Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $17,667
Woo hoo!! And the first 20% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by untrained skeptic

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

    02/17/2011 3:52:53 PM PST · 143 of 258
    untrained skeptic to Lurking Libertarian
    I don't think there is any chance in hell that SCOTUS will touch this. If Obama were found to be ineligible, it would shake our country to it's core. If everything he has signed as president were suddenly invalid all the budget bills would be invalid. How would you resolve all the laws being invalid and all the money that has already been spent?

    It could easily completely crash our economy, and devolve our government into utter chaos.

    If several states legislate strict methods of proving eligibility to get on the ballot, then Obama would either have to prove eligibility in the next election, or come up with a reason to not run again.

    However, I see absolutely no chance that if he isn't eligible that we will ever see it proved.

  • Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

    02/17/2011 3:27:56 PM PST · 138 of 258
    untrained skeptic to ebysan
    Requires “Both Parents” must be “Citizens of the United States” to be considered a “Natural-Born” Citizen!

    Under “Vattel’s Law of Nations” ( which our Founding Fathers used in defining “Natural-Born” Citizen). The” Country of the Fathers” is therefor that of the Children; and these become true citizens by their Tacit consent.

    So Vattel's book was referenced in the Constitution? Was it made clear to all the signers and those ratifying the constitution that natural born citizens (which happens to be in lower case in the Constitution) was referring to Vattel's definition rather than the more obvious definition of someone who became a citizen at the time of their birth?

    I say,that, in order to “be of the country”, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a “Citizen”; for, if he is born there of a “foreigner”, it will only be the place of his birth and “Not” his Country!

    So what would be the citizenship of someone who's father is unknown? Would the be in perpetual limbo? An illegal alien wherever they might go?

    If Obama was born outside of this nation according to our laws at the time, he would not have been a citizen at birth, and therefore wouldn't be a natural born citizen. However, it does not seem clear to me that those signing or ratifying our Constitution had all read Vattel or understood that term to be as he defined it.

  • Walker Should Bring Criminal Charges Against Teachers

    02/17/2011 2:44:18 PM PST · 25 of 28
    untrained skeptic to Lonesome in Massachussets

    Doesn’t really sound like a criminal offense to me. More like a civil issue. The state should dock their pay, and discipline them. There are probably terms in the contract about how teachers can be disciplined, and those need to be followed, but they should treat them as harshly as the contract allows.

  • Missing Wisconsin Democrats Who Skipped Anti-Union Vote Left the State, Senator Says

    02/17/2011 2:37:36 PM PST · 24 of 28
    untrained skeptic to antidemoncrat
    They better not have used state funds or state owned vehicles to flee the state. If they did give them 24 hours to return and reimburse the state, or prosecute them for misuse of public funds.
  • Mandatory Arabic Classes Coming To Some Texas Schools....'Language Of The Future'

    02/08/2011 10:56:56 AM PST · 43 of 105
    untrained skeptic to Red in Blue PA
    No particular foreign language class should be mandatory, and if taking a foreign language is required, the students should have a selection to choose from.

    Our military and intelligence communities would likely be happy with a larger number of people familiar with Arabic to pull from but I don't think many people will get much use out of it.

  • States Need Bankruptcy Option

    01/26/2011 1:36:27 PM PST · 33 of 35
    untrained skeptic to SampleMan
    What I believe you are both missing is that these states are not locked into these outrageous contracts forever, just until they come up for renewel. They are then free to renogiate or even to pass legislation disallowing public sector unions.

    I'm not missing it. A five year contract foolishly negotiated by an administration that was pandering for votes means that even if you replace the administration, there is little they can do to address the problem.

    They are the people's elected officials and the people gave them the authority to negotiate those contracts. Bankruptcy is a process through which someone can gain relief when it is no longer possible for them to fulfill their obligations.

    I believe bankruptcy has a place in our society, but it must be as fair and equitable as possible. Having union contracts be the ONLY obligation that can be renegotiated doesn't seem fair.

    This doesn't seem like the proper way to limit the power of unions. You shouldn't limit power by giving the government power to negotiate in bad faith and then back out.

  • States Need Bankruptcy Option

    01/26/2011 6:52:26 AM PST · 16 of 35
    untrained skeptic to SampleMan
    The article doesn't actually propose letting the states out of their debts. It suggests letting them void existing labor contracts and go back to the bargaining table with the unions. Those contracts represent a different kind of debt that the state has incurred. I think state employee unions generally have far too much power, but I'm not sure there is a sound reason to let the states get out of one type of liability while not allowing any flexibility on the rest.

    However, it does seem that when it goes to the courts, the union members usually make out better than nameless investors holding bonds.

  • Republicans introduce bill to eliminate presidential 'czars'

    01/06/2011 3:14:50 PM PST · 74 of 150
    untrained skeptic to AEMILIUS PAULUS
    Actually, the best method for Congress to restrain an overreaching executive branch is to withdraw funding from whatever they want to kill. Funding bills need to originate in the House, so this is something the House should do rather than the Senate.
  • GOP 8 who voted for START phone numbers

    12/22/2010 11:22:58 AM PST · 33 of 36
    untrained skeptic to GailA
    Calling Voinovich is probably not worth the effort. He has been ignoring constituents opinions on such issues and relying on the fact that the Democrats have run extremist liberals against him that make him look like the safer choice for many years.

    He is retiring in January. Good riddance!

  • Internet radio shock jock Hal Turner sentenced to prison for threatening judges

    12/21/2010 2:17:07 PM PST · 3 of 11
    untrained skeptic to Nachum

    No handler who ever wants a search warrant approved in the future is going to tell one of their informants to call for the death of federal judges.

  • House Censures Rangel

    12/03/2010 5:35:06 AM PST · 37 of 38
    untrained skeptic to speciallybland
    This is just political theater. His constituents don't appear to care if he is corrupt. He will keep getting reelected. This costs him nothing.

    He broke several laws. Prosecute him. He shouldn't be above the law just because he has been successfully scoffing at it for so long.

  • Rep. Charlie Rangel asks supporters to call Capitol switchboard [Classic Classless Charlie!]

    12/01/2010 2:36:16 PM PST · 17 of 19
    untrained skeptic to AtlasStalled
    Unless they are going to expel him, this is nearly pointless anyway. He committed criminal acts. He should be prosecuted. A house ethics committee decision is not a replacement for upholding laws. He needs to face criminal prosecution.
  • Assange Calls for Clinton Resignation

    11/30/2010 4:00:28 PM PST · 72 of 103
    untrained skeptic to jerry557

    There are a lot of people out there that are foolish enough to believe that our government could and should operate in complete and total transparency. However, a lot of them also tend to be pretty close to being anarchists and believe they have a right to know everything about everyone else, but no one has a right to know anything about them.

  • Assange Calls for Clinton Resignation

    11/30/2010 3:50:52 PM PST · 69 of 103
    untrained skeptic to OldDeckHand
    What is an international covenant?

    How exactly is it binding under US law, which is the law to which our government is responsible.

    However, if our nation has made such agreements binding under our law, then I think we should do the honorable thing and withdraw from the UN.

    I think Clinton should resign and we should withdraw from the UN regardless of if we broke any of their covenants, but I see no reason why anyone should care what Assange says.

  • Top Democrat says he'll advance immigration bill

    11/30/2010 3:42:45 PM PST · 26 of 35
    untrained skeptic to TigersEye
    Only to those that have already immigrated lawfully.

    I'm not really opposed to opening up military service to those who wish to become residents and eventually citizens, but I'm not sure how you set up an objective system of who you would accept and also limit the numbers so we don't get a flood of recruits with questionable allegiances.

  • Top Democrat says he'll advance immigration bill

    11/30/2010 3:35:00 PM PST · 25 of 35
    untrained skeptic to Free ThinkerNY
    If they meet recruiting standards,are willing to join the military, and serve honorably. It may be reasonable to set the recruiting standards a bit higher for those without legal status, but not unreasonably so.

    I'm a proponent of legal, controlled immigration. If they are interested in serving our country and can make a positive contribution, I think we should give them precedence over those who would make less of a contribution to our country.

  • John Conyers's Sons Photos

    11/30/2010 3:25:40 PM PST · 26 of 45
    untrained skeptic to WaterBoard
    He didn't know his wife was soliciting and taking bribes when on the Detroit city council. The justice department was nice enough to accept his word that he was in no way involved which of course had nothing to do with him being chairman of the house judiciary committee. Somehow his wife was even provided with a lawyer by the taxpayers.

    Now he doesn't know that his son is unlawfully using a government owned car.

    The pictures of his son with alcohol in the vehicle show another instance of him inappropriately using the car. Since the bottle isn't open, and it is possible that an adult is present, I don't think they can go after him about the alcohol itself, but they can ask him some difficult questions about who was there that was over 21 and was it someone who should have known he shouldn't be using the car?

    I think there has been more than enough evidence that Conyers needs to be investigated. Maybe he's only guilty of being a fool who married a crook and who is careless with not securing a government vehicle from his son. That alone should get him kicked off of the judiciary committee.

  • Another Flash From Obama's White House - Troops To Be Pulled Back From The Mexican Border

    11/19/2010 2:29:05 PM PST · 34 of 35
    untrained skeptic to Windflier
    The federal government is in a state of treason to its citizens. One of the few enumerated duties that the Constitution sets forth for the federal government, is that of protecting American citizens from invasion. They have clearly failed in that primary responsibility.

    We aren't facing a real invasion. We are facing piss poor border control and piss poor immigration control. Even though we can justifiably argue that our government isn't enforcing immigration laws, in reality we always face having law enforcement and prosecution being limited by resources, and allocating those resources is the responsibility of congress and using those resources within the discression allowed by congress is the role of the executive branch.

    Congress has a long habit of talking tough on some topics, passing laws that should help address the issues, and then underfunding them because while they want to appear tough on the topic, the issue doesn't have enough priority with them to actually get fully funded.

    It's irritating as hell that they do it, but it is completely within their constitutional authority to do it. It's not treason. It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. It's political. For some of them it may be an act of dishonesty. For others, it's just a matter of dealing with unlimited desires and limited resources.

    The American people’s right to self-defense supersedes the Constitution and every local, state, and federal statute. I think you understand that our rights are NOT conferred by the state, but by the Creator.

    Pulling these small number of troops that weren't doing a whole hardly interferes with our right to defend ourselves. It may make a relatively small number of people less safe.

    I would greately prefer our government put a more sizable force along the border with rules of engagement that actually allowed them to be more effective. Even better would be to increase the size of the border patrol and borrow from other federal law enforcement agencies, since most of the problem is a law enforcement issue, not a military one, and it is better that our military not be used for law enforcement.

    However, too many of our politicians either don't want to deal with the immigration issues, or don't consider it a high enough priority. They also can't really deal with the smuggling issues without addressing the immigration issues, and the smuggling issues apparently haven't raised the stakes enough to get them to do something about it. They haven't raised the political stakes enough. We can get pissed off all we want, but we must be in the minority, because the politicians who refuse to address the problem are still in office. As long as they remain there, then it obviously isn't important enough to enough of the American people.

    We have to vote them out of office. Irate rants about how we must arm ourselves against the problem aren't going to solve the problem, and advocating armed insurrection against our government does start to border on treason.

    We do have a right to freedom of speech, but such words can come back to haunt you, so be careful of how you say things. I don't think you stepped over that line here, but I've seen enough others that have. I'm not suggesting anyone stop opposing how the government is handling immigration, or even stop being really, really pissed off about it.

    The only way we are going to cause change however is to change the politicians, or to make it obvious to them that if they don't change the laws and allocate the resources, they will be replaced with someone who will.

  • Another Flash From Obama's White House - Troops To Be Pulled Back From The Mexican Border

    11/18/2010 5:49:45 PM PST · 28 of 35
    untrained skeptic to Windflier
    Comes a time when a people have to defend their land, no matter the artificial constraints and impediments forced upon them by a weak and treasonous government.

    They aren't completely artificial. It is important for our own freedom that our different levels of government have limitations on their power, sepecially when it comes to ordering the military around.

    It is the role of the Federal Government, and the problem is that not enough voters are taking the issue seriously enough and that they keep electing socially liberal politicians (Bush included) who won't protect our borders and enforce controlled and legal immigration.

    It MUST be done at the federal level, and there hasn't been a presidential candidate from either party in the last three elections that came anywhere close to winning even their party primary that was serious about securing our border.

    It's an issue that many Americans want addressed, but apparently they don't feel strongly enough to have it be one of the most important issues in how they vote.

    Until that changes, we aren't going to see major policy changes.

  • Obama names anti-gun extremist as next BATFE head

    11/18/2010 4:45:03 PM PST · 29 of 41
    untrained skeptic to Renegade
    99% of Demorats are anti-gun , so what’s the difference . SOOOO when TSHTF how the hell they gonna defend themselves ?

    Actually they aren't, at least not the voters. There are a considerable number of pro-gun Democrats, and an even larger percentage for whom it isn't a high priority issue one way or the other.

    Gun control laws have not been popular, and have played a significant role in Democrat politicians losing their offices. Pro gun Democrats have done well in many parts of the country. It is probably the main thing that got Strickland elected as Governor here in Ohio. If he wasn't so extremely liberal on everything else he probably would have gotten reelected.

    The anti-gun lobby is small, but very powerful. It doesn't have a lot of members, just a lot of money, and a lot of followers in the press.

  • Another Flash From Obama's White House - Troops To Be Pulled Back From The Mexican Border

    11/18/2010 4:30:15 PM PST · 11 of 35
    untrained skeptic to Wizdum
    If this is true it is time for the GOVERNORS of the border states to call out the guard for the border.

    Then the state would be forced to pay for their deployment, and I expect there would be serious issues about what they would be authorized to do. Policing the border isn't a state duty, and the courts seems to be making it difficult for the States to choose to enforce Federal law if the Feds won't do it themselves.

  • U.S. jury clears Ghailani of terrorism charges

    11/18/2010 4:14:24 PM PST · 30 of 30
    untrained skeptic to Doulos1
    I agree that they should be handled by military tribunals. There is too much evidence in most of these cases that can't be introduced in a public trial. I don't suggest reducing the burden of proof, but you can't release highly classified data or expose sources in order to have a public trial. Keeping such things hidden from the jurors however leaves gaps and creates doubts, quite possibly reasonable doubts since they may have reasonable questions that can't be answered.
  • Airport Scanners Sparking Litigation and Protests.

    11/18/2010 4:09:47 PM PST · 128 of 133
    untrained skeptic to bill1952
    You cannot be sued for exercising your rights, or they aren’t rights at all.

    You think it's your right to wreak economic havoc on the airlines and on other passengers, as well as ruining their vacations in order to get what you want?

    Wreaking as much havoc as you can regardless of the fact that it primarily harms people who aren't the ones causing the behavior you are against, doesn't make you a freedom fighter. It makes you a terrorist. It's pretty much the definition of being a terrorist.

    I'm not saying don't protest or exercise your right to free speech.

    You unquestionably have the right to opt out of the scans, and I have no objection to anyone doing so. However, that's not where the suggestions for the "protest" ended. The idea was to intentionally obstruct and hinder the process as much as possible without actually refusing in order to bring the system crashing down on the busiest travel day of the year. Intentionally causing harm to other travelers so that the outcry would be great enough to have the process stopped.

    Now the system may very well cause enough outcry on it's own to do that, and may cause bad enough delays to cause additional outcry without intentionally obstructing it.

    Protests outside the airport might also help get the point across, and are clearly an exercise of free speech.

    However, if you organize people with the intention of having them obstruct the process as much as possible (not merely choose to opt out of the scan) then you should be arrested and should be sued for the economic harm you would be intentionally be causing. You can't just do whatever you want, and call it exercising your rights.

  • U.S. jury clears Ghailani of terrorism charges

    11/17/2010 5:41:45 PM PST · 27 of 30
    untrained skeptic to Doulos1
    It wasn't a hung jury, the guy was acquitted. That requires a unanimous verdict. Stories about a lone holdout must have been about him not wanting to acquit while the majority did.

    It would be the other eleven who would have had to have been bribed.

  • Rep. Duncan Blasts TSA "Pat Downs," Scanners on House Floor

    11/17/2010 3:23:41 PM PST · 21 of 36
    untrained skeptic to 353FMG
    I have a better suggestion — only muslims should be scanned and groped.

    What's a Muslim look like? It's a religion, not a physical description, and there have been Muslim terrorists that don't look like Arabs or Persians.

  • Airport Scanners Sparking Litigation and Protests.

    11/17/2010 2:48:06 PM PST · 41 of 133
    untrained skeptic to FS11
    Good idea. I suggest that be done on November 24th at airports across the Nation. That sort of activist protest of TSA would be sure to get plenty of MSM TV coverage.

    You do that, and if you survive the riots caused by travelers just wanting to get to their destinations on the biggest travel day of the year, you would justifiably be sued for many millions of dollars for people's lost vacation and travel expenses.

    You would have families traveling with children calling for the TSA to shoot you on the spot. I would be surprised if some protester didn't get beaten to death with a stroller by a mother who snapped from the stress.

    Dealing with the new procedures while traveling over the holidays may very well get the public upset enough to demand Congress and the administration make changes. However, if instead problems get blamed on protesters making a mess of things and making life hell for travelers rather than letting them make up their own minds about the procedures, the public will likely have considerable sympathy for the TSA and the issues they have to face.

    If you are upset with the TSA, don't protest in such a way that makes life hell on your fellow travelers and harms the airline industry even more. If you do, you will alienate allies and give credibility to the TSA's claims that they have a difficult job to do, and the procedures are an unfortunate result of having to deal with both dangerous and unreasonable people.

  • I know How To End the TSA's Full Body Scan

    11/16/2010 5:58:22 PM PST · 18 of 21
    untrained skeptic to radioone
    I have a hard time getting upset about this. I can't say I really care if some TSA employee looks at me through one of these stupid scanners.

    I doubt my wife really cares either.

    I would be much happier if no man looked at my daughter, but I have more faith in the average TSA agent being more professional about doing their job, than in some pervert watching my daughter in her swimsuit at a water park, and I think the swimsuit arguably shows her more clearly.

    I would rather the TSA find a less intrusive yet effective way of searching for banned items. The TSA does not appear to be competently managed, so I'm not sure I have faith that this is the best way of doing this, but I'm not convinced it isn't a reasonable solution either.

  • Alleged hit-and-run driver may not face felony (too rich to fail)

    11/11/2010 4:40:31 PM PST · 18 of 18
    untrained skeptic to DuncanWaring
    From the article:

    Erzinger allegedly veered onto the side of the road and hit Milo from behind.

    Sounds like Attempted Murder to me. Or at the very least Assault With A Deadly Weapon.

    Or he fell asleep. Or he was playing with the radio. Or he was texting on his phone. Or he was arguing with his wife on the phone and not paying attention.

    It doesn't make much sense that a successful and rich business man would suddenly decide to intentionally swerve to hit a bicyclist from behind that he has never met before.

    It seems far more likely that he negligently and unintentionally swerved, hitting the bicyclist and then clipping the culvert. That might also might bring into the realm of possibility that the driver wasn't paying attention when he went off the road and hit the bicyclist, and hit the culvert and might possibly not have realized he clipped the bicyclist.

    Not likely, but it is a possible scenario. It in no way excuses him for hitting the bicyclist, but if in the specific circumstances of this case it was credible, it might explain why the prosecutor decided to drop the felony hit and run.

    Probable. No. But if the circumstances were right, it may very well have been what happened. No way for us to know for sure.

    In either case the driver is going to justifiably spending a lot of money to compensate the victim.

    But if the driver says he fell asleep at the wheel and woke up when he clipped the culvert, the evidence may be consistent with that. His actions after the fact aren't inconsistent with that. Likely there were no witnesses that could contradict him unless he stopped saw the guy on the ground, and then drove off. Reasonable doubt.

  • Scratched man: Girlfriend's fingernails are 'deadly weapons'

    11/11/2010 4:19:56 PM PST · 16 of 16
    untrained skeptic to a fool in paradise
    I will say that the charges in the original attack should have been filed to get them on record.

    They will have gone into a police report, so there is still a record of them.

  • Deutsche Bank: There's A Massive Credit Spigot About To Superpower The U.S. Economy

    11/11/2010 12:51:00 PM PST · 51 of 57
    untrained skeptic to blam
    This goes in opposition to the data released by the New York Fed this week that suggested consumer demand for credit was collapsing because individuals were choosing to deleverage, rather than spend.

    Yes. People have realized that the level of debt they have is to high in a bad and unstable economy, so they are trying to dig themselves out of debt and get on more solid ground. This leads decreased demand, and prices drop somewhat in response.

    So our federal government steps in and says we can't be having deflation! We have to increase spending! So they once again devalue the US dollar more making it in the short term harder for people to dig themselves out of debt.

    It makes it easier to borrow money and easier to pay it back later because inflation means the dollars you are paying the bills with a couple years from now will be worth less.

    However, Americans are already in buried in debt. If you keep making it easy to borrow even when people are too far in debt you help the economy in the short term, but it creates a bubble which comes back to haunt you.

    This is the same thing that the Clinton and Bush administrations did with mortgage rates. Clinton did it because he wanted the larges economic expanision in history to be his legacy. Bush continued it because between 9/11, business accounting scandals, and recovering from the dot com crash it was the only thing keeping us out of a recession.

    Now Obama needs to show some economic recovery pretty damn fast if he wants reelected. The policy may cause more harm than good in the long run, but he has to get reelected before he needs to worry about that.

    The government needs to quit pushing more credit and devaluing the dollar and instead let us start digging ourselves a bit out of debt so we are on more solid footing.

    Yes, it means slow growth for a while longer. Yes it means economic pain in the short term. We can't put off paying the bill for overspending forever.

  • Alleged hit-and-run driver may not face felony (too rich to fail)

    11/11/2010 12:22:35 PM PST · 13 of 18
    untrained skeptic to DuncanWaring
    Doesn't Mr. Erzinger's auto insurance provide means to pay restitution?

    Do you really think they are going to settle for the policy limit? He probably has a one or two million dollar liability policy. That's a lot of money, but not if the person injured is relatively young and won't be able to return to work. You might cover hospital bills, but not lost wages for a doctor.

    Also, throw him in prison for felony hit-and-run/attempted murder, and file a civil personal-injury lawsuit aginst him for twice his net worth.

    I understand the hit and run, but attempted murder?

    Even if he won a huge settlement in court, it would be reduced by the plaintiff's ability to pay.

    He's not going to need his money while he's rotting in prison, anyway.>/i>

    He's not going to go to prison for the rest of his life for felony hit and run, and he probably has his own wife and kids, and the courts aren't going to drive them into poverty regardless of how criminally negligent Erzinger was in this one action.

  • Scratched man: Girlfriend's fingernails are 'deadly weapons'

    11/11/2010 12:04:53 PM PST · 7 of 16
    untrained skeptic to a fool in paradise
    Sounds like they both have serious issues, but it also sounds like the guy may have been stupid enough to make a false report to the police about her threatening to do worse to him next time.

    You can lie to each other. It is stupid and childish, but won't get you into any additional trouble with the police. Don't lie to the police to get your girl friend in more trouble. That can get you in real trouble.

  • Oil rises above $85 after Fed bond buying decision (Bye Bye Dollar)

    11/05/2010 6:07:51 AM PDT · 63 of 63
    untrained skeptic to socialism_stinX
    The problem I have with this scenario deflation increases the buying power of the dollar. People can buy more with what they earn now. What it hurts is paying back debt doesn't get easier as time goes on, and as we all know Americans have a lot of debt. However, inflation only slowly puts more buying power into people's hands. Deflation puts more buying power in people's hands now. It's a reaction to declining demand. Prices go down, and demand should go back up in response.

    No that does mean that companies can get less for the products they sell, which hurts businesses. But which businesses does it hurt? We import far more than we produce domestically. If we want to help businesses, and we definitely need to help businesses if we want our economy to recover, cut our insanely high corporate taxes by a bit.

    A deflationary cycle of declining demand, declining inflation, declining interest rates, and declining interest income for savers all leading to even lower demand as consumers wait for lower prices and save more to offset lower interest rates, that kind of deflationary cycle could be disastrous for an economy like ours that has so much fixed-rate mortgage debt and government debt that must be serviced.

    Deflation makes the money people have saved worth more. It increases their buying power. Inflation on the other had eats away at any returns on an investment. Even worse you still get taxed on the dollar gains even though inflation has made the dollar worse less. Deflation produces tax free gains in the value of savings. That's what the government really can't stand.

    If we have 5% inflation, and you are earning 5% interest, you don't break even, because you end up paying taxes on that 5% interest you earned.

    Prices of commodities will rise the most, but outside of food, gasoline, and natural gas, commodities are actually a very small part of the cost of all the other goods and services we buy. Except for food and energy, when you look all the way up the supply chain, personnel costs and corporate income taxes are more than 90% of the cost of everything we buy.

    But the cost of living for those workers are highly dependent on those commodities, especially when their rent or mortgage are basically fixed costs, unless you think a lot of people are going to be refinancing mortgages at a lower rate some time soon.

    The economy is bad. People are living from paycheck to paycheck. They need each paycheck to buy more. That is why they have been buying less. That is why demand is low. Deflation is the normal market correction. Government intervention that causes inflation might make borrowing money more attractive, but it might even help people pay back debt in the long term, but it increases their cost of living now, hurts people's savings, and devalues returns on investments.

    What it increases are tax revenues, and makes it easier for our government to service it's debt. However it also makes it harder for the government to borrow more money at a low rate since lenders knows they are going to get paid back with money that we are intentionally devaluing.

    That's why our government is having to keep borrowing money with a higher percentage of short term bonds. Lenders are losing faith in the long term strength of the dollar. That is a very bad thing, because we have a huge amount of national debt, and the cost of servicing it could easily balloon dramatically if the treasury can't continue to reissue bonds at low interest rates.

  • Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench

    11/05/2010 5:11:38 AM PDT · 25 of 25
    untrained skeptic to itsahoot
    You mean like campaign laws, say in Alaska, where precedent has beed tossed out the window.

    It does happen, but it's relatively rare. Judges aren't supposed to just toss out precedent without very solid reasons, but since we are dealing with human beings they don't always do what they are supposed to do.

  • Poll: GOP candidates top Obama in hypothetical 2012 race

    11/04/2010 10:39:06 AM PDT · 76 of 173
    untrained skeptic to MissesBush
    I don't think Palin has the depth of experience to do the job.

    Huckabee isn't really a conservative.

    Romney is moderately conservative, at least fiscally, but not a great candidate.

    We need better Republican candidates this time around, or we are going to have another election where conservatives just aren't motivated by any of the choices.

    The tea party movement gives me hope that real conservatives might get enough support to win the primaries, instead of a field of "moderates" all trying to say they are conservatives despite their records.

  • Rudy Giuliani Scolds 'View' Audience When He's Booed For Criticizing Obama

    11/04/2010 10:29:57 AM PDT · 69 of 90
    untrained skeptic to SeeSac
    Bill is more of a populist than a conservative. What got him in the most trouble with the ladies on the view is that he dared to say something that wasn't politically correct.

    It seems the ladies of the view's beliefs are more shallow and more subject to the winds of political correctness. Bills views are more well through out and consistent.

    I tend to disagree with Bill on a wide variety of things, but I usually don't think he's a fool as much as just someone I disagree with. I think the ladies on the View are fools.

  • Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench

    11/04/2010 10:09:29 AM PDT · 8 of 25
    untrained skeptic to goldendays

    Did the voters also attempt to change the state constitution so that it was harder for justices to interpret in a way in which gay marriage was banned?

    If not, they are unlikely to overturn the precedent the court already created.

  • McDonald's slams San Francisco ban on Happy Meals

    11/04/2010 10:03:57 AM PDT · 78 of 86
    untrained skeptic to SweetWilliamsMom
    You actually have the choice of the cookies or a toy and you can buy both separately. You just have to get one or the other with the meal. My guess is that in San Francisco they will only offer cookies in the happy meals, and kids will get even more crappy food.
  • McDonald's slams San Francisco ban on Happy Meals

    11/04/2010 10:00:39 AM PDT · 77 of 86
    untrained skeptic to OneWingedShark
    I think the group 'children' is a readily identifiable group that is being singled out for punishment w/o a trial [by the legislation].

    I think your definition of punishment won't bear much weight. Not being able to be given free toys it they order food with little nutritional value isn't likely to be seen as punishment by the courts.

    Are you going to call any restrictions punishments? Are laws against speeding punishing people who like to drive fast?

    Are state laws restricting the drinking age constitutional? Do they punish minors that wish to drink? Can states ban gambling or smoking by minors?

  • Oil rises above $85 after Fed bond buying decision (Bye Bye Dollar)

    11/04/2010 7:13:16 AM PDT · 33 of 63
    untrained skeptic to 11th_VA
    I doubt China is going to take our complaints of currency manipulation by them seriously considering what we are doing.

    Our government is worried about inflation being too low. With low inflation your money buys more, but it is harder to pay down the debt you've built up. The government would also like to pay back it's own debt with dollars that are worth less because they have printed more.

    It just hurts people who have a lot more savings than they have debt. Obviously our government doesn't care about such people. It's those up to their ears in debt and who are dependent on the government that are their favored constituents.

  • McDonald's slams San Francisco ban on Happy Meals

    11/03/2010 6:04:02 PM PDT · 57 of 86
    untrained skeptic to Obadiah
    This is patently unConstitutional.


    This isn't the federal government, so it isn't an issue of overstepping federal authority.

    I'm not aware of anything in the US Constitution that bans state and local governments from making such stupid laws.

    Are you saying it violates the California constitution?

    One of the points of federalism is that some states can allow such foolishness if it makes their citizens happy, and people in other states can scoff at the idiots and point out how they are happy they don't live there.

  • McDonald's slams San Francisco ban on Happy Meals

    11/03/2010 5:54:39 PM PDT · 56 of 86
    untrained skeptic to USNBandit
    Happy Meals bad. Marijuana Good.

    It is questionable which is more healthy for you...

  • Kamala Harris Declares Victory In CA Attorney General Race

    11/03/2010 4:02:26 PM PDT · 25 of 37
    untrained skeptic to forgotten man
    If they go bankrupt can we dissolve their statehood like the old General Motors was dissolved and a new company was formed? Make them a territory, take away their representatives to the US House and Senate, and make them reapply to become a state again preferably not until several years go by so they have an opportunity to learn from their mistakes first.
  • Two more states vote to nullify healthcare reform (amend State Constitutions)

    11/03/2010 3:38:59 PM PDT · 25 of 59
    untrained skeptic to Mr Rogers

    I wonder if it would be constitutional for other states to require those immigrating from California to be a resident in the state for four years before they could vote in state or federal elections.

  • GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years ($45 billion tax break)

    11/03/2010 3:31:19 PM PDT · 18 of 21
    untrained skeptic to zeugma
    The union shouldn't profit from the previous losses they aren't going to have to make whole.

    First of all I'm skeptical of anything the government does to wipe out tax credits and collect more taxes.

    The bankruptcy did wipe out some of GM's debt, but not all of it. So you can say that some of those losses were wiped out by the bankruptcy. However, the whole purpose of bankruptcy is to help a company get back on sound footing, not to produce a windfall in new tax revenues for the government.

    When you make money you have to pay taxes on earnings. When you lose money the government doesn't refund any of the taxes you have paid, they give you credits against future earnings. Those tax credits are kind of a liability for the government. I don't see why that liability should be wiped out as well.

    However this seems to be a unique case. The stockholders got completely screwed. Their old stock became worthless. I can see the point where you could say that these tax credits belonged to them, and since they no longer have any interest in GM, those tax credits no longer belong to this new GM. But I don't see any efforts by the government to transfer those tax credits over to the stockholders they screwed over, and I see absolutely no reason the government should just make those tax credits disappear. It's just a multibillion dollar money grab by the government.

    To me this falls under two wrongs not making a right.

    Apparently GM was dissolved, as they are talking about an IPO.

    That makes sense, because I don't see how they could so thoroughly screw over the stock holders and secured debt holders and still have it be the same company. I really don't understand how this was remotely legal anyway. They basically gave money that secured debt holders should have gotten to the unions, and handed over billions in taxpayer dollars, mainly to the unions. Then they bullied any investors that considered fighting it in court.

  • GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years ($45 billion tax break)

    11/03/2010 10:25:17 AM PDT · 14 of 21
    untrained skeptic to zeugma
    Under normal conditions, I'd agree. However, when a company undergoes bankrupcy, the stockholders take it in the shorts, as do creditors.

    I guess it would depend on the type of bankruptcy, and I can't remember if the old GM was dissolved, or just restructured. GM still does have lots of debt and obligations. They still have a massively underfunded pension, which is a major cause of much or their debt.

    In any case I don't see why the government should get to collect more in taxes just because I company had to restructure. Otherwise you are encouraging the government to step in and wipe out companies debt with private parties so they can wipe out the tax credits as well.

    This wasn't a normal bankruptcy. It was a huge bailout for the unions, which should have gotten the politicians that were paying off their contributors tossed in jail for a very long time.

  • California dreaming

    11/03/2010 8:09:54 AM PDT · 26 of 52
    untrained skeptic to Hotlanta Mike

    I guess I’m not the only one who can’t stand Carly Fiona. While she was the lesser of two evils by far, that’s never much of a rallying cry.

  • GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years ($45 billion tax break)

    11/03/2010 8:02:35 AM PDT · 3 of 21
    untrained skeptic to reaganaut1
    One set of laws for Government Motors (and the UAW), another for the rest of us.

    Actually I don't see why this isn't the rule for everyone. Companies have good years and bad years. They should be able to use losses from bad years to offset their tax liability on profits from good years. This isn't really a tax break. They are just being taxed on their net profits.

    The government should have never intervened in the auto industry, but this isn't one of the things they did wrong.

  • Stupid, Stupid NRA Endorses Dem Governor In Ohio And Loses

    11/03/2010 7:47:14 AM PDT · 23 of 30
    untrained skeptic to meyer
    Kasich has a C- from the Buckeye Firearms Association. I believe his most recent rating from the NRA is a B. He apparently saw the light not long ago and has brought up his NRA rating. His past ratings were apparently lower.

    I would not consider him a reliable supporter of gun rights.

    Strickland is a reliable supporter of gun rights, but he's liberal on just about everything else.

  • Stupid, Stupid NRA Endorses Dem Governor In Ohio And Loses

    11/03/2010 7:42:59 AM PDT · 22 of 30
    untrained skeptic to griswold3
    Strickland got the endorsement of the Ohioans for Concealed Carry PAC and the Buckeye Firearms Association as well as the NRA. Ohio has a history of Republicans who are unfriendly to gun rights. Usually the Democrats are even less friendly, but Strickland is the exception to that rule.

    Strickland is not a conservative. He is a liberal who happens to support gun rights, and he has a proven voting record to back it up. Kasich has claimed to see the light. I guess we will see if his was a conversion of expedience.

    I wouldn't personally vote for Strickland, but he deserves the endorsements over Kasich by gun rights groups. He has stuck by gun owners even though doing so can't have been popular within his own party. He has proven himself on gun rights, and these are gun rights organizations.

    Have gun rights organizations been infiltrated by progressives? As long as they support run rights, why shouldn't they be welcome in those organizations. Invite them in. Maybe we can slowly talk some sense into them.