Yep... the Democrat Hate Machine (DHM). You know... the folks that hate achievement, logic, reason, and everything they produce?
It's pretty easy to see that we're pretty much teetering on the edge of Real Trouble with all of this oil stuff. Since Pelosi's Politburo took office, national average gas prices are up from $2.10/gal to over $4.00 a gallon. In spite of the IMMEDIATE drop in oil prices upon the mere mentioning by the President that he was killing restrictions on drilling from his office, the Politburo still claims (without ANY justification) that it would take 10 years for any drilling to lower gas prices.
Today, the Say Anything Blog pointed out that it would take much to militarily cripple the US by restricting oil imports. I mean really... how hard could it be when just a little blip in demand and a socialist majority in Congress cause the gas prices to shoot through the roof? And in the face of this glaring vulnerability, the Politburo still won't allow drilling in ANWR or off-shore in massive deposits.
Kudos to the Congressional Republicans drawing attention to this yesterday. The so-called "People's Party"... the tolerant party that SO concerned about everyone's rights turned the lights and microphones off on the people that are trying the hardest to do the "People's Work" and address this crisis... so they could go on vacation.
Something tells me that it just got a whole lot easier for Congressional Republicans to take back the majority in 2008. It won't stop our inexorable slide to the left, but hopefully it'll slow things down.
BTW... how does Senator Obama address the issues of high energy prices? By planning to tax "windfall profits" of oil companies and redistributing this money to his proletariate in the form of $500 and $1,000 checks. I thought that the minimum wage increase would have taken care of this. Wait... the reality of that is that jobs will be lost, prices will go up, and the people that this was supposed to be for will be hardest hit.
It's truly sad that this nation has allowed itself to become one populated by foolish, ignorant voters. It is they who have allowed the DHM to gain such a foothold in our leadership. And it is they who will eventually cost us our freedom.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
7.19.2008
Points for the day...
First... the Science & Public Policy Institute is reporting that it has been mathematically proven that global warming is not happening.
It won't matter, though... after all, the religion of global warming thrives on faith just as much as any other religion. It doesn't matter how much science you throw at it, people will still blindly believe.
Next, apparently Chicago's ban on handgun ownership is working very well: they're calling in the National Guard to help with the violent crime problem there.
Finally, Reason.com is reporting that even though socialists everywhere would have us believe that "the middle class is shrinking", not only is it simply not true, people don't care.
It won't matter, though... after all, the religion of global warming thrives on faith just as much as any other religion. It doesn't matter how much science you throw at it, people will still blindly believe.
Next, apparently Chicago's ban on handgun ownership is working very well: they're calling in the National Guard to help with the violent crime problem there.
Finally, Reason.com is reporting that even though socialists everywhere would have us believe that "the middle class is shrinking", not only is it simply not true, people don't care.
3.07.2008
Still wondering...
I don't think I'll ever get an answer to this question, but I'll ask it again anyway:
My answer is this: In order for a Democrat society to subsist, you need to feed it the fruits of labor of lots of high achievers. After all, all that cradle-to-grave service costs money. High achievers usually aren't Democrats, and Democrats aren't generally motivated to earn that money on their own. Therefore, it's important to force their system on others to form a financial basis for their utopia. Sounds good, don't it?
If Democrats are so concerned about all the money being distributed equally, why don't they just band together in their own little group, throw all their money in a pot, and divide the pot up into equal portions for every one in their little group, so they could build their little socialist utopia?
My answer is this: In order for a Democrat society to subsist, you need to feed it the fruits of labor of lots of high achievers. After all, all that cradle-to-grave service costs money. High achievers usually aren't Democrats, and Democrats aren't generally motivated to earn that money on their own. Therefore, it's important to force their system on others to form a financial basis for their utopia. Sounds good, don't it?
2.27.2008
Once again the Democrats are forcing the costs of their political aspirations upon us
The Democrats are at it again, trying to buy votes on the wave of financial ignorance fostered by the US sheeple. The Democrat Party has its panties in a bunch that oil companies "raked in record profits" last year. Well, we all know what that means, don't we? It's time to plunder! After all, the only way Democrats can make a career out of their political aspirations is to buy votes from those too stupid or apathetic to be responsible for themselves. So, the Democrat-controlled House passes some $18B in taxes on those profits.
Profits alone don't show the entire financial picture. Of more importance to the big picture are the profit margins. But it's difficult to make myrmidons that vote Democrat understand that. So let me explain:
So, let's have a short exercise, shall we?
Let's say Poxblog Oil Co had gross revenues of $1M in 2007. Poxblog Oil's business costs (what they spent to bring in that megabuck) was $900,000.
Now, let's say that Poxblog Oil sold twice as much in 2008. That means that their total gross revenue was $2M. Let's also say that it also cost them twice as much to make that revenue, or $1,800,000. That leaves them with $200,000 profit.
Holy shit! Profits have doubled. Time to plunder/levy taxes/buy votes!
But wait. Poxblog's 2008 profit margin is $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100%, or... wait for it... 10%. Somehow, profits have doubled, but profit margins haven't changed.
From Neal Boortz in 2005:
Hitting the high achievers the hardest slows down the momentum of our economy right at it's very foundation.
These taxes will be passed on the customer, just like they are every time. And it will hurt the low-income people the most... you know... the very people that Democrats purport to protect?
These are SIMPLE, straightforward concepts. Regardless, I'm sure that your average Democrat couldn't explain them. Nor would they care too, because it's they who are screaming the loudest that profits are up. It's these people legislating to make a moneygrab. It's these people forcing YOU to pay for their political careers! And yet somehow this is less evil than groups of people working hard and having it pay off.
Profits alone don't show the entire financial picture. Of more importance to the big picture are the profit margins. But it's difficult to make myrmidons that vote Democrat understand that. So let me explain:
Profit = gross revenue - business costs
Profit margin = profit/gross revenue * 100%
So, let's have a short exercise, shall we?
Let's say Poxblog Oil Co had gross revenues of $1M in 2007. Poxblog Oil's business costs (what they spent to bring in that megabuck) was $900,000.
2007 profit = $1,000,000 - $900,000 = $100,000
2007 profit margin = $100,000 / $1,000,000 * 100% = 10%
Now, let's say that Poxblog Oil sold twice as much in 2008. That means that their total gross revenue was $2M. Let's also say that it also cost them twice as much to make that revenue, or $1,800,000. That leaves them with $200,000 profit.
Holy shit! Profits have doubled. Time to plunder/levy taxes/buy votes!
But wait. Poxblog's 2008 profit margin is $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100%, or... wait for it... 10%. Somehow, profits have doubled, but profit margins haven't changed.
2008 profit = $2,000,000 - $1,800,000 = $200,000
2008 profit margin = $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100% = 10%
From Neal Boortz in 2005:
When they read that oil company profits have gone up they have no educational basis upon which to balance the fact that oil company revenues have also gone up... thanks to the increase in the price of crude oil. Revenues go up. Profits go up. It's not really that hard to understand.Someone will now come along and point out that the oil company profit margins have been rising along with the profits themselves. They're right. You see, costs don't necessarily double when revenues do. There are some costs that remain fixed even when the prices for raw materials (crude oil) increase. This will mean that profit margins will also increase, though not anywhere near as much as profits themselves. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. Just where do you think the energy companies, including the oil companies, get the money they need to explore for new sources of oil, to build new refineries, and to conduct research on additional or alternate energy sources? That money comes from profits. If profits increase due to high demand met by a scarcity of product the oil companies will be in a position to use increased profits to expand production and to search for new sources of oil. If the government seizes these profits, as suggested by Hillary Clinton, then those dollars would not be available for energy company investments into expanding our energy resources.
Another source of funds for oil companies to use for exploration and the development of additional energy resources would be the money that comes from investors. These investors purchase shares of stock in oil companies because they believe that their investments will appreciate in value and, in some cases, will pay dividends. If the government bows to the paranoia and anti-capitalist ignorance of the state-educated masses and seizes those profits, what then will be the reason to invest in these oil companies?
Hitting the high achievers the hardest slows down the momentum of our economy right at it's very foundation.
These taxes will be passed on the customer, just like they are every time. And it will hurt the low-income people the most... you know... the very people that Democrats purport to protect?
These are SIMPLE, straightforward concepts. Regardless, I'm sure that your average Democrat couldn't explain them. Nor would they care too, because it's they who are screaming the loudest that profits are up. It's these people legislating to make a moneygrab. It's these people forcing YOU to pay for their political careers! And yet somehow this is less evil than groups of people working hard and having it pay off.
2.18.2008
Hilarious... but not really
Sitting here on my day off getting some chores done, I had to stop and watch a bit on Cavuto where a Democrat strategist was on with two economists (sorry, I don't remember any of their names) and Neil discussing Obama's and Hillary's budget plans. It wasn't pretty... kind of like a lamb going to the slaughter; the economists had a field day.
Folks, I'm not kidding when I say this: The Democrats want nothing more than to expand the entitlement state in order to buy more votes for themselves. Remember what I quoted a couple months ago about the the stability of great nations and the people voting themselves money out of the public largess? We're seeing that played out now.
I have a great plan with which we can put a real quick stop to this bullshit. Since the existence of government is borne by those who fund it, is it not fair that the weight of the vote of each constituent is proportional to how much each taxpayer pays in? What a way to keep checks on government thuggery! If someone wants to tax high-achievers disproportionately, then the high-achievers have a strong defense against it. After all, they're paying more for it.
Hell, this plan may even bring more money into the government in the form of donations from people wanting more say. It might even motivate lower achievers into achieving more. My goodness, coupled with the FairTax, this plan could super-energize the economy.
With the entitlement-based attitude most people have now, this will never happen.
Folks, I'm not kidding when I say this: The Democrats want nothing more than to expand the entitlement state in order to buy more votes for themselves. Remember what I quoted a couple months ago about the the stability of great nations and the people voting themselves money out of the public largess? We're seeing that played out now.
I have a great plan with which we can put a real quick stop to this bullshit. Since the existence of government is borne by those who fund it, is it not fair that the weight of the vote of each constituent is proportional to how much each taxpayer pays in? What a way to keep checks on government thuggery! If someone wants to tax high-achievers disproportionately, then the high-achievers have a strong defense against it. After all, they're paying more for it.
Hell, this plan may even bring more money into the government in the form of donations from people wanting more say. It might even motivate lower achievers into achieving more. My goodness, coupled with the FairTax, this plan could super-energize the economy.
With the entitlement-based attitude most people have now, this will never happen.
2.15.2008
'Splain somethin' to me...
So the Democrat Party is usually the one that champions the idea of scrapping the electoral college system for electing our president and electing our president through a national popular vote.
Why, then, aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their presidential candidates directly by national popular vote? Moreover, why aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their candidate through just a regular delegate system without fear that so-called super-delegates can just wipe out whatever choice they make?
Hmmm. Seems to me like the Democrat Party has once again confounded their constituency with smoke and mirrors. I reckon whatever they bought their voters' votes for was worth it to them.
Why, then, aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their presidential candidates directly by national popular vote? Moreover, why aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their candidate through just a regular delegate system without fear that so-called super-delegates can just wipe out whatever choice they make?
Hmmm. Seems to me like the Democrat Party has once again confounded their constituency with smoke and mirrors. I reckon whatever they bought their voters' votes for was worth it to them.
2.11.2008
Uh oh... watch out for the Citgo troll...
So from what I read on this AP story, Hugo Chavez is none to pleased with ExxonMobil's attempts to take their ball back.
What does Chavez expect? Chavez seized control of ExxonMobil's (and ConocoPhillips's and others) Orinoco assets in Venezuela. So, this newest move is tit for tat.
What's Chavez's reaction when he doesn't get his way? Throw a temper tantrum. Threaten to stop selling oil to the US. Oh boy... that'll kill us. The US is Venezuela's #1 customer, but the suppliers ahead and just behind Venezuela on the ranking chart will fall all over themselves to sell us even more oil. It wouldn't be a problem to make up the difference in short order. Keep in mind, too, that the US is part of this list, contributing some 4 times what we import from Canada.
Will all this mean that much? No, not really. What it will do is slightly increase oil prices for awhile, but they'll go back down as our importers correct the situation. After all, it's much easier for our importers to sell to us than it is for them to sell to other countries.
BTW, Chavez is not so dumb as to stop selling to the US. He'll cry for now, cause gas prices to go up for a little bit, and then he'll go away, just like the rest of the tinpot dictators. But when US oil exports account for 15-20% of Venezuela's GDP, it's not difficult to see who'll outlast who here.
Food for thought: Why is it that socialists like to blame conservatives for high gas prices, but Chavez, a socialists socialist, is more than willing to push up gas prices to serve himself?
Also to note, he's got the propaganda machine in full swing here... the US as an "empire" and "Mr. Danger".
Finally, if you'd like a more centered article about this, read here. Oh, and if you want play-by-play commentary on the situation, check out Citgo Boycott.
What does Chavez expect? Chavez seized control of ExxonMobil's (and ConocoPhillips's and others) Orinoco assets in Venezuela. So, this newest move is tit for tat.
What's Chavez's reaction when he doesn't get his way? Throw a temper tantrum. Threaten to stop selling oil to the US. Oh boy... that'll kill us. The US is Venezuela's #1 customer, but the suppliers ahead and just behind Venezuela on the ranking chart will fall all over themselves to sell us even more oil. It wouldn't be a problem to make up the difference in short order. Keep in mind, too, that the US is part of this list, contributing some 4 times what we import from Canada.
Will all this mean that much? No, not really. What it will do is slightly increase oil prices for awhile, but they'll go back down as our importers correct the situation. After all, it's much easier for our importers to sell to us than it is for them to sell to other countries.
BTW, Chavez is not so dumb as to stop selling to the US. He'll cry for now, cause gas prices to go up for a little bit, and then he'll go away, just like the rest of the tinpot dictators. But when US oil exports account for 15-20% of Venezuela's GDP, it's not difficult to see who'll outlast who here.
Food for thought: Why is it that socialists like to blame conservatives for high gas prices, but Chavez, a socialists socialist, is more than willing to push up gas prices to serve himself?
Also to note, he's got the propaganda machine in full swing here... the US as an "empire" and "Mr. Danger".
Finally, if you'd like a more centered article about this, read here. Oh, and if you want play-by-play commentary on the situation, check out Citgo Boycott.
2.05.2008
Today's 2-fer: The "erosion" of the middle class
Democrats, both in the political realm and the mainstream media, crow with great zeal about how the middle class is going away and that it's all the Republicans' and the evil rich's fault. Interesting. Let's start by looking at this video.
Now... we can see that all these middle-classers don't have it so bad. But Drew's video shows that the media and the Democrats want you to believe otherwise. Because they want to create an atmosphere of depair that they can make you believe that they can rescue us from. Another way that they can make us dependent on them. And you know what? Dependence is the opposite of independence, and independence means freedom and liberty. So, what they are wanting you to do is trade your freedom and liberty for some implied measure of security through dependence on them. You know, the big-government types who don't realize that government can't do much of anything right. What a bargain!
There are a couple of sad truths in all of this:
1. The middle class isn't struggling to survive; the middle class is struggling to buy more. After all, they have to impress their neighbors and families. This is closely related to the idea of living within one's means.
2. The US sheeple don't realize that those that they wish to vote into power to rescue them don't realize that cost of this unnecessary rescue will provide much more of an oppressive burden on them than does living as a responsible individual (or even as a slightly irresponsible individual). History bears this out. I urge you: don't help history repeat itself.
Now... we can see that all these middle-classers don't have it so bad. But Drew's video shows that the media and the Democrats want you to believe otherwise. Because they want to create an atmosphere of depair that they can make you believe that they can rescue us from. Another way that they can make us dependent on them. And you know what? Dependence is the opposite of independence, and independence means freedom and liberty. So, what they are wanting you to do is trade your freedom and liberty for some implied measure of security through dependence on them. You know, the big-government types who don't realize that government can't do much of anything right. What a bargain!
There are a couple of sad truths in all of this:
1. The middle class isn't struggling to survive; the middle class is struggling to buy more. After all, they have to impress their neighbors and families. This is closely related to the idea of living within one's means.
2. The US sheeple don't realize that those that they wish to vote into power to rescue them don't realize that cost of this unnecessary rescue will provide much more of an oppressive burden on them than does living as a responsible individual (or even as a slightly irresponsible individual). History bears this out. I urge you: don't help history repeat itself.
2.03.2008
Clinton's socialist health care scheme...
Don't think she's socialist? Look again. From ABCNews this morning:
So, she would forcibly remove our freedom of choice oppress us. And still people will vote her straight to the Oval Office. Just why is it that people who take no responsibility to maintain their own freedom have any say in removing mine?
If the sheeple of the United States had any common sense at all, they would tell this power-hungry money-grabber to take her unconstitutional schemes and cram them up her ass. But instead, we have to get ready for long waits to see mediocre doctors who we didn't choose. We have to wait for our health care system, one of the best in the world, to fall comparably to that of say, Canada. Ever wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for health care? How many Americans leave the US to go to Canada for health care?
All so this woman can buy herself enough votes to grab her power. It amazes me that the very people she courts for their votes are the very same who this program will end costing the most in the long run. But since the US sheeple don't think about the future, since the don't think most of the time period, sorry they'll lose.
People wonder why health care costs so much. In a truly free-market economy, it wouldn't, even at our system's level of operation; competition would limit it. But since government interferes to such a great degree, costs are driven sky high. Kind of like gas prices.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
So, she would forcibly remove our freedom of choice oppress us. And still people will vote her straight to the Oval Office. Just why is it that people who take no responsibility to maintain their own freedom have any say in removing mine?
If the sheeple of the United States had any common sense at all, they would tell this power-hungry money-grabber to take her unconstitutional schemes and cram them up her ass. But instead, we have to get ready for long waits to see mediocre doctors who we didn't choose. We have to wait for our health care system, one of the best in the world, to fall comparably to that of say, Canada. Ever wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for health care? How many Americans leave the US to go to Canada for health care?
All so this woman can buy herself enough votes to grab her power. It amazes me that the very people she courts for their votes are the very same who this program will end costing the most in the long run. But since the US sheeple don't think about the future, since the don't think most of the time period, sorry they'll lose.
People wonder why health care costs so much. In a truly free-market economy, it wouldn't, even at our system's level of operation; competition would limit it. But since government interferes to such a great degree, costs are driven sky high. Kind of like gas prices.
1.20.2008
Think, people. For yourselves.
So, remember a few posts ago when I spoke on the power of repetition as far as winning over popular opinion? This was in reference to so many people believing that the United States is a democracy (even though it is not).
So, what do you think happens when environmentalists and other weather folk with an agenda repeat their spiel about global warming over and over? That's right. Even those with government educations should be able to follow this one.
So, why does Hillary have to keep repeating over and over again that she's likable and would make a great president?
Folks, this is known as propaganda. Socialist and totalitarian regimes (and some that were/are both) have been using propaganda for years, long understanding the power that simply repeating the same thing over and over has over facts, logic, and reason. This is why such regimes take control of the press. Didn't this happen in Venezuela recently?
Think about it. Don't just follow along like all the other sheeple.
So, what do you think happens when environmentalists and other weather folk with an agenda repeat their spiel about global warming over and over? That's right. Even those with government educations should be able to follow this one.
So, why does Hillary have to keep repeating over and over again that she's likable and would make a great president?
Folks, this is known as propaganda. Socialist and totalitarian regimes (and some that were/are both) have been using propaganda for years, long understanding the power that simply repeating the same thing over and over has over facts, logic, and reason. This is why such regimes take control of the press. Didn't this happen in Venezuela recently?
Think about it. Don't just follow along like all the other sheeple.
1.15.2008
Hillary redux...
Again, those old enough to remember and geeky enough to care will recognize that which spawned this classic:
I can't think of a better way to sum up the direction of a Clinton presidency. I don't know why Barack Obama didn't take credit for this. It's genius.
I can't think of a better way to sum up the direction of a Clinton presidency. I don't know why Barack Obama didn't take credit for this. It's genius.
1.10.2008
Some libertarian intemperance...
Those that know me have learned that I tend toward the rational, logical explanations. This creates a social conundrum: those who look at things more emotionally and less rationally tend to disagree with me and respond to me irrationally and emotionally (screaming, yelling, swearing, name-calling, etc.). Thus, my random thoughts tend to piss off various groups of peoples with various views. I didn't say this was a BIG problem for me... just a conundrum. So, at the risk of getting out the "sticks & stones", onward ho!
I find it interesting that so many genuine US citizens cannot even say what form of government we have in this country. In spite of the fact that the framers set this country up as a constitutional republic, we constantly hear that this country is a democracy. Not so much. See if you can find the word "democracy" (or derivatives thereof) in any of the founding documents. You can't. That's because the framers understood the evils of democracy; that it's like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Amazing though, that "democracy" and it's derivative forms are found all over the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the power of repeating misinformation.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University is quoted as having said:
Someone else (can't remember right now) said:
Truth. History bears it out. Time and time again. Right now, I see us moving from the apathy of the 90's into dependence. It's only a matter of time before we find ourselves right back in bondage. Guess it's about high time... the USA is just a smidge over 200 years old now.
Here's an example:
Katrina survivors are filing lawsuits against the Army Corp of Engineers because the levees weren't high/strong enough to hold back the epic floodwaters of a Category 5 hurricane. 'Scuse me, but when are these people going to take responsibility for where they chose to live? Living below sea level at the shore of a huge body of water in a hurricane-prone area is STUPID (eleventy-one!). WTF did these people expect? Well, we're seeing it now: for common sense and personal responsibility to be wiped away by a process no different than suing a screwdriver manufacturer because you stabbed yourself in the eye with their screwdriver. Hell, I chose to live in Oklahoma... smack dab in the middle of Tornado-freaking Alley. Who do I sue when an EF5 flattens my house? Nevermind that I could have chosen a more milquetoast place to live, someone will owe me BIG time! I know: I'll the manufacturers of the cars that slam into my house. They never said that their cars wouldn't fly through the air when lifted by 200+ mph winds. For that matter, why should I even bother to evacuate or take shelter? I'll just sue the National Weather Service, FCOL!
This is what our society is becoming: an entitlement-based rule-of-man dystopia, the cornerstones of which are (1) everyone expects things to be given to them instead of earning them; (2) personal achievement is bad; (3) the smallest inconvenience is an emergency for someone else; (4) being different than the mob is bad; (5) truths are formed out of how many people believe them to be true; (6) freedom is not as important as security.
I find it interesting that so many genuine US citizens cannot even say what form of government we have in this country. In spite of the fact that the framers set this country up as a constitutional republic, we constantly hear that this country is a democracy. Not so much. See if you can find the word "democracy" (or derivatives thereof) in any of the founding documents. You can't. That's because the framers understood the evils of democracy; that it's like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Amazing though, that "democracy" and it's derivative forms are found all over the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the power of repeating misinformation.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University is quoted as having said:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Someone else (can't remember right now) said:
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Truth. History bears it out. Time and time again. Right now, I see us moving from the apathy of the 90's into dependence. It's only a matter of time before we find ourselves right back in bondage. Guess it's about high time... the USA is just a smidge over 200 years old now.
Here's an example:
Katrina survivors are filing lawsuits against the Army Corp of Engineers because the levees weren't high/strong enough to hold back the epic floodwaters of a Category 5 hurricane. 'Scuse me, but when are these people going to take responsibility for where they chose to live? Living below sea level at the shore of a huge body of water in a hurricane-prone area is STUPID (eleventy-one!). WTF did these people expect? Well, we're seeing it now: for common sense and personal responsibility to be wiped away by a process no different than suing a screwdriver manufacturer because you stabbed yourself in the eye with their screwdriver. Hell, I chose to live in Oklahoma... smack dab in the middle of Tornado-freaking Alley. Who do I sue when an EF5 flattens my house? Nevermind that I could have chosen a more milquetoast place to live, someone will owe me BIG time! I know: I'll the manufacturers of the cars that slam into my house. They never said that their cars wouldn't fly through the air when lifted by 200+ mph winds. For that matter, why should I even bother to evacuate or take shelter? I'll just sue the National Weather Service, FCOL!
This is what our society is becoming: an entitlement-based rule-of-man dystopia, the cornerstones of which are (1) everyone expects things to be given to them instead of earning them; (2) personal achievement is bad; (3) the smallest inconvenience is an emergency for someone else; (4) being different than the mob is bad; (5) truths are formed out of how many people believe them to be true; (6) freedom is not as important as security.
Hillary
So, Hillary Clinton (self-avowed socialist), "anguished" over her loss in the Iowa Caucus, cries, and suddenly wins the New Hampshire Primary? Is this an example of how she would run government were we to make the mistake of electing her? Just throw an emotional tantrum when she don't get her way?
Hillary not a socialist? She was recently quoted as saying:
This seems to be rooted in the very definition of socialist. From the dictionary.com definition of socialism:
So, taking things away from private owners (i.e., those who were free to work to earn what they have) and giving them to the people is what socialists do. Hmm. Sounds like I've heard this somewhere before.
Here's another beautiful thought:
Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year. Taking money that private owners have earned and giving to the "collective good". Doesn't that feel good? Anything to buy a vote for the future. Isn't it hilarious that the very votes that she wants to buy are being paid for with money she wants to take from us to begin with. What kind of crazed sadomasochism is this that her constituency wants to foist upon themselves and us?
It doesn't stop there:
Nevermind that the European countries are much more socialist than we are right now.
Hillary would provide every citizen a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government, which would cost $25B/year. This makes it her largest domestic proposal beside her plan for universal health insurance. She would fund it by taxing estates worth more than $7M per couple, which would help narrow the "gap" between the rich and those who didn't save enough for retirement.
There is a term for someone that believes that every whim and and individual need should be taken care of by the government, from cradle to grave: socialist.
Here's another good read.
Keep in mind that the world's socialist nations are splendid places to live. Places like the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea... where squalor and propoganda are the rules. What we see there today makes me want to move right in.
As an afterthought, I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's presidency. Y'know, those 8 years that Bill spent marching a string of lovers right past Hillary. Why were no tears shed then?
Hillary not a socialist? She was recently quoted as saying:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
This seems to be rooted in the very definition of socialist. From the dictionary.com definition of socialism:
socialism noun
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners
So, taking things away from private owners (i.e., those who were free to work to earn what they have) and giving them to the people is what socialists do. Hmm. Sounds like I've heard this somewhere before.
Here's another beautiful thought:
“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they [sic] have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home.”
Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year. Taking money that private owners have earned and giving to the "collective good". Doesn't that feel good? Anything to buy a vote for the future. Isn't it hilarious that the very votes that she wants to buy are being paid for with money she wants to take from us to begin with. What kind of crazed sadomasochism is this that her constituency wants to foist upon themselves and us?
It doesn't stop there:
“I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe.”
Nevermind that the European countries are much more socialist than we are right now.
Hillary would provide every citizen a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government, which would cost $25B/year. This makes it her largest domestic proposal beside her plan for universal health insurance. She would fund it by taxing estates worth more than $7M per couple, which would help narrow the "gap" between the rich and those who didn't save enough for retirement.
There is a term for someone that believes that every whim and and individual need should be taken care of by the government, from cradle to grave: socialist.
Here's another good read.
Keep in mind that the world's socialist nations are splendid places to live. Places like the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea... where squalor and propoganda are the rules. What we see there today makes me want to move right in.
As an afterthought, I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's presidency. Y'know, those 8 years that Bill spent marching a string of lovers right past Hillary. Why were no tears shed then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
