Author Archives: Cluster
The GOP Senate candidate in Oregon is a great example of the new young conservative that will destroy progressives. I can’t wait.
Dr. Wehby is therefore Democrats’ worst nightmare. A nationally recognized pediatric neurosurgeon who was on the board of the American Medical Association, she got into this race to fight ObamaCare. She’s a policy wonk, able to run rings around Oregon’s junior senator, especially on health-care reform. She’s pro-choice (personally pro-life) and supports gay marriage and medical marijuana—so the left can’t hit her with the social-issue agenda. She’s a fiscal conservative and a tort reformer—positions that hold appeal even among Oregon’s more liberal electorate.
The rest of the article here, is a great read. Enjoy
Well it didn’t take long for the moderator at B4V to grow tired of the collective progressive noise machine and the pathological need to attack false conservative constructs, so I thought I would give you a thread here at the famous AllPolytics to let it all hang out here. Mersault will be happy knowing that there is no skirt here for me to hide behind, although I do love skirts, no question there.
So what are you hating on today? Who is the person or issue du jour that’s on your radar screen to attack? Is it Ann Coulter today? Clay Aiken of American Idol is vying to represent you fine progressives in Congress tweeted today that he wanted to punch Ann Coulter in face. Would that be considered a “war on women”?
After a few weeks of rehab and a little shock therapy, I believe I have emerged somewhat whole from the juvenile depravity that infected this blog for a while. The posts are now virus free so now is the time to recalibrate and establish a new foundation from which to launch the counter punches to the incessant progressive attack machine, and to expose their ideology as the vapid, baseless failure that it is proving to be. And where does this initial inspiration come from? Bill Maher of all people:
“That is not the only trick Republicans have up their sleeve. Even more than cheating, what Republicans have done is tap into the deep, rich vein of cultural resentment that runs through America’s heartland like an artery clogged with hate butter. And liberals, to be fair, sometimes make it pretty easy for them to do that.
And as a comedian, I don’t like it when political correctness Nazis hound me to censor every joke, apologize for every slight, and when I have to learn how to pronounce words like ‘chi’ and ‘quinoa’, I just want to shove a head of kale up their ass. They mean well, but sometimes when I’m at Whole Foods, I don’t want to sign petitions and give to charity. I just want to go in and get a $15 lentil sandwich that’ll make me fart for a week.
I also, for example, think it’s ridiculous that Facebook has now decided we have to choose in our profile from 56 different genders, including transgender, cisgender and, of course, Bruce Gender.
You know that I almost ate at Chick-Fil-A just because so many people were telling me I shouldn’t eat at Chick-Fil-A. But then I remembered, it’s Chick-Fil-A.
But even atheists make me roll my eyes sometimes, like when they sue to have a cross taken down from a building. Oh for f*** sake, we’re atheists, not vampires. (Best line of the rant). If you can’t handle seeing a cross now and then, you picked the wrong country.
So I get it, liberals can get obnoxious and that’s why lots of Americans say we don’t want politicians nagging about what we can name our football team or how big our soda can be or what we can eat or who we’ve offended. We have wives for that! But don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. One of the Republicans’ strongest voting blocs is low-income whites who didn’t go to college (… and pursue degrees in art history). These are people who desperately need a minimum wage hike, need unions, they need health care — but not if it’s got Obama’s name on it. (Recall how Republicans rolled over when health reform had the Clintons’ name on it).
Remember, for every liberal with a cause who makes you go, oh just shoot me, there’s a conservative with a gun who will.”
I don’t often agree with Bill Maher, but he mostly gets it right with this commentary on the insufferable, self righteous progressive that currently infects our society. The problem is, the more desperate they become the more annoying they are, and there will be a lot of desperation on their part between now and November.
Charles Krauthammer has always been one of my favorite political commentators and his most recent article defines the current Democratic party and their followers better than anyone ever could. So without any additional commentary, I will simply post a few choice excerpts from Krauthammer:
“……. the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.”
“Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.”
“To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.”
“Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.”
I would like to hear from the many followers that have chosen to follow this blog, which would be a refreshing departure from the handful of previous commentators that dominated this blog. Feel free to comment on any subject matter that interests you if you are inclined to do so. Your anonymity is assured. A couple of things that have crossed my mind lately:
– Is it time for Knife Control legislation?
– Is the House Ways and Means Committee within their right to hold Lerner in contempt?
– Is the gender wage gap a legitimate issue? Or just more election year demagoguery on behalf of Democrats?
I want to begin by apologizing to the followers of our blog and the adults in the room regarding the content of the blog over the last several weeks, which I have found to be distasteful, juvenile and worse yet, uninteresting. We began this blog with the goal of facilitating some level of civil, rational, and objective political discourse, which in my opinion, would be a welcome departure from the juvenile rancor found on so many other sites, and my hope would be that that type of forum would result in a lot of commentators and opinions. Well that goal has obviously not been met, and what you are treated to on a nearly daily basis instead is a depository of hatred and personal mischaracterizations from people with self-superiority issues. Essentially, whatever representation of conservatism or libertarianism real or perceived of which they disagree with, is marginalized and ridiculed, and that does not result in a very interesting forum, nor one that too many people would want to engage in. Mitch and I are about as far apart politically as two people could possibly be, but I welcome his friendship, input and contributions to the site, and I think that that collaboration between us proves that political disagreement does not have to be entirely disagreeable.
So from this point forward, any personal or ad hominem attacks on other blogs, private citizens, politicians, or other commentators, will be deleted and continued violations will result in a permanent ban of the offender. Policy disagreements are welcome here, but those disagreements must be in a forum in which people are allowed to speak their mind absent the threat of being bullied or attacked. If you disagree with a comment, simply state that you do and why – it’s a simple as that, and those who can’t conform to that standard will not be welcome. Period. I originated the blog, so I will set the policy and I have been amiss at doing so. If that goal can not be realized, then this blog may cease to exist altogether, and those of you who relish in juvenile, play ground political discourse can start your own blog or join other forums. I hope I am clear on this.
There are many current delusions amongst progressives, for example; adding government mandates increases peoples freedoms, a government sponsored “employment caucus” will increase jobs, and that unemployment checks stimulate the economy, but one of my favorites is that the big money in politics is controlled by the Republicans. KOCH BROTHERS!!! As Open Secrets just revealed, the big money and special interests in politics is firmly in the control of Democrats. Of the top 20 political contributors going back to 1989, 13 of them favored the Democrats. And even more disturbing is that the second largest contributor, the public unions, are directly using tax payer money from negotiated contracts and pensions to support the Democrats. Contracts and pensions of which are driving many municipalities into bankruptcy. Here’s an example of how California is dealing with it, and we all know what Detroit had to do. Legacy costs for public union pensions will continue to negatively impact cities and counties everywhere, especially as the baby boomers begin to retire. Scott Walker faced this in WI, dealt with it, overcame a recall effort and won reelection. Even that liberal icon, FDR opposed public unions for this very reason:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
Public unions are a special interest that are increasingly becoming a weight on the American taxpayer, yet the Democrats continue to milk that slush fund as much as they can, unfortunately to the detriment of the American tax payer and citizen. Now don’t misunderstand my position here. I think there is a role for some public unions, but their collective bargaining rights need to be restricted simply because politicians can not be trusted to bargain with tax payer money in good faith. Private unions on the other hand negotiate over private money, so I have no problem there, but as we all witnessed in TN recently, many American workers are no longer wanting to be represented by union bosses that represent themselves and politicians more than they represent the average worker, as evidenced by the cozy relationship and large amounts of cash given to Democrats.
Finally, other contributors to make note of: The Evil Koch Bros at #59. And the US Postal Service Workers Union donated $17 million to Democrats despite being broke and having to be bailed out by tax payers.
Merriam-Webster defines Antagonism as:
a strong feeling of dislike or hatred : a desire to oppose something you dislike or disagree with
And I assert that we have reached a place in our political dialogue that we no longer pause, reflect, and learn about the the opposing positions, so much as we just lash out based on some false perceptions of self superiority, and this is found on both sides of the aisle amongst elected representatives and average citizens. There is no shortage of examples, and I am sure we could all fill volumes with our own favorites, and I am also aware that this phenomena is not a new development in our history. Politics has long been a very personal and contentious art form, but the current divide is a bit alarming in my opinion, and even I, a political junkie by most standards, have grown tired of it.
Case in point was the current debt ceiling debate, a debate of which we have had several times throughout the past few decades, and a debate of which is often shaped by compromise. Yet this time, and last, the supporters of the increase, framed the debate as “hostage taking” if 100% their demands were not met. This tactic drowned out any sensible debate on what a compromise would look like, and was simply used as a club to diminish the opposition. This is a school yard tactic, and one of which that should have no place in a civilized forum. Considering $500 billion deficits, and a debt that now exceeds our GDP, I would think that mature, rational adults could realize that increasing the limit on our national credit card should come with a desire to implement some fiscal constraints. I evidently was wrong, and the fact that not increasing our debt limit would not impede the federal government from meeting it’s core obligations was not only lost, it was never brought to light.
Unless and until more adults take command of the national political dialogue, the divide will deepen as will the vitriol, and the ability to truly understand the oppositions intent will further deteriorate. Now to be honest, there are some fundamental differences on how the governance of this country should be structured and in my opinion the more we depart from the structure laid out in the Constitution, the more our society will suffer. My political opposition likes to take the compassionate high ground, but there is nothing compassionate in enabling and expanding a federal bureaucracy that grows more and more detached from the needs of the people in fly over country. The Constitution is a nearly perfect blueprint for decentralizing power and authority and putting it in the hands of people that are closest to the societal problems that will always confront our citizenry, and this where real compassion can truly be effective. My hope is that someday, we could have that national dialogue absent the perceived self superiority issues.
Note to Watson – consider this a non racially charged comment. LOL
Consider this an open thread for opinions (are we still allowed to have opinions?) on the theories of big government, or statism, most often advocated by the left, to that of a smaller, more decentralized government most often advocated by the right. I found this article from Red State columnist John Hayward to be not only humorous but poignant as well. Here’s an excerpt:
Statism is an inherently pessimistic philosophy. Its core assumption is that people will not do the right thing, if left to their own devices. Private workers, investors, and managers are tried in absentia, found guilty of callous greed, and sentenced to life in Big Government’s work-release programs. Government is force. There is no need to force people to do what they would have done willingly. Therefore, the core assumption of activist government is that people must be forced into socially beneficial activities they would not have freely chosen. The much-mocked Pajama Boy ad for ObamaCare was a visual Freudian slip that revealed the truth of how liberals view their child-subjects. Virtually everything the Left says to American citizens is the language of adults addressing children, right down to the new obsession with making sure we eat good food.
One other thing that John touches on, and something that has always annoyed me, is the perpetual state of crisis that leftists love to manipulate and beat people up with.
It’s an old statist trick to phrase every item on its agenda as an “emergency” or the “moral equivalent of war” to stampede voters into compliance. If this rhetoric is taken seriously, and in total, it tells us that our nation is perpetually in crises, eternally in needed of rescue from persistent “emergencies” it can never resolve on its own. What upbeat message can be found in that?
Indeed. Gong from crisis to crisis sucks the life blood out of anyone. In this respect, leftist governments remind me of that dysfunctional, mal adjusted, drama filled person we all are familiar, who is always making bad decisions and constantly in search of the next life change that will finally make them happy. Of course happiness most always eludes them, as does social justice and income equality always elude the leftist pursuit. Why? Because it’s impossible to reengineer the human condition, and it is impossible to legislate equal outcome. Two things that I wish more progressives understood – wealth is not a zero sum game, and life is unfair, and both concepts are adversely affected when over legislated.