« Shockah: Obama can't speak without his teleprompter | Main | Tongue tied in Brussels »

The Old Argument

Barack Obama has made it increasingly clear, that he means to dismantle and abolish many institutions and ideals that Americans hold dear, replacing them with a Socialist's Wet Dream of state-controlled and atheist programs, ranging from state-mandated abortion to socialized healthcare to nationalized industry. The spending bill which Obama signed into law last week includes provisions to institute permanent requirements that state governments comply with federal directives, and his chief of staff and press secretary have shown a feral eagerness to single out individuals who dare to criticize the character of President Obama's ambition. For all his smarmy promises during the campaign to 'rise above' partisanship, the new president has repeatedly abandoned even the pretense of morals or sense of obligation to the people who have made America thrive up to now.

As bizarre as it may sound now, the 'John Galt' rumblings have renewed old echoes of a serious and unresolved question regarding the Union. Obama's plan is clearly a new chapter of class warfare, and political divisiveness, which has strong support in some places and meets strong opposition in others, according to the cultures and moral values of the locations and people concerned. It must be considered, therefore, that some people may find the present form of government unacceptable, and, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Whether dissolution of the government is the necessary step, or whether some separate states of the union may secede and form their own government (the matter having been met with force but not resolved through honest debate), or whether revolt or rebellion may in fact be anything but catastrophe, the present set of actions by the Obama Administration demonstrates - again - the overreach of federal government, to a degree far beyond anything envisioned by the signers of the Declaration or the Constitution. One can scarcely envision George Washington countenancing doctors being told who they may or may not treat and how, or James Madison smiling on the deliberate killing of unborn infants in clinics paid for with tax dollars. It is inconceivable that Thomas Jefferson would approve of private citizens being told that their free speech would be constrained in certain mediums and on certain topics, or that Benjamin Franklin would agree to whole generations being saddled with debt for projects which do nothing more than feed the ego of politicians.

Every so often there is an argument here, about where and when government must stop, and how the common man shall make his stand clear. It is once again time to raise that argument, to send the message that regardless of party or ideology, the election to office of a man or woman assigns them duties and responsibilities, but is not a license to personal aggrandizement, that there remain limits to power and if all else fails, a tyrannical government will find resistance from those it wishes to enslave. We are far from open revolt, but it is clearly time to send a message of the public displeasure, as these political elites have become fat and callous in their office, and need a sterner discussion on their performance and the consequences of such.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34784.

Comments (78)

You really are going off th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You really are going off the deep end, aren't you DJ?

I don't think so, mantis. ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I don't think so, mantis. Your boy Barack has picked a very big fight, and he does not even know it yet.

"....replacing them with a ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"....replacing them with a Socialist's Wet Dream of state-controlled and atheist programs, ranging from state-mandated abortion to socialized healthcare to nationalized industry."

Seek help now before you go any deeper. Sad.

I don't think so, mantis... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I don't think so, mantis.

Crazy people never think they're crazy, DJ. Very little you say these days has any basis in reality.

The time and place is Novem... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

The time and place is November 2010. Anyone with 'incumbent' next to their name, irrespective of party, should be shown the door.

Repeat in 2012.

Yeah, sometimes CHANGE takes a while.

Don't worry about Jp2. You can't fix stupid.

The Tea Party: Join the Rev... (Below threshold)

The Tea Party: Join the Revolt
http://tinyurl.com/a85q4d

Clearly Jp2 and Mantis are ... (Below threshold)

Clearly Jp2 and Mantis are wallowing about in the seas of Kool Aid being dispensed by the smarmy cretin now occupying the White House.

Yes Jp2 and Mantis, there are people out there who love and respect the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights. And it will be those people (that you doubtless observe down your snooty noses) that will and can rise up and remove any threat to the structural integrity of this One Nation Under God.

You might want to remember as you drink your self-congratulatory Starbucks lattes that the people who will feel compelled to defend this nation's existence are the ones who are also well equipped to defend hearth and home.

Mantis, my recent posts hav... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Mantis, my recent posts have cited real-world events, linked to actual quotes and statistics. Your comments have been generally juvenile and spiteful, of late. Implied mental illness, for example. Are you proud of that level of discourse, sir?

I think you should reconsider your argument. You could disagree about the severity of Obama's mistakes, for example, or defend his actions, or you might simply say that you do not agree with my analysis or opinion. Instead, you tossed off some personal smears and ill-considered insults.

You can usually manage far better in your arguments, mantis. I do not imagine that you tried very hard to even consider the question, this time.

there are people out the... (Below threshold)
mantis:

there are people out there who love and respect the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights.

Yep, I'm one of them. Btw, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not a separate thing. Just an FYI.

And it will be those people (that you doubtless observe down your snooty noses) that will and can rise up and remove any threat to the structural integrity of this One Nation Under God.

They will and they can? Good for them. I look forward to the mighty insurrection of cheeto-stained keyboard warriors rising up to take down the tyrant Hussein Obama X. It should be good for a laugh.

You might want to remember as you drink your self-congratulatory Starbucks lattes that the people who will feel compelled to defend this nation's existence are the ones who are also well equipped to defend hearth and home.

So what, you're saying that lunatic wingnuts are the only ones with guns? You want to come to my house and see my collection?

"You might want to remember... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"You might want to remember as you drink your self-congratulatory Starbucks lattes that the people who will feel compelled to defend this nation's existence are the ones who are also well equipped to defend hearth and home."

So is this some sort of weak threat? Would you like to shoot someone? Please, tell me more about your plans on defending 'Merka.

Mantis, my recent posts ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, my recent posts have cited real-world events, linked to actual quotes and statistics.

Good one. Tell another.

Are you proud of that level of discourse, sir?

I have reasonable, intelligent discourse with reasonable, intelligent people. You are neither.

You could disagree about the severity of Obama's mistakes, for example, or defend his actions,

If anything you referred to resembled any of Obama's actions I might have done so, but you prefer to ramble insanely on about tyrants and socialists and nationalizing industry.

You can usually manage far better in your arguments, mantis. I do not imagine that you tried very hard to even consider the question, this time.

What question? Whether we should start an armed insurrection to overthrow our duly elected president? Yeah, why didn't I seriously consider that one?

Mantis -How many t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Mantis -

How many times in the first six months did Bush directly criticize any media talking head? How many times in the 8 years did he do that?

My impression of Obama's actions to now - all of them, not just the Rush stuff, and the Cramer stuff, and his diplomatic fumblings, and the frantic divising of spending bills, and his allowing Pelosi and Reid to essentially write the 'Stimulus' package - is that he's in way over his head and way beyond his experience, training, or abilities.

This is NOT a good thing, it's NOT something I want to see happen, and it's NOT particularly amusing when you can't change the damn channel to see what else is on because you're living it!

He's just starting to realize the reward he though he 'won' for being a good speaker and and being in the right place at the right time, and mouthing all the right words is much more of a 4-year sentence, and he doesn't have ANY idea how to do what needs to be done when everything doesn't fall (or is pushed, pulled, or smacked over the head with a shovel and covered with concrete by the folks who've been supporting him) his way. I don't think he realizes yet just HOW bad things are going to get for him.

Even the progressive mag Mother Jones is noticing! And THEY'RE not likely to cut him any slack at all. (They don't cut Truthers any slack either.)

Excellent post, DJ. Exactl... (Below threshold)

Excellent post, DJ. Exactly what folks on my site are talking and FUMING about!

Jp2 and Mantis...I've been around a lonnnng time (not TOO long...just long). I have ALWAYS been the "voice or reason" talking about "working within the system". In the military I had to salute Jummy Carter as CinC (for part of my time in)...and I did so SMARTLY despite knowing he was a disaster!

But there is an actual groundswell of people in this country talking about "irreconcilable differences"...and I am now one of them!

The people on MY side of the dispute have the following things in common:
- they have always played by the rules!
- they have either been in the military or support the military (and did so even when it wasn't popular!)
- they PAY taxes
- they PAY their bills
- they are net PROVIDERS of income to the government...versus net CONSUMERS
- they may have not always LIKED what they heard...but they NEVER tried to have the "other side" SILENCED!

and so...

My side of the dispute believes in FREEDOM, including freedom to SUCCEED!

My side of the dispute is APPALLED by this saying (from Karl Marx):
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Jp2 and Mantis...are YOU appalled at Karl Marx's statement??? Truly??

mantis:S... (Below threshold)
Stan25:

mantis:

So is this some sort of weak threat? Would you like to shoot someone? Please, tell me more about your plans on defending 'Merka.

This is no weak threat. You and your ilk have pissed the clear thinking Americans off. The "Chosen One" and the bastards that are the heads of the Democrats in the House and Senate have seen to that, with their massive tax and spend increases. This same arrogance from King George III is what led to the American Revolution and the formation of the United States and every day that passes, we are getting more angrier. That is why the Obama Administration wants to re-institute the so-called assault weapons ban and restrict the sales of other firearms and ammunition. This move is seen as a must to keep that masses in line.

How many times in the fi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How many times in the first six months did Bush directly criticize any media talking head?

How many times did Ari Fleischer? How many times has Obama directly criticize any media talking head? Oh yeah, zero.

My impression of Obama's actions to now...

was prescripted. Your reaction would never have been otherwise. Obama is a Democrat.

Even the progressive mag Mother Jones is noticing!

Mother Jones is noticing that Obama inherited the biggest economic disaster of our lifetimes, and it ain't easy figuring out how to fix it when more bad news comes in every day from these fuckhead bankers, auto companies? Woah, what a stinging indictment! Look at what the administration official told MoJo:

"if the economy wasn't so bad. You have one big insurance company that goes bad? Okay, you can go out and find other companies that will buy up parts of it. You can work something out. That's not difficult to do. But now there's no one out there to buy. You have a home foreclosure crisis. You can put together a plan. But there's no plan that's going to work if the guy who's foreclosed on loses his job and can't make a house payment. You have a major auto company go bust? You can prop it up, throw it some capital. But if no one is buying cars, it doesn't matter. Look at Toyota. It's one of the best run companies in the world. And it can't make it these days."

Is there some magic fix you conservatives are hiding that will solve all of this? Is there some reason you believe Obama should be able to make the whole clusterfuck go away with a snap of his fingers? The general American public doesn't. They know the score:

According to the poll, part of the reason why Obama's numbers remain high despite these economic concerns is that the public doesn't blame the president for the current state of the economy. Eighty-four percent say this is an economy Obama inherited, and two-thirds of those people think he has at least a year before he's responsible for it.
Whether we should ... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
Whether we should start an armed insurrection to overthrow our duly elected president? Yeah, why didn't I seriously consider that one?

You and your snarling leftist buds over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, were actually advocating such a move when George Bush was President. So don't hand me that bullshit.

The people on MY side of... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The people on MY side of the dispute have the following things in common:

I have all those things in common with you. And?

My side of the dispute is APPALLED by this saying (from Karl Marx): "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Jp2 and Mantis...are YOU appalled at Karl Marx's statement??? Truly??

No, I find it hard to be appalled(!) by the writings of long dead political philosophers. I am appalled by what Hugo Chavez is doing, if that helps.

You and your snarling le... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You and your snarling leftist buds over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, were actually advocating such a move when George Bush was President. So don't hand me that bullshit.

I don't visit those websites, but they're idiots too. Stupid is not a partisan attribute.

Mantis - you forgot this.</... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Mantis - you forgot this.

"We can come up with all sorts of solutions," he said. "But it's the economy." He noted that he and other administration aides are working around the clock, that every day he jumps from one crisis to another, and that he feels that he and other administration policymakers have plenty of latitude to craft innovative responses to the assorted economic problems. Yet he said that he and his comrades cannot change the economic environment within which these policies are to be implemented.
First thing that needs to be fixed is the economy. And how does he try to do that? By saying he's going to raise taxes and increase government spending - most of which won't take effect until 2010 or later.

Man, why won't the damn economy recover?!

As far as the other stuff goes - believe what you want. You're trying hard to make excuses for Obama - but he's cutting your legs out from under you day by day. I'd much rather see him succeed (by making the country prosperous) than not.

But if you've got to paint me as wanting to see him fail because he's a Democrat, look to your own motivations.

First thing that n... (Below threshold)
mantis:
First thing that needs to be fixed is the economy. And how does he try to do that? By saying he's going to raise taxes and increase government spending - most of which won't take effect until 2010 or later.

Man, why won't the damn economy recover?!

Yeah, why won't the economy that just keeps feeding us bad news after more bad news as we find out how fucked it has gotten in recent years, just recover?

Tell me this, what exactly is your plan (or the Republicans', or anyone's) to make the economy recover super duper fast? Please explain, in realistic terms, how you expect it to work and how long it will take.

But if you've got to paint me as wanting to see him fail because he's a Democrat, look to your own motivations.

Hey, I never wanted to see the country fail because George Bush was president. I feel the same way with Obama as president. That doesn't mean I don't have criticisms of their policies (I do, for instance, think the mortgage plan is bad policy). You and I both know that the last thing you want is for our economy to improve due to Obama's policies, which is why you claim they have failed before they've even been implemented. You wish and hope and pray for the failure of America, because a Democrat is president.

"I am appalled by what Hugo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I am appalled by what Hugo Chavez is doing, if that helps."

(Applauds Mantis.)

You see, the thing is I don't believe we're terribly far from seeing massive government 'help' ala Venezuela created to take care of this crisis. I don't believe that Obama can come up with a magic fix - because the only things he apparently knows to do dig the hole deeper.

We need something to get business going again, but 'business' has been labeled the problem, and is thus suspect. Government is a net consumer, not a producer - so there's not going to be much help there.

I've got a suggestion - but it won't be liked. It'll have to be an all-out implementation, not a 'well, we've got to give these exceptions and those exceptions and some more exceptions to this group and this advocacy group needs an exemption' type of adoption, and there's going to be a lot of folks who look to taxes for social control that will scream bloody murder...

But better that than seeing the country go under.

"You and I both know tha... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"You and I both know that the last thing you want is for our economy to improve due to Obama's policies, which is why you claim they have failed before they've even been implemented."

No, Mantis - I DON'T know that. Thanks for telling me what I believe - sure couldn't have figured it out for myself!

(Withdraws applause for Mantis.)

Mantis doesn't really under... (Below threshold)
Chimpy McMantis:

Mantis doesn't really understand this logic because it is imperfectly formed and unfamiliar to his frame of reference.

Refer to Obama as Chimpy McBama and throw in the terms Nazi, racist, moron, Hitler, Stalin, pig, fool, murderer, traitor, impeach, serial liar, stupid, bourgeoisie, workers, revolt, burn, and other similar terms so he feels more comfortable.

You have to speak his language to successfully communicate with him.

'At Wednesday evening's coc... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

'At Wednesday evening's cocktail party, the President was seen looking under a table and remarked: "Those 401K's have got to be here somewhere."

After which he peered around a corner and said: "No, no 401K's over there.".

"Maybe under here?" Mr. Obama said as he cocked his head as if looking under a chair at which point the room burst into laughter.'

Barack Obama has m... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Barack Obama has made it increasingly clear, that he means to dismantle and abolish many institutions and ideals that Americans hold dear, replacing them with a Socialist's Wet Dream of state-controlled and atheist programs, ranging from state-mandated abortion to socialized healthcare to nationalized industry.

It's becoming clear to an increasing number, but the intent was clear from BEFORE the election. The problem is that the average voter doesn't know why any of this is particularly bad for them, never having experienced the downside of a socialist government. Wait until people have to stand in a line two blocks long to make an appointment to see a dentist as has been documented in Canada. Wait until people have to pay 25 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity like they do in parts of California. Wait until people have to once again shell out $4 for gas only seeing it go higher from there. Wait until people can't afford to heat their homes in winter.

2010 will be to democrats what 2006 was to republicans and 2012 will be to democrats what 2008 was to republicans. The first bill the new president will sign into law will repeal most of the laws enacted by Obama and the democrats. The next will be to sell most of the federal lands west of the Mississippi to pay down the national debt and finally restore the economy.

Ultimately, the only long term fix is to pass a federal balanced budget amendment with the only exception being a declaration of war with one or more nations. It's time to put government on a permanent diet and protect the next generation from the greed of the current one.

The Leftist seems to undere... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

The Leftist seems to underestimate the sentiment outside of their little world...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/20/states-cite-10th-amendment-in-effort-to-cut-stimul/

As an aside, S&W stock price has risen nearly 50% this year. That's especially curious considering what the rest of the market is doing...

Mantis""You and I ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Mantis

""You and I both know that the last thing you want is for our economy to improve due to Obama's policies, which is why you claim they have failed before they've even been implemented."

"

Oh you mean like the Dems have been doing in Iraq for the past 5 years. Like the Dems have been doing in Afghanistan for the past 2 years or so.

You mean like the dems did with Bush for 8 years on the subject of umm oh pick your choice because all of them are correct.

Let the dow jones hit the 4000 mark and lets see how many of Obama's officials will want to be seen in public. Folks will start jumping ship just to get the hell out of dodge and not be associated with the disaster.

After Obama is out of office you wont find one Official who will stand up and proudly say "I was in the Obama administration".


""Maybe under here?" Mr.... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

""Maybe under here?" Mr. Obama said as he cocked his head as if looking under a chair at which point the room burst into laughter.'"

Hell, mine ran away screaming when it heard Obama was looking for it...

You wish and hope ... (Below threshold)
pvd:
You wish and hope and pray for the failure of America, because a Democrat is president.

Actually, most of us want America to succeed. For that to occur, we believe that socialist policies must fail. Advocates of the same must therefore fail in their efforts.

The conservative plan (versus the Republican plan) would be to minimize government interference in the marketplace. Let GM fail. Let the foreclosure's foreclose. The pain will be intense. It will also be more brief and efficient than the current bandaid/buyout/payoff approach lurching toward socialism.

I really don't care if the President is a Republican or a Democrat - I want my grandkids to be free. I am not optimistic on that point and becoming less so daily.

Tell me this, wha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Tell me this, what exactly is your plan (or the Republicans', or anyone's) to make the economy recover super duper fast? Please explain, in realistic terms, how you expect it to work and how long it will take.

The solution was proposed just last week to Bernanke during his testimony before Dodd's Banking Committee. The idea was for the federal government to guarantee ALL mortgages. The estimated cost would be 500 billion, which Bernanke thought was too much, but given what's been spent it's looking more and more reasonable. Bernanke thought people would just quit paying their mortgage if they knew they were guaranteed, but that just show Bernanke doesn't understand that end of the mortgage deal. The guarantee is to the lender not the borrower.

The advantage of the idea is that with one bold move it fixes the core problem in the financial sector, which is that no one can know if anyone's mortgage backed securities are good. That single move would make them all good, and thus, remove the underlying reason for the credit crises. In the long run it may even cost less than the current plan of rescuing individual banks as they approach failure.

So how long would it take? Well it would solve the core problem the day Obama singed the law. How long before the economy started to grow would then depend on the business climate, and that's up to Obama and the democrats. Some are starting to wonder if Obama doesn't want to fix the crises, but use it as an excuse to pass lots of otherwise unpassable legislation. If he fools around too long the economy may pass a tipping point from which it will take decades to recover.

"You wish and hope and pray... (Below threshold)

"You wish and hope and pray for the failure of America, because a Democrat is president."

WRONG! As pvd said, we want our children and their children to be FREE! The astonishing power grab by the Dems at every single level in just the last 6 weeks is not "encouraging" us.

For the entire 8 years of Bush's presidency I had to listen to the Left at ALL levels say: "Bush isn't MY President"

I don't say that with Obama. He IS the President...and thus MY President.

But that does not mean I will sit meekly by and watch him destroy this country.

Wanting America to succeed is one thing. Wanting short-term "success" delivered by bankrupting future generations, stifling dissent and focring Socialism on us is NOT acceptable! So on THAT score do I want Obama to fail? You bet.

My hope is that he will change course and govern wisely...since he is MY President. If he doesn't...then I would just as soon have an "amicable divorce"!

The only person who predict... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The only person who predicted the scope of the economic catastrophe--Dr. Nouriel Roubini--says this won't get better before 2010.

Cutting federal spending in the face of a recession that might be as bad as the Great Depression isn't going to make insolvent banks solvent; it isn't going to instill consumer confidence; and it's only going to placate the defeated minority of conservatarians who were trounced at the polls in 2006 and 2008. Pinning this recession on Obama makes no sense to anybody with half a brain. Demanding less federal spending and the renewal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy makes zero sense as policy.

What Obama is doing wrong, is giving Tim Geithner keys to the vault who in turn demands zero accountability from the failures at AIG who are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to who the fuck knows. Capitalism! Yeah!

Conservatives lost the election to a liberal democrat, so they should stop bleating so foolishly about philosophical differences with the administration. What they should be doing is demanding accountability and better oversight with regards to the bailout funds that, for all intents and purposes, might as well have been dropped from a helicopter into a volcano. That's something that ought to evoke bipartisan concern (and it has at a Senatorial level).

hyperbolist: "Pinning th... (Below threshold)

hyperbolist: "Pinning this recession on Obama makes no sense to anybody with half a brain. Demanding less federal spending and the renewal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy makes zero sense as policy."

nobody IS pinning the recession as it stood when he was elected on him. But EVERY move he has made since then has DEEPENED the recession...and he is working hard to make it a full fledged DEPRESSION!

As for "Demanding less federal spending"...damn skippy! The Government produces NOTHING. Re-starting American's economic engine requires investing in segment of our nation that DO produce things. Instead Obama is looking to expand Government at a staggering pace...and TRIPLED the deficit he "inherited" in his first 3 weeks!

As for "tax cuts for the wealthy", that old saw is laughably and intentionally false! EVERYBODY who paid taxes got tax relief. The Left like to pretend that since someone who paid MORE taxes got MORE relief in hard dollar terms it was "tax cuts for the wealthy". Total bullshit!

The Obama plan, of course, is to GIVE money to those who did NOT pay taxes...and call that a "rebate" (instead of "welfare")

Hyper"Conservatives ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper
"Conservatives lost the election to a liberal democrat, so they should stop bleating so foolishly about philosophical differences with the administration"

Funny I umm dont remember you giving that advice to liberals for the past 8 years. In fact I remember you ranting against Bush at just about every turn. And just because Hitler's opposition party lost in the 1930s does that mean they should have shut up and go along quietly with his policies?


"Pinning this recession on Obama makes no sense to anybody with half a brain"

We are pinning the making of a bad problem worse on Obama as every time he opens his mouth the DOW drops another 200+ points. (look at yesterday). He is clueles sand naive or else he is deliberately making the problem worse. You pick which one.


Putting into action anti business policies make things worse not better. You see thousands of people losing their jobs but have you heard of any one in govt losing theirs?

How many times have you looked at your bank balance and saw a negative balance and then wrote more checks just becuase you have them to write?

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are implementing their agenda by TAKING ADVANTAGE of the current crisis NOT by trying to SOLVE IT. If you are in charge when chaos reigns you can do anything.

Obama Lied
The DOW JONES DIED.


BTWI saw an articl... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW

I saw an article (can't find the link).

Do you realize that with the money spent on the original bailout that the govt could have paid off all the mortgages in the country which had a balance of like $70k or less.


Now I dont recommend the govt giving away money to anyone but do you realize what kind of stimulus that would have been? Most of the banks which were insolvent would have gotten a huge cash infusion. They would have been rolling in it. The only thing is that the govt wouldnt have been able to target their pet projects with the money.

Conservatives lost... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Conservatives lost the election to a liberal democrat, so they should stop bleating so foolishly about philosophical differences with the administration.

You can't pass someone ahead of you until you get in another lane. The dumbest thing republicans could do is follow the democrats, assuming they want to win the next election. It's important for republicans to point out the wrong actions democrats are taking, so that when the consequences of those wrong actions materialize voters will see a clear distinction and put republicans back in power.

What they should be doing is demanding accountability and better oversight with regards to the bailout funds that, for all intents and purposes, might as well have been dropped from a helicopter into a volcano.

Wrong again. Accounting for the bailout funds is the responsibility of the democrats. After all, they won the election, are in charge, and are responsible for their actions.

Do you realize tha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Do you realize that with the money spent on the original bailout that the govt could have paid off all the mortgages in the country which had a balance of like $70k or less.

Now that would be an interesting story if you could find the link. I say that because the balance of all mortgages is around 11 trillion dollars. That must mean there are few with a balance under 70k. Also, those mortgages are not likely causing the finical problem, so paying them off would have minimal effect.

Justrand: the tax cuts for ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Justrand: the tax cuts for the middle class aren't going to expire, just those for people earning $250,000/year and up. 2% of the population. The other 98% will still have the benefit of incredibly low federal income taxes, when compared to upper/middle class people in countries with similar standards of living.

Mac: you don't care where AIG funnels hundreds of billions of tax dollars to?

Complain all you want about increased spending on infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc., but at least those are actual things that do benefit some people (though not as trickle down, and thus not with your approval). On the other hand, you have no idea where Tim Geithner's cronies--moral and professional failures, the lot of them--are sending hundreds of billions of dollars.

Pouring money into insolvent banks is like bailing water out of the Titanic. Your financial sector is totally fucked; the stocks haven't yet bottomed out in a way that reflects that; and the problem is going to get worse. In the mean time, your President is doing something to help people who are at the mercy of a global recession.

You've made it clear that you don't support increased spending or the expiration of tax cuts for the top 2% of earners--fine, that's your right. What, then, would you have Obama do to stimulate the economy? If I were a conservative American, I would stop whining like a child who dropped his ice cream cone and I would start making phone calls demanding that pressure be put on Tim Geithner to resign in disgrace, with Larry Summers to follow shortly thereafter.

nobody IS pinning... (Below threshold)
jmc:
nobody IS pinning the recession as it stood when he was elected on him. But EVERY move he has made since then has DEEPENED the recession...and he is working hard to make it a full fledged DEPRESSION!

in 45 days 95% of what he has implemented hasn't even had a chance to take effect yet. So I challenge you to name one thing that would have caused this recession to deepen. Or even better yet name one president who got the country out of a recession his first 40 days in office? just one. How about 90 days? 120? 150? just one? Can't do it. just as I thought.

You know, Republican logic on this has been nothing short of delusional. Economist were predicting before Obama took office that the economy was going to get much much worse. That was the trend before Obama took office.

Also Notice things like the kind of news that is causing the stock market to drop. A few days ago when China announced they wern't going to do any additional stimulas spending markets all over the world plummeted. Yet Republicans who don't want stimulas spending obstruct it, knowing markets will plummet so they can in turn blame it obama. It's all political with Republicans they don't care about spending as evidneced by every time they are in power.


jmc: "It's all political... (Below threshold)

jmc: "It's all political with Republicans"

I was going to address the rest of your post but you got me laughing so hard with that joke I lost my train of thought!

From Madam Speaker of the House through His Excellency, The One, EVERYTHING is politics...and ALL politics leads to their Socialist vision for Amerika.

Dont pay attention to JMC. ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dont pay attention to JMC. He claims that Bush didnt inherit a recession (which has a start date of 1 March - 45 days after Bush took office ) along with claiming that no president can have much of an effect on the economy within the first 2 months in office (this last part paraphrased).

Maclorry"Now that wo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Maclorry
"Now that would be an interesting story if you could find the link. I say that because the balance of all mortgages is around 11 trillion dollars."

I will try to find the link for you. You do realize that I am talking about ALL MORTGAGES WHICH CURRENTLY HAVING A BALANCE OF $70k or less ;eft to pay.

Hyper"Pouring money ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper
"Pouring money into insolvent banks is like bailing water out of the Titanic."

"In the mean time, your President is doing something to help people who are at the mercy of a global recession"

yep he is going to keep pouring money into insolvent banks.

MacLorry"That must... (Below threshold)
retired military:

MacLorry

"That must mean there are few with a balance under 70k."

You do realize that if each morgage was right at 70k that 797 BILLION divided by 70k works out to be over 10 million mortgates dont you?

" so paying them off would have minimal effect.
'

Really? So you are claiming that putting 787 BILLION dollars direclty into the hands of banks (and not into the hands of the govt bearocrats) wont cause an increase in lending? Wont clean up some of the bad debt floating around? What would the banks do with it? Sit with in their vaults??

state-mandated abortion? No... (Below threshold)
steph:

state-mandated abortion? Now there is a socialists wet-dream. In fact I recall Karl Marx mentioning that in his manifesto - somewhere between the working class uprising against the proleteriat and the abolishment of organized religion.

Dont pay attentio... (Below threshold)
jmc:
Dont pay attention to JMC. He claims that Bush didnt inherit a recession (which has a start date of 1 March - 45 days after Bush took office ) along

Actually RM is too stupid to realize that I never once brought up Bush, and made no claim about whether he inherited it or not.

I merely pointed out the offcial date the recession started (Which of course I was right about.) RM doesn't know this because he doesn't bother to read before he responds. He probably doesn't do this because he is a first class idiot.

I was going to ad... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I was going to address the rest of your post

You kind of make yourself look like an idiot, when you say you are going to address the rest of it, before you have addressed any of it.

but you got me laughing so hard with that joke I lost my train of thought!

Don't feel bad. nervous laughter is common when you don't understand something, or it is over your head.

"yep he is going to keep po... (Below threshold)
jmc:

"yep he is going to keep pouring money into insolvent banks."

He should let them fail, like Bush did the insolvent bank Lehman brothers. The dow only dropped 500 points that day.

I agree that putting money ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I agree that putting money into insolvent banks is stupid and I think he should force Geithner to resign in disgrace. I've stated that a few times.

That's separate from the investment in social programs and infrastructure, though--which is not intended to boost the DJIA, but to help the lower and middle classes while the dust settles following the near-collapse of your entire banking system.

No point in listening to criticism of Obama's social spending initiatives if those criticizing make no attempt to explain how to ameliorate or offset trillions of dollars vanishing into thin air.

But I will say that I do learn quite a bit from Mac Lorry's comments relating to mortgages and finance, and wonder why he didn't try out when Wiz took on new blood.

JMCI got you mixed... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JMC

I got you mixed up with Herman on that thread. Easy mistake to make since you and him sound so much alike.

See I do read.

I was just washing the bullshit you were writing out of my eyes so much that I got you two mixed up.

I will try not to let it happen again. But hey, if it does, no loss since as I said you sound so much like him.

Also unlike you I can admit when I made a mistake.


Dont pay attention to JMC. ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Dont pay attention to JMC. He SOUNDS SO MUCH LIKE HERMAN who claims that Bush didnt inherit a recession (which has a start date of 1 March - 45 days after Bush took office ) along with claiming that no president can have much of an effect on the economy within the first 2 months in office (this last part paraphrased).

There maybe not grammatically correct but more in line with the truth.
-----------

Maclorry

Sorry guy I couldnt find the link. I may spend more time looking and if I do I will post it.

there are three steps to TR... (Below threshold)
dick bohanon:

there are three steps to TRUTH
1: it is ridiculed
2: it is violently opposed
3: it is said to have been self-evident all along

what stage are you at, DJ?

I will try not to... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I will try not to let it happen again. But hey, if it does, no loss since as I said you sound so much like him.

Also unlike you I can admit when I made a mistake.

Apology accepted. When I make a mistake I will be sure to admit it.

Dont pay attention to JMC. ... (Below threshold)
jmc:

Dont pay attention to JMC. He SOUNDS SO MUCH LIKE HERMAN who claims that Bush didnt inherit

a recession (which has a start date of 1 March - 45 days after Bush took office ) along with claiming that no president can have much of an effect on the economy within the first 2 months in office (this last part paraphrased).

There maybe not grammatically correct but more in line with the truth.

That's true in one sense Herman and I both agreed on the date the recession started. We were of course right.

Hey Mantis--<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Hey Mantis--

"So what, you're saying that lunatic wingnuts are the only ones with guns? You want to come to my house and see my collection?"

Sure..when the time is right...

BUT let me ask you a question. No snark...

How far would the Government have to go by taking away rights or severely impacting your life enough for YOU to take up your COLLECTION to respond??? If at all..

Because that is the thrust of this post.
HOW far will the Government go to ignore the Constitution, and what type of response will be needed to deal with it.

Right NOW the response is electoral.
But if the Government changes the speed and power to take away freedom, so will the response change.

Really? So you are... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Really? So you are claiming that putting 787 BILLION dollars direclty into the hands of banks (and not into the hands of the govt bearocrats) wont cause an increase in lending? Wont clean up some of the bad debt floating around? What would the banks do with it? Sit with in their vaults??

So what does the government paying off a mortgage mean exactly? Let's say a guy named Joe had a 69k mortgage and the government paid it off. Well, the bank gets back the money they loaned, so maybe they would loan it out to someone else. Joe also has 69k he didn't have before and maybe he can buy a car, go on vacation, and remodel his home. That's all great, but for every guy like Joe there are likely two who have a mortgage of 71k or more and they will be up in arms over such an unjust use of taxpayers money. Just because a person has a low outstanding balance on their mortgage doesn't mean they need help from the government.

Better for the government to guarantee ALL mortgages like I explained in post #30. It costs about $500 billion, but solves the core problem for banks that are having problems due to "toxic" assets.

Just so people aren't confused, a government guaranteed mortgage guarantees the lender will get their money back, it doesn't do anything for the borrower other than help them get the mortgage. If they default they will be forced into foreclosure and put out of the house. The property is sold and any shortage is made up by the government. All the borrower gets is a bad credit rating.

MacLorryI understa... (Below threshold)
retired military:

MacLorry

I understand what you are saying about only paying off mortgages below 70K and the righteus outrage that mortgage holders who have more than 70k would feel.

If you look at my posts I said

"Now I dont recommend the govt giving away money to anyone but do you realize what kind of stimulus that would have been"

I also responded that to your post that you dont think it would solve much of the problem. I disagree, in that it would provide much more stimulus (IMO) than the package Obama and the dems in Congress have put forth. I also think that it would create many other problems such as the one you described.

Personally I believe everyone should do like me (and probably you). Pay their own morgage or lose their house. Plain and simple. If they are foreclosed upon then they will find somewhere else to live (become renters)). House prices would fall till the market evened it out. Supply and Demand. Artifically propping up the costs of housing cant be done forever and sooner or later some other method has to be taken or the free market will select the prices.

hyperbolist,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

hyperbolist,

Mac: you don't care where AIG funnels hundreds of billions of tax dollars to?

Sure, I care and will hold democrats responsible for it. AIG is paying off claims on credit swap policies, many of which are the result of securities backed by subprime mortgages being written down. In effect the government is guaranteeing ALL mortgages, so it's a mystery why they just don't come out and issue such a guarantee and solve the problem at its core. The only explanation is that Obama needs to keep the "crisis" going in order to pass his otherwise unpassable agenda.

Complain all you want about increased spending on infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc., but at least those are actual things that do benefit some people (though not as trickle down, and thus not with your approval).

Don't presume you know what I approve of.

You've made it clear that you don't support increased spending or the expiration of tax cuts for the top 2% of earners--fine, that's your right.

Don't presume you know what I support.

What, then, would you have Obama do to stimulate the economy?

See my post #30

I would stop whining like a child who dropped his ice cream cone. . .

The left has been whining for 8 years, so it's a bit hypocritical to now complain about the other side complaining.

I would start making phone calls demanding that pressure be put on Tim Geithner to resign in disgrace, with Larry Summers to follow shortly thereafter.

Tim Geithner was hand picked by Obama, so if anyone should resign in disgrace it's Obama. We both know that's not going to happen and Obama will keep pressing for the largest tax increase in history, which will kill any benefit the stimulus bill might have otherwise had. The carbon tax won't have any effect on the Earth's climate, but it certainly will cool the business climate.

why did this thread generat... (Below threshold)

why did this thread generate so much attention?

easy.

the people who FUEL this enconomy are fed up!

Go John Galt? I am. BeJohnGalt.com is where we are going to start...

mac - You said "Jo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

mac -

You said "Joe also has 69k he didn't have before and maybe he can buy a car, go on vacation, and remodel his home."

I don't think he's got that 69k. That just went to the bank - his home is free and clear now, and his payment is freed up for something else, but the 69k went to pay off the mortgage.

Now if he uses his house like an equity ATM, that's another matter.

why did this threa... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
why did this thread generate so much attention?

easy.

the people who FUEL this enconomy are fed up!

Na, it's because mantis and DJ Drummond got into a tit for tat right off the bat. People like to watch a good train wreck. ;-)

I don't think he's... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I don't think he's got that 69k. That just went to the bank - his home is free and clear now, and his payment is freed up for something else, but the 69k went to pay off the mortgage.

Well he doesn't have it in one lump sum, but he actually has much more than 69k over the time he would have had left paying off his mortgage because most of each monthly payment goes to interest. He can get a loan and buy a car, put a vacation on his credit card, and still have money to fix up the house. That's all good economic activity, but people would be rioting in the streets over the unfairness of the government paying off mortgages for some, many of whom are not even in trouble, but not for others who may well be in trouble. You could just spread the $787 billion out to everyone, but we did something like that last summer and it didn't do much good.

The idea I expand on in post #30 solves the core problem the day it's singed into law. With that problem solved, other measurers like the stimulus bill would have a much better chance of working. That assumes Congress is able to stop Obama's carbon tax nonsense. If he gets that passed the economy will be in decline until 2013 when the new Republican president and congress repeal it.

How many times in ... (Below threshold)
Smiles:
How many times in the first six months did Bush directly criticize any media talking head?

DJ,

The McCain\Palin campaign did things that are far scarier and closer to fascism than what Obama said. You recently accused Obama of being a facist over his Rush comments.

During Palins campaing events the media were told to remain in a fenced in area. If they tried to mingle with the crowd, both her aids and government security guards would block there path and send them back.


DJ,

Whose actions most resemble facism? What Obama said or Palin using government security guards to block the press and keep them pened up.

So he'd be using his home a... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

So he'd be using his home as an equity ATM. As I said, that'd be a different matter...

Good stuff, Mac!

And the treatment of the me... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

And the treatment of the media during Obama rallies was different how, smiles?

BTW, I was the one writing that. I understand how Obama is so thin-skinned that he can't stand criticism, so naturally he's going to try to discredit everyone who doesn't immediately think he's wonderful. (See 'Joe the Plumber' as an early victim.) And I understand how you've got to paint HIM as the victim, and deflect criticism by pulling McCain-Palin out, and charging them with media silencing... which I don't believe. (Look what was done to the media during the Democratic convention also.)

But you kind of undercut your case when you don't even spell fascism right.

Maclorry"With that... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Maclorry

"With that problem solved, other measurers like the stimulus bill would have a much better chance of working"

Well it is kind hard to go down from the current zero chance of success for the stimulus bill to work Maclorry so anything, I guess, improves the chance for it to work.

Because that is the thru... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Because that is the thrust of this post.
HOW far will the Government go to ignore the Constitution, and what type of response will be needed to deal with it.

In case you haven't been paying attention, it's now been revealed that the Bush Justice Dept. issued secret and classified opinions that the 4th amendment no longer applied to the president, they then acted in violation of the Constitution for 7 straight years, fought for years to keep their activities secret and out of the courtroom, and then a month before the election they issued new opinions that oops! their previous opinions weren't correct and are thus rescinded.

So now let's hear your analysis of how far the government will go to ignore the Constitution.

So Brian,If you wi... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

So Brian,

If you wish to start a new conversation at your blog with this topic, why don't you do that and we'll be right over to comment on it.

It seems very simple to me,... (Below threshold)
Ivan:

It seems very simple to me, but then I am a simpleton.
The repugnicans had the country for at least 8 years. This and all countries were aghast at the crude, arrogant and moronic ways of bush and his criminal gang. They got soundly thrashed at the polls. They should have been tried for their sheer crookery and cruelty.

Now, a new elected President has tried remarkably fast to make some sense of this mess he was handed the day he took office.
Let him work now. If it doesn't work out, elect somebody else when the time comes.Till then, cut the white supremacist crap and become Americans first, and again.

Mantis must first character... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Mantis must first characterize the right in a sinister manner to get his point across:

"You wish and hope and pray for the failure of America, because a Democrat is president. "

And that was AFTER he said: "Crazy people never think they're crazy, DJ. Very little you say these days has any basis in reality. "

Huh?

In "reality" this is the general consensus among those on the right:

"Actually, most of us want America to succeed. For that to occur, we believe that socialist policies must fail. Advocates of the same must therefore fail in their efforts."~ pvd

Too many on the left don't understand that. They don't want to understand it, because then they would have to actually think about WHY the right is against these overreaching policies and this exorbitant spending on all manner of things unrelated to boosting the economy.

==============

"Mantis, my recent posts have cited real-world events, linked to actual quotes and statistics. Your comments have been generally juvenile and spiteful, of late. Implied mental illness, for example. Are you proud of that level of discourse, sir?"~ DJ

Not to mention that Mantis bid us adieu when Jay moved to Commentary Magazine. I think it was: "Later, Wizbangers," and something about following Jay out the door. I didn't believe it then and it took him almost no time at all to return. Because, you know, without Mantis, no one here within a hairsbreadth of the right of center would have the common sense to know how awful we are. Yet, even though he implied he was leaving because Jay was the only reason he was here, Mantis spent just as much time ridiculing him in the open and writing "reasonable" emails in private.

Sorry I forgot to welcome him back.

it's now been reve... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
it's now been revealed that the Bush Justice Dept. issued secret and classified opinions that the 4th amendment no longer applied to the president, they then acted in violation of the Constitution for 7 straight years

Violating the constitution requires acting on the Justice Dept opinions. Are there any known cases where these opinions were followed? Has there been a court ruling saying they are unconstitutional?

The reason I ask is that Congress and the President pass laws that are later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. Is passing such laws a crime in itself?

If you wish to start a n... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If you wish to start a new conversation at your blog with this topic, why don't you do that and we'll be right over to comment on it.

Not necessary. I'll continue to comment on the topic at hand, or in response to other comments, as I've done. Perhaps you can start a blog to help those such as yourself, afflicted with poor reading comprehension.

Are there any known case... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Are there any known cases where these opinions were followed?

What part of "secret" did you not understand? Are you saying that if they don't get caught, then it's not illegal? That Holder can opine that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to him, and you would accept that as long as they don't leave any evidence of their actions (and any that they do leave is a classified "state secret")?

Regardless, thanks to the government's incompetence, the answer to your question is yes.

Has there been a court ruling saying they are unconstitutional?

One, two. And likely soon to be three.

The reason I ask is that Congress and the President pass laws that are later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. Is passing such laws a crime in itself?

The process of passing laws is prescribed by the Constitution and other law. Any action that follows those requirements is not a crime. Bypassing those requirements is. A legal opinion from the Justice Department does not carry the weight of the law. "I thought it was legal" does not make it OK.

In "reality" this is the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In "reality" this is the general consensus among those on the right:

"Actually, most of us want America to succeed. For that to occur, we believe that socialist policies must fail. Advocates of the same must therefore fail in their efforts."~ pvd

Too many on the left don't understand that. They don't want to understand it, because then they would have to actually think about WHY the right is against these overreaching policies and this exorbitant spending on all manner of things unrelated to boosting the economy.

Oh really? Let me give that a try, then:

----------
In "reality", this was the general consensus among those on the left:

"Actually, most of us want America to succeed. For that to occur, we believe that imperialist policies must fail. Advocates of the same must therefore fail in their efforts."

Too many on the right didn't understand that. They didn't want to understand it, because then they would have had to actually think about WHY the left was against these overreaching policies and this war-mongering on all manner of things unrelated to protecting the country.
----------

OK, so now that you have established a mutual understanding between the right and the left, I expect to see retractions from the right about how those (few) who wanted Bush's policies to fail were "traitors" and "terrorist sympathizers", since we've now established that those (many) who want Obama's policies to fail are only looking out for America.

Disingenuous Oyster, as always.

DJ, you can't have a revolu... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

DJ, you can't have a revolution without the dissolution of the government first. I don't think people realize how close we are to these events taking place. The one thing the shadow government isn't planning for is what happens every time corruption tries to take hold and turn citizens into slaves. Mind control has a way of creating amnesiacs within the elite class. They do expect the general public to rise up so they can declare martial law, then corral people into their camps for their "own good". But they don't expect the millions of survivors to waste their asses using the same subversive methods. Humanity has a way of prevailing because it's always had the real and only Ruler by it's side. The trials have to come first before the false idols are destroyed forever.

"The solution was proposed ... (Below threshold)
SEP:

"The solution was proposed just last week to Bernanke during his testimony before Dodd's Banking Committee. The idea was for the federal government to guarantee ALL mortgages. The estimated cost would be 500 billion, which Bernanke thought was too much, but given what's been spent it's looking more and more reasonable. Bernanke thought people would just quit paying their mortgage if they knew they were guaranteed, but that just show Bernanke doesn't understand that end of the mortgage deal. The guarantee is to the lender not the borrower."

How do you guarantee trillions of dollars in mortgages with $500 billion?

Besides, the time to do this would have been over a year ago before the dominoes started falling.

The process of pas... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The process of passing laws is prescribed by the Constitution and other law. Any action that follows those requirements is not a crime. Bypassing those requirements is.

The President's authority is also prescribed by the Constitution and other law. The executive branch of our government is equal to that of the legislative branch. The executive branch must and is expected to work in secret when dealing with issues of national defense as well as crime.

Bush asking for secret legal opinions is not unique, nor does it violate any tenet of the constitution. The evidence obtained from warrentless wiretaps may be suppressed by the courts just as when police overstep their authority, but that's a long way from sustaining any charge against Bush.

Terrorists creatively use our civilian laws to their advantage in mounting an attack. I expect the President to be equally creative in countering the terrorists. If we suffer another attack on American Soil and it's found that Obama didn't use every tool at his disposal and didn't push the limits to the edge he'll be compared to Bush and found wanting.

"Disingenuous Oyster, as... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Disingenuous Oyster, as always."

Disingenuous, thy name is Brian. I attribute a quote from the very person who offered it to that person. You, on the other hand, wish to imply that I'm accountable for quotes like "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizers" and call *me* disingenuous? I've not used those terms.

I have nothing to "retract". If you have a problem with such language spare me your indignation. I suggest you go to the source.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy