There's a school of thought that Obama wanted McCain last time. The reason is that he could muddy the waters on the "natural born citizen" eligibility clause in the Constitution. This rises to the level of a major scandal if enough people wake up in time.
What does that have to do with Romney? Well, let's look at a quick review of what natural born citizen means, and what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean just plain old citizen. It doesn't mean just plain old naturalized citizen. It doesn't mean just plain old mother is a citizen and child born in the USA. If it did, Obama is qualified. No, it means more than that. It means mommy and daddy are both citizens at the time of birth and also that the birth is in the USA. Obama doesn't qualify because his daddy wasn't a citizen.
This can be used to muddy the water with Romney in the same way as it was with McCain. Romney could still be qualified, but if it became an issue, the fact that Romney's daddy wasn't born in the USA could be used to confuse voters.
Just one more reason to oppose Romney. He really can't use a killer argument against Obama because it may well be employed against himself in turn. That's what Obama is counting on. Plus all of the usual suspects are counting on that too.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Freudian Slip?
legalinsurrection.com
No wonder McCain lost! Down deep, he loves Obama! And Romney, deep, deep down, is no different from Obama.
No wonder McCain lost! Down deep, he loves Obama! And Romney, deep, deep down, is no different from Obama.
The GOP Needs a Bolder Growth Message
A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
quote:
The danger here is to take the opponent too lightly. Got to keep hammering on a message until you drive it home. Kudlow's message is: The unemployment rate should be falling much faster.
Let me add that it wouldn't hurt to have a bold message for space settlement. This can be accomplished by the private sector, but the government can play a role. As long as it is the right role, which should be an encouraging role, not a dominating role.
Update:
Romney is a Keynesian, not a supply sider.
Romney's approach to taxation and growth is too timid.
quote:
The economy is better. It’s going to give President Obama a leg up on the election. GOP beware, and come to your senses.Comment:
The danger here is to take the opponent too lightly. Got to keep hammering on a message until you drive it home. Kudlow's message is: The unemployment rate should be falling much faster.
Let me add that it wouldn't hurt to have a bold message for space settlement. This can be accomplished by the private sector, but the government can play a role. As long as it is the right role, which should be an encouraging role, not a dominating role.
Update:
Romney is a Keynesian, not a supply sider.
Romney's approach to taxation and growth is too timid.
Articles: Red Flag on the Red Planet
American Thinker: China's Great Leap Marsward?
In order to get my point of view on the topic of a moonbase, click on the category label below.
Meanwhile, President Obama has scuttled his predecessor's project to establish a manned scientific outpost on the Moon; as America's space program withers, China's thrives.Comment:
In order to get my point of view on the topic of a moonbase, click on the category label below.
21% OF DEMS HAVE LEFT PARTY
My favorite Toe sucker
Well, if everything Dickie boy says is true, Romney will be the next president with a large majority in the Senate. In order to do what???
A difference without a difference is not a difference.
Well, if everything Dickie boy says is true, Romney will be the next president with a large majority in the Senate. In order to do what???
A difference without a difference is not a difference.
Mitt Romney Fights With Reporter After Being Exposed As A Liar
Here's Romney making a distinction without a difference. Romney admits that Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist and advisor, but he isn't running his campaign. Romney is Clintonesque in this video. He is basically saying "I didn't inhale."
Ed Schultz: ‘Having Seen Santorum On The Stump, He’s As Good As President Obama’
by James Crugnale | 10:50 pm, January 3rd, 2012
excerpts:
Comment:
So he got beat in Pennsylvania. It is a blue state and it was a Democratic year. Bush has endorsed Romney.
excerpts:
- liberal firebrand Ed Schultz made an astounding observation about Republican hopeful Rick Santorum.
- “My gut check here — it is impossible for me to describe Rick Santorum as the guy with the pulse!” Rachel Maddow earlier exclaimed.
- “The mood of the country in 2006, we were pretty much sick of what Chris (Matthews) just said, ‘that W guy.’” Schultz said.
Comment:
So he got beat in Pennsylvania. It is a blue state and it was a Democratic year. Bush has endorsed Romney.
Benjamin Franklin's "Join, or Die"
What do you do when you are confronted with a superior force and your own is scattered hither and yon?
How does that compare with the current situation?
The superior force has
With unity, victory is possible. Without it, it is impossible.
If it isn't stopped, everyone will be able to see it for what it is. If you are too weak, you cannot control. You cannot win. You have no chance for victory. None. Zero. Nada.
If unity isn't achieved, the outcome, which is defeat, is a sure thing. More of the same thing that is running this country down into the ground is the certain fate of this country and civilization.
There is no leadership because you cannot decide amongst yourselves who the leader will be. In such a case as that, the decision will be made for you. And you will not like it.
As of the moment, the leader of the not-Romney faction is Santorum. Like it or not, he won that part of the vote and nearly won outright.
I don't trust Romney. I question his honesty and sincerity. He has taken, in the past, positions that are at extreme variance of most, if not all of, the best known conservative positions. Maybe he fell off of his horse on the way to Damascus and his conversion is sincere. But I have my doubts.
How do you know when you are being deceived? I think I will trust the outcome of the Iowa caucus. I think that is how you can as sure as it is reasonably capable of your being assured. You can refuse to accept this outcome and fight on under another banner, but there are risks of this choice.
One problem from this lack of unity is that one leader of the not-Romney faction after another gets torn down. As a result of this, there aren't many others left to tear down and there is no more time. No time to rally around somebody else. People fear that this will happen again to Santorum. But if there was sufficient unity, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
You either unite now, or you go down to defeat. Then Romney gets the nomination, and chances are, you won't like it.
 |
| This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for July 4, 2011. |
The superior force has
- More money
- Control over the media
- Control over the government
- Control over the culture
- More unity amongst themselves
With unity, victory is possible. Without it, it is impossible.
If it isn't stopped, everyone will be able to see it for what it is. If you are too weak, you cannot control. You cannot win. You have no chance for victory. None. Zero. Nada.
If unity isn't achieved, the outcome, which is defeat, is a sure thing. More of the same thing that is running this country down into the ground is the certain fate of this country and civilization.
There is no leadership because you cannot decide amongst yourselves who the leader will be. In such a case as that, the decision will be made for you. And you will not like it.
As of the moment, the leader of the not-Romney faction is Santorum. Like it or not, he won that part of the vote and nearly won outright.
I don't trust Romney. I question his honesty and sincerity. He has taken, in the past, positions that are at extreme variance of most, if not all of, the best known conservative positions. Maybe he fell off of his horse on the way to Damascus and his conversion is sincere. But I have my doubts.
How do you know when you are being deceived? I think I will trust the outcome of the Iowa caucus. I think that is how you can as sure as it is reasonably capable of your being assured. You can refuse to accept this outcome and fight on under another banner, but there are risks of this choice.
One problem from this lack of unity is that one leader of the not-Romney faction after another gets torn down. As a result of this, there aren't many others left to tear down and there is no more time. No time to rally around somebody else. People fear that this will happen again to Santorum. But if there was sufficient unity, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
You either unite now, or you go down to defeat. Then Romney gets the nomination, and chances are, you won't like it.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Krugman goes after Romney
Bain, Barack and Jobs
excerpts:
For me to use Krugman is tantamount to desperation, but use it I will. Overall, I think the mere possibility that Romney could be accused of destroying jobs will work to solidify Obama's class warfare message. In such a case as that, a winnable election could be turned into a loser.
excerpts:
- he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.
- his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty [emphasis mine]
- Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading[ comment : like a pot calling a kettle black when it comes to Krugman, but that's not the point. Mitt can be called a liar because that is what he is]
- It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s. ...It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain, [ comment: well, I don't know about that, but if true, that's a problem.]
- On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?
- The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs. [ comment: once again, if any of this is true, it destroys Romney's claim.]
For me to use Krugman is tantamount to desperation, but use it I will. Overall, I think the mere possibility that Romney could be accused of destroying jobs will work to solidify Obama's class warfare message. In such a case as that, a winnable election could be turned into a loser.
Limbaugh is talking about defense cuts
I turned on the radio hoping he'd talk about the nomination. But instead of that, he's talking about Obama's decision to cut the military.
What a waste of breath. What a waste of time to listen to this.
Sorry for being so critical of this conservative icon. But he's about as useless as tits on a boar.
This is important? This is news? What else would you expect of Obama? The key is what do you do about it? Bitch? The time for bitching is over. Time to do something. This isn't it.
What a waste of breath. What a waste of time to listen to this.
Sorry for being so critical of this conservative icon. But he's about as useless as tits on a boar.
This is important? This is news? What else would you expect of Obama? The key is what do you do about it? Bitch? The time for bitching is over. Time to do something. This isn't it.
Rossi Get E-cat Patent Approval This Year?
ecatpatent.com
I've written computer software for the market under my own brand. Now, I may not be a legal expert, but my impression is that if you want protection for your intellectual property, it's better to have a patent. If it isn't protected, somebody can reproduce it and claim it as their own.
Furthermore, putting a million e-cats on the market could backfire if the product doesn't meet expectations. The odds are that there are going to be a lot of people who won't be satisfied. This will not be good PR, especially if you don't have a patent. Bad in any case, but even worse if you have no patent.
Rossi’s e-cat patent would be very helpful especially when the technology is already out in the marketplace. It would strengthen its marketing strategy to produce 1 millions devices at a very low price.Comment:
I've written computer software for the market under my own brand. Now, I may not be a legal expert, but my impression is that if you want protection for your intellectual property, it's better to have a patent. If it isn't protected, somebody can reproduce it and claim it as their own.
Furthermore, putting a million e-cats on the market could backfire if the product doesn't meet expectations. The odds are that there are going to be a lot of people who won't be satisfied. This will not be good PR, especially if you don't have a patent. Bad in any case, but even worse if you have no patent.
DEMOCRATS ARE TANKING!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Wishful thinking? Some of their support may be soft, but so is the Republicans. Morris has some credibility with me, but if he does too much more of this, I may reconsider.
Wishful thinking? Some of their support may be soft, but so is the Republicans. Morris has some credibility with me, but if he does too much more of this, I may reconsider.
Ann Barnhardt & Warren Pollock Have an Open Conversation
I finished listening to the mp3 file that I mentioned earlier this morning. This video is a separate show.
Morning Jay: The Nomination Rules Are Rigged Against Grassroots Conservatives
The Weekly Standard
If I may throw my own two cents in. "Not-Romney" candidates got 3/4 ths of the vote in the Iowa caucus. But that was divided between several candidates. If the process needs improvement, then why have so many candidates? That's what's self defeating. If the conservatives could have united on a single candidate, presumably the votes would have reflected that. Instead, the vote gets watered down.
It may be too late to do anything about this now. But the current situation might be salvaged, if bold action is taken immediately. Perry will have drop out after New Hampshire. Gingrich should drop out before South Carolina, unless he can stage a miracle in New Hampshire. Then all of the conservatives should rally around Santorum. If they won't do this, it's over.
If I may throw my own two cents in. "Not-Romney" candidates got 3/4 ths of the vote in the Iowa caucus. But that was divided between several candidates. If the process needs improvement, then why have so many candidates? That's what's self defeating. If the conservatives could have united on a single candidate, presumably the votes would have reflected that. Instead, the vote gets watered down.
It may be too late to do anything about this now. But the current situation might be salvaged, if bold action is taken immediately. Perry will have drop out after New Hampshire. Gingrich should drop out before South Carolina, unless he can stage a miracle in New Hampshire. Then all of the conservatives should rally around Santorum. If they won't do this, it's over.
Accountability
Good morning.
Anyone over 50, such as myself, should remember Watergate. The lesson learned from that should have been that this is a country governed by the rule of law, not men. It would seem that this lesson has to be learned all over again. This is with respect to the decision by Obama to do recess appointments even though there isn't a recess. Congress has the power to determine if it is in recess or not.
Obama's excuse is that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging his attempts to govern. But that doesn't matter, one way or the other. The President will have to be inconvenienced because that is the law. If he finds the law inconvenient, then we are back to that same old issue of rule of law v. rule of men.
The rule of law won during the Watergate Era, but that is not clear this time who or what the winner may be. That ought to give pause to everyone. We may be crossing a threshold that we should not want to cross.
It gets back to accountability. If you won't be accountable to the law, then what are you accountable to? The accountability here should also be political, because there is an election this year. If Obama feels that he has a political issue, then run on that. But that is what he is doing. That is all he should do. This disrespect for the rule of law is going too far. Everyone has to be accountable to the law. That includes the President, which was what we learned from Watergate.
This allows me to segue into another related thought about the MF Global situation. Ann Barnhart did an interview in relation to the fallout of this, and I was listening to it yesterday morning.
But it got to be too much for me, so I turned it off. I am in sympathy with a lot of what she says, but now I am seeing this a different way than she does. She seems to think it as a reason to be pessimistic, but I see it as a positive good that CME didn't backstop the system. What they did was to refuse to backstop corruption.
That is what was good about it. This now encourages the system to be more accountable. If CME did backstop the system, then there would be no incentive for the system to clean itself up. Right now, everybody in the markets should understand that this needs to be cleaned up, or they will be the ones left holding the bag, just like the MF Global customers. That's the kind of encouragement that can allow the system to police itself more effectively.
As accountability is a necessity to proper functioning of markets, so it is the same as with the government. That principle should hold for the rest of the society as well. People are going to have to be accountable to the law and to morality, or we will be in a world of trouble. That may have to get pounded into people's heads again and again until enough people accept the necessity for this. Until that necessity is understood, things cannot improve. If the markets and the government cannot be held to accountability, what comes in its place?
The TARP business did not allow accountability to straighten out the mess that had occurred which had brought on the crisis in the first place. Consequently, we are still dealing with what is basically the same problem. As long as people in high places are allowed to behave in irresponsible ways, what reason do we have to expect anything else but bigger and bigger troubles? This permeates and corrupts the entire society. Pretty soon, you will have chaos, as people see no reason to respect order when so many others aren't.
One way or another, something must prevail. So, what will it be? The rule of law or the rule of men?
Order or chaos? A democracy of free men who can rule themselves, or a dictatorship that must be governed by a strong man?
We passed the test during Watergate, but will we pass the test this time?
Anyone over 50, such as myself, should remember Watergate. The lesson learned from that should have been that this is a country governed by the rule of law, not men. It would seem that this lesson has to be learned all over again. This is with respect to the decision by Obama to do recess appointments even though there isn't a recess. Congress has the power to determine if it is in recess or not.
Obama's excuse is that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging his attempts to govern. But that doesn't matter, one way or the other. The President will have to be inconvenienced because that is the law. If he finds the law inconvenient, then we are back to that same old issue of rule of law v. rule of men.
The rule of law won during the Watergate Era, but that is not clear this time who or what the winner may be. That ought to give pause to everyone. We may be crossing a threshold that we should not want to cross.
It gets back to accountability. If you won't be accountable to the law, then what are you accountable to? The accountability here should also be political, because there is an election this year. If Obama feels that he has a political issue, then run on that. But that is what he is doing. That is all he should do. This disrespect for the rule of law is going too far. Everyone has to be accountable to the law. That includes the President, which was what we learned from Watergate.
This allows me to segue into another related thought about the MF Global situation. Ann Barnhart did an interview in relation to the fallout of this, and I was listening to it yesterday morning.
But it got to be too much for me, so I turned it off. I am in sympathy with a lot of what she says, but now I am seeing this a different way than she does. She seems to think it as a reason to be pessimistic, but I see it as a positive good that CME didn't backstop the system. What they did was to refuse to backstop corruption.
That is what was good about it. This now encourages the system to be more accountable. If CME did backstop the system, then there would be no incentive for the system to clean itself up. Right now, everybody in the markets should understand that this needs to be cleaned up, or they will be the ones left holding the bag, just like the MF Global customers. That's the kind of encouragement that can allow the system to police itself more effectively.
As accountability is a necessity to proper functioning of markets, so it is the same as with the government. That principle should hold for the rest of the society as well. People are going to have to be accountable to the law and to morality, or we will be in a world of trouble. That may have to get pounded into people's heads again and again until enough people accept the necessity for this. Until that necessity is understood, things cannot improve. If the markets and the government cannot be held to accountability, what comes in its place?
The TARP business did not allow accountability to straighten out the mess that had occurred which had brought on the crisis in the first place. Consequently, we are still dealing with what is basically the same problem. As long as people in high places are allowed to behave in irresponsible ways, what reason do we have to expect anything else but bigger and bigger troubles? This permeates and corrupts the entire society. Pretty soon, you will have chaos, as people see no reason to respect order when so many others aren't.
One way or another, something must prevail. So, what will it be? The rule of law or the rule of men?
Order or chaos? A democracy of free men who can rule themselves, or a dictatorship that must be governed by a strong man?
We passed the test during Watergate, but will we pass the test this time?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Dan Tyminski & Ron Block - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow
I have to admit something here. I didn't know these guys did this song. Doh!
Forbes: Mitt Romney Is Stuck Because He's Not A Pro-Growth Republican
Paul Hoffmeister is the chief economist at Bretton Woods Research, LLC.
excerpts:
This needs to be hammered again and again. Romney would be bad even if he wins the presidency. What happens if he becomes president and these policies fail?
excerpts:
- Instead, his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.
- With our economy struggling because of a dearth of capital investment, the plan is surprisingly timid for a Republican.
- Based on the supply-side economic model, Mitt Romney and his tax platform will hurt the very people that he is trying to help.
- Romney’s defense is rooted in the belief that those who have suffered the most economically deserve to have more money in their pockets. This is the Keynesian prescription of putting money into people’s pockets to spur consumer demand. [ emphasis mine: Comment: He is just playing into Obama's class warfare. Why vote for Romney when he is just like Obama?]
- The most disturbing thing about Mitt Romney is that he supports a weak dollar. [Obama lite]
- unstable money reduces the willingness to take risks.
- American democracy has developed two political parties: a party of economic growth and a party of income redistribution. [ comment: a choice, not an echo]
- Mitt Romney is not a supply-sider. He will not benefit American labor. In fact, he represents the greatest risk that the Republican Party will fail to beat President Obama in November 2012.
This needs to be hammered again and again. Romney would be bad even if he wins the presidency. What happens if he becomes president and these policies fail?
Conservatives: Time to rally around a not-Romney
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Prominent conservative leaders want their rank and file to quickly get behind a single presidential candidate, fearful that persistent splits will help Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination.
also:
Many conservative leaders will have a chance to discuss how to proceed face-to-face next week at a meeting in Texas hosted by Bauer, among others. He said the meeting was planned weeks ago and emphasized that the goal is not to promote Santorum.
Comment:
In hindsight, they should have done this before Iowa. It may have helped.
Cost of computing is going way, way down
 |
| GFLOPS is gigaFLOPS, which is a measurement of computing speed |
There's a principle that can be applied in case anyone is interested.
Once I read a book about entrepreneurial thinking. He advocated teaching yourself to think in terms of concepts. I would say that this is a basic concept that can be applied in more ways than just in computing.
Another example: books! Books seem old fashioned these days, but once upon a time, several hundred years ago, they were quite rare and expensive. Sort of like gigaflops in the early sixties. The printing press was invented and brought this rare item to a larger and larger circle of people.
Note that this occurred without the need to take this from the rich and give it to the poor. If books that only the rich could own were confiscated and redistributed to the poor, they wouldn't have survived. They may have been burned for warmth in the dead of winter.
WHY ARE NEGATIVE ADS WORKING?
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
That means you need lots of money to run a campaign. You need to buy ads, and ads cost money. Debates can counter this, but debates can be avoided. Not many opportunities exist to stop Romney, so you must take advantage of every one of them as soon as possible.
That means you need lots of money to run a campaign. You need to buy ads, and ads cost money. Debates can counter this, but debates can be avoided. Not many opportunities exist to stop Romney, so you must take advantage of every one of them as soon as possible.
Barone: Interpolating the polls
Looks like Romney's on track to win, unless something changes.
quote:
Comment:
That's why there's so little time, and why any serious movement to stop Romney must start right away.
If I had anything to say about it, I would try a left center strategy in New Hampshire. It isn't as conservative as the South. By going hard right, they'll just be splitting the conservative vote again. One tactic to do that would be to attack Romney's sincerity, particularly on social issues. That appears to be happening, but it needs to be much more aggressive.
Also, they could attack Romney's commitment to lower taxes. Bring up the no new taxes angle used on Bush 41 in 1992. By playing up Romney's squishisness, this could hurt him with the center as well. I'm guessing about that last part since New Hampshire is something of an anti tax state. Even the center must be anti tax in an anti tax state.
Finally, if they wanted to really get dirty, they can make Romney look like a defense hawk. I think Paul could do well with these types of voters.
The point is that New Hampshire is the last place you want to split up the conservative wing again. But an opportunity exists to split the left wing, so as to diminish his victory. If his victory can be blunted, a bigger defeat waits for him in the South, which in turn, could be decisive.
quote:
If these interpolations are correct, it’s entirely possible that Romney can and will win considerably more than 25% of the vote in the large Northern states which start voting on February 28, with the primary in Michigan where Romney grew up and his late father is still fondly remembered by many Republicans. And many of those contests starting April 1 will allocate delegates by winner-take-all rules.
Comment:
That's why there's so little time, and why any serious movement to stop Romney must start right away.
If I had anything to say about it, I would try a left center strategy in New Hampshire. It isn't as conservative as the South. By going hard right, they'll just be splitting the conservative vote again. One tactic to do that would be to attack Romney's sincerity, particularly on social issues. That appears to be happening, but it needs to be much more aggressive.
Also, they could attack Romney's commitment to lower taxes. Bring up the no new taxes angle used on Bush 41 in 1992. By playing up Romney's squishisness, this could hurt him with the center as well. I'm guessing about that last part since New Hampshire is something of an anti tax state. Even the center must be anti tax in an anti tax state.
Finally, if they wanted to really get dirty, they can make Romney look like a defense hawk. I think Paul could do well with these types of voters.
The point is that New Hampshire is the last place you want to split up the conservative wing again. But an opportunity exists to split the left wing, so as to diminish his victory. If his victory can be blunted, a bigger defeat waits for him in the South, which in turn, could be decisive.
'Angry' Newt on the Attack in Granite State (Video)
The scare quotes are apt. Gingrich is smiling and doesn't appear angry. If this is as angry as he gets, he isn't an angry man.
A Santorum-Gingrich alliance gets referenced. But is that really serious at this point? Gingrich wants it for himself too much to shift support to Santorum this early. But by the time it will take so that he can find out that he can't win, it will be too late.
Update:
Just wanted to post that a nice, positive campaign would be preferable under most circumstances. But there's no luxury of that this time. Gingrich, to put it bluntly, has blown it. Now, he's blowing it again.
Somebody needs to get tough, and the only one who seems to be willing to do that is Romney for goodness sake.
A Santorum-Gingrich alliance gets referenced. But is that really serious at this point? Gingrich wants it for himself too much to shift support to Santorum this early. But by the time it will take so that he can find out that he can't win, it will be too late.
 |
| Gingrich-Santorum alliance? |
Update:
Just wanted to post that a nice, positive campaign would be preferable under most circumstances. But there's no luxury of that this time. Gingrich, to put it bluntly, has blown it. Now, he's blowing it again.
Somebody needs to get tough, and the only one who seems to be willing to do that is Romney for goodness sake.
A Guide to the Presidential Candidates’ Proposals to Cut Spending
Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Comments:
This pretty much squares with what I thought with respect to Romney and Paul. He says Santorum would increase military spending. That's not good. There can be no sacred cows with a deficit as large as the one that exists now. Everything has to be on the table.
Comments:
This pretty much squares with what I thought with respect to Romney and Paul. He says Santorum would increase military spending. That's not good. There can be no sacred cows with a deficit as large as the one that exists now. Everything has to be on the table.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Anti Romney Alliance?
If there's going to be one, it had better happen quick. Last word is that Perry will stay in. Bachmann is out. Is Gingrich sincere?
Morning Jay: What Iowa Tells Us About the State of the Race
The Weekly Standard
Comment:
Cost believes that Romney is now in the catbird seat. All of this because of his victory in Iowa. This is shaping up as a lot like 2008. The worst possible outcome.
What happens next? Supposedly, Gingrich will go on the warpath. That may make things worse. He should boost Santorum. In fact, they all should rally around the not Romney guy, a try to jump start the rest of his campaign.
What happens next? Perry could drop out. Bachmann ought to, but that isn't clear at the moment. Assuming they do, conservatives could coalesce around Santorum and Gingrich, but then what? There are some who say that Santorum won because he wasn't vetted. Gingrich is wounded. He ought to drop out now, and if he did, it would help if he would endorse Santorum. Others say if Perry and Newt stay in, Romney is the nominee. If the conservatives stay divided, that may well be the case.
So, for a winning conservative strategy, unite behind Santorum. The odds of that happening? Not good.
The odds that Romney will be the nominee have increased rather dramatically. That's my estimation.
I don't like it, but that is the way it looks.
Update:
Pam Geller has a different take-- "It was a great night for America." I recall that she once said that Santorum "gets it".
Comment:
Cost believes that Romney is now in the catbird seat. All of this because of his victory in Iowa. This is shaping up as a lot like 2008. The worst possible outcome.
What happens next? Supposedly, Gingrich will go on the warpath. That may make things worse. He should boost Santorum. In fact, they all should rally around the not Romney guy, a try to jump start the rest of his campaign.
What happens next? Perry could drop out. Bachmann ought to, but that isn't clear at the moment. Assuming they do, conservatives could coalesce around Santorum and Gingrich, but then what? There are some who say that Santorum won because he wasn't vetted. Gingrich is wounded. He ought to drop out now, and if he did, it would help if he would endorse Santorum. Others say if Perry and Newt stay in, Romney is the nominee. If the conservatives stay divided, that may well be the case.
So, for a winning conservative strategy, unite behind Santorum. The odds of that happening? Not good.
The odds that Romney will be the nominee have increased rather dramatically. That's my estimation.
I don't like it, but that is the way it looks.
Update:
Pam Geller has a different take-- "It was a great night for America." I recall that she once said that Santorum "gets it".
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Iowa caucus
Not exactly a live blogging of the event, just watching the numbers as they come in. As of 8:30 central time, 21% of the votes are in, and Ron Paul has a slight lead. The top three are bunched tightly in this order Paul, Santorum, Romney. There's not that much space between them.
This updates every two minutes, and now they are all virtually tied, with 24% in.
Update:
30% votes in, still very tight. Romney has a slight lead, 50 votes.
Update:
45% votes in, Santorum now on top with a slight lead, Romney behind by 150 votes or so, Paul falling behind a bit (3%) Will update when the numbers move more.
Update:
53% of the vote, and Santorum is ahead by 400 votes. Gingrich will finish no higher than 4th, ditto for Perry.
Bachmann is 6th, Huntsman last.
Just new coming in, Santorum maintains lead. Nothing changing much.
Update:
87% of the vote in and it has tightened considerably. Santorum is still ahead, but Romney is nipping at his heels. The rest of the field remains the same.
Update:
92% of the vote in. It seems to be coming in slowly for some reason. Santorum is ahead. The lead has switched back and forth between Romney and Santorum. Paul will finish third unless there's a miracle. The field is pretty much set except for the winner, and it will be close. Perhaps there won't be any clearcut winner.
Update:
95% in and it is still close--- Santorum ahead by a hundred votes or so. Some people say this was just a beauty contest. From what I observed, I'd say that it was like a regular election, but a little less formal. Anyway, I think I'll update one more time before I quit.
Update:
At 98% and now Romney is ahead. By my estimation, there are only a couple thousand votes left to count. Either of the candidates can still win as only 50 votes separate them.
The outcome is not what I would have liked. The significant thing may be that Romney can't get much above 25%. It will be interesting to see if he can begin to do better than that in the future races. New Hampshire, most likely, but down the road a little further is what I had in mind.
Good night, everyone.
This updates every two minutes, and now they are all virtually tied, with 24% in.
Update:
30% votes in, still very tight. Romney has a slight lead, 50 votes.
Update:
45% votes in, Santorum now on top with a slight lead, Romney behind by 150 votes or so, Paul falling behind a bit (3%) Will update when the numbers move more.
Update:
53% of the vote, and Santorum is ahead by 400 votes. Gingrich will finish no higher than 4th, ditto for Perry.
Bachmann is 6th, Huntsman last.
Just new coming in, Santorum maintains lead. Nothing changing much.
Update:
87% of the vote in and it has tightened considerably. Santorum is still ahead, but Romney is nipping at his heels. The rest of the field remains the same.
Update:
92% of the vote in. It seems to be coming in slowly for some reason. Santorum is ahead. The lead has switched back and forth between Romney and Santorum. Paul will finish third unless there's a miracle. The field is pretty much set except for the winner, and it will be close. Perhaps there won't be any clearcut winner.
Update:
95% in and it is still close--- Santorum ahead by a hundred votes or so. Some people say this was just a beauty contest. From what I observed, I'd say that it was like a regular election, but a little less formal. Anyway, I think I'll update one more time before I quit.
Update:
At 98% and now Romney is ahead. By my estimation, there are only a couple thousand votes left to count. Either of the candidates can still win as only 50 votes separate them.
The outcome is not what I would have liked. The significant thing may be that Romney can't get much above 25%. It will be interesting to see if he can begin to do better than that in the future races. New Hampshire, most likely, but down the road a little further is what I had in mind.
Good night, everyone.
If Vito Corleone made me an offer I couldn't refuse...
I still wouldn't vote for Romney! There, said it.
IOWA: FIGHT FOR OUR SOUL!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
If Romney wins, what do you win? He's a ersatz Democrat, a RINO. A victory like this is just the same as a defeat. Maybe worse. A victory like this is pointless. Not to favor Paul, but it might be a good rebuff to Romney if Paul wins. Especially if he wins big. It would also be interesting to see Paul strongly challenge Romney in New Hampshire, but this isn't likely.
If Romney wins, what do you win? He's a ersatz Democrat, a RINO. A victory like this is just the same as a defeat. Maybe worse. A victory like this is pointless. Not to favor Paul, but it might be a good rebuff to Romney if Paul wins. Especially if he wins big. It would also be interesting to see Paul strongly challenge Romney in New Hampshire, but this isn't likely.
Lies, damned lies, and Krugman
A nice turn of phrase is that. Can I follow it up with a clever post? Probably not, but I will try.
You got to hand it to Krugman. He will say anything to move the liberal ball down the field toward the goal line. The recent post, Nobody Understands Debt, does not square with reality. Either Krugman is totally deluded, or he's a big liar. Take your pick.
Here's the crux of Krugman's arguments:
As for the first point, how can Krugman ensure that the debt will grow more slowly than the tax base? He can't, because the tax base must be connnected to economic growth. According to these series of posts, it will be most unlikely that growth will resume to the level that Krugman envisions. He compares the World War II debt accumulation to conditions of today. That was a different time. The population was younger and there was a baby boom shortly thereafter. The opposite is true today. Demographics do not favor us. Secondly, the rest of the world was in shatters after the war. We had no competitors. Now, the rest of the world has caught up with us. We have to compete and we may not be up to it.
The second point, is that we owe the money to ourselves. This is a collectivist argument. Debt is owed to somebody, not everybody. Just as property should be owned by somebody, not everybody. This kind of thinking usurps property rights. Debts are owed and must be paid back. Just because we owe it to other Americans doesn't make it any better than it it were owed to foreigners. It is still owed.
Krugman knows these things, but he brushes them aside. So, is he lying, or is he just foolish?
The recent recession began with a credit freeze. Creditors won't lend if they can't get their investment back. That's what brought on the freeze. It can happen again.
What makes Krugman think that the government is going to get unlimited amounts of money anyway? What stops us from becoming like Greece? When it happens, it will happen fast. Just a small increase in the interest rate will make the debt unserviceable. When it begins to appear that way, the credit markets will rebel and we are in Greek territory.
Krugman is locked in his belief system. He is fighting the last war, just like the generals at the beginning of World War II tried to refight the first World War. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
You got to hand it to Krugman. He will say anything to move the liberal ball down the field toward the goal line. The recent post, Nobody Understands Debt, does not square with reality. Either Krugman is totally deluded, or he's a big liar. Take your pick.
Here's the crux of Krugman's arguments:
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
As for the first point, how can Krugman ensure that the debt will grow more slowly than the tax base? He can't, because the tax base must be connnected to economic growth. According to these series of posts, it will be most unlikely that growth will resume to the level that Krugman envisions. He compares the World War II debt accumulation to conditions of today. That was a different time. The population was younger and there was a baby boom shortly thereafter. The opposite is true today. Demographics do not favor us. Secondly, the rest of the world was in shatters after the war. We had no competitors. Now, the rest of the world has caught up with us. We have to compete and we may not be up to it.
The second point, is that we owe the money to ourselves. This is a collectivist argument. Debt is owed to somebody, not everybody. Just as property should be owned by somebody, not everybody. This kind of thinking usurps property rights. Debts are owed and must be paid back. Just because we owe it to other Americans doesn't make it any better than it it were owed to foreigners. It is still owed.
Krugman knows these things, but he brushes them aside. So, is he lying, or is he just foolish?
The recent recession began with a credit freeze. Creditors won't lend if they can't get their investment back. That's what brought on the freeze. It can happen again.
What makes Krugman think that the government is going to get unlimited amounts of money anyway? What stops us from becoming like Greece? When it happens, it will happen fast. Just a small increase in the interest rate will make the debt unserviceable. When it begins to appear that way, the credit markets will rebel and we are in Greek territory.
Krugman is locked in his belief system. He is fighting the last war, just like the generals at the beginning of World War II tried to refight the first World War. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Out of character post
Good morning. From the title of this post, a reader may expect something different from the usual fare on this here blog. Normally, I don't show my frustration. Not here, not in public, not anywhere. I just keep it in. Nearly all of the time, I'll just withdraw from the situation. For me, to keep one's own peace is more important than to let things get to me.
This time, I'm going to let it rip a little. The reason? Nothing to lose. I'm at my freakin' end on a few things, so there's no reason to hold anything back.
Why? I mean, the usual character mode wants to creep in. There has to be a reason for things, even if it is a tirade. Well, I looked up something about being a successful blogger. It said that you needed passion. So, it kinda looks like I'm not a passionate type. How true. Normally, I'm not passionate, because I don't trust emotions. But that's me. The rest of the world just eats that up and I hate it!!!
I hate passion and I hate feelings. I don't trust them. People do stupid things. Why not use your freakin head and figure out your damned problems instead of feeling your way through them.
Look at the world the way it is. It is going over the damned cliff and people still do the same old stupid things that they normally do. And here I am trying to reason the problems out and offer my thoughts on it and the world could care less. What the f**k?! I'd think there'd be at some interest in some ideas that might help us all out, but nooooooo.
Look at the political situation. The Iowa caucus is today and the Republicans are going to screw up. If they even bothered to check things out, they should be flocking to Gingrich. Instead they are going to vote for some idiot who not only won't win, but even if he does, whatever he does in office won't be any different nor better than what we already have. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Why Gingrich? If you had been paying attention, then that would be obvious. Instead, you let yourselves be manipulated like the silly ass f**kers that you really are. Gingrich gets hammered in the media with ADS. How freakin' stupid is that? You let yourselves be persuaded by propaganda instead of looking things up for yourselves? IDIOTS!!!
I don't know if it's politics that has me all riled up. Maybe it is just the general all around stupidity that's around us. The illogic of it all. The insanity of it all. Why do the same damn thing as before when that same damn thing is what's screwing everything up?
Here's a suggestion for you idiots out there who haven't decided yet. If you really want to shake things up, vote for Paul. Yes, Paul. I know that is really, really insane, but it is different. If there's any time to try something different, it is now. As for me, I am too freakin' logical to vote for Paul. Paul is the passionate choice. The choice for people who love their feelings instead of their brain. Vote your feelings and not your brains if you can't do the smart thing. Maybe sometimes, you just have to get crazy.
I could go on a tirade about some other subjects, but this will be all.
This time, I'm going to let it rip a little. The reason? Nothing to lose. I'm at my freakin' end on a few things, so there's no reason to hold anything back.
Why? I mean, the usual character mode wants to creep in. There has to be a reason for things, even if it is a tirade. Well, I looked up something about being a successful blogger. It said that you needed passion. So, it kinda looks like I'm not a passionate type. How true. Normally, I'm not passionate, because I don't trust emotions. But that's me. The rest of the world just eats that up and I hate it!!!
I hate passion and I hate feelings. I don't trust them. People do stupid things. Why not use your freakin head and figure out your damned problems instead of feeling your way through them.
Look at the world the way it is. It is going over the damned cliff and people still do the same old stupid things that they normally do. And here I am trying to reason the problems out and offer my thoughts on it and the world could care less. What the f**k?! I'd think there'd be at some interest in some ideas that might help us all out, but nooooooo.
Look at the political situation. The Iowa caucus is today and the Republicans are going to screw up. If they even bothered to check things out, they should be flocking to Gingrich. Instead they are going to vote for some idiot who not only won't win, but even if he does, whatever he does in office won't be any different nor better than what we already have. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Why Gingrich? If you had been paying attention, then that would be obvious. Instead, you let yourselves be manipulated like the silly ass f**kers that you really are. Gingrich gets hammered in the media with ADS. How freakin' stupid is that? You let yourselves be persuaded by propaganda instead of looking things up for yourselves? IDIOTS!!!
I don't know if it's politics that has me all riled up. Maybe it is just the general all around stupidity that's around us. The illogic of it all. The insanity of it all. Why do the same damn thing as before when that same damn thing is what's screwing everything up?
Here's a suggestion for you idiots out there who haven't decided yet. If you really want to shake things up, vote for Paul. Yes, Paul. I know that is really, really insane, but it is different. If there's any time to try something different, it is now. As for me, I am too freakin' logical to vote for Paul. Paul is the passionate choice. The choice for people who love their feelings instead of their brain. Vote your feelings and not your brains if you can't do the smart thing. Maybe sometimes, you just have to get crazy.
I could go on a tirade about some other subjects, but this will be all.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Why Dick Morris Fears Ron Paul
A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
by Robert Ringer - Monday, January 2, 2012
It’s been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes — from dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say, “He is the most radical, liberal candidate running.” Then, on The O’Reilly Factor, Morris said, “I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years.”
Strange, because I’ve known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington — and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I’m talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Ron Paul? For starters, he says that Paul “has this crazy idea about returning to the gold standard.” Hmm … I never thought of a return to sound money as being a crazy idea. With all due respect, Dick, I think I’ll stick with Hayek and Von Mises on that one.
Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
Get rid of the Fed.
Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than did the war on alcohol.)
Stay out of other countries’ affairs (which would make it possible to slash our military budget without weakening our national defense).
Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government’s ability to snoop on American citizens.
Morris even claimed that Ron Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by the government. Now that’s one I’ve never heard before. Paul has always been adamantly pro-life and, further, he believes that the issue of abortion comes under the auspices of the states, not the federal government.
So why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a nutcase, a crackpot, and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul will run as a third-party candidate and “hand the election to Barack Obama.”
First of all, Ron Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have tried so hard to paint him to be. Second, he is one of the most morally sound individuals I have ever known, and is intellectually sound as well.
In fact, the “crazy uncle” remarks that the fearful media pundits keep throwing out about Paul couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, if Ron Paul has one weakness, it’s that he’s intellectually above the average voter’s head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what he’s saying.
I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Ron Paul’s newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces those statements today. Often, Paul’s problem is that he is very uninhibited when it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the truth, and, unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.
I can only speak from my own firsthand experience, and, behind closed doors, I have never heard Ron Paul say anything that even mildly bordered on racism. Nor is he anti-semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel would be better off without having to answer to the U.S. for its actions.
Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any other candidate, Ron Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate of freedom electable? Dick Morris and other establishment Republicans say absolutely not. And they could be right. But there’s a part of me that wonders if they might just be wrong.
If Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate — especially if Mitt Romney were to be the Republican nominee — he would attract not only Tea Party voters, but independents, moderate Democrats, and anti-war people of all stripes. While the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is, from a long-term point of view, marginal, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are polar opposites.
Mitt Romney is John McCain. Mitt Romney is George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Mitt Romney is Thomas Dewey. Mitt Romney is Herbert Hoover. Which is why I believe that millions of fed-up Americans, rather than swallowing John McCain Light or accepting four more years of Obama’s anti-American policies, might just consider casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated freedom.
Even if Paul did not win, it would be a presidential race like no other. And if it resulted in Obama’s reelection, I’m fine with that if it keeps Mitt Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of socialism day in and day out.
Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008 when it was John McCain versus Barack Obama. Early on, I said that I preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake up millions of apathetic Americans. And that’s precisely what has happened. In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama himself brought the Tea Party into existence.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or Congress. But if Barack Obama is reelected, maybe Tea Partiers will be jolted into rising up in earnest — 365 days a year — and get really serious about taking back America.
While Dick Morris says that “Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare,” I say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama’s march toward Marxism.
Could it be that it’s Dick Morris who is the crazy uncle?
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
by Robert Ringer - Monday, January 2, 2012
It’s been quite humorous watching Dick Morris switch modes — from dismissing Ron Paul as a nut and a crackpot to hysterically warning people how dangerous he is. In one of his recent lunch videos, Morris ranted nonstop about Paul, going so far as to say, “He is the most radical, liberal candidate running.” Then, on The O’Reilly Factor, Morris said, “I think that he is absolutely the most liberal, radical, left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last fifty years.”
Strange, because I’ve known Ron Paul for more than thirty years, and I see him as one of the purist conservatives in Washington — and certainly the most conservative person in the current field of Republican candidates. I’m talking about true conservatism, which Ronald Reagan accurately described when he said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
So what, specifically, does Morris not like about Ron Paul? For starters, he says that Paul “has this crazy idea about returning to the gold standard.” Hmm … I never thought of a return to sound money as being a crazy idea. With all due respect, Dick, I think I’ll stick with Hayek and Von Mises on that one.
Other Ron Paul sins, according to Morris, include his desire to:
Get rid of the Fed.
Legalize drugs. (Sorry, pseudo-conservatives, but the unpleasant reality is that the war on drugs has caused even more violence than did the war on alcohol.)
Stay out of other countries’ affairs (which would make it possible to slash our military budget without weakening our national defense).
Repeal the Patriot Act, which would reduce government’s ability to snoop on American citizens.
Morris even claimed that Ron Paul favors abortion on demand, paid for by the government. Now that’s one I’ve never heard before. Paul has always been adamantly pro-life and, further, he believes that the issue of abortion comes under the auspices of the states, not the federal government.
So why is Morris so worried about a guy he has repeatedly referred to as a nutcase, a crackpot, and worse? Because, he says, he is afraid that Paul will run as a third-party candidate and “hand the election to Barack Obama.”
First of all, Ron Paul has never been the nutcase his detractors have tried so hard to paint him to be. Second, he is one of the most morally sound individuals I have ever known, and is intellectually sound as well.
In fact, the “crazy uncle” remarks that the fearful media pundits keep throwing out about Paul couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, if Ron Paul has one weakness, it’s that he’s intellectually above the average voter’s head, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what he’s saying.
I admit that a handful of comments purportedly made in Ron Paul’s newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s were over the line, but they certainly were not hardcore racist. More important, he unequivocally renounces those statements today. Often, Paul’s problem is that he is very uninhibited when it comes to being precise about the law and what he believes to be the truth, and, unfortunately, a majority of the population is more interested in political correctness than the Constitution or the truth.
I can only speak from my own firsthand experience, and, behind closed doors, I have never heard Ron Paul say anything that even mildly bordered on racism. Nor is he anti-semitic or anti-Israel. As he explained it to me on a couple of different occasions, he just happens to believe that Israel would be better off without having to answer to the U.S. for its actions.
Putting aside the mudslinging, the bottom line is that, more than any other candidate, Ron Paul stands for freedom. But is such a strong advocate of freedom electable? Dick Morris and other establishment Republicans say absolutely not. And they could be right. But there’s a part of me that wonders if they might just be wrong.
If Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate — especially if Mitt Romney were to be the Republican nominee — he would attract not only Tea Party voters, but independents, moderate Democrats, and anti-war people of all stripes. While the contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is, from a long-term point of view, marginal, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are polar opposites.
Mitt Romney is John McCain. Mitt Romney is George W. Bush. Mitt Romney is Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is George Herbert Walker Bush. Mitt Romney is Thomas Dewey. Mitt Romney is Herbert Hoover. Which is why I believe that millions of fed-up Americans, rather than swallowing John McCain Light or accepting four more years of Obama’s anti-American policies, might just consider casting their vote for a candidate who stands for pure, unadulterated freedom.
Even if Paul did not win, it would be a presidential race like no other. And if it resulted in Obama’s reelection, I’m fine with that if it keeps Mitt Romney from taking the reins of power and feeding us small doses of socialism day in and day out.
Longtime readers will recall that I took the exact same position in 2008 when it was John McCain versus Barack Obama. Early on, I said that I preferred Obama over McCain because his Marxist agenda would finally wake up millions of apathetic Americans. And that’s precisely what has happened. In fact, by scaring the hell out of the American electorate, Obama himself brought the Tea Party into existence.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party has not kept the heat on either Obama or Congress. But if Barack Obama is reelected, maybe Tea Partiers will be jolted into rising up in earnest — 365 days a year — and get really serious about taking back America.
While Dick Morris says that “Ron Paul is just an absolute nightmare,” I say he would be the perfect person to lead the charge against Obama’s march toward Marxism.
Could it be that it’s Dick Morris who is the crazy uncle?
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
Machines
Yesterday I had but one short post. I spent Sunday doing what I usually do on Sundays, which was to watch football games on TV. Besides that, I watched Terminator 3 on YouTube. Yes, it is there, the entire movie.
I suppose I could critique the movie, but let's just say that it wasn't as good as the first two. By the way, I saw the movie not too long after its release, back in 2003. This was just a refresher. My opinion was just as I have given here, so the opinion of the movie didn't change. However, it did get me to thinking about the subject of machines, and how dependent we are on them.
The Terminator series is supposed to be something of a cautionary tale about this. But there is no reserve about what this increasing reliance upon machines could mean for humanity. To the contrary, it would seem that a large portion of the sentient class want this development. I think it is called transhumanism.
I haven't spent much time on the subject. For those who have, this must be quite obvious. I have mixed feelings about it. Space colonization appears to be a part of transhumanism, but to me, it just seems to be a natural development. I prefer natural developments as opposed to artificial ones. That's the impression I have of transhumanism. It is freakish and unnatural.
For example, why would anybody want to go live on Mars? Could it be because of the same impulse that led the pioneers to settle America? The old pioneers came to look for God, but also to escape the tyranny of the Old World. If it were possible to go somewhere which has not be settled already, and make a new world based upon new ideas and greater freedom. That would seem quite natural, but it may not be the only reason why someone may want to go off world.
However, I don't think going to Mars is necessary. Humans can colonize the moon and then construct their own worlds in space with lunar materials. You cold literally shape a new world from scratch. But should this world be dominated by machines? Or could it be a new world on a human scale? An O'Neill colony would be about the size of a small town. In space, it could have all the energy it could use. The sun would power it and they could grow their own food. There wouldn't be a need for much trade, but there could be something in which it could exchange with the Earth. That would be energy. There is so much of it in space, that it dwarfs whatever falls on the Earth's surface. That was O'Neill's idea: to use the sun as an energy source and thus as an economic basis of his colony.
Each world could develop according to its own preferences. Some could be just agricultural in nature with a modest trading component. Others could continue looking for the "fountain of youth". For me, I think such a notion is rather unnatural, as that would not be my preference. But for others, this could hold an attraction. The freedom of association carried to that level could result in any number of combinations of future development.
The unnaturalness of this continued desire for the unattainable is the thing that is most troublesome to me. This quest for new and even more powerful machines to dominate, control, and run everything. Is this really necessary? Yet, it is also a part of the human condition for some of us to want to dominate and control the others. But to what end and for what purpose?
I suppose I could critique the movie, but let's just say that it wasn't as good as the first two. By the way, I saw the movie not too long after its release, back in 2003. This was just a refresher. My opinion was just as I have given here, so the opinion of the movie didn't change. However, it did get me to thinking about the subject of machines, and how dependent we are on them.
The Terminator series is supposed to be something of a cautionary tale about this. But there is no reserve about what this increasing reliance upon machines could mean for humanity. To the contrary, it would seem that a large portion of the sentient class want this development. I think it is called transhumanism.
I haven't spent much time on the subject. For those who have, this must be quite obvious. I have mixed feelings about it. Space colonization appears to be a part of transhumanism, but to me, it just seems to be a natural development. I prefer natural developments as opposed to artificial ones. That's the impression I have of transhumanism. It is freakish and unnatural.
For example, why would anybody want to go live on Mars? Could it be because of the same impulse that led the pioneers to settle America? The old pioneers came to look for God, but also to escape the tyranny of the Old World. If it were possible to go somewhere which has not be settled already, and make a new world based upon new ideas and greater freedom. That would seem quite natural, but it may not be the only reason why someone may want to go off world.
However, I don't think going to Mars is necessary. Humans can colonize the moon and then construct their own worlds in space with lunar materials. You cold literally shape a new world from scratch. But should this world be dominated by machines? Or could it be a new world on a human scale? An O'Neill colony would be about the size of a small town. In space, it could have all the energy it could use. The sun would power it and they could grow their own food. There wouldn't be a need for much trade, but there could be something in which it could exchange with the Earth. That would be energy. There is so much of it in space, that it dwarfs whatever falls on the Earth's surface. That was O'Neill's idea: to use the sun as an energy source and thus as an economic basis of his colony.
Each world could develop according to its own preferences. Some could be just agricultural in nature with a modest trading component. Others could continue looking for the "fountain of youth". For me, I think such a notion is rather unnatural, as that would not be my preference. But for others, this could hold an attraction. The freedom of association carried to that level could result in any number of combinations of future development.
The unnaturalness of this continued desire for the unattainable is the thing that is most troublesome to me. This quest for new and even more powerful machines to dominate, control, and run everything. Is this really necessary? Yet, it is also a part of the human condition for some of us to want to dominate and control the others. But to what end and for what purpose?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year
Out with the old and in with the new. The year 2011 is now in the history books. It is now like all the years that preceded it. It is now no different from any year in history because it is now history itself. What a thought. What a concept. lol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)