Pardon me do you have any Righteous Indignation?

Good point at the end mccook1

I did a Yahoo seach on Obama Burger.

There were 43,400,000 hits.

Mike found ONE.

Good research, there, Mike!!

And I hate to tell you this Sceptre but these treasonous acts are being perpetrated by the Congresses in the states trying to get their slice of the attention pie. Obama's poll numbers are actually going up on a daily basis. But of course you wouldn't mention that because that would negate your point.

When you say it looks like people are getting tired ... you are talking about the people who already have all the money (the states individual houses) and they're mad because they are being told how to spend it. They can't waste it like they used to

"The pendulum will swing back hard here real soon. Spend baby spend!!!"

I have to take issue with this statement. I don't want to condemn another generation of children with our debt just so "our guy" can get back in the White House. I want the people in power now, to stop spending money without even having a discussion on how they will pay for these programs. If Obama would start showing some authentic responsibility with the taxpayers' money then I would be thrilled. However, all we're getting is lip service and propaganda with reports of $17 billion in cuts that still leave us with a $1.8 trillion deficit.

With the reckless spending that this administration wants everyone to say yes to, I have no problem with the "Party of No" label but I do believe Republicans need to stop saying no without any plans. They did that with the stimulus bill and they were defeated but at least they had a good alternative. Saying no is just the first step of many.

Mike,

You make some good points, especially about the turnaround on Colin Powell. But let's also remember that some people on the left treated Lieberman in much the same way. They wanted him out of the party and out of his committee chairs. Of course, I didn't see former vice-presidents acting this childishly, but nonetheless...

I had a lot that I wanted to put into this space...and as it appeared on the screen I kept thinking that it just might be a part of the problem and not closing the gap towards a solution. I realized that I'm tired of feeling goaded into a knee-jerk reaction; when what I really want is some solid information and perspective.

Obviously, Michael, you are disenfranchised with certain elements of our society; as are many, many other Americans; and many deservedly so. I'm hearing frustration from you about FOX News, Christians, and Republicans; and I realize that I'm not sure of where you really stand on issues and what your core beliefs may be... I've read a few of your blog posts and some of the responses to comments; and what I've taken from those interactions certainly couldn't make for an accurate and overall reflection of someone. So for the sake of not trying to tear into you, but to merely get a better picture of where you are coming from...here goes.

What do you stand for Michael?

What are your core beliefs?

What is acceptable and what is way out of the realm of reason?

Are you a Trekkie? (sorry, this question isn't relevant to anything; I'm just anticipating going to see the new Star Trek and it slipped out)

I appreciate your time and your answers.

Thanks.

"States have continually put forth bills in their legislature evoking the 10th amendment, it's a maneuver old as the 10th amendment itself. States use it to gather power where there are gaps in Federal law. Nothing more." - Guillermo Inglaterra

This is a very wrong view of where the federal government gets its power and why the 10th Amendment is there. The federal government would not exist if the states would not have given up some powers to the Federal Government.

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

I don't know how you can interpret this any other way. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Conservatives read the Constitution for what it says... while the Liberals read the Constitution for what it can say. This is one reason they like to run to the courts to create law... rather than respect the decisions of the people in areas they do not like. For example, Gay Marriage vs Gun Ownership. They are willing to take away our guns if we vote for it, but if we vote that Marriage should be between one man and one woman, we are wrong and it should be a court decision.

Mike,

A person's freedom of speech is limited when it violates the rights of another or causes them harm. A person owning several guns does not violate the constitutional right of anyone and it does not cause injury or harm to anyone. Why do you feel the need to tell people how many guns they should have? Many people who have what you call an "arsenal of guns" don't see it as an arsenal nor do they treat it as such. People enjoy shooting a variety of guns, some guns have sentimental value, different types of hunting demand different types of guns and for some, the reasoning is the same as why some people have several cars. Sometimes, people just enjoy having a variety of guns they enjoy shooting. Just because you may not understand why somebody collect guns or enjoys owning a variety of guns, doesn't mean you have to condemn them for it and limit their rights. Gun collectors don't harm people anymore than sword collectors. You can only fire one weapon at a time anyway and if you have destructive intentions it doesn't matter if you own 1 gun, 100 guns or a really sharp knife, the problem lies in the motive not the means. The majority of gun deaths in this country are the result of suicides. Limiting gun rights won't address this problem. The fact is that out of about 120 million gun owners we have about 30,000 deaths each year. That means that less than .025% of all gun owners are responsible for all gun related deaths. I have no problem with limiting access to guns to people who have been convicted of violent crimes or have a history of mental illness and I don't mind the background checks we need to enforce those laws. I do have a problem with limiting the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens because of a person's personal opinion on how many guns they should have and focusing on the .025% with complete disregard for the other 99.975%.

-I read most of my stats in a world almanac several years ago so the FBI may have new stats but they should still be very close to what they were a few years ago.

I haven't heard Obama speak up much about gay marriage except that he opposes gay marriage and supports civil unions. I can actually say I agree with him on this one. I believe they should have civil unions with all the equal rights of married couples. Marriage is a traditional and overwhelmingly religious institution and it provides a fair compromise to the people who have concerns over the institution of marriage and to the people who want to enjoy the same rights as those who are married. In my opinion, if such a compromise could be reached it would be selfish of both sides to refuse such a compromise because once that's resolved you're only left with semantics.

McCook1,

I agree with your perception of gun law. Though I would like to add a few things.

First, I think the founding father's intended the second amendment not primarily for hunting and protection, but for the people's ability to form a militia and fight for their own rights (against either foreign governments or our own). And it's unfortunate, but in this day and age that is no longer realistic. Regardless of whether we allow automatic guns or not, the people of this country could not stand against the force of it's military. (which I think is why so many of the founders were not happy about the idea of a large standing army).

Second... REGISTRATION. I don't see anything wrong with gun registration. I don't see any conflict with the second amendment there. People should be able to freely obtain and use firearms, but they should be registered (at either a state or federal level). It's the 21st century. We should be able to dig a bullet out of a victim and match it to the registered firearm that shot it. No gun crime should go unsolved with the sort of forensics technology we have in today's world.

Also, I would like to comment on your views on marriage.

"Marriage is a traditional and overwhelmingly religious institution"

If that is the case, the government should have nothing to do with it. Some religions allow gay marriages, others do not. If our government makes it illegal solely on the basis of religious doctrine, it is in violation of the first amendment, as the government has supported the rules of certain religions, and rejected the rules of others.

If marriage is an "overwhelmingly religious institution", let the government have NO say about it at all. In that case, EVERYONE should have access to legal civil unions, and each church can decide who they are going to 'marry'. So every couple (heterosexual or homosexual) is entitled to the same protection under the law (via civil unions) and the government doesn't recognize the legal authority or the purely religious institution.

So when a straight couple is married, they also have to file for a civil union. The civil union gives them their legal rights, and their religious 'marriage' can stay separate. Their church can decide who they marry, but not who they have a civil union with. And the government doesn't care who they are married to, only who they have a civil union with.

Look, no matter what I say about guns I am going to be treated on here as some nut who wants to take all guns away (that's not even remotely close to the truth of my beliefs). So I am not posting any longer on gun laws.

All I will say is that I don't understand the fascination with guns in the first place, but maybe that's my pacifist side speaking through me.

Marriage to Christians is a pact between the Man and Woman being married and God. That is the reason we are against Gay Marriage. God destroyed Sodom (root of the word sodomy) and Gamorah because of the same sexual acts that is being forced on us to be accepted.

As far as the government is concerned the only thing being married changes is a legal status which can be achieved through other actions like Power of Attorney or a Legal document containing informaion that states their partner can make decisions for their partner. Marriage is governed by the state and not the federal government so it would never have been in the Federal Constitution as Mike stated.

"the constitution is about giving and protecting rights, not taking them away"

Funny, you say you don't believe people should have the right to keep a collection of guns. Sounds like you want to take away a right for the people to keep and bear arms as there is no stipulation that you can only keep one arm.

"It is interesting that to Republicans the constitution and state's rights are only as important as their perceived morality"

Its interesting that you don't understand that the Constitution is actually a document that limits governmenal abilitys and to protect the rights of the individual.

"It is Marshall's interpretation of the constitution that has endured as the contemporary arrangement of US government and in my opinion it is his interpretation and the precedents he established that has made the US a major world power."

This statement proves my point that the Liberals read the Constitution for what it can say.

Over time, we have continually let the government encroach on our God given rights because we have become complacent.

McCook1, I wasn't insinuating anything about YOUR stance on gun control, simply agreeing with it (mostly) and expounding on it with some additional views.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing with me (looking at my post, I probably could have worded my position better).

Essentially, my point is that if marriage is a religious institution, government should not even bother with it.

For instance, many conservatives claim that gay marriage should not be allowed because their religion (Christianity) says so. However, other religions say that gay marriage is acceptable:

-United Church of Christ (Unitarian Universalists)

-Episcopal Church (leaves it up to individual bishops

-Atheists (not a religon, but the same protections apply)

-Buddhist

-Some Jewish Rabbis have performed the ceremony

-Some protestant religions are still debating the issue

A government ban on gay marriage based on the religious views of conservative Christians is violating the 1st amendment, as it is promoting one some religious views over others.

Now, Civil Unions CAN bring legal equality, but if the government's position is "civil unions for gays, marriages for straights", the question could still be asked "why the difference?" As long as the answer to that question is solely based on a religious view, it will be a violation of the first amendment.

Think of it this way:

(assuming you're not catholic)

What if the country was predominantly catholic, let's say 90%. And let us say (hypothetically), that the catholic church itself does not recognize non-catholic marriages.

How would you feel if the law of the US government (or your state government)was constructed allowed catholics to have "marriages", but you were only allowed to have a "civil union". Sure, your civil union would have the same legal standing, but would you be still not feel unequal?

(and by the way, this representation of catholic rules may not be too far off. My parents had to be married TWICE because the catholic church would not recognize their first marriage ceremony, which took place in a Presbyterian church. The catholic church does not officially recognize marriages between a catholic and non-catholic if it's not performed in a catholic church.)

jhat,

People want to maintain marriage as being between a man and a woman because that has been the tradition of marriage for generation after generation. Marriage was and still is most definitely a religious institution that government stuck its nose into and secularized it. However, the tradition and foundations that it was founded on have not been forgotten and that's why people have such concern with the term.

I went to a Catholic school for a few years and that was plenty for me so I don't consider myself catholic. I wouldn't care what my government calls it because the importance of my union (regardless of its title) would be between me, my wife and my God not me, my wife, and my government. As long as I have the same rights as everyone else then I could care less what the government calls it. I would still have the same rights as anyone else and I'd have the support of my church. Therefore, if I felt inferior to somebody because of a difference in wording then I would be just as foolish as someone who thinks that wording makes them superior. I see the terms "marriage" and "civil union" no different than the terms "straight" and "gay" respectively. Neither one means one is superior or inferior to the other.

I have little concern over what government does with marriage but I look at both sides and the genuine hate that it's generating on both sides the longer this goes on and I would like to see concessions on both sides so that we can be productive and start bridging the gap that these two sides have driven between each other. I know there are people on both sides that are so filled with hate that they will never let it go but I think most of the people are willing to come together if the other side will just consider and address their concerns.

Mike, I don't understand some people's fascination with guns and their collections...AKA arsenals. I understand cars and motorcycles. I know more people with those collections thans I do guns. The gun people I do know are just like car nuts.

Different strokes for different folks. They don't understand why I have so many cars and why I spend money on them. I don't understand why someone would buy so many guns.

I really think GI's comment about how conservatives think guns=good, gays=bad. That's just stupid, but then again, consider the source. Oh I know some educated idiots personlly too, always using big words...etc.

GI ASSumes he knows everything and everybody, and if we don't think like him and the rest of the flock at CNN and MSNBC than we are just a bunch of nothings.

It's funny how these libs keep pounding us about our intolerances to other views, I guess they're traching us pretty hard and the places we get our news. What is really funny is how these libs on this blog are some of the most close minded of all of us. These people are livid that we're not just falling in line since we lost an electrion.

I've got news for you close minded Jr. Dictators, we're not going to fall in line. We have a country to preserve. We want people to get their a$$es to work and be proud of what they do for this country, not sit around and collect wealth redistribution checks.

You guys are just a mirror image of what you get on here and call us. You watch your news hacks in the morning and then go out into the world piss all over capitalism and this country. Good for you.

You still haven't figured out why Fox news is #1, Rush is #1, O'Reilly is #1, Hannity is a close #2. Where is CNN? #13?

And I love how all liberals interpret the 1st amendment. Thta is always good for laughs. I think its interesting how the actually constitution says that government can not ESTABLISH a national religion. Yet here come the libs to tell us that government forbids religion in all public areas. I don't get the connection. Government can set a national religion that we are forced to join and obey.

Liberals say we can't practice our beliefs where we want. That sounds like 2 completly different things to me, and it is. I guess these liberal athiests want us to live just like them...Godless. When hows that for tolerance. I thought they were the tolerant, easy going party!

I read a speech from a Columbine victim's father. His daughter was murdered. He gave this speech to congress. He basically said that we have taken God comepletly out of school (because of the misinterpretation of libs) and we have replaced it with violence and murder.

He's exactly right. Most of those kids that day were praying to God and they were shot for their beliefs. I guess in some ways you libs will never get prayer out of our schools.

Mike...

"The Constitution is a living breathing document. It is meant to be intrepreted and you do believe that proudconservative on most things except the 2nd and 10th Amendments. On freedom of speech you have certainly expressed on here (not in direct terms but things you have stated) that it should be limited."

While I don't agree with what you say, you have the right to say it. I have never stated in any form that the freedom of speech should be limited. You may think I believe that, but you cannot be any further from the truth.

"You believe this to be christian nation so you obviously do not believe in that part of the 1st Amendment that stops the government from founding a national religion."

Again you are so wrong. The government cannot start or force a religion on any person. However it does not mean that a person has to keep their religion to themselves. They can display it in any way. They can even pray for you. You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't mean that we still can't do it.

"Don't get on your pedastal shouting that Liberals misread the Constitution when you yourself only think it should be "rigig" in two areas but profess that it all should be rigid."

Rigig??? Come on Mike, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that I am unintellictual? That must mean that you are a pseudo-intellictual esoterrorist.

You have gone back and forth in serveral areas and that is because you are not rooted in your key values.

I beleive in these basic values and everything that I have said.

1. Limited Government - I believe I can control my life better than the government can.

2. Strong Defense - We need to defend our sovernty.

3. A Closed Border, but allow through those that do it legally

4. Low taxation - those services that everyone benifits from yes, bailouts NO, welfare increased because you have a kid, NO.

5. Free Markets - get the government out of the way. Are there people that have abused this yes, and they should pay for it.

Now that you know where I stand, you can not try and put words in my mouth. I have tried to keep my comments vague and not attack anyone, however you came out with both fists swinging and hitting nothing.

Sceptre,

And since you didn't respond to my original point (that the constitution HAS to be interpreted). Let me provide a different example.

We all love freedom of speech. We are all exercising that right at this very moment, in an online forum. But is our speech here protected?

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

I suppose if you wanted to read that literally, we sure don't. We are not speaking, and we are not members of the press. Of course, the Supreme court has INTERPRETED speech to mean expression over any medium (speech, television, Internet, art, etc.). Now, did the founding fathers INTEND for there to be free speech on the Internet? We'll never know, because the concept of a global communications network linking every citizen would have been completely alien to them. We interpret their words to apply to our time.

Additionally, we all enjoy our right to privacy. The government is not (legally) able to spy on us indiscriminately. It can't tap our phones or put surveillance on our homes without just cause. But the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the constitution. The right to privacy is implied through the Supreme Court's interpretation. The founders could never have imagined the myriad of ways the government could intrude on our privacy; tapping phones, taking Internet records, recording our homes.

This is what I don't get about the people who claim the constitution shouldn't be interpreted. It has to be interpreted and modified to remain prescient in an ever-changing world.

No factual history is that while few complained the Republican Party continued to vote for Bush and his policies and wasn't until the Democratic Party got organized in 2006 that the Republican machine was defeated. Revisionist history doesn't stand up to factual history steffanie.

That fact is there was not a single protest by a single Republican during the Bush Administration about the spending. Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.

I had a feeling you'd show back up since the spelling police is out in force steffanie. Quick to correct others on their spelling but offering little in the way of truth or truth as you see it.

Obama has only said he will fight to have the photos released. They have been court ordered to be released.

Mike,

"That fact is there was not a single protest by a single Republican"

That might be stretching it a bit. While I am not aware of any organized protests from Republicans, there certainly were individual republicans who became disgusted with both President Bush and the GOP, who decided to leave the party.

Of course, I agree that it's ridiculous that were no large organized protests of Bush's spending spree, but now that a democrat is in office we can't stop hearing about these damn tea parties and the evils of spending.

Sceptre,

People seem to be forgetting, the initial bailout (TARP) was Bush's baby, not Obama's. Additionally, his prescription drug program is estimated to cost about $1 Trillion this decade. Add this to his spending on the war in Iraq, and these things rack up quite a bill. The national debt increased by almost $5 trillion dollars during his presidency. Add this to Reagan-Bush I presidencies (increase of about $3.5 Trillion), and the last three 'conservative' presidents have racked up quite a bit of the debt during their tenure.

Yes, Obama is spending lots of money. And it's unfortunate that it's necessary. By most standard views of economics, spending is the way to reverse a recession. Herbert Hoover cut spending to balance the budget during his presidency, and I'm pretty sure that didn't have the economic outcome he was looking for. It wasn't until FDR initiated MASSIVE spending on both the New Deal and the war that America's economy got the cash injection it needed to restart. The stimulus bill that Obama pushed through was a response to the failing economy. Most economists remain divided about whether it will work or not. Hopefully it does.

"Technically the right to bear "arms" should cover any instrument of offense or defense. "

Indeed it should. But could you honestly say that civilians should have access to such things? I don't know if I could make that claim.

This goes to my point about interpreting the constitution in the context of the times. The men who wrote the document certainly didn't have F-18's or Abrahm's tanks in mind when they penned the second amendment. It is up to the current generation to interpret where that line should be drawn.

Mike,

I'm not revising anything. I'm just conveying my personal experience and following the timeline of what happened. I had never even heard of any of these tea parties until Santelli came along. That was the work of CNBC not Fox. I don't dispute that Fox's coverage helped to promote the parties. I'm simply saying they didn't originate and begin their expansion because of Fox. Fox got in on it because they have a largely conservative audience so of course they covered the tea parties more than other news agencies like MSNBC for example. I'm not sure if you're aware of it but the news agencies in this country cater to their audience to attract viewers and increase ratings. MSNBC was singing the praises of Obama during the election because of their largely liberal audience.

Of course, they wouldn't have gained the traction they did if it wasn't covered by the media. That's a fair statement. Fox covered the tea parties a lot more than other stations. That's just the gap between the conservative station and the liberal stations. The conservative news company covers conservative events more than liberal news companies and vice versa. That's no shocker.

You also have to recognize the large numbers of people who showed up to these protests. I'd say about 75% of the people I talked to said this was their first protest and the others attended their first protest earlier in Omaha. That made it clear to me that these people weren't out there to just oppose Obama because he's on the other side. If they wanted to do that they could have protested Clinton but they didn't.

I think my strongest argument against the politicians being behind the tea parties can be summed up in two words... listening tour.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't argue too hard though because if Democrats think these people who showed up are just a minority driven by Fox News and partisan politicians then they won't be prepared as this large group of people continues to grow and they go to the polls. They'll be more concerned with discrediting them by calling them teabaggers and labeling their motives as disingenuous. The best way to lift up a cause is to put it down.

McCook...

"Anyone who reads the Constitution and has an opinion on it has already interpreted it."

That is the definition of a constitutional scholar!

Sceptre thanks for making my point for me but just illustrating it. What you said was exactly what I said, the reason you didn't protest is because it wasn't THAT bad. You are making excuses and digging yourself in deeper.

Actually teachers do have background checks. Make sure you know your facts before making a baseless charge like that.

I thought right to bear arms meant we could wear tank tops whenever we wanted.

Really Guillermo? Can you spell sarcastic you indignant dope.

Sceptre, isn't is great how liberals treat people that don't agree with all their views. We conservatives have our views and like to discuss them but the vengence and hate spewing out of the mouths of these loonie liberal hacks is amazing.

I still con't figure out why this kind of behavior is accepted.

The things that transpired with Miss California because of some degenerate piece of crap like Perez Hilton is just amazing. We must be the only country in the world that holds degenerate pieces of crap so high in reguard. That's one sad side affect to the freedom we enjoy...of course if you believe in conserative values while in a spot light you basically have no freedom.

I guess true freedom of expression these days is only if you are a sick liberal finatic like Mr. Hilton.

Sceptre,

Trump didn't dump Hilton for a very simple reason. He's good for business. I don't have a single doubt in my mind that Trump approached this like he does everything... business first. Perez Hilton generates news and controversy and that brings more attention to the pageant and if there's more attention to the pageant then more people are likely to invest in it. You don't have to like him to help out Trump, you just have to talk about him.

I also doubt that it escaped his mind that the gay community, liberals and the MSM all wanted Miss California fired. The problem is that if he did that then everybody would be happy and the story goes away. So he kept her, a director quit because of it and so the story goes on. Trump isn't a stupid guy, he knows how to manipulate people.

I think its funny that you think Trump has any morals at all.

I think its also very interesting that you think it's good that Trump didn't fire Prejean but horrible that Hilton was fired, when all he has really done is asked her a question and then called her a bitch a few days later (where's the fireable offense).

You are a strange duck who criticizes those who have different beliefs than you and you also think everything should just let you say what you want to say with no recourse. Odd duck indeed

G.I.,

I'm sure you're right that there would be some upset conservatives but I don't think the level of hate would have reached this level. I mean, she's Miss California. People expect a lot of gay marriage support from California. The problem with Prejean and Prop 8 is that people didn't expect that opinion to come out of California and that's what really got people fired up. It'd be like Nebraska banning hunting and fishing and then Miss Nebraska goes out and supports a ban on hunting and fishing. There are certain things people just don't expect and that fuels the storm of hate which came from the liberal side this time.

I don't know if you can say she wanted this attention since she didn't get to pick her question. I'll bet the other contestants are thanking God for the fact that they didn't get that question.

bigdawg,

The way I remember it that is what's in the 2nd amendment regarding the part about a well regulated militia.

By the way for all those people who say we are being illegally taxed and our 10th Amendment rights are being infringed upon (may the teabaggers forgot about it, or more than likely they didn't care) let me point out another amendment for you.

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Passed by Congress: July 2, 1909

RATIFIED by the United States: April 8, 1913

It seems it is absolutely Constitutional to tax us. So in the 10th Amendment where it specifically states that powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution it appears that the 16th Amendment specifically does delegate the power to tax to the FEDERAL government.

G.I.,

I used the word "stereotypically" to fully acknowledge the fact that there is a stereotype associated with California that would play a hand in peoples' response to what they expect from California. I'm not adopting that stereotype, I'm merely pointing it out as an explanation of why I believe there would be more outrage from gay marriage supporters than traditional marriage supporters based on a stereotypical expectation. If I thought this belief that many people have about California was actually true then I would have never called it a stereotype. In fact, I know people who are from California and they say that depending on where you live it is like two different worlds politically.

I believe that it is surprising to a lot of gay marriage supporters because they still believe that Prop 8 was a fluke that people didn't know what they were voting for, Mormons tricked everybody, take your pick but they are still in denial about what the people in their state chose to do and this doesn't help them cope with their denial but it would certainly cause more outrage from them. It's amazing that when people vote for something that the people on other side say, "they just didn't know what they were voting on" or they were tricked, of course. We went through that with term limits on the Nebraska legislature and I'll bet it won't be long before they try to repeal it based on that same old recycled argument.

Still patiently waiting to get a smidgen of insight into Mr. Hendricks confessed beliefs and values. All I'm hearing right now is posturing and pandering.

Truly, Michael - there must be more.

GI - careful about bandying about your acronyms. My brother is an Iowan - and I would venture to say that his scholarly pedigree would leave you with wet shoes. You present yourself as an intellectual - perhaps you should focus some of that intellect on self-examination afore ye level judgement on others.

As for confusing language in an amendment that actually confuse people, it does happen. I don't know if that is what happened with Prop 8 because I didn't read the bill. In Arkansas, however an amendment was passed into law and people were told it was to keep lesbian and homosexual couples from adopting, but if you actually read the language it stated no unmarried couple cohabiting could adopt. In the state of Arkansas it is not only legal to adopt if you are either married or in a relationship and not living together.

In other words, my girlfriend and I live together. We can not adopt in the state of Arkansas. So essentially the voters of Arkansas have taken out 2/3 of potential foster parents and now foster homes are going to fill to the brim.

I actually looked at the stocks that I recommended on this board. The gain is actually 65%. My gain is 25% thus far this year. But I have 30% of my portfolio in Muni bonds.

To refresh I was pushing DXO when it was below $2.00 it is now $3.50. I was pushing CDE when it was below $0.80 it is now $1.45. I was getting bullish NG when it was $3.5 it is now over $4.00.

Still think oil is going to $87 by the end of the year. Been long Soybeans and Copper and Silver for a few months. I see the $USD index dropping to 78 by the end of the year.

I see Treasuries tending higher as the govt is going to have to buy our debt as foreign buyers will pass. This highly sloping yield curve will be great for banks as the fed will keep short term rates low and back end rates will climb.

I see lower fed fund rates (below 3%) for at least 2 years then they will tend higher for at least a decade. The inflation trade is the place to be and you will have a couple of years to establish said trade.

I have sold most of my Timber land and am not sure if I am going to get back in that business. I see housing suffering for at least 3 years after unemployment peaks. I think that will occur in Q1 2010. Therefore, the housing market will not rebound again until 2013. They real trick to that is higher borrowing costs will greet buyers. The current administration wants to eliminate the interest deduction for home buyers so that might hurt in the future. Hard to predict but I am on the sidelines for now. The trade will be to pick out the best homebuilders left and start accumulating a position in 2011 - 2012.

I am looking at buying resort property over the next 2 years. Several big Casino's in las Vegas will be bankrupt over the next 3 months (potentially). Most resorts built condo's and/or golf courses over the last 3 years which they cannot sell. Therefore, some of these business' may sell at 50% discounts. You have to have cash to buy, so the old players will be priced out as they have accumulated to much debt and private equity has depleted reserves due to losses, etc.

The trade and business' to be in are Oil and Gas and Agricultural commodities. Stocks to be in are metals.

The Fed's will pass a windfall profits on oil(which will cause prices to rise) and they will not allow drilling expenses to be deducted (which will cause prices to rise even more). I am sure that American companies will be targeted as the "enemy" which will make the stocks a better buy as most people will shun them because of "implied" risks. Remember - Bull markets take as few people with it as possible. The stocks are XOM, COP, CVX. I also like USO, UNG, GLBL, RIG, OIH, WTI,DNR. But all oil stocks should do well.

Remember guys the government needs more money now than ever. It is your duty to earn more so you can pay more. If you are being paid with public money it is your implied duty to earn money on the side to pay for our government.

"Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Our country needs money so get off your lazy butts, turn off your computer's and start making extra money!

Michael - It was a request. My latest post was merely the second request. You stated you would honor it; and five days later you haven't addressed what you said you would in the first place. In the meantime, you've had lengthy discourse with others. What this tells me is that A)you don't care to elucidate for the rest of us what your core beliefs are; B)you don't know what your core beliefs are; C)or you could be a procrastinator. Either way, I was trying to politely remind you of your promise. Your snarky response will have to suffice as a tell of your persona and your comment will ring as an indicator of who you are; and I'll just have to start painting my own picture, which is what I wanted to avoid.

Tell you what. I'll start with myself - I can name my core beliefs and values immediately and succinctly.

1. We and our world and all we know were created by the great I Am; who IS God; who IS the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; all of which were graciously given by God.

3. I believe in protecting the innocent.

4. I believe in holding people responsible and accountable for both their words and their actions.

5. I believe that the government has its place; and that its place is in the background of our lives not at the forefront. In essence, I believe in limited government.

6. I believe that my hard earned money is mine; and I can determine on my own, thank you very much, when and where to spend it.

7. I believe in freedom. I am eternally grateful to those who have interposed themselves between the forces of evil and our freedom, in order to preserve this nations freedom. And I despise all those who seek to destroy it.

8. I believe that the individual is the most vulnerable of minorities and that all reasonable efforts should be made to preserve individuality.

9. I believe in telling it like it is. A bad idea or policy is a bad idea or policy regardless of who thought it up or who brought it up.

10. I believe in rooting for the underdog.

11. I believe the National Anthem should be sung or played so that it gives the listener a chill.

12. I believe in equal opportunities for all, and that rewards should be commensurate with effort.

13. I believe in giving generously in church, to worthwhile charities and to persons less fortunate than I.

14. I believe in the free markets and in capitalism. And I believe that the government needs to stay out of both.

15. I believe that we should respect our elders; men should open doors for ladies; we should pray often; television is garbage; abortion is murder; and our government should stay out of our healthcare.

That covers quite a bit. More may emerge over a dialogue, but for the most part it would be linked somehow to the basic tenets above.

With Respect;

Mickel

Mike- I posted my market picks a month ago. If you do not read the posts that is your problem.

I am trying to help America. We all need to make more money to help the govt. Go back to my posts in Mid April. I have laid out the roadmap. If you will stop preaching and start listening you may learn something.

We all need to help our country. Our country is going to go bankrupt unless we increase tax revenue. The only way we can do that is make more money. If our country's debt is in default nothing else will matter.

Are any of you people going to help?

Michael,

With all due respect your last comment sounds like it came from a third grader.

Moody's is considering lowering the $USD from AAA. Can you comprehend what will become of the US dollar and our ability to sell debt if that happens?

Was Orange County, California a company when it declared bankruptcy in 1994? No. They could not service their debt and went into default. Iceland is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why? Because they can't sell more debt to service existing debt.

The US has about $8 trillion worth of debt. We pay over $500 Billion a year in interest. We are going to run a $1.6 Trillion deficit this year. That means we are going to have to sell that much debt this year. Who is going to buy that debt? We hope China and India and Brazil. But if they don't who will? The federal reserve will. How are they going to pull that off??? By printing more money and "growing their balance sheet". Then the dollar gets downgraded and the whole fiat currency unravels.

Countries go bankrupt all the time. As a history teacher you should know that. Get you head out and think.

You juveniles need to stop debating core beliefs. The Democrats won now we need to save the country.

The US is going to be in default if we do not increase tax revenue.

Mike as a school teacher you work 9 months and probably pay $4,000 a year in taxes. Are you going to get a summer job to do your part to help President Obama increase revenue? Or are you going to sit at the house and watch TV?

Actions speak louder than words. We as a country need all Americans to make more money so we can pay more taxes. The lazy era is over. This is our great depression and only hard work and sacrifice can save us. Are you going to do as the President asks?????

You wrote a column entitled "YES WE DID" Well I ask you:

Yes you did??????

Probably you won't and that is sad.

So Socialism is the reason people are starving in India, not that they have the second most populated country on the planet (and soon to be number 1)? Glad you clued us all into that one.

Now for those of us who actually pay attention to what's going on in the world, the real reason that people are starving in India (which has already been said, but needs to be said again) is because there simply isn't enough food to feed everyone in the country. They have reached their carrying capacity (in other words that point in which a country can no longer feed it's population). It really has nothing to do with whether a country is socialist or democratic.

Mickel,

I happen to agree with you on this. I think Nancy Pelosi did know what was going on and now she has been caught and is lying about it. I think ultimately it would be better for her to resign as Speaker of the House.

G.I., ignore Sceptre, he/she is just like G5 (a little too like if you ask me). He/She expects you to provide all the facts while listing none of his/her own (and I'm sorry G5, I mean Sceptre, listing what you believe does not make it fact). Sceptre also gets very angry when you don't answer a question he/she never asked.

You know what Sceptre I don't need to make claims of one country being better than another to make me feel better and allow me to sleep at night. In the end it just doesn't make that much of a difference. If your opinion is that America is the greatest country in the world, I'm not going to disagree with you. I'm also not going to be forced to agree with you either.

So go ahead and keep flaming. You are a pro at it.

And I love that you want to try to convince everyone that you are using the forum for its intended purposes. You don't. You come on here every so often and trash everyone who doesn't agree with them and then DEMAND that they provide facts to what they say, all the while you issue your beliefs and thoughts as fact and refuse to back them up.

See, once again Sceptre, you are guilty of trashing other people on this site and you make an attempt to turn it on other people.

And show me where in any of my comments I have "bad-mouthed" America.

I love this country even with its faults. The difference between you and I is that I admit that our country has faults and I want to work to fix those faults. You on the other hand either try to sweep the faults under the carpet and ignore it or blame an entire group of people not from this country for the faults.

By bad mouthing those individuals who give up everything to come over here looking for a better life you are bad mouthing what made this country so great to begin with. After all, everyone in this country that is not descended from a Native American had family that foreign to this land at one point.

So you don't consider telling someone that they have cotempt for you for cherishing individual freedom, clean living, and the Bible, trashing? You know nothing of their personal beliefs.

Divisiveness is NOT an integral part of forums. Disareements and discussion are. Just coming on here to cause deeper rooms is just an act of a flamer.

And by the way what do you define as clean living?

"Why would you take things from context and attack me?"

I'm sorry. It was my fault to think that perpetual attacker on this thread had already put on his big boy pants and was ready for someone to call him on his remarks.

The statements that you made about European countries are not true. They are your opinion.

"billjb, are you saying that, if people's loyalties do NOT reside in America that they do belong here? Please clarify."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I think that making such an inane and black/white argument is disrespectful to the nature of this post.

Of course people who reside in this country should show loyalties to the US, but what does that entail? Taking a blood oath? Buying only US made products? Mandatory voting?

Who gets to decide who's loyal to our country and who isn't? Is the natural born 16 year old son of undocumented immigrants who works to jobs to help support his family more loyal than the homeless Vietnam vet? What happens to the people we don't see as loyal? Are they shipped out of the country or shot on sight and labeled as traitors?

The issues discussed on this thread are not simple two-way arguments and should be handled more delicately than you're doing Sceptre. By painting this country and its issues with a broad stroke, you are not giving its citizens (politicians included) much respect for the decisions they have to make on a daily basis.

"Evidently you believe that the southern border should be wide open."

If that's the inference you're picking up from my statement, I fear my argument may be lost on you (which is too bad, I thought my statement was fairly humorous).

Oh hell I misspelled a word. Let me fix it before the head of the spelling police steffanie gets a chance to correct me. In the first line that should have been calling for Obama's head not calling or Obama's head.

I no more believe you were once a liberal than I believe I once conservative.

You don't even know the facets of being a liberal. Everytime you pretend to know what being a liberal is you throw out a bunch of lies that extremist conservatives believe to be the truth.

But that's the life of a liar, throw out a bunch of pseudo facts and hope no one notices.

Pretty much everything you say, sceptre, about anyone who isn't white is hate speech. Nazis, are proud of you, though.

So McCook, GI points out one person ego-centrism, so you HAVE to come back and attack an entire politcal party because of a few idiots? Couldn't it have just been as easy to point out that it happens on both sides, that there's always going to people on both sides claiming that is "MY AMERICA"?