The Left Loses Ground...

[bripat9643]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

Wrong. I didn't vote for them. How is it voluntary on my part?

 

[Jroc]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

The leftist beaucracy isn't elected sweetie

 

[bripat9643]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

The leftist beaucracy isn't elected sweetie

Even if it was, majority vote does not constitute consent on my part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

Wrong. I didn't vote for them. How is it voluntary on my part?

Because we don't run this country on unanimous vote requirements. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

Some of the most demented people exhibit extreme calm.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

So you don't objectively teach about evolution. That's why you won't deny it.

Why did you begin with "So"?

There was no discussion of evolution.

No wonder you are nothing but a low-life lying Liberal.

Were you born this way, or is it a conscious effort never to allow honesty to influence your life?

It was your claim you're objective as a homeschooler.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

Then press charges, Roidrage.

 

[bripat9643]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

Wrong. I didn't vote for them. How is it voluntary on my part?

Because we don't run this country on unanimous vote requirements. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

That still doesn't make it voluntary, asshole.

BTW, you just enunciated the fundamental moral dilemma of democracy.

 

[GreenBean]

Opinionated , unsubstantiated, Ignorant BS

True. Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge both gave us less government. That's the reason they are so reviled by the left.

More or less govt is not what establishes conservatism. You are a Reaganist, too young ? to remember the decades before Reagan, and what real Conservatism was all about. Reagan's ideas were based on opportunism for HIMSELF, and you fall for it, as have younger so called "conservatives". REAL Conservative presidents were Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. You'll probably say >Oh their taxes were too high. Well that's the pure trademark of a Reaganist, as opposed to a Conservative. As long as you allow Reaganism to guide your politics, you may never discover what conservatism is. There's nothing conservative about a small, weak govt that doesn't have enough resources to fund the military, fight wars, supply police departments, FBI, CIA, ICE, etc

BTW, when it came to the military, Reagan was NOT for small govt. He was BIG govt on that issue. I'll give him credit for that.

"Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood" (the Animals, 1964)

I believe that by "Small Government " what is actually implied is a government that keeps its noses out the lives of the citizenry- does not attempt to impose the will of whatever knucklehead the media and its big brother manipulators manage to propel into power.

Small Government is a DOMESTIC issue.

BTW, when it came to the military, Reagan was NOT for small govt. He was BIG govt on that issue. I'll give him credit for that. - :> I Like Ike, and I am sure you are aware of his warning re" The Military Industrial Complex"

I'm also aware of his big taxing (91-92% on the top bracket), and his spending > Operation Wetback, the nuclear arms development, the space program, and creation of the interstate highway system.

And ...? It was money well spent

 

[GreenBean]

I believe that by "Small Government " what is actually implied is a government that keeps its noses out the lives of the citizenry- does not attempt to impose the will of whatever knucklehead the media and its big brother manipulators manage to propel into power.

Small Government is a DOMESTIC issue.

Depends on who's doing the implying. For many of the current day Reaganists (masquerading as conservatives), small govt means low taxes and low spending. A lot of these loons are even in favor of cutting back the military, police, fire depts, FBI, ICE, etc. They're the best friends La Raza, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other assorted villains ever had.

Is this the same guy protectionist that I used to respect - ? --- Your rants are a tad off the wall, completely unsubstantiated and pretty much meritless .

Reaganites supporting La Raza ?
Reaganites buddy buddy with ISIS ?

Seriously Dude - get real

 

[Jroc]

Its late and I only scanned you post. I'll read it fully tomorrow. But in your final paragraph I recognized the thought of Hayek. And my opinion of it hasn't changed over the years.

Subsidies suck the life out of people... It undermines the spirit, and erodes any sense of responsibility.

Charity serves the interest of those in need and it promotes sound principle.

Dah... I should have saved this for the morning.

I'm out

Charity is a handout, if welfare is a handout.

Charity in voluntary. Welfare is theft

If your legislators are not democratically elected it is. That isn't the case here in America is it?

The leftist beaucracy isn't elected sweetie

How a rogue fourth branch of government is threatening our republic

By Jay Sekulow

Here’s the problem: The constitution only allows for three branches of government – not a fourth branch. Yet we have one. It’s called the federal bureaucracy. We have created an unconstitutional, self-sustaining monster that is swallowing our democracy. And our constitutional republic hangs in the balance.

Make no mistake about it. This does not involve just the IRS. This is a much larger problem than the corruption of a single government agency. This is the corruption of an entire system of government.

In "Undemocratic," I explore how a number of government agencies are engaged in an unchecked power play:

· A Veterans Administration scandal delaying life-saving health care treatment for thousands of our nation’s veterans.

· A Department of Health and Human Services abortion-pill mandate forcing employers to violate their religious beliefs.

· Climate-change regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency killing jobs and stifling the economy.

· National Labor Relations Board rules favoring unions bosses over American workers.

Consider this fact: from 2009 to the end of 2012, the federal government’s bureaucracy created more than 13,000 new regulations – each with the binding force of law. And according to a new report, federal agencies issued 3,554 new regulations in 2014 alone.

How a rogue fourth branch of government is threatening our republic Fox News




The rise of the fourth branch of government
By Jonathan Turley

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.

This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.


The rise of the fourth branch of government - The Washington Post

 

[protectionist]

I believe that by "Small Government " what is actually implied is a government that keeps its noses out the lives of the citizenry- does not attempt to impose the will of whatever knucklehead the media and its big brother manipulators manage to propel into power.

Small Government is a DOMESTIC issue.

Depends on who's doing the implying. For many of the current day Reaganists (masquerading as conservatives), small govt means low taxes and low spending. A lot of these loons are even in favor of cutting back the military, police, fire depts, FBI, ICE, etc. They're the best friends La Raza, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other assorted villains ever had.

Is this the same guy protectionist that I used to respect - ? --- Your rants are a tad off the wall, completely unsubstantiated and pretty much meritless .

Reaganites supporting La Raza ?
Reaganites buddy buddy with ISIS ?

Seriously Dude - get real

Maybe YOU are who needs to get real. This doesn't require calculus. The less $ there is going to the govt, the less $ going to ICE, FBI, the military, CIA, DIA, DEA, etc. What do you think the left's # 1 excuse is for not doing what I suggest about immigration (Operation Wetback II) > "We don't have the money." Here's a rogue's gallery of who I hear say those words > Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Jeb Bush, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Robert Menendez. Liberals and RINOs. I'm not in favor of opening up escape hatches for my enemies. And all those who facilitate the invasion of the US are my enemies.

Well, we had some money when top tax was 91%, and Eisenhower enacted Operation Wetback I in 1954. And Reagan's 28% ? We got a 3 million illegal alien amnesty. Think about it. Keeping the govt underfunded, is a prime methodology of Muslim Brotherhood front groups as well as immigrationist traitors. In the 1980s, Reagan redefined conservatism (which was never about low taxes and small, weak govt). He redefined it in the wrong direction.

CDZ - MASS DEPORTATION Not Amnesty US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Reaganists may not support ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but they sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites. For them, the less govt, the less military, the less state & local police, the less ICE, the less FBI, etc., the better. Not calculus.

 

[hangover]

The Left Loses Ground...

Bwah ha ha! Yeah, like the cons were sooooo sure they were gonna win the WH in 08' and 12'. They just knew they were gonna beat the black guy. Ya'll just keep living in dream land with your looney toon candidates. BWAH HA HA HA HA!

 

[protectionist]

The Left Loses Ground...

Bwah ha ha! Yeah, like the cons were sooooo sure they were gonna win the WH in 08' and 12'. They just knew they were gonna beat the black guy. Ya'll just keep living in dream land with your looney toon candidates. BWAH HA HA HA HA!

Like the ones who replaced Democrats in the Republican landslide of November 2014 ?

 

[GreenBean]

Reaganists may not support ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but they sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites.

1. That's not what you implied in the post that was addressed, you implied that Reaganites were supporting ISIS , La Raza and so forth. You seem to have back tracked, or perhaps the initial post was poor wording on your part.

2. So far as Finances -Tax and spend yada yada yada , different times and agendas require differing approaches - No two snowflakes are alike - neither are any two situations, eras and sets of variables identical. In the Reagan era we were in a debacle with the "Evil Empire" aka the USSR - Reagan militaristic spending and the Soviet attempts to match American Resolve under Reagan brought about the collapse of the USSR - that and one of other personal Heroes Mikhail Gorbachevv- but thats another issue altogether.

3. So far as Reagan Conservatives and Eisenhower conservatives ... WTF ... You think conservatives are like goose stepping libtards parroting whatever agenda Big Brother throws their way - it'll never happen . Conservatives are free thinking individuals - not the mindless imbecillic puppets that the left idealizes.

There are many breeds of Conservatives - all under one banner but all free thinkers - the worst of our breed being the "Goldwater" conservatives. - No two snowflakes are alike

 

[GreenBean]

The Left Loses Ground...

Bwah ha ha! Yeah, like the cons were sooooo sure they were gonna win the WH in 08' and 12'. They just knew they were gonna beat the black guy. Ya'll just keep living in dream land with your looney toon candidates. BWAH HA HA HA HA!

GFY

 

[protectionist]

Reaganists may not support ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but they sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites.

1. That's not what you implied in the post that was addressed, you implied that Reaganites were supporting ISIS , La Raza and so forth. You seem to have back tracked, or perhaps the initial post was poor wording on your part.

2. So far as Finances -Tax and spend yada yada yada , different times and agendas require differing approaches - No two snowflakes are alike - neither are any two situations, eras and sets of variables identical. In the Reagan era we were in a debacle with the "Evil Empire" aka the USSR - Reagan militaristic spending and the Soviet attempts to match American Resolve under Reagan brought about the collapse of the USSR - that and one of other personal Heroes Mikhail Gorbachevv- but thats another issue altogether.

3. So far as Reagan Conservatives and Eisenhower conservatives ... WTF ... You think conservatives are like goose stepping libtards parroting whatever agenda Big Brother throws their way - it'll never happen . Conservatives are free thinking individuals - not the mindless imbecillic puppets that the left idealizes.

There are many breeds of Conservatives - all under one banner but all free thinkers - the worst of our breed being the "Goldwater" conservatives. - No two snowflakes are alike

1. I most certainly did NOT imply that or anything else. The "for them" I mentioned is ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood. I never imply, insinuate or infer ANYTHING,,,EVER. If I have something to say, I say it. If it appeared to you that I was implying something, that's in YOUR head, not mine. The "they" sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites, is ISIS, MB, La Raza, etc.

The rest of your post is a bit vague, so I'll just pass on any response for it, except to say that NO, Reaganists are NOT free thinkers. That's why they are Reaganists. They all have something in common. They support low taxes, even on the rich (which only a minority of people in America support, according to a litany of polls), and this consequently means low spending, which consequently leads to a smaller, and therefore weaker govt, without the funds to support a robust homeland security, national defense, FBI, CIA, military, infrastructure, police on all levels, fire depts, ICE, CBP, etc. This goes in the opposite direction of Conservatism, for which all these departments are critical to CONSERVE America's traditional identity and way of life.

There is also a lot of money needed to fight off America's internal enemies who, over the past few decades have been characteristically using the courts to dismantle our way of life. Some of these enemies are the ACLU, SPLC, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, MECHA, gay rights gooneybirds, and the many Muslim Brotherhood front groups. They go judge-shopping (as Pat Buchanan eloquently put it) and when the find just the right judge for their purposes, they sue. These court battles are like military battles in one respect. They both cost a lot of MONEY.

So you're either willing to go to bat for America, and our tradition ways of life (Ex. marriage-a man & woman) or you're not. If you're not, you're not a Conservative in my book. I see these expensive, protectionist needs as a lot more important than keeping some movies star's after tax income up above $10 Million/year. Top 5 US movie stars are at $100 Million/year income. I'd rather see our US troops getting a big slice of that.

 

[hangover]

The Left Loses Ground...

Bwah ha ha! Yeah, like the cons were sooooo sure they were gonna win the WH in 08' and 12'. They just knew they were gonna beat the black guy. Ya'll just keep living in dream land with your looney toon candidates. BWAH HA HA HA HA!

GFY

NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA NA NA NA!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Left Loses Ground...

Bwah ha ha! Yeah, like the cons were sooooo sure they were gonna win the WH in 08' and 12'. They just knew they were gonna beat the black guy. Ya'll just keep living in dream land with your looney toon candidates. BWAH HA HA HA HA!

Like the ones who replaced Democrats in the Republican landslide of November 2014 ?

And what have they accomplished to roll back the Progressive gains?

Here's a clue. It starts with 'N' and ends with 'othing'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's ironic coming from a hyper-partisan homeschooler.

So...you neither understand the term 'ironic,' nor know the history texts that I endorse.


Here's one:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828,"
by Walter A. McDougall


Love to see your critique of same.

If you wish to claim that you are able to set aside ALL of the rightwing bias that you demonstrate here daily when you take on the role of teacher, and that your 'students' receive an education that treats left and right with equal favor,

well then just say so.

I have no 'bias' if that means unfair inclination.

Everything I believe is based on education, experience, and insight.

The lack of same explains your 'bias.'

You have the most demented, warped version of bias I have ever seen on a message board.

And I notice you scrupulously dodged my question.

Do you teach that Evolution is by far the best scientific theory on the history of life on earth, and that Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of,

or aren't you up to that subject yet?

I would suggest you stick to words you understand.....but that would be cruel as it would end your posting career.

Case in point:
Demented: driven to behave irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.

As I behave with nothing but seraphic calm (I'll wait while you consult a dictionary).....your post is untrue.

As for 'irrational,'.....feel free to find any such post of mine.


Or don't.....after all, you are known as the 'NYLiar.'

Tim McVeigh was remarkably calm. One might even say 'seraphic' in that regard.