Free At The Expense Of Others
Feb 1, 2016 2016 Election, Tyranny
The young liberals in this nation (and many other liberals for that matter) are thrilled right now to support Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who is three quarters of a century old. They like what he says because he promises them everything for free. Liberals love free stuff. The voters love to get free stuff and politicians love to give free stuff away.
Bernie wants college and health care (among other things) to be FREE!!!!!
[note]In this context we mean free as in at no cost. This does not include free when used to mean unrestrained or unencumbered.[/note]
The government always uses the word free. Get a cellphone for free. This poster available from OSHA for free. Get free vaccines. Get free housing, free food, free, free, free….
One problem with all this is that nothing is free. There is a cost associated with everything, the issue at hand is, who pays?
For the schemes Sanders and Clinton, and to be inclusive, O’Malley (polling at 3%), espouse the person receiving the product or service would not pay for it. It would be paid for by the taxpayer. So in reality it is not free, it is at no cost to the person.
Remember now, Obamacare was supposed to bend the cost curve and make heath care affordable. There was never a claim of free, just affordable. The reality is people are paying more now than they did before and a lot of folks are doing without because the tax/penalty is cheaper.
Bernie will fix that by making health care free. He wants single payer put in place because he is a Socialist. He wants a Medicare system in place extended to all. Medicare is the least efficient and most expensive health care system there is (a lot of cost that the free market carriers incur are not counted by government as it relates to Medicare because the costs are absorbed by government – read taxpayer).
In any event I think there should be a prohibition on the use of the word free unless it is being used to mean something other than no cost as in the hostages are free, the chicken is free range, etc. I propose that anytime a politician or government entity wants to use the word free (as in “at no cost”) they instead be required to use the term “at taxpayer expense”.
This way Bernie would have to say college will be available to you at taxpayer expense. Health care will be available at taxpayer expense. The poster would not read this is available from OSHA for free it would read this poster is available from OSHA at taxpayer expense.
We need to start calling it what it really is so the reality sets in particularly among the young generation. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of older liberals hear free and think no one has to pay for it but many of them are too far gone and only know the mantra that taxes ON THE RICH need to be raised.
The young liberals find a stark reality when they are forced to pay taxes. The young folks get out of taxpayer provided school and get jobs where they pay taxes. That is when they learn that it was not really free after all.
By that time it is too late and a system is in place that will hasten the economic collapse of this once great nation (the debt clock is at 19 TRILLION).
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If Bernie Sanders (or nearly any other politician) puts his arm around you and tells you there is protect your wallet because that is where his other hand is located….
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: at taxpayer expense, Clinton, free stuff, lies, O'Malley, sanders
Doyle Misses The Point In Trump Attack
Jan 25, 2016 2016 Election, Political
I start by once again stating that I have not made up my mind on a candidate. I have some I favor over others but some of these folks will likely not be around when it is time for my primary so I have my list and can work off it as my state primary nears.
Having provided that disclaimer I now move on to the continuing drama of Trump-Clinton and the war on women. Hillary fired the first shot when she accused Trump of being a sexist and touted herself as the champion of women. She is fighting the imagined monster of unequal pay and she will of course defend against the Republican war on women. The war on women the left accuses the right of is as imagined as the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary claimed was after her hubby so long ago.
After she attacked Trump something happened that she did not expect (though if she is the smartest person around should have). Trump fired back. He went after Hillary for her hubby’s dalliances. Patti Solis Doyle, a Hillary supporter with a long history of liberal work, said that what Bill did was on him, not Hillary and Trump (or anyone else) should not be attacking her for what her hubby did.
I agree entirely that what Bill did is on Bill. The women he raped and sexually molested as well as the ones he willingly had affairs with are all on him and only him. He did it. Now there are rumors that Bill and Hill had a pretty open relationship and she did not care whose inkwell he dipped his pen in so long as it did not hurt them (especially her) politically.
But those are just rumors. In any event, the felonies he committed by raping those women are strictly on him.
Where Doyle and others miss the mark is on their decision to stop at this point. They claim it is on Bill and she should not be held accountable for what he did so move on.
The story cannot stop there. Trump is right to bring it up because Hillary was involved in what happened afterward. She intimidated women to keep them from talking. She engaged in the war room to squash “bimbo eruptions” and she fought hard to discredit any and all women who claimed to have had sex, consensual or otherwise, with her husband.
This is the main point of Trump’s argument. He pointed out that Hillary accuses him of all kinds of sexism while she protected Bill from accusations from women whose champion she now claims to be.
Trump is right to point this out. If Hillary was a champion for women then why did she attack those who accused her husband of rape? If she believes every woman who makes a claim of sexual assault deserves to be heard why did she silence those claiming such about Bill? If she is against men who abuse women sexually then why did she stick with Bill and why did she defend him?
To Doyle and the rest of the bubble headed drones on the left Hillary was a victim, Bill did it all so stop blaming her for it.
No one, including Trump, blamed her for the physical acts Bill did. They are blaming Hillary for attacking those women and working hard to discredit them and to intimidate them in order for him to keep power and for her to ride his coattails when it was “her turn”.
This is nothing more than a political ploy. Liberals do not care about women. None of these people actually give a rodent’s derrière about what Bill did. None of them care if women are heard and none of them care about the alleged wage gap (liberal women usually pay their female staffers less than their male staffers and Hillary is in that group). These people only care about power and giving the appearance that they actually care.
It is evident that liberals ignore crimes their politicians commit so that they can keep power. Hillary Clinton ran a private server that compromised classified information so that she could avoid government archiving requirements and she let Americans die in Benghazi and blamed it all on an internet video (which she now denies doing).
Liberals have excused her for this. Instead they focus on the alleged criminal acts of Republicans. Keep that in mind. If a Republican does wrong he needs to be removed from office or dropped from consideration for office.
If a Democrat (liberal) commits a crime that person is to be celebrated.
The reality is Doyle missed the mark because she ignored the entire narrative in order to hide Hillary’s war on women.
Let’s face it. If liberals really cared about women they would not be going after Trump. They would be going after Hillary for her war on women.
And given the things Bernie Sanders has said about women they would be going after him.
I mean, if they REALLY cared…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, bill clinton, Hillary, liberals, lies, patti solis doyle, rape, sexual assault, trump, war on women
Should Monica Sue The Cigar Company?
Jan 13, 2016 2016 Election, Second Amendment, Tyranny
Hillary Clinton and the rest of the anti-gun zealots in this nation want the ability to sue gun manufacturers if their products are used in any manner that causes harm. One assumes they mean unlawful harm as I doubt anyone would want a gun manufacturer to be sued for a police officer that shot someone in the performance of his duty.
Regardless what they really want the entire idea is stupid. Firearms are manufactured and sold in this country. So long as the manufacturer provided them legally and they were not in some way defective then that manufacturer should not be held accountable for what the end user does with the product.
This is another overreach by the people who routinely violate the US Constitution. These people are tyrants and they will try everything they can, legal or not, in order to rule over people with an iron fist and they can’t quite do that until they can disarm people and make it tougher for them to get firearms.
How many firearms companies would go out of business if they could be sued because some moron uses a gun illegally and someone gets harmed? How many could stay in business if a legal owner shoots a home invader and the invader’s family sues the firearms company because the product caused harm?
It is moronic to hold the companies responsible in these instances.
The law in place has many provisions that would allow manufacturers to be sued but she [Hillary] wanted the version that allowed lawsuits for improper use of the gun by the end user (Sanders voted against that one and she is attacking him for it). Someone using the product in a manner that harms others SHOULD NEVER BE something a company can be sued for.
For those of you who think this is a good idea let me ask:
- Should Microsoft or Dell be sued if someone uses Microsoft software and a Dell computer to steal identities?
- Should Apple be sued because a person using a cell phone and not paying attention walks off a cliff?
- Should a sports company be sued because a person uses baseball bats to beat the hell out of people?
- Should condom companies be sued because rapists use their condoms when committing rape?
- Should a small appliance company be sued because an idiot used a hair dryer in the tub and died of electrocution?
The obvious answer to these questions is no. The companies did not do anything wrong and the companies did not use its products in a manner that harmed someone. This is just as true for the gun makers.
But guns are scary and liberal bed wetters do not like them so they have to have ways to do it. They don’t like guns so they want to sue the people who make them rather than go after the people who use them illegally.
This is the liberal mind set. It is never the fault of the person who did it. There must be some reason and the blame game begins. No matter what problems people have in life liberals will always find someone or something to blame for those problems. Look at any person in Baltimore picked up for a violent crime and that person has a record a mile long for other violent or gun related crimes (along with drugs) and the joker is still on the street. The problem is not some other thing, the problem is the person who did it and a liberal justice system that refuses to punish offenders.
Period!
But I am latching onto Hillary’s idea here. I think we should be allowed to sue politicians who enact laws and make decisions that harm the public. We should be able to sue the hell out of any politician who does anything that violates the Constitution.
Then we might get some reform in this country.
As for Hillary and suing gun makers, a stupid idea from a stupid person and makes as much sense as Monica suing the cigar company for the harm done to her…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: gun control, Hillary, lawsuits, lies, manufacturers, nra, tyranny
Clinton Sexism Deniers Miss The Point
Dec 31, 2015 2016 Election, Political
There are a number of articles describing the ongoing word battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Clinton claimed Trump was a sexist (while she was boo hooing about being bullied) and Trump indicated that if she was going to throw accusations like that around her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was fair game with regard to his abuse of women.
The people defending Hillary range from those saying Trump is absolutely a sexist who treats women badly to those who claim all this stuff with Bill happened a long time ago and should not have any bearing on Hillary and her campaign. It should be, according to them, left out of the equation.
All these folks are missing he point. There is absolutely no doubt that Bill Clinton abused women and sexually assaulted them. Far too many women have accused Bill of abuse or rape to ignore and even though it happened a long time ago it still has bearing on this race and that is because of Hillary.
[note]It is easy for Clinton supporters to dismiss the allegations as women going after a powerful man and that they are liars but let us not forget the only one caught lying in all of this was BILL CLINTON and he was caught at least twice. He lied about the Lewinsky affair and if she had not kept that dress she would be the one who was a liar and starstruck. Instead she proved he did what he claimed he did not. Jennifer Flowers was also vindicated. When Bill first ran for office she claimed to have been his mistress. He denied it basically calling her a liar. During the Lewinsky affair Bill had to admit he had a many year sexual relationship with Flowers. Accusers 2 Clinton 0. There is less evidence against Bill Cosby than Bill Clinton and Cosby has been indicted.[/note]
You see, Hillary claimed that ALL women who claim to have been sexually abused by some man deserve to be heard and taken seriously.
But this is the same Hillary Clinton who attacked the women who made those claims about her husband. Hillary had a war room set up for what she called bimbo eruptions and she and her people attacked any woman who came forward to accuse Bill of sexual misconduct. Hillary did not allow these women the opportunity to be heard and did everything she could to discredit and strike fear into them.
Now, all of the sudden, she is the champion of women’s rights and a defender of women who have been abused by men? Get real people. Hillary Clinton does not care about anyone but herself. She does not care if Bill pokes everything with breasts as long as it does not interfere with her ambitions.
The Trump incident only brings this to light. Hillary accused Trump of being a sexist (as do all of Hill’s defenders) but they all ignore the fact that Bill is actually a sexual predator. Trump merely stated that if they were going to try and pin sexism on him he was going to turn it around on them by bringing Bill into the discussion.
Trump is a businessman who has had thousands of people working for him. A heck of a lot of those people were women. How many stories have we heard from these women indicating that Trump was a sexist? Remember that the Democrats were able to find women willing to accuse Herman Cain of sexual impropriety and Gloria Alred rode out to defend an accuser in an effort to quash a Republican candidate (who happened to be black and possibly a threat to Obama’s hold on power) so that Obama and the Democrats could win.
Where are these women with regard to Trump? It seems to me if Trump were a sexist who abused women that there would be a lot of women to poll and see if he abused them. Seems to me that any woman who he did this to would be eager to discredit him and sink his campaign. I have no doubt the Democrats will find women willing to manufacture a claim against Trump (like they did with Cain) but so far no woman has voluntarily reported that Trump abused her, sexually or otherwise.
The Hillary apologists are trying to point the discussion in a different direction by claiming that Bill is not running, what he did should not be held against her and that it is not fair.
The reality is Hillary was the one who cleaned up Bill’s messes by attacking the very women she says deserve to be heard. She was responsible for the lives that were shattered and the women who were left bruised and battered (figuratively and literally) by her abusive rapist husband. She enabled him by protecting him and attacking them.
As the candidate’s wife and later First Lady these women were bimbos who needed to be destroyed. Now that she is the candidate they are people who must be heard.
Imagine if they were heard and taken seriously back then. We might have never had a President Clinton and his wife would not be running now.
In any event, Hillary is crying that she was attacked and boo hoo she is a woman and she can’t be attacked because that is sexist. Isn’t it amazing that Hillary screams about being treated fairly but when she is treated by Trump the way he treats everyone else she cries that it is not fair boo hoo I’m a woman? Hill, if you want to be treated equally then you can’t ask for special treatment because you are a woman. It is particularly amusing that she cries about Trump’s choice of words (schlonged, used by Democrats before) but she uses the “F bomb” regularly and has many worse words she uses to describe people, just ask some of her former Secret Service detail. Hell, Hillary once shouted to Bill to put his d*ck back in his pants he could not f*ck her here about a woman he was talking to
The pay gap Hillary talks about is complete nonsense but she uses it to push her women are not treated equally meme and there are plenty of mush heads who believe it. There is no pay gap but if we have to treat Hillary differently because she is a woman then perhaps we do need to pay her less…
Related:
NY MAG
Washington Post
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bill clinton, equality, Hillary, lies, sexual abuse, trump, women
White Christmas; That’s So Rayciss
Dec 23, 2015 2016 Election, Political
Take a look at this video. In it a man asks college students to sign a petition asking radio stations to ban the song “White Christmas” because it is racist. I would like to say that it surprised me that a number of students signed the petition but I have seen far too many people, college students or not, do really stupid things particularly when dealing with the topic of racism.
Keep in mind the sog is all about having SNOW (white precipitation) on Christmas Day…
[note]The definition of “White Christmas” varies. In most countries, it simply means that the ground is covered by snow at Christmas, but some countries have more strict definitions. In the United States, the official definition of a white Christmas is that there has to be a snow depth of at least 1 in or 2.5 cm at 7:00 a.m. local time on Christmas morning. Wikipedia[/note]
These people vote and they are a large part of the problem we face in this country.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.