Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss repealing ObamaCare in a conversation that touches Obama's secret desire to become "Dear Leader" and impose martial law, entitlements, and the nature of liberalism.
Todd: I came across this article from the National Review Online that discusses Kentucky's successful effort to repeal Kentucky Kare.
CLOG: Can I ask a dumb question here:
Where was this story during the healthcare debate? This is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Obamacare will not work. Real-world evidence of a state that tried and watched it fail miserably. Why didn’t we see this brought out by conservatives during the debate? Is everyone asleep at the switch? This would have been proof that it wouldn’t work and should have been trumpeted from the house tops.
It took over 10 years to repeal the KY monstrosity so it will probably take over 20 on the national level, all the while watching the system fail with rising costs, poorer service, and fewer covered. This needed to be stopped before it got started and this story might have made a difference.
Hope for a future generation? Yes. Hope for me? No. I get to grow old and just when I need the system it will not be there for me. Dot gov cheats me once more. Do they know how to do anything else anymore in DC?
Todd: Nope, it’s pretty awful…I think a French Revolution could be in store for us down the road.
And that’s a good point…where was this store PRE-health care “BFD” passage? I didn’t see this on ANY of the right-wing blogs at all. Where was Michelle Malkin? Where was Hot Air? Where was Drudge? Where was Pajamas Media?
CLOG: Where were the KY Republicans? They should have been yelling like their house was on fire – This will not work. We tried and it failed. Why weren’t they on TV or sending missives to all of the conservative bloggers or talking to Sarah Palin about this? Man this story could have gotten some traction. Anyway, spilt milk, I guess.
It could be getting ugly all right. Denninger wrote a missive that because .gov has been replacing consumer spending with gvmnt borrowing, when the inevitable fall comes, it will be a mighty fall indeed, much worse than if they had not propped things up with massive public debt. You think the .gov popularity figures are low now, they will hit all time lows, followed perhaps by the people taking to the streets.
Todd: Don’t you think this is playing right into DL’s hands? He’s GOT to be hoping for a bit of an insurrection; THUS, he can then declare martial law, suspend elections, rule by fiat, etc. Don’t you think? Of course, the ramifications of this could be serious bloodshed as well.
I suppose he could care less if, in the annals of history, he’s known as the Ivan the Terrible of the United States.
CLOG: I am sure DL would love an excuse to impose martial law. He can then take over or at least thinks he can. The problem win insurrections is that LEO’s and military are very reluctant to fire on their own people. It’s one thing to take care of hooligans and terrorists and quite another when everyday housewives and business people are rushing the barricades. Pulling that trigger becomes a lot tougher. Also, the populace of the US is fairly well armed and formidable, especially if desperate. Ya, maybe DL could get away with martial law for a while but could he make it stick? I doubt it because he does not understand the people of this country and cannot rule except according to his ideology. His ideology will probably fail him miserably in the face of desperate, independence minded masses of people who will feel betrayed by said ideology, will have lost everything in the second leg down, and are hungry, miserable and cold.
During the opening days of GD1, some WWI veterans stormed DC and were killed. That put an end to the passions and the country sat and waited the Depression out. Do you think that will be the case this time around? I am wondering if the desperation will be that much greater and that reason and sacrifice will prevail this time.
Todd: “During the opening days of GD1, some WWI veterans stormed DC and were killed. That put an end to the passions and the country sat and waited the Depression out. Do you think that will be the case this time around? I am wondering if the desperation will be that much greater and that reason and sacrifice will prevail this time.”
I honestly don’t know, friend, what to expect from the American citizenry…while we know there’s a significant tract of people genuinely PO’ed, we also have approximately half the country that’s fat and jiggly, nursing at the government teat. How will they react when someone proposes to abolish their “milk cow?”
CLOG: I am assuming that the second leg down will include either the end of ALL entitlements or a significant scale back. The second leg down will come when .gov can no longer prop which means she cannot sell any more bonds and tax revenues continue to decline, leading either to default or hyperinflation.
People will be loyal only as long as their belly is full. When ‘what’s theirs’ gets cut off, well…
Todd: This is the basis of DL’s “class warfare” rhetoric. The liberals misguidedly believe they’re defending the rights of “those less fortunate” than us.
CLOG: There are actually 2 classes of liberals: true idealists/ideologues and sociopaths. The first class was characterized by Lenin as the ‘useful idiots’ and are generally the young and the ‘intellectuals’ though I use that term loosely. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (among a host of others) belong to the second class. This class realizes that socialism/Marxism is a complete scam and unworkable. However, it is a useful doctrine for bamboozling those in the first class and thereby parting them from their money as well gaining their support for political office. I believe DL is in this second class. He uses Marxism purely for political gain. Castro and Chavez are also in this category. They mouth the Marxist words but are only interested in money and power and use this ideology toward those ends. They are of course very careful to never spill the beans that they are no longer ‘true believers’ lest the con be spoiled.
I believe that DL no longer believes in his heart he is doing anything for the poor or unfortunate or even cares to do so. He knows he is gaming the system for himself alone. This is why socialism/Marxism is so dangerous: it opens the door to sociopaths to gain entry to the seats of power. Once there, they are almost impossible to unseat because of the useless idiots keeping them in power. Once these monsters gain power, well, you know the history.
Do you think Pelosi, Reid, and many other Dems truly care about the poor? Maybe once they did but now it is about money and power – at any cost. Any underpriveledged class is now only a pawn used to gain power or money. So there are two levels of pawns here: any victim class and the useful idiot pawns. The sociopaths sit on the top pulling the strings and reaping all of the benefits, throwing just enough morsels to the other pawns to keep the game going.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Friday pontification
Anyone else find it interesting that a week after "health care reform" passed, we witnessed a Fed raid on a "right-wing/Christian" militia plus a four high-profile editorials (Rich, Krugman, et al) denouncing Tea Partiers as a group of neanderthal, racist, homophobes?
Doesn't this just reek of a well-orchestrated hit job by Dear Leader and (H)is Acolytes in the Legacy Media? It doesn't really pass the smell taste...instead it seems to be an effort to turn the criticism from that of the aforementioned Liberal Intellectuals to that of the "messenger (the messenger being Dear Leader's critics)."
It seems too well-timed to me: a raid on a right-wing militia coupled with liberal editorials.
Doesn't this just reek of a well-orchestrated hit job by Dear Leader and (H)is Acolytes in the Legacy Media? It doesn't really pass the smell taste...instead it seems to be an effort to turn the criticism from that of the aforementioned Liberal Intellectuals to that of the "messenger (the messenger being Dear Leader's critics)."
It seems too well-timed to me: a raid on a right-wing militia coupled with liberal editorials.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The twisted world liberals have forced us to live...April 1st edition
More twisted thoughts from liberals…
I’m reading the following article, http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-war-on-poverty-turns-40, and when I came to this section, I had a bit of an epiphany:
“An America based on limited government and unlimited opportunity—an America that rewards the hard work and initiative of its citizens—will not suffer from widespread poverty.”
Only in a liberals’ world are we rewarding laziness, entitlement, and lack of initative. In the “real world,” their opposites are what really propel people to success. IN A LIBERALS’ world, we are punishing success and rewarding the opposite.
WHY IS THIS? Is this because liberals perceive the fruits of our labor as undeserved? Ill-gotten? “Unfair?”
It's as if liberals, in so many facets but in particular economic ones, refuse to face the facts: hard-work, lower taxes, a vibrant PRIVATE sector, and MORE freedom, results in a healthy economy.
Instead, we're bombarded with increased government and higher taxes as well more intrusion from the feds. .GOV chooses to create and enforce more regulations, mandates, and laws in order to social engineer the country THEY want; one that defies common sense and good judgment.
All because an America of hard work is one they dislike.
Liberals see ALL wealth as evil and only obtained through illegal or immoral means. To them there are no such things as ‘fruits of labor.’ The concept simply doesn’t make sense in their world. Since wealth is all ill-gotten, it is ‘moral’ to tax it for the public good, to compensate for the ‘evil’ aspect of how the wealth was obtained. Wealth is never attained by hard, honest work; that is impossible in Marxist theory.
This is bogus of course. Our country was built by letting people keep as much of the fruits of their labor as possible and letting THEM determine what to do with said fruits. This has led to a strong work ethic (.gov doesn’t steal your fruits) and a sense of pride and honor. It also led to many people starting small businesses or innovative businesses and building our country into an economic powerhouse IN SPITE of FDR and the Dems.
The work ethic is disappearing now because .gov is taxing everything and giving it to the poor (minus their cut, of course), so why labor? In fact, it is better to be poor and live off .gov largesse. Again, the power of propaganda at work, destroying our society. Also, taxation takes away the capital that individuals need to start small or innovative businesses, hence our economic decline.
Unless we begin to shrink government all all levels right now, we are doomed. It may already be too late though. Also, the propaganda poisoning so many people has made them dependent and they do not know how to work or gain the fruits of hard labor. We’ve really messed things up…bigtime. Even if .gov shrinks, many in the population would not know what to do. Dot gov has not given her citizens the tools they need for self-sufficiency or prosperity. Instead they’ve stuck a needle in our veins and pumped in the addictive drug called welfare…all for our own good, of course. Watch out when that needle comes up empty.
Written by Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy
I’m reading the following article, http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-war-on-poverty-turns-40, and when I came to this section, I had a bit of an epiphany:
“An America based on limited government and unlimited opportunity—an America that rewards the hard work and initiative of its citizens—will not suffer from widespread poverty.”
Only in a liberals’ world are we rewarding laziness, entitlement, and lack of initative. In the “real world,” their opposites are what really propel people to success. IN A LIBERALS’ world, we are punishing success and rewarding the opposite.
WHY IS THIS? Is this because liberals perceive the fruits of our labor as undeserved? Ill-gotten? “Unfair?”
It's as if liberals, in so many facets but in particular economic ones, refuse to face the facts: hard-work, lower taxes, a vibrant PRIVATE sector, and MORE freedom, results in a healthy economy.
Instead, we're bombarded with increased government and higher taxes as well more intrusion from the feds. .GOV chooses to create and enforce more regulations, mandates, and laws in order to social engineer the country THEY want; one that defies common sense and good judgment.
All because an America of hard work is one they dislike.
Liberals see ALL wealth as evil and only obtained through illegal or immoral means. To them there are no such things as ‘fruits of labor.’ The concept simply doesn’t make sense in their world. Since wealth is all ill-gotten, it is ‘moral’ to tax it for the public good, to compensate for the ‘evil’ aspect of how the wealth was obtained. Wealth is never attained by hard, honest work; that is impossible in Marxist theory.
This is bogus of course. Our country was built by letting people keep as much of the fruits of their labor as possible and letting THEM determine what to do with said fruits. This has led to a strong work ethic (.gov doesn’t steal your fruits) and a sense of pride and honor. It also led to many people starting small businesses or innovative businesses and building our country into an economic powerhouse IN SPITE of FDR and the Dems.
The work ethic is disappearing now because .gov is taxing everything and giving it to the poor (minus their cut, of course), so why labor? In fact, it is better to be poor and live off .gov largesse. Again, the power of propaganda at work, destroying our society. Also, taxation takes away the capital that individuals need to start small or innovative businesses, hence our economic decline.
Unless we begin to shrink government all all levels right now, we are doomed. It may already be too late though. Also, the propaganda poisoning so many people has made them dependent and they do not know how to work or gain the fruits of hard labor. We’ve really messed things up…bigtime. Even if .gov shrinks, many in the population would not know what to do. Dot gov has not given her citizens the tools they need for self-sufficiency or prosperity. Instead they’ve stuck a needle in our veins and pumped in the addictive drug called welfare…all for our own good, of course. Watch out when that needle comes up empty.
Written by Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Is there another Reagan out there?
James Pethokoukis penned this article, opining that the slumping economy could remain sluggish for 20 years. For those of us old enough to remember, we experienced a similar period of economic stagnation during the 1970's, propagated by notions of price controls (a Nixonian brainfart), higher taxes, regulations, increased government meddling, etc; only to see Ronald Reagan literally ride to the rescue by lowering taxes and encouraging the private sector.
Well guess what? We're witnessing the same tired liberal dogma in practice again, this time by one Barack Obama. My question is: does America have another Ronald Reagan it can offer us?
We obviously need someone who can inspire the country, reinvigorate our economy, start exercising some financial restrain (and thus, force Congress to do so). The entitlement nonsense must end, as must this reluctance to cultivate our natural resources.
Unfortunately, when I look at potential "next Reagans," I see few noteworthy candidates; Sarah Palin (too polarizing); Tim Pawlenty (maybe); Bobby Jindal (choked on the national stage in his last big spot); Paul Ryan (perhaps); Jim Demint (perhaps).
Who else is there?
Well guess what? We're witnessing the same tired liberal dogma in practice again, this time by one Barack Obama. My question is: does America have another Ronald Reagan it can offer us?
We obviously need someone who can inspire the country, reinvigorate our economy, start exercising some financial restrain (and thus, force Congress to do so). The entitlement nonsense must end, as must this reluctance to cultivate our natural resources.
Unfortunately, when I look at potential "next Reagans," I see few noteworthy candidates; Sarah Palin (too polarizing); Tim Pawlenty (maybe); Bobby Jindal (choked on the national stage in his last big spot); Paul Ryan (perhaps); Jim Demint (perhaps).
Who else is there?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
How about we prosecute Leftist politicians for failing to protect American lives?
Only in the current political climate could jackass liberal Congressman, see Pat Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., ponder bringing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials on trumped torture charges.
Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.
According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:
What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.
In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.
I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?
Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.
According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:
What makes the Leahy-Whitehouse show trials most appalling -- and hypocritical -- is that Congress was briefed on the enhanced interrogation methods in September 2002. At the time, according to the Washington Post, members of Congress from both parties -- including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- wanted to ensure that the interrogations were tough enough to get the necessary intelligence from the captured terrorists. As the Post reported, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing," and according to a U.S. official present during the briefings, "the attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" But of course, according to a source looking back on that period, "the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic."
What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.
In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.
I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Nauseating Naivity
Is anyone else not just disturbed but physically sickened by the latest "apologies" from Barry Obama?
Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.
What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.
It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.
One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.
And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.
My god, the naivety of this man.
Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?
Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.
Unbelievable.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:
If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."
Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.
What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.
It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.
One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.
And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.
My god, the naivety of this man.
Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?
Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.
Unbelievable.
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:
"There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem."
If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The rebuttal against Global Warming Alarmists
Besides the one that comes immediately to mind, "Eat shit and die assholes..."
The National Review Online's Planet Gore section highlights laughable statements from Google, who urge the government, led by President-elect Barry Obama and a near-filibuster-proof Congress to combat "Global Warming:"
Rather than more government, how about this?
The National Review Online's Planet Gore section highlights laughable statements from Google, who urge the government, led by President-elect Barry Obama and a near-filibuster-proof Congress to combat "Global Warming:"
Rather than more government, how about this?
The private marketplace is better suited than the government to pick energy winners and losers, so government should step back and let the market find the answers to meeting our energy needs in a reliable and affordable manner. Let the market bring technologies online when the economics of the technologies work without handouts and when the technology is truly (and commercially) viable. Repeal subsidies. Avoid mandates. Don’t put a price on a gas that we exhale and that must exist for human, animal, and plant life to continue. Don’t sign on to emission-reduction schemes that will handicap our economy, while doing little, if anything, to control emissions. Tap our nation’s abundant natural resources, and quit letting exploration and recovery efforts get stalled for years in the courts and in the agencies. Build the baseload units, including nuclear-energy plants, that have always met, can still meet — and must exist if we want to meet the bulk of our energy and electricity demand. Be realistic about the current state of, and future prospects for, renewable energies. Recognize that vibrant free markets and a protected environment are not mutually exclusive goals.Has anyone else noticed that it's virtually impossible to reason with a liberal?
Sound like a winner to anyone else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
