CommentsDisplaying PlaneRick's 10 most recent comments.

• Michelle Obama Wants $400 Million for Non-Existent ‘Food Deserts’

  October 28, 2010 at 6:17pm

  In reply to NoName22.

  To LONGHRON MAMA:
  I find it a sad you claim to be a follower of Jesus and Hayek, yet still seem to think that tithes and other’s charity alone (which speaks nothing to my earlier statement) will solve the severe problems affecting many parts of this nation.

  Even Hayek did not have such cold faith. He spoke of the “social insurance” government should create in a nation as wealthy as ours. He also spoke of a moderately free market, rather than a totally unrestricted free market, because of inherit and historically proven potential dangers. It is interesting how he is cherry-picked.

  Just because Mrs. Obama didn‘t speak directly to your version of Hayek’s teachings, doesn‘t show that she doesn’t know free market. It only shows her view doesn’t agree with yours. Also, deregulation of some markets over the last couple decades has shown spontaneity could be just as flawed.

  The financial ecomony is stagnant, not because of fearing governemnt action (which makes little sense because they are better set now than before with capital safety nets), but rather the fact that that they haven’t gotten their businesses in proper order yet (as illustrated by the recent foreclosure debabcles) Their hoarding, which you seem to think I spoke, only contributes more to the loss of demand.
  I also am a part owner in small business. One thing that is blatantly clear, your simple entrepreneur model lacks foundation in the current market (with or without market), especially in rural and near suburban areas that I spoke earlier.

• Michelle Obama Wants $400 Million for Non-Existent ‘Food Deserts’

  October 28, 2010 at 5:23pm

  In reply to NoName22.

  To FREEDOMOFSPEECH:
  Firstly, thank you for agreeing with my point. Yes, the DIA did take the action which, as I stated, isn’t unusual. The DIA is directly under the Secretary of Defense, because they are considered a part of the Department of Defense (“the pentagon”). While redaction by the DOD is commonly used in books and articles published within speaking directly of DOD actions, I feel that this privilege related to “National Security” is abused. Renewed controvery, which you seem to be attempting to incite, has proven to do nothing to negate abuse. If you want to change something like that, change your approach in social media.
  Secondly, thanks for further proving my point of personal attacks over factual standing. Yes I did speak of your statements in generalizations (not personal attacks like yourself though), but there is no irony. You keep making faulty, and clearly fallacious, generalizations (as in your P.S. comment) whose only basis seems to be in your imagination and supposition. On the other hand, I would be happy to explain to you my generalizations with a multitude of personal anecdotes, sociological surveys, and well-documented case studies from which I speak directly. I highly doubt you could do the same without falling back on shoddy inference, fictional data, or total opinion.
  Lastly, just because I clearly state my opinion, usually with qualifications and examples, does not mean I sacrifice brevity. It is only that the opinions I am speaking to are compounded or complex and simple opinion can not adequately justify my criticism. I hope you took more from schooling than you reflect. If you can’t tell the difference a request and advice, maybe you need to repeat elementary English. If you can not tell the difference between fingers and mouth (as this text is obviously not from my mouth) maybe you need to pull your head out once and a while and look in the mirror. I have nothing to do with teaching or teacher’s union (faulty generalization) and I went through officer’s training supervised by two instructors who were DIA agents in foreign embassies and have a good understanding of what they do.
  I, as well, will continue to call them like I see them in this free country. Please, keep spouting nonsense and illogic or justly and factually prove me wrong as I politely asked.(either way I don’t care)

• Michelle Obama Wants $400 Million for Non-Existent ‘Food Deserts’

  October 28, 2010 at 4:03am

  In reply to NoName22.

  To CONSIDERTHIS: Thank you. There are people out there who need help. Rather than help, people just ridicule them. It is sad what true colors show when people get behind a screen name. Rather than talk of realistically better ways than Mrs. Obama’s, people just chime in with the same old tired and useless sentiment. Most of those who read these stories are sensible Christians and the constant senselessness and incivility of others makes us all look bad.

  To WALKWITHME1966: FREEDOMOFSPEECH is just another example of those who “see what they believe” and nothing else. They usually have to rationalize their views by attacking things they generalize with others who disagree rather than discussing civilly the matter at hand. Their world view, fueled by silly conspiracies, keeps falling apart because their logic is flawed and their facts are frivolous and incoherent. They debase their own opinion through personal attacks rather than talk of things of consequence. The fact that they seem to be the only ones who can see the conspiracies only reinforces that fact that their claims are baseless.

  To FREEDOMOFSPEECH: Yes, there was destruction of that book, but by the pentagon in an act of censorship. It is nothing new and nothing unheard of. Get over it! This kind of censorship is common throughout history. The fact that it was news WHEN it happened should be telling of reality. The fact that we can see the original edition, from Wikileaks, is even more to the point. The only thing new on the issue is that the internet makes such attempts at censorship even more fruitless and pointless.
  Please quit with the mean hearted attacks and start speaking some truth from facts, not hyperbole.

  To LONGHORN MAMA: Please figure out the difference between Keynesian economic practices and …well… whatever you seem to think the First Lady is talking about. You seem to miss the fact that there is little to no finance for your “entrepreneur” in the current economy. And even if there was, there is most likely a lot reasons they aren’t there still.

• O’Donnell Campaign Threatens Radio Station With Lawsuit, Quickly Apologizes

  October 28, 2010 at 2:23am

  In reply to FreedomOfSpeech.

  It only shows that she isn’t the real deal and only pandering to get what she wants, not serious in serving the people or even in her message, because she can’t even get her message right. If these things aren’t true, then she has obviously surrounded herself with idiots and morons (which still reflects her decision making). This is why the state GOP won’t fully support her. She, or at least the people working for her, would rather be litigious in action than be correct in message or issue. These are the same kind of people we are sick of being in power . This is an important part of the message which she keeps trying to align herself and consistently shows that she doesn’t understand.

• New Video Reveals MoveOn Activist’s Aggressive Provocation

  October 28, 2010 at 1:56am

  In reply to benditlikebeck.

  Come on, it is clear she never reached inside the vehicle or made an aggressive to think such. Even in this video, you can see both hands present and clear in intent, because they were both on the sign. How it is that because she turned around, among a crowd that could clearly see her actions, it is assaulting or terrorist-like?
  CYCLONE is right that this isn’t a partisan issue, it is an issue of common decency. Just because she stepped forward to present her sign that was against the candidate, doesn’t show a physically malicious intent. Anything beyond that, as presented in this video, is over-reaction.
  It is extremely disheartening how she was treated, especially by those who seem to stand with mottoes like “Don’t Tread On Me”, because she showed an different opinion from the crowd.
  She was obviously stomped on (not her head clearly).
  A man placed her foot on her and needlessly pushed down, it is splitting hairs to define it further. Even though he didn’t “telegraph” his action, that was clearly battery. And as far as I have seen or heard, this is the only “assault” like action presented.
  I find it hilarious, that there was call for the police in the first video, because the only illegal action seems to have been against her.

• Michelle Obama Wants $400 Million for Non-Existent ‘Food Deserts’

  October 28, 2010 at 1:32am

  In reply to NoName22.

  It seems that many have totally overstepped what was presented. Even in the study cited, the 0.1% is that of the 23.5 million NOT 300 million!!! I am still curious where her 6.5 million children comes from but it is obviously not the study she from which she spoke.

  To BEEKEEPER: If you could do math, you might have tried using it in the reading of the article. From her numbers it comes to $61.54 per child. It is clear her number of children (and probably 23.5 million) did not come from this study alone.

  To me it seems she is also speaking to areas such as where I have been for years, where there is over 30% in poverty and the average travel to even the gas station is 2.3 miles, let alone the hand full of grocery providers in the county. It would be ignorant to assume that only low-income people live in low-income areas when geography isn’t everything. (kind of like the joke: Bill Gates walks into a basic blue-collar bar and the per capita income increases by $1,000,000)

  To: LUDWIKA & SNOWLEOPARD3200: I agree that there is definitely some government overreach, but in your example (wheat farmer), as far I can tell, such overreach has been struck down directly. To take the same example, that was also policy put in place to keep consumption price sustainable for other farmers during the GREAT DEPRESSION. Context is important and to think that everyone living in more remote areas other than urban/suburban are all able to afford $8 cereal, makes it only clear you have never been there and seem to know little truth of it. If you can’t afford an $8 box of cereal, how are you going to afford to get to an area where things are cheaper and closer?

  To UNTAMEABLE-KATE: I totally agree that the case of which you write is F-ed up. But that is definitely a case of public zoning policy over common sensibility, not of the federal government making non-sense policies. I hope it is resolved properly from where it began, on the local government level.

  If I am wrong, please prove me wrong.

• Repub: Violent Overthrow of the Gov‘t is ’On the Table’

  October 22, 2010 at 8:59pm

  In reply to Bluefish49.

  To VEGASGUY:
  Please show me where Obama calls for an “armed” civilian military. The only places I can find articles referring to such use only either cherry-pick sound bites (such as the one you posted) without actual context in the speech and the only mention an armed force from the writer’s opinion of the sound bite presented. The sound bite in your particular clip came right after he talked about expanding funding and people to the Peace Corps (obviously not an armed force) in a speech directed at civil service. For this sound bite to carry any weight, why not just include the full speech? Show he meant an armed militia-like force? Until such time as, and with much more physical proof, I can only determine such claims to be silly conspiracy rather than fact. I am open to hear more proof if there is such.

• Unpacking the Media‘s Christine O’Donnell Constitutional Crisis

  October 22, 2010 at 4:50pm

  In reply to Sledgehammer.

  HUGEBRASS:
  While I said nothing of the degree of separation, the words “shall not” is a form of separation by negation in the context. This is not an opinion, but a literalistic interpretation (as with only a dictionary).
  To draw upon one (of a few in that specific case) dissenting opinion (which have no consequence in the law) that only shows another’s point of view, is definitively the “argument from authority” fallacy.
  Justice Rehnquist was also stating pure opinion. He gives no reasoning for statement. He only calls is bad and useless. Why is that so? Does he continue. Even that thought that Jefferson’s statement is only metaphorical is questionable. Today, as in Jefferson’s day, the word “wall” can describe a barrier, whether solely physical or not, because of shared function. But that is simple compared to Rehnquist’s neglect, in your example, the opinions and words of other Virginians such as George Mason, let alone, the many others Representatives from other states at the Convention that, in writing and deed, have shown similar understanding to that of Jefferson.
  His words serve only as such – his. They have no bearing on the law as it is executed.
  Even in this example, Rehnquist does not deny a separation of one sort or another. He only speaks to Blacks quote of Jefferson. If you read your “evidence”, you would know that might statement is correct and does nothing to refute what I said, especially as you quoted me.
  Lastly, I agree that all leaders should be held accountable. Bierce wrote it best – “Accountability: the mother of caution”. But not only should we be able to refute be use of evidence, but we should also attempt to prove ourselves wrong before we start using opinion over reason. To label something wrong or stupid before full understanding isn’t attempted is arrogant.
  Your assumption that ABC would defend, let alone, agrees with everything you said earlier is a faulty generalization and what seemed to be a lead into to a straw-man argument.

• Repub: Violent Overthrow of the Gov‘t is ’On the Table’

  October 22, 2010 at 3:36pm

  In reply to Bluefish49.

  to KRYPTONITE:
  Obviously not in action, becuase Marxism doesn’t just call for an end to capitalism, but is concerned in the governance there after. Between his shoring of private corporations with public funds and the extensive use and growth of private contractors throughout the government. I don’t see him realistically bringing capitalism in America to an end but rather the opposite.
  The bigger question to you is this – how is THAT all it “boils down to”. Unlike salt water, it doesn’t boil down to just one thing.
  Government and purpose of it are, from the start, a series of complex questions. And as history as clearly shown, every complex question has a simple answer and AND IT IS ALWAYS WRONG. Examples to the contrary continue to show either a misunderstanding in what “complex” means or even what is a proper analogy.

• Repub: Violent Overthrow of the Gov‘t is ’On the Table’

  October 22, 2010 at 2:16pm

  In reply to Bluefish49.

  to CAPITALISMROCKS:
  My oath was for military service and, if you have taken it yourself you should know, it is to “support and defend”. Your statement is cherry-picking the Constitution for those offices are part of the Constitution that I swore to support. Your assumption that either Branch would “go directly against” the Constitution is only opinion with no credence. Let alone, attacking either one would be against the spirit of the law and directly against my sworn oath.
  Your assertion that “the President continually talks about a ‘Civilian Military’ ” are just an example of the extremism I commented on earlier with such a baseless conspiracy. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between a call to join civil services, such as the Peace Corps, and a call to join an armed military, such as the Army, only illustrates the fact that not only are you chasing ghosts, but that your willingness to believe something that extreme doesn’t require an equally extreme amount of proof. Until I see proof of such wild claims that is just as extreme, these conspiracies are wholly baseless and a total waste of time. They are just a diversion by those who think they know better, but still can’t lead or explain a better way. Worse off yet are those who lend conspiracies credibility by trying to speak to the “finer points” rather show that the claims are complete bunk.