« Ruminations - 14jun13 (Addended) | Main | Collecting and Connecting the Dots (Addended)(updated 3jul13) »

15 June 2013

Comments

stevenfrisch

I see this as kind of akin to what showing up in line for Grateful Dead tickets used to be.....a lot of people, most of whom you have never seen, who you are surprised live in your community, who turn in their faded torn blue jeans for khaki's and penny loafers on Monday morning to go to work.

I always wondered what happened to all that leftover acid when the weekend was over? I think it must sit in a cool drawer somewhere reminding the khaki clad rocker/anarchist that, if they ever really need to, they can become what they dreamt being one day or return to what they think they were in their youth.

Sad to see all that ammo go to waste!

Gregory

"Goddamn, well I declare
Have you seen the like?
Their walls are built of cannonballs,
their motto is Don't Tread on Me"

- Uncle John's Band, Hunter/Garcia


A veteran of maybe 120 dead shows along with a contingent of college buds (including my favorite physics professor), I was never surprised by the mix of people in line or at the shows, and while the jeans on the weekend might have been more faded, they always looked like the same people to me.

They always looked like the crowd at The Range today... Trustworthy.

I did drop by The Range just to see how nuts it might be, and there was no way I'd stand in that line without knowing the prices inside would be low and figuring that, with the way the ammo market is now that would not be the case.

Russ Steele

MICHAEL WALSH ON NSA AND THE SCANDALANCHE:

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, the courts have held that, while the contents of phone conversation are private, the records — who called whom, when, from where and for how long — of such calls are not.

What makes the news scary are the revelations of what else Team Obama’s been up to. Follow the bouncing scandal ball:

* On Benghazi, the administration has simply clammed up, keeping suspicions alive that there’s much more to this story. A handful of intrepid reporters have bucked the tide, but others have stopped asking why no help was sent and where President Obama was that night. Because . . .

* In clear violation of the First Amendment, the administration — allegedly angered about national-security leaks — seized phone records from the AP and Fox News in a what looks like a transparent attempt to put the fear of God into them and keep others incuriously toeing the party line, which mostly amount to: Trust us. But can we? Consider . . .

* The strange goings-on at the Environmental Protection Agency, where recently-departed chief Lisa Jackson was using a fictitious e-mail account in order to communicate privately without all those pesky “transparency” requirements. How widespread is this practice? What to make of word that Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was also using “secondary” e-mail accounts?

* Then came the IRS bombshell — something every taxpaying American can relate to. That a supposedly neutral collection agency with powers far beyond what we entrust to law enforcement would cheerfully target Tea Party and other righty groups for special scrutiny is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares. And although the IRS has tried to blame “rogue elements” in its Cincinnati office, whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork to point the finger directly at the White House.

All this adds up to a perfect storm of mistrust, now exacerbated by the fears of the surveillance state that has mushroomed since the panicky post-9/11 “reforms.” Thus Americans now fear a culture of suspicion among top law-enforcement officials, who treat more than 300 million overwhelmingly law-abiding Americans as potential criminals, subject to snoops and pat-downs.

And when that leviathan falls down on the job — as it did in failing to spot the Tsarnaev brothers — then the trade-off between liberty and security becomes a very bad bargain indeed.

We heard that mistrust in the voice at the the Range today. One has to wonder what is the end game and when will it be played?

Michael Anderson

But before they vote on them before they give the order for all the little guys to start killing each other let the main guy rap his gavel on my case and point down at me and say here gentlemen is the only issue before this house and that is are you for this thing here or are you against it. And if they are against it why goddamn them let them stand up like men and vote. And if they are for it let them be hanged and drawn and quartered and paraded through the streets in small chopped up little bits and thrown out into the fields where no clean animal will touch them and let their chunks rot there and may no green thing ever grow where they rot.

Take me into your churches your great towering cathedrals that have to be rebuilt every fifty years because they are destroyed by war. Carry me in my glass box down the aisles where kings and priests and brides and children at the confirmation have gone so many times before to kiss a splinter of wood from a true cross on which was nailed the body of a man who was lucky enough to die. Set me high on your alters and call on god to look down upon his murderous little children his dearly beloved little children. Wave over me the incense I can't smell. Drone out the prayers I can't hear. Go through the old old holy gestures for which I have no legs and no arms. Chorus out the hallelujas I can't sing. Bring them out loud and strong for me because I know the truth and you don't you fools. You fools you fools you fools...

fish

All this adds up to a perfect storm of mistrust, now exacerbated by the fears of the surveillance state that has mushroomed since the panicky post-9/11 “reforms.” Thus Americans now fear a culture of suspicion among top law-enforcement officials, who treat more than 300 million overwhelmingly law-abiding Americans as potential criminals, subject to snoops and pat-downs.

One has to wonder what is the end game and when will it be played?


The end game will be as it always has been .....with our "betters" fleeing with that they have plundered.

Like you though, knowing the timeline would be nice.

George Rebane

Re RussS 504pm and fish 719am - The revelations of what is being done for our 'security' (from whom?) are getting creepier. A correspondent sends me this link to a Cnet report that "the National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls", and apparently it has thousands of "analysts" who do this on a regular basis including for emails and text messages. It goes on to report that "Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed 'simply based on an analyst deciding that.'"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

Ben Emery

Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?

Bill Tozer

Ben, Should there be a law on how much food one can hoard in the cellar? Maybe only 20 years worth of Spam and baked beans? Lord knows with this scandalous obesity crisis inflicting our Nation, this very real threat is destroying the very fabric of Old Glory and all for which she stands. Ban hording staples I say.

fish

Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?

Why?

Is this a "fair share" question or does someone have a case of the vapors?

fish

Ban hording staples I say.

Don't think that there isn't an element that would like to do just that. If I'm not mistaken this is yet another activities that will get you placed on one of Janets lists.

Bill Tozer

Mr. Fish, I don't know what Janets List is, but it sounds intriguing. A Google of Janet's List just came back with a bunch of Ms. Wardrobe Malfunction songs.

THERE OUT TO BE A LAW...the rallying cry from the left. Like we don't have enough State and Fed and local Lawmakers who sit around 24/7 dreaming up new laws that say "no,no,no, don't do this, don't do that, stop doing this, stop doing that." I bet they even think of new laws (bans) while on vacation. Glad I ain't married to one of them law makers, especially Karen Bass or Maxine Waters or that Native American Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Oh, when them hens start squawking, its best to start walking.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign,...do this, don't do that...hey, can't you read the sign?
And we wonder why they call us sheeple.

Well, time to find reruns of my favorite hoarder show.

fish

Mr. Fish, I don't know what Janets List is, but it sounds intriguing.


C'mon now Bill....who doesn't like balloons?


http://www.cafepress.com/+put_me_on_your_list_mylar_balloon,649129998

George Rebane

Janet Napolitano

Bill Tozer

Thank you both for helping this confused cad out. At first I thought you were referring to Janet "I haven't found the right guy yet" Reno. I forgot about that other Janet, Janet Nappy-pooh. Didn't Janet Nappy-pooh sue the Feds for reimbursement for the costs of detaining illegal aliens and the costs of protecting Arizona citizens along the border when she was Governor of the Great State of Arizona??? My, if you can't beat them, join them.

DISCLAIMER: Nappy-pooh is slang for taking a nap, nothing to do with Don Imus's infamous comments. This disclaimer is for our dear followers who see a racist hiding behind every bush. Opps. Another disclaimer. The term bush is an old saying, nothing to do with the former Presidents of the United States, the former First Ladies, nor any reference to female pubic hair or gender neutral hairy armpits. I long for the simpler days when casual words and phrases were not assigned evil hidden motives and intents. Disclaimers now take up more space than the original post. But, then again, this may just be a pigment of my imagination.

fish

Hey....?

Did I miss a memo or a candlelight vigil for the victims of this weeks episode of "Hot Chicago Weekends"?


http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/1-Dead-12-Wounded-in-Overnight-Shootings-211673851.html


Downtown Falluja it is I tells ya!

Gregory

Manderson, did you actually think that 9:57PM would come across as profound rather than just gibberish? BTW the word you were looking for was altars, not alters.

Ben, you are obviously disturbed by thousands of your neighbors lining up in order to buy ammo. What does Ben Emery think the limit to one's "hoard" of ammo should be?

Russ Steele

You can never have too much ammo. Some day "real soon now" those bullets will be more valuable than the paper dollars in your wallet. They will soon become the medium of exchange. Ben you should be hoarding a few for your future sustainability.

bill tozer

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151463812500911&set=pb.134193140910.-2207520000.1371413061.&type=3&theater

Michael Anderson

GG hissed: "...did you actually think that would come across as profound rather than just gibberish?"

Uh, well, readers of Dalton Trumbo have seemed to believe it was profound since his masterpiece "Johnny Got His Gun" was first published in 1939.

Did they not offer any Literature as Philosophy classes at ol' Harvey Mudd?

stevenfrisch

Just goes to show you, as Dorothy Parker put it, "You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think", or use a search engine to understand context.


Michael Anderson

Thanks Steve. Some days youse gets to poke the tar baby, and he only sticks to ya jest a li'l.

Ben Emery

Gentlemen,
It was a simple question about those who store up thousands and thousands of rounds while others are having a hard time finding what they need. Since we have a black man in the white house people have been stocking up on ammo for 4 plus years I will ask the question again- Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?

fish

Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?

No.

Gregory

Mike, in context it's literature, out of context it's gibberish and without attribution it's plagiarism.

Not to mention a classic red herring logical fallacy.

A grand slam. Congratulations.

And Steve, Dorothy Parker's observation notwithstanding, I'm sure you can be led to culture; someday maybe you will even understand your own.

Michael Anderson

Ben,

Anyone should be allowed to buy/store/hoard an infinite number of rounds.
If they become a problem for the gov't, they will be neutralized with either an AH-64 Apache or an MQ-1 Predator drone. You will not find a Tea Hat body anywhere upon the targeted grounds.

From the Wiki:

"The AH-64 Apache features a nose-mounted sensor suite for target acquisition and night vision systems. It is armed with a 30-millimeter (1.2 in) M230 Chain Gun carried between the main landing gear, under the aircraft's forward fuselage. It has four hardpoints mounted on stub-wing pylons, typically carrying a mixture of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and Hydra 70 rocket pods. The AH-64 has a large amount of systems redundancy to improve combat survivability."

"MQ-1 Armament -- 2 hardpoints
2 × AGM-114 Hellfire (MQ-1B)
4 × AIM-92 Stinger (MQ-1B)
6 × Griffin air-to-surface missiles[90]
Avionics
ASIP-1C
AN/AAS-52 Multi-Spectral Targeting System
AN/ZPQ-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar"

A bunch of silly ammo cans full of rotting rounds will just make the assplosions a lot bigger and more dangerous for the neighbors. But I suppose that is the price for Tea Hat Nation.

Michael A.

Gregory

Ben, 5:45PM

You're again misunderstanding markets and the role of prices. People want the ammo for whatever reason; the shortages and raised prices is a signal to retailers, distributors and manufacturers that there is an increased demand. Manufacturers then bet their ass and market share on whether and how to grow capacity to meet that demand.

Eventually the supply and demand will even out and there will be balance. Ommmm. Might even be something of a crash in demand and the weakest manufacturers end up going belly up as a result. Creative destruction, unlike the public sector which never lets the worst to go belly up.

However, if some progressive central planner decides they have a better way and instead institute limits on purchases and price controls, what you have is institutionalized shortages and high prices that never go away.

Capische?

Michael Anderson

GG whined: "...and without attribution it's plagiarism."

No Greg, it was a trap for the self-proclaimed smartest guy in the room. You got caught. You lost.

Now a guy who didn't have an inferiority complex would say, "fair enough, ya got me" and laugh it off.

But a really annoying guy who continues to display his inferiority complex ad nauseum needs to take his punishment and go sit in his room and think about things for a while.

Happy Father's Day, Greg. Try to be a kinder, nicer commenter in the future. Thanks.

Ben Emery

There was no gotcha in the question, just a question.

Ken Jones

Mike
Great post. Happy Father'sDay.

Gregory

" it was a trap for the self-proclaimed smartest guy in the room. You got caught. You lost."

Sorry Charlie, I've never even thought I was the smartest guy in this room, though I can't say I haven't suspected you weren't, and your apparent inferiority complex may be warranted. Despite your lack of declaring where you lifted those words, I did google a character string, didn't get a clear hit, and in the end decided it didn't matter... because the thoughts didn't apply in this situation. A non-sequitur. Gibberish in context.

Really, Mike, leave the gotchas to the Becks, Morgans and Maddows of the world. It's also fallacious when they use that particular tactic, but at least they've figured out how to make a buck off it.

Personally, though I wasn't doing it then, either, I believe the time to stock up on ammo was a couple years ago. MA might also consider the acquisition cost, storage requirements and the physical impossibility of an "infinite amount of ammunition".

And Ben, the issue has never been that the president is black. It is that the president is seen as being both anti gun and heading the least transparent of any administration in history.

It didn't help that the Feds were actively seeking contracts to buy well over a billion rounds themselves.

The Tea Party types really have been targeted by the executive branch... never before has the IRS been so abused, targeting groups because of the content of their thoughts and even their prayers. Somebody from the IRS really does need to go to jail in that one.

Michael Anderson

GG bubbled: "...never before has the IRS been so abused, targeting groups because of the content of their thoughts and even their prayers. Somebody from the IRS really does need to go to jail in that one."

Seriously Greg? Nixon's Enemies List notwithstanding? Targeted audits of those very enemies?

Obama has massive firewalls that will never allow him to be touched by this scandal. Are you not even living in this century?!? I'm completely flabbergasted by your comments.

Oh, and regarding your relentless demands of Ryan regarding his AGW reports from his MIT friends, I believe that will be forthcoming about the same time you reveal how many employees you retain.

Not that they have anything to do with each other...but then again, why the heck not?

Ben Emery

Greg,
It started the day Obama was elected President in 2008. I would say a 2-3 billion round increase from Nov 08 to Nov 09 is a pretty good indicator it had nothing to do with your claims.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/02/Ammo-sales-prices-skyrocket/UPI-27441257213803/

Michael Anderson

Thanks Ken! Hope to see you out at the lake this summer...Michael A.

Gregory

Yes, the IRS scandal is bigger than the Nixon enemies list, which was Colson's doing. FDR was the first president who used the IRS to hassle political adversaries, and Nixon's people tried to do the same.

It's unclear just how close Obama was to the IRS persecution of conservatives but it's clear the coverup story that it was a few rogue employees in Cincinatti was quickly destroyed by the folks in Cinci who were quick to point to their superiors in Washington DC who were pulling the strings.

So far, IIRC the firewall has stopped at only one Obama direct report; his chief of staff knew that they really were targeting conservatives and that it was continuing a year ago.

Conservative 510c3 and c4 applications went into the deep freeze while progressive sounding apps got quick approval... without having to detail what their prayers were. It stinks to high heaven, and it needs an special prosecutor. One conservative group even had it's tax returns show up at their biggest foe, but an expert examination of the pdf file revealed a part that was redacted, the IRS file number. It was leaked by someone in the IRS, a federal felony, and the IRS' enforcement division has been sitting on it for over a year without action.

The reliably Democratic LA Times editorial board put it this way a couple weeks ago:
"At issue is the way the IRS enforces the laws governing tax-exempt groups. In particular, the inspector general found that agency employees made inappropriate and intrusive demands for information from many conservative groups that applied for exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. Unlike charities, 501(c)(4) organizations can do a limited amount of political campaigning. The inspector general's report shed no light on why IRS employees started singling out those conservative groups, why they sought donor lists and other seemingly inappropriate information, whether the IRS had conducted or still conducts reviews that are similarly focused, and what involvement, if any, Obama administration officials and members of Congress had in the extra scrutiny.:

What they didn't mention is that officers of those conservative groups also started getting the audit treatment from the IRS in the aftermath of their groups getting their applications put into a bureaucratic purgatory.

There's just no way to spin this with a happy face, Mike. The first set of lies have already been exploded; it's amazing how each generation of coverups forgets the last ones; the coverup is what bites you in the end.

stevenfrisch

Except for one big thing Greg: Conservative groups could continue to act as 501c3 and 501c4 organizations WITHOUT an IRS letter conforming their status and did so, so, to date, there is NO EVIDENCE of any group that was denied their rights to free speech, assembly or status. The IRS did not deny their rights, they delayed recognition of the groups pending further scrutiny.

Yu guys just don;t know IRS law. I can make tax deductible contributions to a c4 without the letter. It is perfectly legal. I can make non-deductive contributions to a c4 without a letter, they are non-deductible anyway.

In fact, the only group in the last election cycle actually denied tax status is EMERGE, a progressive group:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/

You are just so full of beans it makes me laugh. This entire scandal is much ado about nothing, and those here who perpetuate it are just looking ignorant of the law.

stevenfrisch

By the way, I did not see any of you boneheaded partisans standing up for me when Barry Pruett [and Todd and Russ] falsely implied that I was violating IRS law:

http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/search?q=sierra+business+council

Where where you Greg, or George, or Russ saying that I had a first amendment right to speak out on public issues? Why was I not treated by the same standards that you say the Tea Party should have been considered under? By the way don't give me the story that you can't read every bolt, this entire issue spilled over onto George and Russ's blogs as well and you stood silent.

Hypocrites, charlatans, dissemblers, and idiots all.

fish

If they become a problem for the gov't, they will be neutralized with either an AH-64 Apache or an MQ-1 Predator drone. You will not find a Tea Hat body anywhere upon the targeted grounds.

Good to see the mask slip of the closet authoritarian. Ooooh....they will be neutralized......followed by a ticking off of the machines killing features!

Another "Internet Tuff Gai"!

Nice.

stevenfrisch

Here, let us try this garbled sentence a second time; please replace,

"Yu guys just don;t know IRS law. I can make tax deductible contributions to a c4 without the letter. It is perfectly legal. I can make non-deductive contributions to a c4 without a letter, they are non-deductible anyway."

with....

"You guys just don't know IRS law. I can make a tax deductible contribution to a c3 without the letter. It is perfectly legal. I can make a non-deductible contribution to a c4 without the letter, they are non-deductible anyway."

Gregory

One progressive group denied, hundreds approved, not a single TP brand group approved, left in limbo to spend time and money jumping through hoops.

Free speech is also measured in time and money, and the IRS malfeasance was designed to sap TP groups of both.

And the bureaucrat running the show takes the 5th in a congressional hearing.

There *is* clear evidence that partisans were using the IRS to help friends and tie up foes. Asked by congress about it, they lied.

Since you were disseminating falsehoods about AB32 and Prop 23, forgive me for not giving a rat's ass about Pruett's needles that are still giving you fits. While SBC may have been able to claim the lobbying you did wasn't substantial, you, the well paid CEO did lots of lobbying against the very flawed 23 which failed to actually take a stand against the basis for the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Pruett didn't say you shouldn't have the right to free speech, but that if you were lobbying, you had to report it to the IRS. What's the problem with that? You even stated you would be reporting it in 2011 and 2012.

I do remember one prop 23 op ed you authored in The Union in which, both for the op ed and the blog postings which you tended to, you failed to disclose your post as CEO of your own little non-profit domain while you portrayed yourself as just a regular guy who kept themselves informed. Is that how you dodged implicating your 501c3?

I can't see anything at Pruett's that's defamatory. You wrote "Out of a total budget of more than $2 million SBC spent less than $1000 on time and travel directly lobbying on Prop 23, an amount I am confident will not meet the "substantial part test."

Did you really spend less than 2 hours a week (5% of a 40 hour work week) in 2010 on lobbying against 23? Or was any time you spent against 23 automatically your free time?

stevenfrisch

Posted by: Gregory | 17 June 2013 at 07:56 AM

First Greg, I consider you, Barry, Todd, et al nothing but annoying little pissants when it comes to this stuff. Frankly, none of you know your asses from a hole in the ground about the actual law. I am not "having fits", I am pointing out a hypocritical truth.

The truth is that you don't give a 'rat's ass'. None of this is about a wrong being perpetrated on any group to you, it is about scoring points, like a petulant child. And that is the difference between you, and me, and Ben and Michael.

Ben and Michael and I have all spoken up and said the actions of the IRS re: Tea Party groups were wrong. You would rather die than say something was wrong if it was directed at someone you consider as having an opposing point of view. To you first amendment rights are just a game, to us they actually mean something.

Gregory

Frisch, you are projecting again, and no one was ever claiming you didn't have 1st amendment rights, only that since you were lobbying, it should have been reported but not to worry... the IRS really has been looking the other way when it comes to politically correct 501(c) groups.

You have dodged the question that was in there: did you really spend less than two hours a week of your working time (5% being one measure of "substantial" in case law) lobbying against 23?

It appears to be coming close to the time when you do your Cartmanesque "screw you guys, I'm going home", so do me the favor of answering the question before heading back out.

George Rebane

For the record, I have supported Steve Frisch's political speech. What I protest is his desire to speak as a 'private citizen' while attempting to hide his leadership of and material rewards from SBC, the political advocacy group for which he works.

And Steve, now that you've again established your high dudgeon and called everyone else a new slew of names, why don't you either calm down or go away?

Gregory

George, it's simple. He has an unlimited 1st amendment right, like everyone else, but it appears when he's lobbying he doesn't do so as our local 6 figure salary 501(c)(3) CEO, so it doesn't count against his company's limited (less than 5%) right to lobby and to still keep its tax favored status.

Most CEO's don't get to pretend not to be a CEO when making public pronouncements relating to their company's business, so it's obvious... Steve is special.

Ben Emery

I side with Steve on this one. Does George give us his past contract numbers from the government every time he makes a comment on defense? I don't care what Steve does with SBC on RR. What I would like to do is eliminate SBC from participating, at least financially, in our democratic republic. I have no problem with showing up to the reps office with a presentation ready to go with lobbying. The problem lies with huge campaign fundraisers (bundlers), $20-$100k junkets, family employment, and lobbying groups writing legislation for our legislators who owe them a favor for the $200k fundraiser.

Basically we the tax payer give the energy industry billions to lobby our government for special favors annually. It is insane the way our system is set up to work at the moment.

Bill Tozer

Basically we the taxpayer....well, we taxpayers are a slight majority in the USA now (53%-47%), destined to be a minority over a few years. Let all the non taxpayers make the rules and see what happens. In fact, legalize all the grammar school dropouts with no skills and have them help write the rules. The silver spoon taxpayers can pay for the ride. A true democracy.

Ben Emery

Bill,
Don't kid yourself 90 plus % of working age Americans pay taxes. Being self employed I pay around the same in % in FICA than Romney pays in income taxes. He is exempt from FICA for a vast majority of his unearned income. We all pay sales tax, property taxes if we own property, sin taxes, tolls, ect...

Bill Tozer

Mr. Ben
90% of working age Americans pay taxes? Hmmm. That is most newsworthy. Yes, 90% of working age Americans probably do pay sales tax on a pencil or gasoline taxes or DMV taxes or beer sales taxes. No pot tax yet. Agreed. This might sound like heresy, but some states have zero state income tax and others have zero state sales taxes. Very odd indeed. We must fix that ASAP.

I doubt that 90% OF WORKING Americans pay Federal Income Taxes. Sure, we pay payroll taxes but they don't go for guns and roses. They are allegedly earmarked for the benefits you might receive someday. Sales taxes stay in California. Yes, there is a federal highway tax on the tires you buy where the rubber meets the road. Paying property taxes is not income taxes. Paying dividend and interest taxes do go on your 1040 as income, but you know that.

Mr. Ben, a drug dealer who has no other source of income pays taxes according to your generous definition of paying for the ride. I am sure Mr. Dope Peddler bought some taxable freezer bags once or twice.

No matter the topic, you seem to think collecting ammo is just another reason to regulate something and stop Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Auto, Big Chemical, Big Ag, Big Barbie Doll, and Big Mac w/fries from ruining out political system. They don't deserve Congress's ear or attention.

Since we are way off topic and have gone from buying ammo as a direct result of fearing our Government while loving our Country, here is a little tax article:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/06/17/garcia-padilla-us-annexation-would-destroy-puerto-rico-economy/

George Rebane

BenE 749pm - You are again confused. I declare often and openly that I was once a government defense contractor (I left DOD service 32 years ago). SteveF continues as an NGO arguing issues and positions that create government regulatory policies that are a largess to his pocketbook. Good for him. But people like that should also be more open to disclose their benefits in such arguments and offer that they are also arguing in their pecuniary self interest.

However, it is both remarkable and interesting that you consider such declarations of present benefit to be equivalent to someone having to quote government contract numbers of decades ago. Did anyone ask SteveF to cite even the jobs that he does pursuant to the government imposed regulatory burdens that he so energetically supports. But then again, such are the workings of liberal minds.

Ben Emery

George am not confused. Over and over again Steve is asked to open up his books on a blog. This is ridiculous, do you really think we are making sausage here? At best we are expanding dialogue and understanding different world views in our little rural Nevada County. This is at best.

Ken Jones

Bill Tozer
The 47% you demean include the elderly that paid taxes for years, who are now in retirement and make less than the threshold, the disabled who are unable to work and students who will become active taxpayers in the near future. Also active military in combat don't pay taxes on that income.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

Ben is correct, the vast majority pays federal payroll taxes and state and local taxes. And almost all eventually pay taxes into the system. That would include those high earners that made over $533k that paid no taxes either, about 13,000 people, and another 4,000 millionaires that didn't pay either.

Ben Emery

Bill,
It was you who used the incredibly wrong talking point that nearly half of Americans don't pay taxes. "we taxpayers are a slight majority in the USA now (53%-47%)"

Nearly half of Americans don't earn enough money to pay income taxes is the truth but it sounds much worse so the truth stays in the bag. So why it Americans are more productive but their wages have remained stagnant while at the same time the inequality gap has grown to the worst in the developed world?

Bill Tozer

Mr. Ben, guilty as charged. I skewed you little phrase "we taxpayers" and ran with it. Bailiff, wack my pee pee. However I feel you take any topic and make it about the folksy Walton clan or a factory in Timbucktoo that collapsed because of unsafe working conditions or the evil ones not paying their fair share.

Yes, there is poverty in Bumfuck, Uranus. Stagnate wages, undo influence of Monsanto in Congress, feds spying on us....hell Ben, I guess this is on topic cause it makes me want to go out and buy a couple tons of ammo. Or, at least buy a bullet reloading machine so I can make my own when they come for or ban my ammo. Guilty as charged. Hang me on the Tree of Woe.

What everyone needs is more money. To get more money we must confiscate it from those that are hoarding gold and ammo and stuff. Stuff. Like, how many classic cars does Jay Leno need?? 3 should be enough so lets take the rest and give them to starving children in Memphis or New Delhi. The old expression "Gold is for hoarding" rings true.

Perhaps we can lower the tax threshold so more people will pay Federal Income taxes. Lower it to anything over 400 clams/year. That will get more people to participate in the "we are all in this together" mantra. After all, President Obama said many many times that we all MUST make sacrifices. Our Vice President calls it "patriotic".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1DgYMYVaUE

George Rebane

For the interested reader. Taxpayer percentages aside, BenE's 735am again asks a question answered here many times - "So why it Americans are more productive but their wages have remained stagnant while at the same time the inequality gap has grown to the worst in the developed world?"

The answer that eludes him and others of the Left is that the Americans whose wages have remained stagnant have NOT become more productive. They do simpler tasks because technology has intervened to either replace them or reduce the skill levels formerly required in their work. It is those workers' skill levels that have remained stagnant.

Those who can develop/build technology or do the new jobs now in the marketplace have wages that continue to increase and widen the wealth gap. It is they who are the productive ones, and the productivity increase they have delivered is averaged over all workers, causing the ill-informed to repeat their plaintive queries. Productivity is not uniform over all workers.

Ben Emery

George,
Take a course from Southern Methodist University economics professor.

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/83060:dr-ravi-batra-new-thinking-on-the-economy

Joe Koyote

I read an article that made the claim that part of the jobs problem is that investors can make a much higher return in a shorter period of time by putting their money into the financial arena with things like derivatives and sub prime mortgages rather than investing in manufacturing or similar endeavors that create jobs for working class people. It has been called the "casino" economy.

Ben Emery

Bill,
As you know the larger the institution the less efficient and more corrupt they become. I don't think any institution including the Republican and Democratic Party's should get so big they can single handed negatively effect a nation or its economy in a "BIG" way. If they are too big too fail they are too big too exist. Its about competition.

"No matter the topic, you seem to think collecting ammo is just another reason to regulate something and stop Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Auto, Big Chemical, Big Ag, Big Barbie Doll, and Big Mac w/fries from ruining out political system. They don't deserve Congress's ear or attention."

On the ammo statement I never made a position one way or another because I think the gun debate is a distraction from the real problems in the US. I just think reasoning has left the building when people like yourself have this romantic idea that you will take on the greatest military super power the world has ever seen if they decided to go no hold barred against the American citizenry. The US government has the thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons.

For the record, you and the pro defense group has created this monster.

Gregory

Frisch's rantings reminded me of some of Sowell's work, and so went to dig a little. Let's see if anyone sees some of the Anointed in postings from the usual suspects:

1. Painful social situations ("problems") exist not because of inherent limits to knowledge or resources, or inadequacies inherent in human beings, but because other people lack the wisdom or virtue of the anointed.

2. Evolved beliefs represent only a "socially constructed" set of notions, not reflections of an underlying reality. Therefore the way by which "problems" can be "solved" is by applying the articulated rationality of the anointed, rather than relying on evolved traditions or systemic processes growing out of the experiences of the masses.

3. Social causation is intentional rather than systemic, so that condemnation is in order when various features of the human experience are either unhappy or appear anomalous to the anointed.

4. Great social or biological dangers can be averted only by the imposition of the vision of the anointed on less enlightened people by the government.

5. Opposition to the vision of the anointed is due not to a different reading of complex and inconclusive evidence, but exists because opponents are lacking, either intellectually or morally, or both.

pg 242, "The Vision of the Anointed", Thomas Sowell

Gregory

"I just think reasoning has left the building when people like yourself have this romantic idea that you will take on the greatest military super power the world has ever seen if they decided to go no hold barred against the American citizenry."

Ben, you really have left the building if you think that is what was going on in the minds of your neighbors standing in line for an ammunition sale, including George. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is talking about overthrowing the government. Where do you get this stuff?

Gregory

"investors can make a much higher return [in]the financial arena with things like derivatives and sub prime mortgages rather than investing in manufacturing or similar endeavors that create jobs for working class people."

JK, 8:41

Part of that equation is that with Obamacare's takeover of health care in six months, no one can know for sure going forward how to figure the impact of health care costs, while 'financial engineering' is fairly risk free.

Bill Tozer

Joe Koyote, this is what is happening in corporate America: Interest rates are too low and investors are moving money out of bonds and into equities. They b searching for higher returns, causing equities to become the new bond market in a way.

This has created enormous pressure on corporate America to return higher value to the shareholders as they are demanding it. The companies now are paying higher dividends and engaging in stock buy back programs rather than old fashioned investments. The owners of the companies (the shareholders) demand it quite adamantly and now are getting it. Greater value to the shareholder (via the aforementioned dividends and stock buy back programs) is the norm, not the exception.

Joe, this a direct result of the QE programs. Unintended consequences. Instead of easing interest rates to stimulate the economy, the result is the opposite. Money talks and BS walks.

Even in my own little corner of the planet I see this daily. Cuts, cuts, cuts. In the prior 10 years or so at work thru 100s of meeting I probably heard the terms "return to shareholders" or "fiduciary responsibility" maybe twice. I hear it now at every single meeting. Cuts to return value to investors. Growth? Well, that is important, but not as important as the value to investors, i.e., the owners of the company like teacher's pension funds and the little guys in suburbia and quaint burgs such as Nevada City, CA.

Ben, guilty as charged again. My hands are dipped in the blood of Big Defense and nuclear weapons. Come over sometime and I will let you wack my Patriot Missile

Ben Emery

A couple of thoughts while I was dealing with the livestock this morning.

People complain about 47% of Americans not paying income taxes at the same time defending and advocating big retail stores paying horrible wages.

I guess if you're part of the working poor you are screwed from the right no matter what you do.

Fight for better pay- communist, socialist, collectivist, progressive, liberal or what ever label George likes to throw around.

Don't earn enough to pay income taxes- freeloader who wants stuff from the government.

Ben Emery

Greg,
I suggest you read through some of the threads right here on RR to find out why I give that scenario. As I have stated over and over on RR I am not what you would call an advocate of anti-gun laws. The gun debate much like abortion is a tool by the establishment to keep the electorate and citizenry divided so we don't come together to throw their corrupt power monger a$$es out of office and possibly into the private corporate jails they have built.

fish

On the ammo statement I never made a position one way or another because I think the gun debate is a distraction from the real problems in the US. I just think reasoning has left the building when people like yourself have this romantic idea that you will take on the greatest military super power the world has ever seen if they decided to go no hold barred against the American citizenry. The US government has the thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons.

You say it's a distraction but you never seem to miss an opportunity to remind us of one of the lefts favorite talking points, "Since we have a black man in the white house people have been stocking up on ammo for 4 plus years I will ask the question again - Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?"

Is it permissible to dislike the current empty suit in the White House just because I don't care for his politics. Barring that is it cool to dislike his "white half"....does that modification allow the discussion to proceed without blowing your "dog whistle"?

I'll try this once more. No, there should not be a limit to the amount of ammunition that a person can own as long as its been paid for and the homeowners fire insurance policy addresses the storage issue.

The US government has the thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons.

I'm sure we all have one pointed at us right now. (snicker) If small arms are of no consequence to the GREATEST MILITARY FORCE EVER why is gun control such a lefty issue? It can't be about crime. Nothing substantive has changed in Chicago even considering the recent infinitesimal relaxation in gun control laws and the lefty Chicago political machine seems perfectly comfortable with 20 or 30 killings a weekend. I say this because I don't recall seeing in candlelight vigils or impassioned pleas from Rahm this Monday following this weekends "festivities". You guys have to know by now that the areas in which gun control is tightest has the highest rate of gun crime while paradoxically allowing the easiest access to guns.

One can only conclude that other than yet another opportunity for "grandstanding" they don't really care!

But you feel free correct me if I'm wrong.

Gregory

"I suggest you read through some of the threads right here on RR to find out why I give that scenario." -Ben

I suggest you support your statement with a fact. One quote, please, from the folks you think have left the building that shows they are expecting all out war with the government,

George Rebane

Re BenE's 841am - This is in a series of continuing examples that show how the liberal mind runs into a wall during these debates. As Gregory (905am) again points out, no 2nd Amend supporter here advocates initiating the violent overthrow of our government. Our Founders meant for us to keep and bear arms to prevent the government from violently overthrowing its citizens. But that seems to be an intellectual bridge too far for many of our liberal readers.

Bill Tozer

Breaking News!!!! More great things happening that will keep these pages flowing with opinions:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-back-top-most-millionaires-152957289.html

Ben Emery

George,
When did I ever point to an overthrow of our government. I point to a misguided illusion that stocking up on ammo and guns to fight against an out of control US government. One is an offensive and the other is a defensive. Two completely different scenarios. This is where how the "conservative" mind on RR cannot get out of offensive mode due to their belief in being superior. At some point George you are going to have to admit in the big scheme of things in the world of money and power you are a peon who will get squashed like a bug if the sh!# ever hits the fan.

Ben Emery

Greg,
Here are two quotes and my battery is down to less than 5% power so I will stop with doubling your demand. I only got through maybe a dozen of comments on one thread when my battery warning came on. I am sure there are plenty more. I point you to my comment at 18 June 2013 at 10:58 AM about offensive vs defensive.

"Every single American must be in the ready to fight back against a tyrannical government. It is the Constitution's own special call to arms to protect our own special Constitution." 05 May 2013 at 12:40 AM

"An armed populace is the best assurance against a govt deciding to suspend our Constitution." 06 May 2013 at 09:00 AM

fish

Ben Emery: answering every question except the one asked!


Dance Ben dance!

Ben Emery

Well Fish, I answered the question and even doubled the evidence Greg asked for an it went down the RR sink hole. So I will do it again.


Greg here are some examples for you.


From the post itself
Breaking Bread – ‘2nd Amendment and Gun Control’ (updated 10may13)

"The Right approaches gun ownership top down through the 2nd Amendment, arguing the intent and writings of the Founders in their drafting of our Constitution. They see the real purpose of grassroots gun ownership as necessary to keep government from going rogue, and if it does, then as a last resort, to launch a successful revolution." George Rebane

I have very serious problems with George's interpretation and have challenged him before on it. No where can anyone show the government the Founders were talking about was the government they signed their death warrants and fought to set up. We have to remember when the US Constitution was written and ratified there were zero other governments/ nations on the planet that were allowing citizens to participate in the decision making of the rules/ laws from which they were going to live.


"Every single American must be in the ready to fight back against a tyrannical government. It is the Constitution's own special call to arms to protect our own special Constitution." 05 May 2013 at 12:40 AM

"An armed populace is the best assurance against a govt deciding to suspend our Constitution." 06 May 2013 at 09:00 AM

Ben Emery

Greg,

I will try this one more time without the links. These are some examples off of one post within a dozen or so comments.

I will also put it out there once again since most every "conservative" commenter on RR keeps lumping me into the anti-gun crowd, which I am not. I believe the gun debate much like abortion to keep the masses divided so we don't come together on the bigger issues such as an unrepresentative government of a vast majority of American citizens. The D's controlled the House for 40 years and didn't take your guns away and the R's controlled all branches of government in the early 00's and didn't do anything trying to abolish abortion. The rhetoric of those issues only becomes prevalent when one of the two parties are just short of being able to actually do something about it.

Breaking Bread – ‘2nd Amendment and Gun Control’ (updated 10may13)

"The Right approaches gun ownership top down through the 2nd Amendment, arguing the intent and writings of the Founders in their drafting of our Constitution. They see the real purpose of grassroots gun ownership as necessary to keep government from going rogue, and if it does, then as a last resort, to launch a successful revolution."- George Rebane

"Every single American must be in the ready to fight back against a tyrannical government. It is the Constitution's own special call to arms to protect our own special Constitution."

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 05 May 2013 at 12:40 AM

"An armed populace is the best assurance against a govt deciding to suspend our Constitution."
Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 06 May 2013 at 09:00 AM

Ben Emery

Fish,
I wasn't asked any questions by yourself. I asked a general question and you answered it, "NO". What more do you want?

You then followed up with a comment that had this in it which I gave example and what I consider it evidence of my statement.

"You say it's a distraction but you never seem to miss an opportunity to remind us of one of the lefts favorite talking points, "Since we have a black man in the white house people have been stocking up on ammo for 4 plus years I will ask the question again - Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?"

Here is my response to Greg on trying to deny that ammo sales increased by 2-3 billion rounds starting the day Obama got elected. Maybe you can do the research see if the same thing happened when Clinton got elected or Carter. If it did then maybe I am wrong but I think I will be correct.

Greg,
It started the day Obama was elected President in 2008. I would say a 2-3 billion round increase from Nov 08 to Nov 09 is a pretty good indicator it had nothing to do with your claims.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/02/Ammo-sales-prices-skyrocket/UPI-27441257213803/

fish

"Should there be a law on how much ammo a person can hoard?"

How would the "civil libertarian" answer his own question?

Ben Emery

It would be an individual response since ammunition is covered in the US Constitution. I would answer it "No".

Ben Emery

It would be an individual response since ammunition isn't covered in the US Constitution. I would answer it "No".

Bill Tozer

Oh Ben. Thank you for quoting me. I feel tingles down my leg. I suppose I should just quote Thomas Jefferson or the Federalist Papers to point out that the people have every right to overthrow this Government and form a new one if necessary to protect against tyranny. It was purposely put in the Constitution. What about that clause makes it so hard to understand is beyond my little brain. Yet, no one here advocates massive armed insurrection.

There is a difference between legal defensive measures and offensive measures. This is not a mute point. There is a difference between quoting the Constitution concerning our duty to protect liberties if the Government fails to provide the environment where INDIVIDUAL rights can flourish unabated and actively seeking the overthrown of our current form of Government. I prefer to actively pursue these paramount ideals to ensure the prosperity of Individual rights and liberties and freedoms that our Founders clearly stated which precede government and supersedes government. Our rights do not come from government, never have, never will. Thus, we have the right to abolish any government that tries to take our INDIVIDUAL rights away or infringe upon them. So, why even pose the question should there be a law on how much ammo one can stock up on or how much money one can make? Reeks of what our Founders and their neighbors shed their blood for to fight against.

Ben Emery

Bill,
The second amendment had virtually nothing to do with overthrowing our own government. I agree with your sentiment of holding our government accountable whole heartedly but in the form of the ballot box not with a bloodbath in the streets. I think the idea of Well Regulated Militia escapes those of you who think they're going to take on the biggest military super power the world has ever seen. What does Well Regulated Militia mean? It means training, armories, discipline, and organization. It doesn't mean every bum fu#@ idiot having a gun and talking sh!#.

The reason I asked the question is to see what the response would be and I wasn't disappointed. George likes to create these liberal straw men so he can show his intelligence against it. But for those who actually have done some living and reading themselves see right through the bs and find George less intelligent and more well read. As I have said before I am neither a gun advocate or opponent. Yet I am always lumped into the opponent category because it fits the straw man argument.

Something George might find interesting.
http://www.academia.edu/624021/The_Difference_Between_Being_Smart_Educated_and_Intelligent

The comments to this entry are closed.