I’m all for discussion of budget issues and what the nature of federal government should be, but you’re starting to sound like Glenn Beck.

Also, if you think that either party is actually fiscally conservative or supportive of limited government you are sadly mistaken.

That ‘behind every blade of grass’ reinforces a commonly held opinion that there is no 1st Amendment without the teeth of the 2nd. I fear, were a serious recession/depression to hit, thanks to the housing bubble, ethanol using up food crops (both animal and human), inflation, electrical/food/fuel shortages, and the whole plethora of horrible scenarios, it will be quite unlike the civil demeanor exhibited by our populace back in ’29 through WWII. My Mom has told me many times of how there was no violence on anything approaching a large scale during the Great Depression. This time it will be different. We have the armed urban gangs, ultimate takers, plus those looking to Uncle Sugar for their handouts/livelihood. Our police this time are mostly unionized, siding with the takers (as we saw in Wisconsin). Were the StoHTF, rhetoric will be quite empty and useless, just as useless as an empty magazine.

So I do hope the progressives have awaken a sleeping giant, The Silent Majority, and that things can be turned around before a collapse occurs, but I also hope that that Silent Majority is prepared for the worst. Because this time around, it will get real ugly real fast, as we’ve witnessed with the riots in Greece and elsewhere.

so if i say that we didnt know for years, i am pointing out a critical level of homogeneity on the issue across a majority accepting and wanting to proceed to the next point.

if you were one of the people who DID see something wrong, why include yourself in the set that didn’t then proceed to correct me when no one ever meant the people in the other set of those knowing.

you talk about the cannibals, and someon pipes up that they re not a cannibal, and so blah blah. i guess narcisism of the cultural kind makes everyone think your talking directly to them and about them all the time, and cant accept that another group defined by some point is the focus of loci of discussion.

this happens most when it comes to ideology, and describing some negative aspect of something that someone partially supported (as if you can support an elephants tail and not be responsible for the trunk)

i will report that feminists – not women who say they are feminists, not women who aling themselves with feminists, not women who are weekend warriors for the cause, not the common woman who cares not, not the non left women, but real femnists, ie LEADERS who define the ideology, support its core definitions, organize the rabble, promote law changes, advocacy judges, etc…

the knee jerk reaction that is most common is to equate women and feminism as if they are the same, and as if there are no other kinds of REAL women…

ie… your either a feminist or your not a woman, because all women are feminists because feminism IS woman, and nothing outside of it can be.

personally i think that the VAST majority do NOT follow such a tenet at all. so right there, they can weed themselves out of being the subject of my derision, as they are not even in the sights.

the idea of a personal version which you get to pick and choose what parts you like so you can support something that if you looked at as a whole, would be horrified is a unhealthy way to negate responsibility in the world (and to have some allegiance to something else when there are no allowed alternatives which women are not attacked!)

your not a member of a group if your not sharing the defined tenets and goals fo that group. there is no such thing as going along for a partial ride when there are no alternatives. if that’s the case, better support yourself, your family, your local friends and have no big group that uses your power to do things you don’t like because you like one aspect of it.

like accepting all that a pseudo deity like Satan does because you like his wings and ignore everything else about the whole.

[and i use that being because he is commonly known, we can use Oni if your japanese, or any number of things – its not the point]

a christian who calls themselves catholic then marches up for sacrament because THEY believe they should not be denied such because they don’t agree with how the institution should be run and what tenets it has.

the same trivialization of meaning can be seen in the movie, eat drink pray love (or something like that).

imagine that worshipping baal was acceptable again.

can you see how people would say “you know, i really dont agree with the sacrificing of babies, but i support the rest of it”, and how acceptable and normal that becomes?

it disarms good people from preventing any bad idea from taking hold… it prevents them from the freedom to question and say “your going to do what with the power i give you?” and pretend that a rotten apple is really not rotten because there is this tiny part in which the worms have not crawled.

Lets hope so.

Regarding no effort made to put shoulder to grindstone, see Wisconsin. Even after the left engaged in a scurrilous campaign and thugish tactics to secure a Kloppenberg win, she only won by 234 votes out of 1.4 million votes cast, if she won at all (wouldn’t a reverse Franken decision be sweet here?). And this was the left’s best result in a state considered a progressive citadel.

The war is not won, even the battle is not yet over, but I submit that the message is getting out. I keep thinking about Adm Yamamoto’s words after Pearl Harbor (“We have awakened a sleeping giant.”). Here’s hoping that the left has no conception of the sleeping giant it has been kicking, and here’s hoping that the sleeping giant is, indeed, awake.

HCR was >2000 pages of statutory prose, deliberately indecipherable, even to the Congresscritters who voted it in.

Ryan’s text is straightforward, lucid, plain English.

It never hurts to have a handle on basic economics when deliberating economic matters, but if one has that, it is wonderfully straightforward. Which is why the Dems are demagogueing the hell out of it. It is NOT complex; not at all.

Ahh, and even that iconic budget surplus was an illusion. It was a house of cards built by spending every single dime taken in from social security payroll deductions and issuing the SS administration a worthless IOU. In reality, there was no Clinton surplus.

Occam says, “Numbskulls, the President asks for money in his budget; Congress decides what he actually gets. Only if the same party controls both houses of Congress and the White House is it legitimate to hold the President responsible for the budget.”

Numbskulls indeed. Yet, I do object. No matter what the party affiliation of the president might be, the house still holds the power of the purse strings. That is the essence of the separation of powers.

Artfldger says, “and now the west, abandoning the ideas, morals, ethics and so forth… (which was copied from Rome and expanded), are progressing…into a dark age..”

We’re on the same page on this fragment. I hope its not too late to change course, but fear there will be no effort made to put shoulders to the grind stone.

Curtis says, “Personally, I think good things are going to happen because we are going to suffer a financial disaster. We don’t have to but we will because the force of the progressives plus RINO’s is greater than the tea party force. Therefore, the education will occur and experience will be the educator. Who will survive lean times? The progressives? No. This is a case where natural selection will cull out the lazy, irresponsible, and stupid.”

I agree this is a probable (but not the only possible) scenario. However, an economic collapse within the next 3 to 10 years will not even remotely resemble the 1930s. Society is different now. It will be painful, violent, and extremely ugly far beyond the last depression. And it will last longer because there will be no one left standing to start another world war.

Oldflyer: Please note the above comments are merely my opinion, I’m not an expert. 😉