Liberals are, Bottom Line, Idiots

Charles Blow, who writes for the New York Times, pounds out the stupid regarding Paul Ryan’s recent comments about poverty in the inner city:

…But instead of cushioning his comments, Ryan shot back, “There was nothing whatsoever about race in my comments at all — it had nothing to do with race.”

That would have been more believable if Ryan hadn’t prefaced his original comments by citing Charles Murray, who has essentially argued that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and whom the Southern Poverty Law Center labels a “white nationalist.” (The center’s definition: “White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites.”)…

Because Blow expects (correctly) that those who provide his paycheck at the Times as well as most of those who bother to read the Times on a regular basis are even bigger idiots than he is, Blow just goes off and says that Ryan – the racist – is proved to be a racist because he, Ryan, quotes a well known racist (Charles Murray).  Blow won’t tell you precisely why Murray is a racist – expecting, in the end, that most of his readers are too lazy and/or stupid to just look Murray up and see who he is (or, alternately, they are simply afraid – fearful that if they look up Murray they’ll find that maybe a liberal is lying and that can lead to all sorts of horrors).  Murray, of course, is tagged by drooling mouth-breathers (ie, liberals) as a racist because 20 years ago he wrote a book (The Bell Curve) which discussed quite a lot of things, but also noted – in passing, really – that differences in intelligence might partially be determined by genetics.  This was deemed racist by liberal dimwits because the only reason any ethnic group can possibly have a different outcome overall from American whites is because American whites are racist (it was also, at this time, forbidden for anyone to ever point out that Japanese and Chinese Americans appear smarter and more successful – on average – than the racist white Americans who work day in and day out to keep all non-white people down).  And, so, Murray is a racist, forever.  Anyone who quote Murray is also a racist – ergo, Ryan is a racist. Its proved, you see?  Heck, its in the New York Times, right?  What more do you want?

Now that Ryan is a racist, forever, it is time to make certain that no one pays the least attention to what Ryan says (boiled down – in some areas of the country, the culture is pretty much against hard work and, so, a lot of people don’t work).  You see, we can’t risk having an idiot start to think.  That starts happening and the Times will be hurt, Blow will be out of a job and Democrats will be defeated at election time.  So, we have to get some stupid in here which sounds like it means something.  On we go:

…His research, he noted, indicates that “40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period” and “54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty.” Rank concluded, “Put simply, poverty is a mainstream event experienced by a majority of Americans.”…

Which has, of course, precisely nothing to do with what Ryan said. But your basic liberal, reading the Times, will nod his or her head like the brainless twits they are and never go further.  Ryan is a racist and other people besides inner-city people are poor, so can we just get back to fighting racism so that black people can get ahead?  That, seriously, is how liberals view this.  The fact that plenty of Americans experience poverty is immaterial to what Ryan was saying.  I’m pretty sure that out of every 100 people who read this, 50 will be able to remember a time they lived in poverty (full disclosure: when I was a child, my father had to go on food stamps for a while.  Additionally, there have been times in my life when I didn’t have $20 to my name).  But that doesn’t matter – what matters is that in certain areas of the country, poverty is endemic and goes on for generation after generation.  This is especially true in inner cities where the culture is against work (against education, too – we all know the term “acting white” to describe a certain subset of African-Americans who view being educated and working hard as being “white” and thus some sort of race-traitor).

Blow’s work is now done.  Liberals are now free to ignore Ryan (or, better, hate him and do Twitter flame wars claiming he’s a racist).  The idiocy of liberalism can continue undisturbed.  Its all so nuanced and hard to define.  All we need is more money from government on “poverty programs”.  We don’t need to think.  We don’t need to consider that we’ve had the poverty programs for decades and yet poverty still exists. And just what are “results”, anyways?  Are we sure that a demand for positive results is not a racial code word?  We don’t need to look at pesky things like third and fourth generation poverty among inner-city people…and we’d best not contrast that with non-white immigrants who arrived 20 years ago but are now middle or upper class.  All is well.  Remain calm – and keep reading the Times!

Idiots, all of them.  Preventing thought, preventing reform, preventing people from rising out of poverty.  But, hey, why should Blow worry?  He’s got the sweet gig at the Times…and most of his readers are well off, too…

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Liberals are, Bottom Line, Idiots

  1. Amazona March 22, 2014 / 6:39 pm

    The dreck spewed by Blow (and has there ever been a more appropriate name, given the use of the word “blow” in connection with vomit) is proof of the old GIGO adage—Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    The linked article from the Southern Poverty Law Center is a course, in and of itself, on yellow journalism. From the beginning of the article, where it simply declares that the “ideology” of Charles Murray is “White Nationalist”, it is one foul and disgusting lie, distortion and/or libel after another. Certainly anyone who gives credence to this group of bigots is going to find its output of vitriol quite persuasive, but it can’t affect any reasonable decent person with any reaction other than disgust.

    The article’s first paragraph telegraphs its ongoing motif—that of character assassination based on outright lies—-and it never strays from this path. From the salvo of claiming Murray uses “…… racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor. “ It hurries on to explain that, according to this group, “According to Murray, disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged because, on average, they cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior.”

    This bunch of bigots has simply decided to call what Murray does “racist pseudoscience” and then to just lie about what he says. And the lying never stops, expanding to include lies about other people as well, such as their lies about what Larry Summers said about women. After passing through the filters of the SPLC, which evidently do a fine job of filtering out even the smallest degree of integrity or character, they claim that Summers made “….statements about women’s lack of intellectual aptitude…”

    The seething rage and innate nastiness of the SPLC article, and the fact that Blow finds it relevant and significant, is all that is necessary to understand the total lack of legitimate content in whatever it is that Blow produces.

    The fact is, there is a particularly vile and distasteful segment of the Left which gets such a visceral thrill out of finding character flaws in political opponents that they have become incapable of focusing on anything else, and this obsession has taken on such mammoth proportions that they can no longer even THINK of any conservative without automatically snapping to a litany of prepared character assassinations. The flavor of the decade is racism, which they manage to find or implant in every word, every action, every thought, every motive, and every everything that is associated with the Right.

    This serves two main purposes. It allows people with no integrity or ethics or character to assume the Higher Moral Ground, based on their assessment of the characters of others (even when this assessment has to be based on their own lies) and further, it frees them from what is evidently the too-difficult task of actually THINKING. Thinking about why these people really are political opponents would lead to understanding and analyzing the reasons for the differences, would demand actual thought processes, would point out the fact that the opposition is based on objective cognition instead of blind emotion, and in general would pose far too many obstacles to their blind groping for some sense of relevance.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2014 / 1:14 am

      It is vile – and it is a pity that our libel laws are so weak in this area. For better or worse (and mostly much worse) the SLPC is a respected organization and lots of people who simply don’t know will trust them…so, anyone using SLPC to find out about Murray will just put him down as a racist and thus pay no heed to what he says. That he’s a highly educated man with a lot of interesting things to say about the United States – clean out the window. Doesn’t matter. Might as well not even exist. Stupid trumps smart.

      • Amazona March 23, 2014 / 11:38 am

        And when someone like Thomas Sowell makes observations similar to those of Murray, the Left calls HIM a racist, an Uncle Tom, bleats that he is “not black enough”. He is an insult to the Left, a man brought up by his grandmother in the ghetto after being basically abandoned by a drug-addled mother, who put himself through college and rose the top of several fields, including economics and political analysis. He is living proof that race has nothing to do with intelligence or ambition or ability, and this is an affront to the truly racist Left, which needs to promote and propagate the image of black people as helpless, downtrodden by the eeeeevil white man, and so inherently inferior that they can’t even have the illusion of accomplishment without the condescending handout represented by lowering standards and giving them preferential treatment.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2014 / 12:11 am

        They have to try and keep them on the liberal plantation – and, my goodness, we just let them get away with it! There are plenty of ways and means we can go into the heavily blue areas and explain to these people how they are being kept down so that the likes of Sharpton and Jackson can keep raking it off…

  2. Amazona March 22, 2014 / 9:18 pm

    More on the idiocy of Liberals: Go, if you are willing to be exposed to filth and degeneracy in name of Liberal “education” to this web site and listen to the audio.

    http://fundamentalrefounding.ning.com/forum/topics/common-core-strikes-again-local-outcry-raised-against-common-core

    The audio is a telephone call to a Denver radio station by a woman objecting to the Common Core agenda of making a certain book MANDATORY reading in high schools. It is, you see, really really important to be able to put yourself into the mind of a pedophile, to experience what he experiences as he rapes young girls.

    And when you have listened to what Liberals want our children to be forced to read, stop and think about the arguments made by those Liberals in favor of forcing this filth on children as young as 14. You see, according to the ACLU, objecting to this is nothing more than, you guessed it, RACISM. And an argument made by the Left—-not by Charles Murray, but by the Left its own self, is that this is the kind of reading necessary to be able to understand the black experience.

    To phrase it another way, the black experience is one of utter degeneracy. If Charles Murray had suggested that reading about a black sexual predator and incest initiator is a way to understand black culture, the collective heads of the Southern Poverty Law Center would explode. But as an argument FROM the Left, in the interest of further corrupting our young, it seems to be quite acceptable.

    Read this link, listen to the audio, and remember this when you hear some sincere-sounding Lefty murmur in oh-so-reasonable tones about how Common Core is so GOOD for our young. “Last week, the Colorado Senate rejected a bill that aimed to slow the implementation of Common Core on a party line vote.

    Not a vote to block it, mind you—just an effort to slow it down, so there would be time to examine it, discuss it, and be sure it is the right thing to do. And once again, the Left is determined to rush something through before anyone can really take the time to understand it. Shades of Obamacare…………

  3. Jeremiah March 23, 2014 / 12:26 am

    Really hits home as I read your post, Mark. As poverty has been a reality for me for quite some time. At least the last six months or so. It has made me think … and pray for things to change, it must change if we are to survive. Although, worrying about it won’t do anything to help matters, as it won’t do one thing to add a single day to our life.

    Things can get really confusing with all of the misinformation that is circulated out there. And one really does not know who to trust, and what sources are trustworthy. If a person cites one source for some information, then another will discredit that source. If I want to place my trust in, and really believe the source that I have is valid information, and then John Doe-so-and-so discredits my source then what does our target audience/readers have to believe and put their trust in?

    The worst problem that I find, is that most people will never be exposed to the truth, or it will never reach them. A majority of American citizens are under the psychotic control of liberal media outlets, and liberal controlled institutions of education, liberal controlled journalism, liberal controlled news/tv, liberal controlled radio, liberal controlled newspapers, liberal controlled governments, etc, etc.

    On matters of race, I do sometimes wonder about the black community; from some of the things I’ve heard, listened to, I wonder. Africa for example, I know that it was a mistake for the people of Africa to elect Nelson Mandela to oversea that country’s affairs relating to political matters, but overall, why do the folks there not choose to rise out of their poverty stricken state? Most folks there live in mud and grass huts, many to most do not have clothing, or clean water, or food, just the basic necessities for survival. At this point in our history, most countries have risen to great heights in industry, with major advancements in technology, and machining. So, it really defies reason that we have countries that continue to live in a state of medieval antiquity.

    One thing I want to say before I go on, that it’s hard to say anything about other races of people without feeling like a “racist”, as their seems to be this stigma created by those who want to keep racism alive such that we can’t speak in a manner that would, or might be of benefit to help resolve some of the problems that plague our civilization…

    …and one of those being – why, after several decades have passed, since Dr. King’s “Dream Sermon” have black people been the leading cause of crime in America? A majority of them in a poverty stricken state? 60% of black children born to out of wedlock parents, and without a father to support them? Prisons filled with black men and women? … Now, while it’s true to note, that many of Dr. King’s wishes have come true…why do these other overwhelming facts greatly overshadow Dr. King’s dream? Again, it defies reason! Worst of all, after all these years in the light of the history of Margaret Sanger’s “Planned Parenthood” schemes do they continue to abort children at an alarming rate, and support her organization?

    Now, I really SHOULD NOT wonder about why all these things have, and are taking place, as God Word tells us that we “will always have the poor with us”, and that the times will grow worse and worse, “as in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man” … I have to wonder, while time continues to march along, what, if anything, anyone is willing to do to solve these problems that we are faced with?

    I think the biblical model for families and civilizations to live by would be a good start to re-implement, such that we can begin the healing process in our world.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2014 / 1:09 am

      As for why Africa is in a bad state, especially in relation to the rest of the world, I recommend to you Thomas Sowell’s Conquests and Cultures. Do read it, but here’s the basics – the problem with Africa has always been one of transportation, and in that Africa is a prisoner of geography. There are, especially in sub-Saharan African, very few natural harbors and very few rivers which are navigable to ocean-going vessels. This is a crucial aspect of the situation – especially as in sub-Saharan Africa, draft animals like horses and oxen often can’t survive due to the peculiar disease environment. Given this – little water transport and not even any secondary transport available by draft animals – African populations have tended to be isolated both from the outside world and each other (it can’t be stressed enough that easy access to water transport – even today – is crucial for the economic vitality of any region on earth). Without the cross-pollination of trade and ideas, civilization is exceptionally hard to get going (and it is no surprise that Africa’s greatest civilization – Egypt – arose on one of the very few African rivers which are navigable to ocean-going vessels year round). Its not anything inherent to Africans, it is just how things worked out due to geography – the pity of it was that once Europeans could deal with the tropical diseases (starting after, say, 1870) the Africans had no means of repelling them…and so the Europeans took over, showed the people of Africa a vastly better way of doing things…and then left before the underlying mindset which created the better way of doing things could be firmly implanted into African civilization. The result has been the continual chaos in Africa since 1960. The people know what they want – and demagogues promise they’ll get them – but they simply don’t know how to get it. The worst tragedy of Africa was being colonized in the 1880’s…the second worst was to be de-colonized in the 1960’s, about 50-60 years before they really should have been.

      As for Africans who were transferred to what is the United States, that is a bit of a mixed-bag, as Sowell also explains. Those who were here longest and most immersed into American culture did best, especially in the post-slavery era. But what could one expect of the basic field hand of 1865, suddenly released from bondage? He was almost certainly illiterate, knew nothing but agriculture and worse than that, only knew a particular type of agriculture which required a large, capitalist enterprise to be carried to completion…even if he had been given the proverbial 40 acres and a mule, he still wouldn’t have made it. He didn’t know how to manage a farm – he had never done such a thing (in this the similarity between the African-American freedman of 1865 and the newly freed Russian serfs is striking…those Russians – white as can be – were also illiterate and miserably bad agriculturalists who also didn’t know how to manage a farm and in vast numbers they simply failed once they were granted freedom and their land).

      What is really astounding – and one of the greatest things every done by a particular population – is how rapidly African-Americans advanced after 1865. From mostly illiterate at that time to nearly fully literate a scant 50-60 years later and rapidly moving into professions as advanced as science, medicine and law (of course, even at the time of slavery there were such…but in very, very small numbers). That is the real glory of African-American history – thought its been lost to us as political race-hustlers have seen to it that pride of place in African-American history is granted to political race-hustlers. As for being behind the white population in 1965 – that is absolutely no surprise, at all. And, yes, it was the residual effect of racism and slavery…but for heaven’s sake! It had only been a scant 100 years since 90% of the African-American population was illiterate field hands. What did anyone expect? And here’s the real tragedy – the political race-hustlers used that fact (blacks still behind whites) to re-stoke the fires of racism so that political-race hustlers could rake it in…and in the process, retard further advances by the overall African-American population! It is just so sad and disgusting.

      • Jeremiah March 23, 2014 / 1:39 am

        Very interesting prose. I will ponder.

        Thank you, Sir!

      • Amazona March 23, 2014 / 10:59 am

        “… what could one expect of the basic field hand of 1865, suddenly released from bondage? He was almost certainly illiterate, knew nothing but agriculture and worse than that, only knew a particular type of agriculture which required a large, capitalist enterprise to be carried to completion…even if he had been given the proverbial 40 acres and a mule, he still wouldn’t have made it. He didn’t know how to manage a farm – he had never done such a thing (in this the similarity between the African-American freedman of 1865 and the newly freed Russian serfs is striking…those Russians – white as can be – were also illiterate and miserably bad agriculturalists who also didn’t know how to manage a farm and in vast numbers they simply failed once they were granted freedom and their land). ”

        For another example, you can look at Peru after the Agrarian Reform when the Marxists took the land away from the aristocrat class and parceled it out to the peasants. Knowing nothing of the science of agriculture, lacking the economy of scale that allowed a large farm to support hundreds of people and depending on about 40 acres to support a family, and lacking even the most basic understanding of the need to plan ahead, farmers ate their seed corn, ate the cattle instead of breeding them for food for the future, and quickly degenerated into chaos and famine.

        Anyone can learn how to manage the land, learn agriculture, learn what is necessary to be independent and still survive and flourish, but it takes time, and education, and someone to teach, unless someone is very very lucky and survives the trial-and-error period and figures it out on his own. If a peasant has been able to save and eventually buy his own land, he has not only proved to be industrious and someone who plans and works toward a goal, he has probably been studying on how best to parlay his original investment into greater success.

        But masses who have been stirred up and fed revolutionary rhetoric by their Leftist puppet masters have also been told that the class they want to overthrow is weak, useless, parasitic and self-indulgent. So when they are given what they have not earned, starting with the assumption than ownership is not work and a responsibility but is just a chance to be lazy and eat all they want and let someone else do the work, they tend to think that is all they will have to do once they take over.

        We have examples of this in three basic cultures—black, Latino and white. Clearly it is not race-based.

    • Amazona March 23, 2014 / 11:24 am

      It is considered racist to candidly discuss cultural differences, so it doesn’t happen nearly often enough, and they are not given the consideration they should be given when people try to understand why some people flourish and others do not.

      For many years I had a close friend who grew up in a tiny village in the Andes of Peru. At the age of 12 he fled to Lima to live with an aunt, to get away from Sendero Luminoso, the terrorist group of the Andes which threatened to kill him if he did not join. In Lima, he chose to go to military school, then put himself through college and found a job in the United States. He was a thinker, and loved to discuss politics and political philosophy, as well as how they are part of history.

      He taught me a lot about the political history of Peru and South America in general, and we talked a lot about the poverty in his country. We had a mutual friend, a Peruvian with an American wife, who went to the villages where the women were so skilled at weaving and gave them examples of high-fashion clothing, so they could make money by making things that had a market in the United States, more so than the ethnic crafts that had a limited appeal. The couple had a shop in a resort town and sold these beautiful hand-crafted items for a good price, and the man told me he was tired and would like to retire but he was the sole support of over 100 families and he felt responsible for them.

      My friend and I talked about this, and other ways Peruvians could lift themselves out of poverty, and he was the one who told me, over and over, that it was the culture that holds them back. He said that most Peruvians simply will not take jobs that require being at the same place at the same time every day, to do the same repetitive and tedious work, and this is the kind of industrial work that provides the first generation of impoverished people the income necessary to educate its children and set them up to rise to the next level of employment.

      What I observed in my travels in South and Central America was that people seemed willing to work long hours for someone else if it was in agriculture, working on large coffee plantations or cattle ranches, but I took my friend’s word for it that the idea of factory work would simply not appeal, and that people would not do it. He loved his country, he loved his people, and we spent many hours talking about the inherent problems of culture that keep them stuck where they are.

      • Amazona March 23, 2014 / 11:31 am

        Now throw politics into the mix. We talked about setting up small factories in the mountains, which would be more casual and friendly to workers than big impersonal ones, to bring together the weavers to make fashionable clothing in larger quantities, and he said this would merely attract the attention of Sendero Luminoso, which would not only destroy the little factories but abuse and maybe kill those who worked there.

        Without Leftist terrorists, we agreed it would be possible to set up a cottage industry that would allow women, and men who wanted to do the work, to advance economically, and this would support better schools, and possibly provide scholarships for higher education in the cities for children who wanted to get degrees. But the Left depends on having people weak and dependent, hungry and resentful, and while in the United States this is accomplished through the efforts of the Complicit Agenda Media and race pimps and government handouts, in South America it is at the end of a gun,

      • Amazona March 24, 2014 / 1:50 pm

        George Will has an excellent article on what happens when someone associates cultural tendencies with things like poverty.

        “Critics of Rep. Paul Ryan’s remarks about cultural factors in the persistence of poverty are simultaneously shrill and boring. Their predictable minuet of synthetic indignation demonstrates how little liberals have learned about poverty or changed their rhetorical repertoire in the last 49 years.

        Ryan spoke of a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” adding: “There’s a real culture problem here.” This brought down upon Ryan the usual acid rain of accusations — racism, blaming the victims, etc. He had sauntered into the minefield that a more experienced Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a liberal scholar who knew the taboos of his tribe — had tiptoed into five years before Ryan was born.”

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373979/ryans-critics-are-denial-george-will

        I suggest reading the article. Moynihan’s observations—from a classic liberal, not one of the new RRL Liberal faction—-are interesting and relevant.

    • sarahbloch March 24, 2014 / 9:39 am

      For one thing jeremiah wealth is a finite resource despite what derivative managers on Wall Street would ever tell you. No matter how poor you think you are and I am only assuming that you are poor because you live not in luxury but in poverty as it is perceived by most conservatives in America ( you have shelter, food and clothing but not luxury) you and the America wealthy are a part of the cause of global poverty simply by the gross amounts of their consumption divided by their production. If you sit at a desk and push papers you aren’t helping. If you choose not to work and can you are not helping. if you profit simply from the work of others you are not helping. It’s really as simple as getting Americans to consume less and contribute more.

      • GMB March 24, 2014 / 11:47 am

        Wealth is a finite resource? Damn, I wish somebody would have told me that before. Will I still have to go through the motions of planting this year because the seeds I put into the ground won’t grow?

        Is this the end of my wealth? Forever and ever?

        Got to be the dumbest thing ever to appear at B4B/B4V. And that is saying something with all the garbage you lefties have left around here.

      • Retired Spook March 24, 2014 / 12:35 pm

        For one thing jeremiah wealth is a finite resource despite what derivative managers on Wall Street would ever tell you.

        I’m rarely one to call people names, Sarah, but you’re an idiot (see the title of this thread). You can’t name a time in human history when wealth ceased to be created, the efforts of Liberals to stop or slow it down notwithstanding. Your knowledge of how capital markets work is stunningly ignorant. When Twitter went public, it created 1,600 instant millionaires, mostly from the ranks of ordinary working people and increased government tax revenue by an estimated $2.2 billion. Any of those millionaires who bought a new house or private plane or yacht immediately expanded existing jobs or created jobs that didn’t exist before.

        If you sit at a desk and push papers you aren’t helping.

        Can you name one successful economy on this planet that doesn’t maintain records?

        if you profit simply from the work of others you are not helping.

        Tell that to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett,

      • Amazona March 24, 2014 / 2:08 pm

        But you see, Sarah is merely repeating the silly idea of the economically illiterate RRL mouthpiece, which is that the size of the pie is finite, so when someone’s piece of the pie expands that means someone else had his piece diminished. This is the core of the silly Occupy movement, and the whole “income inequality” scam that is now being propagated, the idea that the only way “the poor” can gain in wealth is to take wealth from someone else. It is the cornerstone of the whole Leftist movement, and it depends on the ignorant, like Sarah, and their simplistic understanding of economics.

        What this does do, however, is provide a source of supporters and footsoldiers for the RRL, mindless puppets easily manipulated by their stupidity and the resentments created by their minders, who tell them things like “wealth is a finite resource” and that “FAIRNESS” demands that it be distributed according to existence instead of according to merit.

        Even calling an abstraction like “wealth” a “resource” is illustrative of absolute idiocy.

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2014 / 2:30 am

        The lack of understanding on the left is astonishing, isn’t it? Try to argue with them about “free” health care and education and you’ll find that they don’t understand that nothing is actually free, and none of them can defined what, exactly, they mean by “health care” and “education”.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 24, 2014 / 7:21 pm

        The Comment that starts with “For one thing jeremiah (sic) wealth is a finite resource …

        – is singularly the stupidest thing I’ve read from a libiot ever!

        Gross amounts of consumption divided by their production?????

        Is that intentional or a comedy routine?

      • Jeremiah March 24, 2014 / 11:01 pm

        Sarah,

        I have never heard that “money is a finite resource.” If that is the case, then it begs the question … if money is the only means for securing needs for survival, as it is the only means of economy that we rely on, and it is “finite,” then wouldn’t money have stopped circulating some time ago? The exchange of money for goods would have not worked.

        There are many things that I am not, and an economist is one of them, but from what I know, and have read, money is not a creation of the government, that markets, which pre-existed the state have full jurisdiction of the exchange of services for goods (or, in this case, money). And that the government should not regulate or tax markets for the services they’ve rendered. That is why America became a top-notch in the world, because of a FREE market. Why we prospered until this point in our history.

        Now, I’m not an anti-wealth person, at all. If you can get ahead in the world, with hard work and ideas, then you’ve achieved the American dream, and have well deserved it by earning it. I am also not against corporations, nothing wrong with entrepreneurship, though I am of the firm opinion that corporations should not have monopolies over large sections of any field, because that cuts in on the little man’s business. Small business, independent retailers must then dissolve their businesses, and/or file for bankruptcy because they cannot compete against the corporate lords. Well, enough with that…

        What I really don’t get, is how does the government expect anyone to survive with their tax hikes, on top of printing money? On top of gas prices? When you rely on your vehicle to get you where you need to go, and you have long distances to travel, and you need a dependable vehicle, and it costs you $120 a week, just in gas alone, then you have all your utilities…$200 something electric bill per month, $60 water bill, $65 sewage bill, $160 for groceries, then there is insurance for vehicles, $300 a month, vehicle payments, health insurance, home insurance, home mortgage, etc, etc, etc, etc. Not only that, but the federal taxes that are spent are going to people who don’t even work for a living.

        I don’t know, I really don’t know. I don’t know what more federal and state governments expect.

        What happens if working people don’t have anymore to spend on taxes? What then? They need every dollar they can just to survive … what if they run out of money? Where is the money going to come from to feed those living on the government teat?

        I was always of the opinion that in America, you start at the bottom and work your way up, not have everything handed to you on a silver platter, no, you worked, and provided for yourself. Why now, does the government seem to think that they must think for us? And take from the rich, to give to the poor?

        So-and-so wants what I have, but he doesn’t want to work for it? Why?

        Usually when someone steals from us, some type of retribution must be paid to compensate for losses. Why are we treating the government any differently? Why do they get away with stealing from the middle class working man?

        I think I have the short answer, but I would like to hear a detailed explanation…

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 25, 2014 / 10:55 am

        There are many things that I am not, and an economist is one of them

        Jeremiah, that post made more sense than most every economists I know.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 25, 2014 / 1:44 pm

        Tell that to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett,

        And to the thousands of ordinary Americans who have good paying jobs because of them.

      • Jeremiah March 26, 2014 / 12:49 am

        Jeremiah, that post made more sense than most every economists I know.

        Thanks, Count d’Haricots. 🙂

  4. Amazona March 23, 2014 / 1:00 pm

    From National Review, quoting Ted Cruz:

    ” It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama Administration to claim that the investigator leading the investigation into the IRS’s illegal program has no conflict of interest. The investigator is a partisan Democrat who has donated over six thousand dollars to President Obama and Democrat causes. Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS’s political targeting of President Obama’s enemies. Sadly, “in the discretion of the Attorney General,” Eric Holder has chosen to reject the bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance.

    “Both Nixon Administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach; Eric Holder should do likewise. To date, nine months after a damning Inspector General report, nobody has been indicted, many of the victims have not even been interviewed, and Lois Lerner has twice pleaded the Fifth. And yet the Attorney General refuses to allow a genuine–and impartial–investigation.

    The integrity of the Department of Justice deserves better. The American people deserve better.”

    Idiots, corrupt, whatever. The thing is, about half the country seems to think this is OK.

  5. Jeremiah March 26, 2014 / 12:44 am

    What liberals are teaching our children in school…

  6. Amazona March 26, 2014 / 11:33 am

    I heard a Liberal this morning, a caller to the Mandy Connell radio show in Denver, who is the poster child for idiotic Liberals.

    On Monday, an illegal alien driving over 80 MPH, while drunk, after having three prior DUI convictions , ran a red light and killed a 17-year-old boy driving home from a friend’s house. The crash was so violent the boy was killed instantly. There is, understandably, some uproar in the area about why this guy was still in the country, why he was not in jail after his second DUI, and so on.

    A Lefty called in to the Mandy Connell show on KHOW this morning, a guy who identified himself as “Scotty”, who was quite upset at the criticism of the driver. After all, Scotty, pointed out, we have no idea of the various stresses this man was feeling. The real victim here is the driver, who had been “persecuted” for ten years for being brown. And the boy’s parents are at fault for letting him be out at night. When Mandy said she didn’t give a crap about what stress the guy had been feeling, that prompted him to get loaded and drive down one of the busiest streets in the state at over 80 MPH, the response was that this is what is wrong with Republicans.

    I’ve tried to find the audio of the call, and when I do I will post it. In the meantime here is a copy of what is on her web page about the incident.

    “AURORA, Colo. — The man accused of running a red light and killing a teenager in Aurora Monday faces a charge of first-degree murder along with at least nine other charges.

    Police announced Tuesday 40-year-old Ever Olivos-Guiterrez of Aurora has an extensive history of traffic offenses and three prior convictions for impaired or drunk driving in Colorado. Investigators say he is an illegal immigrant who has never held a valid Colorado driver’s license.

    Juan Palomino, 17, died when his Camaro was broadsided at Colfax and Dayton by an SUV police say ran a red light at a high rate of speed. Palomino died at the scene.

    The teen’s family and friends are grieving over his death — and demanding justice. “Not even a two-minute drive. He never made it home,” Nancy Sanchez said. “And we hope and expect that the law gets tougher on these people who kill innocent people.”

    Olivos-Guiterrez faces the following charges:
    – Murder in the first degree extreme indifference
    – Vehicular homicide (DUI)
    – Vehicular homicide (reckless)
    – Driving while habitual traffic offender (DUI)
    – Driving while habitual traffic offender (reckless)
    – Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both
    – Drove with excessive alcohol
    – Reckless driving
    – Drove vehicle other than vehicle equipped with interlock

    The suspect was still in the hospital under police guard Tuesday recovering from injuries he received in the crash.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement says the last time Olivos-Guiterrez entered the United States legally was on a visitor visa in July 2003. It expired in January 2004.”

    Is it possible to be any more stupid than this Scotty? Yet I think he represents a significant portion of the Left, and in his response that Republicans are indifferent to the problems of other people probably more than that.

    • M. Noonan March 26, 2014 / 1:28 pm

      That is another prime example of liberal idiocy.

      Here’s my most recent understanding of things: when it was reported a couple days ago that Britian’s National Health Service was burning aborted and miscarried babies for fuel in hospitals, I realized that we are at the bitter end of a dying, pagan, savage period of our civilization. This will not go on. Now, whether or not it will stop because we conduct a revolution and restore America or it stops because our nation dies is beside the point – it will stop. 100 years from now, there will be no elective abortion, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage and all the rest of this claptrap which the left has managed to sucker our society in to accepting.

      Anyone doubt me? Well, I merely point out that every civilization which went down to the bottom of the gutter very shortly found itself overcome by people who refused to go into the gutter.

      • Amazona March 26, 2014 / 2:42 pm

        A quick comment on abortion: I never watch Letterman but Monday night he had a guest I wanted to see. To do this, I had to sit through a long interview with Jimmah Carter. He is a very snotty man—he went out of his way to make some really catty remarks about Regan, though to my knowledge Reagan never attacked him, but that is a class thing.

        Anyway, Carter has a book out in which he seems to address some important issues, and he spent quite a bit of time talking about the plight of women around the world, primarily about slavery and sex slaves. (At the end of the interview, Letterman said to Carter “I hoped you’d be funnier”, which is probably the funniest thing Letterman has ever said.) And Carter said that just in this country alone, hundreds of thousands of women have been “destroyed” by abortion. I couldn’t believe he said it, and I am sure a lot of Lefty heads exploded. He went on to talk about abortion to select the gender of the child, which is usually in other countries, but he came back to the theme that hundreds of thousands of women are “destroyed” because they are killed in the womb.

        If a hair-on-fire Lib like Carter can see abortion as the destruction of human life, there may be hope…………

      • M. Noonan March 26, 2014 / 2:47 pm

        Maybe – of course, he still might be all “woman’s right to choose”, but just be against sex-selection abortion. But, any help we can get…even a ban on sex-selection abortion would be a stunning victory for reason.

      • Amazona March 26, 2014 / 2:51 pm

        Mark, go to this link and listen to the audio—a woman is reading excerpts from a book Libs want to make mandatory reading for high school students. These are schools that no longer read classics, like Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick, but think that it is essential for children as young as 14 to be able to get inside the heads of pedophiles and experience what they experience as they rape young girls.

        http://fundamentalrefounding.ning.com/forum/topics/common-core-strikes-again-local-outcry-raised-against-common-core

        It seems to me that while the Left has become gradually more degenerate, in the past six to ten years they have picked up velocity in their plunge into absolute depravity. I think it is kind of a “Well, we got away with a crucifix in urine so obviously we can do anything…” way of thinking. They tested us to see how much crap we would accept, and when the Complicit Agenda Media heaped more praise upon them as they became more and more offensive, they realized they had just gotten a free pass to be as vile and disgusting as they want, and to drag society as far into the gutter as they please.

        A simple example: The prevalence of the use of references to testicles in prime time TV. They started off with an occasional reference to “stones”, moved on to “grow a pair”, and now testicular commentary is quite common. It really was not that long ago that none of this would be tolerated, and now it is prime-time.

      • M. Noonan March 27, 2014 / 12:29 am

        Our advanced thinkers on the left are like that, aren’t they? Slowly “gaslighting” us in to accepting ever worse garbage. They won’t stop, but they are also doomed – my only concern is to preserve our liberty so that when things fall apart, we can take over and rebuild…if we can do it by just getting ourselves elected strong enough to change things, that will be fine, but however it comes out, things won’t be like they are today 100 years from now…they can’t be. A liberal society will not survive – a people who have no children and who worship sex don’t survive. The Greeks didn’t, the Romans didn’t. Our liberals won’t, either.

        Today I read a story about a 66 year old German woman who was discovered dead in her apartment – she had been dead six months. The authorities were only summoned after the building manager complained that her mail box was stuffed to overflowing. She had no husband. Had no children. Had no friends close enough to note that she hasn’t been around. 66 years old: that makes her a Boomer. Who wants to bet that she signed on to the liberal, modern life? But it is no life – if you don’t get married and have kids (or at least leave yourself open to such normal, human things) then you’ll eventually have nothing…you’ll die alone, rotting in front of your television for six months. That is the liberal future, if you like…

      • Amazona March 26, 2014 / 2:54 pm

        Mark, once you accept that killing a human being because it is the “wrong” gender is morally wrong, it’s got to be hard to justify it because pregnancy would interfere with a family trip to Disneyland, or a job promotion, or result in stretch marks (all, by the way, reasons I have heard for aborting a baby).

  7. Amazona March 26, 2014 / 1:27 pm

    Jim Geraghty, of National Review, comments on other aspects of Liberal idiocy:

    “The currency of progressivism isn’t policies, and it certainly isn’t results. It’s emotions. Back in 2008, Slate’s Emily Yoffe suggested that the newly elected Barack Obama had done nothing less than define and harness a new human emotion:

    In his forthcoming book, Born to Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama), [Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California Berkeley] writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing “a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat.” For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It’s called “elevation.” …

    University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes,

    As long as a particular position or stance lets progressives feel good about themselves, they will embrace it. Thus the measuring stick of Obamacare is not whether it’s actually providing the uninsured with health insurance — the majority of the uninsured remain oblivious to even the most basic facts about the law — but whether a liberal feels that it’s a sign that he cares about the uninsured more than other people.

    Liberals will deem Obamacare a failure only if it stops making them feel good about themselves.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374207/unruly-progressives-jim-geraghty/page/0/1

    I might restate the comment by “moral psychologist” Jonathan Haidt (and what the hell is a “moral psychologist” anyway? Do psychologists have to start identifying themselves as “moral” to set them apart from other psychologists? Or is this just another Leftist ploy to establish moral superiority via semantic infiltration?)

    Anyway, I suggest that his comment be rephrased to be more accurate: “Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental ‘reset button,’ wiping out feelings of cynicism entire thought processes and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration superiority.”

Comments are closed.