Five Major Cases The Supreme Court Will Decide This Month

So Rotor, waiting to hear who is the worst president since Kennedy and in what aspects?
And waiting to understand who YOU think is an affirmative action president and if so why is that a bad thing? Waiting to hear what you think of George Sr.'s millions of dollars donation to the Princeton University Library. Maybe you can link me as to just how many millions exactly he donated to Dubya's alma mater.
Yes Rotor, rate the current and last president, for starters. I am not that old so I cannot comprehensively discuss Nixon or Truman. Put them side by side. It will be our own little private poll. Shhh.
I'm waiting....

So Rotor, waiting to hear who is the worst president since Kennedy and in what aspects?
And waiting to understand who YOU think is an affirmative action president and if so why is that a bad thing? Waiting to hear what you think of George Sr.'s millions of dollars donation to the Princeton University Library. Maybe you can link me as to just how many millions exactly he donated to Dubya's alma mater.
Yes Rotor, rate the current and last president, for starters. I am not that old so I cannot comprehensively discuss Nixon or Truman. Put them side by side. It will be our own little private poll. Shhh.
I'm waiting....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10948224/The-Obama-years-The-trailers-were-great-the-movie-was-horrible.html

The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible'
As a poll of American voters ranks Barack Obama as the worst president of all time, Matt Lewis says his presidency has been a disastrous flop
The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible'
American voters ranks Barack Obama as the worst president of all time Photo: AP

By Matt Lewis

12:01PM BST 05 Jul 2014

The trailers were great, but the movie was horrible.

Six years in, that's the general consensus on the Obama presidency. Having ridden a wave of "hope and change" to the White House, President Barack Obama has failed to deliver on his huge box office, err, ballot box expectations.

Just how bad is it? Since it is summer "blockbuster" season, I'll explain thusly: There's a difference between being bad and being most awesomely bad. You and I probably never even hear of the worst movies made. They are forgotten, not mocked. But the truly disastrous flops - the Water Worlds and Ishtars of the world - are the movies that come with huge budgets and huge expectations.

Obama fits the latter category - extremely talented and hyped, but ultimately, unsatisfying. True, I've been making this case for a long time - but now, there's evidence.

A Quinnipiac poll released in America this week has Obama ranked as the "worst president" since World War II. For various reasons, this may or may not be entirely fair, but considering his competition included Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, this is problematic. And, what is more, a majority surveyed also said "the nation would be better off" had Mitt Romney won presidency.
Related Articles

Whereas Jaws was a summer hit in the summer of 1975, Obama has now "jumped the shark" in the sweltering summer of 2014.

So what's to blame? For one thing, all the talk of "hope and change" turned out to be a stark contrast to his practice of stoking bitterness and division in order to win re-election. Call it false advertising or buyer's remorse, but just because someone buys a ticket to a show doesn't mean they're going to applaud. Somewhere along the way, this feel-good romcom turned into a horror show.

To most Americans, the economy continues to feel anemic, and it's hard to imagine the international situation could get much worse - again a case of false advertising.

If Obama were a movie, he'd be Gigli.

Speaking of high expectations, we were led to believe back in 2008 that Obama's charm offensive would woo other nations into loving us again. That obviously didn't work. Russia is back and Iraq is falling apart - two movies I hoped I'd never see again.

But if nobody is buying his act internationally, things aren't much better on the domestic front. Having failed to persuade Congress to pursue his policies, Obama has resorted to unilateral decisions, many of which appear to be outside the scope of his constitutional authority. In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court recently ruled three of his recess appointments (appointments made while the US Senate was ostensibly on recess) to be unconstitutional. And just last week, House Speaker John Boehner announced he would sue the administration over executive orders. (And is it fair to blame Team USA's World Cup loss to Belgium on him?)

What is more, it's becoming clear that Obama has lost interest in being president and now looks like a prisoner of the job. If the Obama presidency was a movie, even the president's now shuffling for the exit. It's time to roll credits.

And really, who could blame him? It's not just that Obama has failed in the eyes of most Americans, but that he has also failed to advance his own goals. Yes, of course, there is a laundry list of famous broken promises, including the closing of Guantanamo Bay. But here I'm speaking more broadly.

During President Obama's tenure, income inequality has risen, the black unemployment rate has consistently been twice that of whites, and (despite some tough rhetoric) he has yet to rein in Wall Street. And for a president who talked a lot about civil liberties and privacy, revelations about NSA surveillance, and the use of drones, should have civil libertarians on the left and the right concerned.

The Box Office, err, ballot box was a smashing success, but the reviews are in and the critics and the public - even his fans - are starting to hurl the rotten tomatoes. Citizen Kane this ain't.

missjustice, I did not see that those were walmart links or I would not have posted them. one was yahoo, one was glassdoor-reviews by employees, I think I posted indeed also, which is also an employee rating system. I know many people who have worked there and get great benefits and do not need assistance. I stand by what I said. also, in one of the Dakotas, they are paying close to 18 an hour.

Rotor, a penny for your original thoughts...
I am still waiting for you compare the last two presidents as if our own private poll. Instead you regurgitate the polling opinions of some dude. The cheap thing would be for me to link you to another contrasting poll from a democratic leaning organization and that would be circuitous.
Just admit that you are unable to compare Bush and Dubya and that Obama would win rotor's poll.
Or maybe your failure to respond to my requests is an admission of sorts?

If the worst thing you can say about Obama is that Mitt Romney would have made a better president, then I accept the possibility of the hypothetical. But since parallel universes don't exist, and the majority of Americans in a majority of states didn't agree with you (which by the way is the only poll that actually counts) then I can only smile when I read your little link.

missjustice, I did not see that those were walmart links or I would not have posted them. one was yahoo, one was glassdoor-reviews by employees, I think I posted indeed also, which is also an employee rating system. I know many people who have worked there and get great benefits and do not need assistance. I stand by what I said. also, in one of the Dakotas, they are paying close to 18 an hour.

Half of all Walmart employees nationwide are on Medicaid and foodstamps. That is a fact. Period. Because you may travel in high circles and know a handful of folks who make a lush $18/ hr does not mean that MOST Walmart emplyees are indigent.

So please refute me only if you can address mean, medians, or mode salaries. Otherwise, we will agree that Walmart is the slumlord of retailers, here and perhaps abroad.

http://earthchanges.ning.com/m/blogpost?id=6126809%3ABlogPost%3A328895

MissJustice,
I disagree with everything that you say. Including Obamacare.

I refer to Obama as our Affirmative Action President because the only reason that he was elected to the presidency is because he is black. Not based on his qualifications. He was a political newcomer with no proven executive experience. His only government experience was 6 years in the Illinois State Senate and 3 years in the US Senate. He had NO executive experience. The main job of any executive including the president is to build an effective management team and then lead them. Obama fails at this.

Obama was also the Affirmative Action Nobel Peace Prize winner. He did absolutely nothing to earn that either. I no longer have any respect for the Nobel committee.

Look at the experience of past presidents since WW2. They were either former governors of states, long term congress persons or former military senior commanders. They had leadership experience.

You seem to think that Clinton did a great job and left a pristine country behind that Bush then proceeded to destroy. What fantasy world do you live in? Clinton reduced government spending by downsizing the military and cutting intelligence assets. Do you think that bin Laden came out of nowhere and led the attack on 9/11? Far from it, he had been involved with terrorism throughout the Clinton administration. What did Clinton do? Here is an article from Forbes.

Here is an account from a person carrying the nuclear football. They had been told that they had a two hour window.

Here is Patterson’s chilling account:
“Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit[uation] Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk [missile] crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

The dithering continued until it was too late–and bin Laden lived to fight another day. And to plot the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

Clinton was probably fooling around with Monica while the military waited for him to return the call. Isn't the president supposed to answer his phone during a crisis?

The attack on 9/11 took place eight months into Bush's presidency, the legacy of a failed Clinton administration. Did Bush blame Clinton? No, he managed the situation the best he could. Obama is still blaming Bush 5 years later. Very different management styles.

You seem to blame Bush for the Iraq invasion. Both US and British Intelligence reported WMD's in Iraq. If you have evidence that Bush and Blair manufactured this intelligence please present it. You seem to forget that instead of simply invading Iraq, he went to congress for authorization. 40% of the democrats in the house voted to attack Iraq and 58% of senate democrats voted to attack Iraq. Including Hillary Clinton(D-NY). But according to you they bear no responsibility, only Bush and the GOP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

As for who is the worst president since WW2, without a doubt Obama. And I am not alone in believing this, many democrats are deserting his sinking ship.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

As for obamacare. This was a democrat solution to health care. Democrat president, democrat house and democrat senate passed it. Republicans voted against it.

By a 55-38 percent margin, people wish the Affordable Care Act had never passed and the 2009 system were still in place. That includes a quarter of Democrats (25 percent), a majority of independents (58 percent) and most Republicans (85 percent).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/10/fox-news-poll-voters-regret-obamacare-say-country-is-worse-off-under-new-law/

Do doctors support Obamacare?
We all remember the highly publicized Rose Garden ceremony of smiling doctors in their white coats standing alongside a glowing President Obama (“you look very spiffy in your coats,” he approvingly noted) in his attempt to validate his Affordability Care Act to the public before its details were even exposed to public scrutiny.

Meanwhile, contrary to those doctors selected to legitimize ObamaCare in the staged media event (where the White House actually handed out white lab coats to generate the image of official credibility), an overwhelming 70 percent of doctors said, even back in 2011, that they disagreed with the AMA’s position on health reform, while only 13 percent agreed with it. In fact, almost half of doctors in that survey even went so far as to say that the AMA stance on ObamaCare was the factor causing them to drop AMA membership.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2012/10/11/what-do-actual-doctors-think-about-obamacare-now/

No one seems to like obamacare. Except you!
A fascinating number in Wednesday's CBS poll is that only 7% of the American public want ObamaCare "kept in place." A full 93% either believe that changes are needed to the law (48%) or want a full repeal (43%). This pits President Obama and Democrat lawmakers -- who thus far have refused to make any meaningful changes -- against 93% of the American people and 72% of Democrats.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/cbs-poll-93-percent-want-obamacare-changed-repealed

In his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama declared that as president he would clean up the mess created by “the failed presidency of George W. Bush.” Now many Americans say he has done a worse job in office than the man he replaced. A new Quinnipiac poll finds that a plurality rated Barack Obama the worst president in the past 70 years — worse even than Richard Nixon, who resigned in scandal. That is quite an achievement.

And, to add insult to injury, a new Gallup poll finds that confidence in the presidency has dropped from 51 percent when Obama took office to just 29 percent today (4 points lower than Bush at the same point in his presidency).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-legacy-of-failure/2014/07/07/9148acf8-05e0-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html

That's a mouthful. Where do I start?
I agrée that Obama may have been elected in part for being black. Bit what do you mean 'not because he was qualified'. Are being black and being qualified mutually exclusive?
I agree with you about blackness factoring into his election but for a different reason: the country was so screwed up by one and as you say two presidents both being white, that as an act of not repeating the same thing and expecting a different result, ie sanity, a majority white nation with a recent Jim Crow past decided to take their chances with the black man.
I guess too many of them had watching the Tuskegee airmen movie as the sat home unemployed looking at disappeared 401Ks.
Reason number two: Obama had a landslide in 2008 because he was the only democrat to get the Iraq war position correct when he was a state senator.

I agree with you that the Nobel Prize was way too premature. In fact the Nobel prize had nothing to do with Obama; it was a condemnation of Bush. It was also a promise ring, a request to start no more wars. And an acknowledgement of his being a lone voice to get the Iraq invasion stupidity correct.

Bush asked Hanz Blitz of the IAEE to leave Iraq before the inspection was complete because they did not want to know that there were no WMD's. There was never any confirmation. 4000 lost their lives on this failure, and thousands more are permanently scarred. This is not defensible Rotor.
And yes, the democrats in congress mostly got it wrong too. On this we agree.

No, Obama did not have administrative experience. So what? He has brains.

You still can't seem to tell me whether you think Bush was a better president than Obama why are you avoiding this?

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, most of the democrats who oppose it think it didn't go far enough.
But you know Barack, the great compromiser. Tried to mix Romneycare with single payer and came out with Rommeycare. On this issue Obama was a total Republican.
The AMA did not endorse it because it didn't go far enough.
My doctors and my children's doctors think it is the best thing that ever happened to their practice. They say that it increased the number of insured patients, especially the very small business owners and young people between 18 and 25 who got back on their parents' plans and now show up in droves for care, without an play for preventive services.
And the GAO announced today that for the first time in two decades health care costs rose by single digits only.

So we won't agree on ACA. Some people took your same position about SS and Medicare. Get over it. The sign up exceeded expectations. Go check that prostate, Rotor.

Polls, polls, the only poll that matters is Election Day. One of the reason Mitt Rommey lost is because he was hating on health insurance access and women listened. That was the most certain vote of confidence in Obama after a four year test drive. Kinda like a renewal of vows:
"We, the American people, take you Barack, to be our lawfully elected president, to have and to hold... Forsaking all others...AGAIN"
This was AFTER Obamacare!
So even if the poll is correct, we are simply having a lovers quarrel. Deep down we are still in love, and when the lights go out we will still be president and country.
The only other poll that matters, Rotor, is what you think.
Stop sending me conservative links. Let me into your mind. Bush vs Obama. Who is worse? Comparatives are way easier than superlatives.
Please rotor? Just compare them for me. Spank me please.

PS here is a bone. I do not favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. I just wanted to make sure we agree on something, and I am guessing this is one?

2008 unemployment is 10%, losing 700,000 jobs per month
2014 unemployment is 6%, netting 100,00 jobs per month

Unemployment was 7.3% at the end of '08

Probably not worth the time to discuss things like participation rates and the effect of QE policies

"You still can't seem to tell me whether you think Bush was a better president than Obama why are you avoiding this?"

"As for who is the worst president since WW2, without a doubt Obama. And I am not alone in believing this, many democrats are deserting his sinking ship."

I'm not avoiding this. You must not read what I write! I said earlier that I believe that Obama is the worst president since WW2. I was not a Bush supporter, I thought that he was embarrassing to the country every time that he opened his mouth. I was disappointed when he was replaced with someone even worse, Obama.

Obama claimed that he was going to run the most transparent administration in history. Look at what he has done.

When questions about place of birth were brought up in 2008, McCain immediately produced his long form birth certificate showing that he was born on a US Military base in Panama. Obama ducked the issue for years. He only produced a long form version in 2011. He paid over $1M to the law firm Perkins Coie to quash eligibility lawsuits between 2008-2009. Why? If you want to be transparent then why not just produce your long form like McCain did?

When questions about his church came up and speeches from his pastor at Trinity United were shown on TV, Obama denied knowing what had been said by Rev Wright. This despite having attended the church for 20 years, being married by the man and his daughters baptized by the man. Obama threw him under the bus. Do you really feel that Obama knew nothing of Wrights teachings? Is this how an honorable man treats his mentor and friend?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/jeremiah-wright-obama-thr_n_579800.html

How many times have we seen Obama cabinet members take the 5th or stonewall congress? Benghazi? IRS? Fast and Furious?, etc. Does this sound transparent?

As for our president being black, I have no problem with that. My doctor is black, my attorney is black and one of my best friends is black. I am a great admirer of Colin Powell. I was impressed with his military career and I was impressed with his decision to leave the Bush administration over differences about the wars. I think that he would have made a good president.

I am a libertarian. I do not vote republican or democratic. I do agree with the polls, Obama is the worst and Reagan was the best president since WW2. Obama can't be trusted. Mr. "If you like your insurance you can keep it" will say any thing, true or false, to advance his agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E

Okay, but do you think the country was better off after Bush than Obama? You focus more on comparing the men than comparing their performance, and better yet, the state of the country after their tenures.
Can you honestly say that you prefer to live in 2008 USA than 2014 USA or even Europe for that matter?

And how can you say that you are a Libertarian and in the same breath say that you supported the invasion of Iraq because of WMDs?

And PS, Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Obama after he Powell was duped into duping the American people. So the Powell you admire doesn't share your views Obama.

Birth certificate? Really? You went there? So what now? He was suppressing the release because it was a fake? Okay. Here's the real deal on that. His mother met and married an African student while they were in college in Hawaii. Near her due date she had to ensure that he was born in Kenya so that his birth ace would dictate his allegiance when he ran for president in the future. So without getting a passport, a 17 year old white pregnant unemployed American girl in 1961 paid the cost of African round trip airfare to sneak into Kenya without a passport to deliver her Manchurian candidate fetus in the state of the art healthcare system in Obama Sr's rural village unaccompanied by Obama Sr. She then with a newborn in tow, and without passports for either of them snuck back into Hawaii in time to place birth announcements in two different Hawaiian newspapers to fake his being born the US so that that his future presidential eligibility would not be questioned. Meanwhile Barack Sr. had stayed behind in Hawaii while his young pregnant white teenage wife went to his rural village alone.

Then the evil cover up which the brilliant Donald Trump helped us expose.
Just a few questions:
1. How did they know he would want to run for president?
2. Where did she get the money to to to Kenya?
3. How did she get there without a passport?
4. How did the two of them get back in without a passport?
5. How did they get the GOP lady at the Birth Certificate office to validate the form?
6. Did his mother give birth to him in the US or did his father give birth to him in Africa?
7. Wouldn't it have been easier, cheaper, and more plausible to make him eligible for president by staying in the US?
8. If he was born outside the US of a US citizen parent, wouldn't be still be eligible and would not need to fake his documents?
9. Did you know that in 2012, the two major party nominees for president had foreign born parents?
Yes Rotor, Romney's Dad was born in Mexico.
10. And did you know that McCain, his previous challenger, was born in Coco Sula Panama?
11. And okay Obama used to attend a weird church that he resigned from and repudiated when the man said some ?racist things.
12. And Romney is and has been a member of a church where blacks couldn't go to heaven until 1978.
13. And that Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's Atty General pleaded the fifth to the political firings investigation of the Dept of Justice?

Rotor, it is okay to say, I just don't like the dude. When I get my magical powers I am going to make a blue America and a red America. And I am going to sentence you to live there. In the blue one, we have healthcare, no personal assault rifles, Onama is president, and the economy is good and we don't have made up wars.
And Red America you will live with no taxes, no paved roads, no public schools, no clean air, armed kindergarten kids, Rush Limbaugh is president, multiple preemptive wars for presumed WMDs, no health insurance, no Medicare, no VA benefits, and you can pretend to accessbe libertarian while living there.
And we will be playing basketball and soccer, eating french fries and arugula, with a poster of Lion King starring Obama as Simba, our Kenyan King.
While you will be eating un-inspected beef playing hockey and watching Nascar.
With either a president whose dad was born in Mexico (Romney) or Jamaica (Powell), or who was born in Panama.
Because that really makes a difference.
And then we can blog about weather.

It is truly entertaining to dialogue with you.

I am done! You either don't read what I write or don't comprehend English.

And how can you say that you are a Libertarian and in the same breath say that you supported the invasion of Iraq because of WMDs?

Where did I say that I supported the war in Iraq? Or any war for that matter? You imagine things.

And PS, Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Obama after he Powell was duped into duping the American people. So the Powell you admire doesn't share your views Obama.

I am well aware of Powell's politics. I still do not like Obama or Bush. I think that they are both bad for the country.

Birth certificate? Blah! Blah! Blah!

I am not a birther. I don't care about any of your blah, blah. I was just pointing out the difference in the way that the two men McCain and Obama handled the same issue. Where were you born? McCain immediately shows long form birth certificate. Good. Obama draws it out for 3 years, then shows it. This does not look like the most transparent administration. What was the point of waiting 3 years?

Rotor, it is okay to say, I just don't like the dude.

I don't trust the dude! I believe that he has no integrity. You never mentioned how he handled the whole Jeremiah Wright issue. No integrity! And yes, I look at the character of the man. I think that Obama has done more damage to US foreign relations than Bush ever did.
Goodbye.

... -.-

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart_target_better/ this was interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/walmart-salary_n_4151131.html

i am not going to look any further, the data is there. because an employee chooses to not further their career or has just started out, you blame walmart. i do not run in high circles, how does my support of a company that has given jobs to more than a million employees suggest that.

a few of those other sites i posted where from walmart employees not walmart company.

why only walmart? why this vendetta against them in particular. if they want to earn more then they have plenty of opportunity to move up in the company and make more. if they do not like the wages they are being paid, isnt it up to them to either get a different job or an education.

and no one has yet to state what a living wage is and how paying every employee a "living wage" will affect the economy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/27/why-do-1-4-million-americans-work-at-walmart-with-many-more-trying-to/

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Walmart-Salaries-E715.htm

actually this is the last thing i will post about it

Don’t Argue With Liberals – It Only Encourages Them
Kurt Schlichter | Jun 02, 2014

Non-lawyers often ask me, “What is the best way to argue with a liberal?” This is silly, because there is no best way to argue with a liberal. They're beyond argument. You might as well argue with your terrier. Take it from someone who argues with his hideous terrier all the time.

But if you do choose to argue with a liberal, understand that your purpose should never be to change the liberal’s mind. You're not going to change the liberal’s mind. Instead, if you choose to argue with a liberal, you should do it for one of two reasons – to either win over people who have not yet made up their minds, or to support people who already have begun to understand the truth.

The truth is that conservatism is an ideology that is in accord with natural law and basic human decency, while liberalism is merely the summit of a slippery slope leading down to the hellish depths of collectivist misery.

Liberals aren’t going to like to hear this manifest and demonstrable truth. So you’re going to get called “racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” even if you’re a conservative black lesbian.

What you are not going to get is an argument. An argument is a collected series of statements designed to establish a definite proposition. Arguments involve the presentation of facts and evidence from which one draws a conclusion. Implied within the concept of an argument is the potential that one might change his conclusion. But liberals start with the conclusion.

They don’t change their conclusions based on the facts and evidence; they change the facts and evidence based on the conclusion they want. This is why a 105 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming, while a 60 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming. As is a -20 degree day.

Liberals are only concerned with argument, or what superficially appears to be argument, as a rhetorical bludgeon designed to beat you into submission. They aren’t trying to change your mind. They don’t expect you to agree with them. They don’t even care whether or not you grow to love Big Brother.

They just want you to shut up and let them run rampant. If you understand that, you'll be fine.

There are two basic tactics to choose from when responding to a liberal pseudo-argument, defense and counterattack. Without getting too detailed and infantry-nerdy on you, think of defense as simply preventing a loss. You're holding your ground. The counterattack, however, lashes out to seize the initiative and defeat your enemy.

Both have their uses. When you defend, you are generally responding to the pseudo-argument the liberal is making. A liberal will start advocating some nonsense and you reply to what he says. You may choose to use examples of liberalism's many failures to illustrate how collectivism is a prescription for disaster. For example, some pinko starts crowing about how eight million suckers signed up for Obamacare. A good defense might involve raising the question of how many of those eight million have actually paid for it.

But the problem with defense is that it treats a liberal "argument” with a respect it doesn't deserve. You dignify liberal silliness with a response when all it deserves is mockery and contempt.

This is why I prefer to counterattack. When you counterattack, you ignore the proposition offered by the liberal and refuse to respond on the liberal’s preferred terms. In fact, you don’t even need to address the same subject the liberal is talking about. Your goal is not to undercut the liberal’s assertion. You're going to counterattack to undercut the liberal himself.

There are many good reasons to choose the approach of treating the liberal like he is a terrible person with terrible ideas who seeks to impose a quasi-fascist police state upon America, including the fact that it's all true.

Let’s try a counterattack battle drill. Some doofus with a “Capitalism Is a Patriarchal, Cisnormative Hate Crime” t-shirt starts babbling about “privilege.” The undecideds start listening, their jaws drooping slightly. Some of the more conservative ones are silent, not wanting to be labeled racist by some geek whose grandfather came from Oslo. You need to act. So you causally inject the question, “Hey, why are you an eager and active member of a political party that made a KKK kleagle a beloved Senate Majority Leader?”

Then you mention that you’re a member of the party that fought slavery and didn’t turn hoses on civil rights marchers. Then you finish by announcing, “Well, I’m going to stand with Dr. King and judge people by the content of their character.” It’s optional whether you then get up, scream that the liberal should have issued you a trigger warning about his racism, and leave.

But be careful – the liberal may totally spit in the next latte he sells you.

Some people might question whether this kind of Alinsky-esque tactic means we are stooping to the liberals’ level. Except the liberals’ level is six feet underground, where the victims of collectivism lie buried. Anyone not willing to take the fight to them simply empowers their liberal fascist fantasies.

If you're trying to win an Oxford Union debate with a liberal, you’ve missed the point. This isn't about the Marquess of Queensberry’s fussy little rules. This isn't about some sort of extended-pinky exchange of ideas over a fine glass of port. This is about fighting for our way of life and our fundamental rights against the intellectual heirs of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Attack. This is about winning. First prize is freedom. Second prize is tyranny.

Captain Capitalism

Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
Friday, May 01, 2009

Why You Can't Argue With a Liberal

Let me explain something that you must understand, for I see it frustrating my conservative, libertarians and capitalist friends;

It is pointless to argue with liberals and leftists.

I don't mean this in a broad-insulting-stroke-of-the-brush sort of way. I mean that in a sincere, realistic way.

It is pointless to argue with liberals and leftists.

And here is the reason why;

When you argue with them, you are not arguing facts or statistics, you are arguing against a religion. Understand that conservatism, capitalism, and liberty are all founded in empirical evidence that has proven, time and time again, that when a people are free and you do not tax them to death, they will thrive and succeed. Limitless examples throughout history show this, not to mention terrabytes of economic data will support this as well.

Capitalism is the BEST economic system, hands down, period, if for any other reason it is the only system based in reality.

However, leftists ideology, whatever the strain, is not based in reality. It is based in a belief. Specifically, a belief that they WANT to believe in. There is no empirical evidence. There is no rational thought or intellectual honesty or rigor involved. It is simply something for the masses to opiate themselves on and feel good about it. ie- it socialism, leftism, liberalism IS A RELIGION.

Now two points that must be made of this;

1. You can't argue with fundamentalists, not matter what their stripe. Religious right christians that insist sex is bad and gays are evil. Radical muslims that want to blow you up because, well, you're not a radical muslim. Extreme fringes of Jews who won't fly on planes on Fridays (or whatever day it is, I'm not terribly familiar with the Jewish religion). Regardless, trying to convince a leftist that lower taxes and a small government is best for society is like trying to convince a christian that dinosaurs did indeed exist MILLIONS of years ago and that carbon dating is a correct technique. It goes against their religion.

Yes, they have no basis. Yes, they ignore the empirical evidence. But that is the whole point of a religion. You ignore reality because you CHOOSE to believe in what you WANT to believe in.

2. The hypocrisy of it all. I want to know the number of global warming zealots that mock christians and religious people in general. No seriously, think about that. How many leftists who believe in this global warming RELIGION in the same breath then slam on religious people. The brush could be plied to leftists in general. How many socialists scoff or mock people for believing in something that has no empirical evidence to support it yet at the same time swallow the socialist religion whole?

Thus, my friends, there is only one thing to do. And that is let reality do your arguing for you. You can't win, because they won't believe you. It is more important to them to adhere and subscribe to their religion of socialism than it is to adhere to anything as noble and honorable as the truth. Therefore you're just wasting your breath.

But just like the radical muslim who might have second thoughts about blowing himself up, or the 75 year old christian, spinster virgin who passed up on plenty of honorable men to be alone with her cats and her bible reality will inevitably dawn on them. They will look at their single, infinitesimally finite life they were given and realized they ruined it. They pissed the only thing they had away. Think about it for a second. Don't you think the burnt out hippie who is now approaching 65 years old who still wears the pony tail and can point at nothing but, "sticking it to the man" back in '68 as his largest single achievement? How about the millions of aged Russian communists who were all for the Bolshevikian revolution? Boy, wasn't the past 90 years of their lives fun and fruitful? What will the modern legions of socialists, leftists and communists achieve in their lives? You do realize that the majority of young people voted to have Obama make them indentured slaves (ergo why "young" is latin for "stupid as all hell.)? How successful do you think these socialist zealots are going to be in their lives pursuing a "dream" that is really a nightmare?

But you see, that's the only thing that will convince them otherwise. It's not going to be you. It's not going to be the charming Captain with all of his charts and graphs. It's not even going to be people who have lived and suffered under communism.

No, what will inevitably prove you right will be the leftists getting what they want and realizing they've pissed their lives away.

And that is the best revenge one can have.
Posted by Captain Capitalism at 8:50 AM
21 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not just any religion that lefties adhere to, but a specific kind: a Death Cult. These people simply hate life. They are miserable, and their envy of those who are not miserable drives them to advocate the most horrible crimes. Lefty enviro-wackos really do want to exterminate 90% of the population "to save the planet." Nazis and Communists enjoy mass murder. When Stalin began his show trials in the 1930's he invited emigre Russian communists to return to Russia to be tried. Many volunteered to return to certain death. Why? Because lefties love death. They don't even care about the lefty politics they espouse. That's just a tool to get them into a position to increase deaths. That's why you see the same death cult in Islamo-wacky terrorists. Islam is just a vehicle to get them where they really want to be: in a position to cause death.

The real problem here is depression. Depressed people see blackness all around them, and want to end it. Some take drugs, others latch themselves onto death cults. They are the "family murder" writ large. You know, those stories you see in the news occasionally about some guy who murders his entire family, then kills himself. He's so full of self hate that he must not only die, but he must erase his entire existence from the earth, so his family must die with him. Left-wing politics is simply the industrial-scale version.
9:53 AM
Johnny Boy said...

As my Discrete Mathematics teacher said, "You can't argue with a fool."
11:16 AM
Anonymous said...

I agree, arguing with a zealot is pointless. What disturbs me is the permanent damage thats being done for generations to come in the name of AGW and liberalism. Once something is enacted at the federal level, its pretty much here to stay (the only exceptions being tax cuts, they're never permanent).

Damage in the form of irreconcilable national debt, erosion of freedom and choice, and the state of apathy held by younger generations towards changing anything. Our kids are being weened in an environment hostile to any viewpoint not lockstep with liberalism.

I guess I'm a depressed conservative. By the time todays generation gets around to realizing the harm they've done, it'll be too late for all of us.
1:31 PM
Nick said...

You've hit the nail on the head as usual Cap. There's just no arguing with these people.

I think the above comments are astute too: liberals are envious, that is they hate the good for simply being the good and they won't be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are. That's why Palin was the target of such vitriol; the feminists saw her and thought, "How can she do all the things we hate and actually be happier than we are?! Stop her!" Similarly, liberals see a guy busting his butt at work and wonder, "How can he like this? Stop him!"

Fundamentally, they don't understand the path from rational values to hard work to happiness. They operate wholly on unguided emotion, i.e. whim. That's why their political plans are so incoherent and why they demonize "consistency." Only liberals could criticize a man for having the consistency of valuing "supporting himself" and following up that value by working hard and saving money. Meanwhile, they. . . well look at the last 100 days for ample examples of insane ideas incoherently clumped together into a "plan."

The "glue" of the plan is what you pointed out to be their fundamentalist belief in the plan. But that belief and hatred is all they have, since theirs is not a plan based in reality.

To their credit, though, they're always very clear when they defend their plans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s
2:51 PM
Anonymous said...

The death toll for the 20th century's dabbling in communism stands at about 100 million souls. That makes lefty the number one killer in the history of mankind.

I place the number higher, with the staggering abortion rate in socialist/communist nations in that era.

In Red China, newborn girls were routinely left outside overnight to die from exposure. This way, the parents could try again for a boy under the "one child" edict. They had a euphemism, "sending the child up north to live with relatives".

It's not just any religion that lefties adhere to, but a specific kind: a Death Cult. These people simply hate life. They are miserable, and their envy of those who are not miserable drives them to advocate the most horrible crimes. Lefty enviro-wackos really do want to exterminate 90% of the population "to save the planet." Nazis and Communists enjoy mass murder. When Stalin began his show trials in the 1930's he invited emigre Russian communists to return to Russia to be tried. Many volunteered to return to certain death. Why? Because lefties love death. They don't even care about the lefty politics they espouse. That's just a tool to get them into a position to increase deaths. That's why you see the same death cult in Islamo-wacky terrorists. Islam is just a vehicle to get them where they really want to be: in a position to cause death.

[...]

The death toll for the 20th century's dabbling in communism stands at about 100 million souls. That makes lefty the number one killer in the history of mankind.

[citation needed]

Seriously, painting the entire left with that broad of a brush is just pathetic.

Out of all the religion and killing in the name of religion from before recorded history, and you think some out-of-the-ass numbers about communism is realistic?

And comparing Islam to liberals, really? Jesus farking Christ, Islamic radicals are the SAME as the extreme Christian right!

I endorse a moderate government. One of our biggest expenditures that has put us in debt is the ongoing wars - wars that we should never have been in and a lot of the right is calling for and has been calling for action across the World. I am for government health care, my mom personally went through not being able to get insurance and I paid her debt off myself, with what little money I got from a settlement. There is already proof that evironmental laws have reduced things like smog. The economy is certainly doing better, and I am sure it is in large part due to Bush Inc's bailouts along with Obama's bailouts.

Things could be better, but I would not like someone like Palin near the Oval Office...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/27/why-do-1-4-million-americans-work-at-walmart-with-many-more-trying-to/

actually this is the last thing i will post about it

Good article, thanks.

"This is what many Walmart critics detest: the company will not offer higher wages and benefits when it calculates that it will not be good business. According to these critics, every Walmart employee should be paid at least $12-$15 per hour, regardless of the role he fills, regardless of whether he has the skills or experience to justify such a wage, regardless of whether he is a model employee or a slouch, regardless of how many other individuals are willing and able to do his job for less, regardless of whether raising wages will be good for the company’s bottom line. In effect, their premise is that $12+ per hour wages shouldn’t have to be earned or justified; they should be dispensed like handouts.

Walmart’s relationship with its employees is win-win. Every wage that it pays is one that the employee accepts and a large number of individuals have successfully worked their way up the retail giant. So, let’s stop attacking Walmart for paying market wages."

It's not just any religion that lefties adhere to, but a specific kind: a Death Cult. These people simply hate life. They are miserable, and their envy of those who are not miserable drives them to advocate the most horrible crimes. Lefty enviro-wackos really do want to exterminate 90% of the population "to save the planet." Nazis and Communists enjoy mass murder. When Stalin began his show trials in the 1930's he invited emigre Russian communists to return to Russia to be tried. Many volunteered to return to certain death. Why? Because lefties love death. They don't even care about the lefty politics they espouse. That's just a tool to get them into a position to increase deaths. That's why you see the same death cult in Islamo-wacky terrorists. Islam is just a vehicle to get them where they really want to be: in a position to cause death.

[...]

The death toll for the 20th century's dabbling in communism stands at about 100 million souls. That makes lefty the number one killer in the history of mankind.

[citation needed]

Seriously, painting the entire left with that broad of a brush is just pathetic.
Sure it's a stereotype with which I do not necessarily agree across the board. Stereotypes however have some truth to them or they would not exist.

Out of all the religion and killing in the name of religion from before recorded history, and you think some out-of-the-ass numbers about communism is realistic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

And comparing Islam to liberals, really? Jesus farking Christ, Islamic radicals are the SAME as the extreme Christian right!
If there were any current or recent examples of slaughter BY Christians I am sure the leftist media would trumpet them with glee therefore I must conclude it is not happening. Abortion is however a liberal triumph killing 50 MILLION since R vs W. http://www.numberofabortions.com/

I endorse a moderate government. One of our biggest expenditures that has put us in debt is the ongoing wars - wars that we should never have been in and a lot of the right is calling for and has been calling for action across the World.
And the left voted solidly for the Iraq war. Twice. And wanted to go to war in Syria as I am sure you remember. Don't you? http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/obama-i-have-decided-to-bomb-syria-but-i-want-congress-to-we

I am for government health care, my mom personally went through not being able to get insurance and I paid her debt off myself, with what little money I got from a settlement.
I'm sorry your mom was in need of such care. I applaud your behavior. I too have been w/o health insurance at times. Last time took me over a year to pay off a visit to the ER for turned out to be a minor problem. I also know govt interference in the market place is the root cause of the high cost of health care. The answer is not even MORE interference!

There is already proof that evironmental laws have reduced things like smog.
I agree. However I think the current push by obama is ludicrous. BTW please consider looking up the "Glancing Geese" test and see if you agree with that? The economy is certainly doing better,
Are you serious? Real unemployment is over 12% http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp and considerably higher among youth and minorities. And nearly 100 million that could work have given up. Right at 50% of the populous is receiving some sort of govt aid! How long do you think THAT can work? I am sure it is in large part due to Bush Inc's bailouts along with Obama's bailouts.
There should have been no bailouts. Anything subsidized increases. Be it unwed mothers or bad behavior on Wall Street.

Things could be better, but I would not like someone like Palin near the Oval Office...
***Really? She believes in America and wants her to prosper. By his own words obama wants America to suffer.

Fox Business Host Actually Whines On Twitter About Low Unemployment Rate, Thinks It’s Bad For Economy

Last month, the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1 percent as 288,000 jobs were added to the economy. Not only is this the lowest rate since President Obama took office, it means every single job lost during the Great Recession has been recovered. But not everyone is happy about more people finding the jobs they need.

The conservatives who work at Fox News have bitched and moaned for years about how the economy isn’t being fixed fast enough after Republicans nearly crippled it during the Bush Administration. At the same time, they’ve had no problem complaining about people using food stamps and unemployment benefits to get by until the job market improves. The GOP propaganda arm has accused the jobless of being lazy moochers who are stealing from taxpayers. Fox has literally demanded that these people get a job to solve their own problems. But now that more people are getting jobs and the economy has improved, at least one Fox host is whining about the economy becoming too improved.

Charles V. Payne took to his Twitter account to openly complain about the lower unemployment rate and implied that the numbers were fixed by the government. Apparently, too many people are finding work and that’s somehow bad for the economy.

Here’s the tweet.

Is the jobs number too good for the stock market…equity futures are drifting lower not sure how to react

— Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) July 3, 2014

In a comment to another Twitter user, Payne said he didn’t have faith in the jobs report put out by the Bureau Of Labor Statistics and suggested the numbers were exaggerated to “move markets and policy”.

Leave it to Fox News to spin an improving economy into a bad thing.

The June jobs report marks the fifth straight month in which over 200,000 jobs were added to the economy. In May, 217,000 jobs were added. It also marks the 52nd straight month of job growth. The principle driver of this economic improvement is the healthcare sector, which is responsible for the bulk of the jobs added recently. 55,000 healthcare jobs were added in May alone. Obviously, conservatives aren’t happy about this because it blows away all of their bullsh*t claims that Obamacare is a job killer. Furthermore, the Dow Jones Industrial average has broke 17,000 points for the first time ever. It’s also more than double what it was on the day President Obama took office in 2009. This great news comes despite continued Republican obstruction and sabotage efforts.

The argument that low unemployment is bad for the economy has been used by conservatives before. During the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, conservatives absolutely threw a temper tantrum as the unemployment rate dipped lower and lower. All sorts of doomsday warnings were tossed about. The result? Only the strongest economy in decades with an unemployment rate under 4 percent, low inflation, higher wages, and a surplus in the US Treasury.

The reason why conservatives fear a really low unemployment rate is because a tight labor market forces employers to offer higher wages and better benefits in an effort to keep good workers. You see, when the demand for labor rises due to a tighter labor market, employers must raise wages to retain the workforce they have. A low unemployment rate means employers can’t simply go find unemployed people with similar skills. That’s because most of them already have jobs. But if the unemployment rate is high and the economy is a more unstable, businesses are better able to control wages because people are just happy to have a job that’s making any amount at all. There’s not as much of a desperation factor driving the labor market.

So when it comes to Fox News, they whine when the unemployment rate is high to satisfy their political agenda, and then they’ll turn around and whine when the rate is low to satisfy the corporate agenda of increasing bottom lines and keeping workers under the boot heel.

A lower unemployment rate is good news, and any so-called business or economic “expert” who says otherwise shouldn’t be allowed to keep their own job.

If there were any current or recent examples of slaughter BY Christians I am sure the leftist media would trumpet them with glee therefore I must conclude it is not happening. Abortion is however a liberal triumph killing 50 MILLION since R vs W. http://www.numberofabortions.com/

wikipedia Christian terrorism

This is just the section on the USA, never mind the rest of the world:

Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity.[59] The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman."[60] From 1915 Klansmen conducted cross-burnings not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including saying prayers and singing Christian hymns.[61] Within Christianity the Klan directed hostilities against Catholics. Modern Klan organizations, such as the Knights Party, USA, continue to focus on the Christian supremacist message, detecting a "war" which allegedly aims to destroy "western Christian civilization."

After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[62][63][64] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[65] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[66][67]

The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[68][69] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force used to protect the life of a born child is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[70] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and on a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[71]

Hutaree was a Christian militia group based in Adrian, Michigan. In 2010, after an FBI agent infiltrated the group a federal grand jury in Detroit indicted nine of its members on charges of seditious conspiracy to the use of improvised explosive devices, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.[72] On 28 March 2012, the conspiracy charges were dismissed.[73] Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and some "Christian militia" as groups that "can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" that "has a religious (Christian) component".[74]

and from a quick Google seach:

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist. Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack.

Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.

Hmm the last part I bolded doesn't seem to fit with your "left is death" mantra...

Things could be better, but I would not like someone like Palin near the Oval Office...

Really? She believes in America and wants her to prosper. By his own words obama wants America to suffer.

And this sums up a lot of the right's point of view. Any women here think Palin represents them well? And I want a quote on Obama saying he wants the US to suffer =)

you are welcome rotor

The death toll for the 20th century's dabbling in communism stands at about 100 million souls. That makes lefty the number one killer in the history of mankind.

Out of all the religion and killing in the name of religion from before recorded history, and you think some out-of-the-ass numbers about communism is realistic?

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Hahaha you directed me to a wikipedia article that debunks what you wrote, right in it?

Two of the Black Book's contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked a debate in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's statements in the introduction about the scale of Communist terror. They felt that he was being obsessed with arriving at a total of 100 million killed. They also argued that, based on the results of their studies one can estimate the total number of the victims of the Communist abuse in between 65 and 93 million.[15]

In his review of the book, historian Jean-Jacques Becker also criticized Courtois' numbers as rather arbitrary and as having "zero historical value" (Fr. "La valeur historique est nulle") for adding up deaths due to disparate phenomena (Fr. "additionner des carottes et des navets", i.e. adding apples and oranges). Becker went further and accused Courtois of being an activist (Fr. "combattant").[16]

The bold part is my highlight. To put it in simple english for you: they counted deaths due to things like famine as well. Although. If you do some reading about Mass killings under Communist regimes you will find:

Comparison to other mass killings
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century Communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[52] Other scholars in the fields of Communist studies and genocide studies, such as Steven Rosefielde, Benjamin Valentino, and R.J. Rummel, have come to similar conclusions.[2][26][53] Rosefielde states that it is possible the "Red Holocaust" killed more non-combatants than "Ha Shoah" and "Japan's Asian holocaust" combined, and "was at least as heinous, given the singularity of Hitler's genocide." Rosefielde also notes that "while it is fashionable to mitigate the Red Holocaust by observing that capitalism killed millions of colonials in the twentieth century, primarily through man-made famines, no inventory of such felonious negligent homicides comes close to the Red Holocaust total."[53]

Note that Hitler was a Christian obsessed with relics, Japan was and still is a religious monarchy. This only looks at recent (100 years or less) history and not the tens of thousands of years of in-the-name-of religion murders.