Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Oh Jeez: Harry Reid Told Some Asian Jokes

cordeg Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 10:06 PM
Harry Reid: "Sometimes I say the wrong thing.” only when you open your mouth, Harry.
this isn't "running away from" Obamacare as a useful target -- it's simply that Obama is creating so many catastrophes that the useful targets are too numerous to allow the GOP to concentrate too much of their focus on any one of them. :-)
maybe we should listen to him. after all, if anyone's an expert on "feckless delusion", it's the current occupant of the White House!
I'll bet. It's the world's most consequential "do over" and for the benefit of discarding one's ultimate responsibility as a member of the human race it's cheap at twice the price. Know what else produces "feelings of massive relief"? -- Discovering your bank screwed up your mortgage and now can't collect what you rightfully owe them -- finding the teacher's test answer sheet and not saying anything about it so you can ace your test -- using your bank card to get $20 from the ATM and having it give you $2000 but only debit your account for the $20 and knowing you can now afford that vacation you wanted to take -- stumbling upon a guy having a heart attack and realizing it's the jerk who tormented you all through high school and just standing there and letting him die because you consider it justice -- having someone cut you off on the road and then later catching up to them on a deserted side road with their four-ways blinking because they broke down and can't get cell service and just passing them by to get even -- finding a rival banker's misplaced $8000 deposit and hiding it so they will be ruined and you can acquire their assets at fire sale prices (apologies to Frank Capra) oh, yeah, there are a lot of bad acts that can bring "feelings of massive relief", provided of course that you are the kind of person who is willing to find relief for yourself at the expense of others.
From the Democratese-to-English Dictionary, 2014 Edition: 1) "no one was deliberately misled" = everyone was misled as a result of political spinning that merely incidentally failed to convey the truth 2) "no military assets were withheld" = military assets were merely passively not provided because no one seemed competent to understand the situation 3) "no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." = no order to actively respond was given because -- well, see #2 above. so, you see, in Democratese, this is a 100% accurate summary of the report.
once again, the Democratic Party that tries to protect abortion and discredit the pro-life cause finds themselves sounding eerily like the Democratic Party that tried to protect slavery and discredit the abolitionist cause. today, they say, "Against Abortion? Don't Have One". in their past, they actually argued, "Against Slavery? Don't Own One!" note the same lack of humanity in both of these two statements. the Democratic Party of Yesterday remains the Democratic Party of Today -- they simply chose a new class of human beings to oppress and treat like property: where once it was humans from Africa, it is now maturing fetal humans.
Seems President Bush tried that "not interested in photo ops" and "i've sent my representatives to assess" the situation in New Orleans once and Democrats claimed that was proof he "didn't care about black people". President Obama says the same thing, and Democrats claim it is proof that the cares about Hispanics and is focusing on solving their problems. This must be an example of that "Change" they talked about back in 2008.
Hmm... The Democratic Mayor of New Orleans whom Democrats claimed was blameless during the Katrina disaster: sentenced to 10 years for bribery and corruption. The Democratic Governor of Louisiana whom Democrats claimed was blameless during the Katrina disaster: run out of office in favor of a Republican who shortly after taking office called a special legislative session to push through wide-spread ethics reforms that the Better Government Association and Center for Public Integrity called among the best in the nation. The Republican President of the US whom Democrats sought to blame for the Katrina disaster: oh, i see where George was clearing brush on this ranch. KARMA.
what a lot of people object to is how someone with so little understanding of how employment contracts and benefits programs *actually* work getting so upset over the monsters their feverish imaginations have created and then criticizing those who actually know better for taking stands based on knowledge rather than imagination. if you think that all of the benefits your employer provides are coming from the deductions they subtract from your pay, then you clearly have no idea how expensive these benefits really are. frankly, if they *were* paid entirely by those deductions, then: A) why would any employee complain about the benefit levels provided, since they could simply buy greater benefits on there own, since it would be all their money anyway? B) why would anyone leave one company and go to another because they "got better benefits"? and C) why would any company choose to cut benefits since they are supposedly only spending their employees' deductions anyway? these questions answer themselves. employee deductions do NOT pay the cost of employee benefits, but merely force them to put some "skin in the game" with regard to the benefit levels they demand. on the other hand, benefits DO in fact come out of the employers' bottom line just as salaries and wages do, which means that your actual "pay" is the total of your salary/wages and your benefits (not merely your deductions), so demanding more benefits merely suppresses salaries/wages. if you could get ZERO benefits in exchange for cash, you would be astonished at how high your true annual "pay" really is. ask an HR person sometime what the *real* cost of benefits are. based on how you've described what you think they are here, i'm guessing it will knock your socks off. the employer, by the way, would be more than happy to cancel all your benefits and just pay you the difference (your deductions PLUS their additional cost), but the government that all you whiners have voted for makes it illegal for them to offer zero benefits to their full-time employees. the proof, by the way, is in the pudding: employers hire contractors at higher rates than employees all the time -- because they don't have to pay contractors' any benefits. that pay differential, in case you've missed the point, is a lot more than just your payroll deductions (and, of course, the other half of your SS tax). Hobby Lobby (et al) are in the truest sense possible paying the greater part of their employees' insurance.
In response to:

There Is A Good Case For Reparations

cordeg Wrote: Jun 01, 2014 8:24 PM
Exactly. I've been arguing this position for years. Reparations should be paid by the Democratic National Committee -- and let's start this election season, why not? It'll save Americans from having to listen to so many inane, BS campaign commercials if they are forced to put the money they raise from their supporters to good use MAKING UP FOR the grievous harm their supporters have done in the past. It is only logical that the government at large should NOT have to pay reparations because it was not ALL factions of government that caused the harm -- of all the parties involved in promulgating and sustaining slavery during the era of slavery, ONLY the Democratic Party survives. Making the WHOLE government pay means -- how silly would this be? -- making African Americans pay taxes to pay for their OWN reparations! Also, it is only logical that Republicans NOT have to pay reparations, because the Republican Party fought against slavery from its very inception -- ending slavery was precisely the cause of the creation of the party in 1854 -- and the members of the Republican Party gave their time, money, and even sacrificed their livelihoods and even their very lives (no, not just in the actual war, but in the political and social battles before, during, and even after the war and right on through to the modern civil rights era, when some Democrats finally joined the right side -- though not always the ones you read about in the newspapers) as they fought to defeat the Slave Power and gain the blessings of Liberty for all races. It would be downright cruel to now suggest that those who gave so much to overturn slavery should now be made to pay again for the crimes of the Slave Power that party had done so much to combat. In the end, the only logical defendant in the case for reparations is the Democratic Party, and since the Democratic National Committee is the proper representative of that party, the DNC should be forced to pay for what their party wrought.
In response to:

A Young College Grad Calls My Show

cordeg Wrote: May 27, 2014 8:10 PM
This comment betrays a seriously attenuated notion of morality. I know kids are taught to believe that all questioning of moral absolutes is a sign of "higher thinking" and sophistication, but the irony is that a majority of such equivocation is actually an indication of over-simplified thinking. It is simplistic to say war is immoral. This is recognizable the moment one asks, "Why is war immoral?" That is, is it the activity or the intent? War to subjugate is plainly immoral. War to liberate is just as plainly not so. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing that driving 80 MPH is immoral. Through a residential neighborhood? Absolutely. A casual disregard for the lives of everyone who lives there. But on a highway across the plains of the mid-west? No "moral" issue whatsoever. When America chose to go to war against Hitler, there was nothing immoral in that decision. When it firebombed Dresden to -- in FDR's own words -- "terrorize" the German citizen, that was an immoral act within an otherwise moral war. To claim that both the engaging in war and the decision to fire-bomb represent two examples of immorality is to possess a simplistic understanding of morality. The world and morality are apparently a lot more complex than the average "complex thinker" seems to think. In fact, it turns out that the people who think there EXISTS an absolute right and wrong and who seek to figure out what they are in various contexts are thinking MORE, not less, critically than those "sophisticates" who think that moral relativism is a sign of higher thought rather than a simplistic view. Granted, the problem with recognizing that moral absolutes EXIST is that it obliges one to conclude what does and does not qualify for "good" and "evil" -- AND ITS DARN EASY TO SCREW THAT UP. :-) That is to say, the person who says that moral absolutes exist does not necessarily understand enough to conclude what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is what leads otherwise rational human beings to reject the notion that such absolutes exist in the first place, since they -- simplistically, again -- jump to the conclusion that the fact that one can discern badly between the two polarities necessarily means that there are no poles to discern.
Previous 11 - 20 Next