Yes.
A friend of ours farms in his spare time and would LOVE to be a full-time farmer.
He told us that even if he was given a farm he couldn't afford to be a full-time farmer because it is too costly and you can't make enough of a profit to justify the pursuit.
He works for a major fire apparatus manufacturer full-time.

Even if this regime accomplishes all it's goals, there will be something that follows it. I believe there will be people walking around in places like Ohio, Indiana, Montana, Utah, etc in freedom. Because Washington really doesn't care about the center of the country as long as the taxes are paid, and the elections are counted in favor of the winner.

The WASP observation is demonstrative of all progressive plans. They would like to eliminate the WASP population, but starvation would be the unintended consequence. I say this because I don't expect the 99%rs to jumb up and suddenly become farmers. That would require work, risk, and profit if they are lucky.

It seems to me what George Bernard Shaw and his followers all want is the productivity of capitalism, without the freedom. That will never work. I submit, this is the core reason, after hundreds of years of working to accomplish OWO, it will never work. The desire for freedom and sovereignty is too deep.

1) Reagan led at the height of the "baby boom" generation.
2) We baby-boomers didn't bother having babies.
3) 50 years of supporting a dependent, violent reproductive sub-culture has bred jealousy unheard of in prior times.
4) Bush didn't have to get into conventional wars. We aren't fighting another nation ... we are at war with an idea. Assassination is surgical and relatively inexpensive.
5) With this President we are also engaged in a "civil war of ideas". Our youth has been indoctrinated into thinking that there is something intrinsically wrong with the American Way. If we lose this generation, all will be lost.
6) Currently, there is a popular mindset that "WASP-types" need to be extinct in order for the world to function under the NWO. Since farmers are currently "WASP-types" and they are disappearing at an alarming rate, no food = mass chaos.

I don't see much hope for our future.

If the "bad guys" have assault rifles, then the "good guys" must have even better means of defense against evil.
This is another example of government not understanding the big picture.
Thanks for this post.
---T

LOL

I don't understand the vote anyways. I like to debate. There is a slim chance an old dog like me may learn something in an exchange of ideas. If somebody gives me a thumbs up or down, it's kind of like instant gratification with a polyunsaturated reward. It feels good, but it's not real.

Then again, some forums become so polluted with raging opinions and seminar postings there is no debate there either. I would welcome debate with any. My daughter went to the College of Wooster, in Ohio. She studied "Women's Studies". Through debate and verification of results, and growth on her part and disenchantment with Utopia...she has become as libertarian as I am. It's one thing to parade the poor out in front of the Nation, air out all the misfortune and unfairness the rich have rained upon them, and cook up a scheme to throw billions to trillions of dollars at the poor. (I doubt anyone can accurately measure the money since LBJ's war on poverty.) It is quite another to give a young person the tools and knowledge to make their own life better. 16 years after her graduation, my Daughter understands that difference. She went back to school and became an RN, a position where she can actually, substantially, help someone. I would offer the same debate and idea exchange to Maph or anyone else interested. So far, that's what I like about AS people.

I don't know why anyone would vote Maphesdus down for citing Ronald Reagan's own words on an issue, but I voted Maphesdus back up to zero. Come on Gulchers, this isn't talking head TV, where they shout down speakers and ideas they don't agree with. We've all had too much of that. The flag on the down button says: "This is SPAM," and this link was not spam.

Amen!

As related to your first paragraph, I have noticed over my experiences there are some "tells" for winners and losers. When everything has fallen apart, a winner will step up to the microphone and take the responsibility and blame for all that has gone wrong, make a list of the actions he plans to correct the situation, fire people if he has to, and work to never let this happen again. In the same situation a loser will deflect and defer, find someone down the food chain to blame, refuse to admit that his actions had anything to do with the outcome, and so on. In observing the present constellation of progressive problem solvers we now have, I would say we have elected the wrong team.

I also posted this on the other Reagan post:

I was recently in Southern California and visited the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. If you are ever in the area I can't recommend it too highly. There are great exhibits about every aspect of his career, and the actual Air Force One that he and six other presidents used. I watched the videotape of his speech concerning the Iran-Contra affair. He made a straightforward admission of what had happened, took full responsibility, said he had made mistakes, pledged to take action against those responsible, and then vowed to move on. What a contrast to our current weasel in chief!

For me, perhaps the most rewarding part of the visit were the countless reminders of Reagan's irrepressible optimism. As the article notes, he took office at a time when the economy was a wreck and the nation was mired in a deep "malaise," (Jimmy Carter's term). Reagan knew that if the government got out of the way and people were allowed to pursue their ambitions and dreams, the economy would take care of itself. He did his best to get the government out of the way (he had to work around a Democratic congress) and lo and behold, the economy took care of itself!

Reagan also knew that communism was a dead end and would collapse of its own weight. He stood up to the Soviets, refused to back away from the Strategic Defense Initiative (and even offered to share it with them), challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall (there was a tape of that speech at the Reagan library--fabulous), and lo and behold, the Soviet Union crumbled!

Reagan made mistakes and I didn't agree with him on everything, but I think he was the 20th Century's best president. The man had not only substance but style, and the many "beautiful people" and intelligensia of the time who ridiculed him as an idiot now stand revealed, in the light of history, as the true idiots. The Reagan library is a fitting tribute to the man.

Rick Scott needs to communicate that results do matter. Christ is in the business of peddling fantasies and free things. There is a result to that too.

We got one of these ego-maniac liar running for governor in Florida Dem. Charlie Christ. He's running against Rick Scott that has saved so much money for the state it's unbelievable.

He took an America which was sliding rapidly into the Mr. Thompson paradigm... combined with Carter's bad habit of not being a strong leader (Diplomat? Sure. Bring opposite sides together? You bet. Powerful leader that made America look strong and proud? Um... not.) and turned it, and the national view of itself, around and made us once again proud to be Americans. Damned proud.

Of course, he did have his down sides... in more than one issue he was the "face" behind other politician's mechanizations... I remember hearing more than once (from both sides) that he was an actor, playing a part, in essence a Puppet President... but not unlike what Putin did in Russia recently (maybe this is where Vlad got his idea from???) he gave something to his country that had been devastatingly missing for years - national pride. Took us from a nation of self-hating wimps to a national superpower that could - and did - stand up to our enemies,, foreign, and would not have allowed the current horsepucky of enemies, domestic we are so rampantly stuffed with.

I can see... in a nation where, electing Empress Klinton to replace King Obama, a return to the America we despised and detested in the Carter era... a weak willed, soft nation begging our enemies to please break down our gates and pseudo-"forcing" us into islamo-communism. Look at how we've already thrown that gate wide open... and just wait for 8 more years...

God, how I miss that man. When I think of what did him in, not unlike his counterpart in Britain, it makes me sad. Lost a great generation, we did.

running for permanent progressive power, unaware
that the golden goose will die as a direct result. -- j

I think we have ego-maniacs running for public office today. It is reasonably argued the founders didn't intend for a representative to serve 14 terms. Mark Levin says they envisioned a term or two then go back home to your farm or business. Now their congressional seat and the next election is their business. Then consider the President's job. Take a well qualified guy like maybe a Jack Welch or Lee Iacocca. Would they take the cut in pay and the wheel spinning mudslide of working a change through congress? I doubt it. Those people make decisions and expect something to happen. In Washington, the President makes a decision and the Senate forms a committee. Industry leaders wouldn't do well with that scenario, IMO.

But someone with a face for TV, a gentle way with words, maybe sings a cool Al Greene, and his ego demands he be center stage. I think those are the most important factors today. If you didn't need the adoration to complete your psyche, why would you take the punishment of an election cycle? Maybe 1 in a billion would do it for love of country. So what we get is a guy that can't make a timely decision, but has been on TV everyday since the summer of 2008. Worse yet, he's still running for something, that's what he really know how to do.

yes it is. The guy that taught me to shoot says it like real estate, location is the most important thing.

It would be a close call between Reagan and Coolidge. Even Reagan said that Coolidge was his role model. It is unfortunate that they are so rare.

Right on, Blarman and RonC.

Reagan did almost as much as he could. I am not going to blame him for not keeping the budget under control. He did reasonably well on that (80% in RonC's terms). Iran-Contra, the 86 amnesty, and the '86 Dole tax increase are the only problems I had with Reagan.

very nice, thoughtful points.
thanks.

I thought that might be the case, and you've put your last sentence very well.
I'm a pistol-loving person, myself. Now that the weather is warming up, I'm going to take some friends to the range and do our every-so-often testing of various calibres against water-filled plastic jugs. Not only is it a good comparison of hydrostatic shock, it's WAY fun on a warm day!

I think that speaks volumes about the 80% rule.

Thank you, they have beaten us with the "need" whip. I apologize for the loose writing style, it's not my forte. I am just thinking and hitting the keys. I would say this about need. When I was 18 years old, I was flat broke. I had 15 cents in my pocket and the decision of the day was, 3 nickel packs of Kool-Aid or 1 fifteen cent McDonald's hamburger.

I needed a job. I was fortunate enough to find one. In my paradigm it never occurred to me that I needed a handout. That was 1970, so there were safety nets. If we argue needs, we need to own the definition.