"[I]f Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy.
For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just ask you to keep four things in mind: Justice Scalia just turned 78, Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year, Justice Breyer will be 76 in August, and Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago. We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court -- in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you're smokin' something dangerous ." Z: Think what you will about Romney, he won't be appointing Elena Kagan types of judges, that's for sure.
z
233 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 233 of 233Think of it this way. There is enough regulation on business and big corporations. But there is No Regulation on government.
And I thought that there was a Constitution. Silly me.
Corporations can't exist w/o government. They're two sides of the same coin. Just ask the Chinese. Liberty is no longer required. Just so you know where things are headed.
FJ, I now where things are headed. I've been watching them head that way since LBJ.
Constitution? It's become more of an academic exercise. Kids today buy the nonsense that it's old and out-dated, even though 90% of it protects Us from the government.
It will be gone before you know it.
The Rollerball scenario is no better than Fordism. Big corporate is little different than big government. Individuals mean nothing to either. Why you promote one over the other is beyond me. I say we slay BOTH dragons.
...or at least, attempt to bring them BOTH to heel.
FJ, I agree big corporations couldn't care less about the individual.
The difference, is that the individual can go work somewhere else. Or they can start their own enterprise. Or they can spend their money with Dell, if they don't like IBM or HP, as a simple example. It's capitalism. It's what makes Capitalism so great. When 'Big Corporation' puts the screws to you, you can go elsewhere, which eeps big corporation in check to some extent. Highly competitive businesses like supermarkets, commodity brokers to a Large extent, cable companies to a non-existent extent.
With government, You have No Choice. You need them, they don't need you. You are cattle to them if that. You're a pain in the ass. The only leverage you have is your vote, which ain't much.
If that doesn't resonate with you I don't know what else to say. When the government takes something from you, it stays gone.
They can own enterprise? Who would these enterprises COMPETE with? Would it be a FAIR competition?
...and if you don't like government, you emmigrate!
THATs your "choice".
Jonathan Swift viewed the "corporate" problem as follows (Gulliver's Travels). I happen to think that he was right...
Here's how he describes them... with "coin" markings.
...and how he concludes: I could not but agree, that the laws of this kingdom relative to the STRULDBRUGS were founded upon the strongest reasons, and such as any other country would be under the necessity of enacting, in the like circumstances. Otherwise, as avarice is the necessary consequence of old age, those immortals would in time become proprietors of the whole nation, and engross the civil power, which, for want of abilities to manage, must end in the ruin of the public.
...and THAT is no "Tale of a Tub"!
In other words, "not meant to entertain a Leviathan!"
There's a reason for Fairy Tales. And no, they're NOT intended for the entertainment of "children". They're intended to maintain and pass along an "oral history" of lessens learned... so that we don't blindly follow the first "pied piper" who comes into Hamelin.
Romney over Obama any day.
...and Johnson over Romney, any day.
And do really want a link? The actual quote containing figures and facts was posted earlier.
Gary Johnson Wikibio
Johnson graduated from Sandia High School in Albuquerque in 1971, where he was on the school track team.[19] He attended the University of New Mexico from 1971 to 1975 and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree.[20] It was there that he met his future wife, Denise "Dee" Simms.
While in college, Johnson earned money as a door-to-door handyman.[21] His success in that arena encouraged him to start his own business, Big J Enterprises, in 1976. When he started the business, which focused on mechanical contracting, Johnson was its only employee.[22] His major break with the firm was receiving a large contract from Intel's expansion in Rio Rancho, which increased Big J's revenue to $38 million.[18]
Over-stretched by his success, Johnson enrolled in a time management course at night school, which made him heavily goal-driven.[18] He eventually grew Big J into a multi-million dollar corporation with over 1,000 employees.[23] By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was one of New Mexico's leading construction companies.
---
In an interview in Reason magazine in January 2001, Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills."[25]
Andrew Sullivan quoted a claim that Johnson "is highly regarded in the state for his outstanding leadership during two terms as governor. He slashed the size of state government during his term and left the state with a large budget surplus."[39]
According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."[40] The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."[27]
According to a profile of Johnson in the National Review, "During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times. He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico's budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico's government in half."[41] Johnson has "said his numerous vetoes, only two of which were overridden, stemmed from his philosophy of looking at all things for their cost-benefit ratio and his axe fell on Republicans as well as Democrats."[22]
gad, keep pitchin', FJ.!!
WAKE UP. Gary Johnson will either never get even considered (the most likely scenario) or he'll get considered and give us back Obama because Johnson's a big ZERO.
We who understand reality and that we have to finesse this country back to normalcy understand that we can't have Obama in charge when we're doing that..
As long as we're advocating voting for a candidate with absolutely zero chance of being elected, let alone being nominated, I think we should all vote for my favorite, Duncan Hunter of California.
Pitch it, Mark!
And Z, If Romney's the alternative... Obama looks pretty good.
"If Romney's the alternative... Obama looks pretty good."
Bite your tongue!
Obama doesn't look good regardless.
ABO (Anybody but Obama)in 2012!
Hey Ther, here's a question for you.
WHAT is obama going to concede to Russia that he has to wait until AFTER the election to announce. Read: He's actually worried about scaring off some of his brainless followers by announcing it ahead of time.
What do you think that might be? Or are you even aware of it.
Good Lord.
I'm smiling over here, because I know I have no chance of redirecting an obama follower after these last 3 years, so I put this stuff out for fun more than anything else.
But seriously, whaddya think about that?
...as opposed to those who insist that in the name of "conservative values" current benefits be terminated immediately and those dependent upon them thrown into the street with beamish's grandma.
My grandmother is 85 years old, and only paid the 7.65% payroll tax rates current workers pay for Social Security and Medicare combined the last three years of her working life (1990 - 1992). Before that, she paid far less in, from even less money. Medicare (and its attendant taxation) didn't exist until my grandmother was 38 years old. She started working when she was 15, so there's 13 solid years she didn't pay jack into Medicare. All told, from when she started working in 1943 until she retired in 1992, my grandmother paid a total average of 3.83% of her annual income into Social Security and 0.56% of her annual income into Medicare.
In other words, for the cost to her of roughly 4.39% of the income my grandmother made in 49 years of employment (or all of the income for two out of those 49 years for short) my grandmother has reaped 20 years worth of full retirement "benefits," 18 years of which she didn't pay in a dime to get.
My grandmother is (and would) do alright without Social Secuirty and Medicare. She owns 5 houses and earns rent from 4 of them, and has both a conservative work ethic to have never placed herself in debts she could not pay and a conservative family that would take care of her the day she could no longer take care of herself.
I don't know how to create a conservative mindset in others. It requires intellectual capacities that aren't all that common. Maybe "hey, you need to take care of your own family" is too complex an idea for the liberal leftist mind, I don't know.
But the Baby Boomer "I paid in all my life and deserve Social Security and Medicare benefits beyond what I paid for" is just as much a non-starter (and totally ludicrous) argument point as it is for the freeloader "Greatest Generation" that spawned them for Generation X to pay for.
Sorry Grandma, no free rides.
WHAT is obama going to concede to Russia that he has to wait until AFTER the election to announce. Read: He's actually worried about scaring off some of his brainless followers by announcing it ahead of time.
Think blue helmets and Russian soldiers ;)
As long as we're advocating voting for a candidate with absolutely zero chance of being elected, let alone being nominated, I think we should all vote for my favorite, Duncan Hunter of California.
Big awestruck amen.
But America actually deserves a second term of Obama if Romney's the conventional wisdom "ideal choice" to beat him.
I will give Romney this: He has much experience through the GOP primaries savaging candidates to his political right, so Romney's being quite visibly to the left of Obama on every issue you can think of may play to his strengths.
He can concede anything he wants to Russia. Russia's in no position to actually do anything, and America's in no position to stop Russia from trying to do anything.
It's time to stop worrying about how much money the Romney's will lose if Russia invades Poland, and start worrying about how much liberty Americans will lose once Romney owns America and we all have to depend on him for our daily livelihood.
...and beamish, next time you have to prove your "conservative" credentials, just go kick a senior citizen.
When the plane suffers a severe cabin decompression at 40,000 feet and the oxygen masks drop from their overhead compartment, you need to put on your own mask before you attempt to aid others with theirs.
That's all I'm sayin', Z.
...and beamish, next time you have to prove your "conservative" credentials, just go kick a senior citizen.
But kicking far left poseurs like yourself in the teeth is much more fun! Hungry? Eat your bingo card.
Your Tea Party got Romney the nomination. You should be happy.
I mean, since you couldn't get the perfect Tea Party candidate
Stop giving me advice, I'm an adult, I am smarter than you think, apparently, Thersites..
like you actually had me believing you weren't nicrap because I thought we were friends and nobody'd lie THAT overtly. Dummy me.
Good luck.
I'm shutting the comments off now; this isn't an ugly sandbox for nasty kids to play in.
Post a Comment