NVDAILY.COM | Opinion

Posted September 21, 2012 | comments 42 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Beware the wolf

Editor:

People, we had better wake up. Did you notice that in President Barack Obama's speech that his way would be hard, but better in the future?

Those words mean change from the fundamental values of this country. Just look back at his record toward Christianity and the governing body.

This president is against the values and our rights of a Christian nation. Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Vern Beavers, Front Royal

42 Comments | Leave a comment

    Yes, because the Wolf comes carrying a bible and intends to beat you into submission.
    The United States is NOT a "Christian Nation". Its is a nation that citizens hold many belief systems.

    Start here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

    What the President said:
    I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one. And by the way – those of us who carry on his party’s legacy should remember that not every problem can be remedied with another government program or dictate from Washington.
    (text of his speech found on many websites, use google)

    Mr. Beavers the role of government in the United States is not to fortify your faith for you, or force that stubborn belief that yours is the only way on every other American citizen. The governments ONE and ONLY responsibility is to ensure that you have the free practice of whatever belief you have, whatever belief others have, or lack of belief one may have. No more, no less. You wonder why you guys get called "right wing extreme nutjobs", its because of your deliberate ignorance of the facts. It is because your deliberate attempts to use the government to enforce what is the equivalence of the Sharia law you accuse the President of trying to institute. It is the continued twisting, lying, misrepresenting of any and every action the Presidents makes to scream about President Obama trying to take away your right to hump your bible every night.

    You want to know what is turning America away from Christianity??? Look in the mirror, see the intolerance, the deceit, the evil looking back at you and you will have your answer.

    *My most sincere apologies if I offended any normal sane believers who are not trying to rule the world by their faith.

    Sir, The 'religious right' is the "wolf in sheep's clothing."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/?page=2

    I hope you will at minimum scan the above site.

    Throughout the history of the world, more wars have been created and fought for the 'cause' or in the name of religion than for any other 'cause.'

    Isn't it sad that we have never learned anything from history?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

    Like two sharks drawn to blood in the water, Katybug and Jane Mackie wait for comments from someone who doesn't agree with their point of view and move in for the kill.
    The trouble is that anyone who has read enough of the healthcare legislation this administration lauds itself for would see that by 2014 schools will be REQUIRED to issue condoms and that churches that preach the bible from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 would be in peril of losing their tax exempt status for committing the hate crime of preaching against the sin of homosexuality. By the way, I'm stating a fact. I'm not isolating homosexuality as 'the' sin of sins.
    Like the relentless two magpies referred to previously, those who choose to defend this president cannot recognize the changes toward socialism that have taken place in the past three and 1/2 years with much, much more in store for the sheep willing to allow it. His Change You Can Believe In campaign theme of 2008 will become the change you couldn't have imagined.

      Well "PassionatePatriot" Prove it. Unless are just bearing false witness, isn't that a sin btw? Please enlighten us all and PROVE IT.

      Ah, PP, I needed a good laugh. Thank you.

      I just love it when people make statements without any supporting data.

      You are right, of course, I do believe that most churches should loose their tax exempt status. For example, Joel Osteen proclaims,"It's God's will for you to live in prosperity instead of poverty." The pastor of the Houston megachurch and wife Victoria certainly practice what they preach. The couple has moved to a $10.5 million mansion in River Oaks, while keeping their former Tanglewood residence, valued at $2.9 million. They are, however, selling a vacant lot next to their former home. Asking price for the half-acre property at the corner of Doliver and Sherbrooke: $1.1 million.

      "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

      You don't believe that, do you, PP?

      Another..The Westboro Baptist Church believes that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, and that he forms an Unholy Trinity with Satan and Pope Benedict XVI, who they believe is the False Prophet. Prominent examples include President Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, National Football League star Reggie White, Sonny Bono, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, atheists, Muslims, murdered college student Matthew Shepard, the late children's television host Fred Rogers, the late Australian actor Heath Ledger, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, political commentator Bill O'Reilly, Jews, Catholics, Australians, Swedes, the Irish and US soldiers killed in Iraq. He has also targeted the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts, center of the David Parker controversy. In 2007 he stated that he would target the late Jerry Falwell's funeral.

      And there again, PP, I have to say that I don't believe that most U.S. religious groups should be tax exempt.

      And now can you venture to explain something to me?

      Beginning pre-1900, 32 of the 33 developed countries started providing its citizens universal health care and as late as 1990, these countries began offering their citizens Universal Health care:

      Iceland 1990 Single Payer
      Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
      Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
      Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
      Israel 1995 Two-Tier

      http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

      If Universal Health Care is SO BAD, why is it that 32 of the 33 developed countries offer this care to their citizens? The US being the lone developed country NOT offering Universal Health Care to its citizens until 'Obamacare' was implemented.

      Anxiously awaiting your response.

      PP, I could not find any reference to these two items you state as fact anywhere in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

      "2014 schools will be REQUIRED to issue condoms and that churches that preach the bible from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 would be in peril of losing their tax exempt status for committing the hate crime of preaching against the sin of homosexuality."

      Please give us the section in which they are addressed as we would like to read it also.

    Mr. Beavers' thinly veiled racism is a pox on all of us who do not challenge his bigotry.

    A little more than a century after Joseph Smith, the so-called "founder" of Mormonism (the same Mormonism practiced by Mitt Romney) fell victim to the violence and mania that he had helped to unleash, another prophetic voice was raised in the United States. A young black pastor named Dr. Martin Luther King began to preach that his people -- the descendants of the very slavery that Joseph Smith and all other Christian churches (and perhaps even that of Mr. Beavers and 'Passionate Patriot') had so warmly approved -- should be free. It is quite impossible even for an atheist like myself to read his sermons or watch recordings of his speeches without profound emotion of the sort that can sometimes bring genuine tears. Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail,"

    http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/resources/article/annotated_letter_from_birmingham/

    written in response to a group of white Christian clerics who had urged him to show restraint and "patience"-- in other words, to know his place as a black man living in a predominantly white society -- is a model of polemic. Icily polite and generous-minded, it still breathes with an unquenchable conviction that the filthy injustice of racism must be borne no longer.

    Taylor Branch's magnificent three-volume biography of Dr. King is successively titled Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, and At Canaan's Edge. And the rhetoric with which King addressed his followers was designed to evoke the very story that they all knew best -- the one that begins when Moses first tells Pharaoh to "Let my people go."

    In speech after speech King inspired the oppressed, and exhorted and shamed their oppressors. Slowly, the embarrassed religious leadership of the country moved to his side. Rabbi Abraham Heschel asked, "Where in America today do we hear a voice like the voice of the prophets of Israel? Martin Luther King is a sign that God has not forsaken the United States of America."

    Most eerie of all, if we follow the Mosaic narrative, was the sermon that King gave on the last night of his life. His work of transforming public opinion and shifting the stubborn Kennedy and Johnson administrations was almost done, and he was in Memphis, Tennessee, to support a long and bitter strike by the city's ground-down garbage collectors, on whose placards appeared the simple words "I Am a Man."

    In the pulpit at Mason Temple, he reviewed the protracted struggle of the past years and then very suddenly said, "But it doesn't matter with me now." There was silence until he went on. "Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go up the mountain. And I've looked over. And I have seen the Promised Land. And I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the Promised Land."

    Nobody who was there that night has ever forgotten it, and I daresay the same can be said for anyone who views the film that was so fortunately taken of that transcendent moment. The next best way of experiencing this feeling at second hand is to listen to how Nina Simone sang, that same terrible week, "The King of Love Is Dead." The entire drama has the capacity to unite elements of Moses on Mount Nebo with the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The effect is scarcely diminished even when we discover that this was one of his favorite sermons, and one that he had delivered several times before, and into which he could slip as occasion demanded.

    Christian reformism arose originally from the ability of its advocates to contrast the Old Testament with the New. The cobbled together ancient Jewish books had an ill-tempered and implacable and bloody and provincial god, who was probably more frightening when he was in a good mood (the classic attribute of the dictator). Whereas the cobbled-together books of the last two thousand years contained handholds for the hopeful, and references to meekness, forgiveness, lambs and sheep, and so forth. This distinction is more apparent than real, since it is only in the reported observations of Jesus that we find any mention of hell and eternal punishment. The god of Moses would brusquely call for other tribes, including his favorite one, to suffer massacre and plague and even extirpation, but when the grave closed over his victims he was essentially finished with them unless he remembered to curse their succeeding progeny.

    Not until the advent of the Prince of Peace do we hear of the ghastly idea of further punishing and torturing the dead. First presaged by the rantings of John the Baptist, the son of god is revealed as one who, if his milder words are not accepted straightaway, will condemn the inattentive to everlasting fire. This has provided texts for clerical sadists ever since, and features very lip-smackingly in the tirades of Islam.

    At no point did Dr. King -- who was once photographed in a bookstore waiting calmly for a physician while the knife of a maniac was sticking straight out of his chest -- even hint that those who injured and reviled him were to be threatened with any revenge or punishment, in this world or the next, save the consequences of their own brute selfishness and stupidity. And he even phrased that appeal more courteously than, in my humble opinion, its targets deserved. In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.

    And in no real sense is Vern Beavers racism acceptable. But it is understandable because....

    Religion poisons everything.


    There are those who are incredibly perceptive at reading between the lines. Where exactly did Mr. Beavers' letter to the editor refer to anything remotely related to racism? Criticism of the president? That he is of mixed races is not an issue and has not heretofore been mentioned.
    I see no attack on his parentage.
    What are the tax rates of the countries where universal healthcare is provided? Of course, the extreme left would like nothing more than to redistribute the wealth some Americans have amassed through their own work and business development. If it's inherited someone earned it somewhere down the line. It's not ours to take from them.
    Passionate Patriot, where did you get your information? Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is slight-of-hand. Providing inaccurate information, while not necessarily being a sin, is the product of lack of reference and does nothing to support your point of view.

    Vern I don't expect you to comprehend this but guess what? WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION.

    It's hard for me to digest the fact that so many people post opinions castigating God. I'm grateful that I won't have to answer for the ill conceived beliefs of their ilk.
    The idea here seems to be if 'I' express myself to a greater extent in presenting 'my' argument then I win because 'mine' was the opinion most verbose.

      Cinderella: "I'm grateful that I won't have to answer for the ill conceived beliefs of their ilk. "

      Are you for real? I don't think any human expects another to answer for them to GOD! God -- and ONLY god -- is our judge.


      When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself. ~ wayne Dyer

    Well "PassionatePatriot" thank-you for proving my point about twisting, lying and misrepresentation.

    If anyone doesn't like Obama, great, don't vote for him. But STOP lying. STOP using fear tactics like this letter.

    Say something like: I wont vote for Romney because I disagree with who the job creators are. I believe consumers create demand, thus the need for suppliers, ie:jobs. I don't believe giving those with record profits another tax break will create a better economy than it has in the last 10 years. I don't believe deregulating banks and Wallstreet is the answer as there is much evidence that the previous deregulation damaged our economy.

    Not: Romney is going to make us all Mormons, magic underwear will be forced on all Americans and bibles will be banned and replaced with an instructional book on our path to planet Kolob....because then I just sound like an idiot and should be treated as such.

    Ever had a CT scan or an MRI? Chances are they were done by means of piece of equipment made by General Electric. Jet engines, yeah they're made by GE, too. Locomotive engines? You bet!
    GE has so many write-offs that they pay no taxes. Let's all gang up on the 1% in this nation who make obscene sums of money and pay a lower effective tax rate than 'we' pay.
    I think we should demand they pay the bill for everything because, after all, they have the money we don't have. Do they not pay half of our Social Security? We don't want that. A flat tax would be fair to everyone but Washington, regardless of who is in command, has never supported a flat tax to the point of initiating it. Income tax reform that taxes the wealthy more by eliminating write-offs means your highly revered mortgage interest or health expense deductions. As much as we would like it, we can't eat our cake and have it too. If you want to go after businesses that make tremendous profits at the expense of consumers then go after the petroleum and pharmaceutical companies. Democrat or Republican, don't count on help on this one from Washington.

      After Hans von Ohain demonstrated a model of a gas turbine engine in 1936, he received unlimited funding from the German government. This allowed him to proceed quickly with his designs and the first German jet propelled flight occurred in 1939. The centrifugal flow turbojet on the first jet propelled plane produced approximately 1100 pounds of thrust. von Ohain later developed an axial flow engine, the beginning of what is now the standard for gas turbine engines.

      The military has had the greatest role in the development of jet engines, with the first jet engines funded in anticipation of World War II and further developments in the jet engine greatly increased at the onset of the Cold War. The development of the jet engine has required the redesign of airplanes to accommodate greater speeds and new degrees of stress. The 60 years following the advent of the modern jet engine have seen many advances including the propulsion of Apollo 10 to the record speed of 24,790.8 miles per hour.

    Fair enough. The problem with flat tax is that it is still a burden on the poor. Take someone making 8.00 an hour. Flat tax of say 20% takes their 320.00 a week paycheck to 256.00 right of the top and then there is still state, social security and medicare. Who could even try to live off that without deductions? Even more important why would that encourage anyone to work jobs that pay so little if so much is taken? You would have more people trying to cheat the system, and those right above the poverty line would be knocked into poverty. That's why we have a progressive system, or why its supposed to be anyway.

    GE and the others that pay no taxes needs fixed but not at the cost of those who it determines how much food they can buy or gas to go to work. Taking away their write-offs as businesses is not going to effect individual write-offs and/or deductions, individual and corporate taxes are two separate entities. On the individual note, its also not fair that the person who paid in 1k during the year gets a 3k return. Stop that too. It's not earned.

    You are absolutely right that neither party is going to fix the tax issues completely. But if you are just looking at taxes your choice is the guy who said he would never "overpay" his taxes and has always paid at least 13%, who just released his returns with his campaign admitting he refused deductions because otherwise he would have been under that 13% he claimed, refuses to release the same amount of years as his opponent, AND still thinks people like him need more tax breaks while taking home millions.....Or the guy that says NO, its not fair that I, who made millions pay a smaller rate than the guy that made 50k, and that if the choice is taking food money away from the 8.00 an hr worker or the write-off that allows a billion dollar corporation to pay nothing, I'm choosing to make sure the little guy can eat.

    THAT is what the "Tea Party" should have been fighting for, preventing the government from running the little guy into the ground to feed the "fat cats". Fighting companies like Walmart who have run companies like Masterlock overseas (googleable) because they get to demand the pricing of goods they sell and then companies like Masterlock are forced to hire cheap labor to remain competitive. Its not black and white, cut and dry, its a big grey headache, designed to screw over anyone smaller and weaker.

    PP: "Ever had a CT scan or an MRI? "

    PassionatePatriot , Do you have any idea how GE (or other companies) get involved in manufacturing marvels (MRIs, CT-SCANs, GPS, Cell Phones, Radar, Satellites) and are able to make so much money from being the supplier? These great inventions start with government-funded (read taxpayers) research by universities or government labs. In fact, many had their origins in research funded by the Department of Defense (DOD) and NONE were invented by private industry. All of them originated with government-funded* research. As an example, DOD has been funding research for artificial blood for years; once perfected they will turn the manufacturing of it over to a private company to produce and the DOD will buy it back from the contractor; and the contractor/supplier sells the product to other clients (hospitals, rescue squads, etc.) and makes a bloody fortune.

    *OMG, There is that LARGE Federal Government getting into the act again!

    While my opinion may not be well received by some it is, in fact, my opinion. Two regulars who don't seem to leave their computers, would ram their opinions down the throats of others through verbosity. Assuming the longer their comments the more they will be perceived as correct. Get over yourselves. Plagiarism is not an excuse for lack of knowledge. Anyone with internet access can research a subject but posting it as if it is your own work shows a total disregard for the efforts of others and a need for approval.

      Truth tends to come with more words than a lie.

      As to your plagiarism bit...A link to the correct answer is not plagiarism. When someone claims Obama said something he didn't and can be proved with text of his speech giving instruction where to find it is not plagiarism. Its not plagiarism to show someone where they can find factual information.

      Here is a novel idea, instead of being petulant about other's ability to shine truth on teabilly lies and fear mongering, how about offering an honest opinion that is backed up with factual information.

      Lastly, I will not apologize for not utilizing multiple log-ons with the assumption that others will not notice my deception.

      Cinderella, I think most everyone would agree with your first sentence that though people (on these comment/opinion boards and elsewhere) may not "like" our opinions, they are still our opinions and we have every right to express them. However, you then seem to contradict yourself because you then go on to criticize two posters you describe as "Two regulars who don't seem to leave their computers, would ram their opinions down the throats of others through verbosity".

      You can't say with any credibility that you believe that you and I have a right to express our opinion and then in the next breath go after other posters who have exercised that very same right. Neither can you dictate just how "long" or extensive their comments should be---------according to you. Rather than complaining about the length of anyone's remarks, or making the accusation of "plagerism" (which is a really rather strange accusation for those on an opinion post---this is not a graduate thesis, not a book, not a school child's homework.) it should give you the impetus,if you disagree with what other posters say, to do research on your own to either accept or reject someone else's comments.

      And I would rather read something that a person has researched from a credible source rather than read something a poster throws out there claiming it as "fact" but in actuality has no basis in fact.


    Cinderella's coach has turned into a pumpkin.... AGAIN?

    Yee gads, what's next?

    Alas, the Prince remains a warty frog waiting for his magical kiss from Ms. Teabilly.

    ROFLMAO

    A 20% tax rate? An extreme example of a flat tax. Democrats are still so hung up on the Tea-party that they find sniping in the dark a natural position. It's a poor defense mechanism. There are plenty in this country who do not ascribe to any particular political agenda. I have to disagree with the comment that truth requires more words to explain than lies. That explanation sounds too political in nature.
    The reference to plagiarism is well founded. It does not refer to links but to obvious excerpts printed verbatim.

      The 20% I "plagiarized" from former would be Presidential candidate Rick Perry. You got me...I totally stole the example from a plan offered by a Republican in recent times.

      Posting excerpt of Obama's speech(while mentioning it IS his and can be found online)? Call it whatever you like, I call it continued whining that twisting, lying and misrepresentation from the right is easily shown false.


      Dear Mr. Teabilly,

      Am I committing plagiarism by posting the following?

      "Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work."
      Reference source:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

      Please excuse me for asking, but do you happen to live in that sleepy little town of Paw Paw? Does your butt hurt, too?

      ROFLMAO

        I intend to visit Paw Paw...when I am about 80 and have lost all sense of concern for others staring at me should I be lucky enough to live to an age where I may throw all pretense of political correctness to the wind and live a more Louisa filled life.

        *Note I also have a growing change jar for future bail monies such adventures may cause me to need.

    Well, please let me 'comment' too. Thanks.

    There is SO MUCH disinformation posted on this cite which reads as 'fact," especially by a select few 'regulars,' that it compels interested readers to search and verify. Personally, if someone finds me in error regarding my posts, I very much appreciate being corrected with facts. Learning is an invaluable tool. Maybe I am wrong but, if someone wishes to post and actually prefers others not comment on their post, maybe they should end their post with "this is my personal opinion but I don't want yours", or something to that effect. Facebook is for 'social' networking; this is an 'opinion' page.

    Diane, Agree with you totally. "I would rather read something that a person has researched from a credible source rather than read something a poster throws out there claiming it as "fact" but in actuality has no basis in fact."

    I also have been guilty of not sourcing a few entries and the only excuse I have is that NVD will only allow two websites per entry. The few times in which I have done that, deceit was not the intent.

    Cinderella, How do you know whether or not the people that you claim "who don't seem to leave their computers" don't have extenuating circumstances limiting their mobility for some reason? Wouldn't you agree that this medium is ideal for someone restricted for some reason? And, thank God, they have it (computer) if that is the case. Or maybe they are simply catching these reads in between doing something else, like the laundry for instance. Just food for thought.

    “Facts are stubborn things...”
    ― Mark Twain


    When it comes to President Barack Obama, who has endlessly faced questions surrounding his beliefs, the mega-church pastor said that he takes the president at his word that he is a Christian. “I believe with all my heart that he’s a Christian, as he says he is,” Osteen maintained.

    My sincere apology for not being more specific for the benefit of those who can't recognize the plagiarism. The post to which I was referring was by Jane Mackie. Perhaps she is a mechanical engineer and the specifics in her comments were merely part of her thesis. In that event, I stand corrected.
    Joel Osteen? Not exactly the best theological source you could quote.
    Sorry, I have to leave for work soon so I'll have to get back to any of you who still want to pick at my carcass. Fortunately, I still have a job.

      You are right. I did forget to source my post beginning "After Hans von Ohain demonstrated a model of a gas turbine engine in...." My bad. Oversight; I know absolutely nothing about turbine engines.

      Fact is, I wasn't attempting to describe the engineering of the machines but rather the funding and progression with regard to government (taxpayer) involvement. Promise to try to be more mindful of that with future posts, okay?

      Believe I pulled the info from Wikipedia and. if you wish to read the entire article, I will try to find it again. Just let me know.

    Another example of government (taxpayer) funds and research:

    "Trembath said that the Department of Energy invested about $137 million in gas research over three decades, and that the federal tax credit for drillers amounted to $10 billion between 1980 and 2002.

    "The work wasn't all industry or all government, but both.

    "The idea that the government can help industry achieve advances that the private sector can't or won't has been a central contention of the presidential election. President Barack Obama's comment this summer that Republicans seized on — "If you've got a business — you didn't build that" — was part of broader comments about infrastructure, education and other public spending that indirectly helps businesses."

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/decades-federal-dollars-helped-fuel-141648115.html

      “The first federal energy subsidies began in 1916, and until the 1970s they "focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas," according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
      “Congress passed a huge tax break in 1980 specifically to encourage unconventional natural gas drilling, noted Alex Trembath, a researcher at the Breakthrough Institute, a California nonprofit that supports new ways of thinking about energy and the environment.”
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=161642887
      Jane, this is another example of government manipulating markets. So there goes that argument that we have tried the free market and it doesn’t work.
      Also, who then takes responsibility for the environmental impact from fracking
      “Providing Regulatory Clarity and Protections against Known Risks
      Although the national study should enhance our scientific knowledge, some concerns associated with overall natural gas and shale gas extraction, including hydraulic fracturing, are already well known. These operations can result in a number of potential impacts to the environment, including:
      • Stress on surface water and ground water supplies from the withdrawal of large volumes of water used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing;
      • Contamination of underground sources of drinking water and surface waters resulting from spills, faulty well construction, or by other means;
      • Adverse impacts from discharges into surface waters or from disposal into underground injection wells; and
      • Air pollution resulting from the release of volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gases.”
      http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/
      “At the request of Congress, EPA is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and ground water. The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.
      A first progress report is planned for late 2012. A final draft report is expected to be released for public comment and peer review in 2014.”

    DEBT, We have become a nation of 'instant gratification' and quick money turn around. Private industry won't worry too much about supply as long as their profits are high and their stockholders are happy. As supply decreases, they will just keep jacking up the prices for existing supplies until its gone.. Then they may or may not try to develop alternative sources, e.g. "fracking" depending on how much money their ceo's and stockholder made on their previous venture. If they don't view it financially profitable, they will pack their tent and move on. Do we want it to work that way? Almost anyone who votes for this way of doing business has not learned the lessons of history concerning things like 'robbers barons' and unregulated monopolies.

    BTW, after reading in the Canadian papers about some of the oil spills experienced in Canada and the related problems as a result, I wish Keystone XL was not being laid in the US. From everything I have read about the project; i.e., product from the line is not for the U.S. market and jobs will be no were near the estimate given by the Canadian company.

    "Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children." - Tribe Unknown

      “Almost anyone who votes for this way of doing business has not learned the lessons of history concerning things like 'robbers barons' and unregulated monopolies.” Jane

      What lessons from history Jane – something like this?
      “The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the "robber barons."
      “It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth.
      As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
      In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors', or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.

      The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.
      In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,[1] and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.”
      http://mises.org/daily/2317
      However Jane, I know you will not approve this message or my right to have my opinion or my right to choose my sources of information.

        DEBT, Wikipedia describes 'robber baron' as : Robber baron is a pejorative term used for a powerful 19th century American businessman. By the 1890s, the term was typically applied to businessmen who were viewed as having used questionable practices to amass their wealth. Allegedly, their "questionable practices" usually included selling the product at extremely low prices (and paying their workers very poorly in order to do so), buying out the competitors* that couldn't keep up, and once there was no competition, they would hike prices far above the original level. It combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy ("baron")."

        * buying out the competitors ? Remind you of anyone campaigning for office today?

        Would love to stick around and continue this interesting subject, DEBT; but, I have a date with a scalpel tomorrow so will be out of commission for a few days. Trust there are others on line that can explain the difference between what these men did compared to government regulations preventing such rapacious activities.

        Debt, I don't believe Jane was advocating a government/business relationship as much as she was pointing out that some of the technology we have today began with government(tax-payer) funded R&D.

    Just to put it all into proper perspective, it is not surprising robber barons are given a positive spin considering this web site, http://mises.org, describes itself as "the world center of the Austrian School of economics and LIBERTARIAN political and social theory". And they further state as their mission statement to be "------- the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive".

    If someone rebuts another poster's comments, is the first poster to then assume the poster with the rebuttal is saying they are not allowed to have their own opinion or source of information"? Well-----maybe back in the days of the robber barons. Maybe it is just called "playing the victim" card.

      You can think I’m trying to spin but feel free to research yourself. The point is Jane advocated for Government interference in the market. The robber barons used government interference in the market to manipulate it to their advantage. So she is advocating for the robber barons. They used corporate welfare – the same as what she pointed out with the DOE investing in fracking and tax credits for drillers.

    "You picked a fine time to leave us, Lucille." ~ Country-Western song lyrics

    That explosive sound of rushing air was the Teabilly circle of wagons breathing a collective sign of relief believing they can run amok until JM returns.

    You've got another think coming." ~ Bill Cosby

    All is not well in conservative land.... just like we planned.

    Every time Romney opens his mouth, another swing state finds its wings. The Republican Party today is not the Republican Party of 12 years ago before the arrival of politically corrupt Karl Rove, morally corrupt Rush Limbaugh, and super whacko Glen Beck. Is it any wonder mainstream America rejects Republican efforts to place political power before the best interests of America?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81618.html?hp=r18

    Paul Ryan vs. The Stench

    "Paul Ryan has gone rogue. He is unleashed, unchained, off the hook.

    “I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him,” Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, told The New York Times on Sunday."

    "Coming from a resident of Iowa, a state where people are polite even to soybeans, this was a powerful condemnation of the Republican nominee."

    "Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign. he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like "If Stench call, take a message" and Tell Stench I'm having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will test him later."


    Don't call us, we'll call you.

    ROFLMAO


      Before I get killed in a hail of colostomy bags and catheters from the Teabilly Tea Baggers....

      CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUS POST:

      "Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign. he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like "If Stench callS, take a message." and "Tell Stench I'm having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will teXt him later."

      Yeah, errors creep in because I retype everything... no cut and paste shortcuts for ROFLMAO.

        I kind of like the strain Ryan had on his face standing behind Romney as Romney admitted Obama hasn't raised taxes as they keep telling people.

        I'm anxious for the debates, curious to see if Biden's "regular Joe" speak can overcome whatever gaffes are sure to be there. Curious as to who is going to get the big one line smackdowns between Obama and Romney that will make all the headlines. I have to agree with Jane, booting Huntsman of the island was their biggest mistake by far.


Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137