American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=El Queso]Are we so pathetic that we can't take our time to really work together to figure out the best way?[/QUOTE]I think that about sums up the whole issue. In fact I think that is where the US and Argentina have the most in common. Constant political bickering, lack of confidence in the government (by confidence I DO NOT mean dependency) and increasing apathy. In that sense we are definitely headed down the same path as Argentina.

Of course, how we end up will probably be a lot different. There are lot of cultural and institutional differences that you glossed over or ignored.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Or is the Democratic Party interested in pulling more money out of the money-engine (the rich) of the country in order to pursue power, pure and simple, no matter whether the money-pump starts to cough and spit because it no longer has enough to pump.[/QUOTE]What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.

You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Do you realize that almost all small businesses here are completely family run and operated? They can't stay open all the time, they can't work on weekends and holidays. Why? Because they can't hire employees outside their family so they are restricted in what they can do. If they do, they are forced to pay for their insurance, they are forced to pay severance (a full month per year worked, starting the first year after three months of employment) no matter how poorly an employee performs (even thought here are laws, the court system almost ALWAYS sides with the "worker") they are forced to pay them a full month of salary as a bonus every year no matter what. They are forced to pay HUGE taxes on salaries to pay for the all of the "social programs" this wonderful government provides for its people.[/QUOTE]You should add that employers are also forced to pay the employee's mandatory union dues.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.

You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.[/QUOTE]I made allusions to this. I think both parties are sucking us dry. It's just that it's the Democrats who are in power and they tend to do it quicker and more efficiently than the Republicans.

And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."

[QUOTE=Sidney]Here is what big government did to Detroit.

An interesting piece about Detroit forwarded to me by a friend. I remember when Detroit had 1.7 million people living in it and they had jobs. The auto industry was going full out and it drove the economy of the upper Midwest, as well as other portions of our country. Today the auto industry is almost finished in Detroit. Unemployment exceeds 25% , and portions of the city looks like a "war zone" or worse. I don't think it can be fixed. Can you imagine 130 acres of Detroit real estate with an 80,000 seat covered stadium selling for $4,500 an acre? The cost of building the stadium was $55.7 million and it sold last month for $583,000. My home town of Gary, Indiana followed a similar path, the "Gary Works" steel mill is still operating, downsized to about 20% of what it was back in the 60's when I worked there. Amazing what happens to good paying jobs when you mandate, regulate and tax the industries that provide the jobs out of business. The primary growth business in America today is the Federal and State Government. In fact the Federal and State Government is increasing salaries and wages. The friend who sent me the following piece said there is now a sign in downtown Detroit that says "would the last person leaving Detroit, please turn out the light" Very sad. I hope you take the time to read the article. And please forward it if you think it might help open some closed eyes.

Editor's note: One of the most controversial pieces we published this year was Porter's essay paralleling America's decline with Detroit's complete economic and political failure. We received more heated e-mails about this Digest than any in recent memory. Some called us "racists," though everything in the below essay is fact. Others agreed with our simple message. A socialist government is dangerous.[/ QUOTE]What it doesn't say is that if the American auto industry was leading the world, would Detroit's downtown be a disaster zone?

[QUOTE=El Queso]And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."[/QUOTE]Good point. It's just like the Republicans dupe their constituents into thinking they are good bible-readin' Christian folk.

Doppelganger- The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.

El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.

But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged. And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.

There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries.

We already have a rough approximation now based on the uninsured motorists in states with mandatory insurance laws.

Please get a grip here, this is just another governmental black hole for cash from taxpayers. Now if you really want to get my attention - advocate all federal employees including Congress are covered by the same healthcare and retirement plans (Social Security) we mear mortals do!

[QUOTE=Esten]The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. Have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.[/QUOTE]1. The number that goes uninsured until sickness will be much, much larger than you or the Congress is willing to admit (even to yourselves)

2. The govt has set an agenda to eliminate the private health insurance business so the insurance companies have to make whatever they can prior to disappearing or being annexed by the govt. Looks like the public will be victimized by both. Great!

3. Everyone for whom buying insurances costs more than the fine will be susceptible to this temptation, thus pulling massive amounts of funds out of the system. Why is it premature to say so? Should we jump off the bridge because it is premature to say how much of an issue the deceleration event, caused by impacting the pavement below, will be?

4. A final bill with real teeth? Like one that violates the Constitution in forcing the American public to buy something it doesn't want and treating the States differently and arbitrarily (see: Nebraska deal via Dem. Be. Nelson) BTW, look for the Nelson / Nebraska deal to get canned based on being unconstitutional (although probably after final passage) Nelson is dead either way now, the voters want him out and if he changes his vote, Reid will take a hit out on him.

[quote=]El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen.[/QUOTE]You seem like a smart guy. If you eliminate all private insurance, what is left? Single payer.

[quote=]I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.[/quote]Stumped, but still willing to destroy one sixth of our economy, eliminate previously inalienable personal freedoms and trample on the Constitution. You say you would have liked to see something on tort reform like someone at McDonald's says after eating a Big Mac, "I would have liked it better with more special sauce." You're stumped but we are all screwed.

[quote=]But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged.[/QUOTE]No, no rush here. Despite the time spent posturing in the news, Congress spent less than 10 hours actually debating this bill. I am sure that Rahm Emanuel and as few as five (count 'em) five members of Congress, and very limited staff will do a fabulous job fine tuning this mess -- behind a total blanket of privacy (something you will never have again with your doctor, by the way) If America really wants this, why do it in private? Why do they have to bribe members of their own party with hundreds of billions of pork to vote for it?

[quote=]And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately[sic]. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.[/QUOTE]Of course, let's just be done with it. Toss out the Constitution, there is important work to be done here.

You almost make a good point, but you don't. Why not get a few people back to work, before putting another 500k-1.0mm more out of work with health care 'reform' and cap and trade?

Deficit reduction? Come on! The first step is not spending more we don't have! Obamacare is not deficit neutral it will cost trillions that we don't have. And the recovery we were promised (max 8% unemployment, blah, blah, blah) don't hold your breath. Printing money leading to a weakened dollar, in advance of inflation, is putting the brakes on investment in the economy (something needed for a recovery)

[quote=]There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries.[/QUOTE]"A long way toward achieving the original goals of the reform?" The original reason we were given was to insure the uninsured. If you use real numbers, that is at most 15 million Americans. The CBO says as many as 13 million Americans may be without health insurance under this plan (albeit probably a different 13 million than those already without insurance (I. E. 13 million that will lose their insurance) You call 2 million additional people covered by this plan at a cost of more than $1 trillion, significant improvement over the existing system? If so, I take back my above comment that you seem like a smart guy, you are a lemming.

On the whole though, great thinking, let's get something done for Obama (and Reid / Pelosi to a lesser extent)! He is much more important than the Constitution and much smarter than the founders. If Al Gore hadn't beaten him to it, I am sure Obama would have invented the internet.

[QUOTE=Esten]Doppelganger- In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped. [/QUOTE]This one's easy. It wasn't included because it would offend too much of the Democrats' biggest contributors -- trial lawyers. Democrats may not come out and say it, but the motivating force behind this legislation has virtually nothing to do with health care reform. That's just the latest vehicle they're using to buy votes. Tort lawyers are huge contributors. They weren't going to do anything to offend that money spigot.

If one looks at health care "reform" through the prism of well-meaning folks trying to do the right thing, and putting the draft bills through the sausage-grinder that results in legislation, then you will come to one or two conclusions as to whether what they are doing is worth the effort.

There was a time in my life, when I was in college and for a few years thereafter, when I would have looked at it that way. Now, I understand how utterly naive this perspective is.

I no longer have any illusion that this -- well-meaning legislators -- has any bearing on things. Sometimes, the cynical view is the reality. That's the case here. The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class. We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. I've run a small business long enough to know this.

Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform. Just like courting Spanish speaking voters with different legislation or appointments (e. g. An immigration bill; Sonja Sotomayor) this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it. If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism. In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.

Why no tort reform?

Stan, you make good points all leading to the one single answer "POWER." Power for a political class with a certain view as to how things "should be" with absolutely no regard for the Founders or that Constitution thingy. 'Health care reform' does no such thing. It is an attempt to permanently install the democrat in power.

Yep. All politicians are whores. In fact it is an insult to working women to compare politicians to them.

[quote=]The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class.[/quote] Nothing cynical about the truth.

[quote=]We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. [/QUOTE]Of course we don't need it. The system we have today may not be perfect but everyone in America (legally and illegally) can get quality treatment by walking into any emergency room, anywhere.

[quote=]Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform.[/QUOTE]Of course they don't, see above insult to whores.

[quote=]this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it.[/quote]Yep. Who is going to vote to cut off their life blood (welfare, "free" health care, etc)

[quote=]If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism.[/quote]Who cares? Well, believer-democrats care because they think that permanently installing their party in the leadership of the country is more important than America, the American Way, the Constitution, freedom, inalienable rights and virtually everything else that makes America exceptional.

Who cares on the other side? Looks like somewhere around 60-64% of the population, nationwide. Check out the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in the People's Republic of Mass or Ben Nelson's poll numbers.

[quote=]In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.[/QUOTE]Disgusting ain't strong enough. While I am not suggestion armed rebellion, these are the forces against which the Colonies and the Union fought not so long ago.

How will this play out? That depends on how many true believers are in the House and Senate. Ben Nelson will need a guaranteed multi-million dollar job post his defeat in 2012. 13 state attorney generals are looking to sue over the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska deal. If Brown wins Kennedy's former seat, that makes the democrat caucus 59 and the House will either need to swallow the Senate bill exactly "as is" or watch as their version of "health care reform" get's its rightful spot in the dustbin of history along with Stalin, Lenin, Castro (we can hope can't we) and their misguided leftist agendas.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, at the heart of this misguided attempt to permanently install the Democrat party is the destruction of freedom.

The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)

The Federal employee health care plans are pretty much the same as the plans offered to white-collar employees at most large companies. There are usually more options in areas where there are large numbers of Federal workers but this also tends to be true for company plans as well.

Government benefit plans are good, but overall are similar to the plans offered by many large companies. If you own a small business or work for a small company, these government benefits look mighty tasty, but don't let anybody fool you into thinking that they are something that they are not. In particular, the health care plan is quite ordinary.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)[/QUOTE]Not really. The differences between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" pension plans are huge. Big enough to help bankrupt UAL, GM, Chrysler and to make CalPERS (the California Public Employees' Retirement System) one of the biggest investors in the world (assets peaked in 2007 at $260B) which will have paid out something on the magnitude of $5.7B in pension benefits in FY2009.

The govt plan gives a "defined benefit" program where the benefit (I. E. The annual payout upon retirement) is defined. You retire, the company pays you that benefit until you die.

Regular people (those in the real world) get "defined contribution" plans whereby the contribution (I. E. what the employer will contribute to your pension) is defined. If you retire, the company stops paying and you get the income generated by your savings.

In the defined benefit model, no matter how much you contribute to the success or failure of the company, or how well the company does, it is liable to pay you that defined amount from retirement until you die (long after you stopped contributing to the company's advancement) You don't have to save anything for retirement (theoretically) because you essentially get a salary for the rest of your life, for doing absolutely nothing. Retirement age can vary from plan to plan and often you can opt to take early retirement and receive a slightly reduced defined benefit.

In the defined contribution model, when you stop working, the company stops paying. If you don't have adequate savings, you don't retire.

The former model is why you always used to hear about "underfunded" pension plans or pension liabilities (starting in in the late 70's and early 80's, particularly (although not exclusively) with regard to large unionized companies (UAL, GM, Chrysler, etc.). In the case of GM, the unfunded pension liability at the time of bankruptcy, was $13.5B (or AR$51.3B or 256 million trips to chicas at AR$200 per pop (think about that for stimulus) which could produce approximately 1 million gallons of gizz).

There are two very closely related matters herein: GM was paying out billions of dollars to people that don't work there anymore and contribute nothing to the current operations and / or success of the company and this model is unsustainable, eventually, the cost of paying retirees consumes all profits and more leading to bankruptcy. In a very simplified view of most large corporate bankruptcies: the owners (e. g. stockholders) lose all their equity invested and the assets are retitled in the name of the bondholders (e. g. debt holders) and unfunded pension liabilities could be pawned off on the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (e. g. the tax payers)

Because defined benefit plans are unsustainable in the real world, they were phased out almost everywhere except in fortified union (labor organizations not the Northern States) strongholds and the government (guess that is a little redundant."union stronghold" and government)

The federal govt plan differs from the private sector in that it is funded by the annual confiscation of real property from approximately 50% of the American citizenry. The government doesn't have to make any money at all to pay these benefits (the government doesn't make any money, unless you count printing as making)

Don't get me wrong, people that were promised something should get what they were promised (even though management and the unions knew this day would come, when they struck those deals) but this illustrates yet another ever-expanding government program / practice that could not survive in the real world but does exist in the federal government.

Soapbox is now vacated, who's next!

Defined Benefit Plans went the way of the dinosaurs when companies could no longer afford to fund them – ie more money going out in benefits than coming in as contributions or in some cases no contributions from the employee at all. (Sound a little like Social Security? But for those who do not have to live in the real world ie Government this is never a problem since they just keep going back to the taxpayer for more money to fund the plan, a plan we pay for but in which we not allowed to participate.

This is why I have railed against the separate system for Congress in both retirement and healthcare. If we forced them to live by the same standards and laws they pass for the rest of us (Congress always exempts itself from the bills it passes) perhaps the brew-ha-ha over Social Security and Healthcare would vanish and the problems would really get fixed.

While I'm on the soapbox – anybody got a raise lately? No? Well Congress just got one. Several years ago those weasels in Washington figured out it was very unpopular for them to vote for a raise for themselves (since most folks don't think they earn it any way) so they passed a bill which sets up automatic pay raises they have vote against to not receive. Pretty slick.

If the stupid terrorists would whack Washington they might just do us all a favor!

Just kidding Janet!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]While I'm on the soapbox – anybody got a raise lately? No? Well Congress just got one. [/QUOTE]Actually, Congress voted back in March to not take a pay raise in 2010.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]You call 2 million additional people covered by this plan at a cost of more than $1 trillion, significant improvement over the existing system? If so, I take back my above comment that you seem like a smart guy, you are a lemming.[/QUOTE]Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:

"... the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million..." (page 8)

"... would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period..." (page 2)

The letter is available on their website cbo.gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories...

[QUOTE=Esten]Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:

". The number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million." (page 8)

". Would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (page 2)

The letter is available on their website cbo. Gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]Esten, are you really just Ricardo in drag? Don't you know the wrath that will be inflicted upon you by posting your "communist, liberal" mantras on this thread. By the very nature of this board, it's obvious that they aren't God fearing, but don't let that fool you. They are frothing at the right-wing mouth as much as the most devoted Tea Bagger.

If we are in an economic recovery, however anemic, I will be the first to congratulate President Obama. Job well done.

However, there is a frightening possibility we are headed for a zombie economy much like Japan has experienced for the past 20 plus years.

A zombie economy is an economy in which the government intereferes with the private sector to such an extent that the private sector becomes the walking dead - much like the public sector always is.

In Japan the government spent 20 years propping up banks and businesses which should have been allowed to fail. Even today the japanese governemnt is giving Japan Air Lines almost a trillion dollar loan to continue their failed operation.

The downside of this intervention is that Japan now has a public debt which is 2 times GNP and still has a zombie economy.

It is time to put government back in its cage and allow the markets to dictate economic growth. Of course, Ricardo probably thinks that a zombie economy is a good thing. Barnie Franks taught Ricardo that.

The irony of all this is that government put us in this mess by dictating ridiculous regulations which allowed, even forced lending institutions to make loans to people who were not creditworthy.

Government puts us in this economic mess and if that wasn't enough, it looks as though government is bound and determined to keep us in this economic mess.

Barny should join his buddy Dodd and retire, then he can start bending over the former pages again and stop screwing with the economy!

[QUOTE=Esten]Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:

"The number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million." (page 8)

"Would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (page 2)

The letter is available on their website cbo.gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]The CBO is known for never being wrong. That said, some guy named Douglas Elmendorf (aka CBO Director) wrote a letter to some other guy named Baucus back in October including this gem "the mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed and or not fully implemented."

Translation, the $200 billion in "savings" in the Senate plan, to be generated by cuts in payments to physicians is bunk. Everyone knows that these cuts face strong bipartisan opposition in Congress and that the democrats plan is to fix this later so that they can keep the phantom $200B in "savings" in this bill. That means they say that they are going to cut it and therefore call it savings now, but they don't plan to actually go through with the cuts it in the future.

Try that next time your Madahos. Round up a couple of the dancers for a monger sandwich and promise them US$1000 each. After having several hours of fun then reconsider the wisdom of those earlier promises which, while they seemed like a good idea at the time, they look unrealistic under current circumstances and offer them AR$100 for the deuce. Please post about how that works out for you (once you get out of the hospital)

Then this Elmendorf guy writes to this other guy Reid on Dec. 20th "Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019."

Translation, "while we have swallowed everything you have given us, we would like to point out that while our estimates for 2010-2019 are pie-in-the-sky, I smoked a big fat Bob-Marley joint before I did the post-2019 analysis."

The CBO conveniently leaves out the huge increases (related to PPACA) in taxes premiums, fines and direct costs to individuals (sorry, you can't have that test unless you pay cash) Further, I don't see this Elmendorf guy figuring in all of the payoffs that Ried used to get this through such as the $300 million Louisiana Purchase or Ben Nelson's deal for Nebraska (the medicare portion of his vote sale is $45MM) I am pretty sure that all 60 votes were bought and paid for with our money, as Reid said, if all of the senators didn't get their fair share of pork, then they aren't doing their jobs.

I guess this is settled then.

Somebody remember to turn out the lights.

Copied from one of my other forums:

[quote]A History Lesson.

For those that don't know about history. Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters / gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and.

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberal s are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added) but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, pharmacists, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.[/quote]

Thanks JAX. I've already forwarded around the world. Expecially my pointy headed liberal friends in Alexandria.

Buddy of mine sent me something very similar some time ago. I still am laughing having been reintroduced to the truth.

It was apropos that I was drinking a US-made beer, after consuming rare beef, as I read it. Made me want to grab my gun and go harvest some vittles.

What really made me laugh was reflecting on a conversation I had earlier today. I was explaining to a liberal, that immediately upon harvesting a moose, one needs to pack the body cavity with ice or snow to help cool the meat to prevent spoilage. I am not sure what I enjoyed more, offending his sensibility with the concept of delivering a 180 grain.300 win mag projectile to the life pump of a moose or grossing him out with the concept of slicing open the carcass's body cavity (nads to sternum) and emptying out its contents.

Keep the lights on Walleye, we have another 7 years to go.

Thanks for the joke Jackson. I laughed hard! Another great example of what conservatives have to offer. ROTFLMAO!!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Buddy of mine sent me something very similar some time ago. I still am laughing having been reintroduced to the truth.

It was apropos that I was drinking a US-made beer, after consuming rare beef, as I read it. Made me want to grab my gun and go harvest some vittles.

What really made me laugh was reflecting on a conversation I had earlier today. I was explaining to a liberal, that immediately upon harvesting a moose, one needs to pack the body cavity with ice or snow to help cool the meat to prevent spoilage. I am not sure what I enjoyed more, offending his sensibility with the concept of delivering a 180 grain.300 win mag projectile to the life pump of a moose or grossing him out with the concept of slicing open the carcass's body cavity (nads to sternum) and emptying out its contents.[/QUOTE]Hey, could you be Dick Cheney. Just don't shoot your friend and host by mistake!

Being an avid hunter myself and hailing from the great state of Texas I can assume from your Dick Cheney comment you have never hunted quail in Texas. FYI the other hunter Cheney accidently injured was both a liberal and an attorney from Austin (one of the few bastions of liberals in our great state) who refused to comment on the situation beyond the accident was his fault for getting out formation, did not sue his friend Dick Cheney and was more upset with the media than the accident. This has got to say something for the bond among hunters. But this is one of those things – if I have to explain it to you, you just won't understand.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Being an avid hunter myself and hailing from the great state of Texas I can assume from your Dick Cheney comment you have never hunted quail in Texas. FYI the other hunter Cheney accidently injured was both a liberal and an attorney from Austin (one of the few bastions of liberals in our great state) who refused to comment on the situation beyond the accident was his fault for getting out formation, did not sue his friend Dick Cheney and was more upset with the media than the accident. This has got to say something for the bond among hunters. But this is one of those things – if I have to explain it to you, you just won't understand.[/QUOTE]You are correct, I am not a hunter or a liberal. I know accidents can happen. But the tone of of the post evoke the image of Dick Cheney and his way of speaking through the side of his mouth, almost a sneer at the rest of the world. All I know is that if not for the fact that his daughter is gay, he would be glad to shoot them all. All right, since your post, I am now projecting the image of Teddy Roosevelt with his leg on a lion in one of his big game safaris.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]But the tone of of the post evoke the image of Dick Cheney and his way of speaking through the side of his mouth, almost a sneer at the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]Really, a sneer? It was more an expression of taking pleasure via a tried and tested juvenile prank, grossing out your companion.

[quote=]All I know is that if not for the fact that his daughter is gay, he would be glad to shoot them all.[/QUOTE]OK, I know that Dick Cheney has been proven to be Beelzebub but upon what action or quote do you base your assumption? A true Christian, conservative or liberal, while disagreeing with the path that one has chosen, would not resort to violence as a corrective measure.

[quote=]I am now projecting the image of Teddy Roosevelt with his leg on a lion in one of his big game safaris.[/QUOTE]Whilst I respect the rights of others to hunt for trophy game, I prefer to stick to edible species. If I don't plan to eat it, I don't shoot it. If I shoot it, I eat it. [insert your play on words here]

When I am hunting for trophies (you know, a good head to mount) I use my goo-soft ammo.

Now I never saw it that way. But I guess you see what you wish based on your own value system.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Now I never saw it that way. But I guess you see what you wish based on your own value system.[/QUOTE]I work with a guy for a long time that claimed he and God were real "tight", but nothing in his life at work displayed that God had any influence on his dealings with his co-workers. So self proclaimations are "self proclaimations".

Anyway, have fun with the chicas in BA. Will be there soon for a cruise, unfortnately with my gf.

As I was told once when I imported one for a few days - "why bring sand to the beach?" Of course the qualifier was my imported "sand" also liked "sand" so we had some pretty nice 3-somes. I swear that girl could find a bi girl in a bar faster than a good bird dog can find a covey of quail! - No Dick Cheney pun intended.

Good luck with GF in BA.

President Obama can sign all of the Treaties he wants. Unless he has 60 votes in the Senate. The Treaty is void. There is no way he can get those votes. Can you imagine a Senator from Montana or Louisana voting for it? They would get hung in their home states.

The Senate need to ratify it, before Osama can do something like that. Overturning State laws and such. Don't think it would pass the Senate, since the southern Democrats will join with the Republicans to block it. Don't think it could even get a majority, let alone 60 votes.

Did any of you rubes read the article? It said that the US was willing to engage in negotiations.

Even still, this is a treaty that would regulate the international arms sale. It has nothing to do with domestic arms sales. Though nice try Syd. Way to try to get everyone worked up into a frenzy to support your own delusional ideas.

You can bet your ass that if the US does end up signing some treaty, it will benefit US arms exporters. Obama's puppet masters will make sure of that.

If we are talking about legislative process, it'll take a little more than 60 senators to overturn the second amendment. That said, if we skip legislative process and move directly to judicial fiat, it might not take so much. It is much more likely that the 2nd Amendment will be attacked via judicial fiat in the form of supreme court rulings that infringe upon the right to bear arms and related issues.

As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]Did any of you rubes read the article? It said that the US was willing to engage in negotiations.

Even still, this is a treaty that would regulate the international arms sale. It has nothing to do with domestic arms sales. Though nice try Syd. Way to try to get everyone worked up into a frenzy to support your own delusional ideas.

You can bet your ass that if the US does end up signing some treaty, it will benefit US arms exporters. Obama's puppet masters will make sure of that.[/QUOTE]