Chris-Spangle - Latest Comments

Re: Union Member Portrays Mitch Daniels as Hitler

Tish_n_Indy — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:06:55 -0000

I was there today. The union folks were very thuggish. They were loud and obnoxious. One of our group went to his truck to leave to find some union thugs dumping trash in the back of his truck. A union thug drove by the protest, stopped and gave a thumbs up to the pro-union folks and, when the light turned green, purposely sped up and drove through the mud puddles in front of the Tea Party folks. Much to my chagrin, he came back by 10 minutes later as I was standing at the curb. I saw him as he drove toward me. He accelerated and drove straight toward the mud puddle in front of me. I ran back, but still got wet and my sign got soaked. The union thugs on the sidewalk thought it was really funny. One lady said she was making $25 an hour to "do nothing," and she was PROUD OF IT. She said it was OUR choice to protest for free, as if we just hadn't figured out a way to game the system like she had, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. *eyeroll*

ANY time the union thugs - and they were thugs - were confronted with facts, they resorted to screaming "Don't drink the Tea!" I yelled back at one point that the Tea was much better than the koolaid they're drinking.

Re: Union Member Portrays Mitch Daniels as Hitler

Jeremiah Hodgkin — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:35:12 -0000

All they did today was chant and yell and make noise ... when we tried to calmly talk to them they only got louder...

Re: House Rules!

5849 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:59:48 -0000

Amazing why should citizens believe the Rules of the House are somehow absent Constitutional authority? The Constitution is referenced at least 6 times in these rules, which according to Article 4 can only possess their limited authority according to the terms of the Constitution. Clearly the source of the limited Distribution of Powers authorized to the Legislature and Governor are contained in the language of the Constitution.

We still end up at this often misquoted and misunderstood document, the Indiana Constitution, it appears this document limits and controls government and elected officials yet there is no enforcement demanded by the citizen.

Re: House Rules!

5849 — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:52:18 -0000

Amazing why should citizens believe the Rules of the House are somehow absent Constitutional authority? The Constitution is referenced at least 6 times in these rules, which according to Article 4 can only possess their limited authority according to the terms of the Constitution. Clearly the only source of the limited Distribution of Powers authorized to the Legislature and Governor are contained in the language of the Constitution.

We still end up at this often misquoted and misunderstood document, the Indiana Constitution, it appears this document limits and contrils government and elected officials, yet there is no enforcement demanded by the citizen.

Re: Just For Fun: The Socialist Party Platform of 1912

Thomas Hill — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:58:19 -0000

Their critiques of corporatism or crony capitalism ring true. However, the socialist remedy is a recipe for disaster. A freed market governed by natural (common) law benefits everyone...

Re: Benjamin Franklin on Poverty

Phil Jeremey — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:11:02 -0000

On more thing, this quote that was taken came from a book called, "Remarks and Quieres." Here you can see he was talking in context of forming the provisional government after the war.
Read full paragraph quote below

Several Questions may arise upon this Proposition. 1st. What is the Proportion of Freemen possessing Lands and Houses of one thousand Pounds' value, compared to that of Freemen whose Possessions are inferior? Are they as one to ten? Are they even as one to twenty? I should doubt whether they are as one to fifty. If this minority is to chuse a Body expressly to controul that which is to be chosen by the great Majority of the Freemen, what have this great Majority done to forfeit so great a Portion of their Right in Elections? Why is this Power of Controul, contrary to the spirit of all Democracies, to be vested in a Minority, instead of a Majority? Then is it intended, or is it not, that the Rich should have a Vote in the Choice of Members for the lower House, while those of inferior Property are deprived of the Right of voting for Members of the upper House? And why should the upper House, chosen by a Minority, have equal Power with the lower chosen by a Majority? Is it supposed that Wisdom is the necessary concomitant of Riches, and that one Man worth a thousand Pounds must have as much Wisdom as Twenty who have each only 999; and why is Property to be represented at all? Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to form a civil Society; each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little more Property than his Gun and his Blanket, for at present he has no other. We know, that, when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a Property in them, his neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever they want Provision, it being one of their Maxims that hunting is free for all; the accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the Denomination of the LOWER; and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope, therefore, that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, "Stand in the old ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change."

Re: Benjamin Franklin on Poverty

Phil Jeremey — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:56:12 -0000

Not quite, you did not understand the context that was written. You need to first understand that he was prepared to lose everything he had (wealth, property, and his life) during the Revolutionary War. He essentially sacrificed everything he had in service to this country during a war. Typically Liberals like to take that one out of context to justify Socialism. Unfortunately the problem with liberals is not that they know so much, but that they know so much that isn't so.

Re: The Water Deal: It Makes Sense

pogden297 — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:44:55 -0000

Chris, I think you're missing some very important points. I have no problem with Citizens operating the utilities. That's a better arrangement. But the public owns the utility before and after the "sale." The whole sale is phony. Those dollars are being paid by Citizen's with a 30 year loan that the City is rolling into improvements that won't last more than 10 years. Would you take a 30 year loan out to finance the buying of a car. That's the whole problem with the arrangement.

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

FlynJack — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:27:42 -0000

I agree, we need to stop this libertarian purity business. We need to realize our party isn't a religion, it is only a political party. I wonder sometimes if the people who are always arguing for party purity are not trolls whose only objective is to prevent growth.

The parties position on the issue of abortion. From the platform:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

At first that seems to be a callus and uncaring position to some people. Libertarians do not believe the federal government has the right to intrude into the personal life of any citizen. Such power is not granted to the federal government by the constitution. The individual states are not limited by the United States constitution.

The same holds true for drug legalization. The same principle applies. The federal government does not have the power under our constitution to govern the personal habits of any citizen.

Think about these two issues for a moment. When the constitution was passed there were no federal laws banning or promoting abortion, or the use of drugs. The use of drugs and abortions were almost unheard of until the federal government became involved in controlling these two activities.

Most libertarians can agree that the federal government should have no involvement in the lives of any citizen nor does it have the constitutional authority to control either of these two activities.

Going back to the early years of the country, abortions and drug use were almost unheard of. When I was growing up if anyone had mentioned drugs I would have thought they were talking about prescription drugs. Abortions were pretty much unheard of too.

Our culture was radically different years ago. Most of us were Christians. All of us studied in schools designed to turn the student into a participant and citizen of our Democracy. Our faith was evident in our government, although it did not direct the government.

I do not know how accurate those polls are, but they say now about half the country does not believe in our creator. There are forces at work to remove all vestiges of Christian values from our everyday lives. The government can tell us where we can pray. Although our laws are based on the Bible, they tell us we can not display passages of that great book in public places.

If the Libertarian party seeks to govern our country I think it should have a moral foundation as well as a logical foundation. I don't think it should be different from the philosophy of the founding fathers.

They were afraid of state religions, as well they should have been, having direct experience with one. But our form of government requires a public morality to be successful. Our statesmen should be able to look at both the legal and the moral implications of their actions.

We will only have such men if we citizens select them and elect them. There has been little discussion in our party as to how we will actually achieve the limited government we once had again. We need to start thinking about how we would actually go about achieving that end.

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

BigDaddyJ — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:15:17 -0000

Seriously? That's like saying "if you don't like murder, don't commit one."

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

Matt — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:21:25 -0000

You are right Chris, refreshing to hear your reactions on this topic. It strikes me that some people reject others who do not have this belief on foreign policy, or that belief on marriage. How can you educate or persuade someone by ridiculing them because they are only 90% of what you view as "pure".

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

Indiana_Barrister — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:27:48 -0000

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It's pretty simple.

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

BigDaddyJ — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:37:41 -0000

The killing of the innocent is "an emotional issue"? Would you have said that about the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany? Was slavery nothing more than "a state's rights issue"?

No, abortion is a very real and physical issue to the millions who die each year. To ignore their plight for our own economic gain is unconscionable.

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

Chris Spangle — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:29:54 -0000

There isn't an official position on abortion because it is a state's rights issue. I am pro-life, and a lot of Hoosier Libertarians are as well. Frankly, abortion is an emotional issue that politicians use to distract us and to foster infighting while they spend us in to bankruptcy. I've had a lot of discussions about this issue lately, and frankly, if this is the one issue that you vote in, then the LP is probably not conducive to your single-issue belief because of the lack of a national stand.

Re: Glenn Beck and Libertarians: I’m Not Welcome

Matthew Stone — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:14:14 -0000

While Beck's views fall pretty firmly into the Libertarian ideology, he's also pro-life. It's a debate within the LP which is the tru position, and just like Republicans have Pro-Life and Pro-Choice organizations within the party, I understand the LPs have them as well.

Re: Numbers that should make Hoosier Democrats Wet Themselves

Matt — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:57:41 -0000

You make some good points, but to be fair the R's had a little more at the top of the ticket. A US Senate race, and more contested US House races; at least that I am aware of. However, I unlike Wilson do not believe that this fully explains the huge difference, but maybe a little.

Re: Numbers that should make Hoosier Democrats Wet Themselves

Wilson Allen — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:44:17 -0000

No big deal here. In 2008 there was a hotly contested Democratic Primary - in 2010 there were hotly contested Republican Primaries. That explains the switch in turnout. You are erroneously assuming that the partisan turnout in the General will be the same as this years Primary.

Re: Just For Fun: The Socialist Party Platform of 1912

Peter S Lopez — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:11:05 -0000

So many reactionary anti-socialists do not even have a clue about the basic principles of democratic socialism, . ~Che Peta

Re: Just For Fun: The Socialist Party Platform of 1912

Matthew Stone — Tue, 11 May 2010 21:57:04 -0000

TLDR?

Kind of reads like the scientists who thought there wouldn't be anymore inventions after the automobile/airplane/lightbulb/etc

Re: John Hostettler is NOT a libertarian

Bill Bean — Sat, 01 May 2010 17:39:10 -0000

Agreed.

Re: Benjamin Franklin on Poverty

billg64 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:49:59 -0000

Wesley,
You must put that back into context of his writings, those needs were to be voluntary and never meant to create a lifestyle of dependence for the poor

Re: How 9-11 Changed Me

shorebreak — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:26 -0000

One week before 9/11 I was standing outside of the WTC with my family. We were planning to head up to Windows of the World for lunch at the top of the towers. My oldest son was 7 at the time. When we arrived inside the lobby (deciding not to go up to eat because the line was too long) my son asked "What would happen if bad guys attacked us?" I asked him to explain what he meant. He told me that he was refering to an external attack by air.

From my background, I was able to explain to him (in words that he could understand) that a surprise attack would be impossible because we have constant, redundant AND overlapping monitoring of 100% of our airspace by both military and civilian air controllers, and we have interceptor aircraft stationed throughout the country on stand-by so that any potential crisis would place our national defense system on full alert within minutes. I had direct connections to implementation of the newest and most advanced military crisis management center so I could speak to this with confidence.

On the morning of 9/11 I was tuned into a local NYC radio station, listening to a traffic reporter who was monitoring the towers after the first impact. When the 2nd impact occured, like everyone else, I knew that it was an attack. I was horrified. There were reports of hijackings but I couldn't figure out how it could possibly have happened. Interceptors act immediately, yet the 2nd hijacked plane didn't strike until at least 20 minutes after the first impact. I reacted similarly to everyone else and I wanted a defensive US response, but I couldn't shake the issue regarding the air defense failure, especially after the Pentagon was struck more than an hour after the WTC attacks. The shoot-down of a plane over Pennsylvania certainly disturbed me, but it made sense under the circumstances, except for the fact that the media and government turned around and later claimed that the 6 mile debris trail and break-up was the result of passengers overpowering the hijackers and crashing the plane.

Ultimately, my concerns led to my digging deeply into NORAD (North American Air Defense) and FAA procedure. I learned that in the 12 months prior to 9/11, every errant and non-communicative aircraft in CONUS (Continental US) airspace had been successfully intercepted by NORAD. There only failures all occured on 9/11.

I also learned that in the spring of 2001 the White House had officially announced that air intercepts must be approved by the office of the Vice-President, where in the past they had all remained within the military chain of command. I also learned that the Northeast Sector for NORAD (NEADS) had begun a long-planned virtual wargame on the morning of 9/11 that placed false contacts on radar screens, which operators had to decipher and track. As part of the exercise, the false blips were hijacked airliners with their identification transponders turned off. At the same time, NSA (National Security Agency) was running an exercise that simulated an aircraft or missile attacking the Pentagon.

A third exercise was not simulated. It involved the relocation of interceptor aircraft from the Northeast Sector to the Northwesat for a real-time training effort.

I also learned that another White House announcement placed the office of the Vice-President in charge of all anti-terror training.

In terms of military command, it was also reported that prior to the attacks, the General in charge of the NMCC (National Military Command Center) at the Pentagon, and the general in charge at NORAD, had both been replaced by junior officers at the last minute. The junior officers were unfamiliar with correct procedure and were unable to execute the standard response drills and approvals without proper chain of command authority. Throughout the attacks, the head of the military - Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers (Genral Myers) was unreachable. His unchallenged claim is that he was busy at a meeting on Capitol Hill with Senators and was unaware of the attacks until it was all over.

Although these items were readily identifiable in the public domain after a few weeks of dedicated searching, none of them were addressed by the 9/11 Commission and nobody has been held accountable for their failures on that terrible morning.

There is much more damning information than this regarding the events of the morning, but these items highlight my concerns and they frame how 9/11 has changed me. It's been a huge eye-opener, enabling me to fully understand that as citizens, our safety is not assured by our security systems as much as it is by the integrity and motivations of those whom we choose to serve us. When we allow our media to frame our elections, and we choose the candidates who are portrayed most favorably by the camera lens and reporters, we risk choosing a leadership who has an agenda that pays lip service to security, but in reality, will use security to create fear in order to propel an unAmerican agenda.

9/11 has made me realize with certainty that our highest levels of federal government have been usurped by private and foreign interests. When the need arises, they will attack us again. Using their media (FOX/CNN/PBS/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC etc) they will use the attacks to motivate more of our children into combat for an unAmerican agenda.

Re: How 9-11 Changed Me

fearingamerican — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:25:57 -0000

@ pogden297: We weren't justified, we had a greater international sympathy, but we weren't justified by going in and killing innocent people in the process.

And you know that the attacks on 9/11 had a direct impact on the fear Bush & Co. propagated to get support to go to Iraq, without it, many more people would have taken a closer look at the bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe if they would have said, "Look, Sadam's a tool and real bastard. Let's kick that sonnabitch out, establish a pro-Western democracy, and then we will have a much easier time being able to get the energy we need to continue to support our way of life and security," I would have still been against it, but appreciated the honesty.

Re: How 9-11 Changed Me

stridle — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:54:30 -0000

I thought we invaded Iraq for control over the fourth largest oil reserve in the world?

Re: How 9-11 Changed Me

pogden297 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:37:49 -0000

Aaron, I'm with you on Iraq, but the fact is the people who perpetrated 9/11 were trained by Osama Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. The Taliban there suported Bin Laden's efforts. Going into Afghanistan was completely justified.

Iraq though had nothing to do with 9/11 but our government didn't sell the invastion of Iraq because of 9/11. People are getting confused. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.