Previous 11 - 20 Next
While Williams shows that the Import/Export Bank is just crony crapitalism, he doesn't provide the political perspective of who supports such crony crapitalism. Based on what Democrats say, you'd think this was a product of the GOP and their 1% rich friends. However, what you'll find in the voting record, is that nearly 100% of Democrats support crony crapitalism, while about 50% of the GOP does as well. It turns out that most in the GOP are all for crony crapitalism (which will hurt them in elections when it comes to voters, thought it may lead to them having more campaign cash - though at a much larger expense to taxpayers). Of the 87 Tea Party freshmen elected in 2010, only 26 have reliably voted to end crony crapitalsim. Most of the GOP is the part of the rich, along with the Democrats. And I say this as a fiscal conservative. RINOs won't be getting my vote - I'd rather the Democrat win than a liberal claiming to be a GOP conservative.
In response to:

GOP’s Sound & Fury Signifies Nothing

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 12:11 PM
The GOP's actions signify more of the same: claiming they are limited government fiscal conservatives, while voting for more spending. Every year. This will continue until conservative voters stop electing statists in GOP clothing.
In response to:

GOP’s Sound & Fury Signifies Nothing

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 12:08 PM
Many Republican politicians don't really want to get to the bottom of Benghazi, because it would put a bad light on our government (and rightly so). It will show how both parties are contributing to more war spending that puts more campaign cash in their coffers, and leads their stock investments in the military industrial complex to soar. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA was sending arms to ISIS, to help them against Assad. Most Republicans in Congress wouldn't want that or any exposure of government failure in our foreign policy. This in spite of ongoing blowback from our previous military interventions abroad (where we always make more enemies, from at least one side if not both), and the fact that our servicemen overwhelmingly supported Ron Paul in the 2012 Republican primaries.
In response to:

GOP Cowards

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 23, 2014 11:34 AM
Crouere incorrectly thinks the GOP politicians are cowards. He's been fooled like many good conservatives, by crony crapitalist GOP politicians who pretend to be fiscally conservative and limited government types, but vote otherwise. There is a reason for this. The crony GOP sellouts want the money and favors from their 1% rich friends (who want government favors in return), and think it will help them win their re-election. Because they have been successfully fooling guys like Crouere into supporting and voting for them. And they keep telling us, they have to be this way to get elected. They keep telling us they'll get the blame if Obama shuts down the government. Our GOP leaders really don't support limited government, or cutting spending. Conservative voters keep electing RINOs, so why shouldn't they keep selling us out? See the Bush presidency or their appropriations bill votes for evidence. I'm thankful that at least voters elect politicians, not dollars.
It's a "win" for the increased use of force in society: by both drug lords/distributors and govenrment employees.
How many people are shoplifting and picking pockets to support their alcohol habit? How many people get fired because they drank too much one night? How many people get fired because they got arrested for using drugs? Isn't the fact that drugs are illegal, lead to higher prices for the drugs and to employers not hiring convicted drug users?
"If we take away the criminal sanctions for" "aren’t we basically saying it’s OK?" There are an infinite number of such activities/transactions. Apparently in your mind, we are saying it's OK to eat 10 lbs. of dirt , because we don't have criminal sanctions for doing so. Are the only allowed activities those prescribed by law? You apparently didn't learn anything from Prohibition. Why should alcohol be legal, but not pot? Isn't alcohol worse? The problem with social conservatives such as yourself, is that you refuse to give others freedom, and believe government should have such power, just like liberals. And the conflict you will be fighting, until you are willing to give others freedom, is with liberals who want to use that government power to FORCE you to behave according ot liberal virtues. And until you are willing to give others freedom, we limited government types will be forced to live with government that oppresses. In this case, government that oppresses people who do not harm others, but do smoke pot which offends you. Justice for you, will be the punishment of liberals using government to force you to act against your will and your virtues. Just as you desire to punish others.
A culture where people don't ask government to help them live at the expense of their neighbors, is one where people are willing to give others freedom. And with freedom, comes prosperity - they are highly correlated.
Sorrentino is correct about the crony relationship of Obama/Democrats with rich 1% owners of insurance companies. I'm sure the NYT was aware of this all along - this is after all how government works. The only reason it's reporting it now, is to repair its reputation in time for the next election, and because Obama can no longer be elected and is not popular. Obama is being thrown under the bus by Democrats, or at least they are trying to, but many Democrats have found they are tied to Obama and are going down with him.
In response to:

What the Midterms in Texas Taught Us

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 4:38 PM
"But with record spending and so much at stake, why were Democrats unable to turn out their vote?" Seems like most people that are voting, are voting against politicians: politicians long on promises, and very short on delivery (often delivering lies instead). What's to vote for, if what politicians are promising are just lies? Seems like Obama was an anti-politician vote against Bush's lies of fiscal responsibility, compassionate conservatism, and building democracies in the Middle East. Now voters are fed up with Obama's lies. Which brings up the next election. What will the GOP do? Nothing as usual because they really want the socialist schemes to drive voters to vote GOP? That's my bet. Except for expansion of the wars in the Middle East, and spending for them. Republican politicians are always for more war, except for the libertarian leaning ones.
This is happening in NJ, where Chris Christie, one of the Republican establishment leading candidates for president, is governor. NJ is also one of the states with the highest tax burden in the USA. Sullum doesn't say, but Christie was all for this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/02/christies-game-changer-revel-closes-doors-amid-casino-ruin-in-atlantic-city/ From what I see, the Republican establishment is exactly for what NJ has: high taxes, lots of regulation, abuse of eminent domain, government spending for the politically connected rich (Revel's former owners, and the bureaucrats at the CRDA), and using government to punish your political enemies (Bridgegate) provided it can't be tied to the political leader. Seems just like what the Democrats offer too. Politicians like Christie will never get my vote, no matter how bad the other guy is.
Previous 11 - 20 Next