Who's Afraid of the big bad Liberal?

It has always amused me to watch certain liberals bend over backwards to paint any conservative, whether they be the President of the United States (and it really does not matter if the President is not a conservative, if he is a Republican he is automatically labeled a conservative) or a lowly blogger on a small town newspaper's website, as evil and wanting to destroy America. Naturally any sane (yes I am going there) thinking person knows that this is not true.

So, why do they do this? Is it because they are just wanting to get under the skin of conservatives? For some, definitely yes. Do they actually think that conservatism is a disease or a symptom of the indoctrination centers set up throughout the United States (most of use know these centers as just simply public education)? Again, for some absolutely yes. Is it fear? Doubtful for 95% who view conservatives in a negative light, but for that 5% it is a possibility. DISCLAIMER: The last sentence was purely opinion on the percentages. I have no proof that the numbers are accurate.

I do not know who coined the phrase "the c word" c of course referring to conservative. My first encounter with it was in the 80s. I was young, so the first time I heard the phrase I naturally did not even like the idea of being labeled as a c. As I grew older I realized that politicians would use that phrase with voters, especially more liberal voters in an effort to get those voters to vote for them.

So why is the world "conservative" so hated? What have conservatives done to deserve the hatred and disdain directed at them? Honestly little to nothing. If someone does something wrong they are automatically labeled a conservative, whether or not they are. In many cases, even a non-political event will be labeled as a conservative event.

We are not to be feared or labeled as sick or out to get you. Hey, for all you know, one of us could be standing or sitting right next to you and you would never know.

Have a good day.

Thank you Michael; you have a good day too!!!

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

I completely agree with you doodle bug. I meant to put that originally in my blog but with my attention divided between this and my grandchildren I forgot. My apologies.

doodle bug,

I'm sorry, he just doesn't get it, I think he is too far gone to see his hypocrisy.

Still awaiting an apology

Mike,

Don't you call yourself a liberal? And I love the addendum you made to your post. I believe that You hate Fox News, and proudly state it. I believe you have implied that republicans and conservatives follow fox news religiously. Am I wrong?

As to why "they" (again with that?) hate liberals, I would guess that you are being a little melodramatic about it. From my experience, a great number of conservatives are irritated by liberals, but they seem to pity them at the same time.

Do yourself a favor, and cancel your pity party.

P.S.

I am glad to see that your continued education that you are getting here on your lowly blog is taking hold. You correctly identified one of your statements as opinion! Bravo!

It has always amused me to watch certain dogs bend over backwards to paint any cat, whether they be the cat of the house (and it really does not matter if the cat is not a feral, if he is a feline he is automatically labeled a ***** cat, as evil and wanting to destroy the dogs world. Naturally any sane (yes I am going there) thinking animal knows that this is not true.

So, why do they do this? Is it because they are just wanting to get under the skin of the cats? For some, definitely yes. Do they actually think that furballs is a disease or a symptom of the litterbox, set up throughout the house (most of us know these furballs as just simply to much licking? Again, for some absolutely yes. Is it fear? Doubtful for 95% who view cats in a negative light, but for that 5% it is a possibility. DISCLAIMER: The last sentence was purely opinion on the percentages. I have no proof that the numbers are accurate.

I do not know who coined the phrase "the P word" P of course referring to ***** cats. My first encounter with it was in 05. I was a kitten, so the first time I heard the phrase I naturally did not even like the idea of being labeled as an P . As I grew older I realized that K-9 would use that phrase with mutts, especially more vicious K-9 in an effort to get those barkers to chase us.

So why in the world "cats" so hated? What have cats done to deserve the hatred and disdain directed at them? Honestly little to nothing. If felines do something wrong they are automatically labeled a *****, whether or not they are. In many cases, even a non-animal event will be labeled as a hairball event.

We are not to be feared or labeled as sick or out to get you. Hey, for all you know, one of us could be sitting right next to you and you would never know.

Have a good day

Oh boy I'm sick, going to bed now.

Good read mike, I would call Sam a conservative and he clearly hates liberals. You have but to read his hate filled rants to see that.

Keda46,

You said: "We are not to be feared or labeled as sick or out to get you", but then said: "Oh boy I'm sick, going to bed now" thus PROVING beyond all doubt that you are indeed one sick ***** cat, the truth will always come out. :)

Seriously funny though, gave me a good chuckle this morning.

Still awaiting an apology

dawg, I almost did the same thing to your post as I did to Michaels, but reined in my tremendous urge to do so. I agree Sam may be an uber conservative; would you agree that Michael may be an uber liberal? If you and Michael wish for his blogs to go unchallenged by conservatives, maybe he should blog on HuffingtonPost, moveon.org or MediaMatters or some other bastion of fairness. And I would advise the same for Sam. Forgive my conservative perception but I dont feel that Sam takes near as much umbrage as Michael.

We fear liberals because we know they want to take our money and give it to causes we do not support. It's really just as simple as that.

Liberals support big government solutions to any and all problems, rather than solving problems personally on an individual basis.

Along with the growth of government comes the loss of individual freedom. They go hand in hand.

It's a legitimate fear.

No, Boomer, it isn't because you still do not understand what liberalism is. Until you do, you will continue to have this irrational fear. You blame growth of government solely on liberalism but the government has grown under the watch of conservatives as well. Rand Paul, for example, the new bastion of conservatism is trying to get a new budget passed that will increase the debt.

"We fear liberals because we know they want to take our money and give it to causes we do not support."

How do you "know" this?

doodle, I am an uber liberal, I claim that up front and center. I have never said I wasn't. The problem centers around the fact that people don't know what liberalism truly is, and on this board at least they don't want to know. I have tried to explain it in the past and was called a liar about my own beliefs.

"Forgive my conservative perception but I dont feel that Sam takes near as much umbrage as Michael."

Really? Sam, in our previous blogging adventures got so upset with me he started making rude comments about my wife. If you really don't think he takes umbrage you really need to read his posts again.

I have never wished that my blogs go unchallenged so I really don't know why you lumped me in on that statement.

thanks for the reply Michael. I dont read all of Sams blogs so I missed the one with the rude comments about your wife. Pleade paraphrase the comments or give me the post so I can see it. And you twisted my statement Michael; let me clarify. I did NOT say Sam does not take umbrage; the statement was: "I dont feel Sam takes NEAR AS MUCH umbrage as Michael".

Mike, please share with us what a liberal wants? In my opinion, Boomer is correct. I want to know why you think he is wrong.

Thanks.

Michael,

"How do you "know" this?"

Hello again Mr. Pot, how many times will you demand a response to these types of questions while ignoring other's questions of you?

"I am an uber liberal, I claim that up front and center. I have never said I wasn't. The problem centers around the fact that people don't know what liberalism truly is, and on this board at least they don't want to know."

Here we finally get to the heart of the matter. I believe the reason you write your blog is because you like feeling a victim. You say all of us evil non-uber Liberals have no idea what a Liberal believes and we don't want to know, because you keep trying to explain it to us but we won't listen.

I know from reading your arguments that I don't like the way you try to present your points and that many of the points you do make I disagree with. If you are the standard bearer for Liberalism, the way you comport yourself in this forum reinforces that Liberals are people I don't really want to be associated with. So all of your effort to show how much better Liberals (read: you) are, you produce the opposite effect and your whining and victim stance further supports the negative opinions that many people have of Liberals. In short, if you are representative of what a Liberal is, I'm glad I'm not one.

Still awaiting an apology

"And you twisted my statement Michael; let me clarify. I did NOT say Sam does not take umbrage; the statement was: "I dont feel Sam takes NEAR AS MUCH umbrage as Michael"."

Ouch, I guess doodle bug isn't the only one who needs to read posts again huh?

Michael, I agree both parties are pushing big govt agendas. The difference is in amount.

What was Obamacare if it wasn't a big govt solution to an alleged problem? Who was being denied health care before the act? Nobody, insured or not.

I would be a "classical liberal" as it was 200 years ago. But the term has been coopted by the Marxists and Socialists now.

You tell me I don't know what liberalism is. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

As a self-avowed liberal, tell us what you want, what you really, really want.

Michael, I "know" they want to use my money in ways I do not support because they are doing it now.

They us my money to support abortion-favoring Planned Parenthood, to fund something I disagree with. I do not support laws prohibiting abortion, even though I personally am horrified by it, because I don't thing the govt should be telling people how to live so much. But I don't want to pay for abortions, either. Via liberal laws I am forced to help pay for them, both here and abroad.

I "know" liberals are using my money to prevent Boeing from building a new plant in North Carolina, an issue I could never support.

I "know" liberals love the tort bar lawyers. They do not want to rein in those friends, so I pay more for medical care and everything I purchase. The cost of defending against law suits has sent many businesses overseas where they don't have to fight such nonsense. Again, they force me to spend on things I do not support.

I "know" liberals love the "War on Poverty" that has been such a huge failure. We have more poor people now, both in numbers and as a percentage of the population, than when the programs were begun 45 years ago. They have forced me to spend money to support this foolish cause. My church us much more efficient at helping the poor and I would rather give through them than being compelled to give through my taxes. Somehow I don't get that personal gratification when the choice is taken from me.

Michael, I don't hate liberals. I have absolute pity for them, for they know not what they do.

To Mike, some interesting information about "what liberalism is," or at least what kind of behaviors are caused by liberalism.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/10-questions-with-i-cant-believe-im-sitting-ne...

"I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican," by Harry Stein.

It's a funny and entertaining look at the insanity at the foundation of liberal beliefs.

Enjoy!!

Boomer,

"I would be a "classical liberal" as it was 200 years ago. But the term has been coopted by the Marxists and Socialists now."

I've tried to make that point years ago to Michael and others who are no longer posting. That is also why when I refer to Liberals like Michael I always use "L" instead of "l" to differentiate between the liberal ideas of freedom and the Liberal ideas of big government.

"As a self-avowed liberal, tell us what you want, what you really, really want."

OMG! This is too funny, I can't believe you just made a Spice Girl reference. You just made my day!

Still awaiting an apology

You know it's funny that, at least on here, the only people that think liberals are out for pity or are playing a pity party are the conservatives and typically these conservatives are the same ones offering the pity. It's quite an oddity.

Boomer, what you "know" and what you know seem to be worlds apart. Let's start with planned parenthood. You say they are an abortion favoring organization. You say that you "know" this. Unfortunately the facts do not back you up one iota. Considering that at last count there were 855 Planned Parenthood clinics and out of those only 287 clinics performed abortions (roughly 33.5%), your claim of them favoring abortion is an outrageous claim. Couple that with your claim of being against laws that prohibit abortion and your claim becomes even more outrageous.

http://www.all.org/article/index/id/MjQ0NQ

Planned Parenthood provides many services to women including free preventive measures against getting pregnant in the first place. Planned Parenthood also helps women set into motion adoptions if that is the route they wish to take. In this case your "knowing" what Planned Parenthood actually does versus what is being put out there by groups whose sole goal is to shut them down is sorely lacking.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

You may not hate liberals boomer, but your utter lack of understanding what they actually do what you think you "know" they do has led you to many mistaken beliefs about them. If you choose to pity something you don't understand who am I to stand in your way?

again, nice twist Michael. In your response to boomer, you post that only 287 out of 855 PP clinics perform abortions. I have re-read boomers post three times and I still have not found the statement that he claims PP is an abortion providing organization. He stated that he "knows" (and I dont claim to know) PP is an abortion "favoring" orgainization. No where in your response did you disprove that statement. And if you provide links proving otherwise, please do not use links to Planned Parenthood. Talk about "outrageous".

Michael,

How much of the Democratic Party would you say are uber-Liberal like you, 90%, 60%, 30% more, less?

Still awaiting an apology

Once again Mike, you skip over my question...

"No, Boomer, it isn't because you still do not understand what liberalism is. Until you do, you will continue to have this irrational fear. You blame growth of government solely on liberalism but the government has grown under the watch of conservatives as well. Rand Paul, for example, the new bastion of conservatism is trying to get a new budget passed that will increase the debt."

Mike, how do you explain what Liberalism is?

Awaiting your answer...

You blame growth of government solely on liberalism but the government has grown under the watch of conservatives as well. (from Michael Hendricks Thur 05/12/2011 10:23 a.m.)

Michael, I agree both parties are pushing big govt agendas. The difference is in amount. (from boomer 05/12/2100 11:00 a.m.)

Michael, will you please point out where boomer only blames liberals for the growth of big government?

I also "know" why big govt solutions are pushed by both parties.

People want more out of life than they have earned, and think they can get it from the govt.

Those of us who believe in personal responsibility want less government, not more. But those who believe in "rights" and not personal responsibility, look to the government to provide for them instead of looking into the mirror for their salvation.

We have a growing segment of the population who are what I refer to as the "gimme" group of voters. Promise them what they want, and they will vote for you. This is how President Obama was elected.

If you think something is expensive, wait until the govt provides it for free!

Jobs number is still lousy. Thanks Big Bad Liberals for your last 2 years of ruinous behavior.

Normally we recover at 5%-7% GDP growth following a recession. We are growing at 1.8% GDP. Worst recovery on record. This is due to Obama and Pelosi and Reid.

Mike- I TOLD YOU the policies were wrong. Yet you refused to listen or believe.

Wallis

You are an amazing person ... blame liberals when they are in power, continue blaming them when that power is diminished.

The Republicans have been in charge of the house now going on five months and the Senate is largely moderate, nothing has been done for five months having anything to do with jobs (which on this website it was decided that was the best option).

It seems, Wallis, all you want to do is blame blame blame.

Now, you said normally we recover at 5-7%, do you have any proof to back that up? We have had quite a few recessions over the last 200+ years, so, care to back it up?

I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't know for sure I was correct.

I tend to verify or have facts behind my opinion.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, May 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM

I really hope, for your sake, that when and IF you do post your fact based claims of normality you do a lot better with verifying your facts behind your opinion. Or, at the very least including all of the substance of the facts instead of just using those pieces of information that benefit (though actually don't prove) your opinion as fact.

Good luck with that. I wait anxiously.

http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1953

Mike - If you EVER LOOKED AT FACTS OR STUDIED ANYTHING you would also realize that in the past the sharper the recession the greater the recovery. Think of it this way. If you have a number, say 100. You cut it in half and you have 50. Add 10% to 50 and you have 55. You are still 45 basis points below where you started but you had a big percent increase.

We had the sharpest drop in 70 years yet we are now growing at a pitiful 1.8%. Our budget deficit is out of control. Entitlement spending is going to cripple us.

In 2009, President Obama and the Congress decided that they were going to push there Liberal Agenda (Cap and Trade, Universal unaffordable Health Insurance and all of the rest) and the Stimulus bill would (almost 1 Trillion of wasted money - remember shovel ready?) fix the economy. Well the stimulus money is spent and no jobs have been added thanks to the total failure of the Democrats in power.

BTW I provided facts and history is history.

The math is the most compelling. We actually have to add almost 200,000 jobs a month just to stay even. It will take time to get there. As the damage caused by your fellow liberals is great.

Wallis

Any comment as to why the Senate voted 97-0 to not even consider the Obama budget?

I guess that should tell you something.

http://blog.heartland.org/2011/05/the-recovery-from-the-great-recession-is-not-s...

As these graphs are updated the GDP has slowed to 1.8%

Wallis

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/half-last-months-jobs-came-single-employer-m...

Thanks Mr. President. Fries with that shake?

Wallis

Just backed it up with the facts Mike.

Care to retort before you think?

Pretty please, just like old times.........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=43274554�

Talk about jobs needed to be added to be even.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AH_SiwhIKU&NR=1

More................

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43268037

Mike it goes on and on.

Over 2 years past your Hope and Change tour and your "Yes We Did" blog people think we are never going back.

You are wrong and this President must go.

Wallis

Any comment as to why the Senate voted 97-0 to not even consider the Obama budget?

I guess that should tell you something.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jun 4, 2011, at 10:53 AM

Could have had something to do with the fact that President Obama himself didn't even support that budget. He had moved onto another budget proposal. Oddly enough that piece of information which you continually leave out was buried in the same story that you said that the vote was buried in. I'm guessing that context isn't a strong suit of yours.

As near as I can tell, Wallis, from the link that you posted your statement of normality is factually incorrect. Even the title of the article you posted is "Slow GDP Growth: Par for the Course in Recent Recoveries"

In fact the recovery under Obama and Democratically controlled Congress was higher than that under Bush.

This hardly proves your point in fact it refutes your points which you claim to be facts.

"In 2009, President Obama and the Congress decided that they were going to push there Liberal Agenda (Cap and Trade, Universal unaffordable Health Insurance and all of the rest) and the Stimulus bill would (almost 1 Trillion of wasted money - remember shovel ready?) fix the economy."

Cap and Trade never passed into law so either that is an out and out lie on your behalf or you really need to research before you simply cut and paste.

I like that you say all the rest but only mention two, one which was never passed into law (though several states already have cap and trade enacted) and the other one has yet to be fully enacted and the price increases have come from the insurance companies, not the law itself.

The most interesting part of your little Stimulus screed is that it did actually produce jobs and many of the Republicans that voted against it went back to their home states to promote it. Governor Perry of Florida rejected billions of stimulus money only to turn around and request hundreds of millions of stimulus money for his 2011 budget.

"You are wrong"

For someone who has a panic attack every time you assume that I have said you are wrong (though I have never uttered those words) you seem to have no issues what-so-ever telling me that I am wrong based on your own (to this point)fact-void opinions.

Just backed it up with the facts Mike.

Care to retort before you think?

Pretty please, just like old times.........

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jun 4, 2011, at 11:12 AM

Just like old times you "backed" up your opinions with information that actually counters your opinions and yet you still somehow convince yourself that the facts are on your side. I see little evidence that you did any research before you posted and then in a pinch you found a few sites that had some information that backed up your opinions but ignored the majority of the information that countered your argument.

Indeed, just like old times.

So Mike - What is the S&P 500 going to do and how are you positioned to make money out of the deal?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43253175

Are you in this boat? Your ideas have caused this. You have supported and been in the forefront as head cheerleader.

My ideas have caused this? What alternative world are you living in? Last time I checked the party responsible for stagnant wages is not the party I am in.

From the article:

"Real hourly wages have dropped 2.1 percent on an annualized basis over the past six months, a rate of decline not seen in 20 years, according to Goldman."

The past six months. In other words right about the time the new Congress came in. What has been their focus to this point? Jobs? Not hardly. Their focus has been on social issues, not improving the economy. They've been too worried about ending social security, medicare/medicaid (which oddly enough, but hardly surprising, is a complete reversal of their stances from just two years ago). It really is no coincidence that after the stimulus took affect the economy saw signs of improvement and the jobs were being added and then after all federal support is stopped for social issues and the economy begins to lag and jobs aren't added. It's a pretty clear line. How will you spin it today?

Just to pinpoint another issue: My ideas? Last time I checked I am not an elected politician so there is no possible way that my ideas have caused any of this. That really isn't important to you though is it.

Then again it's hardly surprising that once again your points were not proven by facts so you move on to more (in your mind) important blame game tactics.

They say the proof is in the pudding, so where's your proof. Why don't you actually try backing up your opinions with real facts?

LOL.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care

Told you this was going to break us.

Wallis

Did you actually read the article wallis or did you just read the title and a couple of sentences and decide to crow about something.

If you had actually bothered reading you would have seen that this particular part of the law does not go into affect until 2014 as most of the law does. It gives time to make the needed fixes.

Michael,

Good point, after all we do always need a pass a law to see what's in it. Since naturally we wouldn't want to be informed and pass a comprehensive law that doesn't need to be "fixed". Where's the fun in that?

We now have Obama trying to manipulate the oil market. Artificial low prices lead to shortages. This oil price manipulation attempt will lead to much higher prices.

The High School student council mistakes just continue.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43658507

I had been a skeptic that Obama was a sell out to Wall Street. I was actually convinced that Obama hated them.

But to quote Verbal Kent "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".

Is Obama that smart or that dumb? I am still putting money on dumb.

Wallis

It's amazing that you can read that article and still find a way to blame Obama. There really is nothing that man can do that will ever please you. But I'm sure you are still convinced he is a liberal socialist as well.

Wallis,

I think it is "Kint" not "Kent"

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4288&mn=74851&pt=msg&mid=10684199

Obama the idiot.

Wallis

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bidders-30-million-barrels-strategic-petroleum-...

The great SPR release.

Wallis

It is amazing that Mike even tries to comment on something he probably has little knowledge of, Especially as he tried to chide others for doing the same thing. Would this make him an "armchair" participant in the oil market?

One of the big problems with liberals is they never learn from history and always repeat their mistakes. The oil market is always driven by supply/demand. The Liberals think they can control the market with government intervention but the intervention always fails.

Oil prices are going higher. Is the Obama Administration going to continue to try and manipulate the price just to win in 2012 and at the same time deplete the SPR? I hope not but these guys do not know anything.

The 5 standard deviation move that we had May 5th was due to the Administration leaking the release. They did accomplish their mission of lowering prices prior to Memorial Day. I will continue to bring this up as we march towards $160.

Wallis

http://www.mfglobalfutures.com/resources/quotes/marketQuotes.cfm?page=chart&sym=...

The big drop was when Obama leaked the info. If the Unites States Government were a company Obama would go to prison.

Wallis

So now you are accussing President Obama of a crime. Do you have any proof or is your hatred for the man showing again?

Do you want me to post 18 links of credible news sources talking about the SPR. I will.

Also look at the Jobs number Mike.

My "hatred" for Obama is the way he has ruined the country. BTW I told you what he was going to do and why it was not going to work. I have been consistent all the way. Socialism does not work (Sorry that you are a Socialist). Government cannot create jobs for the long term only the private sector can. Governments that manipulate prices to control costs always make the total cost go higher. Taking from the productive citizens (punishing success) to give to the less successful in exchange for their vote hurts productivity and kills hard work.

I DO NOT Apologize for thinking that in America the harder someone works the more they should have. You think otherwise and therefore you and I will always disagree.

Remember how critical I was with the "Stimulus plan". I wrote that we had one chance to get it right and what the President signed was a disaster. You told me I was wrong and talked about nonsense as to why the Presidents and Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Reid were right. 8 million jobs lost 2 million added. The stimulus didn't cut it.

For the record, I was for lowering taxes and allowing people to keep their money. They would then spend that money on what they wanted. Business would have a competitive advantage against international companies because with a lower tax basis we could lower costs, increase market share and lower prices for all. Funny how competition lowers prices.

My plan will still work. But the President and last congress really undermined the process.

I am not even going to mention how insurance premiums have gone up thanks to "Health Care Reform".

Wallis

The first Weekly Reader I ever saw was in the first grade at Jefferson Elementary School in Little Rock, Ar. That was September 1973.

There were two stories I remember. One about the impending ice age and the second was the Space Shuttle Enterprise on the back of a 747.

The last space shuttle flight has just begun. I cannot believe that a American President that is near my age doesn't remember Neil Armstrong or Columbia's first flight.

Thanks Liberals - No more Space Program.

Wallis

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/

The Stimulus Plan worked wallis. When President Obama took office the country was losing jobs monthly. Now we are gaining jobs. What's amazing is that since the Republicans took control of the House they have done one thing to do with the jobs and since that point the number of jobs added has continually dropped.

Yet here you are claiming that the fault lays solely with the last Congress. At least they passed something instead of attempting to focus on social issues, which is not what they campaigned on. They have done nothing that they promised they would do, yet you ignore their absolute do nothing attitude and continue to blame the last Congress. You are an amazing individual.

For someone who wants us to completely forget what happened in 00s and only focus on the now and the future you sure are focused on the last Congress and what you claim they failed at while ignoring what's actually going on in Congress right now.

It's odd. With the end of NASA programs this clears the way for commercial programs to space. I would have thought you would be more supportive of this. It gets the goverenment out of the space program and puts it in the private sector where money can be made.

I would have thought you, of all people, would support this.

OR are you just finding one more way to criticize the President, a man you hate so much you have already said on these blogs that he should be tried for treason?

I said that if Obama worked for a public company or was a Board of Director of a public company he would go to Prison for leaking inside information about the SPR release. Which his administration did. Just look at the chart. We had a 5 standard move in price that day and the only other times we have ever had 5 standard deviation moves were when disasters happened.

The Space program in my opinion is a National Defense deal. The X-model rocket planes that were the precursor to the Space Shuttle helped lead our supremacy in air battle. The reason we have a safe world is because the United States has ICBM's and B-52 Nuclear Bombers. This science has been advanced thanks to the space program. The only way our Nation (pop about 275 million) can stay a power is with more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction than our enemies. By eliminating the space program we let go thousands of rocket scientists that can work on these projects. Our only edge over the rest of the world is in air and space. Why we would let that advantage go away is truly a mystery. Decades of marvel and National pride got us to the point and now to just give it up makes no sense. Think of the Moon in 1969 or watch the movie "The Right Stuff". Or the lives lost - Grissom, White, Chaffee and Freeman to name but a few. We won the Pacific War thanks in large part to Air Supremacy same as the European Theater.

It seems not necessary for this President to be the one that kills our space program in my opinion. Was this the Hope and Change You voted for? Killing the Space program?

Probably was.

Wallis

The defense sector contracts out for many of their projects. Why couldn't they do the same here? Again for someone who believes that Capitalism is the only way this country can survive your criticsm here just doesn't match.

I think that the Government should provide for the defense of the country. I take it you do not?

But if you want to discuss private enterprise getting involved their are a number of reasons why that would not be practical. If a private company developed high tech equipment or machines that could provide weapons of mass destruction the United States Government would not allow that company to sell that weapon to any other country. Therefore, capitalism would not exist when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. Also if a private company developed a space craft that could one day be used as a military vehicle the government would again limit the sale. As a Capitalist I accept that the business of making war and developing war machines will be governed by the Federal Government. If you were to take real history classes and not popular culture history you would know that "National Interest", etc overrules certain business sectors. If we didn't have this sort of "check and balance" our country would become Mexico or Columbia. Warlords would rule and they would hire their own Armies and buy guns and planes, etc.

I am really surprised that you think the Military should be privatized when you think that most other business shouldn't be.

But to make myself clear - I have never and will never seek a "government contract".

Ah, wallis, I can always depend on you for straight attacks on character. This line is one of my favorites:

"If you were to take real history classes and not popular culture history..."

Since I have only taken one popular culture history class this statement is without merit. Adding to that, popular culture is a real history class, so one can see why this is nothing but a personal attack based solely on your opinion of me.

Let's take a few more quotes from you: "I think that the Government should provide for the defense of the country. I take it you do not?"

I have never said that yet you feel compelled to assign a belief to me that I have never expressed. I just simply found it interesting that as fully invested as you say you are into capitalism and keeping government out of job creating, you would get up in arms about NASA losing it's funding.

"I am really surprised that you think the Military should be privatized when you think that most other business shouldn't be."

Again I have never said this. Once again you are guilty of assigning beliefs to me that are just untrue and completely fabricated by yourself.

Can you point out where I have ever said that the Military should be privatized? Can you also point out where I have said that other businesses shouldn't be privatized?

By the way this does lead to an interesting question. I assume that you are a big fan of President Reagan's. I say assume, because I honestly don't know. Do you have any qualms about the government, under Reagan, taking control of parts of the auto industry? Because this last time around you were incensed, though you did blame it on the wrong President.

How about the time that the government, under Reagan, fired striking air controllers? Was that too far for the government to pry or was that okay at that time. Would you feel the same in the government under Obama did the same or would you change your stance simply because of who the President is?

Oh and by the way let's not forget this little diddy of yours:

"If we didn't have this sort of "check and balance" our country would become Mexico or Columbia. Warlords would rule and they would hire their own Armies and buy guns and planes, etc."

It's funny, under former President Bush the government contracted out to "private" armies such as Blackwater. Was that not a problem then, or would it only be a problem now?

It is interesting that you have come back on your full Capitalist system stance. If you believe that federal government should control the military and all aspects, then that must mean that you don't mind paying your hard earned taxes for all that encompass, such as the interstate system. Would I be correct in that assumption or incorrect?

I do completely disagree with you on one of your stances. I don't believe that for us to remain one of the powers in the world that our weapons have to be better than other countries, that we need to have better weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world.

I also completely disagree with your stance that, "The reason we have a safe world is because the United States has ICBM's and B-52 Nuclear Bombers."

Maybe you should take more time and check the history books before chastising other people about history. A safe world? We have been at perpetual war since the 1950s. The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Persian Gulf War, 9/11, The War in Afghanistan, The Iraqi War, not to mention all the smaller wars we have been involved in, the Balkans to name one. All our ICBMs and Nuclear Bombers have not made a safer world. All the of the missiles and nuclear weapons in Russia have not made for a safer world. If anything they have made for a much more unstable world.

One last point on your chastising of other peoples history. You had this fine line in the same post as the historical incorrect statement about a safer world: "We won the Pacific War thanks in large part to Air Supremacy same as the European Theater."

You are correct we did win the Pacific War thanks to our air supremacy. Where you go off the rails is why you included it in your talk about NASA and the moon landings and how space flight and NASA are so important. NASA was created in 1958 a full thirteen years after the Pacific War. For this one you may be referring to NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) that was the precursor to NASA.

Of course let's get down to the actual facts of this entire thing. The only thing that has ended, for now, is NASAs space flights. NASA will contract out to other companies for future space flights. None of the scientists are losing their jobs they are going to other programs. Your telling of what's happening and the actual facts just don't add up.

Well Mike glad you are smarter than my friends that work at NASA. Because of course you are "Mike Hendricks super genius!"

http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-ob...