The Best Commencement Address Ever!

[NYcarbineer]

Can I modify that for you, and add that taxation increases the prices of consumer goods of every nature...and almost requires both parents work?
I say almost because not everyone tries to keep up with the ever-increasing American standard of living.

You Liberals should try to think beyond first stage....


Taxation itself reveals a major difference between Liberals and conservatives...

1. For conservatives, taxes are for the purpose of allaying the legitimate costs of government. Excess should be returned to the people via tax cuts.

2. For Liberals, taxes are for equalizing outcomes, and for "social justice."

No you cannot modify that for me.

You didn't answer my question, in other words, you couldn't defend your point.

How much can you lower a family's income tax, if they're already paying ZERO, to make up for one of the 2 incomes?

And btw, did you ever actually say whether you agreed with Boortz or not, that the 40 hr. week is for LOSERS??

I work a 40 hour week, I own a paid for property and have ZERO debt. How am I a loser exactly, as it relates to my work ethic?

I was trying to cover for your inability....inabilities.....but, ....as you wish.


"And btw, did you ever actually say whether you agreed with Boortz or not, that the 40 hr. week is for LOSERS??"

If you insist that you are the representative of the 40-hour-a-week-worker....
.....I rest my case.


BTW....you missed a spot in the corner....some litter is still there....

I worked a 40 hour week when I was in the military, so I guess we know how you and Boortz stand on those government employees.

You really shouldn't challenge people to debate issues if you really don't want to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next 'point'

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

a. since we are supposedly at Texas A & M, one of the country's most conservative schools, the above statement is just idiocy on its face.

b. Boortz shows a contempt for compassion and caring, and muses, in an optimistic fashion, that eventually these young 'liberals' will lose those dreadful character flaws. In Boortz's world the true measure of a conservative is the ability to function without compassion, without caring. btw, that's hardly revelatory if you've been around enough conservatives.

 

[snjmom]

1. … you can bet your tassels…[y]ou may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

So, is he saying that those that work for the govt will either like much of what he has to say or just forget it after 10 yrs?

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

What is this truth? That one shouldn't care, feel compassion?

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Dude, the theocracy crowd owns the right. And what they feel is anger generated by fear. Last I heard, humans were pack animals. Isn't the worst punishment solitary confinement?

4. Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses. In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

a. If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity.

The individual certainly has the right to protect his life and property. That doesn't mean the individual can renege on the social contract. If he/she is unhappy with the social contract of his/her current country of residence, a new contract may be tendered to another society.


5. Soon, you are going to get a full time job. You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

a. Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

b. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder,…

Keep in mind this agent also provides the only means to enforce your contract with others, be your advocate when encountering fraud or violence and your only protection against other societies that would be quite willing to deprive you of you life and 100% of your property. This agent will also support you when you go through periods less successful, or economic or physical upheaval. You may want to weigh the pros and cons carefully before selecting another agent.

6. …here are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

a. Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people …is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individuals abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group….No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work.

b. Now, “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses…. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another….The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs – the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

Does Boortz believe he is the grantor of rights? Does he misunderstand, somehow, that diversity is about reducing exclusion rather than guaranteeing inclusion of incompetence? The value of a group increases with diversity, it's not the sole source of value.


7. Now for the “less fortunate.” To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person – one with a job, a home and a future – is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

a. If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. …It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”

b. Envy is a powerful emotion. …Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected.

c. Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour.

What an enormous failure to recognize that the largest percentage of homeless are mentally ill and will never be employable. And that good mental and physical health are indeed matters of luck. I'm guessing this last wave of people losing their homes and jobs was due to their individual poor choices and not the result of decisions made by outside forces. That they were offered a choice to keep their job and move to China or lose it to stay in the States. The top 10% are the most expensive citizens to have. They still haven't paid for the last war or the infrastructure they use to operate their fiefdoms nor have they made an equitable share of the increases in productivity with labor. And yeah, screw the losers that had those pesky children that continue our society that they have to rush home to at 5, or take off for when they get sick or god forbid, a school play or graduation.

…fecal blizzard…on the way:

1. "That one shouldn't care, feel compassion?"
Why is it compassion to pay for same with other people's money?
Bet you didn't know that conservatives earn less than liberals, yet consistently give more charity.

2."... the theocracy crowd owns the right."
Bet you didn't know that it was Jimmy Carter who brought evangelicals into the political process.
Or...did you think he was on the Right?

Clearly you have Van Gogh's ear for politics.


3. "...the individual can renege on the social contract."

a. You've inadvertently exposed another lacunae in your knowledge.

As usual for Liberals, you throw in terms about which you have no understanding....

" In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

If one did not agree with Rousseau's view of a 'social contract,' the punishment was death.

"Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, , “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68.

Visit a library...pick up a book....



4. "Keep in mind this agent also provides the only means to enforce your contract with others,..."

OMG...are you dumb....perhaps merely uneducated.
Of course, that doesn't prevent firmly held beliefs....

The New Deal Supreme Court decision, HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL et ux.s, threw out any obligation of government to enforce the sanctity of contracts.
Does Obama have a right to shortchange bondholders at Chrysler? Order banks to renegotiate loans?


5. "Does Boortz believe he is the grantor of rights?"
Dunce, he is a conservative....God is the grantor of rights. Government, the grantor of entitlements.

'Diversity' is a vote-getting mechanism used by the Left.
Of course, you bought it like it was on sale.



6." The top 10% are the most expensive citizens to have."
I can't decide which is your stupidest comment....the top 10% pay over 70% of all federal income taxes....National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?


But I am pleased to have one as ignorant as your are participate, and thereby inform the definition of a Liberal.

Thank you for providing ....what to call it..…simian gabble…

1. "You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special."

He demeans the concept of being a compassionate and caring person. Where did you pull "other people's money", out of your withered fecal-stained ass?

2. I believe the collusion with the evangelicals began with Mr. Graham and his influence on Ike and Tricky Dicky. Nice try, though.

3. What a dance of intellectual dishonesty. You and I both know the social contract, either explicitly or tacitly, is the agreement between the citizenry and the state to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of government, in exchange for protection of their natural rights. When did Rosseau order executions?

4. I said it was the only means to enforce contracts. Whether it chooses to enforce all contracts is a different question. How else do you propose to enforce a contract? Stop being a tool.

5. By his statements, he only grants 2 rights. No mention from him if God is a co-grantor.
Diversity is a mathematically provable way to increase the likelihood of problem-solving. Or do you solve every problem by quoting Hayek and Mises? That working out okay on home repairs?

6. The top 10% require us to go to war to protect their interests in the natural resources of other countries. Every time you hear the term strategic national interests, the bill goes to the top 10%. And they always refuse to pay, loading that debt onto the citizenry. The percentage they pay is woefully short of the bill they owe.

Now stop trying to discourse with the apes and crawl back into your den, gila.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. … you can bet your tassels…[y]ou may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

So, is he saying that those that work for the govt will either like much of what he has to say or just forget it after 10 yrs?

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

What is this truth? That one shouldn't care, feel compassion?

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Dude, the theocracy crowd owns the right. And what they feel is anger generated by fear. Last I heard, humans were pack animals. Isn't the worst punishment solitary confinement?

4. Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses. In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

a. If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity.

The individual certainly has the right to protect his life and property. That doesn't mean the individual can renege on the social contract. If he/she is unhappy with the social contract of his/her current country of residence, a new contract may be tendered to another society.


5. Soon, you are going to get a full time job. You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

a. Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

b. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder,…

Keep in mind this agent also provides the only means to enforce your contract with others, be your advocate when encountering fraud or violence and your only protection against other societies that would be quite willing to deprive you of you life and 100% of your property. This agent will also support you when you go through periods less successful, or economic or physical upheaval. You may want to weigh the pros and cons carefully before selecting another agent.

6. …here are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

a. Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people …is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individuals abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group….No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work.

b. Now, “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses…. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another….The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs – the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

Does Boortz believe he is the grantor of rights? Does he misunderstand, somehow, that diversity is about reducing exclusion rather than guaranteeing inclusion of incompetence? The value of a group increases with diversity, it's not the sole source of value.


7. Now for the “less fortunate.” To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person – one with a job, a home and a future – is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

a. If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. …It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”

b. Envy is a powerful emotion. …Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected.

c. Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour.

What an enormous failure to recognize that the largest percentage of homeless are mentally ill and will never be employable. And that good mental and physical health are indeed matters of luck. I'm guessing this last wave of people losing their homes and jobs was due to their individual poor choices and not the result of decisions made by outside forces. That they were offered a choice to keep their job and move to China or lose it to stay in the States. The top 10% are the most expensive citizens to have. They still haven't paid for the last war or the infrastructure they use to operate their fiefdoms nor have they made an equitable share of the increases in productivity with labor. And yeah, screw the losers that had those pesky children that continue our society that they have to rush home to at 5, or take off for when they get sick or god forbid, a school play or graduation.

…fecal blizzard…on the way:

1. "That one shouldn't care, feel compassion?"
Why is it compassion to pay for same with other people's money?
Bet you didn't know that conservatives earn less than liberals, yet consistently give more charity.

2."... the theocracy crowd owns the right."
Bet you didn't know that it was Jimmy Carter who brought evangelicals into the political process.
Or...did you think he was on the Right?

Clearly you have Van Gogh's ear for politics.


3. "...the individual can renege on the social contract."

a. You've inadvertently exposed another lacunae in your knowledge.

As usual for Liberals, you throw in terms about which you have no understanding....

" In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

If one did not agree with Rousseau's view of a 'social contract,' the punishment was death.

"Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, , “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68.

Visit a library...pick up a book....



4. "Keep in mind this agent also provides the only means to enforce your contract with others,..."

OMG...are you dumb....perhaps merely uneducated.
Of course, that doesn't prevent firmly held beliefs....

The New Deal Supreme Court decision, HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL et ux.s, threw out any obligation of government to enforce the sanctity of contracts.
Does Obama have a right to shortchange bondholders at Chrysler? Order banks to renegotiate loans?


5. "Does Boortz believe he is the grantor of rights?"
Dunce, he is a conservative....God is the grantor of rights. Government, the grantor of entitlements.

'Diversity' is a vote-getting mechanism used by the Left.
Of course, you bought it like it was on sale.



6." The top 10% are the most expensive citizens to have."
I can't decide which is your stupidest comment....the top 10% pay over 70% of all federal income taxes....National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?


But I am pleased to have one as ignorant as your are participate, and thereby inform the definition of a Liberal.

Thank you for providing ....what to call it..…simian gabble…

1. "You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special."

He demeans the concept of being a compassionate and caring person. Where did you pull "other people's money", out of your withered fecal-stained ass?

2. I believe the collusion with the evangelicals began with Mr. Graham and his influence on Ike and Tricky Dicky. Nice try, though.

3. What a dance of intellectual dishonesty. You and I both know the social contract, either explicitly or tacitly, is the agreement between the citizenry and the state to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of government, in exchange for protection of their natural rights. When did Rosseau order executions?

4. I said it was the only means to enforce contracts. Whether it chooses to enforce all contracts is a different question. How else do you propose to enforce a contract? Stop being a tool.

5. By his statements, he only grants 2 rights. No mention from him if God is a co-grantor.
Diversity is a mathematically provable way to increase the likelihood of problem-solving. Or do you solve every problem by quoting Hayek and Mises? That working out okay on home repairs?

6. The top 10% require us to go to war to protect their interests in the natural resources of other countries. Every time you hear the term strategic national interests, the bill goes to the top 10%. And they always refuse to pay, loading that debt onto the citizenry. The percentage they pay is woefully short of the bill they owe.

Now stop trying to discourse with the apes and crawl back into your den, gila.

How nice...back for a second remediation session?
Based on your responses above, you'd best sign on to the 'Infinite Instruction' version...

1." He demeans the concept of being a compassionate and caring person. Where did you pull "other people's money", out of your ... ass?"

I was about to say 'you can't be that dense....', but, provably....you are.
He was being sarcastic, you dolt.
Boortz was laughing at all of you Liberals who believe that about yourselves...while studies have shown how false it is.
See " Who Really Cares? America's Charity Divide-- Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters," Albert C. Brooks.

Liberals: feeling passes for knowing.

Rather than dig into their own pockets, Liberals take taxpayer money and throw it to constituent groups....hence, "other people's money."


2. " I believe the collusion with the evangelicals began with Mr. Graham and his influence on Ike and Tricky Dicky. Nice try, though."

Really? Let's see...

a. The evangelical entrance into the politics first occurred in the mid 1970s with the election of Jimmy Carter as president. Born Again: The Evangelical Movement

b. “Expecting Carter to fulfill his campaign promise to, in his words, “try to shape government so it does exemplify the teaching of God,” evangelical conservatives failed to notice or take seriously his stated commitment to the Baptist belief in absolute separation of church and state. ... When Carter made his personal antiabortion views clear during the campaign, his candidacy drew evangelicals into the movement. But they failed to pay attention to Carter’s oft-repeated promise to uphold the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. His refusal in the White House to back a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion alienated evangelicals, even as his refusal to support federal funding for abortion alienated pro-choice feminists.”
“Jimmy Carter: The Re-emergence of Faith-Based Politics and the Abortion Rights Issue” by Andrew R. Flint and Joy Porter, in Presidential Studies Quarterly (March 2005)Ascension - Baumann


Two strikes.

3. "You and I both know the social contract,..."

No, dimwit....you think you know something about it, it's provenance, and it's usage in the political arena....
...actually, all you know is how to spell it.

In my post I provided two links....when you decide to educate yourself, give 'em a perusal.

"....is the agreement between the citizenry and the state..."

Leftists pretend so, but it is the demand that all agree with an elitist construction of 'the general will."
Or...as I showed, the punishment is death.
That is totalitarian 'democracy.'

I'd bet you are a product of government schools, and eschew your own study and research.
I provide links and sources....but have no illusion that you will investigate them.

After all...ignorance is required to be a Janissary of the Left.

"When did Rosseau order executions?"

Did you miss this:
"Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, , “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68.


Have you ever wondered why Leftist universities shy away from teaching the French Revolution...other than the emphasis on 'egalitarianism.'
Or why France turned into an abattoir....unlike America after its revolution.
Liberalism stems from the French Revolution....not the American.

I hope you appreciate the education I'm providing....

4. "I said it was the only means to enforce contracts. Whether it chooses to..."
Where, then, is the legitimacy of such a government, you fool????

The US Constitution, Article I, section 10: "No State shall ... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."
It is the Constitution that the people agreed to be governed by.
Not some elitist Liberal establishment...
Now go back and read Blaisdell.....you idiot...and see if it conforms to the above.

My bad...you're a Liberal...so you believe in a 'living Constitution.' A 'dead Constitution.


5. "... he only grants 2 rights. No mention from him if God is a co-grantor."


“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.
True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View



6. "The top 10% require us to go to war to protect their interests in the natural resources of other countries. Every time you hear the term strategic national interests, the bill goes to the top 10%. And they always refuse to pay, loading that debt onto the citizenry. The percentage they pay is woefully short of the bill they owe."

There is no perennial 'top 10%.' This is America, and there is economic mobility.
I recommend Thomas Sowell's 'Economic Facts and Fallacies.'

You are are brainless, ignorant, uneducated...but totally self assured.

Your life has been ruined as has been any chance of independent thought....

...and, sadly- for you- you will remain galactically stupid.
The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.


Consider yourself dissed and dismissed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next 'point'

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

a. since we are supposedly at Texas A & M, one of the country's most conservative schools, the above statement is just idiocy on its face.

b. Boortz shows a contempt for compassion and caring, and muses, in an optimistic fashion, that eventually these young 'liberals' will lose those dreadful character flaws. In Boortz's world the true measure of a conservative is the ability to function without compassion, without caring. btw, that's hardly revelatory if you've been around enough conservatives.

Without objection, point 2 stands demolished.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Next 'point'

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

a. since we are supposedly at Texas A & M, one of the country's most conservative schools, the above statement is just idiocy on its face.

b. Boortz shows a contempt for compassion and caring, and muses, in an optimistic fashion, that eventually these young 'liberals' will lose those dreadful character flaws. In Boortz's world the true measure of a conservative is the ability to function without compassion, without caring. btw, that's hardly revelatory if you've been around enough conservatives.

Without objection, point 2 stands demolished.

Dunce...he's making fun of Liberals.

You must be so used to being made fun of, it's like water off a duck's back.

True?

 

[masterp]

yep yep

 

[masterp]

the First Lady Michelle Obama

 

[masterp]

kinda a big deal

 

[NYcarbineer]

Point 3:

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Ah, where to start? Well, first of all Boortz, a lesson in outlining: if you don't have a 'b.' don't make an 'a.'

The above is simply fictitious drivel. But you want me to explain why it's drivel.

a. his generalization about liberals 'feeling' and conservatives 'thinking' has no basis in fact. One example: conservatives are never hesitant to tout their 'faith' credentials as stronger than, in general, that of liberals. Conservatives generally believe they are more religious, more God fearing, more Christian.

Faith is the ultimate exercise in 'feeling' over 'thinking'. If Conservatives hold the high ground in faith, then it's because they're better feelers than thinkers.

b. And Boortz's claim that Liberals talk about 'groups'; Conservatives talk about 'individuals'??
That's a precious pile of oops on Boortz's part,

since a major theme of his own pretend speech is built around identifying Liberals as a GROUP, and then broadbrushing them time after time with GROUP generalties, stereotypes, and assumptions.

c. Oh, and Boortz's jaw drop inducing set aside when talking about conservatives, i.e.,
"setting aside the theocracy crowd". Indeed? He can safely and rightfully discard the Christian Coalition and the various other manifestations and representations of the 'theocracy crowd' when he wants to make points about Conservatives?

What percent of American conservatism goes out with the bath water in that move???

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next 'point'

2. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

a. since we are supposedly at Texas A & M, one of the country's most conservative schools, the above statement is just idiocy on its face.

b. Boortz shows a contempt for compassion and caring, and muses, in an optimistic fashion, that eventually these young 'liberals' will lose those dreadful character flaws. In Boortz's world the true measure of a conservative is the ability to function without compassion, without caring. btw, that's hardly revelatory if you've been around enough conservatives.

Without objection, point 2 stands demolished.

Dunce...he's making fun of Liberals.

You must be so used to being made fun of, it's like water off a duck's back.

True?

So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense? So the reason this is the greatest fake commencement speech ever is because it is of such little authenticity, sincerity, and substance that anyone who would be so foolish as to think Boortz was actually trying to make some serious points here,

they are the suckers??

Really? I could have sworn for all your righteous indignation that no one was seriously discussing the 'points' that you actually wanted someone to seriously discuss the points.

Was that part of the joke too??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point 3:

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Ah, where to start? Well, first of all Boortz, a lesson in outlining: if you don't have a 'b.' don't make an 'a.'

The above is simply fictitious drivel. But you want me to explain why it's drivel.

a. his generalization about liberals 'feeling' and conservatives 'thinking' has no basis in fact. One example: conservatives are never hesitant to tout their 'faith' credentials as stronger than, in general, that of liberals. Conservatives generally believe they are more religious, more God fearing, more Christian.

Faith is the ultimate exercise in 'feeling' over 'thinking'. If Conservatives hold the high ground in faith, then it's because they're better feelers than thinkers.

b. And Boortz's claim that Liberals talk about 'groups'; Conservatives talk about 'individuals'??
That's a precious pile of oops on Boortz's part,

since a major theme of his own pretend speech is built around identifying Liberals as a GROUP, and then broadbrushing them time after time with GROUP generalties, stereotypes, and assumptions.

c. Oh, and Boortz's jaw drop inducing set aside when talking about conservatives, i.e.,
"setting aside the theocracy crowd". Indeed? He can safely and rightfully discard the Christian Coalition and the various other manifestations and representations of the 'theocracy crowd' when he wants to make points about Conservatives?

What percent of American conservatism goes out with the bath water in that move???

If it were not the truth that Liberals, Leftists 'feel' rather than think, how to explain continued support for provably failed paradigm's such as communism, fascism, socialism, environmentalism.....etc., etc.


Next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without objection, point 2 stands demolished.

Dunce...he's making fun of Liberals.

You must be so used to being made fun of, it's like water off a duck's back.

True?

So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense? So the reason this is the greatest fake commencement speech ever is because it is of such little authenticity, sincerity, and substance that anyone who would be so foolish as to think Boortz was actually trying to make some serious points here,

they are the suckers??

Really? I could have sworn for all your righteous indignation that no one was seriously discussing the 'points' that you actually wanted someone to seriously discuss the points?

Was that part of the joke too??

1. "So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense?"

No...he's-making-fun-of-you.

That means he is disrespecting the absurdities of your position.

Get it?

2. "the greatest fake commencement speech ..."

Again, no.

It is a real and substantial commencement speech.

What is 'fake' about it.

Now...for the umpteenth time, prove what an uneducated fool you are by suggesting that it is 'fake' because it was written, not spoken.

Go ahead....double dog dare 'ya.


BTW...Did you like George Washington's Farewell Address?

Note: Washington's Farewell Address was printed by David C. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), on 19 September 1796.
It was never delivered orally.

Now, since you have referred to 'fake' in several posts....doesn't this kind of prove you to be dumber than a box of rocks?

No, really.....


3. Let's review:

The joke here is the idea that you have a brain in your head.


True story.

 

[snjmom]

…fecal blizzard…on the way:

1. "That one shouldn't care, feel compassion?"
Why is it compassion to pay for same with other people's money?
Bet you didn't know that conservatives earn less than liberals, yet consistently give more charity.

2."... the theocracy crowd owns the right."
Bet you didn't know that it was Jimmy Carter who brought evangelicals into the political process.
Or...did you think he was on the Right?

Clearly you have Van Gogh's ear for politics.


3. "...the individual can renege on the social contract."

a. You've inadvertently exposed another lacunae in your knowledge.

As usual for Liberals, you throw in terms about which you have no understanding....

" In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."
French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

If one did not agree with Rousseau's view of a 'social contract,' the punishment was death.

"Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, , “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68.

Visit a library...pick up a book....



4. "Keep in mind this agent also provides the only means to enforce your contract with others,..."

OMG...are you dumb....perhaps merely uneducated.
Of course, that doesn't prevent firmly held beliefs....

The New Deal Supreme Court decision, HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL et ux.s, threw out any obligation of government to enforce the sanctity of contracts.
Does Obama have a right to shortchange bondholders at Chrysler? Order banks to renegotiate loans?


5. "Does Boortz believe he is the grantor of rights?"
Dunce, he is a conservative....God is the grantor of rights. Government, the grantor of entitlements.

'Diversity' is a vote-getting mechanism used by the Left.
Of course, you bought it like it was on sale.



6." The top 10% are the most expensive citizens to have."
I can't decide which is your stupidest comment....the top 10% pay over 70% of all federal income taxes....National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?


But I am pleased to have one as ignorant as your are participate, and thereby inform the definition of a Liberal.

Thank you for providing ....what to call it..…simian gabble…

1. "You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special."

He demeans the concept of being a compassionate and caring person. Where did you pull "other people's money", out of your withered fecal-stained ass?

2. I believe the collusion with the evangelicals began with Mr. Graham and his influence on Ike and Tricky Dicky. Nice try, though.

3. What a dance of intellectual dishonesty. You and I both know the social contract, either explicitly or tacitly, is the agreement between the citizenry and the state to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of government, in exchange for protection of their natural rights. When did Rosseau order executions?

4. I said it was the only means to enforce contracts. Whether it chooses to enforce all contracts is a different question. How else do you propose to enforce a contract? Stop being a tool.

5. By his statements, he only grants 2 rights. No mention from him if God is a co-grantor.
Diversity is a mathematically provable way to increase the likelihood of problem-solving. Or do you solve every problem by quoting Hayek and Mises? That working out okay on home repairs?

6. The top 10% require us to go to war to protect their interests in the natural resources of other countries. Every time you hear the term strategic national interests, the bill goes to the top 10%. And they always refuse to pay, loading that debt onto the citizenry. The percentage they pay is woefully short of the bill they owe.

Now stop trying to discourse with the apes and crawl back into your den, gila.

How nice...back for a second remediation session?
Based on your responses above, you'd best sign on to the 'Infinite Instruction' version...

1." He demeans the concept of being a compassionate and caring person. Where did you pull "other people's money", out of your ... ass?"

I was about to say 'you can't be that dense....', but, provably....you are.
He was being sarcastic, you dolt.
Boortz was laughing at all of you Liberals who believe that about yourselves...while studies have shown how false it is.
See " Who Really Cares? America's Charity Divide-- Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters," Albert C. Brooks.

Liberals: feeling passes for knowing.

Rather than dig into their own pockets, Liberals take taxpayer money and throw it to constituent groups....hence, "other people's money."


2. " I believe the collusion with the evangelicals began with Mr. Graham and his influence on Ike and Tricky Dicky. Nice try, though."

Really? Let's see...

a. The evangelical entrance into the politics first occurred in the mid 1970s with the election of Jimmy Carter as president. Born Again: The Evangelical Movement

b. “Expecting Carter to fulfill his campaign promise to, in his words, “try to shape government so it does exemplify the teaching of God,” evangelical conservatives failed to notice or take seriously his stated commitment to the Baptist belief in absolute separation of church and state. ... When Carter made his personal antiabortion views clear during the campaign, his candidacy drew evangelicals into the movement. But they failed to pay attention to Carter’s oft-repeated promise to uphold the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. His refusal in the White House to back a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion alienated evangelicals, even as his refusal to support federal funding for abortion alienated pro-choice feminists.”
“Jimmy Carter: The Re-emergence of Faith-Based Politics and the Abortion Rights Issue” by Andrew R. Flint and Joy Porter, in Presidential Studies Quarterly (March 2005)Ascension - Baumann


Two strikes.

3. "You and I both know the social contract,..."

No, dimwit....you think you know something about it, it's provenance, and it's usage in the political arena....
...actually, all you know is how to spell it.

In my post I provided two links....when you decide to educate yourself, give 'em a perusal.

"....is the agreement between the citizenry and the state..."

Leftists pretend so, but it is the demand that all agree with an elitist construction of 'the general will."
Or...as I showed, the punishment is death.
That is totalitarian 'democracy.'

I'd bet you are a product of government schools, and eschew your own study and research.
I provide links and sources....but have no illusion that you will investigate them.

After all...ignorance is required to be a Janissary of the Left.

"When did Rosseau order executions?"

Did you miss this:
"Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.”
Himmefarb, , “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68.


Have you ever wondered why Leftist universities shy away from teaching the French Revolution...other than the emphasis on 'egalitarianism.'
Or why France turned into an abattoir....unlike America after its revolution.
Liberalism stems from the French Revolution....not the American.

I hope you appreciate the education I'm providing....

4. "I said it was the only means to enforce contracts. Whether it chooses to..."
Where, then, is the legitimacy of such a government, you fool????

The US Constitution, Article I, section 10: "No State shall ... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."
It is the Constitution that the people agreed to be governed by.
Not some elitist Liberal establishment...
Now go back and read Blaisdell.....you idiot...and see if it conforms to the above.

My bad...you're a Liberal...so you believe in a 'living Constitution.' A 'dead Constitution.


5. "... he only grants 2 rights. No mention from him if God is a co-grantor."


“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.
True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View



6. "The top 10% require us to go to war to protect their interests in the natural resources of other countries. Every time you hear the term strategic national interests, the bill goes to the top 10%. And they always refuse to pay, loading that debt onto the citizenry. The percentage they pay is woefully short of the bill they owe."

There is no perennial 'top 10%.' This is America, and there is economic mobility.
I recommend Thomas Sowell's 'Economic Facts and Fallacies.'

You are are brainless, ignorant, uneducated...but totally self assured.

Your life has been ruined as has been any chance of independent thought....

...and, sadly- for you- you will remain galactically stupid.
The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.


Consider yourself dissed and dismissed.

1. The study only shows that religious people give more than non-religious, without any correlation to their political views or brand of religion. I guess that makes muslims the ultimate givers. If taxes are "other people's money" for liberals, are we tax-exempt? And here I thought it was his heartfelt opinion.

2. Eisenhower welcomed the NAE delegation and conferred with Graham. From your own link concerning Carter.

"The story includes Jimmy Carter, whose frank talk about faith got him half the evangelical vote in 1976, and who went on to pursue policies on issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment that outraged his evangelical base, creating an opportunity the Republican Party shrewdly exploited. As Sullivan observes, "the idea of organizing evangelicals into a conservative political force was the brainchild of a group of mostly secular New Right activists who saw conservative Christians as 'the greatest tract of virgin timber on the political landscape.'"

They voted for a white male Southern Baptist the same way DC votes for Marion Barry. Like I said, nice try.

3. When did Robespierre become Rosseau? Is this the passage that concerns you so greatly?

"It is expedient for the State that you should die," he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State.

You have the concept of the "general will" woefully reversed. The general will is the common interest of a society, without which no society is formed and you only have warring factions without a common interest. That's not elitist, it's self-evident. We all have a common interest in protection from murder, therefore we accept that we will be punished if we murder. And Himmefarb is a slavishly anglophiliac neocon fool. BTW, you may want to speak with the AmerInd population about what kind of abattior we became after the American Revolution. And civil wars are notoriously messy. Like the one we had 100 yrs later.

4. Judging the context it seems that it refers to contracts the states have entered into, not the legislatures use of law to modify contracts entered into by private parties. Legislatures and the judiciary determine the legality of contracts all the time. See how far you get with trying to enforce the delivery of those two Chinese babies you bought over the internet for your pedophilia photography studio.

5. Natural rights, claim rights, civil rights? Liberty rights are privilege. Your link offers no definition of rights and seems to assert we must pass through bondage to achieve spiritual truth in a never-ending cycle. I tend to disagree.

6. Old "Women can get equal pay as long as they don't get married and have children" Sowell? Strange how he completely ignores the fact that men get married and have children yet don't fall prey to the same pay differential. The individuals in the 10% come and go but their interests stay the same, access to foreign natural and labor resources and their inability to keep up with the bill remains the same.

Do you really think you are a deep thinker of some sort? Or that Boortz is? Boortz is just a curmudgeon, much like the entire GOP.

 

[Annie]

I liked and appreciated Jobs commencement speech, it was one of the greats! I also understand and appreciate that from the OP.

What I find appalling is this one, by Robert Reich, which actually speaks to the lack of hope, victimization if you will, by many liberals. Fear mongering also comes to mind:

College grads face gloomy prospects

College grads face gloomy prospects

Robert Reich

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Members of the Class of 2012:

As a former secretary of labor and current professor, I feel I owe it to you to tell you the truth about the pieces of parchment you're picking up today.

You're screwed.

Well, not exactly. But you won't have it easy.

First, you're going to have a hell of a hard time finding a job. The job market you're heading into is still bad. Fewer than half of the graduates from last year's class have as yet found full-time jobs. Most are still looking.

That's been the pattern over the last three graduating classes: It's been taking graduates more than a year to land the first job. And those who still haven't found a job will be competing with you, making your job search even harder.

Contrast this with the class of 2008, whose members were lucky enough to get out of here and into the job market before the Great Recession really hit. Almost three-quarters of them found jobs within the year.

You're still better off than your friends who didn't graduate. Overall, the unemployment rate among young people (21 to 24 years old) with four-year college degrees is now 6.4 percent. With just a high school diploma, the rate is double that.

But even when you get a job, it's likely to pay peanuts.

Last year's young college graduates lucky enough to land jobs had an average hourly wage of only $16.81, according to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute. That's about $35,000 a year - lower than the yearly earnings of young college graduates in 2007, before the Great Recession. The typical wage of young college graduates dropped 4.6 percent between 2007 and 2011, adjusted for inflation.

Presumably, this means that when we come out of the gravitational pull of the recession, your wages will improve. But there's a longer-term trend that should concern you. The decline in the earnings of college grads really began more than a decade ago. Young college grads with jobs are earning 5.4 percent less than they did in 2000, adjusted for inflation.

Don't get me wrong. A four-year college degree is still valuable. Over your lifetimes, you'll earn about 70 percent more than people who don't have the pieces of parchment you're picking up today.

But this parchment isn't as valuable as it once was. So much of what was once considered "knowledge work" - the kind that college graduates specialize in - can now be done more cheaply by software. Or by workers with college degrees in India or East Asia, linked up by the Internet.

For many of you, your immediate problem is that pile of debt on your shoulders. In a few moments, when you march out of here, those of you who have taken out college loans will owe more than $25,000 on average. Last year, 10 percent of college grads with loans owed more than $54,000. Your parents have also taken out loans to help you. Loans to parents for the college educations of their children have soared 75 percent since the academic year 2005-06.

Outstanding student debt now totals over $1 trillion. That's more than the nation's total credit card debt.

The extraordinary rise in student debt is due to two related facts: The cost of a college education continues to increase faster than inflation, and state and local spending per college student continues to drop - this year reaching a 25-year low.

But this can't go on. If unemployment stays high for many years, if the wages of young college grads continue to fall, if the costs of college continue to rise and state and local spending per college student continues to drop, and if the college-debt burden therefore continues to explode - well, you do the math.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, these lines cross. College is no longer a good investment.

That's a problem for you and for those who will follow you into these hallowed halls, but it's also a problem for America as a whole.

You see, a college education isn't just a private investment. It's also a public good. This nation can't be competitive globally, nor can we have a vibrant and responsible democracy, without a large number of well-educated people.

So it's not just you who are burdened by these trends. If they continue, we're all screwed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dunce...he's making fun of Liberals.

You must be so used to being made fun of, it's like water off a duck's back.

True?

So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense? So the reason this is the greatest fake commencement speech ever is because it is of such little authenticity, sincerity, and substance that anyone who would be so foolish as to think Boortz was actually trying to make some serious points here,

they are the suckers??

Really? I could have sworn for all your righteous indignation that no one was seriously discussing the 'points' that you actually wanted someone to seriously discuss the points?

Was that part of the joke too??

1. "So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense?"

No...he's-making-fun-of-you.

That means he is disrespecting the absurdities of your position.

Get it?

2. "the greatest fake commencement speech ..."

Again, no.

It is a real and substantial commencement speech.

What is 'fake' about it.

Now...for the umpteenth time, prove what an uneducated fool you are by suggesting that it is 'fake' because it was written, not spoken.

Go ahead....double dog dare 'ya.


BTW...Did you like George Washington's Farewell Address?

Note: Washington's Farewell Address was printed by David C. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), on 19 September 1796.
It was never delivered orally.

Now, since you have referred to 'fake' in several posts....doesn't this kind of prove you to be dumber than a box of rocks?

No, really.....


3. Let's review:

The joke here is the idea that you have a brain in your head.


True story.

Once again, no substantive counterpoints, just another barrage of insults.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Point 3:

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Ah, where to start? Well, first of all Boortz, a lesson in outlining: if you don't have a 'b.' don't make an 'a.'

The above is simply fictitious drivel. But you want me to explain why it's drivel.

a. his generalization about liberals 'feeling' and conservatives 'thinking' has no basis in fact. One example: conservatives are never hesitant to tout their 'faith' credentials as stronger than, in general, that of liberals. Conservatives generally believe they are more religious, more God fearing, more Christian.

Faith is the ultimate exercise in 'feeling' over 'thinking'. If Conservatives hold the high ground in faith, then it's because they're better feelers than thinkers.

b. And Boortz's claim that Liberals talk about 'groups'; Conservatives talk about 'individuals'??
That's a precious pile of oops on Boortz's part,

since a major theme of his own pretend speech is built around identifying Liberals as a GROUP, and then broadbrushing them time after time with GROUP generalties, stereotypes, and assumptions.

c. Oh, and Boortz's jaw drop inducing set aside when talking about conservatives, i.e.,
"setting aside the theocracy crowd". Indeed? He can safely and rightfully discard the Christian Coalition and the various other manifestations and representations of the 'theocracy crowd' when he wants to make points about Conservatives?

What percent of American conservatism goes out with the bath water in that move???

If it were not the truth that Liberals, Leftists 'feel' rather than think, how to explain continued support for provably failed paradigm's such as communism, fascism, socialism, environmentalism.....etc., etc.


Next.

Fascism is not liberalism.

Name a country that has ever succeeded devoid of socialism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense? So the reason this is the greatest fake commencement speech ever is because it is of such little authenticity, sincerity, and substance that anyone who would be so foolish as to think Boortz was actually trying to make some serious points here,

they are the suckers??

Really? I could have sworn for all your righteous indignation that no one was seriously discussing the 'points' that you actually wanted someone to seriously discuss the points?

Was that part of the joke too??

1. "So now you're going to fall back to the hey he's just joking around defense?"

No...he's-making-fun-of-you.

That means he is disrespecting the absurdities of your position.

Get it?

2. "the greatest fake commencement speech ..."

Again, no.

It is a real and substantial commencement speech.

What is 'fake' about it.

Now...for the umpteenth time, prove what an uneducated fool you are by suggesting that it is 'fake' because it was written, not spoken.

Go ahead....double dog dare 'ya.


BTW...Did you like George Washington's Farewell Address?

Note: Washington's Farewell Address was printed by David C. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), on 19 September 1796.
It was never delivered orally.

Now, since you have referred to 'fake' in several posts....doesn't this kind of prove you to be dumber than a box of rocks?

No, really.....


3. Let's review:

The joke here is the idea that you have a brain in your head.


True story.

Once again, no substantive counterpoints, just another barrage of insults.

Fibbing again?

Oh...you don't know what 'substantive' means, huh?


There are none so blind as those who will not see.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point 3:

3. So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives.

a. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights. That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Ah, where to start? Well, first of all Boortz, a lesson in outlining: if you don't have a 'b.' don't make an 'a.'

The above is simply fictitious drivel. But you want me to explain why it's drivel.

a. his generalization about liberals 'feeling' and conservatives 'thinking' has no basis in fact. One example: conservatives are never hesitant to tout their 'faith' credentials as stronger than, in general, that of liberals. Conservatives generally believe they are more religious, more God fearing, more Christian.

Faith is the ultimate exercise in 'feeling' over 'thinking'. If Conservatives hold the high ground in faith, then it's because they're better feelers than thinkers.

b. And Boortz's claim that Liberals talk about 'groups'; Conservatives talk about 'individuals'??
That's a precious pile of oops on Boortz's part,

since a major theme of his own pretend speech is built around identifying Liberals as a GROUP, and then broadbrushing them time after time with GROUP generalties, stereotypes, and assumptions.

c. Oh, and Boortz's jaw drop inducing set aside when talking about conservatives, i.e.,
"setting aside the theocracy crowd". Indeed? He can safely and rightfully discard the Christian Coalition and the various other manifestations and representations of the 'theocracy crowd' when he wants to make points about Conservatives?

What percent of American conservatism goes out with the bath water in that move???

If it were not the truth that Liberals, Leftists 'feel' rather than think, how to explain continued support for provably failed paradigm's such as communism, fascism, socialism, environmentalism.....etc., etc.


Next.

Fascism is not liberalism.

Name a country that has ever succeeded devoid of socialism.

Socialism???

Did you say 'socialism'????

OMG! You're gonna get me arrested for felony laughing!!!

"Spain's pro-EU ruling Socialists have been pummeled in recent elections over the budget cuts demanded by the EU. Its loss in municipal elections in May was the greatest since democracy returned to Spain in 1978.

In Finland, the True Finns party and its anti-bailout adherents won an unheard-of 20% of the seats in the 200-member parliament in April, putting it a mere five seats behind the top vote-getter, the conservative National Coalition Party.

"It is not the little guy who benefits: He is being milked and lied to in order to keep the insolvent system running," True Finns leader Timo Soini said in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe soon after the election.

The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity



I tell ya'....nothing funnier than you Liberals and your love affair with failed systems....

Still buying Facebook stocks?

How's that Betamax system working out for ya'?

 

[The T]

If it were not the truth that Liberals, Leftists 'feel' rather than think, how to explain continued support for provably failed paradigm's such as communism, fascism, socialism, environmentalism.....etc., etc.


Next.

Fascism is not liberalism.

Name a country that has ever succeeded devoid of socialism.

Socialism???

Did you say 'socialism'????

OMG! You're gonna get me arrested for felony laughing!!!

"Spain's pro-EU ruling Socialists have been pummeled in recent elections over the budget cuts demanded by the EU. Its loss in municipal elections in May was the greatest since democracy returned to Spain in 1978.

In Finland, the True Finns party and its anti-bailout adherents won an unheard-of 20% of the seats in the 200-member parliament in April, putting it a mere five seats behind the top vote-getter, the conservative National Coalition Party.

"It is not the little guy who benefits: He is being milked and lied to in order to keep the insolvent system running," True Finns leader Timo Soini said in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe soon after the election.

The EU's welfare states are going broke, and the knives are out for their budgets and the politicians who have supported the EU project. Voters to the north are electing anti-EU candidates who are lecturing about "responsibility" and "thriftiness" to profligate neighbors such as the "lazy" Greeks, Spanish and Portuguese, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel described her southern partners in May.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy summed up Europe's situation: "We can't finance our social model anymore."
In Europe, economic meltdown tears at unity



I tell ya'....nothing funnier than you Liberals and your love affair with failed systems....

Still buying Facebook stocks?

How's that Betamax system working out for ya'?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsl1_ju7Vxw"]Farage: I owe no allegiance to the EU flag [/ame]