AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

The Founding Fathers were Against Redistribution of Wealth

Via Bill Costello at The American Thinker: The ‘Your Money Is Not Yours’ Crowd

An excerpt:

Because your money is not yours, the government feels free to take it from you and redistribute it to others. President Obama expressed this belief when he said, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

However, those in government did not always support redistribution of wealth. The Founding Fathers were against it.

Thomas Jefferson observed:

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

And James Madison:

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.

And Samuel Adams:

The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional.

The Founders would have supported the popular bumper sticker that says, “Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.” They believed that “[t]he proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things,” according to The 5000 Year Leap, a publication of the National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Despite the intent of the Founders, those in government have been perpetuating the Ponzi scheme of transferring wealth from the productive class to everyone else. That the scheme is unsustainable is evidenced by the collapse of the modern European welfare state.

January 29, 2011 , 3:28PM Posted by | American History, Barack Obama, Class Warfare, Communism, Conservatism, Economy, Founding Fathers, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on The Founding Fathers were Against Redistribution of Wealth

What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?

I don’t have an answer to that question. Very sobering thoughts from Entropy:

“There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things,” the Texas Republican said. “Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.”

What the GOP will work to repeal, Cornyn explained, are provisions that result in “tax increases on middle class families,” language that forced “an increase in the premium costs for people who have insurance now” and the “cuts to Medicare” included in the legislation…

If they run on that…

Fuck em.

No use. What you’re doing politically is no different then what we’ve all done fiscally. Borrowing against the future. ‘Just give me 6 more years of only mildly debilitating socialism before you crush me outright’.

The whole damn government is insolvent and they’re just gonna repeal the part that made spending cuts to medicare.

Fucking goobers are less realistic and more Unicorn then Obama.

They’re going to repeal the tax increases, repeal the spending cuts, repeal the premium increases, and keep the mandated extra costs coverage.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:17 PM


Get the Presidency and Congress(es) first.

Then use the Democrat-pioneered winner take all strong-arm tactics to not only force repeal, to roll back major elements of the welfare state.

That requires a political party to do it.

One we do not have.

We might as well plan on using the Omega-9 Neutron Starburster to terraform Iraq. Perhaps we’d advise George Washington he should have just sent 43 million infantry to invade Essex.

Oh, but there’s Republicans. They’re not “as bad”.

Yes yes. Let us seceed from Britain by declaring allegiance to the Crown of Louis XVI.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 06:27 PM


If you don’t have a political party to do that, then you certainly don’t have a sufficient cadre to successfully rebel against the United States government, even if and when it has (or has already) slipped in to tyranny.

The colonists had no political party in Britain.

We have no whole party in the 2-party-only system of DC.

And armed revolution is not the only course available.

India kicked them out as well, through non-violent civil disobediance.

And the kooky Russian Rand had some ideas of her own, ones that have not yet in history been tried, the willfull acceleration of phenomena and natural causes that in their own way, did more then Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union.

You could attempt to create a 3rd party.

Humanity is full of innovation.

But if Cornyn’s plan is the best we can do in Washington, even now, then he is not even an option.

If democrats get elected once every 10 years and serve only 1 term by ruthlessly expanding the welfare state into as much of the US economy and our lives as is humanly possible for them to accomplish, and Republicans roll back ‘parts’ while leaving the precedent of government jurisdiction and control, and half the parts that are ‘too popular’ with the very people who cheered and enabled the democrats to sieze it without any legitimate right in the first place, WE LOSE.

Statists win.

It is a cultural civil war.

You can ignore it if you please — it will not go away. By not making any choice, you’ll have made a choice anyway.

A weaponized political party to match them, or do not bother me with political parties at all. Reform from within is then impossible, the whole edifice must be toppled, or else we bicker over the date but accept an inevitable subjugation.

If it can not work, if it can not win, it does not matter. We fight or we do not. If we do not fight to win, there is no purpose in struggling at all.

A cultural change is needed. This system was founded by men who said you may kill them, but whether in life or in death, they would not comply at any price. For too long we’ve accepted too much. From the Federal leviathan right down to the state and local level, we’ve shown them we have been unwilling to pay the price of discomfort they’d be sure to exact should we disentrench them.

McCain? To delay it? Save yourselves 5 more years of good times? A tolerable 15? To croak before being called due and pass the burden to your children? If you will not fight for your liberty, you do not deserve 5 more years of it. You are not entitled to it.

You’ve spent the inheritance of your grandfathers past and borrowed against the future of your grandchildren. Not just fiscally, but morally, we have bankrupted not only ourselves but 3 generations.

If you’ll accept any form of tyranny, accept it now. In full. Maneuver for your position in the new pecking order. Fight over the handle of the whip.

One way or another.


Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:13 PM


I still say winning elections is the first step. If you can’t win elections, then, well, you’ve lost the people and if you believe in democracy, they get to choose.

Democracy is mob rule.

If 4 of my 5 neighbors say they wish me to wash their floors and cook their dinners I will tell them to fuck off.

Had they held a popular vote, the revolution which created this country would not have proceeded, and the men who started it knew as much.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 07:20 PM


That’s the reality.

It’s bad enough. Get a grip.

I agree….

What bothers me is they’re less vehement about opposition than I am.

And yet their impression of the situation they’re in is a thousand fold more dire.


I do not think there is a limit to what most people will put up with.

Personally… I’ve recently converted and become a dove on military issues. We needn’t so much. In fact, I’ve been wrong – it was never wise.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 08:15 PM


Elections and the power that flows from them is part of the structure of your Republic.

Elections were part of a structure of a republic that was created 300 years ago and long since became, in all likelyhood, FUBAR.

And for that matter – elections as they are today is not what those men necessarily thought of as even workable. You had to own land.

Such elections today may be very different in outcome.

I have no opposition to representative democracy within a constitutional republic to elect the arbiters and stewards of the law. So long as the law is in stone.

In fact, it is probably the least of all evils. The fairest and most stable and lasting way to determine it.

But I have come to realize (and it is a realization I have come to with a bit of shock, as I was taught the same meme’s as anyone else) it is not necessary. So long as those who arbitrate the finitely limited law faithfully arbitrate the finitely limited law, it does not much matter whether they are men elected representative by plebicite, or nepots in the lineage of the toughest thug, or the most diabolical aristoi.

Liberty and freedom are not about democracy. They aren’t about the masses getting what they want.

In fact, it’s the exact opposite. They’re about the masses not getting what they want. It’s about all getting only what he entitled, and all that he’s entitled whether he wants it or not.

When you add the people who’d sell themselves for profit to the people who’d buy them, they quite outnumber the number left, and always have.

That is the neocon dilemna. What do you do when you have a populace that does not want freedom? Can you ‘force democracy’? It’s an arrogant assumption to think they’d all vote for such a thing if they only understood, while WE OURSELF piss it away and vote it out. They want our prosperty, sure. They don’t understand the slightest what it’s cause are. Many of WE do not understand. They want the power of self determination, sure. They do not restrict themselves. They want power of any and all determination. WE know them well.

So what do you do if you give everyone liberty and a vote, and they use it to vote for depency and slavery? For thugs and thieves who’ll take away the vote with the power of the vote?

Well – all populaces are such populaces. Even Colonial America in the 18th century too, was such.

They (the people) may not vote so. Can you force democracy? Yes. You MUST force democracy.

Our founding fathers were very much warmongers. Such a conflict was not desired at large, and certainly not necessary at all. But they instigated and agitated for it, for years, because it was desired by them. They propogandized, hyperbolized the policies of the British, obsfuscated and sabotaged. They said war was necessary, but they lied because war was desirable. The early adopters were at it for years, to sow tension and dissent, to bring it to a boil.

On account of Natural Right, not plebicite.

They called the upper house the Senate. They called the lower house the people’s house, and they set the houses in opposition.

The people voted for Gaius Julius. The Senate killed Julius Caesar. The people marched with Marcus and Octavius and killed the Senate.

The upside is, everywhere liberty has been had, it has not taken a majority to demand it. Just enough of those extreme enough to accept nothing less. Any single man can have it, if he takes nothing less. If he’s icognito, he’s free. If he is an outlaw, he is a free outlaw. If he’s dead, he died free. No one can take it without your consent, when you realise that acquiescence is consent to acquiesce.

If we are a 1/3rd, there’s another 1/3rd who’ll back out of any conflict in cowardice, and they will side with whomever wins, or whomever seems most dangerous and aggressive. Pacifists always aid the aggressor. These people will sell themselves to anyone at all for a moments security.

So by all means, we must maintain decorum and apologize for calling those Marxist fucks the babykillers that they are. For 1/3rd will not rest until we are dead, and another will not love us until all are resting.

Posted by: Entropy at March 23, 2010 09:11 PM

March 24, 2010 , 1:36AM Posted by | American History, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Populism, Republicans, Socialism | Comments Off on What Do You Do When You Have a Populace that Does not Want Freedom?

Joe Schmuck American Blames… Ronald Reagan (!?!) for Current Bad Economy

You want to know how we got into this mess? Here is a prime example of the ignorance of the types of people who are voting for Obama and the radical Democrats in charge of the current Socialist Communist Democrat Party. This is the kind of ignorance and historical revisionism that spreads when Communist/Socialist Capitalism-hating and America-hating hippies are in control of every single medium of information dissemination in this nation — mass media, grammar schools, high schools, universities, “entertainment” industry.

Thankfully, some of the rough men who stand on that wall to protect us from foreign enemies also get down off that wall to protect us from domestic enemies and give them a verbal smack down and history lesson once in a while.

[I will give this “Joe” schmuck guy credit though for the most creative reason for his ignorance of Jimmy Carter’s historically bad policies, summarized by one of the commenters: “I am going to use the Joe excuse for when I don’t know what I am talking about. My twentys… the lost years I spent most of the time fighting grizzly bears and scorpions, so I wasn’t too interested in news or politics.” heh]

Joe Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Well, conservatives are at a fork in the road. They can over react and go further off the deep end (religious-ideological wingnuts like Palin and other fringe types), or come back down to earth with someone who a) is not a christian fundamentalist, b) who is not a free market fundamentalist c) for whom logic and common sense trump ideology, d) who has one whit of empathy for people less fortunate, e) has good hair.

OldTrooper Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
We already had our Moses, however, his lessons and principles have been watered down by the republican party to the point none of them have any idea what his principles were. They stopped reviewing his message and that message was ignored by a bunch of self serving asshats that are still, today, more interested in winning elections than standing on principles and providing a clear choice between the two parties.

That man was Ronaldus Maximus aka Ronald Wilson Reagan

Joe Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Ronald Reagan – where it all started to go bad…

Fred Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Negative Joe,
Ronald Reagan = Last US president to put US national security above all else.

OldTrooper Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Yeah, sure Joe. You weren’t even an itch in your daddy’s pants when Reagan was President. How do I know this? Because of several comments you have made and questions you haven’t answered in the past, that you should know the answer to if you were an adult when he was President. You have no clue what is good or bad. All you have are your socialist bullshit talking points that you keep spouting. Unlike you, I was there for the bad, which was before Reagan. Yeah, that trophy Prez you morons think was so great by the name of Jimmy Carter.

UpNorth Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“come back down to earth with someone who a) is not a christian fundamentalist, b) who is not a free market fundamentalist c) for whom logic and common sense trump ideology”.

As opposed to your wet dream prez, Joey, who is a) a communist fundamentalist b) has no idea what he’s doing, economically c) has no logic or common sense.

Joey, can you point out which Article in the Constitution demands “empathy”? Didn’t think so.

Joe Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Hey UpNorth,
Only on a site like this can someone be maligned for mentioning qualities like common sense, logic and empathy.

Claymore Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Only on a site like this can someone be maligned for mentioning qualities like common sense, logic and empathy.

Oh, I’m not so sure about that… try here: a veritable clearinghouse for all of those wonderful attributes. True story.

Old Trooper Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Joe; you wouldn’t know common sense if it slapped your melon. Also, the left has no interest in logic, only feelings. I know that when you morons get together to make your protest signs and have a group hug, you’re playing Bobby Vinton records. Empahty? What the fuck would you know about empathy? You haven’t lived long enough to have empathy for anything, other than the struggles of Spongebob. I don’t even think you know what the word means.

Have you ever noticed that conservatives start out saying “I think” and liberals start off with “I feel”?

Joe Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Painting with a broad brush, aren’t you? Age-wise, I suspect i am older than you, if it matters.

Old Trooper Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Really Joe? Well then tell me; what 2 major events happened in 1979 and how did yo feel about them?

UpNorth Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Joey, still waiting for the article in the Constitution that demands, requires, or even mentions “empathy”. As to #18, Old Trooper and Claymore have slapped you around enough, I’m sure you’re even dizzier than normal about now. And, we’re all waiting for your pronouncement on 1979.

OldTrooper Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 am
Ok, Joe, here’s a hint for ya… read a book called 444 days.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 am
OK, I’m back. I do have a life outside of TAH y’know. 1979. Well, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, right around Christmas I believe. If we knew then what we know now, we would have let them keep it. And somewhere in there, a very dark day for America, and something we’re still paying dearly for and will continue to pay dearly for, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for the presidency. And I didn’t even have to look it up.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Oh, and the reference to 444 days, without looking it up, is probably the kidnapping of US Embassy personnel in Iran.

OldTrooper Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Joe; there should have been no reason for you to “look it up” if you were an adult, or even in high school back then. So, why don’t we start over and you can tell me again how you are older than me?

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 am
Well, I was born in ‘50. You do the math….

justplainjason Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
I didn’t have to look it up and I was just four. Joe if you are sixty I am the prince of wales. You don’t act it. You don’t think for yourself. All of your arguments are based on emotion and not on facts.

I’ll give you one reason why Reagan should be remembered fondly. His actions led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. I remember growing up in the 80s. There were missle silos all over the area I grew up. I knew that if the war actually happened I would be dead.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:40 am
Reagan made an admittedly great speech at the wall in the mid eighties. But many historians say the USSR was headed for collapse all on it’s own. Reagan took a huge gamble with the fate of the entire world when, in response to the deployment of SS 20’s in eastern Eurpoe, he deployed Pershing missles with a travel time to target of less than 5 minutes. Now we can look back with the benefit of hindsight and say it worked, but if it had gone a little differently we would not be here to talk about it. We dodged a bullet there. Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and tried to bring the USSR in for a soft landing, with mixed success. The idol worship of Reagan’s foreign policy is misplaced. And as for the repurcussions of his Milton Friedman-inspired domestic policy, he sowed the seeds of the current global economic crisis, and the world may never recover from his wrong-headed economic policies.

Old Tanker Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 am
…he sowed the seeds of the current global economic crisis, and the world may never recover from his wrong-headed economic policies…

so much for the benefit of hind sight… your blind in one eye and can’t see with the other.

OldTrooper Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:59 am
LOL!!! Joe, yer killing me with all this boilerplate BS. Just stop, please, because I’m laughing too hard. Everything you just put down reads like something off a term paper at a liberal university political science class.

Do you honestly believe that tripe you just wrote? Or, would you believe the people in the former Soviet Union that have said repeatedly that the fact that Reagan stood up against the Soviets and they weren’t accustomed to being told no, since Carter was their bitch and gave in to whatever they wanted. Reagan upped the ante and called their bluff. I really enjoyed watching the dumbasses around the world start wetting themselves and calling Reagan a cowboy, blah, blah, blah, and insisting that he was going to lead us into WWIII and so on and so on. It didn’t happen and Reagan’s foreign policy was a triumph, no matter how you want to spin it. I supposed you think that Carter bending over all the time was a better approach?

I suppose you think Keynesian economics is far superior? Let me guess; your textbooks don’t cover the Keynesian approach that Carter had; right? If you are 60 years old, please tell me what the economy was like, from your perspective, in ‘78-’80? Show me how all the right moves by Carter worked. Tell me, old man, exactly what barometer was a visible sign of the great economy of Carter, other than the double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, etc.

Don’t look it up, you should be able to remember this all on your own. I know I do, but then again, I wasn’t in a dope fog.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Gov’t spending skyrocketed during Reagan’s term, GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, OldTrooper. The S&L collapse of the ’80s (remember that?), just another case of privatizing the rewards, socializing of risk – the bankers gamble and win, they make the profit. The bankers gamble and lose, the taxpayer picks up the tab. Sound like a more recent fiasco, OldTimer, I mean OldTrooper? And his policies on deregulation, i.e., no regulation, lax regulation, turning a blind eye regulation, putting industry shills in charge of regulating their own industries (the fox regulating the henhouse), which Bush expanded on, have brought the country to ruin.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
And don’t forget, Carter had the aftermath of a little thing called the Arab Oil Embargo to deal with.

Old Tanker Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
As I recall Joe, Democrats ran the house and senate, continued passing those spending bills, and over rode Reagans veto to do it… you remember Ted Kennedy getting a veto override to get money for the Big Dig don’t you?

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Don’t know much about Carter’s economic policies except to say at least they didn’t continue wreaking global havoc 30 years after his presidency.

OldTrooper Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
There you go, AGAIN, saying some stupid shit that leads me to believe that you aren’t as old as you claim. You won’t answer the question I posed to you, instead you go into a textbook diatribe against Reagan, then you answer with “Don’t know much about Carter’s economic policies”. Don’t know? Don’t know???? What the fuck is that?? You would have been in your late 20’s at the time and you don’t know??? Bullshit. You lost your cloak, boy. Go back to your latte swilling dumbass friends and see if you can get your prof to give you a hint at what the hell we’re talking about.
Old Tanker called you out on who was in the majority in congress, I called you out on Carter and you have no fucking clue, except to spit and sputter shit out of a text book.

I’m through with your bullshit.

Old Tanker Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Joe, Carter started the whole Community Reinvestment Act which is THE major reason for the financial woes we are now in. It was loans going to people who couldn’t pay them back that created a bigger loan market, that made loans cheaper, that made more people get them, that artificially ballooned housing prices… etc… Yes, bankers new it was bad paper but thought they had the backing of Fanny and Freddy. They were given the wink an nod after Clinton expanded CRA even with Franklyn Raines telling them this very thing would happen. Bankers bundled bad paper with good in an effort to offset the risk they were forced to take with looming lawsuits from community organizers at ACORN… look how things turned out for ACORN!

Carter’s economic legacy 30 years on…

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
In my twenties (the lost years) I spent a lot of time in the mountains and deserts away from society, didn’t follow politics much. So when I say I don’t know, I mean just that – I don’t know.
Unlike you, I don’t know everything.

TSO Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
At long last Joe stumbles upon the truth.

justplainjason Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Thank you Trooper and Tanker you saved me some time. I am going to use the Joe excuse for when I don’t know what I am talking about. My twentys… the lost years I spent most of the time fighting grizzly bears and scorpions so I wasn’t too interested in news or politics.

OldTrooper Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
So, Joe, you actually did pull a Moses and wander through the desert?

With that said; how can you then jump all over Reagan as the beginning of the end and carry on with your arrogant attitude and have no clue about what was happening before Reagan. You have nothing to compare it to. Life didn’t take the same sabatical that you did between Ford and Reagan. We endured Keynesian economics, pussified foreign policy that made us weaker, not stronger, double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. Not to mention ending our control of the Panama Canal (which the Chicoms now control), gas lines (yes, we had those, post Arab Oil Embargo), higher taxes, that wonderful new term stagflation, disco (don’t get me started), and another new term “the misery index”. All negatives, all on Carter’s watch and most of it could have been dealt with quicker had Carter not gone the Keynes route.

Enter Reagan, who actually didn’t blame the previous administration for everything, but set to putting Americans back to work. Did he spend some money? Yes he did, but nothing on the scale of today. Did he cut taxes and control spending? Yep, he sure did, because he knew that if you were going to cut taxes, you had to cut spending, also. A deficit created from cutting taxes is far better than a deficit created from increasing spending, because it means more private sector money is put to work in the private sector, not in Washington. Within his first term, people were getting back to work, interest rates were coming down, businesses were investing again. De-regulation… Airlines weren’t required by law to service highly unprofitable routes anymore, so the airlines could expand their business where it would do the most good and in the process, hire a few people, also. That’s how you create jobs, not by taxing the crap out of business and punishing those that make the money. JFK (you remember him, you were in school when he was President) even cut taxes, because he knew that in order to create jobs, you first have to let the people keep more of their money. I know that’s a hard concept for you to understand, but the money that people make is theirs, not the government’s. We give the government a portion to do what the Constitution allows them to do (the enumerated powers), but the “progressives” think that all money belongs to the government and they allow us to keep some.

Thus endeth the lesson on economics.

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The economy is a complex adaptive system, with a billion inuts and a billion outputs, not an all-or-nothing proposition as you would have us believe. It’s more complex than, “the government takes all the money” or “the government takes none of the money”. It’s a matter of balance. John Wayne fans forget that to earn his millions even he had to drive on gov’t funded roads, cross gov’t funded bridges, fly to his next movie set under the guidance of the gov’t funded FAA, and take his meds tested and scrutinized by the gov’t funded FDA. Our current system is totally skewed for the benefit of corporations and the top 5%, and in serious need of rebalancing, or redistribution of wealth (which has been going on since the first tax), as you might call it. A complex adaptive system is not a healthy system if most of its “agents” (i.e., citizens) are in dire financial straights. Do I want the gov’t to take al our money? No. Does the system need some serious tweaking to avoid further collapse. You betcha!

NHSparky Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Joe just used the phrase, “You betcha.” I’m guessing Sarah Palin is pulling a Jedi mind fuck on his ass right about now.

Sleep well, Joe. Sleep well.

Oh, and I wasn’t born in the “top 5 percent”, but I’m pretty close to that point now. How, you ask? How about the concept of working your ass off for what you want, rather than pissing and moaning about it? Ever tried that little gem?

Joe Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Yeah, Sparky, 5 days a week. Myself, I’m doing OK, but there are a lot of people who aren’t.

NHSparky Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
My point exactly, Joe –- you do the minimum required and bitch when your Skittle-shitting ponies don’t fall out of the fucking sky for you.

March 24, 2010 , 12:19AM Posted by | American History, Debating an Obama-Lover, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on Joe Schmuck American Blames… Ronald Reagan (!?!) for Current Bad Economy

Fiscal Conservatism vs Social Conservatism

I don’t understand how people can say that fiscal conservatism is more important than social conservatism. Look at families. What is more destructive to a family’s success, financial trouble or social trouble? If there is a good moral core to the family, they can survive financial trouble. But a financially stable family cannot survive a moral breakdown. Same applies to the country/society.

The core — the foundation — of this country is social morals. Our entire nation is based on the foundation that we have unalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us by Our Creator (God). Everything else is based off of that foundation.

So, to say that social issues are simply irrelevant during our current fiscal troubles is nonsense. The core of a family and the foundation of our country is the most important, at all times.

Just as a family breaks down if their moral core breaks down, so too does a country break down if its moral foundation breaks down.

This country has survived numerous financial/fiscal catastrophes in its short lifetime. But nations throughout history have crumbled from within due to a breakdown in moral foundation.

So those who think that social conservatism is irrelevant are not learning from history.

February 4, 2010 , 2:24PM Posted by | American History, Conservatism, Economy | 3 Comments

11 Steps to Becoming a Better, More Educated Debater

Great post by Ryan on his MySpace blog. I think he is asking quite a bit from the dumbed down society we have today. However, I think it is good to try to bring people up to a high standard, rather than to pander down to their accepted low standard. It will take a lot of time, effort and patience to get this to happen, but it will be well worth it if we can make this a reality in our society.

Now, on debating: The following consists of a simple list of things to keep in mind while debating politics.

1. Thou Shalt Not Make Slurs, Generalized or Other.

It’s number one for a reason. Not only is it just rude, but it takes away from the debate. Regardless of what side you take on a debate, you should leave with a higher knowledge set.

To the people I generally agree with on issues: I’ve deleted some of your comments lately. We’ve been doing this long enough that you should know better.

To the people I generally disagree with (or noobs): You don’t know my work history. You don’t know my personal history. You don’t know my education history. I shouldn’t really need to post pics of the dozens of diplomas I’ve received in military, law enforcement, and legal courses; my academic diplomas (plural, including graduate school) from the university I attended; the essays I’ve gotten published; the dissertation I’m working on; my class schedule for my PhD program; or my personal library and research files. Instead of coming in and making broad generalized statements like “you can’t read legal stuff”, take the time to debate the actual issue or leave.

You say “But Ryan, what was the point of that paragraph? You’re just on your high horse or something.”

The point is that the majority of that paragraph is pointless. When you make such broad-based generic claims about someone’s ‘abilities’ or ‘knowledge’, all you’re doing is setting up a strawman argument that does absolutely nothing for the debate. You force a person to point out their pedigrees (or it degenerates into a ‘yu-huh’-‘nuh-uh’ argument) and the actual subject of the debate dies.

2. Thou Shalt Not Ignore Points Made by the Opposing Party.


Guy 1 – “X” is wrong because of y and z.
Guy 2 – We should do “x” because of a, b, and c.

No, address “y and z” first before taking the debate in another direction. Why? Because you’re being disingenuous. The person you’re addressing has already made a claim and backed it up. If you feel said claim is wrong, take on their points before moving on.

Let me put it into better context:

Guy 1 – We shouldn’t pass the health care bill because it’ll bankrupt the economy based on the $2 Trillion initial cost, the projected deficits, the running costs of all the other programs, and the $1.4 Trillion deficit we’re already running.
Guy 2 – You’re wrong. We need to pass the health care bill so we can help people.

See what I’m saying? All Guy 2 did here was vomit out his feelings on the matter without addressing the issue at hand, which is the effect of the health care bill on the economy. The debate went nowhere and neither party is better off.

3. Thou Shalt Acknowledge and Heed the Most Credible Source.

This is a biggie, and one that drives me absolutely mad.

Guy 1 – Page 437 of House bill 93498 (linked) flat out says “You are a cunt.”
Guy 2 – You’re wrong. The New York Times and ABC News has a panel of people that says it doesn’t say that.

What we have here are two people. One is citing the actual text of the bill and providing it for all to see (proof beyond any reasonable doubt). The other refuses to read the actual text and is instead relying on a second-hand (and questionable) source for their info on what page 437 says.

The logic here is unassailable.

4. Thou Shalt Educate Thyself.

Following on that last point, when you’re debating, you should have data to back up your own claims.

Go to the bookstore. Go to the library. Go to amazon. Use google. It’s not that hard.

Then you say “But c’mon now Ryan, I don’t have time to research or read stuff.”

Really? Ever wait in line? Cook? Take a shit? Eat alone? Does it take you a while to get to sleep? Do you watch TV?

You have time.

Let me give you some examples:
-At the time of this writing, I am making homemade rolls from scratch. I’m just waiting for the dough to rise.
-A little over a year ago, I researched and wrote the majority of a 13 page paper for class during a 12-hour layover at Heathrow Int’l airport.
-I always have a book or two in my truck for when I’m…well, waiting in line somewhere or for when I’m out to eat and by myself.

The point is that you don’t have to be a research fellow at some university or think tank to do research, nor do you have to set aside hours and hours of your schedule. 99% of the time it’s just picking up a book or document and taking some time to do what you learned how to do when you were four.

5. Thou Shalt Use Credible Sources.

It doesn’t do much good to read if you’re reading the wrong thing. Let’s look at three different kinds of sources:

NOT CREDIBLE: [Jonathan Steele’s Defeat – Why America and Britain Lost Iraq]

Written by a journalist. He did some research, but he clearly had a bias going into the book. (Praise by Noam Chomsky should also make anything suspect). This was also published in February of 2008…a year and a half after the Awakening movements started and the Iraqis were well on their way to kicking the terrorists out.

It’s opinion, and the events that have played out since its publication have killed any credibility of the book’s premise.

CREDIBLE: [Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath Go Wrought – The Transformation of America 1815-1848]

Written by a historian and thoroughly researched (as noted by the hundreds of footnotes and 21-page bibliographical essay in the back). Part of the “Oxford History of the United States” series. Also, an excellent and captivating read.

ORIGINAL: [The Federalist Papers]

Much like pulling up actual bills, if you want to know what someone actually said on a subject, you pull up what they actually wrote. For example, if you want to know what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, you need to read what they actually said about it in the Federalist Papers.

Politicians do not count as credible sources either. Why? Because Congress would write a bill legalizing rape, title it “Empowering Women of America Act”, then defend it on all the talk shows. It’s called “double speak”, and politicians thrive on it. If you don’t believe me, pull up the legislative calendar and start reading bills. It’ll make you want to pull your hair out.

6. Thou Shalt Practice What Thou Preaches.

This is more for personal credibility than anything else.

For example, I am a huge proponent of free market economics in the health care debate. So what do I do? I go to the doctor and exercise free market principles. If you’re new, here is my most recent experience.

If you are a huge proponent of increased taxes, instead of whining about “fairness”, you should work yourself up to that tax bracket and see how it feels to be forced to give up more and more of your income the harder and harder you work; to become a target of people wanting to take what you earned on your own accord. If you are a proponent of government run social programs, you should go out and force people to give you money so you can give it to others.

What? Too much work? Illegal? It’s your call, but if you don’t practice what you preach you’re intellectually dishonest and a coward.

7. Thou Shalt Check Thy Sources.

I mentioned sources above and it’s being mentioned again because of its importance.

Let’s say you hear a story from a source that you trust, whether it be Rush, Beck, Jason Lewis, Olbermann, Huffington, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et. al.

Before jumping on any bandwagon, verify what they are saying. If Glenn Beck says that so-and-so in the administration is a commie, look to see where he’s getting that from and run it up against Marxist doctrine. If Keith Olbermann gives the top 10 reasons why you should be worshiping Obama, check to see if those reasons are accurate.

I listen to a lot of talk radio and I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard Rush say something and be like “C’mon now! The old man has done gone crazy.” Then I research said point. It doesn’t matter that I’ve found him to be accurate 80%-90% of the time, I still check.

8. Thou Shalt Be Consistent With Thy Stances.

Simply put, don’t be a hypocrite. US Agent brought this up in his latest blog and I’ll build off of his example for my point:

If you are against Obama’s spending, but defend Bush’s spending, then you’re wrong.

9. Thou Shalt Be Consistent With Thy Consistency.

Same ball, different spin. Basically, if you are an out-and-out Bush hater because of his policies, but in the same breath love Obama for his policies, you’re wrong.


Because a lot of those policies are the same. Obama has been dithering on Afghanistan, but largely accepted Bush’s plan for both there and Iraq when he took office. Bush did corporate bailouts. Bush did the first stimulus plan. Bush expanded Medicare. Bush would have expanded SCHIP if the bill Congress gave him wasn’t overflowing with a bunch of crap.

Therefore, if you love Obama for doing those policies, logic dictates you must also praise Bush for doing them first. Otherwise you’re just showing that you’re intellectually vapid and just follow the cult of personality instead of looking at the issues and thinking for yourself.

10. Thou Shalt Admit When Thou is Wrong.

Guy 1 – “The sun is shining.”
Guy 2 – “No it’s not. You’re wrong.”
Guy 1 – (Opens up the blinds. Sunlight comes through the window).
Guy 2 – “Huh. Well isn’t that something. The sun really is shining.”

It’s not that hard. I’ve done it. Probably the most recent example I can give is of changing my own stance on marijuana legalization (I support it somewhat now, after first debating with some on here who are for it).

Why did I do such a thing?

I don’t follow the stream. I was simply presented with a different set of empirical data that showed my stance (keep it illegal) to be short-sighted and faulty.

11. Thou Shalt Test Thyself By Arguing Both Sides.

The final point I’d like to make is that if you want to be a good debater, you need to be able to argue both sides of just about any argument.

-War is bad and we should avoid it.
-Some fuckers just need killing.

-Abortion kills babies.
-Abortion can save a life.

-Global warming might kill us all.
-The earth’s temperature has been flat or cooling since 1998.

-Everyone needs health care to live healthy lives.
-Life without liberty isn’t worth it.

-Gov’t stimulus plans can boost short-term economic growth.
-Stimulus plans kill short-term gains in other sectors and are devastating overall in the long-term.

Easy peasy.


So there ya go. Follow those 11 steps and you will not only be a better, more educated debater, but a better, more educated person.

November 28, 2009 , 6:28PM Posted by | American History, Conservatism, Political Bloggers, Politics | Comments Off on 11 Steps to Becoming a Better, More Educated Debater