The End of Times?

"You have to remember that at the beginning of this nation, disputes were typically resolved through duels."

I have to disagree with your characterization, duels were on the whole quite rare and illegal. Although duels did occur, I would counter that disputes were typically resolved through discussion or mediation by separate parties.

That said, you raise a good point about the level of discourse, perhaps you will reflect on your past comments. Those about the hateful rhetoric on the right that leads people to have blood on thier hands will serve as only one example.

On the first part of your blog, I haven't heard any more doomsayers than usual, do you have any examples of them coming out of the woodwork or is this hyperbole?

When I was a child of six or seven I would go to the neighbor lady's with my mother on Saturday night. We would set on the front porch swing with me in the middle.. One time one of them mentioned that someone had predicted the end of the world. I was very frightened but my mother assured me that it was just some nut-case that didn't know what he was talking about. I remember being scared stiff anyway for the next few days, until it didn't happen. This was a great lesson for me, and I didn't even know it at the time. Doomsdayers, we have all seen them come and go without merit.

You'll change your tune on December 22, 2012 Keda ;)

"That said, you raise a good point about the level of discourse, perhaps you will reflect on your past comments."

Are you?

This world cannot 'end' for at least another thousand years minimum,and way beyond, but I do somewhat agree with you about one thing, Mike, I do wish that those folk that come out of the woodwork would stat in the woodwork, and quit interfering with my Chicken Little Act. (^8

If I may, I would like to play-ask you a question: You are driving down the street, enjoying some of the best of your favorite music, and someone in another vehicle, beside you, or behind you, honks, honks, and signals you to pull over. In these days, that is 'iffy' at best if someone will do that. You do, however, and they guy gets out, comes toward your car, pointing at your car, or the ground, .... lets you know you have a tire, so low that in no time you will be shelling out another hundred bucks for a new one, he thinks. He doesn't know you just spent four hundred, per, for the lowest of the low, profile tires. Do you put the dummy down for not recognizing the tire is not low, but a low profile? Or, do you thank him, and explain it is a new type of tire, that just looks low?

Part B: you drive on the same type tires I do, Normal sized, and your tire is actually somewhat low, but not near flat. Again, do you get irritated, or thank the person??

My point is that we may well (probably, almost for sure) ending the 'Age of Grace' and about to go into the Tribulation (the Bible Prophecy hasn't missed or erred yet). Would you rather those who study God's word, try to let you know that the world is in trouble, or just keep quiet, so un-saved folk won't know, and find out they will be spending eternity, where they would not like to be?? Some may tune us out, but we are commanded to try to wake people up, so we must do as Jesus tells us to do, not as un-believers want us not to do.

Sorry, I got windier than I planned. But, my question stands. What would you rather, silence or blather??

Mike,

I don't remember SW saying anything as charged as stating someone has blood on their hands. And even if he did.....I am sorry that you find yourself repugnant. you just used one set of supposed bad behaviors to justify your own.

There have always been doomsdayers. There have been numerous groups that claimed to know exactly when the end times were a comin'.

I visited with a fellow in 1972 who was headed to the Colorado Rockies to ride out the end times because the Bible said to head for the mountains, in the end times.

I am worried about the US and world economy, not because the end is near. Nations come and go, over time, without it spelling the end for all their citizens. Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, blizzards, and famine all kill people in large numbers, but they do not campare to the numbers killed in wars.

The usual pattern after the economy crashes like the worldwid depression during the 1930s, is for large scale wars to occur. When people have been well off, and then become impoverished, you have the seeds of revolutions and wars.

The US might be able to blunder along another 2 to 5 years, borrowing and printing money like mad; to cover the deficits at the national level, to cover the deficits at the states and major cities. People will eventually come to realize the dollar is depreciating rapidly, and no longer see it as a store of value. I am already there, but when this lack of confidence becomes widespread, look out!

History of some currencies gone bad,including our money in the US, several times: http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/

No.

I enjoyed reading your blog mike.

SWNebr Transplant: I'm hoping that was a joke on your part, if so you got me. At first I said to myself, what the hell is Dec. 22, 2012. Then a short search with Google later, I find out about the Mayan long count calendar. Just to put the story straight though, it's Dec 21, 2012 if you want to believe in such things. It's like believing everything Nostradamus predicted, or following Marshall Applewhite.

Mike,

I am having trouble finding all the doomsayers coming out of the woodwork. Could you post a link? The second half of your blog is a "no kidding" part, right?

I just realized why mike wrote this blog. His daddy wrote an article about the Japan disaster.

Keda,

Indeed it was a small attempt at humor on my part. I am aware the calendar ends on Dec. 21, the reason I said the 22 was just another layer to my joke, as in on the day after the end of the world you would feel silly for not believing. I was kinda going for a end of the world/rapture vibe, but I guess it didn't work. But yes, I was kidding, I don't place stock in those types of predictions.

Ochosinco,

Oh, I enjoy Mike Sr.'s articles too. I don't always agree with him, but he is usally pretty straightforward. He allows for differing opinions. To be honest, the only time I remember him looking like a fool I have a strong suspicion that someone in his family led him astray.

I need to set the record straight since there is apparently still a huge amount of confusion around here. There is no Mike Sr and/or Mike Jr. There is a Mike Hendricks and Michael Hendricks. The former writes an article for the McCook Daily Gazette that happens to appear on the website. He does not have a blog. He also does not respond to any comments on the website version of his article, so to make the assertion that he allows for differing opinions without first hand knowledge seems to be making it up or jumping to conclusions (for the record he does, as do I). The latter writes a blog on the McCook Gazette website.

As for the doomsdayers, there was an article printed in the the Weekend edition of the McCook Daily Gazette that highlights my point.

Sw that's a shame that you don't reflect on your past comments. I do, on a daily basis. That point was proven when I retracted my language, but since that interferes with your constant bashing it's understandable that you are either ignoring it or missed it.

It is funny, though, that posters are already complaining that I am going to take some of my blogs down to hide what they are saying after publicly demanding that I take my blog down to hide what I was saying.

Eh, what are you gonna do?

SWNebr Transplant

That was good humor, now I can laugh about it. Sorry my soft nervous tissue called a brain was to thick to get it, jokes on me.

Mike,

Oh, I figured you were talking about more than an article in a SW NE newspaper.

And as to the rest of it? You are laughable.

Continue to point out your hypocrisy.

"There is no Mike Sr and/or Mike Jr."

No relation huh? Then that is one freaky coincidence. I thought people were just using that as shorthand to differentiate the two.

Thanks for pointing that out Michael, I will attempt to remember to refer to you as Michael not Mike so as to avoid any confusion. I suppose I could just call you Mr. Pot and that would avoid confusion don't you think?

Michael,

I can't find the article that you cited as evidence of doomsday termites, could you plese tell me the title or better yet link it in your response.

I found several links about earthquakes, tsunamni, and the end of the world.

"However, if the evidence does come in and this was not a political assassination the four above mentioned, in my mind, are not absolved of anything. I fully believe that words and actions have reperussions and when you have a website that has ONLY Democrats gun-sight targeted, something will eventually happen."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 6:07 PM

Two weeks later we get: "As I said, and pretty clearly, I feel absolutely comfortable making the charges that I made against the four personalities, you feel absolutely comfortable comparing Sarah Palin not wanting to be in the spotlight to the victims in Arizona not wanting to be shot.

Has there been evidence to this point? Some, but it's only speculative on anyone's part, (much as it was speculative to insist that the assassin was a leftist because of one person on twitter as you did) because it is still an ongoing police investigation. So giving me weekly updates when the investigation isn't even complete is just weird."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 31, 2011, at 4:55 PMo weeks later:

Yet another two weeks later we have one of the non-apology apologies that you claim to hate, but still continue with your rhetoric that you have been reflecting on for a month now:

"This was not the case. I offended some with my statement and for that I apologize, but I do stand by my original statement that those four in particular have been and are guilty of using extremely vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric." Posted Friday, January 14, 2011, at 4:58 PM

Finally, after almost a month of reflection you give us this gem:

"The Arizona assassin was labeled, early, a leftist by those who took offense to the idea that he may have been lead to his crime by eliminationist rhetoric from the right. As the weeks and months pass it appears that everyone that did any labeling, whether calling his actions a result of the rhetoric of the right (which I was very much guilty of) or simply calling him a leftist because of what some of his supposed former "friends" posted on Twitter, were wrong."

This admission that you were wrong is not a retraction of the language. You haven't "repudiated" your claim that conservative speakers will be guilty of other's crimes, in fact you clearly said a couple of times that even if Loughner wasn't influenced by conservative media it wouldn't change your opinion. You have admitted he wasn't inflenced by the media but by your own words, you still hold them responsible. you haven't apologized or said that they are not responsible so you haven't retracted anything.

I apologized for offending people, SW. I'm sorry that you seem to think that this a non-apology apology. A non-apology apology is stating that you are sorry if .... It's that big IF word that makes an apology a non-apology. You aren't actually apologizing for you remarks you are apologizing because it may have offended someone. I recognized that what I said offended people and thus I apologized for those remarks,specifically the "blood on their hands" remark.

The second part of my statement is not part of the apology. I fully believe that those particular people are guilty of using extremely vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric. I no longer believe they have blood on their hands. But what they say does influence people.

If you can read that last comment you posted of mine and come away believing that I still hold the political right responsible for Laughner's actions then I believe you simply are not reading the comments. The last time I checked stating that the people who blamed either the left or the right for Laughner's actions as being wrong is pretty loud and clear on it's meaning.

What I find most telling is that you apparently are going to stand by your statement that you do not and will not reflect on your words on this website. You request that I do, but you will not do the same. Apparently you find it perfectly acceptable to question people's intelligence because they won't see it your way, you find it perfectly acceptable to call people names because they won't see things your way. Yet another clear example of you expecting how everyone else behaves but clearly showing you will not act the same way.

I was looking for your non-apology blog, but can't find it. As I remember, coincidentally it is missing, the thrust was that a non-apology was when someone apologized that some people were offended but were not sorry about what they said. Which fits this case perfectly. Unfortunately I couldn't find that blog to use your words against you again. Maybe others remember that blog as well.

"I recognized that what I said offended people and thus I apologized for those remarks,specifically the "blood on their hands" remark."

I spent a while going over your posts and never saw this before, can you tell me where it is?

"If you can read that last comment you posted of mine and come away believing that I still hold the political right responsible for Laughner's actions then I believe you simply are not reading the comments. The last time I checked stating that the people who blamed either the left or the right for Laughner's actions as being wrong is pretty loud and clear on it's meaning."

This would be clear meaning if you hadn't previously said: "However, if the evidence does come in and this was not a political assassination the four above mentioned, in my mind, are not absolved of anything."

That is pretty loud and clear to me. Which am I supposed to believe? Since it took you a month to reflect and then offered what I consider a half hearted apology, I'm forced to believe your earlier statement. You have said nothing that I've found to counter the above statement. you have said that people who looked to place blame are apparently incorrect in fact, you haven't indicated that your act of blaming others was ethically wrong. Of course, I could now point out that you have shown your ethics to be somewhat compromised anyway so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

"What I find most telling is that you apparently are going to stand by your statement that you do not and will not reflect on your words on this website."

Yep, I'm constant, if you point out me using hateful rhetoric I may reconsider, but I don't think I make the same types of statements that you have a history of doing.

I have already pointed out your hateful rhetoric SW. Every time you call someone that you don't agree with a name or question their intelligence you are using hateful rhetoric.

"I spent a while going over your posts and never saw this before, can you tell me where it is?"

Further proof that you do not actually read what is written and make up what you think is written. You posted my apology, no you claim you can't find it. Your spin cycle is in high gear today.

Ah, very good, please cite in your apology that I posted where you: "apologized for those remarks,specifically the "blood on their hands" remark." Because when I re-read it I see no mention of blood on anyone's hands. Could just be me not reading again eh?

"I have already pointed out your hateful rhetoric SW. Every time you call someone that you don't agree with a name or question their intelligence you are using hateful rhetoric"

In this case I do reflect on my comments about your intelligence and everytime you confirm my beliefs. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with not having a great intellect, so I don't consider this "hateful rhetoric" rather a reflection of my view of reality. Can you point out anyone else whose intelligence I've questioned or other people I've called names as you put it? If not please stop accusing me of applying a specific case involving you to "everyone" or "anyone"

In 2007, on the campaign trail candidate Obama said the president does not have the consitutional power to unilateraly attack another nation, and as president he would never do so. I guess he changed his mind about that.

He said he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess he changed his mind about that.

He said unemployment would go over 8% "if we do not pass the stimulus bill", and that it would stay under that if it was passed.

He said all bills would be posted on the internet in order for all Americans to read them before a vote was taken on them. I guess he changed his mind about that.

He said he would have the most open and transparent presidency ever. I guess he changed his mind about that.

His liberal friends are really getting upset with him these days.

Personally, I never believed him in the first place, and I feel justified in that.

Boomer,

I believe he would make the argument that he was referring to unilateral action by the United States, not unilateral action by the President within the United States. He would probably say that acting with Britain and France in multilateral so his opposition wouldn't apply.

The other "mind changes" I can't defend.

Oh dear me Boomer, you mean to tell me that a politician made promises in a campaign that he did not keep? That's never happened before? The world IS coming to an end. I mean if Obama is breaking campaign promises, what's next?

"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with not having a great intellect, so I don't consider this "hateful rhetoric" rather a reflection of my view of reality."

Ah, I see, so in your "reality" you could make the claim that calling black people a derogatory name but saying that it is a reflection of your view of reality would not count as hateful rhetoric.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Calling people's intellect into question simply because they don't agree with you is hateful. You can bend it and spin it as much as you like, but once again you are practicing something which you profess to not stand for.

I would also be more willing to accept that you believe there is nothing wrong with a lack of intelligence if you didn't call intelligence into question every time someone disagreed with your beliefs. For me, the reason I see for you continually calling into question the intelligence of people is because you don't have a solid argument and by belittling people, making fun of people, and calling people names it somehow makes your point stronger. I could be wrong, it is just my opinion. For all I know you could just be attempting to bully people into believing the way you do.

No I wouldn't say at this point you aren't reading it, you just refuse to accept it. I'm sorry that in your mind you can't accept an apology because you have to see certain words before you consider it real. I have made my apology for what I said. that apology is still out there, I'm sorry you won't accept it.

Brings to mind the chant, "When Clinton lied, nobody died." I think it's a safe assumption that people are dying in Libya today.

I understand that the winds of politics are forever changing. A guy can mean what he said before taking office, and find out the correct answer is different later. Those things happen, and I full well understand that.

I don't understand what we are doing in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. What are our vital national interests we serve by being there militarily? We are just way to eager to get into armed conflicts, and I say that as an independent.

Republicans got us into two of them. A Democrat took us to Viet Nam and now Libya. If you don't understand that there is no real difference between the two major parties, then I think you are conveniently ignoring a lot of things.

Dear Michael, you act as if I am surprised about lies during a campaign. I think I indicated otherwise. And I don't think the end of the world is at hand, at all. I merely think our currency is at a very high risk, and that bad times (not apocalyptic) are on the way as a result. I hope to be proven wrong on both accounts.

I am not lying, and I approve of this message.

Mike,

I really think you should get some help with this self loathing issue you apparently have.

"Oh dear me Boomer, you mean to tell me that a politician made promises in a campaign that he did not keep? That's never happened before? The world IS coming to an end. I mean if Obama is breaking campaign promises, what's next?"

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 4:51 PM

You are using the bad behavior of other politicians to mitigate what is a justified critisism of President Obama. Don't you find that repugnant? I coulda swore I saw you post that....Mebbe you are confusing the post with the one apologizing for some hateful rhetoric with the one about you finding the behavior which you just engaged in repugnant.

bigdawg,

What search paramaters did you use? I am interesting to read those articles.

wow transplant, thats alot of posting for someone who feels this blog is a waste of time. Cant you go to a soup kitchen or something and spend your time more wisely?

This is a blog on a small town newspaper and yet alot of you feel compelled to breakdown every sentence in mikes every blog to get the goods on him.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/george-will/will-...

http://thomas.loc.gov/

hope that adresses some of your issues boomer.

"Ah, I see, so in your "reality" you could make the claim that calling black people a derogatory name but saying that it is a reflection of your view of reality would not count as hateful rhetoric"

DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!! Mike is the first to try to play a race card, Bob, tell him what he's won.

Actually your analogy is faulty. Noting your lack of intelligence would more appropriately be compared to me noting that President Obama is black. There is nothing inherently wrong with either being unitelligent or black, I certainly hope you aren't trying to make that claim. However, I do apologize for anytime that I've called you stupid, idiot, moron, or some other term that would be derogatory, if I have done so. I will not apologize for noting that I think you are less intelligent than you seem to. Again, it's just calling a spade a spade. Also, I would hope that my reality is the same as every other sane person's.

"Calling people's intellect into question simply because they don't agree with you is hateful"

I don't question your intelligence because I don't agree with you, I do so because you have shown to me over time that you come up a bit short. I disagree with all sorts of people on the blog, please show me where I've questioned someone else's intelligence.

"I would also be more willing to accept that you believe there is nothing wrong with a lack of intelligence if you didn't call intelligence into question every time someone disagreed with your beliefs"

I'm sorry but this is, as you used to often say, an outright lie. Again show me other people who I disagree with that I've felt necessary to question their intelligence, please.

"For all I know you could just be attempting to bully people into believing the way you do"

This does show all you know, and in this case it is very little.

"No I wouldn't say at this point you aren't reading it, you just refuse to accept it. I'm sorry that in your mind you can't accept an apology because you have to see certain words before you consider it real. I have made my apology for what I said. that apology is still out there, I'm sorry you won't accept it."

I'll have to ask you to forgive me, but when you say you specifically said something that you didn't, I have to question your veracity. I do expect certain words to accompany an apology among those are recognition of what was wrong. You didn't do that.

bigdawg,

"wow transplant, thats alot of posting for someone who feels this blog is a waste of time. Cant you go to a soup kitchen or something and spend your time more wisely?"

Likely, but then it wouldn't be wasted time would it? Is this where I'm supposed to question your intelligence? You'd better check with Mike and get back to me on it.

Michael,

Please either show that I have done the things you claim I do to "everyone who disagrees with me" or refrain from painting me with such a broad brush.

i wouldent respond to someone who thinks your blog is a waste of time and contunues to post here more then anyone else. That alone should tell you something about the person you are dealing with

It all ends at noon today.

Shoot! Wrong again.

you got sw there, bigdawg, for the third or fourth time.

LOL @ MCCook1

bigdawg,

Still waiting for those search paramaters. I am disappointed that you can heckle SW but won't take the time to type a few words in support of your claims. You are starting to support the theory that liberals or left leaners evade questions or outright lie. That would be a shame. We already have one big example around here.

once again i will use the immortal words of sam, "do your own **** research". I found them, its really simple. Furthermore, if I post them here you will just find a reason to dissmiss them.

for the life of me i cant figure out how sam can put up wild outlandish claims and no one calls for links to back up his claims. Obviously there are two sets of standards, once again, please try to at least be consistant.

bigdawg,

" if I post them here you will just find a reason to dissmiss them."

Do you realize you are implying that the links you would post are faulty?

"for the life of me i cant figure out how sam can put up wild outlandish claims and no one calls for links to back up his claims. Obviously there are two sets of standards, once again, please try to at least be consistant."

Have you ever asked Michael to back up his claims?

OMG!!! Are there no liberals questioning Sam on his blog? I think we should rush over there and ask him to adhere to the same standards that Michael follows.

the last time we did this dance I posted some very damning video that was dismissed. Why would I do it again? Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me. Or in the immortal words of G.W. bush "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice i wont get fooled again".

Doodle,

I see alot of people question sams blog and posting links to further their point. It seems to me the conservative responders read mikes post and break it down word for word and find any inconstancy they can grasp on.

dawg, I dont mind you taking conservatives to task. What I dont understand is how you think they are any different than liberals when it comes to highlighting points they dont agree with. If Michael/Sam dont care for their viewpoints to be challenged, they should not blog. And I see no difference between them except for their opposite political philosophies.

I agree doodle bug.

bigdawg,

Do you know any mortal words? :)

Nebraska's most famous investor finds "a collapse of the Euro is not unthinkable". With several Euro nations getting a free ride from the rest of Europe--they need to get their financial houses in order according to Warren Buffett today.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42248019

If you liken California, Wisconsin, New Jersey and New York as weak states getting a free ride from the US government, to Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Ireland in Europe, you can see where we are headed. The states need to get real with spending cuts along with the feds, or we have the elements of a financial disaster ahead.

Still, not the end of the world, but bad times indeed.

Here is a thought I had today. With 43 million people getting food stamps, over 40% of the US population not paying ANY income tax, and another 10% are union members or are receiving unemployment benefits, the "gimme" voters control this nation.

Those people are in Obama's pocket so he only has to convince a few of the rest of us that he's ok, and he wins reelection in 2012. Not unthinkable is it?

bigdawg,

I did do my research. I googled Japan, doomsayer, end of days, end of times, end of the world, apocalypse, armageddon, and other 'end of the world'-type words in a bunch of different combinations. No real results. At least the great number of them were just talking about the natural disaster. A few of them started out with a question mark, but that apparently was just to make people click. I find mike's claim that doomsayers are "coming out of the woodwork" to be weak and possibly irrational. I am sorry that you felt the need to support someones flawed thinking. I really wish you had provided me with links, I am interested in peoples thoughts on that sort of thing.

Caution: Off Topic: Just for Fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Laughter still better than ridicule.

Obama got talked into sticking his nose in Libya, now he can't figure out how to get out!

Does this guy ever do anything right?

Not in the last 2 years.

Wallis

"Oh dear me Boomer, you mean to tell me that a politician made promises in a campaign that he did not keep? That's never happened before? The world IS coming to an end. I mean if Obama is breaking campaign promises, what's next?"

Actually Michael, I believe that the consequences to the American people is significant.

The question begging to be asked is: If Obama had been honest about himself, his ideology, his theology, and his intentions; would he have been elected?

His broken campaign promises are, in fact, lies to the American people since they were pledges which were not kept. Why shouldn't we hold the leader of the free world accountable?

why havent we held the past leaders of the free world accountable?

I agree bigdawg, Mickel if you are going to be so demanding on this President between campaign and office why don't you be so critical of past Presidents for the EXACT same thing.

I remember our former president promising before his first election that he was going to be a uniter not a divider. How did that work out again?

Mike,

Repugnance, mike, repugnance.

Mikel,

could you post some clips where he was dishonest about himself, ideology, theology, and intentions?

I thought he made his ideology very clear and was attacked for it by those on the right. I remember him saying he was a christian, not alot of gray area there. Same with his intentions.

we should go back at least as far as bush 1 and his read my lips statement. Why are these people not in jail?

bigdawg,

"could you post some clips where he was dishonest about himself, ideology, theology, and intentions?"

In the mortal words of Sam as quoted by yourself: "do your own **** research"

Or maybe you would: "just find a reason to dissmiss them."

"I remember him saying he was a christian"

You might want to be careful using this as an argument on Micheal's blog because Michael could very well point out: "After all it's not hard to make a claim that you don't have to back up."-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 11, 2011, at 10:43 AM

I did my own reasearch with no results.

Did he, or did he not say he was a christian and went to a christian church? Im not dissmissing it, I am simply pointing out the facts.

"Did he, or did he not say he was a christian and went to a christian church? Im not dissmissing it, I am simply pointing out the facts."

And I am simply pointing out that Michael has stated several times that it is easy to lie when you don't have to back up a claim. So you might want to be careful or he might say that the President was lying because it doesn't have to be backed up.

The answer to your question is yes.

I just came off a gig and as drunk and as stoned as I am, I can still see through the Republican good, Democrat bad, Democrat good, Republican bad bullsh-t. When are you guys ever going to learn? I agree with the lady who said, she lost a few brain cells when reading the blog.

Come on guys, you can do better than this, I know you can. I have only a 12th grade education and I'm a biker, I'm humbled by your intellect. I look forward to Michael's post's, but its predictable who is going to say what. Come on challenge me. I dare you. But so far it's SSDD, at this point your going to say, why do you waste your time reading this blog. I"m addicted just like the rest of you!!!!!!!!!

Keda, are you also saying Michael is predictable? And dont give me this "humbled" stuff; lol. I can tell from your posts that, if you only have a 12th grade education, you are still an educated individual.

Keda,

You said: "Come on challenge me. I dare you" Would you be up to the challenge of writing a blog with more central viewpoints? I for one would welcome it, especially if there was an opportunity for actual debate rather than evasion and patent answers.

Things are much worse in Detroit and Florida than in McCook. Those places it probably does seem like the end of the world.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/increbile-shrinking-city-detroit-bec...

In the past 10 years Detroit has lost 25% of its population. Detroit has lost a greater percentage of its population than New Orleans in the past decade! 20% of the homes in Florida are vacant.

In Detroit the unions priced their members out of jobs in the auto industry. They use robots (who never go on strike, call in sick, or demand better benfits) or they move the plant to the south or overseas. Unions seldom achieve anything for their members except charges for dues. In Michigan they got the government to back them though through closed shop laws so it is the government's fault, in part.

In Florida too many homes were built, appraised, and sold using NINJA financing. Said financing was the brainchild of (you guessed it) the federal government in the past decade, pushing for home ownership by people who couldn't afford a home if you gave it to them.

Look behind any economic disaster, and you will usually find some government program. If you have ever been to an Indian reservation, you see what 100 years of government HELP produces.

so you would argue for more government control and regulation of finincial institutions?

There was a public works program that lasted for over 50 years. Some of us use what this program made every day. At least one person on this site makes a living off of it. It was a government run program (what some consider a socialist program). But it wasn't set up by any Democratic president. It was set up by (and the dream of) Dwight Eisenhower. It was the Interstate System.

Mike,

Be aware that your tendency towards dichotomous thinking is apparently leading you to believe that if someone is against SOME government programs they are against ALL government programs.

Dichotomous thinking is an irrational unhealthy thought pattern.

And I thought that the interstate system was set up as a defense project with the advantage of putting people to work, or vice versa even if you want to look at it thatway.

bigdawg,

I wasn't really asking you to research for me. I just wanted a couple of words to plug in as search paramaters. If you actually did find stories of doomsayers coming out of the woodwork it would take far less energy to type in the paramaters you used than to tell me to do my own research. Good job in coming up with a way to come up with a 'clever' way to tell me that you are full of horsefeathers, tho.

Mike- The Interstate system WAS NOT a public works program. It is a defense program to move the military and ICBM's. Study it. A little trivia about the Interstate system. Bridges have to be tall enough to allow ICBM's being hauled by a truck to pass underneath them.

General Eisenhower was inspired during WWII by the Autobahn in Germany.

Wallis

I typed in "end of days" and got 83 million hits. Im not going to look through 83 million pages but I think you should go for it. I bet if I put in different phrases i could come up with another 100 million sites. Do you know how to use "the google"? I typed in natural disasters and the end of the earth and got about 2.5 million hits.

http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/category/natural-disasters

http://superlifecodes.com/pressrelease/tag/natural-disasters/

thats odd wickipedia calls it a public works project. in fact almost every site I went to calls it the greatest public works project in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/homepage.cfm

dont bother saying your sorry didy

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm#question3

says here defence is not the primary reason for the interstate wallis. Im glad you told me to study it so I can set you straight.

BigDawg - You will need to do more homework than that. Some internet Q&A is not a source.

Maybe you should read a history book.

Mike do you read books anymore or just do internet searches?

You are both both correct and very incorrect Wallis. Eisenhower was inspired by the autobahn in Germany and yes he did see the interstate system as an easy method to transport military during times of war. However, the interstate was the largest and longest run public works program in our nation's history.

Didymus you might want to re-look up the definition of dichotomy and dichotomous because I don't think they mean what you think they do.

You are describing my actions as combining beliefs into one large belief. Dichotomy is dividing one item into two very distinct items.

bigedawg, the Interstate System was the largest public works program in this nation's history but it was also seen as a much easier mode to transport the military than the two lane highways could offer at the time.

It was also seen as a mostly civilian based project because it could also offer an easier and faster way to transport goods from place to place.

The idea was so good that the Chinese have almost completely copied the system in building their network, all the way down to the green highways signs.

a government web site is not a source for government programs? wow. Must be a massive government coverup to hide the real reason for the interstate. But why would they cover it up?

so wallis, was it a public works project? every site I went to called it the greatest public works project in history. I guess you are right and the people who know what they are talking about are wrong.

Dug through my college notes from November, 1985. My notes state that the defense department paid for the Interstate from Military installations to key Military and non-Military installations. An example was the Feds paid for the Interstate from Elk Hills California to Long Beach. The reason was Elk Hills was the (former) Naval Oil reserve and Refineries were in Long Beach. My notes also stated that the non-defense department part of the Interstate was paid for by taxes (gasoline, etc) and later on tolls were used.

That is what I learned in College in 1985 about this.

I also found my differential equations textbook. If anybody knows me they know that I could not get a Masters degree in Engineering because I maxed out my Math skills. Looking at that work is like looking at hieroglypics.

wallis, I don't believe anyone is arguing how the roads were paid for. The project itself was a public works program. The people were hired through the government to build the roads.

Mike,

If you display thinking that someone is either for or against something that is dichotomous thinking. re-read my post, I am using it correctly. We can argue it, but you would be at best not understanding what I am saying.

Mike,

Of course, if your bringing up the interstate system had nothing to do with anything else in this blog, well than my whole post was based on non sequitur and you can disregard it.

Disregarded

Now that that is out of the way let's take a look at your statement:

"Be aware that your tendency towards dichotomous thinking is apparently leading you to believe that if someone is against SOME government programs they are against ALL government programs."

One could argue (and I am) that you are suffering from your own dichotomous thinking. Because you are so convinced that I actually do think in simple black/white terms you automatically assumed that I was saying something that I, in fact, wasn't.

I was merely pointing out that there are some people who absolutely believe that anything that even has a minute amount of socialism in it is bad. We already have one poster who is trying to convince people that the interstate system was not a public works system despite what history and facts actually show because of that belief.

There is nothing wrong at all with being against some governmental programs while supporting others. That was not the statement that I was making. Another argument, while I was researching dichotomous thinking, says that someone can be against a war while supporting the troops, which is true. The dichotomous thinking comes in when a person assumes that if you are against the war then you are also not supportive of the troops. One could easily also say that if you are against one war you are against all wars.

I will say that I completely missed the "thinking" part of your "dichotomous thinking" statement and I apologize for that.

Mike,

I am glad that I am inspireing you to learn. I think that you have some issues with dichotomous thinking because some of the things you post in your blog and responses indicate it. You might not suffer from that particular irrational thought process you could just be an extremely poor writer. You do tend to use terms and words incorrectly at times. Either way, behavior betrays thinking. You can try and say that I have dichotomous thinking about you, thats fair, but it would be about a specific individual not a large group of them. I don't believe all liberals are like you. I do, however, have some pretty strong evidence that you are the way you are. I don't know you perfectly, but I know you far better than you know me. :)

Just from your last statement I can tell you one thing unequivocally: You don't know the first thing about me.

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-s-break-even-oil-price-80-barrel-sai...

The End of Times?

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-needs-80bn-power-investment--390408.html

The is in addition to the $100 billion Saudi needs to increase oil production capacity.

I notice that you have gone absolutely quiet on your big claim that the Interstate System was not a public works program instead now focusing on oil.

"One could argue (and I am) that you are suffering from your own dichotomous thinking. "

Did Michael seriously just argue essentially "I know you are but what am I?" Hilarious.

I think some of the confusion about the interstate system is an interesting commentary on how education has changed. I believe when Wallis was in school in the 70's and 80's the emphasis was on a strong nation so the aspects of the program that were defense driven were stressed. Now it is somewhat gauche to emphasize defense and power so the emphasis has shifted to the social aspects of the program, such as producing jobs. Just my opinion so please don't ask me to cite articles.

you could read the links I posted, they clearly state what the purpose is.

bigdawg,

Did those links exist in the 1970's?

No but the information was. Maybe Wallis was going to one of those indoctrination schools that Sam likes to talk about.

I didn't go to a school (I finished my formal education at age 23 and have been working in my chosen industry for the last 21 years). I am pointing out that $225 oil prices will seem like the end of times.

You didn't go to a school?

Since you learned that the interstate system was solely a military program and not a public works program in college that pretty much destroys the idea of colleges being a liberal factory, don't you think?

no, those links did not exist in the 70's, what does that have to do with anything? The information existed. Once upon a time I thought the only stupid questin was the one that was not asked, then you asked that and I had to change my whole way of thinking.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/02/us-gabon-oil-idUSTRE7312CE20110402

According to Mike African oil production has nothing to do with domestic oil prices.

So please explain the $35/bbl rise in the last 3 months.

"According to Mike African oil production has nothing to do with domestic oil prices."

Which Mike are you talking about wallis, because I never said anything of the sort. I simply raised the point as why MIDDLE EASTERN (not African as you seem to believe), or OPEC (which yes I am aware there are African companies in OPEC) has any effect on our oil prices when what they do import is not even one of our top importers.

You could have answered that, you are the so-called expert on this site after all, instead you questioned my intelligence and now take every opportunity to point out what I have said even though I have never said it.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2012_BUDGET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&T...

Mike - I warned you that the policies you supported and fell in love with would lead to the largest change in power in the history of the United States. Now that the Tea Party is in power (you said that all of those town halls were the same people and the Tea party was not real has PROVEN TO BE A LIE BY YOU) we now have an ultra conservative wing that has a lot of power and the pendulum may swing to far to the other extreme.

Thanks for being so wrong the last 2 years that we may go overboard to the other extreme.

Please wake up and live in reality! Is that asking to much? LaLa land is not real you know.

Michael,

They tell us all the time we live in a global economy and that is why oil disruptions in Libya affect oil prices world wide.

The Republicans take one House of Congress and you consider that to be the largest change in power in United States history? At least the Democrats were able to take both Houses in 2006.

What exactly has the largest change in power done so far in the three months since this monumental change?

Once again one of your examples of "my" lies is something you have concocted in your own mind.

"At least the Democrats were able to take both Houses in 2006."

Wow Michael, and you accuse me of being juvenile. The other day you argued "I know you are but what am I" with Sir Didymus and now you argue "anything you can do, I can do better". What's next, "I'm rubber and you're glue"? Well probably not that one everthing people say tends to stick to you anyway. Maybe "nyah, nyah, I'm not listening" oh wait, I think we've had that one from you in the past too.

Oil prices are running. Maybe North Africa is important after all. Oil prices are up by $40 dollars since I got my get long signal. Pretty good run.

Glad Beck was run off by FOX. Also glad Olbermann was run off by MSNBC. Maybe we are seeing an end to both extremes.

Wallis