[mccookgazette.com] Overcast ~ 28°F  
Winter Weather Advisory
Friday, Dec. 26, 2014

Way Too Early Presidential Prediction

Posted Friday, April 22, 2011, at 9:27 AM

As we approach the summer of 2011 we also approach another presidential election. As with sports it is way too early to predict who will win the next presidential election but I am going to anyways.

Looking at the current crop of maybe-so's in the Republican field, which include; Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and so on it is extremely hard to handicap who will win their party's nomination.

Looking at the Democratic side we only have President Obama that has made a commitment to run (he has already announced and set up his campaign arm). No other Democrat has even suggested that they may run for the party's nomination. Hillary Clinton has already said that she has no plans to run for President. I'm not so sure about that. She has already said that she will not serve a second term as Secretary of State (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/clinton-running-for-president/) and for me that is a clear indication that she is, at the very least, considering a run for the Democratic nomination. After all she is a politician (and let's face it, politicians love to say one thing when they mean they other) and more importantly, for this discussion she is a Clinton.

What I mean by that, is that when Bill Clinton was running for another term as Arkansas governor in 1989 he signed a pledge that he would not run for President as governor. He won another term as governor, then ran for President.

Let us say, just for arguments sake, that Hillary does run against Obama for the Democratic nomination. She has a real chance to beat Obama. In 2008, it came down to the convention before it was fully settled that Obama would be the nominee. Her popularity has continually gone up since 2008, she has the name and face recognition. I do believe, though, that Obama will still win the nomination. The only group of Democrats does not have wide support from is from Liberals but he does have enough to secure the nomination. This alone may keep Hillary from running against Obama.

On the Republican side it is literally a meat market. Not one candidate that is considering a run has wide support. The candidates that are known have a favorability issue. Right now, they are all playing solely to the base of the Republican Party. That will serve them well in the primaries (where the base typically comes out en masse to vote) but it will cause them massive headaches and problems for the general election when they are forced to at least move back close to the center.

Out of the group above, Mitt Romney has the best shot at beating Obama in a potential campaign. Out of the group he seems to have the most centrist views and that would serve him well in a general election. He will not, however, win the nomination. Donald Trump will also not win the nomination, he is just the flavor of the month and he has already shown that he does not have a clear grasp of constitutional matters. He believes that the Constitution does in fact give people the right to privacy but he does not understand that the decision in Roe v. Wade guaranteed that. Out of the group listed above I believe that Mike Huckabee probably stands the best chance of winning the Republican nomination. He has the name and face recognition and he continually plays to the base of the Republican Party. The nomination process for the Republican Party is going to be nasty and ugly, that's a promise,

So, what is my prediction for the 2012 Presidential election? Barack Obama will win a second term. This election season already reminds me of the 2004 Presidential election. That year President Bush was fighting to win a second term, he poll numbers were suffering and he was ripe for a defeat. The problem was that the Democratic Party truly did not have a stand out candidate that people could stand behind. We are seeing the exact set of circumstances for the 2012 election. Unless a Republican really stands out and distinguishes him (or her) self from the rest of the field it should be a relative cake walk for President Obama.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I respectfully disagree. If the current economic situation (or similar set of circumstances at the time prevail) continues, I still beleive Obama will be a one term president. There may be no stand out Republican candidate at this time, but I believe one of them will come to the fore and win the presidential election.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 12:59 PM

The Republican field is still wide open, but doodle makes a good point. As long as the current administration makes only poor economic moves, Obama has a much smaller chance of staying in office.

With food, gasoline, and other energy costs rising, while unemployment stays high and Obama continues to buddy up to no-tax-paying GE, more and more people will be willing to vote AGAINST Obama even if they aren't thrilled about voting for the Republican.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 1:29 PM

Mike, I congratulate you on making a prediction.

The outcome really hangs on the economy. If it continues to limp along through 2012, then Obama certainly has a chance. If he's nominated, the "gimme" voters have nowhere else to go.

I favor Ron Paul who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but a Libertarian. I doubt he has too much of a chance unless things are truly dire during the primary campaign. Most people view him as too radical while I view him as just right.

As a whole the citizenry generally vote for middle of the road candidates. Only in times of true crisis do they deviate from this, and then you get guys like Adolph Hitler or Franklin Roosevelt or Barrack Obama. Then the nature of government and the nation itself change radically.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 1:31 PM

Unless a Republican really stands out and distinguishes him (or her) self from the rest of the field it should be a relative cake walk for President Obama.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 2:40 PM

It is truly sad Boomer that your partisanship runs so deep that you would put not one, but two U.S. Presidents on the same level as Hitler.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM

Perhaps a good Theme song for BHO to run on??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9B8Yc6EZ...

Too bad the Teacher/Coach lost his job for authoring this. You decide.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 3:30 PM

Michael, I believe your partisanship runs as deep as boomers. Havent you continually told us that hitler was conservative? Odd how our different political philosophies color our perception. I took boomers comparison as examples of the extreme right (hitler) to those on the left, Roosevelt and Obama.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 4:31 PM

I have continually said that Hitler was a conservative because he was.

If that was the comparison that he actually meant don't you think he could have picked a US President instead of one of the worst mass killers in the history of the world? The other problem with that association is that Obama is not on the extreme left. He is a moderate on the left of Clinton (for the record, politically, Clinton was a Centrist).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 4:37 PM

Hitler was not a conservative. He was a National Socialist that believed in Centralized Government.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 5:10 PM

I dont agree Michael. I believe Obama to be left of Jimmy Carter. And I believe the only moderation he would show would be to assist his re-election campaign.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 5:22 PM

Michael,

Upon what basis do you make your claim that Hitler was a conservative?

doodle bug,

Perhaps Michael doesn't consider him left because he professes to be to the right of Michael himself. Also, I don't think Michael remembers much of Carter, since he was under 5 when Carter was voted out of office.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 7:43 PM

I think Paul Ryan from the U.S. House of Representatives

from Wisconsin's 1st district is a very interesting Republican.

When I have seen him talk he is second to none on economic policy in my opinion. He is young and might hold out for a few years, if he was even considering a run.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 7:49 PM

He was a National Socialist, but as usual you left all the context out of it. The name of the party was a political move. During that Socialist movements were popular in Europe. Hitler and the Nazi party only used Socialism when it benefited them. Hitler, himself hated socialism, communism, and liberals.

He was a social conservative.

To say that because he believed in a central government doesn't make him a conservative is again leaving all the context out. He was a fascist who believed in a strong nationalist government. At this point in time, however (especially in Europe) this belief wasn't conservative or liberal. It was a way of life for most Europeans still trying to rebuild after WWI.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 11:57 PM

Obama compromised time and time again during the first half of his administration. The stimulus bill didn't look that different from bills passed under Bush. The health care reform bill was overly Conservative ideas not Liberal. The tax deal at the end of 2010 had no liberal notions in it. The last President we had that even had a tinge of Liberalism was LBJ.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 23, 2011, at 12:01 AM

Hitler was an economic conservative -- not that it's really worth arguing where his politics lay on the spectrum. He was a fascist. Again, though, I don't really think that fascism or soviet-style communism really fit anywhere on the American political spectrum. They're irrelevant. Right now it's more government oversight and social services in a capitalist mixed economy or less. That's the extent of American economic politics.

-- Posted by dan667 on Sat, Apr 23, 2011, at 12:45 AM

The healthcare reform bill contains so many new taxes, it most certainly was not "overly Conservative ideas." Not to mention the double-counting of every "savings." Conservatives have pushed for privatization, not bigger and bigger government boondoggles. You can sue a health insurance company, but you can't haul Medicare into court when they screw up.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Sat, Apr 23, 2011, at 7:43 AM

I see that Michaels idea of liberalism does not, in any way, co-incide with my ideas of liberalism. Health care reform contained overly conservative ideas? You need to go into more detail on that one Michael. Please tell me where you get the idea that increased taxes and "nannyism" are conservative ideas.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Apr 23, 2011, at 8:57 AM

dan667,

I believe you understand the point I was trying to make, that Hitler can be considered neither liberal nor conservative by the terms we use today, although some people still make the effort to do so.

Although I disagree with your contention that he was an economic conservative, especially as the term is used today. I think the term that bests describes his ideas is Nationalist.

Michael,

To say Hitler was a social conservative is also misleading. Where were the bastions of social liberalism as you would say today that existed in the 1920's? You incorrectly try to compare the situation in the 1920's and 1930's to today and fail in doing so. You do this with both your declaration of his "conservatism" or anyone else's delcaration of his "liberalism". He was not at all a liberal in the open sense of the word however he did plan to create a strong centralized government that would provide for the social welfare of its citizens much as American "Liberals" call for today. He also viewed the world socially in a manner far to the right of all but the most fringe of today's groups.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Apr 23, 2011, at 3:17 PM

too bad I waited so long to read this article, I could have used the manure in my yard.

You liberals always want the Republicans to run Rino's. Hell, you guys even picked the last candidate for the Republicans. You know that almost every time a conservative runs, a real conservative, with conservative values, he/she wins.

You'll have to excuse what happened in Nevada as illegals and union thuggery prevailed, along with the usual Democrat voter fraud, to get the evil and disgusting Harry Reid re-elected.

I think Obama will win unless a real conservative runs against him. Mitt Romney? LOL I know you libs want Romney. He'll lose big time because conservatives like me will not vote for any more Rino's.

The lessor of two evils is still evil.

Trump is interesting only because he will take on the Obama mania lapdog media. And Americans may respond to a real person rather that a phony Democrat or a Rino Republican.

Sarah Palin is an outstanding woman of Faith and courage. Despite the savage attention from Obama's media, she is still standing. And Michael, I want you Democrats to continue to disregard her. Continue to demonize her and lie about her.

I find your take on things so remarkable. Now you want someone in the center, when we've had essentially a Socialist regime in place for more than two years now.

The crime that is the Obama Presidency will take much pain and much work to correct. It may be too late already, the damage that Obama has done, not only this country, but the world may not be fixable. If Obama wins another term, then the Republic is over, and our children are doomed for serfdom.

Which is what you want, isn't it comrade?

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM

so, who was the last real consertive to win?

-- Posted by president obama on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 7:29 AM

thats a tough one dawg; and I truly dont have an answer.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 10:52 AM

Yes sam, you caught me and my fellow comrades. All we want is for this country to fail. I want my children and grandchildren in serfdom. That's all we have ever wanted. The fact that it has taken almost 250 years apparently is immaterial we now have a true socialist in the White House that is plowing the road for us.

Seriously Sam, is the sky falling?

"You liberals always want the Republicans to run Rino's." Really? I would say that every election each party wants the worst candidate of the other party to be the nomination. That's one of your most astute statements in a long time.

"You'll have to excuse what happened in Nevada as illegals and union thuggery prevailed, along with the usual Democrat voter fraud"

I love that everytime, EVERYTIME,a Democratic candidate wins the only way they have won is through voter fraud. I knew that you were a huge conspiracy theorist but this puts you above all the rest.

I hate to break this to you but in a general election Romney, right now, is the only Republican that can beat Obama. In general elections the candidate that can get the most crossover voters or the most independent voters wins. The base, in a general election, has no overbearing factor. But, because Romney has been stuck with the RINO tag I don't expect him to get out of the primaries because of the base. To be honest, that's fine with me. The weaker candidate the Republicans put in the general field the better chance for the Democrats.

"we've had essentially a Socialist regime in place for more than two years now."

Once again your lack of knowledge of socialism amazes me. There is nothing about this White House that is Socialist. Then again, I don't really expect you to know that.

"Sarah Palin is an outstanding woman of Faith and courage."

Yes it takes a lot of courage to quit being governor of a state not even half way through a term and only appears on Fox News. I've always wondered why it was so bad for Obama to go to the church he went to because of remarks that minister made but it was perfectly fine for Sarah Palin to go to her church despite the remarks that her minister made. Actually I've never wondered. Despite your claim that the lesser of two evils is still evil, you left off one little part, what you meant to say, I believe, is that the lesser of two evils is still evil ... unless it's a "true" conservative Republican.

Trump is nothing more than a side show and I believe he even knows that. After all, he is a businessman and a real estate mogul (even after all of his bankruptcies) he knows what people want to hear and he will say it. You certainly fell for it.

"you guys even picked the last candidate for the Republicans"

I guess that shows just how much better at election fraud than you guys. We were able to get John McCain elected as the Republican nominee despite no national calls to do so, and you guys had a public talking head going on his radio show and telling Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries just to elect Hillary Clinton .... and it failed miserably.

Just in case you missed it Sam, yes that last paragraph was dripping in sarcasm.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 12:17 PM

in my opinion Michael, your last sentence, unfortunately, is your typical response to Sam. Are his comments over the top? Yes, I believe a lot of them are. And your responses to him? Yep, same thing, only from the other side of the aisle. If you wallow with pigs, you probably get just as dirty as they are. And I am NOT calling Sam a pig; the comment was just for comparison.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 12:31 PM

Michael - I want to sincerely apologize for my snarky comments above. I was wrong to act like an idiot. I can only say that I have several family members who have been suffering terribly in this economy. Sometimes it gets to me. I have two brothers in their 50's, who, up until Obama became President, worked almost every day of their lives - since they were kids.

To see everything that they have worked for in their lives go down the tubes, their homes, their careers - gone, it brings me to tears, and sometimes - anger.

I am wrong to blame Obama for the decline of America, whereas this President is merely the result of America's cultural decline.

Again, please except my apology for being a jerk. I will work and pray to elevate my debate. I have five children Mike, and 8 grandkids, and I am so very concerned about what kind of a country they will inherit.

I do disagree with you on almost every single thing, but I have always respected your fervor, and your interest.

Looking forward to sincere debates in the months ahead, and on this Easter, please do not take this the wrong way, but God Bless you and yours.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 12:35 PM

WOW!!!!!!!! Sam!! Thats what I call an apology. I hope Michael takes it in the spirit, I believe, it was given.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 12:58 PM

Now that's an apology and I readily accept it. The only issue I take is why you would believe I would take you blessing God to me and my family the wrong way. You meant it in only one way and I accept it.

Your example of your friends reminds me of the recession that hit during Bush I's presidency. I had friends whose fathers lost their job during that time. It was easy to blame Bush for it. Then again it could have been coincidence.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 2:45 PM

Sam,

That was a heartfelt apology, it takes a big man to apologize when he has been wrong, out of line, or misrepresentative of what someone else has said. I think in this case you can stand as an example for us all.

doodle bug,

I agree with you again here in what you've said today.

Still awaiting an apology.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Apr 24, 2011, at 5:58 PM

Mike, I only compared Hitler, FDR and Obama in that they were all elected at times of crisis and they were all radical departures from the status quo.

They CAN be aptly compared, in that they all increased government control and power in their respective countries.

As for being partisan, I truly am. I am a partisan for freedom, both economic and political. Neither of these comes from the government, but from the people. Governments are easily seen as the enemy of both.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 12:26 PM

Boomer - well said - the comparisons of past evil dictators and Obama are numerous. Our liberal friends get upset when we point these out.

I think Michael is a true believer, it could have been the way he was raised, or years upon years of liberal indoctrination. I don't think Michael really understands how much an enemy of freedom today's Democrats have become.

Let me give a small example of how an overbearing and runaway government destroys freedom and free enterprise.

A friend of mine recently decided to paint houses for a living. His main occupation was destroyed by Obama government over-regulation and over-taxation. He was shocked to find out that The Obama administration, taking a horrible law passed during the Clinton years, are now working to destroy the home remodeling business.

Page after page of new regulations regarding little 'ole house painters. Painters are required to take BS lead abatement classes, and pay fees, and take physicals, and renewal fees, and on and on.

When my friend asked the EPA of Nebraska how many kids have died in Nebraska as a result of lead paint, the EPA worker could not answer.

According to Answer.com, 3 people have died in the United States since 1998 due to lead poisoning, and none of these three could be tied directly to lead paint.

And yet massive regulatory systems (with lots of new government employees) and restrictions and fees, and permits and blah blah blah have been set up.

Liberals will argue that the three who died are important, and I think that life is important as well. May I remind you that since 1998, almost 17 million kids have been killed in abortion clinics. During one month in the Summer of 2010, more people were shot to death in Chicago than soldiers died in Iraq.

And it is not just painters, every occupation, especially self-employed occupations, have come under direct assault, and Liberals wonder where all the jobs went.

If only this administration would go after terrorists with the same vigor they go after the self employed.

This is evil, evil to the core. I am not trying to make guys like Michael mad, I just wish they'd open their eyes and see what their big government fantasies have done to cripple individuality and freedom in this country.

Bush should have worked to repeal the Clinton nonsense, but Republicans did nothing to stop it. They were afraid of the Liberal Media, and so the soft tyranny continues until it become hard tyranny.

You get a folks like Obama in power, and the sky is the limit to goverment tyranny and government abuse.

The first thing any dictator like Stalin or Hitler or Castro did, was what Obama is doing, the advance of a runaway government regime to control every aspect of people's lives, under the guise of doing it for the peoples own good.

It stinks. It is nasty and ultimately they create depressions and recessions and then they (the dictator wannabes) blame everybody else.

Liberalism is the gateway to evil. Liberalism is the gateway to serfdom.

So Boomer, we are called "partisan" when we try and point out that Socialism never has worked, never will work, and kills (or starves) millions.

But Liberals are never partisan in their minds, are they?

Hopefully I made my points here without being a jerk or offensive. However, I have come to realize that telling the truth is offensive to Liberals, what do you think political correctness is?

Is there a nice way to tell Liberals that they are destroying the country? Is there a nice way to tell Liberals that their kids will pay the price for Socialist ideas?

If you know of a nice way Boomer, to tell Liberals the truth they don't want to hear, would you let me know?

-- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 3:35 PM

http://alsnetbiz.com/homeimprovement/inf...

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-dan...

http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infsi...

it seems to me that if your friend was serious about painting houses he would have done what is needed as a true professional. I think you may have been exposed to led as a child. That would explain alot

The numbers of people who have gotten sick over led will never be known. It dosent always have to be just the people who died.

Sam, I dont see the other side of the isle doing anything different. Both sides expand government and pass laws to take away freedoms. They all talk a good game until they get elected.

-- Posted by president obama on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 7:01 PM

I won't get into the political finger pointing about who passed this law to start with, because I don't know who did but it is causing havoc in the construction trades. And yes! it has taken effect under the Obama administration. I can't speak for other states, however I know firsthand about the law in California. I spent $280.00 to take the one day course, this is a course every company must take by law, just to let you be aware of what it takes to be invirmentaly safe with lead. It cost much more to become a certified renovator.

In California they assume that any house built after 1972 has lead in it. We do not even have the option like some other states to test for lead. So with this said anyone, and any tradesman must take this class if opening any wall more that a 12 X 12 inch, yes! inch hole or scratching the surface with sandpaper or abrasives of any type. If you are remodeling or have a pipe that has busted in the wall or anything , you must follow all rules. You would have to read about what it takes to plastic off, clean up, hepa vacuum and then dispose of any waste, because if I told you, you would never believe me.

I believe they need some types of EPA laws, but this is totally ridicules.

To follow all these rules you eather have to hire an abatement company or charge for about two and half hours a day clean up time.

It is forcing some of the homeowners that want to hire professionals to think twice about if they can aford it. I told the instructor that I believed most homeowners will go down and get

illegals from the Home Depot parking lots were they hang out for day labor. They don't do anything to them if they are caught but it is a $37,000.00 fine if we are caught.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 7:51 PM

Dawg - you're an amazing guy. You have no concern whatsoever for the producers in this country. Your liberal arrogance regarding what everyone else must do is phenomenal. Stunning arrogance.

To accuse my friend, who you don't even know, of not being a professional, because he objects to political bureaucrat parasites from sucking the life out of the construction industry, shows ignorance on a scale that is hard to address seriously.

The same applies to the entire Global warming hoax. Good people, hard working PROFESSIONAL people are being put out of work because scientists paid to promote the Liberal dogma lie and misrepresent.

I say this as tenderly and compassionately as I can bigdawg. Whenever you speak, I feel like weeping for my country. God help us.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 8:07 PM

Keda - thanks for letting people know what is going on. As a favor to my buddy, I read all of the laws regarding the government attack on the construction industry. It is a mess, full of misrepresentations, crazy assumptions and erroneous information.

And, as i have said repeatedly, I am sick of both parties. I despise the Democrats for their systematic destruction of everything that makes America great. And I despise the Republicans for being cowards, and not standing up to these Marxists that have hijacked the Democrat Party, our education system, and this country.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 8:15 PM

Sam, I think a lot of what we see going on is the result of narrow-minded thinking. People think every new regulation and law is great when it affects only others. When one of them hits THEIR deal, it's an entirely different thing.

Failure to care about your fellow man, results in excess laws and regulations for all, in the end.

Recently, I talked with a young man who had a business idea. He wanted to detail cars for people in the parking lot while the owners worked, right on premises. His worry was this, "Did he need a permit; was it legal?"

How did we turn from a "can do", "get it done" nation into a "you can't do that without a permit", "that doesn't meet the regs" kind o nation? It happened one law and one regulation at a time.

And now you can't make a move, and can't lots of folks can't make a living. Oh, the big boys can, because they have the resources to deal with it, sort of. But small startups--forget it.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 10:53 AM

Sam and Boomer, just one question ... how many rights have you lost under Obama?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 11:03 AM

I could point out Sam that because only 3 people have died since 1998 that it does point to these regulations are working. I could say that but I know what your reaction would be.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 11:06 AM

Actually Sam I do have one more question specifically for you ... in one post you said you respected me, and were very apologetic, yet in the very next post you were back to you mean-spirited ways calling anyone ( especially myself) that is liberal indoctrinated or you questioned how they were brought up. So which is the real you? I don't see you as being indoctrinated because you are conservative. I question your spotty record on the facts but not your beliefs.

I would have liked to have thought your very thoughtful apology was a glimpse at the real you but I'm afraid the real vision of you is the mean-spirited one who believes that all liberals are indoctrinated and closed-minded (which is actually a closed-minded view).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 11:18 AM

"I could point out Sam that because only 3 people have died since 1998 that it does point to these regulations are working."

Did the regulations that Sam is talking about go into effect in 1998? Where there many more deaths before 1998? Anyone know?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 11:43 AM

I took the lead class because I am a professional. The problem is that people wake up one day and decide to become a contractor, house painter, plumber, electrician, etc... with out knowing anything. Some of these "producers" scam people out of alot of money. I dont think taking a class or two to gain more knowledge about what you choose to do for a living is out of line. Consumers need to ask more questions before they hire someone to do work to their homes.

your concern seems to be a one way street, all for the "producers" and none, not a lick for the consumer.

-- Posted by president obama on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 12:22 PM

Michael, I will ask you the same question you asked Sam and Boomer. I do not remember the post or thread, but some time ago you were bewailing freedoms you said we were losing. I asked you to name one freedom that you had lost that had affected you, personally, the most. As of this date, I have received no reply to that question.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 12:27 PM

doodle bug,

Don't you remember, Michael doesn't need to answer questions or support his claims. Those are for lesser beings.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 PM

I do see signs that President Obama is "Learning on the job" but isn't Obama talking about the deficit a little bit like Kirsty Ally talking about weight loss? It's hard for him and Congress to give away 1.2 trillion dollars more than they made last year and then decide that this year "We really need to get spending under control". Bush and the rich and Obama and the poor did not single handedly create the deficit mess that we are in but all of us are at least partly to blame. Less than 1/100th of a percent of stimulus monies that went to states and local governments in 2010...was turned down , so the "Blame net"........is big enough to catch many fish....of many sizes.

It is not one person or one party that have put us in this mess that we are currently in although all of us have an opinion as to who or what party put us here.. But in reality it is all of us who are to blame.. We have the power to control the government and to put and pull people out of office that we don't want..

What if everyone in the U.S said one day at every job at every position.. I am not going in to work today or again until we start to make some changes...

Do you know how much money this country would lose in one single day..

I mean this is just a thought..

But don't you think that would get the governments attention that we aren't going to stand for this and it's the peoples way or the highway??

We hold the power if we all unify and come together!!!

-- Posted by CLUELESS SW NE on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 2:03 PM

Bigdawg, the new laws and regulations are frequently embraced by those already in the business because it erects barriers to entrance by competitors. They safeguard, not the consumer, but the bigger, more established businesses. Newbies, with little capital need not apply.

This process has been under way on the coasts for many years, but is now gaining strength here in the heartland. It costs 2 or 3 times as much to build in California or New Jersey as it does here, just to meet govt requirements. And the consumer pays that cost.

When I look to hire a contractor, I don't expect the government, laws or regs to protect me. I check out the available contractors myself.

But there are many who don't want to be responsible for themselves and want Big Brother to coddle them from the cradle to the grave. And thus, we get a 1984 World. All this stuff is taking us from world leader to third world nation.

Another 20 years of this "progress" and unemployment will be 20%, interest rates 20% and our standard of living will be much lower. You just need to think a couple of moves ahead, like any decent chess player, to see where it's headed. Exchanging freedom for security at a very high price.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 2:04 PM

Michael, what freedoms have been lost under Obama?

The freedom to choose my own health care provider, my own health insurance plan, or to have a HSA. All changed by ObamaCare.

The freedom to prepare income taxes without a license. Starting 2011 you cannot do that any longer.

The freedom to drill offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. I do realize he lifted the ban, but in reality, the new regulations are so stiff only one new application for drilling there has been approved and the application document was 2,400 pages long. But the offshore platforms have moved to off the shore of Brazil to drill, with financial help from our government.

The freedom to move my business from a closed-shop union-dominated state to a right-to-work state. The NRLB (headed by a czar appointed during Congressional recess-even the Democrats wouldn't approve this one) just ruled that Boeing violated federal law in moving their plant from Washington state to Florida. Because they admitted they moved after negotiations with the union failed to reach a successful end, and Florida offered them $900 million to move.

To cite a few examples.

Chime in everyone.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 2:33 PM

Other freedoms lost:

Freedom from full body TSA scans and/or pat-downs at the airport. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagzTRmUB...

Freedom to email privacy without a judicial warrant: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_...

They can access your email without a warrant now, and without notifying you, before or after--Big Brother is truly watching. Watch what you say on the phone, too. Same rule. NSA computers can and will pull up your recorded phone call because you said any one of many key words or phrases.

Freedom to use incandescent bulb is going to be lost beginning 2014 even though the replacement bulbs are a biohazard that nobody knows how to deal with. (PS: I know GW signed this one into law--just showing you, in fairness, that the socialists are running both parties.)

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 2:55 PM

I'll answer more in depth later but Boomer you do realize that the full body scanners came in under Bush not Obama.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 3:57 PM

Bigdawg stated " I took the lead class because I am a professional. The problem is that people wake up one day and decide to become a contractor, house painter, plumber, electrician, etc... with out knowing anything. Some of these "producers" scam people out of alot of money. I dont think taking a class or two to gain more knowledge about what you choose to do for a living is out of line. Consumers need to ask more questions before they hire someone to do work to their homes. your concern seems to be a one way street, all for the "producers" and none, not a lick for the consumer."

I don't know if this was directed at me or who? But I have a big problem with this, you don't just get a contractors license out of a box of cracker jacks. You have to know your trade and then take a class on lien laws, labor laws, mechanics law etc. Then go up for a state contractors license test, if you pass they then send you your license that you renew every two years. You then need bonded and buy business insurance, and this is not cheap. And 99% of this is to protect the consumer, basically the thing that protects us is the lien that we are to file, if the homeowner doesn't pay you, you then have a lien against there home. However I have found that once they are aware of this, you won't get many jobs. Also the contractors state license board is within tha Department of consummer affairs.

Yes! there are many unlicensed people out there, fly by nights and the whole lot, but the lead laws and other laws are directed at the ones that follow the rules, and this sucks! Like George C Scott said in the Flim Flam Man, you can't cheat an honest man. You get what you pay for.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 8:40 PM

In your last post Boomer all three cases you cited as rights you lost under Obama were all carried out under Bush, so no you didn't lose those rights under Obama. I don't however consider what kind of light bulb you can buy as one of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. That just may be me.

"The freedom to choose my own health care provider, my own health insurance plan, or to have a HSA. All changed by ObamaCare."

Please Boomer show me where in the Health Care Reform Act this exists. It doesn't do any of this. I don't know if you actually know this and are being dishonest or if you just don't actually know what is in the law.

"The freedom to prepare income taxes without a license. Starting 2011 you cannot do that any longer."

Again I don't remember the Constitution providing you the right to prepare your own taxes without a license. However, the 2011 tax season just ended and this just did not happen. I did a search based off your statement and the only hit I got was about a woman who was charged in 2007 (before Obama took office) for preparing taxes for other people without a license. This law is something that is not new.

"NRLB (headed by a czar appointed during Congressional recess-even the Democrats wouldn't approve this one) just ruled that Boeing violated federal law in moving their plant from Washington state to Florida. Because they admitted they moved after negotiations with the union failed to reach a successful end, and Florida offered them $900 million to move."

I'm not really understand what right you lost in this but I personally agree with the ruling. Instead of trying to find a solution to the stalemate between the company and it's employees the company just up and moved leaving those people out of work. I would say the only rights violated were the workers who find themselves out of work because the company they worked for moved out of state.

I tend to agree with bigdawg. You seem to care only about what is happening to the "producers" and seem to have an attitude of "consumers" be damned.

Again, the question was, what rights have YOU lost under Obama?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 9:36 PM

doodle, I thought I had answered your question, you feel otherwise so I will defer to you and I apologize that you are still waiting for an answer.

I will take my cue from Boomer:

The main one, that Boomer brought up, is the warrantless wiretapping that took place under Bush and unfortunately continues under Obama.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 9:39 PM

Hmm... And here I did not know that companies only existed to provide employment. Thank you again for edjamacating me!

The problem with labeling producers and consumers is that it is easy to loose sight of the idea that producers are always consumers, but consumers are not always producers. But that is okay, continue to push for bread and circuses. There will always be another "producer" to produce for the consumer, right?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 11:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYuX6mzN-...

This was a beautiful speech. It was worthy of the 1 Trillion dollars thrown at the problem. But the 1 Trillion is spent and the problem is worse.

If you actually listen to this speech you will shake your head and ask "what happened to that?" over and over again.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 6:27 AM

Michael,

"I don't however consider what kind of light bulb you can buy as one of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. That just may be me."

I don't think most of what the government does can really be seen as constitutionally guaranteed rights if you are coming at it from the strict view that you seem to choose when opposing someone. In that case why do gay people argue for their "right" to marry. I don't think the constitution guarantees a straight person the "right" to marry does it?

What about health care, I thought you said you thought health care was a "right" where does the constitution say it is? For that matter where does the constitution say that you have the right to not have your emails read? See how silly your argument is? Just because something isn't explicitly stated in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't covered by it.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 8:15 AM

Michael: warrantless wiretapping. Considering that I asked for what affected you personally, would you please tell what communications YOU had that were wiretapped?

And in fairness, will you agree that boomer pointed out that some of the things you both have complained about did, indeed, start under the Bush administration?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 10:22 AM

I would think warrantless wiretapping affects us all. If the government thinks you are doing something wrong they can wiretap you without having any cause.

Yes I agree that Boomer did point that out, however that wasn't the question I had asked him, or Sam. They have taken upon themselves to make Obama out to be the worst boogeyman of all time so I wanted to know what specific rights they had lost under Obama and Boomer pointed out those "rights" he had lost under Bush.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 10:38 AM

I would have expected a lot more to have been said today with the release of Obama's long form birth certificate. The silence, in this instance, is deafening.

But it won't last.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 10:43 AM

Interesting thing about the email monitoring from the article and the backscatter scanners. Apparently they were enacted by Republicans and perfected by Democrats. Makes one wonder why anyone complains about one side only.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 10:45 AM

"I would have expected a lot more to have been said today with the release of Obama's long form birth certificate. The silence, in this instance, is deafening."

What is there to say? Also, nice job trying to stir up arguments where none belong.....again.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 10:47 AM

Thanks for the replies Michael.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 11:18 AM

Your welcome doodle, if my answers were not specific please let me know and I will try to expand on them.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 11:27 AM

doodle bug,

It sure must be nice to have your questions answered :)

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 11:50 AM

Rights lost under Obamacare:

http://www.swvatoday.com/forums/viewthre...

Lots of new taxes, lots of new rules, loads of things you don't even know about, Michael.

They DID repeal the new 1099 provision that would have been terrible, after people became aware of it. Nobody knew what they were passing, including our senators and representatives. And it was passed in a totally unconstitutional manner. The reconciling amendments were never voted on, it was just "deemed to have passed".

The President now has the power to shut down the internet like the leaders in the Middle East are doing. Definitely a change under Obama that should fill us with hope:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-sh...

They TRIED to pass a bill that would make it illegal to grow your own food or sell it or even give it away--some of the state have already done this. It passed the US Senate by a wide margin but died thereafter. http://www.naturalnews.com/030418_Food_S...

The tax preparer licensing, and testing is new for next year, just as I said: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id...

Those rules are only for "paid preparers". I am sure you do your own tax returns so the additional costs which will be passed on to consumers will not be of a concern to you.

Expansion of government power continues unabated, no matter which major political party holds the reins! DO NOT label me as a Republican or a Democrat. Libertarian if you must use a label.

Bush was bad, but Obama is even worse.

There are so many laws now, they can put any of us in jail, put us out of business, and wreck our lives--any time they want to. If you don't fear your government, you aren't paying attention or you lack imagination.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 12:49 PM

"I tend to agree with bigdawg. You seem to care only about what is happening to the "producers" and seem to have an attitude of "consumers" be damned."

Good point, Mike. I do care more about producers than consumers. Aren't we all supposed to be productive, to produce something of value? Are we better people if we merely sit in our Section 8 houses and consume the earth's resources and the efforts of the producers, without producing anything? Consumers=good, producers=bad? Surely, even you must see how wrong that is.

You seem to have things very upside down, Mike. Don't things have to be produced BEFORE they are consumed? Imagine a consumer sitting on the beach crying out for food and water, but there are none because the producers went out of business, or went overseas. Is it possible China might get crossways with us and place an embargo on the US if we don't make good on our debts to them?

Businesses moving away from the regulators; to China, Brazil, India, Taiwan, Korea, and even Florida(!)are doing the rational thing--trying to compete in this world!

IMHO, every media person should be required to complete a basic course in economics before they write anything for publication about business, government or the economy.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 1:14 PM

Boomer, seriously, are you just making it up as you go? interestingly enough I did my own research instead of depending on one guy that provided no links and I couldn't find a single one of the "right" described that were taken away.

Read for yourself: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patie...

"The President now has the power to shut down the internet like the leaders in the Middle East are doing. Definitely a change under Obama that should fill us with hope"

Just to keep this as short as possible, no he doesn't. Even your own link doesn't state that the bill was ever passed. I did my own search and no where does it state that bill ever made it to the Senate floor. Just because it gets out of committee does not mean that it is automatically law. Okay so I didn't keep it short, but still, how do you make that kind of jump from a bill that hasn't even been voted on to Obama being able to that?

"They TRIED to pass a bill that would make it illegal to grow your own food or sell it or even give it away--some of the state have already done this. It passed the US Senate by a wide margin but died thereafter."

So if the bill never made it through Congress as you clearly state how in the world do you figure you lost this right under Obama?

Again, with the tax preparer issue? This is for people that prepare other people's taxes so it unless you do prepare other people's taxes it has no effect on you. Plus we have almost always (as far as I know) had the requirement that if you prepare other people's taxes you have to be licensed. It is nothing new.

I don't label you anything Boomer. I'm not sure I could if I wanted to. I've asked you specifically to tell me the constitutional rights you have lost under Obama. To date you have given me some rights that were lost under Bush, and some rights that were not even lost.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 1:19 PM

Michael,

You said some things to Boomer that I found interesting.

"This is for people that prepare other people's taxes so it unless you do prepare other people's taxes it has no effect on you. Plus we have almost always (as far as I know) had the requirement that if you prepare other people's taxes you have to be licensed."

Well if he is someone who prepares taxes, which I would guess he is if he knows the law changes, would this be a right he lost during Obama's term? You also said: "I would think warrantless wiretapping affects us all." But you didn't answer doodle's specific question about how it has affected you, how is this different than Boomer's example for tax preparers?

I also am pretty sure that you are incorrect when you voiced your belief that you must be licensed to prepare someone elses taxes? People with disabilities often have friends or relatives prepare thier taxes without any licensing requirement.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 1:54 PM

He released his birth certificate in 2008, the official document that Hawai'i releases. So to say, or ask why did he wait so long is ignoring that truth in this story.

Sadly though, this question is about as was expected from this crowd. Glad he did it but why did he wait so long (never mind that this is the second time he has had to release his birth certificate, which is two more times than any other president in United States history, just saying).

Please, give me a break, you were wrong, just flat out wrong, admit it or don't but move on to something that is actually important.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 3:43 PM

Michael,

To whom are you referring and wish they would admit they are wrong? It would be more clear if you let us know who you are talking to.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 4:34 PM

Michael,

Also are you cross posting by mistake? I think you last post as well as ochosinco's would fit better in with your "Barack Obama, American" blog.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 4:51 PM

ocho,

I just like to keep things organized, there is already a thread about that going on, I see that as a continuation of that discussion. I don't know who is wrong according to Michael, it wasn't very clear. I imagine if we aren't flat out wrong, then we are outright lying.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 5:05 PM

Mike, first you issued a challenge to post any rights lost under Obama. Now you narrow it to "constitutional rights lost".

The tax preparer rules have changed and I provided the link to the IRS website. So you say preparers have always been required to have a license, which is patently untrue. A few states have had licensing requirements, but now this is NATIONAL. And it will cause you to pay more to have your taxes computed by a preparer--I suspect you can't prepare your own since it involves so many arcane rules you'd be nuts to try.

It's interesting to me that the first income tax in the modern era started in 1913, same year as the Federal Reserve System. Incomes of over $23,000 were taxed at 1% and it progressed to 6% on income over $503,000. Keep in mind that to adjust for inflation you have to multiply these amounts by about 33 (today's dollar is only worth 3 cents compared to 1913). So those numbers are no tax under $759,000, and you reached the top tax rate at incomes of over $16 million. Here's the form:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/86626...

I was wrong about the internet "kill switch". It did not pass, fortunately. I am sorry for misleading you and the rest. It has been reintroduced in the current congress after failing last year. It allegedly has bipartisan support, and was introduced by Senator Lieberman who will retire in 2012. But it's coming as sure as I live and breathe. And I expect folks like you will applaud it, for the extra security you need.

The US Constitution did not grant us any "rights". It merely listed those rights we already had that the government could not infringe upon. It was a restraint upon the government, not the governed.

The way things are headed, pretty soon everything that is not illegal will be mandatory.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 6:14 PM

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

Under ObamaCare you do not have the "right" to go without healthcare insurance. You get fined if you do not.

I will no longer have the "right" to choose the type of policy I want, especially a high deductible policy. ObamaCare prohibits any policies that don't meet its requirements. So this also eliminates the Health Savings Accounts as a byproduct.

The act levies a bunch of new taxes, on medical insurance companies, on manufacturers and importers of drugs, on makers and manufacturers of certain medical devices, on employers who provide "cadillac" plans (but not for employers of his buddy union members), and on tanning bed providers. People are losing the "right" to more of their money, unless you think we only have a "right" to what the government allows us to keep.

People who itemize their deductins no longer have the "right" to deduct medical costs over 7 1/2% of their income--now it's going to be over 10%. High income people will pay more in medicare taxes, too.

You and I both know this act is law and it passed. It is not constitutional, but it passed. And it DID eliminate a bunch of our rights. You just don't realize it yet since most of it will be imposed AFTER the next election in 2012.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 6:33 PM

ochosinco,

Michael has many subjects I think he is way off course on. That said, I think if I were to try to address every time I think he flashes his intelligence at us all in one blog, it would become so convoluted that I might end up as confused and backwards as Michael himself.

"Do you want 100 individual conversations covering each various subject Michael decides to bring up?"

I actually would prefer that I think, because at least then perhaps Michael would have to actually support one of his baseless claims or admit he is wrong and apologize. I don't think it's going to happen though.

Sorry to impose rules, this is just my preference, but if you disagree that is your privilege.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 7:26 PM

I have decided to exercise my "right" to stop wasting time pointing out where Mike is wrong. I have known the futility of arguing with his liberal world view, from the beginning.

Perhaps when he is older...more open to reason...more immune to government double-speak.

A young man was visiting his farmer grandfather. He witnessed a cow being bred by gramp's bull and asked what was going on. Gramps said, "The bull is servicing that cow." Later discovering that the "s" in IRS stands for "service", he more clearly understood what the IRS is doing to us.

A clear example of double-speak.

Take care all.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 8:15 PM

ok, everything that is wrong in the world is mikes fault or a democrats fault. we have that covered. you are all right and everyone who thinks different is wrong. got that covered.

still waiting for an apology to mike for calling his blog a waste of time yet contunuing to post here

-- Posted by president obama on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 9:53 PM

bigdawg,

I assume that you feel that you posting here is not a waste of time? What do you think that you are acomplishing? There is nothing wrong with wasting a bit of time, dontcha think? Besides, why are you so concerned with an apology to mike? Should I be dogging you for an apology to everyone you ever insult? You are rediculous.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 2:20 AM

bigdawg,

Again, as soon as Mike asks for an apology I will consider an appropriate response. When you asked for an apology for being offended, I proffered one right away, I really don't know what would make you happy. Live your own life perhaps.

I don't believe everything that is wrong in the world is Michael's or Democrat's fault, I'm saddened that you apparently do.

As for posting on a blog to waste time, I'm sorry that it offends you that I choose to waste my time in this fashion.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 9:25 AM

dawg, I dont mind your liberal slant/outlook on things; I really dont mind Michaels either. In your post dated 04/27/11 at 9:53 pm: lets change the name Michael to Sam and lets change the party from Democrats to Republicans. Got that covered.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 12:36 PM

thats my new sig. everyone seems to be doing it so i thought i would join in. sorry it offended you. I am shortening it up a bit

still awaiting for an apology to mike for calling his blog a waste of time.

-- Posted by president obama on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 12:38 PM

(Michael's?) lapdawg,

I'm glad that I have been such a positive influence on you. This is somewhat surprising to me since you said my existence offends you and you don't care at all about me (I'm ignoring the paradox here). No need to apologize, your signature line doesn't offend me in the least, or is this apology for doodle bug? As for me, if I feel I am owed an apology from you I'll let you know much as you did when I offended you. ;)

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 4:11 PM

thanks doodle, I enjoy playing the devils advocate on here. it seems everyone gangs up on mike and picks every word he says apart.

Transplant, there is a whole slew of people whose existience offends me and I dont care about them. I dont see any irony or paradox in that. help me out here, if a persons existience offends me then I have to care about them? if a persons existience does not offend me then I dont have to care?

-- Posted by president obama on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 5:03 PM

(lap)dawg,

You find nothing ironic or paradox inducing if you are offended by something you claim to care not about. In order to feel offended, or anything for that matter, you must first have some investment or feeling attached to the object which is offending you. So in order for me to offend you, you must care about me in some way. Note, I do not mean to imply that you "like" me or anything, just that because you have a feeling as a result of what I say, you have some investment, it can be either an approving or disapproving investment, but it is not a lack of investment or care.

So to answer your questions, 1. Yes, 2. it depends.

The absence of love is not hate, it is apathy. In order to hate, a person must care.

I you didn't care about me or what I say, I have no power to offend. By being offended, you give me power that I should not posses, in my opinion.

You forgot to use your new signature, I know its hard to get into the habit of it, but keep at it and you'll do well.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 7:43 PM

Hmm.. another facet of intolerance rears its ugly head. Not only does bigdawg hate anything that smacks of "producers" he also seems to find the GLBT community distasteful. Interesting. You seem to be chock full of bigotry ole chum.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Apr 28, 2011, at 10:25 PM

whats that supposed to mean, I dont get it. Perhaps you are better versed in name calling then I.

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 7:19 AM

(lap)dawg,

I think Sir Didymus means that by calling me "tranny" that it appears you intend it as a slur against trans-gendered people or against me by implying that I am trans-gendered. Which, by the way, is the same way I understood it. In fact, I can't think of "tranny" used in any other way, except perhaps as in a vehicles transmission, but that would make much sense for name calling. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain in what way you were name-calling?

You also forgot your new signature line again, maybe I should just add that to mine eh?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 8:21 AM

(lap)dawg,

"the 2 are not mutually exclusive."

Do you have any reasoning for your belief? I expounded briefly on mine but you apparently don't agree. Could you share some of your thought process? Or will you be like Michael and just deem because you said so as sufficient to prove your point?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 8:26 AM

I could explain it to you but I dont think you have the mental capacity to grasp it. Furhermore, I dont feel any need to answer to you.

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 12:07 PM

bigdawg,

I would remind you that intolerance is not allowed on the blogs here. I believe you owe some apologies. See, when you use a term describing a minority (especially when it is a derogatory slur to boot) to insult someone that you have admitted irritates you, it tends to expose your thinking. To clarify, If you use a term as an insult, you think it is insulting. I was pretty sure you were a semi-literate pot-stirrer, but until recently I did not think you were a homophobe.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 1:34 PM

SW,

I know you are not really expecting bigdawg to say anything more than his "clever" one or two lines. See my above post. Semi-literate pot stirrer. And apparently a homophobe bigot with a heart of "led".

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 1:38 PM

Mike,

I hope you are doing well, and the storms have missed you. As much as I disagree with alot of your beliefs, and most of your methods. I hope you are staying safe.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 1:40 PM

Didymus we lucked out. Despite the tornado sirens going off for five straight days we only had to deal with minor flooding and tree damage. Though apparently while I was in class Thursday night we had a funnel cloud pass right over the university.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 1:58 PM

Michael,

I am also glad you and your family are well. Speaking of the storms I have a question that perhaps you having spent time both in and out of heavily tornadoed areas could answer. There seems to be much more serious injury and death recently with these storms especially those that hit the south. Do you have any ideas why this occurs? I only have two theories and would value your input. My theories are that either there aren't as many basements in that part of the country or that since tornados are more rare the populace just isn't as "up" on safety precautions as people in the plains.

Still awaiting an apology.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 2:03 PM

(lap)dawg,

"I could explain it to you but I dont think you have the mental capacity to grasp it."

Another connundrum perhaps. If I lack the mental ability to grasp your profound knowledge then you could not possibly explain it to me. You are making a habit out of making these types of statments.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 2:07 PM

dawg, Michael has his liberal defenders on these threads. Why should he feel "picked" on, any more than the conservatives who post on here to have their views belittled?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 3:11 PM

OK! I'm either lost or I missed the boat somehow, are you guys just jiving bigdawg or what? If my handle was SWNebr Transplant and someone referred to me as tranny, I would assume it to be short for transplant. Please tell me your yanking his chain, no pun intended bigdawg.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 7:31 PM

Keda46,

I honestly have never heard "tranny" used as anything other than a slur or as a shorthand in auto repair. Can you think of other ways to use it? He said he meant it as an insult, but when I asked him to explain it he told me I am too stupid to understand and that he didn't have to answer to me. So I don't what he meant and he won't say. I find his lack of explanation more telling than I imagine his answer would be.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 8:13 PM

didymus, "semi-literate pot stirer". I loved that one. I would concider myself be be fully literate but I did get a laugh out of the description.

I also loved the fact that you think calling "transplant" "tranny" for short is somehow a slur aginst the GLBT community. If someone called me a tranny i would not be offended, perhaps the glbt community would be offended by lumping me in with them.

-- Posted by president obama on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 8:52 PM

(lap)dawg,

LOL you crack me up. You concider [sic] yourself fully literate, well I guess there is no arguing with you there.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 9:14 PM

Keda,

No, I am being fairly honest. I see this sort of action alot. This isn't a political thing. But I am being serious, if you use something like calling someone "gay" or "tranny" to insult them, you feel it is an insult, no? . But when you direct it at someone who irritates you and you constantly try and prove them wrong? Well, it shows your hidden feelings about that group. Behavior betrays thinking. That is a truth.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 10:06 PM

bigdawg,

I don't doubt that many in the GLBT community would be offended by the implication that they are like you. They tend to not care for bigots.

Oh, and keep typing and responding to prove how literate you are. Behavior will out.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 10:10 PM

Keda,

I don't know you well enough, but I do believe it wouldn't trip your radar on the tranny thing. That is good. Notice though, bigdawg knew exactly what I was talking about and tried to pull a variation of the "some of my best friends are (insert minority here)"

Watch for it, behavior betrays thinking. I know it does me sometimes. When it is pointed out, I try and examine myself, but, not everybody does.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 10:15 PM

(lap)dawg,

"how do you know people in the glbt scene get offended by the word tranny?"

Allow me to elucidate the situation for you.

http://thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.co...

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 1:59 PM

SW,

Wow! Good link. It actually says what you mean it to, rather than a link to an article oh, that proves that non-renewable energy sources get a fraction of the subsidies as renewable sources get, kilowatt per kilowatt!

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 3:29 PM

bigdawg,

Behavior will out means you act on your beliefs. In other words, you can say all that you want, but your actions will speak louder than your words. See, you can say you believe something all you want, but when your actions give lie to your words, it shows what you REALLY think. Hope this clears that up.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 3:32 PM

welcome to the class of the semi literate

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 6:45 PM

doodle, I would love to know who my liberal defenders (in your eyes) are on this website. As for conservatives having their views belittled I have to disagree with you. There are for more conservative posters and bloggers on this site than there are any other political belief combined. Views are not belittled, stating unverified rumor and misinformation as fact are questioned.

I've yet to see a poster in the past few months call conservativism a disease or the result of brain washing or indoctrination. Yet a conservative blogger has continually for a couple of years now referred to anyone that believes in liberalism as being the victim of a mental disease or being brainwashed by their parents or being indoctrinated by his fabled indoctrination centers that the rest of us know as public education.

Or let's talk about the posters, who every time another poster challenges one of their points, starts calling them junior highish nicknames. Not only that, when they call another poster a junior highish nickname they are often doing it while chastising the other poster for doing the same thing.

One more thing, you may have noticed that I have stayed out of this little fight between three posters as of late, and haven't called down the one poster that tends to either agree with me or actually have the nerve to defend me (we see what happens when posters venture out to defend me). A couple of posters on here a few months ago challenged me to call down another poster because of what that poster was saying. When I asked them quite clearly why they didn't call down those posters they tended to agree with me they both stated quite clearly that since I was calling them down there was really no point for them to call them down. So, I am taking their advice, they obviously can take care of themselves. So I am staying out of it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 12:00 PM

Michael,

I agree with you when you told doodle that there aren't many liberal defenders, if you recall there had previously been many people who identified as liberal but they either got banned or chose to leave.

Conservatism is a disease which may or may not be the result of brain washing or indoctrination. See, I got your back.

I do however object to your implication that I call junior highish names, I believe the names I call are at least high school and perhaps post-secondary qualilty.

One thing to think about perhaps, when people are acting inappropriately on the blog that is associated with you, I believe you have a greater responsibility to try to moderate if you are going to be involved on a daily basis. I think you disagree. Since this isn't my blog, I don't feel I have an obligation to police it, if it were my blog, I think I would feel a greater obligation.

If you want to be defended by a person who jokes using slurs towards a historically persecuted minority that tells more about your views. If anyone ever defends me inappropriately, trust me I will let them know I don't require or condone such behavior.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 12:54 PM

Yes, Michael is bad about not chiding his "supporters" (although, with friends like that, who needs enemies?) even when they attack or denigrate minorities. He is consistant, I'll give him that. Although you might remember (or look up) what Martin Niemöller said about a certain oppresive group. Thats all I have to say about it.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 2:29 PM

SW,

Watch, Mike will say he wasn't talking about you. He thinks that we are all a bunch of morons and all his insults and innuendo stick to you and upset you.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 2:32 PM

"One thing to think about perhaps, when people are acting inappropriately on the blog that is associated with you, I believe you have a greater responsibility to try to moderate if you are going to be involved on a daily basis. I think you disagree. Since this isn't my blog, I don't feel I have an obligation to police it, if it were my blog, I think I would feel a greater obligation."

Another classic bait and switch by you SW. You always in the past claimed the reason you did not call those who agreed with you down who were acting inappropriately was because you felt that I was going to do it anyways so what was the point in doing it yourself. Now, in an attempt to prop yourself up you have changed your mind and that the reason you don't do it is because you don't have a blog, otherwise you would do the right thing (a very nice and sly poke at me).

"If anyone ever defends me inappropriately, trust me I will let them know I don't require or condone such behavior."

It has happened in the past and you did nothing. Unfortunately that user has been banned from the site and their comments removed from the site, so there is no proof.

Then again you started with the name-calling, as you typically do, and then got mad when it was thrown back in your face. It's your fight I'm not getting involved.

Oh, and Didymus I was very much talking about SW, so your little attack on me was very much unwarranted. As SW says, I'll be awaiting your apology.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 10:36 AM

Mike,

Then why did you not just name him? That seems somewhat juvenile to me. But, you have my apology for stating that you would say that you weren't talking about him. Oh, and apology for stating what you were thinking, rather than what I believe you think. I think that is important.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 11:54 AM

Michael,

So I guess you are no longer waiting for an apology. I guess it takes a bigger man than you to admit when he's wrong.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 12:51 PM

Michael,

"Another classic bait and switch by you SW. You always in the past claimed the reason you did not call those who agreed with you down who were acting inappropriately was because you felt that I was going to do it anyways so what was the point in doing it yourself. Now, in an attempt to prop yourself up you have changed your mind and that the reason you don't do it is because you don't have a blog, otherwise you would do the right thing (a very nice and sly poke at me)."

Where do I begin?

You are agreeing with me that in the past I have felt you called SOME people down when they act inappropriately. This seems to me to fit in directly with what you are saying is bait and switch. It has always been your blog, therefore I think it is your responsibility to moderate it, if it is anyone's. My name is not attached to this blog so when haters or lapdogs post inappropriate things, it is not associated with me, however it is associated with you by virture of it being your blog. I think this is just more hypocrisy on your part, since you won't even acknowledge that your "defender" was using slurs.

Here is an interesting point: "is because you don't have a blog, otherwise you would do the right thing"

So you recognize that the right thing to do would be to address people who are inappropriate, yet you won't in this case for reasong known only to you. I think you are walking a coward's path here, since you won't do what you agree is the right thing to do.

"It has happened in the past and you did nothing. Unfortunately that user has been banned from the site and their comments removed from the site, so there is no proof"

I don't know what you're talking about here but since you say there is no proof I am willing to take your word for it. I was wrong to not address someone defending me inappropriately. I can only say that I do not condone it and that if I did so in the past I was wrong to do so. I know that to associate myself with inappropriate action is not much different than taking inappropriate action and so if it comes to my attention I will address it the best way I can.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 1:02 PM

Michael,

By the way, please stop spreading lies about me.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 1:25 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)