Showing posts with label Brain Farts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brain Farts. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Brain Farts from the Interwebz:
Timely musing of the upcomming second Civil War found on the Web recently.
Those who claim these deplatformings and bannings are not censorship "because private corporations" are being disingenuous. A corporation is not an actual person, it is a government entity that is deemed "a juristic person" by the government. Corporations are not people, they have no unalienable rights, and it is long past time for the people to begin reining them in.
Governments won't let you leave Big Tech, and create your own spaces. The solutions to "hate speech," "missinformation," "fake news," all require Big Tech to stay big because only the very largest companies can afford to implement the systems these laws demand.
Establishment Republicans. They are like the Washington Generals. They are patsies for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Leftist elites and their minions are going to find out Trump wasn’t protecting us from them. It was protecting them from us. And their escalating the repressive measures and getting the potted plant to declare us thought criminals is only going make things worse.
What is the point of trying to maintain the Union with people who wish to "re-educate" you?
Facebook Suspends Ron Paul Following Column Criticizing Big Tech Censorship: By suspending Ron Paul, it becomes clear that ‘safety’ may not be Big Tech’s primary goal.
We can all agree that because Congressman Steve Scalise's attempted assassin was radicalized by the teachings of Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi, they and their followers should be banned.
I'm old enough to remember when the Internet wasn't a group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four.
The, "If you don't like it go make your own" idea is now dead. The elites have now said, "What, we didn't mean for you to actuall make your own. You can't do that, you have to use what we control."
The formation ofthe USA, with the first words of our constitution "We the People" was a slap in the face to the our ruling betters. Since then they have been trying to wipe out the idea that you should have the liberty to determine how you should live. They can't (and obviously won't) allow true indipendent people to be elected. It's now to the point they can, and have, rigged the election results and expect you to accept them.
When the alleged victor is scared enough to want to silence everyone else? It’s bad. They’re scared. They are also nearly invincibly stupid.
The First Amendment protects against government censorship. But in 2020, most political debate happens on large social-media platforms. Facebook and Twitter are the modern public square. Thus, if our society’s commitment to free speech is to have any meaning, our government must constrain large social-media companies from censoring Americans’ lawful speech.
Poland protects freedom of speech better than the USA. Their Justice Minister, Zbigniew Ziobro, announced last month that the Polish government would enact a law constraining Big Tech from censoring their citizens. Polish users who are victims of censorship can go to a new Polish court, get an injunction forcing the company to restore their account and their content, on penalty of a fine of as much as 1.8 million euros.
The destruction of the freedom of speech in America today is being carried out by the Leftist establishment that dominates the political sphere, the social media giants, the establishment media, the educational system. The Left is using the Capitol riot of January 6 as its Reichstag Fire moment to criminalize, silence, and destroy utterly not just President Trump, but all Americans who still dare to oppose its sinister woke totalitarianism.
The Establishment has decided to address the grievances of people who feel disenfranchised, silenced, and subjected to double standards with much more disenfranchisement, silencing, and double standards.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Fringe Whackjob
by Tom Rhodes, 2/15/2019
Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a fringe Whackjob, or is she just bringing the Democrat party out of the closet?
Clearly the Democrat party has abandoned liberalism for authoritarian principles. They clearly recognize that they cannot reach their Utopian dreams if they continue to embrace liberal principles. The Democrats are now an authoritarian socialist party. There is no way that the Democrat party can claim to be liberal.
Liberals used to be defined as people who believed in Liberalism, which is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, where the governments purpose is to insure and protect individual rights and civil liberties of all equally, guaranteeing the rule of law, and equality under the law.
Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
The Democrats have and are rejecting the will of the people, they commonly refer to the masses as “flyover country,” deplorables, etc. The current Democrat positions:
Reject Religious Liberty
Legalize Infanticide
End the Second Amendment and Your Right to Self Defense
End Free Speech through “hate speech” laws
Anti-Semitism
End Due Process
Different rules for Elite than Masses
Green New Deal(GND)
None of the current policies and objectives of the Democrat party are liberal. They are even openly racist calling for segregation on our college campuses. I cannot find anywhere Democrats want to protect or increase individual liberty, economic freedom, or civil rights. Clearly today’s Democrats want to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Other than the Third Amendment all of the Bill of Rights is getting in the way of how the Democrats want the power to control all aspects of how all Americans life. They are openly calling to end our Constitutional Republic and replace it with some oligarchy not bound by any of the restrictions that, We The People, placed on them. Democrats clearly chafe at the idea that the mere masses, don’t accept their superiority, and that the will of the people should be ignored because the ruling elites know best how everybody should live. The Democrats are clearly Authoritarian.
Ocasio-Cortez Occasional-Cortex is not a fringe fruitcake of the Democrat party, she and all those who support the GND, are the reality of what the Democrats believe. It is not liberal, or conservative, but leftist authoritarianism. Occasional-Cortex in a recent interview came out and said that to enact the GND there would necessarily be some totalitarian actions by government.
Psychology Today lists What You Can Expect From an Authoritarian. Clearly the actions and attitude of today’s Democrat party reject liberalism and embrace all the top 10 traits of Authoritarians:
Hatred.
Punishment and Cruelty.
Violence, Aggression, and Assaultive Behavior.
Threats and Scare Tactics.
Quixotic, Unclear Rules.
Paranoia and Enemies’ Lists.
Truth Held as Enemy.
Shaming Efforts, Derision, and Ridicule.
Rigidity and Obsession with Control.
Intrusiveness.
Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a fringe Whackjob, or is she just bringing the Democrat party out of the closet?
Clearly the Democrat party has abandoned liberalism for authoritarian principles. They clearly recognize that they cannot reach their Utopian dreams if they continue to embrace liberal principles. The Democrats are now an authoritarian socialist party. There is no way that the Democrat party can claim to be liberal.
Liberals used to be defined as people who believed in Liberalism, which is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
The Democrats have and are rejecting the will of the people, they commonly refer to the masses as “flyover country,” deplorables, etc. The current Democrat positions:
Force Home Reconstruction
Outlaw 99% of Private Vehicles
Eliminate Nuclear Energy
Ban Affordable Energy
End most Air Travel
Forced Government Healthcare
Nationalize Banks
End right to spend money on speech
Replace Republic of USA with Democracy
Abolish Electoral College
Establish Federal Control of heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation
Ban Meat
Provide Income to those Unwilling to Work
The GND is supposedly about Climate Change, but most of the proposed ideas in the GND have nothing to to do with Climate Change, the proposal is instead an authoritarian wish list to end the Constitution.
None of the current policies and objectives of the Democrat party are liberal. They are even openly racist calling for segregation on our college campuses. I cannot find anywhere Democrats want to protect or increase individual liberty, economic freedom, or civil rights. Clearly today’s Democrats want to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Other than the Third Amendment all of the Bill of Rights is getting in the way of how the Democrats want the power to control all aspects of how all Americans life. They are openly calling to end our Constitutional Republic and replace it with some oligarchy not bound by any of the restrictions that, We The People, placed on them. Democrats clearly chafe at the idea that the mere masses, don’t accept their superiority, and that the will of the people should be ignored because the ruling elites know best how everybody should live. The Democrats are clearly Authoritarian.
Psychology Today lists What You Can Expect From an Authoritarian. Clearly the actions and attitude of today’s Democrat party reject liberalism and embrace all the top 10 traits of Authoritarians:
Monday, June 4, 2012
Politically Incorrect Brain Farts
By Tom Rhodes, 06/04/2012
White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy on Health Care,Nancy-Ann DeParle, met with big-pharmaceutical companies and told them that if they didn't support Obamacare, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate [kickback] on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising. This was reported in the Washing Times, which noted that capitulating with Obama's administration on Obamacare saves big-pharmaceutical companies about $100BILLION over 10 years. Why is government extortion of business legal in the USA, but Walmart is penalized and demonized when they payoff Mexican officials to build stores across the border?
Why is our society letting the 2-4% of deviants force the 96-98% of society which conforms to eons old traditional ethics, re-arrange their beliefs on behalf of those deviants?
Why are we surprised our government is dysfunctional when our society has given a small group of fallible people trillions of other people's money and the power to dictate its redistribution?
The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch mandates a two year ban on any kind of direct involvement with a previous employer, client or co-worker. Why has the rule of law, and our ethics been negated for people like Craig Becker, former lawyer for the Service employees International Union (SEIU) who, who by recess appointment, served as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and now serves as general counsel to the AFL-CIO?
By what rational standard considering our founding documents as framed by our forefathers can controlling what and how much people eat and drink to be a function of government?
Why in the NBA is the under-representation of black coaches is a problem, but under-representation of white players not?
Suggested reading: David Harsanyi's Nanny State: How Fast Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children
Why is it not racist for the City of LA to ban new fast food restaurants in South LA because poor minorities are too stupid to make their own food choices?
Why are mind altering substances created from fermented grains and fruit legal, but those smoked or ingested from leaves or flowers not?
The Great Society promised better for inner city poor, delivered the "projects". Obamacare promised cheaper health care and keeping your plan if you wanted, delivered increased costs and loss of insurance choices. Nixon's war on drugs promised a better society, delivered death by swat team and massive incarceration. Why do American voters keep buying political rhetoric of the two major parties accepting their promises of heaven but delivery of hell?
Earning something is not the same as winning something. Most cultures don't understand or even recognize the difference and their languages reflect this lack of fundamental understanding. Much of the hatred for the USA in other parts of the world is reflected in this fundamental misunderstanding. In English the verb earn has several meanings all similar:
1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: i.e. to earn one's living.
2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: i.e.to receive more than one has earned.
3. to acquire through merit: i.e.to earn a reputation for honesty.
4. to gain as due return or profit: i.e. Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: i.e. His fair dealing earned our confidence.
Winning something however may or may not be associated with service or effort or what is justly due. You can win a race by superior effort, but you can also win a lottery by luck, or you can win a position by the favor of another. Winning something implies some luck, or other outside influence over what someone gains, whereas earning something only implies gaining through merit or what is justly due. This subtle difference is important. The wealth, power, freedom, and liberty Americans have was earned, not won. Societies that don't comprehend or understand the difference hate the USA because they don't believe that what the USA has is merited. This is why Marxism and its derivative socialism, fail, it is based on redistribution of winnings, ignoring the fact that in a free society people gain based on what they individually merit. Why have we allowed statists to confuse winning and earning in our society?
Overall violent crime is way down and near historic lows while at the same time gun ownership is at near historic highs. While correlation does not equal causation, why does most of the mainstream press insist on equating more guns to more crime, when the evidence points to the opposite and no evidence supports the emotional but irrational idea that less guns would make us safer?
White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy on Health Care,Nancy-Ann DeParle, met with big-pharmaceutical companies and told them that if they didn't support Obamacare, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate [kickback] on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising. This was reported in the Washing Times, which noted that capitulating with Obama's administration on Obamacare saves big-pharmaceutical companies about $100BILLION over 10 years. Why is government extortion of business legal in the USA, but Walmart is penalized and demonized when they payoff Mexican officials to build stores across the border?
Why is our society letting the 2-4% of deviants force the 96-98% of society which conforms to eons old traditional ethics, re-arrange their beliefs on behalf of those deviants?
Why are we surprised our government is dysfunctional when our society has given a small group of fallible people trillions of other people's money and the power to dictate its redistribution?
The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch mandates a two year ban on any kind of direct involvement with a previous employer, client or co-worker. Why has the rule of law, and our ethics been negated for people like Craig Becker, former lawyer for the Service employees International Union (SEIU) who, who by recess appointment, served as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and now serves as general counsel to the AFL-CIO?
By what rational standard considering our founding documents as framed by our forefathers can controlling what and how much people eat and drink to be a function of government?
Why in the NBA is the under-representation of black coaches is a problem, but under-representation of white players not?
Suggested reading: David Harsanyi's Nanny State: How Fast Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children
Why is it not racist for the City of LA to ban new fast food restaurants in South LA because poor minorities are too stupid to make their own food choices?
Why are mind altering substances created from fermented grains and fruit legal, but those smoked or ingested from leaves or flowers not?
The Great Society promised better for inner city poor, delivered the "projects". Obamacare promised cheaper health care and keeping your plan if you wanted, delivered increased costs and loss of insurance choices. Nixon's war on drugs promised a better society, delivered death by swat team and massive incarceration. Why do American voters keep buying political rhetoric of the two major parties accepting their promises of heaven but delivery of hell?
Earning something is not the same as winning something. Most cultures don't understand or even recognize the difference and their languages reflect this lack of fundamental understanding. Much of the hatred for the USA in other parts of the world is reflected in this fundamental misunderstanding. In English the verb earn has several meanings all similar:
1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: i.e. to earn one's living.
2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: i.e.to receive more than one has earned.
3. to acquire through merit: i.e.to earn a reputation for honesty.
4. to gain as due return or profit: i.e. Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: i.e. His fair dealing earned our confidence.
Winning something however may or may not be associated with service or effort or what is justly due. You can win a race by superior effort, but you can also win a lottery by luck, or you can win a position by the favor of another. Winning something implies some luck, or other outside influence over what someone gains, whereas earning something only implies gaining through merit or what is justly due. This subtle difference is important. The wealth, power, freedom, and liberty Americans have was earned, not won. Societies that don't comprehend or understand the difference hate the USA because they don't believe that what the USA has is merited. This is why Marxism and its derivative socialism, fail, it is based on redistribution of winnings, ignoring the fact that in a free society people gain based on what they individually merit. Why have we allowed statists to confuse winning and earning in our society?
Overall violent crime is way down and near historic lows while at the same time gun ownership is at near historic highs. While correlation does not equal causation, why does most of the mainstream press insist on equating more guns to more crime, when the evidence points to the opposite and no evidence supports the emotional but irrational idea that less guns would make us safer?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Questions the News has brought to Mind?
Random questions concerning liberty brought to mind by current events.
Why does Obamacare have a provision on gold purchases and sales, adding additional tax to people who choose to purchase this metal, but not steel, aluminum, etc? And what do additional taxes and the tracking of individuals who purchase gold have to do with Healthcare?
According to the FBI, the rate of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults declined by 4.4 percent compared with the previous year. It has been widely reported that poverty increased significantly over the same time from. Since Liberals for years have been telling us that poverty causes crime, how can this be?
If polygamists were not allowed to redefine marriage to suit themselves, why should homosexuals be allowed to?
I know people who are blind or retarded but who have jobs. Please explain to me why I should have sympathy for able-bodied men begging on the streets.
Dan Quayle misspelled potato and the press forever more ridiculed him for being stupid. Candidate Obama claimed the US had more than 57 states and the press gave him a pass. Is this evidence that the liberal press is prejudice and because the president is black is not expected to demonstrate the same intellect as white politicians?
Should an individuals' economic well-being no longer determined by how much their goods and services are valued by those who pay for them, but by politicians in Washington?
Medicare is currently bankrupt, plagued with failure to pay problems, and more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare patients. The Heath Care Reform Act (Obamacare) will cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars over a decade, and cut the value of Medicare Advantage by an average of 27 percent by 2017. Where are they going to find doctors willing to work for less than they do now?
The State of Maryland created a special tax on rich people which they estimated would increase Maryland’s tax revenue by approximately $106 million. The results were that Maryland’s tax revenues did not go up but decreased by $257 million. Obama himself said that he knew raising taxes on the rich would not increase government revenues, but that it was about fairness not increasing revenue. Why when faced with historic evidence that raising the taxes on the rich total government revenue goes down, do liberals in government insist on saying that if they don’t raise taxes on the rich the government will lose billions of dollars?
Negotiating with a cannibal - The cannibal’s position is to consume all of you; your position is for the cannibal to consume none of you. When you refuse the cannibal’s compromise position of just letting him eat your left arm and negotiate for the rest later, he screams that you are unreasonable and won’t compromise. Why does compromising with a liberal feel like negotiating with a cannibal?
Government gets all its money by taking it from individuals. Taxes are not illegal but are collected under the threat of force. A tax cut does not mean that the government is giving money to whomever gets the tax cut, it means that the government is taking less from that person. If all people are equal with the same rights how is it just that some people are taxed at a different rate than others?
Since we can measure how much it basic consumption is necessary for each individual, and hyper-consumption is considered bad, rather than taxing production (income from products or labor sold) wouldn’t it make sense and be fair to tax everybody a percentage of what they consume over and above the basic necessities of life?
Why does Obamacare have a provision on gold purchases and sales, adding additional tax to people who choose to purchase this metal, but not steel, aluminum, etc? And what do additional taxes and the tracking of individuals who purchase gold have to do with Healthcare?
According to the FBI, the rate of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults declined by 4.4 percent compared with the previous year. It has been widely reported that poverty increased significantly over the same time from. Since Liberals for years have been telling us that poverty causes crime, how can this be?
If polygamists were not allowed to redefine marriage to suit themselves, why should homosexuals be allowed to?
I know people who are blind or retarded but who have jobs. Please explain to me why I should have sympathy for able-bodied men begging on the streets.
Dan Quayle misspelled potato and the press forever more ridiculed him for being stupid. Candidate Obama claimed the US had more than 57 states and the press gave him a pass. Is this evidence that the liberal press is prejudice and because the president is black is not expected to demonstrate the same intellect as white politicians?
Should an individuals' economic well-being no longer determined by how much their goods and services are valued by those who pay for them, but by politicians in Washington?
Medicare is currently bankrupt, plagued with failure to pay problems, and more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare patients. The Heath Care Reform Act (Obamacare) will cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars over a decade, and cut the value of Medicare Advantage by an average of 27 percent by 2017. Where are they going to find doctors willing to work for less than they do now?
The State of Maryland created a special tax on rich people which they estimated would increase Maryland’s tax revenue by approximately $106 million. The results were that Maryland’s tax revenues did not go up but decreased by $257 million. Obama himself said that he knew raising taxes on the rich would not increase government revenues, but that it was about fairness not increasing revenue. Why when faced with historic evidence that raising the taxes on the rich total government revenue goes down, do liberals in government insist on saying that if they don’t raise taxes on the rich the government will lose billions of dollars?
Negotiating with a cannibal - The cannibal’s position is to consume all of you; your position is for the cannibal to consume none of you. When you refuse the cannibal’s compromise position of just letting him eat your left arm and negotiate for the rest later, he screams that you are unreasonable and won’t compromise. Why does compromising with a liberal feel like negotiating with a cannibal?
Government gets all its money by taking it from individuals. Taxes are not illegal but are collected under the threat of force. A tax cut does not mean that the government is giving money to whomever gets the tax cut, it means that the government is taking less from that person. If all people are equal with the same rights how is it just that some people are taxed at a different rate than others?
Since we can measure how much it basic consumption is necessary for each individual, and hyper-consumption is considered bad, rather than taxing production (income from products or labor sold) wouldn’t it make sense and be fair to tax everybody a percentage of what they consume over and above the basic necessities of life?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Hard Questions
Musing over which ideas to use for the next blog entry, all of the below questions are running through my rather cloudy grey matter. Rather than create an entire article on each, I gathered the ideas and in the Socratic Method put them to you as questions, about society and on liberty.
For most of human history, men have been expected to take care of their families. 50+ years ago the overwhelming majority of American men saw themselves as providers. If a man impregnated a woman, he usually married her. A man went to work and provided for his children. A man didn’t want to take any handouts. This was the definition of a man. More than 40% of children in America today are born without fathers, why? More importantly why do women today tolerate and accept males who don’t act like men?
Natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. Should we allow our government to enter into treaties with other nations that restrict our unalienable rights as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights?
Should the government be able to ban the use of salt, in all food cooked or served at restaurants? What would be the constitutional basis for such a law?
As an individual citizen, is it more American to believe that you have a personal responsibility to be personally accountable for your actions, and those of your family? Or is it more American to believe that you should wait for the giant collective to take care of you?
Should be the requirement of the neighbor who eats fresh vegetables to pay for the costly therapy of the guy who lunches daily on Big Macs?
Should the government be allowed to detain a person and confiscate any “dangerous” property, if they think the person might at some future time use it illegally?
Should the health non-smoker have to pay for the lung cancer/heart treatments of a smoker?
Should the average guy who worked hard in school, learned a trade, and works hard at providing for himself, be required to feed the family of a lazy man who dropped out of school and made bad decisions throughout his life?
For most of human history, men have been expected to take care of their families. 50+ years ago the overwhelming majority of American men saw themselves as providers. If a man impregnated a woman, he usually married her. A man went to work and provided for his children. A man didn’t want to take any handouts. This was the definition of a man. More than 40% of children in America today are born without fathers, why? More importantly why do women today tolerate and accept males who don’t act like men?
Natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. Should we allow our government to enter into treaties with other nations that restrict our unalienable rights as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights?
Should the government be able to ban the use of salt, in all food cooked or served at restaurants? What would be the constitutional basis for such a law?
As an individual citizen, is it more American to believe that you have a personal responsibility to be personally accountable for your actions, and those of your family? Or is it more American to believe that you should wait for the giant collective to take care of you?
Should be the requirement of the neighbor who eats fresh vegetables to pay for the costly therapy of the guy who lunches daily on Big Macs?
Should the government be allowed to detain a person and confiscate any “dangerous” property, if they think the person might at some future time use it illegally?
Should the health non-smoker have to pay for the lung cancer/heart treatments of a smoker?
Should the average guy who worked hard in school, learned a trade, and works hard at providing for himself, be required to feed the family of a lazy man who dropped out of school and made bad decisions throughout his life?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Brain Farts
This is a bunch of random musings from reading the news today that has come to mind.
Obama is the "Leader" of the USA, he promised transparency in government. Why doesn't he ask the legislature to allow the people to see the healthcare bill before it's voted on?
Obama in earlier times publicly and privately associated himself with people who have professed to hate the USA; Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, etc. Obama's biggest international fans are Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, and Putin (well they all publicly praise him). These same international Obama fans can arguably be the biggest enemies of freedom and democracy in the world. Obama's wife actually said she was ashamed of the USA (until her hubby was nominated for Pres.). Pres. Obama himself said that the "Constitution was a problem" in implementing big changes. Obama himself says he doesn't want to hear from those who oppose his views. Why when anybody adds up all the facts and says Obama is against the individual liberty, individual rights, the US Constitution, and the American Dream, they are called alarmist, racist, dumb, etc. ? Are liberals afraid of the truth? Why not say they are for Big-Government Corporatism, and reduced rights for individuals?
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ""Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong."
What happened to open debate on health care on CSPAN like Obama promised?
The Nanny State is here. In Philly, principal's not parents are now responsible for making sure kids get breakfast. LINK This is the problem with our society, nobody is held responsible for their choices they make in their own lives, parents aren't responsible for their kids, the government is now responsible to take care of us. Just like when you are a kid, your parents are responsible for you can tell you what to do, you have no say, as a society if we are no longer responsible for ourselves then the whoever is responsible can and will tell us what to do, regardless of what we want. Think Mayor Bloomberg, who has made it illegal to cook with lard, smoke in the park, and is spending $24million to add more cameras to monitor everybody in midtown.
I loved this one liner from Thomas Sowell - "The older I get, the more I learn to tolerate human shortcomings-- and the less I tolerate bad attitudes."
Questions neither republicans nor Democrats will answer.
What party actually stands for Liberty?
What party believes in individualism, self-determination, and autonomy?
Why should corporations get tax breaks that individuals are not allowed?
One of the major points form a new book on leadership, Master Leaders, by George Barna is that candor and transparency are characteristics of successful organizations and companies. Obama talked about and promised transparency during his campaign, but his actions are anything but candid and transparent. The obvious failure of his stimulus, failure of auto and bank bailouts, and failure to keep the jobless rate from going over 8.8% are evident. Although charismatic he is demonstrably not a leader.
What is Obama's vision for America and why hasn't he clearly articulated it?
Obama is the "Leader" of the USA, he promised transparency in government. Why doesn't he ask the legislature to allow the people to see the healthcare bill before it's voted on?
Obama in earlier times publicly and privately associated himself with people who have professed to hate the USA; Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, etc. Obama's biggest international fans are Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, and Putin (well they all publicly praise him). These same international Obama fans can arguably be the biggest enemies of freedom and democracy in the world. Obama's wife actually said she was ashamed of the USA (until her hubby was nominated for Pres.). Pres. Obama himself said that the "Constitution was a problem" in implementing big changes. Obama himself says he doesn't want to hear from those who oppose his views. Why when anybody adds up all the facts and says Obama is against the individual liberty, individual rights, the US Constitution, and the American Dream, they are called alarmist, racist, dumb, etc. ? Are liberals afraid of the truth? Why not say they are for Big-Government Corporatism, and reduced rights for individuals?
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ""Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong."
What happened to open debate on health care on CSPAN like Obama promised?
The Nanny State is here. In Philly, principal's not parents are now responsible for making sure kids get breakfast. LINK This is the problem with our society, nobody is held responsible for their choices they make in their own lives, parents aren't responsible for their kids, the government is now responsible to take care of us. Just like when you are a kid, your parents are responsible for you can tell you what to do, you have no say, as a society if we are no longer responsible for ourselves then the whoever is responsible can and will tell us what to do, regardless of what we want. Think Mayor Bloomberg, who has made it illegal to cook with lard, smoke in the park, and is spending $24million to add more cameras to monitor everybody in midtown.
I loved this one liner from Thomas Sowell - "The older I get, the more I learn to tolerate human shortcomings-- and the less I tolerate bad attitudes."
Questions neither republicans nor Democrats will answer.
One of the major points form a new book on leadership, Master Leaders, by George Barna is that candor and transparency are characteristics of successful organizations and companies. Obama talked about and promised transparency during his campaign, but his actions are anything but candid and transparent. The obvious failure of his stimulus, failure of auto and bank bailouts, and failure to keep the jobless rate from going over 8.8% are evident. Although charismatic he is demonstrably not a leader.
What is Obama's vision for America and why hasn't he clearly articulated it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
