :)

Any thoughts on why you blaming people like Sam and Boomer is any different from Sam blaming Liberals?

Also, what do we have if we have no Republic?

On the Libya subject. I want to be clear that I'm not supporting Qadafi here necessarily, but how is his cracking down on rebellion significantly different than the French cracking down on the Paris riots a few years ago or even our own experience with rebellion?

boomer62, sw, et.al., watch out these guys love to point out all the inconsistencies and errors of non-liberals but the second it is pointed out that they willingly ignore the same mistakes by liberals they bend over backwards to excuse themselves and those liberal writers. They will then take umbrage that you dare bring that to attention.

Mike,

I am sorry, did I say that conservatives never did that? I left it as an open statement, for a reason. It is just as repugnant when someone I may agree with to degree does it. If I am to always condemn all sides, why don't you? Heck, you couldn't even say that it is not acceptable to lie just because you agree with them. You argued for the dishonesty! It is interesting that in denouncing my statement, you try and imply that conservatives are against everybody else. That sorta explains your obsession with all or nothing thinking. If someone isnt for something they are against it eh?

I didnt see it in myself, you saw it in me and I have no problem with it and nothing to change.

Its really easy to find chinks in someone elses armor and tear them down isnt it? I am simply defending my post from an attack by you and you dont see fit to point out anyone elses post so i did it for you.

transplant, for the most part i skip over what you say since these boards are a waste of your time. They have now become even more of a waste since at least 1 person less reads the endless ramblings you put on here.

bigdawg,

Good decision to manage your time wisely.

"It is just as repugnant when someone I may agree with to degree does it. If I am to always condemn all sides, why don't you?"

I do.

"It is interesting that in denouncing my statement, you try and imply that conservatives are against everybody else."

I wasn't aware that you were flying the banner that you represented conservatives. I didn't try to imply that conservatives are against everybody else, you're trying to assign that to me. I didn't imply anything. I believe I clearly stated it. I guess I need to be more clear, when I say these guys I mean yourself, Sam, Boomer, and SW.

"That sorta explains your obsession with all or nothing thinking."

Considering I don't operate that way it's a really large leap to attempt to claim that I do. The world is not simply black and white there are shades of gray.

The point that bigdawg is making and I have stated several times on here is that there are a group of posters on here that are conservative that seem to get riled up anytime a non-conservative poster makes any kind of statement they don't agree with. Furthermore this group demands that non-conservative posters go after both liberal and conservative (and every pretty color in between) people. When it's pointed out to them that they are wanting everyone else to do something they themselves refuse to do they go after that particular poster with derisive, dismissive, excuses as to why they don't.

Your "It is just as repugnant when someone I may agree with to degree does it" statement is just the latest. In other words if it is repugnant for you to do it, then why do you expect other posters to do it?

"I don't think the Republic has fallen, and your arguments haven't persuaded me it has. In your opinion, what do we have, since we don't have a republic?"

We have a representative democracy.

"I feel we still have a republic, because we are represented in government by people we choose to represent our interests."

That is not a republic. A republic is one in which the people or a significant portion of the people reign supreme over the government. We don't have that. We send representatives that go to the seat of the government to make decisions (or as is often the case don't) for us.

"Since you said there is no economic system that could have saved the Republic in your view, do you contend then that all republics are doomed from the outset?"

I believe I said that there was no economic system that could have saved our version of the Republic, so no that is not my contention at all. The Roman Republic could have lasted a lot longer on the economic system they had but they overstretched their military.

bigdawg,

Ah, okay. I did attack you a little bit. I get defensive when people try to hold up an extremist to stand for an entire group. You seemed to be using those leading statements to do nothing but that. It seems like you do that often when anything but an extreamly leftist statement gets made. If you were trying to do something else, then I apologize.

I really did just want to know what your answers to the question you asked were. I would like to know if you know the difference between helping and enableing is. But, when you came back with, a 'why don't you call sam on his stuff', I thought you were pulling a mike and attacking instead of answering. See, I already have a pretty good idea of what sam thinks about it.

And it actually isn't that easy to "tear them down" unless "they" don't have a clear idea of what they believe. I am more interested in finding out the reasoning behind peoples opinions. Thats why I ask questions. Some leading, true, but that is because I want to find out if my thoughts are correct.

So, now that I understand where you are coming from, what do you think should happen in your hypothetical situations? I am asking you, not anyone else. Gonna pull a mike? If you want to know my opinions, just ask. I didn't want this to be an endless rambling. If you are tired of reading them, don't. Especially don't answer if you are not interested in discourse.

I'm crestfallen!!!!!! I wasnt included with Sam, boomer, sw, et. al.

doodle,

Apparently Mike doesn't think you are a conservattive, funny because he thinks I am one, even though I don't and I doubt he could point out why I am a conservative other than I often disagree with him. Perhaps this is another example of his black/white thinking.

Mike,

I don't even know how to respond to most of your post directed at me. It is so filled with self delusion. But, there is one part I totally can.

"Your "It is just as repugnant when someone I may agree with to degree does it" statement is just the latest. In other words if it is repugnant for you to do it, then why do you expect other posters to do it?"

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 5:03 PM

I don't.

Oh and here is another theme that they will do bigdawg. One poster will call a non-conservative poster a certain word or phrase and eventually they will all, at one point, or another pick up that word or phrase (or some variation of it).

Take for example:

"That sorta explains your obsession with all or nothing thinking."

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 12:20 PM

Followed a few hours later with this statement from SW

"Perhaps this is another example of his black/white thinking."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 5:27 PM

It's called group think and they all suffer from it. It's quite an interesting thing to see. Oh and another thing. Though they almost always ignore the rantings of other conservative posters but will pounce on any non-conservative poster for similar rants, don't dare call them a conservative because they just simply aren't. They will even go so far as claiming they are a registered Democrat.

Apparently they believe that I and/or other non-conservative posters suffer from black/white thinking when we see them day in and day out go after any poster or person that is a non-conservative while at the same time ignoring or excusing that is (or is considered to be) conservative.

For instance they love going after gaffes made by the president yet they remain suspiciously quiet when the self appointed head of the TEA Party caucus in Congress said twice in one weekend that the shot hear around the world and the battles of Lexington and Concord happened in New Hampshire.

Of course at this point they will say what's the point, it's redundant, to do it because I or someone else has already pointed it out. All at the same time demanding that we publicly speak out against Obama on whatever he does.

"I don't even know how to respond to most of your post directed at me. It is so filled with self delusion."

That's funny you expect me to answer one of your questions (even after I have already answered it) and follow me through my blogs demanding that I answer a question I have already answered. Yet when a pose a few to you, you call me delusional and only answer one? To which:

"Your "It is just as repugnant when someone I may agree with to degree does it" statement is just the latest. In other words if it is repugnant for you to do it, then why do you expect other posters to do it?"

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 5:03 PM

"I don't."

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 5:37 PM

You just did.

I guess you do not see, in MY opinion, the redundancy in your own posts, do you Michael? And why the sucking up to bigdawg? Just because he MAY agree with some of your blog?

p.s. I meant to add: are you looking for validation of your viewpoints?

The Republic is doomed, IMHO, and here is why.

People thought President Bush was a freewheeling spender. He was well into his second term before he vetoed a single spending bill. He started 2 wars and spent a lot on them, creating huge debts for the nation, while Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac built a housing bubble the likes of which nobody had ever seen before. Shows like "Flip this House" are gone from TV, but millions of people are upside down in their homes now because Congress pushed lenders to make ridiculous home loans. NINJA borrowers; no income, no job, no assets--NO PROBLEM, DUDE!

Then he retired, and we got President Obama. He spent so much it made his predecessor look like a piker! It's hard to keep track of how many Trillions he has spent in a little over 2 years. Bailouts for banks, auto manufacturers, 50 states, some foreign countries, and no end in sight. And now it looks like he is taking us to a 3rd war in Libya! The press likes him better than Bush though, and I suppose that's an improvement of sorts. He thought he could fix the housing meltdown with 1st Time Homebuyer credits, but that didn't work so he tried it twice. He said the bailouts would keep unemployment under 8%. He says the economy is improving. He says there is no inflation so speak of, but have you been in a grocery store or to a gas station recently?

Point is, it doesn't matter who goes to Washington. There seems to be a virulent strain of an insanity-causing virus there from which no politician is immune. I call it the Super Spendthrift Virus! On one ever recovers from it. The voters send a new crop of healthy politicians to Washington on a regulary basis, and they ALL come down with the disease. Immunologists need to draw blood from Ron Paul, who seems to have immunity to the virus. Perhaps innoculations could save us yet!

Politicians will do anything to remain in office, for a good reason. They will NEVER have another job so good. Who will pay them as much, give them such a great fringe benefits package, give them an unlimited travel budget for anyplace in the world, give them a limo with driver on permanent standby, and surround them with folks who fawn over them and bow and scrape before them? Some of them even get a free private jet and helicopter, complete with pilots at the ready, as well.

Early in the Republic, being a Congressman or even a President was viewed as a part-time job with no side benefits, but my how that has changed.!

"We have a representative democracy"

True but that is more of a specific description of our form of republic, in our case representative democracy is how we elect officials in our republic. I was a little worried you were going to say we had a plutocracy or plutarchy or something.

FYI if you are going to plagiarize from Wikipedia, you should at least read more of the entry than just the first line :)

Actually, I find that at it's most basic the definition of republic really just means there isn't hereditary rulers and that the government is based on law. The US would fit into this definition. However to use your plagiarized definition, the people of our nation are in control of our government, we elect and remove officers, in that way we exercise our supreme control. If President Obama loses his next election, he won't stay in power in contravention of the people's desires will he? Are there any republics that fit your narrow definition?

"Oh and here is another theme that they will do bigdawg. One poster will call a non-conservative poster a certain word or phrase and eventually they will all, at one point, or another pick up that word or phrase (or some variation of it)."

Again, if someone raises an interesting and accurate point, why shouldn't other people agree? Isn't this calling a spade a spade again?

"For instance they love going after gaffes made by the president yet they remain suspiciously quiet when the self appointed head of the TEA Party caucus in Congress said twice in one weekend that the shot hear around the world and the battles of Lexington and Concord happened in New Hampshire."

Well, they could just leave it to you to go after the gaffes of the TEA Party caucus; or would that be hypocritical for conservatives, but not for you again? I get so confused.

For my two cents, I didn't realize the head of the TEA Party Caucus made that error until now. But watch out! I could just be lying again eh Mike?

"They will even go so far as claiming they are a registered Democrat."

PROOF AGAIN THAT EVERYONE BUT MIKE LIES!!!!!!!!!

Mike,

Funny that you feel we are unfairly engaging in group think and assigning thoughts to you that you don't have. I based my comment on black/white thinking clearly on your own comments, which seem in line with what Sir Didymus said. Let me try to break this down so you understand.

You clearly said that conservatives are against everyone else, confirming what Sir Didymus said about your view of the world. Follow close so you don't get confused.

Sir Didymus said: "It is interesting that in denouncing my statement, you try and imply that conservatives are against everybody else. That sorta explains your obsession with all or nothing thinking. If someone isnt for something they are against it eh?"

You follow up with: "I didn't try to imply that conservatives are against everybody else, you're trying to assign that to me. I didn't imply anything. I believe I clearly stated it."

So in your clear words, you confirm what he said, in even stronger language than he used, that there are two sides, conservatives vs. everybody else. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Then when I comment on your black/white view of the world, the view which you confirmed, you criticize me saying: "Apparently they believe that I and/or other non-conservative posters suffer from black/white thinking when we see them day in and day out go after any poster or person that is a non-conservative while at the same time ignoring or excusing that is (or is considered to be) conservative."

This illustrates why I think you are lacking in intelligence, yet again. I'll try to explain it so even you can understand. I believe you suffer from black/white thinking, NOT because you feel I ignore conservatives. Instead I think you exhibit black/white thinking because YOU SAID IT! You believe the world is broken down into conservative vs. everybody else, in your own words.

I think Mike is just messing with us. He is just making stuff up. I think since he changed his handle to "Proud Liberal" he feels the need to just make stuff up. I think it is part of his act since he has been proven to be WRONG about almost everything he has written about over the last 2 years.

I think that as his Liberal "YES WE DID" moment has flamed out and Obama is going down as the worst President in at least 100 years he has become more desperate. Even Obama is resorting to WAR to try to improve his poll numbers.

Does anyone besides me find it almost criminal that the Commander in Chief of the United States of America is out of the country when we begin Military Action. That is almost an impeachable offense to me. A direct neglect of duty.

Wallis,

I disagree with you here, about Obama not about Mike making stuff up :)

I see no reason why the President need be in the United States during the beginning of a military action. The decision could be made from anywhere, it isn't as if there is a dearth of instant communication available. Why would it matter where he is sitting when he approves something. That said, it does look poorly for him the whole way this Libya thing has played out, this last bit doesn't matter to me much.

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html

"Liberals love to excuse stupid behavior and punish true achievement.

Why? For votes and power, and for control."

Sam, those were the most accurate statements made in this whole mess. The Democratic Plantation is loaded with those that have made poor choices and are completely enslaved to their Democratic masters.

For a great first-hand story about this, look up Star Parker.

Oh, and I would like to add that, as a mother of 5 children, I made a lot of stupid choices. However, I did not look to the government to provide for my kids...not even their health care or health insurance.

And I went from being a non-producer to being a producer, and taught my kids the value of an education and hard work on the way.

By the way, Mike, you don't have to be the CEO of a huge company to be a producer. Your wife is a producer, since she works for the hospital. I would have to guess from your words that you don't consider teaching kids a warped subject to be productive, and I'll agree with that.

Mike,

I did answer the one question you asked. You then questioned my veracity. If I have ever said or even implied that one standard of behavior applies to any one group and not to another, feel free to throw it in my face. If not, you might have to change your avatar to "proud libeler"

Oh, you might be misunderstanding my post. I do see that it is a little sloppy. Let me clarify.

When someone that I might agree slightly with in some ways tries to use the "the other side does worse, so why don't you go after them" argument to justify bad behavior I find it repugnant. I may agree with them in some things, but not in everything. See, I am not a conformist. I have my own opinions. That being said, I don't see the need for me to point out every time it happens. Thats why I used a blanket statement. I thought that part was clear. The hypocrisy in using an opponents bad behavior to justify the bad behavior in someone that you agree with in something else is repugnant. If there was a misunderstanding I apologize for that. Not any of the rest though. You still exhibit dichotomous thinking.

P.S. HEY EVERYBODY LETS ALL USE THE TERM DICHOTOMOUS THINKING FROM NOW ON! THINKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Gee I think I touched a nerve here. Apparently now, for non-conservatives to talk to each other on this board it is considered sucking up. That sure is interesting.

Of course, once again here comes the questioning of intelligence. Remember if you don't like what the other guy is saying just question their intelligence. Not only will it help you actually avoid making a point it will validate yourself.

"Funny that you feel we are unfairly engaging in group think and assigning thoughts to you that you don't have."

I never said that group think was unfair, yet here we have a poster claiming that I did. I don't think group think is unfair to me or anyone else, except for the posters that practice in group think.

While I am thinking of it, it is pretty sad to me that when I talk of conservatives vs non-conservatives on this blog it somehow gets translated into that's what I think of the real world. It isn't. While I certainly have a black/white view of this blog (as it plays out day in and day out) I know that the real world doesn't operate in this fashion. But, SW, if you want to continue claiming this is how I really feel then you are free to do it because, even though you say it is impossible to "know" what people think or believe on a blog board, you have no issues continually assigning what I think and my beliefs to me.

Wallis, my handle still clearly states MichaelHendricks. My avatar is Proud Liberal. No you are the only way that feels that way, the other guy who said almost the exact same thing was on Fox News yesterday making that claim.

Boomer, Boomer, Boomer, you need to get your facts and history straight.

First, we know exactly how much President Obama has spent and it's still less than President Bush (when you factor in the two wars, which his White House did not). You can do it one or two ways for an actual comparison. You can either take the wars out of Obama's budget as Bush did and Bush's numbers are way higher or you can put the wars in Bush's budgets as Obama has done and Bush's numbers are still higher. To compare one president's budgets to another when one includes the wars and the other didn't is not a comparison and is only meant to skew the data.

Also you clearly indicated that Obama was to blame for both the auto and bank bailouts. Kind of weird to blame someone for those when they weren't even in office. Both bailouts occurred under Bush not Obama.

However, I completely agree with the second half of your statement. For me that is further proof that the Republic has been gone for a long time and is not just a recent development.

lol Good one Michael. My nerves are on fire because you touched one. I am devastated that you saw through my subterfuge. I also see that you declined to address my point about your own redundancy.

Let me start this morning by stating that I am against any American intervention in Libya. Our military is already spread too thin.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Mar 19, 2011, at 10:44 AM

OK Michael, this is one of those put-up-or-shut-up moments!

Are you and your liberal mates going to go as nuclear over Obama's war for French oil in Libya as you did over Bush's war in Iraq, and Bush and Obama's war for poppies in Afghanistan???

Yeah, that's what I thought!

-- Posted by ochosinco on Sun, Mar 20, 2011, at 10:04 AM

You were late by almost a full 24 hours. Next time try reading some posts before you are so sure that I am supportive over a war.

"When someone that I might agree slightly with in some ways tries to use the "the other side does worse, so why don't you go after them" argument to justify bad behavior I find it repugnant."

Didymus on this I fully agree with you, especially consider the newest conflict one of our presidents has gotten us into.

Apparently it's not enough to state that you are against the conflict, you have to go "nuclear" over it because it happened with Bush otherwise it isn't enough.

I do not support this conflict. It is a horrible idea. We are not the policeman of the world, and we cannot go into every country that starts coming apart at the seams. Libya poses no threat to our freedoms and liberties. As horrible as the situation in that country is, it is not our fight.

The President, his cabinet, and both party members of Congress can sugar coat this as much as they want to, we should not be in Libya.

Of course, for McCain, it's high time if not too late that we got in there. He's the worst of all of them. Can you imagine if he had won? We would have already bombed Iran. How many wars would we be fighting now under him?

I would say that the one main difference between the coalition the US is in now and the coalition that the US was in concerning Iraq is that this is an actual coalition. No coercing, not publicly stating to the world that you are either with us or against us crap.

Having said that, it is about the only bright spot in this horrendous idea of attacking a country that has not, or even threatened to, attack us.

So Obama now has his War. Obama has budget deficits 3x the size of Bush. Obama has taken over GM instead of letting it be taken over by a buyer that can run it. Obama has made Health insurance premiums go up over 20%. Obama is insuring that Gasoline prices go higher than $5/gallon. Obama is also making himself look like a joke by taking a family vacation with the onset of War and a potential Nuclear disaster in Japan and people freaking out in California because of radiation.

Is this the change you were telling me about Mike? Because this is exactly what I knew was going to happen when we elected this joke of a man. I told you when you posted your "Yes We Did" that this was going to be a mistake. Hope you took a picture of that yard sign you were so proud of. We now have serious issues to deal with. We have a serious budget deficit. We have high unemployment and we have the federal reserve buying our debt in an attempt to create a synthetic interest rate cut. The Yen has rallied in the last week sparking a real concern that the Japanese may sell their treasuries to bring Yen back to rebuild. The dollar chart is very abnormal. I don't know what to make of it. My system is telling me that the index could drop to 42 (right now it is 76). Can you imagine what that would mean if the dollar index loses half of its value? That would mean 1970's inflation all over again. My oil target is still $148 by summer and an ultimate target of $225.

Even Alan Greenspan came out last week and said the current administration is undermining the Federal Reserve which is why our recovery is so tepid.

Mike you are acting just like the current administration. As more and more control is being lost you are acting more and more irrational. Can you not see that Bill Clinton was correct when he said Liberals are not capable to govern and the Democrats have to govern from the center? I guess you don't see that as Obama attacked Bill Clinton and implied that he was a racist.

The fatal flaw that President Carter committed was not backing the the Shah and allowing Iran to go under. The Shah was our ally. After that disaster the Iran- Iraq war broke out and we had high oil prices from 1979-1982 with prices tending lower until the ultimate collapse in December of 1985. President Obama must defend Saudi Arabia. If Saudi were to fall oil could go to at least $225 and maybe higher. However, the Obama doctrine seems to be to support the uprisings and turn our back on current leaders.

I hope that Barack Hussein Obama has a plan to deal with international conflict and the threat of domestic terrorism as a result of his actions.

Mike - if John McCain would have won probably none of this would have happened because the bully's of the World fear strength. President Obama is perceived as very very weak around the World.

For someone who likes to castigate for making stuff up, this is quite the doozy.

"Obama has budget deficits 3x the size of Bush."

Since you apparently didn't get the memo. When you take one presidents budget (that does not include the two wars started under that president) and then compare it to another presidents budget (that DOES include the two wars) the second budget is naturally going to be higher.

"Obama has taken over GM instead of letting it be taken over by a buyer that can run it."

Last time I checked Congress passed that bill and then Obama signed it so it's really hard to say that Obama took it over.

"Obama has made Health insurance premiums go up over 20%."

Yes, I'm sure insurance companies had nothing to do with raising premiums at all. IT WAS ALL OBAMA!!

"Obama is insuring that Gasoline prices go higher than $5/gallon."

You really need to make up your mind because not just last week you were claiming that gasoline prices were going up because of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (which you claim was somehow predicted in September) now you are saying that Obama is doing it on his own.

"Obama is also making himself look like a joke by taking a family vacation with the onset of War and a potential Nuclear disaster in Japan and people freaking out in California because of radiation."

Oh here we go with the vacation theme again. I'm pretty sure he can (and he is) deal with this stuff whether he is in Brazil or McCook, Nebraska. Technology is a wonderful thing. Then again, it was perfectly fine for Bush to take all those record breaking vacation days but Obama taking any vacation days, according to you, is an impeachable offense.

"Hope you took a picture of that yard sign you were so proud of."

Don't need to, I still have it.

"We now have serious issues to deal with. We have a serious budget deficit."

Because as we all know the budget deficit wasn't a serious issue in the 00s when we went from the largest surplus in this nations history to the biggest deficit because of two wars and tax cuts (not fully but a large part of the reason).

The fact that you are still convinced that Obama is a liberal further convinces me that you have no idea what Liberalism is. It also once again proves that even when Conservatives vote to raise the deficit you will still find any way to blame the Liberals for their votes.

"However, the Obama doctrine seems to be to support the uprisings and turn our back on current leaders."

Funny, when Bush did the same exact thing with his own Doctrine it was considered spreading Democracy. Of course out of all the uprisings that have occurred the United States has only gotten involved with one and that is part of a coalition. I do have one serious question for you. Do you support leaders gunning down their own people just so they can stay in power?

"if John McCain would have won probably none of this would have happened because the bully's of the World fear strength. President Obama is perceived as very very weak around the World."

Yeah you're probably right (that was dripping with sarcasm just for you). I seriously doubt any of the leaders around the world were afraid of man who sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys. By the way do you have any actual proof ... oh never mind I know you don't.

For someone who demands not making stuff up you sure made a lot of stuff up in this post. For someone you view as being very very weak you sure are convinced that is very very powerful. Odd thing that is.

Next you'll be telling us that Obama caused the earthquakes.

Mike you need a timeout. Lying is OK? Really?

See Mike teacher blog. He is for lying.

Without a Moral compass debate is impossible.

I didn't say lying was okay. I said it was interesting that you would accuse other people for making stuff up and then follow it up with the gem above.

I really don't understand what your disconnect here is Didymus. I do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go protest (I have stated this clearly time and time again yet for some reason you seem to be stuck on it),

Comments by Mike.

boomer, Mrs. smith,

Dont think that it is just democrats giving things to the poor to buy votes, the same thing happens on the other side of the aisle.

Lying on an opinion blog, very interesting.

Mike,

Let me get this straight. If Non-extremist Liberals agree on something, it is evil groupthink. Hmm.. I am sure you wouldn't pull a bit of hypocracy with that eh?

You do know that just saying something does not make it true? Ive said it once and I'll say it always. Behavior betrays thinking. Hmm... well mike I am sorry that you apparently find yourself repugnant. I don't feel like putting the reasons out there, but I am sure that anyone that Just this blog, not to mention your older ones could draw that conclusion.

and to ascribe thoughts and motives to others (who do not even post on this blog) is absolutely horrible! Just horrible!!!