Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Liberal/ MSM Stupidity: Womens Rights in Afghanistan

Afghan lawmakers block law on women's rights

This article has been in the yahoo news you see when  checking your email for a few days. Honestly it baffles me. Clearly the person who wrote has either never been to Afghanistan or has been brainwashed and is borderline mentally retarded. 

 Women's rights in Afghanistan isn't going to happen. My odds out lifting Jim Wendler in the morning, beating George St Pierre in an MMA match before lunch, out shooting Gerry Miculek in the afternoon then making a better dinner than Rachel Ray are higher than the odds of women in rural Afghanistan having anything that resembled rights or freedom.  It's just not going to happen.

 Major cities may differ slightly, and are historically more western/ liberal, however in the majority of Afghanistan women have no rights and are essentially properly. Women can be raped, beaten, killed, sold or married (same difference in that culture) as the male head of the family wants with no repercussions. That is the culture and it is not going to change.  I do not say that happily but it is absolutely true. Changing rural Afghanistan, and do not be confused the majority of the population, as well as the real axis of power in Afghanistan is rural, is next to impossible. The Soviets tried for 20 years, spending untold billions and killing millions of people. If there is a way to more brutally attack a way of life than the Ruskies did in Afghanistan I don't know what it would be. Heck, We've been there for more than a decade trying the soft and nice approach. The Afghan and in particular Pastun culture is not going to change. 

 Without getting further into Islam or Afghanistan lets get back to what this article shows us. Liberals seem to believe they are capable of imposing their beliefs on anyone. They seem to believe they know what is right for everyone, everywhere. They are confused when their agenda's simply do not appeal to people. They are even more confused when legal statutes and the implicit threat of force fails to make people comply. The idea that people are willing to ignore laws, face risk or ultimately fight/ die for their viewpoints is something they do not understand.  

 

 

Monday, March 11, 2013

Gabby Giffords Husband Buys AR-15 from Diamondback Police Supply

Saw this story yesterday. Apparantly Mark Kelly decided to go to Diamondback Police Supply in Tuscon to buy an AR-15 and a 1911. It is up all over the place so I am reasonably sure this is legitimate.

I sincerely felt for this couple. They are by all measures good people who has a terrible thing happen to them. For goodness sake the woman got shot in the head. If they (as it seems) started to have different feelings about guns and gun control I can sort of respect that. Don't agree with them but can at least respect the position.

However if he is so violently anti gun why should one of those evil mean guns live in their house. Shouldn't he get a double barreled shotgun or something? Tactical expert Joe Biden says they are easier to aim than an AR-15 anyway. This is the classic guns for me but not for thee of the gun banners.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Quote of the Day

"[H]ow do you justify supporting your own version of common sense limits on "immoral " behavior then discount somebody else's?"
-Anon 7:43 on my earlier post

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

From Around The Web

Arma Borealis is a blog by a couple who are regularly show up around here. Good stuff. Not at all related to the other links today. Just wanted to mention it.

Chicago: Americas gun free killing fields  

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem

5 Lessons from the Panic in 2012 at Teotwawki Blog. Have what you need on hand. Know where your shortages (a relative term) are. If supplies may become interrupted act without hesitation to fill said shortages.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Friday Night Ramblings and Tab Clearing

I always knew that liberal dudes were weaker and generally less masculine but now there is scientific proof.

Apparantly CNBN did a hit piece of the venerable Remington 870. Hat tip to The Firearms Blog for the find. Maybe they could have been even more unamerican by bashing apple pie and cold beer.
Now for my take. I will even set aside the fact that the so called experts who testify about how pretty much every firearm is unsafe FOR MONEY and are trying to sell some new safety thing they invented.

The thing is that shotgun safeties, to the best of my knowledge are not so much safeties as trigger stoppers. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a shotgun out there that has a safety which blocks the sort of accidental impact based discharge that happened to the unfortunate fellow mentioned in the story. Sort of like many open bolt machine guns if you give them a good whack they will probably go off.

There is a simple and time tested way to handle this mechanical weakness. KEEP THE CHAMBER EMPTY UNLESS YOU ARE ACTIVELY USING THE GUN! For a shotgun this means that when you are done using it take the round out of the cylinder and stick it back into the tube or buttstock carrier.
I own a Remington 870 Express. With both short and long barrels it is a really versatile weapon equally capable of defending ones home or all manner of hunting and sporting. I have trusted it with my life in the past as a primary home defense weapon and would not hesitate to do so again in the future. As to my thoughts on reliability and usefullness the Remington 870 I won't sell the one I have and at some point will get another one.

I was at the store the other day picking up a couple things on my way home from work. The folks in front of me bought some stuff using WIC. Nothing really new about that. Overseas food costs are pretty high so they calculate eligibility differently and a lot more folks get it. I bought my few items and walked out to the parking lot. The folks who bought the stuff with WIC in front of me got into a car that was maybe a year old. Nothing crazy, I think it was a Ford Focus or something like that. I got into my 10 year old SUV with some minor cosmetic damage and drove home. Honestly it sort of made me angry. Why should I be subsidizing them? If they don't make very much money maybe they should be doing things like not buying new cars so they can afford food for their kids. I got to thinking. Given the state of our nation I don't really look down on folks who figure out how to work the system a bit in their favor. A few years back I did look down on them for being moochers. These days I sort of look at it that if you can get a little bit back it isn't a bad thing.
Ironically this year we qualify for welfare Earned Income Credit. A nuance of combat deployments is that since our pay is not taxed. Thus as far as my taxes are concerned it does not count. Since I deployed in February and was gone for a year our taxable income was pretty tiny for last year. Thus we get welfare Earned Income Credit. I wouldn't have thought of it but a pretty sharp contractor (ironically also a contrarian investor and survivalist) said I should look into it. This is something I had some real internal conflict about. It is pretty crazy that we qualify because my income fell into a different column on the stupid little piece of paper that is the W2. I make a decent living and we aren't in any sort of need. However me deciding to be a good guy and turning away free money is not going to fix the national deficit. We are putting the money into our house fund. I kind of look at it as a partial refund of all that money I put into SS and medicare
The man who committed 10 felonies in 9 hours was pretty impressive. Some folks are just bad and if this sort of thing happens when everything is normal toss in a power outage or a hurricane or a riot and well, it ain't pretty.

Well it is just about a done deal that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican presidential candidate. I am almost entirely ambivalent about this. Got to purchase some more mags between now and November.
Heineken is pretty good and Jimmy Fallon probably has the best late night TV show these days.

That is all.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Opinion: Instead of Occupying Detroit, Will Lefties Take Responsibility For It?

Link here

Government is amazing because it manages to convince people that it's inability to function is a reason we should give it more power. How in the heck does that make any sense. If your cousin messes up the sidedish they are supposed to bring time after time do you then ask them to bring the turkey to thanksgiving? If an employee does not do his job is he promoted? If a business fails to meet your expectations do you increase your dealings with them? No, typically people who fail to meet expectations are given more supervision, different or fewer responsabilities. Why should government be any different?

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Entitlements and Gender Roles; Alternate Title How To Upset Every Reader In A Single Post

This morning I was able to watch the news while doing some cardio which is something I enjoy now and then. The topic of entitlements was big this morning on the news. It has become abundantly clear to me that, even in this typically open and rational venue entitlements are a topic on which a rational conversation cannot be had.

We are at or past the point where it is becoming abundantly clear to any rational person that the numbers do not work. Unfortunately we are long past the point where there are easy, gradual and relatively painless options to make them work. The window in which there are viable options with only moderately painful and economically damaging outcomes is probably closing fast. I fear that by the time we are willing to make genuine moves to deal with this problem things will be at the point where there are few, if any (likely just choosing who gets the shortest end) choices left. You would be well advised to think about how this could play out and prepare for what you see coming.

Patrice over at Rural Revolution has been talking about gender roles for awhile. It is my observation that pretty much everyone wants to pick and choose among different traits to get some sort of a hybrid that suits their desires. The normal life part of this is just finding a mate that suits us and figuring out a division of labor that suits both parties. However sometimes the hypocrisy is so problematic or blatant that it is worth talking about. It pretty much goes without saying that feminists think they should be able to do whatever they want but men should act in certain ceremonal ways. For example I would wager a hundred dollars that if I was in a car driving down the highway with four feminists on a cold stormy night and a tire blew out it's this guy that would change it. Furthermore if my feminist buddies and I got to our destination, went to sleep and woke up at 3am to a wierd loud noise in the living room I bet it would be me going to investigate. Now it is time to take a crack at us guys.

Many men want to have our cake and eat it too. We live a lifestyle (wives do of course have a role in this too) that requires most women to work full time outside of the home but still expect them to be homemakers. Somehow they are supposed to keep the house clean and tidy as well as cooking dinner and numerous other tasks. We wonder why the house is a bit messy, dinner is some pre packaged junk and kids are poorly behaved. The answer is that instead of taking care of that stuff, cooking a good meal and raising kids they are at work and kids are in daycare 50 hours a week.

If there is anybody I haven't upset just know your state smells bad and the local sports team is a bunch of whimps.

Have a good day

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Political Views vs Real Life

I think we Americans do ourselves a great disservice by the artificial divides of political labels and parties. While the liberal vetting criteria of abortion or the conservative litmus test of the Second Amendment are meaningful in their own right's we get too carried away with them. This is seriously to our detriment as individuals and works into the hands of the political power structure.

For example Miley is visiting us. If we looked at the two of us in terms of political labels or parties we would be polar opposites. However lets set abortions and guns aside for a minute. We are both personally quite frugal. Saving and planning are a big part of our respective lifestyles and long term plan. We like getting very cheap or free stuff whenever possible. We cook staple foods.We like doing things ourselves. For slightly different reasons alternative energy interests both of us.

Interestingly enough she has expressed some interest in setting up a serious pantry. It is quite possible that she and her husband, who I haven't came up with a blog name for yet, will become part of our long term preparedness plans. She can cook, sew, garden, etc and he is quite handy in all sorts of ways. Assuming they contributed to a solid logistical footing (really a prerequisite for anybody, no point in having a big starving party) they would be enjoyable and useful folks to have around.

I recall somebody once saying that if the far left and right every get together and realize they have more in common with each other then the center, the center will be in trouble. I don't know if that is totally true. Some differences are probably irreconcilable between the two. However some elements of them might have a heck of a lot more in common than previously thought.

Don't worry about someones political views or identity. Focus on how they conduct themselves in the world and towards you and yours. Good honest hardworking people have all kinds of political views just the same way that lazy people and moochers can. Especially in personal interactions and preparedness planning a person's view on a theoretical political issue doesn't matter (if at all) anywhere as much as their personal conduct.

Friday, August 13, 2010

quote of the day

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-Normal Thomas

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

LIberals and Economics

I read an article today in the Wall Street Journal about a study done regarding how well people from various political parties understand basic economic principles. The study seemed somewhat biased, but has a fairly accurate, and predictable outcome. By biased, I mean it uses a couple liberal buzz words, and does an agree or disagree format, rather than a right or wrong format.

So thoughts,

Liberals aren't out to destroy the economy. Rather, they are trying to create controls. Pure capitalistic economies are boom (when actors are following their rational self interest) and bust (when actors are acting irrationally). This, depending on the foresight of the actors to understand at the time they are acting what is rational and irrational, leads to overall higher production and efficiency. However, that does not mean it is a perfect system. Markets aggressively self correct, and in a very real way, harm people. They distribute resources to those who are the best, and leave out the rest. Liberals want to control markets, harnessing the power of capitalism, while removing the negatives. This would lower the highs, but avoid some of the lows, while having a weakening effect on the overall economy.

Here is the problem. To achieve this purpose, they need two things. First, they need political clout. To get this, they have turned market economics into buzz words, and attached emotional ideas to them. The example is monopolies are bad. This is not accurate. Monopolies do some things well, such as using economies of scale to lower costs, and some things poorly, innovation. When Standard Oil was still a monopoly, the consumer price index was declining, and Rockefeller made more money after it was broken up than he did while it was a monopoly. However, understanding fairly complex micro economic principles, let alone macro economics (neither of which I claim to understand) is counter to the political economic goals of the Left. No one from either party wants the population to do overall economic analysis; they want us to stop with the reaction of either "unions are bad" or "monopolies are bad."

The second problem is the big one. To remove the negatives of capitalism, while keeping the positives, you need to understand what is the correct move at all times. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is the bitch. The saving grace of capitalism is that if something is not working people are free to change. The down side is that when something is working, people are free to change. However, regulations minimize this effect. If the government decides you need to do something, and its a good choice, great! But if it a bad choice, you have to suffer while the political process figures that out (if they ever do).

In the end, its not about which works better; its what your goals are. Most modern liberals want economies to produce "fair" results, meaning similar pay for all. Purely capitalistic economies don't do that, they produce efficient markets. If the market isn't doing what you want it to do, than you consider it broken, and want to fix it. The problem is that while heavy regulation would mitigate some of the lows, it would also temper the highs, and remove the ability of people to adjust to changing circumstances. The free market is always working, whether we want it to, or not.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

quote of the day

"I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers."
-Robert A. Hall read the rest here

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

I Just Don't Know

So I was reading Galts Gulch earlier today. There was a post about some political stuff, sorta looking at different philosophies. There were some great points about the Neo- Conservative movement and also Libertarianism. I wrote this as a comment: I just don't know. Voting libertarian gets nothing done because they don't win anything and all voting Republican does is keep those darn Democrats out of office. While better than nothing it sort of makes my skin crawl to have such limited goals.

My lack of any good answers has lead me to putting time and energy into other areas. Caring less about what they do and more about what I do is my personal answer.


I thought about this on and off through the day. I just don't see a great answer. That has made my thoughts and energy's turn more inward. Instead of being politically active or whatever I worry about and focus on how to make our place in life better.

The blogosphere has a combination of predominantly preparedness/ survivalist and liberty/ libertarian/ political folks.  Not an unnatural combination as the two do blend but it is distinct all the same. Many folks who are hanging around here and are on the facebook and such are really political. Some of them are very involved in grass roots efforts for candidates that share their beliefs and they have faith in.

I applaud these folks and really with them the best. Personally I have a hard time putting energy or effort into ventures where the likelihood of success is minimal. I occasionally think and talk about politics but that is about it. As someone who is pretty dispassionate about things I have a hard time 'just believing'. Even if thousands of liberty loving people managed to each genuinely convert one other person every week it would be YEARS before anything close to a significant voting block. My desire to spend time and energy on something that seems futile just is not there.

This is amplified by my current somewhat nomadic existence making city, county and even to a certain degree state elections largely meaningless. I live someplace for awhile and don't get to really pick where then after awhile we move somewhere else. When I move to a place and grow some roots then who is elected to the city council or county commission or even to state office. If a place decides to royally suck I will just not move there.

Thoughts?

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Existential Blogger Crisis

Some days I question how much I agree with most of you and why I am even here. Had a couple of those days this week. Not sure what can be done about it and even less sure what I am willing to do about it. Maybe I am being a whiner and need to just quit caring what y'all think. I started off doing this because it is fun and continue to do so because it is still generally fun even though it has become a sinkhole for my time. Maybe I am a bit burned out this week.

I have had a couple comments recently about how I have changed. They may have had a point, hell if I know.

I think in some ways I certainly have. I know that getting out of college, marrying and starting a real job has made me a lot more practical in my concerns. Instead of thinking about theoretical barter items I am worrying about saving money and budgets. Instead of thinking about how to fight the neighboring town for resources I am thinking about how to avoid getting mugged on the way home from dinner out.

Also I am finding some folks here are just as blindly sticking to group think as liberals. Seriously on some recent topics I could said to myself before hand to myself "what would the most stereotypical gun rights/ liberterian viewpoint on this be?" and some folks are spouting off with it. Now I completely understand why folks can see things differently than me but I just ask you to think critically and harshly. Do not just go with the regurgitated answer that meshes best with your political/ social beliefs. I really hate a leming, even a freedom oriented one.

If a belief is accurate and sound letting it see some questioning and a bit of discussion is just fine. If a belief is not accurate or partially not accurate then maybe it deserves to be revisited no matter how much it fits into a central vision or belief system. 

As for my political beliefs heck if I know. I am libertarian on a lot of issues and conservative on a few. Sometimes when I wake up early in the morning and am tired and out of coffee I think we should invade any country that looks at us sideways or doesn't send us a nice Christmas card and that they don't celebrate Christmas is not an excuse. I am also fairly militaristic in general and really don't like people messing with my country, at all. I am still pissed at Iran over the whole hostage crisis thing though it happened before I was born. Not sure if that is entirely compatible with a lot of my libertarian view, in fact I am fairly sure it is not. But it is probably not less compatible than the masses of people who belong to a religion where premarital sex is  forbidden yet have sex with someone who they are not married to on Saturday night and go to church on Sunday.

Also I just want to say that sometimes I say outlandish things that are questionably appropriate. Always have and always will. I am like a militaristic libertarian version of Shauna Glenn but with an outie instead of an innie.

I also tend to have a bit of fun with some stereotypes.  I mentioned fat drunks in trailers earlier today. I have lived in trailers and then later in life had a fat and drunk period in them. If it seems like I am taking a shot at you or something you do the odds are very high it is just a friendly easy jab to the shoulder. That is just sort of how I roll and just about every group gets one from time to time. My friends and I do this to eachother all the time and we don't like eachother any less for it.

Tomorrow I think I will write something really boringly easy to agree with. As for the day after that I am not so sure. Not sure if I want to stick to safe easy topics that do not question what you hold sacred (politically not religiously) or just rant.

Hopefully I can get to sleep now.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Why I Love Democrats!

Right now I am loving Democrats. Thus far they have proven themselves completely incompetent to do... Well... Anything. Lets take a look at their major platforms, and see what they have done with their filibuster proof Senate, control of the House, and control of the Executive...

1. Ending the war in Iraq- Thus far there have been some troop withdrawals, based on the withdraw process set up by Bush in his last days... As far as I can tell, the Democrats have done nothing other than follow his plan.

2. Health care- This has gone nowhere. They have screwed this one up to the point of non-recognition.

3. Global Warming- Whether or not this exists, one thing is certian... The Democrats plan to do something about it does not exist.

4. Bailout everyone- They did pass something on this, however, it hasn't been put into effect in any meaningful way. The one thing they did do a good job with is bailing out the auto companies... Again.

5. Start using diplomacy- Well, they did send Bill Clinton to North Korea, and Hillary had a meltdown in Africa... I like them for keeping the Clintons out of the US... Something I have been trying to do for years.

6. Triple the budget deficit- Check.

7. Mobilize the right and disenfranchise the left- Check.

Thus far, the only thing the Democrats have actually done is make people hate them... God bless them! Oh yeah... And no Olympics. Well done! What makes this even better, is that they can just do what they want. The republicans in Congress don't have enough people to stop them. Even when they have complete control, they can't actually do anything!

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Hippies 1 Banks 0

Figured I would put this up because it is kind of funny and I know a lot of you hate banks and those evil people who work in them. My opinions on a lot of that are already on the record but I still sort of like it when the little guy (or gal) gives a good shot to "the man".

Anyway the hippie chick in question is well a hippie. She does not like banks or large corporations or any of thing else that isn't free trade and organically certified and vegetarian. She decided to make a premeditated attack on a major financial institution called WAMU.

This attack was perpetrated with the hippie approved version of a tank, the 1970's Volvo. The attack was perpetrated by driving that Volvo through the front window into the lobby! She managed to get away with her calculated attack consequence free by saying that "her brakes failed", what a masterful play.

This round goes to the hippies.

Monday, June 8, 2009

9 Random Thoughts on Socialization

This is broad and conceptual enough that it is probably going to hit on a few topics but certainly covers welfare, assorted forced charity and health care even if it doesn't mention concrete ideas, problems and or potential solutions.

About a year ago I had a conversation with my Grandfather. He was a very smart man and also fairly liberal. We were talking about health care and I being me was against the idea of increasing government involvement. My entire defense was a single question "When has the government every got involved in anything and made it better?". Grandpa mentioned busting up a few monopolies in the Robber Baron days but we both noted that the need to move that far back to a series of acts which were more regulatory than anything else says a lot. Little family story aside lets move forward.

1. I honestly do not believe government can do anything (excluding defense, some large regulation stuff, manage trade, etc) better than the private sector can do it. History has broadly speaking confirmed my belief.

2. Government is better at accomplishing less with more resources than anybody else. Simply put they have no incentive to prevent them from doing so.

3. As Thomas Sowell so eloquently said (more or less) "it is a fallacy to think we can afford anything collectively that we can not individually."

4. Take twenty people who were all going to get lunch at the local taco truck for example. If a burrito costs $5 it still costs the same if one person collects the cash and orders 20 burritos for a hundred bucks it is the same. (yeah maybe they could bargain and get a better deal but refer to #1 and#2) So the guy who is short on cash that day is still going to need to scrape together $5 to get a wonderful carne asada burrito. Unless.

6. What if they charged based on income instead of what you are going to receive via the commercial exchange. So the boss pays $25 instead of $5. I remember a joke about a bunch of friends who go out to get drinks which shows this wonderfully but in any case.

7. The first misconception about people who make or have real money is that they are somehow stupid and willing to ignore a % point here and there. While those with real money are certainly good at something which is well compensated they also pay attention to and care about their finances. They notice and they care a lot. These people will make choices to keep as much of their money as possible. They will invest in more business friendly places, use the tax code to their utmost advantage. They can potentially be less willing to have their money 'doing something' if the tax rate is high enough that it eliminates the potential gains which has all sorts of implications. Last but not least these people are the most mobile segment of our society. Often they run a business and could work from a different location should they desire to. This is significant when a high tax area is near a low tax area (CA/NV). Certainly they have the resources to move if so inclined and often already own multiple residences.

8. People often say that soaking the rich is a good idea. Setting aside the dilemma of people wanting to get something for nothing for a second rich people do not exactly garner a lot of sympathy. You need to care what happens to them and their money. I would not go as far as to say I believe in pure trickle down economics, honestly I do not know enough about the matter to say anything with authority. I can say that people with money are probably a big part of our overall economy in ways we might not think about. Excluding businesses which tends to target lower income folks (a $1 hot dog stand near a factory or a used tire lot) those with money are common and desirable customers. They can do things like getting a new expensive car every couple years or just get a new super fancy home entertainment system on a whim. They can do thinks like expensive home remodels which spread all sorts of money around the area. Don't know a single contractor whose bread and butter is $1,500 kitchen remodels but can think of a few who do the high end stuff. Also people with money will pay for services they probably do not NEED but all the same want. This is an area where many low income people are employed. People like house cleaners, gardeners, repair men and painters are a few areas where those with money are likely and regular customers.

9. Simply put the rich are not a big enough group that taxing them like crazy will let our nation socialize major areas without the cost being passed on to a significantly larger number of Americans. Americans whose incomes are not at all incredible. Lots of fairly rational people could argue that the rich paying a bit more to subsidise some services for those with the lowest incomes is not necessarily a horrible thing. The issue is at what point these subsidies become a serious problem. I do not know and it is impossible to speak in numbers about a conceptual situation though I think erring on the side of caution is probably wise.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Can't Sleep, Intentions and Results

I want to go to sleep but am not quite tired enough. Instead of tossing and turning in bed and keeping my wife awake I am going to write.

Some politicians and political groups seek to be judged not by their results but by their intentions or at best a new result they decide on after the fact. They say things like "we really meant to help xxxxx" or manage to use smoke and mirrors to change their desired result. Anyone with half a brain will say that if you adjust the desired result after the fact it is a worthless measure akin to tossing one horse shoe and then taking a light sledge and pounding a metal stake into the ground inside of it.

I am going to use a couple sayings that have stuck in my head for awhile:

Ryan paraphrased his father to say something to the effect of "Life is a result driven sport. I am a successful (redacted) which lots of people want to be. A few others got here and lots didn't. The point is that intentions don't matter, it is about results."

Something that gets pounded into our heads at work "We are playing by big boy rules". We get a lot of rope and if we fuck up big that rope is conveniently already tied around our necks. Ultimately they do not care if you have the best of intentions because at the end of the day fucking up bad is still fucking up bad.

In personal relationships and such we can and do judge by intentions. At one time or another living together everyone ends up accidentally throwing away something that is important to their spouse. We invariably say its not a big deal and mean it because we know they they didn't mean it. I AM NOT MARRIED TO OUR POLITICIALS! Matter of factly they must be held to big boy rules. To take it a step further they must be held to these rules by THE CITIZENS.

I don't care who they were trying to help or what they were trying to do in the slightest. Unless we were having a philosophical conversation at a bar and they meant to grab me a double crown royal but inadvertently got makers mark (which I like also) they need to be held accountable for their mistakes. Of course nobody is perfect and not even Babe Ruth batted 1000 but if they are not held accountable for their mistakes and failures they have no incentive to pursue avenues which are more likely to lead to success in pre determined results. They can mess up a bit and still stay in their positions but if we don't ever take measure of their mistakes how will we know if they are ever getting anything right?

Monday, April 6, 2009

How We Talk

I was listening to the radio on the ride home this morning and something popped out at me. Liberals win most discussions before they even begin. They have a serious advantage with most people because of the way they speak. They speak in vague open ended and idealistic terms. Few people will argue with "everyone should have health care" or "hard working people deserve a chance at the American dream (home ownership)". Being able to speak in idealistic terms is a great advantage to them. Even better is that it makes conservatives come off as stumbling and worried about "small things" like how a program will get paid for. Who likes the guy who is always saying NO and generally killing good vibes. It really makes conservatives come out as assholes when they say that matter of factly some people can't afford to own a home (which is true).

Without even talking in substance or having an intelligence debate liberals win. They win by being the cool guy and making us be the stick in the mud.

Just thought that was interesting. Got to eat some fruit loops and get back to work.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

quote of the day

"Bush turned out to be the most socialist president we've ever had"
-Dick Morris

I don't agree with this quote but it is a good one. President Bush doesn't beat FDR and Truman could/ should have repealed FDR's crap and didn't do so. However if George Bush is truly a fiscal conservative who the hell is fiscally liberal?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts