View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

The Sterling dilemma

Posted: May 5, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 5, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

The NAACP just recently pulled back from an awards ceremony that was scheduled to be held May 15 to present the “Lifetime Achievement Award” to Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.

This is the same Donald Sterling who was recently outed as a racist by a supposed recorded conversation with a quasi girlfriend named V. Siriano.

In the recording, the male voice was complaining to Siriano that she was attending basketball games with black men.

Of course, this is all rather ironic since basketball is generally played by large black men in front of black and white audiences.

Last week, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver gave Sterling a lifetime ban from basketball and a $2.5 million fine for the racist remarks and the poor reflection that Sterling gives to the National Basketball Association.

But here is the funny thing. This would have been the second time the NAACP had given an award to Sterling. In 2009, NAACP Chapter President Leon Jenkins gave Sterling a similar award.

Of course, this was after a U.S. Justice Department suit in 2006 alleging housing discrimination at residences owned by Sterling in the Koreatown district of Los Angeles.

In late 2009, Sterling agreed to pay $2.7 million in damages to settle claims that he would not rent to blacks and Hispanics.

Seriously. It’s nearly impossible to make this stuff up.

Further reports indicate that Jenkins, a former judge from Michigan, was disbarred in that state and brought up on federal charges of racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, and the receiving of gifts (bribes) to dismiss charges on misdemeanors.

Jenkins had apparently tried to regain his law license in California but was prevented from doing so since the AP reported, “Despite Jenkins’ impressive good character evidence and community service, he continues to commit errors in judgment that call into question his rehabilitation and present good moral character,” wrote the judges responsible for his reinstatement.

Apparently, Sterling wrote a check for five thousand bucks to the NAACP once. Also, Sterling had a history of giving basketball tickets to poor kids.

Why does something smell funny here? It’s just my opinion, but Iwould guess that another check or two from Sterling wound up in Mr. Jenkins’ account. 

What nicer way to scrub a poor public reputation than having the NAACP give you an award?

Let’s also think about something else here. One thing is clear. Sterling made statements that portrayed him to be a racist.

The NBA had to react (over-react?) to protect its reputation and franchise. There was big money to be lost here.
But Sterling was recorded in what I assume to be an unguarded moment. Maybe in his home. How often do we make terrible statements in the privacy of our own home that would be disastrous if they were broadcast to the world?

What if your boss heard what you said about her to your wife? What if your pastor heard what you said regarding his sermon last Sunday?

Would your kids be better people if they knew how you really felt about your neighbor?

No. We all say stupid things that we wish we could take back.

Does this absolve Sterling from his comments? Of course not. But “he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

The problem in the Sterling case is that it’s going to be very difficult to connect his probable internal racist feelings with how he conducted business on the basketball court.

African-American and Lakers Legend Elgin Baylor, Clippers former general manager, sued Sterling for wrongful termination and discrimination. He lost his suit and the reasons appear very obvious. 

If Sterling was such a racist, why did he hire a black man as his GM? And why did he keep him on the job for 22 years?

During the time Baylor was the Clippers’ GM, they had only two winning seasons and amassed a record of 607-1,153. That stinks.

If anything, Sterling should have been given an award by the NAACP for putting up with such a lousy GM for 22 years.

The history books are now beginning to close on the sad reign of Donald Sterling in the NBA. But history may well record how an NBA commissioner acted to save the reputation of the game while the NAACP was a willing pawn in the purchase of respectability.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita and is forming an ownership group to buy the Clippers. He’s got $46.95 and he’s not afraid to use it. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

Comments

17trillion: Posted: May 5, 2014 8:34 a.m.

It's time this country had a conversation about race. For too long we've ignored race in this country and I think now is the time we finally start talking about it.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 9:15 a.m.

Will Eric Holder chair a roundtable populated by cowards, 17t?


chefgirl358: Posted: May 5, 2014 10:28 a.m.

Siriano? I thought it was Stiviano?


17trillion: Posted: May 5, 2014 1:59 p.m.

Tech, (technologist???), for too long this country has been silent on racism and racists. A conversation is needed and it's needed now. I want to see a roundtable discussion on tv with 5 or 6 African Americans talking about race and racism including President Obama so he can talk about how racism held him back. This needs to happen in this country because without conversation, people like Donald Sterling will multiply. My god, how many 80 year old white billionaire racists can we tolerate? We need a candid discussion because it's 2014 and it's time to end racism and without a dialogue, this can't happen. Who will join me in talking about racism and it's causes and it's genesis and it's detrimental effects upon people of all colors. It's time we stopped treating African-Americans like Doc Rivers like 2nd class citizens. Come on people, who wants to talk?


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 2:32 p.m.

Aren't the racists dead or nearly so? Or is it election time and diversions from reality are needed to avoid impending doom?


17trillion: Posted: May 5, 2014 2:47 p.m.

No Tech, we need to have a discussion! Racism will never end unless we talk about it. Don't you want to talk about it? Have a real conversation? Between Sterling and Bundy, this is proof that racism in America is thriving and wont be eradicated unless we stop being cowards and talk about it.

Count me in!


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 3:44 p.m.

Lunetta: If Sterling was such a racist, why did he hire a black man as his GM? And why did he keep him on the job for 22 years?

Indy: Even more interesting, why did Sterling permit the hiring of ‘blacks’ on this team?

Make him even more money?

We know from history that many racist that owned companies ‘hired’ a black to show what we may term as a concession giving him political cover.

In any event, I don’t know the motivation for his ‘mistress’ to ‘tape his remarks re: blacks’ but that didn’t stop Linda Tripp from ‘taping’ the ‘private, personal and confidential’ phone calls that ended up being a cornerstone for conservative attacks on Clinton . . . and is still used today!

Anyway, many Americans that don’t want to be seen as racist often don’t even know they are.

Witness the rancher Bundy that went out of his way to discuss his views of the ‘negro’ . . . and even suggested that they should have learned how to ‘pick cotton’ to survive under slavery to have a ‘better life’?

The way Bundy talked, you have to wonder if he even understood the consequences of his words . . .


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 3:58 p.m.

I see that Indy has joined your "conversation" about race, 17t. Of course, it's only about the racism that counts.

"Hidden" racism can only be rooted out by pure members of the Party. Perhaps neighborhood patrols with Block Captains can be instituted.


17trillion: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:14 p.m.

I'm so thankful we are now having a conversation, including input from the left because you know we on the right are either racists or immune to racial sensitivities. We cannot understand the plight of those that aren't white and privileged so we need the guidance of those that know of such things, people like Indy, who I'm sure is white, but he's a leftist so he is as much of an expert as any black person. Am I allowed to say "black person"? I just wish MSNBC would dedicate some airtime to this crucial issue lest we be inundated with the Sterling and Bundys of the world.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Indy! Let the conversation and healing begin.

I'll start. Why did Sterling hire blacks? Now this perspective is from a white person so forgive me if I sin, but I'm guessing because blacks are better athletes? Sterling may be racist but you don't earn a couple billion dollars by necessarily being stupid although after drafting Danny Ferry and Michael Oliwikandi one might question that. Hey wait, didn't Elgin Baylor, a black man, draft those two guys? Oh man, I'm getting into deep trouble here. Maybe we shouldn't have a conversation.

By the way Indy, may I ask why you used apostrophes around the word "blacks"? Is that word out of favor now? It's hard to keep up with the proper nomenclature.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:26 p.m.

"Now this perspective is from a white person so forgive me if I sin…"

Check your privilege! You're not even allowed to speak. This is a conversation, after all. Only listening is allowed when Indy lectures you on your racism that can't be detected except by poll tests. --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:47 p.m.

Yes, it’s unfortunate the Sterling saw his ‘black’ players as ‘equipment’ to earn him more money while secretly mocking them to his ‘girlfriend’.

And that he felt he was doing these ‘blacks’ a favor by ‘giving’ them ‘cars, etc.’ as if they had no participation in his ‘money making’ team.

I’m not sure if there’s greatest ‘coward-ness’ . . .

In any event, it’s interesting as Fox ‘news’ tried to make Bundy a ‘national hero’ for his stance against paying taxes he owed the American People only to find out the ‘old guy’ was like Sterling . . . except that once Bundy felt he was ‘on stage’, ‘volunteered’ his beliefs on the ‘negro’ . . . and as I said, was unaware and out of touch with his ancient beliefs . . . I guess forgetting that the US fought a ‘civil war’!

My only wish was to be a fly on the wall of Sean Hannity’s studio when he found out what Bundy said about the ‘negro’. Do you think Bundy will be ‘back at Fox’?


therightstuff: Posted: May 6, 2014 6:32 a.m.

Interesting that you would bring up Linda Tripp, Indy. I wonder if Sterling's ex-girlfriend will be crucified the same way liberals crucified Tripp. Also very predictable that rabid Democrats like Indy attack people who were offended that Clinton would screw a 24 year old intern in the White House while giving Clinton a pass.

As for why Sterling hired blacks for his team, maybe it was because they were more brown in color and don't speak with a negro accent unless they want to like Harry Reid once said of Barack Obama. Or maybe it was because they are clean and talk well like Joe Biden once said of Obama. Lucky for them they are Democrats where they are judged by a different standard.

I guess for posters like Indy, sexual harassment and racism depends on what party you're with.


therightstuff: Posted: May 6, 2014 6:38 a.m.

And still struggling with your Fox News obsession? Dude...get a life.

But since you brought it up, who had to apologize for misleading the American people...Fox News or Barack Obama?


ricketzz: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:25 a.m.

Fox News never apologizes. That is not how propaganda works. Fascism is doubt free; the state is always right.


tech: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:46 a.m.

"Fascism is doubt free; the state is always right." - ricketzz

Much like climate alarmists and their statist "solutions".


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:00 a.m.

17t- I want to join the discussion because I have an admission. I am a discriminator. I discriminate when I notice that someone is a different race from me. I discriminate when I see a person of a different sex. I discriminate when I see a person with different hair color.

O wretched man that I am.


Lotus8: Posted: May 6, 2014 12:40 p.m.

Let's see here. Sterling is a democrat. The KKK was started by democrats. Abraham Lincoln was a republican. Blah, blah, blah... We can go back and forth all day, which is what some of you here seem to enjoy.

What this all comes down to is not party lines, it comes down to basic human understanding. We should all strive to have an understanding that we are no different, at a base level, than any of our fellow men (and women). But contained in that effort must also be an understanding that human nature is flawed (original sin, the ego, whatever) and a guy like Donald Sterling, as can be heard in the recorded conversations, accepts the fact that many humans are racist and he has chosen, as a business man, to run his business in a way that he thinks is optimal. If you don't think other team owners around the league struggle with how to attract an affluent white crowd to a basketball game you are fooling yourself. Just look at the attendance for an NBA All-Star weekend.

What is Donald Sterling, ultimately? A self promoting, narcissistic, egotistical, amoral businessman. The racist part of things for him is mostly based in economics, which is the code he lives by. This is no different than many similar dudes in his position, the Gordon Gecko types who view others as pawns on a giant chessboard rather than fellow human beings.

Just look at the almost daily self placed adds in the LA Times that Donald paid for over the last many years. Man of the year, master philanthropist, NAACP award winner, etc. The guy knew how to keep an image by paying money to craft an image. Heck, you now have a white guy on the Clippers claiming that Sterling was against him being on the team because he was white and it didn't fit the image Donald was crafting.

The way to make an impact on racism is to simply do your own personal best each day to understand you fellow man. Get out and see the world. You will come not only to see that judgments based on skin color and nationality exist all over the world, but you will help break down the barriers to understanding by being the exception to those preconceived notions. Be willing to listen, act with kindness, and be willing to accept that your viewpoint might change as a result. We are all one.


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 12:47 p.m.

Lotus, that is interesting, but what about our conversation on race? I'm told by many people, ok just those on MSLSD, that we need to have a conversation and what you say doesn't qualify. I know this to be true because they don't talk about anything else BUT race on MSLSD and yet they still claim America needs a conversation.

The only question I have is, what exactly are we supposed to talk about?


Lotus8: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:09 p.m.

The "conversation" on race should open with a white person saying that racism exists. Then a black person should say that it exists. Then a Chinese person, then a Korean, then a Mexican, then a Japanese, and on and on. Heck, in many Asian countries your beauty is judged on how fare your skin is, so isn't that just racism within a race? Black people do the same thing, and so do Hispanics. Can't we all just keep it 100 and admit that this goes one all over the globe and has since the beginning of time? Even white folks make fun of "gingers" with red hair and freckles.

The most we can promise each other is that we will make a daily effort to bypass these stereotypes and seek understanding. I believe that you are wanting to call out those wanting to "have a conversation" as being race hustlers, which many of them like Al Sharpton certainly are. And the equivalent person exists in many permutations across the globe, on both sides of that game. So my question is, if everyone can just admit this is the case, what is your next point? --edited.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:15 p.m.

We are supposed to talk about how bad we all are.

Aside: anyone catch that annoying piece by Donna Brazil (sp?) today? Her basic thesis is that inequality in society is cured by further inequality enacted by the state. Also, the Supreme Court is not "fair" unless it creates more unfairness by striking down Michigan's prohibition against affirmative action. So much for judging people by the content of their character. Amazing.


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:21 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Interesting that you would bring up Linda Tripp, Indy. I wonder if Sterling's ex-girlfriend will be crucified the same way liberals crucified Tripp. Also very predictable that rabid Democrats like Indy attack people who were offended that Clinton would screw a 24 year old intern in the White House while giving Clinton a pass.

Indy: Yes, it is interesting but Tripp wasn’t Clinton’s friend but a political opportunist that taped her ‘best friends’ private, personal, and confidential conservation . . . not the same thing. But I suppose you didn’t get that . . .

You also put forth the same type of hateful ‘innuendo and speculation’ about what I think of Clinton’s affair . . . without even ‘asking’ me for same.

Sounds just like the Sean Hannity approach of Bundy that placed him on a pedestal until Bundy started taking about the ‘Negros’ . . .

Therightstuff wrote: As for why Sterling hired blacks for his team, maybe it was because they were more brown in color and don't speak with a negro accent unless they want to like Harry Reid once said of Barack Obama. Or maybe it was because they are clean and talk well like Joe Biden once said of Obama. Lucky for them they are Democrats where they are judged by a different standard.

Indy: Sterling talked about his players as ‘property’ in much the same manner that plantation owners did prior to the civil war . . .

Therightstuff wrote: I guess for posters like Indy, sexual harassment and racism depends on what party you're with.

Indy: You can try to ‘pray’ away your ownership of withholding food to the poor, or increasing the minimum wage to account for the ‘income advantages’ of the wealthy or even deny ‘hard working’ Americans who lost their jobs from no fault of their own as they lose their homes due to conservative biblical principles that your brethren in the House follow regardless of the consequences.

Again, that a burden you have to bear . . .

But again, Fox median age of its 'followers' is 65 . . . so I'm not surprised at all at the racist remarks from people like Bundy . . . but again, Fox 'runs' with innuendo and speculation prior to doing the 'homework' and thus they look embarrassed as their new 'hero' went to 'zero' . . .


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:27 p.m.

My point is Lotus is that one time this week as I was channel surfing I witnessed conversations about race on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, AT THE SAME TIME! My point is that I'm sick of having conversations about race. My point is that blacks and Asians and Mexicans are every bit as racist as whites are. As you say, it exists and it will no doubt NEVER go away even 200 years from now when race as we know it will disappear and we'll all end up basically looking the same, pigment wise. It's human nature to compare and contrast groups of people whether it be by race or by what kind of car your neighbor has. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people are not overt racists but I also believe the vast majority of people certainly notice the differences between us. We all have a bit of it in us but to say it's as overt as it was in 1850 or 1950 or even 1970 is absurd. Until we can have a conversation about how racist Sharpton is or La Raza is I tell all those who still demand a conversation to go pound salt, to put it politely.

Donna Brazile is a pile of steamy poo! Is that racist?


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:29 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: Let's see here. Sterling is a democrat.

Indy: Yes, that’s the talking point put forth by the right wing radio/tv folks but it appears otherwise:

Why did Fox News and the Tea Party lie about Donald Sterling’s political affiliation?
http://www.political.com/Post/31517/why-did-fox-news-and-the-tea-party-lie-about-donald-sterling-s-political-affiliation

“Racist LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been a registered Republican since 1998, so why did Fox News and Tea Party propagandists say that Sterling was a Democrat?

It seems clear that after being thoroughly embarrassed by the Cliven Bundy episode - i.e. a Republican who said that black people may be better off picking cotton as slaves – that the GOP wanted to paint the Democrats as equally racist.

So, without fact checking (which is incredibly easy to do – erm, public records, anyone?) Fox News, and others, just declared that Sterling was a Democrat. ‘You see,’ the argument seemed to go, ‘they have racists too.’
The only problem being, Sterling is a registered Republican.”


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:36 p.m.

"But again, Fox median age of its 'followers' is 65 so I'm not surprised at all at the racist remarks from people like Bundy. ."

Here comes the BS train, next stop Indyville! What Indy fails to state is that the average age of CNN viewer was 63 and MSLSD was 59.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002741796

Indy clearly thinks he's playing at the intellectual sandbox with 2nd graders but I would be anxious to hear his wisdom on why a 65 year old Fox viewer is a racist but a 63 year old CNN viewer isn't? Indy, you are one pathetic human being for making such a claim. You are despicable and shallow and not nearly as wise as you think you are. Did you know the average age of a SpongeBob viewer is 9 therefore that proves you are a race baiting hustler like Sharpton and Jackson and Brazille and all the other so-called black leaders who have kept their people in poverty for decades.


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:47 p.m.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -Senator Joe Biden

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis." -Senator Hillary Clinton

"Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?" -- Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture." -- Harry Belafonte

(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee

Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax



Indy, you are pathetic and clearly too obtuse, to put it mildly, to consider that you're the only one around who has internet access. The issue isn't about Bundy being a deadbeat or a racist, it's about sending armed BLM personnel with dogs and snipers to collect a debt!


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:48 p.m.

(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:50 p.m.

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ



Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 1:54 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: What is Donald Sterling, ultimately? A self promoting, narcissistic, egotistical, amoral businessman. The racist part of things for him is mostly based in economics, which is the code he lives by.

Indy: This is a very good observation that ties right into Bundy’s observation of the poor ‘Negros’ living in Las Vegas.

He does little to understand the economics of that but I guess being isolated on his ranch, his grasp of modern history is lacking and thus he references ‘slavery’ and the ability of Negros to ‘live’ under that economic model to survive.

That’s why I noted that he may not even understand the concept of racism . . . just that ‘Negros’ needed to have ‘masters’ so they could survive under slavery ‘picking cotton’.

Still hard to believe someone in 2014 thinks in that manner . . .


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 2:02 p.m.

Good job Indy! It's only taken you a couple years to add to your repertoire. We can now add "Bundy" to the Indy book of irrelevance.


Lotus8: Posted: May 6, 2014 2:38 p.m.

Indy...What is it going to take for you to quit mentioning cable news programs, droning on about political parties, quoting poorly authored studies, and generally driving these comment sections into cuckoo land? The news broadcasts are run by for profit enterprises hoping to sell ad space. The more they can feed red meat to their audiences and drum up calamity (Storm Watch! or Polar Vortex!), the more eyeballs they get. Most people watch the news station that feeds them information which reinforces their already formed viewpoint, which is probably why the average age of those watching cable news is north of 60. Those shows are hosted by cheerleaders, not impartial, hard hitting news reporters. They are full of nonsense on both sides, so the need to include them in every post is tiresome.

With respect to Sterling being affiliated with any party, you just took the bait hook, line and sinker. I threw in a few random "facts" that get brought up by folks who are blinded by party politics and then went on to ask folks to get past that stuff. But sure enough, as soon as that spinner bait flashed in front of you it was game on. All you could post about was party this and Fox News that. Are you an actual person seeking understanding and community or are you just a person glued to your television set and the internet obsessed with politics? I'm thinking, by the nature of your posts, that it is the latter.

17trillion - Thank you for those quotes and your insights. I agree that the race conversation needs to be a 360 degree conversation about why we all can't progress past the color of our skin. Have there been egregious sins between racial groups in the past? Of course. Almost every race, religion or culture can claim at some point in the past 2,000 years to have been oppressed. As individuals and as a society we can either choose to move onward from here striving for daily improvement or dwell on the past and continue to perpetuate the problem. Having things like a black caucus just reinforces the view that all blacks fit into one thought box, when they most certainly do not! Same thing with groups like La Raza. If we want to move forward, we can't have these types of organizations. They retard the process rather than help it. Nobody is their skin color. It is but one infinitesimal piece of our genetic code.


17trillion: Posted: May 6, 2014 3:07 p.m.

Agreed Lotus. Do you know which race actually started and perpetuated the slave trade the most? Yep, it was Africans. In fact, slavery still exists in Africa today. I've never owned a slave. My ancestors never owned slaves and in fact I can trace my ancestors back to soldiers that fought, but didn't die, for the Union army. Have I ever uttered a racist thing in my life? I'm sure I have as I'm pretty sure 99% of all people have at one time or another. Am I a racist? I'm sure I'm not as I'm sure 99% of all people aren't!

So, tell me again why I'm supposed to feel all this angst and guilt over the idiot ramblings of a couple of old white (rhymes with sucks)? The idiocy is that I don't call Indy a racist because he loves and supports Joe Biden who just very well may be a racist, but he labels us as racist because we object to the methods of the US Government, acting as bill collectors, using dogs, snipers, and tasers, to collect a debt.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:29 p.m.

"The issue isn't about Bundy being a deadbeat or a racist, it's about sending armed BLM personnel with dogs and snipers to collect a debt! "

Is it, now? So you agree that he's a deadbeat who owes the government a million bucks? And you agree that since he refuses to pay it, that the government is within its rights and the law to seize his property?


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:40 p.m.

BTW, let's be clear about who showed up unnecessarily, bringing their guns with them.

The so-called militias and other "freedom-loving" groups who felt that they could assault police dogs, threaten federal officers, block vehicles, etc., all while asserting that they do not recognize the United States government, calling for a "range war", and so on.

Frankly, they're lucky that none of them got arrested and/or shot for their stupidity.

The methods of the government agents to collect a legitimate debt in the face of coordinated threats was, IMHO, quite reasonable.

Try not paying your federal taxes for a few years, and when they seize your property, get your buddies to stand outside your house with guns and kick police dogs and such and see what happens. Oh, and don't forget to publicize on the web ahead of time what your plans are, and ask your fellow anti-US government wackjobs to be sure to show up armed on the appointed day.

The guy and his "buddies" are idiots. He's a deadbeat, welfare rancher and a kook to boot.

Nice to see who is supporting him here, though.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:47 p.m.

More proof that these guys are nuts:

"In some areas, according to the letter, militiamen have set up checkpoints where drivers are stopped and asked to provide a proof of residency."

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/28/sheriff-urged-clamp-down-armed-militiamen-around-b/

How would you feel about camo-wearing civilians stopping you at gunpoint on public streets and asking for your id?

Still thing the "militia" guys and the rest of the separatists in this group are the good guys here?


Lotus8: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:50 p.m.

Stevehw. Can we please use some common sense. By law, the government is within its rights to round up every single person in this country that isn't here legally and toss them out on their ear. They can fire up a whole fleet of buses, chase folks down as intruders with rifles and offer rewards for citizens to turn in folks who aren't here legally for a reward. Is that what they should do? No.

The law allows one to do many things that one should not do based upon common decency or sense. Sending in helicopters, trucks, armed officers, etc. and spending tons of money to round up the guy's cattle as opposed to simply repossessing his house or trucks is a bit of an overkill, don't you think? The original debt we are talking about here is more like a couple hundred thousand bucks, which is less than they spent on their made for Hollywood armed cattle roping operation.

I don't want to get into all of the details with respect to why the government owns so much land in America or what kind of rights a person who was grazing that land before the Feds acquired the land should be allowed to have. The whole situation just sounds like two hard headed school children screaming "Oh yeah?" at each other until the government breaks out the special forces and the rancher starts calling in militia men and Fox News. Both sides acted extremely childishly in this whole thing. I hold our government officials, who are stewards of our resources and servants of the public, to a higher standard.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 5:02 p.m.

20 years of refusing to pay his taxes and grazing on public land.

Why do you righties support this deadbeat?

If you owed a million dollars in taxes (and fines and court costs), do you think you could point guns at the sheriff with impunity when he came to seize your assets?

If you squatted on someone else's property for two decades and used their water and power and ate their food, do you think you could call your buddies to blockade the public roads, take up "covering positions" and stand off the sheriff when he came to toss your ass off that property? (After you lost case after case in court, of course).

Jesus, you guys have a twisted sense of what's right...here's a deadbeat, separatist, nutjob thief who steals from the government, and you all *support* him. AND the kooks who showed up, armed, and threatened federal officers.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 5:04 p.m.

"...what kind of rights a person who was grazing that land before the Feds acquired the land ..."

BTW, it seems even THAT was a lie by this con artist.

But even if it wasn't, SO WHAT? He *didn't pay his taxes* and *stole from the government* (meaning, you and me).

He's a THIEF. A DEADBEAT. A LIAR. Not to mention, a racist...


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:07 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "But again, Fox median age of its 'followers' is 65 so I'm not surprised at all at the racist remarks from people like Bundy. ."

Here comes the BS train, next stop Indyville! What Indy fails to state is that the average age of CNN viewer was 63 and MSLSD was 59.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002741796

Indy: The only problem are the conservatives that ‘display’ the racial hatred of a ‘black’ president . . . to which conservative ‘media’ outlets like Fox ‘lionize’ Bundy for being the ‘true American’ when in fact, he’s a freeloader that still believes the ‘Negro’ should be picking cotton to survive . . .

And lets no forget Sean Hannity call for 'armed' insurrection against 'federal agents' (read Americans that work for the federal government) as we saw pictures of conservative militia members pointing their guns at other US 'citizens'.

17trillion wrote: Indy clearly thinks he's playing at the intellectual sandbox with 2nd graders but I would be anxious to hear his wisdom on why a 65 year old Fox viewer is a racist but a 63 year old CNN viewer isn't?

Indy: Just listen to the topics on media outlets other than Fox to get the clue . . . I know you can do it!

17trillion wrote: Indy, you are one pathetic human being for making such a claim. You are despicable and shallow and not nearly as wise as you think you are. Did you know the average age of a SpongeBob viewer is 9 therefore that proves you are a race baiting hustler like Sharpton and Jackson and Brazille and all the other so-called black leaders who have kept their people in poverty for decades.

Indy: Yes, sadly conservatives are in a state of denial as they continue to put forth their views on racism that simply don’t support their actions . . . sorry to have to ‘break’ your bubble . . .

This is all made worse as conservatives in congress continue to ignore the plight of the poor by denying them food stamps, a raise in the minimum wage to move millions out of poverty, not to mention helping the ‘hard working’ Americans that have lost their jobs in the WORSE recession since the depression with long term unemployment assistance . . . but hey, the democrats, all support feeding the poor, raising the minimum wage and extending long term unemployment benefits consistent with the recession.

You might try listening to CNN and MSNBC . . . to get the actual reality you’re missing on Fox.


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:17 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: Indy...What is it going to take for you to quit mentioning cable news programs, droning on about political parties, quoting poorly authored studies, and generally driving these comment sections into cuckoo land? The news broadcasts are run by for profit enterprises hoping to sell ad space. The more they can feed red meat to their audiences and drum up calamity (Storm Watch! or Polar Vortex!), the more eyeballs they get. Most people watch the news station that feeds them information which reinforces their already formed viewpoint, which is probably why the average age of those watching cable news is north of 60. Those shows are hosted by cheerleaders, not impartial, hard hitting news reporters. They are full of nonsense on both sides, so the need to include them in every post is tiresome.

Indy: I don’t disagree with your overall observation . . . but I don’t see the other cable news services parading around ‘Bundy’ as a ‘true American’ other than Fox when in fact he’s a freeloader that tried to drum up violence against other Americans.

Perhaps Fox should have done some ‘homework’ before finding that Bundy still has antiquated views regarding black Americans . . . but that's not Fox's style when they propagate partisan 'innuendo and speculation' as part of their everyday 'news' practices.

But indeed, you are correct, the ‘for profit’ media is failing us . . . you’ll just have to decide which outlet provides the ‘best available information’.

Lotus8 wrote: With respect to Sterling being affiliated with any party, you just took the bait hook, line and sinker. I threw in a few random "facts" that get brought up by folks who are blinded by party politics and then went on to ask folks to get past that stuff. But sure enough, as soon as that spinner bait flashed in front of you it was game on. All you could post about was party this and Fox News that. Are you an actual person seeking understanding and community or are you just a person glued to your television set and the internet obsessed with politics? I'm thinking, by the nature of your posts, that it is the latter.

Indy: Sorry, Rush and Fox beat me to the ‘party label’ fascination issue . . . but indeed the history of the democrats in the south after the civil war was outrageous . . . that thankfully was corrected . . . when JFK/Johnson got the Civil Right Act passed.

In any event, what did you think of the ‘birther movement’? Was that founded in racism?


Indy: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:23 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I don't want to get into all of the details with respect to why the government owns so much land in America or what kind of rights a person who was grazing that land before the Feds acquired the land should be allowed to have..

Indy: Why do the other ranchers pay the drastically reduce grazing ‘fees’ on federal law versus grazing on private land?

And why do you think the government 'manages' said land . . . so as not to 'over graze it' and make it useless?

As to ‘the government’ owning land in the US, we ‘are the government’, ‘we the people’. The Government does not sit apart of us . . . other than if you listen to the ‘Bundy’ type folks . . .

And why was Bundy shown holding an ‘American Flag’ of the United States of America while on his horse if he doesn’t believe in the federal government?

Do people like Bundy support US troops that are under control of the federal government or only the rouge militias that are made up of ‘similar’ people that support Bundy?


therightstuff: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:42 a.m.

Indy, Bundy has been strongly condemned for his racism on Fox. I know this goes against your irrational paranoia with Fox but you are one who never lets facts get in the way of his ideology. Let me ask again...who had to apologize for deceiving the American people....Fox News or Barack Obama?


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:07 a.m.

As to ‘the government’ owning land in the US, we ‘are the government’, ‘we the people’. - Indy

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's wrong. You are not part of "the government". What elected or appointed office in local, state or Federal government do you hold, Indy?

In our Federalist Republic, we elect representatives who subsequently hold office. They are part of the government during their term. When they leave office, they are no longer part of the government. The vast majority of government employees aren't elected by citizens.

Here (again) is how the Constitution delineates government and "the people":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

United States = Federal Government
States = states
The people = citizens

The purpose of your conflating government and "the people" is to place government at the center of society rather than people. This is the intent of "progressive" politics, i.e. to champion collective over individual rights. The Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government over people because of the historical record of tyranny by the former. --edited.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:11 a.m.

"Is it, now? So you agree that he's a deadbeat who owes the government a million bucks? And you agree that since he refuses to pay it, that the government is within its rights and the law to seize his property?"

I absolutely do Steve. Now, I'm sure there are others that have a different opinion and you and I have no clue as to what's in their heart, but please don't lump me into the racist pool with that POS.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:17 a.m.

Steve, your comments prove you to be just as low as they come. Explaining the nuance of supporting Bundy against an, again, overzealous government while condemning is words is like explaining the concept that the climate is always changing but that doesn't mean the end of life as we know it to a liberal.

If any of you lunatics ever watched Fox you would know he was condemned for his words but that still doesn't mean one has to support a typically overzealous government response. Using your lack of logic, supporting the Clippers makes YOU a racist.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:51 a.m.

Tech- perfectly said.


Lotus8: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:11 a.m.

I have a homework assignment for you Indy. I don't doubt that you believe what you post on here, and you and I would probably get along just fine were we to meet each other in real life. You're probably a decent person. Because of your passion, I would love for you to spend a week trying to think like a republican. Put on a different pair of shoes and watch the CNN/MSNBC/ABC-NBC-CBS nightly news looking for where they are doing softball interviews with race hustlers, con artists and party hacks/spokesholes. Look for where they are slanting studies and statistics in favor of their party's president. Look for how they cover news events differently (or even at all) when their party is the one who might look bad. Heck, certain folks refuse to even go on the other party's airwaves because they will be asked "inconvenient" questions. Make no mistake, just like Murchoch owns the Fox airwaves, there are players on the other side of the aisle who own the message on these other outlets.

I don't root for either side in the whole political game. But you seem to be on one side and blind to the fact that both sides are playing a giant slanted game with the information that gets to the majority of increasingly uneducated Americans who are ill equipped to filter the message. Unplug from the matrix brother, and see the game for what it really is. I think trying to see things from the complete opposite side of the spectrum is an exercise that might open your eyes a bit to what is going on.

If you don't want to engage in my experiment here, it is no skin off my back. I'm just trying to help you understand where some of the folks on here are coming from as you seem to see most discussions as black and white, big D versus big R. Anyone who varies from your interpretation of things has to be republican. I'm here to tell you that more and more folks have shed allegiance to parties and are opting to think for themselves. So trying to put Fox News or Rush Limbaugh on folks like me rings really hollow.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:17 a.m.

What, precisely, was "overzealous" about using law enforcement officers to enforce a court orders? Especially given the "call to arms" that the guy put out on the web? Further, given the knowledge that his "patriot" militia buddies were going to show up armed? Was it "overzealous" to respond when an officer and a police dog were attacked? Or should cops just back down whenever they're threatened? Or should they only back down when they're threatened by certain people (i.e., of a certain political persuasion)?

Yeah, I hear all of you condemning the guy's words *about "the negro"*, but I don't hear anyone saying he was wrong for being a cheat and a thief and ripping of the government, and that the government was correct in seizing the assets (by removing the trespassing cattle).

*I* never lumped anyone in with him viz-a-viz racism, by the way.

But yes, I think quite a few here support him in his stealing from the government and refusing to pay his fines and fees, while cloaking it in an "overzealous government" mantle.

Why not just admit that the guy is a crook, a thief, a liar, a deadbeat, and the government was perfectly right to seize his cattle, and that he and his buddies provoked the "overzealous" response by showing up with weapons to interfere with a lawful action by the government?


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:35 a.m.

If you think snipers, dogs, and tazers isn't overzealous, then I don't know what to say. Our government buys billions of rounds of ammo and I'm not talking about he military. There isn't a cabinet level department within this government that doesn't have their own armed department, including the Dept. of Education. Our government increasingly does things it wants outside of any judicial oversight and you don't see it. Our police departments are turning into armies with tanks and real military assault weapons and this doesn't bother you? For centuries debts have been collected in this country without the need of snipers, dogs, and electronic devices meant to maim people into submission. Have you ever heard of a lien? His "buddies" didn't show up until AFTER the cavalry was called in. Before it was just his family and employees. Maybe next time an armed SWAT team might show up to collect a past due student loan? Ooops, that's been done already too!

Forget the man Steve and quit arguing with me just for it's own sake. You're not cool with DUI stops but snipers working for the BLM collecting a debt is fine?


Lotus8: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:49 a.m.

Stevehw - Is this the same government that has turned much of the rest of Nevada into a giant nuclear sandbox that now is concerned over the fate of a tortoise? Is this the same government that allows criminal gangs to set up pot growing operations throughout our national forest system by refusing to enforce its own border and protect its citizens? If you seem to think that hiring a helicopter, trucks and paying tons of overtime to a bunch of federal agents to round up cattle over a giant territory is a proper way to handle the situation with Mr. Bundy, then so be it. I don't. Just put a lien on the guy's house and other assets, which would prevent him from being able to finance his operation by hurting his credit. Seize his bank accounts if you have to. Spare us all the expense and circus act of cattle roping, however. What a colossal waste. And much like Obama has done with his "red lines" in recent times, the government backed down and has further encouraged militia men to pull stunts like this in the future. So the feds managed to blow serious amounts of money, gave all the cattle back, ended up back at square one and now have given militia folks everywhere a huge shot of courage. Is that really the result they were hoping for? Can we please get someone, anyone, in a position of authority in the government who acts like an adult? The IRS is playing favorites, the ATF is playing Magnum PI in Nevada, our Secretary of State is accusing Israel of apartheid, our president laughed off Russia during debate season, congressmen seem content to pass regulations about social issues and other claptrap while the real issues like the budget and unfunded entitlements hang over us all, and on and on. Good folks don't want to serve anymore because what these folks are doing is no longer service. It is career politics as part of a lifetime hustle spent lobbying, wooing, and carrying water for corporate and billionaire power player interests. Nobody is on the side of the citizen any longer, and parties have divided us up so expertly that we can't even find common ground together any longer. We are all content to argue over where the deck chairs should be placed while the ship sinks.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:01 a.m.

User Removed Comment.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:32 a.m.

Most of what you wrote is completely irrelevant to the issue of Bundy, so I'll not respond to the litany of anti-government complaints. As for the things that *are* relevant:

"Our government increasingly does things it wants outside of any judicial oversight and you don't see it. "

The entire process was adjudicated in court, numerous times. As late as 2013, Bundy was ordered by a court to remove his cattle, then later ordered not to interfere with their removal by authorities. He was ordered by the courts to pay his fees and fines, which he ignored. To assert that the government did anything here without "judicial oversight" is completely wrong.

Why should the government get a lien on his house? His house wasn't grazing illegally on federal land.

The proper action, when he did not obey the court order and remove his cattle, was to remove them for him. And if there were any liens to get, the lien should be on *the cattle*, which the government could (ta da) seize and sell to pay his debts (and the cost of the round-up, by the way, so had they continued and executed the court order and sold his cattle, they expected to recover the full cost of the activity; however, even if they hadn't, should we just let criminals continue in their actions if it costs "too much" to penalize them?).

Whether his "supporters" showed up before or after the BLM began seizing his cattle is irrelevant. Once there, they posed a clear threat to the agents and officers. There's a history of violence in that area over these grazing rights, as well...several bombs have been exploded in government buildings.

So whether the government needed to or even did have all of those assets in place prior to the "militia" arriving, once they did, they acted in a lawless manner, aiming weapons at people, blockading public streets, etc. They're lucky nobody was shot, and that Bundy's son was only tazered and arrested for attacking the cops and kicking a police dog.

They clearly wanted some sort of engagement with the authorities, and were trying to provoke the officers into acting.

Here's a nice timeline of the actions of the lawbreaker/thief/deadbeat Bundy:

http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.8/the-blm-vs-cliven-bundy-timeline

That you support them doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:34 a.m.

Precisely, Lotus8.

Liens and levies on assets are the due process methods for enforcement of adjudicated disputes.

I too question the proliferation of police forces within Federal and state agencies.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:38 a.m.

That you don't see the hypocrisy of your own opinions doesn't surprise me either, it's what the left does best. I'll keep that in mind the next time you rant about being pulled over the 30 seconds at a DUI stop. Look out the window, there goes any semblance of consistency, flying away...bye bye..

Dogs and snipers and tazers to collect a million dollar debt for a government that spends a million dollars a minute.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:45 a.m.

" However, idiots are entitled to due process as well."

Yes, and he had it...over and over. He lost in court. Several times. The government followed all the rules and procedures.

To make an assertion that he was somehow denied due process is completely wrong.

"What exactly would the government do with the cattle anyway? "

Sell them to pay his debts and the cost of any enforcement actions, legal fees, fines, etc. Same as they do with any seized asset in such cases.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:47 a.m.

What the hell does a DUI checkpoint have to do with this? Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, you should have seen where *the guy lost his case in court repeatedly*.

Good grief.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:52 a.m.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:53 a.m.

What is pathetic with you Steve is that you b1tch about one guy who owes a million dollars but you could care less about a 1000 employees of the IRS who owes MILLIONS of dollars back taxes. No, they don't get snipers and dogs and tazers, THEY GET BONUSES! You don't care about 5 million people who owe 84 billion in student loans, right? They don't get dogs and snipers and tazers, they get forgiveness, low interest, and sympathy.

You're nothing but a slave to this government and I continue to cheer towards anyone who stands up to it, no matter how futile the effort. I'll remember this the next time you b1tch and moan about a DUI stop.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:59 a.m.

What it has to do with is that you never fail to whine about some government intrusion or overreach when it suits you. You support the use of snipers, dogs, and tazers to collect a debt but god forbid local cops pull over a 1,000 people to check for intoxication. Oh no, that's no good even though the courts say it's legal and the whinefest begins. Try to stay consistent if possible. Debt collection isn't hard, trust me, especially with the power of the government. It certainly doesn't require snipers, dogs, tazers, and a small army to affect collection. Is anyone too stupid to think this guy doesn't have bank accounts? No wait, don't answer that Steve.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:01 p.m.

I keep forgetting that you're the same guy that thinks the government would default if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Note to self: remember that the next time you engage with Stevehw.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:03 p.m.

"you could care less about a 1000 employees of the IRS who owes MILLIONS of dollars back taxes. No, they don't get snipers and dogs and tazers, THEY GET BONUSES! You don't care about 5 million people who owe 84 billion in student loans, right? "

What do YOU know what I care about? Particularly since not ONCE have I said anything about any of the things you're talking about. That's pretty ballsy of you, to make a complete strawman out of thin air about *what someone else THINKS*. I smell Posse Comitatus in you...i.e., seditionist and traitor. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:06 p.m.

"Debt collection isn't hard, trust me, especially with the power of the government. It certainly doesn't require snipers, dogs, tazers, and a small army to affect collection. Is anyone too stupid to think this guy doesn't have bank accounts? No wait, don't answer that Steve. "

It's only PARTLY about collecting the debt. It's also about getting his TRESPASSING cattle off of public, protected lands. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

And I see your "argument" has once again devolved into personal insults. Guess I win. Again.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:06 p.m.

Steve, I find your support for direct physical seizure of assets when no preexisting threat to life and limb existed irrational. Land use wars don't belong in an age when everyone in advanced economies are interconnected in the financial system.

Apparently, cooler heads prevailed as the Feds realized this as well and have changed tactics.

No doubt the rule of law will prevail and no one in this thread is defending scofflaws.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:19 p.m.

"no one in this thread is defending scofflaws. "

17t: "I continue to cheer towards anyone who stands up to it"

He's defending armed militias who threatened force and violence against United States law enforcement officers, agents and contractors. He says so himself.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:20 p.m.

" I continue to cheer towards anyone who stands up to [the government]"

Great! So I can expect your support in opposing suspicionless stops of vehicles, aka, checkpoints? Thanks for your support!


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:26 p.m.

"It's only PARTLY about collecting the debt. It's also about getting his TRESPASSING cattle off of public, protected lands. What's so hard for you to understand about that?"

Because I dont pee my pants because a few cows eat a some sage brush in a state that 110,000 square miles that's 90% owned by the federal government. I somehow think that there must be a better response than snipers, dogs, tazers, and a battalion of armed BLM agents to solve this. Apparently the BLM agrees with me as well. IRS scofflaws get bonuses, Cliven Bundy gets snipers and German Shepherds.

But I guess when I'm dealing with a person that complains about being personally insulted shortly after calling me a traitor or seditionist says it all. You can't even recognize your own stunning hypocrisy when it comes to this matter. "Waaaa...I think you're a traitor but I'm wetting my pants because you insulted me....waaaaa!" At least you think you've won. You can hang that on the wall with your other accomplishments.

I smell bs in you....ie., bs!

The founders were seditionists!


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:29 p.m.

"I find your support for direct physical seizure of assets when no preexisting threat to life and limb existed irrational."

Why? He was ordered by a court, twice, to remove his cattle from public lands. The BLM was, well, removing his cattle from public lands. That's what I'd expect them to do.

It's not different than squatting on and using private property. Eventually, you're going to be physically removed by the authorities (following due process, of course).

I don't understand the support for armed confrontations with LE, ignoring court orders, skipping out on debts, etc., that I see from people here.

Oh, wait...I forgot. There's a *Democrat* in the White House! Because I'm pretty sure that had GWB been in office, and *his* BLM done this, well, it'd have been a different story.

These "Oath Keepers" and other "militias" and "sovereign citizen" movement types are loonies who are itching for the chance to have a shooting war with federal agents (and there have been a few killed in the area around all this stuff over the years, by militia types). So if posters here wish to "cheer" for them, well...

When you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:31 p.m.

"Great! So I can expect your support in opposing suspicionless stops of vehicles, aka, checkpoints? Thanks for your support!"

I've done so a hundred times Steve. Can't you read? I'm one of the few who agrees with you.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:32 p.m.

" I somehow think that there must be a better response than snipers, dogs, tazers, and a battalion of armed BLM agents to solve this. "

Why isn't the onus on the lawbreaker with you? You don't think that the *guy who broke the law* might have a better response than to call on his whacko/right-wing/seditionist/separationist buddies to bring guns and stand down the federal government?

THAT is a twisted point of view. Unless, of course, you "cheer" for the seditionists and traitors. Because you sort of are one?

Hmmmmmm....

But thanks for supporting me in standing up to the government on DUI checkpoints!


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 12:34 p.m.

"There's a *Democrat* in the White House!"

He's black too! That's it, it's all because a Dem is in the Whitehouse...A BLACK DEM at that! Darn, busted again by Steve the wise!


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 1:14 p.m.

Boy, what will they call us next? Racists, homophobes, misogynist, anarchist, traitor, seditionist, ageist, elitist, extremist, denier, anti-science...am I missing anything Steve?

This, from a person who whined about personal insults then claimed victory after decrying said insults.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 1:19 p.m.

"Why? He was ordered by a court, twice, to remove his cattle from public lands. The BLM was, well, removing his cattle from public lands. That's what I'd expect them to do."

Surely you're familiar with the concept of legal enforcement discretion, Steve. If the goal is compliance with the law, obviously the least confrontational method of accomplishing that objective is the preferred method. Introducing the possibility of physical conflict where none existed isn't a wise course. As I stated previously, if a threat to life and limb was present, that alters the calculation. This wasn't the case.

As events unfolded, the Feds realized this as well and abandoned the methodology that you advocate. Shouldn't that be our expectation of the authorities we hire, i.e. to resolve issues with the minimum force required?

The pugnacity you're exhibiting appears to be driven by disdain for certain groups with Bundy acting as a proxy rather than a cool, rational assessment. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 2:06 p.m.

I'm also familiar with the concept of flouting the law for 20 years, and the ideas of the far right "sovereign citizen" movement, and the violence of the so-called "militias". Should law enforcement back down when confronted by armed anti-government types who point rifles at them?

Are you advocating that we let people who threaten violence determine that they can be exempt from the law, or the consequences of violating it?

How do you think that would play with the LASO or LAPD and, say, a group of armed citizens in, let's just throw a dart...South-Central? Would you equally advocate for the cops just abandoning their job of enforcing the law and a court order when faced with 1000 or so armed, angry citizens?

The *lack* of disdain for, and active support for, a group of violent, ultra-right extremists who foment for armed insurrection is mystifying.

Unless one considers the possibility that certain posters here *agree* with their seditious beliefs.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 2:09 p.m.

"Surely you're familiar with the concept of legal enforcement discretion, Steve. If the goal is compliance with the law, obviously the least confrontational method of accomplishing that objective is the preferred method."

Surely the *least* confrontational method would be exactly what the feds attempted...simple removal of the trespassing animals.

It was Bundy and his armed supporters who escalated the level of potential violence. THEY introduced "the possibility of physical conflict".

Further, do you want the police to back down every time there is "the possibility of physical violence"? To propose such a thing is essentially to give up law and order to violence and mob rule. Which, of course, is what they did in this case, and it sets a very bad precedent.


17trillion: Posted: May 7, 2014 2:29 p.m.

"I'm also familiar with the concept of flouting the law for 20 years, and the ideas of the far right "sovereign citizen" movement"

Tech, do you see what we're dealing with here? Liberals, and Steve in particular, are immune to logic. Look at all the labels he's thrown out there due to a very narrow interpretation of the events made by us. I could have a more intellectually reasonable discussion with my 9 year old and he probably wouldn't call me a traitor. I think a traitor is someone that supports a president who violates his oath of office and puts his hand on a bible and lies his butt off. That is a traitor! On the other hand, most of these brain dead lemmings probably can't even spell constitution let alone know what's in it.

Hope and change...yep, that's me! Whooopeeee, hope and change! Those two words are all I need! Give me hope and change....yuck yuck yuck.... Policy? Forget it, hope and change for me! Who did you vote for? I voted for hope and change! Well, we sure did get a bunch of hope and change.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 2:36 p.m.

Well, now, THERE'S a cogent response.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 3:18 p.m.

"Surely the *least* confrontational method would be exactly what the feds attempted...simple removal of the trespassing animals."

No, it wasn't. And the Feds, with Ruby Ridge and Waco in mind, agree with my perspective. That's why they desisted from your preferred approach.

Unless you raise any additional points to the discussion, at this point I don't have anything else to add, Steve. The merits of our opposing perspectives appear to have been fully explored.

No doubt the future resolution of this technical legal dispute will be illuminating.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 3:47 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, Bundy has been strongly condemned for his racism on Fox. I know this goes against your irrational paranoia with Fox but you are one who never lets facts get in the way of his ideology. Let me ask again...who had to apologize for deceiving the American people....Fox News or Barack Obama?

Indy: Yes, I heard Sean Hannity ‘RUNNING’ from this guy but it doesn’t excuse the trumped up ‘innuendo and speculation’ brought forth by Hannity to support his ‘anti-government’ agenda and specific demeaning of the President.

Supporting militias that have people aiming sniper rifles at the federal agents is outrageous and perhaps Hannity should be brought up on charges for sedition . . .

In any event, as hard as you try to distance yourself from this outspoken conservative nationalist, you can’t excuse their actions even if now that realize that Bundy is still leaving in the 50s with respect to the ‘Negro’.

Obama has so far been a good President made especially more difficult with all the partisan RNC bs that you recite here with your fellow conservative brethren.

So please, keep your apologies to yourself and instead try dealing with the economic realities especially made worse by tax deadbeats like Bundy . . . who for me, should be in jail for tax evasion.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:01 p.m.

Tech wrote: As to ‘the government’ owning land in the US, we ‘are the government’, ‘we the people’. - Indy

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's wrong. You are not part of "the government". What elected or appointed office in local, state or Federal government do you hold, Indy?

Indy: I again wish to thank you for displaying the NARROW view of libertarisn market fundamentalist since it’s important the public understands where ‘you’ stand on issues like this that involve federal property . . . yet still forgetting that Founding Fathers set up our government for ‘we the people’.

Tech wrote: In our Federalist Republic, we elect representatives who subsequently hold office. They are part of the government during their term. When they leave office, they are no longer part of the government. The vast majority of government employees aren't elected by citizens.

Indy: Yes, I think most folks understand that reality . . .

Tech wrote: Here (again) is how the Constitution delineates government and "the people":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment

Indy: I find that your greatest weakness with respect to the overall management of government involves your fascination with constitutional issues that seem to ‘distance’ the public from government or that the ‘government’ isn’t a part of the public.

Let’s go back to that opening preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

When the Founding Fathers started off the Constitution with ‘we the people’, I would have thought by now that most Americans would get the connection . . .


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:03 p.m.

Tech wrote: Unitied State = Federal Government
States = states
The people = citizens

The purpose of your conflating government and "the people" is to place government at the center of society rather than people. This is the intent of "progressive" politics, i.e. to champion collective over individual rights. The Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government over people because of the historical record of tyranny by the former. --edited.

Indy: I’m not conflating that you’re the one telling the folks here what you ‘believe’ but as you can see, I disagree.

The government of the US is ‘we the people’ and indeed we elect people in that group to occupy the seats of elected office to do the work of ‘we the people’. The government also hires folks to do the work of the people while employed by government.

The government isn’t some sort of imaginary abstraction that was created for pseudo intellectuals to argue away that the government isn’t directly doing the ‘people’s work’, people that are ‘individuals’ if you will.

Finally, Jefferson and Madison insisted in adding the 'Bill of Rights' to the Constitution to address the rights of 'we the people' with respect to the very government they created to 'promote the general welfare'.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:37 p.m.

That pesky old Constitution. Getting in the way of things as usual...


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:45 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I have a homework assignment for you Indy. I don't doubt that you believe what you post on here, and you and I would probably get along just fine were we to meet each other in real life. You're probably a decent person. Because of your passion, I would love for you to spend a week trying to think like a republican. Put on a different pair of shoes and watch the CNN/MSNBC/ABC-NBC-CBS nightly news looking for where they are doing softball interviews with race hustlers, con artists and party hacks/spokesholes. Look for where they are slanting studies and statistics in favor of their party's president. Look for how they cover news events differently (or even at all) when their party is the one who might look bad. Heck, certain folks refuse to even go on the other party's airwaves because they will be asked "inconvenient" questions. Make no mistake, just like Murchoch owns the Fox airwaves, there are players on the other side of the aisle who own the message on these other outlets.

Indy: If you’ve read my posts here for any length of time (your homework is go back and review some of my posts) you’ll notice that I constantly address the failures of the media to provide ‘context, facts, and back story’ to their articles.

When I noted that several LA Times reporters ‘blocked’ me on twitter, the resident conservatives here ‘mocked’ me! Well, the same clowns can’t get a grip that I do challenge reporters to get beyond the ‘political theater’ and stop making these ‘party’ clowns into celebrities then reciting their ‘focus group tested’ slogans as a proxy for ‘real news’.

But feel free to address any specific report, statistics or anything else and I’ll address same.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:45 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I don't root for either side in the whole political game. But you seem to be on one side and blind to the fact that both sides are playing a giant slanted game with the information that gets to the majority of increasingly uneducated Americans who are ill equipped to filter the message. Unplug from the matrix brother, and see the game for what it really is. I think trying to see things from the complete opposite side of the spectrum is an exercise that might open your eyes a bit to what is going on.

Indy: I’m on the ‘reality’ side but since this board is dominate by hard core conservatives that try to control the discussion here, it’s understandable that I appear as you make me out.

But the reality is that when I address say Obama’s shortcomings, they just ‘IGNORE’ that get right back into their ‘anti-Obama’ rants that are based on ‘innuendo and speculation’ fostered by conservative media like Fox.

Again, the media is failing us . . . too many journalist are not knowledgeable in the areas they report on. So indeed, as you noted, many of the public are simply not getting the knowledge they need to vote intelligently.

And it’s good to note that why the failings of conservatives are easy to see relative to their ideology, the democrats are just as cowardly for addressing the reality since they know they will be ‘beaten to death’ by Fox that will state out of context remarks and just recite the ‘innuendo and speculation’ . . . so the media is really the main part of the problems.

The political clowns that masquerade as ‘leaders’ today simply ‘use’ the media knowing they will recite anything . . . shameful.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 4:46 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: If you don't want to engage in my experiment here, it is no skin off my back. I'm just trying to help you understand where some of the folks on here are coming from as you seem to see most discussions as black and white, big D versus big R. Anyone who varies from your interpretation of things has to be republican. I'm here to tell you that more and more folks have shed allegiance to parties and are opting to think for themselves. So trying to put Fox News or Rush Limbaugh on folks like me rings really hollow.

Indy: Hey, from what I’ve seen, you’re a breath of fresh air here!

As far as Fox and Rush goes, they make their own beds . . . if they wish to be ‘fear’ mongers with ‘innuendo and speculation’, I only address such nonsense in the context of the issues at hand.

In any event, I’ve noted to these folks that I’m here to solve problems and I’ve been mocked for that as well . . . just go back a few threads into the archives and see for yourself.

Finally, I will address people as they address me. They want to use ‘gutter’ talk, great, if that’s what they understand, so be it. But I also can be a professional much as I’ve done for 40 year in business and leave the ‘barbarian’ rhetoric to clowns that can’t act as professionals.

And be clear . . . watch the conservatives criticize me but let their ‘own’ off without comment . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 7, 2014 5:00 p.m.

Oh my....reading Indy's glowing account of himself was awkward to say the least. His alternative view of reality is amazing, even for a far-left Obama loyalist. Dude, I'm embarrassed FOR you. Indy - you can't run from the stuff you post no matter how painfully you try to twist it. There is absolutely no one who posts here regularly who is as guilty of the very things he condemns as you. And that, my friend, is a burden to us all.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:08 p.m.

"Supporting militias that have people aiming sniper rifles at the federal agents is outrageous and perhaps Hannity should be brought up on charges for sedition . . ." - Indy

"Obama has so far been a good President…" - Indy

Just…LOL!


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:21 p.m.

"Indy: I find that your greatest weakness with respect to the overall management of government involves your fascination with constitutional issues that seem to ‘distance’ the public from government or that the ‘government’ isn’t a part of the public." - Indy

I find your positing that my focus on the Constitution, the foundation of our nation, law and government, is a "weakness" VERY revealing.

By the way, nothing in your screeds rebutted that these are not separate and defined entities in the Constitution:

United States = Federal Government
States = states
The people = citizens

Therefore, your assertion that "we the people" = government is Constitutionally fallacious, Indy.

Inconvenient for you and the political objectives of your fellow travelers, isn't it?


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:27 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Oh my....reading Indy's glowing account of himself was awkward to say the least. His alternative view of reality is amazing, even for a far-left Obama loyalist. Dude, I'm embarrassed FOR you. Indy - you can't run from the stuff you post no matter how painfully you try to twist it. There is absolutely no one who posts here regularly who is as guilty of the very things he condemns as you. And that, my friend, is a burden to us all.

Indy: Blah, blah, blah . . . but again, coping is the more sincere form of flattery so thanks!

But again, your burden that you’ll carry for each day for the rest of your life is for the poor people conservatives deny food stamps, cut their long term unemployment benefits for ‘hard working’ Americans that lost their job through no fault of their own and the ignorance of not keeping the minimum wage at least with inflation.

The truth indeed it tough to take . . . but it’s important the guest readers understand your views.


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:28 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Supporting militias that have people aiming sniper rifles at the federal agents is outrageous and perhaps Hannity should be brought up on charges for sedition . . ." – Indy

Indy: So do you agree or not?


Indy: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:30 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: I find that your greatest weakness with respect to the overall management of government involves your fascination with constitutional issues that seem to ‘distance’ the public from government or that the ‘government’ isn’t a part of the public." - Indy

I find your positing that my focus on the Constitution, the foundation of our nation, law and government, is a "weakness" VERY revealing.

Indy: Remember, it’s just ‘you’ a libertarian market fundamentalist that ignores the reason why the Founding Fathers even created a government of ‘we the people’!

But again, I appreciate you disclosing your beliefs here . . . very very important the public gets a grip on who libertarians are and what they ‘believe’ . . . so thank you.


therightstuff: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:59 p.m.

Indy: """Blah, blah, blah . . ."""

Did Indy actually just post this? Indy???

Thank you for so quickly proving my point that there is no poster who is more guilty of the very things he condemns. Such a hypocrite.




tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:03 p.m.

"…perhaps Hannity should be brought up on charges for sedition . . ." – Indy

Indy: So do you agree or not?

No, I don't share your risible charge of sedition and an attempt to silence a member of the news media covering current events.

Still laughing though…


therightstuff: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:07 p.m.

More Indy: """your burden that you’ll carry for each day for the rest of your life is for the poor people conservatives deny food stamps"""

ooookkkaaayyyy....and now back to reality.

To address the stunning growth in food stamp growth and government dependence under the Obama administration, Republicans are trying to ease the budget back to where it was before the Obama tenure began. They want to phase in these cuts over a TEN YEAR period and restore it to where it was five years ago.

For normal people, this makes total sense. For Democratic wh0res who want to exploit the poor to stay in power, this is unthinkable. Since they can't debate the issue on its merit, they default to the irresponsible charge that conservatives want to starve poor people. How sick is that?


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:13 p.m.

Indy: "Remember, it’s just ‘you’ a libertarian market fundamentalist that ignores the reason why the Founding Fathers even created a government of ‘we the people’!

But again, I appreciate you disclosing your beliefs here . . . very very important the public gets a grip on who libertarians are and what they ‘believe’ . . . so thank you."

Still you present no rebuttal to my Constitutional correction of your repeated error. It's not my belief, it's fact. You're welcome nonetheless for the opportunity to school you again.


tech: Posted: May 7, 2014 8:53 p.m.

"When I noted that several LA Times reporters ‘blocked’ me on twitter, the resident conservatives here ‘mocked’ me!" - Indy

Perhaps it's because they noted, with glee, that even your leftist fellow travelers at the LAT viewed you as a crank poster/tweeter too! :-D

How many reporters blocked your spam tweets? Did it frustrate your keen journalistic instincts?


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 9:50 p.m.

"In any event, I’ve noted to these folks that I’m here to solve problems and I’ve been mocked for that as well . . . just go back a few threads into the archives and see for yourself." - Indy

Allow me to assist, Indy. Here's my favorite reflecting your humble outreach and problem solving:

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/


emheilbrun: Posted: May 8, 2014 7:15 a.m.

I also liked the post when Indy "outed" the progessive Jewish journalist Hanna Rosin as an evangelical Christian because she writes about religion. All time example of ASSume.


17trillion: Posted: May 8, 2014 10:45 a.m.

Did Indy say something?


emheilbrun: Posted: May 8, 2014 12:10 p.m.

Indy's proclamation of intent: "In any event, I’ve noted to these folks that I’m here to solve problems and I’ve been mocked for that as well..."

Hey Indy, since you've been posting here, how close to solving a problem have you come?


17trillion: Posted: May 8, 2014 1:05 p.m.

But he has been, rightly, mocked......

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

Classic! And not in a good way Indy.


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 1:13 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Blah, blah, blah . . ."""

Did Indy actually just post this? Indy???

Thank you for so quickly proving my point that there is no poster who is more guilty of the very things he condemns. Such a hypocrite.

Indy: Blah, blah, blah . . .

In any event, you can’t ‘pray away’ the consequences of your religious conservatism with a meaningless quick quip about the President or even me . . .

Religious conservatives in congress are literally ruining the US and creating great harm to many Americans especially the poor, out of work, and working poor.

That again is the burden you have to carry every day of your remaining life here on earth . . .


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 1:17 p.m.

Tech wrote: "In any event, I’ve noted to these folks that I’m here to solve problems and I’ve been mocked for that as well . . . just go back a few threads into the archives and see for yourself." - Indy

Allow me to assist, Indy. Here's my favorite reflecting your humble outreach and problem solving:

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/

Indy: Yes, I greatly appreciate that reference since it clearly indicates and supports my statement: I’ve noted to these folks that I’m here to solve problems.

In any event, as you read my posts now and into the future, my hope is that the insights gained will help you see the folly and indeed disastrous results that emanate from libertarian market fundamentalism.

Thankfully we have public forums that can help the guest readers understand the shortcomings of capitalism and the failure of those that can’t see that.

And again, I’m here to help you . . .


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 1:19 p.m.

Tech wrote: "When I noted that several LA Times reporters ‘blocked’ me on twitter, the resident conservatives here ‘mocked’ me!" - Indy

Perhaps it's because they noted, with glee, that even your leftist fellow travelers at the LAT viewed you as a crank poster/tweeter too! :-D

How many reporters blocked your spam tweets? Did it frustrate your keen journalistic instincts?

Indy: Here again is an excellent example of how a hard core libertarian ignores what you write and just inserts their own distorted view of reality! A+

Oh, did I forget . . . 11/4/14 is just around the corner . . . I hope Americans have seen through the disastrous rein of Boehner that has sadly dishonored the great body of government, the House of Represenatives, with his narrow minded view of democracy where he can’t even allow a ‘vote’ to be taken!

Coward? You decide . . .


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 1:27 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: More Indy: """your burden that you’ll carry for each day for the rest of your life is for the poor people conservatives deny food stamps"""

ooookkkaaayyyy....and now back to reality.

Indy: Thankfully, yes . . .

Therightstuff wrote: To address the stunning growth in food stamp growth and government dependence under the Obama administration, Republicans are trying to ease the budget back to where it was before the Obama tenure began. They want to phase in these cuts over a TEN YEAR period and restore it to where it was five years ago.

Indy: Here is a good summary where somebody simply can’t see the economics or even understand the statistics in context that we’ve been recovering from the ‘WORST’ recession since the depression, created under a REPUBLICAN president and sees this poster ‘blaming’ Obama for the consequences of failed conservative ideas. Hey, just ask Sean Hannity!

And so it here that the poster makes his greatest error by placing the burden on the poor by cutting the food stamp program.

Contrary to the posters religious conservative beliefs and lack of any insight into economic context, the House conservatives that voted to cut the food stamp program can’t grasp that as the economy improves, the number of people on that program recedes. THEN the budget can be adjusted.

Doing this ahead of that just again places the burden of conservative ideology failures on the poorest Americans . . . there is no honor or even human decency in that . . . yet it has become the ‘cornerstone’ of this poster’s thinking.

Therightstuff wrote For normal people, this makes total sense. For Democratic wh0res who want to exploit the poor to stay in power, this is unthinkable. Since they can't debate the issue on its merit, they default to the irresponsible charge that conservatives want to starve poor people. How sick is that?

Indy: What the poster should have written, is for ‘religious conservative’ posters that don’t’ understand the most basic economic principles and thus hiding that ignorance under his rants toward the President again has no honor.

Sad that conservatives can’t even see they are ‘starving poor people’ since their ideology is placed above even the interest of those folks. Truly pathetic.


17trillion: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:05 p.m.

When Indy writes I'm reminded of what Charlie Brown's teacher sounds like.

Can someone show me a starving poor person? I'm sure one must exist.


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:06 p.m.

Slow down Indy...your emotional outbursts are not only embarrassing, they are hard to keep up with, but let's try. Rather than articulate a reasoned reply to a 10 YEAR ADJUSTMENT to the run-away growth of food stamps, here are your responses to me:

People like you are ruining the United States!!

You're blaming Obama when it is Bush's fault!!

You have no human decency!!

You'll have to carry this burden for all your days on earth!!

If you criticize Obama, you are ignorant and have no honor!!

And oh yes...You watch Fox News!!

Feel better Indy? Now calm down, get back on your meds, and let's have an adult discussion why you think adjusting the food stamp budget by 2024 to the 2008 levels is so inhumane.


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:16 p.m.

Anyone notice how Indy never talks about the national debt anymore? For years he would mindlessly parrot the DNC talking point that Bush2 'DOUBLED' the national debt almost daily. Since it has grown $7.5-trillion under Obama's watch, Indy has dropped it as an issue.

I would say he's a 'hypocritical Democrat' but that would be redundant.


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:27 p.m.

Did the LAT reporters block your Twitter account en masse or a a slower rate, Indy? Have you engaged in a modicum of introspection and concluded why they universally acted to curtail your inestimable input? Do they know you have a Northridge MBA?


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:39 p.m.

It's people like you tech who are ruining this country. You have no honor or human decency and I'll bet you watch Fox News.


17trillion: Posted: May 8, 2014 2:56 p.m.

I actually watch MSLSD almost as much as Fox. Don't you people know that's where they're having a conversation about racism? CNN has the missing airplane, MSLSD has racism, and Fox has Bengazi, IRS, Obamacare, and other assorted Obama failures.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 8, 2014 3:14 p.m.

You guys will not agree but I admire Indy for standing up for what he believes in. As a side benefit, he makes this thread fun and interesting.

While I don't agree with his sentiments, I say- you go Indy! We need your voice and your thoughts.


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 4:34 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Slow down Indy...your emotional outbursts are not only embarrassing, they are hard to keep up with, but let's try. Rather than articulate a reasoned reply to a 10 YEAR ADJUSTMENT to the run-away growth of food stamps, here are your responses to me:

Indy: What truly saddens me is that your lack of knowledge in economics leaves you helpless to recognize the consequences of the religious conservative ideology positions that work against the poor in America.

Making a comment like:” For Democratic wh0res who want to exploit the poor to stay in power, this is unthinkable.”

Again, denial of the economic factors and just blame those ‘democrats’ for you inability to see reality beyond your closely held religious beliefs.

Therightstuff wrote: People like you are ruining the United States!! You're blaming Obama when it is Bush's fault!! You have no human decency!! You'll have to carry this burden for all your days on earth!! If you criticize Obama, you are ignorant and have no honor!! And oh yes...You watch Fox News!!

Indy: Yes, you’ve covered your ‘excuse’ bases here but it still amazes me that someone like you that’s all about ‘accountability and responsibility’ is so inclined to again ignore the consequences of your beliefs . . . where you’re only course of action is to ‘blame’ others for your lack of economic knowledge.

Therightstuff wrote: Feel better Indy? Now calm down, get back on your meds, and let's have an adult discussion why you think adjusting the food stamp budget by 2024 to the 2008 levels is so inhumane.

Indy: I’ve already explained to you several times the causes of the rise of food stamp participation from the ‘recession’ yet you still just recite the same nonsense that we see from religious conservative republicans in the House!

When conservatives become more concerned about helping people using ‘modern knowledge’, then we may be able to get you to see why cutting food stamps ahead of the reduction of need in that program is just political self-serving rhetoric.

Until then, you just continue to embarrass yourself while you refuse to hold yourself accountable for the poor people who are getting their food stamps cut as I write this . . .


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 4:39 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Anyone notice how Indy never talks about the national debt anymore? For years he would mindlessly parrot the DNC talking point that Bush2 'DOUBLED' the national debt almost daily. Since it has grown $7.5-trillion under Obama's watch, Indy has dropped it as an issue.

Indy: Yep, here we go again to try to help you understand the ‘context’ of economic statistics that you simply can’t grasp regardless of the attempts directed at you.

Again, Bush W used the debt to raise economic activity, the basic Keynesian approach, expect that you do this while in a ‘recession’. Bush’s failure to realize this contributed to the economic crash in 2007 which we all know that the last month of Bush’s term in office say the US dropping some 700,00-+ jobs PER MONTH.

And of course, as a loyal mindless conservative follower, you just jumped right in with the RNC leadership and ‘declared’ all of this economic mess of Bush was, hold on . . . wait for it . . . Obama’s fault! What nonsense . . .

But it’s become your mantra.

Your economic ignorance shown here is the same ignorance that is hurting poor and unemployed Americans while you sit peacefully on your SCV throne trying to convince people that you ignorance is ‘truth’! LOL . . .

Come man, get a grip . . .


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 4:51 p.m.

"It's people like you tech who are ruining this country." - TRS

Indeed. But someone has to pay most of the taxes, eh?

I don't watch Fox or TV generally but I did just view recorded episodes of American Rifleman and Overhaulin'. :-)


Indy: Posted: May 8, 2014 5:01 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: You guys will not agree but I admire Indy for standing up for what he believes in . . . While I don't agree with his sentiments, I say- you go Indy! We need your voice and your thoughts.

Indy: I’m strictly a ‘realist’ and understandably rejected by the left and right for daring to hold politicians to the actual economics that exist versus the folklore they recite.

And Obama didn’t help anyone with his promise of ‘unlimited’ growth in his SOTU speech . . . and democrats overall are just cowards when it comes to addressing reality any more than republicans.

In any event, it does me no pleasure to cite the ideology positions that don’t work . . . but I noticed in my 40 years of business that you have to ‘communicate’ to people in the language they determine fits the discussion . . . so there you go . . . don’t like the ‘chippy rhetoric’, then don’t use it . . . but if that’s your calling, hell, I’ll play along .

I used to have to deal with businessmen that saw ‘professional’ speak as a weakness . . . so I’d take them to my shop downstairs from my office and give them the ‘barbarian’ version . . . so they clearly ‘understood’ in their ‘language’ what was going on . . . eventually, however, I just let all those clowns go away . . . and hired companies with people that could communicate professionally. And interestingly thanked by the same folks for helping them protect themselves contractually from my own competitors!!! But I digress . . .

Anyway, I don’t expect most of the conservatives here to ‘ever agree’ with much of the basic economics and as you see, where are the ‘democrat’ voices here in this valley? Don’t they have their own clubs? What don’t they participate here? What are they waiting for?

Do they think positive change is just going to walk up to them? They are naive . . . as anyone who watches or reads any daily news.

Interestingly, while I expect conservative disdain, who supports me? Virtually no one . . . but that’s not unexpected when you realize the media is dominated by self-appointed ‘speakers’ most of whom are likewise economic illiterates and believe the nightly display of ‘political theater’ is going to solve any problem we face . . . well, it won’t and hasn’t done so for the 40+ years of my adult life.

Reality is sadly feared by most Americans since it’s unpleasant and requires a bit of ‘work’ to actually solve problems versus just ‘whining and crying’ about them or blaming ‘others’ for their lack of insight.

Sad that our nation is in this mode of distraction but it is what it is.

I just don’t have to stand by and be ‘entertained’ by nonsense and will address things that don’t work regardless of the cultural, religious, or folklore norms that appear to say otherwise.

Again, if you don’t like what I write, don’t read my posts . . . but if you do and make poor decisions, then I will respond to correct same. It’s just goes with the territory . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 5:29 p.m.

AlwaysRight: """While I don't agree with his sentiments, I say- you go Indy! We need your voice and your thoughts."""

You're right. Every village needs an idiot.


therightstuff: Posted: May 8, 2014 6:04 p.m.

Indy: """When conservatives become more concerned about helping people using ‘modern knowledge’"""

Says the same guy who embraces the ideology of the 1917 Bolshevic Revolution. What a joke.




More Indy: """And of course, as a loyal mindless conservative follower, you just jumped right in with the RNC leadership and ‘declared’ all of this economic mess of Bush was, hold on . . . wait for it . . . Obama’s fault! What nonsense . . ."""

Further proof that you never read other people's posts before emotionally reacting. I've blamed Bush plenty and still do. But after five years, don't you think it's time your president took some responsibility? No wait, he's a Democrat. You guys never take responsibility.




No wait, still more Indy: """I’m strictly a ‘realist’ and understandably rejected by the left and right for daring to hold politicians to the actual economics that exist versus the folklore they recite."""

Which is the bigger lie? Indy's ideology is rejected by the left or that he's a realist. Dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging.


tech: Posted: May 8, 2014 6:40 p.m.

Indy: "I’m strictly a ‘realist’ and understandably rejected by the left and right for daring to hold politicians to the actual economics that exist versus the folklore they recite."

Daring! Our hero! *swoons*


ricketzz: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:11 a.m.

About half of the #Obama debt increase came from putting Medicare Part D and the Irakistan war "on the books". Shrub had been hiding the expenditures as "emergency" spending, off budget. Look it up.


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:26 a.m.

Let's see if you Obama loyalists will hold him responsible for when the worst parts of Obamacare hits the fan during the next president's administration.


17trillion: Posted: May 9, 2014 8:25 a.m.

May 9th, 2014, 5 years and change since we were gifted with Hope and Change and it's STILL Bush's fault!

Hope and Change...yuck yuck yuck....Give me some hope and change!


Indy: Posted: May 9, 2014 2:36 p.m.

Called by Republicans, Health Insurers Deliver Unexpected Testimony
By ROBERT PEARMAY 7, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/politics/called-by-republicans-health-insurers-deliver-unexpected-testimony.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry877%23%2Finsurers%252520energy%252520and%252520commerce%252520committee%2F&_r=0

“WASHINGTON — House Republicans summoned a half-dozen health insurance executives to a hearing Wednesday envisioned as another forum for criticism of the Affordable Care Act. But insurers refused to go along with the plan, and surprised Republican critics of the law by undercutting some of their arguments against it.

Insurers, appearing before a panel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, testified that the law had not led to a government takeover of their industry, as some Republicans had predicted. Indeed, several insurers said their stock prices had increased in the last few years.

The executives also declined to endorse Republican predictions of a sharp increase in insurance premiums next year, saying they did not have enough data or experience to forecast prices. And they said they were already receiving federal subsidy payments intended to make insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income people.”

Indy: Interesting our local libertarian market fundamentalist disagrees with the actual executives of the health care insurance providers!


Indy: Posted: May 9, 2014 2:40 p.m.

The $900 Billion Slowdown in Federal Health Care Spending
May 6, 2014
http://crfb.org/blogs/900-billion-slowdown-federal-health-care-spending

“With April's updated projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), spending on major federal health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act's exchange subsidies) has now been revised downward by $900 billion, or 0.4 percent of GDP, cumulatively from 2011 through 2021, just since their March 2011 projections. Buoyed by a 23 percent drop in the cost of Medicare Part D and a 15 percent decline in the projected costs of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) new coverage through Medicaid and the exchanges, this remarkable slowdown has been a bright spot amidst an otherwise still dim fiscal outlook.”

Indy: Interesting the same libertarian market fundamentalist has been saying the ACA would drive up health care cost ???? Hmmmm . . .


Indy: Posted: May 9, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: AlwaysRight: """While I don't agree with his sentiments, I say- you go Indy! We need your voice and your thoughts."""

You're right. Every village needs an idiot.

Indy: Here it comes . . . .wait for it . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

In any event, not at all expected from someone unwilling to accept the ‘responsibility’ for his beliefs that are hurting the poor by denying them food stamps and the unemployed by denying them long benefits from a severe recession created during the conservative Bush years in the White House . . . remembering the republicans had both houses of congress for 6 YEARS and just sat there as the economy went to hell in hand basket . . . but just look at the Boehner House . . . just the same 'sit there and do nothing' approach to solving our nation's problems . . .

In any event, does religious conservatism promise that you can relieve your guilt by blaming others? Appears so . . .


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 3:31 p.m.

Indy: "Interesting the same libertarian market fundamentalist has been saying the ACA would drive up health care cost ???? Hmmmm . . . "

Completely disingenuous, Indy. Were you hoping the casual reader would presume your quote was representative of the entire report? One need only move to the 2nd paragraph and beyond for illuminating facts. I wonder if you actually read the link in its entirety as it doesn't make the point you intended.

For the intellectually curious and from your provided link…

"While the slowdown has garnered much attention, much less writing has focused on pinpointing where the downward revisions have occurred. Relative to the size of the program, the largest reduction actually occurred in Medicare Part D, with nearly the largest nominal dollar reduction in spending despite being very small compared to major federal health care programs. This downward revision is in large part due to the broader slowdown in prescription drug costs stemming from the so-called "patent cliff," as a number of widely used, high-cost drugs have come off patent recently. The program's costs have also consistently been revised downward since its implementation. In addition, in the most recent baseline, CBO revised down the cost of the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) based on the incorporation of new analysis.

Another way to look at the source of revisions is by what policymakers actually did to bring them about. As you can see in the graph below, the main legislative changes other than "doc fixes" – the sequester and a few modest changes to the ACA – accounted for only a small fraction of the drop in health care spending. And the Supreme Court decision to make the ACA's Medicaid expansion optional similarly only caused a small portion of the slowdown. Most of the difference, therefore, is the result of economic and technical changes to projections."

http://crfb.org/blogs/900-billion-slowdown-federal-health-care-spending

Key takeaways:

• Go to the source and don't rely on Indy's representations because, as demonstrated here, they are warped to fit his preferred ideology.
• Obamacare will still drive costs up markedly, just not as sharply as the CBO originally projected due to non-PPACA factors and revised projection methodology.

Your transparent attempt at triumphalism has further undermined your credibility, Indy. Check your ego and attend to your reading and analysis.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 3:51 p.m.

Indy: "Interesting our local libertarian market fundamentalist disagrees with the actual executives of the health care insurance providers!"

That fully regulated insurers would benefit financially from rent-seeking legislation they lobbied for and decline to affirm projections without a robust set of actuarial data is only surprising to you, Indy.

• Mandated product purchase? √
Government forces the young into the market, boosting profit? √
• Tax dollars providing free marketing of your product? √
• Tax subsidies to grow your customer base? √
• Non-critical bundled services coverage w/low utilization rates? √
• Government guarantees (risk corridors) to reduce/eliminate financial risk? √

From an insurance executive's perspective, what's not to like? Unfortunately, the majority of us get the shaft.

Let's await the actual data, shall we? I'm still expecting my promised $2500 family reduction (Not really. I'm not an idiot.) In the interim, keep grasping at straws, Indy. The entertainment value is immense.

11/4/14® <---- Note the registered trademark and stop plagiarizing.


Indy: Posted: May 9, 2014 5:52 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: "Interesting the same libertarian market fundamentalist has been saying the ACA would drive up health care cost ???? Hmmmm . . . "

Completely disingenuous, Indy. Were you hoping the casual reader would presume your quote was representative of the entire report? One need only move to the 2nd paragraph and beyond for illuminating facts. I wonder if you actually read the link in its entirety as it doesn't make the point you intended.

Indy: Oh I think it did . . . and made all of your prior predictions worthless . . .

And I do supply the link . . . if anyone is curious.

But more importantly, health care cost have been rising apart of the ACA as the ‘industry excutives’ were discussing. You always fail to see that bigger picture.

In any event, the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama . . . not to mention the 8+ MILLION people that have signed up for it plus the additional several million poor people that are now eligible through the ACA Medicaid expansion.

But perhaps you can give us some links that show why republcians are ‘blocking’ the Medicaid expansion for poor people estimated to be around 5 million so.

I’m sure the ‘casual reader’ would like to clearly understand your libertarian market fundamentalist politicians and their inventions for 11/4/14.


Indy: Posted: May 9, 2014 6:03 p.m.

Tech wrote: From an insurance executive's perspective, what's not to like? Unfortunately, the majority of us get the shaft.

Indy: Again, its instructive for the guest readers to fully understand the motiations of libertarians like yourself that try to put forth a failed ideology that is actually supposed to help people . . .

But as we see here, the people in the individual health care insurance market overwhelming supported the ACA with their dollars.

And the majority of Americans do want people to have insurance versus the ‘getting the shaft’ view that you support for those that have health insurance already.

The people you’re supporting to get the shaft are:

- Those with preexisting conditions
- The poor
- The working poor
- Individuals that didn’t have protection against arbitrary insurance cancellations

So please, keep digging . . . since 11/414 is coming up and I want people to clearly understand what libertarian market fundamentalist really care about . . .

Tech wrote: Let's await the actual data, shall we? I'm still expecting my promised $2500 family reduction (Not really. I'm not an idiot.) In the interim, keep grasping at straws, Indy. The entertainment value is immense.

Indy: Here again, if you shed your embarrassment over your educational background and reveal it to us, we can help you understand why this statement is erroneous, misleading, and sadly used to promote a political agenda that is apart from the actual ACA.

Tech wrote: 11/4/14® <---- Note the registered trademark and stop plagiarizing.

Indy: Simply provide us your registration number or provide us your real name so we can search the third-party databases such as LexisNexis, Dialog, and Compu-Mark.


hopeful: Posted: May 9, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Indy wrote: " the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama"

You seem really out of touch, Indy. Yes, there are some happy people right now, especially if they are being subsidized or have pre-existing conditions, but there are many people who would call the ACA a total failure. All one has to do is read the stories in the papers, read the Covered California Facebook posts, and talk to more than just a select few people to find the truth. A sampling of today's Covered California postings are below:

Complaint A: "Hi, how can I GET OUT of this messed up network...Now, my insurance premium doubled and I don't even get to see some of the doctors I previously saw because apparently, they are not in the CC network...funny thing is: if I had the SAME insurance plan without a "CC stamp" on the top-right side of my insurance card, I could have seen those doctors."

Complaint B: "Blue Shield does not answer the phone, and does not have any doctors in their network. I was on the phone all day trying to find a doctor, without success...just read that virtually no doctors accept Covered Cal PPO for Blue Shield because they pay at only 70% of what Medical pays..."

Complaint C: " The medical providers said, "yes, we accept blue shield." I had the exact same blue shield EPO plan previously and thought it would be the same...However, I now have 2000$ worth of bills that blue shield will not pay and they are ambiguous about why the care was not covered...The way I see it, we/you Mr President, have now set up a system whereby Insurance companies still have control, by eliminating coverage, reducing coverage, not reimbursing providers and giving patients the complete run around. Nothing is clear about this non affordable health care act. President Obamba, I voted for you twice. I feel you sold the people out when you signed this unaffordable health care act and I am now so disillusioned with the entire system...You, and your family, President Obama, are insured for life. We, the people, have to deal with this messed up Obamacare plan that is completely confusing, and gives the insurance companies too much power, still. Now they are making money on every single American citizen, and cutting coverages...I can't be the only person out here dealing with these difficulties. The plan is a mess."

The above complaints are just 3 of those posted TODAY, yet I have read hundreds of complaints over the past few months. The ACA is FAR from successful!


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:09 p.m.

Indy: """but just look at the Boehner House . . . just the same 'sit there and do nothing' approach to solving our nation's problems. In any event, does religious conservatism promise that you can relieve your guilt by blaming others? """


The hypocrisy of this line is priceless.


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:15 p.m.

Indy: """not at all expected from someone unwilling to accept the ‘responsibility’ for his beliefs that are hurting the poor by denying them food stamps..."""

Indy, for six years I worked at the Union Rescue Mission in downtown Los Angeles. I served more homeless people in one day that you've probably ever met in your entire life. For 13 years I served on staff with Help the Children which distributes over 30 tons of food to the poor every day. That's the equivalent of 8,000 bags of groceries daily.

What makes you qualified to judge me that I don't care about feeding the poor?


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:41 p.m.

"Indy: Oh I think it did . . . and made all of your prior predictions worthless . . . " Indy

No, it did not. PPACA policies weren't a factor of note in any reduced cost projections, per the article. I encourage all to read the short report to confirm my synopsis rather than your misrepresentation.

Your dogmatism is risible.


hopeful: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:42 p.m.

TRS - thank you for all you have done and continue to do for the less fortunate! One of Indy's major problems is he continually tries to lump people into HIS categories, based on his rabid ideology. Indy likes to assume that "religious conservatives," are selfish, but in reality, the "religious conservatives" I know give so much of themselves, both in time and personal finances, to help the less fortunate.

Without giving too much information, so I can maintain my anonymity, I can tell you that I volunteer over a thousand hours a year, and donate a similar amount, but of course, Indy would call me selfish since he paints me with the same brush as he does you: a religious conservative.


stevehw: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:47 p.m.

"Let's see if you Obama loyalists will hold him responsible for when the worst parts of Obamacare hits the fan during the next president's administration."

According to Bush supporter rules, once a President leaves office, *nothing* can ever be blamed on him ever again. Effect the day of the inauguration of the next President, everything becomes entirely the fault of the new guy.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Real volunteer action vs Indy's self-puffery? No contest, TRS.

By the way, nicely done!


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 7:58 p.m.

Kudos to you as well, hopeful!

I imagine it's somewhat annoying to be slandered by a narcissistic gasbag, eh?


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 8:09 p.m.

What an interesting bit of hyperbole, Steve. Tell us of these "Bush supporter rules". Are there more? Do you have a list you can refer us to?


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 8:47 p.m.

hyperbole...steve....? You're being redundant, tech.

Steve has always whined that no one who ever voted for Bush blames him for anything and since the first day Obama became president, we have blamed him for everything.

All you can do is laugh at the sixth grade mentality of the far left fringe.


therightstuff: Posted: May 9, 2014 8:57 p.m.

Well said and well done hopeful. (And thanks tech.) Some people like Indy curse the darkness while some people light a candle.

One of Indy's many maladies is common among bitter liberals. If you don't agree with his personal ideology, it must be because you're a bad person. It's easier for them to use this schtick than debate the issues on their merit. As he reminds us daily, he's sad. I'm sad FOR him.


emheilbrun: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:31 a.m.

Hopeful, as Indy has pointed out, the basics of economics is scarcity. So when doctors are scarce, that's just basic economics in play. Indy has an MBA from CSUN so he knows this stuff. He's just here to help, so he shares these pearls of wisdom.


stevehw: Posted: May 10, 2014 9:47 a.m.

"no one who ever voted for Bush blames him for anything and since the first day Obama became president, we have blamed him for everything."

Pretty much. Case in point:

4 dead Americans in Benghazi? SCANDAL! The BIGGEST SCANDAL since Teapot Dome! HUGE. We should impeach Obama.
4,000 dead Americans in Iraq? What war in Iraq? I thought we were talking about BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 11:12 a.m.

Nice caricature, Steve.

Who's engaged in histrionics and will continue to do so in an effort to deflect? Teapot Dome is rather obscure and involved bribery for financial gain.

Some light NIE reading here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html


stevehw: Posted: May 10, 2014 11:43 a.m.

Is it really a caricature, tech?

Even after we *knew* Bush and company lied to get us into a war in Iraq, where were the calls for hearings and investigations by the Republicans and the right wing? You know why we don't remember hearing about those cries of outrage? *Because they never happened*, that's why.

And here we have how many hearings now on Benghazi? 8 so far? Another one to come?

The point is that while the right wing points to left and calls them "wh*res for Obama" and such, they're just as guilty when it comes to supporting *their guy* while he was in office (and after he's gone).


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 12:06 p.m.

Yes, it is a caricature, Steve. People choose their own wardrobe and needn't don the cheap suit you've laid out.

• Read the NIE summary at the link I provided. That was the considered opinion of Western intelligence operations. You can look up the UN resolutions on Iraq yourself. I've already provided quotes from Democratic Party leaders on the topic.
• New information on Benghazi has surfaced based on a FOI suit and the Administration hasn't been forthcoming. That's what merits review and a Select Committee with competent prosecutorial experience is the correct composition.
• I speak for myself and not others in this forum when I state that the majority of media organizations have been more favorable to this administration than the previous one.

You're not going to receive a hysterical response from me. My positions are rational and certainly not isolated.


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 12:30 p.m.

How I love watching Obama zealots squirm when they think their leader is going to be exposed for his lies. Even when we document them over and over again, their lips still stay glued to Obama's ass.

Nice try Steve, but I have repeatedly and consistently criticized Bush for his actions in Iraq. To address the ultra lame..."what about Bush" defense, all of the useless Democratic icons said the exact same thing as Bush about Iraq but when he actually did something about it, these same worthless partisans all screamed...LIAR!!! The hypocrisy is astounding.

And yes, there have been other hearings on Benghazi...and we STILL don't know the truth!! When asked about the video narrative that the administration floated for weeks after they KNEW it was a terrorist attack, all the Secretary of State could say was..."What difference does it make!" For Obama wh0res, that's good enough. For normal people, we'd like to know the truth.

And then there's THIS gem that the Obama White House has been hiding the whole time. The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."

Ahhhh....vindication of what I've been saying for months. How sweet. I also pray for vindication for those who were murdered by terrorists while their president flew to Vegas on a cash junket and then lied to cover his political ass. To keep defending this guy, you'd have to check your integrity at the door and jump into the slime.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 2:39 p.m.

Therightstuff write: Indy: """but just look at the Boehner House . . . just the same 'sit there and do nothing' approach to solving our nation's problems. In any event, does religious conservatism promise that you can relieve your guilt by blaming others? """


The hypocrisy of this line is priceless.

Indy: Yes, as we read about religious conservatives citing biblical scripture in the House to deny poor people food stamps, this is your burden to carry . . . and understandably many religious conservatives that are ‘true believers’ somehow feel that ‘praying’ will help the poor when obviously it doesn’t . . . with respect to the SNAP program.

So please, put your anger to the ‘do nothing’ Boehner . . . he is your master now . . .


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 2:46 p.m.

Hopeful,

Why did 8+ million people jump at the changes to sign up for the ACA?

And do you feel helping the additional poor that now qualify for the expanded Medicaid to be a success?

As far as the reduction in the doctor pools, this was done by the health insurers to make their offerings more competitive in the ‘free market’ exchanges . . . why is that the fault of the ACA?

As far as the policy of the insurers go with respect to deductibles, the exchanges let the insurance companies do what they do normally, set their policy restrictions. Again, the ACA set ‘standards’ but can’t direct the insurance companies with respect to doctor networks.

Did you ask Blue Shield to write you a policy like the one you had apart from the ACA?

In any event, the ACA implementation was not going to help everyone in the same way and some are going to pay more.

You appear to have a high enough income not to qualify for the tax subsidies but many Americans that had ‘NO’ insurance at least have something.

Is every law that is written must first satisfy ‘your needs’ or should our laws provide for the ‘greater whole’?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 2:53 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: TRS - thank you for all you have done and continue to do for the less fortunate! One of Indy's major problems is he continually tries to lump people into HIS categories, based on his rabid ideology. Indy likes to assume that "religious conservatives," are selfish, but in reality, the "religious conservatives" I know give so much of themselves, both in time and personal finances, to help the less fortunate.

Indy: The main issue you can’t grasp with your ‘rabid ideology’ is that charity isn’t going to be sufficient to help people . . .

That dosen’t mean that charity in and of itself is bad but again, not sufficient.

This is especially true where the so called religious conservative ‘wealth creators’ are now concentrating ‘income’ and pushing more Americans into poverty where they need more ‘safety net’ type programs.

So did you agree that the House conservatives citing biblical scripture to cut food stamps for the poor to be a good strategy? Do you support that?

Hopeful wrote: Without giving too much information, so I can maintain my anonymity, I can tell you that I volunteer over a thousand hours a year, and donate a similar amount, but of course, Indy would call me selfish since he paints me with the same brush as he does you: a religious conservative.

Indy: I can only ask that you please don’t expand my objection to religious conservatives in congress citing biblical scripture over rational economics as being an indictment for ‘selfishness’. It’s more ignorance than anything else but the ‘consequences’ that effect so many people are the issue.

So if you wish to take issue with religious conservatives in congress, by all means do so. They are the ones giving you a bad reputation . . . not me.


hopeful: Posted: May 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.

Indy wrote: "Why did 8+ million people jump at the changes to sign up for the ACA?"

Because if people wanted to purchase individual insurance in California, they had NO choice but to either 1) go on the exchange to get insurance or 2) go directly to the insurance company to purchase the same insurance that was on the exchange, but without a subsidy. My insurance, along with millions of others, was cancelled by no choice of my own, so IF I wanted insurance, I had to do either # 1 or # 2 above.

Indy wrote: "Did you ask Blue Shield to write you a policy like the one you had apart from the ACA?"

Wow, you REALLY don't know how insurance and the ACA works, do you Indy? We Californians, who had individual insurance, can not get what we want; we can ONLY pick from the limited options that are available on the exchange...NO CHOICE!

Indy wrote: "Is every law that is written must first satisfy ‘your needs’ or should our laws provide for the ‘greater whole’?"

Here you go again, Indy, trying to minimize what I posted, and caste me as the bad guy. First, my posting was a response to you claiming that "the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama." The quotes I posted were OTHER people's complaints about the ACA...real people, who are having real problems with the ACA insurance, but instead of acknowledging that the ACA has many problems, you simply sweep those claims away because it doesn't fit into your partisan ideology.

Indy wrote: "As far as the reduction in the doctor pools, this was done by the health insurers to make their offerings more competitive in the ‘free market’ exchanges . . . why is that the fault of the ACA?"

I agree, the ridiculous doctor pools are the fault of the insurance companies, but it is also the fault of the ACA, which forced the implementation of this program before it was fully ready.

What good is having insurance when you can't find a doctor who will take the insurance? But no, Indy, you just go ahead and keep claiming that "the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama." If THIS is what you consider an overwhelming success, I hate to see what you think is a failure!




hopeful: Posted: May 10, 2014 4:49 p.m.

Indy wrote: "The main issue you can’t grasp with your ‘rabid ideology’ is that charity isn’t going to be sufficient to help people . ."

And the main issue you can't grasp is that my response (as well as TRS's response) was based on your arrogant claim that "this [cut in food stamps] is your burden to carry." You blame TRS for the cut in food stamps, and assume that TRS and other "religious conservatives" are "ignorant" or selfish, and don't care about the poor, which is what prompted TRS to let you know how much he has done for the poor, and what prompted me to post what I did.

Stop labeling people, Indy, and stop assuming you know everything...it just makes you look foolish!


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:29 p.m.

Indy composes his posts with a label gun, unreal. It's the only tool he can muster for his stale polemics.


stevehw: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:37 p.m.

"Read the NIE summary at the link I provided. That was the considered opinion of Western intelligence operations. You can look up the UN resolutions on Iraq yourself. I've already provided quotes from Democratic Party leaders on the topic. "

Amazing. Even today, after it has been shown that Bush, Cheney, Rice et al. lied, you still give them a pass and blame the people who believed their lies.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Why did 8+ million people jump at the changes to sign up for the ACA?"

Because if people wanted to purchase individual insurance in California, they had NO choice but to either 1) go on the exchange to get insurance or 2) go directly to the insurance company to purchase the same insurance that was on the exchange, but without a subsidy. My insurance, along with millions of others, was cancelled by no choice of my own, so IF I wanted insurance, I had to do either # 1 or # 2 above.

Indy: Yes, the ACA as even endorsed by the health insurance companies provided a new standard that addressed many of the shortcoming of existing insurance policies.

But the cancellations where by the insurance companies and they didn’t have to do that . . . right?

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Did you ask Blue Shield to write you a policy like the one you had apart from the ACA?"

Wow, you REALLY don't know how insurance and the ACA works, do you Indy? We Californians, who had individual insurance, can not get what we want; we can ONLY pick from the limited options that are available on the exchange...NO CHOICE!

Indy: Yes, the particulars of which you address were stipulated by the State of California not the ACA per se . . . and why do suppose that is?

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Is every law that is written must first satisfy ‘your needs’ or should our laws provide for the ‘greater whole’?"

Here you go again, Indy, trying to minimize what I posted, and caste me as the bad guy. First, my posting was a response to you claiming that "the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama." The quotes I posted were OTHER people's complaints about the ACA...real people, who are having real problems with the ACA insurance, but instead of acknowledging that the ACA has many problems, you simply sweep those claims away because it doesn't fit into your partisan ideology.

Indy: Again, we exist as a ‘society’ that is run by one federal government and many state governments. No law is written for any ‘given individual’. I’m not sure why that is such a tough concept to understand . . . so indeed some individuals benefited more than others.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:57 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "As far as the reduction in the doctor pools, this was done by the health insurers to make their offerings more competitive in the ‘free market’ exchanges . . . why is that the fault of the ACA?"

I agree, the ridiculous doctor pools are the fault of the insurance companies, but it is also the fault of the ACA, which forced the implementation of this program before it was fully ready.

Indy: The insurance industry operates in a ‘for profit’ manner . . . thus they are ‘free’ to set their stipulations. They didn’t have to restrict their doctor pools and the ACA didn’t force them.

Hopeful wrote: What good is having insurance when you can't find a doctor who will take the insurance? But no, Indy, you just go ahead and keep claiming that "the ACA has been an overwhelming success for Obama." If THIS is what you consider an overwhelming success, I hate to see what you think is a failure!

Indy: So you’re saying that Blue Shield has no doctors for you to choose from?

In any event, the success for the ACA for the 8+ million people that signed up using it . . . as well as the additional millions of poor people now eligible under the ACA for Medicaid expansion is the ‘success’.

And I see you didn’t answer this question: And do you feel helping the additional poor that now qualify for the expanded Medicaid to be a success?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:00 p.m.

Tech wrote: "…perhaps Hannity should be brought up on charges for sedition . . ." – Indy

Indy: So do you agree or not?

No, I don't share your risible charge of sedition and an attempt to silence a member of the news media covering current events. Still laughing though…

Indy: Let’s see here . . . Sean Hannity is arguing for harming federal agents enforcing the law . . . so let’s see what the definition is:

se•di•tion
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

Looks like Sean has got all three ‘covered’ . . .


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:06 p.m.

Tech wrote: Real volunteer action vs Indy's self-puffery? No contest, TRS.
By the way, nicely done!

Indy: This is a good ‘talking point’ used by religious conservatives to dismiss the Founding Fathers hope that the government they created would help all Americans not just the privileged few . . .

In any event, let’s read ‘their’ words here again in the preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Notice how libertarians try to ‘dismiss’ the words ‘we the people’ or the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’.

What type of people are libertarians?

Why do they continually try to rewrite the ‘intent’ of the Founding Fathers for America?

What type of interest is driving such disdain for the government the Founding Fathers ‘died’ for to create?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:13 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """not at all expected from someone unwilling to accept the ‘responsibility’ for his beliefs that are hurting the poor by denying them food stamps..."""

Indy, for six years I worked at the Union Rescue Mission in downtown Los Angeles. I served more homeless people in one day that you've probably ever met in your entire life. For 13 years I served on staff with Help the Children which distributes over 30 tons of food to the poor every day. That's the equivalent of 8,000 bags of groceries daily.

Indy: The poster misses the true tragedy of ‘assuming’ that personal charity will alleviate the problems facing the poor in America.

And while it’s great to donate personal time to the poor, the actions they this poster endorses for the religious conservatives that argue biblical scripture in congress to cut food stamps for the poor, is indeed the ‘real tragedy’.

So the bigger question is why would somebody knowingly cut food stamps when they do such other charity work to help the poor?

This is the dilemma this poster apparently can’t come to grips with . . .

Therightstuff wrote: What makes you qualified to judge me that I don't care about feeding the poor?

Indy: I judge your policy positions for the consequences they create in America including the aforementioned cutting food stamps for the poor but also the voting down of extending unemployment benefits for the ‘hard working’ Americans who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own and keeping the ‘minimum wage’ at least consistent with inflation.

Had the poster grasped this, he wouldn’t be supporting conservative policies in government that add people to the growing number found in poverty and lacking adequate food or a job that pays enough to escape poverty.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:17 p.m.

Emheilbrun wrote: Hopeful, as Indy has pointed out, the basics of economics is scarcity. So when doctors are scarce, that's just basic economics in play. Indy has an MBA from CSUN so he knows this stuff. He's just here to help, so he shares these pearls of wisdom.

Indy: The poster unknowingly brings up some good points!

‘Scarcity’ of doctors in America is addressed by ‘rationing’ them through the health care industry that uses ‘premiums’. In other words, if you can’t afford same, you don’t see a doctor.

But I do encourage the poster to retain some of the knowledge of economics I put up here including its foundation, that being ‘scarcity’.

This is a good example of how scarcity rations health care in America.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:20 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "no one who ever voted for Bush blames him for anything and since the first day Obama became president, we have blamed him for everything."

Pretty much. Case in point:

4 dead Americans in Benghazi? SCANDAL! The BIGGEST SCANDAL since Teapot Dome! HUGE. We should impeach Obama.
4,000 dead Americans in Iraq? What war in Iraq? I thought we were talking about BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.

Indy: What’s even more disturbing is using the 4 deaths as partisan political fodder aginst the President.

And let’s not forget the UN told Bush W there were NO WMDs in Iraq . . . did he listen? NO.

And as you noted, some 4,000 Americans ‘paid’ for Bush W’s decision making not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have died from the sectarian violence that Bush W unleased.


CaptGene: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:30 p.m.

There was a time I thought steve was probably embarrassed by his comrades Indy Nile, ricketzz and the crazy bingo lady. Obviously, he is not. Just like them he accepts what dear leader tells him and his intellectual curiosity extends no further than the reach of the propaganda arm of this administration.

Sad, pathetic.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:44 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: And yes, there have been other hearings on Benghazi...and we STILL don't know the truth!! When asked about the video narrative that the administration floated for weeks after they KNEW it was a terrorist attack, all the Secretary of State could say was..."What difference does it make!" For Obama wh0res, that's good enough. For normal people, we'd like to know the truth.

Indy: It’s sad that religious conservatives can’t accept ‘reality’ and thus anything that doesn’t fit their worldview based on meaningless ‘innuendo and speculation’ is argued that the ‘truth’ hasn’t come out versus simply noting the baseless speucation by Fox is just that, baseless.

Therightstuff wrote: And then there's THIS gem that the Obama White House has been hiding the whole time. The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

Indy: This ‘version’ of reality that is being presented by this poster is as one probably expects, misleading.

The Obama administration has never ‘not’ addressed the attack in Syria yet we’re asked to believe otherwise by this hard core partrisan reciter that can’t see the evidence even if it went up and slapped him in the face.

For a excellent and comprehensive recap, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

In this book you will ‘learn’ the ‘actual’ sequence of events not distorted by Fox.

Therightstuff wrote: The document lists as a “Goal”: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."

Indy: Yes, the poster gain ‘IGNORES’ the protest that occurred throughout the Middle East on the days leading up the anniversary of 911. Why? Well, Fox et al tells him to ignore for the greater partisan political mileage that comes from beating this issue to death.

Why did Bush W have over 10 attacks on US embassies and Fox ignores that?

Therightstuff wrote: Ahhhh....vindication of what I've been saying for months. How sweet. I also pray for vindication for those who were murdered by terrorists while their president flew to Vegas on a cash junket and then lied to cover his political ass. To keep defending this guy, you'd have to check your integrity at the door and jump into the slime.

Indy: Yes, one single email versus all the hearings and all the evidence is the ‘game changer’?

Only a fool would believe such nonsense . . .


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:50 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "The main issue you can’t grasp with your ‘rabid ideology’ is that charity isn’t going to be sufficient to help people . ."

And the main issue you can't grasp is that my response (as well as TRS's response) was based on your arrogant claim that "this [cut in food stamps] is your burden to carry." You blame TRS for the cut in food stamps, and assume that TRS and other "religious conservatives" are "ignorant" or selfish, and don't care about the poor, which is what prompted TRS to let you know how much he has done for the poor, and what prompted me to post what I did.

Indy: The religious conservatives in question simply don’t understand ‘BASIC ECONOMICS’ and from what I see there, refuse to even try to understand same.

They instead, like their religious conservative brethren in the House cite biblical scripture about the ‘virtues’ of hard work ignoring that the economics in play here including the worse recession since the depression and persistent unemployment.

So yes, this ‘economic ignorance’ must be addressed . . . before even more Americans are harmed by it.

Hopeful wrote: Stop labeling people, Indy, and stop assuming you know everything...it just makes you look foolish!

Indy: Again, I use the term ‘religious conservative’ for those that advocate their religious beliefs in trying to formulate public policy as evidenced by the House republicans that cited their ‘beliefs’ in lieu of basic economics.

And indeed, I don’t know ‘everything’ buy I know a lot more about business, economics, and management that most conservatives here that note they don’t’ have any training in same.

Would you want to rely upon a doctor that is not ‘trained’?

But riddle me this . . . why does the media 'label' people conservative and liberal?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:52 p.m.

C(omdey)aptG(old)ene wrote: There was a time I thought steve was probably embarrassed by his comrades Indy Nile, ricketzz and the crazy bingo lady.

Indy: You know the ‘debt’ and ‘thought’ this comedian gives his posts is something to consider when you read them . . . but of course, it’s ‘comedy gold’!!!


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:53 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy composes his posts with a label gun, unreal. It's the only tool he can muster for his stale polemics.

Indy: Ready to disclose your educational background?

Still embarrassed?

Still feel that it would explain why you don’t understand basic business, economics, and management?

Just ask’n . . .


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:55 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "Read the NIE summary at the link I provided. That was the considered opinion of Western intelligence operations. You can look up the UN resolutions on Iraq yourself. I've already provided quotes from Democratic Party leaders on the topic. "

Amazing. Even today, after it has been shown that Bush, Cheney, Rice et al. lied, you still give them a pass and blame the people who believed their lies.

Indy: Contrary to Huey Lewis and the News, it’s the ‘power of ideology’ that drives libertarian thought . . . and one reason it’s so easy to dismiss . . .


stevehw: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:02 p.m.

" Just like them he accepts what dear leader tells him and his intellectual curiosity extends no further than the reach of the propaganda arm of this administration. "

Wrong. I've been highly critical of Obama throughout his administration (and done so many times on these forums).


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:30 p.m.

"Amazing. Even today, after it has been shown that Bush, Cheney, Rice et al. lied, you still give them a pass and blame the people who believed their lies." - Indy

As I continually remind you, assertions aren't a substitute for facts.


CaptGene: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:31 p.m.

Baloney.


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:33 p.m.

Steve, I follow this forum pretty closely and I can't remember a single time you have been critical of Barack Obama. Can you prove me wrong?


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:34 p.m.

"Just ask’n . . . " - Indy

More like just stalking. FYI, I can't imagine any possible comparison to the content of your posts that would "embarrass" me. We operate on rather disparate levels and that's not a compliment to you.

Consider your morbid curiosity in my CV an unrequited love. My written word conveys all I intend to communicate and I won't be goaded by juvenile grade trolling. Unlike you, I'm not desperate for validation.


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:43 p.m.

Indy: """For a excellent and comprehensive recap, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)"""

David Brock once suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. And now for 99 cents, he will give you his version of the Benghazi story - which definitely will not include the latest damning evidence from this corrupt White House. Indy....stop humiliating yourself.

We'll soon get all the facts of the Benghazi story. No wonder Obama zealots are so frantic.


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Indy, rather than defend myself against your prejudicial attacks on my personal character about serving the poor, it would be much more productive if you joined me at the Help the Children office in Valencia to volunteer.

Will you join me to provide tangible help for the poor in our own community...or are you just all talk?


stevehw: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:14 p.m.

"Steve, I follow this forum pretty closely and I can't remember a single time you have been critical of Barack Obama. Can you prove me wrong?"

Then you have selective memory.

I could easily say the same thing about you in regards to criticisms of Bush while he was in office. "Gee, I don't remember you EVER being critical of W while he was President. Prove me wrong."

Let's see...without going into the wayback machine and digging through the archives, I've criticized Obama for: not closing GITMO; continuing the warrantless wiretaps on Americans, and general continuation of the surveillance state; not getting us out of Iraq; his continual caving in to the Republicans (e.g., sequestration); his poor energy policy (mountaintop removal springs to mind); failure to pursue ANY penalties against banks and Wall Street companies for fraud, etc.

What I have not criticized him for was his economic policy, because I don't think he's to blame for it. The recession happened under Bush, and it will take a long time to recover from it.

The right wing's stance seems to be "well, yeah, it happened under Bush, but Obama hasn't fixed it fast enough, so it's Obama's fault."


emheilbrun: Posted: May 11, 2014 6:40 a.m.

So Indy, if despite having insurance, if true access to providers is now more restrictive for many, is that really an overwhelming success for the ACA?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/

"Never mistake activity for achievement" - John Wooden


CaptGene: Posted: May 11, 2014 7:35 a.m.

"I could easily say the same thing about you in regards to criticisms of Bush while he was in office. "Gee, I don't remember you EVER being critical of W while he was President. Prove me wrong.""

That would be fair, except I have witnessed a lot of the conservatives here bash Bush. I personally have called Bush a huge disappointment. It's the rule, not the exception.

The worst I ever saw you say about BO is that he "oversold" Obamacare. or words to that effect. You accuse Bush of lying, but you can't bring yourself to admit that Obama was ... and continues to ... lie. You're a good little soldier.


therightstuff: Posted: May 11, 2014 9:31 a.m.

Steve, there was a reason that Bush's approval rating was at 26% by the time he left office. There's a reason why no Republican politicians want him to campaign with them. There's a reason why he will likely never speak at the RNC convention even though he was a two-term president. It's because legions of conservatives like me were sorely disappointed in him.

I was originally in favor of using temporary military force to remove the WMDs but I have been highly critical of the nation-building and the prolonged war in Iraq and Afghanistan. For six years the GOP had the White House and both Houses of Congress but I cannot recall a single signature piece of legislation. The debt did indeed double under Bush and the economy was a disaster. I give him some grace because of 9/11 and it should also be noted that the Democratic Party controlled the spending the last two years of Bush's time in office, but overall, I lay the blame at Bush's feet for the economy which certainly bled into the first Obama administration. To suggest that conservatives have not been critical of Bush is absurd.

It is also absurd to suggest that conservatives have been critical of Obama from the first day of his Inauguration. I think most conservatives like me waited to see what was going to happen. Was he truly a different kind of politician as he campaigned or would he disappoint us and become just like every other politician before him. I think the answer is now obvious.

I don't personally hate Barack Obama but I truly hate the way he has divided this nation by his non-stop campaigning style of 'us vs them'. I also hate the way he refuses to govern all of the people or reach out to the other side but only blames those who disagree with him. I hate the double-standard of how he is judged compared to Bush. I hate the way Obama lies whether it was about four Americans murdered by terrorists or the ACA, this guy has deliberately and repeatedly lied for political expediency.

I think Obama's legacy will include seeing our national debt go from $10-trillion to another $10-trillion, a healthcare system that will have negative consequences for generations, a nation divided worse than its ever been instead of united, a people far more dependent on government entitlements than ever before, and eight wasted years of potential recovery at the altar of Barack Obama's personal ideology. But to the media and most Democrats, he should have his bust carved at Mt. Rushmore. I just don't get it.




therightstuff: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:06 a.m.

I stand corrected...Obama will not leave the nation divided worse than it's ever been. That's not true. But certainly divided worse than in my generation.


hopeful: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:33 a.m.

Here's another explanation about the dismal failure of the ACA, from none other than the Obamacare expert, Emily Bazar.

http://centerforhealthreporting.org/article/think-you-know-what-your-obamacare-plan-will-cost-you%3F-think-again

I love the last sentence in her article that says, "Find out what your limit is for out-of-network providers. And hope like heck that you don’t need them." That pretty much sums up what I am thinking...I have to pay the first $10,820+ a year ($690+ in premiums for my son and I, along with the first $2,000 of all medical bills for me) BEFORE insurance has to kick in ANY money, and that is using their in-network providers...

Obamacare is FAR from a huge success!


therightstuff: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:58 a.m.

hopeful, your assessment of Obamacare is based on real-life experience. Indy's assessment is based on his blind political loyalty to Barack Obama. It's the same way with our discussion about serving the poor. You and I have done it while our hapless friend Indy just talks about it. It's the difference between reality vs ideology.


hopeful: Posted: May 11, 2014 11:30 a.m.

TRS - Don't be surprised if I take you up on the offer you gave Indy. I haven't worked with Help the Children yet, but it really does sound like a great organization! Is the office open every day, or just specific days a week?


therightstuff: Posted: May 11, 2014 5:58 p.m.

Great hopeful. Volunteer opportunities are Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Best to call the office ahead of time to make sure if you plan to come as something may come up that week. Help the Children is located at 25030 Avenue Tibbitts, Suite L in Valencia. Their number is 661 702-8852.

Care to join us Indy or will you just keep talking about how much we don't care about poor people?


emheilbrun: Posted: May 11, 2014 6:08 p.m.

I'd be very surprised if there is another post from Indy on this thread.


hopeful: Posted: May 12, 2014 8:29 a.m.

TRS - thanks for the information!


stevehw: Posted: May 12, 2014 9:08 a.m.

"I was originally in favor of using temporary military force to remove the WMDs but I have been highly critical of the nation-building and the prolonged war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

And what was your position when it became clear that Bush lied in order to start the war?


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 11:54 a.m.

"And what was your position when it became clear that Bush lied in order to start the war?" - stevehw

Begs the question, Steve. You have to argue the premise successfully first.


stevehw: Posted: May 12, 2014 12:01 p.m.

As expected...a Bush apologist's response.


stevehw: Posted: May 12, 2014 12:04 p.m.

"It is also absurd to suggest that conservatives have been critical of Obama from the first day of his Inauguration."

When did all this "tea party" stuff get started, again?


stevehw: Posted: May 12, 2014 12:15 p.m.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:17 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Just ask’n . . . " - Indy

More like just stalking. FYI, I can't imagine any possible comparison to the content of your posts that would "embarrass" me. We operate on rather disparate levels and that's not a compliment to you.

Indy: Again, most Americans that go to the doctor want one with a degree in the area of medicine they will be consulting on.

You seem embarrassed to disclose your background education and that is revealed in your lack of acumen in business, economics, and management.

I can help you better if I know where you’re coming from . . .

In any case, when you speak to libertarian ideology market positions, this is the place with you make critical mistakes based on ideology based presumptions that simply don’t work in the modern world.

Tech wrote: Consider your morbid curiosity in my CV an unrequited love. My written word conveys all I intend to communicate and I won't be goaded by juvenile grade trolling. Unlike you, I'm not desperate for validation.

Indy: It’s simply a request to ‘assess’ and to again, help you see the failures of libertarianism with respect to markets and business.

You can help yourself by disclosing your educational background and I’m a bit puzzled why you don’t . . . considering the important economic decisions facing the nation.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:19 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """For a excellent and comprehensive recap, read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)"""

David Brock once suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. And now for 99 cents, he will give you his version of the Benghazi story - which definitely will not include the latest damning evidence from this corrupt White House. Indy....stop humiliating yourself.

Indy: At least you noted the reference and again, I suggest Americans read it to understand how the ‘right’ is using the deaths of 4 Americans for partisan political gain that both disrespects the victims and the nation they worked for.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:24 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I stand corrected...Obama will not leave the nation divided worse than it's ever been. That's not true. But certainly divided worse than in my generation.

Indy: Obama can only do so much but when he’s faced with republican obstructionism that hurts all Americans not just Obama, you can see folly of religious conservatism in its most ugly form.

When republicans argue to cut food stamps from the poor using biblical scripture that has nothing to do with Obama, it has everything to do with dealing with the reality before us.

When republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage to account for inflation that has nothing to do with Obama, that’s basic economics.

When republicans fail to extend long term unemployment benefits for ‘hard working’ Americans that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, in the worst recession since the depression, that has nothing to do with Obama . . . that economic fiasco started with Bush W lack of any oversight and his complete rejection of basic economics.

If you’re looking for why the nation is divided, go to your bathroom and look in the mirror . . .


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:25 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Obamacare is FAR from a huge success!

Indy: Did you consider Medicare a success?


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:33 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: hopeful, your assessment of Obamacare is based on real-life experience. Indy's assessment is based on his blind political loyalty to Barack Obama. It's the same way with our discussion about serving the poor. You and I have done it while our hapless friend Indy just talks about it. It's the difference between reality vs ideology.

Indy: Let’s see here . . .

The ACA gets 8+ million sign ups . . .

Another several million poor people get access to expanded Medicaid . . .

Policy holders in the ‘individual markets’ now get the following benefits:

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/index.html
Coverage
• Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
• Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
• Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.

Costs
• Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
• Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
• Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.

Care
• Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
• Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
• Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.

And yet, we’re asked to believe by religious conservatives here at this forum that these accomplishments are ‘Indy's assessment is based on his blind political loyalty to Barack Obama.’

This is the danger of listening to ideology folks that ignore the implementation of the ACA which noted that not all Americans will gain but some with indeed pay more.

The ACA didn’t lower my employer provided policy premiums but is that a reason not to help most Americans in the individual markets?

If you only looking at ‘me, me, me’, then agreed, the ACA is probably not something that is successful . . . but the nation involves ‘all’ Americans . . . and the benefits far outweigh the costs . . . even to me . . .


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 1:38 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Great hopeful. Volunteer opportunities are Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Best to call the office ahead of time to make sure if you plan to come as something may come up that week. Help the Children is located at 25030 Avenue Tibbitts, Suite L in Valencia. Their number is 661 702-8852. Care to join us Indy or will you just keep talking about how much we don't care about poor people?

Indy: Yes, if you have the time and you’re not working during those hours, that’s a good offer.

But again, charity doesn’t dismiss the economic ignorance that is removing food stamps from the poor, keeping people in poverty nationally by not keeping the minimum wage consistent at least with inflation nor abandoning ‘hard working’ people who’ve lost their jobs in the worst recession since the great depression.

Confusing charity with good economic decisions is not helping millions of Americans many of who will be added to the ‘charity rolls’ noting that ‘charity’ is limited by the same economic scarcity that effects everything else.


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 12, 2014 2:58 p.m.

TRS- probably the most reasoned and balanced post (9:31am yesterday) I've seen in weeks. Its the kind of things that grown-ups say after the kids have gone to bed. LOL. Both left and right should give you kudos, sir.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 4:37 p.m.

"As expected...a Bush apologist's response." - stevehw

No, Steve. You *were* begging the question and you acknowledged so by responding with support for your position.

Requiring you to provide source data for an assertion doesn't make me a "Bush apologist".

I read your CNN link. It doesn't prove that the Bush Administration didn't rely on NIE and other information from Western intelligence sources and willfully lied as you assert.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 4:41 p.m.

Indy: "It’s simply a request to ‘assess’ and to again…"

You're not qualified to "assess" me. Respond to what I post or don't. Obsessing about me personally is odd and inappropriate.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:40 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: How I love watching Obama zealots squirm when they think their leader is going to be exposed for his lies. Even when we document them over and over again, their lips still stay glued to Obama's ass.

Indy: Or glued to some republican’s ass that is telling ‘you’ exactly what you want to hear, right?

Therightstuff wrote: Nice try Steve, but I have repeatedly and consistently criticized Bush for his actions in Iraq. To address the ultra lame..."what about Bush" defense, all of the useless Democratic icons said the exact same thing as Bush about Iraq but when he actually did something about it, these same worthless partisans all screamed...LIAR!!! The hypocrisy is astounding.

Indy: I think your issue is worth understanding since ‘ALL’ politicians paint the absolute worse version of the ‘other side’ to gain favor with their ‘based’ regardless if it helps most Americans.

Therightstuff wrote: Nice And yes, there have been other hearings on Benghazi...and we STILL don't know the truth!! When asked about the video narrative that the administration floated for weeks after they KNEW it was a terrorist attack, all the Secretary of State could say was..."What difference does it make!" For Obama wh0res, that's good enough. For normal people, we'd like to know the truth.

Indy: Yeah . . . and your ‘positioning’ yourself as ‘judging’ others using such accommodating phrases as ‘Obama wh0res’. Sadly, you sound like the right wing voice boxes like Hannity or Rush.

The Libya incident has gone away . . . the only reason anyone discusses it is to drum up conservative ‘base’ support . . . with folks just like you . . .

Therightstuff wrote: And then there's THIS gem that the Obama White House has been hiding the whole time. The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

Indy: As if republicans in the White House didn’t ‘strategize’ their responses to any crisis without considering the politics . . . please . . . grow up.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:41 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: The document lists as a “Goal”: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."

Indy: And here again, the ‘video’ was creating unrest in the Middle East and you again, “IGNORE” what doesn’t fit your Obama ‘worldview’!!!

Therightstuff wrote: Ahhhh....vindication of what I've been saying for months. How sweet. I also pray for vindication for those who were murdered by terrorists while their president flew to Vegas on a cash junket and then lied to cover his political ass. To keep defending this guy, you'd have to check your integrity at the door and jump into the slime.

Indy: Just like Sean, Rush, Michael, Mark, Laura, and who can forget the wackiest one in Glenn . . . all recite the same nonsense you parrot here . . . again, why not start reading the general media instead of being ‘bathed’ in conservative partisan nonsense.

What are you waiting for?


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:46 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: "It’s simply a request to ‘assess’ and to again…"

You're not qualified to "assess" me.

Indy: Oh, but I am especially in the areas of economics, management and business.

Tech wrote: Respond to what I post or don't. Obsessing about me personally is odd and inappropriate.

Indy: Again, conservatives that don’t get the response they are ‘looking for’ keep asserting that we’re not answering your questions.

This conservative tactic is tired and worn out . . . and only those that ‘don’t' think even get involved with it.

In any event, as you put yourself out as some sort of ‘informed’ person with respect to the issues you address here in the areas I've noted, it’s painfully obvious that’s not the case.

Asking for your background education is merely what anyone would do that is going to use the information you put forth and rely upon.

I thought something that simple to grasp would be self-evident . . .


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:55 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Steve, there was a reason that Bush's approval rating was at 26% by the time he left office. There's a reason why no Republican politicians want him to campaign with them. There's a reason why he will likely never speak at the RNC convention even though he was a two-term president. It's because legions of conservatives like me were sorely disappointed in him.

Indy: The really sad part of this is that the same conservatives still support the policies that Bush W ran and used during his 8 years . . .

Therightstuff wrote: I was originally in favor of using temporary military force to remove the WMDs but I have been highly critical of the nation-building and the prolonged war in Iraq and Afghanistan. For six years the GOP had the White House and both Houses of Congress but I cannot recall a single signature piece of legislation. The debt did indeed double under Bush and the economy was a disaster. I give him some grace because of 9/11 and it should also be noted that the Democratic Party controlled the spending the last two years of Bush's time in office, but overall, I lay the blame at Bush's feet for the economy which certainly bled into the first Obama administration. To suggest that conservatives have not been critical of Bush is absurd.

Indy: Again, the same ‘policies’ that Bush W used are being promoted today . . .

And many conservatives are still skeptical of the UN although they noted to Bush that Iraq didn’t have any WMDs . . .

As far as the last two years of spending by democrats, you’ve made this assertion before in that all the economic damage that Bush and the republicans created for 6 years didn’t magically ‘just go away’ . . . so putting the democrats into a position to deal with the market crash seems a bit overdone . . .

Any individual, however, be it Clinton, Bush, or Obama, are nevertheless tied to their ‘party positions’ . . . so I don’t blame any of these folks individually and totally for everything.

What puzzles me about Bush is that he has a MBA yet his conservative policies that he used simply defy what most people trained in management would have avoided including:

- cutting taxes and creating higher deficits
- funding two wars on ‘debt’
- over stimulating the economy with debt creating the ‘bubbles’ that crashed same

And yet when Obama took office, conservatives blamed him for all the ‘consequences’ of Bush W.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:06 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: It is also absurd to suggest that conservatives have been critical of Obama from the first day of his Inauguration. I think most conservatives like me waited to see what was going to happen. Was he truly a different kind of politician as he campaigned or would he disappoint us and become just like every other politician before him. I think the answer is now obvious.

Indy: Well, your conservarive ‘leadership’ in congress isn’t listening to you . . . and the development and growth of the Tea Party confirms the radicalism of modern conservatism that sees stagnation as a ‘victory’ versus helping the nation.

Likewise, the congress run by conservatives in both Houses have done little to support your version of reality.

Senate republicans have filibustered more legislation than in the history of the US in any given congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

The House run by ‘Speaker Boehner’ won’t even allow votes on legislation essentially shutting the House down . . . not wanting Obama’s Administration to get any credit for anything . . . even if it hurts the nation.

Therightstuff wrote: I don't personally hate Barack Obama but I truly hate the way he has divided this nation by his non-stop campaigning style of 'us vs them'. I also hate the way he refuses to govern all of the people or reach out to the other side but only blames those who disagree with him. I hate the double-standard of how he is judged compared to Bush. I hate the way Obama lies whether it was about four Americans murdered by terrorists or the ACA, this guy has deliberately and repeatedly lied for political expediency.

Indy: Us versus them . . . as Obama has faced historically the greatest opposition of any President in modern times . . . see filibuster statistics above.

And reaching out? Each time he had his ‘hands’ ‘bit off’ by conservatives who then grandstanded their obstructionism.

I find it interesting that you are living at the very same time I am . . .

And of course, what post of yours would be complete without a reference to the Libya conspiracy nonsense and ignoring the successes of the ACA.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:07 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I think Obama's legacy will include seeing our national debt go from $10-trillion to another $10-trillion, a healthcare system that will have negative consequences for generations, a nation divided worse than its ever been instead of united, a people far more dependent on government entitlements than ever before, and eight wasted years of potential recovery at the altar of Barack Obama's personal ideology. But to the media and most Democrats, he should have his bust carved at Mt. Rushmore. I just don't get it.

Indy: And here we go with the ‘lack of context’ references to the national debt . . . and your display of ignorance of ‘economics’ that again, tries to condemn Obama for the ‘explosion’ in people needing public assistance as if the recession were in simply didn’t happen.

Obama is far from perfect put is a lot farther away from the picture you’re tried to ‘frame him’ in here . . .


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:10 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: TRS- probably the most reasoned and balanced post (9:31am yesterday) I've seen in weeks. Its the kind of things that grown-ups say after the kids have gone to bed. LOL. Both left and right should give you kudos, sir.

Indy: After reading your post here, I went back and reread and now commented on what TRS as saying.

It’s quite possible ‘he’ may have differed from most conservatives but most conservatives went forth and just obstructed everything ‘Obama’.

In any event, if you ignore the reality of what actually took place, I might be able to understand the post you’re referring to . . . but the reality doesn’t support you.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:19 p.m.

"Indy: Oh, but I am especially in the areas of economics, management and business." - Indy

Again, I remind you, assertions aren't facts. Your only option is to attempt to rebut my arguments, if able. Your label gun doesn't count in a contest of wit.

Your risible attempts at dominance are bizarre. Surely they're compensatory behavior.


stevehw: Posted: May 13, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Dude, is "risible" your favorite word or something?

Here's a suggestion: thesaurus.com


17trillion: Posted: May 13, 2014 8:14 a.m.

"Dude, is "risible" your favorite word or something?

Here's a suggestion: thesaurus.com"


From a guy that's blissfully ignorant of his own writing idiosyncrasies.


tech: Posted: May 13, 2014 8:38 a.m.

Not today, Steve. Today, my favorite word is substantive.

Thanks for helping me choose my favorite word of the day.


therightstuff: Posted: May 13, 2014 9:17 a.m.

So Indy, give me a few dates that will work for you and I'll meet you at Help the Children to serve the poor.


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 2:20 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: So Indy, give me a few dates that will work for you and I'll meet you at Help the Children to serve the poor.

Indy: Some give me some more posts where I can help education you on the economic realities facing the poor so that we can reduce ‘charity’ since people will have work . . .


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 2:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: Oh, but I am especially in the areas of economics, management and business." - Indy

Again, I remind you, assertions aren't facts. Your only option is to attempt to rebut my arguments, if able. Your label gun doesn't count in a contest of wit. Your risible attempts at dominance are bizarre. Surely they're compensatory behavior.

Indy: Again, you can’t see the failings of libertarianism as well as the shortcomings of capitalism.

The use of ‘labels’ as you call them is no different than what professionals use to describe the things they address versus calling things ‘things’.

Thus, the plea for letting me help you with your economic, business, and management deficiencies.

We can’t afford to practice your ideology in government due to the terrific negative consequences of same.

And while you’re free to have ‘an opinion’, we only want to implement strategies into public policy that ‘work’ and are ‘reproducible’ . . . that’s the criterion we want to focus on versus just using beliefs systems that have shown not to work.

How you call that ‘risible’ is what really concerns me . . .

And indeed, I am ‘motivated’ not to keep making the same conservative mistakes I’ve seen for the last 40 years . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 13, 2014 3:35 p.m.

So Indy, rather than stock shelves at a food pantry, you'd rather sit on your ass criticizing me for not caring for the poor.

You're such a fake.


tech: Posted: May 13, 2014 4:39 p.m.

"We can’t afford to practice your ideology in government due to the terrific negative consequences of same." - Indy

Who's we, Indy? Hasn't your ideology held primacy for 100+ years?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:44 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: So Indy, rather than stock shelves at a food pantry, you'd rather sit on your ass criticizing me for not caring for the poor. You're such a fake.

Indy: I wish I could forgive your economic ignorance . . . even though you do volunteer your time which is great and is probably something you’re qualified to do.

You’re not qualified to attack the larger economic issues which you usually default to your own economic ignorance.

I can understand the situation you put yourself in here promoting your conservative ideology positions that are echoed by many of the conservative republicans ‘leaders’ like Paul Ryan who likewise is an economic illiterate yet sadly, doesn’t even know it . . .

But you did remind me of a comment years ago when I noted to someone I know that I worked in the ‘office’ and he quickly told me I was a ‘non-producer’!!! This is similar to your comment in that only those that somehow ‘work with their hands’ are the ones ‘doing the work’.

And that guy was very much like you in that he doesn’t understand economics, business, or management yet was ‘convinced’ he was ‘right’.

The reality, however, is quite different in the ‘planning’ that goes into running a business that is analogous to the ‘planning’ that goes into running a nation, is not a ‘non-producer’.

But in fairness to you, the clowns that make themselves out as ‘leaders’ of both parties know little more than you do about economics.

I agree that you can’t ‘tax ourselves’ to prosperity but likewise, you can’t ignore economic scarcity and continue reciting biblical scripture as a proxy for real economic knowledge.

At the end of the day, your support of conservative positions like cutting food stamps for the poor, not upping the minimum wage for inflation, or not granting long term unemployment extensions to ‘hard working’ people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own is hurting tens of millions of people as I write this versus the few people locally you help.

So do what you can do personally and I’ll address the topic areas to the media and political leadership that effects those tens of millions of Americans that will sadly fall into deeper poverty to where even your individual time can’t help them . . . without some deep rethinking about folklore and ideology that no longer works in the modern world.

Sorry you're not interested in learning anything and having to live carrying the burden for those tens of millions of Americans you could have helped . . .


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 5:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: "We can’t afford to practice your ideology in government due to the terrific negative consequences of same." - Indy

Who's we, Indy? Hasn't your ideology held primacy for 100+ years?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Indy: Yes, you’re quite good at linking to polls of the ‘uninformed’ . . . that again is why I’m trying to help you understand the backstory that is involved in our nation’s economic issues not to mention the business management that is needed to solve same.

Considering that Americans are promised ‘unlimited’ economic growth as you do as well here by reciting the libertarian market fundamentalist ideology you’ve sadly invested your life in . . . but thankfully we have public forums that can expose the shortcomings of capitalism that is creating this ‘unrest’ noted in the polls you referenced.

Most of these political sites are just out of touch with much of the economic reality that sits in front of us. That’s why I don’t attend them . . . nor refer anyone to them since they become just another outlet that reprints ideology slogans of either party with no intent of ‘educating’ the public to the basics economics in play.

So as wealth continues to concentrate in the capitalistic system as defined by our ‘leaders’, our use of nonrenewable energy sources that will threaten our economic future, the promise of ‘technology’ to solve our problems, all of these things are hidden behind the ideology recitals that both political parties provide their ‘bases’ to get their contributions and votes even if none of the current policy positions will help Americans long term . . .

Finally, my ideology (not really the term I would use but I’ll provide same for ‘your context’) is ‘reality’.

It’s not something presented at these political sites since they are aiming for ‘viewership’ like the respective political parties are aiming for ‘votes’ whether the policy positions are of any value or not.

I’m not sure how much longer the nation can stand ‘polling the uniformed’ and using that as the ‘foundation’ to guide us into the future . . .


tech: Posted: May 13, 2014 7:12 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, you’re quite good at linking to polls of the ‘uninformed’ . . . " - Indy

They're called voting citizens, Indy. Just because they disagree with your ideology doesn't equate to being misinformed.

You're an advocate of a large central technocratic regulatory state that controls everything for the "good" of the "uninformed". A lot of us (above 60%) don't share your idea of transforming America in that way. --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: May 13, 2014 7:51 p.m.

Indy, rather than blame me for the misery of tens of millions of poor people, why not join me in helping the poor right here in the SCV? Talk is cheap. When will you practice what you're preaching to everyone else?


17trillion: Posted: May 14, 2014 8:31 a.m.

Doesn't your brain hurt interacting with Indy?


tech: Posted: May 14, 2014 11:23 a.m.

"Doesn't your brain hurt interacting with Indy?"

As CG explained, it's more fun if you consider Indy's posts as performance art. My addition is he plagiarizes and is desperately in need of new material. It's so last century.


michael: Posted: May 14, 2014 6:41 p.m.

Enough of this racism BS and any other excuses that can be found to promote the "free Lunch" !


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:21 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: Yes, you’re quite good at linking to polls of the ‘uninformed’ . . . " - Indy

They're called voting citizens, Indy. Just because they disagree with your ideology doesn't equate to being misinformed.

Indy: LOL

Tech wrote: You're an advocate of a large central technocratic regulatory state that controls everything for the "good" of the "uninformed". A lot of us (above 60%) don't share your idea of transforming America in that way. --edited.

Indy: I’m an advocate of rationality . . . that realizes that far too many Americans have been misled by ideology recitals from folks like you that ignore reality . . .

Likewise, our leaders have chosen to ‘pander to the public’s ignorance’ versus leading and ‘educating’ them on issues of national importance.

This is where your libertarian ideology fails you . . . you actually believe in polling the uninformed for a consensus on national policy ‘knowing’ that most of these folks can’t explain why they voted for this or that other than their ‘party’ told them to.

The fact that you can’t understand the current politically malfeasance by far too many of our leaders is what really concerns me about you . . . but does explain your addiction to libertarianism.


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:22 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, rather than blame me for the misery of tens of millions of poor people, why not join me in helping the poor right here in the SCV? Talk is cheap. When will you practice what you're preaching to everyone else?

Indy: Sad that you still can’t see the bigger picture . . .


Indy: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:24 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Doesn't your brain hurt interacting with Indy?

Indy: Interesting the poster here inadvertently begins to recognize that dealing with ‘reality’ is lot more challenging that residing in ‘ideology land’ where you don’t have to think . . . perhaps there’s hope for this poster yet . . .


therightstuff: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:45 p.m.

Indy: """Interesting the poster here inadvertently begins to recognize that dealing with ‘reality’ is lot more challenging that residing in ‘ideology land’ where you don’t have to think."""

And yet, when invited to deal with reality in your own community by helping the poor, you continue stalled in 'ideology land' where you don't have to think - or actually DO SOMETHING to help the poor.

What a useless hypocrite.

And no 17, my brain doesn't hurt when interacting with Indy. It's my sides aching from laughing.


tech: Posted: May 14, 2014 7:50 p.m.

Tech wrote: They're called voting citizens, Indy. Just because they disagree with your ideology doesn't equate to being misinformed.

Indy: LOL

Substantive.

Indy: I’m an advocate of rationality . . . that realizes that far too many Americans have been misled by ideology recitals from folks like you that ignore reality . . .

Zero content there as well.


CaptGene: Posted: May 16, 2014 5:25 a.m.

17T, I'm with you, if only we had an "ignore" button.

Indy Nile is the like the Christo of posters.


tech: Posted: May 17, 2014 10:17 a.m.

"Indy, rather than defend myself against your prejudicial attacks on my personal character about serving the poor, it would be much more productive if you joined me at the Help the Children office in Valencia to volunteer.

Will you join me to provide tangible help for the poor in our own community...or are you just all talk?" - TRS

Modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing: that is why it finds such purchase in universities and colleges and public school systems. That is why events like, say, Occupy Wall Street are such a big draw to progressives of all stripes: they promise lots of talk and little to no action, though I suppose, to a liberal, the definition of action is flexible:

"What: Thousands across the country are stepping up to help create a better future and defend our communities against pipelines, dirty oil projects and runaway climate change. Almost 100 events are taking place from coast to coast as part of the Defend our Climate, Defend Our Communities – National Day of Action…

Who: Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future."

http://www.trialofthecentury.net/2014/05/08/global-warming-and-progressive-days-of-inaction/


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:15 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy, rather than defend myself against your prejudicial attacks on my personal character about serving the poor, it would be much more productive if you joined me at the Help the Children office in Valencia to volunteer.

Will you join me to provide tangible help for the poor in our own community...or are you just all talk?" - TRS

Modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing: that is why it finds such purchase in universities and colleges and public school systems. That is why events like, say, Occupy Wall Street are such a big draw to progressives of all stripes: they promise lots of talk and little to no action, though I suppose, to a liberal, the definition of action is flexible:

Indy: Here again, a libertarian market fundamentalist ‘assumes’ in his mind that charity will solve all our problems as put forth by the ‘free market’.

Obviously, that doesn’t work . . . but no matter, dismissing government allows religious conservatives to ‘pray away their ignorance’ as we see with their inability to:

- address the minimum wage to raise people out of poverty and address the imbalance of ‘income advantages’ of the wealthy that is concentrating wealth
- using biblical scripture recitals in the House to cut food stamps from the poor
- ignoring the worst recession since the depression created by deregulated laws that allowed the financial malfeasance that put ‘hard working’ Americans out of work to which conservatives vote against extended unemployment insurance

So it’s the conservative in congress that create ‘little to no action,’ …

Tech wrote: "What: Thousands across the country are stepping up to help create a better future and defend our communities against pipelines, dirty oil projects and runaway climate change. Almost 100 events are taking place from coast to coast as part of the Defend our Climate, Defend Our Communities – National Day of Action…

Who: Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future."

http://www.trialofthecentury.net/2014/05/08/global-warming-and-progressive-days-of-inaction/

Indy: What’s interesting is that the ‘leadership’ in America is FAILING the public requiring ‘them’ to do the leading . . . which is good and is what I do here at this forum by revealing that much of conservative ideology used by republicans in congress doesn’t work and relies more on ‘beliefs’ that reality.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:17 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: I’m an advocate of rationality . . . that realizes that far too many Americans have been misled by ideology recitals from folks like you that ignore reality . . .

Zero content there as well.

Indy: Yes, totally expected from a libertarian market fundamentalist that relies on conservative beliefs versus basic economic, business, and management.

I’ve offered to help this poster many times and if he’d disclose his educational background, that would make that effort easier and provide greater results.

In any event as long as ideology prevails in the republican party and to a less extent in the democratic party, Americans will continue to be mislead . . .


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:26 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Interesting the poster here inadvertently begins to recognize that dealing with ‘reality’ is lot more challenging that residing in ‘ideology land’ where you don’t have to think."""

And yet, when invited to deal with reality in your own community by helping the poor, you continue stalled in 'ideology land' where you don't have to think - or actually DO SOMETHING to help the poor.

Indy: Interesting the poster can’t ‘grasp’ the nature of why we have a government of ‘we the people’ to ‘promote the general welfare’ . . . here in this community and all communities in the US.

He can’t grasp that denying even the inflation adjusted ‘minimum wage’ moves people ‘out of poverty’ and creates less need for charity . . . here in this community and all communities in the US.

Or that cutting food stamps ‘ahead’ of the recovery if there is one that will address why so many people are on this assistance, using biblical scripture that has no relevance to basic economics.

Or even addressing the ‘hard working’ Americans who are jobless through no fault of their own that are now losing their homes as conservative in congress again cite biblical scripture about the ‘virtues of work’ (I wish I was making this up . . . ). . .

Religious conservatives that ‘deny government’ of ‘we the people’ are simply out of touch with the modern world and dismiss those of us that can actually ‘think and comprehend’ what ‘actually happening’ versus staying mired in ancient beliefs that no longer map to the modern world.

Therightstuff wrote: What a useless hypocrite.

Indy: And when you don’t understand the above, are unwilling to learn why things are progressing the they are, you get comments like this . . . admitting defeat.

Therightstuff wrote: And no 17, my brain doesn't hurt when interacting with Indy. It's my sides aching from laughing.

Indy: Yes, knowledge acquisition does take effort . . . much harder that simply reciting beliefs . . . many of which don’t work.

It’s knowing why they don’t work that is key to understanding and positive change.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:28 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: 17T, I'm with you, if only we had an "ignore" button.

Indy: And therein lies the main obstacle to why conservatives are no longer relevant in the modern world when they ‘ignore’ reality . . . and as we see here, can’t even recognize same.

That sadly, is comedy gold . . .


CaptGene: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:31 p.m.

Indy Nile AKA "The Black Knight": "...conservatives are no longer relevant in the modern world when they ‘ignore’ reality..."

You can't make this stuff up!


tech: Posted: June 14, 2014 4:49 p.m.

"- address the minimum wage to raise people out of poverty and address the imbalance of ‘income advantages’ of the wealthy that is concentrating wealth…" - Indy

We're about to get a real time demonstration of government imposing a "living wage" by fiat in Sea-Tac and Seattle.

http://media.komonews.com/images/140609_minwage_big.jpg

Should be fun!



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...