The Left’s Ongoing War on Logic
Somewhere between the presidency of Herbert Hoover and the much maligned career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, being Republican became “uncool.”
That never bothered me though. I have long known that adulthood and hipness are mutually exclusive conditions. Yet for the last 40 years Democrats have depicted Republicans in the worst possible light, and, in the process, morphed serious minded human beings into personality caricatures. Rather than describe conservatives as fellow citizens, leftists cast us as variations upon the Church Lady, random geeks, fatcat capitalists like the one pictured on the Monopoly game, or as General Ripper in the film Dr. Strangelove.
Their attempts at discrediting the right are both heinous and foul. Unfortunately, their efforts have partially succeeded in tarnishing the Republican “brand.” This is particularly evident in the perceptions of minority members and the young who see nothing grand in G-O-P.
The left’s blitzkrieg against the right is psychological and devoid of logical refutation. In the mind of activists, responding to the contentions and objections we raise is unnecessary.
Substantive debate with conservatives would not serve their needs. Close inspection of the inefficiency of the Washington, D.C., apparatus, its O’Donnell-esque size, and the fact that its unfunded liabilities will break us in the future would endanger their continued political viability. If pseudo-liberals did not ignore these issues, they would never get elected.
Instead of discussing, Democrats slander, ridicule, and delegitimize. Theirs is politics by conspiracy. Fallacies and rampant mischaracterizations are ubiquitous among their fabricated talking points.
For example, to get around the obvious fact that both the Bush and Obama administrations have floridly failed in their duty to secure our nation’s southern border, leftists painted the Arizona legislature as being a group of racist Neanderthals.
This tactic was yet another attempt by pseudo-liberals to demonize their foes. It did nothing to explain why the federal government refuses to fulfill its obligation to maintain the integrity of our frontiers. Democrats hope that this truth escapes unseen by the populace.
Before the drones ensconced within the left-wing mainstream media were able to correctly parrot the “racist” angle as an article of faith, several leaps in logic had to be made first.
Pseudo-liberals had to pretend that the Arizona bill impacted immigrants on aggregate, as opposed to illegal aliens in isolation. After doing so, they then deliberately deceived the public by blurring the distinction between origin and race.
“Mexican” is a term describing nationality. It is not an indicator of race. One is reminded of this in Chicago. Here one periodically encounters Mexican-Americans who physically appear just as Caucasian as Mayor Daley himself.
Yet to our leftist elites — whose temperament and addiction to status makes them loathe to mix with the general public — anyone born south of the Rio Grande automatically looks like the Incas of yore.
That appeals to the cheapest emotional denominator work evidences the extent to which ours is a sound-bite culture. Sustained analysis would illuminate for normal folk that the proper word for preventing illegal aliens from rampaging over our border is “rational.”
Maintaining non-permeable frontiers is as innocuous as watching Winnie the Pooh. Keeping citizens from discerning the normality inherent to such ventures is emblematic of the Democratic approach to governance.
A fully informed public is one that eschews membership in coalitions dominated by professional race-baiters and co-competing parasites. Democratic mandarins intuit that engagement over policy mechanics is a precursor to their faction’s Waterloo. They are the party of government, so they must embrace emotion over reason. Their eternal solution for problems (or banalities they mislabel as problems) are bureaucratic programs, and more of them.
Sooner or later, calm discussion would reveal to impartial observers that pseudo-liberals always write out the same prescription for whatever ails — an increase in the size of government.
Socialism is the Democratic Party’s perpetual, Waters-made deus ex machina. A cavalry to call upon regardless of situation. It applies equally well for concerns over global warming, underperforming schools, unemployment, and even the imperfections in our health care system.
The one theme intrinsic to leftist politics is that citizens cannot be trusted to improve their lives on their own. Were it to be otherwise, then what use would we have for a gaggle of sanctimonious demagogues who lust for power and control?
We must follow their lead as, in the words of our nation’s great divider: “Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”
Another neo-socialist, Representative Barney Frank, placed love for statism in the proper euphemistic context. He summarized the Byzantine and corrupt practices of the Leviathan with the mundane utterance: “Government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”
If you believe that, then you’ll buy that printing money results in economic stimulus. Rep. Frank is wrong, however. Government is the name for the things our elites do to us.
We — the majority of Americans — do not wish to be slaves and live on handouts. It strikes Democrats as odd, but we prefer to be free. We understand that a monolithic state precludes personal autonomy and we don’t like it.
A citizen bias in favor of liberty would be incontrovertible, if the press desisted in smearing as racist those who proclaim it. Were Americans openly encouraged to discuss our desires, it would soon emerge that being left alone and living in the manner we choose are chief amongst them.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is aware of this eventuality, and is determined to avoid public examination of the Democrats’ positions. Undoubtedly that is why he made an appeal to conformity when he informed a group of mostly Hispanic voters: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”
No, you don’t, should you assume that every Hispanic American is a wind-them-up-and-watch-them-spout-dogma drone. Luckily, Sen. Reid is as astray as Sen. Frank. Hispanics are individuals. They are not clones of Paul Begala.
In advertising, sex sells, but when evaluating government policies, liberty is as enticing as Vida Guerra. Were it to be otherwise this country would not exist. The question that Reid should have posed: what does the Democratic Party have to offer those Hispanics who wish to work and become autonomous persons? Nothing is the answer.
Regardless, independent high functioning adults are not the Democrats’ core constituency. Their party exclusively benefits those who either cannot work or do not wish to.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio does not view the mass of Hispanics as being either disabled or unmotivated. He took exception to Reid’s slander, dubbing it “outrageous”:
You know, Americans of Hispanic descent, you know what the strongest issue there is? That is economic empowerment, upward mobility. There’s only one economic system in the world that that’s possible in, time and again, and that’s the American free enterprise system. And the reason why Americans of Hispanic descent should be Republicans is because the Democratic leadership is trying to dismantle the American free enterprise system. The point is he’s wrong.
Rubio’s retort was astute. He knows well both the electorate and the nature of the opposition.
The Democratic Party stands for class warfare, racial hatred, national decline, and acquiring power by any means necessary. As long as they are the bosses, what they do to America is immaterial.
For the last 17 months they have been in charge of Congress and the executive branch. Rather than direct, they have stigmatized Republicans and demoralized the citizenry at every turn. Hopefully, voters will observe the poison that has been their reign and never again trust them to lead our country.
Today’s Democrats and “progressives” remind my of Dorian Gray, inverted.
That is, the image of themselves remains perfect. But to maintain it, they themselves grow ever more ugly. To sustain their fantasy that they are compassionate and just and wise, they have to increasingly ignore and betray myriad, basic truths.
And so they grow ever more intolerant and foolish. And angry.
It’s been a while and I’d like to enquire on exactly what the heck is going on. Hopefully something creative, or at least clever. Nevertheless, life keeps bursting into my bathroom and throwing a plugged in toaster into the bubbly water of my bath, as I try to wash off the whiff of less than fantastic results of my ever-continuing crusade against all that is stupid, baseless, and just plain irritating. Yep, it’s not working. Let me explain.
It seems that, for reasons that remain equally concealed from the glaring light of logic and insight, a vast majority of teabaggers and friends are being manipulated into finding both stupidly thick yet unique ways to self-destruct, or at least make a further muck of the seemingly downward arc of misguided efforts to live in some “better time” that exists only in their constricted minds, all brought to them courtesy of Faux “news” and the Saudi that partly owns it. And some of them, it appears, have resorted to combining unwise dosages of prescription drugs and alcohol based nostrums, I guess to further blunt a fading sense of self-awareness and personal loathing, or so it would seem, as they update the lampshade-on-the-head pratfall to the current lingua franca of slackerism, a performance made oh-so-painful to watch, as, at their age, they don’t wear it so well. And yet whilst this is going on, I also get to observe co-dependency in repose, as other conservatives battle the forces of conscience and common sense, flinging drama, subterfuge, and diabolic conspiracies in order to ingest/numb themselves as they wait to hit the wall of reality, or at least take bed space in the ICU. To say the least, I am not amused, nor do I use all these five dollar words to impress you, myself, or whoever is reading my missives in the back room. They say that an epiphany ultimately results in something construed as positive, yet this one, as it’s been a long time coming, hit me with the force of Nolan Ryan fastball. Having been (for some reason) diligent in my viewing habits in high school when they were trying to scare us with all the anti-drug/booze films in second semester health class, unless they were lying to me (Remember: To trip is to fall, and don’t mention babies at all!), I know where this is going to end up. And it’s not going to be pretty. In preparation, I’ve found a place to hide and I’m afraid there’s only room for one.
The adults are trying to have a discussion. The kiddie table is in the other room. Take your cookie and go play with your cousin.
Well, that was certainly a lucid and thoughtful critique of, uh…
Okay, busted. I quit at the term “teabaggers.” See, here’s some free advice, and worth every penny: people bail on you when you begin deliberately insulting them. If your goal was to stroke your own ego by spewing… whatever it was you were building up to, then by all means have at it.
Make no mistake, I am not debating you. I will simply point out that you could have felt just as good masturbating in private, as by doing it here. Why not toddle back to whatever has replaced JournoList and do your performance piece there, where it will receive the plaudits it undoubtedly deserves?
Steve – whatever it was you were building up to…
I assure you, it was quite anti-climactic. You were right, he basically stroked his..uhhh… ego, thinking he said something intelligent and all I heard was something akin to the sound of a wet fart.
You know, Carl, I believe that you’re on to something here with that toaster in the bathtub analogy. Suggest that you give it a try for real and spare the rest of us from the sick parade of collectivist pornography that passes for your thought processes. The upside for you is that you’ll no longer have to struggle with that nagging voice in the back of your head that’s telling you that your entire raison d’etre is based upon nothing more than an intellectually vacuous and morally bankrupt Ponzi scheme that comprises the Left.
Go on. you know you want to do it.
“I’d like to enquire on exactly what the heck is going on.”
Why? An intolerant, bigoted lemming like yourself isn’t going to stop hating all of a sudden.
Right on cue, Carl Gordon, people’s exhibit A. I present this as living proof of the author’s assertions. All emotions. No facts or reason. No cogent argument. Bereft of any logic.
Carl Gordon has been doing this off and on for a while. He posts his generic “rightwingnuts are evil and stupid” comments on a number of blogs. Here is what I got for some Google searches on his PJ Media comment. “A vast majority of teabaggers and friends are being manipulated into finding both stupidly thick yet unique ways to self-destruct” is found on crooksandliars and progressivepolitic blogs.
“For reasons that remain equally concealed from the glaring light of logic and insight” is found on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC blog.
Cmon guys, give Carl some slack. He can’t help it. He’s beem fostered by the rationally deranged. Child abusers, trained or else to submissivie,placating behaviours and words. Needs therapy not criticism.
This gibberish is a perfect example of what happens when you smoke meth.
“It’s been a while…”
Not long enough, in my opinion.
May several centuries pass before my eyes again make contact with your drivel.
I think it was James Carville (I could be wrong, though) who once said that, “It’s hard for the other guy to make a political point when you have your fist in his face.” He said that when Clinton was running for president. Unfortunately, he was right.
John McCain was a classic example of someone trying to stay above “party politics” and trying to take the “high road” during a presidential election. So no mention of the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, no mention of the Bill Ayers connection with Obama, and not much mention that Obama let his socialist mask slip in his “Joe the Plumber” moment. Instead of hammering Obama for what he was and still is, a big-spending socialist, McCain decided to take the high road and not get into the mud of politics and simply debate the issues.
And John McCain lost, big time.
The lesson: If you want to win in politics today, you need more of Dick Morris and Rush Limbaugh in you than George Washington. George, after all, didn’t have 24/7 Cable News to deal with, television ads, appearances on Jay Leno or Oprah or David Letterman or The View, and he certainly didn’t have to start campaigning two years before an election, as most presidential candidates do today. And even with all that, our Founding Fathers had their own horribly bitter political campaigns. Just look at John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to see how bitter presidential politics could be.
I think people today are whiners. They whine at all the bitterness in politics and ask for more civility in elections. Bunk. Americans love a good fight. If they didn’t, professional football wouldn’t be so popular. Americans thrive on a good political debate. What is the comment you hear most often about presidential debates? “They were so very boring.” And you know what? Those people are right. I WANT politicians to say what’s on their mind and take the battle to their opponent. Instead of constantly trying to be politically correct, I want the candidates to say what’s on their mind and show a clear difference between one candidate and another. And if attacked, I WANT my candidate to show that he or she has the stones to stand up for what they believe in and prove the other guy wrong in no uncertain terms. If you only have a choice between toast and more toast, you’re always always end up getting toast. I want to see clear differences betweet candidates and I want my candidate to show me that he or she has enough ambition and desire to destroy his or her political enemies. After all, if a political candidate can’t handle domestic American politics, how will he or she be expected to deal with the Iranians or the North Koreans?
Take the battle to THEM. Keep your fist in their political face. Put THEM on the defensive. Make THEM have to explain why spending our country into bankruptcy is a good idea. If they call you a racist, ask THEM why they have no problems with people like Jeremiah Wright or imam Rauf or Al Sharpton. If they say how lousy right-wing bloggers are, SCREAM about the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. This isn’t a child’s game and people who claim to be “above the fray” or are too noble to have to get into the mud to defeat his political opponent will soon find himself or herself out of a job. Fight to win, NOT to lose.
Double dittos. The blame for lame falls mainly on McCain. He threw the election, plain and simple. The failure began with the Palin nomination, which was a declaration of total culture war. This in itself was not necessarily the end of hope. The problem was that, having committed to culture war, McCain proceeded to refrain from waging it. People begged him, with tears in their eyes, to go after Effendi Obama where Obama was weak, and he would not.
Sorry, but the Palin nomination was his only success in an otherwise crappy campaign.
Sorry, he was going to loose regardless.. He could have been up against Mickey Mouse, and lost.. or even Donald Duck, and you barley can understand Donald Duck..
People like you mesmorize me by calling Obama a socialist.. Me personally, I can’t say that he is.. Because a Socialist or better yet SOCIALISM is a economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
With that said.. In the HISTORY of the WORLD.. there is a little bit of socialism in every President.. Though, I don’t see any government rule on any of these enterprises… NOW lets talk BP and the oil spill.. .If it was SOCIALISM.. It would be lawful for the Government/Obama to step in and give BP a “SPANKING”, but they can’t because they are a private enterprise and the government has no sanctions.. Now.. everybody chimed in and said.. “Why isn’t Obama doing anything about the oil spill”, “I don’t like how Obama is handling the oil spill” and blah, blah blah,
But what can he/the government do? nothing, because this is a capitalistic society.. So at one minute you want him to employ socialist ideologies and then point your finger and say “HEY HE’s A Socialist”.. That’s really funny..
Secondly, at times Capitalism and Socialism go hand in had.. a socialist tolerates capitalism/capitalist, because the free enterprise boost the economy.. but “WE” the consumers have to use the products.. It has to be a supply and demand.. GM bailout?? Lot of Supply, But No Demand, “WE” the consumers were not buying vehicles.. we were holding on to what we had in sights of future fuel prices rising.. and inflations in the housing market..etc..
So stimulate the economy with stimulus checks hoping that it will be spent on big purchases, i.e. automobiles.. homes..etc.. But if you were smart.. You’d put it is a safe deposit box.. and left it..
So the socialist thing should be directed to every leader and president around the world.. everybody has a little socialism in them.. and some of the Marxist ideas are not bad.. it’s not evil.. it’s not communist.. Remember.. every communist is a socailist, but not all socaialist are communist.. A large portion of the socialist ideologies look to boost equality.. and alleviate the rich get rich and poor get more poor syndrome.. Read some ideologies and remove the prejudices and pre-judgement..
What you say is more or less technically correct, academically, but the academics are wrong. Nay, they sell the Marxist lie.
All Socialists are Communists. They both derive from the insane notion that the wealth of the nation belongs to the nation as a whole, rather than to the individuals who create and earn that wealth.
The only difference between them is the degree of autonomy they ALLOW the people, how much they micro-manage everything. Just because they operate to different degrees, (perhaps one is more “benevolent” than the other), does not change the underlying premise that they believe they have the authority, even the Right, to control things… and fully intend to. Socialism and Communism are the same voracious beast: Collectivism.
They are both the enemy of the individual and of Liberty. Collectivism versus Individualism.
Actually Socialism and Communism are two different things…. I can understand socialist to the degree that the playing field is un-even.. Meaning that we all dont have the opportunity to gain wealth.. Why? Because Capitalism was only made for the rich, not the middle and low class; It is because if everyone was able to gain wealth and be wealthy, who would actually work? Who would deliver mail? Who would pick up the trash? Who would build and do construction work? Nobody.. So those in power EXPLOIT the lifestyle others dream of and provide a means for those lower on the social ladder to make a living.. Though while those lower on the social ladder make a living just to get by.. And we just settle and say well atleast we have this, lets be thankful for what we have and everyday you spend a dollar…It’s making those at the top richer and richer.. Though were is the average man/womans profit..? Business is all about profit.. The Profit of 0 is 0.. If you work for a living your only profit is your salary.. and it will not grow monthly based on world spending..And once you pay mortgage, insurance, etc..bills.. Where is your profit? Though those in the high class profit hourly..
Communism is something totally different from socialism.. It just happens that some Communist are socialist..
Lastly, Acedemics, may be wrong in some cases.. but you have to find out truths on your own..and I have done that.
First off.. Jeremiah Wright, Arsenio Hall, Eddie Murphy, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey.. They were not running for president.. So to bring them up in a debate or election would have looked really stupid.. I mean.. This Jeremiah got publicity, because Obama went to his Church.. Nobody would have ever known a Jeremia Wright if Obama didn’t go to his church.. Second, his beliefs are not mine, just because I went to the church doesn’t mean I agree with his personal political views.. Next the race card is getting old, but those in the majority are still racist.. See it’s hard for a minority to be racist.. hence the word “minority”.. a black person never disliked whites, because they are white.. Though whites disliked blacks origianally, because they are black..
So it is very hard for a black person to be racist and it affects a white persons life. Though if a white person is racist it will and can affect a black persons life..
It’s not being politically correct.. It’s basically.. McCain knew if he said the stuff you are talking about..IT WOULD DEFINATELY BE OVER!! I MEAN DONE!! FOR HIM!! It would have made him look silly, because he knows, that those small comments would be childish and it would way no bearing on votes.. So he did the smart thing.. And doing the smart thing is always the best thing..
Let’s say he did the things you speak of in a debate.. What’s he gonna do in the next debate? The same thing? It’s going to make him look inexperienced and juvenile..
The election is never about prooving your opponent wrong.. It’s simply about beating your opponent and displaying yourself as the best candidate.. A scandal or rumor against your opponent does not guarantee you victory..
The best candidate actually one.. McCain didn’t display himself well.. If it was a job interview.. I’d hire Obama.. and race has nothing to do with it.. Though if it were a actual job, Obama may have lost out even if he was best qualified.. But we have vote rights. So the picture Obama painted was better than McCains finger painting.. Do you get what I’m saying?
You have the right concept that it is about who presents himself best. However, Obama was completely lying about himself and his intentions. Because of this, it was imperative that McCain strip away the lies, unmask the beast for what he is. You simply cannot let him get away with his misrepresentations and expect to win.
McCain, therefore, had to point out to folks: this is who he is; this is where he will take us; these will be the results. McCain lost, because he could not challenge all the falsehoods and explain the truth of things to people. We are where we are, because the lies have blinded us to the truths.
A good example is my reply above regarding the difference between Socialism and Communism. The liars have sold the lie that they are different things. They are not. They are Communism and Communism-lite. Great taste. Less oppressive. Until someone comes along who knows how to unmask the liars and expose the lies, things are never going to get better.
So, yes, one must get one’s fist in his face and rip away the mask.
Well honestly, all presidents lie about themselves.. You too, maybe lied about yourself in a job interview or something to appear more than what you are to mask some of your down-falls..
As for Obama.. I have no idea what he is or isn’t lying about and I can’t credit any citizen of knowing whether he is lying or not..Everyone speaks of this communism and it’s based on fear and prejudice..
McCain had no backing or proof to say anything in the area that Obama is a liar.. As soon as he did, his entire campaign would be over and he would be discredited.. And it would have been like him holding Obama’s hand and walking him into the Oval Office..Do you think it would have look professional for McCain to say in a debate.. Hey what about Jeremiah Wright? The news and media was already covering it..? It would have looked desperate and juvenile..
But you and everyone else is so worried about Obama, and he is not the problem.. The problem is the years to come…
The world will become a one world government, one currency, one religion and one world leader.. Sounds Socialist to me.. But this leader to come will present the NWO = New World Order.. Right now the wheels are turning and oiling the machine.. And you will love it!!
The One, you trot out the intellectually dishonest point pushed hard by Al Sharptongue and leftists that racism is only possible if you have power over the object of your hatred. Because blacks have no power over whites, the argument goes, they can’t be racist.
This is a greasy perversion of language that deliberately morphs the concept of “oppression,” where power to harm others is an essential element, into “racism,” which can exist in any person or group, regardless of the power relationship. You’re too intelligent not to be pushing this lie deliberately and your point that blacks never disliked whites because they are white is just pathetic. With history brimming with examples of human depravity, which race is it now that is a saintly exception to the human record through the ages? Wait, wait! Let me guess . . . . The black race, am I right?
Pop quiz! Who said the following in South Africa?
“I say give [whites] 24 hours to get out of town. If they don’t, kill everyone white in sight. Kill the men, kill the women, kill the children, kill the blind, kill the crippled. God damn it, kill them all.”
Hint: it wasn’t a white man and he didn’t seem to think that his audience was powerless to do all that killing.
ah, for the days when only property owners could cast a ballot. George sure had that advantage.
Now, the politico’s prositute themselves to those who live off of “other people’s money”. the biggest whore is now plastered all over the MSM.
You too live off of other peoples money.. Money is created, recycled, and shredded.. Money actually has no true value.. The paper has no real value.. Capitalist give it value.. And when it (paper money) is done away with.. The real thing what matters will count and that’s NUMBERS.. You live off your business paying you wages.. How can the owner of your business pay you? Because he/she gets the money from me and others in society..
-There he goes again (Bernard Chapin), he states:
“…..independent high functioning adults are not the Democrats’ core constituency. Their party exclusively benefits those who either cannot work or do not wish to.”
Not long after he had written this:
“Instead of discussing, Democrats slander, ridicule, and delegitimize. Theirs is politics by conspiracy. Fallacies and rampant mischaracterizations are ubiquitous among their fabricated talking points.”
So, let me get this straight. I (-a hard working American),
Get no benefit from Social Security, unemployment insurance or increased VA benefits? Oh, I get it (-I forgot, I’m not “high functioning”)…..
I should eschew these benefits, and just continue to work in spite of all? Work in spite of the fact that it was a republican that wrote the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act that gave us our current depression?
“Politics by conspiracy” would include the fallacy that ONLY the lazy would DARE vote for the democrats. If that isn’t a “mischaracterizations” that “delegitimizes”, I guess I am not high functioning enough to be a republican.
Work in spite of the fact that it was a republican that wrote the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act that gave us our current depression?
Ah, another lying Leftist tries the tired, old Glass-Stegall Act lie.
Tell us, Lefty, how is it – exactly – that Glass Stegall “gave us our current depression”? Especially when you consider that NONE of the troubled investment firms – i.e., Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers – that precipitated the credit/financial crisis were IN ANY WAY affected by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Now watch, everyone, as Lefty takes 1 of 2 tracks: 1) engages in exactly what Chapin is describing above: provide NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTS whilst resorting to emotional appeals, ad hominem, or some other fallacious argument or 2) simply ignores the challenge to substantiate his claims altogether.
My money’s on #2.
Dear rvastar,
You expressed my sentiments exactly. Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that people like David W. Walters, et. al., don’t even realize that any interested party can now efficiently use the internet to find information to either refute or substantiate such brazen and ideologically-based claims. As a case in point, I took the time to search economic websites and blogs, and quickly found that the consequences of Glass-Steagall have been the subject of multiple academic studies, and that the actual data regarding it’s effectiveness as compared to investement banking prior to 1933 was critically evaluated to reveal that the comments by leftists like David W. Walters are without factual support (see, for starters: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/glass-steagall.html and http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/did-the-gramm-l.html). Indeed, it supremely ironic that David W. Walters fails to see that he bases his statements on nothing but his own sentiments, without any evidence to support his argument. So much for logic, let alone rigorous analysis.
Now go put the toys away, Walter.
All of this really simple: as long as you’re not a Leftist who’s trying to avoid responsibility for the disaster that was caused by their attempts at social engineering and wealth redistribution.
What caused the financial implosion of 2008? Credit markets underwent the equivalent of a massive heart attack.
What caused that heart attack? Mortgage defaults began to skyrocket, which in turn caused a downturn in housing prices. These defaults and price drops began to threaten the entire MORTGAGE-BACKED securities market, which accounted for trillions of dollars in assets across the globe.
Why did defaults and price drops threaten these MORTGAGE-BACKED securities? Because mortgages of all different types (i.e., prime, sub prime, ARM, etc.) were all bundled together in these securities; therefore, there was no way to separate the wheat from the chaff…so investors began dumping them, thus leading to a free fall in the one of the largest global markets on Earth…thus leading to a complete drying up of the credit lines that are essential to a functioning, global economy.
How did these MORTGAGE-BACKED securities come into existence? Contrary to the talking-point lies that Lefties like David keep spouting, the source of these securities wasn’t Glass-Steagall…it was the 1996 revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act that paved the way for investment firms to begin bundling mortgages into securities. The same Community Reinvestment Act that paved the way for the flood of subprime loans that eventually torpedoed the MORTGAGE-BACKED securities market.
Any questions, David?
“any interested party can now efficiently use the internet to find information to either refute or substantiate such brazen and ideologically-based claims.”
So you cite an internet article to base you silly claim upon? So, it is a good thing for a banker to make a bad loan (like a re-finance), and to bundle all these shaky loans that were written into securities? Nice work if you can get it. Tell me dgc, who does Phil Gramm work for these days? I wonder if it is a bank?
“Tell us, Lefty, how is it – exactly – that Glass Stegall “gave us our current depression”? Especially when you consider that NONE of the troubled investment firms – i.e., Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers – that precipitated the credit/financial crisis were IN ANY WAY affected by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.”
No, not #2 rxastar (My money’s on #2)
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 WAS the mechanism that Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers ALL used to invest heavily in mortgage securities. The firewall that Glass-Stegall created between banking, securities and insurance was broken down by Phil Gramm’s masterpiece (uh, who does he woek for now? -Any ideas, righty?)
Mr. Walters:
No, you don’t benefit from Social Security. You are paying into a Ponzi scheme and will get less, if anything, back than had you invested that same money into wealth-producing endeavors. If you are already receiving Social Security, or have been for some time, you either (1) got a free ride on the labor of others, which is wholly immoral (why not lobby Congress to pass a law decriminalizing thievery committed by anyone named David W. Walters?) or (2) you started collecting too late and will not get the same return on your investment as if you would have had control of your own money and invested in prudent, wealth-creating investments. If you are too incompetent to handle your own investment portfolio, the author’s point is proved.
As for unemployment insurance, again, no you do not benefit from government-run unemployment insurance. First, if left to the private sector, it would be cheaper and more efficient. Second, if you’re truly a hard-working, competent American, they you wouldn’t need unemployment insurance as you’d be able to get and keep a job. Then, you’d pocket the extra money you didn’t pay for unemployment insurance.
As for increased VA benefits, if you’re a veteran, great. Thank you very much for your service. But you got paid for your service. Increasing your compensation for work already completed used to be unconstitutional here in California. Now, if Congress increases your VA benefits, it’s just another example of Congress passing a special law allowing a certain class of individuals to steal from another class of individuals. No, you don’t benefit from such laws, even when one or a few of them happen to benefit you. The other myriad laws others have had Congress pass allowing THEM to steal from YOU generally more than cancel out. How much do you pay for farm subsidies?
See the above? That was argument using logic and facts. Your post was pure emotion and snark, assuming your point to be true, but devoid of argument, evidence or logic. Did you explain how you benefit from Social Security, unemployment insurance or increased VA benefits? Did you weigh the costs? No, you just simple-mindedly assumed that anything that puts money in your pocket benefits you, wholly ignoring that those same things take money out of your pocket, too.
This is why Democrat voters are stupid. They vote for hucksters who promise to give them a buck but ignore the fact that it costs them two bucks.
If you want to live your life as part of the biggest organized crime syndicate in the country, go ahead. After all, why shouldn’t the pimp slap his prostitutes if it puts more money in the pimp’s pocket?
You are making exact points the will lead you to Socialism.. This individual is taking from that individual.. He’s rich, I’m Poor.. And to tell you the truth.. The BIG secrect.. !! It’s not that Obama is a Socialist.. The world leader to come is a Socialist.. Now remember that doesn’t mean he’s a communist.. All socialist are not Communist. But all communist are socialist…
There will be a New World Order.. One World Government.. One World Currency.. If this isn’t the start of Socialism.. I don’t know what is..
Everyone is fighting over property.. money.. and Groups benefiting more than others.. But you don’t see this is a Order to come and you will think “WOW, this guy changed the world(NOT OBAMA), He created peace and equality.. Glory to Man,” You will say…
tHIS IS WHAT U SAID BEN PUGH “As for increased VA benefits, if you’re a veteran, great. Thank you very much for your service. But you got paid for your service. Increasing your compensation for work already completed used to be unconstitutional here in California. Now, if Congress increases your VA benefits, it’s just another example of Congress passing a special law allowing a certain class of individuals to steal from another class of individuals. No, you don’t benefit from such laws, even when one or a few of them happen to benefit you. The other myriad laws others have had Congress pass allowing THEM to steal from YOU generally more than cancel out. How much do you pay for farm subsidies?”
Now Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society. So what happens when you get to that age when you can’t work any longer? What compensates for inflation?
Further I am not a Socialist, but I believe as they believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. EXPLOITATION… Nothing like some good ol’ EXPLOITATION..
This is what creates the unfail and unbalanced society.. Yeah you can say the land of the free home of the brave, but there is no way you or me can make the money, of those in the HIGH CLASS.. This class system was made and created by CAPITALISM.. and what is this argument today.. ?? It’s base on Capitalism… It’s based on the ideas of Republicans and Democrats trying to solve Capitalistic problems with democratic principles.. Though you can’t..
You can only solve capitalistic problems with capitalistic principles.. Though you cannot employ these capitalistic principles because a majority will be unconstitutional or further unethical and even cruel…
So your argument is mute, because you say one thing, but your argument pushes “YOU” toward socialist principles.. Then you go back to democratic beliefs.. Then you talk about fair and unfair.. and it’s all a ball of confusion..
First, it is Moot, not mute. A Moot point. A point only worthy of debate by the superfluous nobles of the Moot Court.
Capitalism does not create a Class system. That is a fallacy pushed by the Communists. Capitalism is a fair system. It is open to anyone who has the ambition, the drive, the knowledge, and the talent to succeed. It is NOT an exclusive system. There is plenty of room at the top. 95% of the most wealthy folks in our society did not start out rich. Bill Gates was a middle-class kid.
The problem with Leftists is that they do not understand this one principle: Wealth is NOT finite! The pie is not limited, but they think it is. They cannot look at a rich man without thinking that he got that way by exploiting some poor man. Capitalism is not EXPLOITATION!
One of the lies of Communists is that the workers create the wealth, and the evil rich exploit them and steal the wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the workers knew how to create wealth… they’d be wealthy! They just do the labor. The wealthy people create the wealth, because they know how! It is a skill-set.
Those rich guys who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime, what do they do with their excess cash? Do they stick it in a mattress and sleep on it? No! They reinvest it into the market and make more money that they cannot spend in a lifetime. It is a great game! When they do this, they create more wealth, the by-product, or process of which, creates jobs, which allow the workers to feed their families and live in a reasonable lifestyle. If the wealthy do not do this, workers who do not know how to create wealth… DON’T EAT!
Now, these evil rich who feed you cannot do this without Capital. M-O-N-E-Y! Either they invest their money into the economy, and grow the economy, or the government steals their money from them and grows the government.
There is only so much excess capital available at any one time. Capitalism is about the the most productive allocation of capital. Where do you think the money ought to be allocated: into the private sector or into the public sector? The private sector produces wealth. The public sector consumes wealth.
This is why the wealthy need their tax cuts. Capital is the tool of their trade. If they do not have their tools, all their expertise in creating wealth by the efficient allocation of capital is useless… and YOU DON’T EAT!
Capitalism is neither exploitative, nor a class-system, no matter what the Leftists try to tell you. This system is why we are 6% of the world’s population and 30% of the world’s economy. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. Do not kill the goose which lays the golden egg. Pray instead to God that the evil rich keep doing what they do… so you can eat!
Marc, I understand it’s moot and not mute.. a typo.. Everyone makes mistakes, just like your reply..
You tell me there is a level playing field? You tell me because the rich reinvest their money, it allows me to eat? You sir, are sadly mistaken.. First off, if the rich allow “us” to eat, because they are rich and they stimulate the economy.. Why is there homeless people… NO wait.. Why are people going hungry in America.. ? There is no reason that anyone in America should go without a proper meal of the basic 5 food groups.. NO REASON!! You tell me capitalism didn’t cause a Class System then you SIR ARE IN DENIAL..
I am not a political system.. I am neither left nor right, up or down.. I am just not blind. Unless you have capital you cannot survive.. This is a Christian society.. “So I have Heard”.. Then why don’t we do unto others as we would want them to do upon us? I can care less why a person is homeless or if they are on drugs.. Who cares, but there is NO REASON anyone should go hungry in America.. less Nobody should be going hungry in the world.. Though you say these rich guys feed us.. Well when I go to grab a sandwich and I see someone begin for money to get food.. I will say “HEY, You know these rich people here are feeding you, So I don’t have to buy you a sandwich today”..
Your points are valid, not likely.. That’s a cruel capitalistic principle.. You cannot have or get anything without Capital..
Capitalism didn’t create the class system then what did.. Because the last time I was in Beverly Hills.. I saw people go into resteraunts and greeted.. I was constantly told how much a meal would cost before I was seated..
I understand you are in a fight for what you belief is right based on your views and feelings, not actuality, but how does an investment turn to profit? A consumer has to make a purchase. I’ve seen wealthy people get things for free many many many many many MAAAANY! times, and never understood why.. They obviously have the money.. Though the unwealthy/rich pay for everything.. I’ve seen rich people given million dollar homes.. expensive luxury cars.. and didn’t spend anything for them..
So the point you are making is falling on ears of a person who has sense and knows the business world..
I’m afraid we are all about to experience what happens when the evil rich stop investing their money. It’s called “capital flight” and the ramifications are already being felt.
Too bad we have to learn this lesson, that leftist policies, whether they be socialist, communist, fascist (yes, fascism is a left-wing ideology), or any other flavor of command-and-control collectivism, DO NOT WORK. Apparently, we’ve learned nothing from 500 years of evidence to the contrary, so now we get to learn it again.
Thank you leftists! I hold you personally responsible, each and every one of you. If you cannot be bothered to learn basic civics, history and economics, please don’t vote.
Ben,
Yeah, the money I DID have invested (….in a 401K) is mostly GONE. Had we allowed republicans to have their way and placed all my Social Security money into Wall Street, I would be poverty stricken. Am I lucky I have a Social Security check and a VA pension to live off of? You’re dam’d right!
“If you are already receiving Social Security, or have been for some time, you either (1) got a free ride on the labor of others which is wholly immoral (why not lobby Congress to pass a law decriminalizing thievery committed by anyone named David W. Walters?)….”
-”Free Ride” “immoral?…….
No, the crime is not taking care of those workers who gave their health to their job, for their employers profit, and those veterans who risk life and limb in defense of your right to make a fair profit.
Look buddy, I was declared disabled when I was 50 from a lifetime of toil that has left me crippled. Do I, or should I feel any guilt whatsoever from taking an early retirement? HELL NO! Perhaps you don’t understand hard physical labor that breaks your body down. But I am proud of my days as a paratrooper, serving my country and as a construction supervisor, building highways. Actually, it was the companies I worked for that got a free ride off of my labors all these years…
You ought to be glad there were men such as I, doing what I did all these years.
“As for increased VA benefits, if you’re a veteran, great. Thank you very much for your service. But you got paid for your service. Increasing your compensation for work already completed used to be unconstitutional here in California”
As for “Thank you very much for your service”, it was my service that allows this country to remain free for business to operate freely worldwide. So all I deserve is a pat on the back and a lame Thanx? -Yeah, right. The problem with this country is that the labor of the individuals is not compensated fairly. We (working men and women) are the backbone and framework that business is built upon. And you’d have us kicked to the curb when we are no longer useful to you? No, pay your taxes and quit your whining.
Mr. Walters, your employers didn’t get a free ride. They paid you a wage that you accepted as a sufficient. You were free to move to other companies, start your own business, or improve your skills.
You stayed in your jobs, however, because the overall deal was sufficient to you after you balanced pay, moving to other areas, current qualifications, getting additional qualifications, supervisory position and seniority, loss of leisure, risk of failure in business, climate, location of family and recreation areas, etc. Otherwise you would have done something different.
You chose whatever you did and if your body got damaged somewhere along the line, that’s a different issue. I presume you’re on SS disability. If you’re on simple Social Security then what Mr. Pugh said is accurate. You and every other SS retiree, including myself, are the beneficiaries of a Ponzi scheme that will not be around to benefit younger workers. Mr. Pugh can explain it, I’m sure.
If your 401(k) account evaporated go ahead and blame Republicans for some of it. They deserve blame for having no discernible principles over the decades, other than play their part as the right wing of the Democrat Party. But don’t forget to blame Dems too for their ardent support for the Community Reinvestment Act and oceans of confiscatory taxes, reckless spending, and stupid regulation of business, etc., that did so much to destroy American business and undermine the stock market in the way that damaged your portfolio. Whatever party pushed us toward socialism deserves your condemnation to the extent they succeeded or failed. Spare us the Repubs are the Source of Our Miseries theme song, please.
If you have a service-connected disability and are eligible for SS disability then more power to you. Just spare us your “my employer got a free ride off of my labors all these years…” Cry me a river.
Some of this post’s criticism is valid.
Statistically, the truly uneducated dependent classes vote overwhelmingly Democratic. However, so do the highly-educated, lower-upper-class urbanite. More Dems are highly-educated than Pubs. (It is the result, however, of going to the re-education centers known as our universities.)
So, yes, there is a degree of ad hominem, but it is backed by the facts. It was just an overly-broad generalization. More care should be taken.
As a journalist myself and having written many editorials and columns for newspapers, magazines, and Web sites, I can tell you that your column is extremely accurate.
Whenever I write something, the left usually goes into attack mode and try to paint me as some uncaring right-wing nut and accusing me of writing things in my columns that I’ve never written.
Most of the liberals that I’ve come in contact with are usually knee-jerk reaction emotional people who don’t have the capacity to give a critical glance, not even a look, at their beloved Democrats.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been labeled a “racist” because I’m in support of Arizona’s illegal immigration law, even though I state in my columns that I’m all for people from Mexico, or anywhere else, coming to the U.S. and living here, as long as they do it legally. And it does no good if I happen to point out that I married an immigrant and we’ve seen the hardships people go through just to stay here legally.
Granted, I’ve been lucky enough to come across some very level-headed liberals and Democrats in my travels and I’m proud to call them friends. I just wish they are the majority of liberals and Democrats as a whole.
being reactionary won’t solve problems we face. the people that demonize you are the becks and the OReilly and the palins that make the G O P look like a bag of nuts that lack common sense
The left look like the bag of nuts… Thank humans for the internet…
Slander is all you have. Jump right to demonizing people of good will and a different perspective. You prove everything written above.
Very well Ruebacca,
Communism has repeatedly proven throughout history to lead to the deaths of millions. In Russia Stalin murdered approximately 20 million through purges and famine. In China millions died in the 1960 again though famine. In North Korea, people are poor and starving. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge murdered so many people the Vietnamese were appalled and found it necessary to step in. In all of those cases a central state tells people where and how to live. What professions they may or may not enter — and imprisons or executes those who do not agree with them or who try to leave.
In the U.S. the very liberal Nancy Pelosi has called for investigations of those who are opposed to building a mosque on the bones of Ground Zero. I could bring up multiple other examples of the abuse of state power by the left, but I’m at work and have more important things to do.
There are some facts Ruebacca, refute me.
Patrick
You know, the whole “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” argument just doesn’t work here, or anywhere outside of Democrat gatherings as far as that goes.
Did you come here intending to exemplify Mr. Chapin’s point?
Please allow me to refute your very basic statement, neverminding the name-calling.
Beck is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian.
O’Reilly also is not a Republican. He is completely an Independent. Those on the right find him too far Left, and those on the Left view him as a Rightie. He exactly reflects the middleground views of most Americans. It is why he is so successful.
As to Palin, I challenge you to show where she has been wrong in her positions and why. Just because she stands in opposition to the Left, does not make her automatically wrong or a nut.
She has become a force in American politics. When she endorses a candidate, that candidate generally comes out winners. She is the kingmaker today. She has taken on Obama many times, and has kicked his behind. She is powerful enough to go head to head with the President. Can she really be some fringe nutjob and do that? Does someone that powerful and effective truly make the GOP look bad?
Many mainstream Republicans reject her, but like O’Reilly, she very much represents the American public. They identify with her values and her beliefs. To call her a nut is to call millions and millions of Americans nuts.
The three people you name are very much not the traditional playing-the-game Republicans, the ones who so damaged the republican brand. How is it you cannot discern that?
This is not an indictment against Mr. Chapin or other writers on PJM who have dissected and analyzed the left. Knowing your enemy is critical…in a fight. But if we never fight what good is the knowledge?
But so what? We know they are pathological, delusional, narcissistic, self absorbed, and deceitful-practicing taqiyah as good as the most ardent jihadist. We know their basal instinct is totalitarianism-called by any name but marxism is first on their list.
What I want to know is what are we, Americans, going to do about it? Is every contributor on PJM afraid to utter the words: secession or civil war? Does anyone believe we can ever live together in the future? They talk of diversity and we talk of unity…. What is the common ground?
Is every writer afraid to talk about the balkanization of America? That the two competing views of America cannot live together? Is every writer afraid to talk about the loss of American culture, values and traditions because it may be interpreted by the left as code for white America and their values, culture and traditions? And why is that? Why are we afraid to talk about the exceptionalism of white America and Americans?
Okay so if you writers really want to get inside the heads of progressives figure out why these lily white, effete, elite, progressives hate their race and ethnicity? How can a white politician vote for a program that disadvantages white Americans in college admissions and jobs? How can these white progressives safely ensconced in their HR jobs, foundations like Soros, Heinz-Tides, Ford, etc, 527s funded by white charities and foundations, the MSM like CBSs Couric tell white Americans that they are the root of all evil?
The democrat/liberal/progressive we have in Washington now, is the worst of the corroded wing nuts; They can’t even state the facts correctly when they are stirring the visceral pot. The Democrat Party has dominated Congress for 4 years, and is responsible for the major portion of the present economic climate, not only the two that Joe Biden tries to claim.
Shifting the blame and shirking responsibility is a natural, cultivated ability of these perverts.
But if it sounds good, and gets the visceral juices flowing, they run with it every time.
They actually have the mentality of your every day, run of the mill, neighborhood gangsters.
Actually that war, Bush took on and started, due to his father and their private business caused the economy to fall..
Though it won’t be seen that way..
You’re right, it won’t be seen that way, because sensible people know that that is economic gibberish. That tiny war in Iraq brought down the economy? Really? Really? Ah-hahahaha!
(In case you are ignorant of history, you should look up previous American wars and compare the forces involved and the casualties of them to the Iraq war.)
No perhaps you should do some reading on the Military Industrial Complex.. Bush’s implementation of this practice back fired, because it was not a traditional war.. and it cost money and tax payer money.. Economics.. will not tell the truth, because they based there truths on beliefs and political assignments.. Unless you talk to a Economist who has nothing to gain..Then you will find reality…
When you read up on the Military Industrial Complex.. You will deny it and say something silly, like it’s a lie, but the entire “IRAQ” and “BIN-LADEN” thing is all Military Industrial Complex…
Wait.. I will give you a brief overview.. Yes it is Capitalistic! Why do you ask? Oh, because you love the capitalistic way, no matter if it does cost lives.. as long as we get the MONEY!!!
Fist the total world spending on military expenses in 2006 was $1.158 trillion US dollars. Nearly half of this total, 528.7 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States.. You have to spend some money to make some money.. I heard a rich guy say that.. Overall the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.
Basically it’s the war-profit theory.. Didn’t work for Bush.. Why? because it was not a war based on threat, but personal relationships.. Had nothing to do with America..
To put it simply, the Military-Industrial Complex is described as an all-too friendly relationship that may develop between defense contractors and government forces, where both sides receive what they are perceivably looking for: a successful military engagement for warplanners and financial profit for those manning the corporate boardrooms. It can be viewed as a “war for profit” theory.
So now what’s so funny?
What you say here is not totally incorrect. Bush is a big government Republican. He supports such things as you delineated. He supports Crony Capitalism. It’s how he got where he is.
However, it is not true that we spend a trillion a year on the military complex. Even if we had during the Bush years, we are talking about roughly 7% of GDP, not an unreasonable amount for national defense, especially after 9/11, when we had a dangerous enemy we had to root out. (We will not discuss the efficacy of the process. Let’s stick to the subject of economics.)
Such an expenditure was not what brought down the economy. Could not. So, again I say, economic gibberish. Sounds like you have been reading that crank, Noah Chomsky.
According to the government’s own statistics, the stimulus bill cost more than the entire Iraq war to date.
Marc, may I call you Marc?
You say I am not totally incorrect, but say that the war didn’t cause the economic down fall.. Well first off.. The U.S. actually does spend $1 trillion dollars a year for military. Go look it up.. I won’t tell you where, but you are a smart guy.. I let you find it.. and don’t rely on the internet.. any idiot can post something online.. Go find a book..
The war in Iraq that bled over to Afganistan and will soon bleed over to another country is constantly costing money and lives.. ” The War- For Profit” Theory.. You make real big money with a lengthy war overseas..
Let me elaborate and count the ways.. Nobody knows why America invaded Iraq.. It could be for weapons of mass destruction, that was disproven, To liberate Iraq and protect Isreal, maybe?? To spread democracy? Because Iraq is allies with Al-Qadea, not likely?, To remove a evil dictator? I suppose? Your guess is as good as any.. Whatever you want your heart to believe..
I say business, maybe America invaded Iraq to ivade Iraq; to have a war. America had a war because there are powerful interests in America that are geared toward making money from war. How?
-There are companies that help break things, by making the tools for violence and destruction, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
-There are companies that fix what gets broken, such as Bechtel and Halliburton.
-There are companies that protect people as they break things and as they fix what’s broken, such as Blackwater and Vinnell Corp.
-There are companies that want our government to smash across borders so they may bring new products and infrastructure, companies that will see set up shop in that country.
-There are companies that want our government to smash across other countries’ borders so they may suck the resources out from underneath the people there, such as the big oil companies.
-There are companies that like the US to attack other countries so they may have something entertaining to tell their audiences in the time between commercials: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN.
This is not a conspiracy theory this is basic capital or corporate law…Corporations are set up to limit their owners’ risk of liability while the owners maximize profits.
The US government has hired PR firms to help the government “sell” its wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq. If there are no troops, no bases, and no prisoners, such companies can’t make money. So let’s start a war…
You tell me that the war in Iraq didn’t cause the collapse in the economy? Soldiers families left behind.. Who wants to spend on thing unneccesary when you are worried day and night if your son, daughter, husband, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousing will come home alive or when they will come home if ever.. In a war that you dont understand and don’t know what the fight is for.. What consumer will spend? So we citizens are not spending prices are inflating and businesses are not making profit..but someone is making a profit,
The war-profiteers…
“Somewhere between the presidency of Herbert Hoover and the much maligned career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, being Republican became “uncool.”” And there you have expressed, in a nutshell (emphasis on nut) how so many of our citizens were transformed into useful idiots. “Coolness” and the WEAKNESSES of conceit, vanity, ego, and pride were stoked when this description was “bestowed” on the fellow travelers who are too stupid to realize their are being led off the cliff. They are too caught up in the self congratulation and moral preening associated with being a left wing adherent that they never realized this manufactured state of consciousness was part of the left’s PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSAULT on the body politic. Tell them they are “cool”, with all the attendant language to stoke their ideals of an ABSTRACT romantic revolution, with the flowery and deceptive language to complete the narrative, and millions of American sheep will believe themselves to part of the hip cutting edge of the revolutionary vanguard. Too stupid to realize they are conformists, REACTIONARIES, CONSERVATIVES, and PART OF THE ESTABLISHED ORDER. As Lenin once pointed out, all revolutionaries become conservative to preserve their power. Ecclesiastes: “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity”. And they say the Bible is irrelevant? It is many things and notably the first recorded word of HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. People haven’t changed. Convince them they are “special” and they will follow you into oblivion.
Blotto, you have figured it out. Limo Lefties tend to blindingly white rich who hate white people, with the exception of their own class of course.
That sounds like that KKK, White Suprememist stuff.. What do you guys call white people who don’t think like you… Ummm.. oh yeah.. RACE TRAITORS..
lmao… funny
No, it is exactly the opposite. KKK think whites are supreme. Limo Liberals think whites are inferior, except themselves and their Liberal friends who are superior, of course.
Oh, the KKK were Democrats, by the way. Like Senator Byrd.
That’s funny.. The KKK was democrat or No KKK was republican.. Putting a politcal party to some racist..
How about the KKK were white people.. leave it at that..
This is the usual moral equivalence. Any time your side does something despicable, you whitewash it. “Both sides do it.” You say this as a means to excuse things… without a single shred of evidence!
The KKK were overwhelmingly, possibly exclusively, Democrats. They supported the Democratic Party. No Republican I have ever heard of was KKK. I challenge you to find one. I do not have to prove innocence. You say Republicans were also in the KKK? I challenge you to provide evidence for your charge. Name one!
As to your earlier comment about lying – This is the same thing. All Presidents lie about themselves. Really? Please tell me where Reagan lied about himself during the campaign in 1980. Did he pretend to be more moderate? Did he run to the Center? No. More of your moral equivalence whitewash. Obama was the biggest liar to come down the pike in years and years.
As for me lying in a job interview? No. Never. Nor did I ever puff up my resume. Believe it or not, you Leftist, there are lots of folks out there who do not feel it necessary to lie to get hired. You need better friends.
Liberals became enamored of Mexicans (who morphed into Chicanos first and then into Latinos and Hispanics although Peruvians and Paraguayans fit into the latter categories as well.) The aphrodisiac was the poverty that liberals associated with Hispanics and the relative darkness of their skin. Liberals assume that US Hispanics have always been victims of racism and are not too bright- perfect people for them to rescue and guide. The one Hispanic group that liberals despised were the Cubans who began arriving on our shores in the 1960′s. Those Hispanics were often light-skinned, educated and already middle class when they arrived here. Cubans had experienced the not-so-benevolent rule of a dictator imbued with the idea of creating a classless society, the kind liberals dream of. US born Hispanics are not simply part of a faceless mass- they are indeed individuals. Many are conservatives who resent being judged by either left or right by the amount of melanin in our skins.
The author fails to point out that it was the social movements of the Sixties that provided the perfect backdrop for Democrats to paint Republicans out to be racist, sexist, homophobes, who don’t care about the envrionment.
Blacks tend to be poor, so giving them handouts plays right into the Democrats big government agenda. Hence, they portray Republicans who believe in a self sufficency and true equality as racists who want to return to the days of Jim Crow.
By nodding along with the most extreme male bashing elements of feminism, Democrats can claim to be champions of women’s rights, while portraying Republicans as the old boy network that wants to send women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
By nodding along with the most extreme elements of the gay rights movement, Democrats can claim to be champions of homosexuals, while portraying Republicans who defend the need for some sense of decency, modesty and sexual morality, as homophobes who want to send gays back into the closet.
The global warming scare plays right into the Democrat’s big government plans to regulate major industries and tell us all how to live. So they nod along with the environmental wackos, while portraying Republicans as heartless agents of enviromental destruction.
The social movements of the Sixties all had positive elements, and were non-partisan in nature. The Democrats saw an opportunity to use these various movements to turn Republicans into scary monsters. The Republican party’s PR apparatus is to blame for not figuring out exactly what was going on and diffuse this propaganda campaign. Even the author of this article doesn’t seem to understand that it’s all about the social movements of the Sixties and how the Democrats have expolited them for the past forty years.
“BLACKS TEND TO BE POOR”
Why is that? Is it the lack of opportunity provided by the Machine called Capitalism and don’t forget about 500 years of enslavement.. So don’t take those diluted epiphanies and potray them to be fact..
In actuality.. Welfare was created for POOR WHITES, not blacks.. Remember, blacks had no rights.. Once Blacks began to recieve it, then welfare was looked upon as a bad thing..
Mind you.. This is a black society that wasn’t taught.. It was illegal for a black to read.. It was illegal for a black to know anything that will be monument for survival and sucess..
So then you expect a race to automatically come up once rights are given and be succesfull? Blacks had years of segregation and years of getting equal education and that still hasn’t been a success..
Back then Whites period were for Jim Crow, not all but a large majority.. So this is mute, racism has no political party..
The gay debate is mute as well.. As this American society is based on Christian values.. The Gay lifestyle is a sin in God, eyes due to a man and man or woman and woman cannot reproduce.. The intimace is a symbol of love and to reproduce..
It wasn’t a opportunity.. It was getting hard to continue covering up the killings of innocent blacks.. It was getting hard to continue to was black children being killed.. It was getting hard to continue to dislike a race of people for no apparent reason..
Your point is invalid.. But I respect your views..
Again, One, you display your ignorance of history. The Republican Party was founded on the basis of abolition, ending slavery. Pubs fought for the North, the Dems fought for the South. After the Civil War was won, the Dems gave us the Jim Crowe laws, slavery-lite, where a black was free, but not equal.
It took the Pubs another 100 years to end that. Pubs have always stood for equality. We gave women the vote. The Dems opposed Suffrage. The first 2 black Senators and the first 5 black Congressmen were all Pubs. Same with women. Eisenhower desegregated the schools by force. He was a Pub. MLK was a Pub, until he switched to Dem when Kennedy was elected. The Pubs supported equal rights. The Dems opposed it.
52% of black pregnancies end in abortion. Who supports abortion? The Dems. Who wants to see all those black babies brought to term? The Pubs. Who was behind Planned Parenthood? Eugenicists. Democrats.
Who engages in race-hustling and victimhood-peddling? Who constantly plays the race card? Democrats.
Democrats, Democrats, Democrats. Racist SOB’s!
See that’s the funny thing.. I never look at a racist as a democrat or republican.. I just look at them as a racist.. So I assume you are telling me that there were no Republican Racist and all Democrats were racists.. Mmmmm.. That’s funny.. next you going to tell me there really is a Santa Clause..
Look racism is racism.. It’s not a political party.. And that’s the juvenile politics that people play.. You tie a evil or a bad to a particular party..
I never said Democrats or Republicans were racist, because that really didn’t matter there political party..
It’s the fact that they were prejudice.. Re-read the post and calm, down.. This is just a educated discussion.. cool your heel Marc..
I know history.. more than you know.. I know history well enough to not affix a political party to racism or a evil deed.. Then your are treating it like a gang.. Gangster Democrats and Gangster Republicans.. Cant do that..
Racism is simply Racism..
Calling the Arizona legislature a bunch of Neanderthals isn’t necessarily productive. However, what is clear is that there are some very disturbing aspects to the legislation and who is behind it.
First and foremost are connections between FAIR, the Pioneer fund, and some outright White Supremacists. When groups like AP3 are making donations in support of your bill, you’ve got to step back a moment and wonder what is going on.
To not do so is to be illogical.
To not do so when holding Van Jones or Bill Ayers up for scrutiny is hypocritical.
I’m assuming you will be offering proof of these allegations sometime in the near future?
I mean, I’d love to be able to take you at your word with you being a “Lefty” and all. You guys are always so truthful and forthright….
Oh, and when you do provide proof, I’m certain you will also be able to point out specific ‘influence’ provided by all these “Outright White Spremecists.”
Looking forward to your reply.
Well, for starters, there’s the picture of the legislation’s sponsor, Russell Pearce with JT Ready. There’s plenty of links showing Ready with his Nazi friends. They love the bill. They also like marching around the capitol in brown shirts.
But Pearce says he didn’t know about this so lets just leave that for a moment.
Then there’s the case of FAIR and it’s founder John Tanton and his Social Contract Press. Tanton is a bit of an embarrassment to the group. Here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center say:
“The papers in the Bentley Library also show that Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, former Klan lawyers and the leading white nationalist thinkers of the era. He introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist group set up to encourage “race betterment,” at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to “give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life” — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor’s theories on the Jews.”
In short the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League are not fans of FAIR or the Pioneer Fund. Are these objective sources? Well, the Anti-Defamation League has the New Black Panthers and Farakhan on their list, so I’d say that might give them some credibility.
Then there was the PAN (Protect Arizona Now) comment from Virginia Abernathy, “I’m in favor of separatism—and that’s different than supremacy. Groups tend to self-segregate. I know that I’m not a supremacist. I know that ethnic groups are more comfortable with their own kind.”
So FAIR had to distance themselves from her. Bottom line, there is some serious weirdness about the characters involved in this legislation.
Is everyone against illegal immigrants a neo-Nazi. No, there’s plenty of need to protect our borders but what’s happening in Arizona definitely deserves some scrutiny.
Ridiculous charge. What if it’s true, that White Supremacists support the AZ law? So what? I’m sure they also support having good schools. Perhaps they support more freedom from a tyrannical government, too? Just because they agree with us on this issue, does not mean the issue is wrong. Nor does it mean that we agree with all they believe in. There can be some confluence.
Also, it can be nothing more than them seeing this as keeping out the brown-skins. This is a misperception they share with the Left. This isn’t meant to keep them out. It is meant to control the flow so we are not flooded. It is to reduce the damage being caused by the uncontrolled flood of immigrants from the south.
This charge of racism is nothing more than attacking the messenger, not the message.
The only reason this immigration problem is not solved is because 70% of new immigrant voters become Democrats. The Dems see it as future political power. They do not care about the damage done to the country, as long as it secures their power. If you want to fix this, start getting more than half of the immigrants to start registering as Pubs, and suddenly the Dems will want to “solve this terrible crisis”.
“Is everyone against illegal immigrants a neo-Nazi. No”
Sure looks that that was the picture you were trying to paint…
Have you read the legislation? The bill mirrors federal law that has existed for decades. In fact, it provides explicit protection against any sort of racial profiling, making it less likely to lead to profiling than the federal law.
Or have you just judged by what you have heard from the leftist media?
Do you live in Arizona? No? Then STFU because you have no idea what is happening here on our real border, where criminals and murderers, rapists and druggies are swarming across and wreaking havoc on the citizens of AZ and indeed, the entire country. Go read some of these statistics and then tell me we shouldn’t do something. http://www.usillegalaliens.com/ Believe me, it is getting worse every day. Our border is a war zone.
Maybe you’ll change your tune when its your 6-year old daughter raped by an illegal, or your wife/husband killed in a hit-and-run by an illegal with no license, no insurance and no registration, that flees back across the border to escape punishment.
The politicization of logic itself….came out of the Frankfurt School….as well as a bunch of other nasty stuff that became the backbone of the New Left Movement…the 60s Baby Boomer generation has been a disaster for Western Civilization. The key is that the only thing that mattered was gaining power, to institute the Leftist agenda, and the destruction of bourgeois Western society.
Then the complete breakdown of logic with Post Modernism and Post Structuralism and a host of other crap coming mostly out of France.
I am technically “Hispanic” since my grandparents emigrated to Ellis Island (legally) directly from Spain four generations ago. Direct Spain-to-USA immigration was rare since Central and South America always seemed a better choice for Europeans from the Iberian Peninsula due to native language compatibility. So please, the reason some Hispanics “look as Caucasian as Mayor Daley” is because they “are” as Caucasian as Mayor Daley.
But I do agree with your take on this. I believe that the day will come when the hard-working people who have been grouped into this classification will realize that they are being exploited and victimized by the Progressives agenda. We can only hope that the race-victim, race-baiting industry targeting this group does not become as powerful and pervasive as it has in the Black community.
“We — the majority of Americans — do not wish to be slaves and live on handouts. It strikes Democrats as odd, but we prefer to be free. We understand that a monolithic state precludes personal autonomy and we don’t like it.”
No offense, but if that was true, then Democrats wouldn’t win most elections…which they have since 1933.
Most people do want handouts…that’s why they vote Democrat.
Dave, I respectfully disagree. Many Americans want handouts, surely, but not most. Democrats win elections by pretending to be moderate or even conservative, the media conspires to perpetuate these lies, and a certain, none-too-bright section of ordinary people who themselves don’t want to live off handouts vote Democrat based on the lies.
What if Obama had campaigned on exactly what he has done in office? He would have had no chance, even against the RINO McCain.
The problem is the “tragedy of the commons”. People serving their own self interest can not see the resulting degradation of everyone’s standard of living – or if they do understand it, they don’t care. This is why the USSR, Cuba and hippie communes of the 60′s did not work (although many of those same people won’t give up on the idea – as long as they can be in charge).
“Dave, I respectfully disagree.”
O.k.
But, Democrats have STILL been winning most of the elections in America for about 75 years.
Lefty, your comment lacks substance. You state, “However, what is clear is that there are some very disturbing aspects to the legislation and who is behind it.”
Please point out – specifically – the “very disturbing aspects.” I’ve read the bill – it was pretty short – and found no “disturbing aspects.” In fact the points that I thought were *possibly* disturbing exactly mimicked federal law.
And “who is behind it??” Please. Stalin fought Hitler so Churchill should have stayed away? I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet most of the 56-62% (depending on the poll) of Americans who support the Arizona bill have no idea of who or what FAIR or the Pioneer Fund are. And it makes no difference. A majority of Americans seem to be upset with the failure of decades of governmental failure to secure the southern border.
By trying to shift the focus to possibly radical supporters while ignoring or vaguely impugning the original argument (the law itself) you are engaging in the exact behavior the original article pointed out.
Blotto. No fear here. I regard secession as a legitimate activity with respect to the failure of the federal government.
When Obama met Texas governor Rick Perry a few weeks ago in Austin the President icily ignored the Governor and refused to even touch a letter Perry tried to hand him.
Since the President has no interest in effectively securing Texas border with Mexico , I think it would be in the interest of Texans to draft a statement of secession and ask for a state wide referendum on the issue . If adopted it should be implemented at once and the border sealed .
We might even get some interest from neighboring States in joining such a movement.
If the elected central government cannot or will not act to protect its states then they have a God given right to seek independence.
What “Progressives” want
Progressive’s want Health Care but want someone else to pay for it. They want energy but want the power source built someplace else. They want money but want someone else to work for it. They want security but want someone else to die for it. See why it is so easy to be a Progressive?
Tax Cuts – As Explained By A Democrat
If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
Now do you understand?
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are all those clocks?”
St. Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks, Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.”
“Oh,” said the man, “Whose clock is that?”
“That’s Billy Graham‘s. The hands have never moved, indicating that he never told a lie.”
“Incredible,” said the man, “And whose clock is that one?” St. Peter responded, “That’s Abraham Lincoln‘s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire Life.”
“Where’s Nancy Pelosi’s clock?” asked the man.
“Nancy’s clock is in Jesus’ office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”
Question – What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?
Answer -A competent liberal President.
Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?
A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.
Q:How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:None. Liberals wouldn’t actually change the light bulb, but they would show compassion for it by talking a lot about how terrible it is in the dark and more funding is needed to improve dim, 60 watt bulbs up to bright and productive 100 watt bulbs.
How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They just wait for it to burnout and quit, and then they follow it around forever. But they’re still in the dark…..
You are a comedian, All your post are FUNNY.. Senseless, but funny..
Why do people who make 100k or more get a tax break? and people who make 50k don’t.? Why do rich pay less and middle class to poor pay more in taxes.. ? I seriously don’t know.. ?
Why is that right wing nutcases never admit to being right wing nutcases? If they are that ashamed about it, perhaps they should stop being right wing nutcases. That is what Spock would likely recommend.
When did you start beating your _______?
Oh looky, it’s BC again, enjoying his temporary freedom from his parents’ basement. Say, why don’t you and your pal Carl get together in his bathtub for a game of catch the plugged-in toaster? Think about how happy you’d make no end of people, starting with your folks.
BC,
There was a time a few years back when you could formulate and post a decent attempt to defend the progressive viewpoint on PJM. It would appear that was merely a by-product of your feeling good about finally on top, and willing to reason with the laggards not yet converted. You have been increasingly content free for about a year now, ever since it became apparent to the casual observer that the emperor had no clothes. You are apparently now completely unhinged. Flapping in the wind.
I see no trace of any rational attempt to defend any progressive view from you any longer. You can’t summon even a poor argument at this point. Now it’s just driveby rants about how smart progressives are and/or what nuts conservatives are. You are losing it and I suspect that your Cambridge cafe friends are also. The whole gaggle of you cannot understand why the numbers of productive and successful people rejecting the progressive agenda increases every day. I mean, how could they not SEE how smart you guys are?
You don’t watch out, you’re going to become just another Mass Ave fixture, wandering around muttering to yourself.
If you aren’t already.
“Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?”
If you left a liberal in charge of a nursery, told them to change the baby and change a light bulb, you would come back and find a diaper on the bulb and the kid screwed into the light socket.
There isn’t ANYTHING liberals can’t botch.
If you want government to take other people’s stuff and give it to you, because it isn’t fair that you don’t have as much stuff as other people, you vote Democrat.
If you want government to just fer cryin’ out loud leave you and your stuff alone, you vote Republican.
Hey lefties, Is it logical for American taxpayers to ask the president to prove his eligibility when it is clear that he is ineligible according to Congress,himself and the constitution? Just asking.
What’s a Mother to Do? Part One: Dealing with International Green Hypocrites
Perhaps I shoudn’t ask the question, “What’s a mother to do?” since I’m a father not a mother. However, a male colleague used to ask that question not as a query but as an expression of frustration as to what anyone can do in response to the conditions and state of the world today.
The short answer is that a mother, or father, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, can’t do very much if anything but it’s nevertheless fulfilling to speculate on what we should do under certain sets of circumstances.
Would that we average joes and josies could do things, change things, or reverse things that, in our inexpert and humble opinions, called for doing, changing, or reversing based on a long-lost American skill and capacity, the application of common sense.
“Mother’s Commonsensical Solutions” will no doubt be attacked as everything from nonsensical and simplistic to naive and stupid but asi es la vida, tough apples. Readers are invited to offer better ideas.
Mother’s Problem Number One: Dealing With International Green Hypocrites
. “China, India, Indonesia, Brazil Can’t Estimate Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions–Latest Figures Are from 1994:” http://tiny.cc/81heh
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1863)