We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
[T]he cure for: a) the budget deficit = more taxes; b) unemployment = more taxes; c) recession = more taxes; d) environmental problems = more taxes; e) illiteracy = more taxes; f) L.A. riots = more taxes. It doesn’t matter what the nature of the problem is.
Combine class warfare, demonizing the rich, getting as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible, and pushing the economic system to collapse and you have a flawless formula for Cloward-Piven 2.0 -- and a vehicle that ensures Obama remains in power.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is also calling the tea party "hobbits" more in line with believing in fantasies like passing the balanced budget amendment. Which with Obama would result in massive income tax increases, the opposite of what they want.
The right will never have its own version of cloward-piven. To have one, it would have to scheme and organize to get criminal structures made legal, then execute on same. If the right did this, it would simply be another interest group on the left.
"Good post, Dave. Because if there's one thing we conservatives don't want poor people to have, it's food."
And congratulations to you, Bird Dog, for posting the link. Between your and Dave's efforts, perhaps we'll see a reduction in food stamps in the near future and more poor people will die from starvation as a result. Since poor people tend to vote Democrat, this should increase our election possibilities in 2016 and beyond. Way to keep the big picture in mind, guys.
Conservatives aren't against people in need getting food. But they'd rather give poor people opportunities to work, to succeed. Obama has taken specific measures with the federal agencies, e.g., EPA, and programs, e.g., Obamacare, that kill the creation of opportunities to work, to make a living, to survive independent of the leave of some government bureaucrat.
What we need is fewer obstacles so that people can succeed rather the continual droning liturgy of failure of the Left even if they do offer it with government cheese.
My opinion? I think that paleontologists have nothing else to do so they create new ways to reclassify fossils to keep busy. Kind of like Neal DeGrasse Tyson who had nothing better to do at the Hayden Planetarium, so he started the reclassify Pluto movement.
The Goracle Invites You to Connect the Dots
Still pushing junk science. Can't believe it. Well, then again I can - as you said follow the money. Back about, oh ten/twelve years ago, I listened to Jim Rogers of Duke
Energy talk about carbon credits, the proposed carbon trading system and about how we need to save the planet from global warming. Now you would think that a guy who runs one of, if not the, largest energy companies in the world (generation and coal) would not agree to all this nonsense, but it turns out he was a big fan of it. Why you might ask?
Because he wins big time - as in illions with a T in front. He produces coal which powers the generators which produce the carbon which he can then trade against (both for coal and generation), take in-house long and short positions on the trading of credits (kind of like Goldman Sachs and the housing crisis) and basically control the entire carbon trading market strictly by leveraging his massive coal and electric generating reserves.
"Other than sex-related activity, it's tough to name one area of life in which Libs want government to have less control over people"
Not quite true, for their view appears to be that the majority have to be told what to except as normal, what to except in public arenas (like some of the sex ed stuff, your kid has to read "Heather Has Two Mommies") et cetera. IMHO most of us don't care what other people do in their private lives, as long as they don't mess with our kids... but through the schools they mess with our kids...
Re Libs and 2nd Ammendment: "Other than sex-related activity, it's tough to name one area of life in which Libs want government to have less control over people.'
Oh I don't know. I think they have been far more effective in curbing free speech. They have succeeded in virtually banning some words from the English language. A lot of speech that disagrees with their point of view is termed 'hate speech" and people across the political spectrum have to speak in code lest they be branded racists, fascists, nazis or merely insensitive and uncaring.
Yes. I think they have been far more effective in controlling speech than they have been at curbing firearms and rightly so.
McCain and the other old "elite" of DC who once understood friendship and love but after getting the "ring" are now slaves to treachery and violence and will stop at nothing to retain their "precious"? They do tend to live far beyond the natural limits as long as they possess the "ring."
Regarding the tipping point of people who collect more from the government than they pay in:
1. Some of them are sensible enough to realize that the benefits have to be controlled.
2. A lot of them skip voting.