BLOG: If You Can't See The Light, Can You At Least Embrace The Practical?

Bryan Dubois
Nov 16, 2010

I apologize in advance for this, but Rufus Sanders's "Seeing The Light" column provides another opportunity to examine the priorities and thought processes of leftists.  Sanders openly states what most other leftists try to hide.  I hate to keep bringing Rufus up, but his column gives the middle and right a chance to debate the ideas to which he and other leftists cling.

Leftists believe that the repudiation they suffered on November 2nd had little to do with the policies they tried to force down the throats of Americans - but supposedly had more to do with Obama and the Democrats failure to convey the message.  (It's never the ideology, you see.  Always something else.)

Instead of repeating the left's narrative about how Obama failed to explain to Americans how his policies have benefited them, (this artful explanation would allow the left to blame anything other than the ideology.) Mr. Sanders tosses caution to the wind and openly states that nothing anybody says will convince him to re-think his belief that increasing government power is the only way to battle social ills in this country.

Memo to Sanders and other leftists:  There is little difference between the greed for money and lusting for power.  Both exist in the behemoth goverment we've created.  The mistake you leftists make is believing that big government is somehow better than big business.  You delude yourselves with the fantasy that you seek power for the betterment of the country, instead all you end up doing is centralizing government power to chase an unreachable utopian fantasy.  (How's that 'war on drugs' working out?  How about the 'war on poverty?')  At least with big business, the people have a choice on whether to work hard to achieve a better lot in life.  With big government, the ruling class would have the power to take all of that away.

Stay in the dark with the idea that government has all the answers.  Lots of innovation there:  Give the power to the government and then get angry when it can't solve your problems.  Always worked in the past, hasn't it?

Comments

brutus smith

 "In Corporations We Trust". How soon should that be put on our currency bryan?

Exxcellent

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not."  Thomas Jefferson

Pete

One line in his story kinda describes the vast majority of Libtards:

"Arrogantly Ignorant"

brutus smith

 bryan, how about doing a piece on why people earning $30,000-$40,000 are beholden to the Corporations and the rich. Do they think they will be part of that upper 2% one of these days? Even people making less than a $100,000.

Pete

Or he could do a story on how the vast majority of Liberals cannot make it to the upper 2% because they lack the skills and knowledge to start and run a business successfully. That is why they crave government power so much. Due to the fact that they are failures in the real world, the only place they can fill the "hole" in their lives is by getting jobs where they don't have to worry about a P&L statement.

A follow-up idea would be how they like to tell other people how to run their lives since they most likely lack the "power" at home to carry it out under their own roofs

And when they get home at night their fat and psychopathic wives THRASH them within inches of their lives!

Roger Waters

Exxcellent

ROTFLMAO.

 

Oh did I mention....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

Good one Pete. LOL

goofus

Oy Vay, such claptrap!

brutus smith

 As usual, teatard answers.

 

Teatard buy teatard mugs, tshirts and magnets 1. someone who thinks a tiny tax increase is tyranny. Also, one who thinks the best way to protest what they see as wasteful spending is to waste their money by buying teabags and sending them to someone who will never see them, nor will they ever be opened by anyone. My teacher is a teatard, he tried to get us to "teabag the white house" the whole class burst into laughter much to his confusion.   2.A person who lets opportunist Republicans use the tea party movement for their own ends. A politically naive conservative who is easily influenced. Jim, the leader of the teaparty, recieved a personal visit by our conservative Republican congressman who wanted to use the teaparty movement as a platform for his campaign. Jim was impressed and did not see through the sham. It was on this day Jim became a TeaTard.   The Teaterds

It is almost like the terrorists unleashed an unstoppable stupidity toxin into American airspace on 9/11. Yes, I know people like this have always existed. but in the good old days they at least had the decency to stay indoors gorging on Slim Jims and 84oz buckets of Mr. Pibb while watching Raymond reruns.

 

 

If the terrorists are smart, they will give up on trying to attack us and just sit back and wait, because eventually our entire country is going to be so stupid that people will start sticking their tongues in wall sockets just to see what electricity tastes like.

 

Pete

In a large nutshell, a libtard's goal in life includes one or more of the following:

--the establishment of a Socialist "utopia" (a.k.a. a global nanny state)
--"benevolent" totalitarian control of the world's population through any means necessary
--ever increasing government micromanagement of private enterprise (a.k.a. clueless meddling)
--the adoption of laws, treaties and tax regulations that hinder America's competitiveness
--the usurpation of the legislative process, at all levels, through judicial fiat
--the filing of specious law suits in order to thwart the will of the people (e.g. Calif. Proposition. 187)
--the promotion of the tyranny of the minority
--the filing of specious law suits to shakedown corporations for cash (under the guise of "social responsibility")
--the disproportionate taxation of citizens "who have more money than they need"
--the redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers (under the guise of "fairness")
--the banning and confiscation of all privately owned guns (even though it has lead to genocide)
--the abolition of all private property rights
--the destruction of all national sovereignty (America first, of course)
--the destruction of Capitalism
--the establishment of one religion (with no personal accountability), OR the abolition of all religion
--the appeasement of Islamic radicals and their American front groups like CAIR (see: Religion of Pieces)
--the regulation, or banning, of all opposition media (under the guise of "fairness")
--the appeasement of Communist dictators and their American front groups
--the further insertion of Socialist ideology and indoctrination into public school curricula
--the purposeful "dumbing down" of the masses through inane public school curricula and pedagogy
--mass thought control through "speech codes" and political correctness
--the teaching of HATE (superficially disguised as "Women's Studies", "African Studies", etc.)
--the legalization of marijuana ("far OUT, man")
--the establishment of world wide socialized medicine (under the guise of "fairness")
--the conservation of the environment over the conservation of the American economy
--the demonization of attempts to make English America’s national language
--world peace (which genocidal dictators define as: "the absence of conflict"--dead men cannot resist your brutal oppression)
--the conservation of the environment over the conservation of humanity
--the promotion of abortion as birth control, eugenics, and teaching the theory of evolution as fact (even though the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes it from the get-go)
--the abolition of individual freedom
--anarchy

Not surprisingly, there is a thread of anti-Americanism that runs through these ideas. A libtard cannot stomach the idea that America, despite its faults, is the greatest country in the world. As such, he/she sees it as their duty to tarnish the country's current and past image using all available means including: cherry picking facts and using innuendo, half-truths, lies and fabrications (see: Rathergate).

Libtards’ actions undermine America's educational system, economy, criminal justice system, military personnel, sovereignty, security, and freedoms. Meanwhile, they try to fabricate a moral equivalence with rogue nations like China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Somalia and Sudan. (But don't question their patriotism).

NOTE TO ALL MALCONTENTS: If America is truly evil, please pick yourself a better country.

If the health care system in Cuba, Canada or Great Britain is superior to America's, then you are free to leave. If the crime rate in China, North Korea or the Magic Kingdom is so much lower, then you too are free to leave. Not enough hedonism for you? Then try Amsterdam, Bangkok or Tijuana.

If life in general is better in Sweden, The Netherlands or Switzerland then WHY are you still here??? You talk big, but you lack the courage of your convictions. So do humanity a favor--shut up and move away.

Otherwise get a real job, and get a life, because you obviously have WAY too much time on your hands.

goofus

Sounds about right Pete!

Salvatore

How does brutus get money to survive? Government employee? Self employed? Private sector? Maybe spending years at the expense of the tax payer? Brutus refuses to answer.

Erie County Resident

I see it didn't take long to get the bs going.

Rufus speaks then farts brutus out like monkies flying out of his butt. He flies straight up so fast his lips start flapping and spews out all kinds of garbage . Then on re-entry bs burns up like the tip of a sparkler.. just kind of a teeny tiny spark... "POOF" it's gone... Like any other LIBTARD brain cell.

Maybe he should set in a bucket of water before he bursts into flames again...LOL

goofus
Soros: China has better functioning government than U.S.

Not bad from the poster boy of the democratic party. Now you know why he invested heavily in the democrap party. This headline is from the latest Drudge Report.

Kimo

Re: Libtard or Teatard

How much class does it take to use such demeaning terms.

Would any of you find it cute if someone used that term to describe Palins youngest?

IMO you all need to grow up.

 

Pundit

 

Dubious, this is how your essay would be marked up in any freshman English class:

 Leftists [who exactly? lazy over generalization]  believe that the repudiation they suffered on November 2nd [repudiation? they still hold the Senate and the Presidency, if by leftists you mean Democrats] had little to do with the policies they tried to force down the throats of Americans [again, lazy over generalization, which policies?] - but supposedly had more to do with Obama and the Democrats failure to convey the message [what message? yet again overgeneralization].  (It's never the ideology, you see.  Always something else.) [isn't this a false choice? wouldn't Obama's policies represent his ideology? Is there a secret plan only you know about?] 

 

 

 

 

Instead of repeating the left's narrative about how Obama failed to explain to Americans how his policies have benefited them, (this artful explanation would allow the left to blame anything other than the ideology [again their policies are the result of their ideology, you've fallen into a pattern of circular reasoning].) Mr. Sanders tosses caution to the wind and openly states that nothing anybody says will convince him to re-think his belief that increasing government power is the only way to battle social ills in this country.[you seem to be repeating the tautology 'because they believe something they believe it' well, duh.]

 

 

 Memo to Sanders and other leftists:  There is little difference between the greed for money and lusting for power [that's an awkward phrasing, deeply flawed logic] .  Both exist in the behemoth goverment we've created [at least you take part of the blame, especially now that you cons are in power after the "repudiation" you should have used "refudiation" as an homage to your leader].  The mistake you leftists make is believing that big government is somehow better than big business [government contains due process, your proposed coroprate overlords do not].  You delude yourselves with the fantasy that you seek power for the betterment of the country, instead all you end up doing is centralizing government power to chase an unreachable utopian fantasy [is it a "secret conspiracy" or more of a Manchurian Candidate brainwashing scenario you believe in?].  (How's that 'war on drugs' working out? [started by noted leftist Ronald Reagan] How about the 'war on poverty?' [it was a great success actually, there are far fewer people in poverty now than in 1964 FYI the war on poverty was ended in 1973 by Nixon])  At least with big business [i thought conservatives lauded small business?], the people [those not inheriting wealth that is] have a choice on whether to work hard to achieve a better lot in life [this assumes that hard work equals a better life, ask the minimum wage worker if he is working hard] .  With big government [a vague term that means virtually anything you want it to], the ruling class [full of rightists, I would imagine] would have the power to take all of that away.

Grade: D- for Dubious

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

goofus
Number of Americans in Poverty Highest in 51 Years Posted on September 16, 2010 by Karen K. Harris Email This Print Comments Trackbacks

Today the Census Bureau released the 2009 poverty data which shows that the number of people in poverty in 2009 is the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates are available. There were 43.6 million people in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2008 — the third consecutive annual increase. The nation's official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent, up from 13.2 percent in 2008. The data also show that nearly 21% percent of children, or roughly 15.5 million, were in poverty in 2009 versus 19% in 2008, or approximately 14.1 million in 2008.

Living in poverty means deprivation and hardship. For a family of four, life at the poverty level means trying to provide children with a roof over their heads, clothing, adequate health care and a nutritious diet on an annual income of $21,947.

The 2009 poverty data grimly illustrates the heavy toll that the recession has taken on the American people. The increase in poverty is made even more painful by the fact that it follows an economic recovery that utterly failed to reduce poverty--indeed, it was the first economic recovery on record where the poverty level at the peak of the recovery (2007) was actually higher than it was in the previous recession (2001).  

The unprecedented increases in poverty and child poverty are consistent with other data that show the severity of the current recession. For example, the unemployment rate in the United States doubled between 2007 (when the recession began) and 2009, going from 4.6 to 9.3 percent.  Also during this time, the number of Americans receiving food stamps increased by 33 percent, to over 35 million people.
Sorry people couldn't resist the inane comment by Pundit.

Pundit

 Look Goofus,

When LBJ declared the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was at 23%, now its at 14%. The "War" only lasted until 1973 when Nixon ended it, so I'd say its effects worked out pretty good, despite the Bush recession.   

Nice try at a "gotcha", though.  

Is George Soros part of the conspiracy only you and Dubious know about? 

goofus

English professor take a math course, in 1964 there was 191,888,791 americans. Today there are 308,400,408 americans. All population numbers are from the us census. Do the math professor more people are living in poverty now than ever. In the war on poverty, poverty won. Try selling your percentages to the poor. I also dislike unions, thank you for asking.

Massengill Wins...

Goofus clears all doubt of his ignorance each and every time he opens his mouth.  Maybe he should just stick to cut and paste.  Pundit was clearly comparing poverty rates on a percentage basis.  23% in 1964  is higher than 14% in 2010.  The population in 1964 was 191,888,791.  23% of 191,888,791 = 44,034,422.  The population in 2010 is 308,400,408.  14% of 308,400,408 = 43,176,057.  A child would know that 44,034,422 is a larger number than 43,176,057 but for some reason Goofus doesn't.  Poverty as a percentage and in the number of people was larger in 1964 than it is today.

I am starting to understand why the fascist righties "don't need no schoolin"

goofus

 In 1964 the Census Bureau estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in poverty, approximately 36 million people.  It's so hard to argue with people on the left of the fence when they arbitrarily throw out false numbers. The point is trillions of dollars has been spent to eradicate poverty and spending is what the left does best, even when we don't have it. Throwing money at the problem has only created more problems as in generational welfare, but this is exactly what the democrats want. A voting bloc of people invested in  the nanny state.

goofus

When you hear that someone is “poor,” it brings to mind images of a person who may be homeless and malnourished. Fortunately, however, that description is not reflective of the majority of individuals labeled as poor by the federal government. The 2000 Census indicates that 73% of U.S. poor own automobiles, 76% have air conditioning, 97% own refrigerators, 62% have cable or satellite TV, and 73% have microwaves. There are many homeless and malnourished individuals in the United States, but the poverty thresholds are high enough to include many individuals who live with some modern comforts.

Instead of being homeless, almost half (46%) own their own homes with most of the rest renting their homes. On average a poor person in this country lives in a home with 1,228 square feet (114.1 m2) which they often own, and as noted the home is likely air conditioned, with a refrigerator, cable or satellite TV, a microwave not to mention many other comforts.[48] Cox and Alm[49] conclude that if the American poor formed a country of their own, they would be as well-off or even slightly better-off than the typical family in most European countries. And to think this standard of living is  with the blessing of the democratic party. Source: Wikkipedia.

Pete

brutus smith says

 bryan, how about doing a piece on why people earning $30,000-$40,000 are beholden to the Corporations and the rich. Do they think they will be part of that upper 2% one of these days? Even people making less than a $100,000.

The vast majority of people I know work for corporations. A couple work for non-profits, one for da government, but the rest get their checks from Whatever Inc. So if we do away with companies and corporations, who will people work for? Or would you like the Hugo Chavez approach and just nationalize every place of work in the nation? Cuba tried that, look how well it turned out for them.

I have never recieved a paycheck from a poor person. Granted some are more wealthy than others, but none have been on food stamps or recieved HUD while being my boss.

Have you recieved a paycheck from a poor person? The only person I can think of that does is the government worker. It is a county job, so the salary is paid by sales tax.

Those evil corporations have paid for a roof over my head, a car to drive, food on my table, and even luxuries like dance lessons and prom dresses for the daughter

Salvatore

Brutus smith says "In Corporations We Trust". How soon should that be put on our currency bryan? My question to brutus is what have you got against business and corporations?  You seem to be so against business and corporations? WHY????? Brutus also says "bryan, how about doing a piece on why people earning $30,000-$40,000 are beholden to the Corporations and the rich. Do they think they will be part of that upper 2% one of these days? Even people making less than a $100,000"  My question to brutus is why are you so against rich people and corporations? How much wealth did Stalin have? How did all those communists in power become billionaires after the USSR fell apart? What is wrong with making $30,000 - $40,000? I sure wish that I made $40,000 because that is $19 an hour based on a 40 work week.  I have in the past worked for farmers, small business and private industry but never for the government.  The farmers and small business owners were not rich but they provided me with a job. The corporations many of which are owned by individual stock owners provided me with a good job in past years.  So brutus, tell me why you are so against corporations and rich people? Many rich people are philanthripists, even Soros.

Again Brutus Smith, how do you make a living? Public employee, self employed, private industry (corporation) or living for years off of the tax payer?

Raoul Duke

It seems to me that our elected officials at the highest level are likely in agreement about one thing: keep the public divided by so-called left/right debates, because a divided public is easier to control. It's an illusion that they've created, and we've bought into it, not unlike professional wrestling. In the ring, they act like they hate each other, but backstage, they're sitting around playing cards, and counting their money.

brutus smith

 sal, having a bad day? Where did I say I had something against people making 30-40,000 a year? And thanks for making my point about most people not working for rich people! :) I couldn't have said it better! Once again, thanks. 1st the large Corporations like Walmart put many a small businessman out of business. And what exactly do they do for the community? We, the taxpayers, have to subsidize their employees with food stamps and medical care, heat assistance, etc. Why do people like you believe the middle class should subsidize large Corporations? And look what happened when large Wall Street Corporations bought up the factories in the area. They leave us with a bunch of moth balled plants. That's good how sal? 

 

Oh and sal, quit doing the typical right wingnut thing in trying to demonize people. Make a case for your beliefs. And once again thank you for making my point! :).

 

sal said,"The farmers and small business owners were not rich but they provided me with a job." Thanks sal, glad you agree with me.

Pete

First of all I do not shop at Wally World. But let me ask you a question:

Was it Wal Mart that put the local stores out of business or the people that shop there? Same goes with Lowes or HomeyD. Was it the corporations themselves or the people that bought products out of those stores?

A second part to this is what would you have companies like Wal Mart do? The market created by the shoppers has dictated that the prices remain low. If Wal Mart raises it's wages, will they not also raise their prices to compensate for it? If they do that, there are two consequences; Either the wages of others has to go up, or people have to buy less. If wages go up, then we begin an inflationary issue correct?

I do not look at it as a company problem, I look at it as a consumer problem.

brutus smith

 And yes goofus should stick with cut and paste. He gets wat off the reservation when he speaks his own thoughts. Like Bill Maher said "Dems have moved to  the center, Repubs have moved to the mental hospital". ROFLMAO!

6079 Smith W
Mr. Sanders writes:   “My thoughts seem to have been nothing but leftover utopian dreams of the 1960s,”   I always enjoy how Marxists like Mr. Sanders casually throw the word “utopia” around as though it is a synonym for societal perfection.   On the contrary; “Utopia” is a word originally coined by Thomas More, which from it's Greek root word essentially means “a place that does not exist.”   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utopia?&qsrc=   What Mr. Sanders undoubtedly meant to write was “dystopian”: An intolerant, authoritarian, dysfunction society in the vein of Oceania in Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dystopia  

Regarding his desire for a world of Marxist perfection, Mr. Sanders would be advised to best remember that the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions.

 

 

Bryan Dubois

The far left is hopelessly obsessed with Marxism, utopia and many other things that sound great on paper.  This is linked to the fact that those who drive the agenda are essentially godless people who believe human beings are as powerful as God.  Leftist ideas are rooted in the philosophy of godlessness whether they realize it or not...

6079 Smith W
If large corporations are so evil, then why do public employee pension plans like California giants calPERS and calSTRS invest billions of their retirees’ dollars in them both domestically and overseas?   http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/home.xml  

http://www.calstrs.com/investments/index.aspx

 

Pages