Conservatism Didn’t Die On Tuesday

0 Shares
vote1107_image

Liberals are gloating that Tuesday’s election results prove that committed conservatives can’t win the big races. Their main exhibits are two Gubernatorial races: the defeat of Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia and the success of Chris Christie in New Jersey. The left’s message can be summarized in four words: Conservatives lost big time. And, boy, do they love to rub it in.

There’s just one problem with all of their self-satisfied jubilation: The facts don’t support their claims. A much more accurate statement is that, once again, conservatives got sucker punched by liberals. And the GOP’s so-called leadership has a lot to answer for, too.

To see what I mean, let’s take a closer look at the race for Governor in Virginia. Yes, it’s true; Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic operative and longtime friend of the Clintons, beat his Republican challenger, State Attorney General Cuccinelli, by 2.5 percentage points. But considering how Cuccinelli got sandbagged by his own team, it’s surprising that the race turned out to be this close.

The biggest lesson from this week’s elections is that there is no substitute for having plenty of money to spend. And McAuliffe, the longtime Democratic operative, sure did. He outspent Cuccinelli by some $15 million — most of it on the nastiest and dishonest sort of attack ads.

Four years ago, the Republican National Committee spent some $9 million on the Governor’s race in Virginia… and won. This year, it managed to come up with only $3 million for Cuccinelli. Do you think the fact that establishment types control the purse strings at the RNC had anything to do with their pared-down support of a Tea Party favorite?

The spoiler in the Virginia race for Governor turned out to be Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate. Thanks to having a record amount of money to spend for a third-party candidate, Sarvis managed to garner 6.5 percent of the vote. That was enough to tip the scales in McAuliffe’s favor.

But here’s an interesting rumor that’s not getting much play in the national press. It’s that Democratic operatives poured a ton of money into the Sarvis campaign, knowing that he’d siphon a lot more votes from Cuccinelli than their guy. Sad to say, their bet paid off with a victory for McAuliffe.

Now that they’ve proven how to split the conservative/libertarian vote, want to bet that the formula won’t be tried in a lot more places in 2014? What are the chances this story will make the headlines on the nightly news shows? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

The media have been full of stories about how voters in Virginia were so angry over the 16-day government shutdown that they held their noses and voted for McAuliffe. This is probably true in the northern Virginia counties adjacent to Washington, D.C. Is anyone really surprised that the bureaucrats, lobbyists and others dependent on government largesse want to make sure the good times don’t end?

Cuccinelli did his best to make the election a referendum on Obamacare, and he almost succeeded. Despite being vastly outspent in the closing days of the campaign, he closed the gap dramatically. A month ago, polls said that McAuliffe had a double-digit lead. By the time the polls opened on Tuesday, the race was virtually neck and neck.

Exit polls in Virginia revealed that 53 percent of the people who voted on Tuesday are opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Of that number, more than 80 percent voted for Cuccinelli.

Brian Baker, the president of a conservative political action committee that supported Cuccinelli, said the election proved that “Obamacare is toxic.” And he added: “If the shutdown had ended a week earlier, or the election had ended a week later, Cuccinelli would have won. This is a bad omen for Democrats in 2014.”

Indeed it is. Of course, that’s not how the mainstream media are calling it. But as the debacle that is Obamacare continues to grow, and millions more Americans lose health insurance they like (and get forced into a much more expensive government-mandated program), this is one issue that could win a lot of elections for Republicans in 2014. And maybe even 2016.

Speaking of the 2016 elections, the only surprise in New Jersey was the size of Christie’s victory. The Republican incumbent was re-elected governor by a margin of 60 percent to 38 percent. There was no surprise in how quickly the national media moved to crown him as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President in 2016.

Of course, Christie was only too happy to play into those expectations. Listen to what the rotund politician said in his victory speech:

I know tonight, a dispirited America, angry with their dysfunctional government in Washington, looks to New Jersey to say, “Is what I think happening really happening? Are people really coming together? Are we really working, African-Americans and Hispanics, suburbanites and city dwellers, farmers and teachers? Are we really all working together?”

As Alex Castellanos, one of the political analysts on CNN, said afterwards, “It wasn’t an acceptance speech, that was an announcement speech.”

But in his campaign in New Jersey, Christie moved far to the left of most Republicans. Here’s how John Gizzi, chief political columnist for Newsmax, put it:

By winning Tuesday night in a landslide election for his second term as governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie moved so far to the left it may be difficult for him to win the Republican nomination for president come 2016.

The GOP governor won in one of the bluest states, where President Barack Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney by 18 points in 2012. To win, Christie had to morph close to not only blue-state values and views, but become close to Obama himself — and he did just that.

Of course, that won’t stop the left from hailing the maverick Governor as the new savior of the Republican Party.

According to the left, the Republican in primary in Alabama’s first Congressional district was another Tea Party failure last Tuesday. But since three of the largest national Tea Party groups — FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express and the Club for Growth — all refused to take sides in the Republican primary there, it’s certainly stretching things to claim that they failed.

Finally, what is there to say about the election for mayor of New York City? Voters there chose ultra-leftist Bill de Blasio over Joe Lhota, his Republican opponent, by a margin of 74 percent to 24 percent. You sure can’t call that one close.

The Big Apple is about to get its first Democratic mayor in 20 years. De Blasio has promised that he will usher in a new era of extreme liberalism, including raising taxes on the wealthy. His “progressive” administration will be good news for Texas and other no-tax States, as more of the productive and successful flee the city for friendlier climes.

Tuesday’s elections did prove a couple of things: One is that money can buy elections. That certainly shouldn’t come as any surprise. The other is that there are plenty of voters who will cast their ballots for the big-government candidate. But we knew that too, didn’t we?

Are there enough of us left to keep them from spending this country into bankruptcy? Looks like we’re going to find out — whether we like it or not.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood 

Personal Liberty

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of PersonalLiberty.com. He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    Announcement: the Western Conservative Conference 2014 in Phoenix, Arizona on February 21-22 at the Phoenix Convention Center. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMeQJM7S7fU#t=113

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    “We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation” – Imam O’Homo, April, 2009

    “According to information released at a May 9, 2013 press conference by the families of Navy SEALs killed in an August 2011 helicopter shoot-down in Afghanistan, “military brass prohibited any mention of a Judeo-Christian G-d” and “invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to allah.”

    The accusations arose over a “ramp ceremony” held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as flag-draped caskets of the dead soldiers were loaded onto a plane for transport back to the United States. The shocking words of the Muslim cleric, revealed in later translations, were spoken at a memorial service meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. They were yet another example of the abject disrespect of Christians and Christianity endemic to the Muslim world.

    Here at home, Christianity and Christian religious practices are also under attack, but in more subtle ways and under a misinterpretation of the principle of freedom of religion. In the United States, that legal doctrine is cited to marginalize Christian prayer and traditions, while, at the same time, dramatically accommodating and even expanding Muslim religious practices. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/christianity_under_attack_in_america.html#ixzz2k2FstOp1

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    “We Do Not Consider Ourselves a Christian Nation” – Imam O’Homo, April, 2009

    “According to information released at a May 9, 2013 press conference by the families of Navy SEALs killed in an August 2011 helicopter shoot-down in Afghanistan, “military brass prohibited any mention of a Judeo-Christian G-d” and “invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to allah.”

    The accusations arose over a “ramp ceremony” held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as flag-draped caskets of the dead soldiers were loaded onto a plane for transport back to the United States. The shocking words of the Muslim cleric, revealed in later translations, were spoken at a memorial service meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. They were yet another example of the abject disrespect of Christians and Christianity endemic to the Muslim world.

    Here at home, Christianity and Christian religious practices are also under attack, but in more subtle ways and under a misinterpretation of the principle of freedom of religion. In the United States, that legal doctrine is cited to marginalize Christian prayer and traditions, while, at the same time, dramatically accommodating and even expanding Muslim religious practices. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/christianity_under_attack_in_america.html#ixzz2k2FstOp1

    • Merle Dickey

      It is frightening how many of our young folks are coming out of college indoctrinated against their own country and now are atheists even tho many were raised christians.

      • Eric Bischoff

        indoctrinated? Atheists? I give them more respect. I think they’re disgusted with the world we are leaving them and who we’ve become. Always blaming others for it and never taking responsibility. Like it or not we all did this. And we all think we have the answers and no one is willing to give an inch. Our concept of diplomacy is the gun and the big stick. We’re no 1, we’re the best, we’re exceptional, we know best. Really I think we’re looking more and more like arrogant fat bastard, know nothing, bullies and as a nation we’re stuck in the teenager years.

        It’s not spirituality they are walking away from it’s the stupid religions, parties and ‘isms. They know better, they get it. Thus the Occupy and Anonymous movements which we dismiss as irrelevant because we can’t even comprehend them. How could that mean anything when there are no leaders we ask!. That’s the whole point if you ask me.

        That’s not what frightens me. What frightens me is the police state, out of control Banksters, Global Warming and denying that we had anything to do with it.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          You have a strange mix of anti-Force and Force, Eric the Red. You are a very conflicted fellow.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Dave if you could let go of your hatred for me for a second you might have said complex instead of conflicted.

            I am convinced that the only way to make a serious change in this country is for the extreme right and left to find some common ground and get all of the Non-voters interested again and see how quickly things change when people thought it would never happen.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Conflicted is a better choice, Eric. You either have Principles or you don’t. You can’t just bend those Principles to suit your current desires, unless of course you are conflicted.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Conflicted is a better choice, Eric. You either have Principles or you don’t. You can’t just bend those Principles to suit your current desires, unless of course you are conflicted.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Boy you sure like to make a lot of ASSumptions and judgements. Now you’re attacking my principles. Before it was my looks, my values, my morality, my honesty. Who appointed you! Where do you get off? Are you that miserable?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Argumentum ad Hominem.
            Did you drop your binky, Eric?

            Eric says — “Now you’re attacking my principles”.
            What Principles?

          • WTS/JAY

            Who appointed you, Eric! Where do you get off? Are you that miserable? You are always projecting it seems, Eric.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric says — “get all of the Non-voters interested again”.
            Perhaps, Eric the Red, those non-voters know that Government will never represent the people. If they did, Government would be much smaller than it is because most of Government is about making one person pay for what another person desires. If Politicians were truly concerned about the people’s happiness, they would privatize most services so that only the people who actually desired those services would have to pay for them.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric says — “get all of the Non-voters interested again”.
            Perhaps, Eric the Red, those non-voters know that Government will never represent the people. If they did, Government would be much smaller than it is because most of Government is about making one person pay for what another person desires. If Politicians were truly concerned about the people’s happiness, they would privatize most services so that only the people who actually desired those services would have to pay for them.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Look who is conflicted now!

      • Robbie

        Actually it’s not frightening at all. The purpose of true education is to nurture rational thinking. If you prefer a population that is governed by superstition and mythology send all children to church instead of university.

        • Merle Dickey

          I don’t believe I mentioned superstition or mythology. If you are an indoctrinated atheist then you have made your choice and burden in life.

          • Eric Bischoff

            It’s really not anyone’s business what anybody else believes. Stop your preaching already. Like your way is better. I think all religious fanatics are the problem. Whether you are killing for Jesus and for the 40 virgins, it’s all stupid already.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I’m atheist. I’ve been close to religious people and close to Liberal Progressives. I’d take my chances with the religious people any day over the Liberal Progressives.

          • Eric Bischoff

            With such venomous anger and nastiness towards people who are different than you, one wonders how close could one really be to any Liberal Progressives. And then one has to wonder from all previous engagements here about your knowledge of what real progressives are about. I think you’re the one who’s conflicted and incongruous on that topic.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric the Red, who do you think you fool?
            Eric is like a little boy, desperately calling me names — “With such venomous anger and nastiness towards people”, “your hatred”, etc. etc. — as if that somehow will win the debate.
            Thank you, Eric, for showing people how logically and factually bereft and manipulative Liberal Progressives are.

          • WTS/JAY

            Eric will not tolerate an opposing view, yet he is always preaching about finding common-ground. Conflicted? I think so!

          • Eric Bischoff

            If I didn’t tolerate any opposing views I wouldn’t be here!

          • WTS/JAY

            If in fact you did, tolerate opposing views, as you claim, you would not be so pugnacious. Yes?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’re here to Propagandize ignorant readers, Eric. That is all. And we’re here (unlike in the main-stream-media) to stop you from it.

          • Eric Bischoff

            I guess you’ve been doing so much name calling you’re confused bout what it is and isn’t?
            Asking you why you are so angry is name calling?
            Look who dropped his binky now!

            Signed Eric the Red

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Anybody who reads your comments can see what I’m talking about. Like I said — Who do you think you fool?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            “Real Progressives” as defined by Eric the Red?
            Please. I get my definitions from people who know what they’re talking about:
            http://mises.org/daily/1259
            There are two main groups of Progressives — NeoConservative Progressives and Liberal Progressives. One infests mostly the Democratic Party, and the other infests mostly the Republican Party, with a mixture of the two infesting both major parties.
            I know that the Liberal Progressives are trying to steal the term “Progressive”, just as they stole the term “Liberal”, but that is another issue altogether.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Dave has appointed himself to be the expert(not) on Progressive thinking when in actuality he is deadly afraid of that thinking because he does not understand it and it is the most powerful argument and possibly a better choice against his limited, flawed and completely unrealistic ideology of NO Government. I think Libertarians are too selfish and they hide under the freedom label. They need to grow up and stop worshipping the money god. A better world is possible. Just look at the Tea Party monicker. As far as I am concerned, the people following the Tea Party got it completely wrong. The original Tea Party was not against Taxes and Government, it was against Corporations, in this case the East India Company, having more power and special favors and special tax arrangements through govt and they were monopolies. That’s what they rebelled against. It would be nice to rebel against that again especially today but instead the Tea Party wants to drown govt in the bathtub. Let’s not forget where the funding for the Tea Party came from. The Billionaire Carbon Industry Koch Brothers. It’s sad to watch how they’ve been taken advantage of. They’re using them. For all we know, Dave could be working for them.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            An awful lot of verbage, Eric, to say basically nothing.
            And as usual, no substance but lots of Argumentum ad Hominem.

            Eric says — “flawed and completely unrealistic ideology of NO Government”.
            As usual, Eric, being a typical Liberal Progressive, resorts to hyperbole. I have said nothing about “NO Government”, but why should that stop Eric from uttering his nonsense?
            As far as “NO Government” being “unrealistic”, those interested can read this:
            http://mises.org/daily/1865
            or this:
            http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.pdf

            Don’t be like Eric (closed-mind). Learn all that you can learn and decide for yourself what makes sense and what is just Liberal Progressive nonsense.

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re pretty nasty yourself, Mr. Cobra!

          • WTS/JAY

            Don’t you progressives preach? So then shut up and let someone else have their turn, control freak!

          • Robbie

            Actually you DID mention superstition and mythology because that is EXACTLY what religion is. But then if you think that a small boat could possibly hold 2 or 7 of every species on earth along with enough food for them all for 40 or more days is the stuff of, say, science, then good luck to you. Oh and water flooding the earth to the depth of Mt. Everest! You gotta love that one! Or talking snakes. Or living in the belly of a great fish for a few days and coming out alive. You know, I love the Torah as much as you do but let’s face it; a lot of the stories in there are pure fantasy. Anyway it makes you happy to believe that stuff so knock yourself out.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            How about believing in a political system that has impoverished every country in which it has been fully implemented?

          • Robbie

            Canada happens to have universal health care and we remain as democratic as anywhere else and pretty prosperous too.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I’m talking about Socialism, Robbie.
            And Canada is actually less Socialistic than the vast majority of other countries, including the US:
            http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
            http://www.freetheworld.com/2013/EFW2013-ch1-intro.pdf
            (scroll down to page 8).

          • Robbie

            I returned just two days ago from 5 weeks in China and Vietnam and interestingly Canada’s universal health care system is far more socialistic than the systems in China or Vietnam. Also, keep in mind the difference between economic systems and political systems.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Why are you trying so hard, Robbie, to make Healthcare the definition of Socialism?
            It tells me that you’re either very ignorant or very sneaky.

          • WTS/JAY

            He’s both!

          • Robbie

            I guess the answer to your question is that I consider universal health care to be the most important right a society can offer itself. If you think that’s being “sneaky” well O.K. Of course there are other socialistic programmes that are important such as Social Security, public education for all etc. In Israel socialized medicine also covers dental care for children which Canada does not yet have. I think one of your problems may be that you equate socialism (economic ways of organizing) with dictatorship (a political way of organizing). Many wonderful democracies like Canada and Israel and Scandanavian nations offer a lot of socialistic benefits. The U.S. is getting there slowly but it should be catching up to the other enlightened democracies within the next generation or so.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: In Israel socialized medicine also covers dental care for children which Canada does not yet have.

            Yes, and that is only made possible via the American tax-payers, Robbie.

            US Financial Aid To Israel – Figures, Facts And Impact

            Summary Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid:

            Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

            Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000

            Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000

            Grand Total

            $84,854,827,200

            Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630

            Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200

            Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000

            Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200

            Total Cost per Israeli $23,240

            Any wonder why the average American family can’t afford their own healthcare, Robbie? And that’s not including (all) foreign aid the American tax-payers have to shell out to other nations around the globe. $23 billion this year, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries.

            http://www.rense.com/general31/rege.htm

          • Robbie

            Interesting point. Mind you Egypt gets just about as much U.S. aid and that county is still a basket case. Anyway send your info to Mitt Romney. When he was in Israel (raising cash from rich Jews) he stated that Israel had the best health care system in the world – best outcomes and less expensive than in the U.S. Then someone whispered in his ear that Israel has socialized meds so he shut himself up after that!

          • Robbie

            Interesting point. Mind you Egypt gets just about as much U.S. aid and that county is still a basket case. Anyway send your info to Mitt Romney. When he was in Israel (raising cash from rich Jews) he stated that Israel had the best health care system in the world – best outcomes and less expensive than in the U.S. Then someone whispered in his ear that Israel has socialized meds so he shut himself up after that!

          • WTS/JAY

            In case you haven’t noticed, child, Obama is in office, not Romney, and the point of my comment was; why are we giving Billions in aid when our own are hungry and homeless, you clown?

            In case you are not aware, the number of American households on food stamps reached a new record high in March, according to new data released by the Agriculture Department.

            The March numbers the USDA released Friday reveal 23,116,441 households enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, each receiving an average monthly benefit of $274.30.

            The number of individuals on SNAP did not break any records but remained high, with 47,727,052 people enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly benefit of $132.86.

            The number of individuals on SNAP hit a record high in December, with 47,792,056 people enrolled.

            SNAP has been in the news in recent years and months as the program’s rolls have ballooned and the cost has quadrupled since 2001 and doubled since President Obama took office.

            So your argument to continue foreign aid is…?

          • Robbie

            There are several positives to foreign aid. Firstly most foreign aid is in the form of American products which creates jobs for Americans or income for American farmers in the case of food aid. When we give huge sums of aid for military equipment that equipment is purchased from American arms manufactures which means Americans are kept on the job.

            Beyond that you can also consider foreign aid simply as bribes to countries. Most pundits agree that American aid to Egypt, for example, was/is simply to keep them respecting the peace treaty with Israel. You and I might consider this bribery to be morally wrong but it does work. Also, in the case of Israel, we consider aid to that country as a way of supporting an ally that – for various reasons – we feel is important to us.

            Foreign aid has been with us for a long time and is not likely to end any time soon. Hopefully that explains it to you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Robbie brings up an interesting point, although I’m sure he is unaware of the truth. Indeed most foreign aid comes with strings attached to buy certain American goods and services. How nice for the Crony Capitalists. The American taxpayers are, in effect, being Forced to subsidize the Crony Capitalists with what is, in effect, laundered money.
            http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa065.html
            “Almost all AID private-sector funds are channeled directly or indirectly through the recipient country’s government. The 1979 Chrysler bailout is the domestic equivalent of AID’s Third World private-sector development. Some private-sector aid may eventually end up in private coffers, but only after political strings have been attached, and the money usually goes only to businesses with political clout. The result is not free markets but “crony capitalism”–money distributed to the friends and relatives of politicians”.

            http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/kill-foreign-assistance-american-companies
            It’s all about transferring our money into the pockets of Crony Capitalists.

          • Robbie

            Viva capitalism where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! And boo to socialism which tries to look out for the disadvantaged. Funny how some on the right who tout the virtues of capitalism actually don’t like the results of it all that much.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            What results, Robbie? I have only seen the results of a mostly Socialist system in my lifetime.
            Surely you don’t confuse Mercantilism (Crony Capitalism) with Capitalism?
            Under Real Capitalism, anybody who makes the effort can succeed. Don’t confuse real Capitalism (Free Markets, rigid Property rights) with the mess we get from Government meddling.

          • Robbie

            Well you are correct about one thing: there is no such animal as real capitalism nor real communism.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Anybody with half a brain can figure out that any amount of Socialism is negative for economies.
            All one needs do is study these countries which are ranked in order of Economic Freedom (i.e. freedom from Socialism) to see that the more Socialism there is, the weaker is the economy:
            http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

            And of course we have the abject failure of those countries who have practiced almost pure Socialism — USSR, Red China, North Korea, Cuba.

          • Robbie

            Canada, the U.S., and Israel, as well as places like Sweden and Germany and Denmark have degrees of socialism and are doing quite well thank you very much. And I can add some personal information about China and Vietnam because I have just returned from 5 weeks there. The province Ontario has a MORE socialistic medical care system than either China or Communist Vietnam. The success or failure of a country depends on more than its economic system. Canada is vastly rich and can simply afford to provide good health care. Vietnam and, say, Cuba are rather poor and look like failures from that vantage point.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Canada is less Socialistic than the United States. Sweden, Germany, and Denmark all have lower GDP per capita on a PPP basis than the US:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

            How many times must we endure your repetition about your China and Vietnam trip? And why would you think your limited anecdotal experience is proof of anything?
            Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?

          • Robbie

            Gee, how many times have I mentioned China and Vietnam? I only got back 4 days ago!

            Anyway I don’t know about GDP & PPP & whatever other terms you care to mention. Fact is people are living better generally in Canada and Sweden and Denmark and Germany than in your country. I travel extensively and in the states as well as overseas and one thing that I notice again and again is the relative ignorance of Americans about realities on the ground in other countries.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Where does a teacher get that kind of money? Oh yeah, from the deep pockets of the taxpayers.
            So are you saying that the Heritage Foundation, CIA, World Bank, and IMF don’t know what they’re talking about, and instead we should get our facts from an ignorant Liberal Progressive’s anecdotal experience?

          • Robbie

            Must every one of your comments have one or more insults? Are insults just an integral part of the way you communicate? In any case I retired from teaching some 12 years ago and since then have been in business and have invested in income properties. I know that business and income properties sounds to you a lot like I am a capitalist and yet I strongly support socialized medicine. Must be terribly confusing for you but there you have it. Isn’t the world a complex place?

            Oh, and regarding figures from IMF etc I don’t place too much value in numbers alone. They usually give a very truncated view. I have spent a good deal of travel time in the countries mentioned and I make my own decisions about how folks are living by using my own eyes and brain.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Yeah, I’m a bad guy for holding up a mirror so you Aggressors can see yourselves as you really are. I should be more tender with you Forcers and Thieves.
            The fact that you enjoy Capitalism, yet rail against it, isn’t confusing to me at all, Robbie. I would expect that from a conflicted self-centered Liberal Progressive.
            Of course you don’t place much value in statistics and facts, Robbie. That was the whole point of my original comment. You bad mouth others for their beliefs, yet you practice a philosophy that is based on faith yourself. What a creepy character you are. But don’t let me disparage you, because you certainly aren’t alone. There are millions of aggressive self-centered people like you out there. So you should have no trouble finding somebody to commiserate with you and soothe your guilt.

          • Robbie

            I do not rail against capitalism. As noted in my previous comment I AM a capitalist. What you don’t like about me is that I see and appreciate and am thankful for socialized medicine as we have it in Canada. Capitalists can have a heart as well as being interested in accumulating wealth. Even a capitalist can realize that we are all interdependent in a myriad of ways.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Robbie says — “I do not rail against capitalism”.
            You’re a lying piece of bat guano, Robbie, as evidenced by this statement from you:
            “Viva capitalism where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! And boo to socialism which tries to look out for the disadvantaged”.
            http://personalliberty.com/2013/11/08/conservatism-didnt-die-on-tuesday/#comment-1116724982

          • Robbie

            That was a parody of YOUR views! I’ll have to be less subtle in future now that I know what I’m dealing with.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’d best look up the meaning of parody. I have never stated anything remotely close to that. My guess is that you’re doing what Chronic Liars typically do — cling to their lie no matter how red-handed they are caught.

          • WTS/JAY

            Good point!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Don’t flatter yourself, Robbie. Healthcare isn’t a “right” any more than food, shelter, and clothing are a “right”. And all three of the latter would usually result in a more certain death than lack of Healthcare. Try being without shelter and clothing in the middle of any winter in Canada to see what I mean.
            When you take other people’s money to support your own healthcare, Robbie, you are not only stealing their money, but there is high likelihood that you are putting them at risk in the process (not that you would care being a selfish Liberal Progressive).

            Robbie says — “The U.S. is getting there slowly but it should be catching up to the other enlightened democracies within the next generation or so”.
            There is nothing “enlightened” about pursuing the failed pathway of Socialism. There is nothing “enlightened” about forcibly taking other people’s money, Robbie, it just means you are a Thief.

          • WTS/JAY

            Careful, DaveH, proving the arrogant professor wrong, may result in a failing grade.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Good Morning, Jay.

          • WTS/JAY

            Good day to you, DaveH. I see you’re loaded for bear, or in Robbie’s case, loaded for progressive liberal.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Oh there he goes. Dave must have a chain on his wallet. You know the type. Every comment is about me mine. I guess Dave has no concept of sharing and cooperation and he actually believes that people’s success in life is only related to their personal abilities. Forgetting that we all stand on the shoulders of giants and none of us ever get there just on our own. Therefore we should love to share and cooperate. Come on Dave it won’t hurt I promise!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            With thieves like Eric around, we need to have a chain on our wallet, because the people like Eric who claim not to be focused on money, sure do want our money.
            Yeah sure, people like Eric like to “share”, that is “share” other people’s money. Certainly not their own:
            http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html
            http://philanthropy.com/blogs/prospecting/conservative-voters-are-more-liberal-with-charity/19091

          • WTS/JAY

            Eric, you are free to be as generous as you like with your own resources, however, you are not free, nor do you have the right to dictate what others do with theirs. Simple enough?

          • Robbie

            You might want to consider one of the goals of the Founders as stipulated in the introduction of the Constitution. The Founders felt that it was their responsibility to “promote the general welfare”. To me health has a lot to do with ones welfare. Without good health not much else really counts for that much.

            I suppose you are also against public education because you see it as thievery to use tax dollars to help educate someone else’s child. Of course what you fail to comprehend is that as a members of a society or a nation we are all in this together. That other person’s child that you are “forced” to help educate may someday be the doctor who looks after you in your old age. But you don’t much look forward do you? Pity.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: You might want to consider one of the goals of the Founders as stipulated in the introduction of the Constitution. The Founders felt that it was their responsibility to “promote the general welfare”. To me health has a lot to do with ones welfare. Without good health not much else really counts for that much.

            Does the United States Constitution allow Congress to force people to purchase a product (health insurance) from a private corporation, and fine them or tax them if they refuse? The answer is a matter of debate, but there is little dispute that such an act of Congress would be unprecedented.

            Sheldon Laskin, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School who has argued that the Constitution forbids such a move, describes the new and dangerous can of worms it would open up:

            “If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it. The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy cars or tax them if they don’t. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don’t. If Congress gets away with this, there is no stopping point and Big Business will have succeeded in making Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.”

            Outlandish? Consider this: Many Supreme Court observers expect a ruling, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that would lift all limits on corporate funding of elections, meaning that national and international corporations could swamp the election system with so much money that any influence from actual citizens would be utterly negated. If you were a corporation and you owned the legislature, and laws were being passed requiring people to purchase products, and you owed it to your shareholders to maximize profits, what would you feel compelled to do? Exactly.

            The U.S. Department of Justice recently claimed that, for purposes of keeping illegal government-funded activities secret from the public and the courts, telecommunications corporations were effectively part of the executive branch of the government. Might the same argument not be made, in the none too distant future, about “health” corporations funded by government mandate? If the federal government can force me to give money to major campaign funders, where does the government stop and the private business begin?

            http://warisacrime.org/node/48681

          • Robbie

            To answer your question the fact is that the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws and Congress does that all the time and has been doing so since the beginning. To one degree or another every law forces us to do something or to refrain from doing something. The Affordable Care Act seeks to provide affordable health care to millions who had none and were a drain on taxpayers when they ultimately resorted to the expensive ER’s across the country. But the point is that there are countless laws “forcing” us to do this, that, or the other thing. Do you advocate the elimination of all law? The Founders – in their wisdom – set up a Constitution that mandated Congress to make laws. So you may as well live with what the Founders created or you should start a movement to change the Constitution so that Congress is eliminated. Good luck with that!

          • WTS/JAY

            The founders believed that a monarch (or dictator or any sort of legislative body) should not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Of course, this doesn’t apply to rules governing civil society such as criminal laws against things like rape or thievery, but we aren’t discussing that here. We are discussing being forced to buy something, possibly against our will.

            The federal government, with Obamacare, is forcing Americans to buy health insurance. It is not free. It must be bought and paid for.

            Poor people will get reimbursed when they file their taxes, but they will still have to fork out the monthly premium. They might get the money back at the end of the year, but they will still be forced to buy it, even if they can’t afford the monthly premium. This seems to be a detail that most liberals gloss over in their rush to declare a human rights victory of some sort.

            Just where is a 19 year old going to get the $600 a month to pay for their own health insurance on minimum wage (round that off to $9.25 an hour for 40 hours a week and that’s $1480 a month) for a single person? This is 40% that hypothetical persons income. Employers aren’t going to offer it as a benefit of employment if all Americans are forced to buy it themselves.

            Where is a family of 5 living on an income of $1450 a month going to get $1200 a month for Health insurance? Or does the insurance company bill the Fed?

            But wait, isn’t the IRS going to have the power to garnish tax returns and or force filers to pay an additional fee (which is what exactly?) at tax time if they don’t prove they bought health insurance? No one seems to know how this is going to be done.

            Hold on a minute here, you mean legislators didn’t think of these things?

            Didn’t they read the thousands of pages in the bill?

            Oh right, the House of Representatives and Senate didn’t read it before voting on it, it was just too complicated… sorry about that America. We just have to wait until it’s implemented to find out…. If that doesn’t make you uncomfortable, then nothing will.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Show us where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to tamper with our Healthcare choices, Robbie. And please don’t tell us the “welfare clause” nonsense which James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, puts to bed in the Federalist #41:
            http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers/federalist-paper-41-general-view-of-the-powers-conferred-by-the-constitution
            Or the “commerce clause” which Judge Napolitano puts to rest here:

          • Robbie

            As I noted earlier the Congress passes laws all the time that “forces” us to do or not do things. This has been the case from the beginning. You may not like every law but I’m sure you must like some of them. And in a democratic society you have to take what you consider the good with the bad. otherwise move to a Pacific island and live on your own. Or if you don’t like the FACT that the Founders gave Congress the power to make laws start an effort to change or do away with the Constitution.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            That’s strange, Robbie. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you say you were a Canadian citizen?
            So what is this “Congress” and “us” stuff?
            And why is it that when you Liberal Progressives are losing an argument you always resort to the “love it or leave it” defense?
            This isn’t a democratic society, Robbie. Our Founders (unlike yourself) knew the dangers of mob rule (democracy) so they established a Republic in an effort to keep the raw majority (in our case it is only 20% of the population) from running over the minority.
            Before we bother changing the Constitution, first we need to elect Leaders who will actually Obey the Constitution.
            That was the argument wasn’t it, Robbie, before I trounced you fallacious claims?

          • Robbie

            I was not losing an argument. I was pointing out that Congress has the power – granted by the Founders – to pass laws to “force” Americans to do and not do all kinds of things. Joining a health insurance system is just a recent one. You don’t like it but you are “forced” to do many things by laws passed by Congress. Do you advocate changing the Constituion to take away Congressional power to pass laws????

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I have slam-dunked you, Robbie. The fact that you are too ignorant to recognize that doesn’t surprise me at all.

          • Robbie

            And you seem too ignorant to answer a simple question.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I didn’t answer because it is a dumb question, Robbie. I didn’t say anything even remotely to that effect. You are just doing what Liberal Progressives do when a light is shined on their nonsense — going off on a tangent.
            The Constitution doesn’t need to be changed in that respect, it just needs to be enforced.

          • Robbie

            Then I suggest you follow – and respect – all laws passed by the Congress as ordained by the Founders in the Constitution. I’d say we are on the same page now.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            We will likely never be on the same page, Robbie, as you are a taker, and I am not.

          • Robbie

            You can define yourself and me any which way you like. Just follow and respect all laws passed by Congress as ordained by the Founders in the Constitution. And if you disagree that Congress has been given the power to pass legislation then you must begin a movement to have the Constitution changed so that Congress is eliminated. Thank you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            By “promote the general welfare” they meant passing laws that treated the various states equally as opposed to giving special privileges to certain states.
            To understand better you can read Federalist #41 where James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, addresses that issue to citizens worried that Leaders might misconstrue the “general welfare” clause:
            http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers/federalist-paper-41-general-view-of-the-powers-conferred-by-the-constitution
            More on that from Chris Angle:

            If you’re concerned about your health, Robbie, eat right, exercise right, learn stress coping skills.
            But don’t ride on MY back. It’s not my fault that you’re unhealthy. I need my money to take care of myself and those I love. You certainly have no right to enslave me, no matter how similar your rationalization skills are to those of our 18th century plantation owners.

            Robbie says — “Of course what you fail to comprehend is that as a members of a society or a nation we are all in this together”.
            Translation: Robbie wants to take what I’ve worked for.

            Robbie says — “That other person’s child that you are “forced” to help educate may someday be the doctor who looks after you in your old age”.
            If that child looks after me later, Robbie, you can bet that I won’t be the sniveling kind of Liberal Progressive wimp who whines and demands that doctor to treat me Free or with other people’s money.
            It also cracks me up for a Liberal Progressive to feign concern about the children as he is mortgaging their future, and they didn’t even get a chance to vote on it. Yeah, Robbie, you’re “compassionate”, and I’m the Pope.

          • Robbie

            No man is an island. The day will come when you will understand what that means. You are not there yet but you will be some day.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I will go to my grave knowing that I’ve lived a good life — Not taking from other people.
            Can you say the same? You might try to rationalize otherwise, but deep down you know you can’t. That will haunt you until the end.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I will go to my grave knowing that I’ve lived a good life — Not taking from other people.
            Can you say the same? You might try to rationalize otherwise, but deep down you know you can’t. That will haunt you until the end.

          • Robbie

            I gain from my society in many ways and I contribute in many ways. We are all in this together. No man is an island unto himself. The medical team and hospital that saved my life and treated my heart problem were paid to do so out of tax revenue that all Canadians contribute to. And I have contributed to that same health care system for 45 years treating millions of Canadians I have never even met. I am paying now for the public education of others’ children just as others before me contributed to the education of my three sons and now to my 12 grandchildren. We call this living in a society, in a nation, in a community. we are all inter-related no matter how hard we might try to be hermits. And I am glad to contribute municipal taxes to for for, for example, my fire department. It does not bother me in the least if others having a fire or getting trapped in a car wreck get rescued with my money because some day I might need that service and I know I’ll be thankful to get it. And, know what? If I never have a fire or get into a car wreck I still won’t mind having contributed. Haunted to the end? Hardly. Very happy to be a contributing part of society? Yes indeed!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Robbie says — “I gain from my society in many ways and I contribute in many ways. We are all in this together”.
            I imagine that the 18th century Plantation Owners had much the same rationality for their slave-holding, Robbie.
            I don’t care what you gain. I only care about other people’s chance to say no to your Force and Theft.
            Whether you are contributing what you receive is a wholly subjective conclusion and has no right being Forced upon other people who are not willing to partake in your grand scheme.
            The fact that you can rationalize your Force and Theft makes it no less Force and Theft, Robbie.

          • Robbie

            Canada’s universal health care system – and the one in Israel I suspect – are very popular (as it is in Mass. also by the way). People do mind mind contributing because they know that when they need help they too will get it. It’s an insurance plan. It’s really a pretty good idea. “Force and Theft”? “Plantation owners”? Your going a bit over the top.

            By the way do you oppose paying city taxes that support a fire dept. that anyone might need use of?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            If it’s so “popular”, Robbie, then why do you need to Force people to participate?
            And yes I do oppose a Government-run Fire Departments. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
            http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.pdf
            But the Majority of Thieves, like yourself Robbie, don’t care what I want.
            So Robbie, if a gang of three approaches you and demands your wallet, is that okay with you? What if they allow you a vote?
            What if that Gang is bigger than 3, does that make their actions any less theft?

          • Robbie

            Silly questions.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Only silly because you know you can’t defend yourself against the logical conclusion to those questions.

          • Robbie

            I suggest you refuse to pay your taxes to the government. You are a person of such high moral standards. For the life of me I can’t understand why you hand over even a nickel to the state. Are you a Patriot or a coward?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’re reaching pretty deep into your bag of Liberal Progressive manipulative tricks, aren’t you Robbie?
            As usual, your comment is fallacious and has nothing to do with the debate.

          • Robbie

            Well you don’t seem to like paying into anything that might contribute to anyone else so I figured you should consider refusing to pay taxes. Afterall that’s Congress forcing you to do something by law.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            It’s easy for you to say how generous you are and how selfish I am, but the reality is that you are the person who is forcibly taking money from other people. How compassionate is that?
            Don’t try to turn the tables on me, Robbie, as you are just a Forcer and a Thief and you have no legs to stand on.

          • Robbie

            I’m not turning the tables on you. I’m simply showing you the table.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            There might be a few things you could show me, Robbie, but political knowledge is not one of them. You are either clueless when it comes to the reality of politics, or you are feeding at the trough so you purposely want to mislead people so you can continue that feeding.

          • Robbie

            I’m still wondering when you are going to refuse to pay your taxes because taxation is something that government is forcing you to do. It is forcing you to share some of your wealth to pay for things that others might enjoy. When will that happen?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I’m wondering when you will quit making your fallacious non sequiturs?
            Whether I pay my taxes, or not, has nothing to do with whether the Government is stealing from us or not, or whether or not you are a Forcer and a Thief, Robbie.
            It would be like asking an unarmed robbery victim why he didn’t protest to the armed robbers and if not why would he think he had anything to complain about.

          • WTS/JAY

            Good question!

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: The Founders felt that it was their responsibility to “promote the general welfare”.

            Yup, the word “welfare” is in the Constitution, so golly gush that means welfare is okey dokey…huh Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Universal health care promotes the general welfare.

          • WTS/JAY

            Poppycock! Self-reliance and the unmolested-right to keep what you work for, promotes the general welfare!

          • Robbie

            Citizens of a nation all contributing to a universal health care system promotes the general welfare. Some individual keeping everything he/she works for is more of a specific person’s welfare.

          • WTS/JAY

            But not all can contribute, Robbie, because the government has created a nation of poor people, and is now demanding, at the point of force, that the remaining few who are still working should pay for the one’s who government has reduced their lives to squalor. The government needs to stop meddling in people’s lives and manipulating them into non-producers. One of the ways that government has accomplish this is by servicing crony-capitalists and allowing them to forge monopolies, which means less competition and higher prices on goods and services, which is in contravention of the Constitution and an overstep of the power granted to government. That is not, promoting the “general welfare”, but the opposite, “promoting misery”!

          • Eric Bischoff

            Robbie, I firmly believe that a single payer Medicare for all system is the answer and that many can’t see it yet because the status quo forces are too powerful and too much money is making sure the people don’t get the real honest information.

            But i’d like to correct part of your comment. Israel is currently an apartheid regime where Palestinians, much like Blacks in So Africa, are not allowed to vote. You also have to be of the Jewish faith to immigrate there. Not exactly what I would call a democracy. But yes they are intelligent people and they have created some great systems. It’s interesting to note that they made great progress when they implemented the Kibbutz system. Oooh scary some would say socialism other fanatics would call it communism when in reality it was merely social community. Maybe their current problems today are directly related to their abandoning the sharing and cooperation and instead focusing on capitalism, power, privilege and prestige.

          • Robbie

            FYI something like 20% of Israel’s population is Arab or – if you will – Palestinian. And they most certainly do have the right to vote in Israeli elections, they have several political parties and members of the Israeli parliament. One of the Justices on the Israeli Supreme Court is an Arab Israeli. There are Arab newspapers in Israel that enjoy total freedom of the press. Perhaps you are thinking that the Arabs in the disputed territories are Israeli citizens who are denied the vote. Certainly Arabs in the West Bank cannot vote in israeli elections because they simply are not Israeli citizens nor do they live in Israel.

            In any case 20% of Israelis are Arab with full civil rights. By the way the Palestinian position in the West Bank and especially by Hamas in Gaza is that if/when those territories become countries that NO JEW shall ever be allowed to live there. Would you call that apartheid perhaps? Also have you considered the fact that the Muslim nation of Saudi Arabia does not allow any Jew to step foot in that country. Any thoughts on that?

          • WTS/JAY

            Well well, something we can both agree on, Robbie. Good post!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Imagine the irony of that. Eric whines about the Palestinians lacking the right to vote, yet he sees no problem whatsoever with Forcing people to join a single-payer system whether they like it or not.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Canada under the Mini Bush Harper govt is currently very conservative. They used to be neutral and now sadly they have joined in the wars with others. They are destroying the Indian lands with their completely obscene and ridiculous Tar Sands project.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Get a point of view, Folks, that you won’t get from the biased controlling mouths of Liberal Progressives:
            http://oilsandsfactcheck.org/
            http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-tar-sands-campaign-and-the-suppression-of-north-americas-energy-potenti
            “10% of the oil imported into North America comes through two dynasties, the Irvings and the Pews – both major benefactors of environmentalism”.
            You can bet that if a Liberal Progressive bad-mouths an action, there are people in the background who stand to gain wealth by suppressing that action.

          • WTS/JAY

            Conservative? I don’t think so…Fascist? Absolutely!

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: Canada happens to have universal health care..

            Yeah, and it’s very expensive and crappy.

          • Robbie

            Less expensive than your system per capita with better outcomes and more prevention and we don’t let a major percentage of our fellow citizens go without proper care. Of course you are currently changing that so soon I’ll have to update my views.

          • WTS/JAY

            Sure Robbie, your healthcare system is so inexpensive that the Canadian government has been trying for years to privatize it. They would have done it by now were it not for the crying they would have to put up with from all the leaches, not to mention all the votes they would loose from said leaches.

            The true cost of Medicare for individuals and families in Canada is often misunderstood, with many people thinking it’s either free or covered by our provincial health insurance premiums.This misconception has many sources. In part, it stems from the fact that health care consumption is free at the point of use, leading many to grossly underestimate the actual cost of care delivered. Furthermore, health care is financed through general government revenues, rather than financed through a dedicated tax, further blurring the true dollar cost of the service.

            A $130-billion bill
            In addition, health spending numbers are often presented in aggregate, which results in a number so large that it becomes almost meaningless to the average Canadian. For instance, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s latest data release, provincial/territorial governments are estimated to have spent $130.3 billion of our tax dollars on publicly-funded health care in Canada in 2011.

            A more informative measure of the cost of Canadian health care system is health expenditures per person.

            The $130.3 billion presented above works out to approximately $3,778 per Canadian. This would be the cost of the public health care insurance plan if every Canadian resident paid an equal share. But some Canadians are children and dependents and thus are not taxpayers, and Canadians certainly do not pay equal amounts.

            So how much do Canadians really pay as individuals and families for our Medicare system?

            In order to determine a more precise estimate of the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family in 2011, we must determine how much an average family is expected to contribute in taxes to all three levels of government.

            The percentage of the family’s total tax bill that pays for public health insurance is then assumed to match the share of total government tax revenues (including natural resource revenues) dedicated to health care (estimated to be 24.9 per cent in 2010/2011).

            Breaking down the Canadian population into 10 income groups makes it possible to show what families from various income brackets will pay for public health care insurance in 2011.

            Income figures are pre-tax and based on cash income, which includes wages and salaries, self-employment income (farm and non-farm), interest, dividends, private and government pension payments, old age pension payments, and other transfers from governments (such as universal child care benefit):

            • Average cash income of $11,395; $496 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $25,624; $1,166 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $34,696; $2,328 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $43,949; $3,671 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $54,339; $5,123 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $67,115; $6,663 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $80,752; $8,567 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $98,750; $10,656 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $124,579; $13,946 paid for public health care insurance

            • Average cash income of $241,549; $32,116 paid for public health care insurance

            Looking by common family types, this calculation finds that the estimated average payment for public health care insurance in 2011 was:

            • $10,707 for the average 2 adult family

            • $10,473 for the average 2 adult and 1 child family

            • $10,486 for the average 2 adult and 2 child family

            • $3,607 for the average unattached (single) individual

            Good return for money spent?

            It is critical to recognize that these estimates count only the direct costs of Medicare. They do not count administrative costs subsumed by other government departments that support health care through activities such as tax collection, or other privately borne costs related to the financing and operation of Medicare such as tax compliance or the private burden of waiting for health care.

            http://lavalnews.ca/editorial/Want-to-know-what-Canada-health-care-system-costs-you-192361

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Robbie,
            If that were true, why must you Force people to join?
            A superior product would draw people voluntarily.
            Medical care in the US is expensive as a result of Big Government meddling:
            http://mises.org/daily/2285
            The Grass Is Not Always Greener
            A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World:
            http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-613.pdf

            Once Government gets involved in anything the true costs of that meddling are almost impossible to figure. The actual expenditures are difficult enough to figure, but quality of care and collateral effects of the laws are nearly impossible to figure accurately.

          • Robbie

            Success of any type of insurance depends on participation of a wide range of people.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Then pool the wide range of Liberal Progressives together in a voluntary system.
            Leave the rest of us alone. Oh, but you can’t do that, can you Robbie? Your success depends on riding on other unwilling people’s backs.
            Every Taker must have an unwilling victim.

          • Robbie

            Let’s just have old people buy car insurance. Let young drivers who have better reflexes go with no insurance. How’s that sound to you?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            It sounds like a Non Sequitur. Because it is a non sequitur.
            And two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter how hard you immoral Liberal Progressives try.
            Mandatory auto insurance is to protect other people from us. Mandatory Health Insurance is to protect us from ourselves. Well at least that’s the lie they tell. In actuality, of course, it is all about giving Leaders more Power and Privilege.

          • Eric Bischoff

            That’s interesting because my mother and sister live in Canada and they don’t want to leave even though other family members are in the US and their argument is that they don’t want to lose their Canadian healthcare which they love. Keep believing the propaganda. I have other family members in France and they can’t believe we have such healthcare problems, overly expensive, lack of coverage and discrimination. I just love the Freedom criers who can’t see that denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is not exactly freedom now is it. No one is arguing that we don’t have the best and most incredible emergency medicine skills in America, although when it comes to cancer care, we’re pretty barbaric with chemo and nuclear. What we lack is a general, inexpensive, comprehensive, preventive, all encompassing, healthcare system accessible by all. Please keep your uneducated MSM talking points memos to yourselves. We’ve heard them ad nauseam and they are lies and propaganda. Don’t be so afraid. Single Payer Medicare for all is a great solution and certainly the most efficient. It’s been proven over and over. And that does not mean that govt will control your health choices. If anything it will add choices. The insurance industry is the real death panels. They choose what they will cover or not and too often that can mean life or death depending on your personal financial situation.

          • WTS/JAY

            Eric: No one is arguing that we don’t have the best and most incredible emergency medicine skills in America, although when it comes to cancer care, we’re pretty barbaric with chemo and nuclear. What we lack is a general, inexpensive, comprehensive, preventive, all encompassing, healthcare system accessible by all.

            We also have close to 50 million people on food-stamps, which is double the numbers since Obama stepped into office, 17% unemployment, and no jobs, Eric. It is no wonder then, that you progressives are the cheerleaders for a national health-care system, where the remaining few who are working and squeezed to max, will be forced to pay for the health-care off all those who are already on government assistance. Seems to me, Eric, that what we need more than anything else, are jobs, lots and lots of jobs, where people can earn a living and are able to afford to pay for their own healthcare. As well, a de-monopolized healthcare industry, rather than a monopoly, that offers competitive rates that Americans can afford.

            Btw, what happened to all the blubbering promises from the fascist in office on creating jobs? Off course, government is incapable of creating jobs, in fact, the only thing government seems capable of doing is creating “poor-people”, as the numbers above clearly prove. I think DaveH is right about you, you are a conflicted individual, not to mention, confused!

          • Eric Bischoff

            I am sure that 50M people on food stamps has nothing to do with deregulations allowing Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters to collapse the world’s economy. I am sure it has nothing to do with the Trillions wasted on war either. I am sure it has nothing to do with lower than fair living wages either. I am sure you’re right it, has to be the President’s fault.

          • WTS/JAY

            I’m sure it has nothing to do with the president, Eric. He’s just a president, what would you expect him to do, turn things around? It would be silly to expect such a thing from a president, even gullible, i would think. No, i don’t think so. Obama has been in office for almost five years now, and nothing has changed, in fact, things just got worse. But i’m sure he has nothing to do with the continuation of the status quo, no, nothing at all. Why just ask Monsanto, the oil industry, the banking cartels, the insurance companies, wall street…they’ll tell you the same thing; they will tell you that, “thankfully, Obama hasn’t done anything at all to disturb the status-quo, phew…thank God!”

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Yet you advocate Growing the source of their Power (Government) ever larger. Go figure.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Canadian Healthcare:
            http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
            Waiting lines:
            http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2012.pdf
            Five Myths of Socialized Medicine:
            http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catosletterv3n1.pdf

            Eric the Red says — “The insurance industry is the real death panels”.
            Then don’t buy medical insurance, Eric. I don’t. There are other options to medical insurance. You could form a mutual association with your like-minded buddies and make your own agreed-upon rules. You could lobby the Federal Government to stop States from protecting their own in-state insurers from competition (an actual legitimate use of the Commerce Clause).
            It is your option, Eric, to forego that insurance if you don’t like it. But you don’t want to afford us that same Freedom. Instead you want to ram your Socialistic approach down our individual throats whether we like it or not. You are no better than a common rapist, Eric.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            So explain to us how the universe came into existence (matter from nothing) and how life began (life from lifelessness). No cop-outs please.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            I do not know how the universe came in to existence so I can’t help you out on that one. Sorry.

          • WTS/JAY

            Good answer, genius!

          • Robbie

            I wasn’t trying to be a genius but thanks anyway.

            The problem with some folks is that just because they do not have the answer to something they feel a need – a primeval urge – to make up a story that answers the question and they go on repeating it to themselves over and over, century after century, until they actually think its true. That’s religion.

            Personally I can live with the fact that we do not yet know – and may never know – what happened billions of years ago. It is an interesting question but I’m able to go on with my life of family and travel and learning without having to make up myths about the things that have not yet been discovered.

            But seeing as you reject my worldview why don’t you inform us how the universe came in to being??? But are you just going to tell us that it came into being because an entity called god said it? Is that what you’ve got as an answer? If so don’t even bother. We’ve all heard that crap before.

          • WTS/JAY

            Well at least you seem aware of your intellectual-limitations, that’s good, run with that!

          • Robbie

            Oh I’m totally aware that I have no idea how the universe came in to being. I’ve already told you that. It’s a “limitation” I share with quite a few folks I dare say. Perhaps even with you seeing as I asked you how it came in to being (seeing as you are so much more knowledgeable than I) but you avoided answering.

            Maybe you just want to keep your knowledge a secret oh wise one. My hunch is you think that something called god simply said that the universe should come in to being and it did. Because you read that in the Torah which was written thousands of years ago by folks just a few notches away from living in caves.

            But the main point is that just because I don’t know something as profound as creation does not mean that I have to make up or depend on some myth that someone else simply made up. Some people need any answer – no matter how silly – in order to sleep at night. me? I can live without having to depend on some fantasy about the creation of the universe. I hope scientists some day discover the facts on this. Scientists have, indeed, come up with so much information about the natural world already. I’ll wait for their discoveries and leave made up silliness to others.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: Oh I’m totally aware that I have no idea how the universe came in to being. I’ve already told you that. It’s a “limitation” I share with quite a few folks I dare say.

            Why is the idea/belief, that a superior intelligent being created our universe and life, so far-fetched for you, professor?

            Are you aware that today a considerable number of scientists have proposed a multi-universe theory, professor? And what, pray tell, possesses them to posit such a theory, professor? Would that be based on evidence? Well, technically yes!

            What evidence?

            Well, our universe off course, and if our universe exists, who are we to say that there are no other universes in existence. It’s reasonable then, to assume, that there are other universes in existence based simply on the fact that ours exists. To assume otherwise, is sheer arrogance.

            Now, as to who or what created our universe and possibly multi-universes, and all life that there may exist, is not particularly difficult to figure out, and that, based on the evidence. What evidence?

            Well, us, off course, intelligent human-beings!

            Would you not agree, that our universe appears, and in fact, is, a exquisitely and perfectly arranged system, an incomprehensibly complex system comprised of multi complex-systems all working as one, and governed by fixed and immutable laws?

            Why, even a casual observation should bring one to the conclusion that intelligent application, rather than randomness or nothing or no one, was required for it’s construction. And that would not be a far-fatched statement to make. Why? Well, because of us, off course, intelligent human-beings.

            What do i mean by that?

            Do we not as human beings create, build, design, arrange, plan, and execute all that we do with the assistance of our intelligence? And do we not in fact say, when we behold our creation(s), that is good and we created that? So then, if we see the clear evidence of intelligence, and intelligent beings, us, constantly creating; who’s to say that there isn’t a higher and more intelligent being(s) in existence?

            Let me bring you back to the multi-universe argument, professor, and let me use another example, if you will.

            Let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know. However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.

            So, in essence, any time you claim that there is absolutely no God, you are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If you are not claiming absolute knowledge, than you are going off of faith, but in fact, since you could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then you are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).

            But hey, I don’t need to say it, it was written quite a long time ago “the fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

          • Robbie

            How come you don’t believe that Ra – the ancient Egyptian sun god – created the universe? Is it because no one – before now – ever told you that he did?

          • Robbie

            How come you don’t believe that Ra – the ancient Egyptian sun god – created the universe? Is it because no one – before now – ever told you that he did?

          • WTS/JAY

            You seem to be all over the map, professor.

            I stated that i believe the universe was created and perfectly arranged, and that by an intelligence, and that it is governed by fixed and immutable laws. I did not make any mention as to who or what created it, as that was not part of the discussion. Do try and stay on point, professor.

          • Robbie

            Do you have a name for this super intelligence that perfectly created and arranged the universe?

          • WTS/JAY

            Yes. In fact, He goes by many names.

          • Robbie

            And would one of those names be Ra?

          • WTS/JAY

            You don’t know?

          • Robbie

            I am asking you if – in your opinion – one of the names of god the creator would be Ra.

          • WTS/JAY

            Why?

          • Robbie

            Why? Because you said that the creator of the universe goes by many names and I was wondering if Ra is one of them. After answering feel free to suggest one or more of the other names by which He is known. Thank you.

          • WTS/JAY

            Do you not have a Torah available, Robbie? If so, there, you will find the many names of God, and each of the many names of God describes a different aspect of His many-faceted character. I refuse to continue doing for you what you could easily do yourself. Don’t be so lazy!

          • Robbie

            Ah, finally. At first you said you did not mention who or what created and perfectly arranged the universe but you now say it was God and that the Torah gives him other names as well. And of course the Torah has been given to us by the Jews.

            Now then can you give us your opinion if the REAL creator of the universe was Ra or Aton? Ra & Aton being the creator gods given to us by the Egyptians.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: But seeing as you reject my worldview why don’t you inform us how the universe came in to being??? But are you just going to tell us that it came into being because an entity called god said it?

            Typical arrogant statement that one would expect from a liberal-progressive professor.

            Why is the idea/belief, that a superior intelligent being created our universe and life, so far-fetched for you, professor?

            Are you aware that today a considerable number of scientists have proposed a multi-universe theory, professor? And what, pray tell, possesses them to posit such a theory, professor? Would that be based on evidence? Well, technically yes!

            What evidence?

            Well, our universe off course, and if our universe exists, who are we to say that there are no other universes in existence. It’s reasonable then, to assume, that there are other universes in existence based simply on the fact that ours exists. To assume otherwise, is sheer arrogance.

            Now, as to who or what created our universe and possibly multi-universes, and all life that there may exist, is not particularly difficult to figure out, and that, based on the evidence. What evidence?

            Well, us, off course, intelligent human-beings!

            Would you not agree, that our universe appears, and in fact, is, a exquisitely and perfectly arranged system, an incomprehensibly complex system comprised of multi complex-systems all working as one, and governed by fixed and immutable laws?

            Why, even a casual observation should bring one to the conclusion that intelligent application, rather than randomness or nothing or no one, was required for it’s construction. And that would not be a far-fatched statement to make. Why? Well, because of us, off course, intelligent human-beings.

            What do i mean by that?

            Do we not as human beings create, build, design, arrange, plan, and execute all that we do with the assistance of our intelligence? And do we not in fact say, when we behold our creation(s), that is good and we created that? So then, if we see the clear evidence of intelligence, and intelligent beings, us, constantly creating; who’s to say that there isn’t a higher and more intelligent being(s) in existence?

            Let me bring you back to the multi-universe argument, professor, and let me use another example, if you will.

            Let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know. However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.

            So, in essence, any time you claim that there is absolutely no God, you are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If you are not claiming absolute knowledge, than you are going off of faith, but in fact, since you could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then you are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).

            But hey, I don’t need to say it, it was written quite a long time ago “the fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

          • Robbie

            I like that last quote. Gee, one of the writers in the TORAH saying that you’re a fool if you don’t believe in God! Whoever would have guessed?!?

            Anyhow I’ve heard all of this argument before. It sounds good but I’m afraid comes up terribly wanting. In fact years ago I read a book by a rabbi promoting basically the same idea. His argument boiled down to the notion that before you could discount the existence of a god you would have to travel everywhere in the universe and make sure that god was not there and once you were sure that god was not in any little bit of the universe only then could you say that there was no god. A bit like knowing or not knowing about what was in those rooms you wrote about.

            Well here’s my reaction: frankly I don’t have the time to travel to every bit of the universe looking for something that doesn’t even exist. Nor do I have the method to travel to every bit of the universe. It’s simply too vast. So I’m just not going to do that. If the learned rabbi is so sure that god DOES exist I’ll just let HIM tell me or show me exactly where god is. That would make my life a lot easier. Thank you. And, know what? – along with the location of where god is a picture or two would also be useful. Thanks ever so much. R

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: But then if you think that a small boat could possibly hold 2 or 7 of every species on earth along with enough food for them all for 40 or more days is the stuff of, say, science, then good luck to you.

            Nice try, Mr Sneaky.

            Genesis 6:15 tells us the Ark’s dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That’s 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.

            Not exactly a “small” boat, wouldn’t you say so, professor?

          • Robbie

            I don’t care how big all those cubits were. The fact is that no boat ever even dreamed of could hold from 2 to 7 of every species on earth in including all mammals and birds not to mention all the food needed to feed them for well over a month. Any idea how much food elephants and hippos etc eat every day? Anyone who accepts the Noah myth literally is simply not thinking things through. That’s not being sneaky – that’s being sensible. Gosh dermit, you becha’.

          • WTS/JAY

            Noah’s Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark’s size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.

            The rectangular dimensions of the Ark show an advanced design in ship-building. Its length of six times its width and 10 times its height would have made it amazingly stable on the ocean. Remember it was made more for floating than sailing, because it wasn’t headed anywhere. The Ark was made to withstand a turbulent ocean voyage, not to be at a certain place at a certain time.

            Recent thought on the Ark’s design is that it could have had a slightly tapered top at the front and back, instead of being squared off. But the famous rock formation near Mount Ararat with pointed ends, which some think is Noah’s Ark, is definitely not!

            Interestingly, British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering. The Great Britain was the first large vessel to be propelled by a screw propeller.

            I think there was more than enough storage room to carry all the feed to feed all the animals, professor. :)

          • Robbie

            Yes, I’ve seen pictures of that old steamship. Sorry but there’s no way on earth that 2 and 7 of ALL species plus all the food necessary for over a month could fit on board that thing. Plus water all over the globe to the height of Mount Everest? Please get a grip on reality.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I don’t care how big all those cubits were. The fact is that no boat ever even dreamed of could hold from 2 to 7 of every species on earth in including all mammals and birds not to mention all the food needed to feed them for well over a month. Any idea how much food elephants and hippos etc eat every day?

            The Bible says Noah built an Ark 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide by 30 high.

            That’s almost as big as modern super tankers and cruise liners like Titanic.

            As with any vessel, adequate provisioning is crucial.

            For example, the 3400 passengers and crew on the Royal Caribbean International ship Mariner of the Seas consume 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of beef, 28,000 eggs, 30,000 L of ice cream, and 18,000 slices of pizza in a week.

            As well, most modern cruise ships feature the following facilities:

            Casino
            Spa
            Fitness center
            Shops
            Library
            Theatre with Broadway style shows
            Cinema
            Indoor and/or outdoor swimming pool with water slides
            Hot tubs
            Buffet restaurant
            Lounges
            Gym
            Clubs

            Some ships have bowling alleys, ice skating rinks, rock climbing walls, miniature golf courses, video arcades, ziplines, surfing simulators, basketball courts, tennis courts, chain restaurants and/or ropes obstacle courses.

            No, i think you’re wrong, professor. Noah’s ark had more than enough room to accommodate 2 to 7 of every species every species on earth in including all mammals and birds not to mention all the food needed to feed them for well over a month. You just don’t want to admit it! You’re simply not thinking things through. You’re just being close-minded and ignorant!

          • Robbie

            I suspect you are ignorant of the sheer number of species on this planet and the amount of space they would need plus all their food. Have a look at that ship built back in the day to replicate the ark. By today’s standard it’s pretty small and even the largest of today’s ships would not be sufficient.

            Also can you answer where all the water came from to cover the earth to the depth of Mount Everest? That’s a lot of water eh? And where did it all go at the end of the story? Did god just drink it all up or maybe he shot it out into space! Lot of water though when you think about it.

            And I’m not being closed minded at all. I’m asking you questions. Of course you can’t answer them so that, apparently, make ME ignorant! Amazing conclusion bud.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            And Socialism has been a proven failure both experientially and logically, Robbie, but that hasn’t stopped you, has it?

          • Robbie

            What on earth does Socialism have to do with how inadequate the ark would have been to take on all those animals and birds?

          • WTS/JAY

            Are you a ship builder, Robbie?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Do I have to explain everything to you, Robbie?
            You can’t figure out that I’m saying your Liberal Progressive belief system is worse than religion? At least with religion there is no hard evidence that it harms people. In fact the evidence is that people benefit from it. With your ignorant Liberal Progressive belief system, it is a proven fact that the results are negative.

          • Robbie

            You have slip slided away from the topic very neatly.

            And, by the way, religion has and still does harm a multitude of people.

          • Robbie

            You have slip slided away from the topic very neatly.

            And, by the way, religion has and still does harm a multitude of people.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Liberal Progressives cause more harm to mankind than all the other religions combined.

          • Robbie

            Keep slip sliding away – you have a special talent for that.

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re projecting again!

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: Actually you DID mention superstition and mythology because that is EXACTLY what religion is.

            You can’t just say religion is superstition and mythology, without offering some proof for your assertion, otherwise you come across as just another ignorant, loud-mouth, Robbie.

          • Robbie

            Look up the word mythology in a dictionary.

          • WTS/JAY

            Unlike mythology, the Bible has a historical framework. Its characters are real people living in verifiable locations during historical events.

            The Bible mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Cyrus, Herod, Felix, Pilate, and many other historical figures. Its history coincides with that of many nations, including the Egyptian, Hittite, Persian, Babylonian, and Roman empires.

            The events of the Bible take place in geographical areas such as Canaan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. All this certifiable detail refutes the idea that the Bible is mere mythology.

            Unlike mythology, the Bible has many confirmations in sciences such as biology, geology, astronomy, and archaeology.

            The field of biblical archaeology has absolutely exploded in the last century and a half, during which time hundreds of thousands of artifacts have been discovered.

            Just one example: at one time, skeptics used the Bible’s references to the Hittite civilization as “proof” that the Bible was a myth. There was never any such people as the “Hittites,” according to the science of the day.

            However, in 1876, the first of a series of discoveries was made, and now the existence of the ancient Hittite civilization is well documented.

            Archaeology continues to bolster the Bible’s historicity. As Dr. Henry M. Morris has remarked, “There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”

            Unlike mythology, the Bible is written as history. Luke wrote his Gospel as “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us . . . just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.”

            Luke claims that he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and so wrote “an orderly account . . . so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (seeLuke 1:1-4). Did Luke include miracles in his account? Yes, many of them. But they were miracles verified by eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, a skeptic might call Luke’s account a “myth,” but the burden of proof rests with the skeptic. The account itself is a carefully investigated historical document.

            Unlike mythology, the Bible contains an astounding number of fulfilled prophecies. Myths do not bother with prophecy, but fully one third of the Bible is prophecy.

            The Bible contains over 1,800 predictions concerning more than 700 separate subjects found in over 8,300 verses.

            The Old Testament contains more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ alone, many with amazing specificity.

            Numerous prophecies have already been fulfilled, and they have come to pass precisely as foretold.

            The mathematical odds of someone making this number of predictions and having every one of them come to pass are light-years beyond the realm of human possibility. These miraculous prophecies could only be accomplished with the supernatural guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).

          • Robbie

            I’ve never seen a mention of Jesus Christ in the Torah. The writing of the Torah was actually completed some time before Jesus was even born but I’d be happy for you to point out where Jesus Christ is mentioned.

          • WTS/JAY

            The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The Bible is a progressive revelation.

            If we only had the New Testament, we would come to the gospels and not know why the Jews were looking for a Messiah (a Savior King).

            Without the Old Testament, we would not understand why this Messiah was coming (see Isaiah 53), and we would not have been able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah through the many detailed prophecies that were given concerning Him, e.g., His birthplace (Micah 5:2);

            His manner of death (Psalm 22, especially vv. 1, 7-8, 14-18;Psalm 69:21),

            His resurrection (Psalm 16:10), and many more details of His ministry (Isaiah 52:13-15,9:2).

            Without the Old Testament, we would not understand the Jewish customs that are mentioned in passing in the New Testament.

            We would not understand the perversions that the Pharisees had made to God’s law as they added their traditions to it.

            We would not understand why Jesus was so upset as He cleansed the temple courtyard.

            We would not understand that we can make use of the same wisdom that Christ used in His many replies to His adversaries.

            I’m sorry to have to say this, Robbie, but for a professor you sure seem bereft of research and comprehension skills with respect to the subject being discussed.

          • Robbie

            Well the thing is that YOU claimed that the Old Testament made 300 references to Jesus Christ. That turns out to be quite a flight of fancy. Mention of a Messiah is not the same as mentioning Jesus Christ by name. As you know the Jews reject the Christian contention that Jesus is/was the Messiah. In fact somewhere near the end of the Torah God stipulates that not one word should be taken away and NOT ONE WORD ADDED to the Bible (Torah). Anyone accepting the Torah must, therefore, reject the so-called New Testament. In any case Jesus is certainly NOT mentioned in the Torah and insulting me certainly will not change that fact.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: In any case Jesus is certainly NOT mentioned in the Torah and insulting me certainly will not change that fact.

            Here’s a letter from a Jewish brethren that i received in my e:mail. I think he explains it best!

            (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)
            -Arthur E. Glass

            In dealing with my Jewish brethren for the past many years in Canada, the United States, Argentina and Uruguay. I had one great difficulty, and it was this: My Jewish people would always fling at me this challenging question,

            “If Jesus is our Messiah, and the whole Old Testament is about Him, how come His name is never mentioned
            in It even once?”

            I could never answer it satisfactorily to their way of thinking, and I admit I often wondered why His name was not actually written in the Old Bible. Oh, yes, I could show them His divine titles in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 and Jeremiah 23:5,6, and even the word MESSIAH in several places; but the Hebrew name that would be equal to Jesus, that I could not show.

            Then one day the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, and I just shouted. There was the very NAME, Jesus, found in the Old Testament about 100 times all the way from GENESIS to HABAKKUK! Yes, the very word – the very NAME – that the angel Gabriel used in Luke 1:31 when he told Mary about the Son she was to have.

            “Where do we find that NAME?” you ask.

            Here it is, friend: Every time the Old Testament uses the word SALVATION (especially with the Hebrew suffix meaning “my,” thy,” or “his”), with very few exceptions (when the word is impersonal), it is the very same word, YESHUA (Jesus), used in Matthew 1:21.

            Let us remember that the angel who spoke to Mary and the angel who spoke to Joseph in his dream did not speak in English, Latin, or Greek, but in Hebrew; and neither were Mary or Joseph slow to grasp the meaning and significance of the NAME of this divine Son and its relation to His character and His work of salvation. For in the Old Testament all great characters were given names with a specific and significant meaning.

            For example, in Genesis 5:29, Lamech called his son Noah [Comfort], saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and tell of our hands.

            In Genesis 10:25, Eber calls his firstborn son, Peleg [Division]; for in his days was the earth divided.

            The same is true of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob (changed to Israel-God’s Prince), and all of Jacob’s sons (see Genesis, chapters 29-32).

            In Exodus 2:10, Pharaoh’s daughter called the baby rescued from the Nile, Moses [Drawn-Forth]: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And so we can go on and on to show the deep significance of Hebrew names.

            Now then, when the angel spoke to Joseph, husband of Mary, the mother of our Lord, this is what he really said and what Joseph actually understood:

            “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus [YESHUA (SALVATION)]: for he shall save [or salvage] his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21). This text was so forcibly brought home to my soul soon after I was converted over 24 years ago, that I saw the whole plan of the Old Testament in that one ineffable and blessed NAME.

            So let us proceed to show clearly the Hebrew name YESHUA (Greek = Iesus English = Jesus) in the Old Testament.

            When the great Patriarch Jacob was ready to depart from this world, he by the Holy Spirit was blessing his sons and prophetically foretelling their future experiences in those blessings. In verse 18 of Genesis 49 he exclaims, I have waited for thy salvation, 0 Lord!

            What he really did say and mean was, “To thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am looking, 0 Lord”; or, “In thy YESHUA (Jesus) I am hoping (trusting), Lord!” That makes much better sense.

            Of course YESHUA (Jesus) was the One in Whom Jacob was trusting to carry him safely over the chilly waters of the river of death. Jacob was a saved man, and did not wait until his dying moments to start trusting in the Lord. He just reminded God that he was at the same time comforting his own soul.

            In Psalms 9:14, David bursts forth, I will rejoice in thy salvation.

            What he actually did say and mean was, “I will rejoice in (with) thy YESHUA (Jesus).”

            you can continue here, Robbie: http://www.menorah.org/yeshname.html

          • Robbie

            The simple truth which you can not deal with is that Jesus is not mentioned even once in the Torah. The reason for that, of course, is that the writing of the Torah was complete BEFORE the time of Jesus. Now you and others may claim that OTHER words mean Jesus or whatever the stupid argument is but he is not in the Torah at all. There are references to a messiah to come but so what?

            And I have a bit of news for you that you won’t much like. A messiah is supposed to cure the world of all our ills. Jesus has come and gone and the world and humanity is /are still in pretty pathetic shape. If a true messiah comes along (I doubt it) and the world is cured then maybe the Jews will accept that person but so far it just ain’t lookin’ too good. I’ll go check my morning newspaper now for the long series of the latest outrages perpetrated by men on others.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: And I have a bit of news for you that you won’t much like. A messiah is supposed to cure the world of all our ills. Jesus has come and gone and the world and humanity is /are still in pretty pathetic shape.

            The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do—destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 describe a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but the Jews chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discuss His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

            The commentaries in the Talmud, written before the onset of Christianity, clearly discuss the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and puzzle over how these would be fulfilled with the glorious setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah. After the church used these prophecies to prove the claims of Christ, the Jews took the position that the prophecies did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person.

            The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out “Hosanna, save us” when He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

            Note that Paul tells the church that the spiritual blindness of Israel is a “mystery” that had not previously been revealed (Romans chapters 9-11).

            For thousands of years, Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheism—one God who was personally interested in mankind’s destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments. Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed.

            A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews who previously were the most spiritually discerning people. As Paul explained, this hardening on the part of Israel led to the blessing of the Gentiles who would believe in Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior.

            Two thousand years after He came to the nation of Israel as their Messiah, Christ is still (for the most part) rejected by the Jews. Many Jews today (some say at least half of all living Jews) identify themselves as Jewish but prefer to remain “secular.” They identify with no particular Jewish movement and have no understanding or affiliation with any Jewish biblical roots. The concept of Messiah as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures or Judaism’s “13 Principles of Faith” is foreign to most Jews today.

            But one concept is generally held as universal: Jews must have nothing to do with Jesus!

            Most Jews today perceive the last 2,000 years of historical Jewish persecution to be at the hands of so-called “Christians.” From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to the pogroms in Europe, to Hitler’s Holocaust—Jews ultimately believe that they are being held responsible for the death of Jesus Christ and are being persecuted for that reason. They, therefore, reject Him today.

            The good news is that many Jews are turning to Christ today. The God of Israel has always been faithful to keep a “remnant” of believing Jews to Himself.

            In the United States alone, some estimates say that there are over 100,000 Jewish believers in Jesus, and the numbers are growing all the time.

            Here, Robbie, i would recommend this book for you: http://www.christianbook.com/faith-israel-theological-survey-old-testament/william-dumbrell/9780801025327/pd/02532X?event=AFF&p=1011693&

          • Robbie

            Jesus should not care less what the Jews believe or don’t believe. If Jesus was the Messiah then he just should have cured this wretched world. But he did not which means he wasn’t the messiah at all or if he was then he wasn’t a very effect one. Events around the world every single day certainly prove that.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          They failed with you, Robbie.

          • Robbie

            And your evidence for this comment is ….?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Your many previous comments.
            And this:
            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406817/posts

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Your many previous comments.
            And this:
            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406817/posts

          • Robbie

            You are very clever.

          • WTS/JAY

            And you are very ignorant!

          • Robbie

            Three university degrees and a 28 year teaching career and a top governmental medal for same say otherwise.

          • WTS/JAY

            Which proves you can be well-educated and still be as dumb as a bag of hammers!

          • Robbie

            What everyone is seeing in the pattern of your comments is that all you have to contribute is a assortment of insults (the bag of hammers one used to be funny but is rather dated nowadays) but you never actually have anything of substance to contribute to a discussion. But thanks for writing anyway – it’s interesting to see comments so superficial in nature that you just shake your head and feel sorry for the writer.

          • WTS/JAY

            Did i say you were as dumb as bag of hammers, Robbie? Sorry, i meant to say you’re an arrogant baboon. My bad!

          • Robbie

            There you go again – nothing of substance. What seems to emerge from what you think are insults (they are merely stupidities) is that you are a frustrated and inarticulate person who can do little more than try to insult others rather than being able to actually mount any kind of coherent message.

            Now you can say something else that’s dumb and useless. Wait for it folks….

          • WTS/JAY

            So, you don’t like being insulted, Robbie? That’s perfectly understandable. If you don’t like being insulted, Robbie, then i suggest you refrain from insulting others.

            Don’t insult others and then play the “victim” when the same is offered back to you, as that makes you appear childish. There, is that simple enough?

          • Robbie

            I think you have misunderstood. Nowhere did I complain about being insulted. What you have to say has no effect on me whatever. The point was that your “replies” have no substance. You hurl an insult or two but you add nothing to the debate. The fact that your only contribution to this forum is to come up with insults tells much about YOU.

          • WTS/JAY

            Still playing the victim i see. Fascinating, how you switch between perpetrator, victim and hypocrite, and you seem do it all so effortlessly. You must have been doing it for years to develop such proficiency, hey Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Again you have nothing to contribute to the subject matter.

          • WTS/JAY

            Projecting, Robbie? I think so!

          • Robbie

            The fact that you continued to hurl insults at my comments would indicate that I did have things of substance to say (that you clearly disagreed with). But when all YOU have to contribute are insults with no substance it shows you having nothing to contribute. Which is kind of sad.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Your comments are so inane, Robbie, and repetitive (like Propaganda) that it is difficult not to be insulting to you.

          • Robbie

            More of the same nothingness.

          • Robbie

            Same old, same old.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Like your boringly repetitious comments.

          • WTS/JAY

            Yes you are!

          • WTS/JAY

            Sad but true!

          • WTS/JAY

            Seems the professor is having a rather hard time controlling his class. Lol! But then again, i don’t think he realizes that he’s on a social public-forum where his education-credentials and his authority while on campus are of little significance here. His addiction to power and control are clearly evident. You will also note his frustration and fear due to having no control. I dare say, that he can scarcely wait to return to his environment where he can rule as king!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Robbie is a good example of why our children are coming out of Public Schools so damn ignorant.

          • WTS/JAY

            And intellectually perverted, as well!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          You mean like the superstition and mythology of Liberal Compassion, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            No. I mean the superstition and mythology of religion.

          • TheOriginalDaveH
          • Robbie

            I guess you’re a believer. Golly gosh dernit, you betcha’.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I’m an atheist, ignoramus. But at least the religious people are trying to be good. What’s your excuse?

          • Robbie

            How was I supposed to know you were an atheist? Anyway I was just guessing as I said so no need to be insulting. You are not wrong in suggesting that religious people may be trying to be good. I’m sure many – even most – are trying. Just as many atheists try to be good. But none of that is the point. The point is that religion is superstition and mythology. That is not changed just because some or most religious people are trying to be good.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Do you even read your own comments, ignoramus?
            Robbie says — “The point is that religion is superstition and mythology”.
            And my point was that Liberal Progressivism is superstition and mythology. In fact, there is no mythology at all to its real life failure. Yet the Followers still believe.

          • Robbie

            I was pointing out to another poster that religion was superstition and mythology. It seems you want to discuss a different point.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            My point is that you are the Pot Calling the Kettle Black, Robbie.
            You, who has a belief that is not only unsupported in fact, but indeed is a proven failure, have no right to criticize others for their beliefs.

          • Robbie

            All I’m saying is that religion is superstition and mythology. People may believe in that stuff if they want to. Why is it that you are an atheist? What is it about religion that you reject? Could it be that you do not believe in myths and that you reject superstition? I’m actually not sure why you are in disagreement with me. I will admit to being critical of some of the beliefs in, say, Judaism such as the Noah’s Ark myth which – when you actually consider everything purported in the story – is nothing short of totally impossible and actually ridiculus.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I am in disagreement with you, Robbie, because it is inconsequential to me what people believe, and because you are attacking good people for their beliefs.
            I would take them and their “mythology” any day over you Thieving and Controlling Liberal Progressive Creeps.

          • WTS/JAY

            It’s one thing for you to personally reject what others believe, Robbie, it’s quite another to insult people for their beliefs, you arrogant nincompoop!

          • Robbie

            You say I may reject religious beliefs but not insult others for what they believe. Thank you for admitting that I may reject what others believe. Actually I do reject what I consider to be superstitious and mythological beliefs and have merely been giving examples such as the Flood myth from Torah. If anyone feels insulted by my explaining why I reject myths and superstitions they will simply have to cope somehow or other. But thank you for allowing me to reject those myths and superstitions. I thought that explaining why those should be rejected was merely helping people – shedding light on certain topics as it were. Cheers.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: If anyone feels insulted by my explaining why I reject myths and superstitions they will simply have to cope somehow or other.

            No one is insulted by your rejection of a particular religious belief(s) that others may hold dear, rather, it’s your insults that are associated with your claim that you reject what others may believe, that are insulting. Another words, just say you don’t believe, and swallow your insults. Simple enough, professor?

          • Robbie

            I’ve been doing exactly what you request as well as giving examples of silly superstitions and myths. No one need feel insulted. Folks are free – as an example – to believe that a person can be swallowed by a great fish and live in the belly of that fish for days and then come out alive and undigested. I think that’s a nutty story but anyone here who believes it’s true and possible can simply explain to me how the story is true. If it is true I’m sure a believer can explain it with no difficulty.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’re the Pot calling the Kettle Black, Robbie. When you decide to adhere to logic and facts, then you will have the right to criticize others for their beliefs.

          • Robbie

            I asked some logical questions. Why don’t you try to answer them instead of sidetracking?

          • Robbie

            I asked some logical questions. Why don’t you try to answer them instead of sidetracking?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You want me to do your dirty work for you, Robbie? Sorry, but I wouldn’t help a Forcer and a Thief like yourself if your life depended on it.

          • Robbie

            If answering a few simple questions about your beliefs is considered by you to be “dirty work” then so be it. Or maybe your answers would reveal some hypocrisy on your part!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I have no axe to grind with the religious people, Robbie. If I did I can assure you that my response would be much more robust and logical than yours have been.
            Your last sentence is what I would expect from such a childish man. Flail on, loser.

          • Robbie

            Then why not answer the questions? Why the avoidance?

          • WTS/JAY

            You are not looking for answers, Robbie. What you desire from others is submission to your world view.

          • Robbie

            You won’t answer the questions about the Noah Flood story because you are unable to account for the silliness of the story itself.

          • WTS/JAY

            You are a silly man, Robbie, and still very much a child. Sigh…

          • Robbie

            Thank you for your comment but for some reason you can not or will not answer the questions. Are the questions too difficult for you or are you afraid to answer?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Why do you keep bugging me, Robbie? You just can’t help yourself being the pushy controlling Liberal Progressive that you are?

          • Robbie

            Well, clearly you can’t answer the questions about the silliness of the Flood myth. And you claim to be a non believer and yet can’t bring yourself to simply note that that story makes zero sense. Very odd. Anyway maybe you actually ARE a closet believer. Hmmm…

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Maybe you can get together with some of your co-Forcers and Thieves, Robbie, to get a law passed that I have to answer your inane questions or else.

          • Robbie

            I don’t think questions about the Biblical Flood story are inane. Unless you think the Torah is inane.

          • WTS/JAY

            Well, we can clearly see your, hypocrisy, Robbie.

          • Robbie

            Still avoiding the questions or perhaps you simply can not come up with answers. Pity.

          • WTS/JAY

            You have yet to bring anything of worth to the table. Except for your childish games, off course. Sad.

          • Robbie

            No games. All I did was pose some questions about the Flood story and for some reason you still can’t come up with a response. Maybe its too much for you intellectually.

          • WTS/JAY

            You, Robbie, are superstition and mythology.

          • Robbie

            I am superstition and mythology? What does that comment even mean?

          • WTS/JAY

            The same could asked of every comment you make.

          • Robbie

            I’m pretty sure people tell you that you’re difficult to be with. If they don’t for sure they are thinking it.

          • WTS/JAY

            Likewise, i’m sure! :)

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Says the guy who uses Government as his Proxy Bullies to Force his way on his neighbors and acquaintances.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I am superstition and mythology? What does that comment even mean?

            Because, i can’t see you, Robbie. How do i even know you exist, or prove that you exist, for that matter? All i’m seeing is words, could they be evidence that you exist?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            He spouts nonsense, therefore he is.

          • Robbie

            I can assure you that I very much exist as do all the folks posting on this site. I have an e-mail address etc. Keep in mind that the Torah was written by men not god.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I can assure you that I very much exist as do all the folks posting on this site.

            Really? How can i be sure that you’re not just a computer-generated identity, a sock-puppet, claiming to be a legitimate entity/person by pointing out that it is no different from the rest of the commenters, and therefore, also, a real person?

          • Robbie

            Maybe everything in your life is a figment of your imagination.

          • WTS/JAY

            At this time, only you, Robbie, or whoever you are, or if you even exist…:)

          • WTS/JAY

            At this time, only you, Robbie, or whoever you are, or if you even exist…:)

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: How was I supposed to know you were an atheist? Anyway I was just guessing as I said so no need to be insulting.

            Really? All you do is insult people, Robbie, so then why do you object when people respond in like manner?

          • Robbie

            I point out facts – in this thread that religion is superstition and mythology which happens to be true. If some person finds that insulting they will have to examine their feelings and deal with them accordingly. Stating facts needn’t be taken as an insult by the way.

            And, by the way, your excuse for insulting me is that you think I have insulted others? That’s a rather childish excuse – the type of comment you hear in an elementary school yard. (And THAT you can, indeed, take as an insult because it actually is insulting – to you – that as an adult you still use that kind of argument.)

          • WTS/JAY

            You don’t point out facts, Robbie, you insult people. That’s all you ever do, and that’s why your comments are regarded by most as having no merit!

          • WTS/JAY

            What’s his excuse? He’s an arrogant twerp!

          • WTS/JAY

            What’s his excuse? He’s an arrogant twerp!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Actually there is no excuse for Thieving Controlling Liberal Progressives.

        • WTS/JAY

          Education today is anything but, rational, and you are living proof of that, professor!

          • Robbie

            So to you RELIGION is rational and science is superstition and myth. Boy are you ever off your rocker.

          • WTS/JAY

            It is the Christian religion that gave birth to what we call science today, genius. In fact, the Bible is a scientific book as well as a spiritual one. Just one example of many; it was first recorded in the Bible that the earth was round, dumb azz!

          • Robbie

            Overall religion – especially Christianity – impedes the progress of science. And there’s a natural reason for this. Science seeks to discover, to experiment, to theorize, and to seek answers whilst religion insists on the dogmatic dependence on ancient and medieval texts that are specifically NOT allowed to ever change not to mention the fact that religion insists it and it alone has the answers to everything. Religion also depends – and makes no secret of this – on FAITH and if you have faith that there will be a certain outcome there is no need or impetus to seek – for example – a cure for disease or whatever the case may be. As far as coincidental items like the Bible was first to mention that the earth was round the Bible was also first to mention that humans got created out of mud and that women came from male ribs and that the solar system was created in six days and such like. Not only are these notions UNSCIENTIFIC not to mention NONSENSICAL but many religious people and organization still believe/insist that they are actually true!

          • WTS/JAY

            The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology);

            Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer);

            Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method);

            Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system);

            Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry);

            Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology);

            John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory);

            Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology);

            John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode);

            James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics);

            William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics);

            Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion);

            Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy);

            James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light);

            Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);

            Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation);

            Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics);

            Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).

            If an appreciation for math and the cause-and-effect workings of nature were sufficient to generate modern science, how does one explain the historical fact the the founders of modern science were all found in a *particular* culture that just happened to be shaped by a Judeo-Christian world view? Instead of measuring energy in joules, why don’t we measure it in platos or al-Asharis?

            Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really* Christians. That is, they really didn’t *believe* in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted. This is the “closet-atheist” hypothesis. But it doesn’t square with the facts.

            Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk. Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science. Newton did end his Principles with:

            “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being…This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.”

            As Charles Hummel notes,

            “Newton’s religion was no mere appendage to his science; he would have been a theist no matter what his profession.”

            Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures.

            Babbage and Prout contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises.

            Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call ‘creationists.’

            Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity – Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc.

            When Boyle argues against Hobbe’s materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin’s assumptions, you don’t have a case of “closet atheists.”

            Science was not born in any non-christian culture.
            Yet it’s not just the bunching of these founders in a Christian culture alone that is significant. Perhaps even more significant is the complete lack of analogs for these men from other cultures. Where is the Greek version of Newton?

            Where is the Muslim version of Kepler?

            Where is the Hindu version of Boyle?

            Where is the Buddhist version of Mendel?

            Such questions are all the more powerful when you pause to consider that science studies truths that are universally true. How is it that so many other cultures, some existing for thousands of years, failed to discover, or even anticipate, Newton’s first law of motion of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion?

            So it’s not just that the Christian religion is associated with the birth of modern science, it’s also the fact that modern science was not birthed in cultures which lacked the Christian religion.

            Here, Robbie, here’s a very good site for you to explore and gain some insight.

            http://ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml#anchor288679

          • Bob666

            Jay,
            Many of those very extraordinary scientist also had something else in common.

            Hint-it’s an organization.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            It depends, Robbie, on what you call “science”. Much of what Liberal Progressives call “science” is not science at all. You need to be more specific.

        • WTS/JAY

          Robbie: The purpose of true education is to nurture rational thinking. If you prefer a population that is governed by superstition and mythology send all children to church instead of university.

          Lol! Is this what you mean by rational thinking in the education system, Robbie?

          Smoking Gun! Predators Draft “Sex Education”

          Just because his trial is 14 months off, we shouldn’t forget the case of former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education, Benjamin Levin. Released July 9 on $100,000 bail, Levin was charged with making and distributing child pornography. As Deputy Minister of Education, he drafted a “sex education” program to sexualize Ontario children.

          This is more evidence that a Masonic (Cabalist Jewish) satanic sex cult controls society using liberal and “progressive” groups as fronts. He was a professor at the University of Toronto; his brother is Registrar and another is Canadian ambassador to Cuba.

          FROM 2004 to 2009, Ben Levin served as Deputy Minister of Education of Ontario under the lesbian Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynne, who is currently the Liberal Premier of the Province.

          During Levin’s time as Deputy Minister, a new sex education curriculum, called the Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (EIES), was developed. According to this curriculum, 6-year-olds were to be taught “gender identity” in grade 1, sex orientation and different genders in grade 3, masturbation in grade 6, and oral and anal sex by grade 7.

          In a letter, dated April 6, 2009, Mr. Levin stated, “Today, the ministry released its new equity and inclusive education strategy paper, realizing the Promise of Diversity… This province-wide strategy has been a priority for our Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne and me.”

          This program was introduced in September, 2010. Horrified parents raised such a storm of protest, that the then Premier, Dalton McGuinty, was forced to withdraw the program after two days.

          Undaunted by this rejection, Premier Wynne, who succeeded McGuinty, announced in January, 2013, that she planned to bring back this controversial sex education program.

          See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/09/

          I think there’s a reason why you despise religion, Robbie, it stands in the way of your depraved proclivities. Ain’t that right, professor?

          • Robbie

            No.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          If they make that choice, they have to pay twice, once for other children to get a secular education, and once again for the education of their own children.
          If you Progressive Creeps would obey the 1st Amendment, the religious people could make that choice and only need to pay once.

      • Eric Bischoff

        indoctrinated? Atheists? I give them more respect. I think they’re disgusted with the world we are leaving them and who we’ve become. Always blaming others for it and never taking responsibility. Like it or not we all did this. And we all think we have the answers and no one is willing to give an inch. Our concept of diplomacy is the gun and the big stick. We’re no 1, we’re the best, we’re exceptional, we know best. Really I think we’re looking more and more like arrogant fat, know nothing, bullies and as a nation we’re stuck in the teenager years.

        It’s not spirituality they are walking away from it’s the stupid religions, parties and ‘isms. They know better, they get it. Thus the Occupy and Anonymous movements which we dismiss as irrelevant because we can’t even comprehend them. How could that mean anything when there are no leaders we ask!. That’s the whole point if you ask me.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          It’s funny to hear a bully calling other people “bullies”.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Boy Dave you just like to hear yourself talk even when you don’t have anything worthwhile to say.

            You’re like a scared dog in the backyard that won’t stop barking because he hears things but can’t see what it is.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Scared? Of you? Surely you jest, Eric. First you need to present some logical or factual ideas, instead of your usual ad hominems.

  • Admiral America

    Conservatives need to realize that everything happening is the culmination of an incremental erosion of liberty from the first day of the US government. Every government on Earth takes the short, or long in this case, march to tyranny. That is the nature of government. Evil people are always drawn to power while those who want to protect, and serve are a rare breed when it comes to politicians. The tyranny has accelerated greatly now that the powers that be see the populace is property conditioned, and a black President has political correctness standing behind him. The Republicans are merely the controlled opposition, and the top brass now see they can get away with showing their true liberal colors. The take over is nearly complete, and soon the police nanny state will be with us forever thanks to advanced technology. At this point the party primary process is completely rigged, and the general election voting is almost completely rigged as well thanks to electronic voting. Nothing short of a full on revolution will save us now, and even then crazy Barry could just launch the nukes and destroy it all. This is what happens when people don’t want to take an active interest in their government, and would rather leave it to the politicians so they can party on down the road to hell.

    • Merle Dickey

      And don’t forget the freebies!

      • 1%er

        Like what freebies? Farm aid where farmers are paid big dollars to do nothing? The truth is the biggest recipients of Federal tax dollars are red states. Here is the list.
        Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

        Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let’s go through the top twenty.

        New Mexico: $2.03
        Mississippi: $2.02
        Alaska: $1.84
        Louisiana: $1.78
        West Virginia: $1.76
        North Dakota: $1.68
        Alabama: $1.66
        South Dakota: $1.53
        Kentucky: $1.51
        Virginia: $1.51
        Montana: $1.47
        Hawaii: $1.44
        Maine: $1.41
        Arkansas: $1.41
        Oklahoma: $1.36
        South Carolina: $1.35
        Missouri: $1.32
        Maryland: $1.30
        Tennessee: $1.27

        Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#ixzz2k3zrJjAn

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Two wrongs make a right now?

    • TheOriginalDaveH
    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Admiral says — “At this point the party primary process is completely rigged, and the general election voting is almost completely rigged as well thanks to electronic voting”.
      Please don’t continue the bugaboo about “electronic voting”. In fact, it could be our salvation. But the PTBs don’t want accountable voting for a very good reason — it would be near impossible to cheat.
      Here’s how Computerized Voting could bring transparency and accountability to the Voting Process, and it would be cheaper:
      We could have two databases for each election. One database would store the ‘voter information’ (Identification, address, polling place, etc.). And the other database would store the ‘votes cast’ with a unique alphanumeric ID which would be given to each voter at the polling place. The polling place would also be stored on this database to identify problem polling places. Only the voter would know his alphanumeric ID so secrecy would be preserved. And the voter would be given a printout to verify how he/she voted.
      The database would be accessible by the public. Anyone or any organization could check the ‘voter information’ database to see if any illegal voters cast votes. The votes in the ‘votes cast’ database could be easily tallied by anyone to see if votes were counted correctly and that the number of votes matched the number of voters in the ‘voter information’ database. Also, an individual voter would be able to check his alphanumeric ID to see that his votes are in the database correctly, and if not, he/she could notify the proper authorities or the proper news media. The ‘votes cast’ database could be corrected periodically to account for any corrections that were made by citizens claiming their votes were not entered correctly, or votes discovered to be made by dead people, convicts, etc.
      This kind of system would be much cheaper and more accountable than anything I’ve seen yet.

  • rjim

    I think both elections were orchestrated by the leaders of the single Democrat/Republican party. They want to show that a second/alternate party candidate could not win and a moderate (now a liberal) Republican could. Truth be known, the Republicans did not support their candidate in Virginia on purpose just like they passed SB193 in Ohio to rig future elections. Yet people still think they can change the Republican, although that has by tried for 50 plus years. They will fall once again into the trap to vote for the lessor of two evils rather than trust God and vote their principles. Sad, very sad that people can so easily be fooled.

    • gelliott

      Of course you’re right about moderate Republicans, but the sad
      truth is so long as we continue to split the vote on the right, the left will
      continue to win and dominate policy in this country. Unfortunately, the
      far-left elements have succeeded in running the Democratic Party, so we’ll get
      the worst possible policy (socialist/Communist) from them. We’re not
      dealing with the average “do-gooder” leftist any longer. These
      guys are Communists or Communist sympathizers. We’ve got to find a way to pull the right, all of us, together at least until we defeat this terrible threat to our country. Fight it out in the primaries, but vote for the most conservative, even if he is a moderate, candidate who won’t give his vote to the national Democratic Party after he is in office.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        It amounts to speed. Do we want to speed to a certain collapse, or slow down for a long drawn out certain collapse?
        I’ve been hearing the ‘vote for the lesser of two evils’ for 40 years now. Are we in Kansas yet?

        • gelliott

          DaveH,

          I see it as a longer term strategy. My guess is that most Libertarians probably see the Communists as a bigger threat to the country than moderate and conservative Republicans. Also, it is pretty apparent that splitting our vote is only serving the cause of the Communists. Therefore, I think moderates, conservatives and Libertarians should work together under “one banner” to rid ourselves of this terrible political philosophy. Once that’s done, then we can fight among ourselves for control of the country. Trying to do it before we get rid of the Communists will only “kill” us all and the country along with it. Just my opinion.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I agree, Gelliot. The Republicans should “work together” with the Libertarians to elect the only real Freedom Lovers to office — The Libertarians:
            http://www.lp.org/
            http://www.lp.org/platform

          • gelliott

            Yes, and likewise, the Libertarians should work with the conservatives and moderates to elect those candidates when they are nominated to help get us closer to the goals all of us on the “right” aspire to. I’m mostly conservative, but I’ll gladly vote for Libertarian or moderate candidates when they are nominated by the Republican Party and have a chance to beat a leftist candidate. Will you vote for conservative or moderate candidates for the same objective?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No, Gelliot, I wouldn’t. I will only vote for candidates who promise to shrink Government dramatically. Otherwise I would be wasting my vote.
            Note that I have been assaulted with the same nonsense for the last 40 years, and where are we now?
            If you wanted to travel to a destination North of you, would you travel East, West, or South to get there?

          • gelliott

            That’s certainly your right, and I respect your decision. However, that’s the reason we are losing elections to the leftists right now. None of the faction on the “right” are strong enough on their own to beat the united “left”. Having said that, I do think nearly everyone on the “right” would say, at least, that they stand for smaller, more efficient government and fiscal responsibility. Obviously, some will be more committed to this principle than others, but we should be able to get all of our candidates to commit to this principle, and we should hold them accountable to live up to it. This should be a uniting principle for most of us on the “right.”

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I stand for Government which follows the same morality that the citizens are expected to follow. I don’t see that in either major party. To vote for either would be to abandon my Principles.

          • gelliott

            To not do whatever I can to block Communists and other socialists from taking over our government goes against my principles.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The Communists have been building their forces here for the last 100 years, Gelliot. And the Republican Party has been operating for over 150 years. What does that tell you?

  • KG

    Thank goodness the American people decided to elect Adults instead of the spoiled Teabagger children who don’t want to save the country as much as they wish vengeance upon those individuals who depend on their Government. It’s not ‘patriotism’ that’s driving the Conservatives as much as hatred and misanthropy towards their lesser fellow citizens.

    • Ringgo1

      Drag out the class warfare meme, KG. Drag on…

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Your Progressive/Socialists have been “saving” the country for 100 years now, KGB. Where has that gotten us? How come, no matter how much they “save” us, we still need more “saving”?

      • WTS/JAY

        TOD: Your Progressive/Socialists have been “saving” the country for 100 years now, KGB. Where has that gotten us?

        Well let’s see, 50 million on food stamps, 17% unemployment and no jobs. Hmm, progressivism is the ticket for sure. Yee haa…!

  • guy r west

    cant quote you book chapter and verse but the bible does say as a point of wisdom . to raise our children in the way in which they should go and to that they will return . our collages not all buy many have teachers that should not bee there they have degrees form other country’s which do not support our christen up bringing or our views if your looking at a eruption history we can learn what NOT to do But instead sertan people in our so called leader ship want to look over there for a guide instead of looking at what we have done right . here in this country ONE we had God in our schools our public places and in our homes and were not ashamed of him;. BUY NOW we have let a minority of people force that to bee changed.
    Why because the christen community got complaisant and did not speak up when these things were happening un doing the damages done is possible but only if the hearts and minds of so judges and the populous can bee changed Obamas statement was and is his own opinion Not mine or that of those I know. since I can only speak for my self. . this country was great and can bee again and for the right reasons IF the people stand up for God and their Rights and can force their leaders to do the same. The things that are now wrong with our country were done trough greed our court system taking a , what I think was a left leaing stance on their interpolation of the constitution.
    so called progress isn’t always a good thing as we are seeing now in the so called liberal progressive scaliest administration we now have . want too change it folks you know how. AND I strongly sub jest we all start with prayer
    and basically tell the atheist progressive’s and all the rest where they can stick it . its time to take off the gloves and stop being a nice guy. STOP trying to bee publicly and socially correct. stop being afraid of being called a name or labled got new for ya . you already have been and its not going to change. Get use to it and stand up for your selfs and your God and your country

  • Muffin Man Mashinksy

    After De Blasio & McAuliffe run their provinces into the ground, next time around the voters will wake up….as far as Big Corpus Christie, alas, a guy that fat in this day & age would never become prez, so here’s to him scarfing down more donuts & pizza!!

    • Eric Bischoff

      Well first of all De Blasio is only the mayor and we have states not provinces Hé!

      The people of NYC have spoken. They’ve had a Billionaire running things for 3 terms and now they’re willing to try a Progressive.

      Why? Because Bloomberg improved NY but the way he went about it favored mostly the wealthy. Inequality is at it’s peak just like the roaring 20s and we all know how that ended.

      Time will tell.

      • Muffin Man Mashinksy

        I meant province in the way of a territory, etc…You have drunk the LOONY TUNES LIB Kool-aid with your inequality BS…Bloomberg was tough on crime, LOONY TUNES LIB on everything else!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Don’t Steal. Government hates competition.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        New York has been Progressive and a thorn in the side of Freedom Lovers since the beginning of the United States.
        http://mises.org/books/conceived1.pdf
        http://mises.org/books/conceived2.pdf
        http://mises.org/books/conceived3.pdf
        http://mises.org/books/conceived4.pdf

      • WTS/JAY

        Eric: The people of NYC have spoken. They’ve had a Billionaire running things for 3 terms and now they’re willing to try a Progressive.

        Both work for the fascist-machine, wake up, fool!

    • WTS/JAY

      And hopefully blows himself up!

  • Al Chemist

    People who swallowed “Hook, Line, and Sinker” the propaganda put out by the liberal/progressive/commies on the TV (otherwise known as low-information voters) elected McAuliffe. With a little more money, the lies could have been exposed. Blame the Republican leadership for holding back the money. For this, they should be replaced.

    • Muffin Man Mashinksy
    • Eric Bischoff

      Now that’s precious. Conservatives/Republicans gave us corporations are people and they can spend as much money as they want to influence politics. They gerrymandered districts like Israel is building the wall to steal as much Palestinian land as they can. They’ve rigged elections, purged good voters as much as they could, made it as a difficult as they could for poor and old people to vote and more than likely cheat in electronic voting machines and highjacking and redirecting vote count. They certainly engineered a coup d’etat by using the Conservative Supreme Court to put Bush in power even though Gore had our votes.

      And now you’re going to cry and blame when you lose a few races?

      It is possible that people are sometimes tired and can see past the propaganda. I say sometimes because Monsanto is still winning by putting in millions to keep us from knowing what’s in our food.

      Oh and by the way, the mainstream media is anything but progressive they are mostly conservative in my book. They are the corporations bought and paid for bully pulpit. They are the propaganda megaphone. Do you really think that GE who makes nuclear weapons and security electronics and also owns NBC is progressive? Do you actually believe that the big money flowing into elections in this country is progressive?

      Keep lying to yourselves!

      • Muffin Man Mashinksy

        HAHAHA!!! I did not see any MSM cheering Romney on in 2012, like they Obummer, did you?

        • Eric Bischoff

          No they only had Fox which is the biggest and who is behind them? an Australian conservative Billionaire whose advertisers are Big Pharma, Oil & Gas. They only admitted that they would do anything to get Bush elected and they are the most war gung ho always. I mean come on people!

          So here we have it one side of the media for Democrats the other for Republicans and conservatives and the Tea Party.

          All for War. All Centrists for the 2 sides of the same coin.

          The only media that is truly on the left and which you probably either don’t know about, or don’t watch are Free Speech TV, Link TV which are the only listener supported channels in the US and then you also have RT and Current/Jazeera.

          The same thing in Radio. The conservative right dominates radio. The left hasa few listener supported Pacifica Foundation radio stations.

          Not exactly a fair fight is it?

          Listener supported versus massive corporate dollar supported.

          You can call the mainstream the left all you want, that won’t make it so.

          • Muffin Man Mashinksy

            The Lefties tried radio & failed miserably…probably because the people who vote DEM have lower attention span & are so used to TV…The fact is most newspapers & the main free networks are all in bed with LOONY TUNES LIBs, they were the ones who ran the debates….FOX gets good rating because conservatives are more passionate about things than the lefties, who are less informed & more into American Idol, etc…The DEMs are in bed with an evil soul like Soros, one of the worst POS on planet!!

          • Eric Bischoff

            You have no idea of what I am talking about do you!

            So I guess you’re a Righties Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity product aren’t you?

            Big corporate money is behind the right. They’re using you and you are buying the propaganda. It’s your choice.

            Listener supported/small donations are behind the left. You want mindless dumbed down crap, stick with the right. I know learning, documentaries, long exposé news shows are not as much fun. They know it too. They’re using you.

            You’re watching an awful lot of commercials and propaganda. It takes work and effort to watch the left to learn what’s really going on.

            Good luck.

          • JeffH

            Eric the Red says “It takes work and effort to watch the left to learn what’s really going on.”

            That’s an absolutley rediculous and false statement! Two minutes of watching and listening to MSNBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, NBC, NPR, etc. and you’ll know in a heartbeat whether you’re a card carrying Marxist/socialist/communist/fascist progressive racist or an American patriot. You, of course, may not believe that…but judging from the hammer and sickle embroidered in your comments you have a built in excuse for not knowing.

            FYI Eric the Red, your commie “Talking Points” manual is just a bit outdated?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Why should he have any idea what you’re talking about, Eric the Red, when you don’t?

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston
          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Ouch! That must have hurt.

          • Muffin Man Mashinksy

            I don’t listen to Rush or watch Hannity, either…I’m a lIbertarian, but those guys are much closer to truth than THE LOONY TUNES LIBs like yourself!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric the Red says — “It takes work and effort to watch the left to learn what’s really going on”.
            Are you trying to kill me with laughter, Eric?
            I can’t turn the TV on or read a newspaper without being assaulted with Liberal Progressive propaganda.

          • WTS/JAY

            Assaulted is definitely the right word, DaveH!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I think most people listen to the radio on their way to work, which would explain the lack of Liberal Progressive listeners.

          • JeffH

            That’s precious…and pretty accurate!

          • WTS/JAY

            It’s dead on!

          • Muffin Man Mashinksy

            One of your best lines ever Dave The Rave!!!

          • WTS/JAY

            Excellent catch, DaveH!!!

      • Muffin Man Mashinksy

        Wasn’t head of GE good friends with Obummer & make many donations to him? Isn’t it precious when LOONY TUNES LIBs think it is only GOP in bed with Big Corp.? Doesn’t GE do much business in China, too?

      • Al Chemist

        You really do live in liberal/progressive La La Land if you think the toadies and lapdogs in the MSM are conservative. Survey after survey has shown that they are eighty to ninety five percent democrat. Watch the White House Press Corps question the President sometimes. There was one episode where (honest to God), I thought the female lapdog was going to offer to (bleep) the President on the spot.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Eric the Red says — “Conservatives/Republicans gave us corporations are people and they can spend as much money as they want to influence politics”.
        As can Unions, who are also people.
        What Eric and his Socialist handlers don’t want you to know:
        http://www.amazon.com/Crony-Capitalism-America-Hunter-Lewis/dp/0988726726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382282364&sr=8-1&keywords=crony+capitalism
        http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Ripoff-Business-Government/dp/0471789070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383923149&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+ripoff

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Eric the Red says — “Now that’s precious. Conservatives/Republicans gave us corporations are people and they can spend as much money as they want to influence politics”.
        Corporations are composed of people, unless I missed something and we are now in the Terminator future of Robots.
        Are Unions not people? Should they be disallowed from donating to campaigns?
        Apparently Eric the Red missed this statement by Chip — “He (Terry) outspent Cuccinelli by some $15 million”.

        Eric the Red says — “They gerrymandered districts”.
        Reality — Both major parties have used the technique in an effort to bias elections in their favor.
        http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/

        Eric the Red says — “Do you actually believe that the big money flowing into elections in this country is progressive?”.
        http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/

        The rest of Eric’s statement is the kind of purely-biased conjecture that we have come to expect from Eric.

      • speedle24

        What exactly do you define as “Conservative” Eric? I think you must mean anyone that is not smoking dope and living in a commune.

      • JeffH

        Could you really be KG in “drag”?
        Better “RED than dead” aye Eric the Red?

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          It is rather odd that Eric showed up at about the same time as Bob made it known that “guests” would no longer be able to comment.

          • JeffH

            I’m not sure he ever posted under any name but his own…but that said, I have never seen anyone so attached to progressivism ie communism. I’m convinced he eats, drinks and sleep it 24/7. I honesly doubt that he really hasn’t a clue as to how much of a “useful idiot” he is to the powermongers in the capital.

            Bet he’s a dreamer…the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi kinda dreams…but farther out there.

            That’s scary!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jeff says — “I’m convinced he eats, drinks and sleep it 24/7″.
            If so, that just shows how bankrupt his chosen political philosophy is, as he cannot mount a decent specific defense of his philosophy. All he does is talk in generalities (when he’s not using manipulative techniques). If I spent as much time reading as he claims he does, I would surely hope to be able to argue my case more coherently than Eric does.

          • JeffH

            He’s no different than a snake oil salesman, a fraud, quack or charlatan selling progressive snake oil or a used car salesman trying to convince anyone that will listen that his car, the Progressivmobile, is the best and only one they need.

          • Eric Bischoff

            After decades of running west and hoping to see the sunrise every morning, one might want to turn the other way.

          • Eric Bischoff

            What’s scary is your complete lack of understanding of what I espouse, admire, believe in. All of your comments, fears, attacks are way off base. You might want to sit in a corner and ponder why that is.

          • JeffH

            You make me laugh Eric the Red. Fear? Don’t insult my intelligence!

            I’ll compare my distain for your admiration of and what you’re constantly espousing, progressive/communism, to the same distain I have for a pedophile.

            I don’t believe in progressivism and I don’t practice progressivism and you can stand on your pulpit and preach it ’til hell freezes over and I still won’t be worshiping your twisted religion. I’m an American and I’ll call it as I see it and your progressivism is un-American.
            McCarthey was right afterall, you just don’t understand it!

          • Eric Bischoff

            Oh boy! Paranoia strikes deep here!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            What would you do without Argumentum ad Hominem, Eric?
            I mean besides being speechless?

      • TimAZ

        So what is your excuse for not becoming independently wealthy and cutting your own deals in your favor with your beloved government? You could have changed your own life situation but it was easier to bitch about those who’ve actually taken the steps to determine their own destiny, through the hard work and attaining enough wealth to create influence among those that have the power over the people. Yes it’s too easy to expect some kind of govt. to act on your behalf instead of taking matters into your own hands. Govt. will never be a servant to the individual. Govt. always serves itself at the expense of the individual. I suppose for some it’s just easier to be a slave to the machine as long as everyone else must be as miserable as the volunteer slaves. Its just easier to suffer in company then alone. Isn’t it.

        • Muffin Man Mashinksy

          “Socialism is nothing but shared misery” -Winston Churchill….You know the guy whose bust Obummer returned to Britain.

  • dan

    More divide and conquer….
    …there’s entirely too much emotional voting going on out there, but then ,that’s what some of the operatives are counting on when they manipulate the electorate.Diplomacy demands SOME pragmatism…and politics in a Republic SHOULD be diplomatic .
    United we Stand Divided We Fall

  • Laughing@you

    Does it really matter who wins any election after all they are all the same just different heads on the same dragon.

    • Muffin Man Mashinksy

      It matters to the unborn & pregnant women who choose an abortion….McAuliffe is one of the most anti-life candidates ever, Cuccinelli was very much on top of regulating the slaughterhouses, so women are not mistreated a la Gosnell!

    • gelliott

      I guess it doesn’t matter who wins elections……..if………..you like Obama and his extreme leftist types making policy for our country. Otherwise, I think it does.

      • Laughing@you

        You are correct I guess my theory is that all elections are just something to pacify the sheeple in the belief that your vote actually counts….

        • speedle24

          Hey laughing at you, why do you bother to get up in the morning. Moreover why do you bother to eat? After all you are going to die anyway. You are no help at all.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          That is true in the sense that the candidates are almost always served up by the Established Republicans or Democrats.
          So the Republican/Democrat Followers have no real choice.

        • gelliott

          Individually, our single vote really doesn’t count for much, but as a voting block we can change things. That’s why voters on the “right” need to find common ground that unites them so we can get rid of this Communist menace. Once that’s accomplished, then we can fight among ourselves about this or that. Heck, then we should form three political parties; conservative, moderate, and libertarian, but not before. Right now, we’ve got a bigger problem to deal with, and it’s going to take all of us pulling together to get it accomplished.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    “He outspent Cuccinelli by some $15 million”.
    Remember when one of the Democrats main complaints was that Big Money was wrongly influencing elections? Where are those voices now?

    • Laughing@you

      Bet ya most if not all of that money came from the unions

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Could be, but both major parties are infected with Crony Capitalism, so it is not unthinkable that the Super Rich are donating to get rid of a staunchly conservative Republican.
        Read this article, for instance:
        http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/
        Here are a couple of books revealing the Crony Capitalism in modern America:
        http://www.amazon.com/Crony-Capitalism-America-Hunter-Lewis/dp/0988726726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382282364&sr=8-1&keywords=crony+capitalism
        http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Ripoff-Business-Government/dp/0471789070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383923149&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+ripoff
        And you can find myriad Free books (in PDF or EPUB) on the Mises Website revealing the Crony Capitalism that has been rampant since Lincoln was president. Here are just a couple:
        http://mises.org/Books/historyofmoney.pdf
        http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Americas%20Great%20Depression.pdf

        • TimAZ

          Could be Libertarians are not yet infected by Democrat socialism, but even worse are easily made useful idiots of the democrat socialists. The first step to recovery is the acknowledgement that their is a problem. The republican electorate understands their are socialist that make up the republican establishment. The purge has begun and will take several election cycles to complete. Hopefully the final outcome will be a party that is more recognizable as libertarian in nature. One thing is certain if we continue to allow the democrat socialists to divide the libertarian and republican electorate with these shell game elections in the fight for govt. of the people, for the people, and by the people will dim any chance of victory for the American people as a whole.

          • TheOriginalDaveH
          • TimAZ

            I know how this election worked against libertarians and republicans to keep us both from advancing against the socialist democrat party.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The Republican Party has been the Party of Mercantilism since 1854. The Democrats caught up in the late 1800s.
            Both are stooges for the Crony Capitalists now.
            The Republicans largely support meddling in other countries’ affairs, in the process murdering many decent people.
            The Democrats almost exclusively support redistribution of wealth — Stealing.
            Why would we want to perpetuate either of those parties?

          • TimAZ

            I think if you could see beyond the hatred you carry for both parties and read a little history that is not the revisionist history of the left you would see that republican party [when I say republican party I do not refer to the establishment but to the electorate] no longer has any interest in meddling in other countries affairs. We can’t afford it. America will not be able to influence other countries militarily or otherwise. You know this because Most other countries are ridding themselves of the dollar as the worlds currency. When the dollar officially ceases to be the world currency there will be no import tariffs on anything. There are very few now. Simply because the dollar will not be an accepted currency for foreign trade. We are a consumer economy now and have been for some time. We consume far more than we export and that will be to our detriment. Americas natural resources will be our own best hope. I guess it comes down to this no matter what kind of govt. is formed. That govt. inevitably begins to perpetuate itself the moment the citizenry succomes to apathy and others learn that an election can install a politician that will take ones property and give it to another who refuses to earn their own.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Tim says — “I think if you could see beyond the hatred you carry for both parties and read a little history”.
            You’ve learned well from the Liberal Progressives, Tim.
            But manipulative techniques don’t work on me.
            I’m betting that I’ve read a lot more History than you have. And most of what I’ve read doesn’t come from Court Historians who are bent on Propagandizing people to worship Big Central Government.

          • TimAZ

            Your hatred has blinded you to the point that you can’t recognize any other individual that could share your belief in individualism [freedom]. You know what freedom is? The ability to make a decision and act on it with the outcome being death if you screw up in the process of carrying out the idea. Such as building a home and it collapses in on you while you sleep because you weren’t smarter than the construction of your home. That’s freedom with feedback that nature often delivers.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            My hatred? You must hate me, Tim, to make up such crap. If you didn’t Hate me, you would argue with Logic and Facts instead of resorting to adolescent manipulative tactics.

          • speedle24

            “Meddling in other countries affairs”. I am so sick of seeing that placard I want to puke. You reduce international politics to the level of a nosy biddy gossiping to neighbors about another the length of the grass on someone’s lawn.
            Bring it on to the 21st century Dave. We cannot be isolationists anymore Dave. We have to be on top of things or some raghead is going to lay a dirty nuke under someone’s bus seat in a major city. If we are going to prevent this sort of thing we have to recognize that the difference between unnecessary “meddling” in foreign affairs and preventive due diligence for the safety of Americans is a foggy determination at best, and cannot be politically reduced to a stupid slogan

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Being against Interventionism is not Isolationism, Speedle.
            We Libertarians would like to trade freely with other countries, not at the point of a gun.
            If you could stretch your brain a little, you’d realize that we don’t need to bomb the hell out of their infrastructure, and kill innocent people, to get the “bad guys” any more in those countries than we need to do that here in the US to get our own “bad guys”.
            The only reason the “ragheads” want to place dirty nukes under bus seats is because our military is killing, maiming, and forcing their people in their countries. There are tens of thousands of innocent people who lose their lives thanks to the US military. And ignorant people like yourself cheer them on, when in fact the reason our Military meddles around the Globe is to better enrich their Crony Capitalists at everybody else’s expense.
            People who would like to be smarter than Speedle should read this:
            http://mises.org/books/century.pdf

          • speedle24

            Well you are just wrong Dave. The reason the ragheads want to kill us has little to do with our “killing and maiming” their people. It has everything to do with Islam. I don’t think any further explanation is necessary. I guess you trust the Iranians with nukes eh?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Because you say so, Speedle?
            No, I don’t trust the Iranians with nukes anymore than I trust Americans with nukes. And Americans have proved they will use them.
            Who has the most nuclear weapons?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Statistics
            Oh yeah, the country who has actually used them, and has their nose under everybody else’s tent.

          • WTS/JAY

            !!!!!!

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Chip says — “Now that they’ve proven how to split the conservative/libertarian vote, want to bet that the formula won’t be tried in a lot more places in 2014?”.
    Yay! More votes for Libertarains, more awareness of Libertarian policies, the only true policies of Freedom. And it is not true that Libertarians always siphon votes from the Republicans. In most states where polls have been conducted the drain was equal from both Democrats and Republicans, or more from the Democrats than from the Republicans.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/libertarians-help-democrats-get-elected-that-s-funny-not-ironic
    http://www.examiner.com/article/libertarians-to-republicans-get-over-yourselves-1
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/05/virginia_s_libertarian_candidate_for_governor_votes_speaks.html
    Some Reason:
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/16/9-libertarian-spoilers-in-one-handy-char

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    Libertarians should not vote for Republicans or Democrats. To do so is to rubber-stamp Policies that we do not approve:
    http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2012/11/06/why-libertarians-should-not-vote-republican-or-democrat/

    • wandamurline

      Yes and when you vote for someone who has not chance in h__l of winning, you are voting Democratic. I realize that the Libertarians do not like the establishment of Republicans right now….neither do most of the conservatives, but we will have to change this by beating the establishment in increments of years of winning over the Democommunists. We cannot do this without the help of the libertarians and when you do not vote for a Republican….you are in essence voting for the Democrat. Thank all of you Libertarians, you now have a Democrat governor….we’ll check back with you in a couple of years and find out how things are going.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        There is no evidence whatsoever for that contention, Wandamurline.
        Let’s take the Cucinelli race, for example:
        http://www.politico.com/2013-election/results/governor/virginia/
        McAuliffe — 1,066,149 votes
        Cuccinelli — 1,010,929 votes
        Sarvis — 145,762 votes
        If 100% of the Libertarian vote had gone to Ken, he would have won. But that’s a mighty big presumption.
        In reality some of the Libertarian votes would have gone to McAuliffe.
        Reason Magazine puts the ratio of those Libertarian voters at about 53% leaning Republican, 38% leaning Democrat, and 9% who wouldn’t vote for either candidate:
        http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/16/9-libertarian-spoilers-in-one-handy-char
        So using that ratio — .53 X 145,762 = 77,253 of those votes would have gone to Ken, and .38 X 145,762 = 55,389 of those votes would have gone to Terry. That would have resulted in 1,121,538 votes for Terry, and 1,088,182 votes for Ken. Terry would still have won by a 33,356 vote margin.
        And more importantly, people would have lost yet another chance to put some Real Freedom Lovers into office, instead of prolonging our agony on the Road to Serfdom.

        • speedle24

          What Libertarian would possibly vote for McAuliffe Dave? That makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to say some uniformed Libertarians might choose not to vote instead of voting for Cuccinelli, I can buy that. It is crazy to think that Sarvis did not cost Cuccinelli the election.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No Real Libertarian would, Speedle. But we aren’t talking about Real Libertarians here. We are talking about people who voted for the Libertarian candidate. Do I need to further break that down for you?
            Also, I might add, NO Real Libertarian would vote for a Republican over a Libertarian candidate. To do so is to continue to enable the flawed Democrat/Republican paradigm which has led to our present state of Serfdom.
            From a Reason/Rupe poll:
            “Fifty-seven percent of Johnson voters self identify as politically independent. When asked if they lean toward one of the major political parties, 53 percent lean toward the Republicans and 38 percent lean toward the Democrats”.
            http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/26/gary-johnson-could-take-6-percen-of-the

            From Ken’s Issues Page:
            “HEALTHCARE
            Healthcare costs are continuing to balloon at an unsustainable rate, which not only hurts families, but also presents a significant challenge to our state government. I support reforming state health programs to be more patient-centered, improving coordination of care, and bolstering Virginia’s renowned team of healthcare fraud investigators, who will be able to vastly increase their efforts to stamp out fraud, waste, and abuse. A reformed system would provide better care to Virginians, while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars.
            I believe strongly that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and families, not by the government. Our healthcare system is bloated with rules and regulations that make health insurance more expensive and care less accessible. To combat these problems, I support harnessing market competition, consumer choice, and the power of better information for patients.
            While states are severely constrained by federal law, I believe that state governments can reform their markets in ways that allow more competition and better choices for consumers. As Governor, I will pursue changes to open up Virginia’s markets, attract the nation’s best medical professionals, improve patient safety by modernizing the health care information systems, and get timely, accurate information to families and businesses to empower them to make the best possible health care decisions”.
            http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

            Get it Speedle? More meddling. Government just needs to get the flock out of Healthcare and let people decide for themselves.
            And there was only one Candidate who would offer that Freedom.
            You Republican voters have spoiled the Libertarians’ chances for success.

          • speedle24

            Okay, I see what you are saying. You think a certain percentage of the Sarvis vote was simply from nut bags who would vote for anyone on any kind of third party ticket. That is certainly possible. But I still maintain the Rupublican would have won had Sarvis not been on the ballot.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            What I’m saying, Speedle, is that if the Republicans hadn’t spoiled Sarvis’s chance to get elected, we would have a Freedom-loving Governor in Virginia.

          • speedle24

            Let me make sure I understand. You actually think Sarvis was a legitimate candidate, a legitimate Libertarian???? You are joking of course. This guy was anything but Libertarian in his philosophy.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You got me there. I haven’t looked at his issues page. I will do that.
            But whether he is a Real Libertarian or not, the spin is that Libertarians are costing Republicans votes.
            Here is Sarvis’s issues page:
            http://robertsarvis.com/issues

            So, pick an issue, Speedle, and let’s discuss it.

          • speedle24

            Let me help you out. Sarvis was for more taxation as well as Medicaid expansion in Virginia. Do I need to go further? Cuccinelli is more Libertarian than Sarvis. The spin is correct with regard to the Virginia elections. The Democratic machine actually contributed heavily to the Sarvis campaign in order to move votes to him that would have gone to the GOP. Come on man.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Here is Sarvis’s Healthcare page:
            http://robertsarvis.com/issues/health-care
            Pick a statement and tell me what’s wrong with it.
            Here is one, for instance:
            “Second, we need to recognize that the federal government is not the only source of bad laws that undermine a well-functioning health-care economy. There are numerous examples of state laws and regulations that are designed to insulate market incumbents from competition and protect their profits. This is true in many industries, which is why ending crony capitalism is a major feature of my campaign, and the health-care sector is no different”.

            Can you show me a similar statement from Ken, Speedle?

          • speedle24

            Non starter argument Dave. Plus, you need to read between the lines. Sarvis replaces federal control with state control, and that isn’t any better. It’s still government, and Sarvis is not a Libertarian.
            The larger issue is whether all the conservative factions, social conservatives, economic conservatives, Tea Partyers, Libertarians, moderate Republicans (even RINOS) can coalesce into a voting bloc that can beat the Communists. If that is not done to an adequate degree we are toast, and all this bantering about “true” conservatism and “true” libertarianism is no more relevant than the dinner menu on the Titanic.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Actually, Speedle, State control is better than Federal control. The voters are closer to their representatives on a State level, and thus can control them better, although I would prefer no Gang at all, local or Federal.
            Sarvis may not be pure Libertarian, but I have not seen you address any of his non-Libertarian issues. Why not?

          • speedle24

            Dave, I am not going to take the time to debate the meaning of what was on a political resume written by someone trying to get elected. I already stated you should read between the lines with regard to his philosophy. He wants government involved, but not the federal government. That is not Libertarian philosophy. What more is there to talk about?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I guess nothing since you can’t back your accusations up with facts.

          • speedle24

            Why are you arguing with me Dave. Even Bob Livingston says this guy was no Libertarian. He pointed out links to show it. Is this guy Sarvis related to you or something?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Funny, Speedle. You couldn’t describe what his non-Libertarian stands were, and now resort to hiding behind Bob’s coattails.

          • speedle24

            I’m not hiding behind anybody Dave. Read my lips. Sarvis indicates by his own words that he believes the states should be doing what the feds are now doing. Government is government. Whose coattails are you hiding behind? You are the only Sarvis fan I have heard from.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Where did Sarvis say that, Speedle? I’m looking for an exact quote, not your garbled misinterpretation.

          • speedle24

            Okay, this is getting boring.
            Sarvis said he would be hesitant to cut taxes, unsure as to how he might “reduce spending,” and open to indulging the largest piece of federal social policy since 1965 by expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program. This was a quote that I am sure you are aware of. “Expanding Virginia’s Medicaid program” means expanding state control over healthcare. Nuff said.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You’re “boring”, Speedle. You just keep repeating the same out-of-context soundbites over and over and over…..

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Read your lips? They are lying to me.
            Here is what Sarvis has actually said:
            “I favor returning health-care regulation to the states. In addition to eliminating many of the laws, regulations, and tax rules that wreak havoc on the incentives faced by businesses and employees, we also need policy freedom at the state level with regard to public spending on health-care for the poor and elderly. Let Virginia take care of Virginians. We can succeed where federal programs have failed and achieve better health outcomes at much lower cost to taxpayers”.
            http://robertsarvis.com/issues/health-care
            It’s best for those, who want to know, to read the whole statement by Sarvis rather than the out-of-context sound bites that people like Speedle will offer you.

          • TimAZ

            What you are saying DavidH is that you are so gullible that you would vote for a faux libertarian candidate created and funded by democrat socialist operatives. This behavior will not advance the libertarian party, it only serves to undermine libertarians and relegate them to the status of useful idiots serving democrat socialist desires as libertarians insure their own extinction as a viable party along with the rest of non democrat socialist American citizens. You would cut off your nose to spite your face.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Who’s the gullible one here, Tim? The Republicans have been lip-servicing Small Government while building it ever-larger since 1854.
            Do you have any evidence at all that Sarvis is a “faux Libertarian”? Or do you just expect us to take your ignorant conjecture as fact?

          • TimAZ

            All one needs to know is who gave the order for democrat operatives to professionally operate signature drives to get him on the ballot in such a short time. I’m sure you think I’m against libertarian candidates. I assure you I am not. I have no problem voting for libertarians. I think we ought to work together to stop this country from collapsing and creating more human suffering on the American citizenry than the great depression ever could have just to advance a particular political policy at the expense of American lives with the exception of socialism and all its variants. We know from history that these types of governments always result in mass human death to perpetuate the government itself.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Tim says — “All one needs to know is who gave the order for democrat operatives to professionally operate signature drives to get him on the ballot in such a short time”.
            Do you have any evidence to back up that conjecture, Tim?
            It makes no sense to me that they would waste money on such an effort instead of bolstering their own Candidate with it.
            Also, I have pretty much put that baby to bed in an earlier comment, but you’d have to understand logic and math to get what I’m saying:
            http://personalliberty.com/2013/11/08/conservatism-didnt-die-on-tuesday/#comment-1113953117
            In the face of such reality, it would be ignorant indeed for the Democrats to waste money promoting a Libertarian candidate.

            Let me ask you this, Tim. If you had to pick up a hitchhiker and you had a choice between one who you knew was a murderer, and one who you just didn’t know at all, which one would you choose?

          • TimAZ

            I would choose the muderer. I prefer the known to the unknown. It’s much easier to defend against a known evil then an evil that reveals itself through stealth attack.

          • TimAZ

            I would choose the muderer. I prefer the known to the unknown. It’s much easier to defend against a known evil then an evil that reveals itself through stealth attack.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston
          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Neither is Cuccinelli.

            I find the Reason staff to be somewhat mushy as Libertarians, but they are certainly better than the alternative. The same goes for Cato Institute. I much prefer the no-holds-barred approach of the Mises Institute.
            Here is a recent article from the Libertarian Reason.com which gives their viewpoint on Sarvis:
            http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/22/could-robert-sarvis-open-the-door-for-vi

            From the National Review — “A majority of people know approximately what the definition of “libertarian” is, I would venture”.
            A majority of people know what a Libertarian is? That one statement makes me wonder if reading the rest of the article is worth my time.
            But Sarvis does appear to be far from pure Libertarian, and I have gotten after the Libertarian Party before for putting up such candidates. I think it’s bad strategy to dilute our message.

            From the Review article — “Worse yet was Sarvis’s rambling interview with the Virginia Prosperity Project, in which the candidate expressed his enthusiasm for increasing gas levies, and for establishing a “vehicle-miles-driven tax.” It strikes me that it is almost impossible to square such a measure with any remotely coherent “libertarian” position on that most sacred of rights: privacy”.
            While increasing gas levies is certainly not Libertarian, I’m not so sure about the vehicle-miles-driven tax (assuming they would replace the other road taxes with it). Ultimately, I think we should have Privatized Roads, but until then, the next best thing would be for the users to pay for them based on their usage. Surely somebody could come up with a scheme to accomplish that which wouldn’t sacrifice our privacy without our voluntary acceptance.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear DaveH,

            You write: “Neither is Cuccinelli.” That was not under discussion.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I don’t know why Sarvis’s Libertarian credentials were under discussion, for that matter.
            Is Cuccinelli a pure Republican? What even is a pure Republican?
            I think the issue of Sarvis’s Libertarianism was a Red Herring.

          • marylou

            YES there is evidence…His money/donations to get signatures on the ballot came fronm BIG OBAMA supporters!
            That is FACT!
            You have to learn to follow the money!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Because you say so, Marylou?

          • marylou

            Nope, and there is tons more documentation you can read that will let you know you were sucker punched but I doubt you will ever take your head out of the sand…
            Ron Paul went to VA to debunk Sarvis….too little to late by the time the info was out!

            Robert Sarvis is a fraud | RedStatewww.redstate.com/…/2013/10/28/robert-sarvis-is-a-fraud Cached
            We now know who Robert Sarvis is and certainly not a genuine libertarian and more like a LINO (libertarian-in-name-only). Like with the Republican Party, the
            DIRTY POOL: Obama Campaign Bundler Helped Fund ‘Libertarian …clashdaily.com/2013/11/dirty-pool-obama…libertarian-sarvis Cached
            A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian …

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I couldn’t get your fly-by-night website to open, Marylou.
            But I doubt that it would be of interest, as I tend to get my information from the horse’s mouth unless somebody writes an irrefutable exposure of that person’s actual actions.
            From Reason.com a Libertarian website:
            http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/22/could-robert-sarvis-open-the-door-for-vi
            “But if Sarvis manages to win at least 10% of the general election vote—a strong possibility given recent polls show him drawing as high as 12%—then the Virginia LP would gain official status under state law. That means that for at least the next four years, the LP could nominate candidates in any partisan election without having to submit petition signatures”.
            “Some small-l libertarians may balk at the apparent lack of ideological fire in Sarvis’ campaign. There has been grumbling over Sarvis’ comments to Reason criticizing Austrian economics, for example. But it’s important to distinguish the Libertarian Party from the larger libertarian movement. The function of a political party is to win elections. Sarvis isn’t running for president of the Mises Institute. If his campaign opens the door for other libertarians to compete—and yes, win—local elections in the future, then his efforts here will not have been in vain”.

            And I have already demonstrated that the Democrat Terry would have won handily anyway. Methinks that the detractors are blowing smoke up our hineys.
            By the way, the Republicans had their chance to pick up the Libertarian segment with Ron Paul, but they treated Ron like yesterday’s trash. They have no interest in real Freedom, so why in the world should I or anybody else care if the Libertarian Party “spoils” their chance at election?

            Feel Free, Marylou, to sort through Sarvis’s Issues page to find something for us that is distinctly non-Libertarian about his platform:
            http://robertsarvis.com/issues

            Meanwhile I will be content knowing that he drew 6% of the vote and thus is giving much-needed exposure for the ONLY Political Party which champions Real Freedom.

          • rbrooks

            what definition of freedom are you peddling today, comrade frank.

            your freedom is always for, by and of you. you never include the rest of the population in that term freedom.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The only real definition of Freedom there is — People have a natural right to control their own bodies and property, Free of the Force of others who claim that right.

          • rbrooks

            so you now support the 2nd amendment, abortion & gay marriage.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I support the 2nd Amendment.
            I don’t support abortion, but I don’t pretend to have the right to make that choice for the mother.
            I don’t support gay marriage, but I condone gay marriage.
            I don’t support their efforts to get special privileges granted by Government.
            You do know the difference between support and condone, don’t you Flashman?

          • rbrooks

            do you know the difference?

            does that mean you support automatic weapons and felons owning weapons?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I don’t support automatic weapons, in anybody’s hands, civilian or Government.
            I do support the felons right to self-defense, thus I support their right to own weapons. It wouldn’t matter much anyway. They would just steal them from somebody else. That’s why they are called Felons.
            Any more dumb questions, Flashman?
            Tell us your sniper story again, Flashman.

          • rbrooks

            you support your version of the 2nd amendment. your version of freedom. your personal liberty.

            i knew you could finally admit to that.

            your definition of a felon.

            and you still wonder why you can not win.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Win with you? You’re too ignorant to know when you’ve lost, Flashman.

          • rbrooks

            and you still wonder why you are not able to win.

          • WTS/JAY

            Lol!

          • Deerinwater

            Hmm, to have an actual “political party” requires more than just a “platform” and the hanging of a shingle.

            It has to have money and clout to buy sympathy, loyalty to preview, display and promote their convictions to garner seriously needed support.

            The clout is not there and the money will dry up as soon as the Koch brothers cut their losses and move on to other bigger and better things that best serve their interest.

            That’s sad too, ~ I hate to feel and think this way, while I believe that it is only true.

            i would not wish my thoughts to discourage anyone from trying to make a difference ~ so surprise me.

            But understand, ~ it will be hard, the road long and that the hyjacking of revolutions is common place and not really a hard thing to do. ~ All your achievements can be taken for you with simple mislabeling in a single swoop of misplaced trust.

      • JeffH

        wandamurline, I disagree. As the saying goes, “voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil”! There are very few exceptions to that rule…for example, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson…or a candidate with a stellar pro-constitutional record.

        • marylou

          That’s why you get the BIGGER EVIL!
          And how is that working for you?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            The question is — Do you want to die a quick death, or a slow agonizing death?

          • marylou

            Stupid question…I intend to live free despite the fools who make inane remarks.

            I’ll die when God decides it is my time…and not one day earlier!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Your response was “stupid”, Marylou, not my rhetorical question.
            That Freedom you seek isn’t going to come from the Party that brought us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the Drug Wars, and numerous other affronts to our personal security and Freedom.

          • marylou

            The question was/is stupid..rhetorical or otherwise!

            Blindly voting political parties is not the answer…

            Electing Constitutional Conservatives regardless of political party is the only way to preserve our freedoms!

            It’s way past time for the clueless Libertarians who have become low information voters and now vote for any idiot who claims the name…ie Sarvis in Virginia.

            Sarvis was a Democrat Trojan Horse and you fell for the scam!

            Count on it… the Democrats will set Libertarians up again in 2014 with more Trojan horses and you will continue your epic fail…and with it the rest of your freedom you think you are protecting.
            Wake up…..you are becoming a tool for the deceitful liberal Democrats, who are buying and paying for your “unvetted and phony libertarian candidates!”

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Your entire comment is composed of Argumentum ad Hominem, Marylou. That is a sure sign that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Knowledgeable people need not resort to such manipulative tactics.

          • marylou

            The TRUTH must really gets your knickers in a twist to cause you to post such nonsensical drivel.

            You have to learn to research your candidates and think for yourself if you intend to restore our freedom.

            “You” all just played follow the leader with Sarvis in VA because he labeled HIMSELF “Libertarian”, even when Ron Paul supported a Conservative who espoused libertarian principles and warned you that Sarvis was a spoiler supported by OBAMA money!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            How could you know the truth, Marylou? You can’t even figure out that Sarvis could not have cost Ken the election.
            Read this article and you might get a clue (doubt it though):
            http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/29/no-sarvis-isnt-costing-cuccinelli-the-vi

          • marylou

            This is your link’s (Shackford’s) profile…really? Is that the person you are using for research, opinion and documentation??

            “Before becoming part of the massive libertarian media establishment, Shackford once weighed in on much more important matters as a show recapper at Television Without Pity. There, his dislike of Clay Aiken and his disappointment with the writing on Firefly earned him the enmity of the entire Internet. All of it.”

            There you go…this is your expert?? Really???

            Please…run along if he is indicative of what you rely on!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            More Argumentum ad Hominem from Marylou.
            Perhaps, Marylou, you should look up logical fallacies and do some studying.
            “massive libertarian media”? That’s pretty funny, Marylou. And you would place any stock at all in that person’s opinion?
            The Crony Capitalists are scared to death of Libertarian philosophy for one big reason — Free Markets. And they will do anything in their power to appeal to shallow people who fall for shallow manipulative tactics, so as to keep Libertarians from gaining widespread exposure. With Free Markets, Political Entrepreneurs lose to Market Entrepreneurs, who actually please their customers, as opposed to the Political Entrepreneurs who survive by pleasing their Crony Politicians.
            Both major parties are infested with Crony Capitalists.
            Come out of the dark, Marylou, and read this book so you can get a clue what is going on:
            http://www.amazon.com/Crony-Capitalism-America-Hunter-Lewis/dp/0988726726
            They are playing you for the fool that you are.

          • marylou

            Do try to keep it civil and refrain from assassinating the character of those who don’t agree with you.

            No one plays me for a fool, which is why I followed up on your research and you were the one played for a fool

            You posted a link “to educate me” in your last post that turned out…..to be very kind…..less than stellar by a less than stellar individual.

            Your bad, not mine!

            Therefore I refuse to chase any more of your bogus suggestions/research if that is what you are promoting to buttress your agenda!

            Have a nice day and please do try take out your aggressions in a more acceptable manner, rather than attacking people you don’t know.
            You are not an asset to your cause, nor will win you win any converts with your attitude!

          • JeffH

            The better question marylou is “how is that working for you”?

            See TheOriginalDaveH comment below mine.

          • marylou

            If you mean by that remark that Libertarians are too dense to realize they are supporting the bigger evil, then we have a meeting of the minds…
            Doubt that was your intent…but you can’t talk sense to those whose heads are buried in the sand.

            Every action has consequences.

      • Ron S.

        wanda you are a prime example of what you claim we are doing…we vote on principal to try to stop evil…you vote on principal to promote evil…we stand firm for the good of the country..you stand firm for the good of big governments promise of euphoria….you will be in the soup line with us in the end, and all those rich people you want to pay your way, will be eating lobster and porterhouse steaks and thanking you for doing their dirty work…so why do you believe your vote doesn’t have the same effect as ours?

    • Deerinwater

      nothing would please me more.

    • marylou

      Why do Libertarians NEVER win ANY elections but act as a spoiler for the party they have the most in common with/Republicans?

      1.Because they are delusional…no THIRD party has ever won a presidential election!

      2.Because the DEMOCRATS encourage and support their idiocy because it means democrats win!
      Example: Spoiler in VA and the biggest liberal is now in power thanks to ignorant Libertarians!

      3. Libertarians…your time is not NOW..but you are digging a hole so deep it will never be your time!

      4.Try to get your act together and wake up. You are being deceived at every turn!!

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    New poll shows 22 percent of Americans lean Libertarian:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/29/poll-22-percent-of-americans-lean-libertarian/

    The rest just don’t understand our policies and why Democrats and Republicans are taking us down the Road to Serfdom.

    • rbrooks

      A new poll shows nearly one-quarter of Americans qualify as libertarians or lean toward a libertarian political philosophy.

      The poll, from the Public Religion Research Institute,
      shows just 7 percent of Americans are “consistent” libertarians, but
      that another 15 percent sympathize with its general principles.

      The poll also shows libertarians identify much more with the GOP (43
      percent) than with the Democratic Party (5 percent), but half identify
      with neither party.

      The libertarian movement is largely homogeneous. It is strongly
      non-Hispanic white (94 percent), young (62 percent under 50 years old)
      and male (68 percent).

      About four in 10 identify as members of the tea party movement (39
      percent), while 61 percent do not. More Republicans identify with the
      tea party (20 percent) than with libertarians (12 percent).

      • Eric Bischoff

        That’s right and Progressives should never vote for plain democrats either. That’s why we need Instant-Run-off-Voting. I can vote for who I want and if they don’t get enough votes I can dictate who gets that vote next. Then everyone feels like they are winning something. Right now half the people always feel they’ve lost, thus the polarization.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Eric the Red says — “That’s right and Progressives should never vote for plain democrats either”.
          They don’t. They vote for Republicans and for Democrats.
          http://mises.org/daily/1259

          • Eric Bischoff

            Eureka. I get it. It took me a while. Dave is stuck in the 20th and sometimes even the 19th Century. He has no frame of reference for today and certainly never any visions for tomorrow.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Oh please forgive me, Eric the Red, for not happily adopting your attempt to take us back to the days of Serfdom.

          • rbrooks

            dave would prefer to go back a bit farther in time.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Not as far back as the Feudal times like you Liberal Progressives want.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Eric says — “Right now half the people always feel they’ve lost, thus the polarization”.
          Wow. Even a stopped clock is right twice each day.
          Eric is exactly right (of course he doesn’t know why).
          The only chance that the people have of ever being truly and collectively happy is for each individual to decide for themselves what to buy, who to buy from, who to work for, how to work, etc. We need to take Big Government out of the equation and get us back to the concept of voluntary trade (Free Markets).
          With Big Government, at least half of the people will never be happy, because Big Government is all about cramming everybody into the same shoes, and making one person pay for what another person desires.

  • Stuart Shepherd

    Kucinelli got DOUBLE sucker-punched- by the Republican establishment (who withdrew funding despite his courageous stand and legal work against Obamacare!!) and by the liberals, using taxpayer money primarily, who funded his planted libertarian opposition which, in the end, siphoned off enough votes to give McSlimeball the victory. More and more, I can see the truth of Ephesians 6:12- “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the
    principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this
    darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly
    [places].” and I’m starting to truly believe that Satan is getting the upper hand in America, that where america was God’s last stronghold, and that we are (not necessarily in a week!) heading toward the last of the “end times” and the final showdown. You can call me crazy all you want and you’d probably be right- but not about this, I don’t think.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      That is because the establishment Republicans, as well as the establishment Democrats, don’t really want Small Government. They just give lip-service to that concept to fool the voters.

    • $24100174

      You are so right Shepherd….the ruler of this world is non other than the devil (Satan)…But the Master of the Universe is coming, He will show up at anytime…and all of those followers of the darkness will be crying out for help, and it’ll be too late. Lets pray for the human race and prepare for we do not know the day and the time, He’ll show up and take over His world that us humans destroyed with our greed, selfishness, envy, jealousy, etc. God Bless America!!

  • JeffH

    Hundreds prepare protest against Islam chapter in Volusia Co. school textbook

    VOLUSIA COUNTY, Fla. — Hundreds of people in Volusia County are preparing a protest against a textbook that’s in public schools across Florida.

    They believe a world history book dedicates too much material to Islam and doesn’t focus equally on Christianity and other religions.

    Some protest organizers want students to go home and tear the section on Islam out of their textbooks.
    http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/hundreds-prepare-protest-against-islam-chapter-vol/nbhJt/

    • Eric Bischoff

      From Texas removing Jefferson from text books to now this. You guys are the American Taliban.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        You’re quite the zealot, aren’t you Eric the Red?

        • Eric Bischoff

          Unlike you, I only call you by your name Dave but, come to think of it you are the Mises Zealot aren’t you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            I brought a gun to your gun-fight. Wahhh.

      • Jana

        That is quite a statement coming from Mr. Socialist himself who is bragging above about the Progressive Party.
        Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism.

        • WTS/JAY

          Actually, socialism is a front for communism.

    • Robert Messmer

      Surprised that no one raised the “no establishment clause” in response to a whole chapter dedicated to Islam. Wonder if it is balanced in its treatment and points out that the main tenet of Islam is convert or die? With perhaps a picture taken from the live streaming video of the beheading of the innocent civilian and the picture of the Muslim eating the heart of his victim.

      • JeffH

        I doubt very much that “balance of truth” was even considered when they printed that indoctrinating piece of propaganda.

  • Deerinwater

    hmm? to even mention it , is to gloat I suppose. ~

    I predicted the GOP would lose Virginia 2 1/2 weeks ago. That doesn’t make me all that smart, ~ just better informed.

    As for “Conservatives not dying” ~ which ones, ~ it seems there are two kinds. ~ and clearly one kind is on life support today and the other seems to have a toe in the grave. The one toe they have yet to shot off.

    The term “conservative” has been used and abused until it been worn out.

    Attempt to find another “term” that best reflects your true intentions and let this one go, ~ it’s dragging you down.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      If you are an example of “better informed”, Deer, I would hate to see your idea of uninformed.

      • Deerinwater

        Like you might actually know something that is factually correct and worth knowing.

    • Bob666

      Yo Deer,
      That race was easy to call & I might have published a poll for it that race that was criticized by the regulars here on this site. This race was one of many that shows a trend of the mainstream voter moving away from the GOP.

      Insecure nutcases vote here.
      ………||
      ………||
      ………||
      ………||
      ……..||/

      • Robert Messmer

        By mainstream voter you are referring to those who sign petitions to do away with the Bill of Rights, help maintain Obama’s ability to send American citizens to Gitmo without benefit of attorney’s? The one’s who aren’t even sure which political party Obama is a member of? Those mainstream voters?

        • Bob666

          Let’s see here Robert,

          “you are referring to those who sign petitions to do away with the Bill of Rights, help maintain Obama’s ability to send American citizens to Gitmo without benefit of attorney’s”?

          That is what you are referring to Robert. I, on the other hand are referring to people who work, pay taxes, raise children, obey laws and vote in most elections.

          One might refer to them as the average American Robert, they decide elections.

          • Robert Messmer

            Yes and too bad they know nothing about the US Constitution and are willing to forgo rights for freebies.

          • Robert Messmer

            Yes and too bad they know nothing about the US Constitution and are willing to forgo rights for freebies.

          • Bob666

            What “Freebies” would be referring to Robert?

            And FYI, I read the Constitution several times a year as it is framed and hanging in my office,

      • WTS/JAY

        Bob666: This race was one of many that shows a trend of the mainstream voter moving away from the GOP.

        Isn’t that the whole point, Bob, that the GOP should be the one’s corralling and driving the sheep into the slaughter-house and under the knives of the Progressive-butchers? Isn’t that what the good-cop bad-cop routine is supposed to accomplish? Well yes, genius, it is!

        • Bob666

          Jay: “that the GOP should be the one’s corralling and driving the sheep into the slaughter-house and under the knives of the Progressive-butchers”?

          No Jay, that is not the point, but if that is what you choose to believe-so be it.

  • TML

    “The spoiler in the Virginia race for Governor turned out to be Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate. Thanks to having a record amount of money to spend for a third-party candidate, Sarvis managed to garner 6.5 percent of the vote. That was enough to tip the scales in McAuliffe’s favor.
    But here’s an interesting rumor that’s not getting much play in the national press. It’s that Democratic operatives poured a ton of money into the Sarvis campaign, knowing that he’d siphon a lot more votes from Cuccinelli than their guy. Sad to say, their bet paid off with a victory for McAuliffe.
    Now that they’ve proven how to split the conservative/libertarian vote…”

    Utterly deceptive twaddle speak, says I…. a third party takes moderate and undecided votes from both the left and right. This kind of rhetoric does nothing but serve continuance of the ‘two-party system’ through a post hoc fallacy, and means supporting a party (or candidate) whose policies you do not completely agree with, for no other reason than ‘beating the Democrats’. Such strategy lends as much value as directly voting for a Democrat whose policies also suck.

    • marylou

      FACT:
      SARVIS was put on the ballot as a spoiler WITH DEMOCRATIC money!

      Then low information libertarians were stupid enough to vote for him.
      That was the plan.

      Wake up LIBERTARIANS….you are being used and abused to get DEMOCRATS elected. You are used to split the Republican vote

      Are you really that stupid that you can’t see what happens when you vote third party!

      YOU ALWAYS LOSE! REPUBLICANS always lose.

      You will continue to lose elections, your country and freedom with your arrogant stupidity!

      Do you get it yet!

      Wake up!

      • TML

        marylou says, “…you are being used and abused to get DEMOCRATS elected. You are used to split the Republican vote”

        You contribute the Democrat winning the election as a result of a third party while at the same time acknowledging in your above post…

        marylou says, “This was an important election in VA for Republicans and they chose to not support it… …The RINO Estalishment (sic) Republicans are in bed with the democrats.”

        Which is more likely the cause. Prime example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

        • Jana

          For one thing a lot of people that work in Washington for the Government (ah ha) vote Democrat. Those are the counties that have taken over for the Democrats and have caused the state to become a Democratic State.

        • marylou

          Believe it or not…your choice!
          Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in …www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/re Cached
          A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia …
          Obama Donor Behind Third-Party Va. Candidate? Maybe Not : It …www.npr.org/…/243989526/obama-donor-behind-third-party…
          This week’s hot rumor in Virginia: Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis was a spoiler, bankrolled by an Obama bundler from Texas, to undercut …
          Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis was co-opted by Obama …www.theglobaldispatch.com/libertarian-candidate-robert… Cached
          Campaign finance records reveal that the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution to Sarvis’ campaign, helping to pay for …
          Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled …www.nationalreview.com/…va…obama-bundler-sterling-beard Cached
          Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler

      • Muffin Man Mashinksy

        YES!! LOONY TUNES LIBs are too stupid & ignorant & brainwashed in general to shake off their ideologies & change horses!!

      • TML

        marylou says, “FACT:
        SARVIS was put on the ballot as a spoiler WITH DEMOCRATIC money!”

        Can you provide proof of this “fact”?
        Even the article states;

        “But here’s an interesting RUMOR that’s not getting much play in the national press. It’s that Democratic operatives poured a ton of money into the Sarvis campaign” (emphasis mine)

        • marylou

          if you’d bothered to read to the end of that sentence/paragraph you’d have received your
          proof/evidence/answer!

          Please don’t act the fool!

          You don’t want information…you just want to prove your erroneous agenda…Epic fail!
          Please run along!

          • TML

            If a Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat loses it’s because their policies sucked and not enough people wanted to vote for them. Only a fool would vote for a candidate just because he/she belongs to a certain political party. That, my friend, is an epic fail. Run along now and learn what a fact actually is.

          • Robert Messmer

            Unfortunately there are still a lot of “yellow dog Democrats” around.

          • marylou

            So sorry you were unable to come up with a cogent reply. The answer is to vote for Constitutional Conservatives if you intend to keep your freedom …party politics is irrelevant!

      • Robert Messmer

        But the Libertarian would be just as right to say “Wake up you low information Republicans–join us and together we can defeat the evil Democrats”. Telling someone they should vote for a candidate that does NOT stand for the policies they wish to see in play just to defeat still another candidate that doesn’t endorse their platform makes no sense. And since we all know that the Republicans don’t really care about their policies or their people, well why vote for a Republican who will just turn around and do everything they are told to do by the Democrats?

    • Muffin Man Mashinksy

      IRAN SUX DOODY BALLS!!

      • TML

    • marylou

      Sarvis was/is a Democratic trojan horse set up, bought and paid for by the democrats to siphon votes…proven fact.

      Ron Paul went to VA to support Cucchinelli and to set the record and the libertarians straight …too little too late..they were scammed!
      The libertarians were scammed because they refuse to vet their candidates and continue vote for anyone who claims to be libertarian!
      Libertarians are becoming low information voters who vote party, not principles.

  • marylou

    THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO HELP REPUBLICAN CUCCINELLI in VA!

    This was an important election in VA for Republicans and they chose to not support it.

    That is very OBVIOUS to anyone but the brain dead. The RINO Estalishment Republicans are in bed with the democrats. Stop supporting them with your donations…they have not, are not, and will not support Constitutional Republican candidates

    DON”T WASTE YOUR MONEY/DONATIONS on the RNC….Support your own CONSERVATIVE candidates yourself…and your money won’t be wasted on ESTABLISHMENT RINOS that K Rove supports and can’t win!

    • disobey

      cucinelli lost because he is a foaming at the mouth zealot
      ala cardinal richleau santorum both belong in mental institutions
      with bachman and gohmert and a few others fanatics of either side can’t win

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You love talking about how much of a fool you are.

      • marylou

        You have to stop reading the lies in the liberal press!
        You know…like the ones OBAMA and the MSM told you about OBAMACARE, BENGHAZI, NSA,,IRS etc etc etc

        You have to use your gray matter for something else besides to fill your skull …… do your own research instead of absorbing what is fed to you on the MSM and remaining a low information voter!!

        Time to grow up instead of spewing nonsense you have no documentation to prove!

  • ActualConundrum

    Christie is a scum sucking democrat. Always has been. He won because democrats wanted him to. The election system is democrat controlled. Your votes mean nothing. Results are preprogrammed and have nothing to do with voting. Elections are corrupt. Unless you go back to punch cards the democrats will control who wins. Only if Punch cards, only machine count votes, purposeful intentional registry in post offices and courthouses only. Cut off periods of six months before election to register, ID required to vote everywhere, no same day vote and register, only one day election day for voting. In other words back to legal elections. If not America is done for.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      It’s not a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it’s a Big Government thing and a Freedom thing.
      Both the Democrat establishment and the Republican establishment has been infiltrated heavily by Pro-Big-Government Crony Capitalists. It is them against the rest of us.
      http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-is-the-1-Percent

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Perhaps, if the GOP actually embraced libertarian ideals they once claimed to stand for like a balanced budget, a Constitutional foreign policy, and sensible fair taxation, maybe the Libertarian Party wouldn’t have felt the need to run a candidate for Governor in Virginia.

  • Chuckb

    The truth is, the Bolsheviks have control of the vote in this country, they have the black vote, illegal, most of the unions, the Media and the majority of civil employees.generally the entitlement vote.

    The Republicans have whats left of the white vote and a small amount of minorities.
    There is nothing in the future short of a civil war that will change the way politics is headed.
    It should be obvious to the normal person, Lies and deceit by this President means nothing to the so called Democrat vote, they will continue the march towards a Socialist/Communist Government. .
    The so called apology tour this President is on shows what an arrogant stupid ass this man is, The fact is he’s still lying, his only regret is the trouble they are having with the instillation of this fraudulent Heathcare bill. Give the MSM a few days and they will erase all the concerns their pawns have had and the lies will be forgotten, even Fox News is trying to help him out..

    We are on our way towards universal healthcare. By the time Hillary arrives in the White House she will put the finishing touch on our freedom, that is, if Comrade Barry decides not to move and is elected by decree to a third term. That’s the way they did it in Venezuela, a controlled vote, the Democrats are masters of this and the Constitution doesn’t matter.
    Kiss your way of life goodby, you can see it now fading in the distance.

    Thank the Republican Hierarchy for their great choice of Candidates.

  • rivahmitch

    Sorry but you’re wrong. I’m a Virginian. I spent a non-trivial
    piece of my (retirement) income this year and days of my time
    (including 13 hours at the polls on Tuesday) working for the Republican
    ticket this year. That Sarvis wasn’t properly vetted by those purporting
    to be Libertarians and certainly wasn’t a libertarian himself was absurd and
    his (clearly mislabeled) presence in the race was a minor irritant but
    he didn’t cost us the race. McDonnell’s huge tax increase coupled with
    the weak performance of Boehner, McConnell and their ilk on the hill
    also put us at a disadvantage (It’s hard to make a case when your
    visible leadership offers a weak echo to progressive socialistic
    policies rather than a legitimate alternative.) Never-the-less, we came
    close to overcoming those challenges. What ultimately cost the election
    was that the national Republican establishment and the local RINOs
    decided to sit the race out. No work, no contributions, no phone calls,
    no door knocking at any level. The entire campaign was effected by the
    Republican Party of Virginia (now largely conservative) and local groups
    (as more Tea Party and AFP members than “establishment Republicans”.
    Politically incorrect as it may be to say it, it was RINOs afraid of
    losing their personal influence and power and their place at the trough
    of government who cost us the race. As we ran out of literature, and
    money for advertising we simply couldn’t overcome the 5:1 funding
    advantage the national socialist machine was able to deliver to
    McCauliffe. Among the folks who came to help the campaign were the Ron
    and Rand Pauls, Sarah Palins and Mike Huckabees and others from outside
    the Washington Republican “establishment”. Conspicuous by their absence
    were those who would be our controllers, the Roves, McCains, Bushies and
    McConnells turned their backs and Rove, of course, has openly declared
    his “war” on conservatives. It’s an absence which will not soon be
    forgotten.

    • Deerinwater

      Good read from the trenches, ~nothing quite like a boots on the ground view

    • Jana

      What you saw happen in VA is happening all over actually. We really need to get rid of those RINOS. They might as well join the Demonic rat party as far as I am concerned as there is not one bit of difference between the Dem. Party and McCain, McConnell, Rove or even Christi.

  • http://www.rt.com Alondra

    Liberals’ logic : STOP asking questions! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igB0akHTMh0
    …and change the definition of words … Or just change words.

    – We can’t say to STUPID person – STUPID, even she/he CONSTANTLY propelling stupid idiocy
    – We can’t say to Ignorant person – IGNORAMUS
    – We can’t say to Mentally Perverse – PERVERT
    – We can’t say to Sexually Depraved/ Debauched – DEPRAVED/Dissolute/ Wicked/Degenerated/ Degraded, even if the disgraceful one defends and advocates mind corruption of minors (starting with the 4-year olds)
    – We can’t to refer to a person of “black” race as a Niger (from the Latin) or NEGRO (from the Spanish and Portuguese), which is used in ALL South and Central America countries and European countries as well.

    People, your FREEDOM (independence of thinking and beliefs) and LIBERTY (freedom from external rule; independence) are shrinking everywhere. Even in the language vocabulary.

    You can’t call things/actions by their RIGHT names anymore.

    But Whitey People, do not worry – the Word Caucasian (Caucasoid aka Europoid) is not banned. At least not yet.

    P.S. Yesterday I attended the funeral service of my dear friend “Common Sense”.
    I am ready for condolences. But, please, remember what words you can use.

  • Alan

    The GOP can run Obama’s butt kisser for president if they choose, but there’s no f***ing way I’ll vote for him.

  • Chuckb

    By the time of the next presidential election, the media will have picked a candidate for the Republicans, most likely Christie, That will be the Democratic choice. All we have to do is pick the candidate they hate the most, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin
    If you notice, they hate Sarah Palin the most, My choice would be Sarah Palin and Mike Lee or vice versa. Depending on what they do with the amnesty bill, will depend if a Conservative ticket has any chance.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Bolsheviks try to run the Muslim n’ Chief again, they surely wouldn’t let the law stand in their way, with a majority of the democratic vote a mass of ignorance, he would be a shew in. .

    If Hillary doesn’t get the top spot, Bill will arrange for a hit on Biden,and the worse outlook for Hillary would be the Vice Presidential seat. Biden better check out his life insurance.

  • Eric Bischoff

    Working families party, a progressive party, helped De Blasio win NYC Mayor race by 74% versus 23% for Republican Lhota. That’s a landslide. Billionaire Republican Bloomberg leaves him with a $2 Billion deficit. Nice!

    • Jana

      Progressive party is the same thing as a Socialist Party. Oh how proud you must be!

      • Eric Bischoff

        Don’t be so afraid. Human beings are social beings.

        • WTS/JAY

          Human beings are also murderers, thieves, liars, perverts, power hungry control-freaks, greedy…but i suppose we could all find some common-ground, hey Eric?

          • Eric Bischoff

            Yes but thankfully only a few of them!

            Notice how crime goes up when the economy is in trouble and unemployment is up.

            Notice how the prison population is at an all time high now that we’ve mostly privatized the Prison Industrial Complex.

            Notice how the War on drugs is great for the Prison Industrial Complex.

            Notice how the Christian Conservative Right has taken over the Courts to make sure they control this.

          • http://www.rt.com Alondra

            Yes, Eric, we noticed how crime went up in the current troubled economy and high unemployment rate, especially among the BLACKS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiaCR_7WJN8

            Slaves of the DEMONcratic Party:

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Notice how the economy is down now and a Liberal Progressive is in office.
            Notice how the Democrats did nothing about ending the Drug Wars when they had the chance.
            Notice how Eric states a lot of conjecture with no evidence to back it up.

          • JeffH

            Notice how Eric the Red spends all of his time here chasing the pot of gold at he end of the rainbow?

            Notice how the hypocrit, Eric the Red , despises the “Christian Conservative Right” but spends all of his time preaching his “Communist Progressive” religion to those who turn a blind eye, no pun intended, to it. It being Marxism, socialism, fascism, progressivism and ultimately communism.

          • Eric Bischoff

            Notice how the paranoid Hs always name call and attack me instead of debating the topics at hand or potential solutions which they seem short on. They are fixated on a non-existent problem. There is no more communism expect in their paranoid minds. It was never a good idea. Some day we’ll say the same about our own flawed capitalism. That will come to an end too. Meanwhile we have some legitimate big problems at hand. Your anger and paranoia is blinding you.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            More Argumentum ad Hominem from Eric — “expect in their paranoid minds”, “Your anger and paranoia is blinding you”. And in the same comment he is whining about the name-calling of others. You’re a joke, Eric, a Liberal Progressive joke.

          • JeffH

            Eric the Red, if you talk like a duck and walk like a duck then you’re a duck…same goes with a thieving and forceful progressive communist like you!

            This is just for you Eric the Red, just for you!
            Jack Webb | Red Nightmare

            Like I said before, your progressive/communist playbook is old, worn out and tattered.

            You can whine all day about being misunderstood, name calling, being attacked or even if communism exists, at least in your twisted mind, but the bottom line is that you are just another hypocritical whining frustrated progressive!

            Oh, just so ya know… “WE” are not your brother’s keeper no matter what you may think or believe!

          • WTS/JAY

            Evidence? What evidence?; says Eric. Lol!

          • WTS/JAY

            What is your definition of Communism, Eric?

          • JeffH

            What has the Communist Party USA accomplished?

            Today’s Communist Party USA – YOUR Party, YOUR Voice!

          • JeffH

            Communist Party USA – Our World in Depth – Part 1

            Young Communist League USA
            http://www.yclusa.org/

          • Eric Bischoff

            You cherry picked like Fox does all day long.

            I stated a fact and that is that the Christian Conservative Right has taken over the courts. They are the ones who want more people in jail.

            It’s not name calling it’s a political fact. It’s been researched and written about.

            Go ahead Jeff keep being afraid. Fear is such a wonderful human trait and it makes us do such wonderful things to other human beings.

          • JeffH

            Bahhhh, bahhhh, bahhhhh says Eric the Red hypocrit!

          • Eric Bischoff

            How could Obama be a Liberal Progressive when he was put in power and continues to work for the Goldman Sachs, the banksters, the Monsantos. He has sped up drilling in the US. He has classified more documents than ever and he has us tangled in more wars and has the National Security police state looking at all of us everywhere all the time.

            Dream on! Keep telling yourselves he is a liberal progressive. I guess that is the only way you can live with yourselves because in reality he is more like you than like me.

          • Eric Bischoff

            How could Obama be a Liberal Progressive when he was put in power and continues to work for the Goldman Sachs, the banksters, the Monsantos. He has sped up drilling in the US. He has classified more documents than ever and he has us tangled in more wars and has the National Security police state looking at all of us everywhere all the time.

            Dream on! Keep telling yourselves he is a liberal progressive. I guess that is the only way you can live with yourselves because in reality he is more like you than like me.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Obama is just like you, Eric. He claims he is for the people at the same time that he feathers his own nest. That’s what Liberal Progressives are all about. If their (your) ideas were really beneficial to people, then they (you) wouldn’t need the Force of Big Government to make them accept those ideas.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Socialism is about human predators taking advantage of the rest of the people. If you are in the 1% that is the State, you will like it. The rest of you will be serfs.
          http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-is-the-1-Percent

          • Eric Bischoff

            Too bad you have it backwards Dave

            Fascism is about the 1% & Corporations controlling/colluding with the State to keep you indebted with low wages. Fascism is about raping the earth until they run out of resources as fast as they can so that they can get theirs first.

            Socialism is the people deciding that they want to help each other and support the poor the sick the disabled. Socialism is also about protecting the environment for future generations.

            In this case Dave is the predator. He wants business to have the freedom to do as they please, which they are and he is trying to pull the wool over your eyes by having you believe that Socialism is a bad thing. He is selling this as your freedom. Good luck with that.

            Germany is a Social Democracy and they are doing better than all other western nations. They also have high Union participation, universal healthcare and high wages in manufacturing. And even thoughthey have lousy weather they have a very successful decentralized solar power generation initiative.

            Go ahead keep voting against yourselves and follow Dave and you will just have more Billionaires. Is that what you want? Is that helping you and your family? Is that making the country and the planet better?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            That is so damn ignorant, Eric. Whether it be Socialism, Fascism, or Communism, the Force of Big Government is required because people like to keep the property that they worked hard to accumulate. And because people don’t like being told who they have to trade with or deal with. So people like you come along with their rosy claims of “for the people”, when in fact if it were “for the people” they would accept it voluntarily without your Force.
            You are a Forcer and a Thief, Eric, so don’t pretend to be otherwise.

          • Eric Bischoff

            You Lord Mises on the other end are just being your usual Rude Self.

            I guess we could all blindly follow you and believe that Progressives want big govt. Too bad it’s just a fiction of your imagination and paranoia.

            We want just the right amount of effective, limited, honest govt.

            What’s funny,(hypocritical), is that every time conservatives take charge they turn around and grow govt and the deficit.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            You speak in generalities, Eric the Red, like any sneaky perpetrator would do.
            So you say that you want the “right amount”.
            What would that “right amount” be in your mind?
            Cite dollars and specific programs please.
            Those “conservatives” of which you speak, Eric, are NeoConservatives, certainly not Conservative Constitutionalists.
            And I am a Libertarian. You know that.

          • Eric Bischoff

            I’ll be nice and only call you Oh Lord Mises when what I am often thinking is that you behave and sound like a fascist.

            It’s amazing how you feel the need to constantly distance yourself or move the goal post on where you stand.

            Why do you feel the need to lie, attack and name call so much? Are you not capable of having a conversation that involves respect and an open mind? Are we supposed to think only you have the answers and they only come from the Book of Mises.

            And what’s with the use of latin when you seem stumped? Is that so you could look smarter than you really are?

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Eric the Red says — “what I am often thinking is that you behave and sound like a fascist”.
            How so, Eric? Feel free to demonstrate how I even remotely resemble a fascist.

            Eric the Red says — “It’s amazing how you feel the need to constantly distance yourself or move the goal post on where you stand”.
            How so, Eric? Be explicit.

            Eric the Red says — “Why do you feel the need to lie?”.
            Feel free to expose any lies that you claim I have told, Eric.

            Eric the Red says — “Are you not capable of having a conversation that involves respect and an open mind?”.
            Respect, Eric? You first. Your mind is closed like a steel trap, Eric. I have yet seen you admit you are wrong no matter how much I prove that to be the case. That is, of course, when you actually say something explicit instead of your usual vague generalities.

            Eric says — “Are we supposed to think only you have the answers and they only come from the Book of Mises?”.
            The wise and highly-educated staff of Mises Institute are my go to source of information because I have yet to hear them say anything that I can substantially disagree with. It sure beats your bible, Eric the Red — “the Communist Manifesto” which has been proven repeatedly to be a failure.

            And, Eric the Red, I am smarter than you are, by a landslide, unless of course you don’t really believe the Propaganda you are spreading, but are doing it to take advantage of others. In that case, I wouldn’t call you smart so much as immoral and devious.

  • Sarah417

    Cuccinelli won against all odds. The GOP and RNC threw him under the bus weeks before. Christy, since his win was assured, was asked to go to Va and support Cuccinelli. He refused. Ron Paul asked the third party Sarvis, paid to enter the race by the money people, asked him to drop out of the race for Cuccinelli’s win and you guessed it he refused. Conservatives don’t fight that dirty, but I think we should because it ain’t looking good for 2016. They want to put Chris Christy against Hillary. Now don’t that beat all.

    Constitutional Conservatives should throw the GOP and RNC under the bus for 2016. It’s time for a third party.

  • Merle Dickey

    Amazing how many supposedly educated people are taken in by this traitor that has said on national television Quote “I am of Muslim faith” Some how there has to be someone who is intelligent enough too destroy this traitor and his gang before we are all under communist or worse control