Category Archives: Problems with the GOP

Oh god, Ricky Santorum is back. Why?

Rick Santorum is like something to walk out of a Richard Condon novel. He claims to be a conservative, but then never misses a chance to praise his Marxist family members for people of principle. He claims to want to revitalize the economy, but advocates for trade barriers and economic models that are now a century out of date. He claims to be moral and horseeye santorumclearly cares only for himself and his own accumulation of wealth and power at the expense of others.   He is a walking version of liberal lies about conservatives. So when this man who views America as only a vessel for propagating religious extremism and collectivism came back into the lime light you can imagine the groan of exasperation I made.
Then I heard some of the unspeakably imbecilic things that Ricky actually started saying.

 

Let’s start with what is not his most egregious argument, but at least the one that hits the closest to home. This idiot is so delusional he claims that if he had won the nomination he would have won. So let’s just ignore the fact that Romney got the largest portion of general public of any Republican in the last few decades , let’s ignore that if Romney, a man who doesn’t have a racist or sexist bone in his body could fall victim to false claims of a bullying and a war on women that a lunatic who almost used the N word on film and who views women in such high regard that he said he would not allow his adult daughter have an abortion (because, in Ricky’s mind women are just property) would have been a very easy target. Let’s ignore that he with only 2 exceptions, the only states he won in the primary were open primary states where Democrats voted en masse to get the weakest candidate in. Let’s ignore that moderates loathed this man (and rightfully so).  No, Ricky says that Obama’s minions told him they were afraid of him and Rick is just dumb enough to have believed them…no Rick they loved you, they loved that you had no class, were willing to repeat any lie, smear any Republican, and drag your party down if you couldn’t get the White House.   You’re a Democrat’s dream. Ricky they wanted you as the candidate so badly I can only conclude they have something on you that would make you the easiest person in the universe to defeat…now my imagination goes to compromising photos of you and someone else, maybe in some way related to Ricky’s fashion sense, his constant flamboyant hand gestures, his clear overcompensation in the number of children he has, and the rampant homophobia (you know the kind that only comes from someone who has trouble admitting something)…but I don’t know for sure. That or they’ve spent five minutes looking at you put your foot in your mouth more than a drunken Joe Biden…either way, you are a liberal’s dream candidate. Completely un-electable, a stain on the Republican party with moderates, and even if by some act of Satan you actually got in then they would still have all their big government plans put into place by you.

 

 

But he continues to declare things like “Republicans needed to connect with Americans who did not like President Barack Obama during the 2012 election but could not bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney.” Really Ricky? Who was that? I have never seen any statistical proof of all the voters that idiots like Levin claim to have stayed home…and of the people who voted for Obama even though if they were dissatisfied with his job, ignoring the fact that there are always people who give contradictory answers (when talking about Rick Santorum logic, you have to ignore a lot of facts), that would have switched the vote by only about 2%…and Obama still would have won. If you’re going to comment on things, Rick learn to read at any level because your gross ignorance of, well, everything under the sun is getting really old.

 

The fact of the matter is that only one thing exceeds Rick Santorum’s complete uselessness as a human being when it comes to understanding elections…and that would be his understanding of economics…which we’ll deal with over on Elementary Politics

 

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Election 2012, Elections, People Are Stupid, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Let’s deal in fact and reality: Race to the Top: Bad. Common Core: A Step in the Right Direction.

 

And people who do not get this distinction are idiots.

You know I am having a harder and harder time taking anyone in the media seriously these days. The entire left wing of the media keeps repeating bullshit that history and economics and common sense and experience have disproved a million times over. But now the right wing is getting equally stupid. Namely in the fact of their anti-Common Core crusade to insanity.
There are so many preposterous points I don’t where to start.

But let’s start with the oh so repeated line of “One size education doesn’t fit all.” It’s the idea that having standards will destroy any and all freedom in education. Bullshit. That’s the nicest I can treat that sentiment. Bullshit. You are an absolute idiot if you believe that having a minimum standard in any way, shape or form ruins a teacher’s ability to teach. Now initially as with any raising of the bar, teachers at the high grades will have trouble getting all the standards in because their lower grade counterparts never bothered to meet any standard and that will, for a few years take up a good deal of their time…but I fail to see how that will be any different from the present when I’m having to teach Seniors how to use a comma, who Julius Caesar was, or what a platypus is (these are not random things I thought of, these are all real moments from my high school Senior English course). Yes the transition might be difficult, but it will be worth it, because at the end of the transition student will be coming into my class knowing the basics and having the skill to discuss Shakespeare and Aristotle and allowing me to teach them how to analyze a paper (or better a news article or a politician’s) to find the truth rather than how to write a simple sentence. Please tell me how that restricts my freedom as a

Common Core State Standards.jpg

Common Core has been blamed for everything short of shooting Kennedy…and essentially all of the charges against it are without any basis in reality.

teacher? Further saying that a minimum standard impedes freedom is saying that your students have a right not to learn anything. No. There should a bare minimum in reading, writing and math that students know at certain grade levels. And nothing in the Common Core standards (please actually read them) is too far ahead of the abilities of an average student, even a below average student. Or do you think that
“Conduct short research projects that build knowledge through investigation of different aspects of a topic” is too much for a 4th grade student (if you do think that’s too much for that age, you clearly have never heard a child expound on the near graduate level knowledge they all seem to possess about dinosaurs). Or if you think that “Find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g., 30% of a quantity means 30/100 times the quan11tity); solve problems involving finding the whole, given a part and the percent” is too much for a 6th grader…then you clearly needed the Common Core standards when you were growing up because you never learned the basics of math. I’m sorry there is nothing in the Common Core standards that is too high for any grade level. In fact, before Jim DeMint sold the soul of the Heritage Foundation to populists, the Heritage Foundation’s complaint about Common Core wasn’t that it was too hard, or a one size fits all lie, or new math or anything like that…no back in early 2012 before Heritage’s education department became dependent on clueless pundits, Heritage complained that the standards weren’t high enough (which is still an invalid complaint because the standards are higher than what most states had before).  You can’t complain that standards aren’t high enough but that standards are bad for education at the same time without being a hypocrite…and DeMint’s Heritage (which still has not sold out on economic and foreign policy, but is beginning to lack everywhere else) is just that.

Having standards sets the lower end but any teacher is allowed and encouraged to go beyond that minimum bar in any way they feel best. Granted to meet and exceed this minimum bar we will need better teachers across the board, but we had to start somewhere because to have good teachers you need a minimum standard to judge them by, and to have a minimum standard you need good teachers. So either we could get into an endless chicken and the egg debate of which we should do first, or we could just pick on, which we did.
Then of course there are the media outlets, like the Daily Caller which quoted a study as showing that Common Core doesn’t work:

The study, conducted by the Brookings Institution, compared standardized test scores for all 50 states over the last five years. It found that states using education standards that are most dissimilar to Common Core tended to score the highest on math.

Actually the report was (A) talking about how far the state standards were from Common Core in 2009 and how they were doing now, and (B) the states with 2009 standards least like CCSS showed the most improvement over the 4 years since switching over…which would suggest that switching led to better growth. But, even that is going to far as the study actually said:

Table 3-2 reveals no systematic relationship between the states’ MSU ratings and changes in NAEP from 2009–2013. Indeed, states with standards most different from the CCSS (rated 1) gained the most on NAEP (2.25). States with standards most like the CCSS scored the next largest gains (1.94);

The report also makes the statement (in big bold letters):

States that more aggressively implemented the CCSS registered larger gains from 2009–2013.

But again, I won’t claim that this report highly endorses Common Core. It doesn’t. It claims that with very little data on hand only a minimal amount of growth can be shown or even expected. It further questions if this growth is worth all the money and effort going into putting Common Core into place. It however does not say what the Daily Caller claims. And I’ll admit that this is a high cost for minimal gains…at first. But this is the first step in having real across the board minimum standards to actually preventing students from falling behind. This is the first step of many that need to occur, the first step to culling bad teachers and bad schools from the system. The first step to making sure students are held back to ensure they understand before being promoted to the next level. The gains we see from this one single step are minimal, but they are an investment on a system of reform that will pay vast dividends. And when your opposition, as the Daily Caller as clearly put itself in the Anti-Common Core camp, has to blatantly lie about a study showed to make it’s point, you have to question whether or not the anti-Common Core line has any validity.
Oh but then there’s the new math. Common Core is teaching new math and that’s terrible (but remember thinking one size fits all is also terrible, so if you’re utterly confused on the exactly what the anti-Common Core people are arguing for, don’t worry, that only means you have a brain). So let’s first forget that there have been new math programs for decades and that this is nothing new. Let’s also forget that Common Core is just standards and does not require any of this. Now like a good anti-Common Core person we’ve forgotten reality let’s deal with the evil Common Core Math.

Now with most of the examples you see on the internet they’ll show you one worksheet where you can’t see if there were more worksheets that explained it in greater detail, or even what publisher they’re from. I’ll wager most of these evil worksheets are from minor text book publishers or that their idiocy predates Common Core…
But I was happy to see one worksheet that’s making the rounds that actually does have a copyright in the corner. The anti-Common Core people made a mistake in including the copyright information in the corner because it shows them to be a bunch of idiots and liars.

Math Coach CornerNow initially looking at this sheet you’d think someone had just gone insane and why can’t we just go back to the old way of learning math. However, if you type the name Donna Boucher (which who copyrighted this) into a search-engine you come up with her website Math Coach’s Corner where you find that worksheets like the one you see there are probably not meant as a first round of teaching but designed to help students find alternate avenues to doing the same problems if the traditional approach doesn’t work—because as the anti-Common Core folk like to correctly state one size fits all does not work for everyone, but strangely when you try not to go with one size fits all methods you get yelled at, because the hypocrisy of the anit-Common Core bunch knows no bounds. Pick a side anti-Common Core people. Now if a teacher started with Boucher’s methods that would probably be foolish, but as there is no context for the worksheet as it is shown on any site I’ve seen it on, nor any of the background of the lesson showing how to use it there is no way to tell if this is a teacher doing this on the first go around or merely showing their students another way of doing things. Further, ever since the day I taught in a lecture on Romantic poets that “The Romantic poets of early 1800’s England viewed the character of Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost as a heroic figure” and then got accused by a parent the next day of “teaching students to worship the Devil,” I tend to take parent’s statements that no other information was offered with just a grain of salt. I’m sure there are idiot teachers out teaching math incorrectly, (but that has nothing to do with Common Core), there always have been, however I’m also sure that there are teachers out there that are using things like Boucher’s worksheets because they understand ‘not one size fits all’ and are trying to expose their students to different ways of doing things. Without context it’s hard to tell when and where this worksheet was used and if it was done in the correct context or an incorrect one. But any way you want to look at it, Common Core isn’t to blame. So just because a worksheet doesn’t seem to make much sense remember there are probably more worksheets that explain things, and there was probably a lesson to go with it.
I would also point out that some of these new math worksheets have made me going “Oh, thank God, I thought I was the only one who did it in their head that way!” While a few other of these ways that I have seen on videos get explained so fast you’re not sure if you’re watching an Abbott and Costello routine…but when I’ve listened to them I find myself thinking, “That’s genius!”* Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s bad. The proof will be if it actually helps students. Yeah, there are some dumb methods out there too, and quite a few of these worksheets I can’t figure out what they’re getting at. But NONE OF THIS IS REQUIRED BY COMMON CORE and some of it may be simply be a lack of context.

Then of course there are all the complaints about the fact that textbooks have been changed to meet Common Core and thus they now have terrible information. But if you actually read the standards or the very limited material that has actually been put out by the people who actually wrote the standards, the incorrect stuff doesn’t appear anywhere in the real standards. I suspect that it’s more likely the anti-common core bunch found a few idiotic textbooks and are claiming that it is representative of all of common core because Common Core has made them so terrible. Also fun fact. All those common core textbooks you hate? Did you know that a study was done comparing those new textbooks to the old pre-Common Core textbooks. Guess what, the textbook publishers just took the old textbooks and slapped Common Core stickers on it. They’re the same—same text, same problems, same answers, same process. Why didn’t you complain about them before since there was no difference? Oh that’s right, you don’t really care about education, you were just told to hate this by some pundit and dutifully and blindly followed.

Then of course there is the problem that a lot of things that are actually part of Obama’s idiotic Race to the Top program are being called Common Core. People will say “Well this teacher, or that union, or such and such school board said that this terrible plan was part of Common Core.” So? What do I care what idiots say. Morons say that the Constitution says that guns aren’t an individual right…but amazingly I don’t listen to morons I actually go and read the Constitution and see that no, the 2nd Amendment clearly states it as a “right of the people.” With Common Core I don’t care what the morons say is Common Core, I have a brain and can actually go and read the Common Core Standards and see, nope that idiocy isn’t there. And if I were talking to those teachers/unions/schools I would chide them for their complete and utter inability to read and point out that this is why we need the standards so we can see who doesn’t meet the standards as teachers…and then fire them. If you play their game here that all these things that have nothing to do with Common Core are Common Core just because idiots believe it’s Common Core, then you have to agree that Obamacare is Constitutional because 5 corrupts pieces of scum in black robes said it was when it isn’t, or that when Obama says he supports capitalism you have to agree to that because most of the country was dumb enough to buy it. You can play that game. I’ll be over here in reality where word have meaning and facts are things you should go by.

I could go on about how I am really bothered by the liberal/populist/socialist argument that because big business was involved thus it must be evil permeates every anti-Common Core debate…or how parents never seem to be complaining that schools (or parents) aren’t teaching  children how to learn from failure or how to pick themselves up, only that “Common Core made my halfwit child cry!” (Okay maybe I added the halfwit part, but it’s accurate.) I could go on on all of these things, but they all come back to there has yet to be a single valid critique of the actual Common Core standards.

And this all culminates in the problem that I’m now having trouble taking just about any problem aside from the ones I already know about seriously (the economy and foreign policy) because I just can’t trust that anyone is doing even the slightest amount of research.

*If anyone wants me to I’ll go over the video I’m thinking about and showing how the math process they show as being terrible is actually quite ingenious…however this blog was getting long as it is.

2 Comments

Filed under Common Core, Education, People Are Stupid, Problems with the GOP

Economics 101: Opportunity Costs and the GOP

 

 

One of the basics of economics is the idea of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the idea that you have 5 dollars and you can buy a latte at Starbuck or you can buy 5 widgets (because as an economics example there is an unspoken rule that I must include the selling of widgets).  But you can’t have both.  Now for most of us the latte will be a better investment because no one has ever figured out what you can do with a widget.  But you have to lose the opportunity to buy one when you but the other.

You can save money or you can spend money but you can’t do both with the same dollar.

You can invest in  all your money in Company A or you can invest all you money in  Company B, or you can split your money between the two, but you can’t give all your money to both companies.

The idea in economics is that whenever you move resources to one thing (be it time, money, capital or people) that same resource can’t be used somewhere else. So you have lost the opportunity to spend that resource on the other thing…preferably because where you did spend money was a better choice.

Why do I bring this up?

Because we have a limited amount of time to talk to voters. People tune you out after a while.   So in that limited amount of time you can only discuss a certain number of things.

Logically we would want to discuss the issues that will most likely convince voters to vote for us, that will most change the nation for the better, and have will affect the most number of people.

But regrettably many Republicans are anything but logical.

Think about it.  Of these options which one does your average Republican choose to argue?

You can bitch about Common Core or you could actually push for the elimination of the federal Department of Education.  The latter might actually improve education.

You talk about gay marriage or you can could actually push to end the incentives against marriage in entitlement programs.   The latter might actually increase marriage rates, reduce poverty and increase social stability.  The former will just allow liberals to make you look like an ass to moderates.

You could talk about abortion or you could talk about the economy and actually win an election.

tumblr_mc9ndiv52J1qi01k6

Why do Republican always pick the snatch defeat from the jaws of victory option that leaves me like this?

 

You can whine about RINOs or you can attack Democrats.  A RINO from a purple district/state still gets us control of the House and/or Senate.  A RINO will vote with us some of the time, a Democrat will not.

You call things that aren’t amnesty, amnesty and hurt your own party or you can push for any effort to secure the border.

 

You can whine about “Oh but we always give, and we need to take a stand now even if that stand will mean shooting ourselves in the foot” or you could be a sane person and learn from the past (as opposed to living in it)…and the past teaches me to pick and fight my battle, not run away from every battle or fight every battle (both extremes are dumb)

Oh, for libertarians:

You can whine about the drug war’s ineffectiveness or you could secure the border.  Hmmm which one will benefit country more?  Let me think.

The fact is that this is a party that time and time and time again want to “take a stand on principle” even where there are other issues that defend the very principle they care about and when they have a choice they will either divide their time between the unimportant stuff and the relevant stuff or they will focus almost entirely on the issues that won’t win, won’t work, and won’t help anyone.

Please Republicans, get your act together.   And I’m not talking just about the politicians and the pundits, I’m talking about the rank and file reading this.  How often do you waste a chance to win someone with an argument that might work  and doesn’t violate a single one of your principles because you have some pet issue. I hate to tell you winning votes isn’t about your pet issue, it’s about the pet issues of the person you’re trying to convince…unless you can adapt to that reality don’t get into politics.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, GOP, People Are Stupid, Problems with the GOP

GOP, Let’s ask what worked and what didn’t…

Do you ever wonder…

If Republicans would spend as much energy and time on attacking Democrats as they do their own party, if they might actually get somewhere?

So the last couple of weeks have once again revealed that the Republican Party’s perpetual need to shoot itself in the foot.   This of course is a side effect of who is in the Republican Party.  Unlike the Democrats (and people who voted Santorum, and Paulbots) most Republicans (both the conservatives and libertarians in the party) tend to be free thinkers…which means we don’t march lock step with the commands of the party and/or our chosen savior to blindly follow.  Unfortunately, while usually a good thing, this does lead to a little bit of a problem when trying to organize. We are all going our separate ways while our opposition, while idiotic and wrong, marches to the beat of a single drummer and provides a single, constant, well defended wall that we cannot break by not working together.

Does this mean that we should all just march lockstep just like they do?  No.  But it does mean we should try to think more long term than they do and work toward our long term goals rather than doing what feels good at the moment.

The shutdown is a good example. We should have never made this about Obamacare because even just a bit of forethought would tell us that if we did that then the only way to win was to hold a shutdown all the way through until the new congress is sworn in in 2015 (because we know damn well that Obama and Reid are too damn stupid to admit that their law is a horrific nightmare), and this only works if (A) Republicans hold firm (which we know isn’t going to happen) and (B) that the American people see that it’s the Democrats who are at fault and the House is doing what it’s supposed to in using the power of the purse (these are the people who voted for Obama, do you really think they’re going to see that?).  If we want to get rid of Obamacare then the first, thing we need to do is get rid of the Senate.  Nothing happens until then.  Nothing.  But we had short sighted fools going their own way saying we can stop this here and now (exactly how when we don’t hold the Senate, White House or Supreme Court is a bit beyond me… I actually saw a conservative commentator complain that the GOP is giving in even though the GOP “is in a stronger position than it was during the partial government shutdown in 1995/96.”  Yes right now with control of one house we’re in such a better position than in 1995/96 when we controlled both the House and the Senate and had Dick Morris screaming in the White House to give into the GOP.  We’re in such a stronger position now than we were then.  (What the hell are some conservative pundits smoking?)

But no, some genius thought that Obamacare was the line in the sand to draw—to hell if Ryan’s work on saving the budget would actually lead to more long term good, to hell that letting Obamacare go forward would be its own worst enemy, no let’s draw a line in the sand on this silly item.  So we shut down everything over Obamacare, and thus we killed all our other options.  Good call.  But once we were in the shutdown we should have not budged an inch.  Yeah getting there was dumb, but, a lot like getting your girlfriend pregnant, it may have been a series of shortsighted choices that got you into this situation, but now for the sake of intelligence and character you only have one option.  Did we hold firm? No.  Why?  Because again we can’t hold a united front.   When we were holding firm we had people insulting Republicans that they were RINOs and were going to get primaries out (so if you’re a Republican who really does believe that you will hold the line better than the Democrat who would trounce your Tea Party replacement, if you really believe that you’re doing what is best for the country you have to make a deal to ensure you keep your seat and that a Democrat doesn’t take it…not saying everyone was this noble but I’m sure one or two were).

Then we were even more stupid.  We had Republicans vote for the damn compromise (that gave us nothing).  This I don’t quite understand. It could pass the Senate without a single Republican vote, and it could pass the House with only a few Republicans voting for it (or just staying home and not voting at all).  Did we organize anything like this to at least be able to say that ‘We did not vote for this crap, this is the Democrats and all the Democrats.”  Nope, we didn’t even organize that well.

And as I hinted above, it’s not just the elected officials.  We attack our own, shout everyone down as RINOs at the drop of a hat.   Now some will say that I’m attacking the Tea Party…actually I’m only attacking part of it.  I’m beginning to notice there are two parts to the Tea Party. One is the “let’s shrink government in power, size and expenditure” let’s call this the Values Tea Party…then there seems to a second side, the “Everyone who does not agree with me 100% is a goddamn RINO and must be purged from the party.”  Let’s call this the Ideological Tea Party.  One side wants to win and is willing to make logical concessions if they need to but is just tired of the GOP ALWAYS making concessions even when they don’t need to…the other side wants the goddamn Spanish Inquisition (which I really wasn’t expecting) and purge all non-believers from the ranks of the Republican party (of course as it’s a constantly shifting set of values it’s hard to say what is and isn’t real conservatism to these people…but if you don’t perform a miracle right now and end Obamacare, overturn a hundred years of bad court decisions, revoke 200 years of bad executive decisions, clean the tax code, impeach Obama, destroy all terrorists, and turn water into wine you won’t vote for them…and anything short must be because you’re a filthy RINO and not, oh I don’t know, because you’re only in control of one half of one branch of the government.)

What I think some people don’t realize is that we need Republicans from all parts of the country to win (even blue states) which means that those Republicans have to be more moderate than say a Republican from a completely red state.  There are Republicans who are moderate on some things (mainly social issues).  There are Republicans who come from very blue states but believe they should honor their constituents beliefs on certain things (I don’t particularly like people who feel this way, but I find the people who bitch the most about these Republicans are the same ones who use “the will of the people” as justification for why legislatures should do this or that…pick one and only one, should legislatures use their own judgment (a republic) or should they be beholden to the will of the people (a democracy).

Goldwater Reagan Buckley RINO

RINOs as defined by some in the Tea Party right now.

By the standards that the pundits are now setting up William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater would be considered RINOS (let me remind you that Reagan as governor passed more liberal laws than Romney, for much the same reason, because he was dealing with a very liberal legislature, and as president he cut LOTS of deals with the Democrats).

Do you think perhaps, that as a voting block we’re beginning to get a little strange?

Yes there are few very legitimate RINOs who will sell the party out at the drop of a hat.  McCain, Graham, Christie.  I’m probably forgetting a couple more.  BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF GOP actually do believe in what they are doing, they may be wrong in that belief, they might get a better deal if they held out, but just because they are wrong in a tactical belief doesn’t make them liberal.

Establishment vs Tea Party

This picture should not even exist. We have bigger problems, namely liberals. Until they’re gone we should not be attacking each other.

So first off to anyone talking about putting up a primary challenger to any Republican they disagree with I want you to ask two questions.

First.

Will the Tea Party candidate you’re supporting win in an election against the Democratic challenger in that state/district?

And you need to be very, very honest here.  I liked Sharon Angel and Christie O’Donnell…but they were bad calls for Nevada and Delaware…and if you don’t think it would have been better to run a more moderate Republican and remove Harry Reid from office, you’re crazy.  Absolutely crazy.  This is the old Buckley Rule: Vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.  Because even the most moderate Republican is better than scum that is Harry Reid.

Now this may not be enough.  Because let’s be honest there are scum that jump ship when the Senate gets to that 50/50 mark.  And again you need to be honest here when you ask:

Will this the elected official you’re trying to get rid of jump ship if given a chance?

For people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, yeah vote them out.  They’ll backstab the Republican Party every chance they get and will switch to Democrats if they’re offered enough if the it ever gets that close (As say when Jim Jeffords back stabbed the Republicans, changed parties and gave the Senate to the Democrats in 2001). They’re Democrats already for all intents and purpose because they have no character (oh, I would like to thank Sarah Palin for supporting McCain over the Tea Party candidate…thanks Sarah, you really helped the Republic with that move.)

So if it’s yes to both answers, sure get a primary going.  Even if it’s yes to just the second answer, get rid of the idiot. But if they’re just a moderate Republican who doesn’t always vote with the party but will give us control of the Senate or let us keep control of the House, they’re better than a Democrat. As we have learned, who controls the houses of Congress has massive authority and it is better that we dethrone Harry Reid even if we have to have every seat go to a moderate. Standing on principal when it will only hurt your cause in the long and short run isn’t standing on principal—it’s idiocy.

So just as a little reminder

There’s an election about a year away.  We need to hold onto ALL of our seats in the Senate (which means it might not be bright to primary out a moderate if that means the libs will pick it up…even a moderate Republican can still give us control of the Senate, which we’ve learned can be a very powerful thing) and we need to pick up at least 6 more seats.

Now might be the time to remember that as much as we hate some in our party we hate the Democrats even more.  We can purge the party when we’re in a position to…in the mean time I might actually like to not have to see Harry Reid’s stupid face for another few years…

Schmuck in Cheif

This man and all he represents is what we should be working against…not each other.

Or did you want to have Harry Reid in charge of the Senate if, god help us, another Supreme Court Justice needs to be replaced?

Leave a comment

Filed under character, Congress, Conservative, GOP, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Tea Party

Constitutional Amendments, The Fact We Are A Republic Not a Democracy, And Short-Sighted Fools Who Get Called Conservatives

So Mark Levin has a new book out and is calling for Constitutional Amendments. How do I know this? Well it certainly wasn’t because I look forward to books by Mark Levin—honestly this man endorsed Rick Santorum (enemy of capitalism and raging psychotic extraordinaire) and never missed a chance to hit Romney. Yeah with conservative and sanity credentials like that in the single most important election that he has ever lived through, can’t imagine why I tend not to take Levin too seriously. But given the amount of press it’s getting in conservative circles I thought I would at least take a look at it and peruse it in Barnes and Noble…and it confirmed all my dislike of Levin, reading just a few pages made me sick…on the surface it has some very conservative principles, but when you only scratch the surface it is not very conservative, not very well thought out, and little more than populist tripe.

So first the good.

He wants to make the commerce clause more limited. Excellent. South Dakota v. Dole, the case that expanded the powers of the government under the commerce clause, was a terrible decision and needs

Did we forget we're conservatives and we want to limit the power of the federal government?

Did we forget we’re conservatives and we want to limit the power of the federal government?

to be overturned…I’ll come back to why it was terrible in a moment.

He wants to reaffirm the 5th Amendment’s right to private property in very clear terms. Again this is partly in response to the terrible Kelo ruling. I have no problem with this.

He has an Amendment that would allow two-thirds of states to overturn any law passed by Congress. I think this is an excellent check on federal power.

And he wants to overturn the 17th Amendment and make it so that state legislatures and only state legislatures pick Senators. Which is in line with the republican virtues the Founders intended and will eliminate a lot of problems. Legislatures tend to pick more reserved members for positions like this so hacks and shills for unions like Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, “Dances with Bullshit” Warren (okay really just about any Democrat that has been in the Senate in the last 50 years) and treasonous scum like McCain stand little chance. You’ll get reserved people, thoughtful people, who are not beholden to polls because they don’t run for reelection and not beholden to campaign contributors for the same reason. The people still have a voice in the House and in choosing the representatives who will pick Senators. This will also lead to better Supreme and Federal Court Justices as the Senate will no longer be party hacks. So no Kagan, no Sotomayor, but you would get a Bork.

However I think it is a major mistake to only leave the option of the Senator to be chosen by the state legislature. I would be more than happy to allow states to pick some combination of the legislature and governor or just the legislature…it ensures more gridlock, fewer ideologues and less of a chance of bleeding heart idiots getting in.

Also I would think that you might want to allow the people to have the right of recall of any Senator. Quite frankly I would love the ability to fire Senators rather than hire them.

Okay those are the good things he suggested. Now let’s go through the terrible tings he suggests…

He suggests sunset dates for all legislation and that all federal departments have to be reauthorized every few years. That sounds nice…but when you think any deeper than how it sounds (which someone who backed Santorum, like Levin, is clearly incapable of even conceiving of) it becomes terrible. From 1913-2013 liberals and progressives controlled the White House and both branches of government for 38 of those years, conservative for only 18 of those years…so over 1/3 of that time with liberals in absolute control…and you want to have Congress be responsible to constantly reauthorize the Department of Defense? Mark, are you insane or just stupid? The Constitution exists because we know that there will be times when the public takes a complete and total loss of its senses and elects idiots. An amendment like this gives idiots more power to simply not reinstitute good laws and continue making bad laws (as Obamacare has shown, a law doesn’t need to be around for long to cause harm).

Better idea: A Constitutional Amendment that Congress must list under what clause or Amendment they are using to have the power to enforce such a bill. That covers the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and Treasury. In this same Amendment it states that any law that uses the necessary and proper clause as justification must have a sunset date and can exist for no longer than 5 years. This variation not only limits the powers of government to its expressly listed powers (and the wiggle room the founders intended the necessary and proper clause to be) without giving free reign to unchecked power grabs

Then Levin says we should change the Amendment process to allow states to amend the constitution with only a two-thirds majority instead of the usual three-fourths. Now take a look at it this way, the three-fourths bar has given us such bad amendments as the 16th (income tax), the 17th (allowing the public to choose Senators), the 18th (prohibition) and the unspeakably stupid 26th Amendment (which gives immature brats the right to vote)*. Yeah let’s lower the bar because we’ve had such great Amendments get through the 3/4ths vote. Levin seems to forget that the terrible worded Equal Rights Amendment (nice in theory, terrible in wording and near carte blanche in the powers it granted because of that really bad wording) got 70% of the states to vote for it. Thanks Mark. Only an idiot thinks that conservatives will always be the majority—the pendulum always swings back and forth and the Constitution needs to be there when progressives who want to give the government more power is a wall against them…not as a tool for them to use! Which is exactly what Levin’s proposed Amendment would eventually be.
Term Limits. Term limits sound so nice…get the idiots out, let fresh blood in. Here’s the problem. Liberals can always find an idiot to vote party line, finding good honest conservatives who are sane to actually run for office is much more difficult (conservatives usually have the good sense to stay away). So all you’ll be doing is for the bad legislators, trading one scoundrel for another and while getting rid of competent people like Issa, Ryan, and Cantor and leaving it open for liberals to take their place. Great idea. It’s even dumber when you consider the revoking of the 17th Amendment makes the entire Senate a check against the kind of corruption and party politics that popular election breeds. Yes term limits on an office where one person holds the entire power of that office makes sense, but not in a body of parliament.

SCOTUSOh and then Levin wants to put term limits on the Court and allow Congress to over rule the Court. Might as well just disband the court. Congress and the President already have the power to choose who goes on the court and determine how many justices we have, and Congress and the states can overrule the court via Amendment. That’s a lot of check and balances already. There are two reasons why we have bad Supreme Court Justices. The first is because we have popularly elected idiots in the Senate making decisions, but revoking the 17th already fixes that. The 2nd is that Congress and the President have already misused the power they have…above I mentioned South Dakota v. Dole which expanded powers under the commerce clause—it’s time to talk about that case now—that ruling came down only because the Supreme Court had been intimidated by FDR who threatened to pack the court if they didn’t vote as he wanted. So the current checks and balances against the court led to it being intimidated and bullied, which has left a lasting effect in terms of precedence and behavior…and you want to give the President and Congress more power over the court. Why have a court? Levin is just unhappy with the decisions they make, so am I, but like any populist child he simply lashes out without thinking, attacking the symptom while making the disease worse.

And then there is the amendment limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP. Again sounds really nice. So long as we never have a major national disaster or have to fight a war. Yes, we have a spending problem, but this doesn’t help. And I love how he tags it to a figure like GDP…like a liberal economist can’t play with how that number is reached. Whatever happened to a simple balanced budget amendment which has triggers for emergency spending?

And then there is my favorite the Amendment requiring that to vote you have to have an ID. Again something I’m in support of…when it’s a state issue. My problem is with too much government power, and an Amendment like this gives the federal government even more power. Just because something is a great idea for a state, even a necessary idea for all 50 states, does not mean it should be a federal issue…conservatives understand this…idiots who support socialist Santorum do not. But yeah, let’s give the federal government the right to say what does and does not count as an ID, who gets an ID, what barriers and cannot be put up (if you make it a federal issue you’ve just given the government all these powers…I’m sure they’ll never abuse them).

Also a fun part of this Amendment is banning all electronic voting. Yes because an Amendment, something that should guide the nation for at least 100’s of years should institutionalize luddite fears because of problems in the early stages of a new technology…I hate to tell Mark this, any form of voting is subject to fraud, electronic voting may get more press because it’s new and cool, but seriously, an amendment banning it for all time.

The fact of the matter is that for all Levin’s claims to be a conservative many of these amendments do not properly view the nation as a republic where law is higher than anything…but rather show him to be a populist who thinks democracy and the will of the people (hence the term limits, the neutering of the courts, the rapid amendment of the Constitution, and the rapid dismissal of all law through sunset dates). These make the system less stable and more volatile, yes while conservatives are in control it would give us the power to quickly enforce our policies which are more in line with the ideals of the Founders and reality…but the Founders had the good sense to know that what is right is not always popular…and these same mechanisms could easily be used against America if the will of the people shifted. Just ask yourself, if these Amendments were in place in 1978 when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, Democrats controlled the House and Senate, and had complete control of just shy of 30 states (governors and legislatures), controlling 60% of all legislatures, and all other states were divided (no Republican control of all branches of state government). What could Carter and his ilk have done in 2 years? Would there have even been a nation left for Reagan to save? A populist wants power to change things the way they think it should be, but a real conservative asks the all important question of what could their enemy do with that same power? And horrifyingly most of Levin’s Amendments would give too much power to liberals in the end.

Now as I said there were some good ones.
Private Property
Revoke the 17th Amendment
Commerce Clause
2/3rd’s check by state on federal law

And I listed two above
Require all laws to list what power granted to Congress the law is being passed under, and anything under the necessary and proper clause has a sunset date.
A Balanced Budget Amendment

I would point out two others that help reaffirm this nation as a Republic not a democracy.

The first would be to replace the 26th Amendment. I’m sorry but of all the 18 year olds I have ever met less than 1% of them were qualified to vote. Most of the people I’ve known in their 20’s aren’t qualified to vote. Science is now telling us the brain doesn’t even stop developing until you’re 25 or 26. The voting age needs to be raised not lowered. If you’re under 30 you do not have the mental capacity or experience to vote. If you want to include a clause that anyone who signs up for military service will be granted the right early, I have no problem with that, but your average 18-29 year old is simply too naïve, too stupid, too immature and too easily persuaded by emotion to be allowed to vote.

The 2nd point I would have is something I don’t think the Founders ever really considered but would agree with if it was put to them. At the signing of the Constitution one of the reasons you had to have 13 states and not just one central government, besides centralized power leads to corruption, is that there was simply too much land and too many people for one government to govern it effectively. You could probably fit the entire population of the U.S. at the signing of the Constitution into modern Los Angeles. And that was too big for one government to control. Now communication and travel have made this somewhat easier…but keep in mind that I think the Founders would have agreed that if there is a minimum population a state needs to have, then there should probably be a maximum number it needs to have before it should break up into two states. I’m thinking around 10 million. I’m sorry but after that point it becomes inefficient to run a state (not to mention that populations this high are usually because of a single large city in the state which siphons welfare money out of the non-city areas to fuel welfare programs and guarantee bought votes). Think of it, two New Yorks, the liberal city we know…but far more reddish upstate New York with red electoral votes, and red Senators. California cut into thirds one state blue, one red, one probably purplish.* Texas which is turning a little blue into two safe red states and a blue one. If you work out the math is this only good news for conservatives in terms of Senate and electoral votes (which is also a strong pro republic idea since it makes it harder to swing as many states). And you wouldn’t have to give the federal government power to split states just state you’re not counting population above 10 million for Congressional seats and electoral college votes…most states would simply choose to split if you put that in place once they went over the 10 million mark. Now I’m more just thinking aloud here, and haven’t worked out the details of how such an amendment would have to be worded, and I’m sure someone out there could even convince me that it’s plain insanity, but it’s just a thought.

Now I admit that my suggestions are even less likely of being adopted than Levin’s but that doesn’t change the fact that his are dangerous to the safety of the union in the long run.

*I realize the current population of California is 38 million and technically that would be cut in 4th’s…but even if the highly unlikely occurred and my suggestions passed, it would be after years of the current population drop in California and I think we’ll see California under 30 million within the next decade.

3 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Founding, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP

Drop the meaningless phrase “Judeo-Christian Values” and other ways for Conservatives to win

Okay so several times I have asked what the phrase “Judeo-Christian Values” means and how it is different from the values of other beliefs and religions.  I haven’t received many good answers.  Yes there are certainly differences between them in the nature of God or in the rituals and the structure of the community…but in terms of values there is little difference…everyone regards the soul as divine in some way* and proper understanding of any of these religions lends one to a virtue based ethics in line with the Classical Realism of Aristotle and Plato.  In fact, when you look at most religions there are some pretty strong parallels in all the virtues—some may be more detailed than others in some areas and less in others, but they seem to focus on the same general virtues.

virtue

Granted there is not a point for point comparison between the virtues that I am showing here, and there are shades of difference and meaning, often caused more by culture and period of time they were written in, but in terms of broad swaths, every religion believes in the same general set of virtues. Also this chart could be much more inclusive of a variety of religions and still hold true…but I think you get the point.

So the term Judeo-Christian values, which supposedly would mean the virtues and ethics this group holds to be good and right and true is just the same as the virtues of every other religion, then it’s not that meaningful a phrase.  Yes there are differences between Judeo-Christian beliefs and other religions, but none of these differences have anything to do with the political context of how the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” is used.

The phrase is meant to draw a contrast between spiritual/religious values and those of the secular, progressive, fascist, fanatical sections of society that actually don’t share either a belief in virtue based ethics or have some very radically different values.

So why is this an important point to bring up?

Well because it makes a pretty clear distinction between those who follow Judeo-Christianity and everyone else.  Including people of lots of different faiths who were not intended to be alienated.  Is this relevant?

Well first off I think it’s a fair statement that the term Judeo-Christian values is primarily used by conservatives.  Second I would assume we want to win.  We lost the last election by 3.9% points.  A 3% shift of the vote would have given Romney the popular and Electoral College vote and about 6 Senate seats (i.e., complete Republican control).  So it then becomes a question, is there 3% of the electorate who is religious and spiritual, not already voting Republican, that is not in the Judeo-Christian bracket?

Let’s look at the polls.

Trends in Religion PewPew does a major poll every year looking at the trends in religion in America.  It’s a sample of 17,000 people so it’s fairly accurate as polls go.

So of the “other” religion we have 6% of the nation and of the “nothing in particular” group we have 13.9% of the population.  Together they make 19.9% of the population.  Common sense alone says that if you have 20% of the country, two-thirds of whom are voting against your party, then maybe if you stopped alienating them with an us vs. them term (or at least picked a new term) you could pick up a few…maybe?

So let’s look at the 19.9% a little more closely.  Okay so we can discount about 1% of the “other” group as they are the “religion of peace” and their fairly fascist beliefs are moderately antithetical to conservative principles and the values/ethics being promoted.  So we’re down to 18.9% up for grabs.

Now the let’s look at how the remaining 5% of the “Other” and the 13.9% of “nothing in particular.”  Now a flaw of this report is that they lump the ““nothing in particular” in with Atheists and Agnostics under the heading of Unaffiliated (but for Trend in Religion by party Pewthe purpose of this let’s just assume the numbers are about the same throughout all the unaffiliated, it doesn’t make a terribly large difference anyway).  From the data we can see that only about 57% of the Other group and 69% of the unaffiliated are voting for Democrats (trust me the math works).  So give or take (you know there are some independents we’re not taking into account) that’s about 12%.  12% that probably share the values of the Christian voters who lean toward voting Republican, but for some reason aren’t voting Republican.  Do you think that term “Judeo-Christianity” might have something, even a small part, to do with it?

Isn’t this just a call for political correctness?  No.  The idiocy of political correctness is saying you have to watch everything you say because it might hurt someone’s feelings.   And it is for all levels of life, from the public and political to the personal.  I am not saying you have to adjust your personal language or beliefs.  This is merely a political reality.  We as conservatives have certain values and policies we know will work and better the lives of everyone.  Politics is as much about emotion and perception as it is about facts and plans, probably more so. Political Correctness has nothing to do with practical ends, which is why it has to be enforced by the left so viciously else reason would drive most people to that end anyway; what I am talking about is something very different than being PC, I’m talking about selling an idea with very real consequences.  A term like “Judeo-Christian values” is loaded from the get go, it creates an us vs. them mentality, at a time when we need more of the people in the “them” category to vote for us.  If we switched to using the term “spiritual value” or “God centered” more often, it would mean the exact same thing in terms of everything relevant to politics and ethics, and it wouldn’t emotionally alienate those we are trying to win over.  You can still use “Judeo-Christian” if you really feel strongly about it, but do it knowing you’re hurting the chance to actually see your goals accomplished.

Is this stupid?  Yeah.  It’s silly and ridiculous to think we should have to be this nitpicky about our language and terms to win people to our side.  But, the last time I checked we already had reason, logic, facts, truth, plans, and vision on our side.  Didn’t notice that doing us any good.  Oh, wait this is politics. Stupid thing like word choice do matter.  Is it stupid?  Yeah, but it’s something you have to do.

New Age beliefsBut should we end our discussion of this group of “nothing in particular” with just this term?  Well that might work towards making in-roads with maybe 1% of those 12%, in-roads that would allow the rest of our arguments to make a difference, and that 1% we get to follow reason would be a third of the way we need to go, but it’s still not enough.

Let’s take a look at some of the actual beliefs of this group.  Namely that 25% of them believe in reincarnation (If you assume that all the atheists and agnostics do not believe in reincarnation then it’s actually about 35% of the “nothing in particular” group…or about 4% of the general public.)  Further while there is nothing in this year’s report, previous year’s reports showed that a belief in reincarnation was more popular with women, minorities, the young, Democrats, liberals, moderates, independents, and Christians who attend church less often (i.e., the people we need to win over).

So it is safe to assume that most of those in that 4% are not voting Republican.

But they should.

A belief in reincarnation by its very nature lends to long term thinking—the policies I put in place today won’t just affect my children and grandchildren, they’ll affect me over and over and over again.  Thus anyone who believes in reincarnation has to believe in plans that aren’t as concerned with momentary problems, but with building long term systems that self-perpetuate and offer prosperity to the most people for the longest time with most chance of growth…that would be the capitalism and republicanism officered by real conservative belief.  This is an argument I’ve made before, extensively in Republicans & Reincarnation, and one that we should all make to anyone who holds this article of faith in reincarnation.  If you actually approach them on their own terms, and showed that the logical consequence of their beliefs is conservatism, we could get another 1% of that group…which means of the 49% left we only have to convince another 1% and given the abysmal failure of a second Obama term, that should be easy.

You don’t have to agree with people on faith. But you’re not going to convince them on politics if your stance is mine is the only religion worth following by using terms like “Judeo-Christian value.”  Say “spiritual values” instead, it means the same thing, it still separates you from the secular liberal base you are trying to show a contrast with, and it may pick up a few votes. And if you’re arguing with someone who doesn’t agree with your religion or your politics, you’ll never convince them to give up a faith because of reason, it just doesn’t work (even if you do show contradictions and put them on the path to agreeing with you spiritually, it will initially only dig in their heels more on every other topic against you)…but if you approach them on their terms spiritually and show them how their beliefs do dictate a conservative point of view, then you at least get something.

*The only two exceptions to this are followers of the religion of peace (Sufis excluded) and atheists.

3 Comments

Filed under A Course in Miracles, Aristotle, Atheism, Bhagavad Gita, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Education, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, New Age, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Spirituality, virtue

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock wave after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

10 reasons why libertarians have become a joke…

The ever so poorly named “Reason Magazine” has put out an article preposterously titled “5 Reasons Why

Libertarians have this really bad tendency to follow leaders blindly. Hayek, Von Misses, Rand and now this lunatic. All of them had good ideas, but none of them were divine prophets to never be questioned...

Conservatives Should Root For a Romney Defeat.”    Lately Libertarians have been getting more and more annoying with their embrace of full blown isolationism (which given how it has NEVER worked, means they’re either very, very stupid or in favor of tyrannies being free to do whatever evil they wish) and their recent and exceedingly naïve push for the gold standard as a cure all for all economic woes.  This is not the libertarian party I once knew of sound economic restraint and social liberalism…this is now a libertarian party of cowards and cranks.  So let me refute their 5 reasons to not vote for Romney.

1.  Reason claims because the Supreme Court will only overturn the individual mandate but leave the rest of Obamacare…because Romney and the Republicans don’t have the guts now to overturn the rest of the law we should let Obama stay in office and let a real reformer get in office in 2016 who will then overturn the law.  Common sense states that you would give some reasons to back this up but Reason’s article seemed quite lacking, in well, reason.

This is stupid for three reasons.  The first being that if the Supreme Court overturns one part, they’re probably taking it all out (Scalia’s comment about “you don’t expect us to go through this line by line do you”)…further it would require you to believe that the justices who are voting to overturn the mandate would leave all the economically disastrous parts that a mandate was a necessity to pay for.  The second is that Romney has promised to overturn the law in toto and will send that law on the first day in office to Congress, which if passed in the first week of his administration it has the most chance of getting through Congress with little disagreement.  The third being that, while the economically stupid issue of covering preexisting conditions needs to go, after another four years of Obama it will NEVER be overturned as no Congressmen, no matter how conservative, will have the guts to take away something that has been around for so long.

2.  Reason’s second claim is in two parts , first that you just can’t trust that evil flip-flopper Romney.  This is a claim that is without basis.  Romney’s changed his position on abortion…everything else is liberal lies.  Thank you libertarians for being dumb enough to believe liberal lies and immoral enough to repeat them…not to mention demonstrating liberal tendencies by not doing the research!

The second part of their reasons to not vote for Romney is that he will make our military second to none.  Oh, how terrible.  When did libertarianism become the philosophy of cowards and complicity in tyranny via our isolation.

3.  They don’t trust Romney to do away with Crony Capitalism as he says he will do (and as he did as much as he could with limited power in Massachusetts).  Why doesn’t Reason believe him…because he supported the financial bailout.  Which is kind of dumb.  Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock waver after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

Reason also claims that calling China on its economic corruption is a bad thing.  I’m confused by their stance, probably again because Reason failed to state any reason for their belief and rather preferred to make an uninformed hitpiece.

4.  Oh and if we elect Romney then no “real conservative” will be able to run in 2016.  True, I look forward to Romney’s second term.  However, since Reason’s definition of true conservative is a person who holds to the insane dogma of Austrian economics and who is a complete coward in foreign policy.  You know a “real conservative” unlike that filthy Monetarist, strong foreign policy, fake conservative Ronald Reagan.  Somehow I’m not being swayed by Reason’s arguments.

5.  And their fifth argument, losing will allow the GOP to collapse…and theoretically realign itself…despite the fact that, realignment actually usually occurs when a party wins the White House (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, FDR…and I can’t think of a realignment that occurred when the party lost…but these are libertarians, the people who ignored all the economic panics, recessions and depressions caused by the gold standard and who completely failed to notice the utter failure of isolationism throughout all of history…no shock they don’t understand how realignments work historically).

So let me now respond with 5 reasons why libertarians should back Romney.

  1. He has a history of actually doing what libertarians like: cutting government and not raising taxes.
  2. Romney is actually endorsing the plan of reformers like Paul Ryan.  He also is backed by a whole team of some the best minds in every field…just check his website…unlike Reason which apparently is working off of innuendo and media lies. And again go to his website, no candidate in my life time has ever had so much data to review as Romney has provided…and it’s all great
  3. For supposed economic conservatives I don’t understand why libertarians would be so hostile to someone who is actually from the private sector.  This is the kind of guy who actually knows what he is doing.  He is not a career politician (he’s only ever held one other elected office for one term), thus he is not beholden to the bureaucracy or the party, he has no favors to fulfill which will actually help to end cronyism. Also cronyism occurs when you have something to gain…remind me how you actually bribe a man who is both rich and not avaricious (as judged by his overly generous charitable contributions).
  4. This country cannot survive another 4 years of Obama.  4 more years of over regulation, taxation, government abuse of power, extreme deficit spending, and insane union support will gut this country and if it doesn’t result in a global depression to make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park, the only reason that we won’t become a 2nd   rate power is because everyone else will fall faster than we do.
  5. Do you remember how reviled the Greens were in the Democratic party after handing the election to Bush (yes I’ll admit if Nader hadn’t run then Gore would have won)…well if you jackasses were to hand the election to Obama then you would be even more reviled and will guarantee the death of the libertarian strain in the Republican party (i.e. you’ll be handing the party to the social conservatives).

6 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions

Rick Santorum. Psychopath or idiot? You decide.

So over the weekend Santorum claimed that Romney will not get 1144 delegate and this whole thing will go to a brokered convention (where this idiot seriously believes he’ll get the nomination).

So, I think the fact that it’s likely in my opinion to go to a convention.
 
I think it’s increasingly likely, not certain, but increasingly likely, actually is a good thing for the Republican Party, and a good thing for our chances in the Fall.

Uh-huh. Is that because he won a victory in Louisiana and a net gain of five whole delegates? I hate to tell him this but while we have nothing this week we have Wisconsin (Romney +13), Maryland (no poll data, but it’s hideously unlikely to go to Santorum based on demographics) and D.C. (where once again Santorum showed his truly stellar ability to handle the responsibilities of being a chief executive and failed to even make the ballot…seriously two states he didn’t qualify for, one of them the state he lives in, and two states he didn’t submit a full slate of delegates. I’ve never heard of a campaign so incompetent. I wonder how long President Santorum will go before someone tells him he forgot to fill 3 cabinet positions?) Which, on a winner take all system would mean that Romney would have a gain (net and gross) of 100 delegates.

Now while Santorum doesn’t trust that iffy math stuff, I did see one Santorum supporter try to point out that there is no true winner take all system with any of the states. I’m not going to link the article to spare you their truly bad logic but let’s deal with that semi-intelligent argument.
There are very few states who have the vast majority of the their delegates as winner take all. In fact, as everyone tracking the delegates knows, every state comes with 3 RNC officials who are not bound by their states’ votes. Okay fair enough. And many of the supposedly winner-take-all states, like California, have some of their delegates as a state-wide winner take all and majority of their delegates tied to winner-take-all or proportional elections in congressional districts. This means that even though Romney is up 20 points in “winner-take-all” California, Santorum will probably come out with a dozen delegates from California after all.

But let’s look at how the race actually shapes up. According to RealClearPolitics Romney currently has 565 delegates. Of all the states that have already voted 1187 delegates were up for grabs and 1028 have been awarded (which means 159 are unbound and still up for grabs…keep this number in mind it will be sort of relevant later.

Now using the Washington Post’s more detailed description of how all the states allocate their delegates I’ve pulled up this chart with some healthy guesstimates on how Romney will fair in all of these states. (Pennsylvania and Indiana have delegates chosen by the State Party itself and I believe that these favor Romney in the extreme. Nebraska delegates are assigned by the party who use the primary as a reference…whatever that means. And Montana like Missouri delegates are unbound).


Now, a word on my logic. The states with polls I based mostly on those polls, with I would say a conservative estimate of Romney’s gains. The states without polls, I believe it was safe to assume Maryland, DC, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Utah are in the Romney camp. I seriously underestimated Romney’s odds in the South and Midwest, making sure that the percentage of delegates was well below his average in those states from those areas that have already voted. This projection rather preposterously assumes that Romney will get NOTHING from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and none of the popularly elected delegates from Pennsylvania.

This projection gives Romney another 600 throughout the rest of the primary. Added to the 565 he already has…that makes for a Grand Total of…drum roll please…One-Thousand-One-Hundred-Sixty-Five! Which I believe is 21 over 1144.

Now I’m sure you could argue that my number might be overestimating how Romney will perform in this or that state. Okay, fair enough. But first is that over and above what he will gain from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania? Unlikely. And even if it is, remember I said I said from the states that have voted there are still 159. Now some of these are from Missouri which voted heavily for Santorum…but it would be silly to think that Ricky is going to get all of them. Romney has been averaging 54% of delegates (and doing even better with the RNC officials which most of these votes are) so it would be safe to say that he will get 50 of those as well. So for this to be a brokered convention Rick would have to knock 71 delegates away from Romney. Go on look at that chart…where is he going to do that?

Some other things to consider. Each week Romney’s numbers keep going up. He’s running double digit leads in Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS polls. After his blowout on April 3rd those numbers are going to go higher. Now Santorum supporters keep banging the empty-headed drum of “If Newt would just get out of the race”…except Gallup actually looked into that…it would appear that Newt voters are more or less split down the middle with half having Romney as their second choice and half backing two lame horses and picking Santorum as their second choice. (Actually since most Santorum supporters are merely anti-Mormon bigots, it would make Newt a more viable candidate for Rick to drop out). So no matter what happens Romney is going to keep being in a better and better position. This will have a dual of effect of some people jumping on the bandwagon (I don’t get it, but it does happen) and Santorum voters getting discouraged and becoming more likely to stay home during the primary. With both, the vote keeps skewing more and more towards Romney…thus making finding those 71 net delegates to take from Romney a task so hopeless Don Quixote and Sisyphus would just give up.

But that doesn’t stop Rick. No. He keeps going on and never backing down. He says quite point blank that Obama is better then denies saying exactly what he said. Then he says Romney is the worst candidate (apparently Rick doesn’t own a mirror) and this time says that it’s “bullshit” to ask him why he said what he said (and he did say it). And in amongst all of this there is the claim that the media is biased in favor of Romney. Would that be right-wing media? You know with Rush, Beck, Hannity, Gretta, Levin, Reagan and Malkin so solidly in your camp they repeat your lies without question? Or the left-wing media which ignores that you said Protestants were servants of Satan, that you admired Jerry Sandusky AFTER his first accusation of child molestation, that if your daughter was raped and got pregnant from that terrible event it would be a “Gift from God,” that you actually did speculate on states outlawing contraceptives, that you clapped when someone suggested all non-Christians leave America, that you said women were not fit for combat, and in your book stated you hate everything America stands for. If Romney had said half of those things they would be run for hours every day for weeks on end until he had to resign in shame…but you Ricky, you get a pass (or you would until you were the nominee when the big guns come out and blow you out of the water…but as it’s impossible for you to win, you get a pass). The media already pick Romney apart, eager to take any of his quotes out of context to try and hit him. You have full statements which make me question your sanity and I have to dig to find some of them. And you think the media is backing Romney? Are you stupid or just crazy?

Probably crazy as he gets more outrageous every single day.

Watching Santorum’s campaign is like watching The Caine Mutiny where Humphrey Bogart’s character, Commander Queeg, has a complete mental breakdown while on the stand during the court-martial of officers for raising a very justified mutiny against him.

The only difference is that halfway through his breakdown Queeg realized how crazy he sounded. Not only has Santorum not realized what a nutjob he is, but his acolytes haven’t figured out that their holy messiah is a psychopath yet either.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

The Possible Future of the Republican Party

 

“Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.

That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”—Elsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead [emphasis added]

 

Believe it or not Rick Santorum’s campaign gives me hope.   Why?  Because it proves beyond the shadow of all doubt that religious fundamentalists do not control this party.  Let’s be honest cowards are voting for Ron Paul, social conservatives for Santorum, (I haven’t the foggiest clue as to why anyone is voting for Newt) and fiscal conservatives are voting for Mitt Romney.

 

 

But listening to Santorum’s speech did make me think about his new theme: Freedom.  It’s ironic that this would be his theme as it is something that he is opposed to in every area of existence.  We know that Ricky is a social conservative and thus opposed to liberty in the social arena…no we need government laws and regulations backed with up with fines and jails and guns to control that part of the world.  From his earmarks, pro-union stance and wish to control the economy through loopholes and regulations we know he is opposed to economic freedom.  And while you might say at least he’s a conservative on the foreign policy arena, but you’d be wrong, as he doesn’t believe in holding the line against Islam-fascists or Communist China because of the relevant communist or fascists part…he opposes them because they’re Muslims and atheists…after all he has said it’s a “holy war” (his words not mine) that we’re fighting right now.  Rick Santorum, American Jihadist.  He’s not interested in beating back tyranny; he’s interested in beating back non-Christians.   In every form of political thought this man is opposed to liberty and freedom in every way possible.

And while Santorum may be in the running for worst politician in the history of presidential politics, it did start me thinking about the nature of freedom in relation to political parties (yes I’m weird and the most boring conversationalist…deal with it).

 

So, contrary to that two axis graph the libertarian love so much (with one axis being economic freedom and one being social freedom) modern politics is actually a balance of three axes.

  1. Economic Freedom ranging from zero freedom with socialism/communism (the name changes the government doesn’t) to full freedom (anarchy) with true capitalism being about 80-90% of the way to complete freedom.
  2. Social Freedom with communism/theocracy/fascism being at the zero end and again capitalism in the 80-90% range of full freedom.
  3. And finally you have the third access which I will call interventionism (for a much more protracted discussion see Republicans and Reincarnation).  This is the idea of whether or not we feel that freedom should be extended throughout the world as “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” at the full freedom side or feel that tyranny, socialism and oppression are fine so long as they stay outside our borders at the zero freedom side, we call this side isolationism.

Sadly, right now each political party embraces at least one of these evils.  Democrats embrace the evil of restricting freedom in the economic sphere.  Libertarians embrace the evil of allowing oppression in other nations so long as it doesn’t bother them (much like Whigs in antebellum America or isolationist pre-WWII who didn’t mind 6 million people dying so long as it wasn’t them…we all see how well those policies worked)…and the Republican party embraces the evil of government intrusion in the social sphere.

 

And this is why I chose the quote I did to open this post.  The system seems rigged (more by human nature to want to control something not by nefarious evil conglomerates trying to control our every choice) to leave us with a between government control in the social sphere or government control in the economic sphere…and if we’re too disgusted with those we go to a party that turns a blind eye to evil, no matter how atrocious and antithetical to our most basic principles,

 

But there is hope.  Because right now we are seeing a rejection of that very evil represented in Rick Santorum (yes he embodies all three evils, but he’s running on his social “conservative” agenda).

 

But there is more hope than just the destruction of Rick Santorum and the defeat of the social conservatives in this election…but the possibility of the defeat of them for all time.

 

Look at it this way.  Almost every Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010 won.  The ones who didn’t, the ones who cost the GOP in the Senate (most notably Angle and O’Donnell) were portrayed not as fiscal conservatives but as wacky social conservatives (I’ll not be getting into whether that depiction is correct or not).  So it appears that when Republicans run on fiscal issues they win. 

 

 

Or to look at it another way.  The highest Santorum has ever been is 39% of Republican voters who make up only about 36% of the voting public.  In other words social conservatives who place their social conservatism above all else make up only 14% (39% of 36%…and those are kind of high end estimates, it’s probably lower in reality) of the electorate.

 

Only 14%.  14% that has no choice but to vote for the Republicans or let a party that allows its economic liberalism turn into an excess of social liberalism.  Do you really think that 14% of the electorate that identifies itself as independent or libertarian aren’t driven from the Republican Party by its perverse adherence to social conservatism…to a belief that the government should tell people how to live their lives.  Hell, I know a few blue-dog Democrats who are fiscally conservative and whose only argument against Republicans is the pointless social concerns.

 

If we drove them out of power now, if we made this a party of fiscal and foreign policy concerns, and only of social moderation, that the government takes no sides in social issues (you know, as the Founders wanted)…and leave social issues to individuals, churches and local communities,  then we would experience not a drop in election results, but a surge, a powerful surge that would not only be a death blow to psychosis that is social conservatives desire to rule over people’s bedrooms but also to the evil that is the Democrat desire to rule over our wallets.

 

Or we can just keep going as we always have and let these lunatics have too much influence in our party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny

Ayatollah Rick Santorum’s war against filthy non-Christians

“And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!” –Henry Drummond Inherit the Wind

Okay the title is intentionally hyperbolic…but I had to get your attention somehow.

But, frighteningly, it’s only mildly hyperbolic.

So over the weekend, after making us all wish we could burn out our eyes with images of his flabby form, Rick attended a rally and was introduced by pastor Dennis Terry in, what has to be the most surreal speech I have ever seen given to introduce a Presidential candidate.

“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation, The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac. There’s only one god, there’s only one god and his name is Jesus.”

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.

“We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god’s son Jesus Christ. “[emphasis added]

I’m just really shocked to hear Rick Santorum, a man who implied that all Protestants are in league with the devil, endorsing something like this. Now in his defense, Rick, possibly my least favorite bigot in the nation right now, has said he is not responsible for what other people say but (1) you are responsible when they’re introducing you, and (2) you are clearly clapping in the video and not hanging your head, shaking it thinking “dear god what have I gotten myself into”…you know as any sane human would be doing at that point. So your defense, Ricky, is nothing but the usual bunch of lies…which is really all you have. I really don’t know which I hate more your bleeding heart liberal economics or your psychotic religious beliefs, Rick, but you are clearly the worst of all possible combinations of positions.

So let’s start with the words that Rick Santorum clearly agrees with, the words that clearly advocate for a single minded intolerant theocracy. The words that are bigoted, close-minded, and let’s not forget vaguely anti-Semitic (which means Romney might not have Ron Paul as his VP, but Rick might).

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.”

You know if this had been followed by a statement of we do things here by civil and uncivil discourse…debate, discourse, and screaming our bloody heads off with insults…but not with violence and not with mob behavior then the call to get out might have been okay. If that statement had been followed by a condemnation of terrorism and violence and if you embrace those things you have no business in this country, that might have been appropriately hyperbolic. But what was it followed by “We don’t worship Buddha.” That’s right because the eightfold path is just such a Satanic way…and let’s just ignore the fact that Buddhist don’t actually worship Buddha, it’s more of the relationship between Catholics and saints in their relationship, calling on for help and guidance but not actually worshipping. No let’s just say that all other religions are not welcomed in the U.S. Yes because a nation which has a Constitutional law guaranteeing the freedom of religion is going to ban all religions other than Christianity. As a pagan I feel so comfortable about a Rick Santorum presidency. Because I remember all those sermons Jesus preached against Roman gods (you remember how he told the pagan Roman guard to go fuck himself when the guard pleaded for his servant, don’t you?), and the Jewish god, and all those sermons where he told the Jews that they must worship him and him alone. I clearly remember them in the Book of…the book of…chapter….oh well I’m sure they’re in there. After all Santorum and pastor Terry wouldn’t be basing their beliefs on only their small-minded ignorant prejudices, there must be scriptural backing for it. Just poor pagan me who has read the Bible several times must be forgetting those passages where Jesus told you to hate all who had different religious opinions…like that time when he told his followers to despise the group the ancient Jews had the most theological disagreements with, the Samaritans. There certainly must be a story in the Bible where he tells his followers to treat Samaritans as outsiders and others who deserve nothing but hatred. I’m sure of it.

But let’s move on.

“I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Really? Let’s look at the Founding. You know the Declaration of Independence. Written by Deist Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy who thought so highly of the Bible he felt it could use a little editing (down to about 20 pages) to get rid of all the useless stuff. But I’m sure a semi-educated response would respond that in reality the Declaration, while penned by Jefferson was the result of heavy discussion and editing by a committee of five people. Roger Sherman, Philip Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. Now Livingston, a Presbyterian, and Sheramn, a Congregationalist were clearly Christians…but Franklin, a Deist, and Adams, a Unitarian, the two who probably had the most influence on the document, both doubted the divinity of Christ (Adams even signing a treaty stating “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” that the Senate confirmed, that would be the 6th Senate still filled with many Founders…the same treaty Tripoli later broke and was used as the justification for Jefferson’s preemptive strike against the Barbary Pirates). Now while they may have doubted the divinity of Christ they did not doubt the necessity of both religion and spirituality but were not so close minded as to believe only one version of religion was all that should be allowed.

But it was only these three guys right? Well no. President of the Continental Congress (and first president under the Articles of Confederation) John Hancock and General and First President George Washington were both Freemasons…which means that while they may have been Episcopalians they would also not be restricted by any close-minded view that only their religion counted. If such a view was abhorrent to the Founding Fathers, one wonders why twice they would put their first president under two constitutions as a man who believed in the truth of all religions. (Oh, Chief Justice John Marshall, whose influence in creating a capitalistic system of laws cannot be overstated, was also a Freemason, but I’m sure the Senate, filled with Founding Fathers was opposed to such open minded beliefs when they confirmed him).

Were the majority of them Christian? Certainly. But none of them were the close-minded bigots that pastor Dennis Terry and Rick Santorum (D) have shown themselves to be. They believed in God back in those days, and weren’t all that particular about the name or the form of worship you had back then.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”—Thomas Jefferson…I’m sure Jefferson was advocating for only a Christian nation where there is only one God with that line.

But I’m sure they would have all supported the small minded nature of demanding all non-Christians leave America because, clearly, they have no place here. And I’m sure after pagans and Jews and non-believers are either deported or solved through some other kind of solution with a certain finality to it, that Mormons and Catholics and Episcopalians are next. Then I’m sure other Protestant denominations need to go. I’m sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment and state bills guaranteeing freedom of religion. Well I’m not sure of it, but I think Rick Santorum is.

We could go over the rest of this lunatic’s speech. I could tear every single phrase apart and show him to beyond the shadow of a doubt a psychopathic, vicious, evil and ignorant man whose vile knows no conscience, humanity or intelligence until you would be convinced that clearly Sherman didn’t go far enough on his march to the sea if it lead to even a minority in the South that behaved like this. I could, but what’s the point.

…..

Oh, and if you don’t believe that Rick is guided a little too heavily by religion, then listen to this little quote where he basically claims that God himself speaks to Rick Santorum.

“I don’t believe life begins at conception, I know life begins at conception.”

 

Whenever anyone claims to know something that can only be known to God…they’re either a prophet or a psychopath. Let’s guess which one Rick Santorum is.

2 Comments

Filed under Death, Election 2012, Faith, Fear, Founding, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Stupid liberal quote of the day

More stupid and evil quotes from Santorum…

Arroyo: Now you’ve conceded that you can’t win the majority of the delegates, right?

Rick Santorum: No. I haven’t conceded that at all. I think we can win the majority of the delegates. That’s phony Romney math.

You think you can win the majority of the delegates Rick, but you and your ignorant followers are the only ones. You’ve been averaging 25% of the delegates and you need 70% of those left. Even Don Quixote would look at you and say “I said impossible dream, not incredibly stupid denial of reality and all existence drug induced delusion.”

I don’t usually listen to talk radio, but I do have some respect for Laura Ingram…but whoever this idiot is sitting in for her gives hacks a bad name by letting Santorum, who is running for the position of Ayatollah of America, get away with so many idiotic statements and outright lies.

Where to begin?

“I would say just the opposite. I think what people don’t realize is as soon as we get a nominee, the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign—as well as all of the national media—will turn its guns on whoever our nominee is. And those guns will be trained on someone who will basically be out of money, having just gotten out of these primaries. Let’s assume that tomorrow everybody drops out and we have one nominee. Starting the next day the media will train all of their guns, as well as President Obama, on whoever that nominee is. Right now they can’t focus on anybody. I make this argument, I’ve made this argument from the beginning: The longer this argument goes the better it is for us because there’s less opportunity for the media to pound the heck out of our nominee.”

So his argument is that as long as there isn’t a nominee Obama has no one to attack. So either he’s mentally impaired and hasn’t actually caught onto the fact that Obama is already running attack ads against Romney, and doing everything to help Santorum become the nominee or he’s just a pathological liar. (Actually it’s option 3: Both). Rick is a moron’s moron. Rather than only having Obama attacking Romney, a fight we all know Obama is going to lose…but Obama, Santorum and Newt attacking Romney is better than just Obama attacking him? Strategic thinking like this would make for fascinating foreign policy “We can’t support Britain during the Blitz because that would only encourage Germany to attack them.” “We can’t continue to give Taiwan military support because siding with them will only encourage China to invade.” “We can’t back Israel because as long as we turn our back on them Iran will not do anything.”

Rick do you know why they’re attacking Romney now and not attacking you? Because if you were the nominee it would take roughly, I don’t, 48 hours to have the majority of the public demanding your head on a pike. They just have to play the “Protestants are the servants of Satan clip” and “if my daughter was raped, the child would be a gift from God” speeches. You have said, perhaps some of the dumbest things in the history of politics. They’re not targeting you because they know that while most of us could get liquored up and vote for McCain, we would need a few shot of tequila beyond fatal alcohol poisoning before we could be dumb enough to vote for you, someone who wants big government in the social arena and big government in economics.
I also love how he says a long campaign will drain the candidates’ resources financially….but a long primary won’t? Do you really want to trust the budget to a man who doesn’t understand that money spent in a primary is the same money you’d be spending in a general election. Of course one could reasonably mention that in a general election you aren’t splitting the Republican fundraising between three candidates, but again that bit of blindingly obvious reasoning would once again show Santorum to be a stupid jackass.

He also mentions that he thinks he can win, and I’ll deal with his, to put it politely, shit-for-brains plan to win the convention later, but did you also notice how he says he plans to make sure that Romney “hobbles into the convention, having lost a bunch of the last primary states and not shown his ability close the deal.” So he’s a weak candidate because he won’t be able to close the deal…but you’re a strong candidate because you can’t get anywhere near that mark. I’m very confused. Oh by the way those last primary states Romney is going to lose according to Santorum include California (Romney +20), New Jersey (Romney +5), Montana (Ron Paul might do well, but Santorum’s big government certainly won’t), New Mexico (I hope Ricky goes there and tells them they all have to learn English too, it will be fun to watch that reaction at the polls) and the last primary before the convention…Utah. Who thinks Romney is going to lose Utah? Ignoring religion, Romney is the man who made the Olympics bring their state millions of dollars and allowed their scandal over that thing to be forgotten. Yeah I’m sure he’s going to have a real hard fight to win Utah. One must wonder how much LSD Santorum is taking on a daily basis.

But in the mean time he’s looking to the next two races…
He’s heading to Puerto Rico…
To tell a territory that has voted 4 times not to become a state that if they want to become a state they have to learn English. And what does he do when he finds out they don’t want to be a state? He doubles down and tells them they still need to learn English… I’m all for English only here in the 50 states…but I don’t go down to Mexico and tell them they need to learn English there. Oh it will be a Happy St. Patrick’s Day for the Team Romney.

He’s heading To Louisiana
One it’s a closed primary, so there goes a third of his voters. Two…well, I have problems spending money on anything, and I mean ANYTHING, at the federal level…but if it’s a choice between the bridge to nowhere (Sarah Palin’s pet project) or sending said money to Katrina victims. Oooh tough call.

“Gov. Romney, for example, right now he’s spending very little money in Mississippi and Alabama.” Santorum said that Tuesday morning. You can hear him yourself say that. Notice however that Tuesday night he said he won in spite of all the money Romney spent. Yes you could point to the fact that Santorum goes into discussion of SuperPACS…but doesn’t he have his own SuperPAC…can’t they spend as much? No? You mean Santorum can’t get anyone with money to back him? You think if they despise him now they’re suddenly going to show up in August to back his pro-union, pro-loop hole, pro-spending economic plan? No I didn’t think so either.

“Mitt Romney has raised about as much money as he ever thought he could raise.” That would of course be several time the amount that you’ve raised Ricky.

Oh but wait. Let’s not forget that Santorum actually thinks he can win and that we’re lying when we say Romney is inevitable. Of course that is because we’re using, in your words, “phony Romney math.” That would be the math that says 2+2=4. I know your special pixy dust power Obama/Santorum math comes out differently. But trust me Ricky, Romney has this in the bag and you would need an act of God to support you…and I hate to tell you this, God is not the close-minded, bigoted, evil and stupid person you are (he probably loves you, no accounting for taste, but I doubt he’s going to pull out a miracle for you).

And then there is how he views the convention. “Iowa we finished with 25% of the vote; we’re probably going to get three times that number of delegates [from Iowa].” He is right that Iowa is a nonbinding caucus and thus it could happen…although Iowa has 28 delegates, so that’s what 21 delegates. According to RealClearPolitics there are 368 delegates from non-binding states…let’s say he got them all, even in states we haven’t yet had a vote…then that would give him a grand total (combined with what he’s won already) around 508 delegates, still, you know, less than half of what he needs. Wow. He would still need to win 50% of the remaining delegates and he’s been averaging about 25%…and he’s behind in almost every winner-take-all state (if you assume Romney picks up the winner-take-all states he’s currently ahead in, then Santorum needs to win about 75% of those delegates in proportional state…) But here’s the problem, those non-binding people are Republican Party delegates, i.e. they’re politicians and businessmen. The average GOP delegate is 54 years old, college educated, and makes over $100,000 all groups Romney kills Santorum in EVERY exit poll. Also 30% of delegates are women and 30% are Catholic, groups Santorum repeatedly loses. Santorum talks a nice game, but the reality is that those unbound delegates are actually his enemy not his friend. Also in his little warped mind he thinks that if he can stop Romney from getting the 1144 delegates needed (most projections now have Romney going in with 1200-1500, so dream on Ricky) he thinks that he can win on a second ballot. That would mean that all of the delegates Romney has selected in states where he had to submit slates of delegates he would have to have (after 4 years of planning) picked people in a rush without vetting them who might betray him. Unlikely. It’s far more likely that Santorum who can’t even find enough people to submit in states as his delegates picked some who will defect. Not to mention that I think Ron Paul delegates will have a much deeper hatred of Santorum than of Romney…and Newt supporters that defect are just as likely to hate Santorum more than Romney. So even if the mathematically unlikely happened and this did go to a second or third ballot, it’s actually stacked against Ayatollah Santorum.

I also like how he said he would protest Arizona and Florida for making their votes winner take all. It makes it sound like this will end up giving him more delegates. It won’t. Arizona and Florida have already been penalized by this move and had half their delegates (all of which went for Romney), so they are already playing by the rules since this was the penalty they knew about and it has been enforced. But let’s say he does go forward and challenges this, for two states where Romney won big and Santorum did very badly…under a full delegate count and proportional distribution Romney gets EVEN MORE delegates! Way to go Rick, that’s some real good planning you have there. Is your policy to stop Iran to ship them refined uranium? Maybe your plan to stop hunger is to burn crops? The obscene stupidity of this man is just endless.

Oh speaking of obscene…don’t forget Rick will be making banning ALL internet porn a hallmark of his administration…because there weren’t any other issues we needed to worry about.

But the real question is who is the True Conservative?

And notice how Rick Santorum judges if you’re a conservative or not. On social issues and ONLY social issues…I’m convinced if you could find a quote of Marx stating he was against abortion and gays, Rick would declare Karl a great conservative hero.

He votes for a bill to spend tax payer money to Planned Parenthood (and votes for it so that all of his unethical earmarks can get through as well) and justifies it with other corrupt politicians doing the same thing. So in Rick’s mind voting to spend tax payer dollars on something he doesn’t agree with is fine so long as he gets taxpayer dollars for what he wants to spend it on…increasing the size of government everywhere.

Romney gives his personal money to charity (I know making personal donations to charity is a rather odd concept to Santorum as he rarely does it) but says that we’re going to end federal funding to the very same organization he makes private donations to. Thus limiting the size and scope of government.

Santorum big government. Romney small government. Remind me again which ones conservatives like. And remind me again by saying you’re a conservative.

“He gave his own personal money. I voted for a large big appropriation bill.” It’s sad he thinks the offensive idea in this is money given to Planned Parenthood…where a real conservative would find the words “large big appropriation bill” to be the offensive part.   Rick finds it okay to give your money to someone that he abhors as long as he gets his. But making a personal donation with one’s own earned money (a concept that likely eludes Rick as all of his money comes from corruption) offends Rick to no end. After all it should be the government, under it’s religious leader Rick Santorum, which gets to decide what charities exist and which don’t. I’m Rick but giving my money to an organization that I oppose without my consent is far, far worse than someone else giving their money to that organization. And the fact that you don’t see that difference is beyond disgusting and beyond reason to making me fear what your administration would hold.

And the worst part is he actually says that he thinks Romney’s attack is accusing him of being “pro-choice.” He doesn’t even get it’s an attack on his spending of taxpayer money. He has no conception whatsoever of fiscal conservatism. All that matters to him is abortion. Abortion and gays. Gotta outlaw them all ‘cause Jesus had whole sermons on the evil gays and abortion (at least it appears there were whole sermons on that in Santorum’s special edition in the Bible which no other Catholic has ever seen, but a few crazy Evangelicals in Westboro also seem to have that copy).

To Santorum all that matters is whether you are willing to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states, make abortion and birth control illegal, everywhere, and of course making porn illegal. Because those are the things that are most important to Rick Santorum and his social conservatives. It does not matter that he believes in heavy government interference in the economy…he doesn’t oppose Obama because Obama is getting involved in the economy, he opposes Obama because he believes Obama isn’t getting involved in the right places.

Which makes him all the more the hypocrite by saying Romney had a government take over of healthcare…when in fact Romneycare was designed to prevent that. Santorum then goes on to say that Romney raised taxes by a billion dollars. That’s doubly a lie, first because it was $740 Million, but accuracy in numbers was never Rick’s strong suit. And second he didn’t raise taxes. He first closed a lot of loopholes in the Massachusetts’ tax system…which last time I checked was what we wanted to do at the federal level…oh wait those loopholes are designed to help pick winners and losers in the economy, a favorite thing for a socialist like Ricky. And he raised fees on a lot of services in Massachusetts…so instead of tax payers paying for services they didn’t use only the people who used those services paid for them. My God, how terribly capitalistic. I’m sure Rick’s grandfather, the one Rick speaks with endless praise of, the Communist Party Leader, is just spinning in his grave hearing how someone brought conservative capitalist reform that worked to increase revenue and treat everyone fairly to a blue state. So he didn’t raise taxes Rick, he just stopped the system from being rigged. Once again you have a hard time opening your mouth without lying or saying something stupid.

I also love “I never voted to increase spending.” This from the earmark king. And then he goes over all the other lies of Romney’s flip flops. I’ve dealt with all of those before. Oh and he lies about Romney supporting Obamacare, he never did. But if Rick Santorum has ever said a truthful word about Romney I’d be damned surprised.

“this is one of the most liberal guys we have ever had and for him to go out there and attack me as being a moderate is just truly laughable.” Sadly it’s not laughable that you, Rick, can consider your big government, pro-union, big spending total control of the economy ideas conservative. It’s not laughable, it’s disgusting. At least with most social conservatives they come with the virtue of wanting less government in the economy so they make decent allies in the fight of what is the biggest problem facing the nation right now. But you want government in every aspect of our lives. In our religion. In our homes, our beds, our work, our shopping. I would say that your mentality is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party, (but I can’t because, as I said usually, I get small government economics even in the worse aspects of the GOP)…your mentality, Rick, is everything that is wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a perverse mix of fanatic and intolerant religion with socialist economics. Every evil belief in the world can be found in the words of Rick Santorum.

I could go on. Every single thing this man says boils down into one of three categories (1) lies (2) stupidity (3) evil, usually in some Venn-Diagram level crossover. But really what’s the point. You can listen to it all on your own. Unlike Santorum who feels he should make all your decisions for you, I trust you can see the utter hypocrisy and despicableness of this petty excuse for a human being.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Romney Wins! An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Okay Romney won.  (Even with Rick call in the Dems).  For those of us who support Romney (i.e. those of us who actually looked at his record instead of swallowing what the media is trying to force feed us) this is a good day…

Mr. President

But to the rest of the Republican Party, the Newt supporters, the Santorum supporters (those who aren’t Democrats), the Paul supporters, we need to talk.  Guys, look, you’re just not going to get it.  The wins tonight give Romney another boost and hurt your guys even more.  Before tonight he had 99 delegates.  Tonight he got 29 from Arizona and will probably get around 15 for Michigan.  Add to that he’s ahead in Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Maryland (37), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40) and those are all winner-take-all primaries.  That’s 501 delegates of the needed 1144.  Wisconsin is the only other winner-take-all state with only 42 delegates.  Now add in his commanding leads in Massachusetts (41) and Virginia (49) and Mitt’s already got over half of the votes he needs locked down.  (When you factor in all the proportional votes from Super Tuesday (480, counting MA and VA which we know Mitt’s going to win) and add in all the other winner-take-all states Mitt will likely have close to 700 (quite possibly well over 700, but I’m being generous to Newt and Rick) delegates locked down by the end of Super Tuesday.  Which would mean of the 1103 delegates up for grabs Mitt would only have to get another 444 (give or take how many off from 700 he has) .  Wow, only 40% of the delegates.  I’m sure that will be so difficult especially after Newt and Rick go bankrupt as they’re about to any day now.  Face it.  Romney is going to be the nominee.  There will be no brokered convention, there will be no split party.  Romney’s it.  He’s also the one that Obama is afraid of!

Now you have three options.  You can pout and do nothing.  You can continue attacking Romney and do Obama’s work for him.  You can work to make sure we win the House and the Senate.

I understand if you can’t get behind Romney (well actually I can’t in this particular case, but as I would not vote for Santorum if he were the nominee I’m not going to say you must vote for Romney or work to get him elected if he were the nominee…although my anti-Santorum stance is based on reason, facts, and patriotism…your anti-Romney bias is based on what again?  Lunacy?  Anyway…) .  But even if you don’t like Romney pouting helps no one.  Civic duty requires that you participate actively in government in any way you can.

And attacking Romney is also not a valid option as it only helps Obama.  Levin, Hanity, Malkin, Shapiro, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan* I’m talking to you.  Shut the hell up.  Don’t like him.  Fine, don’t support him.  But that doesn’t mean you help our mutual enemy.  Even all of the Newt and Santorum supporters out there need to get a clue that as many problems as they have against Romney (all of them justified by lies, half-truths and misinformation) he’s better than Obama.  If you don’t like Romney, please just spend the rest of the year until November attacking Obama and his cronies and ONLY Obama and his cronies.  Hell, day after the election I’ll join you in being a critic of President Romney when he does the wrong thing, as I will critique any president when they screw up…but until we get Obama out hold off on attacking Romney, please, for the good of the country—you know that thing you claim to love (although by supporting Santorum I’m not really seeing it).

The third option, the one everyone who doesn’t like Romney should be taking, is making sure you do everything in your power to make sure that the House stays in Republican control and that the Republicans  take hold in the Senate.  According to RealClearPolitics 5 seats up for election are safe Republican seats with another 8 in the toss up category (and 4 Democratic seats are in the Lean Democrat category).  The goal, for those of you who don’t want to back Romney should be to make sure that both House and Senate are staunchly conservative, Tea Party Conservative, not just Republican.  So, playing in your ball park for just a second, if Romney is the flip-flopping politician you claim he is (even though he’s not) then he will have no choice but to always veer conservative as that is the only thing he will be able to do with a conservative Congress.  Hitting Romney will only waste resources in getting what you want, conservative policies.  And to those commentators I mentioned, given that you’re all very well off and you’ve already hurt this party with you divisive rhetoric, you should be donating the maximum to every major Senate and House race you can—that is the only way you can make up for this draw out violation of the 11th Commandment (especially considering most of you are backing an extreme economic liberal like Santorum).

So it’s up to you.  Show you care about this country or continue hitting Romney.  Your choice.

*On a side note I would like to take the time to point out that Michael Reagan’s endorsement of Newt shows that intelligence may be more dependent on genetics than environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

It’s story time…the story of the conservative who was called a liberal

It’s the tale of a former governor of what is possibly the most liberal state in the union. Let’s call him R. Early in life R was a big supporter of the most liberal president in history. Before R ran for president his only political position had been this governorship. Both times he ran against opposition in the primary his opponents chided for having only been the governor of a liberal state. But before R had been governor he had been the president of one of the largest private organizations in the country, having a stake in the one of the largest industries in the world. What did he do during this time? R made some deals that cost people a lot of money…and to this day he is hated for those choices…but his actions guaranteed people in the industry income for generations to come whereas only worrying about the immediate needs would have cost the future the wealth that was to come.*

As governor R did some things that conservatives didn’t like. He signed a bill that restricted unlimited gun rights. He singed a liberal bill about healthcare and abortion but later said he would not have signed it and was later firmly pro-life. R was a strong defender of the environment…He was also extremely tough on crime, but R’s pseudo-conservative foes really didn’t acknowledge this point.

As chief executive R tried to always be a fiscal conservative…but he had a problem. Liberals and a few RINOs controlled both houses of the legislature. And they wanted to some really liberal things. But he had things that he knew needed to be done. He knew he could fight the liberals tooth and nail on all their entitlement projects, or he could cut deals, he could soften the blows the liberals planned to the economy where he could and get conservative necessities in exchange for liberal pet projects. When he couldn’t cross certain lines he would just veto what he had to. Newt Gingrich as always called his plans foolish, suggested preposterous ideas that would never work and only end in failure…and when he couldn’t get what he wanted Newt, backstabber he is, just insulted our conservative.

The first time R ran for the presidency he lost to the establishment candidate. A weak willed RINO who questioned our conservative governor’s conservative credentials on every point. This allowed his critics, the second time he ran to claim that his economic ideas were either foolish or weren’t truly conservative…ignoring the fact that his opposition has supported big government programs for their entire lives.

But you know what happened. Conservatives forgave R his deals with liberals because they saw he was doing the best he could with the legislature he had. They not only forgave him…they all but anointed him a saint.

….oh wait…who did you think I was talking about? Romney? No, I was talking about Ronald Reagan.

Because the fact of the matter is there are some similarities. I’m not claiming that Romney is “The Great Communicator,” that he is not. Nor do I think he is as good a Reagan in a lot of ways…who is. But what I want to talk about here is the way we conservatives are holding a double standard.

Reagan allowed massive increases not just in spending but in deficit spending on entitlement programs because it was the only way he could get what he needed for his primary goal: the destruction of the Soviet Union. He even raised taxes a little after his initial tax cut. And there are a thousand other little deals he cut with the Democrat Congress that would usually be called anathema to Republicans if it weren’t for the fact that we understood there was a point and reason for doing those things. We saw the forest from the trees. We saw where his hands were tied and granted that given the situation he did the best he could and forgive him the liberal deals he cut because they served a greater good. And when liberals bitch about his deficit spending we rightly point out it was their Democratic House which did all the spending.

Now if you applied the same logic to Romney you look at it and say: Yes he created a mandate for health insurance in Massachusetts, but that was certainly better than putting everyone under government run healthcare and destroying the private sector in Massachusetts as the liberal legislature wanted to originally do. It was certainly more conservative, it was certainly more free market oriented. Had he gone to the mat and stood only for the free market he would have lost and you would have socialized medicine in Massachusetts that would make you yearn for the Canadian system. Was it perfect? No. Was it more free market than what the left wanted? Yes. What are the worst aspects of “Romneycare”? The parts that Romney either vetoed and was overridden by the Massachusetts legislature or the parts that the liberals put in after Romney left. (If we’re going to hold people responsible for legislation passed after their term in office, then Reagan is responsible for Obamacare, FDR and LBJ are responsible for welfare reform, and Lincoln is responsible for Jim Crow laws…wait that doesn’t sound right…yet somehow that’s the argument against Romney). Ann Coulter pointed this out.

Or perhaps you want to hit Romney for his indexing the minimum wage in the commonwealth to the inflation rate. Yes, let’s ignore that the liberals wanted it to outpace the inflation rate (i.e. create an economic apocalypse). Yes he should have fought against the highly liberal legislature who would usually override his vetoes (for instance he vetoed 250 bills one year, all of them were overridden ) or he could suggest something he could sell that wouldn’t completely destroy the economy. Yeah I can see how going to the mat would be the better call there. And recently he said his “thoughts” on the minimum wage “haven’t changed”…hmmm, he didn’t say he was going to raise it, only that his thoughts haven’t changed…to me that’s political speak for “I’m not going to say something that is going to get me in ever more trouble, but I’m not going to lie.” His thoughts could be that he would like to cut, he’s never said, we only know that his actions opposed letting it go higher than the inflation rate. How terrible.

Everything Romney did in Massachusetts was designed to be more businesses like, more conservative, more capitalistic than what the liberal legislature wanted…but still pragmatic enough to get passed because he knew if he fought the good fight then the liberals would just override his veto and get what they wanted.

We have always forgiven Reagan his liberal trespasses because we knew it was the best he could do. It is the most hypocritical double standard to say that Reagan’s best when cutting deals with liberals was fine…but Romney’s is not.

You can either accept that Reagan is a conservative and thus Romney is too. Or you can condemn Romney, which means you must condemn Reagan as well…and if you condemn Reagan then get the hell out of this party.

*[He unpopularly cut a deal with the studios that said actors would not get paid royalties on movies they did not have royalty guarantees on, but guaranteed that all actors would get residuals on all movies, TVs shows or other forms of cinema that were ever made after that deal.]

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes