1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Is Liberalism Exhausted?

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Feb 27, 2015 10:56 AM
By the late 1800s, the terms Marxism and socialism scared too many people, so the left picked-up the term progressive. That fell out of favor by the end of Wilson's 2nd term, so by FDR's time a decade later, the left started calling themselves liberal. By the end of this past century, the term liberalism faded in popularity so the left is now back to progressive. As long as there are people who wish to redistribute wealth and lust for power for its own sake, disregarding the very idea of individual liberty, we must remain forever vigilant.
This, along with the other scandals (Benghazi, Fast & Furious, NSA spying), conjures up the Watergate cover-up. What's missing is the president's direct involvement. But Nixon's involvement was not determined until an exhaustive investigation. The fact that Obama has slowed this to a crawl is itself enough to impeach him. The fact that Republicans won't suggests not only their fear of falling short, as they did with Clinton, but the power the mainstream media continues to have on the political leadership and the powerful financial elites who fund the lion's share of campaigns. The power over the folks stopped a long time ago, so why can't our leaders respond to reflect the will of the people who voted them in? Corruption, plain and simple. The GOP is compromised - they're more afraid of losing their standing among powerful interests than they are of the voters because they know most of them will win most of the time. All you have to do is walk and talk like a conservative and keep the flow of money coming in from the largest PACs, and you're likely to won.
What all these "haters" have in common, aside from the obvious anti-Americanism, is the desire to exercise power over everyone else and be acknowledged as morally superior. The race-hustlers, the union thugs, the identity-groups like NOW and La Raza, the entertainment elites, the media, academia, etc. all nurse a particular grievance as leverage to acquire power. That explains why unions are largely silent on the Keystone Pipeline, why so many economists dismiss innovative, wealth-producing free market capitalism but apologize for big government failures, why feminists were silent about the boorish behavior of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and crimes against women and gay men at the hands of Islamist militants. Their issues take a back seat to their goal of acquiring power unhinged from constitutional constraints.
I used to believe the worst the Democrats could do is cause another depression, which would swing the pendulum back to Republicans and the system would largely be self-correcting, albeit over longer periods of time and with a great deal of suffering. Today, I am more afraid than I ever have been. Since the Democrats can be assured that nearly all the voters who remain dependent on the government will not want their entitlements cut to save the currency, and expect to be fed, clothed and housed during an extended emergency, and the new voters (formerly known as illegal aliens) will turn Red states like Texas, and once reliable states like Virginia, North Carolina and Florida into the Blue column, then they will survive the very emergencies their policies have wrought, policies that once would have sent them packing for a decade. This sets up a scenario where the sociopaths within the party will openly assert themselves. They will get rid of the weaker Democrats and that's when the revolution really starts.
In both cases the left sees this through the lens of one's identity while the right sees this through the lens of policy (for the most part, there will always be exceptions). The left attacked Bush for being unsophisticated, corrupt, dumb, and racist long before he was elected. They continued that rant to undermine his policies and will forever to manipulate how history judges him. The left assumes the right attacks Obama through the lens of identity. It cannot conceive that people would object to his policies on their own merit. Since the right is assumed by the left to be racist, then this must be the foundation of their attack. Their psychosis runs deep.
Its my understanding we need 33 states (2/3rds) to form a convention and 38 states (3/4ths) to ratify an amendment. Some people warn this could become a conservative's nightmare. Well, that's precisely what we have today, with worse to come. The left tends to get out its supporters in presidential elections. With a convention of the states, they won't have that same dynamic to motivate the low information, personality contest voters. Its the only way, short of anarchy, to limit the government to its enumerated powers.
In response to:

Liberals, Stop Lying About Everything

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Feb 23, 2015 5:00 PM
"Is the liberal elite unbelievably dumb or unbelievably cynical?" The progressive left (I reject "liberal" as a useful descriptor) is mostly cynical. Dumb implies an inability to understand the consequences of one's actions. I think the elite knows exactly what it is doing. They saw the conditions created under socialist regimes. Cynics "distrust of others' motives believing that humans are selfish by nature, ruled by emotion, and heavily influenced by the same primitive instincts that helped humans survive in the wild before agriculture and civilization..." (Wikipedia). This closes in on the nature of their pathology. While this may fit their definition of conservatives, the Left believes they have transcended human nature and are operating on a higher moral plane. This takes them dangerously close to being sociopaths, those who lack a conscience - that emotional connection which causes distress at another's suffering - because they have dehumanized anyone who doesn't agree with their egalitarian philosophy that calls for an elite to rule over the masses. Would you feel badly if you deceived a savage beast in order to corral it and keep it for its own good...and conveniently to serve your needs? The penchant for lying runs deep and should frighten everyone who understands its philosophical source.
In response to:

Damaging Admissions

Geoffrey7 Wrote: Feb 17, 2015 11:43 AM
"Any hope of successfully educating poor minority children depends on separating them from the hoodlums who make education impossible in so many ghetto schools." This is one of the two key issues to improving education; the second being the incentive among the staff to be innovative and maintain excellence to meet the future needs of society and the economy. If we were to decentralize and privatize education so that the power shifts from the producers of education to its consumers - the parents/children - that would still leave the problem of hoodlums. An analysis of access to shopping centers in high crime areas suggests these kids will negatively impact any system in which they are a part. My solution: develop a system of orphanages (for kids whose single moms are unable or unwilling to raise them properly) to be staffed by former military (they are filled with black men who are some of the finest people you will ever meet), who will impart love and discipline. The system we have know is a dismal failure and for their sake and ours, these kids deserve better.
I trust what I can observe through my 5 senses. Since mankind is filled with examples of men lying to one another in order to steal from or enslave their fellow man, I place my trust is myself, first. If scientific evidence can be refuted, or replaced with a more plausible theory, I will accept that. You, clearly, have put your trust in other men who say they were inspired by God. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven, thus it is open to lying and has been used for ill purposes by the best con men and sociopaths in history. Since I cannot prove or disprove God, I am an agnostic. I believe humans should be treated with respect and have the right to their own lives, liberty, etc. since I wish to be treated the same way. The reason this would be important to you is that I would never kill heretics or infidels. That, my friend, makes me a better neighbor than someone with blind faith.
I'm not a leftist, yet I believe evolution is the best theory...so far (I am open to new evidence). The primary reason is that the preponderance of evidence, such as the principle of superposition (the lower the layer of rock and sediment, the older it is), radiocarbon dating, the existence of fossils, all suggest life on earth did indeed evolve from more primitive species. If one defines God as omnipotent, then He can create something out of nothing, thus defying the basic laws of physics - of matter and energy. How did God come into existence? The idea that time, space, matter and energy are not universal, that is, something else exists outside of that realm of reality is beyond my ability to reason or accept. I need something more than a collection of stories to accept that, or I'm no better than believing in a Shaman who shakes a rattle over my head to cure me of some illness. Either God exists outside of reality or He is not real and a figment of our collective imagination.
1 - 10 Next