Why is income-inequality on unsustainable upward acceleration? Is it because the highest paid are so much more worthy and industrious, or does greater access to cronyism have much to do with it? How can consequences of cronysim be so great for investment in republican democracy, when it's obvious cronyism has gone international, leading to cannibalization of American industry and labor? Isn't it obvious both political parties are puppets for crony-investors for establishing ever more inequality? Democrat liars buy votes of future serfs with cheap promises, while shoveling billions out back doors to cronies. Republican liars bed down with despotic thugs, and exert influence in the same institutions of persuasion to tell us how necessary 'tis to have free trade with despots. Both parties talk about enforcing borders, improving industrial base, and increasing jobs. Notwithstanding talk, both serve the indenturing of Americans, to turn us into cheap, easily-ruled, third-world labor. One wants open (borderless) society; the other wants worldwide (borderless) marketplace. Both want elites to rule; neither wants to heed a middle class. One considers itself entitled to confiscate America's resources to allow party elites to control worldwide dispersals. The other considers the potential of America's resources its exclusive trust for further enriching worldwide investor-cronies. Hedge artists fund both sets of liars and own all significant institutions of persuasion to keep the charade going. How can sane people believe we have effective representative democracy, when nearly all institutions of persuasion are aligned in favor of the charade that is the status quo: an unholy alliance for reducing and cannibalizing the middle class? BLT makes an Orwellian virtue out of disdaining middle class values! Buffet promotes a progressive income tax only to evade consideration of a wealth tax. Heck, he evades the existing tax rates! Could it be any more obvious that poverty pimps run the Democrat party as a Commie front and that an international establishment of raiders hedges and runs both parties as Crony fronts? How is this "open-society-worldwide-marketplace-NWO" supposed to preserve human freedom and dignity ... anywhere? Is anyone in politics holding up Diogenes' lamp?
4 comments:
Notwithstanding that Ron Paul is a good man, he is too blind to evil. There is potential for great goodness in the world, but the ever presence of great evil is undeniable except to those who excel at living in denial. There are 7 overarching purposes of good republican governance: (1) defend national security, (2) defend borders, (3) encourage smart trade, (4) don't enrich or play the fool for despots who Pretend to want to subjugate us only to better spread wealth and peace to us, (5) promote self reliance religiously, (6) take out bad guys when necessary, and perhaps most of all, (7) don't nation build in nations that are antithetical to the freedom and dignity of the masses. For some reason, Paul seems NOT to get Item Numbers 1 and 6. As for Romney, Gingrich, and Cain, I hope, but am not sure, that they get Numbers 3, 4, and 7.
Dems don't know what to do with themselves, and they aren't competent to look after themselves. They WANT to be mastered and told what to do. They hate being encouraged to do for themselves. They want to get rich like Forest Gump, by doing whatever the hell they're told to do. The pay for that can be pretty good. You can make partner that way. Just look at Wall Street. Meanwhile, Dems ready-to-vote continue to breed, feed, and plead. Desolation draws nearer the longer Americans fail to stem the influx of all things anti-American.
Like water flowing into a sewer, peoples not fit for self governance will fall under the rule of regional elites. In America, our "educators" and "free traders" are conditioning the electorate to root for this. It's like, "Please, let me vote once and for all so I never have to really vote again." Once we're doped up (and I do mean doped up) in this way, we're all in. OWS is not defeated merely because it's eventually flushed from downtowns. Its roots are already deep in the addled minds that run our institutions. Elites are alarmed that there're too many people with too much access to too powerful technology. The money that elites will commit to the general election this time around will be jaw dropping to behold. Useful idiots always line up to march into servitude so long as free dope is held out all along the way while big media applauds. The religion of the Dopiest Generation: There's one god and Dopeall is his name.
What's so hard about learning a little modesty? Don't we have enough modesty-challenged people already, being turned loose to be aggressively offended whenever anyone has temerity to suggest, "hatefully," that society is better served by more modesty than is now the fashion? Personally, I'm offended by all the people who are so easily offended that they feel entitled to sue or to collect the power of the fringes in order to force any idea of a norm to make way. Maybe we should all walk around with lawyers on hair-triggered speed dials. I'm so tired of people carting their sense of being offended around on hair-trigger alert, to the point of claiming the right to sue to obtain damages or to enforce equal rights for every imaginable kind of deviancy. What is this, really, if not an attack on any possible notion of normal, decent, responsible, or commendable behavior? This trend is not based on science or objective logic. It's based on nothing more than religious faith in the rightness of one's anarchic little self. But it's faith that has massed enough support to go on rampage. Result: Nothing is sacred or defended except the "right" to prance around and be just as publically deviant as you wanna be. IOW, the only ones with the right to be offended are the most deviant. For a normal person to be offended is hate; for a deviant to be offended is protected speech. How can any society promote responsible ideals or hold together under this kind of unraveling insanity? At long last, has it become a sin or crime to teach children nowadays to respect socially modest behaviors? On what objective, logical, reasonable, or principled basis are the interests of easily offended deviants promoted over the interests of people who want their children to be modestly safe in public?
Post a Comment