We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The reality is that the "West" has finally reached the point of saturation wherein its economies and societies can no longer afford to guarantee a certain standard of living for the citizens of these countries in exchange for votes.
These nations have two factors in common: 1) they are all either confirmed to be or determined (as in the case of the United States) to become socialist democracies; and 2) they have evolved into overwhelmingly consumption-based societies, greatly diminishing their goods-producing sector (which generates the real wealth of a nation), thus eroding their job-creation ability as well as the nation's wealth and tax base. Yet the governments of all these countries continue to deficit spend, over-tax (chasing wealth and job-creation off-shore) and borrow in an effort to meet the expectations of the people.
The trick in this business is not to be right too early. A week ago I released my new book — the usual doom 'n' gloom stuff — and, just as the sensible prudent moderate chaps were about to dismiss it as hysterical and alarmist, Standard & Poor's went and downgraded the United States from its AAA rating for the first time in history.
... liberalism today lies in ruins, not only because it has indulged the cultural bilge that has given the looters their baseless sense of entitlement... but because it has failed, in its sanctimoniousness, to understand the necessary role illiberalism – guidelines, example, authority, boundaries – plays in the governing of society. It should never have happened that parents, teachers, and the police themselves, go in terror of the young, or in terror of the consequence of reining in their wildness. For the young's sake it should never have happened, never mind for ours. But the consequence is they are disinherited and we live in fear. In a society that is afraid to punish because it is afraid to judge, that does not understand the outrage of being offended against, that cannot feel the egregiousness of a crime, and that no longer even gestures at justice, it's no wonder there are people wildly calling for the return of capital punishment.
If the grownups don't provide the guardrails, who will?
Paul came in second, by a nose, to Bachmann. And he didn't purchase 6,000 tickets (of which 1/3 were unused), he didn't pay for country stars to appear at his tent. He didn't pay people to vote for him. But he barely lost, and that's probably a good thing since the Straw Poll is generally not good for the winner.
But for some reason.......Ron Paul remains a non-entity in the race. He's got money. He's got support. His support is growing (unlike many other candidates). He's still in the race (unlike the third place finisher who spent a fortune on the straw poll). His last campaign finished with a surplus, so he knows how to manage his money.
I'll tell you what I think it is - is isn't Dr. Paul himself - it's his brown shirt style free drug libertarian gold standard zombies that causes the problem.
I've been in a room with supporters of various Republican candidates including Paul supporters. I'll tell you this - comparatively they are the most obnoxious, ill mannered bunch of hooligans I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Disagree with one and you're immediately beset by three or four "advocates" who pester, berate and belittle - its ridiculous. They have no qualms about shouting people down or disrupting candidate statements or just generally being a pain in the ass.
That's my opinion anyway - and we all know what opinions are like. :>)
PS: I will say this - by comparison, you're a breath of fresh air as a Paul supporter. :>)
It's early in the race. I'm not worried too much about who will win. There are several candidates I could vote for, though none would have my full support.
Paul may wind up being sidelined (yet again), or he may come out ahead.
Or he (like so many others such as Bachmann has on occasion) may go loony tunes. Stress does weird things to people.
So the odds are 2/3 that he's not going to be the guy. But these same odds work for every candidate.
Perry, the more I see of him, the more he scares me. Particularly when he starts stealing parts of the Ron Paul campaign in remarkably cynical fashion.
I'm not interested in Ron Paul - he's been bringing home the bacon in Congress while preaching libertarianism for too long.
Gary Johnson is my guy and he is so ignored, they won't let him into the debates, despite being a 2-term Governor. Instead they have a radio host and failed PA Senator up their talking nonsense.
The concept that "bringing home the bacon" is antithetical to his views is, well, wrong.
To start - if the money is taken from me in taxes, I'd like it back somehow. This is the starting point of RP's position with regard to how the political process works. I agree. If I have $20,000 in taxes taken, I'd like as much of that returned to me (or my district) as possible. That is a perfectly Libertarian outlook on the coercive effects of taxation.
Ron would prefer as little was taken as possible, thus limiting the coercive effects of taxation. The logic of this is unassailable - if you're going to take it, he's going to try to get it back, but he'd prefer it was not taken at all.
Secondly, in his position, he is unable to make his views law, as he is one man swimming against a current of increasing Federal powers. So what role should a Libertarian play in this? Should he follow a strict adherence to principle or do what his supporters ask him to do and perform his duty as their representative in a manner as close to his principles as he can?
This, unfortunately, is the conundrum faced by many politicians and what is REMARKABLE about Ron Paul is the limited manner in which he has performed his role. Unlike many others who have corrupted themselves, or sought to increase powers of the Federal government or themselves, Ron Paul has consistently voted AGAINST those kinds of things.
Sure, he brings home what bits of the bacon he can. I don't hold that against him. If he didn't, he wouldn't be doing his job. But at least he does it in a fashion which is as consistent with his philosophy as can reasonably be expected.
I, too, like Gary Johnson. I agree, he HAS been ignored. But he's also invisible. He's done little to promote his own image, has been incapable of generating any traction. AND.....
In the April 20, 2009 edition of The American Conservative Magazine, Bill Kauffman told readers to "keep an eye out" for a Johnson presidential campaign in 2012, reporting that Johnson had told him that "he was keeping his options open for 2012" and that "he may take a shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 as an antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-personal liberties, slash-government-spending candidate — in other words, a Ron Paul libertarian".
Why have a "Ron Paul libertarian" when you can have Ron Paul?
But I certainly would like Gary, too.
Also, he endorsed RP in 2008. My guess is he's keeping a low profile because he expected RP to either implode by now, or not get any traction. Given RP's growing numbers, Johnson would have a hard time making a case for himself against RP.....considering he's one of RP's biggest supporters.
While Chapman makes some good points - basically, when things are going well, the president looks like he knows what he's doing - I thought it was curious that he mentioned Obummercare as a success. If you call ramming through unpopular legislation that was partly for the reason for his party's drubbing in the mid-term elections a success... Well, my definition is a little different. In fact, I would argue that some of the reason he's in trouble (on the right) is because of the foolish legislation he's signed, and (on the left) because he didn't do a lot of things he said he was going to do such as close Gitmo or end the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
He would certainly be in much better shape if the economy was doing better, but then I would argue that the economy is doing poorly at least partly due to his policies.
I take it Nicholas Gerbis has never watched Mythbusters.
They did a pretty extensive examination of this "myth" - there is nothing you can do to avoid being crushed in some fashion resulting in your death. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end - at like 150 G's. :>)
It is well understood and has been documented by several medical research projects that many women strain their lower back while making the bed. I myself, once bent over to tuck in a bottom sheet and could not stand up. Many of you know about lower back problems. HOWEVER, the problem is not whether you bend over to snap on a fitted sheet, or whether you bend over to tuck a flat sheet. Either way you are still bending over and lifting the corner of the mattress. What the hotel industry, the bed manufacturing industry and the medical experts understand is this: it is not about the style of sheet--it is about the height of the mattress from the floor. In other words it is about the angle you have to bend the back in order to perform the function. Almost ALL beds are manufactured to a standard height. This is the height you will find in the vast majority of hotel rooms. HOWEVER, if those beds had two small changes made there would be no bad lower backs from bed making. The first change and this is the critical piece is that the standard height of mattresses needs to come up about 4-6 inches. The second equally important thing is something that you would not think about unless you were examining this "design problem". That is this: the beds which are built on platforms--not the standard metal bed frame with legs and wheels--the platform beds have a recessed toe kick area (like where your toes fit under the kitchen sink). This recess (toe kick area) allows the women to keep their foot straighter. What happens with the metal frame beds is that after stubbing your toe, or bruising your shins on the metal frame a couple of times, the gals start standing with their feet twisted away from the bed this combined with the improper mattress height is what causes back injuries while making the bed!
"What Obama Can Learn From Truman" left out a few things. Prominently, "The buck stops here" not on your predecessor and/or opponents or disasters in other countries.
And have some policies which you promote, not leaving everything to Congress - or claiming for over two years that you have a policy which is so great it will fix everything but which you never show to anyone. Oh yes, I just love the author saying that PotUS O has listened to and compromised too much with his opponents without mentioning that what little of either has been done has come only after the 2010 election results.
One thing the author has correct is that the Republican Party should not indulge in complacency.
Gee whiz ... I didn't realize that men could get as nasty-jealous as women, but Christ Matthews achieves it. He says that Rick Perry looks like a clown. He must be wearing his 'ugly glasses'. Perry has always been quite startlingly good looking. When Perry was younger, my husband said, "he's too pretty to work." But instead he turned out to be both practical and smart, and topped it off with an ability to work hard. Now that Perry is weathered a bit, he's easier to deal with, and our state likes him well enough to elect him to a third term.
Chris Matthews, on the other hand, is a silly jealous twit with no redeeming qualities, like brains.
I was amazed that Chris Matthews rode Clinton so hard back in the '90s - knowing he was a lefty. I respected him for that - if not his interrogation style, but he has just gone off the deep end, along with the rest of MSNBC. It's the correct network for real clowns like Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Dylan Ratigan, Lawrence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, and Keith Obermann (how did he get away?).
How to Survive 
Tracked: Aug 16, 07:34