Why did Romney lose

Why did Romney lose

Lisening to Rush today, he said the reason Romney lost was the low white voter turnout. But why was that?

I believe it is because the nomination was stolen unfairly(or at least perceived to be so).

Romney played "whack-a-mole" so long time white voter I was turned off. Romney did not present a positive image, only that he could get elected, and no one else could- so what. What good is electing a RINO, with the same old consultants and staff that gave us John McCain?

The "let them eat cake" progressive extremists

The "let them eat cake" progressive extremists

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

"On a broader level still, cheap, plentiful natural gas throws a wrench into efforts to combat climate change. Avoiding the worst effects of climate change, scientists increasingly believe, will require "a complete phase-out of carbon emissions … over 50 years," in the words of one widely touted scientific estimate that appeared in January. A big, necessary step toward that goal is moving away from coal, still the second-most-important energy source worldwide. Natural gas burns so much cleaner than coal that converting power plants from coal to gas—a switch promoted by the deluge of gas from fracking—has already reduced U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions to their lowest levels since Newt Gingrich's heyday."

"""Yet natural gas isn't that clean; burning it produces carbon dioxide. Researchers view it as a temporary "bridge fuel," something that can power nations while they make the transition away from oil and coal. But if societies do not take advantage of that bridge to enact anti-carbon policies, says Michael Levi, the director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations, natural gas could be "a bridge from the coal-fired past to the coal-fired future." """

""" "Methane hydrate could be a new energy revolution," Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me. "It could help the world while we reduce greenhouse gases. Or it could undermine the economic rationale for investing in renewable, carbon-free energy around the world"—just as abundant shale gas from fracking has already begun to undermine it in the United States. "The one path is a boon. The other—I've used words like catastrophe." He paused; I thought I detected a sigh. "I wouldn't bet on us making the right decisions." """

Cheap energy is good for the worlds poor. That some environmentalists worry about the unintended consequences is good, that they want the poor to suffer to mediate This worry, is not. The imperial self appointed ruling class is more concerned about maintaining centralized control than the good of the poor that they claim to champion means they are the problem. Centralized control is a sure looser. Concern that the free actions of individuals aren't assured of immediate success does not concern me as I believe the problem is the solution might not be what the central planner would want.

It is time to neuter the progressive left. That is done by reducing the power of the federal government. The laboratory of the states will vet the various ideas and the consequences of failure will be the diminishing of the state, but all other states will be watching.

It is time to return to federalism.

I must appologize to the authors of this article, since I took the first page as representitive of the whole article.  It just repeated the view of others.  The analyses of that first page and the views represented are as intended.  I would recogmend the balance of the article.

Specifically George W. Bush is smarter than Jonathan Chait

Specifically George W. Bush is smarter than Jonathan Chait

"Keith Hennessey, a former Bush aide, has written a long, wounded attack on those of us who doubt the intellectual faculties of the 43rd president, under the provocative headline "George W. Bush is smarter than you." The headline is not an exaggeration. Hennessey really means it"

Specifically Sarah Palin is smarter than Jonathan Chait
"I suppose all this hinges on what we mean by "pretty smart." How smart do you have to be to become a governor, or to make it onto a presidential ticket? That's just one step away from becoming president, but I wouldn't call Sarah Palin "pretty smart," at least not by the standards that ought to apply to a job like president. If you're talking about a bunch of people you knew from high school, then sure, maybe you'd say Bush or Palin were pretty smart."

Are those people you knew from highschool the great unwashed ignoramuses of the flyover country. The clingers to god, America and Mom's apple pie, you know patriotic americans?

" those of us who doubt the intellectual faculties of the 43rd president" are we talking here about the self appointed liberal/progressive elite?

"But if we're defining intelligence as an ability to grasp public policy issues, to synthesize information in a coherent way, I would not call George W. Bush "pretty smart." All the public evidence available to us shows a man who thinks in crude, simplistic slogans. Bush did suffer a lot of ridicule for his speaking flubs. But I don't think awkward speaking was the problem. His way of discussing policy bore all the hallmarks of a highly simplistic mind. "
In other words, if he didn't agree with the Liberal/Progressive elite, he is dumb.

That means there are are a lot of dumb people doing amazing things.

Really, what has Jonathan Chait ever done?

Jonathan Chait is a commentator and writer for New York magazine. He was previously a senior editor at The New Republic and a former assistant editor of The American Prospect. He also writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times.

In other words the idiot spawn of progressive inter breeding.



Sent from my iPad

O brother are you wrong

O brother are you wrong

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/23/tread-on-me-the-case-for-freedom-from-terrorist-bombings-school-shootings-and-exploding-factories/


"In the Obama era, Tea Party Republicans like Senator Rand Paul have portrayed the U.S. government as a threat to individual liberty, an oppressive force in American life. They just want government to leave us alone. But while the "stand with Rand" worldview is quite consistent — against gun restrictions, traffic-light cameras, drone strikes, antidiscrimination laws, antipollution laws and other Big Brother intrusions into our private lives — it's wrong. And most of us know it's wrong, which is why we celebrate our first responders, our soldiers, our law enforcers. They're from the government, and they're here to help. We know our government is fallible, because it's made up of people, but we still count on it to protect us from terrorists, from psychos with guns, from exploding factories. We also need it to protect us from floods and wildfires, from financial meltdowns and climate change. We can't do that kind of thing ourselves."

No argument, just you are wrong. Really?"They're from the government, and they're here to help. " is a joke. It is a joke and is funny because it is inconceivable that they will help. Individuals help, the government meddles ineffectively. The quote above is assuming the federal government is providing all the goodness mentioned. Wrong, it is the various lower level governments, with whom the federal government meddles.

"Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/23/tread-on-me-the-case-for-freedom-from-terrorist-bombings-school-shootings-and-exploding-factories/#ixzz2RNUqRuXs"


Sent from my iPad

Questioning the Mission of College

Questioning the Mission of College

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/bruni-questioning-the-missionof-college.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"I'd sound yet another alarm. Scratch the surface of some of the efforts to reform state universities and you find more than just legitimate qualms about efficiency and demands for accountability. You find the kind of indiscriminate anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism popular among more than a few right-wing conservatives."
In other words, If you don't believe the existing administration of the universities are being driven by intellectually honest people, this may be an appropriate pushback.


"It's worth noting that Governor Perry has dismissed global warming as "one contrived, phony mess" and that many of the voices calling most loudly for change at the University of Texas are from the Tea Party fringe."

Therefore if global warming is assumed to be settled science, people not agreeing with that stance a anti intellectual. Otherwise, the university professors holding the claims of global warming, are frauds and anti scientific. "Settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is never settled, religion, on the other hand, can be considered settled. Descenders are heretics, to be punished severely.

"In other words there's some crude, petty politics in all of this. And as we tackle the very real, very to be important challenge of giving young Americans the best and most useful t possible in an era of dwindling resources, that's the last thing we need."

The current politics is liberal/progressive mindset versus the conservative mindset. It is clear the universities are promoters of the liberal mindset, with no intellectual inquire allowed.

What is needed is to rebalance the politics in the universities. The damage this process requires will be due to the rigidity on the left.


Sent from my iPad

The complete idiots' of the N.Y. times

The complete idiots' of the N.Y. times

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/

"has estimated that, when federal, state and local taxes are taken into account, the top 1 percent paid only slightly more than 20 percent of all American taxes in 2010 "

And when they die they only account for 0.000000001% of the deaths. Lets make them experience at least 0.0000001% of the deaths, it is only fair.

What does this mean? Figures don't lie, but liars figure.


Sent from my iPad

Make this our cause, it is the fair thing to do.

Make this our cause, it is the fair thing to do.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323741004578414402175056688.html


"They keep coming back, like the villains of a good zombie movie, chanting "more taxes, more taxes." Long ago, Congress passed the alternative minimum tax, or AMT—a simple flat rate to ensure that in an insanely complex tax code, no one escapes paying something. Now we need an alternative maximum tax as a simple, rough-and-ready way to limit the tax zombies' economic damage. Call it the AMaxT."

What should the AMaxT be?
"I like half, but the principle matters more than the number". "each of us gets to add up everything we pay to government at every level: federal income taxes, yes, but also payroll (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) taxes, state, city and county taxes, estate . . . ."
"On April 15, once this total hits the alternative maximum tax, you've done your bit and federal income taxes can take no more. " (bloggers note: once the Feds hit the limit on individuals, I would send the balance of the bill to the state where he resides, let the struggle be more evenly matched, it is only fair)

This puts a penalty once and for all on the excessive takers.


"So the AMaxT is most important for the backstop promise it makes to young people and entrepreneurs. Yes, start a company, go to school, work hard, invest, hire people. We guarantee you that no matter what happens, no matter how loud the zombies chant, no matter what clever "revenue enhancers" they come up with, you will get to keep some reasonable fraction of what you earn. Go for it."


Sent from my iPad

Blow hard, Democrat party Plantation Overseer

Blow hard, Democrat party Plantation Overseer

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/opinion/blow-rand-paul-goes-to-howard.html?_r=1&

"Senator Rand Paul is trying to find a balance between the two. The same week that a dozen defiant senators threatened to filibuster any new gun control legislation, Paul ventured across Washington to historically black Howard University and gave a speech aimed at outreach and bridge building.

The man is mulling a presidential run after all.

The speech was a dud. It was a clipped-tail history lesson praising the civil rights record of the pre-Southern Strategy Republican Party, while slamming the concurrent record of the Democrats."

notice the Blow has no argument, only slander. I saw the speech and I was impressed. The questions following were good also. What gesture has the Blow ever given toward understanding the opposition.

"They lost it in 1976 when Ronald Reagan adopted the racially charged "welfare queens" trope. They lost it when George Bush used Willie Horton as a club against Michael Dukakis. They lost it when George W. Bush imperially flew over New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when people were still being plucked from rooftops and were huddling in a humid Super Dome.

They lost it when the McCain campaign took a dark turn and painted Barack Obama as the other, a man "palling around with terrorists," a man who didn't see "America like you and I see America."

They lost it when Republican Representative Joe Wilson yelled "You lie!" at the president during a speech to a joint session of Congress. They lost it when a finger-wagging Republican Gov. Jan Brewer publicly chastised the president on an Arizona tarmac."

The Blow doesn't understand, these are the good pieces. There were welfare Queens, and reforming the system helped many blacks the shackles of the welfare system. George Bush was obeying the law when he deferred to local, corrupt democratic politicians. Obama had a long and continuing relationship with left wing extremists. Joe Wilson was speaking truth to power, Obama lies continually with pseudo journalists like Blow, covering for him. Governor Brewer is my Governor and I am proud of her.

Blow doesn't argue the facts of the points Dr, Paul was making because he doesn't have the intellect. I am not saying all blacks are intellectually inferior, only Mr. Blow.


Sent from my iPad

"My way or the highway" is now in the Liberal mainstream

"My way or the highway" is now in the Liberal mainstream

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344835/vigilance-vigilantes-mark-steyn?pg=2

"liberals" aren't interested in your opinion, or even your sincere support, but only that you understand that there's one single, acceptable answer. "

Liberals (Progressives) are haters. They hate you now and will continue to hate you after you capitulate. They will hate you if you are a white male and demand you hate yourself.
They will hate you if you are a black conservative as "Unnatural". They will hate you if you are a republican or even a democrat, if you are not passionate enough.

We need a hate law that will ban Progressive speech.

God is love. The is no room for hate.


Sent from my iPad