Category Archives: liberal arrogance

Why modern liberalism is Evil.

Let me first clarify my use of the word “evil.”  As a New Ager I believe that every single soul in the universe will one day reach enlightenment and be welcomed into heaven. Don’t try and list off really evil people in history because they too will, one day, make it back to God. So my belief is that people aren’t evil, they can be very ignorant of what they’re doing, but they themselves and their souls are not evil. But I do classify their actions as evil. I classify such actions as Evil when their actions not only delay their own return to enlightenment, but also hurt the progression of others, whether the act is malicious or well-intentioned…

…So to my liberal friends out there: I’m insulting your idiotic beliefs, not you.

Okay, so we’ve got that out of the way, why is modern liberalism evil? Doesn’t liberalism support equal rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness for all humanity, democratic republicanism, the rule of law over force, and all are equal before the law and all that stuff? No, you’re thinking of Classical Liberalism, a philosophy which is at the heart of the Enlightenment and American Revolution. Modern conservatism and modern liberalism are both out growths of Classical liberalism. Philosophically modern conservatism is more of Classical Liberalism’s heir (in practice it sadly falls a little short), modern liberalism is Classical Liberalism’s idiot bastard child.

Why? you ask. After all, as a friend of mine recently said:

“As a Democrat, I support social welfare programs — that’s not ‘babysitting the populace.’ I think that government has a responsibility to provide programs for those in need.”

burn-books-ban-music-hate-blacks-murder-gays-become-symbol-of-hope-and-freedome-che-guevara-300x225

And it should come as no shock that this butcher is a hero to modern liberals.

Isn’t that a good thing? Wanting to help those in need? It seems so good?…And yet, it is evil. And let me explain why.(And I’m not attacking my friend in particular, I’m pretty sure almost every liberal in America would agree with that statement in its entirety).

Let’s look closely at the 2nd sentence in that statement (mostly because the first sentence is self-contradictory).

The government has a responsibility to provide programs for those in need.

There are three key terms in this sentence: Responsibility, Provide, and Need. We’ll deal with each one separately

The Responsibility of Government

What is the responsibility of government? Well if you listen to Classical Liberalism and modern conservatives who have their heads screwed on correctly, government is there to do things. Protect your rights and do those things which only a force as large as government can. What are your rights? The classic list is Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of Happiness. What does it mean to protect these things? Does it mean the government should stop me from eating that Big Mac because that will cause a cholesterol build up which will one day lead to my death? Nope. Protection means to protect you from others forcibly destroying your life or liberty. Through this the government has a responsibility to create a military to protect you from outside sources, and a police force (FBI, State Police, Highway Patrol, Sheriffs, and Local Police) and a court system for internal threats. They are there to stop others from taking things away from you.

Notice in this understanding of government’s responsibility they are not giving you anything. You were born with life and liberty it’s just no one can rightfully take it away from you without justification.

The second issue is things that only something as large as government can tend to. Things like standards. Weights, measurement, currency, laws for conducting business, highway and streets (because they all need to be standardized, although upkeep and repair should be at least contracted out if not privatized).These things need to be standardized because without them you have about zero chance of pursing happiness successfully. For instance one of things government has a right to do is standardize what is and isn’t legal banking practices so that everyone is keeping their books in the same way and thus everyone (and by everyone I primarily mean mainly stockholder and potential stockholders) can make sure everything is proper and the system is working and not lying/cheating/taking advantage. Our government chooses to not partake in this responsibility—I say this because the banking practices on sub-prime loans of which all the banks currently are still engaging in by government directive, which were designed by Congress to effectively destroy the market (even if that wasn’t their intent), were and still are very legal. That’s right it’s legal to do something that will cause economic collapse. But does Congress rewrite the laws? No. It would rather discuss your right to health care (which does not exist).

And herein is where the evil lies in that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are things you are born with and that no one gives to you. Health care is something that is given to you. Why is this evil? Because, it is an insult to the value of humanity. The human soul is an end unto itself, completely capable through its work and mind of providing everything it needs for itself. It’s a concept called free will. To say that something must be given to you (aside from the rights granted by your Creator), that you are not capable of getting it for yourself means two things. You are not complete and have insufficient power to live a whole life, and that whoever does provide this for you does have that power. Traditionally the relationship is called that of the master and slave…and in the scenario of the modern liberalism, government is not playing the role of slave (which it should be).To say that government has a responsibility to provide anything perverts the concept of a right, it perverts the concept of government which should be used as a shield against the irrational forces which choose not to recognize your God given rights, but rather into the driving force that makes your life complete. It subordinates your will to the will of government…to the will of the party, the leader (what’s the German word for “leader”?), or the will of Big Brother.

What the Government should provide?

Well nothing is the obvious answer if you read the previous paragraphs. But there is another reason why the government providing anything is just plain evil. To provide something means the government has to get it from somewhere. Where does it get the money to operate? Taxes. Now we don’t pay our taxes out the goodness of our heart. If we are rational we pay for what the government should be doing because we recognize government is a necessary evil that requires funds to operate to protect us…That accounts for about 10 cents of every dollar the government collects. We pay the other 90 cents because the government has guns and prisons and thieves called the IRS who will go into your bank account and just take it without your permission.(Anyone else miss the good old days of Robin Hood and the American Revolution, when we knew what to do with tax collectors?).

But it’s not just their theft and extortion that’s evil. Back to health care. Notice what’s implied by the concept of you have a right to health care. That means a doctor has to treat you, whether you will pay them or not. If it’s an absolute right it can’t be ethically paid for. You don’t pay someone for your liberty or your life?  Do you? No, that would be evil. You can pay someone to protect those things, but you’re not paying them for life or liberty, you have those by being a human, you’re paying them to act as a shield against outside forces that seek to steal those things. So if health care was a Right that you have, it would be unethical or evil to demand payment for it. But if you have the right to demand the services of a doctor or a nurse, or demand the right to a drug that could save your life, what does that mean? It means that the doctor does not have the right to refuse you treatment, payment or no. And if the doctor doesn’t have the right to refuse treatment, the right to demand payment, doesn’t that mean he is a slave. Doesn’t it mean that the drug company and the scientist who came up with the drug are slaves to the person demanding the drug if they don’t have the right to determine what they think is a fair price for the drug.  You may have the right to keep up your health as an extension of your liberty, but you do not have the right to demand someone else look after your health.

I feel I need to make this clear. If the doctor has a right to demand payment for his knowledge and his service then health care must logically be conditional. Rights are not conditional. If health care is a right, then health care providers must logically be slaves. It’s one or the other. Rationally there can be no having health care as a right and not having slaves. Since modern liberalism states health care is a right, logically they are calling for the enslavement of an entire class of people, namely health care providers. Modern liberalism claims lots of things are rights, a livable wage, for instance, but when you run it through logically if it is a right then someone must be forced to provide this right. That person is called a slave.

So that’s twice now that modern liberalism has devalued human life to little more than slavery. Let’s take a look at the third part of the sentence.

Who are those in need?

Those in need—are we talking about those in need of protection from genocidal tyrants? Those in need of defense against a culture that debases women as less than human? Nope. From the context of the sentence it seems we’re talking about people who don’t have enough stuff/money according to our liberal friends. But before we give those in need everything they “need” let’s look at why they’re needy.

“You need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty – finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of the families who do this are poor; 79 percent of those who fail to do this are poor.”

– William Galston, advisor to Bill Clinton.

So I’m not a sociologist here, but using the information provided for us by the Clinton administration, it would seem Five Pillars of Liberal Thoughtthat poverty is primarily caused by making really stupid choices. Taking another look at the statistics, as economist Thomas Sowell loves to point out in just about every book he writes, over half of those people who are below the poverty line are in their 20’s and won’t be below the poverty line in 10 years, having given up their places among the poor to a new set of 20 somethings. So it would seem that most people tend to learn from their youthful mistakes. Who would have thought in a capitalistic system that rewards hard work and intelligence that the stupid and lazy get the shaft.

But the call goes, ‘what about their children! The children of these people who live below the poverty line will never be able to break this cycle.’ To which I say: Bullshit. Every school I have ever worked at full-time could be called “at risk” education. And at every school some of my brightest students were not the children of middle class families, but the children of parents who lived in poverty. They saw how their family lived and they choose to get an education so that wouldn’t be them. The children who repeat the cycle of poverty are those who CHOOSE to not strive, to not learn, to not break the cycle. It is a choice, as the opportunity is always there in a capitalistic system to get out– it has nothing to do with race or gender or religion or your parent’s background. It is a matter of choice. To deny this denies free will,  oh wait there once again we find that to say that people are needy means that we don’t believe they have free will, the responsibility to take the consequences of their choices; once again liberalism has devalued human beings to little more than a mindless thing.

Modern liberalism’s problem is that it devalues the inherent value of human life.  It see personal charity not as something that should be done because it benefits the giver but only as a duty that must be obeyed without.  It sees all

Every person in this picture is an idiot.  Only one of them isn't bright enough to actually leave a mark on history for good or ill.  Guess which one.

Everyone of these people believed in government not liberty…they what we call in the modern day, liberals.

of humanity as either problems to fix or tools to use. But a human being is not a problem or a tool. It is an end unto itself. Only from this perspective can a life have value. Liberalism pushes everyone away from this value through its destruction of free will through its imposition of slavery and through its denial of human value. I’ll be the first to say that history is more than filled with far worse examples of this evil than your modern American liberal, but it is a difference in degree not kind. I will also admit that while this idea pushes people away from any kind of personal growth, it is the person’s choices to follow that philosophy, not the philosophy itself that is at fault for not achieving personal enlightenment. But it is still used as a tool for preventing the progression of many human lives…and in that sense it is absolute evil.

 

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny

The Problem of Syria

 

 

Someone (we’re not sure who, Obama and Kerry say Assad, the UN says the rebel—I don’t trust either, so who knows) used chemical weapons in Syria.

 

Now it’s really funny how the left suddenly thinks that chemical weapons in the hands of a Mideast dictator is a bad thing that needs to be stopped.

 

Some might argue that we should punish those who have done so.  That we need to go in to save lives.

 

But they’re looking at it wrong.  While we do as decent people have a responsibility to stop genocide, that isn’t enough, we have to make sure we can actually improve the situation.  The question shouldn’t necessarily be is Assad (or the rebels) killing people, it should be, can we stop the killing?  In Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan there were either prodemocracy forces (and in those last two I will fully admit we botched any attempt to rally those forces and form a real government)…and in Japan we had the wherewith-all to stay in charge for over a decade to ensure a stable government was left in place.  The problem with Syria is that it’s a choice between Assad and his Iran/Hamas terrorists backers and the Rebels (read Al-Qaeda)…if either side wins, they’ll use the chemical weapons and kill the people of Syria and probably other nations…and America at this point (even if we had a leader and not an idiot in charge) doesn’t have the resolve to stay the time needed and spend the money required to take over Syria and build a system that will end the killing of people.  The fact is that no matter what we do, people are going to die.  If we help people die, if we don’t help people die.  There is no way out of this that can stop the killing.

 

Kerry Syria

Kerry was against intervention over chemical weapons before he was for it…and he was for it before he was against it…

Now some people, whose opinions I respect, suggest we should go in and just bomb Assad’s ability for air dominance, level the playing field and let the rebels and Assad fight it out on equal terms.  I can see the wisdom in this…but this assumes a leader who knows what do to and how to handle such a campaign.  And here’s the problem if you had such a leader my NeoCon side might just say, why half-ass it?, go in occupy the nation and set up a democracy…but lacking such a leader I don’t know if I can even trust the idiot we have now to level the playing field…honestly has he done anything else right in foreign policy?  Which again leads me back to it’s best to stay out of this mess.

 

The silver lining to not doing anything at the moment is that this is Hamas and Al-Qaeda killing each other…which saves us the time and trouble of doing it.

 

But let’s talk about what we should do if reality had no bearing on this (or, say, if we had done the intelligent thing and elected a leader and good man and not a buffoon and corrupt hack).  Now Syria would present it’s own challenges but I think the best way we should do with Syria, if we were going to get involved is to look at our two most recent mistakes, Iraq and Afghanistan, and see where we screwed up there.

 

Now let’s first deal with some of the points of why we went.  We went to take out terrorist threats (and both nations did present such a threat), we went to do the ethical thing and stop genocide, and we went to spread democracy.  All could have been accomplished if Bush and/or Obama had had even half a brain between them…but Obama likes to grovel and apologize for America’s virtue and Bush was an isolationist (just look at his debate with Gore where he said he didn’t want to engage in nation building…so stop blaming NeoConservatives for Bush’s idiocy, he was never one of us and never will be).  It was the right war to fight.

 

It was also fought well.  The military is not the part to blame, it is the diplomats and politicians who screwed the occupation up, not the war itself.

 

Now let’s review what we should have done but didn’t.  And, in terms of full disclosure, I honestly thought we would have been bright enough to do these things when I gave my support for these wars…I thought that even if Bush was dumb enough to not know to do these, his advisors would at least be bright enough…boy was I wrong.

 

Obama moron

Do you trust this man to do anything right? Do you even trust to not make it worse?

The first thing we should not have done was turn over Iraq and Afghanistan to Iraqi and Afghani control so soon.  We were in control of Germany for year (and only gave them independence to gain their alliance in the Cold War) and were in complete control of Japan for nearly a decade.  We should have remained in political and military control of Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade as well.  It takes time to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation, it takes time to get the culture used to the principles of rule of law and a democratic-Republic, it takes time to properly write a Constitution.  All of these were rushed for political convenience.  And that is partly what ultimately made these situations so terrible.

Someone should have gone to Congress to first get an act of war declared and second to get Congress to lay out in writing and law what defines success and when we can legally leave.  Right now we can leave whenever, whether we’ve finished the job or not, and it is largely up to the president and the president only. These are powers that Congress should have, and they should not have been given up, nor should any president have grabbed them.

The nations should have been broken up.  Their current borders are arbitrary creations of colonialism and forced numerous ethnic and religious groups that loathe each other.  Pluralism is also superior, but it grows best naturally when two group both doing well see each other as equals that both can grow and learn from, not from being forced together.  Iraq, should have been three nations (Kurds, Sunni, Shia)…Afghanistan should have likely been broken into a Southern and Northern part (although I’ll admit my knowledge of the breakdown of clans, ethnicities and religious divisions in Afghanistan is not as deep as it could be).  My point here being that smaller less diverse areas are easier to administrate, easier to work with, easier to maintain stability it…and if there is terrorist activity in one it does not mean that destabilizes the whole operation (for instance Kurdistan would have likely been stable, and possibly even economically prosperous very quickly which would have led to more stability in the whole area and an ally we can count on).

We should have never let the armies disband as quickly as we did.  We should have kept them as POWs vetting every single one of them before releasing them.  This would have delayed the terrorists attacks.

I agree completely with the surges, only disagreeing that they should have been done earlier and probably to an even greater degree.

We should have burned each and every poppy field in all of Afghanistan to the ground and shot any drug lord who complained.  The terrorists live off the funds of the drug trade and one of our first goals should have been to deny them any and all funds.

The Peace Corp should have been recalled for training in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, (and anything else we needed) and then sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is no point in having a Peace Corp in helping in social and economic development if you’re not going to use it where it was needed most.

Border walls.  As we have learned in the US, there is nothing so important as a border wall…more so when dealing with terrorists.  We should have been building walls on the border of every single nation, starting with the borders of Iran, Pakistan, Syria.  If we had done this the terrorist activity would have been drastically reduced (as most of it came from Iran, Pakistan and Syria)…and if there had been a division of the nations we should have had walls between them as well to help stop the spread of terrorism.

With staying longer, our first responsibility should have been building up roads, water, electricity, schools, hospitals and the basic of industry…the infrastructure needed to support a republic of law.  Training the military and police should have been a distant second (because when you rush that, you let the terrorist infiltrate easily and attack us from within, as we’ve seen all too well) as the military can handle that for a longer period as we’ll be there for a while.

There is no way we should have ever left Iraq without gaining a permanent military base and the same goes for Afghanistan. One of the only reasons why these invasions made sense in the long run from a tactical stand point was gaining foot holds to ensure stability in the area (would Syria be as violent as it is right now if there was a permanent US base with missile launch capability just a few minutes from it’s borders?)

Massacre of Syrian Christians

This is a picture of the handy work of Obama’s allies in Syria…the massacre of Christians for no other reason than their religion. Yes we should help these people.

Among stronger women’s right pushes than we made, we should have made it a requirement that both nations add full rights to women and some version of our burning bed justifications (which more or less makes it justifiable for a woman who is afraid of her husband beating or murdering her to kill her husband…and then we should have probably armed every woman as we could have). This would hopefully have cleared out a lot of the worst bastards we would have to worry about, and the scum who objected should have just been summarily shot as well because you know they’re shit who would be nothing but a blight on humanity. (And I can hear some liberal whiny about it’s their culture who are you to judge.  I’m a human being with a brain, that’s who.  Any man, any law, any religion that says women are inferior to men is shit and deserves to be wiped off the Earth with extreme prejudice.)  We should probably also have installed a lot of women in positions of power, those who objected can be shot.  (This is more to quickly identify the terrorist scum and quickly eliminate them).

We should never have stopped it being a major function of the military and CIA to gather intelligence.  We should be capturing terrorists leaders and water-boarding every last piece of information out of them.  The problem with drones isn’t their use or their death toll…it’s that they’re being used in lieu of gathering intelligence which actually (causes more death in the long run) kills even more people in the long run.

(On a side note) We should have backed, supported and armed the revolution that started in Iran.  Conversely we should not have given moral support to the largely terrorist led Arab Spring.

We should have gone in and still should be going in with the mentality that first and foremost this is a war.  If you are dealing with rational people then negotiate with them, but otherwise there is no retreat, no fallback, no quarter and all that is acceptable is either complete and unconditional surrender or every member of your opposition dead.  No negotiations with the Taliban, no playing nice for Iran and Pakistan.  This is a war, we are in the right (or at least we could have been) and we will not stop until every tyrant is dead or in jail and every innocent citizen enjoys full human rights.

 

Now, while Syria presents it’s own challenges and idiosyncrasies, but it is these general principals that should guide the occupation and rebuilding of any nation.  And the question you need to ask is, do you think Obama has the spine and intelligence to do any of this?  Do you think he even has the brains to carry out attacks on Assad’s military targets?

For me the answer is simple.  No.  I would love to spread liberty and end genocide everywhere…but from what I have seen of this nation, and especially Obama, we don’t know how to do it, we don’t have the patience it takes to do it, and right now we certainly aren’t in an economic position to do it.  In an ideal world intervention is what we should do, but the realities of the present state that our current situation will only lead to making things worse.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Congress, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, NeoConservative, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Republican’s Slighted Reputation and How They Should Respond

“Reputation is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit and lost without deserving.”—William Shakespeare, Othello

 

So there is a new report out from the College Republicans on how Republicans can make new inroads with younger voters.  While some of their points are obvious* and some are just a little naïve**, one of the points being most centered on by a lot of the media is:

It is not that young voters are enamored of the Democratic Party. They simply dislike the Republican Party more. In the focus group research conducted in January 2013, the young “winnable” Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard “Republican Party.” The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.

[…]

The descriptions of the Democratic Party were more charitable. While some respondents viewed Democrats as “soft” or as supporting big spending, most noted that they were “tolerant,” “diverse,” and “open-minded.”

Now response to this has been two fold.  One is most on the right are looking at this with the attitude of ‘oh wow, 20 somethings who have never done anything think the Republicans are evil, shocker that naïve, inexperienced, overgrown children know shit about shit;’ the response from the other side is ‘gee you’re doing so well, don’t you think this is the time for self reflection.’

Let’s deal with those attacking the GOP and calling for self-reflection. Specifically let’s deal with the point of Republicans are “closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned” and Democrats are “’tolerant,’ ‘diverse,’ and ‘open-minded.’”  Exactly what in that statement, which seems to be the thrust of most of the argument, exactly calls for self-reflection? If I accuse Obama of eating the still beating hearts of children and it causes his poll numbers to drop, should he do some self- reflection on his behavior…no not really.  While there are many other points he should think about, dealing with bullshit accusations requires little to no self-reflection. And let’s be clear those comments are such a worthless pile of bullshit it’s not even funny. But let’s take a moment to look at a couple of them.

Republicans are close minded and Democrats open minded.

Yes, Republicans the party of fiscal conservatives, RINOS, social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, the Tea Party, rational libertarians, and some people I’m not even sure why they’re here is the close minded party.  The party of Chicago School economics, Austrian economics and some bizarre Neo-Keynesian economics, all tearing at each other.  The party that questions its own, attacks its own, has not one single philosophy, and every primary eats its own…yeah we’re the close minded ones.  Meanwhile the Democrats have one philosophy, Keynesianism.  They have one goal… larger government.  They march lock step behind whoever controls the party and there is little to no dissent.

Republicans are racist

Yes, this is clearly what a party of racists and bigots looks like.

Republicans are racist and Democrats tolerant.  Republican, the party of those who marched for civil rights like George Romney, Charleton Heston, and Martin Luther King Jr., versus the Democrats who were turning hoses and dogs on the Civil Rights marches.  The Republicans who voted for Civil Rights when the Democrats didn’t.  The Republicans who have at every turn opposed the welfare state that is destructive to the growth of the middle class for all groups.  But the Democrats who blindly support Planned Parenthood, a racist eugenics group designed to destroy minority groups, are the tolerant ones…even I who am very pro-choice find Planned Parenthood a disgusting organization.

MLKJr RepublicanRepublicans are old-fashioned and Democrats are new and hip and want change.  Republicans go with what is true and what works.  Just because something is new doesn’t make it good.  And also Republicans believe in real change (in the 80’s we were for amnesty but when we saw that didn’t work at all we’ve dropped that idea) whereas Democrats are still peddling the same big government line they always have, they just keep giving it a new coat of paint to make it seem new and exciting, when it’s the same damn failed idea it’s always been.

I could go on, I have time and time again, but let’s face it  Democrats look only only look at people based on what minority they’re in, they don’t see people they see groups.  They don’t seek solutions, they seek the same solution they always have: control. They tolerate difference, open-mindedness or dissension.  They embrace “diversity” only as a tool to divide and conquer. They are the most racist group out there, the most close-minded, the most vicious, the most rigid and the most despicable.

Young people and idiot liberals believe this not because of facts, but because of propaganda and a lack of actually being open-minded enough.  There is no factual basis for these claims against Republicans, thus no amount of soul searching will help us fix it.  You can’t respond to slander through logic—it’s why individuals are allowed to sue for damages, because nothing will ever get you back your good name even if the charges aren’t true.

Now someone out there is probably going to point out idiots like Todd Akin.  Yes, yes that man was stupid beyond the War on Womentelling of it. He also got the nomination because liberals in the state’s open primary put him as the winner of the primary because he was easier to defeat—they weren’t wrong.  But you know what.  I don’t care if you can point out examples of this racist that misogynist or some such homophobe.  Why?  Because the Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of registered Democrats (if they were Republicans it would be the lead story every day, but as they’re liberal the story gets buried), because liberals kept electing a man who killed a woman in cold blood (Teddy Kennedy) and a rapist (Bill Clinton) and also kept re-electing a member of the KKK (Robert Bryd…also don’t forget the Klan was an invention of the Democratic Party).   Yeah we have some screwed up people, but at least we don’t have idiots too dumb to understand ‘tweeting a picture of my !@#$% might not be the brightest idea’.  If the media were honest, on every point the Democratic Party would come behind every time.

As the quote that began this blog points out, reputations often have nothing to do with reality.  The reputation of the good is often maligned by the vile without a factual basis for the claims.

Democrats are the racist ones

Yeah, the Democrats are just a bastion of tolerance.

Now should this study be completely ignored?  Not entirely.  But when you consider that they tried to get a sense of how 20-somethings and small business owners felt about government regulation, their genius move was to ask 20-somethings if they had dreams of starting a business…yes this is the group I should listen to, to understand how the law and economics should be set up, people in their 20’s who want to be their own boss…while I’m at it why don’t I go ask a quarterback on a high school J.V. team how to manage a pro football team at the Super Bowl, both think they’ll one day be in charge and both know nothing about anything…what I’m most surprised at is that they found people in their 20’s who didn’t dream of being their own boss and starting their own business one day (that’s sad when you think about it). So perhaps the study’s methodology was a bit off.

But flaws of the College Republican poll aside,

the fact does remain that conservatives have a problem with young people. Because young people are ignorant and stupid.  The human brain doesn’t stop developing until 25 or 26 and we were dumb enough to give every 18 year old the vote. Short of doing the intelligent thing and raising the voting age to 30 (which would pretty much guarantee perpetual defeat of leftist ideology)…no really I’m serious, we need at some point to overturn the 26th Amendment…and the 17th while we’re at it…what can we do for now.  Well one of the reasons young people are so unbelievably dumb is the propaganda machine the left has going.  I’ve already gone over ways we can get the free market to help put the kibosh on that font of bile.  The next point would be education, educated people tend to be less liberal…but since homeschooling and charters are up, so I’m not terribly worried there either, if someone learns to think early on, they’re less likely to be indoctrinated in the later years of formal education that mistakes letters after your name for real knowledge.

Honestly, besides actually just growing a spine, continuing the growth of new media, challenging liberal lies, and convincing one person at a time through reason I don’t see much else we can do.  Yes we need to do a better job of getting our message out, but that is something we need to work on at a media and personal level, not at a RNC level.   And certainly we could do a better job at keeping idiots like Akin and Santorum out of the public eye…but again the Democrats have worse than we do, and it’s just the media protecting them that makes this appear to be a problem in our favor. Young voters aren’t some special interest group we should change our tactics for, that’s the liberal way of divide and conquer…either we hold to the truth of our principles or they mean nothing.

*1) Focus on the economic issues that affect young people today: education, the cost of health care, unemployment.

2) Capture the brand attributes of intelligence, hard work, and responsibility.

3) Don’t concede “caring” and “open-minded” to the left.

** 4) Fix the debt and cut spending, but recognize that messages about principle and “big government” are the least effective way to win this battle of ideas with young voters.

5) Go where young voters are and give them something to share.

2 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Education, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, People Are Stupid, politics

The Short-Term-Thinking Ideas of Liberals on Foreign Policy

Red Eye is the one of the greatest TV shows ever.  It is fun, witty, bizarre, informative in spite of itself, and a place where you will hear commentators be bluntly honest where in other formats they would be more reserved.  And then there is Bill Schulz, Bill is the liberal on Red Eye…most of the time he plays just a coked out hobo spouting idiocy…but sometimes he’ll tell you what he really thinks, and that’s when his spiel turns from funny to just plain stupid.  But it’s not that the real Schulz is particularly below average…in fact, I think his honest moments show us the level of idiocy of your average liberal (and probably some of your dumber libertarians*) on foreign policy.  So to give you an idea of how little your average liberal knows, let’s look at some comments made by Red Eye’s liberal voice.

So let’s start with a discussion about his opinion about Obama’s term in office so far.

Amb. John Bolton: And significantly in the days of the IRA terrorism, Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher—we’re led by Barack Obama.

BS: Who has got a really good record so far.

Bolton: Five dead in Massachusetts .  And four Americans in Benghazi.  All unanswered at this point. That’s the signal to the terrorists that it’s open season.

BS: I think so far that’s a great record.  You don’t want anyone dead, but those are the realities of our war on terrorism.  I thought he’s done a great job defending this country so far.  I have never understood that argument.

Bolton: The question is stability in the Middle East where the Arab Spring has turned badly wrong.  The loss of influence in Iraq.

BS: How is that his fault?

Bolton: Because of the policies he’s pursued.  The withdrawal from Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the unwillingness to take on the war on terror.  The unwillingness to go after countries like Iran and North Korea who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

BS: I think if you ask most Americans they’re going to say I want out of Iraq.  I want out of Afghanistan.  And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.

Red Eye April 23rd

So so many stupid statements in such a short period of time.  Let’s deal with the last statement first.  That because people wanted out of Iraq then it’s a good thing.  Leadership is not about doing what the people want.  Leadership is about doing what is best for the nation in the long run. If those happen to match up, great.  But when they diverge leaders do the unpopular thing, they will try to convince the nation that it is the best thing, but if they can’t they will still expend all their political capital and even commit political suicide to do what is important and right .  But just doing what is popular is the base and cowardly move of hacks.  And to praise that is idiocy that only liberals can embrace.  It doesn’t matter if everyone thinks a course of action is wrong, if you believe it to be right and it is your job to set policy you do what you believe to be right.  Now there may be compromises here and there to ensure the most good comes about depending on the limitations of your power, but overall you do not care about what is popular if you are a leader.

But then let’s deal with the truly idiotic statement of “And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.”  Which pretty much sums up the rest of his comments and shows the differences between liberals and their opponents.  Liberals are too stupid to see any long term consequences.  They think only in the emotional moment.  Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand both consider the long term perspectives—where they differ is Libertarians focus on the consequences of action and conservatives point out that the consequences of inaction outweigh the negative effects of action.**

So let’s look over some of Obama’s foreign policy moves.

Iraq: Bush was an idiot who didn’t have a plan on how to rebuild Iraq.  But if I can lay into Bush for being short sighted, Obama was worse.  First off, did he do any of the right things and begin to rebuild Iraq?  Nope he left, and left it to crumble.  Yeah there are still US soldiers there (so if anyone tells you he ended the war in Iraq, they’re either lying or they’re dumb) but there are not enough there to do anything substantive…only enough there to get killed.  Great plan Barry.

Then he did something even more short sighted.  You don’t have to be terribly bright to realize that the Middle East is going to take up a large portion of foreign policy for a while.  Part of the reason to go into Iraq was not only to stop a dictator (something we should have done in the  early 90’s) and to stop support for terrorist networks…but one of the major reaons, long-term reasons, (besides stability, but you’d need a plan for that) was to establish a base from which we would be centrally located in the Middle East and thus have more effective influence on the entire area.  Right now our only major staging grounds (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) are kind of on the periphery of the Middle East.

So thinking short term Obama not only doomed the nation to chaos again but he also blew one of the most important long term goals of the war.  Also since problems you don’t fix always tend to come back, don’t be surprised to see that this is not the last of major US troop deployments in Iraq in your lifetime.

time.afghan

Even the liberals at time seem to have an understanding of exactly what will happen if we leave the Taliban in charge.

Afghanistan:  Initially I thought this might not be a complete cluster.  We were burning more poppy fields than under Bush, and the initial stories of the uptick in drone warfare were hopeful.  But then we found out drones weren’t being used to take out high value targets we couldn’t easily get to, they were being used without any concern.  No one was being captured, no one was being interrogated.  You run a war as much on intel as you do on manpower….yes you can perhaps keep the problem at bay by an unrelenting drone war, but that is like sandbagging a river that shows no sign of stopping its flooding, the minute you stop sandbagging the flood will break, the second you stop the drones the flood will break (keep in burned with acidmind Obama was planning on putting strict rules on how to use drones should Romney have won).  And then you will have no drone and no intel to work with.  Whoever takes over from Obama will have their hands tied on both fronts.  And not only that…we’ve been in negotiations with the Taliban.  That’s right we want to make peace with the people who throw acid in women’s faces for not wearing a burka and who shoot little girls in the head.  I want you to take a look at these pictures.  Those are the people Obama has tried to negotiate a peace with.  Take a long look.  You cannot, you must not negotiate with things that can do that to the innocent. The collateral damage of war is one thing, the intentional mutilation of innocent is another, and any society that can coexist with people who do this as typical means to get what they want has no right to call itself civilized.  And to negotiate with butchers like that sends a very clear message that America does not stand for ethics, values nothing but her own whims, and will tolerate any evil so long as it does not bother us.

Iran: Besides leaking information about the virus we planted in Iranian computers and probably leaking information of Israeli plans to attack to ensure everyone in Iran was safe.  But while general incompetence abounds in not seeming to realize psychotically crazy religious people with nuclear weapons is a bad thing (and I would like here to thank Bush for blowing all his political capital by not having a plan, thus not being able to deal with this before moron boy took over) it takes a special kind of stupid to consistently back the wrong horse.   In Iran that would be the uprising in 2009 where (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-protests-mousavi-attacks)  the people of Iran rose up against the government run by the Ayatollah…and the US did nothing.  Now you can argue to me all day long about how we couldn’t do much…but please consider that in the light of running guns to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Lybia and Syria…to using US intel to help these groups allied with our enemies…to giving money and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt…during the pro democracy, true pro democracy uprising in Iran, we did nothing.  No word of encouragement.  No behind the scenes support, not even running our jets and ships dangerously close to their border to remind them we are watching.  NOTHING.  When it is a real battle between tyranny and liberty, this worthless pieces of scum did nothing.  I can’t promise that there was any way for this uprising to succeed, there probably wasn’t, but because we did nothing we made it very clear to every real desire for liberty in the world that we will not back you.

Israel: Obama has made it clear time and again he will not defend the democracy of Israel, going so far as to compromise the safety of Israeli intelligence officers so he could appear like the leader he is not (notice also they haven’t gone after this and like leaks that they thought made them look good…but leaks that made them look bad hell they’ll bug the AP, call reporters criminals for reporting, and god knows what else in the days to come.

In each and every dealing with Israel Obama leaves no doubt that support for Israel will be tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst, only encouraging further buildup and, God forbid, aggression.

Arab Spring: So while the pro-democracy protests of Iran were left to die, the pro tyranny, pro-Sharia, pro-Al Qaeda uprising of the Arab Spring were praised, supported, encouraged, armed, supplied, and even given money after their reigns are in place.  I wonder if the long term consequences of this will be five countries supporting terrorism where we had just gone through so much in Iraq to get rid of one.  Again I feel the long term effects of this will be less liberty and more terror.

I could go on, but in every single move the Obama administration has taken it has set long term advantages for the very people who want to destroy liberty and held back the long term strength of those who defend it. Don’t believe me on the weakening of our side, well then I would suggest you take a look at the latest lawsuit against Obama by the families of some of the dead members of SEAL Team 6…they’re not happy.

(yes the video of the press conference is very long, you may want to come back later and watch it because it’s worth it…though infuriating).

But back to Bill Schulz, it’s not a one night occurrence.  Try this recent debate with former CIA Agent Mike Baker on the May 1st show.

BS:The congress thing is true.  When he ran in 2008 it was not a Republican led Congress.  It is now.  There is no way he can get this to happen.  You guys can complain about that but that’s the fact.

Mike Baker: You know why he’s not closing Gitmo.

BS: Because Congress won’t let him.

Baker: Bush spent several years doing what Obama found out is almost impossible to do.  Get someone to take these people.

BS: Well Yemen wants 90 of them why won’t we give them to them.

So Bill’s genius idea is to send them to a nation where terrorists are numerous and partly in control.  Can’t see the possibility of a jail break at all, can you?

Baker: The best way to end this prison let them die from the hunger strike.

BS: A lot of them have never been tried for anything and we don’t know if they’ve done anything.  I don’t necessarily know if that’ s a great idea.

This is the face of "You can't possibly be that stupid." brought to you by Mike Baker.

This is the face of “You can’t possibly be that stupid.” brought to you by Mike Baker.

Baker: I’m sorry what.

BS: None of them have been tried for anything and we’ve already released a bunch that were innocent.

Baker: We just randomly picked these guys up and threw them in there?

BS: A lot of people have admitted that we’ve done just that.  A guy working under Cheney said just that.

Greg Gutfeld: I think Baker’s going to kill you .

BS: No but isn’t that true?

I’ll agree Gitmo isn’t perfectly simplistic and that we probably did pick up a few innocent people (there is a reason we have the term “the fog of war”)…but the way Schulz is portraying it (especially if you watch the recording) is that everyone down in Cuba was just minding their own business and the US military randomly picked them up off the street (hence Baker’s face)…also the guy Schulz is likely referring to, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was on Colin Powell’s staff (yeah real conservative credentials there) is also on the record that we made up all the evidence against Saddam and he never had any WMD programs…which in light of the fact that we had to ship 500 ton of yellow cake uranium out of Iraq (according to CNN).  Also Wilkerson currently makes a living as a pundit who goes on left wing shows and says that the GOP is nothing but a bunch of racists.  Given that he’s clearly a liar (or too stupid to understand what 500 tons of uranium is) and he hates the party he supposedly is from (thought I doubt) his statements about us taking the innocent and shipping them to Gitmo so one finds that his statements may be more motivated by leftist ideology than those pesky things known as facts, which makes most of his points as being the kind you should take with a grain of salt.

Yes military tribunals would be nice…but Schulz in his hypocrisy has forgotten about the constant blocks from liberals who wanted to give them every single civil liberty of US citizens and all protections of the Geneva Conventions (this ignores that little point that the Geneva Convention only applies to those in uniform, and the uniform clause was put in there specifically to prevent the major kind of terrorism that these terrorists were engaged in.  The Geneva Convention wanted to set rules that you will fight in certain ways, or we will not guarantee your safety in the least and you’re on your own.  To offer this scum those protections only encourages the kind of behavior you don’t want to encourage…but there again we go back to Obama and other leftist). And their lack of understanding of all rules and regulaions, laws, constitution, etc.

And an earlier part of the conversation dealt with the foolish idea that Gitmo is something that makes us enemies…yeah cause our drone attacks are making us so many friends (I don’t buy into the pacifist BS that the drones do nothing but kill innocent children, I’m an adult and realize there is such a thing as unintended collateral damage…but on the same token Barry is rather haphazard in his use of drones and doesn’t seem to care about doing the normal thing and trying to limit collateral damage where possible).  But back to creating enemies. It’s not creating more enemies.  Religious psychopaths tend to hate whether they have a reason to or not.  Note they hated us before the first Gulf War, they hated us before the Shah was put into power, the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Hitler on how to kill all the Jew in the 1930’s before there was a major Western presence, they have waged endless and constant war on the west since, well, their founding. When you found a religion on an act of genocide (the killing of the Jews of Medina) the after effects tend to be people who find enemies whether you give them a reason or not.  If we pulled out every Western base from the Middle East tomorrow AND moved all of Israel here to America…I’d lay down my entire net worth on a bet that would say they would still be calling for death to the Great Satan.  We’re not making enemies by our actions, an ideology that hates reason is going to find any example of it as an enemy.

The fact of the matter is that no sane person thinks the people in Gitmo are a bunch of saints.  The fact of the matter is that liberals only care about what’s popular now and doing what they want now with no concern for long term.

Yeah Bush botched the job at rebuilding…probably because he wasn’t a real neoconservative (go back to the Bush/Gore debates, you will hear him say he doesn’t believe in nation building), it’s just that like his liberal sensibilities he did the only thing that made sense in the short term.  The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anyone in power right now in this nation who thinks long term, and we haven’t had one for a while (although we did blow the chance to have one very recently).  I’ve pulled out Bill Schulz  as the representative of liberal thought here, but you hear dumb shit like this all over the place, not just on the token liberal of one show, and it is an ideology of short term thinking that will always lead to problems.

*Honestly, libertarians, why are you letting your party get taken over by the whiny anti-war crowd. You used to be Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater types who encouraged destroying tyranny.  What happened?

**Libertarians may dispute the idea that they don’t see as far into the future as conservatives, but history backs up neoconservatives on this point in terms of foreign policy

***Anyone who thinks George W. —Let me expand entitlements, give federal control of education, sign stimulus bills, not worry about Tort reform, Social Security reform, cutting any part of the government, do nothing about Fannie and Freddie –Bush was a fiscal conservative in any way, shape, or form is deluding themselves.  But he lowered taxes!  No he didn’t, conservatives know that a temporary tax reduction has no lasting effect on the economy, so even that move wasn’t conservative.   The man was conservative only in the part of “conservative” that is a gross misuse of the word and that the GOP needs to drop, let’s the use government to promote social values.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Israel, liberal arrogance, NeoConservative, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Philosophy Basics for Atheists (i.e. morons)



So I just read this truly stupid comment on tumblr in reference to my blog that historically any country that legally enforces atheism is far more violent and genocidal than nations that enforce other religions.*

“OK, atheism is not a religion and it’s certainly not a moral code. Atheism is just the non-belief in a god. That’s all it is. Now stop throwing straw men about and use that brain of yours you so proudly claim to have in your blog description.”**

This is a statement typical of the absolute idiocy of atheism. At least Christian nutjobs will admit that it’s faith and not reason that is behind their stupid ideas…but Atheists have not only the idiocy to mistake their faith for reason, but also the arrogance to then believe what they mistake for reason makes them better than anyone else.

So just to be clear I see two explicit lies here and on implicit lie.

  1. Atheism is not a religion: Lie.
  2. That the faith based metaphysical beliefs of not believing in a God have no effect on a moral code: Lie.
  3. Thus atheism does not come with a moral code: Lie.

So let’s go over these.

First, I’ve dealt with this dozens of times, but let’s go over it again: to not believe in God is an act of faith.

You have no proof that God doesn’t exist. Further it is logically impossible, let me repeat LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, to prove a negative.  Thus to believe in something that cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form, is an act of faith.  It is believing in something you can’t know, and can’t prove, ever.  That’s faith.  That’s about as close to the definition of faith and religion as you can get.

And if you have a belief system based on an article of faith, that’s a religious belief.  It may not be an organized belief, it may be the very antithesis of the colloquial meaning of spiritual, but it is a religion.  Webster’s defines religion as: “7. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and any atheist who wants to argue with me on that is insane, your belief in no God supplies the “cause, principle, or system of beliefs” the fact that you have no proof provides the “faith” and the fact that you’re arguing about it provides the “ardor.”  And it comes with its own sets of dogmatic beliefs.  There is the big bang, there is evolution. The fact that those theories still have some big holes in them, does not matter…nothing must deviate from the dogma.  Anyone who points out that the jump from random chemical to self replicating cells is a statistical impossibility and requires more than just the theory of evolution to make sense must be shouted down and burned at the stake.

But here let me pull another objection to my statement that atheism is a religion from the internet:

“Atheism isn’t a religion, and there are no atheists that I’ve ever heard of that have claimed themselves to be a “religion” of anything.  You’ve heard the arguments about atheism not being a religion before no doubt; you’ve just chosen to ignore them.”

Oh, so because atheists themselves don’t claim they’re a religion then they’re not.  You know, I’ve never heard any Nazis claim that they’re the personification of evil, and I’ve even heard arguments from Nazis that they’re right and good and true…I guess they must not be evil because they said so.  After all they said so.  Just because you argue you’re not something doesn’t make it true. O.J. tried to argue that he’s not a killer…reality said something different.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t think you’re a religion, you have a belief based on an article of faith that is utterly impossible to prove.  It only adds to the fact that this person is an idiot, that he thinks that dismissing the pointless claims that atheism isn’t a religion is stupid, yet the fact that there is evidence that God exists (not entirely conclusive evidence I’ll grant you, but evidence) and he just chooses to ignore that isn’t a problem for this moron at all.

“But you don’t have any proof that God does exist either” the standard line goes.   You’re right, except for the logical impossibility of an infinite regression series in causality***, the fact the big bang statistically should have produced as much matter and anti-mater making a psychical universe all but impossible, the fact that random chemicals can’t just turn into self replicating cells, the fact that evolved chimps can’t just magically become sentient, the fact that near death experiences show that memories are formed when there is no electrical charge in the brain, and a thousand other pieces of evidence that suggest that there is a soul and a God…yes, I have no evidence. And while each piece of evidence I could bring up could be explained away on its own, the totality of it suggests quite strongly that there is a God.

“But you don’t have iron clad arguments” the argument goes.  True, but I’m not claiming that I’m not relying on faith to fill in the places reason can’t provide an answer, you are.

atheists are idiots

When you lose the reason for causality the whole story just sounds stupid.

But then the idiot Atheists like to bring up the truly idiotic thought experiment called “Russell’s Teapot.”  It’s a silly thought experiment that says there might be a teapot orbiting the sun, but since no one has provided any proof then we must assume that it doesn’t exist until someone provides proof.  And thus the burden of proof is on people who believe in God to prove that he exists.  (This again ignores all the evidence that does exist, it’s very convenient that Atheist always equate lack of absolute proof with lack of any proof).  First of all whether there is or isn’t a teapot has no effect on my life which is one of the reason why it is totally incomparable to God.  There might be a massive asteroid hurtling toward earth that could destroy the whole place, since this will have an effect on our lives, we have telescopes looking for it even though it may not exist.  Just because you come up with a charming example that uses a teapot doesn’t just mean you get to decide who has the burden of proof.  If you want to be purely based in reason you take no stance and be an agnostic.  If you want to believe there is no God and hold that as a belief, then you have no burden of proof other than your own feelings. But if you want me to believe you don’t say that you don’t have to prove your beliefs—if you’re going to publically make a statement of fact (that there is no God) you better back it up.  You cannot say reason is on your side but someone has to prove you wrong and you don’t have to prove your case.

And finally Atheists I now see are trying something really stupid.  Now they’re calling themselves agnostic atheists.  In this bizarre argument, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. The gnostics in both groups (in a bizarre perversion of the English meaning of the word Gnostic) believe deeply, whereas the agnostics aren’t sure and try to portray themselves as being purely reasonable. This of course is preposterous as every idiot I have heard describe themselves “agnostic atheist” (and thus should not feel the need to argue about a belief they do not hold strongly) will attack you like a rabid Doberman if you even so much as question the logical basis of atheism.  It’s like socialists describing themselves as “progressives” or “moderate” or “centrists” or anything else, doesn’t change the fact that you’re batshit crazy. Think of this being a gnostic theist would mean you believe you can prove God doesn’t exist (logically impossible) or a being an agnostic theist would mean you believe in something you believe you can’t know, even through faith (which would be just dumb).  So I doubt you’ll find anyone dumb enough to be in those two categories. So really you have atheists and theists…and you have people who don’t have a real opinion agnostics, which this stupid 4 part chart doesn’t account for. You may try to make yourself sound more logical, but you’re an atheist, end of story.

Further this distinction ignores that it doesn’t matter how strongly you believe in your atheism, it matters which side you picked.

And this brings up to the second lie, the implicit one, that being an atheist doesn’t affect the rest of your philosophical beliefs. Actually it does.  Choices have consequences.  Philosophy is not a buffet where you can pick and chose beliefs as the writer of lies above would have you believe.

So first some quick background (this will be a refresher course if you already read Republicans and Reincarnation).

 

There are four**** main branches of philosophy: Metaphysic, epistemology, ethics and politics.

Metaphysics: the philosophy about the nature of the universe, what is true, what exists, teleology, and of course religion.

Epistemology: the philosophy of how we know or if we can know.  It’s a really annoying field of lots of hair splitting and hypotheticals.  But this deals with the acceptability of reason and faith in finding truth.

Ethics: How individuals should act and what is the purpose of their actions.

Politics: The ethics of groups and how the individual relates to the group and vice versa.

The lie above would have you believe that these four branches are separated.  That my beliefs about God (i.e. metaphysics) has nothing to do with my beliefs about epistemology, ethics, or politics.

Wrong. Oh so wrong.

Metaphysics affects your beliefs about epistemology. If there is not God there is not Truth beyond the laws of nature, there is no ethical Truth, there is not political Truth, no moral Truth…no truth at all outside of the laws of physics…and even then epistemologically you’re on shaky ground finding a philosophical basis for getting past skepticism because without God all that brain of yours is a sack of meat and electrical signals, there is no philosophical ground to trust it actually knows what it’s doing.

And your Metaphysical and Epistemological beliefs directly create your ethics.  What is true and what you can know is what creates value and what has value is what we direct our life toward.  The values of life if there is a soul and God are radically different from the values without them.

And obviously this change in ethics forms the basis for radically divergent forms of government.

And this then all comes to the third lie, that Atheism is not a moral code.

Atheism holds there is no God. Thus there is no soul.  Thus there cannot be free will.  You cannot rationally hold that there is free will if there is no soul, because free will to be free must be free of the laws of physics.  Choice doesn’t exist, if all your actions are determined only by chemical reactions in your brain. If there is no soul then your brain is simply a collection of chemicals running certain chemical reactions based on stimuli from the outside environment.  Without a soul your brain is nothing but an extremely complex computer running a program.   It may break, it may not work properly, but there is not choice in the matter, there are only reactions determined by the laws of physics.

And if there is no soul and there is no free will the question of value becomes extremely difficult.  Why are you a collection of chemical reactions more valuable than a tree, or a rock, or chemical reaction in a high school chemistry lab?  All are just collections of chemicals operating without choice by the mindless sequence of physical reactions of the their base elements.  Now, atheist Ayn Rand tried make the argument that since we are self-aware and beings of reason we are ends in ourselves…but even her argument depends on free will and an intrinsic value of the human life (both dependent on the soul) and if she ever applied her logic that contradistinctions cannot exist to her own beliefs she would have seen this.

Without the soul and free will human life cannot have value in and of itself.  And any atheist who would like to claim that human life has value in and of itself, I would like to know how you can possibly claim one set of chemical reactions can have more value than another.  And to believe that life has no value is a moral code with very definite moral implications. Ah, but maybe it’s because we’re really complex systems of chemical reactions (why complexity should be valued more than simplicity is a moral judgment without philosophical basis in a Godless universe…also the universe prefers the simplicity of complete chaos and entropy…complexity can only occur in order and lack of chaos, very against the nature of the universe)…but let’s say for the moment it’s because of complexity.  That immediately requires you admit that something more complex would be of more value of human life…let’s call this more complex thing, oh I don’t know, the Herrenvolk…do I even have to explain where that moral code leads?

Not to say all atheists are immoral or act as if human life has no value, most act as if human life has value…but that’s kind of odd for people who rail about how their reason is superior to everyone else’s but somehow are acting on a belief they have no reasonable or logical cause to believe in.  I guess they take that human life has value as an act of faith.

You can’t logically say we should all treat each other with respect and dignity if you no metaphysical reason why humans are so special.

And politically this gets really screwed up, because if there is no intrinsic value to human life, then there are no natural rights, then at best the most you can come up with is a utilitarian system that aims for whatever goal or end you decide (because without the value of the soul, the individual ceases to be the ultimate value and thus value can be whatever you want it to be).  And under utilitarianism anything is permissible (as history has shown time and time again), any atrocity is acceptable so long as it accomplishes whatever your final goal and final solution is.

Now Atheists will like to tell you that this is wrong.  That they do believe in the value of the individual, but they can’t exactly give you a philosophical reason for it.  That they don’t believe in the evils of Unitarianism in practice (Nazism, socialism, communism) but oddly enough all of these governments in history have done everything they can to outlaw, to abolish and to prevent any religion other than atheism.  Why?  Because religion gives value to the individual, and thus rights and reason and free will and value and a soul. Something other than the State to believe in and follow.

To say that atheism does not come with a moral code is to say that ideas do not have consequences.  It is to say that they believe in reason but refuse to follow ideas to their logical conclusions.  You cannot have it both ways. Either you embrace reason and thus metaphysical points affects ethics and morality, or you don’t believe in reason.

And history has shown that the logical conclusion of atheism on any grand scale is never something we would call ethical.

Yes there are some truly psychotic and idiotic beliefs and morals in various religions, but the flaws in certain religions does not negate the massive flaws at the very heart of atheism:  Calling it faith, believes that choices do not have consequences, and believes that a belief that destroys the value of human life is not someone’s perverted moral code.

But please tell me where my logic is wrong…other than just whining that “Atheism isn’t a religion, atheism isn’t a religion.”

*Just in case some idiot doesn’t bother to read the article and want to make an argument without doing even the slightest bit of research, like, I don’t, clicking on the link, I do point out that enforcing any belief leads to bloodshed and that secular pluralistic governments are best…but as few atheists actually want a pluralistic society as shown by their vicious push to have everything but their beliefs banned by law, it’s not really a valid point.

**Before you ask I’m not linking to the fucking idiot who said this, they don’t deserve a higher hit count.

***The argument by cause is actually a very strong argument, as it logically requires something infinite, outside of time and space, with volition, and intelligence.  It is logically impossible for there not to be something like this, and as Aquinas would say, this we call God.  The problem with the argument by cause is it doesn’t tell you much about God, and that is why it is a weak argument–the other arguments are required to tell you anything about God.

****Five really, but aesthetics has little to do with this discussion.

22 Comments

Filed under Atheism, Civil Liberties, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, philosophy, Purpose of Life, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny, virtue

Liberals engage in voter fraud often and we need Voter ID to stop it

As good fortune had it, Puggy arrived on Election Day. He’d been on the street for less than an hour when a white van pulled up next to him. The driver, an older man, said something in Spanish and showed him a ten-dollar bill. Puggy, assuming the man wanted a blow job, said “Not interested.” The man immediately switched to English and explained that all Puggy had to do, for the ten, was vote.

“I’m not from here,” said Puggy.

“No problem,” said the man.

So Puggy got into the van. En route to the polling place, the older man picked up seven other voters, all men, some quite aromatic. At the polling place, they all walked right inside and the man told them what to do. The poll workers did not seem to have any problem with this.

When it was Puggy’s turn to vote, he gave his name, per instructions, as Albert Green, which he spelled “Allbert Gren.” The real Albert Green was a person who had died in 1991 but still voted often in Miami. Puggy cast Mr. Green’s ballot for a mayoral candidate named Carlos somebody, then went outside and collected his ten, which looked like a million dollars in his hand.

Puggy had never voted for anything before, but on that magical day, riding around in the white van, he voted in the Miami mayoral election four times at four different polling places. He got ten dollars each for the first three times, but the fourth time, the van man said the price was now five, and Puggy said OK. He felt he had already gotten a lot from the city of Miami, and he didn’t mind giving something back.

—Dave Barry, Big Trouble*

Liberals are whining about Voter ID laws lately and this is only going to get worse.

Why?  Because as they slip further and further out of power (as it appears they are really doing at this point ) then that’s all they’ll have to get to stay in power…after all this is the party that engaged in voter fraud right in the middle of its convention when corrupt L.A. mayor Villaraigosa called an overwhelming nay vote a yay vote (now some Republicans have unfairly hit the Democrats saying they were voting against putting God into the platform…this is untrue, they were voting against recognizing the capital of Israel because the Democratic party is clearly made up of anti-Semites).

Democratic cheating is a time honored tradition.  From Jim Crow laws to Joe Kennedy buying the election for his son, Democrats believe that you should vote early, vote often, and keep voting after you die.

However, despite the voter fraud and intimidation actions of ACORN and the New Black Panthers (both ignored by Eric

Attorney General and all around piece of scum Eric Holder’s bestest best friends, the New Black Panthers, caught on tape engaging in voter intimidation. Yes that’s him holding a pipe in his hands right in front of a polling place.  Holder treated this like he treats all real illegal actions, he did nothing…after all there were cartel to arm, potheads to prosecute, and constitutions to be shredded.

Holder), Democrats make silly claims like “Voter fraud doesn’t really occur.”

Okay let’s put that to the test.

A NAACP member in Mississippi was convicted of casting a dead person’s ballot. 

A Democratic candidate in Maryland had to withdraw from the race because it was shown she engaged in voter fraud.

A Democrat in Arkansas plead guilty to voter fraud.

Voter fraud in New York and Florida has already been discovered with absentee ballots. 

A ballot measure that will allow the inherently biased-toward-the-left open primaries in Arizona is believed to be on the ballot only because of voter fraud. 

Even NPR admits that right now there is just short of 2 million dead people on the voter rolls.

You can get another person’s ballot without any effort

The SEIU was involved in voter fraud in the Wisconsin recall.

 

Also it appears California union members voted in the Wisconsin elections.

And there was major voting fraud in Pennsylvania. 

And that’s just stuff from this year.

It doesn’t take much effort to find recent cases of voter fraud in 46 states. 

And this is ignoring a history of voter fraud throughout the country.

 

Then you have California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez…she won the seat by 928 votes…a Congressional committee without really trying found 748 of those votes were cast by illegal immigrants (am I the only person who thinks finding over 700 illegal votes in one congressional district on only a cursory look is something that should have received national attention and calls for strict Voter ID laws from the federal level)…but in true liberal fashion that shouldn’t be enough to call the whole election into question

And being bluntly honest, if not for voter fraud, Al Franken would not be in the U.S. Senate.  (Just typing that sentence makes me sick.  That dimwitted hack should never have been allowed near any representative body.)

The fact of the matter is that cases of voter fraud are hard to find proof of and harder to convict on…so if you can find as many cases as are just shown here…then you guarantee there are a lot more.

So the fact is that there is voter fraud going on…to what degree it’s hard to tell.  But given the flexible way the DNC handled voice votes, the flexible way liberals historically deal with truth, the flexible morals of groups like ACORN, and the money that people like Soros ship to such groups it’s possible   And keep in mind this is the party that pays people to protest and ignored the heinous crimes of Occupy because it furthers their cause…is paying people to vote all that much further?

So how do we fix this?  Now the easiest way would be to end the secret ballot and tie every ballot to a name…it would be very easy to determine if your ballot was tampered with or submitted by someone who wasn’t you.  But this cure would be worse than the disease as it will lead to kind of voter intimidation that we fear card check brings with union votes.  I bring this up only because some well meaning but short sighted people on the internet were suggesting this as a cure for the voter fraud problem.

So the next most likely solution is Voter ID.

Voter ID is actually the only other way, besides getting rid of the secret ballot, to solve the election fraud problem because there is no other way to check for fraud.  (I mean guess we could come up with punishment so horrible and so Draconian that even the most corrupt would be afraid to even try…but I, like the rest of the civilized world, am firmly against making people listen to Obama speeches put on an endless loop as this violates the most basic and fundamental human rights).  Without some kind of basic check that you’re who you say you are there is absolutely no way to stop people from voting as other people.

(Now actually I think the voter rolls should be cleared out every few years and everyone needs to re-register every two years, which would help reduce the number of voters who have moved to a new state along with the dead and inactive…and while that would be effective to vastly reduce the opportunity for fraud, liberals will throw all the same arguments against it that they do against voter ID so there is no particular reason we should view them separately.**)

Why is voter ID effective?  Because it’s much harder to fake an ID than it is to say you’re such and such at this or that address (which is almost always in the public record).  It’s easy to get hold of this information in mass numbers.  It’s unbelievably hard to fake the number of ID’s it would take to swing a vote in a state with voter ID…to the point that I would say that it is not even remotely cost effective (not to mention that it increases the number of people in the criminal venture exponentially and leaves a far greater paper and evidence trail).  Voter ID laws won’t necessarily stop all Voter fraud, but what they will do is make it so that it becomes virtually unthinkable to try and sway an election through fraud without being easily caught in the attempt.

But liberals make all these silly arguments.  “It’s really hard.”  WTF?  Almost every teenager I know has an ID by the time they’re 15 (and as a High School English teacher, I know a quite a few teenagers)…if a teenager who can’t drive, can manage this, really how hard can it be?   “It costs too much money and therefore it’s a poll tax!”  Okay first of all, how exactly do you go through life without an ID?  I personally don’t get it.  There are so many things you need an ID to do, I don’t see how it doesn’t cost you more to not get an ID.  But ignoring that, I know of no state that has Voter ID laws that doesn’t have a corresponding system that allows for low income citizens to get free ID’s.  There–problem solved.  Will you have to fill out some extra paper work?  Yes.  But guess what, voting shouldn’t be easy, anything easy is not treated as valuable…and I find the right to determine the fate of my nation a fairly valuable thing.  “It’s not constitutional.” Yes, yes it is.  Please read Crawford v. Marion County Election Boardwhere the Supreme Court even said it’s constitutional***.  “It’s racist.”  Um…it’s only hurting minorities if they were incapable of going to fill out paperwork on their own, most conservatives don’t believe this****, it’s the liberals who seem to think this will stop minorities from voting (I guess because they think minorities are too stupid to get ID’s).

Look, let me speak on behalf of the most conservatives here, we don’t want to stop any ethnic group from voting, we want to stop liberals from stealing elections via illegal ballots being cast.  We don’t think minorities are the problem, we think liberals are.

But let’s say fact and reason don’t hold any sway for you and you still say that voting is a constitutional right and that ID laws are a violation of that right. Then let me try this thought experiment. Voting and owning a gun are both constitutional rights. Both have the power to protect my life if used well or ruin the lives of myself and others if used in- appropriately. In the hands of idiots who don’t know what they’re doing both can lead to unspeakable harm and evil.  In the hands of informed citizens both are a strong bulwark against tyranny and bad government.  Liberals would scream bloody murder if I said I shouldn’t have to show an ID to buy a gun, and I agree with them, I do believe you should have to show ID for a gun.  It’s too dangerous to sell without some kind of ID check.  You should have to show ID to get a gun even though it’s a constitutional right.

Yet these same liberals scream bloody murder if I say you should have to show an ID to vote.  It doesn’t follow.  If you are willing to say one requires an ID then you can’t say that you can’t require an ID for another because “it’s a constitutional right.”  Especially because, let’s be honest here, in the wrong hands a gun is only dangerous as long as it holds bullets and can only harm a limited amount of people (it might be a tragedy but it’s a limited one).  A vote, and especially a rigged election, can harm thousands, millions…and if it is any office with power of foreign policy, billions.  Tell me again why guns are so important that we need to check ID but that voting isn’t?

Voter fraud is real.  ID check is the single greatest way to counter it.  There are no legitimate arguments against. It needs to be implemented in all 50 states.

*It may be a fictional representation, but it’s a representation of what actually goes on.

**While arguments could be made that better and more informed voting would occur if we raised the voting age again (maybe to 30…I know very few people in their 20’s mature enough to be allowed to decide the fate of the nation…if you want to have a specific exception for soldier, fine, but this blanket 18-year-old shit is easily the one of the dumbest Amendments in the whole Constitution.

***Yes, I have said on numerous cases the Supreme Court has not made the right call.  I don’t however claim that just because the court is wrong that their mentally challenged ruling doesn’t have the force of law.  And so even if you disagree with Crawford it’s the law.

****I say most because there are pieces of shit in every party.  The main difference is that the Republican Party has some fringe elements (we’re trying to deport them to the libertarians as quickly as we can)…the Democratic Party through welfare, affirmative action, resistance to education reform, etc., supports racism as a major plank of the party platform.

1 Comment

Filed under Books, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, politics, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation

Faux Outrage at Romney Calling Obama on Being Inept

Liberals are in a tizzy.  How dare Romney critique Obama on apologizing for free speech.  How dare Romney criticize Obama when a U.S. diplomat is dead as a result of Obama’s complete incompetence.  How dare Romney push to get a man out of office whom he believes, justifiably so, is so inept at everything he does that to let him have another 4 years in the Oval Office would lead to irreparable damage to both this nation and our allies.  How dare he! For shame, Romney, for shame!

So no shocker liberals are idiots for multiple reasons, but let’s go over a few of them.

The first, and possibly my favorite:  How dare he use the murder of people to help himself.  The first thing I try to do in an argument, believe it or not, is to look at it from the other person’s point of view (you’d be surprised how this makes you feel other people are idiots more often than it builds tolerance, but that’s another discussion for another day).  So liberals from Romney’s  point of view Obama is inept, putting the lives of U.S. citizens at risk, and the first inclination of both he and his administration is to apologize to butchers at any and every chance.  If you were Romney, the only ethical thing to do is to get Obama out of office through any and all ethical means. * Bringing up Obama’s many failures is a an ethical and important way to get rid of the ass.**  To do anything less would be to allow such a terrible executive to stay in power—to not make a point of this would have been to allow Obama to stay in power, to actively work for what Romney believes will harm this country—in short to not bring it up would be unethical.  Yes, for shame that Romney did the only ethical thing available to him.

And both parties are guilty of this.  Right now, it’s being highlighted that the media didn’t throw this hissy fit when Kerry used dead soldiers in Iraq to hit Bush. ()  Yes some Republicans said it was classless and tacky, I don’t recall doing so myself because quite frankly if you think the war isn’t worth it that’s a damn valid point.  I thought the war was worth it, and it was—granted it would have been better if it had been carried out by someone with a brain, but just because Bush was a moron doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry would have been even more incompetent at bringing democracy to Iraq.  So Kerry bringing up dead soldiers or not isn’t relevant (the fact that Kerry seemed shocked that people die in war however might be a good point of showing how dumb Kerry was) to the argument, fewer people were dying because Saddam was gone.  Now any Republicans who had a problem with Kerry doing this back then would be hypocrites to complain about Democrats outrage now, just as the media is hypocritical of showing outrage for one but not the other.

The fact is that there is really no shameful behavior in a campaign there is only a question of relevant and effective.  Bringing up Obama’s failures is relevant if you’re argument is that Obama is utterly incompetent, which he is.  Bringing up dead soldiers in Iraq is relevant if your argument is that the Iraq war was wrong, which it wasn’t (it was just managed by idiots).  Shame is only relevant when you’re acting against what you believe, which in both cases was not the fact.  However Kerry’s central argument was dumb so this point was irrelevant.  It’s just like liberals now bringing up Romney’s tax returns.  Their argument is they need to see them to determine if Romney has done anything illegal…which is dumb…if a candidate is that rich they’ve got good lawyers and accountants, which means even if they are doing as many illegal back door deals as say, Nancy Pelosi, their lawyers and accountants are not going to be dumb enough to put them in their tax returns.  Further you don’t think the IRS under Obama didn’t already go through them with a fine tooth comb?  Trust me if there was stuff there Obama would have already leaked it…I mean it’s not like Romney’s taxes are a classified state secret (and we know Obama has no qualms about leaking that).

Now you can argue that Romney doing this might not have been effective and counter to his goal of unseating Obama, as many in the McCain/RINO wing of the Republican party seem to be doing (yes because we should listen to McCain advisors on how to run a campaign because they clearly know how to win…) but really that’s tangential to the faux outrage by the Democrats.

Second you have people getting upset about insulting the president (yes Republicans were guilty of this too during Bush). I’m sorry but I live in a Constitutional Republic.  The president and politicians work for me, not the other way around.  They are not gods, they are not kings or nobility; they are human beings.  And they deserve to be called out on their failings. Due to their position of service they deserve to be called out on it even more as they are my employee and when they do such a terrible job they deserve to be told what utter !@#$ing scum and idiots they are.  And like the outrage over calling out people when others have died, the only question is, is it relevant.  Calling Bush Hitler for defending liberty…doesn’t quite make sense (an idiot he was, evil no…of course liberals were seldom calling him an idiot for the right reasons).  Calling Obama a socialist when he acts and says everything a socialist would, perfectly justified.  ()

Now, onto the real meat of the matter.  Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and Romney’s justified critique of it.

Let’s get our timeline set.

1.            The US embassy in Cairo issued an apology for free speech.

2.            Riots began in Cairo and Libya.  The embassy repeats the statement several times.

3.            It became known that a US citizen had died in Libya (it was not known at the time that it was the Ambassador).

4.            The Obama administration, after some dithering, has the initial apology removed.

5.            Romney issued a condemnation of the initial apology.

6.            The day after this all happens Romney gives a speech calling for leadership and condemning Obama for not offering any, and Obama gives a speech that once again apologizes for the fact that we have free speech.

The problem here for liberals is that because the apology came before the attacks that Romney’s statement is wrong and false.

Let’s deal with this.

I’ve tried to watch the video, I might condemn it for poor production value or the fact that it was clearly made by a moron, but by doing so I would be doing it as a private citizen.  A US Embassy has no right to critique, let alone condemn the expression of free speech by citizens of the US.  Furthermore as this was made by Coptic Christians who are being slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, you might understand why they’re taking their frustration out on Muslims (it’s the only religion I know of that was founded by a child raping butcher who personally ordered the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina…but I’m sure it’s a religion of peace having started with such an upstanding beginning).  But my point in bringing this up is I’ve haven’t heard of any condemnations by the US Ambassador condemning the abuse of Jews, Coptic Christians, or hell even women by the Muslim Brotherhood…but let’s condemn people for using their Constitutional Rights.  It also makes such fascinating comments like “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.” (Didn’t notice much of it in Charlotte when half the party objected to the word God being put in the platform…that was unfair actually…they were booing the inclusion of Jerusalem being listed as the capital of Israel.  So I apologize for saying the Democrats are against religion.  They’re not.  They’re just against Jews.)  Also I hate to tell them this respect for religions isn’t a cornerstone of America (it’s also a republic not a democracy)…right to express your beliefs is a cornerstone, but I don’t have to respect you when you do.  I have every right to think you’re a complete moron or even evil (and before you begin to argue with me on that, you first have to tell me you respect the beliefs of the Westboro Baptists and that you would condemn anyone who would try to denigrate them for their batshit crazy ideas).  I will defend your right to express your dipshit ideas, so long as such expression does not harm me or others, but don’t expect me to respect you for being dead wrong.

And Romney’s response.

Okay so since the attacks occurred after the apology it might be a little out of line that Romney said the administration’s “first response” to the attack was not to condemn them but to apologize.  Yeah sure the embassy repeated the message after the attacks began but  I mean it’s not like the Secretary of State issued an apology of her own after the attacks had already begun at about 7:54pm…oh wait…what…she did?  Oh shit, I guess he’s right their first reaction was to condemn free speech rather than condemn the butchers who throw a hissy fit over a video that one would otherwise ignore if you weren’t crazy (you know the same butchers murdering Coptic Christians and putting Jews and women in their sights).

You can see the original at https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576 (but I expect that will be taken down soon.)

[Author’s note: it would appear I have my times a little mixed up, Hillary’s tweet came about 10 minutes after Romney’s statement…which is despicable in its own right…however as it also appears that the embassy twice sent out messages backing up their previous abhorrent statements, Romney is still correct in say that the administration’s first inclination was to apologize after the attacks begun…I messed up in my time lines, Romney did not. 9/13]

So then we had this morning where

Romney made the point that

“An apology for America’s values is never the right course”

And Obama again apologized for the First Amendment‎, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Question, which of these two sounds closer to “I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it to the death” which is supposedly the American tradition that keeps the Westboro Baptists from being beaten to death.

So all that is left is Romney right that this is symptom of a greater amount of incompetence on Obama’s part.  Yes it is.  Because it is Obama who has attempted 4 years of appeasement to no avail.  Because it is Obama who gave help to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and Egypt and allowed these al-Qaeda tied Islamists to take over (yes the two countries had dictators, but US policy should not be to change one dictator for a worse one).  Obama in turn left pro-democracy forces in Iran be slaughtered.  He is currently backstabbing our ally Israel at every turn.  He is chummy with a Russia that is giving nuclear capabilities to Iran and helping Syrian tyrants slaughter people (I’m not thrilled with either side in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I want outside forces helping to encourage the pointless slaughter).  He is the one giving money to the butchers in Egypt.  He and his administration are responsible for their not being a Marine contingent in Libya to defend the ambassador but only local hired help…who may have been involved in the attack. 

I could go on and I probably will later. But on numerous levels the administration may not have caused the riots but it has done everything in its power to make sure the butchers behind these riots came to power and even today this administration is giving them cover and blaming things like free speech as the cause, not a culture of barbarism in countries run by tyrants.

And to attack Romney and not Obama is either rank hypocrisy or utter cluelessness.   Either way, shame on you liberals.  Shame.  Obama created the situation that killed the ambassador by being weak, by backing butchers, and by apologizing for America.

*You could assume that Romney is not ethical, out for power for power’s sake, and has no principles…however, there is no evidence to justify such a claim.  He gives overly generously to charity and does not live in garish style, so greed doesn’t seem to be a factor.  I can’t find any evidence of cronyism in his administration as Governor.  Nor does he seem centered on himself at every moment, so ego doesn’t seem to be his motivation.  Now those things do seem to drive other people, but I see no evidence of it in Romney, so assuming he’s not acting out of what he believes to be ethical duty seems a foolish assumption.

**Democrats, don’t like being called asses or jackasses?  Too bad, you’re the ones who put it on the letterhead.  Or have you repudiated the jackass for the ostrich?

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, First Amendment, Free Will, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Tyranny

Stupid Liberal of the Day…Our old friend Paul Krugman

 

I’d say he’s the dumbest person to ever get a Nobel Prize…but have you seen some of the crap they’ve given it out to in the last couple of decades?

Paul Krugman is at it again.  After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul  (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.

 

In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.

 

Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs.  Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers?  Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming.  The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true.  The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs.  But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.

 

But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument.  You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…).  For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America.  (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.)  As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman).  I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul?  Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.

 

But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it.  That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.

 

So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page  (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).

 

 

  • Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
  • A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
  • Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing?  Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is.  It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent.  Good plan genius.  You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.

 

Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket.  (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the death tax

Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,

flatter rates on a broader base

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

 

 

 

  • Extending 100% expensing into 2012
  • Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama).  And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.

 

And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.

 

 

Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements

Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies

Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations

 

 

  • A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing.  Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it.  (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).

 

Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:

Repeal Obamacare

 

  • Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
  • Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters.  Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.

You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds

 

 

  • Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank

Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.

 

You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan

Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

 

 

  • A New “Project Rebuild”,

I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.

 

I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.

Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

 

  • Expanding access to high-speed wireless

Holy shit, when did Internet become a right?  You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi

 

I’ll take energy over wifi any day

Open America’s energy reserves for development

 

 The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:

Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers

Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work.  You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).

 

Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life

Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts

 

 

  • Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers

So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.

 

Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.

 

Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

 

  • Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

“Subsidized employment.”   You’re kidding right?  You’re going to pay people to hire people.  (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from?  Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)

 

But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

 

  • Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates

This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.

There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.

 

  • 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.  To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

The humor of this part speaks for itself.

 

But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government

Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
 Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
 Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition

 Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services

 Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

 

 

The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is.  Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works.  Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part IV

 

So Obama did say you didn’t build your business, government did.  This is just about as evil and stupid as it getsand any claim that Romney is just as bad is just stupid.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Why?

Because Obama makes statements like this:

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Dear God in Heaven!  EVERY INDUSTRY!

Because you want this debacle to be the standard of all industry…don’t you?

So we’re all supposed to run businesses like GM

Bloated union salaries.  CEOs that are answerable not to boards and shareholders but to czars and wanna-be dictators.  Practices that violate the bedrock principles of capitalism and screw shareholders out of their investment.    No really the stock is in near free fall.   Run your company to near bankruptcy by building overpriced green death traps that explode and that no one wants to buy.   Lose your government investment somewhere in the realm of 25 Billion Dollars.   A company that while going under is investing 600 Million in a British soccer team…???  And that is just a highlight of the problems with GM.   This company has become so dysfunctional from top to bottom that the millisecond government help stops it will crumble like a house of cards in a hurricane.

God help us.  If we ran every company in the nation like this cluster!@#$ the Dark Ages would look advanced by the time Obama was done.

So why does Obama want to run every industry like GM…hmmm…let’s see.  That would mean that the government would own a large portion of the every company and the president would have the ability to fire every CEO and would have the power to appoint his people to run every industry.

Hey what do you call that where the government owns and runs every business?

It starts with an S….um…shit for brains…serious deluded…senseless…stupid…all good answers…but no, I think the word I’m looking for is SOCIALISM.

His words, not mine.

Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

He wants to do the same thing he did with the auto industry, a complete government take over and revoking of basic principles, with every industry.

Go on, I really want to hear from liberals how that isn’t a textbook definition of socialism.  Government ownership and control of every industry.

Granted you could go with he’s a blithering idiot and doesn’t know what the hell he’s saying, which I fully am willing to buy…but that is just as much an argument against him being allowed to go back for four more years.

But while I do believe Obama makes Forrest Gump look like Sherlock Holmes, I believe he meant and understood (well as well as Obama’s limited mind can understand anything).  He wants to control everything.  I don’t know if it’s because he believes he can make it better (to hell with the lack of evidence) or because he wants to destroy the whole system.  It doesn’t matter.  He does want to be in control of everything, of every aspect of government and industry.  And just ignoring the horrific despotic and unconstitutional overtones of that idea…let’s not forget that he has wrecked GM and it will go down within the next few years, only it will be worth less when we sell off the parts to other car companies, it will have hurt every taxpayer who has to eat the loss, and this whole debacle will have delayed real growth and real recovery.  (And all of this ignores that eventually the courts will find that the Obama administration broke numerous laws in screwing over the bond holders which will cost the government a massive bundle of cash to boot).

This is true of GM and of industry Obama has or wants to get his hands on.  This is true not only of Obama but of government in general.  And Obama wants more government.

To hell with just “You didn’t build that” he wants complete socialism.

And half the country doesn’t see a problem with this?

A final point.  Even though Obama is clearly a socialist (and an idiot, and an asshole, and a wannabe tyrant…and worse), many conservatives are still clamoring and screaming about the fact that Romney isn’t going to war against Obama, about him being too cowardly or being too nice and calling Obama out as the socialist he is. Yeah because Reagan won the election calling Carter a communist anti-Semite whose utter lack of intelligence makes you question how much inbreeding is going on down in Georgia…oh wait, no, Reagan ran a quiet campaign on the issues.  Romney is running an intelligent campaign to win by a landslide, not a campaign to make the base feel good about itself; he’s running to make sure conservative ideals become policy, not to just spout conservative platitudes.  He’s sitting quietly right now raking in cash, while Obama burns through his entire reserve just to keep the polls static.  Romney will spend his money in the last months when it will actually have an effect on Election Day, while Obama will be broke by October.   Besides with Obama saying crazy shit like this, why would you need to campaign, Obama’s mouth is already the best campaigner for Romney there is.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Charlotte Web of Lies: The DNC Day 1

I just let the RNC speeches speak for themselves.  They were slanted, but meaningful and well done…the DNC is another story all together.  A day of vapidity and lies.  I will include links to the speeches if you want to inflict that on yourself…but I will just sum up the high (?) points for you.

So let’s see day one of the Charlotte Web of Lies began with among other things a tribute to Ted Kennedy.  You have to love this because the party that claims the GOP is engaged in a war on women just honored a man who murdered a woman in cold blood and who was from a family that was famous for treating women as something less than human.  Honoring a drunken piece of filth like Teddy sets the right tone for the Convention: they’ll start by honoring a murderer, bring out bigots and extremists and close out with a rapist and a wanna-be tyrant.

Of course given that the U.S. debt hit $16 Trillion yesterday maybe focusing on the murderer was a bright call.

Harry Reid had some fun quotes:

President Obama’s strength of character leads him to do the right thing, even when it isn’t the easy thing.

Like building giant sand castle statues of himself and plastering the entire West Wing with portraits of himself.  Yes he has character…specifically the character of Caligula.

Some said he shouldn’t save Detroit.

And if you call what that shit hole that makes a third world nation in the midst of a civil war look prosperous, otherwise known as Detroit “saved”, then please Harry let us all fail.  I don’t think we can take any more “saving” of that sort.

Some said he shouldn’t move heaven and earth to get bin Laden. But President Obama made the tough and right call to bring the world’s worst terrorist to justice.

Okay, besides Ron Paul and his stupid followers, who exactly said we shouldn’t go after Bin Laden?  Really Harry, who?  And for a man moving heaven and earth he got rid of all the practices that got us the intel and let’s be honest here, it wasn’t a hard call, anyone would have made that call.  But then again this is the man who finds passing a budget to be a difficult move.

Some said he couldn’t take on the big banks that brought our economy to its knees. But President Obama made the tough and right call so taxpayers will never again be on the hook for Wall Street’s risky bets.

Would those be the risky bets that your party forced the banks to make, and prosecuted and sued them when they tried not to make them?  Yes, yes that would be those risky moves.  The same risky moves Obama is trying to force banks to do again…let me know how it turns out this time.

We must stop the Tea Party before the United States Senate falls into the hands of extremists and ideologues who leave no room for reason or compromise; who don’t recognize common ground even when they’re standing on it.

Really extremists?  How many votes did Barry’s budget get?  0. Seems pretty extreme.  How many GOP budgets will you even let come up to a vote? 0.  Because you don’t want to let a vote stand to show how close they are and if they can work out a deal.  Sounds like you’re the extremist, Harry.

He then goes into another rant about Romney’s tax returns…this coming from a man who makes shit up when it’s convenient.

What a joke.

And this is the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, this worthless, idiotic, hack.

Not one idea on how to fix the economic problems his party and his ideology has created in his speech.  Not one.  Only blaming others and making up lunacy to distract from his gross failure at everything.

Ignoring the line about the “use government in a good way” showing a complete misunderstanding of such concepts as “necessary evil” or “limited government”…it’s the line “government’s something we all belong to” that really bothers me.  Yes I know in context (at least I hope) they mean that as we live in a government of the people we are all part of the governing body… but given the “You didn’t build that” tone of this administration, how can I not feel that they were saying they own all of America as chattel.

A rather flat and pointless address from a radical racist and fan of racist group La Raza Unida…truly a surprising move from the party that brought you the Klan, Jim Crow, and sending Jews back to Germany to be exterminated.  Truly out of step with the Democratic Party’s two centuries of racism and race baiting.

And while we’re on the topic of the Democratic Party’s tradition of anti-Semitism, they led one of the world’s biggest bigoted anti-Semites, Jimmy Carter. I’d tear his speech apart but, it’s dim Jimmy. It’s too easy.

Oh and they removed every pro-Israel stance from the party platform on the same day the Obama is working to forgive a billion dollars in debt that Egypt owes us…a billion that will likely go toward waging a war on and killing Christians, Jews, women and gays.

But the Jews shouldn’t feel left out, all mention of God was dropped from the party platform…where exactly our rights come from I don’t know, but it’s certainly not because we are “endowed by [our] Creator” with them…maybe they flow from Obama…his name is only mentioned more times than any other noun in the entire platform.

But don’t think that there isn’t any mention of God at all at the convention.  If you missed it, the DNC had on their official calendar an event, which more or less implies they have no problem with it, a prayer last Friday…to hell if the prayer was to end the Constitution and replace it with Sharia…quite frankly given everything else these lunatics at the DNC were doing this was pretty tame.

Let’s see they praised the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the darling of trial lawyers everywhere, because, while it won’t do one goddamn thing to improve almost non-existent disparity between men and women’s wage, it will allow for shitloads more frivolous lawsuits.

And then of course the theme from Michelle’s insincere speech: he’s doing his best….and to quote a movie, “losers whine about their best.”

But rather than go line by line through the rantings of this bitter and vicious woman, let’s just look at some highlights:

About her parents:

“They didn’t begrudge anyone else’s success or care that others had much more than they did. In fact, they admired it.”

Really?  How did they screw up with you and not instill that feeling in you?

“Being president doesn’t change who you are — it reveals who you are.”

In this case that would be an incompetent socialist for whom the only thing he knows less about than economics is the Constitution.  A man so narcissistically taken with himself he must have images of himself plastered everywhere he goes and who enjoys being called “The One.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, Israel, liberal arrogance, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics

Tax Returns, Rich Liberals, Stupidity and Hypocrisy

This thing about Romney’s tax returns is stupid, and I’m just tired of it. 

You have to consider a couple of things to start out with.  (1) It’s not like Obama’s White House and IRS don’t have access to those returns and (2) the IRS under Obama has been more than willing to harass Romney supporter as shown here and here (3) if there was anything damning in them don’t you think Obama would have already leaked that (after all if highest level classified national security information can be leaked to the New York Times to get reelected do you really think Obama draws the moral line at leaking his opponent’s tax information?).  Also given that people are upset about things like offshore accounts (which are actually good for growing and American economic growth) and the fact that Romney only pays about 15% on his income (because it’s pretty much all capital gains income which is taxed at a much lower rate than other income because if it wasn’t you would see the collapse of what is left of the American economy) it is clear that ignorant people are very agitated by the intricacies of finance when they have no understanding of what is going on…thus releasing even more financial information will allow liberals to make ethical, legal, and smart financial choices sound like unethical, illegal and stupid financial moves (like giving money to your cronies at Solyndra…oh wait that wasn’t Mitt). 

This then of course brings up a discussion of how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Let’s just ignore that 47% of the nation isn’t paying anything (is that fair?) or that the top 10% earn about 45% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes (yeah that sounds fair).  And Mitt only pays 15% of his income to the government, that’s not fair (of course he already paid taxes on when Bain earned the money and paid a corporate tax on it, then Romney paid taxes on the money Bain paid him, which he then invested in companies who paid their own taxes on the money they earned, and then Mitt paid his 15% on the income he earned from that investment.  Oh, and the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any nation (http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/corporate-tax-rate) …so it’s not like he hasn’t paid and paid and paid taxes on that income.  Yep he hasn’t paid his fair share.  Now there are other reasons that Mitt hasn’t paid income taxes in a while…like the fact that he didn’t take a salary as head of the Olympics or as Governor of Massachusetts–when you don’t earn anything you don’t pay taxes.  And of course this all ignores the fact that this is a man who gave away his entire inheritance to charity and gives about 15% every year to charity (some bigots will decry the fact that a large portion of that goes to the Mormon church, but even if you had theological issues with the church , you’d be a damn fool to say they are not in the business of numerous aid programs).

But liberals just dismiss this because (A) “he’s not paying his fair share” (still waiting to hear what percentage that is) and (B) it’s not to the charities they like. 

And this leads to an odd habit I’ve noticed among rich liberals.  They bitch and moan and whine about how we don’t support Planned Parenthood, or NPR, or PBS, or the arts or this or that project or organization enough.

Now as far as I know, and I haven’t verified every picture on this, but except for Mitt I think everyone in this picture is liberal…and as far as I know only a 4 or 5 give significant sums to charity (only a couple do it without seeking public praise for thier charity)…so the question is that if most of the these liberals feel that more money should be spent on the poor and thier pet projects, why don’t they put thier money where their mouth is?

Oddly enough these are often the same rich liberals who say that they aren’t being taxed enough.  (Let’s ignore for the moment you can just not take deductions and pay the full rate or you can give more than the minimum to government…and yet they’re taking deductions and not just giving money by the bushel load to the feds  (follow the link, it goes straight to where you can just give money to the Treasury Dept…I’m going to wager right now no one is going to give a dime).   That the rich should be taxed at much higher rate (one assumes to pay for all these pet projects they want funded).

Hmmm….rich people say the government is taking enough of their money AND they’re saying the government should give more to their pet projects…hmmmmm….

 

Am I the only one who thinks that they could just cut out the middle man and give more to all these things they say needs funding.  Just cut a check, and don’t worry about the government.

But, some whiny liberal will say, there are more rich Republicans.  But that’s not really true, it’s a bit more divided fairly evenly and statistics suggests it may be slightly biased to the left (performers are statistically more liberal and entertainment makes people very rich very quickly).  Also it might be helpful to take into account that Obama has raised 181 Million from large contributors and Romney has raised only 121 Million from large contributors (a 3:2 advantage for the left ) so while not a perfect way to calculate it (if nothing else Romney had months of fundraising that he had to share with Ricky and Newt that Obama could just rake in the dough) but there is still the fact is that there are still a lot of rich liberals .

Then of course the rich liberals will complain that it’s not enough if they do it, they need the money of ALL the rich to make an effort…apparently these people are forgetting what the overhead of the government is between numerous departments, lost interest on the money, corruption, waste, idiocy, Michelle’s vacations, trust me giving straight to the charity is far, far more efficient (or did we forget how much money the GSA is spending?) .

Now if liberals don’t want to spend their money that’s their right and I support it.  I believe in the virtue of charity, but I also believe that different people have different things to learn in different life times and the virtue of charity, while admirable in most cases (it’s not as if it’s done merely for good press…like, say, you say you’re going to give all your money away when you die, but you spend your days trying to avoid paying back taxes…Warren Buffet I mean you), but it is not the only virtue and I can see some spiritual lessons may require for not giving out money…and I’m not going to judge who is in what category.  But I will judge hypocrisy.  And if you claim more of your money should be taken for the public good, but don’t spend it on the public good when it is fully in your power to do so, you are a gutless, virtueless, hypocritical piece of filth.  I believe it also goes by the title DNC donor. 

The fact of the matter is that liberals don’t care about Romney’s tax records.  The bright ones know there is nothing untoward in there, they want a piece of propaganda to rile the more ignorant in their base.*  They don’t care about fair share or helping others because if they did they would put their money where their mouths are with or without the government’s help. 

*I’m not claiming there aren’t ignorant people on the right, there are, they were known as Santorum supporters…but his loss shows they’re not in the majority.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Taxes, Welfare

Greatest Patriotic Films Ever #7 –1776

1776

“I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God, I have had this Congress! For ten years, King George and his Parliament have gulled, cullied, and diddled these colonies with their illegal taxes! Stamp Acts, Townshend Acts, Sugar Acts, Tea Acts! And when we dared stand up like men, they have stopped our trade, seized our ships, blockaded our ports, burned our towns, and spilled our BLOOD! And still, this Congress refuses to grant ANY of my proposals on independence, even so much as the courtesy of open debate! Good God, what in hell are you waiting for?”

Long before HBO brought us the genius of John Adams there was another movie that showed how loveable the obnoxious and disliked second President of the United States was.

Unnamed Delegate: “Will someone shut that man up”
John Adams: “NEVER! NEVER!”

It’s a crazy idea that actually works. Turn the Second Continental Congress into a musical. As a musical this is not the strongest film you’ll ever find. In fact the musical numbers are kind of weak overall, but the film itself is quite strong. Primarily because so much of the time is spent covering the debates that occurred in the Continental Congress on whether or not to declare independence.

I first discovered this film in high school and this is where I began to see Adams as one of my greatest heroes (he may not have been the greatest President, but I would say he is possibly the greatest of the Founding Fathers.) The movie portrays Adams as arrogant, stubborn, obnoxious, disliked, principled to the point of being unwilling to budge on anything…and always right. Can’t imagine why I felt an immediate connection.

John Adams to God: “A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locust everywhere, or a cataclysmic earthquake I’d accept with some despair…but no, you sent us Congress, good god sir, was that fair?”

The film spends a great deal of time in the debate between Adam’s pro-independence forces and the pro-Royalist force spearheaded by Pennsylvanian John Dickenson (the only man who had the opportunity to sign the Declaration and refused to on objections that he couldn’t in “good conscience”…yes endorsing evil he used the words “good conscience”…If I believed in Hell I would guarantee you he would be sharing a spot with Brutus, Cassius, and Judas…oh, by the way, the man also refused to sign and was opposed to the Constitution. Why they didn’t shoot this treasonous SOB boggles my mind.) It is this debate that makes the movie so patriotic. We revel in the ideals and debates that gave birth to a nation of ideals.

Dickenson makes bizarre claims, as many loyalists did at the times, that there must be better ways to solve the problems with the crown (ignoring that when the government starts sending the army after you for pleading your rights, there are few options left. Dickenson even goes as far as questioning George III’s status as a tyrant.

John Dickenson: Mr. Jefferson, I have very little interest in your paper, as there’s no doubt in my mind that we’ve all but heard the last of it, but I am curious about one thing. Why do you refer to King George as a… tyrant?
Thomas Jefferson: Because he *is* a tyrant.
John Dickenson: I remind you, Mr. Jefferson, that this “tyrant” is still your king.
Thomas Jefferson: When a king becomes a tyrant, he thereby breaks the contract binding his subjects to him.
John Dickenson: How so?
Thomas Jefferson: By taking away their rights.
John Dickenson: Rights that came from him in the first place.
Thomas Jefferson: All except one. The right to be free comes from nature.
John Dickenson: And are we not free, Mr. Jefferson?
Thomas Jefferson: Homes entered without warrant, citizens arrested without charge, and in many places, free assembly itself denied.
John Dickenson: No one approves of such things, but these are dangerous times.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up some of their liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

(I know some Brits even object to this point, but if you ever get in an argument with anyone on this point you should remind them that Mad King George got so bad that he had to be effectively deposed and only ruled in name for the last 18 years of his reign. We Americans were just ahead of the curve in recognizing what a useless ponce he was).

Dickenson also made claims to tradition (a poor substitute to reason), “Do you expect us to forget Hastings and Magna Carta, Strongbow and Lionheart, Drake and Marlborough? “ (From a nation whose traditions also included The Anarchy, Richard II, Richard III, Bloody Mary, Charles I, James II, Cromwell, John…it’s also ironic that you would list the Magna Carta, a document creating new government restrictions on a tyrannical King…so really America was just living up to its British roots of not suffering tyranny very well.)

And of course the movie describes what makes America special among nations so well.

John Dickenson: Fortunately, the people maintain a higher regard for their mother country.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Higher, certainly, than she feels for them. Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged… first of all our very character stifled. We’ve spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickenson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We’re a new nationality. We require a new nation.

One of the more ironic portions of the film is that when needing to take out the critique of slavery to get the South to sign on Adams advocates to not take it out as slavery is an abomination to the nation. But Franklin and Jefferson win the day arguing that they must have a nation first if they are to ever liberate the slaves, that to stand on principle on this issue will mean slavery for everyone.

John Adams: Mark me, Franklin… if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: That’s probably true, but we won’t hear a thing, we’ll be long gone. Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We’re men, no more, no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?

It’s painfully ironic that we have elevated them to Demi-god status. It probably was the wrong thing to do to take the line out, but it was the pragmatic thing, and it did lead to a nation that not only shed its own blood to end slavery within its own borders, but a nation that would shed its own blood to end tyranny in foreign lands because we do believe that “all men are created equal” and entitled to the right of liberty.

Comments Off on Greatest Patriotic Films Ever #7 –1776

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Congress, Conservative, Founding, Free Will, God, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Tyranny

Weekly Meditation: Suffering Fools

So if you pay attention to the comments section on this blog you’ll know I have some truly surreal arguments with Paulbots.  To call these people insane morons would be to insult retarded psychotics.  And to say that I suffer fools well would be a lie.  Now most of my vitriol is not to be found in the comment section but over the phone and IM messages to friends and family.  I am not a physically violent person, but when dealing with idiots I get angry probably quicker and to a greater degree than I should and vent it out as quickly as possible in very angry and violent words.  Not exactly the healthiest of all reactions, but again, I’m not a physically violent person so there is clearly worse.

And when I stopped to think about it, and I realized the problem, for me at least is two fold.  First it’s not the single idiot that is the problem.  It’s that when on the internet, it’s one after another, after another, after another.  And then I get to go to work (high school English teacher) where teenagers never treat you as if you don’t know anything.  One idiot is actually quite funny.  Two are kind of silly.  But when your whole day is filled with idiots who spew drivel and act like they’re smarter than you it gets infuriating.  And that leads to my second problem, my ego.  I consider myself quite intelligent and exceedingly well read with an ability to make connections between everything I’ve learned…and if you ask anyone who knows me they’ll probably tell you this is not just an arrogant boast.  I’m not the smartest person in the world, but I just get tired of people attacking me with idiocy when they don’t even bother to read the volumes of facts and logic I have set forth.  Paulbots who just call me a liar.  That pompous twit who keeps changing his name in the comments who clearly lives in academia and thinks that just because I challenge academia (with reason and facts) that I must be wrong and tries to humble me over and over again with the idea ‘well academia says you’re wrong.’  And it’s just tiring.  Arguing again and again, endlessly with people who aren’t a tenth as bright as me but acting like they’re my mental equal.  Yes I sought this out by having a blog, so I am partly to blame.  But is it too much to ask that if you’re going to challenge me, to do it with facts and reason?

But, realizing I’m not that special, I figure that we all must experience this at some level.  Being confronted over and over again by people who don’t know what they’re doing and are not open to reason.  So I turned to the different holy books to try and find a quote to base a weekly meditation on.

This turned out to be a mixed bag.

Why?

Well, Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Te Ching only when he got so infuriated with the idiots at court that he decided to leave China forever and was asked to leave something of his wisdom.  Christ, after three years of preaching to idiots who didn’t get it, finally broke and whipped the money changers out of the temple.  And, at a surface level, the Bhagavad-Gita is the god Krishna telling Arjuna “Arjuna, look, your evil relatives are so screwed up morally there is no getting through to them in this life time, and thus they’re already dead to me.  Go out and slaughter them—no mercy, no quarter, no prisoners—and it’s all ethically okay.  Maybe they’ll get it in the next lifetime.”

Now, as I was looking for something on how to put away my anger, this wasn’t quite what I wanted.  But, it was comforting to know that even the enlightened had their breaking points.

But I did find one quote.  Variously attributed to the Buddha or the Dalia Lama depending on which web page you find it (among others)….

I will admit that I know of know time Buddha lost his cool when dealing with jackasses…but then again this is the same guy who advised you to kill your idols.

Be grateful for your enemies, for they teach you patience.”

I know, not the earth shattering revelation I was hoping for either.  (Of course I could always turn to Christopher Moore’s Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal where you find the repeated theme of Christ’s sermons was also, “Blessed are the dumbfucks, because god do they need it”…but it still doesn’t have the ring of enlightenment that I was looking for).

So onto the meditation.  This isn’t so much as a meditation for the week as it is a meditation for those special occasions.  For the week I would just click on the “Meditation” category link at the bottom and pick one of your favorites for this week.

So whenever you have run into a problem with an a string of idiots repeat this mantra.

“I am sorry that I cannot reach you with reason.  I have tried reason, I have tried facts, I have tried humor.  I am sorry I cannot find the words to make you understand.  I will continue to use these in my dealings with you, not for you, but for anyone who may be listening so that they do not fall into your errors.  And thus even though I cannot reach you, I make the world a better place by not giving into your silliness and by helping others see the truth.”

Remember one of the purposes of this symbol is to remind you to look for the truth of things even when you disagree with 90% of the rest of what the person says.

Okay, it’s a little sanctimonious, and please don’t use it before you have checked over every point of your own logic, checked the argument you’re being challenged with for even one valid point, and verified that logic with people whose intelligence you respect.  You need to check your thoughts to make sure they are correct before you get angry at others, otherwise your frustration might need to be directed at yourself for not checking your own reasoning.  We’re all subject to flaws in our lines of thought.  However we are also all subject to idiots who don’t even take the time to check their own thoughts.  And this is where this manta comes in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dalai Lama, Faith, God, Happiness, liberal arrogance, Meditation, New Age, People Are Stupid, Prayer, Reincarnation, Religion, Spirituality

The Sad Life of Julia Part V: Middle Age Dependency

It’s a shame Julia’s time in Head Start never taught her to not stand right in front of a frickin’ bus…there’s a reason little Zack never shows up again.  (This is what happens when you go to government funded schools that don’t have competition).

So I’ve already been over how Obama being beholden to unions and against choice is really bad for schools and will drive them down.  But let’s deal with the idea that Romney and Ryan would cut federal funding to schools.  So what if they did.  I can promise you, with a teacher’s view from the front lines, federal money does jack to actually help students.  It goes to programs and policies that benefit administration and bureaucracy, not students.  Now if individual states wanted to put in a rule that principals and superintendents can’t make more than twice their highest paid teacher (a good principal might actually be worth more than that…but a good principal in my experience is in the same category as unicorns and non-homicidal postal employees, they don’t really exist).

Also, I’m big on standards in education but regrettably the standards Obama has been hyping lately, now being referred to as the Race to the Top, are sadly underdeveloped.  The math standards seem to stop at Algebra and Geometry (maybe some of what would be included in Algebra II) and the English standards, which as an English teacher I’m very familiar with, actually are an improvement on the previous standards I was dealing with in Arizona…but are still woefully lacking.

Honestly their standards don’t do go further than halfway through what you’d expect a student should know halfway through 10th grade in an ideal world.  And I still have yet to see Science and History standards.  So we’re still aiming to only play second fiddle to the rest of the world in education.  I’m sure that will yield spectacular results.  Also may I add that in typical bureaucratic speak they take nearly 100 pages to say what could be said in 10 (I’ve even boiled it down to 1 page for my own personal use…but I have to use a lot of fragmented thoughts that still get the point across).

But Zachary really shouldn’t have to worry because, as you can see Julia has placed him in just the right place to join Obama’s grandma, Rev. Wright, Mubarak, Israel, Van Jones, and Hillary Rosen (among others) in being thrown under a bus when it’s convenient.  It’s SOP for the Obama bunch.

Now after 4 decades of the Philosopher King’s absolute rule construction by forced community service gangs (at this point community organizer takes on a whole new meaning—crack that whip) on the Great Pyramid of Chicago, which will serve as the divine one’s tomb, is nearly complete.  But even the massive structure, 10 times the size of its Giza counterpart, but still 100 times smaller than the ego of its future resident, needs promotion on the web.

So Julia thinks she should start a web design business of her own.

I have a few issues with this.

First, if the history of technology has taught me anything it’s that we don’t have an f’ing clue what technology is going to look like in 40 years.  Star Trek predicted we would have major genetic engineering by the 1990’s but cell phones wouldn’t come into use until the 24th century.  And I don’t see the hover-boards or high level of automation promised me by 2015 in Back to the Future.  And remember in the 90’s when they thought those virtual reality head gear things would take off…uh-huh.  And I think we can all agree we are tired of waiting and want our goddamn flying cars now; we’ve been promised them for over half a century and we want them NOW.  My point here is that it might be just a little arrogant to say with certainty that the internet as we know it will still be around…but then again that might make Julia’s web design business perfect to the Obama administration loans as I will bring up with my 2nd point.

Solyndra, and 13 other green energy companies, the black holes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG and every other incompetent bank, Government Motors and their fabulous death trap the Volt, not to mention that spectacular bit of idiocy Cash for Clunkers. The Obama administration sure knows how to pick’em.  So this only confirms my suspicion that Julia is in a now dead field, the Obama administration is giving her a loan…something they don’t do for people who could ever theoretically make money.

I also love how the internet business is going to “help grow the local economy.”  Screw what the internet is going to be like now, internet companies aren’t exactly limited by local market nowadays.

There are of course two reasons why Julia has to get a loan from the government and couldn’t get one from a private bank like the rest of us.  The first being that, as we have discussed, Julia, she of the 7 years to get her degree in a field you go to a 2 year tech school to get, has clearly never made very good decisions and is probably a shitty programmer to boot.  The second is that after 40 years of Obama, private banks will have gone out of business.  To recap, in the past and currently banks are being forced to continue making bad loans as the Obama administration is still pushing them, while, and I’m not making this up, simultaneously suing them for making those bad loans.   Private banks don’t stand a chance after 40 years of this insanity.  And that may make the idiots of Occupy Wall Street thrilled, but the rest of us have to understand such a move will result in an economy that makes the Great Depression look like the salad days of prosperity.  So Obama will be the only money lender in town.

My last problem with the logic here is that she’s 42, which makes Zachary 9? 10?  Who has time to start a business when you have a 10 year old?  They’re still too young to take care of themselves…oh wait I forgot, she threw him under the bus.

And I’m not sure where this 20% cut thing for Romney/Ryan comes from (I’d be happy with a 100% cut and possible jail terms for the people who work for the SBA) but I do know that while I haven’t heard anything about Romney talking about the loans the SBA gives out, he has been very clear on gutting the $1.75 Trillion annual burden of regulation this monster of an anti-capitalist organization places on the American economy.

And rather than giving out money, Romney and Ryan have put forward plans that will improve the fundamentals of the system and actually allow businesses to grow on their own and make profits, hire employees, create new markets, all without government help.  It’s this strange miracle of capitalism.  Even though it’s always been hindered to one degree or another throughout U.S. history it has created the greatest advance to quality of life and opportunity of any system conceivable.  But you would have to believe in America instead of Obama to understand that.

Also is that a biohazard symbol on the wall outside Julia’s office?  What kind of web design is she doing?

2 Comments

Filed under Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Waiting For Superman, Welfare

The Sad Life of Julia Part II: The teen years

Now Obama ignores Julia’s age from 4-16…probably because those are years that Julia will have to suffer under incompetent teachers who will teach her nothing due to Obama’s staunch opposition to school choice, vouchers, and charters and his complete subservience to treasonous teacher’s unions (yes I said treasonous…I’m a teacher, I’ve seen the effects of their constant protection of low standards and corruption among teachers and the education system in general…and they are actively working to ruin this nation…it’s either treason or stupidity of such a level it is effectively the same thing).

But let’s get back to the slides

 

Yeah, she may take classes she needs to take, but as her union Elementary school teachers never bothered to teacher her grammar or arithmetic, her union Middle school teachers never bothered to teach her algebra, the scientific method, basic logic or how write an essay, and her union High School teachers are just as stupid, the course may have the right name on it, but she still isn’t learning anything.

Also as Obama has continued to crack down on school choice, her parents could get her into a better school than the one she is in but she is not allowed to transfer there.  Which is a little odd as even very liberal Juan Williams acknowledges that school choice is the “civil rights issue or our time.”  Good thing President Romney will be for it so there is a chance that our Julia may get educated. 

Oh, by the way, since those “tax cuts for the rich” which are actually reforms of the tax code which would actually have the rich paying more (through the reduction of loopholes combined with a lowering of rates) never went through, the economy of America shrank even more.  Which means a lower tax base to provide for public education, which translates to having more kids in every class as no one can afford 20:1 ratios anymore which further ruins Julia’s education.  And Obama’s lack of action on border control continues to let billions of tax payer dollars be wasted on educating the children of criminal migrants (I’m told the term illegal alien is now racist).

(Also does anyone find it ironic that Obama is constantly bitching about tax cuts for the rich when he himself extended the Bush tax cuts and chose not to push for the tax increases from his own debt commission…not to mention his favorite new rule, the Buffett Rule comes from a man whose company avoids taxes and lets its upper management make bizarre anti-Semitic statements).

 

Now Julia is off to college and oooh a $10,000 credit…for 4 years…that’s $2,500 a year (yeah, it’s not 10 grand every year it’s total!)…that might cover books and a bit of room and board…won’t cover room and board in whole, won’t cover tuition.  I have to ask, if Head Start was such a winner program back in the early years and her school was part of “Race to the Top” as stated why isn’t she earning any merit scholarships?  Could it be that those programs don’t actually achieve any tangible results and haven’t helped Julia be anything but a waste of space and volume who needs government assistance to know a whole in the from?…well… I mean I’m a high school teacher who has dealt with a lot of seniors, trust me for a college bound woman who makes high grades there is money available.  Colleges offer scholarship money for a myriad of things (merit, athletics, need) and there are also private sources of scholarship…but in Obama’s world (who apparently has been in office for at least 15 years? Clearly the result of some kind of coup) there is only the government there to help you.  And of course there is the time honored tradition of community college, saving, and paying your own way.  No one can get into or pay for college on their own, they must have Obama.   What would we be without Obama?  How did we survive before he graced us with his presence?
But rather than talk about tax credits or the lack there of, or interest rates on those loans…let’s talk about why college costs so much….hmmm let’s see college costs have grown faster than inflation for over 20 years…hmm maybe it’s the increasing government loans (read subsidies) to students.  Well the general rule is that when you subsidize something the price goes up, and so it was with colleges.  The government says it will give loans and colleges increased their tuitions by almost the same amount of the government increase.  This in turn has not only increased college cost far above their benefits, but it has created a culture of pointless research and focused on “publish or die” rather than actual teaching being the focus of college…but why would you care about such things when you can give tax credits for over priced education that will only drive the cost of college up even more and probably decrease the quality of said education.

Oh, and let’s not forget that the majority of students need to take remedial English and math in college and probably more than that just to be capable of participating in college (that is where our current education system is)– and Julia has demonstrated that she is part of the majority and not the exception.  Maybe that has something to do with those union teachers putting how Julia feels about herself being a priority over actually being good at something.  And let’s not forget that the spate of anti-bullying laws will probably not do anything to take down the rate of bullying, but will certainly teach children to never stand up for themselves and always seek the protection of government.  Thanks Obama.

Government and unions have made education low quality and overpriced…Obama certainly didn’t cause this, but he is certainly doing everything in his power to make the quality of education worse and costs higher.

How else is Obama ruining Julia’s adolescence?  Well his economy destroying policies are certainly making it all but impossible for Julia to get a job.  (Now the best way to help Julia would be to end minimum wage laws…but I don’t see even Romney able to get that passed, so next best option would be to never raise them, which I think Romney will probably do…oh to all of you Paulbots who are about to complain that he tied Massachusetts minimum wage to inflation, please remember that the Massachusetts legislature wanted to raise it even more and the inflation thing was the most he could get to hold them back).  Of course Obama’s stimulus policies matched with Bernanke’s insanity over at the Fed will continue inflation to the point where the economy will hurt even more.  So not only will college cost a fortune but she won’t have jobs or experience to get a job to help pay for it.  Sucks to be Julia in her adolescent years.

Of course all of this is a bit silly to discuss because after 15 years of Obama’s policies (at a rate of 5 trillion in debt for every 3 years in office) we’ll be another $25 trillion in Debt (assuming China keep bankrolling us) which may very likely induce Weimar Republic level inflation.

So tomorrow we will deal with Julia’s college years…all 7 of them…no nowhere does it say why it takes Julia so long to finish college only later to become a web page designer (a field that historically requires no college education).

In the mean time I would like to introduce you to Dawn, the anti-Julia.  You remember when Obama said that Republicans are heartless and stupid for telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps “when they don’t have bootstraps”…well Dawn proves that when you don’t have bootstraps you make your own and then you pull yourself up by them…and if you do that then others (not government) will help you in your quest because people, especially Americans under capitalism, are the most charitable people in the world.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare