It must be specific tactic of the right wing, to endlessly accuse their political opponents of the traits that they are renowned for, and claim for their own political goals that their history shows them as being opposed to. I don't know the purpose of the whole superfluous act, but it must have some meaning in their malignant minds.
First, I don't want to see her as viciously savaged as those on the Left will savage her. I can't imagine anybody wanting to put herself or her family through that. The so-called compassionate and caring liberal can be one of the most viscious and unconscionably savage creatures on Earth toward those they disagree with or who get in their way or who expose their flaws and weaknesses.
This will happen! Today's liberals, more accurately, Statists, think their slanders are justified for no other reason than that those they slander hold views contrary to their own. Notice, Foxfyre, much of the time they act incapable of making rational rebuttals. So they slander! How else can they preserve their mindless religion?
I pray that Sarah Palin will ignore these Statists for what they are: helplessly brainwashed, ignorant fools and/or frauds.
Second, I am not yet confident that she has connections to be able to draft the most effective and capable team to assist and advise her so that she is not at the mercy of the the old guard GOP machine to do that.
She is not currently capable of doing that. But I am confident that in a reasonable time she will be very capable of forming "the most effective and capable team to assist and advise her so that she is not at the mercy of the the old guard GOP machine."
But if the winds of fate are with her and she gets the chance, I would bet you a good Texas steakhouse ribeye dinner that she would win over Krauthammer within six months.
I bet the same good Texas steakhouse ribeye dinner that Krauthammer will be won over within 3 months from now, when he realizes that Palin seeks rescue of our Constitutional Republic, and not the standard politician's go along to get along.
0 Replies
ican711nm
1
Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 04:46 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso, It IS IN FACT THE specific tactic of the LEFT wing--MORE ACCURATELY, STATISTS--"to endlessly accuse their political opponents of the traits that they are renowned for, and claim for their own political goals that their history shows them as being opposed to. I don't know FOR SURE the purpose of the whole superfluous act, but it must have some meaning in their malignant minds."
Few Statists appear competent to make rational rebuttals or even rational advocacies to support their beliefs, so they slander repeatedly instead! Statists appear to be the most self-deceiving people in this country, because of the frequency and intensity of their slanders and guilt transfers to those who disagree with them.
What word are the Repubs emailing out next week for all you dittoheads to mouth?
"Help!" That is, tell US what you want!
We are telling the Republican Party what we want!
Frankly, I would prefer the Republican Party stop their opinion surveying, and tell us what specifically--no more platitudes and euphamisms like Obama sends out--they now understand we want!
0 Replies
Wilso
1
Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 05:05 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Wilso, It IS IN FACT THE specific tactic of the LEFT wing--MORE ACCURATELY, STATISTS--"to endlessly accuse their political opponents of the traits that they are renowned for, and claim for their own political goals that their history shows them as being opposed to. I don't know FOR SURE the purpose of the whole superfluous act, but it must have some meaning in their malignant minds."
Few Statists appear competent to make rational rebuttals or even rational advocacies to support their beliefs, so they slander repeatedly instead! Statists appear to be the most self-deceiving people in this country, because of the frequency and intensity of their slanders and guilt transfers to those who disagree with them.
My case in point. Perfectly and clearly illustrated. Not an original thought has ever come from their cancerous minds.
0 Replies
ican711nm
0
Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 08:11 pm
THE FORECAST ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF THE STATISTS
George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR was published in June 1949. http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
While It is his time-labeled warning, his warning is actually a perpetual and timeless warning of humanity's propensity to contain and even court personalities in its midst that are dangerous to humanity's existence.
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part II, Chapter IX, wrote:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/#chapter17
The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter II, wrote:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/#chapter20
[O'brien said,] 'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter III, wrote:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/#chapter21
[O'Brien said,] 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you [Winston] begin to understand me?'
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter IV, wrote:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/#chapter22
Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble' Winston worked it out. 'If he THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.
He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. CRIMESTOP, they called it in Newspeak.
Can you provide rational evidence that Snopes is a more credible source than is Eric Odom?
Well, let's see. On the one hand, Snopes is a widely recognized website that gets thousands of hits a day and is known for its careful and thorough research. Furthermore, its analysis of this chain e-mail is consistent with information found elsewhere regarding the signers of the declaration of independence.
On the other hand, Eric Odom is a guy nobody has ever heard of and whose e-mail is so sloppy he can't even manage to spell many of the names correctly.
So, I think this time I'm going with Snopes. That you have sided with Odom is, of course, far from surprising.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
" PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. We, the [100] undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jumpstart the economy."
--PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9, 2009
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the [112] undersigned [economists] do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
The truly relevant point made by both Snopes and Odom is that the signers of the Declaration of Independence displayed great courage in risking their lives and their property to support the Declaration of Independence. A majority did indeed pay those great prices for upholding their great principles.
That Odom allegedly cannot spell their names as well as Snopes, and that they disagree on the details of the great prices a majority paid, are only trivial matters on which Statists typically focus when they lack rational substantive argument to support their beliefs.
Cato Unbound is a great expansion of solid observations, concepts, and ideas to compliment Cato.org that is a bottomless source of timely information, usable data, thinking outside the box, and rational analysis. The two exerpts posted here are excellent examples of how Americans SHOULD be debating the issues rather than via manipulative propaganda and mind numbing sound bites and talking points of the day.
I took the liberty of posting these on another forum along with my opinion that they will actually be discussed there, while I expect them to be ignored or to generate the usual numbnut trash talk here. I would be very much pleased to be proved wrong about that.
Cato Unbound is a great expansion of solid observations, concepts, and ideas ...
I followed the debate on Cato's blog about copyright law.
Very interesting and informative.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 10:07 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
I didn't see the movie, "The Matrix." Could you please summarize it for me. I have a strong feeling I'm going to want to buy its DVD.
The basic idea behind the Matrix is that an 'alien' species--'thinking' computers-- created an illusionary world to pacify humans from which the computers draw their power. The alien force exercises complete control over the minds and activities of the humans and are sociopathic in that they have no other concern for humans other than to serve the master organization and root out and crush any rebellion or independent thought. The few humans that have escaped the restraints and confines of the Matrix value freedom and seek to free humankind from the artificial world--one mind at a time.
It's one of those sci-fi flicks that many don't really understand or even like in one viewing, but which it is virtually impossible not to watch.
I hadn't really thought about it until I re-read the Chapter IV excerpt. I wonder if this was the underlying concept for the movie "The Matrix?"
The concept of the Matrix films were the Japanese anime films "Ghost in the Shell".
0 Replies
wandeljw
1
Reply
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 10:16 am
Interesting discussion of Palin's resignation. Krauthammer deflects idea that there is a scandal involved, although he admits there is something erratic about the resignation:
0 Replies
Advocate
1
Reply
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 10:59 am
It has always been amazing to me that the right is so oblivious to the danger of wealth concentration.
Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals
By Don Monkerud
July 4, 2009
Editor’s Note: Since the national rise of Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the United States has been on a deadly course for a Republic, with wealth rapidly concentrating at the top and average Americans sinking or struggling to stay afloat.
On the 233rd anniversary of American independence " a war fought for the equality of all mankind " writer Don Monkerud examines how these gross economic imbalances threaten that vision:
In June 2009, the U.S. economy saw its second steepest decline in 27 years. New jobless claims increased, business inventories fell and exports plunged as bad economic news persisted.
Will the once high-flying American wealth machine continue to produce the vast inequalities of the past?
Only two years ago, Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes magazine, declared 2007 "the richest year ever in human history." During eight years of the Bush Administration, the 400 richest Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion.
In 2005, the top one percent claimed 22 percent of the national income, while the top ten percent took half of the total income, the largest share since 1928.
In June 2009, the Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Report estimated the number of the world's wealthiest people declined by 15 percent, the steepest decline in the report's 13-year history. The number of millionaires in the U.S. fell by 19 percent to 2.5 million people.
Analysts tell us the economy is being restructured, but how will the disparities in wealth between the rich and the poor play out?
"The source of wealth has changed over the past 30 years; corporations have become the engine of inequality in the U.S.," says Sam Pizzigati, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. "In the past, wealth came from ownership: Today it comes increasingly from income."
The highest incomes come from executive pay at top corporations. In 2007, the ratio of CEO pay to the average paycheck was 344 to one, lower than the record 525 to one ratio set in 2001, but substantial. This year's ratio is estimated to decrease to 317 to one. In the 60s, 70s and 80s, the average ratio fluctuated between 30 and 40 to one.
Over 40 percent of GNP comes from Fortune 500 companies. According to the World Institute for Development Economics Research, the 500 largest conglomerates in the U.S. "control over two-thirds of the business resources, employ two-thirds of the industrial workers, account for 60 percent of the sales, and collect over 70 percent of the profits."
Corporations systematically created a wealth gap over the last 30 years. In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million, representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.
In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.
In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33 percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent. Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their share of total U.S. income.
"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled," says Pizzigati. "Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation."
Meanwhile, wages for most Americans didn't improve from 1979 to 1998, and the median male wage in 2000 was below the 1979 level, despite productivity increases of 44.5 percent. Between 2002 and 2004, inflation-adjusted median household income declined $1669 a year.
To make up for lost income, credit card debt soared 315 percent between 1989 and 2006, representing 138 percent of disposable income in 2007.
According to Pizzigati, the wealth disparity is the result of corporations squeezing more profits from workers.
"In the past corporations laid off workers because business was bad," Pizzigati says. "But over the past few decades, downsizing has been a corporate wealth generating strategy. Today, CEOs don't spend their time making, trying to make better products: they maneuver to take over other companies, steal their customers and fire their workers."
Progressive taxation used to prevent the rich from capturing a disproportionate share of national compensation, and the labor movement, which represented 35 percent of private sector employees and today represents 8 percent, once served as a political force to limit excessive executive pay.
The Reagan backlash cut the top income tax rates, and saw the creation of right-wing think tanks that spent $30 billion over the past 30 years, propagandizing for deregulation, privatization, and wealth worship.
Bubble economies over the past 30 years helped CEOs pump up their income, and efforts to corral their pay are weak and ineffective. CEO pay may fall during these economic hard times, but disparity isn't going away. Without a strong movement for change, the wealth gap will only increase in this downturn.
"There won't be a restructuring of the economy unless we take on executive compensation," concludes Pizzigati. "Outrageously large rewards give executives an incentive to behave outrageously. If we allow these incentives to continue, we will just see more of the reckless behavior that has driven the global economy into the ditch."
Don Monkerud is a California-based writer who follows cultural, social and political issues. Copyright 2009.
Wealth does not remain concentrated as the article, "Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals" By Don Monkerud July 4, 2009, implies.
In a truly freemarket society--free of Statist controls--wealth recirculates among the lawfully productive. The far greater danger is that Statists will steal wealth from those who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those who have not lawfully earned it. In doing so, the Statist buys power over more and more humans, thereby crushing human incentive to excel and placating human resentments of excelees.
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR wrote:
NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR
Part III, Chapter II
It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn ... It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.
Part III, Chapter III
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.
The Soros gang claims, "Now [the Democratic Party is] our party! We bought it, we own it. The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”
The truly main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States governed by Statists.
0 Replies
Foxfyre
1
Reply
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 11:57 am
@Advocate,
It is amazing to me that you would seem to present the opinon of an apparently uncredentialed leftwing blogger, Don Monkerud, as gospel, while dismissing or trashing opposite points of view from people who have studied and analyzed such concepts in depth, who actually footnote support for their opinion, and who have applied it in real life.
Still, while I mostly don't agree with his conclusions, Monkerud did identify a lot of concepts that should be debated on this thread if the numbnuts would stop tryting to use it to trash people, groups, and political parties.
For instance Monkerud says:
Quote:
In 2005, the top one percent claimed 22 percent of the national income, while the top ten percent took half of the total income, the largest share since 1928.
Please explain how this destroys US ideals so long as the bottom 99% is free and unhindered from aspiring to be among the top one percent?
That alien species--'thinking' computers-- in the movie appears analogous to Obama Statists. They too think as programmed while accusing others of us of doing the samething despite the plethora of evidence we others offer to support our views, and despite their minimal if any evidence to support their views.
