Thinking about this this morning. The greatest destructive force we face isn't leftist ideology. It's apathy. You can fight an idea with a better idea, but how do you overcome indifference?
Thinking about this this morning. The greatest destructive force we face isn't leftist ideology. It's apathy. You can fight an idea with a better idea, but how do you overcome indifference?hunger, and it's heading this way. fast. =(
hunger, and it's heading this way. fast. =(
I suspect part of the problem is that Benghazi could be titled, "Fast and Furious II: Jihadi Boogaloo" due to the great likelihood that we provided arms to the jihadis who killed our men.
Also, Rand Paul is going after her with some vigor:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/23/rand-paul-to-hillary-lets-face-it-you-should-have-been-fired-over-benghazi/
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The question that begs to be answered...how do you make people care about their freedoms, when all they really care about is what happened on The Voice last night...
Easy. Float a bill to strip the useless of a right to vote. I fully support restricting voting to property holders and veterans.
Then they'll notice and howl.
Ironic thing to say when they're trying to strip you of your firearms rights.
Maybe we'll be better protected from tyranny if only those saintly property holders and veterans can have guns too?
I've learned not to rise to your bait a long time ago.
I think you're underestimating voters - if they'd had a chance to comment on Benghazi, they probably would've had a different view to Obama and Clinton.
This whole affair is a bad joke - it's obvious now that intervening in Libya was the wrong move for US security, just as intervening in Egypt and Syria will continue to be.
I agree with you to a large extent on policy, The only exception being that voters have had their say. They put the aholes in question in power, and chose to retain them in the past election.
True, but I think that's mainly because they are convinced that the only alternative is more of the same. Anyone with sense is written off as nutty.
This whole affair is a bad joke - it's obvious now that intervening in Libya was the wrong move for US security, just as intervening in Egypt and Syria will continue to be.
If you allow only certain people to vote, those who have some "skin in the game" as it was phrased earlier, many or even most of those who don't get to vote probably wouldn't be bothered that much. They might raise a stink, but in the end, I don't think they care.
They don't care until you start cutting their benefits. Then they'll care. They'll riot, as we've seen in other countries. It will be a mess.
So, while we could have poll tests to make sure those who vote know at least something about government, or restrict voting to those who pay taxes, the system can't be changed to cut payments to those who are leeching off the system. Not without violence.
I dunno, I think the circumstances of the attack, and how the administration initially labelled it, make a big difference.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/clinton-denies-delay-in-benghazi-response-despite-accounts/
Easy. Float a bill to strip the useless of a right to vote. I fully support restricting voting to property holders and veterans.
Then they'll notice and howl.
Ironic thing to say when they're trying to strip you of your firearms rights.
Maybe we'll be better protected from tyranny if only those saintly property holders and veterans can have guns too?
Her interrogators were more interested in getting their questions read into the Congressional Record than in getting an answer from her. In that sense, it might as well have been Uma vs. the Crazy 88s.
Jake, De Selby is right and you are wrong. I am both a land owner and veteran, and I am saying this. I recently became a landowner. Prior to that, if you think I'd be willing to pay an effective 44.37% tax rate and NOT be given the right to vote, you'd be hilariously mistaken. And I would have been leery of enlisting in the military of country that did not represent me.
Stripping people of the right to vote without a good reason is dangerous talk.
I certainly hope not. She will make a natural tyrant. She will have Americans die, willy-nilly, and people will let it slide. [tinfoil]
As for skin in the game, I'd much rather that everyone's skin, in the game, be writing a tax check to Uncle Sam every April. I have often said it here, and I know it would be nearly impossible to implement, but if you wanted to sway voters to vote as "propertied" people would, let them know there's no free ride, and EVERYBODY has to pay their taxes.
The person making $20K a year would look at things in a completely different light if they had to write an annual check for even only $1000. The person making $50K that gets excited about their "tax refund!!!" wouldn't be so excited if they were cutting a $10K check to the .gov every year instead of having $12K taken out of their paycheck before they ever see it and then getting $2K of their own money back.
Hillary is the ultimate extension of everything we have seen over the past decades.
Only one person can stop her: Michelle Obama. =(
The whole payroll witholding scheme is what has facilitated the higher taxes and attendant growth of government. I would be in favor of everyone making quarterly estimated payments much like many businesses. Then people would really feel how much they are taxed.
If you allow only certain people to vote, those who have some "skin in the game" as it was phrased earlier, many or even most of those who don't get to vote probably wouldn't be bothered that much. They might raise a stink, but in the end, I don't think they care.
They don't care until you start cutting their benefits. Then they'll care. They'll riot, as we've seen in other countries. It will be a mess.
So, while we could have poll tests to make sure those who vote know at least something about government, or restrict voting to those who pay taxes, the system can't be changed to cut payments to those who are leeching off the system. Not without violence.
Jake, De Selby is right and you are wrong. I am both a land owner and veteran, and I am saying this. I recently became a landowner. Prior to that, if you think I'd be willing to pay an effective 44.37% tax rate and NOT be given the right to vote, you'd be hilariously mistaken. And I would have been leery of enlisting in the military of country that did not represent me.
Stripping people of the right to vote without a good reason is dangerous talk.
Well, she hopes it won't make any difference to *her*. But, seriously, they've had five *months* to work on this -- and *this* is the best they can come up with? I have friends who have written entire novels and submitted them (under deadline) to their publisher since this happened!
I am revolted by the mind that could think, after months of trying to craft the best response, that this would even be acceptable.
Yeah, have to go with Jake and Avenger on this one. The question is more what's reasonable and what's not. Land owning is a piss poor measure.
But on the public dole, outside of temporary assistance like unemployment or "earned" benefits like social security, no vote. People shouldn't be voting themselves as much from the treasury as possible.
So new, but so perceptive. The force is strong in this one.
I get the feeling they're not even trying hard at looking credible anymore. Lame excuses, no budget for how many years?, not talking about fiscal problems, and a desperate gun grab before everything goes south.
I think curbing that abuse Bigjake would be as simple as saying "OK you pay taxes, you have a say. You don't pay taxes, no say" Whether you are a working joe making $20k a year or a multimillionaire CEO, you pay taxes and you get to vote. On the dole, sitting on your ass? You don't get to vote. You don't get to put politicians in office who promise to take from the productive and give to you. You don't get to vote yourself largesse from the public treasury.
That would break the grip of the Dems faster than anything else.