« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.


This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 11th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

37 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    UPDATE!: “Man with homosexual behavior at Penn State, (Jerry Sandusky) has been charged with 40 counts of sex crimes involving children over a 10 year period, liberals pretend not to notice, give comment, or even seem to care.”

    ~Since this doesn’t advance the democrat party, and in fact proves once again the mental illness of homosexuals, democrats are going to hope this blows over without any mention or debate on the fitness of gays in the military, adopting children, or engaging in marriage.

    “Morality is whatever advances the goals of the democrat party” –always has been.
    *Actually, this is a quote from Ronald Reagan about communism, I just adapted it to the democrats since their isn’t any debate that they are the same people: http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/01/31/when-reagan-spoke-truth-to-soviet-power/

  2. GetBackJack says:

    “Morality is whatever advances the goals of the democrat party” — fabulous, Mith, I am stealing that one.

  3. canary says:

    Fact: U.S. president Obama has ordered the U.S. Department of Education to break Federal Laws and go by data bases and Turn in every name match to a collection agency. No prior notices. They skipped to just going by incorrect data bases demanding thousands of dollars of education loans and grants to be paid.

    This is the Obama’s U.S. Department of Education violating and prosecuting innocent people with no notice or due process. The U.S. Dept of Education under Obama is ruining innocent people’s credit without due process. There are approximately several hundred individuals with the same name who have had their identity stolen, slandered, and deemed to be criminals through use of data bases in order to track which of the hundreds of individuals owes the Federal Government. Without knowing the culprits
    last 4 social security number it is impossible through automated phone system for
    citizens under attack by the Obama administration to clear their good names with not one single blitz on their credit.

    Obama has now even ruined babies credit history for the rest of their lives.

    • canary says:

      Let me be clear this is not banks doing violating Federal Violations that come with
      fines and incarceration. It is the U.S. Dept of Education Chief

    • David says:

      From what I have seen one of the key problems with the new nationalized student loans is that unlike banks the government isn’t greedy. OWS is right in that banks are driven by profits. If a person couldn’t make the hundred dollar a month payment but could make a $75 payment the bank would give them a hard time but accept $75 as better than nothing. The government has no incentive to cut a deal. They are rejecting smaller payments and letting interest accrue to completely un-payable levels. (I almost wonder if this is the Dem’s plan to fix social security sense no one who owes will get any) The WSJ reported that where banks were recouping 10 cents per dollar on defaulted student loans the Government is seeing 85 cents per dollar. While the Democrats will be quick to point out that not allowing student loans to go into bankruptcy was the doing of Republicans in 2005. But the real problem is there is no organization that can protect consumers from their own government! While people spend months or even years chasing Obama’s carrot of “lowered monthly payments” their grandmothers who cosigned on that student loan are having the social security checks garnished.

    • canary says:

      David you missed the point.
      No one in my family has ever taken out student loans. My son with a similar name is too young to go to college. I started searching those b.s. sights they try and get you to pay, and he and I are listed as relatives to people who are not our relatives.

      A telemarketer was decent to tell me that they are using these data bases and contacting the wrong people. Even the PO is sending mail to my parents from when I was a child. It’s insane. It’s insane because my 87 father who lost his leg in WWII and it’s hell for him to answer the phone and he doesn’t owe a penny. He made a decision in according to the bible to never get in debt, take a loan, etc his entire life and these calls are stressful for him. God Bless Him.

  4. tranquil.night says:


    You can’t support waterboarding as an EIT because everybody knows about waterboarding. It’s ineffective. I don’t think Newt even parsed that.

    Well that debate didn’t clarify too much except that the Northeasterners are really pissed at China right now. Uh, China is lecturing the West on Capitalism right now and how the Welfare State institutionalizes stagnation. For the umpteenth time, it’s pretty weaksauce to be calling their turd when it’s mashed up with the trillions in manipulated debt currency we’ve been begging them to hold so we can pursue utopia.

    Oh also Rick Perry wants to cut foreign aid or something.

    • proreason says:

      Some pretty smart people think China is on the verge of a major upheaval. We have no idea what real income inequality is. They do, and there are hundreds of millions of them who don’t like it. A common historical truism is that real revolution doesn’t start until the lives of the serfs are getting better. When they are fully under the boot (little lenin’s fondest goal for his career), they have to focus on the next crumb, not revolution.

      Get all the cheap furniture and appliances that you can at Walmartland now. Use their new layaway if your credit card is maxed.

      Then hope your flat screens and stools last for more than a few months.

  5. canary says:

    Watering boarding led to information that finally led to Obama’s oops I mean Osama bin Laden capture. Our own military grow through torture to practice not to crack.

    The end the EPA and U.S. Dept of Education but that was not enough. They should be able to talk of endless programs like Michelle’s bill that Obama passed on dieting.

    Romney has lied so much there is no point in listening to him. He will be another Obama in big government no matter what he says.

  6. tranquil.night says:

    Breitbart is on the offensive.

    He has a new “embassy” in D.C. and an exploding new book from one of his editor’s on the Congressional Culture of Corruption called Throw Them All Out.

    The “Tip of the Iceberg” targets have been Princess Pelosi, Establishment Republican Spencer Bachus, current head of the House Financial Services Committee, and John F’n Kerry.

    1%er’s all. Peter Schweizer, the author of the investigation, has gotten 60 minutes, Newsweek and even the Daily Beast to cover this.

  7. tranquil.night says:

    Thanks to Gateway Pundit and Smitty@theothermccain for catching my hometown grassroots’ latest messaging effort when President Fail was coming to town on Veteran’s Day. http://theothermccain.com/2011/11/14/thats-what-im-talking-about/#comments

    “San Diego is an island of American sanity in a sea of blue state idiocy”

    Fortunately that’s because we still love and remember our many warriors who are stationed here and have given their lives partially so that the idiots in Occupy San Diego have the freedom to be parasites under their upside-down American flag.

  8. tranquil.night says:

    Proreason called this long ago: W. R. Mead – “Listen up Boomers, the Backlash has Begun” http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/13/listen-up-boomers-the-backlash-has-begun/ (h/t Insty)

    • tranquil.night says:

      Reports are that business owners are starting to counterprotest OWS in New York.

      Here in SD the grassroots raised 4k for two food cart owners shut down by the dirt-lovers.

  9. proreason says:


    Cain is done.
    Newt will be borked.
    Santorum will exceed expectations in Iowa but not be able to parlay it into anything bigger
    Bachman will rise again, but not very far.
    Romney will hang on and outlast them all.
    Obama will lose to Mitt.

    Save this post. Centuries from now, I might be another Nostradamus

    • Mithrandir says:

      …and save this.

      Chelsea Clinton WILL RUN FOR OFFICE. When they say, “Oh, tee-hee, I am not interested in running for Congress” (in liar’s speak it means), I AM interested in running for Congress….please ask me again after I build up my resume a little bit more–tee-hee!

      Bill Clinton WILL GET THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. It is just a matter of time, he is resume-building just like the smart communists do, he will get it soon.

      Republicans will completely cave and vote for Mitt RINOmny to take on Obama, and he will be an unMITTigated disappointment to all Republicans. –another insider and compromiser.

    • JohnMG says:

      Just to add to the prognostications, I predict that the first person to consume a fifth of Jim Beam per month for twelve hundred consecutive months will live to be one hundred years old. Beyond that, all predictions are suspect (including mine) because all of this crap is happening too far in advance of the actual election.

      I really think the full depth of our political chicanery is well beyond most people’s suspicions. Otherwise, Obama would be in a panic. Just like the NBP voter-intimidation suit, wherein they never bothered to respond to their summons because they knew they were home free, Obama already knows the outcome of the 2012 ballot and need not respond. The courts have been packed for so many years that most complaints will be dismissed before ever seeing a courtroom. Kagan and Sotomayor were just the frosting on the cake.

      We’re screwed…….big time.

    • tranquil.night says:

      All I have to say is that we seem to be beyond the point where any rational substance is going to prevail in this competition. We are always going to be reacting to and at the mercy of the templates of establishment spinsters and their push polls. Too many are more concerned with being right than doing what’s right.

      Pro has my admiration for apparently going Super Saiyan x4, matching Bill Kristol and a few chosen others who share this power mortals cannot understand, to gleam not just that Mitt should win, but will win.

      Some have described this as a game show. I’d call it a House of Horrors set up by a group of smug, rich and powerful Democrats taking bets on whether we’ll eat eachother before getting skewered by another one of their fun traps.

    • proreason says:

      It’s down to two and a wild card (which could be any of the others). Since Newt has so much baggage, it’s only logical to assume that Romney will win the nomination. It is certainly not a sure thing, but an easy pick to be the most likely thing. Romney is probably 50% or better to get the nod. Intrade has him at 70%, so I’m not out on a limb by any means. (I put Romney at 50%, Newt at 30%, Cain at 10%, the field at 10%.) The big surprise in my opinion is that Gingrich has managed to worm his way into contention.

      No emotion involved, just reason.

      And since it will be a Republican year, it’s also logical to assume Obama will lose. Romney and Gingrich can both beat him because they keep their cool, have experience and are good talkers and debaters. None of the others have all of that.

      Later today, I’ll take discuss what I see as MItt’s and Newt’s strengths vs each other.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I agree with your calculus Professor, but if I may suggest a variable or two: the statistics of History suggest that Politics is rarely reasonable, and those who make such predictions specifically have a level of emotional motivation, just as those who make such predictions in the market are specifically trying to influence the outcome towards their prediction. There’s probably some academic term in sociology for the law of self-fulfilling prophecies.

      Can’t wait to hear your RomNewt mashup. Ooh RomNewt, I kinda like that. Hell, Pro, you might have us endorsing Mittens yet.

  10. tranquil.night says:

    Weird link between Norquist and the Iran Lobby which apparently has had more than a small role in influencing the regime’s backwards policy: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/m-grover_norquist_and_the_iran_lobby.html

    Authors appear credible. One’s an editor at BigPeace.

  11. proreason says:

    Romney vs Gingrich

    Romney’s strengths: ex governor, running the best campaign, clean personal history, big-time business experience, experienced manager, maintains composure, acts and looks presidential, no obvious skeletons other than being Mormon.

    Newt’s strengths: experience as a large-scale change agent, best debater, more conservative, has the better, more aggressive plan, breadth of knowledge, foreign affairs knowledge, media skills, catholic not Mormon, inside and outside beltway experience.

    For all attributes, I rank it 9 to 8 for Gingrich. With just my top 10 attributes, I rank it 5 to 5

    So I favor Newt slightly, but I don’t think he will be able to overcome the Borking he is about to receive.

    We should be thankful that we have two strong, smart, experienced, composed, well-spoken candidates who haven’t climbed out on any limbs to curry favor in this cycle. Several bullets have been dodged so far. Both men are far better than McLame, both want to win and neither one is a marxist.

    If Newt wins, he might take Romney as his VP. But I don’t think Romney will pick Newt, because of Newt’s baggage. Romney will probably pick Bob McDonnell, because McDonnell can’t run for a second term, whereas Rubio and Paul Ryan are both valuable in their current roles.

    • tranquil.night says:

      There’s a strong case to be made for McDonnell as the VP, absolutely, especially if Romney wins.

      Thank you for that fair assessment of the two. Indeed I think the strongest candidates have risen to the top, and they are both loads better than McLame. I have high confidence in their ability to beat Obama at this point outside of my voiced concerns on Mitt.

      I do not think Perry is out of this quite yet either should Newt not be able to overcome his grilling. On that front there’s still some issues I want Newt to answer for: like NY-23, supporting the individual mandate as late as 08, etc. No reason to be blind to legitimate criticisms.

      We know what the odds are. Romney’s favored. I’ll wait and see if the others can kick it up one more gear. Thank you again for the discussion, sir.

    • proreason says:

      Thomas Sowell doesn’t like Mitt.


      But he doesn’t say who he does like.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Whew, brutal: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/15/quotes-of-the-day-860/

      Newt’s on Levin tomorrow. He bit the bullet on the Pelosi ad, but we knew he was stilk hedging on Global Warming – but ‘Green Conservatism’? oh my. He definitely has a history of Statist impulses to answer for with a bit more substance than deflection or apologies, but at the same time it does seem there’s evidence that he’s evolved as we all have with the uprising and circumstances this regime has wrought. Romney too, through the course of this run to his credit.

      More Professor Sowell: http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2011/11/15/thomas-sowells-insights-on-the-obama-administration-the-presidential-election-and-more/

    • proreason says:

      Levin said he prefers Newt to Romney, but still wants to ask him about a few things. It should be some interview today.

      I’ve seen lists of Newt’s sins against ortodoxy that run on several pages. When I say he is going to be Borked, I don’t mean exclusively by the left. Clearly, there are legions of conservatives who hate him just as much as the left hates him.

      But this is an interesting piece:


      The article will give Newt’s haters severe appendicitis, but the underlieing analogy has some validity. England had rejected Churchhill for his erratic politics, overly eclectic mind, out-of-favor positions and unmatched ego. But when death was at the door, the country turned overwhelmingly to the man who had never wavered in his opinion about Hitler and who had the courage to do what had to be done in the face of an overwhelming enemy.

      Few will argue that Obama is another Hitler, but I’m not one of them. As I’ve said many times, the Moron is the most dangerous person to appear on earth since the Big 3 psychopathic political murderers of the 20th century finally died. I give no credence to the fact that Obama hasn’t been violent in the same way they were. The times are different and if Obama in any way had chosen Hitler’s path, he would have been summarily rejected. In my mind, the key thing is that Obama has set out to destroy the greatest and best country in world history. The destruction arising from that has just barely begun; if he succeeds, the death and misery will exceed the Big 3 dictators as a group, by far. And I also believe there is plenty of evidence that Obama would be just as psychopathic as the Big 3 if he thought he could get away with it. Megalomaniacs always are.

      So I consistently argue that the most important thing, by far, is defeating the boy king. Compared to that, conservative orthodoxy isn’t even in the ballpark. Personal morality isn’t even in the ballpark either.

      But I don’t think conservatives are rejecting Romney because they think he cannot win. I think they are rejecting him because they think he has no principles. In ordinary times, that would be high on my list as well. In 2012, Romney’s principles or lack thereof isn’t even a blip on my radar.

      So if conservatives turn to Gingrich, it will be because they hate Romney more, not because they see Gingrich as the fail safe against Obama.

      But for me and the very few people who see the landscape as I see it, the Churchill-Gingrich analogy is close to being the truth. If I stick with Gingrich, which awaits how he responds to the Borking to come, then it will be because I think he IS the man on the wall, the man who will fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, and in the hills. And the man who in the debates, will overcome the combined forces of the entire media and the thousands of paid marxist shills who will be preparing Obama’s lies for him.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Hmm: Newt Gingrich – Super Committee Disaster and Three Alternatives for America

      Shrinking government is clearly preferable to hurting the American people, but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth. Historically, this has always been the American solution.

      The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.

      Interesting way to frame it. This looks to be how he’s going to sell some of these big reforms he’s endorsed in the General, but I think it reveals that he still believes in government as an active social solutions agent to whatever nebulous degree his creative mind wants to use it. We’ll see if Levin can get to the bottom of it.

      Another great post Pro. I apologize for teasing your motives earlier.

    • proreason says:

      I like Perry’s new plan to dismantle big gov better than big gov soft-pedal.

      I also prefered being tall, dark, handsome and irresistable to women…but had to come up with an alternative appoach to life. (obviously, I’m blonde)

      Perry isn’t going to win. But he might do better next time having been through the fire once. My early advice is for him to develop a response to being a flip-flopper, since if he wants to do better, he’ll have to say things voters want to hear, instead of things he did as governor.

  12. DoctorRock says:

    See? It’s true – “The ‘night’ is your friend”. Thomas Sowell wrote a nice article, but neatly forgot to mention WWII, which would make his exception prove the rule. God bless Newt, but I don’t trust him either. “Borking” is misused in his case, as all of the allegations against Robert Bork were (admitted) lies. Newt and I parted ways when he made that commercial with Princess Nancy. Michelle will have her opportunity to shine again in the coming weeks, and the Left has already pegged her as a Looney-Tune – that will be short lived.
    What I’m seeing (and hoping for) is that America grows tired of the fancy talk. We’re had four years of fancy talk. Perry has to do no more than be a cheerleader for Texas and run on his record. His campaign is already running national ads that have begun that narrative, and another two months in THIS campaign is a lifetime.
    Bob McDonnell is a good man, but you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Rubio is the face of a new and vital Republican Party – and if he wasn’t the crown prince, then why exactly was he selected to walk Nancy Regan down the aisle last summer?
    So trying to stay on topic, “Mitt versus Newt” I would have to say “Who cares?” The Left a.k.a. the Media a.k.a. the Left would love a shot at either one. They’d also love a shot at Ron Paul. Remember how they called Regan “dumb”? Well
    I’m pulling for the next “dumb”one.

    • proreason says:

      The problem Doc is that there are only eight candidates to pick from. Dunno about you, but Reagan isn’t in the group, and if he was, he wouldn’t be good enough either.

      If people don’t rally around one of the eight, little lenin will win again. And if the one rallied around doesn’t have the chops to go head to head with the man propped up by the greatest propaganda machine ever invented, little lenin will win for that reason.

      But maybe you aren’t worried about that.

  13. proreason says:

    In case you haven’t seen it, the Surber Rule:


    • tranquil.night says:

      Favorite: “Reporter: Do you believe in evolution?

      Answer: I believe that the economy will evolve when I am elected president. So the answer is yes.”

  14. tranquil.night says:

    RomNewt mashup: Ann Coulter vs Professor Jacobson @ Legal Insurrection

    Some optimism from Peter Igemi, Da Tech Guy (h/t Insty): “Every single one of the GOP candidates, no matter what their failings, is more than capable of beating Barack Obama in 2012. Some of them will beat him like the Saints beat the Colts a few weeks ago, the worst of them will beat him like the Saints did the Falcons this week, but they will all beat him.”

    Newt had a good round with Levin in their short interview: http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-on-with-mark-levin/

    Mark hit him good on Global Warming, bringing up ClimateGate and the folly of consensus, and Newt agreed adding some data of his own rebuking current climate models. Newt says he wants more research and doesn’t think there’s any current evidence to justify a massive federal regime. They both missed the shot to connect the issue to the SolyndraGate red meat, understandable as they were constrained for time. The individual mandate was also covered, which he explained his thinking at the time and admitted his error, asserting both the belief now that it’s unconsitutional federally and doesn’t work at the state level for how the medical industry gets politicized. Newt came across smooth and prepared. Mark sounded reasonably satisfied on those topics and perhaps a little impressed, as he’s going to have him back.

  15. tranquil.night says:

    Pretty much everyone’s had some words for Romney camp mouth-piece Jennifer Rubin today in her latest predictable-as-clockwork offensive against Mittens’ latest challenger in the Washington comPost:

    Broadest acclaim goes to the piece from Leon Wolf @ Redstate: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/11/18/kneel-before-romney-and-despair/

    Allahpundit wonders what makes Newt the sudden Tea Party champion when on paper he looks like perhaps even more of a business-as-usual insider than Romney? http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/17/gingrich-to-media-let-me-explain-the-difference-between-the-tea-party-and-ows/

    It’s a hilarious question given the topic about which he’s posting, which is not a small microcosm of why Newt has surged with the grassroots.

    The choice of being an effective messenger for Conservatism carries weight. We want to frame this election around the ideologies of Liberty and Liberalism, because it is the most effective way of explaining to people why the policy course of Barack Obama and the Democrats have turned us into a nation in decline, and it is the most effective way of inspiring a change in direction by inspiring a change in perspective in the individual to seize their own future as well.

    Let us take a moment for grudging admiration for the Romney campaign’s political prowess: they have a competent spokesperson, who they (probably) don’t even have to pay, ensconced as the official conservative voice at one of the nation’s most prominent media outlets. Bravo, team Romney, for learning from the Obama administration’s approach to media relations.

    This has been my biggest problem with team Mittens since all these campaigns started making landfall and the competition began, his shady alliance with the anti-conservative Republican establishment, let the record reflect it. Romney can talk ideology well in a marginally economic context, he does come across articulate and competent in that regard, and his campaign message is consistent and solid. I hope it’s solid enough to win the general election, but I can’t understate my worry that once he’s in the general campaign it won’t be defined by the narratives he’s in control of. Because he isn’t a leader on matters outside that margin and outside of that message. I wonder if he would ever give a full throated contrast to Occupy Wall Street in defense of the Tea Party. I still wonder if he even fully understands or identifies with our assessment of the country, our frustrations and ambitions. He sure as hell wasn’t anywhere around from ’08-10 to help in the effort, and I distinctly remember wondering as much at the time. Does it matter? Yes!!! When your message is always going to be guided by what people tell you polls best, and you’re always going to shy away from what you know to be true just because it’s got an element of provocativeness and you have to make sure a certain group likes you, then I’m sorry, you are not a leader! It is a thinking methodology that is going to end up getting us trapped by whatever illusions the Liberals want to spin into the narrative of conventional wisdom; forever on defense. Just like the debt ceiling debate and before, just like this super-fail committee. You Must Fight it. Not in any mean or military sense, just like Newt right now – with sheer facts and a sunny smile.

    • proreason says:

      you have hit the reason I prefer Newt to Romney.

      Romney will fight tooth and claw for Romney. For Conservatism? not so much. To call Obama out? no way

      But Newt is a warrior. You may legitimately disagree with his wanderings around the reservation, but it’s hard to argue he is anything but an articulate spokeman for big picture conservative principles. But even better, Newt loves calling the Moron out, and he’s damn good at it too.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Awesome. I’m so glad this particular dichotomy has become a central sticking point of the campaign debate because it’s a legitimate division within the party that is worthy of rational discussion with relation to how best to defeat the regime. If we can come to sense of understanding and resolution about it, despite whoever wins, it is going to be easier for the Party to cohesively unite for the general.

      From my seat Newt’s biggest hurdles to the nomination remain his own image potentially, i.e. his long exposure in politics, and Romney’s hair – good for probably at least 50% of the women’s vote, Newt’s biggest demographic weakness.

      We got a very youthful demographic entering the bloc this election too. The “superficial vote” for the youthful boyking in the White House is going to be even more contrasted if we line up behind our old white guy firebrand over our own slick looking and talking Technocrat. Part of what I’m looking for – ideally if someone’s looking to reach Ronaldus Magnus status – is if our Conservatives can make inroads in inspiring young people away from the cradle-to-grave mentality towards liberty. Not essential to victory – many my age are hopeless drones still – but certainly a great and necessary effort. Plus it’d put the Democrats on defense with another one of their rapidly shrinking voting blocs.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »