Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[nuhuh]

Mill is correct about so very many things.....he has the right to be incorrect about a few, such as this.

Now here is a truly meaty quote by David Mamet that puts so many things in the proper focus:

1. "The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."

BTW....are you ready to apologize for the slaughter of over 100 million human beings by totalitarians of your ilk in the last century?

100 million of your fellow human beings.

"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history
yelling 'Stop!'."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior
moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after
they're dead."
- Leo Rosten

"Brains, you know, are suspect in the Republican Party."
- Walter J. Lippmann

I provided a fact.....100 million slaughtered by folks of your persuasion.

Your counter explains the axiom 'talk is cheap.'

Liberals don't slaughter, but we've been known to throw revolutions and chop off a few heads of royalty here and there.

Liberals are totalitarians, no different in belief from any other....communist, Nazis, fascists:
"...the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’" (Goldberg)


They don't 'slaughter,'....until their power advances beyond the tipping point.

In America, to this point, they are responsible for destroying the Constitution, instituting concentration camps, and for tirelessly fighting against free speech and freedom of religion.

Can mass murder be far behind?

Political Chic manages to step in it again filling the room with a malodorous stink.

Authoritarianism is neither left nor right. It would be improper to call the Nazis either Conservative or Liberal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid

Multiple Scientific Studies Confirm: Extreme Conservatism Linked to Racism, Low I.Q.

And so we have proof of this 'random truth:' The more education one has in the social sciences, the dumber one becomes.

The better educated, the more liberal. You show us the truth of that, AINO...

 

[rdean]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University

We are not an accredited academic institution.
All our courses are free.

There are no fees, no tuition, books, homework assignments, or grueling midterms
All our courses are five minutes long. That's right, five minutes.

Prager University

On Prager University - You can make a joke, but can you take criticism?

“You give us five minutes, we give you a semester.” That’s the motto of Prager University, and if you think it sounds horrifyingly anti-intellectual, you’re not wrong.

------------------------------------------------

Every so often, a right winger on the USMB comes up with something so ridiculous, so tarded, so stupid, so anti intellectual, you think it must be satire. Or they are drunk. Or brain damaged.

Then I realize, it's probably a case of "all of the above".

Wait.....you imagined (I almost said 'thought') that it was an actual university?????


How often do you feel it necessary to rush in to prove how ignorant your side is???


Does the GOP keep you on retainer......or do the Democrats keep you on a leash?

What you said:

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal
And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....


--------------------------

You said it, not me. Why is it any less crazy than all the other bullshit you say?

 

[Tax Man]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Well it is a great way to make money for sure having to pay to see the stuff being sold. I kinda go with the tried and true axiom that as a person gets more education they become more liberal in thought. Frankly I do not care for conservative people and avoided them like the plague when in business. They always complained and tried to get out of paying for services rendered. Then there are the conservative workers. That is a joke. They do not work they just complain and listen to gush pimpballs on the radio.

" I kinda go with the tried and true axiom that as a person gets more education they become more liberal in thought."

Fact:
. The more education one has in the social sciences, the dumber one becomes.

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com



(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.

For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.
Find this article at:
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

Liberals, based on the failures of their totalitarian predecessors, and the lack of understanding of human nature, are clearly less intelligent than conservatives.

But only a certifiable imbecile would actually believe what you posted.


This is the sort of thing your author has previously written:

"An article posted online on Monday by Psychology Today provoked controversy and cries of racism. The title of evolutionary psychologist Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa’s piece: “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

His argument is that there is a set of data, which shows black women to be “objectively” less attractive than white, Asian or Native American women, but that the same data does not find black men less attractive than men of other races.

...article is most certainly his problem (as well as a problem for Psychology Today and the academic institutions he is affiliated with — the London School of Economics and London’s Birckbeck College)."
“Why are black women less attractive?” asks Psychology Today - Salon.com



So, you imbecile.....stand behind both of his opuses?




Funny, huh?

You posted how stupid conservatives are, and I just proved you to be an imbecile.



On the bright side....you are clearly a reliable Democrat voter.

You have proved nothing but your ability to deflect and spin. Quite allright as I have had a life of conservatives trying to take my money and my property not to mention convince me I am stupid. I find them and you a joyful laugh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Communist Party and the Civil Rights Movement - Hankering for History

The Communist Party USA and African Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just for fun -

The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community

Obscure sources, blogs and a lot of unfounded assertions.

So dispute them.

There re so many inconsistencies in your "sources" I'd be here all day addressing and correcting them. But here is a link to show you just how outdated and slow you are...
a lot of the mess you posted has been discussed and rendered useless many times :

Conservatives vs Liberals: Who really tried to stop Civil Rights initiatives.

Did you REALLY just reference another post on this message board as your fucking source of proof?!

What's it like being a walking advertisement for EXTREMELY late-term abortion?

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before trying to impress us with your insights. The overwhelming evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to everyone, but they will be able to see much more easily.

Sorry, but who the fuck are you, and when did I solicit your advice on how to post? In fact, when did I even acknowledge your existence?

You can't respond to me? I won't be surprised. Tell me how to post to suit you? Thanks for forfeiting. Now piss off, twerp.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 50666

If I wanted to waste my time reading bullshit blogs, I'd go look them up. Stop cluttering the place up with your pathetic desire to believe anything on the Internet that agrees with your worldview.

Hey, funny bunnie, did someone twist your friggin' arm and make you click on my posts?
Don't look at my narratives if you can't take the truth!

Click on your posts? They're just there, you dimwit.

Don't post your narratives if you can't take the truth.

"I found a blog on the Internet that says what I want to hear! That PROVES ME RIGHT!" I'm laughing at you right now, much the same way that your last hooker did when the pants came off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, but they did. You should read their writings sometime.

They evidently did not listen to their conservative masters in a monarchy and legislature of their home country...

Somehow, the erroneous assumption that anything leftists like from history is automatically "liberal" - and thus, associated with them - never fails to send me into gales of laughter.

I DO wish you wouldn't post it so often, though. I read this at work, and it's not good for me to sit at my desk, giggling.

I damn sure wasn't a conservative move to ...rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler.

Based on what? Your kindergarten definition of "conservative" and "liberal"? Spare me.

Let's just clarify what we're talking about, and put an end to this smeary, slip-sliding mess that leftists always try to make out of definitions in order to obstruct debate, shall we?

The conservative-liberal spectrum in American politics is not a matter of political parties, nor is it a matter of specific stands on specific issues, which can be affected by circumstances outside of political ideology. "Conservative" and "liberal" are defined by overall philosophy and worldview. Thomas Sowell refers to them as "visions". The issues change; the positions on them change, depending on the details and extenuating circumstances (I know the simplistic, all-or-nothing attitude of the left has a real problem with this part); but the vision that informs the decisions and positions remains essentially the same.

Now, as to parties, the Republican Party is by no means made up entirely of people with a homogenous conservative vision. Neither is the Democrat Party made up entirely of people with a homogenous liberal vision. But they each contain those visions respectively, and despite what today's left would like to believe, the idea that the two parties have somehow completely switched places on the political spectrum is simply ludicrous and has no evidence to support it. The left may not like what that reveals about the efficacy of their vision, but that's they're problem.

You would have to be pretty dim to think that all are the same..
Yet as you have seen in history, the KKK was made up in it's rebirth in the 1920's with members of GOP and Democratic members..Which had more to do with no party affiliation for membership, but a motivation to dislike the same things in society..
.

Never said anything was "all the same". Don't even know how that relates to my post, but since it's you, I don't expect it to.

I haven't seen anything of the sort in history, but I'm amused by your childish ignorance.

 

[nuhuh]

Obscure sources, blogs and a lot of unfounded assertions.

So dispute them.

There re so many inconsistencies in your "sources" I'd be here all day addressing and correcting them. But here is a link to show you just how outdated and slow you are...
a lot of the mess you posted has been discussed and rendered useless many times :

Conservatives vs Liberals: Who really tried to stop Civil Rights initiatives.

Did you REALLY just reference another post on this message board as your fucking source of proof?!

What's it like being a walking advertisement for EXTREMELY late-term abortion?

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before trying to impress us with your insights. The overwhelming evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to everyone, but they will be able to see much more easily.

Sorry, but who the fuck are you, and when did I solicit your advice on how to post? In fact, when did I even acknowledge your existence?

You can't respond to me? I won't be surprised. Tell me how to post to suit you? Thanks for forfeiting. Now piss off, twerp.

I have no problem responding to you Cecilie, but it has been nearly two weeks since I posted that. The two posts that follow your post explains perfectly the arrogance that likely accompanies you like baggage wherever you go. Neither do you have to acknowledge my existence, you're not nearly important or smart enough to have that capacity.

It is apparent to me that you are very smart, but it is the kind of smart that one expects from an idiot savant. Brilliant comments but absolutely no social skills that make you acceptable to normal people. That's Okay, we are a small community and have room for all types of personalities, it just means that a great deal of the time people will mock you as we do now.

I didn't reference the things that you wrote because they really didn't say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was piteous. I mean really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a bale of babbling was hardly effective and hardly worthy of someone who sees themself as so brilliant and unmistakably important. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you and must be embarrassing to bear with someone who thinks they are so uniquely smart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Well it is a great way to make money for sure having to pay to see the stuff being sold. I kinda go with the tried and true axiom that as a person gets more education they become more liberal in thought. Frankly I do not care for conservative people and avoided them like the plague when in business. They always complained and tried to get out of paying for services rendered. Then there are the conservative workers. That is a joke. They do not work they just complain and listen to gush pimpballs on the radio.

" I kinda go with the tried and true axiom that as a person gets more education they become more liberal in thought."

Fact:
. The more education one has in the social sciences, the dumber one becomes.

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com



(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.

For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.
Find this article at:
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

Liberals, based on the failures of their totalitarian predecessors, and the lack of understanding of human nature, are clearly less intelligent than conservatives.

But only a certifiable imbecile would actually believe what you posted.


This is the sort of thing your author has previously written:

"An article posted online on Monday by Psychology Today provoked controversy and cries of racism. The title of evolutionary psychologist Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa’s piece: “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

His argument is that there is a set of data, which shows black women to be “objectively” less attractive than white, Asian or Native American women, but that the same data does not find black men less attractive than men of other races.

...article is most certainly his problem (as well as a problem for Psychology Today and the academic institutions he is affiliated with — the London School of Economics and London’s Birckbeck College)."
“Why are black women less attractive?” asks Psychology Today - Salon.com



So, you imbecile.....stand behind both of his opuses?




Funny, huh?

You posted how stupid conservatives are, and I just proved you to be an imbecile.



On the bright side....you are clearly a reliable Democrat voter.

You have proved nothing but your ability to deflect and spin. Quite allright as I have had a life of conservatives trying to take my money and my property not to mention convince me I am stupid. I find them and you a joyful laugh.

Bet you won't be pointing with pride to the work of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa again, huh?
I sure made you run from the "expert" you quoted, didn't I.


It's sooooo much fun making you Liberal dunces try to get both feet in your mouths.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal

And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....




Why the Right is Right - Prager University

Prager University

We are not an accredited academic institution.
All our courses are free.

There are no fees, no tuition, books, homework assignments, or grueling midterms
All our courses are five minutes long. That's right, five minutes.

Prager University

On Prager University - You can make a joke, but can you take criticism?

“You give us five minutes, we give you a semester.” That’s the motto of Prager University, and if you think it sounds horrifyingly anti-intellectual, you’re not wrong.

------------------------------------------------

Every so often, a right winger on the USMB comes up with something so ridiculous, so tarded, so stupid, so anti intellectual, you think it must be satire. Or they are drunk. Or brain damaged.

Then I realize, it's probably a case of "all of the above".

Wait.....you imagined (I almost said 'thought') that it was an actual university?????


How often do you feel it necessary to rush in to prove how ignorant your side is???


Does the GOP keep you on retainer......or do the Democrats keep you on a leash?

What you said:

In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal
And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....


--------------------------

You said it, not me. Why is it any less crazy than all the other bullshit you say?

So, you've heard folks speak of "the school of hard knocks," and tried to find out how to apply???????



Gads, you Liberals are fools.


I've often shown that Liberals only know what Liberals say or do....while we on the right understand both side....and, of course, you are a perfect example of same.


Check this out:
"Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate
He didn't know about Ayers!!


But, of course, there is the alternative view, as revealed by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means.” “Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know, It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.”(p. 312)


CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."

His excuse?

"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation'




Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.

Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added



And, of course, you the same vis-a-vis Prager University.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do you propose doing about it?

Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The notion of unfunded liabilities is a misnomer and suggests that funded liabilities must be better. We both know that's a fallacy and doesn't make financial decisions safer or more secure.

And from today's news....

"Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think
The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.


Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,”...." Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think

 

[nuhuh]

Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The notion of unfunded liabilities is a misnomer and suggests that funded liabilities must be better. We both know that's a fallacy and doesn't make financial decisions safer or more secure.

And from today's news....

"Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think
The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.


Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,”...." Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think

When you project budget number into the future you can come up with scary numbers that people use to terrorize other into believing we are all about to collapse into a financial morass. The American economy currently expands at 2% a year, in 75 years, it will be massive and those numbers become less meaningful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The notion of unfunded liabilities is a misnomer and suggests that funded liabilities must be better. We both know that's a fallacy and doesn't make financial decisions safer or more secure.

And from today's news....

"Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think
The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.


Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,”...." Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think

When you project budget number into the future you can come up with scary numbers that people use to terrorize other into believing we are all about to collapse into a financial morass. The American economy currently expands at 2% a year, in 75 years, it will be massive and those numbers become less meaningful.

"...scary numbers that people use to terrorize..."

So.....which one are you?

 

[Mad Scientist]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

Now that they no longer have to shield the boy king, the truth is seeping out....
Like the real debt we are facing....

...and this:
"The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you arenotcounted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population,...

...When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real --" The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

 

[Mertex]

Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The notion of unfunded liabilities is a misnomer and suggests that funded liabilities must be better. We both know that's a fallacy and doesn't make financial decisions safer or more secure.

And from today's news....

"Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think
The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.


Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,”...." Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think

Lest some forget.

When a President starts a war and doesn't tell the people how much it will cost, and then doesn't budget for it......everyone thinks it's great, that our President is taking care of us....then he leaves and the next President is blamed for the cost........clever, but not everyone is dumb at bout.

Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion

WATCH: Cost Of Wars In Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan To Reach $3.7 Trillion


And this is already 2 years old:
The Iraq War Will Push The U.S. Into Debt For Years To Come

 

[Wry Catcher]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

No one questions the need to cut expenditures, the problem is what should be cut and how much?

Much of us understand that the US Nuclear Capacity is sufficient to obliterate any foreign adversary, and those weapons work as a deterrent. Of course only nation states fear such a reprisal and it seems the current iteration of terrorists do not.

This is where diplomacy and TR's sage comment: "speak softly and carry a big stick" comes into play; dangerously, it is diplomacy which is under attack by the current (and many of the former) neo cons, seeking to put Rubio or Florina into the Oval Office. Of course their credo is well known to all with a liberal arts education:

war is peace,
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

No one questions the need to cut expenditures, the problem is what should be cut and how much?

Much of us understand that the US Nuclear Capacity is sufficient to obliterate any foreign adversary, and those weapons work as a deterrent. Of course only nation states fear such a reprisal and it seems the current iteration of terrorists do not.

This is where diplomacy and TR's sage comment: "speak softly and carry a big stick" comes into play; dangerously, it is diplomacy which is under attack by the current (and many of the former) neo cons, seeking to put Rubio or Florina into the Oval Office. Of course their credo is well known to all with a liberal arts education:

war is peace,
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

Orwell wrote "Nineteen-eighty Four" in response to the Stalin regime, and Stalin was one of yours..

 

[Billy000]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

The IRS is taking in record raw dollars. That isn't how you properly measure revenue because it doesn't take into account inflation and the size of the economy. The proper way to measure revenue is calculating the percentage of revenue of GDP. Right now it is 16%. That is near the historic low.

So yeah, we need to raise taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No need to worry. It's the Fall of Recovery and the IRS is taking in record tax receipts.

Of course, that doesn't stop the government from borrowing and spending at record rates but hey, I don't wanna' "talk down" the Economy.

No one questions the need to cut expenditures, the problem is what should be cut and how much?

Much of us understand that the US Nuclear Capacity is sufficient to obliterate any foreign adversary, and those weapons work as a deterrent. Of course only nation states fear such a reprisal and it seems the current iteration of terrorists do not.

This is where diplomacy and TR's sage comment: "speak softly and carry a big stick" comes into play; dangerously, it is diplomacy which is under attack by the current (and many of the former) neo cons, seeking to put Rubio or Florina into the Oval Office. Of course their credo is well known to all with a liberal arts education:

war is peace,
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

Orwell wrote "Nineteen-eighty Four" in response to the Stalin regime, and Stalin was one of yours..

Ah, a double ad hominem, one lacking both substance and evidence, and it seems a new iteration of the classic Idiot-Gram.

I won't defend the allegation since it is absurd and childish, in fact it is strong evidence, given the post and my opinion above he is a liar! Liars need to lie because they lack the ability to provide a sage response or write either an expository or argumentative reply.

In fact Animal Farm is a much better example IMO of life in an Authoritarian Society in terms of the range of human character traits, and in Darkness at Noon a good example of the New Right in America which practices tossing anyone under the bus who doesn't hold to the dogma they preach.​