View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Kevin Buck: The pols and the pendulum

Posted: July 8, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 8, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

The political world is never static. The never-ending battles for power, prestige, policy and the perceived moral high ground are endless and endlessly fascinating.
Most importantly, the outcome of these battles actually affects the everyday lives of every single American citizen and a good portion of the rest of the world, as well.
It has always been a mystery to me why a brutal, no-holds-barred political fight is less interesting to most Americans than vapid pop culture, millionaires playing sports or the modern-day freak show of reality television.
Modern technical and social distractions beat out life-changing elections, a sad commentary on the true state of our union.
The majority of Americans pay little or no attention to the off-year, mid-term elections, and that is their loss, because every election has consequences.
Democrats are running on a populist, progressive domestic agenda, coalescing around the center left policies of President Obama.
White House and Senate proposals are dead on arrival at the House of Representatives thanks to the record-setting, do-nothing Republican majority.
There are no laws being passed, the struggling economy is ignored and the Republicans who ran on a platform of shrinking the federal government are doing their best to drown it in a bathtub, destroying it from within.

Despite Americans giving Congress a much-deserved single-digit approval rating, heavily gerrymandered districts and a rabid base that turns out to vote seem to assure a Republican hold on the House majority for at least one more term.

The Democrats could actually win some House seats this year though, just as they did in the 1998 mid-term elections when they capitalized on an unpopular Republican-led government shutdown and anger at the fanatic political witch hunts conducted against President Clinton — in lieu of actually governing.

The 2014 elections are 1998 on steroids. The current Republican majority also shut down the government in a fit of political pique.

They have been throwing faux Obama scandals against the wall for six years now and have yet to make one stick, in lieu of actually governing.

Democrats are campaigning on actual policies that affect the American people: immigration reform, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work.

They are attracting independents and country club conservatives appalled at the scorched-earth approach to government the Republican base and their new overlords, the tea party, have brought to elected bodies across the nation.

The tea party was instrumental in the 2010 wave election that swept Republicans to majorities in the House and state governments across the nation.

There was a price to pay, however: tea party Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012 cost Republicans the Senate majority and they are poised to do it again, for the third straight election.

One of the most interesting dynamics of the current political lineup is that even though far right conservatives hate liberals, Democrats and anybody who dares to agree with them, they have turned their formidable political strength against their own.

They may hate Democrats, but they mostly challenge and run against other Republicans deemed not conservative enough.

Politics junkies on the left are breaking out the popcorn and watching the spectacle of the Republican Party consuming itself from within.

Millions of dollars are being raised and spent by mainstream conservatives and by tea party conservatives to do battle in Republican primaries against each other.

Elected Republican officials no longer view Democrats as the biggest threat to their continuing in office, they now look to their political right for well-funded tea party primary opponents.

There are more Democrats than Republicans in America; if Democrats vote, they win. Republicans can count on their base to vote because the fear and loathing runs deep.

The good news is that recent political events are energizing the normally dormant progressive base — and that spells trouble, with a capital T, for the short and long term prospects of the Republican Party.

The reality-based community is finally paying attention, and it is looking like 2010 was the high water mark for the Republican Party.

Democrats need only to break even in 2014 by holding the Senate and winning some House seats and governorships and because in 2016 we can run the table.

Kevin Buck is a Santa Clarita resident. “Democratic Voices” runs Tuesday and rotates among several Santa Clarita Valley Democrats.

 

Comments

BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 9:43 a.m.

Pretty hilarious stuff.

"... the center left policies of President Obama."

"Center left"? Compared to whom? Mao-Tse Tung? Lenin?

"White House and Senate proposals are dead on arrival at the House of Representatives thanks to the record-setting, do-nothing Republican majority. There are no laws being passed..."

The "do-nothing Republican majority" in the House has actually passed a plethora of bills. While it's true that there are FEW laws being passed, that would be due to Harry Reid, backed by his Dem/socialist Senate majority, who refuses to even consider anything sent over by the House.

In fact, during this present pathetic administration things got so bad in the Senate that they refused to even pass a constitutionally mandated budget for years.

This is simply another example of the endless blame game played by the Dem/socialist leftists, wailing and tearing their hair about their fictional victimhood.


ricketzz: Posted: July 8, 2014 10:54 a.m.

When the House sends a bill to the Senate it usually contains a poison pill making passage onerous for reasons totally unrelated to the Peoples' business as stated in the Title. This is a cynical ploy that assumes the casual observer will not dig one millimeter below the surface.

Truth: there are enough votes in the US House to pass the Senate's Immigration Reform legislation; Boehner refuses to put it up for a vote. More truth: Anthony Kennedy and Grover Norquist are the 2 most powerful people in DC.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 8, 2014 11:06 a.m.

**sigh**
Same-old, same-old.

You can always count on Kevin and Charlie to throw out the same liberal spew each and every column.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 11:23 a.m.

"When the House sends a bill to the Senate it usually contains a poison pill making passage onerous for reasons totally unrelated to the Peoples' business as stated in the Title. This is a cynical ploy that assumes the casual observer will not dig one millimeter below the surface."

Utter nonsense, ricketzz. Even if it WERE true, that's no reason why that bill shouldn't be put up for debate in the Senate.

The normal process for consideration of any legislation is that each chamber of the Congress deliberates and debates the bill. They each pass their own version, then it's submitted to a committee for reconciliation, which means they iron out the differences so a compromise version is then submitted to both chambers for passage.

Harry Reid won't let THAT process take place.

HE'S the stubborn bonehead "obstructing" everything and creating a "do-nothing Congress". A one-man wrecking crew. And then the Kool-Aid gulpers like you and Buck just hop on the beer wagon and hand out free samples.


17trillion: Posted: July 8, 2014 11:41 a.m.

"White House and Senate proposals are dead on arrival at the House of Representatives thanks to the record-setting, do-nothing Republican majority. There are no laws being passed..."

Can anyone really be that stupid? I don't think so, instead I think Kevin is nothing but a partisan hack. I should treat him like the Black Knight and just skip over his "work" since it's the same every week, much like the Black Knight's words.


Nitesho: Posted: July 8, 2014 11:52 a.m.

So Kev...what's your take on this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/harrys-rules-reid-dominates-crippled-congress/



therightstuff: Posted: July 8, 2014 12:08 p.m.

No need to dissect the predictable partisan demagoguery from useless stooges who have an irrational hatred for anyone who is different from them. Everything we need to know about this administration can be summed up by Obama's two day trip to Texas this week.

Will he be going there to personally inspect the tragedy at the border? Nope.
Will be be going there to plan a strategy with the governor? Nope
Will he be going there to help enforce the law on immigration? Nope
Will he be going there to offer hope and healing? Nope

Barack Obama is going to Texas for a two day cash junket for political fund raisers.

Reason #3,108 why I would never be a Democrat.


projalice11: Posted: July 8, 2014 1:08 p.m.

MR. Buck BINGO,BINGO,BRAVO,BRAVO,YEAH YEAH,HURRAH,HURRAH,CHEERS,CHEERS **********

You've made the natives very restless, you hit their funny bones, and I do mean
FUNNY BONES..


BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 1:13 p.m.

THAT, my friends, is what a Kool-Aid OD looks like.

LOL


17trillion: Posted: July 8, 2014 1:40 p.m.

And there we have it! Liberal intellectualism on full display for all to marvel at it's glory.


hepnerkid: Posted: July 8, 2014 2:40 p.m.

The progressives are not really progressive at all. They revert to a socialism that has been around for 150 yrs. The primary aim of this type of government is make all things equal and thus have everyone miserable to the same degree. This has never worked and never will no matter how the stooges laud it. The thing that is always missing from their dialogue is the unintended consequences that come as a matter of the human condition. Things regarding humans if predictable because human nature does not change. The 47% that feed at the trough will always vote in their own interests. Their only interest is more slop for the trough. Where it comes from is not a matter of concern to them. It is one of the fallacies of democracy. One man, one vote, whether you are qualified or not. In many of our processes,
you are not allowed to participate if you have a vested interest. You see why this is a good thing in many ways. If these people ruin something for others, it is of no concern to them. And if the progressives want true fairness, then they should applaud Conservative efforts to turn this around.


therightstuff: Posted: July 8, 2014 2:57 p.m.

You're onto something, hepnerkid.

In nearly all of the blue states, the major cities vote liberal while the rural communities vote conservative. It is because these major cities have a high concentration of voters who will gladly exchange freedom for entitlements. The Democrats understand this and focus most of their resources on the ill-informed, easily-frightened, and most dependent voters. If they can win these major cities, they win the entire state.

It has nothing to do with making a better America and everything to do with raw political power.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 3:09 p.m.

I've quotes it before, but I'll do it again. It's known as the "Tytler Cycle", popularly (and probably incorrectly) attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scots philosopher of the 18th - 19th Centuries:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;

"From spiritual faith to great courage;

"From courage to liberty;

"From liberty to abundance;

"From abundance to complacency;

"From complacency to apathy;

"From apathy to dependence;

"From dependence back into bondage.”


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 3:16 p.m.

Good points made.

As hepnerkid pointed out, "Progressives" are anything but progressive. "Progressives" are aligned with retrograde forces that block disruptive innovation and reform.

Example:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/07/how-uber-can-help-the-gop-gain-control-of-the-cities/


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 3:27 p.m.

"When the House sends a bill to the Senate it usually contains a poison pill making passage onerous for reasons totally unrelated to the Peoples' business as stated in the Title. This is a cynical ploy that assumes the casual observer will not dig one millimeter below the surface." - ricketzz

In another forum thread, I responded thus:

"Tech, are these "clean" bills or do they have ideologically extreme riders attached?" - ricketzz

Your question presupposes an ideological position, i.e. one acceptable to the opposing party with zero negotiation. That's rarely how legislation is enacted.

I'm providing a primer URL from the Library of Congress. I've selected the link that details the conference process designed to negotiate differences between House and Senate legislation.

https://beta.congress.gov/legislative-process/resolving-differences

Of course, this would only work if Majority Leader Reid allows a vote.

Nitesho provided an excellent link detailing how Sen. Reid controls what gets to the President's desk for signature. I'll repeat it here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/harrys-rules-reid-dominates-crippled-congress/


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 3:41 p.m.

Good post, Brian.

The natural human condition through most of our history has been the poverty of subsistence living and bondage by tyrants.

"Progressives" who wish to force their pet ideology du jour on others by enabling aggregation of power to Washington D.C. are forging the chains that will bind them.

Rational people see the real danger and engage daily to prevent our Republic from experiencing the demise that befell prior democracies and republics.


therightstuff: Posted: July 8, 2014 4:19 p.m.

"""From apathy to dependence"""

This is what happened in 2012.

APATHY: Over 93,000,000 registered voters didn't vote.

DEPENDENCE: Obama won 50.6% of what was left based on a disgraceful campaign of fear, division, and dependency.

We know what comes next.


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 5:02 p.m.

While I'm certainly concerned, our Republic is and has been resilient in opposing tyranny. We have not yet reached the tipping point in the Tytler's Cycle.

Rational citizens will have the opportunity to weigh in during the upcoming midterm elections on 11/4/14®. The outcome will be a key directional indicator.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 8, 2014 5:30 p.m.

The key has always been a powerful Constitution. It has retarded and controlled the forces of anarchy which push democracies over the edge. When the governed no longer respect the rule of law and this excellent document, Tytler becomes a forgone conclusion.


17trillion: Posted: July 8, 2014 5:51 p.m.

I do not share your optimism Tech. I think we have reached the tipping point where the worthless outnumber the productive.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 6:01 p.m.

Yeah, I'm not very sanguine, either.


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 6:47 p.m.

We'll see, no doubt. I foresee 11/4/14 being an inflection point.

Take heart and do not despair, my friends. America has seen darker times and experienced renewal.

"The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true." - Galadriel


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 8:11 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: **sigh**
Same-old, same-old. You can always count on Kevin and Charlie to throw out the same liberal spew each and every column.

Indy: Interestingly, I tend to agree with you . . .

Other than reciting the RNC positions and problems, there’s no real suggestion or explanations of any issue.

The only sentence that has some ‘meat is this one: “immigration reform, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work.”

Yet, no discussion of same.

To add something, to this Op-ed on these topics:

- The minimum wage is stagnating from the oversupply of labor globally. More people with limited resources are working for lower wages everything else being equal. This of course hurts people on this wage as their standard of living falls no matter how hard they work . . .

- Immigration reform seems to be focused on amnesty and illegality but ignores the ‘driver’ of the migration, that being over population . . . but no politician wants to address that from either party

- Infrastructure is avoided now since most large multinationals are going ‘off shore’ for higher profits based on the ‘wage differential’

- As far as ‘equal pay for equal work’, that’s a tough one since the pay people make in larger companies is ‘hidden’ and you’re not allowed to tell others. Many large companies have ‘ranges’ that make this comparison even more difficult

In any event, if the dems can’t articulate their positions and just cite the GOP focus group tested slogans, we know nothing will change.

This is made very clear by House Speaker Boehner that won’t even push a dem sponsored bill even for a vote!

And Senate republicans now have filibustered more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate ) than any other senate in history!

It’s going to be interesting if enough Americans can get beyond the partisan rhetoric and see the reality that exists . . .

It’s also going to be interesting to see if the Senate has ‘permanently’ become a ‘super majority’ voting house.


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 8:32 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: No need to dissect the predictable partisan demagoguery from useless stooges who have an irrational hatred for anyone who is different from them. Everything we need to know about this administration can be summed up by Obama's two day trip to Texas this week.

Indy: I think the only person here that uses the ‘hate’ is you . . .

Therightstuff wrote: Will he be going there to personally inspect the tragedy at the border? Nope.
Will be be going there to plan a strategy with the governor? Nope
Will he be going there to help enforce the law on immigration? Nope
Will he be going there to offer hope and healing? Nope

Indy: Here again, the poster misses the bigger picture issues that drives human migration.

We should be asking ourselves why the GOP:

- fights against international non-abortive family planning aid? (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/jul/02/republican-family-values-women-lives-danger-united-states
The House committee bill proposes cutting international family planning funding by $149m, almost 25% from current levels. Using analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, this would result in more than 7.7 million fewer couples using contraception, more than 1.6 million additional unintended pregnancies, and 745,000 more abortions. Almost 3,000 more women would die in pregnancy or childbirth, and 13,400 more children would lose their mothers. So much for family values.”

- Or why when a republican gets elected President, on the same day, they reinstitute the ‘global gag rule’ (http://www.genderhealth.org/the_issues/us_foreign_policy/global_gag_rule/ )

- Or signed into law that is currently being used to connect ‘children’ to their parents who cross illegally was passed by signed by George W Bush (http://www.usatoday.com/news/ “The 2008 law, which passed both chambers of Congress by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush, dictates exactly how children caught crossing the border without their parents must be treated.)

The global population is still growing by some 70 million 'net' (births minus deaths) EACH YEAR yet no politician of either party will address that.

People are coming to the US for economic opportunity and political security.

And if the GOP doesn't believe in the population issue, what difference does it make who is where????

In any event, I'm not sure why any American would treat children caught up in this population migration issue by simply throwing them back into nations, many of which are in conflict.


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 8:39 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

Indy: Let’s update that with a statement from me:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that lobbyist take over government by ‘owning’ our elected ‘leaders’ and realize they can vote themselves generous ‘tax breaks’ from the public treasury.”

As we see wealth concentrating in America (noting that the top 1% now take 20%+ of all income, up from just ‘8%’ when Reagan took office), its jeopardy our nation’s economic security as few people control more of our nation’s wealth.

Republicans support this concentration based on their ‘value’ system that respects ‘hard work’ even if average Americans that ‘work hard’ for a living (not from investments) are now seeing their wages ‘stagnate’ (since the last 70s) as multinational corporations move production off shore for higher profits (shielded by off shore holdings).

In any event, the GOP has ‘shut down’ the voting for goodies . . . per the original quote and seems satisfied with wealth concentration and redistribution of income to the top 1%.

Think of this strategy as you vote this December and ask yourself if you’re a republican, are my values worth enough to destroy the middle class?


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 8:48 p.m.

Tech wrote: As hepnerkid pointed out, "Progressives" are anything but progressive. "Progressives" are aligned with retrograde forces that block disruptive innovation and reform.

Indy: I find that posters like this guy that stake his ideology on libertarian market fundamentalism can’t grasp that without addressing the shortcoming of capitalism, wealth redistributes up.

I’m not sure if this is the financial ‘innovation and reform’, but it appears consistent with religious conservative values that endorse ‘hard work’ provided you don’t based your income on your physical labor.

What kind of republican values support wealth concentration?

Why would anyone that supports addressing the shortcoming of capitalism be criticized as this poster is doing?

Why would anyone be against raising the minimum wage to account for the wealth redistribution to the top 1%?

It’s all republican ‘values’ driving these issues . . . you just have to see through the chaff to see the ‘ideology’ drivers that republican politicians use to ‘control’ their voters.

Many people ask why republicans who are not wealthy vote for GOP politicians that support wealth concentration?

Well, it’s all about the ‘hard work’ values and the reality that even if you ‘game’ the capitalistic system to earn extreme incomes, you’re nevertheless supported by posters as this . . . regardless of the demoralizing effect to the majority of Americans.

In any event, this is a good opportunity to review the income advantages that concentrate wealth in the US

a. The low capital gains rate that has them paying a rate that is not consistent with their use of tax funded infrastructure including our military, courts, and transportation infrastructure.

b. They also benefit since their ‘discretionary’ incomes are so much higher they can invest more (think stockholders – owners of capital) while most Americans exist ‘check to check’.

c. They can take advantage of ‘large’ business deals especially in off shoring where huge income gains result from the large ‘wage differentials’ in nations with low wage rates.

d. Having the ability to influence our tax laws (loopholes) provided high income earners access to our leaders where folks like me get to speak to a ‘college intern’ on the phone when I call them.

e. Legal superiority in that those will higher incomes can legally protect their assets versus everyone without such representation (think reading a standard credit card ‘terms and conditions’ that most people don’t read and can’t understand if they did.)


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 8:54 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: The key has always been a powerful Constitution. It has retarded and controlled the forces of anarchy which push democracies over the edge. When the governed no longer respect the rule of law and this excellent document, Tytler becomes a forgone conclusion.

Indy: When the powerful financial companies (think JP Morgan (fined Billions of dollars), Countrywide Financial (fined hundreds of millions of dollars) defrauded mortgage borrowers or Goldman Sachs packaged up ‘junk’ securities for companies that sell those to firms that create retirement savings for people like me, are these the forces that create the ‘anarchy’ you asserted?

And why did these companies not ‘respect the rule of law’ and placed us in the worst recession since the great depression?

And why did the taxpayers like me ‘bail out’ these ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions that created a ‘moral hazard’ that gave Americans the choice between ‘bailing out’ these financial institutions or see the entire economy collapse?


Indy: Posted: July 8, 2014 9:10 p.m.

17trillion wrote: I do not share your optimism Tech. I think we have reached the tipping point where the worthless outnumber the productive.

Indy: I have to give the poster credit since I haven’t seen a better rewording and application of the RNC talking about ‘makers versus takers’.

The problem is that many businessmen without any formal economic education can’t understand why so many Americans find themselves wanting for jobs that are sadly being off shored to nations that pay around $1/hr.

We saw this during the last presidential election where Bain Capital moved a company in Illinois that paid their workers about $17/hr to make automotive electrical parts.

The company was moved to China by Bain to find workers for the $1/hr and thus allowing Bain to gain about $5 million dollars a year in profits from the move while the 170 laid off Americans who immediately became ‘slackers’ in the republican vocabulary if they couldn’t find new work quickly.

The dilemma these workers face is their expertise in automotive parts manufacture is now wasted since more and more companies like this are simply moved to gain higher profits for those companies capitalized enough to move the jobs to nations with the lowest labor rates.

Interestingly, the former dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, economist Lester Thurow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Thurow ) , outlined all of this in his 1996 book ‘The Future of Capitalism’.

In any event, it’s a good political strategy to ‘demean’ workers who only want to live somewhat in the ‘middle class’ in America . . . but as we see from this former business owner, he sees the laid off workers as ‘worthless’.

So when you’re voting this November, keep in mind of the people that support the GOP and how they ‘see’ you, the ‘worker’.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 8, 2014 9:19 p.m.

LOL Indy.

You quote part of the Tytler Cycle, and manage to completely miss the meaning of it, in fact turning it 180 degrees on its head.

Kinda like your "understanding" of the Constitution and Federalist Papers.

Thanks for the chuckle, bud.


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 9:31 p.m.

"Here comes the orator with his flood of words and his drop of reason." - Benjamin Franklin


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 9:48 p.m.

"Think of this strategy as you vote this December…" - Indy

That would be an excellent time to make your vote count, Indy! :-D


therightstuff: Posted: July 8, 2014 10:03 p.m.

Sooooo funny how the guy who lectures us all about the importance of education actually posted December as the time to vote. Duuuhhh.....Nice going Einstein.

I hope all his fellow left-wing zealots will follow his lead.

12/04/14


therightstuff: Posted: July 8, 2014 10:06 p.m.

INDY: """We should be asking ourselves why the GOP..."""

Oh my...Indy blamed the GOP for the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

He blamed the GOP for the IRS scandal.

Now he's blaming the GOP for the current immigration nightmare.

Are his expectations for Barack Obama truly that low or are all liberal Democrats really that stupid?


tech: Posted: July 8, 2014 10:25 p.m.

Would you expect less of a loyal Party apparatchik, TRS? Ever see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the idiot box/panel? That's the model.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 12:09 a.m.

INDY: """In any event, I'm not sure why any American would treat children caught up in this population migration issue by simply throwing them back into nations, many of which are in conflict."""

There's a reason why Barack Obama has been so slow to act on the tragedy of these children. In a hopelessly corrupt administration plagued almost daily with a new scandal, this tragedy keeps the IRS, VA, negotiating with terrorists, Obamacare, etc. out of the news. His poll numbers are so toxic now that not one Democrat met him at the Denver airport today. Amazing.

If a guy would deliberately and repeatedly lie about the murder of four Americans in a terrorist attack for political survival, why would anyone think he wouldn't exploit these children to protect his political ass now?


ricketzz: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:10 a.m.

TRS lives in a parallel universe where the TV tells the truth and emotion rules the consciousness. (Obama's "approval" numbers are the highest in Washington DC, about double that of the Congress.) His world leaps from "got him this time" scandal to "no, really this time" scandal.

When you want to end a war against "terrorists", with whom do you arrange the terms of your disengagement? By the way, the Taliban, created by the CIA, are not terrorists.


Nitesho: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:51 a.m.

"Obama's "approval" numbers are the highest in Washington DC, about double that of the Congress"

Oh really? I agree with double congress but he's tanking. Has been for months and pretty close to a year. TRS lives in a universe where facts are reality, not in your universe where butterfly's and unicorns all have healthcare.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html


philellis: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:08 p.m.

@trs, I think the answers to your questions are "yes" and "yes."


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:44 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: You quote part of the Tytler Cycle, and manage to completely miss the meaning of it, in fact turning it 180 degrees on its head.

Indy: Let’s see again:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that lobbyist take over government by ‘owning’ our elected ‘leaders’ and realize they can vote themselves generous ‘tax breaks’ from the public treasury.”

Yes, I can see why you believe that we can ignore the concentration of wealth in America and how it’s distorting our political discourse besides threatening our democracy.

You ignore the influence of the super wealthy and how it diminishes the liberty, freedom and security of Americans . . . wow . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Kinda like your "understanding" of the Constitution and Federalist Papers.

Indy: I know how tough it is to accept the Constitution ‘as is’ . . . I guess forgetting that if the Founding Fathers wanted ‘your conservative ideologist’ positions stated in this document, they would have put in same. But they didn't . . .

Citing ‘external’ mentions and so forth is a fruitless attempt to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution . . .


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:50 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: INDY: """We should be asking ourselves why the GOP..."""

Oh my...Indy blamed the GOP for the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Indy: The public will have to decide if republicans that cut consultant budgets and thus the ability to properly protect them, will hold these folks accountable.

They’ll also have to decide that the multiple attacks during the Bush W administration were as serious.

Therightstuff wrote: He blamed the GOP for the IRS scandal.

Indy: The public again will have to decide if the yearly defunding of the IRS to prevent it from having adequate resources to properly execute its duties led to the service failures with the computer back up.

We’ll also have the public decide why the House republicans, asked by the IRS for better directions on qualifying 501C4s, has not been done even now . . .

Therightstuff wrote: Now he's blaming the GOP for the current immigration nightmare.

Indy: Gee, even more policy questions as republicans continue to fight against non-abortive US international family planning aid that would reduce the migration pressure to the US.

Therightstuff wrote: Are his expectations for Barack Obama truly that low or are all liberal Democrats really that stupid?

Indy: It’s perfectly understandable that many religious conservatives simply ‘hate’ the President . . . as we see with this poster routinely at this forum.

Great, he’s entitled to his freedom to speak that . . .


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 5:53 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: INDY: """In any event, I'm not sure why any American would treat children caught up in this population migration issue by simply throwing them back into nations, many of which are in conflict."""

There's a reason why Barack Obama has been so slow to act on the tragedy of these children. In a hopelessly corrupt administration plagued almost daily with a new scandal, this tragedy keeps the IRS, VA, negotiating with terrorists, Obamacare, etc. out of the news. His poll numbers are so toxic now that not one Democrat met him at the Denver airport today. Amazing.

Indy: LOL! I get that you don’t like the President . . .

But again, read my responses to the why the GOP is responsible for the IRS problems.

And you’ll have to quote Ronald Reagan as he negotiated for hostages with Iran yet is held up by conservatives as ‘their model’ republican . . .

Therightstuff wrote: If a guy would deliberately and repeatedly lie about the murder of four Americans in a terrorist attack for political survival, why would anyone think he wouldn't exploit these children to protect his political ass now?

Indy: For an excellent recap of the event in Libya and clarifies the ‘innuendo and speculation’ recited by this poster from Fox, try reading: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)


BrianBaker: Posted: July 9, 2014 7:24 p.m.

"Indy: I know how tough it is to accept the Constitution ‘as is’ . . . I guess forgetting that if the Founding Fathers wanted ‘your conservative ideologist’ positions stated in this document, they would have put in same. But they didn't . . .

"Citing ‘external’ mentions and so forth is a fruitless attempt to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution . . ."



Yeah, this pearl of wisdom from a guy who thinks elections take place in DECEMBER!

I really shouldn't waste my time pointing out your utter foolishness, when you do such a sterling job of it yourself.

You do my work for me.

Priceless.


tech: Posted: July 9, 2014 8:27 p.m.

"Citing ‘external’ mentions and so forth is a fruitless attempt to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution . . ." - Indy

Would that pertain to your numerous "separation between church and state" posts that reference Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, Indy?

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:36 p.m.

Yep, tech.

I wonder what Captain Irrelevant would say to the Supreme Court justices who reference the Federalist Papers regularly in their decisions?

That includes leftist Bryer, most recently.


I guess THEY'RE just ignorant fools, too, lacking the wisdom and legal acumen of the Captain.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:44 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: I know how tough it is to accept the Constitution ‘as is’ . . . I guess forgetting that if the Founding Fathers wanted ‘your conservative ideologist’ positions stated in this document, they would have put in same. But they didn't . . .

"Citing ‘external’ mentions and so forth is a fruitless attempt to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution . . ."

Yeah, this pearl of wisdom from a guy who thinks elections take place in DECEMBER!

Indy: Can you imagine somebody wanting to rewrite the Constitution on a ‘auto correct’ error? Well can you?

But in fairness to this poster, these kind of harmless computer event that allows him to completely ‘ignore’ the issue . . . and that key here.


Indy: Posted: July 9, 2014 9:49 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Citing ‘external’ mentions and so forth is a fruitless attempt to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution . . ." - Indy

Would that pertain to your numerous "separation between church and state" posts that reference Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, Indy?

Indy: You bet . . . even though Jefferson was a Founding Father and had a key role in inserting the Bill of Rights including Madison, absolutely I go with what’s written in the 1st Amendment.

The fact that religious conservatives like to assert that there is no ‘separation between church and state’ is however, directly addressed by Jefferson as we see here:

“…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

The fact that Jefferson using the exact words ‘separation between church and State’ is interesting, isn't it?

No interpretation, no second guessing, no insertion of conservative ideology into the meaning . . . just the 'words themselves'!


BrianBaker: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:05 p.m.

Captain Irrelevant, you should stop. First rule when you find yourself stuck in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

Your comments are ridiculous beyond description.


Let me know how things turn out for you at the voting booth in DECEMBER!


You don't even know 6th grade civics, and you think ANYONE'S going to take you seriously about anything?

Here's a hint for you: it's never yet happened over the years, and your latest INCREDIBLE faux pas doesn't help whatever "credibility" you may have laughably ever had.


Time to go back to elementary school, Mr. "I Know Everything About Everything". Your reliably inane comments are nothing but fodder and straight lines for everyone's mockery, sarcasm, and humor.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:54 p.m.

Nitesho: """TRS lives in a universe where facts are reality..."""

Thank you friend. I try. When proven wrong, I admit it. Battling the knuckleheads on these threads gets tiresome at times because they accuse everyone else of reciting talking points...even as they recite talking points. They've become numb to their own hypocrisy. --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: July 9, 2014 10:57 p.m.

ricketzz: """TRS lives in a parallel universe where the TV tells the truth and emotion rules the consciousness."""

Wait a minute...are you saying that Jack Bauer is not a real person? My emotions tell me you're wrong about that!!!


tech: Posted: July 9, 2014 11:24 p.m.

Indy: You bet . . . even though Jefferson was a Founding Father and had a key role in inserting the Bill of Rights including Madison, absolutely I go with what’s written in the 1st Amendment.

This implies you consider the writing of Founders outside of the Constitution of import and clarifying, correct?


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 12:08 a.m.

Indy: """The fact that Jefferson using the exact words ‘separation between church and State’ is interesting, isn't it?"""

Far-left ideologues LOVE to take these words out of context. Any high school student would know that Jefferson was writing to a church association to assure them that the state could not interfere with the affairs of the church.

It is their personal interpretation, second guessing, and insertion of liberal ideology that has taken these words out of context and painfully construed them to fit their faithophobia to silence the church.

Alliance Defending Freedom hosts an annual Pulpit Sunday in which churches are encouraged to speak out on political issues. They are further instructed to send a transcript of their sermon directly to the IRS. More than 1,000 political sermons have now been sent to the IRS. Care to guess how many of these churches have been told by the IRS that they are in violation of the separation of church and state?

ZERO.

The myth is meant to be a "boogie man" to keep the church silent and people of faith out of the public square, nothing more. Just another schtick by far-left ideologues who know their narrow world view cannot withstand honest debate.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.

You all would be singing a different tune if people were trying to insert Islamic principles into the government.

Oh, wait...I forgot...don't we have these "anti-Sharia" laws on the books in several states now?

Guess letting religion into government sorta depends...if it's *your* religion, it's fine. If it's the other guy's, well, then...


17trillion: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:39 p.m.

I'm quite sure Steve was trying to make a point. Can someone explain it to me?


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:52 p.m.

"You all would be singing a different tune if people were trying to insert Islamic principles into the government." - stevehw

In the context of my posts, yes, please explain, Steve.


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:09 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: You bet . . . even though Jefferson was a Founding Father and had a key role in inserting the Bill of Rights including Madison, absolutely I go with what’s written in the 1st Amendment.

This implies you consider the writing of Founders outside of the Constitution of import and clarifying, correct?

Indy: Repeating what I wrote: “You bet . . . even though Jefferson was a Founding Father and had a key role in inserting the Bill of Rights including Madison, absolutely I go with what’s written in the 1st Amendment.”


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:12 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """The fact that Jefferson using the exact words ‘separation between church and State’ is interesting, isn't it?"""

Far-left ideologues LOVE to take these words out of context. Any high school student would know that Jefferson was writing to a church association to assure them that the state could not interfere with the affairs of the church.

Indy: Let’s let Thomas Jefferson speak for himself:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Jefferson’s confirmation of the 1st Amendment is clear yet this poster ‘asserts’ the exact opposite . . .


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:25 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: It is their personal interpretation, second guessing, and insertion of liberal ideology that has taken these words out of context and painfully construed them to fit their faithophobia to silence the church.

Alliance Defending Freedom hosts an annual Pulpit Sunday in which churches are encouraged to speak out on political issues. They are further instructed to send a transcript of their sermon directly to the IRS. More than 1,000 political sermons have now been sent to the IRS. Care to guess how many of these churches have been told by the IRS that they are in violation of the separation of church and state? ZERO.

Indy: Sadly, what the poster can’t grasp is that churches are free to discuss anything they like.

The reality, however, is that government can’t be used by churches to promote their specific ‘private and personal’ beliefs.

The churches back in the 60s were active in promoting ‘civil rights’ and as we saw, the ‘government’ passed a law protecting ‘civil rights’.

The right to practice your religion was already in the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . “

Notice that the Founding Fathers, having seen the draconian treatment of people in state sponsored religions in Europe, wanted a nation ‘under law’ and not ‘religion’.

They wrote their conscious in the 1st Amendment allowing all Americans to freely prctice their beliefs but not impose them per se on other Americans.

Sounded good then, sounds even better today . . . just take a look around the global where religion has taken over a government (think Iran and Saudi Arabia) such that the ‘civil rights’ of the non-believers, both atheist and non-dominate religions, are threatened if not finding that people are killed for not ‘obeying’ the dominate religion.

The Catholic Church was still ‘torturing’ non-believers in the early 1800s and I’m sure the Founding Fathers were clear that this was not going to happen in their new nation.

In any event, churches were given ‘tax free’ status (501C3s) by the IRS as long as their role was not ‘predominately’ political. If they want to relinquish that privilege, that’s their choice.

In any event, this link provides an interesting discussion on the tax issue and churches:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions


Indy: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:28 p.m.

17trillion wrote: I'm quite sure Steve was trying to make a point. Can someone explain it to me?

Indy: Why waste the keystrokes . . . but stevehw made great points:

“You all would be singing a different tune if people were trying to insert Islamic principles into the government.

Oh, wait...I forgot...don't we have these "anti-Sharia" laws on the books in several states now?

Guess letting religion into government sorta depends...if it's *your* religion, it's fine. If it's the other guy's, well, then...”

Word.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 10:02 p.m.

Indy: """In any event, this link provides an interesting discussion on the tax issue and churches: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions"""

Or you can try this link www.nobodygivesaratsasswhatyouthink.com"


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 10:03 p.m.

Indy: Why waste the keystrokes . . .

My thoughts exactly with each of your posts.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 2:23 a.m.

"They wrote their conscious (sic) in the 1st Amendment allowing all Americans to freely prctice (sic) their beliefs but not impose them per se on other Americans. - Indy's version

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the salient difference.


ricketzz: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:56 a.m.

Congress, at Washington's request, issued a statement that the United States is in no way a Christian Nation. It passed unanimously. That seals it for me. Plus Madison said the "wall" means a wall.


17trillion: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:38 a.m.

"Plus Madison said the "wall" means a wall."

Not if it's located on the southern border.


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:47 a.m.

"""Congress, at Washington's request, issued a statement that the United States is in no way a Christian Nation."""

Can we see this statement? --edited.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:48 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """In any event, this link provides an interesting discussion on the tax issue and churches: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tax-exemptions"""

Or you can try this link www.nobodygivesaratsasswhatyouthink.com"

Indy: LOL . . . at least you’ve got an imagination . . . now we’ll work on the knowledge!


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: "They wrote their conscious (sic) in the 1st Amendment allowing all Americans to freely prctice (sic) their beliefs but not impose them per se on other Americans. - Indy's version

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the salient difference.

Indy: Yes, I would add:

- The Constitution doesn’t mention Christianity
- The Constitution prohibits a religious test for holding public office
- There’s no mention of God in the Constitution
- A Founding Father key in the creation and writing of the Bill of Rights later used the expression ‘separation of church and state’ to explain what he wrote . . .

I’m not sure why religious conservatives push for more religion in politics when it’s clear the Founding Fathers, having escaped religious persecution by religion based governments (think theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia), didn’t want a ‘religious’ government . . . thus the ‘establishment’ clause to prohibit same.

Thus, the US is a 'nation under law', the Constitution, and not a 'nation under religion'.


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:01 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """Congress, at Washington's request, issued a statement that the United States is in no way a Christian Nation."""

Can we see this statement? --edited.

Indy: I’ve seen this statement but there are so many religious hits searching for it that it may take some more time . . .

But I did find this and have heard this before:

“The most striking is the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article 11 states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.””


Indy: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:11 p.m.

Among all the Christian sites that assert the US is a Christian nation, I found this one with this:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

Why would Washington ‘approve’ of this language?

In any event, you can infer whatever you want but when it was all said and done, the Constitution was ‘religion free’ and it appears that was the intent:

“When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity.... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added).”


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:34 p.m.

From Indy: """Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian"""

Then why did Washington say these this?

"My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
(http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/fake-quotations-washington-and-american-schools/) --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 12, 2014 10:27 a.m.

Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]

Click here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.
-http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

TRS: you copied the quote from a site called "Fake History" LMFAO!


ricketzz: Posted: July 12, 2014 10:28 a.m.

George Washington, like Reagan, like Lincoln did not attend church regularly.


CaptGene: Posted: July 12, 2014 1:06 p.m.

cricketzz: "TRS: you copied the quote from a site called "Fake History" LMFAO!"

As usual, cricketzz didn't bother to do his homework and follow the link. What a loon.


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 1:58 p.m.

Tech: Note the salient difference.

Indy: Yes…

Tech: Here you acknowledge the salient difference between your misquoted paraphrase and the actual 1st Amendment text, i.e. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…"

Indy: - A Founding Father key in the creation and writing of the Bill of Rights later used the expression ‘separation of church and state’ to explain what he wrote . . .

Tech: You're trying to back into the Constitution Jefferson's words "separation of church and state" written in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Those words appear nowhere in the Constitution.

You limply attempt to admonish Brian and I when we reference The Federalist Papers (as the SCOTUS does), stating only the actual words in the Constitution are relevant and yet you continually quote the Danbury letter to supply the words your ideological view requires. Your position is untenable.

Further, you quote the Danbury letter out of context and distort the meaning.

The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801, to complain about the infringement of their religious liberty by their state legislature: “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” The Baptists, of course, acknowledged that “the president of the United States is not the national legislator,” but expressed the wish that his views on religious liberty would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world.”

In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Connecticut Baptists in their opposition to the state’s established religion, while expressing his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level. Jefferson was not advancing the modern view that religion must be excluded from the public square. After all, he concludes his letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a brief prayer. --edited.


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 2:42 p.m.

An additional point: In my view, it's an error to invoke the Founders in either pro or anti-religion arguments. As in the case in our modern society, there was a range of views on participation or the lack in that era.

What the Founders quite clearly intended was to avoid the error of Europe, i.e. state religions and the religious persecution by the European states upon religious minorities. They wanted no part of the continual wars in Europe, religious or otherwise.

The Constitution defines the form and limits the power of government to infringe on the rights of individual citizens.

Religion and the free exercise of it was meant to be a private matter outside of the control of the state. The state is to be neutral except in instances of infringement. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…" means exactly that.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 12, 2014 6:31 p.m.

Complaining and doing are different. Sometimes the one generates the other.

I am curious. How many of the "usual suspects" who post here take action, based upon their professed beliefs?

Perhaps some of you may wish to post a list of concrete accomplishments you have achieved in the public arena. Lord knows the opportunities for constructive action are endless, and example is always the most powerful education tool.

Of course, doing something such as being a delegate to a State or National Republican Party convention would take special action. No Republicans have a chance to be elected as delegates to these events.

Why?

Because all Republican Party convention delegates are appointed by party leaders. In the Democratic Party, all delegates are chosen in elections where any registered Democrat may both run to be a delegate, and, of course, vote to choose those who become delegates.

So the chances that "conservatives" who post here have ever put their professed views into a "Party" forum where action would result, are slim.

However, acting to actually get something done, is readily available (to steal a phrase) "right here, right now", quite close to home.

A mega hundred million dollar "robbery in progress" is now underway, right under the collective noses of the "usual suspects" found here.

In addition to the vast sums of money being taken, the thieves also fully intend to appropriate the water supply of the Santa Clarita Valley, all while having the rest of us pay for the thievery. This, while a record drought and over commitment of our available water supply is in progress.

Neither "Obama", nor "Bush" are part of this, so acting to defend yourself will not place you in offensive proximity to someone from a different political viewpoint. The opposition is already "multi-partisan", and will clearly remain so.

The recent wonderful court victory of the Newhall County Water District over the Castaic Lake Water Agency is perhaps two percent of the battlefield.

The water supply and money robbery has superb opposition, but can always use more talent, of the type in evidence on this site.

Posting here seems to be "fun". Perhaps those who engage in posting consistently may wish to consider accomplishment as well.

Such action is equally if not more gratifying, constructive, and addictive.


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:38 p.m.

Tech wrote: Further, you quote the Danbury letter out of context and distort the meaning.

Indy: Of course religious conservatives don’t like this letter when Jefferson clearly identifies the ‘separation of church and state’.

No surprise there . . . but again, and unfortunate for us, the religious conservatives that try to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution ‘today’ and ignore the basic tenets of it like the 1st Amendment on doing so for what purpose?

The creation of a US theocracy?

Sure looks that way . . .

We already know what happens when the ‘DOMINATE’ religion takes a hold of government . . . just go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia . . .

Yet, religious conservatives fight for such a plight for us?


Indy: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:50 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Posting here seems to be "fun". Perhaps those who engage in posting consistently may wish to consider accomplishment as well.

Indy: Right with you . . . and indeed I have many accomplishments.

But for me personally, if the public can’t grasp the concept, then we’re back to what see today where the ‘solution’ has to come from ‘celebrity’ based politicians that poll the uninformed to chart our future?

Why are politician’s pandering to the ignorance versus educating the public for results?

What are they waiting for?

In any event, local politics are too dirty for me . . . I’ve lived here long enough to actually ‘receive’ the ‘hate mailers’ days before a city council election.

And the same people that send this nonsense trying to distort the political discourse then stand proudly in city hall? Frightening.

In any event, it’s unfortunate that this forum is dominated by the more outspoken conservatives whose language often drives off any moderates . . . but do you have an alternative site?

Today, and sadly, most Americans are realizing that even voting has little effect since both parties are now ‘owned’ by lobbyist . . . not all politicians . . . but a lot.

The media seems content to recite slogans from press releases and does very little work to actually put the comments in ‘context’, or ‘fact check’, or provide any ‘back story’.

So it’s hard to recommend a site that helps the average joe blow . . . and gives them enough insight to start voting for people that actually want to deal with reality versus just recite their closely held religious beliefs or American folklore, sound out on their patriotism, or just hold ‘new’ candidates to the closely held ideology you noted where you must ‘agree’ with the existing political machines . . . that can’t put on the ballot anybody with brains.

So anyway . . . feel free to add content and address issues . . . in this ‘public forum’. I just wish it had more folks involved . . . I don’t care what party . . . just to start doing the work and vetting solutions that our so called ‘leaders’ should be doing.


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 9:28 p.m.

Tech wrote: Further, you quote the Danbury letter out of context and distort the meaning.

Indy: Of course religious conservatives don’t like this letter when Jefferson clearly identifies the ‘separation of church and state’.

Because you failed to address any of the multiple points I made, your "argument" is neither compelling or valid.

As in other topics, I'll continually remind you of facts to rebut your repetitive dogma.


tech: Posted: July 12, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Indy: Right with you . . . (sic) and indeed I have many accomplishments.

Of course you do! And you're so kind in frequently reminding us. How else would we know?

To remedy this, Mr. Cameron suggests you "post a list of concrete accomplishments you have achieved in the public arena." As he frequently reminds us, your sublime talents shouldn't be wasted in the forums Mr. Cameron posts in.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 12, 2014 11:47 p.m.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, post. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. Now wouldn't that be a joyous surprise.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 12:52 a.m.

Given that others can only be measured by your skewed criteria, you can't be wrong, remember?

No joy in Mudville tonight! :'-(


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:11 a.m.

ricketzz: """TRS: you copied the quote from a site called "Fake History" LMFAO!"""

ricketzz, since you obviously never actually read the link, allow me to explain it to you -- and I'll go slow. The site clears up a "fake" quote attributed to George Washington but then posts his EXACT words. The words I posted is the CORRECT quote.

Ahhh...poor ricketzz. Clueless that the joke is on him again while everyone else is LMFAO at him! So what else is new?


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:21 a.m.

Allan_Cameron: """I am curious. How many of the "usual suspects" who post here take action, based upon their professed beliefs?"""

We noticed your labored post was absent of any of your actions based upon your professed beliefs. Got any besides self-righteously pre-judging other people you don't know?


Oh wait...more manna from heaven: """Those who can, do. Those who can't, post."""

Says the guy who just posted. Duhhh.....


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:25 a.m.

Indy: """Right with you . . . and indeed I have many accomplishments."""

Says the guy who has been caught in so many lies it's ridiculous. Hey Indy, how many times have I invited you to join me at a local charity here in town to help feed the poor and YOU REFUSED!!! You're so full of crap.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:25 a.m.

I found it amusing as well, TRS! Lazy ideologues do it to themselves. :-D


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:45 a.m.

They must be numb to their own hypocrisy, tech.

Cameron is another hit-and-run cheap shot artist that likes to enlighten us with their intellect. I think you've seen all he's got.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 13, 2014 3:37 a.m.

I merely requested that people recite things that they may have accomplished in the public arena. I (and others) welcome and enjoy stories of success. I thought that any who had such stories might wish to share them.

Of course, "doing" and "posting" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I said that I might be proven wrong, and welcomed a joyous surprise to that effect, and still would . I thought that my meaning would be inescapably clear. It was not, for which I apologize. Here it is, more plainly.

Because I have not seen all the many postings from those who do so consistently, I wondered if any of the "usual suspects" (a gently satirical epithet from "Casablanca") might have regaled regular readers with tales of mighty and daring deeds for the public good.

I still await such disclosures with genuine interest.

Since anyone who chooses to respond would be honoring a request, it would not really be boasting.

To the individual calling him (her?) self, "the right stuff" I do not see anything wherein I prejudged you and anyone else herein. How could I? As you correctly point out, I do not believe I know you.

Before you fully decide to be upset, you may wish to read (and quote) all, not just part, of what I wrote. I said I may be proved wrong about what people who post here may have accomplished beyond just posting.

Inviting people to write of positive, real things they have done is hardly being a "hit and run cheap shot artist".

This is especially true, since you know who I am, by my real name. If you sincerely wish to know just a few of my accomplishments (but by no means all), search "Santa Clarita Allan Cameron". There, warts and wreaths alike, you will find what various posters have reported regarding me. Some of it is true, some not.

That way, (by the way) I avoid both typing and boasting. Both of significant value to me. I am proud of what I have done in the public arena, but reticent to speak about all of it, unless asked in obvious good faith.




ricketzz: Posted: July 13, 2014 9:36 a.m.

I stick with what I said. You are a rightie Bible extoller and you sent us to a site that makes fun of David Barton.

Washington, like Lincoln and Jefferson, was well evolved past adherence to phantoms when he took office. (People were a thousand times smarter before TV.) The whole point of the Enlightenment was the realization that Science is smarter than Religion; That We the People are bigger than any Church and that no external code is required to live morally.


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 12:35 p.m.

cricketzz: "I stick with what I said"

Of course you will. Even after you are shown how your assessment of the source site was proven 100% wrong, you stick to your preconceived misconceptions. Is anyone surprised?


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:05 p.m.

Allen, you needn't be shocked or disappointed that people would use an opinion column to write....wait for it....opinions.

I learned the hard way about using my real name in such pieces where it can get a little testy. Years ago and in another town I used my real name. I would get harassing phone calls and once got a midnight visit from some angry lefties who destroyed my mail box with a baseball bat.

I am on record on these threads of having worked several years at the Union Rescue Mission in downtown Los Angeles, one of the largest homeless shelters in America. My entire career has been devoted to non-profit organizations engaged in humanitarian causes, social justice, homelessness, and public policy. That's why I can only laugh when I'm constantly accused of not caring about the poor because I'm not a Democrat or Obama loyalist.

And I did type in the words you suggested and it shows you are a lobbyist. Congratulations. If there's one thing the world needs it's more political lobbyists. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:39 p.m.

I am reticent to post any information that someone could use to determine my real identity, that includes the specifics regarding my volunteer and charitable work as well as where I work.

Like TRS, I have had people try to find my identity from bits of evidence I have left on these boards. Just recently I posted my email address for a fellow poster to contact me and discovered someone had tried to hack it, I had to prove who I was and change my password.

Kudos to Allan_Cameron for posting under what we all assume is his real name. More power to you. I, however, will exercise my right to privacy and continue to guard my identity and by extension my family. If Mr. Cameron has a problem with that, well, too f-ing bad.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 13, 2014 2:48 p.m.

As I mentioned, the things found about me on search engines (Ask, Bing, Google) are not all accurate. On of the distortions has to do with what I do professionally.

With my strong backing, Santa Clarita City Councilman Tim Ben Boydston proposed, and the City Council passed, a lobbyist registration ordinance.

This law, adopted about 5 years ago, was long overdue. Appropriately, many other government agencies have such requirements. As with many, if not most laws, there are unintended consequences.

The law requires anyone who speaks, for compensation, (gets paid) to anyone at the City (electeds, appointeds, staff members) to comply with the disclosure ordinance. So be it.

My company, however does not really do "lobbying". That is really a waste of our time and is an activity we try to avoid. We hire lobbyists on behalf of our clients frequently. Only occasionally, we must spend time in direct communication. Hence, the infrequent need to comply with this ordinance we helped to pass.

What we do is two fold. We are Master Strategic Planners for Real Estate Development Entitlements, and we have an issues management division. This distinction, while significant, is frequently mischaracterized and misunderstood.

I fully appreciate that everything in life has a price. Among the many things I have done, of which I am most proud, is that I am one of the 16 founders of the largest City at the time of its creation in United States History. This is, of course, the City of Santa Clarita. When Santa Clarita was proposed, there were 84 Cities in Los Angeles County. On December 15, 1987, when Santa Clarita began, two noteworthy things happened. Santa Clarita became the 85th Los Angeles County City, and it instantly was the 5th largest. Now it is the third largest of 88.

When the work of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee (of which I was an elected member) began to "heat up", and look as if it might really, finally, achieve its result, things changed in our community.

The will oiled machine that was about to be displaced and replaced began to react. At that time, my name, my home address, and my land line phone number were listed in telephone directories.

People began to appear at my door at all hours of the day and night. Most just wanted information. Some had other agendas. So, after many months of this, I removed my address from new phone book editions. However, I did leave my name and phone number listed for many years.

My "post" did not ask for names. A listing of what folks had done in the public arena was my only simple suggestion.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 5:15 p.m.

"People began to appear at my door at all hours of the day and night. Most just wanted information. Some had other agendas. So, after many months of this, I removed my address from new phone book editions. However, I did leave my name and phone number listed for many years."

Do you not find that your experience validates the points TRS, CG, stevehw and I have made regarding internet privacy, Mr. Cameron? Extrapolation of your personal risk tolerance profile to others is fallacious.

Leave it. Our personal internet cost/benefit risk assessments are not qualifiers of postings here. Your continual insistence that it is gives pause for reflection on other messaging you post in this forum.


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:08 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: Further, you quote the Danbury letter out of context and distort the meaning.

Indy: Of course religious conservatives don’t like this letter when Jefferson clearly identifies the ‘separation of church and state’.

Because you failed to address any of the multiple points I made, your "argument" is neither compelling or valid.

Indy: I don’t expect ‘you’ to accept the intent of the Founding Fathers since you often try to ‘cherry pick’ their document and then try to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution in libertarian ideology.

Sorry, but that’s doesn’t hold any water . . .

In any event, why not address these facts:

- The Constitution doesn’t mention Christianity
- The Constitution prohibits a religious test for holding public office
- There’s no mention of God in the Constitution
- A Founding Father key in the creation and writing of the Bill of Rights later used the expression ‘separation of church and state’ to explain what he wrote . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:13 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Right with you . . . (sic) and indeed I have many accomplishments.

Of course you do! And you're so kind in frequently reminding us. How else would we know?

Indy: What’s most important is that I explain the failings of libertarian market fundamentalism.

I throw in my ‘educational accomplishments’ to give some foundation to my statements . . . yet interesting, you don’t . . . even though you’re anonymous! Hmmm . . .

Tech wrote: To remedy this, Mr. Cameron suggests you "post a list of concrete accomplishments you have achieved in the public arena." As he frequently reminds us, your sublime talents shouldn't be wasted in the forums Mr. Cameron posts in.

Indy: What’s interesting is the politicians we see in public office are failing us . . . failing to address most of the ‘drivers’ that create crisis after crisis after crisis . . .

And we know from what we see in the media is that you either ‘recite’ the ‘party machine’ talking points or you simply never get to hold public office.

In any event, lots of things to discuss ahead . . . and give the guest readers here the context, back story, and facts that you ignore and insure they understand the shortcomings of capitalism that is threatening our common future.

If Mr. Cameron wants to join in . . . so much the better.


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:20 p.m.

User Removed Comment.


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:23 p.m.

Allan_Cameron,

Yes, I remember you being involved in the formation of the City . . . that’s why your name rings true for me . . .

And it’s sad that people attack you personally . . . so I too would be reluctant to put my personal information in forums like this.

Just look at some of the posters . . . scary stuff.

In any event, feel free to post ‘solutions’ versus the recitals of party ideology from either party.

And if you know of a better public for the public to vet issues, let us know that as well.


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:24 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I am on record on these threads of having worked several years at the Union Rescue Mission in downtown Los Angeles, one of the largest homeless shelters in America. My entire career has been devoted to non-profit organizations engaged in humanitarian causes, social justice, homelessness, and public policy. That's why I can only laugh when I'm constantly accused of not caring about the poor because I'm not a Democrat or Obama loyalist.

Indy: The criticisms that I make are toward the religious conservative polices you endorse that mostly ‘hurt the poor’.

And your charity work, while commendable, doesn’t cancel out that harm.

Let’s review your positions:

- Using biblical references to fight against raising the minimum wage (think the ‘virtue of work’) that would raise millions of people out of poverty
- Using the same references to fight against the extension of long term unemployment that sees hard working families losing their homes . . .
- Using the same references to fight against the poor getting food stamps?

I don’t find any of these issues a ‘laughing manner’.

And your condescending rhetoric is something I never associate with a Christian.

In any event, this is a public forum . . . I don’t really care who you are individually . . . only the consequences of your positions and how they affect people.


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:27 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: I am reticent to post any information that someone could use to determine my real identity, that includes the specifics regarding my volunteer and charitable work as well as where I work.

Indy: Personally I don’t really care who you are . . . I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs.

And like TRS, your positions threaten our future and cancel out your charitable work.


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 8:37 p.m.

Indy Nile: "I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs"

And yet you never do, you only recite the talking points like the good little parrot you are. Indy want a cracker?

What a loon!


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 9:05 p.m.

Indy: Personally I don’t really care who you are . . . I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs.

Tech: Let's test Indy's assertion with a recent example.

Indy: I think we know the reason why the poster won’t show us the link . . . now don’t we . . .

Indy: And what better way to hide your ignorance than not support your positions with reliable information. Starting to see why they don’t provide the link?

Nitesho: Indy. Type Isis chemical weapons in a search browser. Look it up yourself. Even a 5 year old liberal can do that.

emheilbrun: Indy, here's a link...thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCxm8Gt447A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Indy:

Wait… scratch that last entry. Indy never did respond the link. He went silent and there was no "debate".

http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/123014/


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 10:57 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Indy Nile: "I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs"

And yet you never do, you only recite the talking points like the good little parrot you are. Indy want a cracker?

Indy: Dude . . . you’ve got to look beyond the conservative business Op-ed writers you pray to . . . and get out into the world and see it for what’s really going on . . .

Ignoring science is just stupid . . .

Listening to ‘self-serving’ Op-ed writers ‘hired’ to report and support conservative ideology . . . well reciting that here only threatens our future . . .

That’s not loony to see that . . . but again, I’m here to help you and your fellow conservative brethren . . .


Indy: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:03 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Personally I don’t really care who you are . . . I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs.

Indy: Why not just tell us your educational background and call it a day!

And yes, it does get a bit tiring to have conservatives constantly tell me I don’t answer their questions when the reality is that you simply don’t like the answers.


That’s where I can really help you . . . in areas of technology, science, engineering, business, economics, and management not taught in a legal curriculum . . .

That’s why I’d never let an attorney ‘run a business’ that I had any interest in.

We can see that those in congress are basically just ‘focus group tested’ reciters . . . that are failing us.

And now with Boehner ‘suing’ the president? It doesn’t get any more foolish than that . . . but hey, November is just around the corner . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:31 p.m.

Indy: """And your condescending rhetoric is something I never associate with a Christian."""

Says the guy who's previous comment was so bad it had to be removed. Please try to stay focused on the issues and control your emotions, Indy. Personal attacks solves nothing.

By the way, my offer still stands. Whenever you're ready to practice what you preach about helping the poor, I'm ready to meet you to volunteer.

Are you getting that, Allan?


CaptGene: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:37 p.m.

This is what happens when you eat mushrooms you find in the back yard.

Indy Nile believes the mutterings of climate hobbyists like the ones at skepticalscience.com, but ignores actual scientists like McIntyre and McKitrick that have shown the hockey stick is a fraud, perpetrated by someone with no formal training in climate science.

Indy Nile: "Ignoring science is just stupid . . . "

Yet that's exactly what you continue to do. And that's why you are the joke that you are.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:41 p.m.

"And yes, it does get a bit tiring to have conservatives constantly tell me I don’t answer their questions when the reality is that you simply don’t like the answers." - Indy

In the example above, you didn't answer. Q.E.D.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:23 p.m.

The bulk of the comments above, all of which take time to compose and post (so I understand!) point towards various genuine crisis. Crisis need action.

No where in the above, did I retread the issue of people's real names by suggesting disclosure. Some apparently responded to a phantom from their own minds regarding such a question.

The world has a greater need for doers, as opposed to just talkers.

I asked that the "usual suspects" perhaps list accomplishments (by all means, stay hidden if you choose), just to create what would be a many layered context for assessment of a "comment"

An illustrative joke.

Man at home is asked to participate in an opinion poll responding to the question "who wears the 'pants' in your family, and makes the important decisions, the husband or the wife?". (sexist terminology, to be sure)

Man says declaratively and confidently: "I make all the important decisions".

Pollster asks: "Can you share an example of the important decisions you make?"

Man responds: "Sure, I decide whether or not we should redeploy troops into Iraq, restart human space travel, pay off the deficit, stuff like that."

Pollster ask: "And what, by comparison, are the unimportant decisions left for your wife to decide"?.

Man responds: "Whether or not I keep or resign my job, what neighborhood we live in, private or public schools for our kids, trivia along those lines".

Talk is sometimes cheap. Action demands commitment, and a willingness to pay a price if necessary.

Someone above asked if my experience as a member of the Santa Clarita City Formation Steering Committee, wherein, after people in large numbers started appearing unannounced at the door of my home, causing me to delete my address from directories, proved the wisdom of being hidden, while still hoping to be taken seriously.

The answer is, that there was indeed a price to be paid for standing up, and standing out. What was purchased with the cost of some annoyance, was the right of self government for much of the Santa Clarita Valley. (Of course, the goal was achieved not just by me, but with the inspiring commitment of my fellow 15 committee members, and the tireless work of hundreds of volunteers). (Please see next post).


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 14, 2014 5:40 p.m.

Someone named herein "the right stuff" has mentioned work with non-profits, homeless shelters, and other activity aimed at helping poor people.

Great stuff!!!!

The planet needs as much of that type of commitment as it can get. This person also has achieved another benefit. Accomplishment and deeds create solid, difficult to impeach credibility.

Some who post here would indeed benefit from more credibility. Action, and description of it would buy a certain amount.

For instance, in our community, the issue of a Homeless Shelter, ANY Homeless Shelter, generates vocal controversy. Santa Clarita only has a small, only part of the year Shelter. My view is that this is wrong.

Action here is clearly called for. Leaders do not need or await invitations to lead.

They issue them.


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 6:04 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """And your condescending rhetoric is something I never associate with a Christian."""

Says the guy who's previous comment was so bad it had to be removed. Please try to stay focused on the issues and control your emotions, Indy. Personal attacks solves nothing.

Indy: Again, you confuse yourself with your own inability to even read things noting that “I” removed and reposted the comment!

But again, Christians don’t use the language and condescending rhetoric you do . . . I tent to mimic your approach believing that’s the type of discourse you understand.

And since you can recite that type of language that I guess ‘blows up your ego’ . . . you like getting it in return, no?

Therightstuff wrote: By the way, my offer still stands. Whenever you're ready to practice what you preach about helping the poor, I'm ready to meet you to volunteer. Are you getting that, Allan?

Indy: Again the tea party positions you advocate here threaten the future of tens of millions of Americans.

Providing a little local charity, while commendable, doesn’t erase that type of callous behavior to people you don’t even know.

And you consistently cite your religious conservative’s values and beliefs that don’t map to the modern economic world.

As I’ve noted believe, that’s a burden you have to carry . . . for the rest of your life . . .

But feel free to clarity your positions that I outlined and you ignored:

- Using biblical references to fight against raising the minimum wage (think the ‘virtue of work’) that would raise millions of people out of poverty
- Using the same references to fight against the extension of long term unemployment that sees hard working families losing their homes . . .
- Using the same references to fight against the poor getting food stamps?


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 6:06 p.m.

Tech wrote: "And yes, it does get a bit tiring to have conservatives constantly tell me I don’t answer their questions when the reality is that you simply don’t like the answers." - Indy

In the example above, you didn't answer. Q.E.D.

Indy: Here again, let’s start with this question that you’ve never answered: What is your educational background?

And when you grandstanded your ‘business background’, you can’t even describe it in ‘general terms’.

In any event, the offer still stands . . . if you disclose same, I can help you better.


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 6:19 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Talk is sometimes cheap. Action demands commitment, and a willingness to pay a price if necessary.

Indy: I asked this above . . . what other forums do you suggest we go to discuss and vet today’s problems?

We can see that not really happening at the political level as most politicians only recite things that are already ‘vetted’ to their bases as to not offend them.

And the media? They like the controversy . . . sells newspapers although it violates their own words about being a ‘community newspaper’ dedicated to helping its readers.

The Signal is a great local paper for local events and such yet prints Op-eds by political flamethrowers that lack any recognizable content expertise and just recite the same ‘focus group tested’ slogans that fits their party identification.

How’s that helping anyone?

But thanks for mentioning the homeless shelter. The Signal has reported that a year round shelter to help homeless residents would cost about $7 per resident per year.

Yet conservatives immediately get into their ‘anti-tax’ rants . . . even for seven bucks when the City would need to get the funds for same!


Staying focused in their ideology based worlds doesn’t help the homeless.

As far as those that donate their time, great. But if you’ve studied economics, that time is still ‘valuable’ as well as the $7 per year.

And interestingly, that $7 would ‘employ’ people to help the homeless! Isn’t job creation something everyone desires?

Now I realize that the $7 would no longer be able for residents to use on their ‘person’ but what about community spirit? When you see local residents living under bridges, is $7 per resident per year too hefty a tax lift? It looks like that way . . .

Finally, I still can’t forget one local councilman Keller who noted in the Signal that a year round shelter would ‘attract’ homeless to Santa Clarita? What, living on a cot then chased out in the AM until dark is something people are looking to take advantage of? Unbelievable.

In any event, if we actually had qualified people in our leadership roles, we wouldn’t be having this discussion . . .


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 14, 2014 7:36 p.m.

The person called "Indy" here, asks if there is another site where "today's problems" can be discussed.

There are many. Far too many. We need less talk, more action.

Am I the sole person who would enjoy a lot more of the following?:

A report on actual action taken by a "poster", and a report on the results it produced. Times one hundred.


tech: Posted: July 14, 2014 7:44 p.m.

Tech wrote: "And yes, it does get a bit tiring to have conservatives constantly tell me I don’t answer their questions when the reality is that you simply don’t like the answers." - Indy

Tech: In the example above, you didn't answer. Q.E.D.

Indy: Here again, let’s start with this question that you’ve never answered: What is your educational background?

Tech: You're remedial, Indy. That first sentence was all you. "Tech wrote:" is erroneous. Use that problem solving ability you boast about to fix your quoting methodology.

Your offers to educate me are risible and lack credibility. It amounts to infantile trolling. You criticize everyone for lack of expertise while consistently demonstrating incompetence yourself.

Additionally, the exchange above speaks to your lack of intellectual integrity.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 14, 2014 8:17 p.m.

Example is the only tool of influence that means anything. So here is my example.

This past Thursday, I was the sole Santa Clarita Valley person to attend the Day long public hearing of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The fact that many other folks cannot make such a time commitment is reality I fully understand. The following happened:

1. We in Santa Clarita are experiencing a mega hundred million dollar robbery in progress, as well as an attempt to appropriate our water supply.

The agent of the robbery, "our" Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District has been saying (and printing) an assertion that another public agency. (The Water Board I visited Thursday) had committed to issue huge fines against the SCV. When I asked the Water Board members if this were true, they denied it. I am getting a copy of the hearing recording, so this astounding revelation can be shared with those not there.

2. The Regional Water Quality Control Board usually meets in downtown Los Angeles, but frequently holds its hearings in the "suburbs". They have met in Simi twice and Glendale once in the last 12 months. They have not met in Santa Clarita in over 8 years, despite the intense controversy attributed to their actions by the Sanitation District.

At this meeting, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board accepted my invitation to hold a public hearing of their board in Santa Clarita, sometime between September and January.

There was far more that may await another "post report".


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:48 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: Indy Nile: "I’m here to debate your positions and beliefs"

And yet you never do, you only recite the talking points like the good little parrot you are. Indy want a cracker? What a loon!

Indy: Come on . . . man . . . you can do better than a ‘quick quip’, can’t you!

You’re a reciter . . . you buy into failed conservative ideology and can’t even explain nor understand why it doesn’t work . . . that’s just pathetic.

But same offer to you as Tech, I can help you here . . .


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:50 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: The person called "Indy" here, asks if there is another site where "today's problems" can be discussed.

There are many. Far too many. We need less talk, more action.

Am I the sole person who would enjoy a lot more of the following?:

A report on actual action taken by a "poster", and a report on the results it produced. Times one hundred.

Indy: I’m responding to the poster who is called ‘Allan_Cameron’.

When asked a simple question I get the standard ‘no reponse’ . . .

And the action this guy talks about?

How about the homeless shelter?


Indy: Posted: July 14, 2014 10:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: "And yes, it does get a bit tiring to have conservatives constantly tell me I don’t answer their questions when the reality is that you simply don’t like the answers." - Indy

Tech: In the example above, you didn't answer. Q.E.D.

Indy: Here again, let’s start with this question that you’ve never answered: What is your educational background?

Tech: You're remedial, Indy. That first sentence was all you. "Tech wrote:" is erroneous. Use that problem solving ability you boast about to fix your quoting methodology.

Indy: Again, you have to be ‘remedial’ to people that lack any simple grasp of basic economics, business, and management.

This is made worse since you can’t disclose your educational background . . . what is that you fear?

Stating what major you graduated in college with this or that degree does nothing to reveal your identity.

Tech wrote: Your offers to educate me are risible and lack credibility. It amounts to infantile trolling. You criticize everyone for lack of expertise while consistently demonstrating incompetence yourself.

Indy: Again, it’s just in response to your postings here . . . I can see you don’t understand most of the topics you comment on . . . you lack the ability to see context . . . you confuse facts with ideology . . . thus the need to help you . . .

Merely linking to articles that you can't even summarize was the key for me . . .

Tech wrote: Additionally, the exchange above speaks to your lack of intellectual integrity.

Indy: Spoken like a true ideologue . . . well done . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 14, 2014 11:30 p.m.

Indy: """But again, Christians don’t use the language and condescending rhetoric you do . . ."""

Is this coming from the same guy who diminishes anyone he deems unqualified to speak into economic, historical, scientific or political issues?

Please tell us Indy, what qualifies you to judge me as a Christian or any Christian for that matter?


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 12:05 a.m.

I'd posit that your opinion of the quality of my posts is one of a very small minority, Indy.

You're annoyed that I call out your errors and rebut you with data. If you don't wish to be exposed as a foolish ideologue, start critically thinking and improve the quality of your posts.

I summarize salient points and provide links to validate them. Nonsensical verbosity isn't a sign of intellect, Indy.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:33 a.m.

Hi "Indy". I apologize for not giving you exactly what you requested of me, which was some listing of other "sites" where more "typing" (excuse me, "discussion' and "vetting" of the "issues of the day") could occur.

Here goes:

1. FACEBOOK, "Santa Clarita Valley Letters to the Editor"

2. FACEBOOK, "Santa Clarita Valley Open Forum"

3. SCV Talk

4. SCV News, Channel 20

5. I Heart SCV

6. SCV MOMs Blog

7. SCV DADs Blog

8. The SCV (Formerly West Ranch) Beacon

There are at least eight more, just oriented to the Santa Clarita Valley, but I don't recall the names of all the rest right now. You are most welcome to research all the other opportunities.

I understand better now, the seductive nature of this time wasting addiction.

That is what it is. I arose this AM to get work done, and here I am.

Sorry world.

Anyway, "The Right Stuff" person mentioned a long term commitment to the homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles. That is a "sainted place", no question, and anyone who has helped get its work done has both bought credibility, and far more important, done real good for people in appalling need.

"Our" local SCV Shelter is open only a few months a year. The "need" does not keep quite that structured a calendar. I was honored to assist (in a secondary role) my late dear friend Roberta Gillis in getting it open.

How about movement, here, on that front. We need a year 'round shelter. Any takers? I will be honored to assist, but cannot lead the effort.

Of course, many other genuine "bleeding wounds", just in this community cry out for cauterization and healing. Take your pick, get moving, DO something.


therightstuff: Posted: July 15, 2014 11:22 a.m.

Allan, on what basis do you believe SCV needs a year round homeless shelter? Remember, we have five big shelters downtown: Union Rescue Mission, L.A Mission, Salvation Army, Midnight Mission, and Jordan Mission. They provide food, shelter, and long-term rehabilitation programs.

Meanwhile, there are many good works that are year round such as Help the Children in Valencia that need help NOW. They are set up like a grocery store where the poor can go in and actually 'shop' for food once a week. They also have clothes where poor families can get help.

I've invited Indy to join me in volunteering there but he refuses while insisting that my values are hurting millions of families. The more you deal with Indy, the more you will understand the seductive nature of this time wasting addiction.

For those who are serious about serving the poor, check them out at www.helpthechildren.org.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:28 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """But again, Christians don’t use the language and condescending rhetoric you do . . ."""

Is this coming from the same guy who diminishes anyone he deems unqualified to speak into economic, historical, scientific or political issues?

Indy: I want nothing more than solutions that come from people versed in the topic area not reciting mindless ‘innuendo and speculation’ from Fox et al.

You clearly don’t understand economics in context and repeatedly demonstrate that here.

And when anyone tries to help you . . . they get this type of response from you.

Therightstuff wrote: Please tell us Indy, what qualifies you to judge me as a Christian or any Christian for that matter?

Indy: I judge you by your words here . . . and manner you address people that disagree with you.

Others are free to judge you as well.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:33 p.m.

Tech wrote: I'd posit that your opinion of the quality of my posts is one of a very small minority, Indy.

Indy: Let’s see here . . .

“The poll, from the Public Religion Research Institute, shows just 7 percent of Americans are "consistent" libertarians, but that another 15 percent sympathize with its general principles.”

So most Americans disagree with you . . .

Tech wrote: You're annoyed that I call out your errors and rebut you with data. If you don't wish to be exposed as a foolish ideologue, start critically thinking and improve the quality of your posts.

Indy: I’m not annoyed . . . I don’t take you personally . . . I just address your ideology failings and the shortcomings of capitalism that you ignore.

The data you supply is often just recitals from libertarian think thanks that are vetted by any third parties.

Thus, I fill that role here . . .

Tech wrote: I summarize salient points and provide links to validate them. Nonsensical verbosity isn't a sign of intellect, Indy.

Indy: Wow, what a concept . . . debate in the public forum . . . who knew!!!

But again, simply disclosing your education background can better help me help you . . . what not take advantage of something that could demonstrably change your life?


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:43 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Hi "Indy". I apologize for not giving you exactly what you requested of me, which was some listing of other "sites" where more "typing" (excuse me, "discussion' and "vetting" of the "issues of the day") could occur.

Indy: Great list! I’ll have to check out those I haven’t seen before. Thanks for listing.

Allan_Cameron wrote: I understand better now, the seductive nature of this time wasting addiction. That is what it is. I arose this AM to get work done, and here I am.

Indy: And you think our congress or state legislature is doing anything more valuable?

Forums like this will have to be the substitute for the smaller town ‘stores’ where people used to congregate and discus civic affairs.

So this forum is only as good as the people attending it . . .

Anyway, most of the problems we face have been in play for decades with no real solutions offered . . . other than just reciting folklore . . . peppered for flavor with religion, ideology, and patriotism . . . none of which solve anything.

Allan_Cameron wrote: "Our" local SCV Shelter is open only a few months a year. The "need" does not keep quite that structured a calendar. I was honored to assist (in a secondary role) my late dear friend Roberta Gillis in getting it open.

Indy: Yes, I remember Roberta well . . . and thankfully our shelter is open at least part time . . .

Allan_Cameron wrote: How about movement, here, on that front. We need a year 'round shelter. Any takers? I will be honored to assist, but cannot lead the effort.

Indy: I would start with the city council . . . but why aren’t any council members willing to take this on?

That’s the real question and gets back to my comment above . . . our leaders have become little more than ‘poll takers’ of the ‘uninformed’ which they then use to chart our future?

Then they insult us with outdated slogans or biblical scripture that ignores the economic circumstances that place people into homelessness.

How does reciting the virtues of ‘hard work’ help somebody that can’t find a job when they don’t exist?

Does it take you or me to tell Keller that a year round shelter allows people to sleep safely, get mail, keep clean for job interviews, and get something to eat?

Who are these people????


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:46 p.m.

"…what not take advantage of something that could demonstrably change your life?" - Indy

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Why add to the decline in post IQ average every one of your repetitive screeds represents?


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:48 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I've invited Indy to join me in volunteering there but he refuses while insisting that my values are hurting millions of families. The more you deal with Indy, the more you will understand the seductive nature of this time wasting addiction.

Indy: Here again, the values and beliefs which you propagate here are hurting tens of millions of Americans in poverty or who are unemployed.

You charity work is great but it’s insufficient.

Your demonization of government of ‘we the people’ shows an utter contempt for the Founding Fathers that set up a government to ‘promote the general welfare’.

Likewise, raising the minimum wage would lift many of those people out of poverty and wouldn’t need charity.

You can use your efforts as you see fit but let’s be clear . . . you’re political views are harmful to many people that need intelligent economics answers versus recitals of biblical scripture that no longer map to the modern world.

That’s your greatest weakness and rather than try to learn things you simply response with rhetoric unfitting of a Christian . . .

We need people engaged at all levels of government and in the private sector.


Indy: Posted: July 15, 2014 3:50 p.m.

Tech wrote: "…what not take advantage of something that could demonstrably change your life?" - Indy

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Why add to the decline in post IQ average every one of your repetitive screeds represents?

Indy: Here, let me help you . . .

I got a degree in _____________.

My businesses were making/selling/managing ____________ and ____________.

It’s really that simple . . .


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 7:54 p.m.

"It’s really that simple . . . (sic)" - Indy

Care to demonstrate?

Number of failed businesses? __ 1 __ 2 __ 3 or more
I work in the "energy" field at __ Local Govt __ State Govt __ Federal Govt
My monthly union dues are $______
I process ____ forms per day.
My cubicle number is ______


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 15, 2014 10:35 p.m.

Hi "Right Stuff". A brief mention of homelessness, and the unmet needs of the part time Santa Clarita Shelter was included here (by me) because you mentioned your commendable work with downtown LA area shelters.

Actual work, actual deeds are solely needed here in Santa Clarita. Perhaps real accomplishments will have to be "purchased" with a reconfiguring of the time spent on the addiction to posting. (Hi, my name is Allan, and I have become a post addict.) What, no "12 step" posters group? Yet?

As mentioned, I played a secondary role in the opening of the part time SCV Shelter years ago. Even at that time, it was painfully obvious that a year round shelter was desperately needed.

One reason for this need was mentioned here by "right stuff". The five downtown LA Shelters are just that. Downtown. Many homeless people became that way as "homed" Santa Clarita Valley residents. To compound their dire straits with a clear message that they have become "alien unwanteds" in their own community, would be looked at askance by the guy who's birthday we celebrate on December 25.

The need is here, 45 to 50 miles north of downtown LA. Rather than start pages of exchange on this vital issue, please directly contact the fabulous people who run the shelter we now have. They will make the case more compellingly for you, than I.

"Right Stuff" cites another "worthy cause" that benefits the poor. It, of course, is only another example of all the unmet needs "festering" in our community.

A thought. Invest 50 percent of the time spent on posting, in "doing".

The benefits of this reordered time commitment would seem to outweigh any drawbacks. Except, perhaps, for a few days of "the shakes".


CaptGene: Posted: July 15, 2014 11:44 p.m.

This Comcast agent reminds me of Indy Nile:

https://soundcloud.com/ryan-block-10/comcastic-service


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 12:22 a.m.

Definite parallels, CG! The complete disconnect is eerily robotic.

That customer was too nice. I make retention agents resigned to their fate in 30 seconds. :-)


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 10:17 a.m.

I try to be extra nice to people working for slave wages.


tech: Posted: July 16, 2014 12:54 p.m.

Don't let your Marxist class warfare ideology override common sense, ricketzz.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/comcast-apologizes-unacceptable-customer-service-call-end/story?id=24567047


ricketzz: Posted: July 17, 2014 9:38 a.m.

This is what I mean. Using "Marxist" in front of "class warfare" makes the entire subject of income disparity unsuitable because America. Tech is an anarchist who wants to preserve the status quo, even if he has to lie and play stupid to do it.

Is there Comcast here now? I was not aware, I have DirecTV and Earthlink Cable. I will try my darndest to avoid doing business with fascists.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:55 a.m.

You didn't know the standard Marxist dialectic is all about class, ricketzz? You should be more familiar with the ideology you're flacking.


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:19 p.m.

Indy: Here, let me help you . . .I got a degree in _____________. My businesses were making/selling/managing ____________ and ____________.

It’s really that simple . . .


Loved your response to Indy, tech. The far-left fringe HATES it when their same expectations are turned on them. Notice how quickly he disappeared?

Let's apply Indy's tactic to more of his own jibberish:

TRS doesn't talk like a Christian because he wrote ______________

TRS shows utter contempt for our Founding Fathers because _____________

I refuse to meet with TRS to help feed the poor in my own community because _____________

Fox is factually inaccurate because they reported ________________

There Indy, I helped make it easy for you. It's really that simple . . .




therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 12:28 p.m.

Allan: """Rather than start pages of exchange on this vital issue, please directly contact the fabulous people who run the shelter we now have."""

We don't need pages of exchange. I respectfully asked why you think we need a year-round homeless shelter right here. Your answer was for me to contact the people doing it. I'm wondering if you can't provide a two or three sentence summary off the top of your head, maybe the need isn't as compelling as you're reporting.

Allan, if you think posting on these threads is a waste of time, then don't do it. But to suggest that this is the only thing other posters do when you have no idea what they do in a voluntary capacity for our community or how much they donate to charitable causes is an even greater waste of time.


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:47 p.m.

Poster wrote: We don't need pages of exchange. I respectfully asked why you think we need a year-round homeless shelter right here. Your answer was for me to contact the people doing it. I'm wondering if you can't provide a two or three sentence summary off the top of your head, maybe the need isn't as compelling as you're reporting.

Indy: Sadly, the poster has been informed countless times about the need for a full time homeless shelter.

Even at the common sense level, what type of Christian would support a policy to keep people living on the streets?

In any event, shelters provide:

- Safe place to sleep
- Place to get messages
- Place to get a meal and a shower

What I find interesting about the religious conservatives that dominate this site is their constant references to the biblical scriptures regarding the ‘virtues of work’ . . . . but yet deny homeless people the opportunity for same.

There’s no honor in that, is there?


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:49 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: As mentioned, I played a secondary role in the opening of the part time SCV Shelter years ago. Even at that time, it was painfully obvious that a year round shelter was desperately needed.

Indy: Why doesn’t our city council make the homeless shelter year round?

What are they waiting for?


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 4:59 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Loved your response to Indy, tech. The far-left fringe HATES it when their same expectations are turned on them. Notice how quickly he disappeared?

Indy: Off I go into the while blue yonder flying high into the sky . . . but I digress.

I find it interesting that religious conservatives see the world in the view of ‘hate’.

You disagree with them, they ask what do you hate us?

Personally, I don't hate people . . . I'm here to help them.

Anyway, the concept of 'hating' is the first problem, making the issues personal and ignoring the reality of same.

As far as what makes a good Christian:

- Is calling people names and using condescending rhetoric a Christian trait?

- Is using biblical scripture as a substitute for rational economics a good Christian approach? (think minimum wage, long term unemployment, food stamps to the poor)

- Is distorting our Constitution a Christian value?

Understandably, many religious conservatives donate some of their time to charitable causes and that’s a good thing.

But it’s not enough . . .

And many Americans use their time to help people other than in a religious charitable venue . . . but as we see here, we’re criticized if we don’t do some charity work yet seek the bigger picture economic solutions that make charity lessen.

I understand how hard it is for a religious conservative bathed in ideology to see the bigger picture but for ‘blaming’ those of us that do who want to help millions of Americans out of poverty, is that ‘blaming’ a Christian value as well?


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:38 p.m.

Indy: """Why doesn’t our city council make the homeless shelter year round? What are they waiting for?"""

Too many self-righteous hypocrites who talk about serving the poor but when offered the opportunity, they just default to personal attacks against those who are actually doing it.

There's no honor in that, is there?

Indy's hypocrisy exposed yet AGAIN. Geez...this guy is so easy.


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:49 p.m.

Indy: """As far as what makes a good Christian"""

Interesting, we're now going to be lectured by an avowed atheist about what makes a good Christian. Oh well...he's never been one to let hypocrisy or ignorance stop him before. So let's see:


- Is calling people names and using condescending rhetoric a Christian trait?

Jesus used terms such as "snakes" and "vipers" to describe the political and religious leaders of his day. I'd say I'm in good company. Indy, if you can't stand the heat...do us all a favor and get out of the kitchen.


- Is using biblical scripture as a substitute for rational economics a good Christian approach? (think minimum wage, long term unemployment, food stamps to the poor)

This lie has been debunked so many times but this poster persists in this deception to advance his far-left ideology like a good little Obama disciple. Conservatives want to take ***15 YEARS*** to transition food stamp usage to where it was in 2008. I say "Amen!"



- Is distorting our Constitution a Christian value?

Show me where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears in the Constitution? Who's the one doing the distortion? It's okay...we know.



therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 5:58 p.m.

oops...I forgot this gem:

"""And many Americans use their time to help people other than in a religious charitable venue . . . but as we see here, we’re criticized if we don’t do some charity work yet seek the bigger picture economic solutions that make charity lessen...is that ‘blaming’ a Christian value as well?"""

So you admit you don't do some charity work? Yeah...I thought so.

I don't blame you for that, Indy. I criticize you for your blatant hypocrisy of ***BLAMING*** anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow ideology as uncaring about the poor while you do ***NOTHING*** yourself to help the poor.

And yes, calling out other people's hypocrisy is absolutely a Christian trait. Jesus did it all the time to people like you. --edited.


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:41 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Why doesn’t our city council make the homeless shelter year round? What are they waiting for?"""

Too many self-righteous hypocrites who talk about serving the poor but when offered the opportunity, they just default to personal attacks against those who are actually doing it.

Indy: Gee, the Signal noted that a year round homeless shelter can be had for about $7 per resident per year . . . about a hamburger, fries and a coke . . . and religious conservatives start reciting their ‘anti-tax’ nonsense.

And of course, criticizing any religious conservative for their beliefs is seen as an ‘attack’ versus the reality of exposing the weakness of their positions.


Therightstuff wrote: There's no honor in that, is there?

Indy: There’s no honor in ignoring the economic reality facing tens of millions of Americans.

There’s no honor is denying people at the minimum wage inflationary adjustments to account for the ‘devaluing’ of our currency.

There’s no honor for conservatives to support bailing out huge financial firms while denying ‘hard working’ Americans long term employment insurance to keep them from going homeless . . .

There’s no honor is citing outdated biblical scripture that denies poor people food . . .

This guy ‘says’ he’s a Christian but his viewpoints and demeanor at this forum say otherwise . . .


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:54 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """As far as what makes a good Christian"""

Interesting, we're now going to be lectured by an avowed atheist about what makes a good Christian. Oh well...he's never been one to let hypocrisy or ignorance stop him before. So let's see:

Indy: Notice how the poster can’t answer the question and thus starts attacking the person asking the question and demeaning their beliefs or lack of same . . . is that how Christians communicate with others?

How simple would it be to simply say that Christians want to help people beyond simply reciting ideology . . .


Therightstuff wrote: - Is calling people names and using condescending rhetoric a Christian trait?

Jesus used terms such as "snakes" and "vipers" to describe the political and religious leaders of his day. I'd say I'm in good company. Indy, if you can't stand the heat...do us all a favor and get out of the kitchen.

Indy: Notice how the poster ‘loses’ sight of the intentions of Jesus . . . and stays focused on the ‘negatives’ versus advocating the positives . . .


Therightstuff wrote: - Is using biblical scripture as a substitute for rational economics a good Christian approach? (think minimum wage, long term unemployment, food stamps to the poor)

This lie has been debunked so many times but this poster persists in this deception to advance his far-left ideology like a good little Obama disciple. Conservatives want to take ***15 YEARS*** to transition food stamp usage to where it was in 2008. I say "Amen!"

Indy: Here again, the poster can’t even articulate why religious conservatives in congress don’t support things that address the shortcomings of capitalism.

And notice how he demeans Christianity by taking the term ‘disciple’ in vein?

This is the challenge facing this guy in that he refuses to understand the economics of the modern world and thus promotes positions that keep people in poverty . . .


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 7:56 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote:- Is distorting our Constitution a Christian value?

Show me where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears in the Constitution? Who's the one doing the distortion? It's okay...we know.

Indy: We all know the famous letter from one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, that having known the horrors of religious dominated governments wrote this letter to explain the 1st Amendment’s establish clause:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties”

Indy: I wonder what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote in the above “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”?

Why use the phrase ‘building a wall of separation between church and State’?


Indy: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:04 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """And many Americans use their time to help people other than in a religious charitable venue . . . but as we see here, we’re criticized if we don’t do some charity work yet seek the bigger picture economic solutions that make charity lessen...is that ‘blaming’ a Christian value as well?"""

So you admit you don't do some charity work? Yeah...I thought so.

Indy: It’s fascination but understandable that religious conservatives right in line with libertarian market fundamentalist seem to discredit any effort at the government level to help people.

Their assertion is one that if it doesn’t come from the church, it’s not going to come . . .

Why do suppose this guy fights against the minimum wage increase to get people out of poverty?

Why do suppose this guy fights long term unemployment insurance to prevent ‘hard working’ Americans through no fault of their own to lose their homes and become homeless?

What type of a Christian supports cutting government food assistance to the poor?

Therightstuff wrote: I don't blame you for that, Indy. I criticize you for your blatant hypocrisy of ***BLAMING*** anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow ideology as uncaring about the poor while you do ***NOTHING*** yourself to help the poor.

Indy: I can only add that you can’t see reality and thus stay focused on the narrow views you live your life by . . . and feel that those of us that support our Constitutional form of government are of little use to you . . . not being religious and all.

That again is your burden to carry . . .

Therightstuff wrote: And yes, calling out other people's hypocrisy is absolutely a Christian trait. Jesus did it all the time to people like you. --edited.

Indy: We’ll let the guest readers judge you . . .


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:53 p.m.

INDY: """"criticizing any religious conservative for their beliefs is seen as an ‘attack’ versus the reality of exposing the weakness of their positions."""

Jughead...you've accused me MANY TIMES of destroying the lives of millions of Americans because of my beliefs. I'd say that's a personal attack.



MORE INDY: """This guy ‘says’ he’s a Christian but his viewpoints and demeanor at this forum say otherwise . . ."""

So judges Indy the atheist, who is not only self-qualified to speak about Christianity but he himself serves as the pinnacle of respect and demeanor to all other posters. What a joke.


NO WAIT, MORE INDY: """How simple would it be to simply say that Christians want to help people beyond simply reciting ideology . . ."""

uuhhhh....that's what I've been saying for weeks. I've BEEN helping people, right here in the SCV and I keep inviting you to join me. Why are you so opposed to actually volunteering to help people in our own community? Talk is cheap and YOUR talk is worthless.


YIKES, HE'S STILL GOING: """Here again, the poster can’t even articulate why religious conservatives in congress don’t support things that address the shortcomings of capitalism"""

For the normal folks looking in, I highly recommend the new movie "America" which totally blows Democrat socialists out of the water with truth about capitalism. It makes people like Indy look even more foolish - though I must say he needs little help.


PARTING SHOT FROM INDY: """Why use the phrase ‘building a wall of separation between church and State’?"""

Dude, you accused me of distorting the Constitution and then you go off on some obscure letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. I think you're confused again.

Indy, you often remind us how the Founding Fathers were very careful not to include religion in the Constitution. They also left out the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" but you refuse to let that one go.

Hypocrisy exposed....yet again.

Next?


therightstuff: Posted: July 17, 2014 8:57 p.m.

Indy: """It’s fascination but understandable that religious conservatives right in line with libertarian market fundamentalist seem to discredit any effort at the government level to help people."""

Translation: You're right, I don't do any charitable work to help the poor. I'd rather demean others with my empty words and spend other people's tax money to help the poor.

Reason #2,911 why I would never be a Democrat.



Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 17, 2014 11:30 p.m.

We need a year around shelter for homeless people in Santa Clarita because the demonstrated need is overwhelming.

Among the homeless are hundreds of teenagers who cannot live with their parents because of drug, alcohol and sexual abuse in their homes.

Another large segment of the "homeless" are Veterans of our American Armed Services who are badly damaged in both body and soul. As I mentioned, the best way to confirm the need for a year around shelter is to simply speak with the great people who are on the front lines, doing God's work in caring for people abandoned by a majority of the rest of us.


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:33 a.m.

Your use of "dialectic" sort of misses the mark. When there is this much income disparity and top-heavy wealth distribution the entity collapses into revolution and terror unless the mass media keeps the people from knowing about how badly they are being screwed.

The Populists on the right and the Populists on the left are uniting; they have a common enemy big and bad enough to make them shed their petty differences. The enemy is Corporatism. Corporate welfare. Kleptocracy. Banksters. Rand Paul is still my guy for 2016.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 12:26 p.m.

Until you include government in the equation, you still don't understand how cronyism is fleecing the taxpayers, ricketzz.

The "class" we need to worry about is the political one and their rent-seeking fellow travelers.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:54 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: INDY: """"criticizing any religious conservative for their beliefs is seen as an ‘attack’ versus the reality of exposing the weakness of their positions."""

Jughead...you've accused me MANY TIMES of destroying the lives of millions of Americans because of my beliefs. I'd say that's a personal attack.

Indy: The conservative policies you support end up hurting tens of millions of Americans . . . those who can’t move out of poverty with a ‘inflation’ adjusted minimum wage, giving the same ‘hard working’ Americans long term unemployment to keep them from losing their houses and going homeless, and cutting food stamps to the poor.

That’s the statement of reality . . .

Therightstuff wrote: MORE INDY: """This guy ‘says’ he’s a Christian but his viewpoints and demeanor at this forum say otherwise . . ."""

So judges Indy the atheist, who is not only self-qualified to speak about Christianity but he himself serves as the pinnacle of respect and demeanor to all other posters. What a joke.

Indy: You’re actions here are not Christian at least from the ‘real’ Christians I have met.

They don’t use your highbrow condescending rhetoric nor do they call people names . . . and I’ve never heard them using ‘Jesus’ as a justification for doing so . . .


Therightstuff wrote: NO WAIT, MORE INDY: """How simple would it be to simply say that Christians want to help people beyond simply reciting ideology . . ."""

uuhhhh....that's what I've been saying for weeks. I've BEEN helping people, right here in the SCV and I keep inviting you to join me. Why are you so opposed to actually volunteering to help people in our own community? Talk is cheap and YOUR talk is worthless.

Indy: Yes, you have and I’ve noted that it’s commendable but it doesn’t reverse the damage you create with your political views or you lack of understanding basic economics.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 9:59 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: YIKES, HE'S STILL GOING: """Here again, the poster can’t even articulate why religious conservatives in congress don’t support things that address the shortcomings of capitalism"""

For the normal folks looking in, I highly recommend the new movie "America" which totally blows Democrat socialists out of the water with truth about capitalism. It makes people like Indy look even more foolish - though I must say he needs little help.

Indy: Hey, you’re free to promote your ideology here at any time . . . I’m just here contrasting it with the reality we see every day.

And you denigrate people that disagree with your beliefs with more condescending rhetoric as you’ve done again here . . .


Therightstuff wrote: PARTING SHOT FROM INDY: """Why use the phrase ‘building a wall of separation between church and State’?"""

Dude, you accused me of distorting the Constitution and then you go off on some obscure letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. I think you're confused again.

Indy: The letter is not obscure and your fellow religious conservatives cite it often.

I’ll just go with the ‘original intent’ as Jefferson went on to address in that letter:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties”

Then I wrote: I wonder what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote in the above “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”?

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, you often remind us how the Founding Fathers were very careful not to include religion in the Constitution. They also left out the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" but you refuse to let that one go. Hypocrisy exposed....yet again. Next?

Indy: If mainstream America wants to agree with your closely held religious conservatives beliefs, then you’re good to go!


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:03 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """It’s fascination but understandable that religious conservatives right in line with libertarian market fundamentalist seem to discredit any effort at the government level to help people."""

Translation: You're right, I don't do any charitable work to help the poor. I'd rather demean others with my empty words and spend other people's tax money to help the poor.

Indy: What you can’t grasp is that government is there to ‘provide for the general welfare’.

And while various religious institutions do some great work, it’s not enough.

Then of course your main motivation comes bubbling up about taxes . . . much of which you clearly don’t understand.

You and your brethren here can babble about socialism but the reality is that creating a government of ‘we the people’ is there to cushion the shortcomings of capitalism . . . with such basic things as recessions.

I can only suggest that you start reading some basic economic textbooks . . . you can get them online used for just a few dollars. This would help you understand why capitalism has shortcomings that you dismiss since you can’t recognize them.

Knowledge is strength.


Indy: Posted: July 18, 2014 10:09 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: We need a year around shelter for homeless people in Santa Clarita because the demonstrated need is overwhelming.

Among the homeless are hundreds of teenagers who cannot live with their parents because of drug, alcohol and sexual abuse in their homes.

Another large segment of the "homeless" are Veterans of our American Armed Services who are badly damaged in both body and soul. As I mentioned, the best way to confirm the need for a year around shelter is to simply speak with the great people who are on the front lines, doing God's work in caring for people abandoned by a majority of the rest of us.

Indy: Here’s a heads up . . .

Organizations are needed to help people.

We have one in the name of the local city council.

Religious conservatives sadly like to dismiss government and choose only to use religious organizations.

For me, sacrificing the work to create civic institutions like government to help citizens over religious beliefs is one reason that to me motivated the Founding Fathers to separate ‘church and state’.

And rather than letting a given local church, with a leader most likely untrained in basic management, budgeting, and organizing, we can use our own local government to administer the year round homeless shelter for what the Signal noted in an article of just $7 per year per resident.

Why is that such a hurdle?

And don’t say that the ‘rest of us’ have abandoned the homeless . . . other than if you mean the current city council members.


ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:24 a.m.

The only thing wrong with government is corruption. The corruption is not exclusive to government. Most of us are living a compromised life full of deferment to darker forces for the sake of "convenience". We pollute and we "rationalize" we are doing our best because we have a hybrid. We turn our backs on systems that perpetuate criminal lifestyles without ever digging down to the why. Government is corrupt because we are corrupt.

There is plenty for everyone. The distribution is shaky.


ricketzz: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:26 a.m.

Our entire system of finance is rent seeking. They produce nothing but friction and inefficiency.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:34 a.m.

Indy. I did not say "the rest of us have abandoned the homeless". I said "a majority of the rest of us".

There is a major difference between the two statements, one of which I did not make.

Earlier, I suggested that a concrete list of accomplishments, achieved by the "usual suspects" who post here would be a useful supplement to all the typing.

Other than a brief list from the "right stuff", the supplement lists I mentioned have, in effect, been supplied.


therightstuff: Posted: July 19, 2014 11:09 a.m.

Allan, the poster you questioned is notorious for misquoting other posters and then attacking them for positions that he makes up. In the same post in which he misquotes you, he also says, "Religious conservatives sadly like to dismiss government and choose only to use religious organizations."

Yet another untruth from this poster. Every religious conservative I know acknowledges that America is the most generous nation on earth and we're grateful for the safety net programs our government provides to the poor. We believe religious organizations and the federal government can complement one another's efforts but this poster insists that it must be either one or the other. Why does he believe this and why does he constantly misrepresent the view of other people....who knows? Some guys just love to fight, even if it means creating straw men arguments. Talk about a waste of time...


therightstuff: Posted: July 19, 2014 11:20 a.m.

Indy:"""You’re actions here are not Christian at least from the ‘real’ Christians I have met."""

It's laughable how if you disagree with the radical views of the far-left fringe, they insist you must not be a good Christian.

By 'real' Christian, do you mean the 'religious conservatives' as you call them, who believe in 'ancient texts that don't map to the modern world' or do you define 'real' Christians as those who agree more with your atheistic dogma?

As for calling people names, I apologize to all wh0res that I have compared to blind Obama loyalists and those in the mainstream media.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 1:24 p.m.

"The only thing wrong with government is corruption." - ricketzz

You still misunderstand the nature of government that is by necessity composed of humanity. Even a government free of corruption can nonetheless be oppressive.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

Soft despotism:

“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” –French historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

Milton Friedman & Phil Donahue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M


Indy: Posted: July 19, 2014 6:19 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Indy. I did not say "the rest of us have abandoned the homeless". I said "a majority of the rest of us".

There is a major difference between the two statements, one of which I did not make.

Indy: When our local city council made up of a few motivated people create a unsafe environment for the local residents who become homeless, they are discounting the majority of citizens for a service that many will sadly need.

And then with Keller spouting off about a year round shelter ‘attracting’ people to the area shows the depravity of that guy . . . thinking that anyone would move here to live on a cot . . .

In any event, you ignored my comments about your belief that religious organizations would provide the necessary social services to the community . . . even with their lack of good management and access to the entire public.

If you worked so hard to create the city here, why abandon the organizational structure of same in lieu of religious organizations to help the homeless?

What other civic safety net programs would turn over to religious groups?


Indy: Posted: July 19, 2014 6:28 p.m.

Poster wrote: Allan, the poster you questioned is notorious for misquoting other posters and then attacking them for positions that he makes up. In the same post in which he misquotes you, he also says, "Religious conservatives sadly like to dismiss government and choose only to use religious organizations."

Indy: Sadly, the poster makes even more unsubstantiated statements . . . similar to reciting conservative ideology talking points that have no basis is the modern world.

We can see this even here in the above statement where local religious conservatives ‘dismiss’ our city government to help with the year round homeless shelter.

Who would be put their ‘beliefs’ above the well-being of local residents that become homeless?

Poster wrote:Yet another untruth from this poster. Every religious conservative I know acknowledges that America is the most generous nation on earth and we're grateful for the safety net programs our government provides to the poor. We believe religious organizations and the federal government can complement one another's efforts but this poster insists that it must be either one or the other. Why does he believe this and why does he constantly misrepresent the view of other people....who knows? Some guys just love to fight, even if it means creating straw men arguments. Talk about a waste of time...

Indy: Here again, the poster displays his economic ignorance believing that the local charities can even remotely help the disadvantaged including the recent rejection of religious conservative dominated states that have denied the poor the Medicaid expansion.

Why type of people would do that?

And the poster sadly supports political positions that keep the minimum wage from being even adjusted for inflation, denies ‘hard working’ Americans that have lost their jobs to the financial malfeasance of financial firms that were helped substantially, and then cut funding for food stamps to the poor citing biblical scripture about ‘hard work’.

Religious conservatives like to dismiss their financial obligations to our society using their charitable activities simply ignore the consequences of their ideology based beliefs on society.

As I’ve noted before, this poster has to carry that burden every day of his life . . .


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 8:40 p.m.

"And then with Keller spouting off about a year round shelter ‘attracting’ people to the area shows the depravity of that guy . . . thinking that anyone would move here to live on a cot . . . - Indy

How do you know this isn't factual, Indy? What's your basis?

I had an office in downtown Santa Monica in the mid-'80s through early '90s. The city offered 2 squares a day to all comers without conditions. Downtown was soon overrun, causing public order issues, etc. I had to install locks on the bathroom doors to prevent bathing in the facilities. After a couple years of the city's well intentioned policy effects, a lot of businesses, including mine, relocated out of the city.

The city, belatedly, revised its policy and placed conditions on assistance because the former program did in fact attract users of "free" services.

For someone who professes economic expertise, you don't seem to understand the effect of incentives on behavior.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-01/news/we-15098_1_meal-program


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:45 p.m.

Hello Again Indy. Above you attribute a sentiment, and even a quotation to me that a review of these posts will confirm that I never made.

No where did I say anything about the role that religious organizations might or should play in the provision of critically needed services for homeless people.

I also made no comment about the precise role of the City of Santa Clarita in providing for homeless people.

As a City Founder, I also certainly did not express any opinion about private entities assuming a role in providing services to homeless folks to the exclusion of the City of Santa Clarita.

Perhaps I was confused with someone else.

"Tech" relates tales of abuse of homeless care programs.

"What can be abused, will abused"....."Murphy's Uncle Zeke".

To the list of things abused by humans, also add the Oil Depletion Allowance, California Proposition 13, "Public Private Partnerships" (called "welfare fraud", if the benefactor is poor), thermonuclear weapons, alcohol, tobacco, drug, and food abuse, and far, far more, all making a long and impressive list.

At the risk of "trollism" of this focused "megalogue", does anyone really assert that a homeless shelter in Santa Clarita Valley open year around is not needed? As mentioned, for the most accurate perspective on this question, the view of the great folks who operate our existing part time shelter would be of the greatest value.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: July 19, 2014 9:53 p.m.

Note: placing my contention for the record of "world's worst typist" out of reach for any and all other strivers, please note my butchering of the quote above from Murphy's Uncle Zeke.

The "Quote" above should read: "What can be abused, WILL be abused".

Stop me before I type again.


ricketzz: Posted: July 21, 2014 11:02 a.m.

Tech knows too much. He is confused. Jefferson said every generation needs its own constitution. He would probably projectile vomit if he saw we are still using the same one as in 1792.

Power absolutely corrupts. Power tripping and bullying are co-morbid phenomena. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.


tech: Posted: July 21, 2014 1:32 p.m.

“UNDER capitalism”, ran the old Soviet-era joke, “man exploits man. Under communism it is just the opposite.” In fact new research suggests that the Soviet system inspired not just sarcasm but cheating too: in East Germany, at least, communism appears to have inculcated moral laxity.

Lars Hornuf of the University of Munich and Dan Ariely, Ximena García-Rada and Heather Mann of Duke University ran an experiment last year to test Germans’ willingness to lie for personal gain. Some 250 Berliners were randomly selected to take part in a game where they could win up to €6 ($8).

The game was simple enough. Each participant was asked to throw a die 40 times and record each roll on a piece of paper. A higher overall tally earned a bigger payoff. Before each roll, players had to commit themselves to write down the number that was on either the top or the bottom side of the die. However, they did not have to tell anyone which side they had chosen, which made it easy to cheat by rolling the die first and then pretending that they had selected the side with the highest number. If they picked the top and then rolled a two, for example, they would have an incentive to claim—falsely—that they had chosen the bottom, which would be a five.

More: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21607830-more-people-are-exposed-socialism-worse-they-behave-lying-commies


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:27 p.m.

Tech wrote: "And then with Keller spouting off about a year round shelter ‘attracting’ people to the area shows the depravity of that guy . . . thinking that anyone would move here to live on a cot . . . - Indy

How do you know this isn't factual, Indy? What's your basis?

Indy: The Signal.

Tech wrote: For someone who professes economic expertise, you don't seem to understand the effect of incentives on behavior.

Indy: Why do you suppose wealth in concentrating in the US since the late 70s?

Does this mean people don’t want to work?

And why does the top 1% now own 40% of all wealth in the US?

And why do they now get about 20% of all income, up from just 8% in 1980?

I’m sure the behavioral folks here at this forum are dying to know . . .


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:33 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Hello Again Indy. Above you attribute a sentiment, and even a quotation to me that a review of these posts will confirm that I never made.

No where did I say anything about the role that religious organizations might or should play in the provision of critically needed services for homeless people.

Indy: Sorry, but the words you choose above say otherwise.

You wrote: As I mentioned, the best way to confirm the need for a year around shelter is to simply speak with the great people who are on the front lines, doing God's work in caring for people abandoned by a majority of the rest of us.

Allan_Cameron wrote: I also made no comment about the precise role of the City of Santa Clarita in providing for homeless people.

As a City Founder, I also certainly did not express any opinion about private entities assuming a role in providing services to homeless folks to the exclusion of the City of Santa Clarita.

Perhaps I was confused with someone else.

Indy: Then what is the current city council waiting for?

Would a $7 homeless shelter fee per resident be met with the ‘caring for people’ suggestion you noted or be rejected by the ‘anti-tax’ activist that assert government has no role in our lives?

Allan_Cameron wrote: "Tech" relates tales of abuse of homeless care programs.

"What can be abused, will abused"....."Murphy's Uncle Zeke".

Indy: I’m sure if abuse was the deciding factor, humanity wouldn’t even exist . . . since we since abuse in any human activity, public or private.

Allan_Cameron wrote: To the list of things abused by humans, also add the Oil Depletion Allowance, California Proposition 13, "Public Private Partnerships" (called "welfare fraud", if the benefactor is poor), thermonuclear weapons, alcohol, tobacco, drug, and food abuse, and far, far more, all making a long and impressive list.

Indy: I don’t see much as this as ‘abuse’ but rather just public ignorance of the consequences of their beliefs and values that don’t map to the reality we face.

Allan_Cameron wrote: At the risk of "trollism" of this focused "megalogue", does anyone really assert that a homeless shelter in Santa Clarita Valley open year around is not needed? As mentioned, for the most accurate perspective on this question, the view of the great folks who operate our existing part time shelter would be of the greatest value.

Indy: Yes, I believe they support an active shelter but need public assistance from the city.

Again, why is the city council not acting?


Indy: Posted: July 21, 2014 4:39 p.m.

Allan_Cameron wrote: Stop me before I type again.

Indy: I understand your concerns here since a lot of conservatives at this forum like to ‘digress’ and stop discussion of our issues and focus on typos, autocorrect, or criticize folks for prose that is not for this simple forum, but scholarly works.

I think people can explain themselves here and minor issues, and if seen in context with a care toward problem resolution, don’t waste time over small nonsense that simply gets away from accountability for results.

But lots of people sadly like the unending discourse that sadly is based on ‘innuendo and speculation’ by media outlets like Fox that use ‘focus group tested’ slogans to get people to vote in the manner they want them to . . . without any thinking.


ricketzz: Posted: July 25, 2014 10:58 a.m.

Our Founders were the original Revolutionary Liberals. They were the "terrorists" in 1775.

All one needs to know about the righteousness of a cause is to see who is funding it. Are they giving back or are they investing? "Hollywood" types, as strange as TMZ makes them look, are still way more akin to me and mine than the billionaire creeps that finance propaganda.



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 ...