Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

24/7?   I have a sixteen year old nephew who recently got a job at a local restaurant working something like 20 hours week, mostly after school.   It's decent experience for him in the 'real world'  and puts some spending money in this pocket.

Cute anecdote; but it’s not data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DanteEstonia said:

Cute anecdote; but it’s not data. 

So you have objective data showing that all school-aged children should not work at jobs outside of the home?  Is so, links please?

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Yet all your ancedotes cancel data.

Show me some examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right off the top of my head I cited statistics relating kids from two parent households which you refuted with your own experience. I obviously can’t quote, prior to the last crash, so you have plausible deniability....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Right off the top of my head I cited statistics relating kids from two parent households which you refuted with your own experience. I obviously can’t quote, prior to the last crash, so you have plausible deniability....

Show me the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strong suits is it DE?

Either link the post, or cease the lies.

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Either link the post, or cease the lies.

I should have known @Impartial_Observer‘S lying, invalid, parasitic ass wouldn’t be able to back up his words. 

Also, I have a flight booked back to Indiana 🙂

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I should have known @Impartial_Observer‘S lying, invalid, parasitic ass wouldn’t be able to back up his words. 

Also, I have a flight booked back to Indiana 🙂

Please keep us posted. I'll get the alley behind the Silver Dollar in Elwood reserved for you guys, just give me a date. It gets pretty busy at sundown.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/20/2019 at 8:08 AM, DanteEstonia said:

I should have known @Impartial_Observer‘S lying, invalid, parasitic ass wouldn’t be able to back up his words. 

Also, I have a flight booked back to Indiana 🙂

 

1493gw.jpg

download.jpg

Edited by TrojanDad
  • Haha 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gone for a day or two and I miss all the fun stuff!  Whose making the odds on the fight, and who's holding the money? (Not Muda, I hope!) 

Is it guns, knives, or just knuckles and teeth?

And where in the hell is Elwood!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

And where in the hell is Elwood!?

I know you are joking, but you may not want to go there.  At least that is what I was told growing up.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal Author: ‘Normal’ People Must Stop Wearing Any Kind of Red Hat Because Red Hats Are Scary: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/liberal-author-normal-people-must-stop-wearing-any-kind-of-red-hat/

Quote

A prominent liberal author has compared the red “Make America Great Again” hats to Nazi swastikas, and told “normal people” — that is, people who don’t support Trump — to stop wearing any kind of red hat, lest they start “making people scared.”

Rebecca Makkai, who has been a finalist for both a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, made the controversial comments on Twitter, according to Fox News.

To be clear, Makkai really was talking about all red hats. In fact, she even specifically asked fans of sports teams that wear red hats — such as the Cincinnati Reds and Washington Nationals — to not wear those hats out in public to avoid making other people afraid.

“Not worth making disenfranchised people feel unsafe,” she wrote.

Makkai also had a problem with MAGA parody hats:

“Also, for the love of God: The clever folks wearing “Make America Read Again” or whatever caps — NO,” she said. “You’re making everyone scared. Don’t do it.”

Honestly, there are so many things wrong with this that I hardly even know where to start.

First of all, there is something totally wrong with her assertion that anyone who does not agree with her political views is somehow not a “normal” person. In fact, part of the reason why some of Trump’s supporters do support him so fervently is they feel like much of the country sees them as “less than” for their views. Trying to paint them all as a bunch of abnormal freaks is not going to turn anyone toward Makkai’s point of view, it is just going to turn them further away. This is a huge problem when you consider how divided by politics our country is already. To far too many people, those on the opposite side of the political spectrum are not just political opponents, but enemies in life. This kind of divisiveness, to which Makkai is unquestionably contributing, is far more harmful to the country than any color of hat. It’s destroying friendships and families. It’s making it impossible to have the kind of open, honest, respectful conversations that we need to have with one another as Americans if we ever hope to solve our country’s problems.

Second of all, if we are going to go around deciding what is and is not “normal,” I would say that a “normal” person does not take it upon himself to decide what color hats other people should be wearing. I mean, seriously. The color red is not and should not be controversial, because well, it is a f***ing color. With all due respect, if someone out there really finds themself scared to go out in public because they might encounter a Red Wings fan wearing a red hat, it seems pretty clear that they’re the one with an issue.

Now just a color triggers these snowflakes.  

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purdue faculty challenge promise of a Chick-fil-A on campus: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/09/09/purdue-faculty-challenge-promise-chick-fil-campus/2261837001/

Quote

Purdue’s plans to bring a Chick-fil-A fast food franchise to campus – long sought in student petitions and announced this summer as part of a new residence hall opening in 2020 – were called out Monday by faculty members, who suggested the university needed to reacclimate itself with the proper way to treat its LGBT students and staff.

A proposed measure meant to pressure Purdue’s administration to make sure that commercial ventures on campus “uphold the same values and promote inclusivity with their policies, hiring practices and actions” didn’t call out Chick-fil-A by name.

“It’s bigger than that,” said Audrey Ruple, chair of the University Senate’s Equity and Diversity Committee. “We intentionally didn’t want this to be about one business – just ‘The Chick-fil-A’ resolution.”

But Jo Boileau, Purdue’s new student body president, didn’t mince words about a measure that was purposely broad to make any commercial business looking to open on campus match the university’s affirmative action codes. He wanted to talk about the “much more specific case” of Chick-fil-A.

 

“As student body president and as an openly gay student, this is something I’m confronting on a daily basis, in conversations I’m having every single day with students on this campus,” Boileau said.

If Purdue could give back millions of dollars from Papa John’s founder John Schnatter in 2018 because of racist remarks, Boileau said, he questioned what sort of message the university was sending to its LGBT community by clearing the way for Chick-fil-A.

....

How about doing business with Chick-fil-A, specifically, given the political division its drive-through can inspire?

“I want to be sensitive to it,” Wynkoop said. “But it’s something that students have called for for a long, long, long, long time. Student body presidents and their cabinets have actually run on that platform, to bring it to campus.”

Wynkoop added: “And they’ve been on campus for a year, now.”

Chick-fil-A in 2018 started delivering a pop-up style location three evenings a week in the Krach Leadership Center, a building that also houses an Amazon pickup location as well offices for student groups and student services at Third Street and Martin Jischke Drive.

Also in 2018, Purdue students started a petition at Change.org titled, “Purdue Needs a Chick-fil-A.” As of Monday, 3,416 people had signed the online petition.

Among them was Riley Johnson, a senior studying dietetics, who wrote at the time: “This is an incredible company with strong values, great services and delicious food.” What was his take this week, as faculty members challenged Chick-fil-A’s place on campus?

“The restaurant’s stances do not cross my mind when I go there or affect my eating habits,” Johnson said. “I personally believe a private company should have the freedom to take a political or religious stance if they choose. If people don’t agree with it, then they don’t have to eat there. That is their choice.”

David Bergsma, a sixth-year senior in Purdue’s doctor of pharmacy program, signed the petition, too. He said he was in a room with other students when he heard Chick-fil-A was going to be part of the Third Street Suites North residence hall – news he called “exciting.”

“The general response was cheering and gratitude – gratitude that Purdue actually saw the petition and listened to us,” Bergsma said. “I think the number of people trying to keep Chick-fil-A off our campus because of their political stances is a small minority. Most students couldn’t care less, we just want the amazing food they have. I think this is evidenced by the long lines for sandwiches in Krach whenever the restaurant visits.”

Still, Linda Prokopy, a professor and member of the University Senate’s Equity and Diversity Committee, argued that “there are students, there are staff and there are faculty on this campus who are hurting by a decision made by this university” over the summer. Even if the administration chose to ignore the University Senate, she said, the faculty should still stand up for those who say they’re hurting.

Ruple agreed.

“Many people, when they’re not personally affected by the exclusionary principles of businesses, it’s genuinely a blind spot,” Ruple said. “For me, this is something that’s so central to how we operate as an institution, that to allow organizations onto our premises that don’t follow those same inclusivity principles actually really undermines the core of who we are.”

Hurt by the mere presence of a Chick-fil-A on campus?  Really?   The very definition of liberal snowflake right there.   

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 5:17 AM, Muda69 said:

Purdue faculty challenge promise of a Chick-fil-A on campus: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/09/09/purdue-faculty-challenge-promise-chick-fil-campus/2261837001/

Hurt by the mere presence of a Chick-fil-A on campus?  Really?   The very definition of liberal snowflake right there.   

 

 

Isn’t Purdue a conservative school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Progressive Feeding Frenzy: https://reason.com/2019/09/12/the-progressive-feeding-frenzy/

Quote

In any system of social accounting, it is necessary to reconcile revenues with expenditures. Private firms do so because they fear insolvency and bankruptcy. Public institutions don't have the option of bankruptcy, so they invoke three related strategies to avoid the inevitable: raise taxes, print money, or incur debt to meet their obligations.

Done prudently, it is possible for governments to keep their books in balance. But not when these three tools are in the hands of modern progressives and would-be socialists who use them to save the world from environmental disaster, to equalize income and wealth, to codify an ever-widening class of positive rights, and to rectify an ever-greater set of supposed grievances through private lawsuits or government regulation.

These goals may look plausible—even tempting—when taken in isolation. It might seem churlish to argue anyone should be denied a cleaner environment, a college education, universal health care, or guaranteed housing. Perhaps cost should be no object. These proposals are often strategically vague on matters of detail so as to make it impossible to put a price tag on each separate initiative, let alone all of them in combination. The excuse is then made that wealth production is best handled by a combination of monetary and fiscal policy. The first makes credit cheap, and the second uses government purchases to pick up any slack.

How then are these gargantuan expenditures to be funded? The first problem is that the private sector will be so debilitated that government revenues will fall even if tax rates are kept at their current rate. But taxes won't stay at their current rate, because the progressive mindset ignores incentives and treats all wealth transfers as zero-sum. They assume that no amount of taking will ever lead to less earning and that the top 1 percent of Americans, who earn about 20 percent of total income, comprise a deep well.

But that well has already been tapped; today these same rich people also pay 40 percent of federal and state taxes. Some of that money generates return benefits in the form of government goods and services. But today, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and lesser entitlement programs consume an ever-larger fraction of public wealth. We are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher taxes will generate even smaller revenues. Foreign investors will stay away or pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Many older professionals will choose to retire rather than take a cut in after-tax income. Meanwhile, everyone else will lobby to get on the government gravy train.

None of these prospects seem to deter progressives, who insist, despite strong evidence to the contrary, that they can fund annual trillion-dollar deficits with increased taxes on billionaires and near-billionaires.

Look at the roster of proposed reforms: Cut the estate tax exemption from its current level of $11.4 million to about one-third that amount. Next, make the income tax more progressive. Finally, enact something along the lines of Elizabeth Warren's annual wealth tax of 2 percent on personal estates worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent on estates over that amount. These numbers are just a starting point, of course. Proponents will soon say, now that the principle of the wealth tax is established, that the numbers are a mere detail and can be adjusted upward without any serious constitutional limitation.

Should this economic coalition succeed, the American system will fall into the kind of death spiral that has characterized so many socialist regimes. Wealth will flee, revenue will fall, and the entitlements will become nominal, not real. You will have a right to education, health care, and housing, Just not today. Wait obediently on a queue until your name is called, at which point it may be too late. But never even dream that you should be allowed to escape the clutches of a well-intentioned monopoly that demands exclusive public support. Forget those pesky charter schools that provide better education at lower costs.

Trust that government-run firms will continue the private sector's legacy of tech and transportation innovations. Rest easy knowing that America's most powerful and productive companies will be governed by boards of directors with members chosen by government bodies that champion "responsible" investing.

For the past 80 years, the United States has managed to balance the trade-off between innovation and equity without imposing any mortal threat to our social institutions. Not anymore. The progressive agenda, if enacted with full rigor, will create massive economic dislocation that will threaten our democratic institutions to their cores.

And they must not be allowed to succeed with their agenda.  If they do I suggest Americans who values personal freedom, responsibility, sovereignty, and the future of their children/grandchildren leave the country for greener pastures because the USA will no longer be the the land of opportunity.  It will simply, and horribly, become another Venezuela.

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...