Big Government Problem Solvers in the State of Denial link to a post by Patrick Krey
Jim Quinn is a regionally syndicated right wing morning radio show host who started his current show in Pittsburgh, PA. Quinn's 2nd Law of Liberalism states: Liberalism always generates the direct opposite of it's stated attempt. Krey refers to this exact same concept when he commnets on Zoning and New Urbanism. By zoning and instituting mandatory public schools the government has created areas of cities that have drastic differences in race and economic background. Krey says that those who run Big Government believe that the average person is too stupid and irresponsible to take care of himself. They wish to micro manage the lives of other people when they should just bug off and stay out of other people's business.
What we want to do (unless it puts others in danger) is none of the government's business. An example of where the government thinks they know more about caring for us than we do is social security. If people were able to invest the money that they pay into social security each year, rather then giving it to the government, not only would individuals be able to retire sooner with more money in their pockets, but the American economy would also skyrocket. The government needs to get out of our lives and allow us do care for ourselves.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Unions Lose Jobs and Hurt Workers in the Long Run
Buffalo and Unions link to a post by Patrick Krey
If you hit this link and then hit Krey's link, you come to an article about a Buffalo, NY capitalist who is taking his future construction business ventures elsewhere because his workers are unionizing. Bashar Issa's workers are unionizing mid project, and now costing him much more money to continue building in the future. He plans to finish this project in Buffalo, but once it's over, he is going to move elsewhere to avoid the unions.
By unionizing, the workers will now receive a better wage, but since it costs more to hire them, they are now out of a job. Unions may have been necessary to obtain more favorable working conditions for workers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but their role in America today is simply to drag down the economy and ruin business. Among other factors, Unions are the primary reason for the fall of the automobile industry in the United States. The workers at places like GM practically get more money to retire then to continue to work. This is the result of the work of unions. Unions are the reason why menial work receives so much pay.
If you hit this link and then hit Krey's link, you come to an article about a Buffalo, NY capitalist who is taking his future construction business ventures elsewhere because his workers are unionizing. Bashar Issa's workers are unionizing mid project, and now costing him much more money to continue building in the future. He plans to finish this project in Buffalo, but once it's over, he is going to move elsewhere to avoid the unions.
By unionizing, the workers will now receive a better wage, but since it costs more to hire them, they are now out of a job. Unions may have been necessary to obtain more favorable working conditions for workers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but their role in America today is simply to drag down the economy and ruin business. Among other factors, Unions are the primary reason for the fall of the automobile industry in the United States. The workers at places like GM practically get more money to retire then to continue to work. This is the result of the work of unions. Unions are the reason why menial work receives so much pay.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Limbaugh and Hannity for Clinton
Republican Intervention Link to article By Patrick Krey
Krey's first point is that President Bush and the Iraq war will not be popular with the general public for at least the next generation or two. He believes we should leave as many troops in Iraq as is necessary to prevent a full scale civil war, but at the same time, preventing all violence is not possible. This is similar to the way that the US left Korea after the Korean War.
Krey's second point refers to the success of Ron Paul. Krey attributes Paul's success to the fact that his platform is based on the grassroots stance of the Republican party, and namely a fiscally responsible budget. Krey emphasizes that America cannot be fiscally responsible with a military presence on every continent.
Krey's third point is that the Republican pundit's and radio show hosts want the Democrats to with the presidential election. He believes this because it would be better for their business if the Democrats win.
I agree with Krey's stance on the Iraq war. To "cut and run" would leave the Iraqis in a terrible situation. Mass killings would ensue, America would look bad, and a totalitarian government would probably come to power... I see none of these are good things. Winning the Iraq war is proving to be difficult but is certainly not an impossible task. Political turmoil is inevitable. Look at American history after the War for American Independence. We were under the watch of all European powers who thought democracy would fail. After 70 years of "success" the United States fell into a mass civil war. It wasn't before thousands and thousands of men died and about 150 years that our nation became stable. The same thing will happen in Iraq.
In my mind I tend towards libertarianism. I agree with many of the points on the libertarian platform, but one major thing that I don't agree with is cutting the United States military, which is what Krey suggests we do. Cutting the military might also cut the budget of the federal government but it would also endanger the lives of all Americans, something that I am not interested in.
One time I was listening to a hometown sports radio show. The host commented that when the football team loses, his show's ratings go up. When they win nobody listens and nobody calls in, leaving his lines empty. But on a Monday after they get slaughtered, all the lines are busy. Then he said he prefers it when they lose. This is the same principle that Krey is applying to right wing radio show hosts. I do not agree. Rush Limbaugh's show will be just as successful if the Republicans win or if they lose. I believe that Limbaugh and Hannity care enough about America that they do not wish a Clinton or Obama win just so their ratings will go up a few notches.
Krey's first point is that President Bush and the Iraq war will not be popular with the general public for at least the next generation or two. He believes we should leave as many troops in Iraq as is necessary to prevent a full scale civil war, but at the same time, preventing all violence is not possible. This is similar to the way that the US left Korea after the Korean War.
Krey's second point refers to the success of Ron Paul. Krey attributes Paul's success to the fact that his platform is based on the grassroots stance of the Republican party, and namely a fiscally responsible budget. Krey emphasizes that America cannot be fiscally responsible with a military presence on every continent.
Krey's third point is that the Republican pundit's and radio show hosts want the Democrats to with the presidential election. He believes this because it would be better for their business if the Democrats win.
I agree with Krey's stance on the Iraq war. To "cut and run" would leave the Iraqis in a terrible situation. Mass killings would ensue, America would look bad, and a totalitarian government would probably come to power... I see none of these are good things. Winning the Iraq war is proving to be difficult but is certainly not an impossible task. Political turmoil is inevitable. Look at American history after the War for American Independence. We were under the watch of all European powers who thought democracy would fail. After 70 years of "success" the United States fell into a mass civil war. It wasn't before thousands and thousands of men died and about 150 years that our nation became stable. The same thing will happen in Iraq.
In my mind I tend towards libertarianism. I agree with many of the points on the libertarian platform, but one major thing that I don't agree with is cutting the United States military, which is what Krey suggests we do. Cutting the military might also cut the budget of the federal government but it would also endanger the lives of all Americans, something that I am not interested in.
One time I was listening to a hometown sports radio show. The host commented that when the football team loses, his show's ratings go up. When they win nobody listens and nobody calls in, leaving his lines empty. But on a Monday after they get slaughtered, all the lines are busy. Then he said he prefers it when they lose. This is the same principle that Krey is applying to right wing radio show hosts. I do not agree. Rush Limbaugh's show will be just as successful if the Republicans win or if they lose. I believe that Limbaugh and Hannity care enough about America that they do not wish a Clinton or Obama win just so their ratings will go up a few notches.
Friday, January 11, 2008
I can't pakistans no more.
That's all I can Pakistans and I can't Pakistans no more
By Patrick Krey
Krey hears people saying stuff like, "what should we do about Pakistan?" Krey believes that it's ridiculous that common people are acting like they are foreign policy experts. He wonders why we are worrying about a country halfway around the world when we have trouble with our own country by itself. He hopes that in a few years we will look back on this time of worrying about the foreign policy of other nations "as a fad like mullets and disco, and recognize the idiocy of it all."
I tend to agree with Krey to some extent, but I think he needs to realize that it's not realistic for the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, to sit back and do nothing in other nations. A fad is something that is really popular for a little while then goes away almost overnight. The United States has been intervening in other nations for at least the past 100 years. Take the Spanish American War, World War I and II, and the Vietnam War just for a few examples. Calling the notion of meddling in the business of other nations a fad is incorrect.
By Patrick Krey
Krey hears people saying stuff like, "what should we do about Pakistan?" Krey believes that it's ridiculous that common people are acting like they are foreign policy experts. He wonders why we are worrying about a country halfway around the world when we have trouble with our own country by itself. He hopes that in a few years we will look back on this time of worrying about the foreign policy of other nations "as a fad like mullets and disco, and recognize the idiocy of it all."
I tend to agree with Krey to some extent, but I think he needs to realize that it's not realistic for the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, to sit back and do nothing in other nations. A fad is something that is really popular for a little while then goes away almost overnight. The United States has been intervening in other nations for at least the past 100 years. Take the Spanish American War, World War I and II, and the Vietnam War just for a few examples. Calling the notion of meddling in the business of other nations a fad is incorrect.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Breaking News: Voters Stole the Election for Hillary
By Devilstower
Devilstower shows an incredible amount of wit in todays post. She reports that there was something wrong with the primary election in New Hampshire. The problem is that the voters like Hillary. The immoral and excessively enthusiastic female voters came out and supported Clinton's campaign! Something must be wrong! There's not much to argue for or against what Devilstower says, although she is annoying sarcastic in her her post. Apparently the democrat voters in New Hampshire like Hillary and want her to be their candidate for president. But who really cares what New Hampshire thinks anyway?
By Devilstower
Devilstower shows an incredible amount of wit in todays post. She reports that there was something wrong with the primary election in New Hampshire. The problem is that the voters like Hillary. The immoral and excessively enthusiastic female voters came out and supported Clinton's campaign! Something must be wrong! There's not much to argue for or against what Devilstower says, although she is annoying sarcastic in her her post. Apparently the democrat voters in New Hampshire like Hillary and want her to be their candidate for president. But who really cares what New Hampshire thinks anyway?
McCain can't win the independent votes
The McCain Maverick Myth By Patrick Krey
In this post, Krey complains that McCain is a much too liberal Republican, a notion that I happen to agree with. Some say that the appeal of McCain is that he will win the votes of the independents, acquiring the cross over votes. What we have here is a lesser of two evils. Rather than putting a moon bat in office, settle for McCain. Krey wonders how people expect McCain to win the cross over vote if he is so pro-Iraq war and wants to bomb Iran, something that I would assume that most cross over voters aren't quite ready for.
The complaint that Krey poses is a legitimate one and one that I agree with. McCain has many liberal tendencies and would not be the best Republican candidate for that reason. If what Frey says is true then I can't imagine that he would have a successful candidacy for president.
In this post, Krey complains that McCain is a much too liberal Republican, a notion that I happen to agree with. Some say that the appeal of McCain is that he will win the votes of the independents, acquiring the cross over votes. What we have here is a lesser of two evils. Rather than putting a moon bat in office, settle for McCain. Krey wonders how people expect McCain to win the cross over vote if he is so pro-Iraq war and wants to bomb Iran, something that I would assume that most cross over voters aren't quite ready for.
The complaint that Krey poses is a legitimate one and one that I agree with. McCain has many liberal tendencies and would not be the best Republican candidate for that reason. If what Frey says is true then I can't imagine that he would have a successful candidacy for president.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
US General Bribes Iraqis
Hey, Charlie Gibson.
by Devilstower
In this lengthy story, Devilstower gets somewhat upset by the way that Charlie Gibson went about asking questions to the candidates. The taboo words spoken by Gibson suggested that last year's surge of 30,000 soldiers in Iraq has been a success. Devilstower doesn't buy it. She says that the reason that the war has been going well since the surge is because between then and now Genreal Petraeus has begun bribing the enemy. I think what Devilstower is referring to as wide scale bribery is "the civil war that will be fought with the dollars and training and weapons we have provided." Also what she is referring to is the fact that Sunni soldiers are allying themselves to the United States for a fee. Devilstower calls this bribery, I would call them mercenary soldiers. She calls giving weapons to the Iraqis bribery, I would call it funding the war.
A commenter to Devilstower's post recalled the ceasefire that ended the Vietnam War. Once the U.S. left, the North Vietnamese swept through the South and took over. The commenter believes that the reason there is not much fighting going on in Iraq at this very moment is because both sides have decided to wait for the Americans to leave. Once the Americans are gone the fight will continue and they will have saved the soldiers that they would have lost to the U.S. This sounds very plausible to me.
Another commenter boldly says that most Americans don't give a damn about whether or not there is a bloodbath in Iraq after we leave, and so we should just get out now and "cut and run." This is probably the same type of scumbag that counts every single American soldier death and uses the death toll as a reason why we should get out of Iraq. Yet, he also says who cares how many Iraqis die after we leave. It just doesn't add up.
by Devilstower
In this lengthy story, Devilstower gets somewhat upset by the way that Charlie Gibson went about asking questions to the candidates. The taboo words spoken by Gibson suggested that last year's surge of 30,000 soldiers in Iraq has been a success. Devilstower doesn't buy it. She says that the reason that the war has been going well since the surge is because between then and now Genreal Petraeus has begun bribing the enemy. I think what Devilstower is referring to as wide scale bribery is "the civil war that will be fought with the dollars and training and weapons we have provided." Also what she is referring to is the fact that Sunni soldiers are allying themselves to the United States for a fee. Devilstower calls this bribery, I would call them mercenary soldiers. She calls giving weapons to the Iraqis bribery, I would call it funding the war.
A commenter to Devilstower's post recalled the ceasefire that ended the Vietnam War. Once the U.S. left, the North Vietnamese swept through the South and took over. The commenter believes that the reason there is not much fighting going on in Iraq at this very moment is because both sides have decided to wait for the Americans to leave. Once the Americans are gone the fight will continue and they will have saved the soldiers that they would have lost to the U.S. This sounds very plausible to me.
Another commenter boldly says that most Americans don't give a damn about whether or not there is a bloodbath in Iraq after we leave, and so we should just get out now and "cut and run." This is probably the same type of scumbag that counts every single American soldier death and uses the death toll as a reason why we should get out of Iraq. Yet, he also says who cares how many Iraqis die after we leave. It just doesn't add up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)