Flaming Bags of Poo
[AKA All Linky, No Thinky: Tgirsch Edition, AKA "What I'm reading today."]
Since Uncle’s on the beach enjoying his vacation, I figured I’d give you folks some blog fodder to get you all worked up:
- I voted today. Spoiler alert! I voted Democrat. *gasp!*
- The Guardian (UK): All the screaming you’re hearing about “voter fraud” is a bunch of crap. (FactCheck mostly agrees,as does PolitiFact.com.)
- Speaking of FactCheck.org and things that will get your dander up, they’re going after the NRA again. Sic’ ‘em!
- Larison briefly discusses elitism.
- A dyed-in-the-wool liberal endorses Murtha’s opponent
- Want to kill time with a stupid game? Try Truth Invaders.
- Nate Silver writes about why McCain isn’t doing so well right about now.
- Pattycakes is being screwed by The Man.
- xkcd weighs in on Scrabble. (For those of you not familiar with xkcd, it’s always important to read the hover text…)
- Vinny accuses Sarah Palin of socialism.
- Wondermark: Overthrow your corporate overlords, as long as it’s not too expensive… (xkcd hover text rule also applies here).
Have fun, and have a good weekend.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
you mean factcheck… the company that was founded by the annenberg foundation… the same foundation that worked closely with the Joyce foundation in creating multiple gun control groups across America… adn employed Obama for years…
and they are somehow disagreeing with the NRA… boy there is a shocker!!!
October 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
next youll tell me another shocker like “water is wet”
October 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Oh, come on, if you’re going to smear them, do it creatively. It’s the Annenberg Political Fact Check, the same Annenberg who was responsible for the Annenberg Challenge, which is associated with unrepentant radical Bill Ayers! FactCheck.org pals around with terrorists! QED
October 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
You mean annenberg factcheck, that gives loads of money to the anti-gunners? Going after the NRA? You’d almost think that was their job.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Also, uncle- why do you continue to let this left wing anti-gunner blog on your site?
October 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
well, is that just as valid as your votor fraud nonsense… “oh, yes there is massive registration fraud, but it wont lead to any thing but one vote per person.”
come on, throw bullshit in someone else’s face… you arent gonna get any to stick here…
October 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
tg – too bad (for you and Obie) your vote will likely be nullified soon. (developing… http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 )
October 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“(The NRA says he voted “four times” but we find record of only two votes.)”
Two words “Judiciary Committee”.
Charges were initially filed against him but later dropped after public outcry. Not a word about that. Wonder why? Demar was fined $750 and that’s not a ‘petty’ amount. Unless of course you also think $500 firearms are ‘disposable’.
So much for ‘factchecking’ on FactCheck.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Wow, factcheck sure has a bug up its ass about the NRA. Too bad they are wrong again. Of course, the more knowledgeable gun-bloggers will say why this Obama propaganda piece is garbage. Not as bad as that tripe before, with the last ‘factcheck’ claiming Obama is not going to take away my guns.
By the way, voted for Palin the other day. Felt good to be an ignorant racist bigot that wants to take away women’s rights and give guns to insane criminals from Enron.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The day Uncle asks me to stop guest-posting here, I’ll do so, without hesitation.
One minor correction: I’m not an “anti-gunner.” I’ve never expressed support for a firearm ban of any sort, and am a proud CCW permit holder, thank you very much. I’m not as rabidly pro-gun as many here, but that doesn’t make me anti-gun.
I’m more than willing to own “left wing,” however.
October 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
We all support speed laws right? Breaking the law by going faster then proscribed, or speeding, is a bad thing.
****
If you speed to rush to the hospital, you deserve a ticket, it doesn’t matter if you are bleeding heavily and might die.
There is no excuse to break the law. If we don’t enforce our important laws on the people, they won’t be safe, even if it kills them in order to follow the law.
……
This is perfectly logical right?
October 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
How can you tell the difference between a person that is anti-gun and a person supporting anti-gun politicians??
I don’t know either.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
It may be difficult for you to comprehend, but there are people out there who aren’t single-issue voters.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I voted last Tuesday.
I just voted for whoever the NRA told me to!
October 24th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
yet you support and defend a party that has a long history of trying to impose gun bans and gun control… you also support a candidate with a stated plan to implement more gun control…
so as a proud CCW holder, that makes you a hypocrite
October 24th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
How can you tell the difference between a person that is anti-gun and a person supporting anti-gun politicians??
gun rights isn’t the only issue when considering a candidate. Some may choose to be a “single-issue” voter and that’s their right. On the other hand, many will use that as one factor in a sea of many factors when deciding whom to support.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
gun rights might not be a single issue… but a candidate willing to trample on one right will be willing to trample on many others… and that should be a universal issue.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Tgirsch,
It looks like you and yours are going to get exactly what you’ve asked for in government, and more.
I sure hope you’re ready for it. Too bad you had to bring the rest of us along though…
October 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“gun rights might not be a single issue… but a candidate willing to trample on one right will be willing to trample on many others… and that should be a universal issue.”
Comrade Obama has already show a willingness to do that with his attempts to prevent TV stations from airing the NRA ads about his anti second ammendment rights record.
He obviously has no problem with trampling on the first two ammendments. What makes anyone think he has any qualms about trampling on the rest of them?
October 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
“Also, uncle- why do you continue to let this left wing anti-gunner blog on your site?”
Would you want this site to be like the liberal blogsites that only allow posts that agree with their spiel? Uncle, and I hope most of us who post here, is/are better than that.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
You’re not anti-gun, you just apparently think voting for an amendment whose author stood on the floor of Congress and said was essential and necessary to ban a common hunting round, doesn’t mean that person has voted to ban a common hunting round.
You’re not anti-gun, you just don’t think voting to keep a law that punished a man for defending his own life in his own home is perfectly hunky dory. Even with the man voting says it was to prevent chinks from appearing in the armor of a complete ban on guns.
You’re not pro-gun just because you have a permit. I hate to break it to you, but last I checked, so did/does Charles Schumer. I don’t want to badmouth elitists — some people actually are good enough on a particular topic to justify elitism — but on the gun issue, it just makes you an asshole.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
How can you tell the difference between a person that is anti-gun and a person supporting anti-gun politicians?
You mean like Chris Buckley? Or the long stream of Republicans who have been announcing their support of Obama over the last week or two.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Chris Buckley is hardly a pillar of conservatism…
October 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
oh..and let me add some flame bait..in the latest polls, 1/3 of Americans think the Ayers BS matters and 55% think Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President. Thus more Americans are troubled by John McCain’s connection to Sarah Palin than Barack Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
chris:
you also support a candidate with a stated plan to implement more gun control
Stated where?
but a candidate willing to trample on one right will be willing to trample on many others
Like habeas corpus, for example? Or the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? (Note that both candidates have already trampled on that latter right…)
drstrangegun:
Hey, I’ve ridden along with you folks for quite some time now. It’s my people’s turn to drive for a while.
Huck:
Thanks for the sort-of vote of confidence.
gattsuru:
You’re not pro-gun just because you have a permit.
I never claimed to be particularly pro-gun, either. Unlike apparently just about everyone here, I don’t view pro-gun and anti-gun as black-and-white absolutes, with no shades of grey. Truth to tell, I’m generally on the side of gun rights (I don’t support gun bans; I think most gun control laws are ineffective and therefore unnecessary; I think that gun control is an attempt to treat a symptom rather than a disease, etc.), and I enjoy shooting for recreation (I don’t hunt, and I almost never carry for personal defense). But in all honesty the gun issue is just not a hot-button issue for me one way or the other.
What I will say is that I detest the attitude, common on gun blogs in particular, that “not as vehemently pro-gun as I am” somehow is equivalent to “anti-gun.” And for that reason, I think the label “gun nut” is in many ways an earned one.
but on the gun issue, it just makes you an asshole.
I would hope you’re talking about Schumer and not me. We’ve had our differences before, but you’ve never resorted to calling me an asshole…
October 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
bush isnt running… stop being deranged about that…
which candidate has suspended habeas corpus?
and unreasonable search and seizure? by what are you referring to? and who has been searched and seized that you can prove?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Stated where?”
In his speeches and the Democratic Platform.
CCW bans, AW Bans, opening up Tiarht against the wishes of the FBI, FOP, and BATFE.
Really man, are you that blinded by the Lightbringer?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
chris:
Who said anything about Bush? Certainly not me.
As to habeas corpus, McCain himself is on the record in opposition to habeas corpus for detainees, and even filibustered a bill that would have restored habeas corpus rights.
On unreasonable search and seizure, what cave have you been living in? This is just one example of the kind of thing that FISA abomination, supported by both presidential candidates, has brought us. Sadly, neither party has the balls to fix that and restore the constitution.
October 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
chris:
Who said anything about Bush? Certainly not me.
As to habeas corpus, McCain himself is on the record in opposition to habeas corpus for detainees, voted for a bill giving President Bush jurisdiction to strip habeas corpus (after a federal court ruled that he didn’t have it), and even filibustered a bill that would have restored habeas corpus rights.
On unreasonable search and seizure, what cave have you been living in? This is just one example of the kind of thing that FISA abomination, supported by both presidential candidates, has brought us. Sadly, neither party has the balls to fix that and restore the constitution.
[Original comment had links, but spam filter ate it.]
October 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’m very pro-gun, at least I think. I don’t see why there are CCW bans on college campuses and post offices and parks. I think the Hughes Amendment is a giant fraud which was surreptitiously passed without anyone’s knowledge and is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and the Hughes Amendment should be repealed and its writer jailed. I think every single state should have a Castle Doctrine law. Bans on certain features of weapons won’t do anything to solve the problem.
Thing is though, I still need to eat. I still need to drive my car to work. I still need to hope my college loans don’t crap out on me. I hope that if I join the armed forces to pay for medical school, I hope the president knows what the hell he/she is doing when war comes around. I don’t want to be paying for gas forever and potentially hurting the environment, heck I’m frikin pre-ordering the Volt when they allow me to. So to me, it’s more than just the guns, it’s also about other issues. I’m leaning more towards Obama than McCain – but then think about this: The NRA did fine under Clinton, and at the time he was the most anti-gun of them so far, what, are you NRA guys suddenly not confident right now or something?
October 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The NRA did fine under Bush as well, does that mean that ‘us NRA guys’ want someone we have to spend the next 4 years actively opposing in office? I’ld rather work on moving forward (like CCW in IL, etc. ) than working to maintain what we have.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
so you are FOR granting American constitutional rights (habeas corpus) to foreign nationals?
that has worked really well so far, if you look around, we are about to have some 19 Chinese terrorists released into the US because of it…
and FISA… who has been illegally searched and seized??? give me names and cases?
October 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The NRA’s enforcement is interesting, but it’s hardly my voters guide.
Supporting the anti-gun guy who is also anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-defense, anti-drilling, hell, anti all too many things, doesn’t strike me as a vote for any sort of freedom.
What type of voter are you? I’m not saying I’m voting for McCain myself, I’ll decide when it’s time to push the button. I know he’s Socialist Lite, but for gods sake, Socialist Lite is better the Socialist the Energy Drink.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Chris:
Habeas corpus is a basic human right, in my estimation, not a uniquely American one. Forgive me if I expect our country to live up to its own (stated) principles. And lest you forget, at least some of the people detained at Gitmo (and denied habeas) were US citizens.
As to the searches, my link got eaten by the spam filter, but let’s see if it lets it through this way:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5987804&page=1
October 24th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
so your solution to right those wrongs is to trust a man who has friends that did this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJn5b8_weUY
October 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Tgirsch, they still had the ability to appeal their imprisonment in the court of appeals of Washington D.C. and federal courts; the MCA was interested more primarily in preventing judge shopping.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
He will be along soon to say that Obama has no realistic ties to Ayers… Then he will make some association between McCain and Bush…
Course its fair game when its a Democrat making the associations about opponents, but dare not criticize the holy obamamessiah.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
RE: Flaming Bag of Poo: Alaska edition
( i.e. Vinny accuses Sarah Palin of socialism.)
Vinny does, but you don’t, right tgirsch? Plausible deniability and all that.
Let me explain the concept of a commonwealth. Alaska’s mineral wealth is owned by it’s citizens. The citizens elect a government to manage the shared mineral resources. That government lets the oil companies extract and utilize that wealth for a fee. Those fees exceed the expenses of the government. (OK, here’s the really tricky part, so I’ll start a new paragraph)
That cash has always been owned by the people, therefore the wealth is distributed, not re-distributed).
And here’s a paragraph to explain what’s not happening. It’s not being used to line the pockets of the politicians. It’s not being used to replace the primary wage earner role in some form of family wrecking welfare state. It’s not being used to dream up new government programs that overlap already existing government spending (i.e. WIC). It’s not being use to create patronage jobs in order to buy votes. Oh, and it’s not being used to fund stem cell research (nothing against stem cell research by itself, I’ll be dammed though if I can understand why taxpayers should pay for research where there’s zero chance they will receive a dime of royalties if there’s ever any effective treatments marketed)
The mineral royalties are put into the Alaskan Permanent Fund where every year a portion of the profits are distributed to their rightfully owners.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Tomcatshanger:
What type of voter are you?
A Feingold Democrat, a fact I’ve never tried to conceal. If you want to engage on the other issues, and why I stand where I stand on them, I’d be happy to.
Chris:
I’ve already criticized Obama once in this thread, and will do so for any issues where I disagree with him. His health care plan is crap (though not as crappy as McCain’s), and I’ve got no use for Obama’s support of ethanol subsidies, either. I don’t think Obama’s a perfect candidate by any stretch of the imagination. He’s just closer to my position than McCain is on the issues I care about most. You’ll almost certainly disagree with me on those, but that’s the beautiful thing about America — we’re entitled to peaceably disagree.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Pardon me, but I don’t give a rats ass that NRA did fine under Clinton. Gun rights took a shellacking under Clinton, much of which we have still not recovered from. If the second amendment isn’t important to you, fine. I understand why some people aren’t single issue voters, but don’t try to claim that Obama isn’t anti-gun, or that gun owners don’t have anything to worry about from his administration because, hey, we did OK under Clinton. No we didn’t. Clinton was a disaster for gun rights. Take a look at Brady II to see just how bad things could have gotten if the Republicans hadn’t taken Congress in 1994.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
so socialized medicine isnt strong enough for you?… got it…
Obama already considers health care a right… how much further can he go?
By the way, that means that Obama believes that the fruits of someone’s labor (a doctor) should belong to the people as a right… that is the very definition of socialism.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
We lost 80 percent of the FFLs in this country under Clinton. 80 percent.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Hmmmmm.
Really vote fraud is a myth eh?
13 students temp in Ohio for Obama. All 13 fraudulently register to vote, 3 or 4 vote early, none are legal voters.
All 13 just cut a deal to avoid prosecution for voter registration fraud and *vote fraud*.
As for FactCheck.org. IMO you’d have to be a jackhole to trust FactCheck.org. Like any other website, particularly one paid for by a liberal foundation, it has it’s own agenda.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:52 am
ahhh yes… now that he cannot argue with me, my last post gets deleted… nice
October 25th, 2008 at 12:53 am
err, it is awating moderation… didnt happen with any past comments… odd
October 25th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Like any other website, particularly one paid for by a liberal foundation, it has it’s own agenda.
The Annenberg foundaHtion is run by the Annenberg family including Leonore Anneberg who endorsed John McCain. Her husband, the late Walter Annenberg, was an Ambassador under Reagan and Nixon. Sounds pretty liberal to me.
October 25th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Chris: my comment is in the mod queue too. It’s too long or something?
October 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Nice try, Manish, but Annenberg Political (humorously known by some as “Fact Check”) isn’t run by anyone named Annenberg. Owned, maybe, but what matters is who runs the day to day operations.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I don’t care if Annenberg is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. What it HAS done is donated considerable amounts of money to the Brady Campaign. Factchecks defense that they’ve also donated to numerous Republicans really means nothing.
‘Factcheck’ writers have proven they have a hard-on against the NRA now and are just pumping out crap to try and discredit them. Tgirsch’s linked article is more of an opinion piece than any sort of objective evidence.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hmmmm
As an aside here’s something amusing.
A number of House Democrats are now talking about eliminating the 401(k) retirement plan. Now they want to roll all 401(k) plans into a new plan under the SSA, where the Democrats can pillage the money to their hearts content, and in the future implement a 5% mandatory payroll “deduction”, which is not a tax *laugh*, that will pay a 3% return on your “investment”.
I think it’s clear the Democrats have totally lost their minds.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Standard Mischief:
Vinny does, but you don’t, right tgirsch? Plausible deniability and all that.
Never said I didn’t. I found the statement interesting, but hadn’t really decided one way or the other. I guess I didn’t realize that we implicitly endorse everything we link to. By that standard, I’m guessing Xrlq would be pretty upset at some of the stuff he’s “endorsed.”
Alaska’s mineral wealth is owned by it’s citizens.
OK, wait. The natural resources are owned equally by all of the people of Alaska, right? And this isn’t socialism exactly, uhh, how? (”It’s everybody’s oil, maaaaaan. Drum line forms over there, Kumbaya starts in 5 minutes…”)
Kinda turns the idea of private property rights on its head, doesn’t it?
October 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
chris:
so socialized medicine isnt strong enough for you?
I’m a pragmatist. I’ll support whatever plan provides the best coverage to the most people, and I don’t particularly care how it gets done. If you can find a market-based solution to providing health care for virtually everyone who needs it, I’m all for it.
Obama already considers health care a right
I’m surprised that’s as controversial as it turns out to be, but whatever. I don’t think that health care should be a privilege of wealth, any more than I think education should be a privilege of wealth. Call me a commie, I guess.
that means that Obama believes that the fruits of someone’s labor (a doctor) should belong to the people as a right
Unless you think every doctor that ever treated you somehow owns you (or part of you), the fruits of a doctor’s labor are his pay, and in every health plan I’ve seen, including Obama’s, the doctor still gets paid.
October 26th, 2008 at 3:20 am
but when the government gets involved, they will dictate what the doctor gets paid thus forcing them to give up their time and effort for a pay that will be MUCH less than they get now…
sure a doctor might stop making $140,000 a year and drop to $80,000… but the cost of 12+ years of medical school wont go down any… so you will get less doctors, and crappier medical care.
but at least the doctor still gets paid…
if socialized medicine works so well then why did Hawaii get rid of it last week?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:52 am
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens, but it’s not exactly some kind of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, when we spread other people’s wealth around we can buy a lot of votes”
October 26th, 2008 at 6:54 am
holy fuck, what’s up with the comment moderation all of a sudden? It’s not like I’m pushing little blue pills or linking to pr)n?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:58 am
(experimenting with comment moderation, apologys for the double comment)
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens, but it’s not exactly some kind of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, when we spread other people’s wealth around we can buy a lot of votes”
October 26th, 2008 at 7:15 am
so if I keep the comment length below say, 200 characters, perhaps that will let me post without the fscking moderation? Let’s try exactly 199 letters and spaces. I only need a few more. …………
October 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Don’t hesitate to delete this comment because it’s not anything other than my attempt to see if I can comment without moderation if I keep my spam under, say, four hundred or so letters, numbers and spaces. I need perhaps a sentence or two more to reach my goal. Just a
bit more filler. This is the way we create unique content to test the “anti” junk thingy. We can haz comment circumvention. 31337
October 26th, 2008 at 7:54 am
So the target for this comment is four hundred and ninety nine characters. I’m guessing that this anti-spam effort is because of the demise for our beloved spam karma 2. However, creating a limit that seems to moderate any comment that is over 500 characters isn’t a very efficient way to fight spam while encouraging a healthy level of discussion in the comments. Especially if those comment do not contain any links to other web sites beyond my own neglected blog. Teh wc -c <comment is teh w00t.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
chris:
Your latest comment reveals a profound ignorance of the health plans the candidates are proposing. Perhaps you should go learn about them before you embarrass yourself further. Obama’s plan would simply expand who’s covered under an existing government health insurance program. Private health insurance plans, and employer-sponsored health insurance plans, would continue to exist as they do today. The doctors’ offices and hospitals remain in the private sector, as well, so there’s no worry of “the government” cutting a doctor’s pay. The only people who run the risk of making less money if Obama’s plan passes is are insurance companies and their shareholders, not doctors. (And I doubt that, too; in all likelihood, it would be a boon to the insurance companies.)
Standard Mischief:
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens
In other words, how to “spread the wealth around.” Obama ‘08!
Seriously, though, you’re making a collectivist argument concerning the ownership of Alaska’s natural resources. Think about that. Suppose Illinois declared that all the corn and wheat produced by the state, and so a portion of the proceeds from the sale of corn and wheat should be distributed to all of Illinois’ citizens — in a scenario like that, you’d be calling people Comrade!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[By the way, I've tried to rescue several comments from moderation, but my Kung Fu is not sufficiently mighty.]
October 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
If there is land in Illinois owned by the commonwealth of Illinois and leased out to enterprising individuals for a fee or royalties so they are allowed to grow crops, then the monies received damn right are owned equally by the citizens, I know Chicago though, and no way in hell would any revenue surplus not be put to use creating patronage jobs, awarding government contracts, or buying votes through entitlements. (Those are libertarianleaning code words for spreading the socialism around, BTW)
October 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
under obama’s plan, you would see something similar to what just failed in Hawaii and the lovely plan that is costing the state a fortune in NJ… you make one mistake… EVERYONE is already covered in America…
You can walk into ANY hospital in America, and it is illegal for them to refuse treatment, even if you cannot pay.
Remember this is the same government that has fucked up the social security system and public education system so bad that they are almost bankrupt… and the same government that failed at running a whorehouse.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Take a look at Brady II to see just how bad things could have gotten if the Republicans hadn’t taken Congress in 1994.”
Yup, Brady II would have pretty much destroyed gun rights/ gun ownership in this country. Quite frankly I find Tgirsch’s attempts to say Obama’s not all that bad on guns ridiculous. He IS as bad as the NRA is portraying him to be, and he’s far worse than Clinton.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
tgirsch,
Also consider when you “buy” (subject to confiscation via eminent domain abuse, but that’s a bit OT) property, frequently you do not get the mineral rights as they are reserved by the state. If I own forty acres and a mule in the middle of a thousand acres of oil fields how much is mine? All I can pump even if it depletes the level of oil in property around me?
Then again there are plenty of places in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania that have their own natural gas wells on site, so mineral rights reserved by the state is not universal.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
If it isn’t obvious, there is a vast difference between leasing public land for private use or allowing minerals to be extracted, and then taking the money and giving it evenly to the actual owners
vs.
Stealing crops produced by private individuals on private property and selling them so you can give coupons to women, for the benefit of infants and children and the unborn because they are too stupid to buy healthy food with with their food stamps and need Yet Another Government Program with Yet Another set of Government Regulations (written by Yet Another set of Government Employees) on which foods are appropriately to be purchased with “free” money from the governments.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
mike w:
I’m not aware that I’ve ever made ANY particular claims about Obama’s stances on guns.
SM:
I don’t think the difference is so vast as you claim. In both cases, the land is being exploited; the primary difference is by whom and who gets the money. And for what it’s worth, unless not a drop of Alaskan oil comes from Federal land, I’m wondering where MY money is.
And I understand the whole bit about mineral rights, but that doesn’t make it any less socialistic a concept.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
for chrissakes stop this stupid name calling about “socialism”. The government just took over Fannie and Freddie, AIG and are about to give $700 billion towards buying stakes in banks or buying steaming piles of mortgage turds, and your calling a rise of 3% in the marginal tax rate socialism? Please the stupid, it hurts.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
tgirsch,
Yes, some of the oil, timber, and other resources come from federal land, which is owned by all of us citizens.
The Federal Government gets their cut, but until they balance the federal budget, retire the national debt, and stop spending every last penny that falls into their hands, don’t expect a check.
-
My simple question to you is: “who owns those oil reserves?” I’ll make it multiple choice.
A. The residents of Alaska own those reserves.
B. The Great state of Alaska owns the reserves, Also, they own whatever percent of Alaskan citizens’ paychecks that they can get away with stealing. Their herd of citizens are a resource to be sheared. Occasionally they will need to be provided with bread and circuses to be kept happy.
C. The Federal government owns those reserves because they own the states. Those states joined the union, and the union can never be dissolved without the consent and agreement of the rest of the union.
D. Barack “hippie chick” Obama will own those reserves once he becomes anointed as President. From his temple mount at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he will decree that the wealth will be spread around unevenly to benefit everyone.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
SM..as you may be aware, Sarah Palin increased the tax imposed on oil companies to extract oil from Alaska. She then used this extra money to cut a larger check to every person in Alaska. However, the above is somehow not socialism.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
TGirsch, how particular is “particular?”. Your approving link to “Fact Check” and their hatchet job on the NRA ad certainly sounded like you were saying something about Obama’s actual views on guns.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
SM:
How about E, none of the above? I would have thought you private property types would think that whoever owns the land owns what’s underneath it. But apparently not when that position is politically inconvenient.
Xrlq:
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that “the NRA’s attacks aren’t entirely accurate” is the same thing as “Barack Obama is the most pro-gun presidential candidate, like, ever.” You call it a “hatchet job” because they don’t parse things the same way you parse them, and you say Fact Check is “in the tank” for Obama, yet if the spam filter weren’t so picky here I’d post a dozen links where Fact Check takes Obama to task.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
“stated where?”
Uh, have you actually read the position documents that your candidate has on his website?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/UrbanFactSheet.pdf isn’t exactly hard to find and contains:
“He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on
foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
Maybe you should have educated yourself about his platform before voting for him, eh?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Hmmmm.
@ tgirsch
“How about E, none of the above? I would have thought you private property types would think that whoever owns the land owns what’s underneath it. But apparently not when that position is politically inconvenient.”
Don’t be a bigger idiot than your mother made you.
The federal government holds that it, and it -alone-, is the ultimate owner of all land in the USA. It’s called -sovereignty- or haven’t you ever heard of it.
Fact is SM is entirely correct on his A-D.
Frankly all you offer are glib responses that lack thought.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
tgirsch…
well, you’ve got alright taste in webcomics.
(And remember, someone is wrong on the internet…)
As an aside question:
I don’t know if you or SM are right about who owns oil reserves. Have either of you ever heard about houses (or other property) where the sale is everything but the mineral rights on the land?
I don’t know whether petroleum is covered under mineral rights, but I’ve heard stories of old mining towns where some company owns mineral rights for the land under half of the privately-owned houses in town.
If you’re talking about petroleum on land owned by the Federal Government inside the boundaries of the State of Alaska, the legality of who owns what (and who can put a duty fee on what) gets kind of murky.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
jesse:
I had forgotten about the AWB thing, but that’s never really been a hot-button issue for me (blasphemy, I know!). All other things being equal, I’d rather not see it reinstated, but to my mind it was so ineffective and riddled with loopholes that it really do much, anyway. I don’t claim to be an AWB expert by any stretch, but it seemed to me to fall more under the category of government waste than much in the way of rights infringement.
memomachine:
OK, I’ll put you down for “C” then.
But, of course, your objection misses the point. SM and his ilk don’t refrain from complaining about socialism where it already exists, and the resource ownership arrangement he’s discussing is clearly socialistic. Just because that’s the way it is now doesn’t mean that it’s not socialistic.
Karrde:
IANAL (or even close), so I don’t know what happens with mineral rights if they aren’t explicitly discussed in the land purchase contract. My understanding (which could certainly be wrong) is that the mineral rights belong to the landowner unless the land is specifically sold without them, although it could be the opposite (i.e., you don’t own the mineral rights unless the purchase agreement specifically says that you do), and it could vary by state.
P.S. That comic’s one of my favorites, especially the hover text.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that accusing someone of “lying to win” was the same thing as saying that their ads aren’t 100% accurate – even when they are.
No, I call it a “hatchet job” because that’s precisely what it is. Calling truthful statements “false” and accusing the other guy of “lying” is not parsing things differently. Ignoring one side’s painstaking research and taking the other side’s word is not “fact-checking,” it’s campaigning. Falsely claiming that SB 2165 is about local registration laws rather than bans is not “parsing.” Neither is falsely claiming that Obama supported anything approaching the Heller decision until after it had been rendered. Etc. etc.
La-de-frickin’ da.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Even Uncle conceded that not everything about the NRA ad was 100% accurate. But hey, I wouldn’t want to get in the way of your partisan spin.
La-de-frickin’ da.
I’m sorry you’re not impressed, but I would think that a willingness to criticize someone — often harshly, and repeatedly — would tend to undermine the argument that you’re “in the tank” for that somebody. I expect the dumbass two-bit hacks to buy into that “if you’re not biased for me, you must be biased against me” sort of bullshit, but I generally expect better from you.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Why? Annenberg Political holds itself out as a non-partisan fact-checking organization. Of course they’re going to fact-check Obama on something. They’d have to in order to have any figleaf of credibility whatsoever. In this instance, you accused the NRA of lying without proving they made a single false statement – let alone a knowingly false statement, which is a key element of lying. Brooks Jackson didn’t use the L-word in that piece, but did spew it while discussing the NRA on other recent occasions. So whether this particular piece is evidence they are in the tank for Obama, or in the tank for anyone who hates gun owners, the one thing they clearly are NOT is anything resembling objective.
If you seriously doubt that Annenberg Political is in the tank, go ahead and compile aggregate data on which side supposedly gets more “facts” wrong than the other. It won’t be close to an even split, and not because the Obama campaign is one iota more factually accurate. I’d love to see a “Fact Check” of Joe Biden’s Constitution, for example. You know, the version where Article I says the Vice President is an executive and has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the U.S. Senate. But they didn’t fact-check that, so that fact just doesn’t exist.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hmmm. What’s this, then?