Rape, plunder and pillage of the environment for profit

followed by my comment about Al Gore being right wing ....

More info about Al and carbon credits ....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#3813ef843750

Consumerism, shop till you drop.

followed by my comment ... only if you lack the willpower.

All consumers do not shop till they drop. Some do. Most don't. One still has to live within their means.

 

Mad dog liberalism is like porn, hard to describe exactly what it is but you know it when you see it.

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/...ssions-to-return-his-asian-prop-to-toys-r-us/

 

From Diane Moczar:

To summarize the differences in outlook between conservatism and liberalism, which remain to the present, although true conservatism has long been dying a slow death, we may consider these points:

Philosophical approach: for liberals it is idealism: they operate according to utopian schemes they evolve within their heads since they accept no fixed and natural social order.
For conservatives, on the other hand, the philosophical framework is realism, with its insistence on an objective and knowable moral and social order.

Human nature: for liberals it is perfectible; for conservatives it is flawed (earlier we considered the consequences of these two views).

Law: for liberals it is the expression of the common will; for conservatives it is the expression of God’s law and objective order.

Society: for liberals it is composed of individual human atoms; for conservatives it is communitarian — made up of all those “bodies” dear to corporatism: family, Church, guild, and so on.

Political ideal: for liberals it is liberty; for conservatives, order and the common good.

Rights: for liberals rights are the claims or wants of individuals, defined by the state and changeable; for conservatives they are the counterpart of man’s duties toward God and others and are independent of what a state might decree.

“A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged”

 

Liberals: Mystics of Muscle
Conservatives: Mystics of Spirit
Both: Statists

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mystics_of_spirit_and_of_muscle.html

 

Liberals: Mystics of Muscle
Conservatives: Mystics of Spirit
Both: Statists

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mystics_of_spirit_and_of_muscle.html

I was beginning to think Ayn was dead. Oh wait, she is.

 

The answer is quite simple:

A liberal today IS someone who wants to spend your money on his worthy causes.

Who invited others to your house to show his charity .

Who flyes around in his jets to lecture you on ways to minimize your carbon footprint.

Who takes your money to bail out his businesses just because you should .

Who knows better than you about what's good for you and your family.

Who thinks you are just a bunch of fun loving ignorant hilly Billie's who should have any right.

Who likes to change the rules after they lost.
...

You get the point.

If you think being race blind is liberal in the 50s, progressive in the 60s, and racist today, you are a liberal.

 

Economics 101

For those of you baffled by the global economic meltdown, the following summary of basic economic theory should be helpful. Some of it may seem familiar and you may feel you've heard it all before, but note that fascinating new information has been added, reflecting the latest analysis of recent economic trends ...

21 Economic Models ... explained with cows

The 2008 update

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the
milk away...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters
of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a
debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all
four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to
a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who
sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The
annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one
more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States ,
leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the
release. The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you
want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow
and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow
cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and
milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy....

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

 

Don't let the gloss blind you.

It's simply what would you! think is the best course of action for us as a whole? Including yourself as well.

They try to make it all about the individual but markets and general health don't move like that.

To name a few issues.

 

but markets and general health don't move like that.

Unless there is a monopoly based on old money there is...

 

The answer is quite simple:

A liberal today IS someone who wants to spend your money on his worthy causes.

Who invited others to your house to show his charity .

Who flyes around in his jets to lecture you on ways to minimize your carbon footprint.

Who takes your money to bail out his businesses just because you should .

Who knows better than you about what's good for you and your family.

Who thinks you are just a bunch of fun loving ignorant hilly Billie's who should have any right.

Who likes to change the rules after they lost.
...

You get the point.

If you think being race blind is liberal in the 50s, progressive in the 60s, and racist today, you are a liberal.

Wow! I almost think I have to give your programmers a solid A on whatever chatbot software adjustment they gave you this week!
That damn near sounds like what a rational thinking human being might be able to come up with. Very unlike you indeed.

Or have you been shutdown and it's a actual human at a keyboard right now? That seems more plausible not that I think about it.

 

I cant say I have any affiliation or following of any political party.

I just support that which seems the most rationally and logically correct for whatever situation or condition is at hand and firmly distrust anything that doesn't fit that criteria.

I believe democratic society is good most of the time.
I believe a capitalistic economy is good up to a limit.
I believe some socialist type programs are better than capitalistic based ones in certain areas and applications.
I believe that financial responsibility and overall efficiency of a system of government and society should be the top priority for a country. any country.
I know people in power should not an can not be trusted to do what's good 100% of the time. Many not even 50% or 25% of the time.
I know some people will blindly follow other blind idiots off a cliff and expect everyone else to follow as well rather than admit they are wrong about what they were told.
I know if openness and honesty can't be used to justify something it and whoever supports it should not be trusted in any way.
I know the difference between intelligent and educated over indoctrinated and a fool and that most indoctrinated fools don't.

 

How about this?

When Eric Holder’s Department of Justice allowed illegal gun transactions, illegally sold guns to Mexican gun traffickers as part of Fast and Furious, guns that were later used to murder border patrol agent Brian Terry, the
Democratic members of this committee were silent. When Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with Congress’
investigation into Fast and Furious, once again, the Democratic members of
this committee were silent.”

When the IRS and the DOJ illegally targeted United States citizens and
businesses for exercising their First Amendment views, for exercising their roles in the political process, Democratic members of this committee were
silent. When the Department of Justice refused to fairly investigate the IRS targeting citizens and indeed assigned the investigation to a liberal
partisan Democrat who had given over $6,000 to President Obama and Democrats, Democrats on this committee were silent.”

“When numerous members of this committee called on the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to ensure that justice was done in the IRS case, Democrats on this committee were silent. When the Department of Justice
used Operation Choke Point to target legal businesses because they disagreed politically with those businesses, the Democrats on this committee were
silent.”

When the Obama Justice Department sent millions of dollars of taxpayer money to sanctuary cities that were defying federal immigration law, the
Democrats on this committee were silent. When the Obama administration
refused to enforce federal immigration laws and unilaterally rewrote those
laws, the Democrats on this committee were silent. When the Obama
administration released tens of thousands of criminal illegal aliens,
including rapists and murderers into the general population, Democrats on
this committee were silent. When the Department of Justice signed off on the Obama administration paying a nearly $2 billion ransom to Iran contrary to federal law, the Democrats on this committee were silent.”

-Cooyright: Ted Cruz.

Not a fan of his but he got that spot on.

Where were the Democratic senators when Eric holder told the attorney general's that if they don't agree to a law, they don't have to execute?

 

Since we are in the movement of an electron industry. Here is some impedance we need to knock down a notch

 

I just got back from a long winter's nap and wish to say a few things. I didn't start this to find out if I'm a D or an R, I don't care what my label turns out to be, and I don't care which label applies to each of you. I started it to try to get a sense of the big picture. Eventually to be able to understand when nsaspook makes a joke or when Hillary tries to insult The Donald. For this purpose, post 23 is better than post 27. I don't understand #29 and I don't like #30. Those 2 were distracting. Jokes about how different political belief systems throw mud at each other isn't helpful because they rely on a summary to make their point and I'm a long way from summarizing any sort of politics.

Right now, I need time to sort these inputs.
Thank you for your contributions. All of them bring ideas.

 

Maybe this will help. Your fairly safe to assume the Dems are the opposite of these.
Here are 50 excerpts from the 2016 GOP platform.

1. Tax cuts for the rich:

2. Deregulate the banks

3. Stop consumer protection:

4. Start repealing environmental laws:

5. Start shrinking unions and union labor

6. Privatize federal railway service

7. No change in federal minimum wage

8. Cut government salaries and benefits:

9. Appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices

10. Appoint anti-LGBT and anti-Obamacare justices

11. Legalize anti-LGBT discrimination

12. Make Christianity a national religion

13. Loosen campaign finance loopholes and dark money:

14. Loosen gun controls nationwide:

15. Pass an anti-choice constitutional amendment:

16. End federal funding for Planned Parenthood:

17. Allow states to shut down abortion Clinics

18. Oppose stem cell scientific research:

19. Oppose executive branch policy making

20. Oppose efforts to end the electoral college

21. Require citizenship documents to register to vote

22. Ignore undocumented immigrants when drawing congressional districts:

23. No labeling of GMO ingredients in food products:

24. Add work requirements to welfare and cut food stamps:

25. Open America’s shores to more oil and gas drilling:

26. Build the Keystone XL Pipeline:

27. Expand fracking and burying nuclear waste

28. No tax on carbon products

29. Ignore global climate change agreements:

30. Privatize Medicare, the health plan for seniors:

31. Turn Medicaid, the poor’s health plan, over to states:

32. No increasing Social Security benefits by taxing the rich

33. Repeal Obamacare

34. Give internet service providers monopoly control

35. Make English the official U.S. language

36. No amnesty for undocumented immigrants

37. Build a border wall to keep immigrants out:

38. Require government verification of citizenship of all workers

39. Penalize cities that give sanctuary to migrants:

40. Puerto Rico should be a state but not Washington DC

41. Support traditional marriage but no other families

42. Privatize government services in the name of fighting poverty

43. Require bible study in public schools

44. Replace traditional public schools with privatized options

45. Replace sex education with abstinence-only approaches:

46. Privatize student loans instead of lowering interest rates

47. Restore the death penalty:

48. Dramatically increase Pentagon budget:

49. Cancel Iran nuclear treaty and expand nuclear arsenal:

50. Reaffirm support for Israel and slam sanctions movement:

 

While doing some research, I noticed this sentence:"It occurs to me that anyone reading this post will likely 'put me down' as a 'flaming liberal'.

That was HP talking about wanting special laws just for free food banks. I don't have a clue whether that is a true statement. "Flaming Liberals" encourage the creation of more laws targeting small populations in a specific endeavor? "What is a Flaming Liberal?" My previous beliefs would not be that a liberal person wants more laws, right down to micro-managing specific businesses.

 

Maybe this will help. Your fairly safe to assume the Dems are the opposite of these.
Here are 50 excerpts from the 2016 GOP platform.

1. Tax cuts for the rich:

2. Deregulate the banks

3. Stop consumer protection:

4. Start repealing environmental laws:

5. Start shrinking unions and union labor

6. Privatize federal railway service

7. No change in federal minimum wage

8. Cut government salaries and benefits:

9. Appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices

10. Appoint anti-LGBT and anti-Obamacare justices

11. Legalize anti-LGBT discrimination

12. Make Christianity a national religion

13. Loosen campaign finance loopholes and dark money:

14. Loosen gun controls nationwide:

15. Pass an anti-choice constitutional amendment:

16. End federal funding for Planned Parenthood:

17. Allow states to shut down abortion Clinics

18. Oppose stem cell scientific research:

19. Oppose executive branch policy making

20. Oppose efforts to end the electoral college

21. Require citizenship documents to register to vote

22. Ignore undocumented immigrants when drawing congressional districts:

23. No labeling of GMO ingredients in food products:

24. Add work requirements to welfare and cut food stamps:

25. Open America’s shores to more oil and gas drilling:

26. Build the Keystone XL Pipeline:

27. Expand fracking and burying nuclear waste

28. No tax on carbon products

29. Ignore global climate change agreements:

30. Privatize Medicare, the health plan for seniors:

31. Turn Medicaid, the poor’s health plan, over to states:

32. No increasing Social Security benefits by taxing the rich

33. Repeal Obamacare

34. Give internet service providers monopoly control

35. Make English the official U.S. language

36. No amnesty for undocumented immigrants

37. Build a border wall to keep immigrants out:

38. Require government verification of citizenship of all workers

39. Penalize cities that give sanctuary to migrants:

40. Puerto Rico should be a state but not Washington DC

41. Support traditional marriage but no other families

42. Privatize government services in the name of fighting poverty

43. Require bible study in public schools

44. Replace traditional public schools with privatized options

45. Replace sex education with abstinence-only approaches:

46. Privatize student loans instead of lowering interest rates

47. Restore the death penalty:

48. Dramatically increase Pentagon budget:

49. Cancel Iran nuclear treaty and expand nuclear arsenal:

50. Reaffirm support for Israel and slam sanctions movement:

And many of them go against their beloved Constitution. Like I said earlier in this thread, they only care about the parts they like.

 

My previous beliefs would not be that a liberal person wants more laws, right down to micro-managing specific businesses.

That's mistaken. Liberalism advances by using law to reduce personal freedom and liberty. It seeks to impose the brilliant ideas of central planners that know better than the people, what is good for the people. You can't have liberalism without control and you can't get control without laws.

“From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” - Ronald Reagan's inaugural address

 

And another favorite of mine:

“It [government] covers the surface of society with a net- work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

 

What I see is that most everyone is by nature independent or mid point and views aspects of both sides as being correct without even knowing it.

The problem is they define themselves as being either liberal or conservative or whatever and thusly declare that whatever they view as correct to be associatively liberal or conservative or whatever even if it's technically and reality wise just the opposite.

I see and agree with aspects and concepts of all sides just as much as I don't agree with with other aspects and concepts of all sides either.

Back when I came to understand what political parties and views were people like me were called 'Independents' being we were independent of parties parties and did not fully agree or disagree with either.

That's about all I can verify and define with any degree of accuracy in my views but then I am by nature not a team player either and only seek the greater good and most efficient way of doing things even if it means using the better concepts from both sides to achieve it.