Posted on 02/13/2012 9:20:06 AM PST by jazusamo
Thank you for your most excellent post and the link to Dr. Read’s book.
Bookmarked for future referral and I will definitely read it.
Thanks, and an extra bonus of reading online or purchasing at FEE is that this is Read’s book which included the famous essay entitled, “I, Pencil.” Young people can understand simple ideas of freedom of individual enterprise by reading this work also.
Obama Unveils $3.8 trillion budget
From this thread, we have the following:
Like other Progressives, Theodore Roosevelt was a critic and foe of big business. In this he was not inhibited by any knowledge of economics, and his own business ventures lost money.
Rhetoric was TR's strong suit. He denounced "the mighty industrial overlords" and "the tyranny of mere wealth."
Which immediately allows us to mine the wealth within the line between rhetoric and demagoguery.
"The tyranny of mere ignorance."
"The tyranny of mere doublespeak."
"The tyranny of mere pandering."
"The tyranny of mere class warfare."
And finally,
The tyranny of mere Bullshit" *
Moving right along to the mere First Incompetent's budget, we get this gem : "We built this budget around the idea that our country has always done best when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules,"
To normal human beings, in a society, except for the very young, the insane, the handicapped, the terminally ill and the extremely aged, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO A "FAIR SHARE" OF ZERO!
It's impossible to accept that 50% of our entire population falls within the exempt list at the beginning of this paragraph.
That ubiquitous phrase is thrown out endlessly, and meaninglessly, and the parasites of society capitalize on it, as do the pandering bureaucrats and politicians. The mere parasites are entitled to a "fair share" of zero. What do they all have in common?
Everyone on that list except for minors can vote themselves permanent parasite status, as can 50% of the adult population.
*BULLSHIT
London Times Online, 25 Feb 2005
And a free valuable education lesson in history and sociology for anyone who has the ability to get his brain out of neutral, and aatually think beyond next Tuesday.
A keeper!
Great post, thanks.
I’d never seen the “Bullshit” thread, extremely well thought out.
Politicians - sincerity - spin = Bullshit. Right on! :)
It has occurred to me lately that we need to rename the terms “Progressive” and “Liberal” because they have lost their meaning.
PROGRESSIVES: Contemporary so-called “Progressives” are not progressive at all. They are REGRESSIVE. They want to go retreat from liberty.
LIBERALS: Contemporary so-called “Liberals” are not liberal at all. They don’t want to “liberate” — rather, they want to ENSLAVE others. Contemporary Liberals should therefore be referred to as “Fascists” because they want extreme social regimentation via government.
The JFK Democrats (strong on defense) wouldn’t even recognize the greedy agglomeration of selfish special interest groups that comprises today’s Democrap party.
If we get the nomenclature to correctly portray the Fascist/Regressives for what they really are in the minds of the unwashed masses, that’s half the battle!
We see this on the Left AND the Right.
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
And finally, this, dedicated to the one and only rdb2, whose eyes are growing dim.
Either way, the violin is sweet yet LETHAL.
Do it!
Long live the king.
And may I add that clear writing reflects clear thinking.
I agree with one part of this.
I believe the primary CAUSE of judicial activism is the great difficulty in amending the Constitution.
Advocates for change are ALWAYS tempted toward an easier solution.
Namely...finding a judge who agrees with their political agenda.
I believe a better route to amendments would be direct National Referendums.
An amendment could be initiated by a majority vote in Congress OR a majority vote in 25 state legislatures, at least one year before a presidential election.
To become law, the amendment would need to obtain a direct, popular majority vote in TWO consecutive presidential election years.
If the amendment fails to receive a majority vote in either election, it automatically expires.
This would force all presidential candidates to take a specific position on the amendment.
And, requiring two presidential election cycles means the potential amendment would be vigorously and nationally debated for at least 5 years.
This amendment process would put a new razor sharp political weapon in the arsenal AGAINST judicial activism.
Bump!
PROGRESSIVES: Contemporary so-called “Progressives” are not progressive at all. They are REGRESSIVE. They want to go retreat from liberty.
LIBERALS: Contemporary so-called “Liberals” are not liberal at all. They don’t want to “liberate” — rather, they want to ENSLAVE others. Contemporary Liberals should therefore be referred to as “Fascists” because they want extreme social regimentation via government.
"Objective journalists" and "liberals"/"progressives" (who are so-called merely because they pander to journalists, and therefore are accorded whatever positive labels they want) inverted the meaning of "liberal" in the 1920s. William Safire gives that time frame in Safire's New Political Dictionary, tho he does not say who did it. But, after all, who else but journalism would have the propaganda power to pull that off?To the objection that "journalism" is a cacophony of competing voices, the answer is simple and complete: journalism was a cacophony of competing voices until the Associated Press homogenized journalism in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Since then, although editorial pages vary, the main body of the paper has been driven by the wire services. And to the objection that there are other wire services besides the AP, that doesn't matter - all wire services inherently have the same homogenizing influence because they all affect the business model of the newspaper the same way. But the AP is the granddaddy of them all, and still the largest - and an aggressive monopolist to boot.
You have a good idea, but only in the sense that Will Rodgers had the solution to the submarine menace - "Boil the Oceans." We don't have the propaganda power to rectify the fraudulent labeling systematically conducted by journalism. My preferred solution is to sue the AP and its membership for libel - noting that the apparent diversity of journalism is illusory, and that it is a single entity which cannot evade its responsibility for things like keeping Rush from buying the St. Louis Rams, for libeling the Duke Lacrosse team, promoting the "TANG memo" hoax, telling the voters in the FL panhandle in 2000 that Gore had won Florida's electoral votes before the polls were closed in the panhandle, and so on and so forth. The name of their swindles is legion. Ideally it would be a class action lawsuit, and a RICO suit for triple damages.
Incidentally, the fact that journalists claim that journalism is objective is proof that they are not even trying to be objective. To actually attempt to be objective, one must start by being open about any reasons why one might not be objective. Journalists do have motives which are not congruent with the public interest - they want influence and they want advertising revenue. The desire for influence with an audience is the obvious reason for rules like, "If it bleeds, it leads," and "'Man Bites Dog' not 'Dog Bites Man.'" Those rules have obvious value for attracting attention, but little to no value in assuring that the stories selected on that basis promote the public interest rather than merely interesting the public. When journalists claim objectivity they are doing the very opposite of what they would be doing if they were actually trying to be objective.
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.