The Liberals have been misled by an ideology that just doesn t work, and
they haven t seen through its many faulty premises. For some, enlightenment
begins after they gain experience of life. Until then, they're encumbered
by bizarre beliefs, including the following I've heard.
Money grows on trees
One of my former girlfriends told me that the government should pay a
million dollars to anyone who wants to start their own business. This
bypass the banking problem capriciously decide who qualifies for a loan.
Since having to create viable business plans is an unreasonable burden, the
government could simply endorse all candidates and cut a check for a cool
mill. Yes, she was dead serious.
I have my doubts about banksters, to say the least. Nevertheless, they're
certainly correct in rejecting loans that are not likely to repay. After
all, they've got their fingers burned on risky loans before. What meaning,
then, is it for the government to start throwing millions like confetti?
I asked if anyone he wastes immediately and can instead? T pay it n t think
it was a big deal. So, I have noted that the government to pay a million
dollars each, the only way to increase the money would be taxing everyone a
million dollars. So what's the point? However, it wasn t deterred from this
great idea.
The fundamental error
The government doesn t create wealth; it imposes. For this reason, whenever
the government spends money, it should be for a good reason, which often n
t. Too many Liberals believe that government is an unlimited source of
money. Because of the currency and the Federal Reserve, this kind of is,
but that creates debt instead of wealth. Sweeping that ad infinitum
unlimited credit card has consequences.
It is a similar mentality to leftist revolutionaries n t understand how
wealth is created and maintained. They see it as a big pile of treasures
someone else and they don t. They consider this unfair, and the solution is
to steal it. When they run out of people to plunder, the result is places
like North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
Richard Nixon put straight
We are not spending federal money, we spend the taxpayer's money, and it
must be spent in a way that guarantees its money's value and gives the
maximum benefit to the people can be helped.
Burn everything
Saul Alinsky, grandfather community agitators
A teacher of a public school with trends like SJW told me that every time
is a problem in society, the solution is to destroy the system. The reform
isn t enough. I would say that if you are about to destroy something, you
have to make sure first that everything takes its place will be better.
However, she beat me to it, pass it doesn t matter if results are worse
than the starting point. What?
The fundamental error
If you take one step forward and three steps back, you were better to leave
well enough alone. Sometimes reform is necessary and good, but it must be
carefully considered and have a realistic plan leading to constructive
results. Not all change is progress.
This burn quietly and magically emerge paradise mentality is a common
theme. We saw with the Jacobins (France), the Bolsheviks (Russia), cultural
Marxism (our company), the Plan Cloward-Piven (the welfare state), women
(family), and the list continues. wobbly leftist regimes have a terrible
track record. When they began to flame all, so Year Zero begins with a pile
of ashes.
Richard Nixon put straight
One of the most surprising shortcomings of communist theory is the absence
of any clear notion of how a communist economy would be organized. In the
writings of the great founders of communism there is almost nothing about
it. This difference was not an oversight, but was in fact a necessary
consequence of the general theory of communism. [& # 8230;]
then operating in this policy vacuum left by their prophets, how the
founders of the Soviet Union undertake to organize their new economy? The
answer is that they also apply faithfully as possible the teachings of
their masters. Because these teachings were mainly negative, their actions
were to have the same quality.
Human nature can be changed easily
One of the main means they use to try to change human nature
A friend of group discussions led by email which includes a supporter
Bernie Sanders millennium. A debate on global warming is transformed
somehow into a discussion of what should be the future society. The child
said that we have to change human nature to completely eliminate greed. The
way he wrote about it, he regarded it as easy as adopting a speed limit law.
It doesn t work that way. For example, Christianity preached against the
excesses of greed from the beginning, even Islam and the great Eastern
religions. They greatly discourage greed and other vices, but in thousands
of years, they haven t eradicated from the human mind. For that matter,
they're all religions nominally for peace, but no t always work that way.
Good luck for the ideology to do more than the fiery sermons of hell and
brimstone did! I thought to point to the futility, but he seemed impervious
to reason.
The fundamental error
& # 8212 leftists, moderate liberals to the Maoists & # 8212 flames; have
great faith that human nature can be repeated on what suits their needs.
They believe that's entirely created by the company. Culture is very
important (which is why they should quit screwing), but you can t society
as an engineer reprogramming computer. It doesn t work.
, They are still causing a lot of damage to try that. Worse for them, these
absurd social engineering efforts create resentment smoldering forcing
people to act against their nature. The sudden collapse of communism in
Eastern Europe should've warned. For example, if the Swedes rise against
their spoliation, there will be hell to pay. The same is true elsewhere in
Europe; it's only a matter of time before many irresponsible criminal
politicians and their cronies find themselves in trouble.
Richard Nixon put straight
In the long term, we can expect that religion will change the nature of man
and reducing conflict. But history is not encouraging in this regard. The
bloodiest wars in history have been religious wars.
The media are objective and independent
Trump around the inauguration, one of my liberal friends (which has some
redeeming qualities) told me breathlessly that most magazines and
newspapers were going to use the word & # 8221 resist; in their titles.
I mentioned how much that would require collusion. So I asked if it
bothered him that the media colluded with each other and had so little
ideological change. Of course, you expect some of leftist periodicals, but
why so little with other points of view? She just kept on how the
securities would resist. Again I raised the question of balance, but I
might as well have talked to a wall.
This seems to have been a half-baked idea; Only a few publications
responded to withstand titles. Yet the Liberals should be concerned about a
broad ideological imbalance in the press, even if it's in their favor.
The fundamental error
If voters are to make informed decisions, they need to get accurate
information. N This happens if the news is unilateral partisan propaganda.
Consider the following:
Obama deep state had the country under surveillance: no big deal.
Hillary's erase thousands of members of staff emails: not much.
Nixon team bugged two bedrooms and erased a few minutes of tape: the press
went berserk.
I say they should Tricky Dick apology.
Richard Nixon put straight
The American people have a right to see the president and hear their views
directly, and do not see that in the press.
My books are available at Smashwords and Amazon.
Read more: 12 reasons why liberals and progressives will always Losers
No comments:
Post a Comment