Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
A simple syllogism:
(1) Liberals/socialists want government to provide wealth and benefits to folks who have not earned it, out of "fairness", or as Obama said, "to spread the wealth around";
(2) In order to accomplish this wealth transfer, liberals do two things: 1) they demonize wealth producers (i.e., business), and 2) they convince as many people as possible that they are victims and deserve the producers' wealth;
(3) Liberals also gain political power by enlarging the numbers of public employees who help implement and enforce the wealth transfer; the public employees in return pay union dues that go in large portion back to the liberal pols to keep them in power;
(4) Liberals push "green" policies that force, via government diktat and subsidies, what products and services will be provided to the consumer, regardless of what the consumer wants;
(5) All of this, as any simple-minded dolt can figure out, kills private incentive to take risk, hire workers, or expand production. Why? Because when the private economy is being "run" (i.e., broken) by know-nothing pols who put political dreams over basic economic principles, the private economy retracts, and businesses merely look for ways to ingratiate themselves with the pols and their priorities, not risk their asses in a "market" that is at the whim of idiots.
(6) Meanwhile, tax revenues go down because businesses aren't making profits, or are leaving states (e.g., California) that have liberal idiots at the helm (and the businesses, surprise!, move to the states where saner minds control -- e.g., Texas).
To summarize -- Liberalism is fantasy based upon the desires of so-called "educated" folks to realize their dreams for the lives of others, regardless of what the real world requires.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
HOPEY CHANGEY!
CARBON FOOTPRINT: “Last year Obama flew in Air Force One 172 times, almost every other day.”
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
SUAP=drone and not a smart one.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
AN IDEA WAY PAST OVERDUE.
FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER TODAY:
America needs a new national debate on the Constitution
It might seem unlikely that a lone law professor could spark a national discussion about the kind of government Americans want in the 21st century, but that's exactly what Georgetown Law School's Randy E. Barnett hopes to do with his modest proposal known as the Repeal Amendment. You can read Barnett's description of the plan and his response to critics of it like the New York Times here.
Under the plan, measures approved by Washington could be repealed if both houses in two-thirds of the state legislatures vote to do so. Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., is among the proposal's most significant supporters, which means it will receive serious attention during the 112th Congress convening this week. Whatever one's view of the propriety of amending the U.S. Constitution in the manner proposed by Barnett -- and for the record, we think the Repeal Amendment is a dandy way to restore the proper balance to our federal system -- the professor's idea could not be more appropriately timed.
For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. This fact is central to understanding why the vast majority of Americans -- 64 percent, according to Rasmussen Reports' Dec. 29 survey -- think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
For the same reason we regard the Repeal Amendment as a positive development in the current public policy dialogue, we think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document.
Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that "there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended.
MY COMMENT: But you see, to liberals, government power is the road to their dreams of a massive welfare state run by elites. To have that power checked by this kind of amendment is DEATH to liberals' goals.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
KRAUTHAMMER DEAD ON AGAIN:
Government by regulation. Shhh.
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 31, 2010
Most people don't remember Obamacare's notorious Section 1233, mandating government payments for end-of-life counseling. It aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law.
Well, it's back - by administrative fiat. A month ago, Medicare issued a regulation providing for end-of-life counseling during annual "wellness" visits. It was all nicely buried amid the simultaneous release of hundreds of new Medicare rules.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), author of Section 1233, was delighted. "Mr. Blumenauer's office celebrated 'a quiet victory,' but urged supporters not to crow about it," reports the New York Times. Deathly quiet. In early November, his office sent an e-mail plea to supporters: "We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists . . . e-mails can too easily be forwarded." They had been lucky that "thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it. . . . The longer this [regulation] goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
So much for the Democrats' transparency - and for their repeated claim that the more people learn what is in the health-care law, the more they will like it. Turns out ignorance is the Democrats' best hope.
And regulation is their perfect vehicle - so much quieter than legislation. Consider two other regulatory usurpations in just the past few days:
On Dec. 23, the Interior Department issued Secretarial Order 3310, reversing a 2003 decision and giving itself the authority to designate public lands as "Wild Lands." A clever twofer: (1) a bureaucratic power grab - for seven years up through Dec. 22, wilderness designation had been the exclusive province of Congress, and (2) a leftward lurch - more land to be "protected" from such nefarious uses as domestic oil exploration in a country disastrously dependent on foreign sources.
The very same day, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that in 2011 it would begin drawing up anti-carbon regulations on oil refineries and power plants, another power grab effectively enacting what Congress had firmly rejected when presented as cap-and-trade legislation.
For an Obama bureaucrat, however, the will of Congress is a mere speed bump. Hence this regulatory trifecta, each one moving smartly left - and nicely clarifying what the spirit of bipartisan compromise that President Obama heralded in his post-lame-duck Dec. 22 news conference was really about: a shift to the center for public consumption and political appearance only.
On that day, Obama finally embraced the tax-cut compromise he had initially excoriated, but only to avoid forfeiting its obvious political benefit - its appeal to independent voters who demand bipartisanship and are the key to Obama's reelection. But make no mistake: Obama's initial excoriation in his angry Dec. 7 news conference was the authentic Obama. He hated the deal.
Now as always, Obama's heart lies left. For those fooled into thinking otherwise by the new Obama of Dec. 22, his administration's defiantly liberal regulatory moves - on the environment, energy and health care - should disabuse even the most beguiled.
These regulatory power plays make political sense. Because Obama needs to appear to reclaim the center, he will stage his more ideological fights in yawn-inducing regulatory hearings rather than in the dramatic spotlight of congressional debate. How better to impose a liberal agenda on a center-right nation than regulatory stealth?
It's Obama's only way forward during the next two years. He will never get past the half-Republican 112th Congress what he could not get past the overwhelmingly Democratic 111th. He doesn't have the votes and he surely doesn't want the publicity. Hence the quiet resurrection, as it were, of end-of-life counseling.
Obama knows he has only so many years to change the country. In his first two, he achieved much: the first stimulus, Obamacare and financial regulation. For the next two, however, the Republican House will prevent any repetition of that. Obama's agenda will therefore have to be advanced by the more subterranean means of rule-by-regulation.
But this must simultaneously be mixed with ostentatious displays of legislative bipartisanship (e.g., the lame-duck tax-cut deal) in order to pull off the (apparent) centrist repositioning required for reelection. This, in turn, would grant Obama four more years when, freed from the need for pretense, he can reassert himself ideologically and complete the social-democratic transformation - begun Jan. 20, 2009; derailed Nov. 2, 2010 - that is the mission of his presidency.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Run and hide pussy shut up cut and run.
Dumbest fuker here, next to corn hole and fatty post crap and run.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
SU&P, let's look at your post:
A simple syllogism:
(1) Liberals/socialists want government to provide wealth and benefits to folks who have not earned it, out of "fairness", or as Obama said, "to spread the wealth around";
False, Liberals in the US want to support a middle class, not to simply give free handouts to those who don't want to work.
For your consideration: Where have all the jobs gone? What has the previous Bush tax cuts done for us since they have been enacted? Are we/you better off because of them??
(2) In order to accomplish this wealth transfer, liberals do two things: 1) they demonize wealth producers (i.e., business), and 2) they convince as many people as possible that they are victims and deserve the producers' wealth;
FALSE. The wealth transfer has already taken place. How much did you get??
(3) Liberals also gain political power by enlarging the numbers of public employees who help implement and enforce the wealth transfer; the public employees in return pay union dues that go in large portion back to the liberal pols to keep them in power;
Please regard this: Who keeps the Right in political power?
(4) Liberals push "green" policies that force, via government diktat and subsidies, what products and services will be provided to the consumer, regardless of what the consumer wants;
"Green policies that force what products and services will be provided to the consumer, regardless of what the consumer wants."
Please, expand on this notion (if you can).
(5) All of this, as any simple-minded dolt can figure out, kills private incentive to take risk, hire workers, or expand production. Why? Because when the private economy is being "run" (i.e., broken) by know-nothing pols who put political dreams over basic economic principles, the private economy retracts, and businesses merely look for ways to ingratiate themselves with the pols and their priorities, not risk their asses in a "market" that is at the whim of idiots.
Tell me, who offshored all the jobs? Where did they go and why?
(6) Meanwhile, tax revenues go down because businesses aren't making profits, or are leaving states (e.g., California) that have liberal idiots at the helm (and the businesses, surprise!, move to the states where saner minds control -- e.g., Texas).
When folks have no money to spend, guess what, tax revenues go down.
Again, where did the jobs go, and why?
To summarize -- Liberalism is fantasy based upon the desires of so-called "educated" folks to realize their dreams for the lives of others, regardless of what the real world requires.
I guess you must believe some of this stuff. But why?
Can any Right-winger answer any of my questions above? They are sincere.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
BHO and minions have decided to kill king coal at a very inopportune moment.
The Chinese have exported deflation to the US for the last decade. The US for the last few years using Q.E. has been exporting inflation to China. This two way exchange is now hitting the Chinese consumer in the wallet. It is affecting their ability to put expected food staples on the table at dinner time. This is also about the only way you can destabilize the Chinese government. The implications of that are farther reaching then this article…
Now what does coal and a flood in Australia have to do with this?
Read the article,
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china%E2%80%99s-grey-swan-changing-colors
and if we can get the three stooges to shut up for a while maybe we could have a reasonably intelligent discussion.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
"if we can get the three stooges to shut up for a while maybe we could have a reasonably intelligent discussion."
You cracked a funny.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
AC..I agree.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Didn't take 'em long to appear.
And in order even.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
You LIE!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
You LIE!
|
|
Captain...or Skully
climber
leading the away team, but not in a red shirt!
|
|
Actually, It's "Who is this Fatty of which you speak?"
Plus it sounds more elegant. Carry on.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I was thinking about all the money wasted on the military (not in the way that sounds...I'm a military supporter)....on unneccessary bases, etc.
Apparently some Rep from Oklahoma was spouting off this weekend about how they'd banned Sharia law in his state, and they had all these military bases to back it up. I'm not sure that I thought that Oklahoma was at great risk of adopting Sharia, but I DO wonder what they need military bases to protect them FROM? I can't quite imagine the Russians parachuting in to take over whatever they grow in Ok.
But that got me looking, and I'm not sure that I realized that the Marines had their Mountain Warfare Training School right outside of Bridgeport. This is where they train for Afghan, etc.
Their instructors (red hats) training program looks....interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Warfare_Training_Center
|
|
Captain...or Skully
climber
leading the away team, but not in a red shirt!
|
|
Ending a sentence with a preposition? Yowza.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
Ron,
Go beyond just one link and read, analyze & comprehend, before trying to pull your head out of your ass which I'm convinced you'll never be able to do.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=340859&CategoryId=10718
//"But Brazil has been forced to seek external financing because the fields pose an enormous technical and financial challenge due to the depth and thickness of the salt and the drastic changes in temperature as the oil is brought to the surface.
Acknowledging that Petrobras alone is not capable of developing the massive pre-salt reserves, Brazil announced in May that it will invite international oil companies to bid for concessions in that region beginning next year."//
( Fattrad-style comment ) Let them f*#k up their coast so we can learn and benefit.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Why would Ron post what he could have easily verified himself was not true?
I just don't get it.
Ron seems the kind of guy to always check things out first before he decides to believe.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
No Ron, wrong again.
Any oil extracted from that area would be for sale on the world free market.
You may well end paying for some of it yourself in your gas tank.
But you already knew that.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
You LIE!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!