2009.04.30
Discuss Thursday's editorials
Exploring a new dream
The defunct Explore Park's would-be developer unveiled part of his plans for 'Blue Ridge Virginia.' It has a familiar, though not unpleasing, ring.
Developer Larry Vander Maten finally gave the public a peek at what he has in mind to transform Roanoke's Explore Park into a major family vacation destination on the Blue Ridge Parkway. True to his word, the plan as shown will not bring roller coasters or other theme park rides to the rolling hills of the Blue Ridge -- a good thing indeed.
Read more.
Specter joins the party of choice
It isn't just a senator leaving their fold that Republicans need to worry about.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democrat in order to better assure his re-election next year. Yes, it's self-serving. And no, it doesn't automatically give Senate Democrats a 60-vote lock on foiling filibusters even when the interminable Minnesota recount is finally called for Democrat Al Franken. Specter is no certain patsy for any party -- just ask the Republicans.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Where are the principles (if any) of the Democratic Party? If the Republican Party and conservatives (2 separate entities which has some overlap) are truly the sinking ship that the liberals and Democrats say they are, then Specter is obviously the rat jumping off the sinking ship and label of the Democratic Party is his life vest against opposition to his nomination as that party’s candidate for re-election to the Senate.
Desperation drives people to do some strange things sometimes. Specter is desperate to save his hide (why, I don’t know, the man is 79 years old and has served long enough a fact I think both parties are tired of. This guy goes back to the Warren Commission for crying out loud). Why don’t the Democrats recognize they are getting a rat, a Washington insider, someone they cast as part of the problem last election, and tell him-thanks, but no thanks? Where are the principles?
Comment by BobH — April 30, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Specter's jumping parties is certainly no profile in courage. He knew he could not win the primary as a Republican. The conservative movement is better off without him just as it is better off with Sen. John Warner's retirement. No upcoming senate votes will be changed by either event.
Remember, Republicans were considered dead in 1964 after Johnson's landslide only to regain power in 1968 with Nixon. Again they were considered dead in 1976 only to win 48 states with the Gipper in 1980. No one thought they could gain control of congress 1n 1994. Bush's 2004 victory is not that long ago. The 2006 election came down to two words: "macaca" and "Foley". It had nothing to do with ideology. McCain's problem was he was not conservative and ran a poor campaign.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Actually, I think Reagan winning 48 states happened in 84 and not 80. But, Carter was defeated (widely) by the largist margin ever for an incumbent president. Having lived during that time, I can say, rightfully so. He was in way over his head as POTUS.
Comment by BobH — April 30, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Actually, you're both wrong! in 1980, Reagan won 44 states to Carter's 6+DC. In 1984, Reagan won 49 to Mondale's 1+DC.
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 11:38 am
OJ, I was just saying that if Reagan won 48 states it happened in 84 and not 80. I wasn't stating that it happened. My recolelction was that Reagan didn't carry Minnesota or DC in 84.
The hunorous part of it was that on election day, the pundits (mostly liberals at the time) were saying it would be a nailbiter.
It was over by 7:30 PM......
Comment by BobH — April 30, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
I don't see the Fraim and Artis editorial listed above, but are a few comments anyway:
1. It is correct but misleading to say that RU's standards were "based on" SCHEV standards. I do not say that the piece misled intentionally; it probably merely reflects the Board's poor understanding of the situation. Here are the actual RU standards, with commentary. A total of ten points was possible.
(a) Five points were awarded for meeting 150% of the minimum SCHEV-required number of graduates and two points were awarded for meeting 150% of the SCHEV requirement for minimum number of majors. No program had ever been held to these standards before or criticized because it did not meet them.
(b) Two points were awarded for having 25% or more of courses taught at the upper level. This is a meaningless statistic. To see why, consider two programs, A and B. Program A teaches ten different upper-level courses and, because of the requirements of other programs, ten different lower-level courses. (Think of Math here.) Program B, on the other hand, teaches only two introductory courses but offers ten different upper-level courses for its majors. Is Program B somehow more viable than Program A? Of course not.
(c) One point was awarded for demand for majors. This is a sensible category, but the measurement of it was far too simplistic to be useful. It very properly used Bureau of Labor Statistics data available on the web, but did a mere count. If you look through that data, how many jobs require, for example, a political science background? Not many, but somehow all those Political Science majors get jobs. Many go to law school.
2. From what I have heard from faculty, the Anthropology department did not volunteer to disband. The story of its dissolution will undoubtedly come out in full in the investigation process established by the Faculty Senate.
3. If you know the background information, you know that the committee's "restructure and continue" vote on Geography essentially abolishes the department. The deans involved recommended that it be merged into a "Geosciences" program in the College of Science and Technology. Of the department's five current faculty members, only one is a physical geographer and so would fit into the new program. The Geosciences program does not now exist and there have been, as far as I know, no concrete steps taken toward establishing it. Indeed, because Virginia Tech has one of the strongest Geosciences programs in the country, many here doubt that we will be allowed to establish one.
4. In my opinion and that of many others, this process, from the poor construction of the assessment rubric to the back-room arm-twisting to the pre-emption of faculty control of the curriculum, *is* an attack on liberal arts education at RU. The provost and others have made it absolutely clear that they intend to move RU toward more "applied" (read "vocational") programs, especially graduate programs. R.J. Kirk has made his support for this clear in many public and private meetings, and according to Bob Blake, former Board member, Kirk runs the whole show (see http://newrivervoice.com/archives/2646). From what I can see, this entire process has been undertaken in order to shift resources from traditional programs to more popular programs that our administration prefers. As I've said before, I have no objection to vocational programs, but without the traditional ones, we're not really a university, and the value of a Radford degree will decline.
Why did the Roanoke Times fire Tim Thornton?
Comment by Stephen Corwin — April 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
"The takeover by the fringe far-right element has left not only voters overall cold, it is driving away good Republicans."
Will someone please tell me which positions the so called "fringe far-right" (read: conservatives) of today differ from the Reagan positions of 1980. He was always prolife, for lower taxes, less government, free markets, less government regulation, rebuilding the military, opposing communism, and foreign military intervention as needed.
If anything the Republican party of today has moved too far left.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
BobH, you'd be correct with Minnesota and DC, Mondale's home state and the perennial Democratic stalwart in the District.
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Yeah, true OJ. But Minnesota decided that didn't want Fritz when he ran for senator again.
Comment by BobH — April 30, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
John R, you make a good point but, Reagan did not make the mistakes that Bush did. Reagan had those positions, yes, BUT: "He was always prolife" but he never did anything more than "say" it, "for lower taxes" yes and that worked for his economy not so much for Bush's crash crisis, "less government" yes he made that infamous, but people have come to realize that some things are so big ONLY the government can do them, "free markets" again that has failed the working class like nothing else has and would be a deadly position right now, "less government regulation" yeah but that was before the Wall Street geniuses ruined a good thing and gilded that lily for a very long time, "rebuilding the military" yes but he did not start a war we could not win and a war of convenience for good measure, "opposing communism" that boogey-man is dead, and "foreign military intervention as needed" that may have been his stated position but he would not have done Iraq even after 9/11 IMHO. He was a master communicator who made even the people who had no place in his society feel that they did. The R's need to be desperately searching for another Reagan type of candidate.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Reagan invaded Grenada and bombed Libya. He and Pat Robertson met regularly. Last I checked, we won the Iraq War. Communism is alive and well in Central and South America. Obama is trying to take this country to European style socialism. And finally, we shall see if Obama and the Dems have the stomach for a protracted war in Afghanistan. They don't seem to have the stomach for the War on Terror generally.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
So called "moderates" and "centrists" are merely folks too cowardly to call themselves "liberals". What great "moderate" was there ever in history? "Moderates" believe in nothing, have no principles (other than themselves), as Senator Specter so aptly demonstrated the other day.
Both George W. Bush and John McCain are so-called "moderates". On domestic policy, President Bush was a "moderate" disaster. And John McCain got his clock cleaned in the election by the least experienced and most radical presidential candidate in history.
It's time for a real conservative--like Ronald Reagan. And Ms. Saunders, he did plenty. He reinvigorated a nation, an economy and a world. He, along with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher, won the Cold War. The world owes Ronald Reagan a debt it can never repay.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — April 30, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
"Last I checked, we won the Iraq War." -John R.
John, please tell me that statement is a joke. Last I check I have a ton of friends STILL fighting in Iraq and some with the possibility of going back for round 2. Someone must have forgotten to tell them that we won.
Comment by HCS — April 30, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Well, Iraq was controlled by military dictator who desired to control the middle east. Now Iraq is controlled by a popularily elected parliment that is pro west. I would call that a victory.
Comment by John R — April 30, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
John R is right.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — April 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
there's no fighting going on in Iraq...every so often a nut case with some explosives blows up innocent civilians at a market ... there is an elected government with a constitution, the provinces are under local government control. the army is stood up. the police force manned and trained, electricity is on, the oil fields are producing. When's the last time anyone has seen a "number of soldiers killed in Iraq" report
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
our military routed Saddam's army in the field in less than 4 weeks, occupied the country's capital, captured, tried and executed its leader, convened and interim government which wrote and ratified a constitutiion, held national elections and established a representative government. What does it take to win a war?
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
As a moderate, I take offense to the generalization that moderates stand for nothing. I stand for plenty of things, and the only reason I call myself a moderate is that my views are liberal for some things, and conservative for others. Libertarian might be the most close description out there, but even that doesn't fit very well with what my political, social, financial, and religious views are. So I'll proudly stick with my moderate label, thank you very much!
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Other John: What is the moderate position on taxation? Tax some folks oppressively and others not at all? What is the moderate position on abortion? Call it "choice" so that you don't have to face the unpleasant truth that its murder? How about the concepts of right and wrong? Do moderates have a stance there, or do they go with the moral relativism thing? And can you name a great moderate in history? One who was consequential?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — April 30, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Moderate people surely have views... I consider myself socially liberal and economically conservative, but pretty much i try to stay toward the middle. I dislike extremist evangelical christian conservatives who want to tell people what to do with their bodies (and then blow up abortion clinics) just as much as I hate PETA and environmental activists (who blow up Hummer Dealerships)
Being Moderate is about being against massive shifts toward any one direction. If Bush was a centrist, then I must be getting ready to protect a tree from being cut down. That dude was an extremist right-winger who sent this country back in time about 50 years socially and 10-15 years econimically. I have no problem with republicans. I have problems with extremists. Is Obama an Extremist? Maybe a little bit. But after such a wild swing to the right, something must be done to bring us back to the middle.
But honestly, this should be a wake-up call to corporate America. Stop taking massive profits as executive bonuses.... and start boosting society as a whole. Not just the top .1% I have no pity if the top echelon gets taxed at a much higher rate at this point. It's already been shown that many corporations and individuals that make the top wages can afford the tax attorneys necessary to avoid paying taxes. So I say make it fair, then adopt a usage tax. The more you consume, the more you pay. Fair for everyone.
Glen, if you think there are only two polar ends to anything, you must be terribly conflicted by the idea of a military or police or the death penalty. If it's wrong to kill (says so in the bible) then how about all our young boys and girls overseas killing people, or how about cops who have to kill, or the death penalty! I mean, IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE.
Truth is... The world is made up of many colors, not just black and white. Not just left-wing and right-wing. Not just liberal and conservative. Newton's third law of motion states simply that "For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions." The same is true throughout our government. For every step to the right, we need steps to the left to correct it. When that goes too far to the left, then we need some conservatism to counteract that. We will be best served as citizens when equality and balance are brought to us.
Comment by scott — April 30, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz said: "John R is right." Well I doubt anyone here thought he was left.
I do not know why you folks are raggin on Moderates, YOU need them DESPERATELY and this is how you treat them? Mayhap that is why so many are leaving the GOP tent.
I know Reagan was a saint BUT the raw truth is that he was a masterful politician above and beyond all else and he was astute enough to know where the lines were and if he flirted with crossing them, he was quickly brought back in line by a wide streak of realism that helped him govern. You may remember Grenada and Libya as big successes but they were chest puffing with no real danger and he knew it. Pat Robertson's own lunacy made him a very safe 'paper tiger'. Only a real Conservative can call Iraq a success or a "won" war, the rest of us know better. Yeah, we all lay awake nights worrying about Central and South America too.
President Obama is trying to save the middle class and working families in this country from the certain destruction they faced under the previous financial schemes and CEO's run amok. Those who skipped the "trickle down kool-aid" realize that the middle class has been shrinking and struggling mightily while losing ground for the past decade and the rich just kept on getting richer. Our country and our economy can support the obscene wealth building schemes and outrageous CEO compensation demands but cannot afford a living wage and the ability to afford a college education for working people? Give me a break. The spell has been broken and the naked emperor of capitalism has been exposed. Obama is not a Socialist or any other pejorative you want to use, neither are the Dems/Libs you so scorn. We want a fair chance and a level playing field. IF paying your fair share of taxes has now become Socialist policy, and believing that Exxon making record profits while working people had to ration gas is Marxist, sign me up.
You shall see just what we have the stomach for and the saved middle class and the Moderates you disdain will see to it. Keep kickin that sand, Biff.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
B. Hussein Obama is a socialist and a fascist. Look the definitions up, it is true. And there is a big difference between the government forcibly taking money from producers and giving it to non-producers, and Exxon/Mobil. The government is acting as a robber, pure and simple. Exxon/Mobil is engaged in voluntary exchanges with people. No one must buy from Exxon/Mobil; nothing about the government's tax policy is voluntary, or fair.
If you want to go to college, pay for it yourself; don't demand that others pay for you. The truly greedy are those who covet the wealth of others, and demand that government confiscate for their vision of the "common good". The Left is one big ball of greed.
AND STILL NO ONE has identified a great, consequential moderate in history. Let's face it; there are none. A moderate is the equivalent of luke warm food; it cannot make up its mind, and tastes terrible as a result. Take a stand folks. It's not a crime to be either liberal or conservative. But isn't it interesting that only conservatives are proud enough of their beliefs to proclaim them. Accuse a liberal of being a liberal, and they will a) deny it, proclaiming themselves "moderate"; or, b) denounce you as being guilty of "labeling" or worse, a hate crime. Take responsibility for yourselves, for goodness sakes!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — April 30, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
BTW, Scott, the Bible says that thou shall not murder; it does not say thou shall not kill. While all murders are a killing, not all killings are a murder. I am not conflicted at all. I know the difference between right and wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — April 30, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
I think I might be a social liberal and an economic conservative..I am all for feel good programs as long as I don't have to pay for it
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
Socialism: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Authority vested in a dictator vs. authority and ownership vested in the community as a whole. Two contradictory belief systems, yet GFK says Obama is both. Interesting feat, that.
Oh, and when did Obama make himself a dictator? Guess I missed that news flash.
Did you know that fascists are anti-communist (could be why the Soviets were on our side in World War II)? But communism is socialism, right? So fascists are anti-socialists. Which means Obama, as a fascist-socialist is anti-himself.
The mind reels.
What this comes down to is simple: Republicans are running out of names to call. Liberal doesn't work any more. Socialist didn't work. Now they're trying fascist, even though it's contradictory to the other names.
Is it any wonder a mere 20 percent of the country identifies itself as Republican. This is the opposition?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
If the shareholders and board of directors of a company ...say that makes Skippy Peanut Butter ...wants to pay the CEO a big salary and bonus ... what business is it of mine?
Comment by wayne p. — April 30, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Again I say, go ahead, bash those Moderates and people who refuse your label at your own peril "Sen. McCarthy". YOU NEED THEM! Do you seriously think there are nearly enough of YOU out here in the real world? Lucky for us all you do not get to assign labels nor beliefs. This is indeed a sad discussion and I am quitting, but not before I say that there is nothing more dangerous than an intelligent person trying to persuade people with a bad argument by sheer will. You may fool some, you can't fool all and you will NEVER fool enough again. Any politician who talks like Glen Franklin Koontz is bound to fail and even his party faithful will eventually shy away. It is just not smart. Someone with your rationale calling President Obama or us Liberals any name or pejorative you can muster only weakens your own cause. With such in his corner, it is no wonder McCain was doomed. Please, I beg you, keep it up.
Good night.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 30, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
If the board of directors are all buddies of the CEO - say they all sit on each other's boards to make sure they all get good raises, regardless of how their respective businesses are doing - and you end up paying twice as much for peanut butter and a bunch of other products, while your job is outsourced to make sure the financials look good enough for the CEO at your former company to get his bonus ... you don't see a problem?
Face it, Wayne, the oligarchs have messed up the system beyond all recognition. Something must change, or there will not be a middle class left in this nation.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — April 30, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Glen, I'm going to have to guess you didn't read my post. I said I consider myself a moderate because some of my views are liberal, while others are quite conservative. For example on a few, I am extremely pro 2nd Amendment for gun rights. I don't like the thoughts of registering weapons or bans on certain types, because it's generally arbitrary and it doesn't do squat to reduce gun crimes or deaths by illegally obtained weapons, it just hinders the rights of law-abiding citizens.
I am generally for lower taxes, though I also recognize that there are some instances when higher taxes are a necessity, though certainly unpleasant. I however, do not have issues with taxing lower income earners a lower rate than higher earners. I was once a lower-income worker who benefited by not having to pay out the note, relatively speaking in terms of my income, in taxes...and I have since worked into much higher brackets and pay substantially more in taxes than I used to in total dollar amounts and in marginal rates. That does not bother me though, because I know my taxes are in some ways funding things that help me enjoy the highest standard of living and relative security known on the planet.
I am also pro-choice. While I will never have an abortion, I also think it's up to the person or couple in the situation and their doctor to decide what may be best, rather than a bunch of white-haired old men (generally speaking) parked on Capitol Hill. I am very much not in favor of imposing specific religious beliefs, such as ones on abortion, onto the rest of society just because it is politically expedient to do so. We have freedom of choice in this country. If you don't like what you read in the paper, you are free to switch to another. If you don't like what you see on TV, you are free to turn the channel. If you don't like where you work, you are free to find another. And if you don't want to have an abortion, you are perfectly free to not have one. That's part of why I love this country so much, we all have the freedom (what's left anyway) to do what we feel is in our own best interest for personal, moral, or religious reasons. There is no way on earth I will ever advocate for restricting freedoms of the general population just because one particular religious faction thinks they should have the ability to direct legislation regarding certain issues.
I am very much supportive of the military. I am a Navy Brat, my wife is an Army Brat, and we have had numerous other relatives who have proudly served this nation in both times of war and in peace. I will always jump to defend our troops and the work they do, even if I happen to think the orders coming from the top are misguided. For the record, there have been several military campaigns undertaken by both recent Presidents Clinton and Bush II that I have disagreed with in retrospect as new information came to light.
So, just to take a few things I feel fairly strongly about, I tallied up two fairly strong conservative opinions regarding guns and our military, two fairly liberal positions regarding abortion and religion, and a middle of the road position on taxes. The point on personal freedoms could go either way; I just count that as a pro-American position because freedom is what made this country the greatest on earth. And just so everyone knows, my conservative-liberal definitions on these issues is based on current political trending regarding what I have perceived as the liberal or conservative slant on these issues. SO, I definitely don’t fall into either camp because I express too many liberal opinions to be a conservative, and I express too many conservative views to be a true liberal. Hence, I am a moderate, yet I stand for many things. Does that make any sense, or will you continue to denigrate persons such as myself as being invectives wafflers?
As for some past examples of people generally thought of as moderates in their political views, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are considered to have championed moderate political views. I don't know of too many people who would look at them in historical context as lukewarm food. They were pretty clear with what they beleived in, though it certainly wasn't the hardline extremes that some folks think are the only two possibile choices a person can make.
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Sorry, that should say 'indecisive' wafflers...my spellcheck went haywire.
Comment by Other John — April 30, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Glen, another excellent point about how time changes the word in the bible.
The majority of interpretations of the bible since the history of time have said "Thou shalt not kill" and protestant versions, particularly in recent history have re-worded it to read "Thou shalt not murder." That makes all those wars and killing just that more acceptable to society, doesn't it?
Please read this section, and take careful look at the dates of publishing of various Bibles that change the word to Bible... you'll find that it's a 20th century change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Killing_or_murder
You might also try looking up Fascism while you're at it. Fascism was the last 8 years... not the last few months.
I'd also love to see what happens if they kill off government loans for college. I'd love to see a nation of uneducated and unenlightened folks roaming the streets unable to understand basic concepts in science and math contributing to society. The world needs more Burger Flippers. Especially in places like Martinsville with the 20% unemployment rate.
Yeah, Brilliant Idea.
Comment by scott — May 1, 2009 @ 1:41 am
Glen Franklin Koontz, you said, "BTW, Scott, the Bible says that thou shall not murder; it does not say thou shall not kill. While all murders are a killing, not all killings are a murder. I am not conflicted at all. I know the difference between right and wrong."
The last time I was interested enough to look into it, there were at least 257 different versions of the Bible in print and available at a big box book store. By now there are probably 300 or more. I'd say you can find corroboration for virtually anything you want in one of them but, the New Revised Standard Version and the King James Version both say kill, not murder.
Comment by allen bunch — May 1, 2009 @ 1:53 am
"Last I checked, we won the Iraq War." -John R.
Today in the Washington Post,
"BAGHDAD, May 1 -- Two marines and a sailor were killed in western Iraq Thursday, making April the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since September, the military announced Friday.........At least 18 American troops were killed in April, twice as many as the previous month. The figure is low compared to most other periods of the war, but the highest since 25 troops were killed in September...."
Surely there are references, which will back up and support your claim, care to share with us?
Comment by Gary — May 1, 2009 @ 6:51 am
I think that we can just sit back and relax as we enjoy the spectacle of the GOP digging itself deeper and deeper into irrelevance and redundancy. Remember 2004 when Rove was yapping about the GOP having a "permanent majority"? They have no leaders of note, no ideas that anyone considers germane...as long as all they can do is blather about homosexuality, abortion, and the horrors of our tax code...I'd say they can look forward to a good long stay in political Siberia.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Dan Radmacher: B. Hussein Obama has fired the CEOs of AIG, GM and Bank of America, and set into motion the firing of Chrysler's head. He wishes to take over the health care industry. He seeks to make college education a "right". He seeks to determine banks' lending policies. He wants to "spread the wealth" around. He embraces the Fairness Doctrine, though under the nomenclature of diversity of ownership. He even has his own "Hitler Youth", aka as Americorp, and his Black Shirts, aka as ACORN. And he wishes to do all this with government money, and without any constitutional authority whatsoever.
Now you may call B. Hussein Obama what you wish. But I would call him a fascist, a socialist and a dictator. And I would be right.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Other John: T. Roosevelt was a liberal/progressive, with very fascist ideas. He was no moderate. As for Eisenhower, winning the WWII as a general and playing golf at Augusta National does not make you a consequential president. Indeed, he was not. Nice try though.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 9:28 am
There is no such thing as a liberal/progressive fascist. They are contradictions in terms, and if you doubt it consult any 100 level college political science textbook.
Throwing around nonsensical terms reflects not one iota on Obama. But again, as a democrat, I can only embrace the right's willingness - eagerness - to throw itself even further and further on the outskirts of mainstream America.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 9:54 am
GFK...
You may want to go back and do a little more indepth research before posting your rants.
The CEO of B of A is still Ken Lewis. The STOCKHOLDERS of the bank stripped him of the title of Chairman of the Board, not the Federal Government.
As far as Chrysler goes, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that if Fiat took over the company, Fiat management would run the show. Frankly, Nardelli hasn't shown much leadership at Chrysler (pretty much the same as he did when he was at the head of Home Depot). He left GE in a temper tantrum when he wasn't tapped to lead it after Jack Welch retired.
No one in the administration wants to run any company or bank. Their desire is to get them healthy again and let the private sector have the ownership and management responsibilities.
Comment by Will — May 1, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Funny that both of them were part of the Republican party and espoused numerous conservative beliefs, intertwined with liberal beliefs....yet you consider them either leftists or irrelevent. That speaks quite a lot to where you come from with your ascertions. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Kristen:
Liberals--who hang out on the Left--enjoy company with the so-called "progressives" and the fascists, as well as the socialists and the communists. A classical liberal is today's conservative (not faux conservative like Orrin Hatch, but true conservative like James DeMint).
Liberals, socialists, fascists and progressives all have one thing in common--they believe in the use of force (i.e., government) in order to structure society as they see fit. Hence, Obama thinks nothing of using government to force automakers to manufacture "green" cars, or banks to make loans to folks who cannot afford the obligation.
By contrast, conservatives, or classical liberals, believe in individual freedom. They reject the collective. They believe that rights are granted by God, and not by man. While a conservative may prefer a "green" car, he would never use the government to force a company to manufacture it, or the consumer to buy it. Rather, the conservative would trust the free market--individuals making many free choices and exchanges--to produce society's needs.
The B. Hussein Obama crowd--made up of fascists, liberals and "progressives"--are all about government dictates. How interesting that folks who claimed that W was a dictator violating the Constitution are embracing B. Hussein, whose tyrannical impulses make Caesar look like a piker.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Always good to see that ideolgy fanatics are still willing to show off.
Glen Franklin Koontz, you may be 'right', but you will never be correct and there is a big difference.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Other John: I am not, nor have I claimed to be, a Republican. I believe in ideas. Most politicians believe in themselves; which would be fine, if they wouldn't strive so hard to inflict themselves on us. Ike never had an original idea that didn't involve a golf ball. Roosevelt had ideas, but they were truly scary ideas, all involving the use of his authority backed up by government force.
Why should not people be left alone to pursue their own dreams? The role of government should be to protect by the rule of law the society, not to inflict its preferences upon the electorate. One might should save for retirement or emergencies, but it is not government's role to force such savings. Living on the coast is wonderful, but if a hurricane drowns your dreams, government should not act to rebuild them. Folks who don't work should not eat (a princple espoused by Captain John Smith at Jamestown; his directive saved the colony from starvation caused by America's first welfare participants). And not everyone should go to college. Everyone is not equal, though all should enjoy equal rights under the law. There is a right and a wrong, and government should not be working to oppress right (hate crimes laws, judicial usurpations of community norms, bias against religion).
You do what you do, and I do what I do, and we can coexist nicely. But when government tells you what you do, and me what I do, we are nothing but slaves.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Ms. Saunders: People accept, or do not accept, my ideas by choice. Folks like you demand that government impose your ideas. Who does that suggest is the weaker intellectually?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Really GFK? Conservatives believe in "individual freedom"? What about the "individual freedom" of gays to marry or join the military? What about the "individual freedom" of women to seek out safe, legal and available abortions? I have to assume that these rights were, too, "granted by God".
As for the rest of your supporting rationale...I've seen and heard it all before. Calling him "Hussein" and crediting him with "tyrannical impulses" do not lend credence to your argument.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 10:26 am
GFK I do have to say I love how you blame the Jamestown colony's starvation on "welfare recipients". That's given me the best chuckle I've had all day!
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Glen, I generally agree with your post in #42. I don't like the thought of government intervening in my personal affairs, or those of my wife, or our neighbors, etc. I do like government stepping in when other individuals, corporations, or other entities infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens. For me, it goes beyond the typical liberal/conservative tags and I try to view it all inclusive. I don;t want the government restricting expression of people's religion, nor do I want it to enact religious doctrine as rule of law. Certainly, the root base of most laws are in some form of religoous or moral pretext, but most are common across the world's great religions. Issues like abortion and gay rights, which frequently mix religion and politics, are not things that should be controlled by the government, but rather left to the citizens to decide in their own lives how they wish to address said issues. The problem I see is that folks are the very far hard left want the government to run all manner of financial and economic affairs, and folks are the very far hard right want the government to dictate all manner of social and perceived moral issues. I am for neither, maybe I am closer to a Libertarian than I thought.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Kristen:
1. Abortion is murder. There is no right to extinguish an innocent life.
2. Marriage is not a right, it is a sacrament. And homosexuals can marry; they just cannot marry each other (i.e., man and man, woman and woman). Rather, homosexuals who wish to marry must comply with the definition of marriage, which is between one man and one woman.
3. Joining the military is not a right. But, homosexuals can join the military, so long as they do not reveal or act on their sexual preferences. The military is not a licentious do whatever makes you feel good organization. Homosexual conduct, adultery, fraternization between enlisted men and officers are but a few examples of improper conduct.
4. The President's middle name is "Hussein" and he uses it in his official capacity.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Kristen: I wrote "welfare participants". At the time of John Smith's arrival, the colony was failing due to the many who would not work but expected to be taken care of by those who did. How in the world is "welfare participants" an inaccurate description of these leeches? They were the forerunners of those who today demand that their mortgages, education, and health care be provided for, and paid by, others. Perhaps I should substitute the term "leeches". It is a more accurate description.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Agreed Kristen...while I agreed with the overall theme of his post, there were parts that had me a tad on the puzzled side....that being one of them.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am
GFK...your responses were precisely what I expected them to be.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Ok Glen, so the killing of innocent civilians in times of war by stray fire or stray bombs, soldiers should be brought to trial by the same rationale to answer for taking an innocent life? 'Marriage' as you defined it, is not the same view that all cultures or religions take, as some do not restrict homosexual relationships...so why should their freedoms be restricted because it's the view of one group but not the other?
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Kristen:
Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive rejoinder. I believe we understand each other perfectly.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Other John:
1. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate and unavoidable part of war. But it is not a crime.
2. No major religion defines marriage as between other than one man and one woman--not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Shintoism. If you are referring to a few radical heretics within various sects of Christianity, then I can only state that there have always been false prophets. That they exist does not validate their heretical views.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Glen, homosexual behavior is improper? says who?
Also, you do realized that you couldn't find anything more substantial to critisize Obama other than his middle name? Assuming you are using your real name, it appears that your middle name is Franklin...I suppose that puts you in the same category as Aretha Franklin? Ben Franklin?? I think it is easy to see my point.
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 11:13 am
G. Franklin Koontz: Several polygamists were lauded and upheld as premier moral examples in the Bible.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — May 1, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Glen, you may want to check your history. John Smith was one of the original settlers/leaders of the Jamsetown colony, not a later arrival. He was actually going to be executed for being a troublemaker during the voyage over from England to the Virginia Colony, but Christopher Newport spared his life when it was revealed in sealed orders that Smith was to lead the Jamestown settlement. His leadership is actually regarded by many to be a failure, because starvation, indian conflicts, and lack of revenue-generating exports plagued the settlement. In fact, SMith left Jamestown just 2 years after arriving to return to England, and never returned. It really wasn't until 1612 when John Rolfe introduced tobacco as an export that Jamestown really moved to a point of sustainability.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Here is the best analogy I have: I took my baby daughter to the zoo once, we saw some zebras. Like all mothers who teach at every opportunity, I said "see the pretty zebra". "Orsey" she replied. "No, that's a zebra, see his stripes, that makes him a zebra, not a horsey". She looked at me in 2 year old indignation, consternation and pity (for obviously I was just plain wrong) and said emphatically, "Orsey"!. I had to let that slide because I knew she would either pick it up eventually or embarrass herself when she next saw a zebra. Natural Consequences I believe the experts call it.
I see and believe President Obama and his administration are trying to right wrongs and make the ship of state a stable vessel again. I see that the free market, capitalist, trickle down theory ran amok and ruined the economy for the whole world in general and America in particular. I see zebras. If you see 'orsey's' that is your problem!
Time will tell who is correct and there is another election in 2010 and 2012 for you to try and sell that oil again.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 11:16 am
DAN RADMACHER: The Bible also contains incidents of adultery, murder, theft and false prophecy. But the word of God is what is important, and God defined marriage--from the beginning in Genesis-as between one man and one woman. And, as I stated in response to Other John's statement, no major religion does, or ever has, sanctioned homosexual marriage.
HCS:
1. I criticized B. Hussein Obama on many things relating to his presidential actions. I have never criticized his middle name; rather, I have only referred to him by his name.
2. God says homosexual conduct is a sin. Do you require any further authority?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:19 am
I think this is where I'm going to step aside, as this is turning into a theological debate where little value can be gained from it since I have firm beliefs that are in contrast to what is being espoused here, and I doubt any common understanding will be gained by it. Thanks for playing, enjoy the consolation prize.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Other John: After landing at Jamestown, Captain Smith left the colony to explore and map the country. He returned (my apologies for not being clear) to find the colony in disarray due to the failure of many fortune seekers to work to establish the colony. Captain Smith issued the edict to which I referred--he who will not work shall not eat--and the colony was saved. You may point to 1612 or 1619 as the Jamestown Colony's point of sustainability, but if Captain Smith had not acted, the colony would have foundered at birth.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Actually, I'm going to add one final point to this. I do not beleive that homosexuality is a sin or wrong, just as I do not have a problem if someone I know has an abortion. The fact is, if my neighbor is gay or if they have an abortion, my actual life is not impacted by their decisions. All I can do is live my life in a way that I feel is moral, right, and good, and hope that is enough to warrant a favorable treatment in the afterlife.
Just as I would never support the forceful use of government to tell someone that they had to have an abortion simply because it was legal, or that they had to perform a gay marriage ceremony just because it was legally recognized, I would likewise enjoy a reicprocal treatment by you to not use the government to dictate that a person not have an abortion or not be permitted to have a legally recognized gay relationship simply because they go against what you beleive. If you live your life according to your moral code to please your God and gain favorable judgement in the afterlife, then why do you feel it necessary to dictate to others how they ought to live their own lives, when their morality and yours do not share similar threads?
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Glen - yes I do require further authority because I do not consider myself a follower of Christianity so that means nothing to me.
"4. The President's middle name is "Hussein" and he uses it in his official capacity." - Glen
Is that statement simply referring to him by name and not criticizing it? You clearly are USING his middle name to imply he is a terrorist. Silly.
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Ms. Saunders:
First, B. Hussein Obama's elixir will not cure what ails us, because it has been tried before (many times) and it always fails. Indeed, trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result is a definition of insanity.
Second, EVEN IF B. Hussein Obama's programs and actions brought untold prosperity to the land, it would not erase the fact that he is acting unconstitutionally, and in violation of the rights of many. The ends do not justify the means. After all, the Nazis restored prosperity to a beaten down Germany, and brought that country to the precipice of world domination. Is that your model, assuming the purity of B. Hussein Obama's motives (which I dispute)?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Funny how you have yet to condemn any of the other deadly sins and things that used to be abominations. Funny how you rationalize the ones you "agree" with. And I am not laughing! I most certainly require a further authority when ANYONE speaks for GOD! God did not write the Bible, God did not edit the Bible and God never published the Bible. You speak of false prophets with disdain and yet never conceive that you might be quoting one? You need to broaden your scope of evidence and stop trying to prove a losing argument. There are many good and moral teachings in any religion you can name, that does not mean that any of it actually came from God and you should try a modicum of humility in your views and presentation if you want to convince people. I am just arguing with you because you and people of the same closed mindset are thankfully wondering in the wilderness and I do not think Moses, Mohammad or any other true Prophet is coming to rescue you anytime soon.
God makes homosexuals just as he made you, there is no difference and I believe one day he will tell you so, in some form or fashion. Good luck with that judgmental, irrational, fear mongering, wealth protecting argument in Glory! It is funny, but I cannot help but think that people who believe as you have espoused had better pray there is no judgment. My open hearted, open minded and hard headed beliefs may well earn me a spot in Hell, but I will not be alone.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 11:45 am
So, John Smith acted as an authoritarian ruler of the colony and saved it. I thought you said that governmental leaders should not tell a person what to do, since it would turn them into slaves. Isn't that what Smith essentially did, and you use this as an example of what should be done? Am I missing something, because this is not adding up to me.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Other John: Christians are not dictating to anyone. It is the atheists and the secular humanists who demand that religion be banished from the public square. It is the radical homosexual movement who demands that marriage be REDEFINED. And it is the radical feminist movement who demand an adherence to laws that permit the MURDER of infants from the point of conception to the the moment of, and at times, after, birth.
If you don't care about the banishment of God from public life, and if you don't care if the marriage institution is destroyed, and if you don't care if women murder their children, fine. You don't have to care. But your lack of caring doesn't make you a fine person. And one day, these same folks might want to impose something upon you that you do care about. At that point, since you didn't care about anyone else's causes, you may find that no one cares about your cause either.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:49 am
HCS: First, I cannot provide you other or higher authority, as there is none. God is the ultimate authority in this world. Second, I never called the President a terrorist. I did call him a liberal, a dictator, a progressive, a fascist, a socialist and a communist, but never a terrorist. But if you would like to make a case, hey! I'm all for it.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Well, good to know that you think Bush and Darth need to be investigated for the "would not erase the fact that he is acting unconstitutionally, and in violation of the rights of many". The legal scholars and Constitution loving Americans will at least join you in that one.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Ms. Saunders: I condemn all sin, and strive to love all sinners. That is God's command. God certainly did make those who engage in sexual perversity, just as he made those who commit murder, robbery, rape, lie, cheat and steal. But while God commands us to love one another, he does not command us to celebrate our sins. Indeed, he commands us to repent and to turn away from sin. Those who celebrate homosexuality are breaking God's commandments.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:55 am
GFK's positions are prime examples of why the conservative movement continues to become more marginalized. I read his posts and rather than arguing with him, I'll choose to ignore further posts.
His posts have become a shining example of where the ultra conservative Republicans have alienated most reasonable people.
He makes statements that are clearly false and unresearched...consequently of little or no benefit for real discussion.
Comment by Will — May 1, 2009 @ 11:56 am
I'm sorry perhaps I missed something Glen but how is Obama "acting unconstitutionally"?
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Other John: Captain Smith was not a dictator. He merely refused to countenance a welfare statement. He did not make men work. But he did not allow men who refused to work to eat of the produce of those men who did work. The slothful were always free, but also hungry.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Really? I don't recall any of those groups you mention saying that Bible-abiding Christians had to get an abortion, or enter into a gay marriage. But I do recall plenty of Bible-abiding Christians working to change laws or institute new laws to prevent others who may not share the same Christian views to prevent them from being able to have an abortion or enter into a gay relationship.
I do not agree with banning of religious displays from public view, though I do question their display on publically/government owned properties. If a store owner wants to display a fish symbol to show that the business is Christian owned to help drum up more support, good for them! If they want to say 'Merry Christmas' and have a nativity display on their property, they have the right. Same goes for a Jewish person displaying the Menorah, or a Muslim having the Shahadah displayed on their wall, etc.
As for marriage being destroyed, I think Hollywood has been far more destructive to marriage than anything else. The chic 5-minute joke marriages are far more damaging to the concept of marriage than if a gay couple down the street who is committed to each other gets legal recognition of their relationship.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Glen - God is the ultimate authority to SOME people in SOME parts of this world. Unless I missed something in the past day there are many many religions out there...and on top of that the United States of America prides itself on having freedom of religion....just to clarify to you Glen because you don't seem to get it - this means that our government recognizes that there are other religions besides Christianity and that it would be foolish and wrong to dictate which one we follow. I.E. you need another source other than God to tell someone that they are improper.
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
"And one day, these same folks might want to impose something upon you that you do care about. At that point, since you didn't care about anyone else's causes, you may find that no one cares about your cause either."
Glen Franklin Koontz: Hoisted on his own petard!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 1, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Frankly GFK I don't feel compelled to offer substative rejoinder to views that pose no further material than what can be heard on hate radio any day of the week. What you call "your ideas" offer no originality whatsoever.
Tellingly, you don't want the government ( duly lawfully elected) interfering in your life or telling you what to do, but you're more than happy flogging the Bible (faith based, at best, and with no legal standing in the public forum) to accomplish the same thing.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
HCS: The federal government does not have the authority to invest in, bailout, take over, sell, or force into bankruptcy American businesses. The federal government does not have the authority to regulate manufacturing. Today the Congress--Republicans and Democrats, at the urging of B. Hussein Obama--held a hearing on legislation aimed to force changes in the college football BCS system. It should not surprise you that the federal government maintains no authority over college football. AND the federal government has no authority to run, own, enter into, fund, or regulate the medical/health care industry. But B. HUSSEIN OBAMA wants more government involvement in health care. Ditto education.
HCS, rather than use all this space to enumerate B. Hussein Obama's and his colleagues' and predecessors' sins (since about 1930), how about you read the Constitution, Article I and II, and tell me what authority exists for B. Hussein Obama's actions and proposals? I especially want you to cite chapter and verse where the President is empowered to fire corporate executives and set salary scales.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Will, you are wiser than I in that regard. I think I'll take a lesson from you and do likewise. I guess it is better to pick and choose the battles rather than to take shrapnel and flak in each and every one that presents itself.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
HCS: That all do not recognize God's authority does not serve to diminish it. Rather, the failure to recognize God's authority says more about the person than about God.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Other John: I do not believe in moral relativism. Apparently, you do.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Will characterizes my opinions as false and unresearched, but offers no examples or refutations. How persuasive!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
I do. I do not think I know what is best for you, or some guy in India, or someone in Saudi Arabia, or anyone else for that matter other than myself. I am not you, or them, so I am not qualified to make such judgements.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Other John: That is the difference between us. I believe in universal truths, and absolute rights and wrongs.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
I think the fact that we elected a president named B. Hussein Obama is the greatest possible repudiation of the Bush administration. Every time GFK calls him that, it makes me happier.
And Obama didn't fire anyone. The companies who took the bailout money could have just done without it, and enjoyed their capitalist joyride right into oblivion. Clearly the stockholders of the recipients of the money decided that corporate survival trumped any loyalty they might (not) have had to any individual executives. Them's the breaks.
Typically, RWers want the corporate world free exploit resources, spit on their workers, and engage in whatever practices they feel like in support of their bottom line...that's their idea of "personal freedom". At the same time they desire some Taliban-esque environment which relies on someone's (usually their own) interpretation of the Bible ( and God's will, which oddly always seems to be same the same as their own) as foundation for societal dictates.
Comment by Kristen — May 1, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
I also believe in universal truths, such as respecting others for their differences (like race, religion, beliefs, sexual preference, gender, physical appearance, etc), rather than respecting them in spite of their inherent differences. There are also several universal truths shared by the world's religions, but yet each religion still has it's own distinct differences in terms of more minor and day-to-day issues and how they deal with them. I'll close by saying that I respect you for having such strong convictions and living your life according to them, I would just ask that you respect me if I choose not to live under those same conditions and let me have the freedom to do so, just as you have the freedom to live your life according to your beliefs. With that, I bid you a good day, sir.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Glen - you're something you know that? Where do I start...
"The federal government does not have the authority to invest in, bailout, take over, sell, or force into bankruptcy American businesses. The federal government does not have the authority to regulate manufacturing." - Glen
If I remember correctly it is the failing private companies that came crawling on their knees BEGGING the fed gov't to help them.
"AND the federal government has no authority to run, own, enter into, fund, or regulate the medical/health care industry. But B. HUSSEIN OBAMA wants more government involvement in health care. Ditto education."
health care - it is in our country's best interest to have the best quality health care and the most available health care available. It plays into our national security and our well being and is therefore the POTUS' business.
And I don't know where you have been Glen but public education is funded by tax dollars...ummm yeah so that's the government's as well. Again education is VERY important to the well being of our country..so it is a fed gov't issue.
I admittedly don't know anything about the football stuff so can't really comment there.
"That all do not recognize God's authority does not serve to diminish it. Rather, the failure to recognize God's authority says more about the person than about God." - Glen
Boy for someone who just preached "love one another" you sure have a funny way of showing it! LOL
I am not putting down Christians or Christianity. I think it is great when a person has found a religion that supports them and that they support as well. But Christianity is not mine...don't hate Glen!
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Oh Glen,
It's not Obama trying to meddle with football after all...
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcschampionship-congress&prov=ap&type=lgns
Hat tip to OJ...just happened to catch it in a different thread.
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
HCS: Read the Constitution. Just because people "beg[]" for help, or because it is a good idea does not mean that the federal government is empowered to act. The federal government has no role in industry, health care, or education. Period. In fact, other than protecting the country from foreign threats and ensuring the free flow of goods from state to state, the federal government maintains very little authority, and has virtually no role to play in average folks' lives.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — May 1, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
ok Glen
Comment by HCS — May 1, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
No problem HCS. I didn't happen to see the previous comment on it, or I would have been compelled to post that link here and not on the open thread.
Comment by Other John — May 1, 2009 @ 1:52 pm