Posted on 09/26/2011 8:19:38 PM PDT by Sick of Lefties
Good article. HHC’s husband
Go earn your keep, Scott.
I’m still upset that I sent Scott Brown $ (from Colorado) to beat that other liberal woman. He’d better whip this one’s butt, too.
Her bankruptcy casebook is actually good. She should stick to that.
Thanks. I’ll take a look at it.
Martha "Marsha-Marsha-Marsha" Coakley. Rush Limbaugh just
started doing an ad for that ID theft company that mentions her.
So much so, and so delightfully and artfully delivered in sharp-shooter fashion, that it grieves me to point out the following glaring blanket statement:
that the rich get that way by offering something of value to others, not by making them poor.If we massage our definitions of rich, and of value, and of poor, we can make this unequivocally true. Absent that, however, it is simply to general a claim to be valid; and is invalidated by too much recent history.
“to” + “o” = “too”
Martha “Marsha-Marsha-Marsha” Coakley. Rush Limbaugh just
started doing an ad for that ID theft company that mentions her.
Thanks, C L.
I only got to hear about 15 minutes of Rush today so I missed that.
You helped the better candidate to win. You helped to start Teddy Kennedy spinning in his grave. Thank you.
You helped to start Teddy Kennedy spinning in his grave.
That alone was worth it.
“Teddy Kennedy’s seat”.....my azz. Arrogant bastards.
None of them are Federal.
National Defense is a federal responsibility. I bet Ms. Lizzie wants to cut National Defense allocations.
And how much has the war on poverty cost us? And has the percentage of people living in poverty declined?
Please expound.
What part my post needs to be explained?
Libs want to bail out Blue States with federal dollars again. It’s forcible redistribution from Red State citizens who don’t want Liberal governance, to Blue State citizens who do. It’s a coercive mechanism that thwarts the operation of the laboratories of Democracy.
It’s abusive and it’s transparent. It’s got to stop.
“Absent that, however, it is simply to general a claim to be valid; and is invalidated by too much recent history. “
What recent history are you referring to? I imagine you mean the crash, and Wall Street’s money grab. Or perhaps you mean GE and the new generation of crony capitalists.
I assume that those are aberrations, exceptions that prove the rule. If I build a factory, to use Professor Warren’s example, I do not get rich by making others poor. I get rich by giving others something of value.
If I run to DC, or my state capitol (Lansing) in order to get rich, or stay rich in the face of better competition, then I am making others poor. But, that’s not capitalism. That’s Statism. It’s also sin.
No exposition. You'll have to do your homework, work for some original thoughts, face some uncomfortable realities, as the author of this otherwise fine piece seems to be otherwise comfortable with doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.