1 - 10 Next
In response to:

So A Boy Walks Into The Girls' Locker Room

ssx1 Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 2:04 PM
Right, except those who are "more equal" than others, like the politicians who pass national educational standards that promise to make our children mindless progressive-drones with no critical thinking ability on all public schools in order to provide each kid "equal educational opportunities", then send their kids to private schools not subject to their national curriculum. Or the Milwalkee public sector union who bought city council and spent millions demanding higher minimum wages "for the working class to combat income inequality" for all government contractors & employees, which they got but immediately lobbied for & received an exemption from being required to pay their own members the minimum wages they were responsible for enacting? Democrats passing Obamacare to provide "every American equal access to healthcare", in the name of equality for all, then exempted themselves? Sounds more like the progressives/liberals/democrats want everyone else to be equal except themselves, who are allowed to be "more equal" or above everyone else. Their faux-passion for "equality" as a moral absolute is just another lie used to buy votes from those looking for free stuff and give the white guilt crowd an emotionally-satisfying cause they can be manipulated into voting for without actually looking at the consequences. The progressive/liberals/democrats' only "moral absolutes" are power and that the ends justify the means, with the ends being more power & control.
I agree. The U.S. will inevitably collapse under the weight of an uncontrollable, ever-growing bureaucracy and increasing centralization. The people have traded their freedom and prosperity for paternalistic economic security provided by the government. Unless there is a radical change in the populace towards valuing personal responsibility, individual freedom, and the rule of law, where it is the responsibility of the individual to provide for their families and it is not the responsibility of the federal government to solve every problem & dictate "equality/social justice", then the gov't will continue to grow to unsustainable levels. A group of Conservative states, likely led by Texas, will break off to recreate a Constitutional, limited gov't and leaving the progressive states to decay under unrestricted progressivism/socialism/communism. Other states may also secede, such as the Great Lakes & Midwestern States, to form their own independent unions as well to escape the grip of the left's central, top-down gov't dreams.
In response to:

Ukraine's Crisis, Not Ours

ssx1 Wrote: Feb 26, 2014 8:45 PM
I love the progressive-like strawmen that so many "conservatives" are creating of those who support the Ukrainian protesters, complete with the "neo-con" label to associate them with GWB, Cheney & Iraq. However, if those people would actually read the arguments made by the supporters in these comments and in articles across the web, they'd find that not a single one advocates for anything like the military intervention & meddling they claim these faux neo-cons want. Mr. Buchanan is wrong. Democracy is indeed what is happening in Kiev; democracy is mob rule, a dictatorship of the majority, whether that be via the voting booth or Maiden Square. The U.S. does not need to send in troops, stoke the flames of war, or steer Ukraine on whatever course America decides is best for her to help the protesters take back their country. An elected government is only legitimate so long as it has the support of the people that elected it, assuming that Ukraine's president is indeed the legitimate President (there are no shortage of people who would argue that Russia heavily influenced the election by importing Russians into Ukraine to vote for the pro-Russian party). The Ukrainian protesters only wish to exercise their right to the self-determination of their government, and rather than intervene or direct the process, the U.S. should simply provide the support & resources that will allow the protesters to effectively counter Russian aggression and allow Ukrainians to decide on the future path of their own government, free of Russian influence. Conservatives claim to learn from history, yet the Conservatives who prefer isolation appear ignorant to history's imploring of us to support the protesters. During the Post WWII scramble for Europe we faced a very similar situation in which we appeased Moscow via inaction, leading to the splitting of Germany, annexation & occupation of the Baltic States, and the quasi-annexation via puppet Communist governments in Poland, Hungary, the Balkans, and Czechoslovakia, giving the Soviet Union the resources, power, and geopolitical advantage to challenge the West. Putin is attempting the same thing now, but this time Ukrainians are fighting back and want closer ties to Europe & the West. Leaving them out to dry will seal their fates, and put Russia one step closer to recreating their Empire to challenge the West. Appeasement & inaction will be just as disastrous as it was post-WWII.
In response to:

Unions Can't Win

ssx1 Wrote: Feb 26, 2014 7:50 PM
It was hard to understand your incoherent rambling, but allow me to let you in on a secret - Conservatives by and large oppose unions (and illegal immigration) just like unions oppose Conservatives, as evidenced by the Right's support for & promotion of RIght to Work and 90% of union's political donations going to Democrats. Today's UAW and public sector unions are a parasite on the side of the companies, government, economy, and taxpayers, demanding more and more until the eventually kill the host that feeds them. The UAW almost single-handedly destroyed the American auto industry and State of Michigan with their productivity-killing work rules, demanding wages 3 times what the market & foreign competitors pay, and their general lazy, greedy attitude which together made it impossible for the Big 3 to produce high-quality cars & sell them at a competitive price. All those hugely inflated labor costs drove up the price of cars to the point where they were uncompetitive, and to compensate the Big 3 had to sacrifice quality to reduce costs and we all know how that ended up. Likewise, public sector unions such as the NEA, AFL-CIO, & SEIU are responsible for the pathetic state of our public school system, which outspends other nations 2-to-1 yet is ranked at the bottom of the list for performance & educational outcomes, they're responsible for the bureaucratic labyrinth that stifles economic growth & government efficiency, for the financial issues plaguing cities & states across the country, and to some extent for the huge national debt we're increasing at break-neck paces. The unions are responsible for getting progressive Democrats elected and advocating for the progressive policies that are killing the economy and country at large. So please tell us, how is it unpatriotic, immoral, illogical, & lawless to oppose the unions? Because from where I sit, unions are parasites on the side of this country, responsible for many of the problems that have put us in the sorry state we now find ourselves, and are one of the biggest problems facing the U.S. in a generation.
While I completely agree with your premise, I often wonder, as a product of the very same system of K-12 public school education, small East Coast Liberal Arts College, and finally grad school at a huge public university where I'm currently a student, how I ended up being so Conservative despite all of the force-fed liberal b.s. I was given every day. My parents are certainly Conservative but rarely spoke about politics before I left for college, and I wasn't particularly Conservative or political until my Junior year of college. I grew up in a blue-collar, Democrat city outside of the bluest of blue City of Detroit, in a generally blue state, with liberal friends & teachers. So how did I end up on the Right side of the spectrum? My best guess has been that I studied Business & Economics in college, worked accounting internships in the summer, and went straight to work in the insurance industry when I graduated - all relatively Conservative-heavy pursuits, save maybe economics. I know that in college I'd apply what I learned in class & work to government policy and routinely found liberals lacking in good, sound economic policy. That continued once I started working full-time, and now I am firmly Conservative and have a deep, intense loathing of the left, their lies, delusion, hypocracy, and terrible policy. I guess it helps to think independently.
Ut cut off the second half...disincentives for work are bad because it puts not only those 2.5 million people & their families into poverty and on welfare, increasing the tax burden but ultimately threatens the entire economy with recession/depression because of the decreased output and consumption spending. Then we'll all be offered guaranteed issue insurance policies, but won't be able to afford them because the economy is tanking and there aren't enough jobs to sustain our standard of living. Fewer working adults = higher government spending, lower tax revenues, and lower consumption. But hey, at least you can buy health insurance now!
Well I certainly know what I'm talking about, I've been working in the insurance industry for years and still sell small group & individual plans for clients who request it. You refuted your own argument; you're mad mainly because your rates went up 75%, yet defend the very mechanism, mandated guaranteed issue & restricted underwriting criteria, that is driving rates up so high. You cannot have both guaranteed issue and low rates, it is not acturarially possible in today's market. In fact, in a few years when government reinsurance disappears you're going to see another monster jump, but for now government is subsidizing both sides of the policy. You see, it may have been great for you(and me, truthfully) that insurance carriers can't turn you down, but the previously uninsured that were in that position made up a very small segment of the market. For those people, state governments had "assigned risk pools" where people could go if they were unable to find coverage elsewhere. Was it expensive? Sure, you were a very high risk and the insurance company was all but guaranteed to lose money insuring you. Now, you can get insurance for the same price as everyone else, but those prices are close to high risk plans before Obamacare. Great idea, right? No one was tied to their job - every state has high risk pools for the
My support or skepticism for global warming is not informed whatsoever by "oil companies" and the "Koch Brothers". You're confusing correlation with causality (apparently not a scientist or economist, either); because we both believe in similar things, does not mean that their belief and/or actions are what caused mine. And just because oil companies have an inherent interest in AGW being false does not equal them being a major contributor to the climate change debate. I for one have never heard or read a word from the Koch Brothers on any topic whatsoever, nor have I seen, heard, or read any arguments, denials, or spin offered by oil companies, whose real interest is in convincing people that if global warming does exist they are working to be a part of the sol, which I do see pretty constantly. The nonsense you are here spouting is nothing but your own personal philosophy using political talking points as justification for your beliefs. Nowhere do any legitimate facts appear, just personal attacks, opinions, talking points, and conjecture. Your use of the over-played (and for the most part disproved) appeal to authority that "the vast majority of scientists believe in global warming" makes it clear that you're arguments are little more than lib talking points & personal opinion. Of course there are many scientists who believe in GW, their paychecks, jobs, and credibility depend on it. However, that is not proof that the theory is correct any more than it was when the vast majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe, an earth-centric universe, the "bad smell" theory of disease, or any of the other thousands of examples of "settled science" that was false. An Appeal to Authority is one of the most common logical fallacies, and your use of it says quite a bit.
Sorry for the unintended duplicate post.
That's a very nice straw man you've build yourself. You're correct, the polar vortex was a North American event (although the Arctic sea ice has recovered quite nicely, don't you think?) and climate change is a very long process, although even decades is a short time period for meaningful change. However, the article clearly stated that much; the author said that this doesn't prove nor disprove any theory but rather GW priests' reaction of spinning every weather event into evidence for AGW by calling them "unprecedented" "increasingly frequent" severe weather events, which are neither unprecedented nor increasingly frequent. But you're okay with them using this cold spell as evidence FOR AGW, but you're not okay for others to use it as evidence against global warming? Hypicritical, don't you think? And since it takes decades for climate change to occur, wouldn't you say that the lack of any meaningful warming over the last 2 decades, even though man's contributions to global warming have increased, provide meaningful evidence against AGW? Is it not just as likely that the Earth goes through cycles of global warming and cooling with or without man, influenced by terrestrial and extraterrestrial inputs? Which would Occam's Razor and logic suggest? This is why people view AGW as a religion - when presented with evidence against global warming using the very same arguments & logic you yourself used, followers deny said evidence exist or is valid to justify their own faith. Not very scientific if you ask me.
1 - 10 Next