Let me get this right.....it is only Tuesday today, right?
With the amount of stupidity seen in the last day or so, I would have sworn we had reached the weekly limit. Just goes to show that there is no limit on stupidity.
At least there is some signs of intelligence with Mitch McConnell clearly laying blame at Obama's feet, and stating that he doubts that the solution can be found for the debt question while this man remains in office. Good stuff. And John Boehner seems to have found a pair too.
But it seems that some in politics think there is no limit on how much debt the nation can carry.
But I digress....
My thoughts today revolve around something far more sinister than the onerous debt this nation carries. However the whole debt question is a very good example of what I find so disturbing.
Here's the thing.
Obama comes out yesterday and holds his dog and pony show, telling everyone how important it is to raise the debt ceiling. He once again demands that the wealthy pay their fair share. He explains that the middle classes carry too much of the burden and the rich are not. He sounds very reasonable when he says things like...:compromises are necessary, because if both parties do not move closer to each others position, no resolution is possible". (Paraphrased)
He tells everyone how he has moved in his position and will move further if the Republicans will just give up some ground too.
Huh?
This is the man who proposed a budget with a $1.6 trillion deficit for 2012. And NOW he says we have to deal with debt...we have to compromise...we have to work together? (Where does he think the deficit funding will come from?)
This President is the most deceitful, lying piece of crap ever to have sat in the oval office. The nature of politics is that you measure the temperature of the electorate and give them what they want in order to get re-elected. I get it. But in the past this has been largely moderated by the need to do what is right for the Country.
This President has no concern with what is right or wrong for the country. He has no moral compass, and no fear of recrimination. He will say whatever he needs to say to appease the voters. He will do whatever he needs to do to get the next vote. He is a total narcissist, unconcerned about anything but his own self interest.
So...let's have a quick look at what he does.
- he first states his position....very clearly...that as President of the country he has a responsibility to tell the folks what the realities are, but to be careful not to spook them
- he then says that if the debt limit is not increased your children will be unable to eat safe food
- he then attaches safe food to the jets used by corporate America and the wealthy...effectively saying that if they don't pay more for their jets, your kids won't get safe food
Now he is forced to move into a second stage of his arguments because the first ones were not able to bring about the result he wanted...
- now he tells everyone how wonderful he is and that the republicans now have to move their ideals closer to his
- he blames the republicans for not being able to reach an agreement (notwithstanding the fact that his own party has not reached agreement)
- he develops the sound bytes for the liberal politicians to use...the rich must pay more so that social security payments can be met
- Charlie Rangel suddenly gets religion and asks what Jesus would do
- Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi get more vocal about the millionaires and billionaires causing the problem
- corporate jets become the solution
(Don't forget that just a few years ago the use of accelerated depreciation rates for corporate jets was encouraged and fully supported by Obama....he now sees them as the perfect foil for his class warfare plans.)
- the threat of unsafe food for your kids was not immediate enough...so now he makes it clear that if the debt limit is not increased, your social security checks will possibly not get mailed...because there may not be enough money in the coffers.
Does this sound like a President who is a leader...who leads from the front, who encourages everybody to keep working through the tough times...who is uplifting, confident, pragmatic and assured of his role?
Or does it sound like a bully, a miscreant who gets what he wants at any cost, who lies, deceives, threatens and uses scare tactics in an attempt to mold his subjects into his way of thinking?
I know I will be accused of crazy talk. I know the left will call me a fool and worse. I know that I risk retaliation from readers by saying this...but I also will continue to expound the truth whatever the cost.
This President is the most insidious and dangerous person ever to be in the White House. He knows that 47% of the population pay NO income taxes. That is the 47% that will vote for him in the next election as long as he continues to promises to take from the wealthier and give to them.
He makes it clear that it is the government's role that everybody has the same opportunities. And gets the same results. Effort is NEVER included in these discussions except with the mandatory "if you work hard you will succeed" crap that he spouts from his mouth. What he means is, if you work hard and succeed, the government will take what you have and give it to the lazy who don't work hard!
This man is evil. I don't know how clearer I can make this. He wants YOUR money to use to buy the votes and favor of everyone else. He wants your effort, to keep the country moving, so that his lazy constituents can vote for him. He wants the sweat from your brow to pay for the bad choices of the clueless.
As Maggie Thatcher said...socialism is wonderful, until you run out of other peoples money.
Well, that is about where this country is at right now. We have almost run out of other people's money and now have to borrow to stay alive. Sure we can steal some more from the wealthy, but that will not solve the problem...in fact it will make NO difference apart from buying votes from the clueless.
So...let's follow Obama's lead and raise our personal debt limits...and then do it again in 2 years...and again a year later. Let's just live beyond our means, and party like we live in the White House. Let's pay no regard to the concept of saving for the future, paying our bills, matching our expenses with our revenues.
Let's follow the President's lead and use the same responsible fiscal guidelines he uses.
How long do you think you could last that way? A year? Two? Maybe just a few months?
No problem....Obama will send you a check whenever you need one!
Stupid is as stupid says.
......devereaux
Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Stop the Republican extremists!!
What a great headline that is.
It is actually a promotion started by (who else?) the left, to discourage qualified candidates from the right in running for office. It is also designed to solidify the agenda of the left by doing what they do so well...stealing words and changing their meanings.
They have already done this with the word "racist" and have many people believing that if someone disagrees with the policies of the incumbent President then that person must be racist. See my post a while ago about the race card...http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/04/race-card.html
Of course, all this manipulation of words and recreation of meanings has been a process for a long time, starting with the evil of political correctness. Surprisingly, I have some thoughts on that too.... http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/05/greatest-lie-of-all-political.html
And now we come to the left's new ploy.
If racist does not make 'em run, maybe extremist will?
Nobody wants to be called an extremist, do they? We all know that being an extremist is close to being a fundamentalist, and fundamentalist adherents to Islam are close to terrorists...so if we can call the right extremists, the people will associate that with terrorists and the game is over!! Right?
Ok. Good plan.....maybe.
Let's look at the definition of "extremist".
A quick trip to dictionary.com reveals this gem...
"a person who favours or resorts to immoderate,uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in beingpolitically radical"
And close by, a quote from Robert Kennedy...
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]
Now, I can live with both the definition and the quote.
I think they combine to show pretty clearly what an extremist is and what the dangers are.
So...let us now look at the different beliefs of the conservative and the progressive. Let us look at what they say, and see whether the definition actually fits....
This is gonna be fun!!
Point 1:
Conservatives believe that the power should be in the hands of the people, that ever man, woman and child should have the freedom to make their own choices, follow their own journey in life and be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.
Progressives believe that Government is the right organization to control the populace, that the people do not have the intellect or capacity to determine what is good for them, and that it is the role of Government to ensure people do what is best for them by providing a structure to prevent them from doing what is not good for them. This structure is "law" with significant painful penalties if you eat the wrong food, drive the wrong car or use the wrong sort of energy (as a few minor examples). These laws are enforced by a plethora of agencies paid for by the very people controlled by them.
OK. So one group seeks freedom for all and personal responsibility. Sounds good to me. Nothing too extreme there. The other group wants government control and enforcement to make sure you do what you are told. Ummm...that sounds like forceful control of everyone...that kinda sounds extreme to me.
Point 2:
True Conservatives believe in small and limited government with the responsibilities and obligations of the government limited by the Constitution under which the law of this republic was created. OK...so laws were created to limit government and conservatives support that. Doesn't seem too extreme to me.
On the other hand, progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to include all manner of things that help them create larger government and more control over your life. They want to make you all believe this Nation is a Democracy and not a representative Republic governed by law. A democracy on the other hand is little more than control by the masses and the masses can be easily bought off with a few shekels. Progressives want to fundamentally change this country. Ummm....a bit too extreme for me!
Point 3:
Conservatives want people to be responsible for their own actions, to be responsible for their own families and to be responsible for their own success (or failure). That sounds very reasonable to me....certainly not extreme.
Progressives want the state to be responsible for ensuring that everybody can look after themselves, their families and their future. This state responsibility extends to those who make poor decisions, fail to take education seriously, or simply are too lazy to take responsibility themselves. Since the state has no money of its own, it needs to take money from those who are responsible and give that to those who are not. Umm...isn't that a bit extreme?
Point 4:
Conservatives seek lower taxes. This means that when you work for a living, you get to keep more of what you made. Does that sound extreme to you?
Progressives want to punish the hard workers by taking more of his money and giving it to the lazy or others that the elites determine in their own minds are worthy. I call that stealing...and very extreme.
Point 5:
Conservatives believe that God and the belief in him and faith are the cornerstone of American culture. Belief in God has never (until now) been considered extreme.
Progressives want all reference to God be taken out of every Government activity, in case someone may be offended. Every reference. Doesn't that sound extreme to you?
Point 6:
Conservatives want the producers and risk takers and workers to all share in the profits of their efforts. They understand that capital flows to successful efforts and flows away from unsuccessful enterprises. They want the free flow of capital and labor to determine which markets thrive, fail or just meander along. The great American free market has not been a free market in 200 years, and yet the principals of a free market remain solid. Is it extreme to want to let the consumer determine which producers succeed or fail?
Progressives want success to be determined by some form of "fairness quotient" and not by what the market determines. They want to prop up inefficient and failing businesses and manage the flow of capital to those business government believes SHOULD exist (not caring what the people want - the people are not smart enough to know what is good for them.) Since the government has no money of its own, it will take money from the successful producers and business and give it to the unsuccessful business (without government funding those businesses would fail because capital does flow toward failing businesses). Once again, progressive steal from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. That sounds pretty extreme to me.
So, in just a few minutes, on a side by side comparison, it seems that what we have here is the progressive movement trying to transpose their program of extremist desires onto the true conservatives. This is exactly what a great progressive, Robert Kennedy warned of.
If you didn't get it before, I shall repeat it here...
Does this give you pause to think?
Even Robert Kennedy, a stalwart of the progressive movement was able to see, over 50 years ago, where the greatest threat lies.
You progressives out there....do you still think Republicans are extremists? Or do you have the moral certitude to know in your hearts that your beliefs are the extremist views, and conservatives are simply showing you the way.
Progressive words do have meanings. Robert Kennedy understood this, and at least had the moral honesty to point out that what you call your opponents is the greater evil.
Take note.
Stupid is as stupid says.
.........devereaux
It is actually a promotion started by (who else?) the left, to discourage qualified candidates from the right in running for office. It is also designed to solidify the agenda of the left by doing what they do so well...stealing words and changing their meanings.
They have already done this with the word "racist" and have many people believing that if someone disagrees with the policies of the incumbent President then that person must be racist. See my post a while ago about the race card...http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/04/race-card.html
Of course, all this manipulation of words and recreation of meanings has been a process for a long time, starting with the evil of political correctness. Surprisingly, I have some thoughts on that too.... http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/2011/05/greatest-lie-of-all-political.html
And now we come to the left's new ploy.
If racist does not make 'em run, maybe extremist will?
Nobody wants to be called an extremist, do they? We all know that being an extremist is close to being a fundamentalist, and fundamentalist adherents to Islam are close to terrorists...so if we can call the right extremists, the people will associate that with terrorists and the game is over!! Right?
Ok. Good plan.....maybe.
Let's look at the definition of "extremist".
A quick trip to dictionary.com reveals this gem...
"a person who favours or resorts to immoderate,uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in beingpolitically radical"
And close by, a quote from Robert Kennedy...
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]
Now, I can live with both the definition and the quote.
I think they combine to show pretty clearly what an extremist is and what the dangers are.
So...let us now look at the different beliefs of the conservative and the progressive. Let us look at what they say, and see whether the definition actually fits....
This is gonna be fun!!
Point 1:
Conservatives believe that the power should be in the hands of the people, that ever man, woman and child should have the freedom to make their own choices, follow their own journey in life and be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.
Progressives believe that Government is the right organization to control the populace, that the people do not have the intellect or capacity to determine what is good for them, and that it is the role of Government to ensure people do what is best for them by providing a structure to prevent them from doing what is not good for them. This structure is "law" with significant painful penalties if you eat the wrong food, drive the wrong car or use the wrong sort of energy (as a few minor examples). These laws are enforced by a plethora of agencies paid for by the very people controlled by them.
OK. So one group seeks freedom for all and personal responsibility. Sounds good to me. Nothing too extreme there. The other group wants government control and enforcement to make sure you do what you are told. Ummm...that sounds like forceful control of everyone...that kinda sounds extreme to me.
Point 2:
True Conservatives believe in small and limited government with the responsibilities and obligations of the government limited by the Constitution under which the law of this republic was created. OK...so laws were created to limit government and conservatives support that. Doesn't seem too extreme to me.
On the other hand, progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to include all manner of things that help them create larger government and more control over your life. They want to make you all believe this Nation is a Democracy and not a representative Republic governed by law. A democracy on the other hand is little more than control by the masses and the masses can be easily bought off with a few shekels. Progressives want to fundamentally change this country. Ummm....a bit too extreme for me!
Point 3:
Conservatives want people to be responsible for their own actions, to be responsible for their own families and to be responsible for their own success (or failure). That sounds very reasonable to me....certainly not extreme.
Progressives want the state to be responsible for ensuring that everybody can look after themselves, their families and their future. This state responsibility extends to those who make poor decisions, fail to take education seriously, or simply are too lazy to take responsibility themselves. Since the state has no money of its own, it needs to take money from those who are responsible and give that to those who are not. Umm...isn't that a bit extreme?
Point 4:
Conservatives seek lower taxes. This means that when you work for a living, you get to keep more of what you made. Does that sound extreme to you?
Progressives want to punish the hard workers by taking more of his money and giving it to the lazy or others that the elites determine in their own minds are worthy. I call that stealing...and very extreme.
Point 5:
Conservatives believe that God and the belief in him and faith are the cornerstone of American culture. Belief in God has never (until now) been considered extreme.
Progressives want all reference to God be taken out of every Government activity, in case someone may be offended. Every reference. Doesn't that sound extreme to you?
Point 6:
Conservatives want the producers and risk takers and workers to all share in the profits of their efforts. They understand that capital flows to successful efforts and flows away from unsuccessful enterprises. They want the free flow of capital and labor to determine which markets thrive, fail or just meander along. The great American free market has not been a free market in 200 years, and yet the principals of a free market remain solid. Is it extreme to want to let the consumer determine which producers succeed or fail?
Progressives want success to be determined by some form of "fairness quotient" and not by what the market determines. They want to prop up inefficient and failing businesses and manage the flow of capital to those business government believes SHOULD exist (not caring what the people want - the people are not smart enough to know what is good for them.) Since the government has no money of its own, it will take money from the successful producers and business and give it to the unsuccessful business (without government funding those businesses would fail because capital does flow toward failing businesses). Once again, progressive steal from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. That sounds pretty extreme to me.
So, in just a few minutes, on a side by side comparison, it seems that what we have here is the progressive movement trying to transpose their program of extremist desires onto the true conservatives. This is exactly what a great progressive, Robert Kennedy warned of.
If you didn't get it before, I shall repeat it here...
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]
Does this give you pause to think?
Even Robert Kennedy, a stalwart of the progressive movement was able to see, over 50 years ago, where the greatest threat lies.
You progressives out there....do you still think Republicans are extremists? Or do you have the moral certitude to know in your hearts that your beliefs are the extremist views, and conservatives are simply showing you the way.
Progressive words do have meanings. Robert Kennedy understood this, and at least had the moral honesty to point out that what you call your opponents is the greater evil.
Take note.
Stupid is as stupid says.
.........devereaux
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)