advertisement

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Access to guns is the problem

Thursday, December 27, 2012 | 2:23 p.m. CST

The NRA’s proposal to create a national registry for mentally ill persons is incredibly stupid. We should encourage the mentally ill to get professional help, not discourage them. Many will avoid help if they face the prospect of being put into a national registry. This proposal is a cynical gimmick to distract us from the major cause of gun violence — easy access to guns. Certainly, we should expand efforts to treat the mentally ill. This requires increased funding, which sadly, politicians supported by the NRA often oppose.

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Yeah, right, tell me another one. If Adam Lanza had walked into school with baseball bats or knives instead of guns, there would be more teachers and children alive in Connecticut today.

As for the proposal to place armed guards in schools: All nine of the innocent bystanders recently shot on the sidewalk in New York City were shot by police officers who were trying to bring down a lone gunman.

Rates of gun violence are much lower in European countries than in the U.S. Mental illness and exposure to violent movies and video games are as common there as here. The difference is access to guns. We must do something about that.

Robert Blake is a Columbia resident.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Bob Hill December 27, 2012 | 5:16 p.m.

Do what? Confiscation? That's what Hitler did before he started his campaign to exterminate Jews. Won't happen here.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 27, 2012 | 6:49 p.m.

"Many will avoid help if they face the prospect of being put into a national registry."

Yeah, and compliance by gun owners in a national registry will be avoided, too. Especially by criminals. And you see a difference??????
______________________

"If Adam Lanza had walked into school with baseball bats or knives instead of guns, there would be more teachers and children alive in Connecticut today."

If Adam Lanza had been where he SHOULD have been, there would be NO dead teachers and children.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 27, 2012 | 7:01 p.m.

Oh, and you left out a teensy-weensy part:

"Nine bystanders were wounded in the 16-shot volley, all by stray or ricocheting police bullets. None of their injuries was life-threatening, police said."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...

Get that? STRAY or RICOCHETING bullets. By leaving that little point out, you (mis)led folks to believe the cops were spraying bullets all over the place because they were moronic, untrained gun-toters.

The exchange took place at handshake distance. The guy was dead before he hit the ground. Sounds like good shooting to me.

Can you say "Inconvenient truth?"

PS: Did you also get the fact there were NO life-threatening injuries????

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking December 28, 2012 | 7:18 a.m.

"We must do something about that."

Well, except most of the proposals for doing so penalize responsible owners for the actions of a few nutjobs. Many are unenforceable (magazine bans, registration) without search and seizure that most constitutionalists would find oppresive. "What do you do about that" which is both enforceable and fair?

If guns and gun owners generally were the problem, the unsupervised range at Rocky Fork would be a bloodbath every weekend. There are hundreds of people that turn up to shoot, and many have high capacity "assault weapons". Yet it's one of the safest places in Columbia - I've never heard of a shooting there, either intentional or accidental. You might want to go out there and just watch how responsible gun owners conduct themselves.

Switzerland is by any measure an armed camp - I'm told that pretty much everywhere you go you see someone openly carrying a gun. Yet their rate of gun violence is small compared to ours. There are other differences between Europe and the US that also account for the disparate rates of gun violence (access to health care and lower rates of poverty are likely candidates).

Few say "What do you need a 160+ mph sports car, or a 200+ mph motorcycle for?". These could certainly be deadly in the wrong hands. We accept a tremendous toll of death and property/environmental damage in our embrace of car culture. Yet we've never amended the Constitution to give us a right to own and drive cars.

We tried an assault weapons ban before, and it didn't work. Many other proposals put forth on this board or elsewhere would not have stopped Sandy Hook or the other recent shootings (which were committed with guns either stolen or illegally obtained). This is not something we can fix by just taking away legal guns from legal owners.

DK

(Report Comment)
Tony Black December 28, 2012 | 7:39 a.m.

Hitler also broke up the unions.

No life threatening injuries. Oh, in that case it's okay that innocnet people got shot.

But Europeans are socialists. I thought being like Europe was bad? Check Australia since thier 1996 ban.

Michael would have us "profile" every white male because they overwhelmingly do the shooting. As I said, which are there more of, white males or semi automatic gun owners? If I get the drift correctly, you guys would have guns available at convenience stores and such. That fits the more the better line, doesn't it? 3 cops got shot at a police station in NJ. Should have been armed........
Columbine had an armed guard, VA Tech had it's own police force and Fort Hood is a military base.

But since you need a 30 round clip to target practice ( too lazy to reload?), it is what it is. Again, I own guns, and don't think they need to be outlawed, but why do you need these guns. They are designed to kill as many as possible in as short of time as possible. If you don't believe that, what purpose do you think they serve?

As far as mental health, universal health care would open up a lot of people to mental health care that don't get it now. But wait, Switzerland is socialist, and we don't want that. What to do, what to do?

(Report Comment)
Charles leverett December 28, 2012 | 8:58 a.m.

Tony Blakes personal attack and insistence that the world is divided into liberals and conservatives (a pro gun guy could never be for healthcare or the environment!) shows he has no solid proof to support his stance.

It's kinda sad really.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black December 28, 2012 | 9:09 a.m.

No, I say that because Michael and Mark have both argued against universal healthcare. Who said anything about the environment? My comments are in response to a running commentary from Michael. Again, do you guys not read my posts? I own guns, so therefore I am not anti gun. I just don't understand the need for that much firepower. As I posted last week on a similar thread, if you can't kill what you need to eat with a six shooter or a 3 shot shotgun, you need to practice. The second amendment mentions a well regulated militia. Which one do you belong to? And what regulations do you follow?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 28, 2012 | 9:41 a.m.

Tony: You keep mentioning the six shooter and 3-shell shotgun; you say you have guns, but do you hunt?

I know of few hunters that try to take deer with a six shooter or a slugged shotgun...for most, the probability of an unclean kill is too great even with lots of practice. A scoped long gun is so much better for big game, and you know that. So, that kind of gun needs to be added to your list.

You keep asking why folks want or "need" something. I repeat to you that I'm sure you are in possession of many things others of us would ask "why?" As for me, I would absolutely love to sit in a tank and shoot old cars, handle a 50 cal, throw a grenade, fire a 155 mm, and fly in a WWII SNJ. So far, I've only done the latter....rolls, barrel rolls, over-the-top loops....3.5 g's that crossed my eyes. I also like roller coasters, drag racers (yes, 165 mph for me), but not fast boats. I once attended a Covert Ops camp put on by Incredible Adventures (google it) where I learned some serious defensive driving including J-turns and bootlegger turns plus rescue of a hostage in the AZ desert. Good, clean adult fun.

All of these things I consider "fun".....a reason sufficient unto itself. Heck, I'm sittin' here asking "why?" you are asking "why?"....don't you ever have fun???????

(Report Comment)
Tony Black December 28, 2012 | 10:13 a.m.

I have lots of expensive hobbies that are fun. So? If someone were to use a golf club to kill 20 kindergarteners, I would support some sort of regulation. Or a fly rod, or guitar.

And yes, a rifle would be needed. But it's not about the type of gun, it's the capacity that bothers me. Does your want or need supercede the saftey of children? I know thats an exaggeration, but you get my point, I'm sure. There needs to be meaningful conversation, not just "pry my guns from my cold dead hands". I have not advocated taking away all guns. I do agree that access to guns should be at least a little more restrictive. Especially high capacity items. Where is the answer?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 28, 2012 | 11:21 a.m.

"Does your want or need supercede the saftey [sic] of children?"
_________________

You're dang right that's an exaggeration.

If you want to protect the safety of children, do away with their vaccinations. When compared to guns, the probability favors guns, not vaccinations. Your perceptions of probability and risk assessment could use some work.

You are responding emotionally rather than logically. You vaccinate your children because you THINK you are in control...which somehow makes it safe because YOU choose and you know the doctor. But, that's a false "control" because you have NO idea how your child will react, and that knowledge is not ameliorated by you knowing the doctor or making the choice.

But, you feel totally out of control when it comes to guns. Everyone is suspect. I remember all the doom and gloom from anti-gun folks who thought CCW folks were gonna go "OK Corral" all over the place. Didn't happen, and it won't.

You think control of magazines or gun types by law-abiding citizens will fix things. It won't. You're thinking that removing the "tool" will fix the problem, but you avoid the REAL problem....criminals and crazies. It absolutely amazes me that liberals so bent on letting thousands of criminals go free to avoid one convicted innocent person will simultaneously trash the rights of so many law-abiding gun owners to protect us from a few unidentified crazies. Astounding!

Golf clubs (and balls) HAVE killed children; just not all at once. You are reacting to the horror of "many" over a short time period rather than the horror of "few" over a long time. Yet, you remain silent about the latter. I do understand; it's a natural human response.

I view reasons for ownership of "exotic" guns the same way I do the martial arts. Both are sports; they just...are....and they are fun to boot.

As for your "meaningful conversation", I think everything BUT that is on your mind. I'm quite confident that if we DID modify our control laws in ways you wish, in the future some crazy will find a way around your "control", kill a bunch of people, and then you'll try to control further. Camel/nose/tent thingie.

No. I won't have a meaningful conversation with someone whose ideas are farther away from "meaningful" than we are from Pluto. You can help my attitude on this issue by asking that ALL high-level gov't officials send their children to unarmed public schools. Perhaps then we can talk. You (and they) cannot have it both ways. I insist upon the same protection for my grandchildren as their kids get.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 28, 2012 | 11:40 a.m.

Error: When compared to guns, the probability favors guns, not vaccinations.

Should be: When compared to guns, the numbers favor guns, not vaccinations.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 28, 2012 | 11:47 a.m.

"BEIJING (AP) — China's government tightened Internet controls Friday with approval of a law that requires users to register their names after a flood of online complaints about official abuses rattled Communist Party leaders.

Authorities say the law will strengthen protections for personal information. But it also is likely to curtail the Internet's status as a forum to complain about the government or publicize corruption...

Beijing encourages Web use for business and education but tries to block material deemed subversive or obscene. It has steadily stepped up censorship, especially after social media played a role in protests that brought down governments in Egypt and Tunisia."

http://news.yahoo.com/china-requires-int...
__________________

Yeah! National registers work!!!

(Report Comment)
frank christian December 28, 2012 | 1:51 p.m.

Tony Black, with his forte being only liberalism, is not allowed to even consider the errors foisted upon us and our culture, by that ideology in the last 50 years. The legal availability of guns to Americans have decreased in that time frame. The big changes are the suppression of religion and patriotism for our public school students. The changes in mandatory hospitalization with which we eradicated tuberculosis as the plague it was by hospitalizing it's victims until they were cured of died. Yet, since the 60's we have passed laws making it illegal to even ask a suspected victim if they have the HIV/AIDS virus! Now our mentally ill, diagnosed as a danger to themselves or others can be voluntarily hospitalized, or they may walk our streets, refusing the provided medication. This, in the name of Their civil rights!

These are the changes which only since 1960, have created the thousands of people whom easily now, consider murder as an acceptable solution to their problems. That they often do it with guns is the only way liberals can rationalize that this scourge is not their fault.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black December 28, 2012 | 2:12 p.m.

I must be wrong.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance December 29, 2012 | 6:19 p.m.

Want to know why Europe, Canada, and the Australia have lower gun violence. It is because the US peddles FEAR. Fear of your neighbor, Fear of the dark skinned Allah loving other. FEAR of the dark skinned urban other. All the news station peddle this crap though Fox News just plain lies about what they are scaring you with. FEAR of someone getting something for nothing, FEAR of the liberals, FEAR of the conservatives. FEAR of the fiscal cliff! Yoda said it best. FEAR leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Time to stop being afraid and questions some of this manure.

(Report Comment)
frank christian December 30, 2012 | 7:54 a.m.

T. Dance - Yours is the manure that we hate. Time to stop dreaming and wise up!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons December 31, 2012 | 9:40 a.m.

Tim Dance...I think you are spot on with that assessment. Sadly the response by Frank Christian serves merely to reinforce your analysis. His solution? Stop thinking for yourself, transport yourself back to sometime around 1950 and think like me!

(Report Comment)
frank christian December 31, 2012 | 10:08 a.m.

Steve S. - Yeah man! You really got it! Pay no attention to the history that clearly shows why our problems have arisen. Think for yourself? T.D. said to think like Yoda, a character in a worn out fantasy movie of 35 years ago.

You too, need to leave tha A.B.A. (always blame America), club. Stop dreaming and - Wise Up!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons December 31, 2012 | 2:34 p.m.

Yeah Frank! "Pay no attention to the history that clearly shows why our problems have arisen." It's all so simple isn't it Frank? So black and white. So CLEAR!!! It's liberals and pinkoes and the "ABL" crowd who are responsible for society going to hell and the gunning down of schoolkids with weapons the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen in a million years! To return to the title of this column, it's not access to guns that is the problem, it's people like ME!! Because I wasn't around in the halcyon days of the 1950s, I obviously can't share your morals and high standards and neither can my America-hating bearded hippy compatriots.

In the words of Tony Black above, "I must be wrong".

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 31, 2012 | 3:17 p.m.

Damn the right-wingers and bless those innocent "occupiers"!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manha...

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons December 31, 2012 | 4:19 p.m.

And the point to your last post Michael was.....................what?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 31, 2012 | 5:32 p.m.

SteveS:

Well, I wuz gonna say "To see who I could irritate and you were nominated."

But, really I just wanted to point out that it isn't only hard-core, right-wing, gun nuts who plan bad things.

Just being fair and balanced......

After all, this paper won't report it but it has now.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons December 31, 2012 | 5:57 p.m.

Michael..from the little I can glean about these two idiots, they were drug addicts who came from a privileged background. I can't see much about what actual "plans" they may have had, though I'd be interested to see what they were hoping to blow up. They certainly don't seem to be in the McVeigh/Nichols class! You and I (and others) had this type of discussion a few months ago. I don't deny the existence of left-wing nuts who plan bad things. However, historically the right-wing nuts seem to be far better at accomplishing bigger and badder things!

Happy New Year!

(Report Comment)
frank christian December 31, 2012 | 7:06 p.m.

Steve Simmons - "You and I (and others) had this type of discussion a few months ago." This was directed at M. Wm's. but, I was among the others and recall some seeming arm flinging, screaming, literary out bursts then, as well.

The incredibly hard chore for me is to understand why you, not questioning my statements, simply blow up with the silly, "Because I wasn't around in the halcyon days of the 1950s, I obviously can't share your morals and high standards" Why not? Can you not at least consider my contention that our educations were extremely different in the basic intent? Your post was about my view specifically, so try to think about this. Wondering when random shootings began here, I found that Chas. Whitman the the Texas U. sniper was one of the first, in 1966. He had been with Doctors for sometime wondering why he was having his strange unnatural feelings that promoted unnatural actions. He had prescription medicines and one recommendation for a psychiatrist, who he saw once. When he blew, he stabbed his mother and wife to death with a knife wrote about it in his journal, then proceeded to the Texas U. tower and started shooting people. I noted that obtaining his medical records for study, was difficult because of privacy concerns. He had a brain tumor of the sort that could cause actions such as his, but would have killed him within a year. Is your concern for a gun law that may have limited the murders to his family? Or should we start at the source of the problem rather than a simplistic "ban" on the weapon that killed the most?

Happy New Year to All!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams December 31, 2012 | 8:49 p.m.

They certainly don't seem to be in the McVeigh/Nichols class!
__________________

Well, a nice psychological conclusion perhaps. Not sure if it's justified, tho.

When it comes to killing kids, perhaps you should remember that our president, and all before him, each killed far more kids with harsher weapons than the idiot used in Newtown.

It's called sanctioned killing. It's legal. It's approved. It gets a pass.

Liberals think they can control individuals bent upon mayhem and suicide when those individuals have the element of surprise. Conservatives know the futility of this, knowing that the best you can do is minimize the damage by stopping it ASAP. History has taught us this...and the terrorists have learned as well.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 1, 2013 | 2:19 p.m.

I'm not attempting a "nice psychological conclusion" in comparing these latest morons with McVeigh/Nichols. I'm talking end-result.

Bringing up "sanctioned killing" in the context of this debate is meaningless. Whether it's abortion you're referring to, or the death penalty, they are different matters entirely and should be discussed as such.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 1, 2013 | 6:06 p.m.

SteveS: "I'm not attempting a "nice psychological conclusion..."
_________________

Sure you did.

Basically what you said was "Your terrorists are worse than my terrorists."

That's a very strange posture, indeed.

No, I was not referring to abortion or the death penalty. I was referring to war and it's weapons....many of which are automatic versions of what was used in Newtown.

And drones and mortars and cluster bombs and etc.

More kids were killed by this President last year than what happened in Newtown. And every President before him. It's sanctioned and it's legal. It's also...abroad.

I reiterate: In spite of the best ivory tower thought, a murderer bent on suicide and possessing the element of surprise cannot be stopped; his/her damage can only be minimized by stopping it once it has started....ASAP.

History has taught us this, and nothing has changed since. It just....is.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 8:34 a.m.

And I reiterate, I came to absolutely no psychological conclusion between, in your terms, "my" terrorists and "your" terrorists. I am talking scorecards. I also resent you suggesting that they are "my" terrorists, just as you should resent it if I called them yours!

I still don't see what point you're attempting to make by bringing up "sanctioned" killing in the context of the Newtown massacre. The use of the military has nothing to do with it. How does the killing of our enemies abroad by drones equate with the gunning down of 6 year olds and their teachers by a mentally disturbed monster who shouldn't have been anywhere near a lethal weapon? That is a totally different area of discussion.

As regards your final point, I don't necessarily disagree, though I'd appreciate a toning down of the patronizing "best ivory tower thinking" rhetoric. However, I shudder at what I assume is your logical conclusion; arm everyone with more lethal firepower than that possessed by the bad guys. Teachers, students, firefighters, mall clerks, mail carriers, doctors, movie theater workers, trash collectors....in fact EVERYONE armed to the teeth. All in the hopes of getting the jump on the bad guy. Is that really how we want society to function?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 9:20 a.m.

SteveS: That's ok. I resent that you resent my resentment of YOUR original comparison.

My comments on Presidential killing of kids versus Newtown mainly concerned hypocrisy of thought and concern. Which one have you read the most about in recent newspapers?

The one that's close to home.
_____________________

"Ivory-tower thought" is EXACTLY what it is....a belief derived solely from thought that ignores reality and history. That's the very definition of "ivory-tower thought". I see no reason to call it something else. There's not much I can do about it if you feel patronized.

Somehow folks think they can control the horror by controlling the tool; this is ivory-tower thought. Folks bent on mayhem and suicide have the advantage of surprise and the choice of weaponry; 9-11 involved no assault weapons.

Our own government agrees with me on this. There is virtually NO effort to remove weapons from the world that terrorists might use (well, except nuclear), but our government spends billions of dollars to identify the terrorist before he/she strikes. We profile and monitor in spite of protestations. We try to reduce the element of surprise and increase our ability to respond once evil starts. SWAT and other rapid-response teams are there for a purpose; unfortunately, they are 15 or more minutes away and, in the end, folks are on their own during that interval. As Newtown showed, a lot can happen in that interval...and it's all bad. Your efforts would be more productive if you would concentrate on how to get through those 15 minutes.

There is a reason our President recently re-signed the warrantless surveillance law. There is a reason we still have the Patriot Act and TSA, onerous as they might be. There is a reason we still have Guantanamo.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 9:27 a.m.

SteveS: Is that really how we want society to function?
____________________

No, it isn't.

But that's where we are and I can honestly say I didn't help get us to this point. I still have to live with it, tho, and I have to react to it; to do otherwise is ivory-tower thought and just plain ignorant. If arming myself and my family helps get us through that 15 minutes, then that's what I'll do. I may not like it, tho.

I'm the kinda guy who doesn't go around believing there was no iceberg while my ship is sinking, and I don't like sticking my head in the sand.

I kinda like similes, don't you?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 2, 2013 | 10:03 a.m.

I gotta call BS, Michael. The "be afraid, be very afraid" crowd, the "I want my 30 round clip because I can" crowd, you are exactly the problem. By your own admission, you need an Ar-15 with a 30 round clip for "target practice". If you can't reload after 5 shots, you are just plain lazy. And yes, I have my hobbies. If someone kills 20 kindergarteners with a golf club, fly rod or guitar, I would be happy to register them with the government. Yes, as you pointed out kids have died from golf equipment, but not in a school setting in mass numbers. If you think they have, prove it. I know proof is something you and Frank despise, because it usually doesn't support your claims.

I know, I am a stupid liberal, in your opinion, but you make many claims as to your rights. I ask again, what about the rights of the teachers and kids in Newtown? As long as you have "firepower", to hell with everyone else. Sounds nothing but selfish to me.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 2, 2013 | 10:05 a.m.

And once again, Columbine had an armed guard, Va Tech it's own police force, and Fort Hood was a military base. Arming more people is not the answer. And no answers yet on that militia you belong to, as per the 2nd amendment.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 10:48 a.m.

Tony: Taking them in reverse order....

SCOTUS ruled on the militia thingie. An individual right prevails. It is established law. If you do not like it, amend the Constitution; it is your only recourse. From the date D.C. v Heller was decided, any comments about "militia" and an individual right is simply posturing, pandering, bitching, moaning, and whining.

You must have missed my post about how we humans react so seriously when mass killings occur suddenly, but do not react so seriously when the same number of killings occur over a longer period of time. You react to a school setting, but not to a "car" or "war" setting. Horror is in the eyes of the beholder.

You are free to register whatever you wish with the gov't. My only wish is that you have the option because I want the same option.

As for the BS part, you'll have to point out which part of my missive(s) is BS. For example, was it the " a murderer bent on suicide and possessing the element of surprise cannot be stopped; his/her damage can only be minimized by stopping it once it has started....ASAP" part?

Or was it the "Our own government agrees with me on this" part?

Or was it the "TSA, warrantless surveillance, Patriot Act, and Guantanamo" part?

Or, the "we profile" part?

Or, the "our President has killed more kids than in Newtown" part.
___________________

You'll have to point out the fallacies for me.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 10:50 a.m.

Tony: Or was it the "15 minute" part?

You really need to decide what you intend to do in that 15 minutes.

Actually, it's prolly more like 15 seconds. Or less.

Well?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 2, 2013 | 11:00 a.m.

It was the "I haven't done anything to contribute to this" part.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 2, 2013 | 11:05 a.m.

Tony Black - From the 1992 L.A. riots. Possibly too long ago for you and yours to comprehend. Another story quotes the Korean businessman who assembled his "side" with all the "big" guns they had. They fired them over the heads of the rioter/looters and thus deterred them.

The next day, the street gangs targeted the neighboring Koreatown, approximately 2 miles north of South Los Angeles. As the police, which had retreated from South Central the day before, began urging the Korean American shop owners in Koreatown to evacuate Koreatown because they had no intention of protecting it, Korean American shop owners armed themselves to protect the businesses from the looters. “Had they not done so,” recalls Professor Leo Estrada of UCLA in the film, “the entire town would have burned down like South Central the day before.”
http://www.culturalweekly.com/korean-ame...

"I know, I am a stupid liberal, in your opinion," Imo, not so. However, when one will not accept truth and reality, while clinging to the liberal ideology, should not others wonder?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 2, 2013 | 12:04 p.m.

I see the exact opposite, Frank. Your regressive mentality, the longing for the good old days, the clinging to your guns and religeon, is the ideololgy that is the problem. You point out Koreans with firepower. The 31 mass shootings had firepower too. But whatever makes you guys sleep at night.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 2, 2013 | 12:53 p.m.

Tony Black - You reject any suggestion of change for the better as regressive and a "longing", while totally embracing the liberal, socialist, mandate that a frightened, demoralized, defenseless, citizenry, is best for the smooth operation of a Central government.

Now you read, really stupid!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 2:20 p.m.

Tony...I don't know about you but I'm sitting here scratching my head regarding Frank's last post; ".........while totally embracing the liberal, socialist, mandate that a frightened, demoralized, defenseless, citizenry, is best for the smooth operation of a Central government."

If that's how he sees people like you and me then I really think further debate with him is futile. I came to that conclusion some time ago and so in the interests of my blood pressure, stopped posting on here. Instead, whenever the "evil" left scores a victory (like, for instance the last presidential election) I prefer to just smile to myself and imagine what Frank thinks about it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 2, 2013 | 3:54 p.m.

Steve S. - "If that's how he sees people like you and me then I really think further debate with him is futile." I thought that would get a little deep for you guys.

Quotes from "the good old days" that I "long" for: "“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

Adolf Hitler"

"“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General

1993-12-10

I see you as ones who would allow the people quoted to take control in those good old days, because they told you their regulations would make you safe.

Rather than leave mad however, how about you stay and tell us, in all the words Missourian wil give you, exactly what you believe you have won with the victoy of the last election?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 2, 2013 | 4:44 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
John Schultz January 2, 2013 | 5:58 p.m.

Tony, my understanding is that Columbine's armed guard was off-campus, returned, fired on (but did not hit, possibly because he wasn't wearing his glasses) one of the attackers, and they (the attacker) retreated into the school.

As for Fort Hood, I believe the vast majority of weapons on military bases are kept in armories and not with the individual soldiers as older movies (Full Metal Jacket, Forest Gump, etc.) showed. I would like to be corrected on that if I'm incorrect.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 6:05 p.m.

TonyB: OK. That's a legitimate complaint.

When I wrote those words, I had in mind incrementalism, the slow-but-sure nibbling away at civilized behavior that allowed us to better live in harmony as families, friends, and societies. Things like "How did we get from the twin beds of the Dick Van Dyke show to where we are now" to "How did we get from the 'nobody gets killed by Roy Rogers' to the bloody mayhem on TV, movies, and games we have today' or "How did we get from the acceptance of responsibility of the past to half the population saying 'It isn't my fault?" I didn't do or support those things. Somebody else did.

In addition, I didn't start or sustain class warfare, religious warfare, racial warfare, family warfare, sexuality warfare, gender warfare, constitutional warfare, or any of the other warfares.

I did help support and sustain responsibility warfare.

Liberals did all of the others; liberals support incrementalism and the result is uncivilized behavior. I hold liberals directly responsibility for most of the uncivilized behavior we have in the US today.

You betcha.

I said the other day that the moron in Newtown is most likely an end-product of 50 years of progressive liberalism.

I haven't changed my mind.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 2, 2013 | 7:03 p.m.

Yes John, while normally having lunch in the Cafeteria with the Students, Gardener was monitoring students at an outside location. He fired at Harris from 60 yds but missed. Harris quit shooting students to fire at Gardner. This is what the liberal nitwits among us need to proclaim armed guards do no good!

Va tech had police near their no gun zone but, "In 2007, the university did not send out an alert until two hours after the first shots were fired.

The unbelievable red flags around the Muslim Major terrorist, for years ignored by Army authority because of his religious freedoms are the cause of the deaths caused at Ft. Hood. This President claiming the disaster to be, "work place violence", rather than an act of terrorism is withholding benefits to relatives of victims.

I hadn't " touched the Columbine/VA Tech/Fort Hood. comment." because they were so simplistic and imbecilic, they were not worth comment. "have you noticed the folks that quote Hitler never mention his union busting and destruction of workers rights?" Now there is a statement worth conversation! Is this your prime fault with Adolph H.?

I don't mind your posts. The sad part is that you and these liberal idiots pretend that they have delved deeply into their complaints about our society. In fact, they only prove that they know nothing!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 7:12 p.m.

And Tim McVeigh was an end-product of what? Eric Rudolph was an end-product of what? Below is a list of recent atrocities and attempted atrocities committed by well known liberals:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/03/11/...

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 2, 2013 | 8:47 p.m.

Wikipedia - "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive[1] media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"

"And Tim McVeigh was an end-product of what? Eric Rudolph was an end-product of what?"

Steve S. must really have been gone for a while. These, along with the majority of our publicly educated and raised youth, since the advent of liberalism, since early 1960's are the "end product" of a national environment bent upon removing patriotism and love of country, as well as a code discerning right from wrong and education about the sanctity of human life as provided in the faith of the Christian religion, as well as others.

I thought I asked you to tell us, "exactly what you believe you have won with the victory of the last election?" The mind still out to lunch?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 9:06 p.m.

SteveS: You're talking to someone who watched the circa 1970 Jane Fonda's of this world give aid and comfort to an enemy. Those actions, and the similar actions of those liberals in power today but young then, gave our enemy hope they could prevail. I lost two of my best friends in a war that should not have gone on as long as it did because of the behavior of damned liberals.

And I've seen it ever since, time and time again. There has been no change. I despised them then, and I despise them now for what they do.

Plus, I've seen the incrementalism that took us from then until now, which I despise even more for what it has done to our children. I do not like being a member of the worst generation, the one that followed the greatest.

Yes, there are right-wing wackos. But, I've seen one helluva lot more left-wing wackos with indirect blood on their hands...blood they fail to acknowledge. There's good reasons military folks vote overwhelmingly against liberals.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 9:15 p.m.

as a code discerning right from wrong and education about the sanctity of human life
_____________

I sure agree with that....

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 9:17 p.m.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh Frank I see everything so clearly now...liberals are also responsible for right-wing extremists who hate this country and who commit murder to further their right-wing (read left-wing) anti-government sociopathic agendas. Thank you so much for enlightening me! What's that? The right-wing won't take responsibility for its own? Never!

By the way Frank, tell me something; how did that "sanctity of human life as provided in the faith of the Christian religion" work out during the crusades and the Inquisition? (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..............sorry, just got a little carried away there!)

"I thought I asked you to tell us......." Well pardon me for not acceding to your demands Frank but I could write until I am blue in the face and you will simply hit back along the lines of "liberalism creates all the problems.........before 1960 everything was hunky dory.......class warfare......more God in schools.......blah blah blah". I'd rather just enjoy it when my side "wins". Childish I know but ultimately way way better for my health.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 9:23 p.m.

Michael, as a "damned liberal" I am sorry you despise my sort. I will never say the same about conservatives in general, though possibly about specific ones. Paint us all with the same brush and your side will continue to lose ground and elections to my side.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 9:52 p.m.

SteveS: Nice play of the "I'm wounded" card. I kinda figured that was beneath you.

Nonetheless, I fully expect to lose ground. Conservatism-losing-ground-over-time is ofttimes human history. The trend is as nations graduate up Mazlow's pyramid and fully mature, they become more and more liberal until they decay and get their asses kicked to a lower level by something or someone.

Which is when conservatism takes hold and the cycle starts again.

I'm confident this will be our history, too. I see no reason the US should be any different than any other nation seen on this earth. That would be the ultimate US hubris on a national...and individual...level.

About all I can do is drag my feet as deeply in the dirt as I can. That, and have daughters/sons-in-law training grandchildren to be good conservatives.

Which they are...and will.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 2, 2013 | 10:16 p.m.

Michael...I'm not wounded and I play no card. I am writing honestly when I say that if you and enough of "your side" simply write off those you perceive as "my kind" and say you despise us, that will not do you any good politically or socially and neither will it help the nation. I am attempting to bring up my kids to be conservative too. Tough, self-motivated, true to their families and friends, with a desire to further themselves through education......I also have a dislike of guns and so I won't be teaching them to rely on firearms but if they choose to do so when they're older that's fine by me. I trust I am raising them to be responsible enough that if/when it comes time for that they will seek the proper training so they can handle firearms responsibly. Maybe you think that by influencing them with my ideals of "liberalism", which coincide somewhat with those of the President, I am bound to raise them as weak members of society who will sponge off the nation. You are very wrong!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 2, 2013 | 10:31 p.m.

SteveS: Then you are a minority in a sea of liberal irresponsibility.

I applaud you for your goals.

Hopefully, your educated, conservative children will not find the fruits of their furtherance taken from them by those in that sea. To the tune of >50%. Hopefully, they will not ask, "Why bother?"

And, hopefully, you will be able to give them a boost with your wealth once you are gone. If it isn't taken by those wishing for equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 3, 2013 | 8:39 a.m.

Steve S. - I told my wife, a guy online has stated "I know you think I'm a stupid liberal" and has made me feel badly for him. Then, you being that one, have since shown us with most every word, what a stupid liberal is.

You are "wounded" and to try to make a point about importance of each life and benefits of thoughts like "do to others as you would have them do to you", with reference to the Inquisition, while ignoring the source of the most human death thru murder and starvation, the communism of J. Stalin and the USSR, Mao Te Sung, China and the others, seems rather stupid to me.

"I am attempting to bring up my kids to be conservative too. Tough, self-motivated, true to their families and friends, with a desire to further themselves through education.." Then you cannot be telling them what you have told us here. Here, you and yours have only tried to shed any blame for troubles your ideology has caused and when I "simply hit back along the lines of "liberalism creates all the problems..", with specific incidents and actions, you give us, "I could write until I am blue in the face..." Poor liberals are just never given a chance!

And lastly, Stevo, no one would believe that you want your kids to grow up "as weak members of society who will sponge off the nation." You will want your kids to climb to the top rungs of the ladder and stand with the ilk of this President and those who Really "sponge off the nation"! Far more unacceptable and despicable!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 3, 2013 | 11:06 a.m.

Frank...thank you for calling me a "stupid liberal". I suggest though that you get your facts straight first because I am not the person who wrote, "I know you think I'm a stupid liberal" and so I don't think I warrant the amusingly composed sentences, "....and has made me feel badly for him. Then, you being that one, have since shown us with most every word, what a stupid liberal is."

Your logic and your inability to stick to a topic astound me. You wrote about the "code of the Christian religion" and its espousing of the "sanctity of human life" and I responded by mentioning the crusades and the Inquisition. Why then does that make me someone who overlooks (approves of perhaps?) the crimes and genocide of "J. Stalin and the USSR, Mao Te Sung (sic), China and the others"? I also didn't mention Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein etc, but somehow bacause I'm a liberal you assume I am in favor of marxist totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and China.

And lastly Franko (or should that be Franco?) I would much rather my kids follow a "proper" profession, such as medicine, basic sciences, teaching or engineering, rather than politics, so no, I won't, in your words, be encouraging them "to climb to the top rungs of the ladder and stand with the ilk of this President and those who Really "sponge off the nation"! Far more unacceptable and despicable! Whatever that hyperbolic nonsense means.......

(Report Comment)
KEN GERINGER January 3, 2013 | 1:42 p.m.

Dear Steve, unless you are having fun, there is no reason to engage in dialogue with the we just don't have enough guns yet people. It is like telling someone that, no, really, the earth is older than 6000 years. It does no good, and after a while it is unseemly. Thanks all, and lock your guns up.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 3, 2013 | 2:02 p.m.

Steve S. - I thought I had learned to keep my liberals separate, but I erred here. Since you apparently are not willing to admit that your comments coincide, I must apologize for the mix up of names.

You have ridiculed the Christian religion at every turn and were trying to invalidate it with the reference to the Inquisition. (We can both play "wounded") I was only showing that those using the ultimate evil of one should also verbally consider the evil of the other. You don't approve of the crimes and genocide of the ultimate socialism, communism, but show avid approval of the President and Party whom now are in the process of "transforming" our nation. That they will not openly state that their Marxist views are the guide for their goal is enough for you and the stupid liberals, that follow them.

The Democrat party is full of those in the professions you foresee as best for your children. Will you be telling them not to vote for liberal Democrats, that smaller less intrusive government (that government that governs least, governs best!) are best for their success in our capitalistic society, as a conservative would? Or will you deride their mention of religion or love of their country before that of their government? Will you teach them to do unto others as the bible states, or will it be "do it to others before they do it to you", as has been the case of the godless countries before us? We must not forget today's discussion. Only regulation can make one safe! You will consider this more hyperbole, but that is all I've got. Take it or leave it!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 3, 2013 | 4:14 p.m.

Frank...kindly show me where I have "ridiculed the Christian religion at every turn". I have not, neither have I attempted to "invalidate it". The Christian religion is a beautiful religion which has brought solace and inspiration to millions over the centuries. Since you originallly brought up religion, what do you think Christ would have us do in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre? I seem to remember Him saying something along the lines of "turn the other cheek". Don't get me wrong, there's no way I could ever do that. In fact I can personallly imagine tearing Adam Lanza limb-from-limb. I can't even imagine what the parents of the murdered children might like to do to him were he still alive. But again, since you introduced Christianity into this discussion, would Jesus urge us all to arm ourselves with more powerful firearms? Would He be ok with teachers arming themselves?

With regard to your last paragraph, I will NEVER tell my kids who to vote for or who not to vote for. They can see for themselves what my biases are, but their vote is their vote. Period. My wife and I have shown our kids the bible and read parts of it with them, so Frank, you're wrong again..there is absolutely NO deriding of religion in our home. Rather than have them simply listen to Frosty the Snowman and all the other secular Christmas songs, I make a point of playing them the classic carols, which are of course Christian, as well as teaching them about the Nativity. We are also raising them to be patriotic, to respect the flag, the armed forces and the proud history of this nation, so again Frank, you are WRONG about me!

It really bugs me that I feel I have to explain myself to you Frank, but you are so wrapped up in what you perceive a supporter of the "Democrat" (sic) party should be that you deserve to have your dogmatic bilge thrown back in your face.

To Ken above...you're dead right!

(Report Comment)
Tony Black January 3, 2013 | 4:37 p.m.

See?

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 3, 2013 | 8:05 p.m.

SteveSimmons - Not a "revolting development" as actor Wm. Bendix used to proclaim, but a truly amazing one. After post after post, a self proclaimed liberal, announces that he and his family have been and are, dedicated to truly conservative values. Just another expression of my "dogmatic bilge", but could it be that you prefer not to "judge", anyone, for anything?

If not, perhaps I am "seeing everything so clearly now". I and we "right wingers" should never dispute leftist, liberals on their ideology, but only on each and every issue. We may find that the so called liberal is actually a "closet" conservative (when the occasion arises).

On your last:"would Jesus urge us all to arm ourselves with more powerful firearms?" No, imo, he would advocate as I have (not trying to develop any relationship),the Biblical instruction regarding love of ones neighbor and He most certainly, would have fought the lengths, liberals and
Democrats have gone to, to expel his teachings from the American public classroom.

"I will NEVER tell my kids who to vote for or who not to vote for." Why did you leave out the rest of my entreaty? You are teaching them the classic carols? I learned those in the 5th grade at Benton School. We were allowed? to gather choirs of the 5 municipal schools and sing them to a packed house, any one wanting to hear, before Christmas at the MO Methodist Church. You though, tell us that this important education should be retained to the privacy of the home, as has every tyrannical government in our history.

"It really bugs me that I feel I have to explain myself to you Frank". Your explanation bugs me. You express extreme dissatisfaction with me. I must tell you that you may be the most devious poster that I have so far encountered in my blogging experience.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 3, 2013 | 8:52 p.m.

Frank..your post is confusing to me. I don't say that the "so-called liberal is actually a "closet" conservative (when the occasion arises)". I say that I am liberal in some respects and conservative in some respects. Can't you grasp that human beings (or at least some of us) are more complex than being simple liberal or conservative ideologues?

Your following sentence regarding your understanding of Jesus is extremely informative: "He most certainly, would have fought the lengths, liberals and
Democrats have gone to, to expel his teachings from the American public classroom." In my own humble opinion Jesus would not have lifted a finger to try to prevent anything of the sort! I believe he would have relied on the faith of his followers to ultimately determine what happened. Do you really think that the school system has tried to banish the values espoused by Christ? Judge not....., compassion, not bearing false witness, love thy neighbor and of course, the Golden Rule.

"You though, tell us that this important education should be retained to the privacy of the home, as has every tyrannical government in our history." NO I HAVEN'T!!!!

I'll take your calling me "the most devious poster....etc etc" as a badge of honor.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 3, 2013 | 9:53 p.m.

I'll try to help. I said that "After post after post, a self proclaimed liberal, announces that he and his family have been and are, dedicated to truly conservative values." You again,are saying,"that I am liberal in some respects and conservative in some respects." The "some respects" of liberalism are about to destroy our nation and can be seen in fiscal print and culturally anywhere one wishes to look, but you reserve the right to divide your devotion between the two. Sorry, that cannot work when ones way of life is threatened as it now is.

You give us "In my own humble opinion Jesus would not have lifted a finger to try to prevent anything of the sort! I believe he would have relied on the faith of his followers to ultimately determine what happened.", then ask me "what happened? with the question, "Do you really think that the school system has tried to banish the values espoused by Christ? Are you sober? The thousands of lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the laws passed by the Federal government are proof enough of the harassment Christian's have endured only for the right of their religious freedom. You claim to be teaching yours, the basics of Christian religion in your home, with no objection, while I have related the good old days to you. Imo, YES, YOU HAVE! If you accept my badge, wear it with pride! Unless you can't decide.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 3, 2013 | 10:28 p.m.

Frank...you clearly can't discriminate between actually teaching Christianity in public schools, which, according to the Constitution of the United States, is not the purview of the state, and upholding the morals and values of Jesus Christ, which should be universal and which therefore contravene no Constitutional laws. Until you can make that distinction, I suggest you debate someone less devious than me. I also suggest you try to maintain a semblance of coherency in your writings. You ask whether I am sober. Yes, stone cold.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 3, 2013 | 10:59 p.m.

SteveS: Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and then makes a list of those thou-shalt-nots.

As with all the others, the Bill of Rights is speaking to the federal government (not we the people) about what it can't do. It specifically says Congress cannot make a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It was only subsequent interpretation by SCOTUS and the various state constitutions did we arrive at the notion that religious folks should just shut up when discussing secular law, else someone plays the "separation of church and state" card.

There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. However, there IS something that specifically forbids Congress from making certain laws.

PS: It does amaze me we spend so much time on the first part of the 1st Amendment and what it means, but not so much on the remainder (freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition for redress) which I happen to think is far more important. But that's just me.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 7:56 a.m.

Michael, thanks for the clarification on the Constitution and religion. My point was simply that even in the absence of Christian teaching in our schools, many of the values espoused by Christ ARE a part of what our children learn at school. The funny thing about all of this is that I personally would love it if my kids did the sort of thing Frank says he did while at Benton. Let's face it Christmas carols are wonderfully uplifting; far more stirring than Frosty or Jingle Bell Rock! The sad thing about it is that Frank can't believe that a liberal can feel that way.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 4, 2013 | 8:16 a.m.

Steve - "Do you really think that the school system has tried to banish the values espoused by Christ?"

"The thousands of lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the laws passed by the Federal government are proof enough of the harassment..."

http://www.conservapedia.com/ACLU

Admittedly in many cases the cash strapped school districts have knuckled under to ACLU rather than spend the enormous cost in defending themselves in court. More than one law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom and the well known American Center for Law and Justice are a couple, that now defend schools, teachers and students free of charge against ACLU litigation. Jay Sekulow of ACLJ has stated that many times when his firm merely answers for the targeted offender, ACLU drops the litigation indicating they knew the charges they brought, had no legal standing, when they brought them.

If you believe that our American families deserve this harassment because of their religion, or that this is just a necessary correction and liberalism has no part in it, debate probably is useless. However, coherent or not, expect to hear from me for the conservative, Christian side for as long as I can write and talk. (not trying to sound like Patrick Henry, but this is only way I know to say it.)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 4, 2013 | 8:46 a.m.

Let's face it Christmas carols are wonderfully uplifting; far more stirring than Frosty or Jingle Bell Rock!
__________________

lol. Well, we can certainly agree on that!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 9:14 a.m.

Frank...having perused the link you sent I seem to be have missed the following case of religious "harassment" by the ACLU:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/aclu-t...

Strange, since the ACLU is obviously so hell-bent on destroying Christianity, you'd think they would bend over backwards to accommodate, or at least turn a blind eye with regards to our muslim brethren. I wonder why Conservapedia failed to document this particular action of the ACLU?

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 4, 2013 | 9:40 a.m.

From my link:
" Free Exercise Clause

The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. [43]

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going."

That you could pick this isolated case to try to throw, tells more about your liberal leanings than the teaching of xmas hymns to your children.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 9:52 a.m.

No Frank...it simply means that the world is more complex, and, dare I use the word, nuanced, than you seem to be able to grasp.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 10:05 a.m.

And Frank, I do apologize for missing that part of the "Free Exercise Clause". Kudos to Conservapedia. My mistake.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 4, 2013 | 11:53 a.m.

SteveS - Is it an impossibility that you might consider that you are watching the whole of the "world", you have so recently described for us being destroyed while the cracks (complexities and nuances), that will bring it down are being enlarged every day by this Administration and the Democratic party?

Liberals Never discuss the Federal spending (except to state that "Bush did it too"). A Senator this morning, not the first, told us that interest on our debt is now payable only because of the artificially low rates of interest. If we don't do something, when these go up (as they must) the disasterious problems for government and each of us will begin. The Democrats in control have stated time and again that they have no plans to change their ability to spend.Is this only a nuance that you are able grasp while I am not?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 12:22 p.m.

Frank..Thank you for calling it the "Democratic" party! I really mean that. This has nothing at all to do with gun control but I found the following link interesting:

http://current.com/community/93983883_re...

I assume that like most conservatiives you were just as vehemently opposed to spending during the Bush years as you are now.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 4, 2013 | 2:49 p.m.

No thanks to you for ignoring my assertions and question with Democrat trivia. As most have done when noting how undemocratic that party has become I shortened the name to one more accurate.

I had thought about suggesting that you not embarrass yourself with reference to Bush spending and you have done it. Your link is so inaccurate as to be funny. If his tax cuts were so expensive why did BO not immediately rescind them when he could have done it with the Democrat vote on hand at his inauguration? Why did they extend them and now have made them permanent or 99% of taxpayers? For truth about those cuts:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

I liked the one about cap gains taxes annually bringing 50B$ to treasury. CBO which never uses undetermined new revenues in their scoring, guessed that the proposed cuts "might" bring 60B$ and the actual take was 100B$. Also the 4.6 unemployment rate (the reason for the cuts)before the meltdown beginning 2007? As a matter of fact I was concerned about No Child and particularly Medicare Drugs, tho not vehemently opposed. I hoped they knew what they were doing while so far being able to stay off the drug plan. The "unfunded" wars were necessary. Wikipedia states that "historically, wars and recessions create deficits, but when they stop the deficits cease". I think this has been accurate assumption until now. Which of our wars were funded except Vietnam, for which LBJ spent our Social Security funds? I keep asking, knowing you don't do, questions. Sorry.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 4, 2013 | 4:26 p.m.

Ahhhh Frank..I knew you wouldn't be able to resist using "Democrat" party for long! The problem with all this going back and forth is that I don't believe you, and you don't believe me. It's as simple as that. I believe that two major factors that have contributed significantly to the massive deficits of the past 10 years or so are unfunded wars and tax cuts (and the CBO seems to support that). To you it's runaway government spending (which the CBO doesn't mention too much). If you are correct then what programs over the past 10 years have put us in such a hole? Please be specific. And which programs would you, Frank Christian, abolish or at least slash, to bring us back to a land of surpluses? Remember we're talking trillions here so getting rid of Big Bird won't cut it. And please don't advocate massive tax cuts, the abolition of capital gains tax etc, because that's not cutting spending.

Also, maybe you could explain why, in late 2002, Vice President Cheney said to then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due".

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 4, 2013 | 5:43 p.m.

As with most liberals you don't answer question but love to ask them, even tho you don't know what to ask.

You reference handily, the CBO, created with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This is the act with which Democrat controlled Congresses got their first hold on the handle of deficit spending and CBO has helped them with that ever since. You demand answers for questions but reject the obvious answers without refuting them as stated in my post. You are so shallow it is becoming pathetic. How can you expect respect when you reject tax cuts without refuting the evidence about them from Heritage? That you don't believe it, is not enough.

We would see our spending problem cured if Obama had not been reelected. Paul Ryan's plan will balance our budget and was passed in the House. If you want to see, look it up. Also, he has stated as all know, but Democrats won't/can't admit, that tax cuts will create the growth and extra revenue (as they did in 1997 and every time they have been employed for that purpose),with which to balance the budget. Spending cuts will certainly be necessary now tho, Republicans in 1997 did not reduce spending, only Controlled it. Ryan and co. would almost certainly discard the idiotic idea of baseline budgeting, where each committee starts with the sum of last year's budget then decides how much more will be needed. They also will, as I understand they are now,Not doing - using SS funds in their budgeting calculations. Also Ryan has stated that our budget will be balanced faster than CBO estimates, because they will not consider any additional revenues derived from "across the board tax cuts".

Why should I bother with a two sentence comment from a vice-president. Would you like to discuss a couple of Biden's more recent gems?

Now Mr. Simmons, please relate to us the reason for and the whereabouts of the 6+T$ of new debt created in Last Four Years of Obama. Also, how do you propose we handle this debt as I wrote, when interest rates go up?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 5, 2013 | 12:03 a.m.

Frank...at 2.49pm today you stated, "I keep asking, knowing you don't do, questions. Sorry". (I think you mean that you ask questions while I don't).

At 5.43pm you wrote, "As with most liberals you don't answer question but love to ask them, even tho you don't know what to ask." (I think you mean that I love to ask questions but don't answer them).

Hopefully the rationale for the above makes sense to Frank Christian.

I honestly attempt to maintain a modicum of respect when I go back and forth with you or anyone else on here, but clearly you like to just let go and vent when you argue don't you? I will cede to you a superior knowledge of congressional history. I will admit that you have a more encyclopedic comprehension of various aspects of economics. You clearly consider yourself an imparter of wisdom to someone who is "so shallow it is becoming pathetic".

It is becomiing increasingly difficult however to comprehend much of what you say since it is delivered in a style I have become accustomed to when trying to understand the writings of moderately competent graduate students from the Asian subcontinent.

I gather that I am supposed to be all in favor of Paul Ryan's plan for reforming Medicare. I also gather that those of your generation Frank won't be subject to Paul Ryan's plan for reforming medicare. Consequently I'd say that those of us in the generation who WILL be affected by Paul Ryan's plan for reforming medicare have a lot bigger interest in it, whatever the overall economic effect on the nation, wouldn't you? I don't trust it. If I live to 85 or 90 I don't really want to be insurance shopping, particularly if I have diabetes, arthritis, cancer, heart disease........... I think the link below summarizes quite nicely, in a fair and balanced way, what my fears are:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-5...

Before I retire for the night Frank I will repeat my question. Why did Dick Cheney say what he did back when his administration was driving up the deficit?

Good night.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 5, 2013 | 3:57 a.m.

Tax cuts, if spending has to be cut proportionately (as in Missouri) do not increase revenues. They appear to at the federal level because the additional deficits run in the years after a tax cut are basically stimulus that does not have to be paid back on any schedule. So you get the double whammy of leaving more money in private hands, while maintaining or even increasing government spending (in essence taking out another credit card).

No one, D or R, has ever seriously acted like deficits mattered for at least the last 40 years. That's the reason for out debt. Our economic problems are not caused by excessive taxes. In fact, effective tax rates are as low as they've ever been.

If deficits don't matter, by all means cut taxes again. Does anyone really believe that we can cut taxes to zero and still come up with the trillions in revenue required to perform essential services of government? Some at Heritage et al sure seems to.

They sure seem to have stopped teaching arithmetic these days. I think it goes back a lot farther than many think.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 8:07 a.m.

Steve - " The Democrats in control have stated time and again that they have no plans to change their ability to spend.Is this only a nuance that you are able grasp while I am not?"

"SteveS - Is it an impossibility that you might consider that you are watching the whole of the "world", you have so recently described for us being destroyed"

"Now Mr. Simmons, please relate to us the reason for and the whereabouts of the 6+T$ of new debt created in Last Four Years of Obama. Also, how do you propose we handle this debt as I wrote, when interest rates go up?"

Just a quick few of the questions I have asked you. You have duscussed my personality and grammatical failings in depth, but still have not touched any of the issues of today or who created them. So you don't trust P. Ryan. Doesn't the lack of an answer as to what the Democrats will do to save these programs show a somewhat shallow approach? (Jay Rockefeller stood before the camera and stated, "We are not going to touch Social Security - and we are not going to touch Medicare!"). Expecting nothing, I will try again. Do you intend to support
Democrats that are going to spend your Medicare money on their other pet programs until Medicare and our economy are in complete destruction? Does it seem to you that there really are those in our government that to "save" our country feel that we must destroy this capitalistic economy then build the better new one?

"...when trying to understand the writings of moderately competent graduate students from the Asian subcontinent."

Do you ignore their questions as well?

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 8:16 a.m.

Mark F. - Please read Myth#3 of the Heritage link from my post above. It tells exactly what federal tax cuts do and what they are expected to do. Please don't give me another "I don't believe it!", with no evidence regarding, why. I, somehow can't get used to that response.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 8:19 a.m.

Should I have asked you to re-read #3? Time for breakfast.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 5, 2013 | 1:23 p.m.

Frank...will you EVER concede that the debt also increased monstrously under the Bush/Cheney administration? Wars cost money, yet to listen to you anyone would think that all this debt has accrued since January 2009 when President Obama was first inaugurated. I don't deny that the debt has gone up A LOT under Obama, yet it also increased by around 5 trillion dollars between 2000 and 2008 (compare that with a reduction of about 1.5 trillion under the despised President Clinton).

Like it or not Frank, President Obama DID inherit 2 wars, one of which he has since ended. I assume that in the interest of fiscal responsibility you were in favor of an ending to the Iraq war. He also came into office at the beginning of one of the worst economic downturns in our nation's history. That cost money too, though I doubt whether you approved of the bailouts. Or am I wrong?

Here are a few things that I, a non-economist, propose;

1. Means test medicare.
2. Means test social security.
3. Allow the payroll tax holiday to expire as it just has but raise the amount upon which payroll taxes are paid from $110,000.
4. Maintain the marginal tax rates existing during the Bush years and President Obama's first term; HOWEVER, treat capital gains as earned income and tax it accordingly at the marginal tax rates.
5. Work toward additional incentives for small businesses to re-invest profits DOMESTICALLY, take on new employees, provide health care benefits etc (tax credits, increased subsidies for R & D, that sort of thing).

And no, I don't ignore graduate students' questions. You however, have persistently ignored my question regarding Dick Cheney's statement on "deficits don't matter".

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 5, 2013 | 3:08 p.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Please read Myth#3 of the Heritage link from my post above."

I did. It's wrong.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/...

Look at the "constant 2005 dollars" column for years 1994 to 2003, the years for when your much vaunted tax cuts supposedly produced a $600 billion surplus.

It did (if cuts are only what did it, which is questionable), but this fails to account for the other years in that period where it didn't.

In fact, deficits totalled almost $1,200 billion for those years. Total surplus was about $600 billion for that same period. So, in other words, those tax cuts actually increased deficits by about $600 billion over that 10 year cycle (until the Bush years where someone thought it was wise to try it again, and of course it didn't work as well).

It's also worth mentioning that taxes. especially capital gains taxes, were higher during that period of surplus than after the Bush cuts. Shouldn't that have squelched that economic activity? Shouldn't the 90% upper tax rates of the '50s have turned us into another Zimbabwe?

Heritage is full of it. Whatever things they say that I agree with, on this issue they're just a bunch of empty ideologues.

DK

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 5, 2013 | 3:25 p.m.

1993-2003:

Bubbles are good. They fix deficits.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 3:31 p.m.

O'Lord, we've got the blues again. Is it up only to me to concede anything? We know where every dime of the Bush 5T$ is. Two necessary wars, not "unfunded" like a Democrat social program but indeed causing great spending. Two Domestic programs, each sought for years by every Democrat that walked up the steps of Capital Hill. Now however, they are the Bush unfunded programs that must be sneered at. Were you aware that probably, (not certain) every Republican still in office since the Bush years has publicly apologized for that increase in debt? What Democrat has done anything but promise more? One, Senator Mark Warner a D' deficit hawk, might. He stated he would love to be on the Super Committee, or whatever, but sheepishly stated, "Their never going to allow me on that committee", and they didn't!

I can't allow the handy, but false habit of attributing spending to Presidents only, without correction. You know that Congress must approve spending bills (tho I wonder how much is spent by "Executive Order") and in Clinton's case all of the fiscally responsible actions were from Republican legislation and not from anything Clinton and D's had done to "reduce the deficit", before R's took over.

I'm not sure about bank bailouts, but believe Bush was sincere saying that he did not like them, but that everyone with an opinion had told him they were necessary. He has stated that all of his TARP money has been repaid. I think the auto companies should have thru regular bankruptcy, rather than the structured proceeding by Obama which screwed the honest investors and provided ownership for the unions.

Those are good Medicare solutions. What D' has done anything about employing them? Nothing wrong, except capital gains tax, Do you not believe the Heritage information? "If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut." Forget the "Domestic" part of incentives. World trade is here. When we return a business friendly atmosphere to the country. The capital gone over seas will return to U.S. Will you admit that none of these solutions are ever going to be instituted while Democrats are in charge?

Dick Cheney misspoke in a private conversation with a Treasurer that should never have been there, simply because he did/does not believe in tax cuts as creators of growth in economy. I wondered aloud what he was doing there, the day I heard it. Though speaking from a situation in which the Federal Budget was in balance for the first time since 1968, Cheney was wrong. Is this what the Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee is still trying to prosecute him for? What else do you want?

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 3:33 p.m.

They told me I had too many words in last post.

"I keep asking, knowing you don't do, questions." I guess that is my redneck slang for "you don't answere questions"

" You clearly consider yourself an imparter of wisdom". I only try to pay attention. When I learn something I try to pass it along. That is all I know to do and did not consider "imparter of wisdom" in any description of my efforts here.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 5:34 p.m.

Mark - Imo, you are wrong! You always point to some period or percentage and hand us a story about it, and a question about why didn't xyz happen. If you want to prove Heritage wrong, prove that the capital gains take for government did not increase from 50B$ to 103B$ after the Bush tax cuts!. Or prove that the unemployment rate did not improve to 4.6% after those cuts. People and jobs never enter your calculations. Your only concern is whether Government is fed enough. While the real "deficits" are from Congressional spending and as such can be curtailed, (tho hard to do with liberal Democrats in the picture.) you describe deficits as an occurrence that comes with government and can only hope to be stopped with untold amounts of new money. You have ignored the 1997 balanced budgets, because as you stated, "the results were too insignificant". The truths that you and yours will not accept is the fact that the Reagan plan of tax cuts produced everything as advertised, but the Democrat controlled Congress spent all the new revenue plus! Reagan spent as well, to rebuild our defense system decimated as always, by Democrats, this time by J.E. Carter. Reagan created deficits only by Borrowing the Tip O'Neill excesses, rather than cause the money to be "printed" creating the stagflation of the Carter years.

You started with 1994 as the date of my "much vaunted tax cuts". The cuts were not enacted until 1997. 1998 shows a surplus 82.1B$ and for 3 years after that. The chart shows no surplus back to 1969, the last time we had a balanced budget with Democrats running Congress nearly the whole time.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 5, 2013 | 9:16 p.m.

Frank...I reject your extremely dubious comparison between smoking cessation, investment and capital gains tax. I realize that taxes do not have to be "fair" but please explain to me the logic behind taxing a hard day's work at a much higher rate than taxation of profits made through investments. I am not the only one who believes that capital gains tax can be significantly higher without seriously damaging investment; your much beloved Paul Krugman is on record stating the same. He has a Nobel prize in economics. I don't and unless I am very much mistaken, neither do you.

I will answer my question for you. Dick Cheney said what he said when he did because he knew that the political decisions of his administration would result in huge deficit increases. Therefore....in his words, "deficits don't matter".

Well, at least we share some common ground on Medicare......

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 5, 2013 | 10:53 p.m.

Unbelievable. I'm on my way to bed and here you come again! Smoking v investment,is not my comparison, but a very accurate one if you could think "logically" rather than ideologically. You can't, so here we go! The only thing the yawn, "He has a Nobel prize in economics.", Krugman is expert in, is Keynesian SPENDING! Your logic does not extend to the fact that well over 50% of American families are invested in our stock markets, real estate market and every other enterprise that you, with the liberal elitists you support, continually try to sell as the purview of the 1- 2% of our nations richest. Where ever you reside in the class divisions that Democrats have named for the American people, if you transact and profit from that transaction you are subject to that tax. That tax has subtracted more money from our (wife and I) retirement, than anything else that has happened since we retired! Clinton-D Congress cost more. Bush-R Congress less. U.S., with present cap gains tax is still highest among other trading nations, but You, Logically, expect that an increase will help something. I'm at a loss for more words. Good Night.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 9:24 a.m.

"That tax has subtracted more money from our (wife and I) retirement, than anything else that has happened since we retired!" Then I congratulate you because if you are subject to high levels of capital gains tax, you must have done something right in your investments and be truly reaping the profits in your retirement!

Frank, my point was that EARNED INCOME should not be taxed at a higher level than capital gains, but at the same rate (and yes I DO understand the arguments about rewarding risk etc). I realize that capital gains tax has just risen to 20%, but if, under "my" plan the capital gains realized by citizens were taxed using the same marginal brackets, then a married couple could today earn $72,500 before there would be any increase in monies paid on capital gains. I could also advocate raising the lowest marginal rate of 10% from $17,850 to say, $40,000, with a commensurate rise in the 15% marginal rate, to allow those workers and investors who are truly in the middle class to benefit more from the combined fruits of their labors and investments.

If that makes me someone who believes in "class warfare" then so be it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 6, 2013 | 10:36 a.m.

" you must have done something right in your investments and be truly reaping the profits in your retirement!" Yeah, right! I sold a business and the buildings housing it. The sum to be enjoyed in our retirement was reduced by $20,000. due to cap gains tax. Have not proved it true, an example was once given, of a "milkman", selling his route was subject to cap gains tax.

You have gone to great lengths to devise a method of taxation that will benefit the "middle class" more than the hated "upper class". Of course you are a believer in "class warfare", unless you now deny being liberal. The middle class in America was always defined as a state of mind, most Americans imagined they were middle class no matter what their income and most envisioned soon joining the upper class, thru the fruits of their labor. Then came the liberal Democratics (misspelling intentional, before you jump on me again for that!) and suddenly our middle class is a permanent, well defined group with visible borders on both top and bottom. The financial up and down movement of people, created by the capitalistic system we have employed is known as the catalyst for the great wealth produced by and for people around the world. Liberals see this as fault, because every outcome is not "fair". Every action by the democratic,liberals is one envisioned with the permanent "classes" which will always include the same people. Oddly enough, most liberals are found in the "upper class"

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 2:04 p.m.

Frank, let me get this straight. You say "You have gone to great lengths to devise a method of taxation that will benefit the "middle class" more than the hated "upper class". Of course you are a believer in "class warfare", unless you now deny being liberal.

First, I don't "hate the upper class". I admire anyone who has made a good life for themselves and their family.

Second, why are you so much against giving a little more of a "helping hand" taxwise to those who earn less than $100,000 per year? I won't even call them "middle class". Simply, "earners of less than $100,000" for our purposes here. Mitt Romney said it best I think:

"I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

I just don't get why you have such animosity towards those of us for whom life is a matter of making ends meet.

You say that liberals are believers in "class warfare", yet in the very same post state that "Oddly enough, most liberals are found in the "upper class". So........you're saying that liberals engage in class warfare against themselves?

Of course I realize that your use of "liberal Democratics" is a stab at humor and I'll give you credit as a true Republic conservationist for introducing levity into the discussion.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 6, 2013 | 2:52 p.m.

"I just don't get why you have such animosity towards those of us for whom life is a matter of making ends meet."
____________________

Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!

There is no animosity towards those for whom life is a matter of making ends meet. There is no animosity towards those making a good effort and doing the financial things necessary to make it in this world. You have made a poor interpretation of conservative state-of-mind and, hence, your statement is improper.

There is extreme animosity towards those who do not have the words "enough" or "sufficient" in their lexicon when it comes to the possessions and largess of others. There is animosity towards those who have made really poor long- and short-term decisions in their life, those who have deliberately squandered their gifts, and those who decided not to participate in the great intellectual adventures this world offers.

There is animosity towards those elitists who say they are protecting those who struggle, when in reality they have those folks exactly where they want them....dependent. I conclude this because for decades I have observed liberal philosophies, strategies, and "solutions" which prove to hinder, not help, those wishing to have a better outcome. Liberal strategies for betterment suck. I see no other conclusion.

There is animosity towards those who yearn for equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

I will never support equal outcomes. Such a thing is a death knell for individual innovation and effort in the same way that a nation turned inward and refusing to seek new national adventure will stagnate and die.

I refuse to turn inward. I refuse to vote in a manner that allows us to turn inward. Rather than listen to the whines of those who feel left behind, I would rather ask, "Why do (did) you not join?"

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 3:17 p.m.

Wow! The thing is Michael, I agree with virtually everything you say above. Particularly, "There is animosity towards those who yearn for equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities". Pie-in-the-sky nonsense to be sure. In fact I believe it's a cliche that most "liberals" really think that way. I don't know any, but when I turn on Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh etc I hear that refrain ad infinitum, so I suppose it must be true (I am not saying YOU get your talking points from right-wing radio either).

"Liberal strategies for betterment suck" seems like overkill but apart from that I can't argue with much you wrote.

Also, when I wrote that to Frank it was, to be honest, meant as tongue-in-cheek teasing.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 6, 2013 | 3:35 p.m.

SteveS: You are right; I do not get my talking points from right wing...anything. In fact, I cannot stand listening to any of those folks. I'd rather listen to the "The Civil Wars" which is not a history but a singing duo.

I have yet to convince anyone around to my way of thinking by making fun of that which they hold dear...and I've done that very thing and always failed miserably. I can honestly say that if those talk show hosts have said liberals want equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity, then they either must be reading my stuff (probably not) or thought of it themselves based upon their own observations of others' behavior and discussion (likely).

Never have I encountered a liberal who says "enough".

Ever.

Hell, only once has a liberal given me a specific answer on how much income tax a person should pay (as a percentage); the only one who did so was JonH on these pages...a consistent sort if I've ever seen one. In the face of this simple observation and many others over the years, I certainly believe liberal elitists wish for equal outcome.

So, yes...I believe it is true. I also believe the speed of light is fixed and constant, but space and time are not, but I'm not about to say to someone "I hear that refrain ad infinitum, so I suppose it must be true."

It's a lousy argument for truth versus falsity and belongs on the playground.

Anyway, for the latter, I've done the calculations (which require only high school mathematics). For the former, I've made the observations.

You wanted to know "why?" from Frank, and perhaps I've intruded on the conversation. But, I decided to throw in my two chips.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 6, 2013 | 4:52 p.m.

Steve, you can give us, "First, I don't "hate the upper class". I admire anyone who has made a good life for themselves and their family." again and again, but those you support politically, seldom refer to these as you have just done. Rep. Richard Gephardt during his Prez campaign often referred to our wealthy as "those more lucky in "life's lottery". Clinton, Obama (have you forgotten his "you didn't build that!" speech?), Warren Buffett etc. all decry our wealthy as those not "paying their fair share". Have you read D. Fogel describing our wealthy Americans?

Hope I'm not considered sinful, by our editors, but I picked this up from a phone call to the other paper. The caller, not politically identified, stated:
"I hate the fact that we are now entering a country where people that make a million dollars are despised and we feel like they owe everybody else something. I liked our country better when you are young and you could aspire to be a millionaire and earn a million dollars, and that would be a good thing." Whether you can admit it or not, Steve, this is what we have got and liberalism is the cause!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 5:05 p.m.

I'll give you an answer. I would be uncomfortable asking anyone to pay more than 50%, but I would only go anywhere near that sort of percentage on amounts in the multi millions. So, I would be in favor of more marginal tax brackets, with a maximum in the high 40% range. As I said before I would also tax capital gains at those same marginal rates.

I might go for reducing some tax credits/deductions, which I believe would expand the tax base, though I'd need to be convinced that doing so would not be too much of a burden on the so-called "middle-class". I would definitely make it easier to write off medical expenses, make flexible spending account type programs more "flexible" (eg increase amounts allowable per year and allow carryover of one year's funds to the next). I realize that's not going to save the nation, but might just help out those who are struggling with recurring medical costs. Just a few things off the top of my head, not meant to be definitive.

The inability to say "enough" is not restricted to liberals. I'd HATE to see equal outcomes, if that were even possible. It would make for a very dull society.

Incidentally, do you really think I am trying at this stage of the discussion to convince Frank around to my way of thinking? The notion is absurd, just as he won't convince me of much! I am at least gratified that he and I seemed to share a small amount of common ground when it came to Medicare means testing.

I am curious about something and I ask this with a completely straight face. I see the terms "liberal elitists" and "liberal elites" thrown about a lot. Are there such things as conservative elitists and conservative elites?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 5:13 p.m.

Frank...a short note. PLEASE be intellectually honest when referring to President Obama's "you didn't build that". He was talking about the infrastructure which helps everyone in this nation, rich and poor. He was NOT referring to businesses, as was shamefully portrayed by dishonest Republicans during the Presidential campaign.

As for "life's lottery", of course there is luck in it, as well as sweat, grind and toil. Wouldn't you say the Kennedy's were lucky in life's lottery? I mean by being born with silver spoons in their mouths, not by being shot!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 6, 2013 | 6:30 p.m.

"I'll give you an answer."

Me: Yes, you did...more than any liberal I have ever known. Thank you for that. Now, if we could only get consensus answers (with the words "enough" and "sufficient" and "we won't ask for more") from those liberals with power, we'd have a good starting point for discussion.
__________________

"Incidentally, do you really think I am trying at this stage of the discussion to convince Frank around to my way of thinking?"

Me: No. I realize we are (a) passing the time and, (b) trying out our own ideas in print to see how they stand up. I'm much in favor of the latter.
__________________

"Are there such things as conservative elitists and conservative elites?"

Me: Absolutely. But, I was not discussing them any more than I was discussing elephants, so I didn't bring that particular flavor up.
___________________

PS: Your comment about "luck" reminded me of several conversations in this place some time ago. There were arguments about the existence of luck and free will and fate. I'm gratified you believe in "sweat, grind, and toil" because that means you believe in a choice to do these things and, perhaps, the value in holding folks responsible who do not believe in such effort. This latter point is a huge issue for conservatives but does not seem so high on the "important" list for most liberals.

I'm in the middle of a book called "Darwin's Bass". In discussing free will, he mentions this thing we humans call "wisdom".

And then he essentially says that if you believe in "wisdom", you must also believe in free will since "wisdom" as we define it means accumulating sufficient alternatives to make a subsequent choice.

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm."

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 6, 2013 | 7:43 p.m.

Well I never! I had no idea Darwin was musical. Next thing we know Mike Huckabee will be writing books on fishing!

I'll take a look for it on the DBRL website.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 6, 2013 | 7:56 p.m.

Steve - Here we go! " He was NOT referring to businesses, as was shamefully portrayed by dishonest Republicans". This speech, copied from E. Warrens previous attack, was employed to give esteem to the little guy who has accomplished little at the EXPENSE of businessmen who may believe they deserve all the credit and it was delivered to give reason for the lower "class" to suspect and dislike the upper! As usual liberals have had their work cut out, trying to explain what their candidates and leaders "really meant", as you are doing with Gephardt's misinformation.

"Wouldn't you say the Kennedy's were lucky in life's lottery?" Hilarious! Old Joe was a bootlegger! Worked his butt off and risked more than his capital to earn the big bucks. Luck? I suppose but not what most honest entrepreneurs require. Steve, You add "sweat, grind and toil" as a component to the lottery, making it more notable that Dick G. did not and neither do liberals in their constant attack upon capitalism and business.

Mike W. - No objection to your supplements from this end. Enjoyable, as usual.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 6, 2013 | 7:58 p.m.

SteveS: You might also like "Pavlov's Trout".

Great book.

On human psychology, of all things...with a title like that.

But, for both books, you'll need at least a little interest in fishing.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 7, 2013 | 12:09 p.m.

So Frank, you believe that President Obama deliberately insulted every business owner in this nation in a cynical attempt to make the masses hate business owners and thereby ensure his re-election? If that's the case, then I'd say his political daring and acumen is second to none. It worked didn't it? He did however show political genius at an early age. As a neonate in a Kenyan mud hut he orchestrated, with the help of his nefarious relatives, to have birth announcements placed in Hawaiian newspapers, in preparation for his running for President 46 years later. Not even the great Professor Moriarty could have had the foresight to accomplish that!

Michael, I see the library has the Trout book. I will give it a try. Thanks for the tip.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 7, 2013 | 1:53 p.m.

Steve Simmons - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hurn... Don't tell me this guy is just a blogger. Tell me if he wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/1... Neither link mentions " birth announcements placed in Hawaiian newspapers,"

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 7, 2013 | 7:29 p.m.

From Wikipedia:

"George received little attention until being featured in an article in the Italian-language edition of Vanity Fair in August 2008, which portrayed him as living in poverty, shame, and obscurity.[128] The article quoted George Obama as saying that he lived "on less than a dollar a month" and said that he "does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation" out of shame at his poverty.[129] In later interviews, George contradicted this picture. In an interview with The Times, he "said that he was furious at subsequent reports that he had been abandoned by the Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum."[126] He told The Times, "Life in Huruma is good." George Obama said that he expects no favors, that he was supported by relatives, and that reports he lived on a dollar a month were "all lies by people who don't want my brother to win."[126] He told The Telegraph that he was inspired by his half-brother.[125] According to Time, George "has repeatedly denied ... that he feels abandoned by Obama."[130] CNN quoted him as saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now. The magazines, they have exaggerated everything – I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges."

At least in 2008 George admired his elder brother. If, almost 5 years later they hate one another and the President has pulled strings to prevent him entering the US, big deal! The book "Homeland", which the article by D'Souza suggests was suppressed in order to avoid embarrassing the President, is available from Amazon.com for $10 (ISBN-10: 1439176175).

Even if the President has cut off his half brother because they disagree on the politics of colonialism, SO WHAT? If poor George has his Johnnie Walker spiked with methanol or, more convincingly, gets obliterated by a drone, I'll take Mr D'Souza a bit more seriously.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 7, 2013 | 9:09 p.m.

Steve S. - "I'll take Mr D'Souza a bit more seriously." Yeah, D'Souza has credentials, but they are all conservative. He is probably lying about the whole hospital episode.

So what about Obama, the associate of American business? You mistrust that writer as well, I'm sure. It's clear, you intend to support this leftist all the way through his planned destruction of the American economy. I ask, why? Though you have not touched one similar question to date. Why?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 7, 2013 | 9:38 p.m.

No Frank, I don't "mistrust that writer as well". Mr D'Sousa's whole premise was easy to dismiss as simply the bias of a hack. Let's face it, when it comes down to it, don't you, as a conservative who presumably believes in self reliance, feel that George Obama should kick the bottle and look after himself? From the snippets I read regarding his book, he actually seems to have a lot more self-respect than Mr D'Sousa gives him credit for so I can only assume that Mr D'S is just trying to exploit him to discredit a hated president. Why did he lie about the book not being available? Why is there no mention of George's support for and admiration for his elder brother?

As for Chris Hurn's piece, I can't argue with it as I am not an expert on the economics and politics of small business. I'm comfortable admitting that. It's notable though that he says that Obama helped "big business". What's wrong with saving GM and Chrysler and thereby saving tens of thousands of jobs?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 7, 2013 | 9:40 p.m.

Sorry Frank, I forgot in my post to comment on the following:

"It's clear, you intend to support this leftist all the way through his planned destruction of the American economy".

Ha! Ha! Ha!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons January 7, 2013 | 9:57 p.m.

Frank..I just scanned this thread and it has grown so large that is is ridiculous. You can have the last word as there is probably no-one else following this and if they are they are probably sick of you and I squabbling. Say whatever you like...I can (probably) take it. My last word...back to the original intent of this whole thing;

Ban the Bushmaster and ban large capacity magazines!

Over to you...........

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 7, 2013 | 11:03 p.m.

SteveS: I'm still kinda sorta following this thread when I'm around. But, I am losing interest because of the "blues".

But, anyway.....I believe that if Bushmasters and other unfavored guns are banned, you're gonna see one of the biggest instances of noncompliance with a law you have ever witnessed. Especially if that law is accompanied by a requirement to be identified as an owner of any gun, photo ID required, and fingerprinting.

Indeed, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if most MO law enforcement officers encountering an otherwise law-abiding citizen in possession of a gun but NOT engaged in other illegal activities...will go suddenly blind.

ESPECIALLY the rural ones. The urban ones maybe not so much.

Officer discretion, dontcha know......especially if those officers are expressing their own personal civil disobedience against the law because of arms at home.

Which they undoubtedly have.

PS: Damned if I can figure out how folks think guns can be regulated via identification and registration when our own gov't, spending billions of dollars, can't keep drugs from its own citizens.

It will be unenforceable. Such regulation may have worked in the 1990s, but no longer. Folks are much more stubborn nowadays about such things.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 8, 2013 | 6:57 a.m.

Good Bye for now Steve S. Don't forget: " It's clear, you intend to support this leftist all the way through his planned destruction of the American economy. I ask, why? Though you have not touched one similar question to date. Why?", is still hanging here. "Ha! Ha! Ha!"

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer January 8, 2013 | 10:55 a.m.

I didn't realize the blues were back! (I assume you're referring to the blue screen that appears when comment threads get so long that they freak out the system?)

Joy Mayer,
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 8, 2013 | 12:24 p.m.

Joy, yes those are the "blues".

I think it's the first time we've done it since the paywall. It used to be that only the good colonel could provoke such a thing. Unfortunately, this current "blue" incident was achieved with so few posters; we used to have a lot more.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders January 8, 2013 | 3:05 p.m.

Joy, to fix this, have your coders remove the entry "overflow:hidden;" from line 5 in the file inside.css.

Of course, this may break the site in some other way, but it fixes this issue.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer January 8, 2013 | 5:47 p.m.

Thanks, Richard!

Joy Mayer

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 8, 2013 | 6:27 p.m.

Joy! Joy! - Just before the Blues began, I was handed the title of an "Imparter of Wisdom" on this page. I feigned displeasure, but kind of liked it. Now, to find that the "head editor" ain't even reading me? Imagine the pain and grief!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements