From RJC Releases Brutal Ad Hitting Democrats For Anti-Israel Agenda but it’s not “brutal” in any way.
Couldn’t bear to watch myself, either today or yesterday. Sounds like a train wreck, but Democrats are pretty rancid.
ALARM: Biden repeatedly stumbles over words and stats...
'Is he running for president of space?'
AXELROD: THIS MAY BE BEST HE CAN DO...
PROTESTORS INTERRUPT DEBATE...
Early tech and mic problems plague...
Kamala calls Joe 'senator' after he addressed her as 'kid'...
Gabbard vs. Harris: You Kept Prisoners Locked Up For Labor...
Booker Torches Biden: You Destroyed Communities Like Mine...
That’s from Drudge. These are from Instapundit.
AS ZHOU ENLAI NEVER SAID ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, “TOO EARLY TO SAY:” The biggest loser of tonight’s Dem debate? Barack Obama.
DEMOCRATIC HATE FOR MARIANNE WILLIAMSON: The self-help guru’s supposedly empowering rhetoric masks a mean-spirited individualism that would lead to harmful policies if she were somehow elected. So is this blue-on-blue internecine violence — or is it a clever effort to make people on the right like her more?
The reality is that you have to be kidding yourself if you think your standard issue modern leftist knows that. The video is taken from here. Watch it for yourself. If you understand why socialism is not the answer, then it is hard to fathom that people in bulk numbers can really be this insane, but they are.
So let me continue with this. I have been sent an article from a friend in New Zealand – Why Call it “Socialism”? – which opens in the following way.
I’ve been coming around to the belief that most modern arguments over “socialism” are a waste of time, because the content of the term has become so nebulous. When you drill down a bit, a lot of “socialists” are really just saying that they would like to have government play a more active role in providing various benefits to workers and the poor, along with additional environmental protection.
Socialism is thus, as he sees it, nothing more than an unfocused desire for better social welfare and a more egalitarian society. Well, maybe, but pay attention to the video. It is beyond ignorance and beyond stupidity. We are truly looking at a cult of some kind, but it is a cult that encompasses near half of the population. This was my reply to my friend.
Thank you for that. Very interesting, and yet, and yet…. Socialism is a personal belief system that has no specific definition. Everyone makes up their own version so whenever some actually existing socialist economy is set up and then inevitably fails, everyone else can say that what they did was not what they had meant by socialism, that what was done was not what they had had in mind.
No one any longer describes what they believe in as “socialism” but I know it when I see it. It is ever and always a means to supplant the market through some kind of government direction in which individuals are not made responsible for their own personal welfare. Instead, governments manage and direct major economic entities; there are huge burdens placed on enterprises, through the taxes that are levied, the wages and benefits they are made to provide, and the regulations that they are made to follow; and there are huge amounts of public expenditures, almost inevitably more costly than the economic benefits they provide, that shape the direction in which an economy is made to follow. There are then large efforts to equalise incomes between those who provide more value than they are paid and those who either do not work or who are allowed to receive incomes well above the value added they have personally created. There are other features too, but you get the picture. The incentive structure is completely warped so that economic returns are very badly correlated with economic contribution.
And with every turn of the electoral cycle, we move further in a socialist direction. Scott Morrison is hardly a free-market capitalist, but he is well ahead of anyone on the Labor side. Your own PM is a complete economic dunce who will do you in if she is given half a chance. Everyone wants to be Mr, Miss, Ms and Mrs Niceperson. I only wish they had some prior understanding of how economies work before they bought in on it.
There you are. Interesting article, but economists turn out to have no political or philosophical sense whatsoever.
I would be placated to some extent if everyone before they waded in on the need for more regulation and re-distribution first explicitly stated that of course, free market capitalism is the only way to manage an economy so these suggestions are only intended to slightly alter the way we go about things. But no one ever says that. Replacing capitalism with something else is the underlying aim, or so it seems to me. There are so many gadgets around, from computers to widescreen television, that everyone will be easily lulled into disaster as in Venezuela with no way out at the end. And none of it will be mentioned by our media who are more into an apathetic torpor than anyone in Orwell’s time could ever possibly have imagined.
So much going on in America at the moment. Start with this:
And then there’s this:
Not to mention this:
But it’s that last one I like the best since these are the lessons from Venezuela, and this is from Bloomberg!
Socialists in the U.S. should take note — if there’s a right way to do socialism, this isn’t it. Instead of cautious policies like those of Bolivia, Venezuela’s leaders chose to ignore the menace of hyperinflation, nationalize private businesses across the economy, and muck up the smooth operations of PDVSA. The result was predictable — one of the worst self-inflicted economic catastrophes of the century so far.
That’s right, if you want to introduce socialism, don’t do it like in Venezuela, do it like they did in Bolivia! If you thought the 20th century was bad, just wait till you see what happens now.
From my far-left Californian ex-mate who represents every aspect of the insanity projected by anyone with TDS. Which brings me to this, which is not at all sympathetic, but at least gets discussed: Trump turns North Korea into an attack on the Democrats claiming they are ‘rooting against us in our negotiations’. The sub-headings:
- The president attacked Democrats in an early morning Twitter rant
- His attack was filled with his other grievances against Dems, saying they defend the violent El Salvadorian gang MS 13 and that they want to raise taxes
- Democrats criticized Trump for cancelling the Singapore summit with North Korea with Nancy Pelosi saying President Kim Jong-Un was the ‘big winner’
- ‘Dems have lost touch!’ Trump charged
- ‘Fox & Friends’ mentioned the Dem criticism on their Friday morning broadcast
The actual tweet from the President:
Which part of any of this is untrue?
They lie to you and call you stupid but still you vote for them.
And why is that?
Maybe because you are stupid. It’s the only answer that fits the facts.
Sultan Knish has a quite insightful column on Obama versus the Democrats which he sees as a war to the death between “the-win-power-by-saying-anything-that-gets-votes-whether-you-mean-it-or-not” wing of the party versus “The Progressives” who actually have a radical far left agenda that if people actually knew what it was would avoid Democrats like the plague. The Progressives are our modern version of the Bolshevik cell that lies in wait for their moment. The win-by-saying-anything group just likes the power and the perks and riches that come with it. As for the Progressives:
Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.
And most importantly, they care not in the slightest if they ruin the Democrat Party and make it unelectable for a few years so long as they can put their own agenda in place. Here is where we are:
It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning. The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda. Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.
You cannot compromise with the Vanguard Parties of the Left. They are never your friends. In just the same way that those who thought they could control Hitler back in 1933 found they could not, the Democrats are finding they cannot control Obama. Whether any one else will be able to is the question that will be answered over the next two years. My own guess is that they will not in large part because they don’t really understand what they are dealing with.