Liberal moonbat unable to refute.

Duly noted.




On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:46:37 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...

_______
AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational
loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the
taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at
them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra,
extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky
interest-heavy student loans.

Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s
trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers,
just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because
there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why.

Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from
the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy —
it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and
churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been
made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad
cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them.

Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and
stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly
kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what
used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if
not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five
hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of
this month.

By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry,
and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And
that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him.

And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all,
each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all
recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can
all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and
his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the
poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing.


Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument.

--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

In article ,
says...


The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....

Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place
by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It
wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about
improving the quality of life.

Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals
with socialists.

Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.

In the tactics, not the goals.

That's for starters.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

....

Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals

"Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S.
citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of
$80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday."

That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things.

So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to
socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much
more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in
terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?)

Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know
the difference between socialism and liberalism?

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your
right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll
fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as
you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals,
and other "pork" in peace.
--
Kali

"This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."
-Sen. John McCain

"What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point." -Pres. Barack Obama

In article ,
says...


Liberal moonbat unable to refute.

Duly noted.

What do you want me to refute? Some idiot copy/pasted a screed bomb
which speaks for itself. Well?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:46:37 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...

_______
AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational
loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the
taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at
them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra,
extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky
interest-heavy student loans.

Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s
trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers,
just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because
there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why.

Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from
the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy —
it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and
churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been
made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad
cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them.

Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and
stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly
kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what
used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if
not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five
hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of
this month.

By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry,
and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And
that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him.

And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all,
each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all
recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can
all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and
his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the
poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing.


Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument.

--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama



--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John
McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world
ultimately leads to a slide of that world into the oblivion of failed
expectations. How and why is this the case? First, and foremost,
modern liberalism, as it is practiced today, is rooted in relativism,
sometimes called moral relativism. According to this philosophy, there
are no absolute truths. What was true yesterday is not true today, and
what is true today will not be true tomorrow. What is true for you may
not be true for me. Relativism unhitches society from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths. Once unhitched from the anchors of
traditional, foundational truths, relativism leads to a free floating
uncertain journey through life that has no destination. Thus, it leads
to oblivion, because without a destination, there can be no progress,
only floating about seeking but never finding. Yogi Bera is quoted has
having said, "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where
you're going, because you might not get there." And that, at it’s
center, is what modern liberalism is all about.

Relativism is defined in the American College Dictionary as: "the
theory of knowledge or ethics which holds that criteria of judgment
are relative, varying with the individual, time and circumstance."
Sometime during the 60's America embraced, with gusto in some
quarters, an idea called "situational ethics." This was nothing more
than relativism. What is right or wrong all depends on the
circumstances, and what the actors think is right or wrong. This is
unhitched from reality, not to mention traditional, foundational
truths.

While relativism lies at the center of modern liberal philosophy,
there is another factor that, when added to relativism, creates a
dynamic that seduces society into believing something that has never
been true to be true now, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
That factor is an idea commonly known as "socialism." Modern liberals
believe with all of their hearts that government is corrupt, business
is exploitive, and people are generally good at heart. Interestingly,
however, even with that statement of faith, these same liberals
believe the best way to create a perfect world is to regulate the
conduct of those good-hearted people and to control the means of
production of the exploitive businesses (which are in reality made up
of good-hearted people). And who should intervene to control such
things? Why, the corrupt government, of course (which is in reality
made up of good-hearted people).

Modern liberalism has hijacked the label "liberal" and given it a new
meaning. Classic liberalism stood for the proposition that government
should be restrained not increased. Classic liberalism stressed
individual freedom and limited government. It was a marriage between
economic freedom and political freedom. It is the principle foundation
of the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others. It was, indeed, the basis of the
foundation upon which the founding fathers of the United States
fashioned a more perfect union to establish justice, to insure
domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote
the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to
themselves and their posterity. There was tension between the forces
that wanted to create a powerful central government with superior
rights to the various states within the country and those who
distrusted a strong central government that would eventually dictate
every area of life of its citizens. It was this tension that gave rise
to the Bill of Rights that were to forever preserve to the people and
the states superior sovereignty over a central government.

Modern liberalism is really not liberalism at all, in the classic
sense of the meaning of the word. Instead, modern liberalism is
actually socialism in disguise. Prior to the late 19th century,
everyone who knew anything about this subject understood liberalism to
mean individual freedom, limited government, economic liberalism
(liberty) and political liberalism (liberty.) With the introduction of
the interventionists central planning concepts from Europe during the
late 19th century came modern liberalism.

Socialism was the label used in Europe and in Russia for what became
modern liberalism in the United States. Most of us have heard of Karl
Marx, known to many as the father of Communism. Many of us have heard
of his famous book, The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in
which he set forth a plan for the creation of a utopian society in
which the state controlled everything for the good of everyone. What
most people don’t realize is that what Marx wrote was not original.
All Karl Marx really did was to update and codify the very same
revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria.
This blueprint set forth the foundation for constructing a socialist
society where centralized government possessed most, if not all, of
the power.

It is interesting to note that Karl Marx was hired to put his name on
The Communist Manifesto by a group who called themselves the League of
the Just. Many serious scholars agree that the League of the Just was
the progeny of the Illuminati which was forced underground in 1786 by
the Bulgarian government. The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776,
barely two months before the signing of the Declaration of
Independence in Philadelphia. Although it existed in the open for only
a decade, it’s offspring — The League of Outlaws, Educational Society
for German Working-men, The Communist League, Workers’ Brotherhood of
Germany, and others — have survived even into the 21st century.

By the time modern liberalism was taking shape in the United States,
the label "socialist" was fairly solidly associated with Communism,
which carried with it many negative connotations. The socialists came
up with a new name for their movement, and called it liberalism. Over
the course of years, the label "liberalism" has come to signify a
philosophy of greater government intervention in the lives of citizens
and a focus on individualism as opposed to community.











On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:14:23 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...


The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....

Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place
by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It
wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about
improving the quality of life.

Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals
with socialists.

Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.

In the tactics, not the goals.

That's for starters.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

...

Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals

"Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S.
citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of
$80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday."

That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things.

So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to
socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much
more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in
terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?)

Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know
the difference between socialism and liberalism?

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your
right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll
fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as
you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals,
and other "pork" in peace.
--
Kali

"This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."
-Sen. John McCain

"What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point." -Pres. Barack Obama

Still unable to refute.

Insults without substantive refutation do not count.






On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:16:24 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...


Liberal moonbat unable to refute.

Duly noted.

What do you want me to refute? Some idiot copy/pasted a screed bomb
which speaks for itself. Well?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:46:37 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...

_______
AND DIGGING DEEPER INTO THE SLOP, there is this about educational
loans — the Obama-entranced college-agers are not going to like the
taste of Real Obama in the morning, ’cause here’s what’s coming at
them: educational loans “recalculated” to heap-up some extra, extra,
extra deep-dish interest upon interest upon pie-laden porky
interest-heavy student loans.

Why don’t these grubby mammals with their snouts in everyone else’s
trough, why don’t Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Nightmare Bakers,
just reduce taxes overall? They don’t and won’t consider THAT because
there’d be less for their snouts amidst all the troughs, that’s why.

Unfortunately for our nation and those who enjoy the gift of pies from
the U.S.A., reducing taxes overall would be too efficient and easy —
it would taste too good to the taxpayers. So they churn about and
churn and churn and burn all the wholesome pies that might have been
made had they not ruined the kitchen. There are decidedly too many bad
cooks in the kitchen and nary a chef among them.

Ace suggests drinks. I suggest a lot of phone calls and letters and
stocking-up for when this dreadful pipe bursts into the ghastly
kitchen held occupied by these grubby bakers as they all burn-up what
used to be a democratic United States of America, which will soon if
not already no longer look like itself because it’s gained five
hundred trillion pounds of debt, all of which should be by the end of
this month.

By the way, I can bake a cherry pie (and an apple one, and blueberry,
and peach, too) but it’s plain as cake that Nancy Pelosi cannot. And
that Obama thinks everyone else bakes just for him.

And I’m willing to bet — if I was a betting fool — that we can all,
each and every one of us Americans who is not now surrendered all
recipes in service to Obama-the-Baker, I’m willing to bet that we can
all anticipate being chastised if not outright harmed by this man and
his Nightmare Bakers in some way that will genuinely hurt as the
poison goes down — but these Bad Bakers won’t feel a thing.


Fact-free invective! Typical winger argument.

--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain

“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama



--
Kali

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John
McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

"Kali" wrote in message
...

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John
McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Yes, but it will only stimulate if spent in the right way, in the right
places. Most of the so-called stimulus bill is wasted in places where it
will do absolutely no economic good. I want 100% Pure American Pork. No
byproducts, no fillers.

In article ,
says...


Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world

[plagiarism, copyright violation, other people's ideas because
greggie doesn't have any of his own]

How many combinations are you going to make me kill?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:14:23 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...


The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....

Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive liberal, made the world a safer place
by insisting on clean stockyards and labels on food products. It
wasn't (and isn't now) about controlling people's lives, it's about
improving the quality of life.

Liberals aren't authoritarian. I think you're confusing liberals
with socialists.

Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.

In the tactics, not the goals.

That's for starters.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

...

Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals

"Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S.
citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of
$80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday."

That's socialism, not liberalism. Very different things.

So here you have a libertarian comparing libertarianism to
socialism, its virtual opposite. Libertarians and liberals have much
more in common. (You missed where he frames his essay at the top in
terms of Realism and Individualism, not libertarians vs. liberals?)

Hey, is this why you wingers are so afraid of Obama? You don't know
the difference between socialism and liberalism?

Scary stupid. If I were a socialist I'd be crusading against your
right to spew this crap and to vote. But I'm a liberal, and I'll
fight for your right to be as stupid and uneducated and verbose as
you want to be, enjoying your safe foods, roads, schools, hospitals,
and other "pork" in peace.
--
Kali

"This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."
-Sen. John McCain

"What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point." -Pres. Barack Obama



--
Kali

"This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."
-Sen. John McCain

"What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point." -Pres. Barack Obama

In article ,
says...

"Kali" wrote in message
...

“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.” -Sen. John
McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama

Yes, but it will only stimulate if spent in the right way, in the right
places. Most

It's more accurate to say most of us haven't seen (undisputed)
items. What we've seen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...chart-what-36-
mi_n_164828.html

(Pie chart 1/3rd of the way down)

of the so-called stimulus bill is wasted in places where it
will do absolutely no economic good.

At the same time, several of the reported cuts were good stimulus
spending.

I want 100% Pure American Pork. No
byproducts, no fillers.

What's left of it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...entrists-have-
wrought/
--
Kali

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:58:18 -0500, Kali wrote:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...chart-what-36-
mi_n_164828.html

(Pie chart 1/3rd of the way down)

You'll find the same thing in MotherJones.com and Salon.

Maybe even in Louis Farrakhan's website.


I want 100% Pure American Pork. No
byproducts, no fillers.

What's left of it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...entrists-have-
wrought/

Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.

Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?

It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."

Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?


$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal
power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last
year because it said the project was inefficient.
A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion
picture film.
$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker
(arctic ship).
$448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security
headquarters.
$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
$400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent
STD's.
$1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
$150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
$1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of
$3 billion.
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
$75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
$500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
$500 million for state and local fire stations.
$650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
$1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job
programs.
$88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health
Service.
$412 million for CDC buildings and property.
$500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health
facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
$160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and
Community Service.
$5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of
Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
$850 million for Amtrak.
$100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
$75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State
Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing
facilities of other agencies.
$110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
$200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles
for use on military installations.
Oink. Oink. Oink.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:38:56 -0500, Kali wrote:

In article ,
says...


Liberalism, whether it surfaces in the spiritual or the secular world

[plagiarism, copyright violation, other people's ideas because
greggie doesn't have any of his own]

Translation: No refutation.