Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Of Idiot and Egomaniac

OMG! Obama’s right about something. . . sort of. How the heck did that happen?! Also, bad, arrogant, delusional Newt is back, just in time for Christmas! And you won’t like what he said.

Dateline: Obama’s Brain(sic). As Obama stopped over in Kansas (while telling the crowd he was in Texas. . . “hello Cleveland!”) on his way to his vacation in the coolest of the 57 states -- Hawaii, which is now in Asia, Obama actually said something mostly correct. He noted that people have been losing their jobs not because of “the business cycle,” but because of technology: “you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet.” Ya don’t say?!

Ok, let’s think about this for a moment. Could it be that the big enemy isn’t China or decades of Reaganomics or those evil rich just not paying enough in taxes? Could it be the real reason people lose their jobs is technology?

Actually, yes. The sad truth is the biggest job killer is technology. The tractor killed the farm hand. The robot killed the factory worker. The computer killed the typing pool. The internet is killing retail. It is a cycle. And this cycle will never stop. That’s why it’s so vital that America always remain a land of innovation and opportunity. We need to keep making new jobs to replace the ones that will disappear because of technology. That means companies need to be free to take risks. If companies are prevented from taking risks, the only way they can survive against the competition is to find efficiencies, and efficiencies means layoffs. It is a simply truth: risks = jobs, efficiencies = layoffs.

Yet, the Democrats do everything within their power to kill risk. They regulate business to the point it becomes impossible to take risks. They tax those who earn “too much” and thereby eliminate the reward that comes with taking successful risk. And they saddle the economy with trial lawyers and easy litigation to make risk just too risky. This is how liberalism destroys economies. It destroys the ability of “those who would” to generate new jobs to replace the old ones that naturally disappear over time.

For possibly the first time in his life, President AAAhole is onto something. Too bad he doesn’t understand the implications.

Dateline: Newt’s Brain. The only thing bigger than the gaps in Obama’s knowledge is Newt’s ego. And we’ve just been treated to yet another classic example of this. Said Newt to fellow blowhard Larry Kudlow:

“I was part of Jack Kemp's little cabal of supply-siders who I think, largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You could make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get rich because I helped pass the legislation that —”
Uh..... To use a slight paraphrase of a famous and devastating debate line from Lloyd Benson, “I knew Ronald Reagan, Mr. Gingrich, and you should shut the hell up about teaching Reagan anything you like punk.”

Newt was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. By that point, Ronald Reagan had already been Governor of California for two terms and had run twice for president (1968 and 1976). He had advocated conservatism since the 1950s. He endorsed Barry Goldwater a year before Newt got his college degree. So F-you Newt if you’re going to claim that YOU had to convince Reagan of anything, least of all his signature idea, which he was already advocating when you were still in diapers. . . you turd.

This is the problem with Newt: he’s insane. And I don’t mean in an endearing way like crazy uncle Ron Paul and his gold-standard flying saucers. Newt is insane in the way that serial killers are insane. He’s a bigger narcissist than Obama. He doesn’t think God speaks to him, he thinks God comes to him for advice. And he genuinely believes the fantasies he invents. And it gets worse. . .

Dateline: Trump This. Newsmax is stupidly teaming with Donald “the fraud” Trump to put on a Republican debate on December 27th. Would our candidates really crawl on their bellies to this fraud? Oops, I mean, is this really a good idea?

Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait long before Jon Huntsman to his credit became the first to discover his sense of self-respect and refused to go. Ron Paul immediately followed suit, adding that “the selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate. . . is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.” With the course firmly set by the others, Romney made the bold decision to follow the crowd. So we’re all agreed, right?

Well, no. Newt’s going. In fact, the shameless egomaniac flew to Trump’s side to blast the evil Ron Paul. . . by denigrating Ronald Reagan. Indeed, when asked to respond to Paul’s claim that Trump’s participation would be beneath the dignity of the office, Newt actually said:
“This is a country that elected an actor who made two movies with a chimpanzee to the presidency.”
WTF?! And like that, I have ruled out another candidate.

63 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - don't forget the poor buggy whip manufacturers. Strangely, I have resigned myself to Mitt. The Repubs have a habit of doing this. Keep chanting in your mind "He's better than B.O."

T-Rav said...

That's it. I swear to God I will write in Ryan's name on the primary ballot, come what may.

DUQ said...

I agree with Jed. I am coming to terms with Mitt. I don't like it, but that is all that's left. I can't believe we're even considering Newt.

DUQ said...

Also, Obama is truly stupid isn't he? I wonder if he thinks they speak "Asian" in Hawaii?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, No one ever thinks of the poor buggy whip manufacturers! :(

Seriously, this is the major reason for job losses and that's why it's so vital to keep a strong and smart economy so that new jobs can be formed, because these jobs (like the buggy whip jobs) won't come back.

And what the Democrats advocate policy-wise strikes right at the heart of that.

As for Mitt/Newt, I don't know what the heck is wrong with the Repubs.... it's like our party is composed of morons?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's frustrating isn't it? It strikes me that Newt is either delusional or the biggest liar on the planet -- or both, and I will not tolerate a snide attempted take-down of Reagan... especially by such a scandal plagued-fool as Newt. This really makes my blood boil.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, If the polls are right, Newt will be the nominee. But then, the polls haven't counted in his impressive ability to implode.

Yeah, Obama is a fool to put it kindly. I don't think for a minute that he grasps the implications of what he's said.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, it is highly frustrating. After the '08 elections, my college advisor (who is highly conservative) said that in a way, he was almost glad McCain lost, because had he won, he might well have destroyed conservatism for a decade or more. I'm beginning to fear that's where we'll be in the event of a victory by either Romney or Gingrich.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I actually had the same thought. Bush had all but destroyed conservatism and McCain would have polished it off. He would have done most of what Obama did only he would have called it "conservatism." That would have been the end for us.

In fact, I think conservatism was dead after Bush except Obama overreached. If he'd been moderate, there never would have been a 2010 or a Tea Party.

Also, if McCain was in power, I suspect the Tea Party would have become a doomed third party because they wouldn't have been able to find a home in Republican ranks. So conservatism would have split.

I don't think Mitt will doom conservatism, I see him entirely as a status quo guy -- nothing changes. So after 4-8 years of him, I see us basically where we are now -- a 50/50 country.

But Newt is very like to destroy conservatism. He will lurch far left all in the name of conservatism while simultaneously throwing us under the bus with the public and accusing us of everything up to eating babies, turning people off conservatism.

Blech.

Tennessee Jed said...

while my buggy whip comment was tongue in cheek, it does speak exactly to your point {sic} that an economy must be dynamic and smart. Supply side depends on a growing economy, and I think, any country that does not believe in free trade and world economics is deceiving himself. The smart buggy whip manufacturer thinks os something new they utilize their skills to make such as leather wrapped steering wheels, etc.

As far as the Republicans and conservatism, I fear people who are intellectually active in politics still represent a relatively small portion of the electorate. As you have said, Ryan or Rubio are solid from an ideological policy standpoint and better communicators than post. Perhaps Ryan not quite as charimatic, but still effective. Unfortunately, some of the guys who might have been effective were not even remotely charismatic (Pawlenty.) My feeling is Kennedy and Obama were both young, charismatic, senators. But the Republicans love old warhorses and losers. If we don't not coalesce around somebody pretty soon, we could be awfully sad. Obama is a panderer with the media on his side.

The first votes have not even been cast. Maybe, just maybe, if we can recapture the energy of the tea party we can draft and demand Ryan.

Ed said...

Andrew, Very nice explanation of why liberalism fails! :D

I agree about Newt. I was considering him, but your article the other day about his website really made me think twice. Then the poor people thing this weekend and now this. It's bad Newt all over again.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think that's exactly right. The business cycle is:

1. invention
2. growth
3. maturity phase where you look for efficiencies by replacing people with technology
4. reinvention before extinction

When the buggy whip guys hit the point of maturity, and the car came along, they either saw the writing on the wall and found new products or they perished. But before they would jump on new products, the conditions had to be right to make it possible and profitable for them to take those risks. Otherwise, they would have just liquidated and moved on.

Unfortunately, what leftists don't get is that the world is not standing still. There will always be new technology to reshape the economy. That technology kills jobs. But it typically comes with new possibilities too -- though you have to have an economy that allows people to see those possibilities and seize them. Everything the Democrats do undermines that.

In effect, liberal economies watch the rest of the world destroy them and wipe out their jobs.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, On politics, I have been disturbed by the Republican Party my whole life. They seem to pick whoever is most senior in the party without regard to fitness or ideology. They rarely pick the best candidate. They talk about worshiping ideas, but then they run in panic from anyone who has an idea. And they have never understood either how ideas are sold or that the opposition is vicious.

It's like a party based on old rules that haven't applied to politics for generations. Like an old-timey fighter against an MMA fighter. And that's the only reason the Democrats have remained competitive and keep us steadily moving to the left bit by bit.

It reminds me of the quote from Spaceballs: Good may be stronger, but Evil will prevail because Good is stupid.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed! I think that's the core reason why liberalism fails -- because it keeps people from doing the things that need to be done to keep the economy moving forward.

I agree about Newt. To say he has disappointed me is an understatement. Here's the link to the article you were talking about: LINK.

Ed said...

Andrew, Yes, that's the article.

I think liberalism fails even beyond economics for the same reason. By taking away any sense of personal responsibility, liberalism leaves people without the will/ability to do the things they need to do to make their own lives work.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: At the beginning of the twentieth century, the railroads were among America's biggest employers. Those roads are still a vital part of American prosperity, but railroad workers are a very small percentage of the workforce. Again, automation and technical innovations.

It seems like Mitt Romney is nobody's first choice, but the majority's second choice (I purposely avoided using the word "favorite").

I always thought Newt's baggage was too much to carry into an election, but instead of justifying it or explaining it away, he just keeps adding to it with current statements.

Unless that dark horse comes along, it looks like Romney will get the nomination by default. We could do worse, but we could have done a lot better.

tryanmax said...

Risk = Jobs
Efficiency = Layoffs

Excellent! I'm going to use that equation from now on.

And chew on this, not only do liberals try to eliminate risk, they are the chief advocates of efficiency. Not that efficiency should become a dirty word, but taking the two together paints the whole picture of liberal economics.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I think that's true. Human motivation is about risk versus return in all aspects. Once the government starts messing with either side of the equation, people start acting stupidly.

For example, subsidize risk and people take more of it -- i.e. bad investments. Punish risk or take away the return and people stop doing things. It works in every aspect of human behavior -- social and economic.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Very true. As technology advances everything starts to change. And if we try to hold on to the past, we are destined to fail. To be a successful country we need to recognize that this is inevitable and we need to make it easy for people to take the kinds of risks that allow the next generation of jobs to be created.

Liberalism doesn't allow for that. Liberalism expects that once you have a train, it will always be there and people will work for the railroad. Then it acts surprised when all the jobs start vanishing and looks for someone to blame.


I think I could have gotten behind Newt if he would have given a real mea culpa for his prior actions and assured us he had learned from them. But instead, he seems to think we're suckers and, as you say, he keeps adding to the list of things to trouble us.

I wish we did have a dark horse or two, but I can't see that happening.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying efficiency is a bad word -- it's not. It's part of the cycle. Businesses grow to meet demand. As demand slows business must become efficient. Efficiency is good for consumers and aids in resource allocation to make sure our economy is doing "the best" it can.

The problem comes in the risk suppression aspect. The Democrats want to suppress risk because the whole concept offends them. They want the government to make sure no one ever gets hurt and their spiteful instincts want the government to make sure no one benefits "too much" either. So they end up wiping out the very things that are needed to drive the economy.

On liberals and efficiency, I actually disagree. They may talk about making thing efficient, but they don't believe it. Instead, they believe in public relations designed to make the public think they are getting a better deal. But in reality, they support the union view of the world -- the luddite view: highly inefficient when it comes to allocation of labor or resources, creation of barriers to commerce, and picking winners and loser rather than letting the most efficient survive.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I didn't take you wrong. I just didn't want to be taken wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Never fear tryamax, you were not taken wrong either! :)

Ed said...

Not to disagree with my colleague tryanmax, but I too think the Democrats are about anything but efficiency.

tryanmax said...

"They may talk about making thing efficient..."

That's all I meant by liberals' advocacy. It doesn't matter what they believe so long as that is the game they talk.

In fact, it is quite plain that they have no real belief in creating efficiency because just doing so means taking a risk on new methods or technologies.

tryanmax said...

Sorry, I'm in marketing, so I separate advocacy from actual belief in a thing. Belief helps, but it's certainly not requisite. I just assumed everyone would pick up on the distinction.

Ed said...

Ah, in that event, I agree entirely. :D

tryanmax said...

Ed, Andrew,

Words can be such nasty, tricky little things, can't they? I love them like a naughty pet.

Tennessee Jed said...

For a good look at liberals and "efficiency" look at the posts on Commentarama Care and the discussion boards. Although risk aversion and inefficiency is not exclusively linked to being "big," I am of the mind there is a pretty strong correlation and why so many big Fortune 1000 corporations went away as the speed of technological advances increased.

Whether it be government or business, "bigness" means you have more to lose, hence aversion to risk, and love of the status quo. The behemoths went away, replaced by nimble small start-ups. Success leads to bigness, which leads the next steps in the business cycle. Look at Obamacare. They concentrated on making sure every American has access to affordable high quality health care while ignoring any of the potential efficiences to make it so. Instead, loads more bureaucrats who will become like time civil service employees (and loyal Democrats, of course.)

The Japanese embraced an American business theoretician named Demming and forced American companies to look at how to continuously increase quality of process with the aim of being more efficient. The Japanese were good at execution, but came up short in the innovative arena. Americans were still tops there and can be again.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax and Ed, The smartest thing Bill Clinton ever did for the Democrats was to get them to abandon the language of Marxism and to replace it with the language of capitalism. Instead of speaking of workers struggling against capital, they now speak in terms of labor rate and worker satisfaction. Instead of capitalist oppression, they speak in terms of excessive profit and market failures and market inefficiencies.

They don't use the words correctly and they definitely don't mean what you or I or anyone reasonable thinks they mean, but they give the Democrats the impression of being much more moderate than they are because people hear them supposedly speaking the language of business.

That's what's going on here. They preach about the need to be more efficient (like in government) but they don't actually mean it because that would mean cutting back people, adding technology, getting faster and more responsive. What they mean instead is "providing more in the same amount of time." And their formula is to hire more people and expand government power to make it easier for the government to deliver. That's not efficiency at all, but they still use the word so as not to scare people.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, We don't go in for yer fancy "words" here! ;)

patti said...

years ago, we told boy that ron paul was a wackadoodle that no one took seriously. now? dadgum it, i can't make myself say i've reversed that opinion, but....he's looking saner everyday.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO MY WORLD?!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I couldn't agree more.

Bigness is strongly correlated to unwillingness to take risk. And it's that unwillingness to try new things which ends up bringing down these huge businesses because they just aren't equipped to see the world change around them and they become bureaucratic and become strongly averse to "crazy" ideas.

And in that regard, Obamacare is indeed a disaster pending. It will try to round up the whole healthcare sector under the control of an oligopoly, which will basically crush everything that is needed to lower costs, improve care, and keep making the advances that make everything better. In effect, we're about to grind medicine to a halt.

I think we've seen over and over that the most innovative people on the planet are Americans. There's a practically in our culture that lets people take the ideas they run across that they think will make something better and sell those to the rest of us. That instinct gets stifled in the more bureaucratic countries like Japan and in Europe where conformity and not-making-waves is more valued than achieving your own dreams.

The problem is that right now our government is working hard to crush these people and to stop them from taking the chances that might change the world. That needs to change and that means:

1. Eliminating protectionist regulations,
2. Lowering taxes on success,
3. Tort reform,
4. Reform to make it easier for people to start businesses and hire people.

AndrewPrice said...

patti, I am so with you. I KNOW Paul is insane.... but I'm finding him much more palatable by the day.

It is an eerie feeling.

tryanmax said...

I've been having that same eerie feeling.

T-Rav said...

In other idiot/egomaniac news, Romney is reportedly getting the endorsement of John McCain. Yeah, I'd be shocked too if he wasn't now closer to McCain's views than just about anyone else in the race. Meanwhile, Gingrich is suggesting that we stop climate change by using giant mirrors. No, really. Stop laughing.

Once more, I'm reminded of LawHawk's comment comparing Santorum and Gingrich during one of the early debates: "One has one thought, the other has every thought."

And now people are getting behind Ron Paul? I feel like I'm in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or something.

rlaWTX said...

[1] love the equation!

[2] if we re-marketed (hey, tryanmax!) buggy whips as rhino and donkey whips, they might make a come back!!!

[3] write-in candidates are sounding better and better in the primary, but then I am afraid of who I'd have to actually vote for in the general election!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It is a strange feeling to know that I am seriously considering making a wrong decision just because that seems like the best option.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I guess that proves he still believes in global warming. On the mirrors, he advocated the giant mirror thing in the 1980s too, only his plan then was to stop the next global ice age. Ugh.

Romney getting McCain's endorsement doesn't surprise me. I think Romney is the establishment choice and McCain is the establishment for all his "maverick" talk.

No, not invasion of the body snatchers... more of an invasion of the conservative snatchers. And I definitely haven't picked Paul, I'm just lamenting the fact that his insanity doesn't sound as bad as it used to. There is something deeply wrong with our political system.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I'm glad you like it! I hope it proves useful! :)

I suspect our choices won't be good in the general election no matter what at this point.

RINO and donkey whips... yeah, I like the sound of that!

Koshcat said...

There are some people out there who have found new and interesting uses for the buggy whip. :)

Ok, I hate to say it but with our best and brightest either being run out of town or not even trying to run, we are left with only one conservative choice: Ron Paul

Yes, he is a little kooky but I would much rather defend a little craziness then to continue having to swallow my own vomit everytime Newt, Romney, or Huntsman speaks. Why are we still talking about Huntsman? He has what like 1% support and it is all from democrat mormons. Anywho, Ron is the only one who is consistant in what he says because he says what he believes. Some of the really nutty stuff can be "suppressed" by a talented campaign manager. Until Paul Ryan, Col. West, or Rubio enter the race, I formally declare my support for Ron Paul (unitl I change my mind again or not).

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I believe I recall some of those uses in an art exhibit I once funded through my taxes! LOL!

I have no idea why people still talk about Huntsman. He should have been forgotten a long time ago.

A couple years ago, I never would have considered Paul, but at this point, supporting him just doesn't sound as crazy as it used to. And I think it's an indictment of our establishment that we've come to this point. I don't know. Either way, I am very frustrated by how this primary is turning out and I wonder how a nation of 180 million conservatives can fail to find a single qualified, sane conservative to run for President. It's frankly stunning.

AndrewPrice said...

News Update: Obama bribe-partner Blagojevich has been sentences to 14 years in prison.

StanH said...

As we are hurled into the RNC vortex of hell, as far as candidate choice, we must remember the most important thing, is to beat Barry. My favorite candidates didn’t even run, and the one that did was lynched. As far as Newt is concerned, I look at him pre ’94 and post ’94. ’94 and back he was a solid conservative, like any body he had some harebrained ideas, but for the most part reliable conservative vote (he was my representative twice over the years). His Special Order Speeches were his innovation (awesome by the way) that he used to help Reagan on his flanks, to great effect. He did work with Jack Kemp to help develop Supply side economics for and with Reagan. And of course “The Contract for America,” in ’94. As a constituent in my mind he changed over night, once he became Speaker, and became what he deplored, a Washington insider. He adopted every side of an issue, attempted understanding with liberals, I know that’s a misnomer. This went into overdrive once he resigned, and allowed his fertile mind to pontificate lunacy with the barking moonbats of DC. That being said, I believe he will adapt to his situation and stay center right with the country, I’m hoping for the pre ’94 Newt? If we surround him with conservatism that’s were he will feed.
Off topic: Voyager 1 was launched with its twin, Voyager 2, by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) in 1977. Voyager 1 is travelling at just under 11 miles per second and sending information from nearly 11 billion miles away from the sun. It is about to become the first man-made object to leave the Solar System.
America! …hell yeah!

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, We can only hope because if the polls are right, then Newt will be the nominee. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that he ever went back to being conservative Newt instead of establishment moonbat Newt. Indeed, everything he's doing and saying goes right to the heart of the problem I had with him once he became Speaker -- he fell in love with himself as ruler of Washington. But I guess time will tell.

On Voyager, yep, America rocks! Science is pretty cool too. :)

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I know. I'm just lamenting the loony bin our world has become.

How would mirrors stop an ice age from happening? The point is to deflect heat from Earth, right? So how would blocking heat from reaching the planet--oh, screw it.

T-Rav said...

rla, I'm going write-in at this point. I'll be voting for the GOP nominee in the end anyway, and it makes me feel like I haven't sold my right-wing soul quite so much. If I recall, I voted for Fred Thompson in the '08 primary, and he'd all but dropped out by then, so that should tell you something.

tryanmax said...

So, how long now until V-GER gains sentience?

RE Ron Paul: in his defense, he wouldn't have seemed so crazy 100 years ago.

RE Newt: the only thing that gives me a glimmer of hope regarding him is that the establishment opposes him so vehemently.

Still, I think that only reflects his wild-card status. The establishment seems pretty sure that they can run Romney, but Newt will follow the political winds. I guess it is best to make sure those winds blow to the right. (or should it be from the right?)

To that end, perhaps it is good that Cain is out of the race. Instead of pursuing the uphill task of getting a real conservative in the White House, we will be more able to focus on the relatively easier task of filling both houses of congress with as many conservatives as possible.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav: I was about to make some comment about the mirrors, too. But I came to the same conclusion you did. Folks lament that Cain wasn't a foreign policy wonk but Newt can promote junk science with impunity.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I have no idea how the mirrors would work and they certainly couldn't both reflect the heat and absorb it at the same time, so one or the other plans is doomed to failure.... though I suspect both actually are doomed.

There was an interesting article at Politico a few weeks ago where they spoke with various conservatives at conservative think tanks and they had serious reservations about how brilliant Newt really is.

It's an interesting read. Here's the link: LINK

Global Warming Scientist said...

In brief, the science behind the space mirror concept is this: I'm smarter than you. It works however I damn-well tell you it works.

tryanmax said...

I wonder if Newt is aware of THIS?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Who's to say V-Ger hasn't already done so.... why do you think it's fleeing our solar system as fast as possible? The rest of us would too if we had any brains.

On the wind, it's from the right, though in this case let's make sure it's both from and too -- just in case.

But I think the problem with Newt is that no matter how many conservatives you surround him with, he will always try to please the people who don't love him. I've known people like that and it's very frustrating dealing with them because they are always causing problems trying to make sure EVERYONE loves them.

rlaWTX said...

entirely OT:
[1]T-Rav, I was wondering what your concentration is in for grad school... I don't know why I was wondering, but the question popped in my head.
[2] Col. Potter died. :(
TTFN

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX and T-Rav, This is just a guess, but I'd guess T-Rav's concentration is "Sockpuppetry." :)

Writer X said...

I don't think Newt can say more than six sentences without using the word "profoundly" at least twice.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, That is definitely his favorite word.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Excellent post, Andrew!

Obama doesn't understand the implications of...well, anything.
And the donks claim to be the party of science, lol.

Of course, the left does like pseudo science or bad science, but that kind of "science" is far more destructive than the destruction the left imsgines will occur if we don't do "something" to bamboozle the taxpayers and take more liberty away.

They hate creativity and new technology which is just one of many reasons they oppose liberty.

"Ron Paul immediately followed suit, adding that “the selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate. . . is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.”"

While I agree, the same thing could be said of the MSNBC and CNN debates.
Where's the dignity in being baited, ambushed, set up, attacked and questioned by leftwing useful idiots?
Afterall, they are worse than Trump.

That being said, all the leftwing "debate" formats should be avoided like the plague (asw should Trump's) and the candidates should be very vocal as to why.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

On Newt:

I concur that he's an egomaniac and this appears to be what bad Newt feeds on.

I also think Romney is just as bad.

What a revoltin' developement this is.

Let's all write in Thomas Sowell.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Thanks!

"What a revoltin' developement this is." -- just about sums this whole mess up.

I agree with you that the prior debates weren't exactly good for the country, but I do think Trump stands in a special class of disgrace. He's basically an obnoxious game show host.

I think it is funny that the Democrats talk about being the party of science, but it's all fake science. They really don't do anything right, do they?

I would love to see Thomas Sowell as president! Now there is a man who SHOULD be made president!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Ha! I just read that Bachmann called Newt a "frugal socialist" on the Glenn Beck show, lol.

Even funnier, one commenter said this:

"Bachmann’s a witch! She turned the frontrunner for the GOP nomination into a ...."

LOL! I gotta say, with the new(t) developements that Bachmann is looking much more attractive.
Relatively speaking.
Which ain't sayin' much.

I suspect that Dr. Sowell does not wish to be President and can't say I blame him (I sure don't. Not that anyone has asked)(And why is that? Why haven't you guys asked?).

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, We asked, you just didn't hear us! :)

Yeah, I doubt Sowell would want to put himself through that.

Newt's not a socialist, but he is just more of the same. At this point, I'm frankly stumped who to support.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Yeah, I agree, sort of. I mean, if Newt were to push for mandated health insurance and cap n' crap then yeah, those are socialist programs but generally speaking I don't think he's a socialist.

Newt has announced that if he is elected President he will pick John Bolton as Secretary of State.

I reckon this is Newt's olive branch to conservatives?
If he becomes our next President, Bolton as Sec. State is not only a great idea but it would be highly entertaining as liberal heads explode all over the place. :^)

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Yeah, you're right -- at some point, we need to say the guy who advocates socialist policies is in fact a socialist. Ug. Where did it all go so wrong?

I like the Bolton pick, but if that's his sop to conservatives then I'm more troubled than ever. Foreign policy is important, but the real harm to this country is domestic and that's where we need conservative answers!

Post a Comment