Same attitude, same tactics, same philosophy of governing.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Tar: Check.
Feathers: Check
Rail: Check and double check.
The mask slips. We need this man’s scalp, politically speaking of course.
All I can say is, Wow! Just Wow!
Sir,
Did you read it before or after you voted on it?
It doesn’t matter to me! You wouldn’t know what matters to me!
The kids. When their hearts are beating in their chests. At the end of the day. The day. Insurance to everyone. Says who. It doesn’t matter to me.
COCAINE IS A HELL OF A DRUG.
This guy is making those democrats that hide from the TEA party look like a bunch of geniuses.
Rather than falling into the trap of saying the Congressman is a liar which gave him an excuse for walking out, I would suggest that in future interviews, keep repeating the impossible facts that the Congressman is claiming (in this case at 1 minute per page it would take 5 and a half days of non stop reading with out eating, sleeping or bathroom breaks to get through 8000 pages) and ask how he did it. Let the viewers conclude that he is a liar. We will win elections by convincing independents, not by playing gotcha.
Other than that minor complaint, my complements and congratulations to the interviewers. Great work. It’s not easy to catch a Democrat telling the truth about their contempt for the Constitution.
He shoulda just expressed what all democrats think…”Hey, i know its an unsustainable path that breeds incompetence, but lets just see how to make our short lives easier and screw the future generations”
Well, its right on page 34 of Das Kapital . . . . er, wait. . . that wasn’t the question, was it?
Well, Henry Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is showing his understanding of the Constitution, too, and also finance law. I admire the people in the video you link, Neo, because they had the stones to call Hare on his BS to his face. I wish the CEOs called in front of Wax-man would do the same. I seem to recall in the movie, The Aviator, a scene set in a hearing room where the Hughes character unloads on the crooked senator he was facing. Surely the CEOs have sufficient resources to prepare for a similar exchange. I just wish they’d grow a pair and stand up for themselves. What exactly is it they have to lose?
LAG
CEOs in publicly-traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, as well as their employees, to run the company as best they can.
When DC has the power to ruin you–not that DC should have the power to ruin you–sucking up to those powers is your fiduciary duty.
Imagine a shareholders’ suit: You pissed off Henry Waxman who imposed specific regulations which meant we lost half our market share.
Some Republican should use it for a campaign commercial, preferably his opponent.
Richard Aubrey: by your logic, once the steer is in the mud, he might as well just give up the struggle to get out. Even if it’s only one leg, no higher than a hock.
I grant you that CEOs need to consider the interests of their customers, but would that be the short-term or the long? Maybe sucking up is good in the short, but it just doesn’t seem like a good long-term play.
I guess I’m old-fashioned. I’d tell the Congressman to kiss my butt, point out the relevant portions of the Constitution and statutes, and produce the dirty pictures snapped by my private investigators. If my board doesn’t like it, fire me.
Bottomline: you want to play with the big boys, man up. Nobody wins every time.
Half?
Well lets see… every female politician who has said she is a feminist would have to go… as well as every progressive.. As well as every one that voted for certain laws and bills…
Years ago.. many years ago people pointed out that you cant serve women more than men, or minorities more than arbitrary oppressor class, or X more than Y, and be in office and not violate the oaths (through their upholding constitution).
It was normalized by feminism (mostly) and somewhat through race politics. The leaders of the movement knew that they could get young women to attempt to push equality of outcome. And so they normalized subversive practices promoting that women should get into office to ‘change things’, and not get into office to serve their WHOLE constituency rather than favor half of such.
Once it had years of no one touching it, establishing Stalins concept of making things normal by acclimation, not normal by moral standards, we no longer thought badly about this kind of politics, we actually preferred it and promoted it in school. From the young womans viewpoint she was making strides for women, from the leaders viewpoint they were breaking the constitiution by other means.
Only a whole is a whole, and once you have a hole in the glass, how many holes only establish how long you have before it empties. So allowing ANY little part of this, breaks the whole, and once broken, you can’t have it whole again unless you go back
How could men protest that women were taking office to specifically help women and disenfranchise men as a method of doing so? Remember when they tried. Remember the 40 years of protesting the outcomes of things, and being told we cant get laid, we are oppressors, we want to beat our mates, were all rapists, and so on and so on. (for some reason women didn’t get that they were doing this to all their potential mates)
Through feminism you get control through the power of Lysistrata the idea of an oath of office meaning anything was nil once women no longer had to respect that oath to help women.
VAWA is a law that has such a slant to it. Why not forbid all violence? Because that would then prevent “social justice” .
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan
If you had a law that was equality under the law it would not be legal to have acts against the oppressor class. But also, by making that law, and farming out to the world, they have permanently unbalance any kind of constitutional idea of equality under the law, and have shifted it all to equal outcomes and social justice.
This tactic was used in germany to get the people to hate the jews. Disparate outcome is just another word for claiming to know that there is a group of people cheating good people and all you have to do is know them by the disparate outcome.
That is, if we are all equal, then outcomes have to be equal, if outcomes are not equal either we are not equal OR one group is cheating. Ideology forbids the entertaining and the CHANGE to the religion (while promoting change in everything else till it conforms to the prophets words), so concluding we are individuals and not equal in ability is forbidden. And so the only conclusion we are allowed to make is that we know thorugh disparate outcomes that whites are cheating, men are cheating, jews are cheating, Chinese are cheating, and any group, class, gender, and such that does not perform at the same level gets to lay a claim on needing constitutional favoritism to right the cheating of the oppressors.
And through feminism the law has complied by making one sided laws which then by their lop sided ideas; permit class hatred against oppressor classes.
So any one that worked on such a law, signed such a law, took up office to end around the constitution by promoting such ideas, all were nibbling away at the constitution we now want to hold water.
How can it hold water after we have allowed, for the sake of our women, to put holes in the whole thing? Or for race? Or for any other thing we decide to use the same idea on…
This is why I said, as long as you have the disease you have the disease, and if you love your cancer, there is no hope. Because if you plug up all the holes in things, they will just drill more over time because that’s their purpose — regardless of what we believe or delude ourselves about)
The act of acting out against oppressors till they no longer exist by being eliminated by being social outcasts is a SLOW form of genocide. We would recoil in horror if someone in the 1960s said we would exterminate 50 million Americans for the sake of political outcomes and personal rights… but after so many years, we have exterminated 50 million Americans who would have grown up knowing the American ideal, and not been replaced by immigrants so we didn’t notice the numbers.
And how could you teach the kids if you didn’t get them away from mom?
And how could the wealthy men get free sex which self supports? I mean in the old days you had a responsibility to support your harem and all that, today you only need to have enough money to gain access to the harem and share it COLLECTIVELY.
Every politician that ever pushed a tax law to manipulate outcomes along the lines of social engineering, is in violation of these principals.
Any politician that worked on creating any program to help some people and not others is in violation of this stuff. So anyone that helped create and maintain the SBA 8A program for women and minorities (guess who that filters out?) is in violation of oaths to the constitution.
Yes I know the argument that preferential giving is not the same as taking; however that may be true if the giver doesn’t get their largess through taxes. Through taxes all are taxed and so giving in the 8A program is actually taking through a round about means (as all affirmative action type programs do)
Anyone want to go back to my post where I pointed out how can you think of upholding the constitution today when so little of it is upheld and we didn’t do it before?
I didn’t explain all the ways we violate it and do so without the process of amendment or change…
Like the twisting of the separation of church ideas, and the welfare clause from English meaning in 1700s (and intended meaning as detailed by the authors), to modern progressive meaning
Given that all one has to do is apply pressure and wait long enough and freedom will be a word that means slavery, and slavery would mean freedom (in reality), and then what would the constitution stand for? isn’t inversion interesting?
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” — Former Congressman Barbara Jordan
If a man said that about a woman, what would we think?
How about if a man said this? (and imagine how it jibes with the above!)
“Women have no sympathy… And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so.” — Florence Nightingale
LAG.
Go for it. But remember that a number of your stockholders are retirees not in a position to recoup their/your losses. You piss off Waxman, you ruin them.
What you’d like to do is one thing. What would happen when you do it is complicated.
The problem is that Waxman and his ilk have accumulated–been given–this power.
To make an exaggerated analogy, it’s one thing to be brave in resisting a tyranny. It’s another when you know that, say, Saddaam will arrest and horribly torture your entire family if you are identified.
Or that the local Nazis have a ten to one reprisal rule.
When the Big Guys have all the power, your decisions are more complicated than simply yourself.
And, yes, I know this isn’t a matter of murder and torture.
The point is, this is more complicated than ego and adrenalin.
You do what you want, but don’t pretend it’s only about you and (spit) Waxman when the stuff hits the fan and a bunch of other people are affected.
Now, if you really do have dirty pictures….
“… Of course, half of Congress would have to go with him.”
The Democratic left, its pundits and academics criticizing the legal challenges to ObamaCare seem to be arguing that their version of our political structure is too big to change.
That’s not true. The American people can and do change the nation’s collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example. (The idea that resistance to Mr. Obama’s health plan is rooted in racist resentment of equal rights is beyond the pale, even by current standards of political punditry.)
Powerful political forces suddenly seem to be in motion across the U.S. What they have in common is anxiety over what government has become in the first decade of the 21st century.
. . .
My reading of the American public is that they have moved past “concerns.” Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.
The 10th Amendment tumult does not mean anyone is going to secede. It doesn’t mean “nullification” is coming back. We are not going to refight the Civil War or the Voting Rights Act. Richard Russell isn’t rising from his Georgia grave.
It means that the current edition of the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the average American’s sense of political modesty. The party’s members and theorists now defend expanding government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.
In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing direction. That time may be arriving.
Faced with corporate writedowns in response to the reality of Congress’s new health plan, an apoplectic Congressman Henry Waxman commanded his economic vassals to appear before him in Washington.
Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama laughingly replied to these people: “Go for it.”
They will.
I have heard a quote to the effect that authoritarian personalities don’t like dictionaries. If words have a fluid meaning, then it’s much easier to lie. The Congressman in question, like others I have heard, are trying to define either life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness to include making others pay for your health care. But I have yet to hear anything which makes me believe liberal’s definition of those terms precludes any government action. So the terms are essentially meaningless.
In the same vane, Biden yesterday said Obamacare was necessary because it was unfair that 1% of the population earned 20% of the income. I would like to receive a concise defintion of “fair” so I know when we reach it or, heaven forbid, overshoot it. I’m not holding my breath because I know that the left has no real definition of the term; it’s just an excuse, not a criteria.
“”I grant you that CEOs need to consider the interests of their customers, but would that be the short-term or the long?””
LAG
I agree, these ceo’s act as if theres not a bigger and more important picture. I’d say a free society for another 230 years would suffice for starters of why a Henry Waxman needs to be tore a new asshole.
Richard Aubrey: “…this is more complicated than ego and adrenalin.”
You’re right. Everything you say may be perfectly true. I’ll go one better: it IS true.
So what? As we recently learned, actions (and elections) have consequences. Is some feared but potentially, even assuredly, bad outcome necessarily an argument against action?
If so, it always will be. In my former profession, I often ran into people who, in the words of Lincoln, couldn’t do the arithmetic. In other words, they consistently avoided taking decisions and actions because they could never find a path forward sufficiently sanitary to suit them. They were the commanders who felt the losses of their own troops so viscerally that they became paralyzed and allowed their positions to be overrun.
You want to continue to roll over because there are consequences, some of which are bad. Yes, but that’s reality. But unwillingness or inability to accept any losses leads either to total loss or surrender. So, when does the time arrive, when it’s time to say ‘enough’ followed by ‘damn the torpedoes?’
I think it’s now. How can conservative circumstances possibly improve or be improved through inaction that allows further preparation and entrenchment by the left?
dont know whether this should go in the area of the catholic church or here, were i mentioned movements.
do note that the problem is not in the goal of any of the things won, the problem is in the method used to win
that is, the hole in the constitution is not created by one answer or another answer as to women, minorities, or anyone. what creates the hole is method. once there is a hole, then other forms of stuff basically get through that would never get through the more proper channels.
so what would work given time, by forcing early through an end around, creates a hole in which other things which would not work or be accepted, to get through.
i didnt have time to find the quotes in dodds book, but if you ignore the whack jobs and just stick to the fact (which are chilling enough without the added wackajobism)
For example, Dodd reveals that the CPUSA had 1,100 members become Catholic priest in the 1930’s. It also subverted the American education system by taking over the teacher’s unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the “materialistic, collectivist ‘international class struggle’ approach” advanced.
Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program:
“The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them….. war-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgoise family as social unit was to be made obsolete.”
there was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of american Women, a forerunner of the femenist movement.
“Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really a renewed offensive to control American women…. they were regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals.”
hastening something that is enevitable does not get you to the same place that lettin it happen at its own speed would, and its costs are usually vastly greater.
meanwhile, there is no where to go. materially, we go out and spread out into space, something collectivists wont allow (you would have more than one collective and then guess what?). on the other hand its something that capitalists would embrace.
given a different ideology the global warming people would have planets to experiment on in the future.
but individuals can take us were a collective can never go (unless it sees it already reachable, then it can copy or is willing to work it out, but usually at great cost).
they fear a population with no steering wheel, yet once you grab it there is no where to go, except downwards, as an unimpeded system moves at maximum speed, while a system of impediments can do nothing but slow things down (simple friction)
LAG.
You have no idea whether I want to roll over or whether I want to do something else.
The question was whether CEOs were going to go all medieval on the congressworms’ ass or not.
I explained why not.
What that has to do with what I want or would do is pretty slim.
Tell you what. You go do DC, to Waxman’s office and go all medieval on his ass.
Then we can see how your family, if you have one, fares while you’re in the Big House.
Um. Complicated, huh?
How many other people are you willing to sacrifice to get your grins?
Consider, wild as it may seem, that pointing out congress’ corruption to their faces is not about to shame them. They have no shame.
The MSM knows what the the bastards are doing. What, you think you’ll alert the NYT to these nefarious doings?
Think of something that will work.
Years ago, in “Black Lamb and Gray Falcon”, Rebecca West said that a king gave up his personal privilege. If necessary, he had to endure personal humiliation to avoid a war which would ruin his country. Or he had to fight a war which would get a lot of his people killed if it were the best thing, net, to do for his country.
Complicated.
But he didn’t have the moral right to get his people killed because he’d been insulted or something.
So, let us know when you’ll be in Waxman’s office.
> Of course, half of Congress would have to go with him.
a) ONLY half?
b) I gots no problems wid’ dat. Preferably a rail will be involved. And tar. and feathers. Lots and lots of feathers.
> In the same vane, Biden yesterday said Obamacare was necessary because it was unfair that 1% of the population earned 20% of the income.
There’s a simple solution to this — Biden could lead by example. He could take his share of that income and donate it to charitable causes.
Instead as I recall, he and his wife are among the “most suckiest” politicians at making charitable donations with their income.
He doesn’t think it’s unfair that HE earns 20% of the nation’s income. Only that OTHERs are equal. He wants things to be more equal so there will be fewer “equals” where HE is. He’s a real special kind of egalitarian.
I also wonder if he thinks it’s fair that 1% of the population pays 50% of the income tax revenue taken in. That seems a heck of a lot less fair to me.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Three times he read it! That’s three times more than Speaker Pelosi. F
One must applaud the man’s honesty. He truly does not care about the Constitution.
Were he a Republican this would be on the MSM evening news for weeks.
Phil Harebrained reminds me of this guy:
http://anakbangsa69.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/boss_tweed_nast.jpg
Same attitude, same tactics, same philosophy of governing.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Tar: Check.
Feathers: Check
Rail: Check and double check.
The mask slips. We need this man’s scalp, politically speaking of course.
All I can say is, Wow! Just Wow!
Sir,
Did you read it before or after you voted on it?
It doesn’t matter to me! You wouldn’t know what matters to me!
The kids. When their hearts are beating in their chests. At the end of the day. The day. Insurance to everyone. Says who. It doesn’t matter to me.
COCAINE IS A HELL OF A DRUG.
This guy is making those democrats that hide from the TEA party look like a bunch of geniuses.
Rather than falling into the trap of saying the Congressman is a liar which gave him an excuse for walking out, I would suggest that in future interviews, keep repeating the impossible facts that the Congressman is claiming (in this case at 1 minute per page it would take 5 and a half days of non stop reading with out eating, sleeping or bathroom breaks to get through 8000 pages) and ask how he did it. Let the viewers conclude that he is a liar. We will win elections by convincing independents, not by playing gotcha.
Other than that minor complaint, my complements and congratulations to the interviewers. Great work. It’s not easy to catch a Democrat telling the truth about their contempt for the Constitution.
He shoulda just expressed what all democrats think…”Hey, i know its an unsustainable path that breeds incompetence, but lets just see how to make our short lives easier and screw the future generations”
Well, its right on page 34 of Das Kapital . . . . er, wait. . . that wasn’t the question, was it?
Well, Henry Waxman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is showing his understanding of the Constitution, too, and also finance law. I admire the people in the video you link, Neo, because they had the stones to call Hare on his BS to his face. I wish the CEOs called in front of Wax-man would do the same. I seem to recall in the movie, The Aviator, a scene set in a hearing room where the Hughes character unloads on the crooked senator he was facing. Surely the CEOs have sufficient resources to prepare for a similar exchange. I just wish they’d grow a pair and stand up for themselves. What exactly is it they have to lose?
LAG
CEOs in publicly-traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, as well as their employees, to run the company as best they can.
When DC has the power to ruin you–not that DC should have the power to ruin you–sucking up to those powers is your fiduciary duty.
Imagine a shareholders’ suit: You pissed off Henry Waxman who imposed specific regulations which meant we lost half our market share.
Some Republican should use it for a campaign commercial, preferably his opponent.
Richard Aubrey: by your logic, once the steer is in the mud, he might as well just give up the struggle to get out. Even if it’s only one leg, no higher than a hock.
I grant you that CEOs need to consider the interests of their customers, but would that be the short-term or the long? Maybe sucking up is good in the short, but it just doesn’t seem like a good long-term play.
I guess I’m old-fashioned. I’d tell the Congressman to kiss my butt, point out the relevant portions of the Constitution and statutes, and produce the dirty pictures snapped by my private investigators. If my board doesn’t like it, fire me.
Bottomline: you want to play with the big boys, man up. Nobody wins every time.
Half?
Well lets see… every female politician who has said she is a feminist would have to go… as well as every progressive.. As well as every one that voted for certain laws and bills…
Years ago.. many years ago people pointed out that you cant serve women more than men, or minorities more than arbitrary oppressor class, or X more than Y, and be in office and not violate the oaths (through their upholding constitution).
It was normalized by feminism (mostly) and somewhat through race politics. The leaders of the movement knew that they could get young women to attempt to push equality of outcome. And so they normalized subversive practices promoting that women should get into office to ‘change things’, and not get into office to serve their WHOLE constituency rather than favor half of such.
Once it had years of no one touching it, establishing Stalins concept of making things normal by acclimation, not normal by moral standards, we no longer thought badly about this kind of politics, we actually preferred it and promoted it in school. From the young womans viewpoint she was making strides for women, from the leaders viewpoint they were breaking the constitiution by other means.
Only a whole is a whole, and once you have a hole in the glass, how many holes only establish how long you have before it empties. So allowing ANY little part of this, breaks the whole, and once broken, you can’t have it whole again unless you go back
How could men protest that women were taking office to specifically help women and disenfranchise men as a method of doing so? Remember when they tried. Remember the 40 years of protesting the outcomes of things, and being told we cant get laid, we are oppressors, we want to beat our mates, were all rapists, and so on and so on. (for some reason women didn’t get that they were doing this to all their potential mates)
Through feminism you get control through the power of Lysistrata the idea of an oath of office meaning anything was nil once women no longer had to respect that oath to help women.
VAWA is a law that has such a slant to it. Why not forbid all violence? Because that would then prevent “social justice” .
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan
If you had a law that was equality under the law it would not be legal to have acts against the oppressor class. But also, by making that law, and farming out to the world, they have permanently unbalance any kind of constitutional idea of equality under the law, and have shifted it all to equal outcomes and social justice.
This tactic was used in germany to get the people to hate the jews. Disparate outcome is just another word for claiming to know that there is a group of people cheating good people and all you have to do is know them by the disparate outcome.
That is, if we are all equal, then outcomes have to be equal, if outcomes are not equal either we are not equal OR one group is cheating. Ideology forbids the entertaining and the CHANGE to the religion (while promoting change in everything else till it conforms to the prophets words), so concluding we are individuals and not equal in ability is forbidden. And so the only conclusion we are allowed to make is that we know thorugh disparate outcomes that whites are cheating, men are cheating, jews are cheating, Chinese are cheating, and any group, class, gender, and such that does not perform at the same level gets to lay a claim on needing constitutional favoritism to right the cheating of the oppressors.
And through feminism the law has complied by making one sided laws which then by their lop sided ideas; permit class hatred against oppressor classes.
So any one that worked on such a law, signed such a law, took up office to end around the constitution by promoting such ideas, all were nibbling away at the constitution we now want to hold water.
How can it hold water after we have allowed, for the sake of our women, to put holes in the whole thing? Or for race? Or for any other thing we decide to use the same idea on…
This is why I said, as long as you have the disease you have the disease, and if you love your cancer, there is no hope. Because if you plug up all the holes in things, they will just drill more over time because that’s their purpose — regardless of what we believe or delude ourselves about)
The act of acting out against oppressors till they no longer exist by being eliminated by being social outcasts is a SLOW form of genocide. We would recoil in horror if someone in the 1960s said we would exterminate 50 million Americans for the sake of political outcomes and personal rights… but after so many years, we have exterminated 50 million Americans who would have grown up knowing the American ideal, and not been replaced by immigrants so we didn’t notice the numbers.
And how could you teach the kids if you didn’t get them away from mom?
And how could the wealthy men get free sex which self supports? I mean in the old days you had a responsibility to support your harem and all that, today you only need to have enough money to gain access to the harem and share it COLLECTIVELY.
Every politician that ever pushed a tax law to manipulate outcomes along the lines of social engineering, is in violation of these principals.
Any politician that worked on creating any program to help some people and not others is in violation of this stuff. So anyone that helped create and maintain the SBA 8A program for women and minorities (guess who that filters out?) is in violation of oaths to the constitution.
Yes I know the argument that preferential giving is not the same as taking; however that may be true if the giver doesn’t get their largess through taxes. Through taxes all are taxed and so giving in the 8A program is actually taking through a round about means (as all affirmative action type programs do)
Anyone want to go back to my post where I pointed out how can you think of upholding the constitution today when so little of it is upheld and we didn’t do it before?
I didn’t explain all the ways we violate it and do so without the process of amendment or change…
Like the twisting of the separation of church ideas, and the welfare clause from English meaning in 1700s (and intended meaning as detailed by the authors), to modern progressive meaning
Given that all one has to do is apply pressure and wait long enough and freedom will be a word that means slavery, and slavery would mean freedom (in reality), and then what would the constitution stand for? isn’t inversion interesting?
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” — Former Congressman Barbara Jordan
If a man said that about a woman, what would we think?
How about if a man said this? (and imagine how it jibes with the above!)
“Women have no sympathy… And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so.” — Florence Nightingale
LAG.
Go for it. But remember that a number of your stockholders are retirees not in a position to recoup their/your losses. You piss off Waxman, you ruin them.
What you’d like to do is one thing. What would happen when you do it is complicated.
The problem is that Waxman and his ilk have accumulated–been given–this power.
To make an exaggerated analogy, it’s one thing to be brave in resisting a tyranny. It’s another when you know that, say, Saddaam will arrest and horribly torture your entire family if you are identified.
Or that the local Nazis have a ten to one reprisal rule.
When the Big Guys have all the power, your decisions are more complicated than simply yourself.
And, yes, I know this isn’t a matter of murder and torture.
The point is, this is more complicated than ego and adrenalin.
You do what you want, but don’t pretend it’s only about you and (spit) Waxman when the stuff hits the fan and a bunch of other people are affected.
Now, if you really do have dirty pictures….
“… Of course, half of Congress would have to go with him.”
Sounds like a plan.
Just found a great article from Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal :
I have heard a quote to the effect that authoritarian personalities don’t like dictionaries. If words have a fluid meaning, then it’s much easier to lie. The Congressman in question, like others I have heard, are trying to define either life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness to include making others pay for your health care. But I have yet to hear anything which makes me believe liberal’s definition of those terms precludes any government action. So the terms are essentially meaningless.
In the same vane, Biden yesterday said Obamacare was necessary because it was unfair that 1% of the population earned 20% of the income. I would like to receive a concise defintion of “fair” so I know when we reach it or, heaven forbid, overshoot it. I’m not holding my breath because I know that the left has no real definition of the term; it’s just an excuse, not a criteria.
“”I grant you that CEOs need to consider the interests of their customers, but would that be the short-term or the long?””
LAG
I agree, these ceo’s act as if theres not a bigger and more important picture. I’d say a free society for another 230 years would suffice for starters of why a Henry Waxman needs to be tore a new asshole.
Richard Aubrey: “…this is more complicated than ego and adrenalin.”
You’re right. Everything you say may be perfectly true. I’ll go one better: it IS true.
So what? As we recently learned, actions (and elections) have consequences. Is some feared but potentially, even assuredly, bad outcome necessarily an argument against action?
If so, it always will be. In my former profession, I often ran into people who, in the words of Lincoln, couldn’t do the arithmetic. In other words, they consistently avoided taking decisions and actions because they could never find a path forward sufficiently sanitary to suit them. They were the commanders who felt the losses of their own troops so viscerally that they became paralyzed and allowed their positions to be overrun.
You want to continue to roll over because there are consequences, some of which are bad. Yes, but that’s reality. But unwillingness or inability to accept any losses leads either to total loss or surrender. So, when does the time arrive, when it’s time to say ‘enough’ followed by ‘damn the torpedoes?’
I think it’s now. How can conservative circumstances possibly improve or be improved through inaction that allows further preparation and entrenchment by the left?
dont know whether this should go in the area of the catholic church or here, were i mentioned movements.
do note that the problem is not in the goal of any of the things won, the problem is in the method used to win
that is, the hole in the constitution is not created by one answer or another answer as to women, minorities, or anyone. what creates the hole is method. once there is a hole, then other forms of stuff basically get through that would never get through the more proper channels.
so what would work given time, by forcing early through an end around, creates a hole in which other things which would not work or be accepted, to get through.
i didnt have time to find the quotes in dodds book, but if you ignore the whack jobs and just stick to the fact (which are chilling enough without the added wackajobism)
For example, Dodd reveals that the CPUSA had 1,100 members become Catholic priest in the 1930’s. It also subverted the American education system by taking over the teacher’s unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the “materialistic, collectivist ‘international class struggle’ approach” advanced.
Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program:
“The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them….. war-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgoise family as social unit was to be made obsolete.”
there was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of american Women, a forerunner of the femenist movement.
“Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really a renewed offensive to control American women…. they were regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals.”
hastening something that is enevitable does not get you to the same place that lettin it happen at its own speed would, and its costs are usually vastly greater.
meanwhile, there is no where to go. materially, we go out and spread out into space, something collectivists wont allow (you would have more than one collective and then guess what?). on the other hand its something that capitalists would embrace.
given a different ideology the global warming people would have planets to experiment on in the future.
but individuals can take us were a collective can never go (unless it sees it already reachable, then it can copy or is willing to work it out, but usually at great cost).
they fear a population with no steering wheel, yet once you grab it there is no where to go, except downwards, as an unimpeded system moves at maximum speed, while a system of impediments can do nothing but slow things down (simple friction)
LAG.
You have no idea whether I want to roll over or whether I want to do something else.
The question was whether CEOs were going to go all medieval on the congressworms’ ass or not.
I explained why not.
What that has to do with what I want or would do is pretty slim.
Tell you what. You go do DC, to Waxman’s office and go all medieval on his ass.
Then we can see how your family, if you have one, fares while you’re in the Big House.
Um. Complicated, huh?
How many other people are you willing to sacrifice to get your grins?
Consider, wild as it may seem, that pointing out congress’ corruption to their faces is not about to shame them. They have no shame.
The MSM knows what the the bastards are doing. What, you think you’ll alert the NYT to these nefarious doings?
Think of something that will work.
Years ago, in “Black Lamb and Gray Falcon”, Rebecca West said that a king gave up his personal privilege. If necessary, he had to endure personal humiliation to avoid a war which would ruin his country. Or he had to fight a war which would get a lot of his people killed if it were the best thing, net, to do for his country.
Complicated.
But he didn’t have the moral right to get his people killed because he’d been insulted or something.
So, let us know when you’ll be in Waxman’s office.
> Of course, half of Congress would have to go with him.
a) ONLY half?
b) I gots no problems wid’ dat. Preferably a rail will be involved. And tar. and feathers. Lots and lots of feathers.
> In the same vane, Biden yesterday said Obamacare was necessary because it was unfair that 1% of the population earned 20% of the income.
There’s a simple solution to this — Biden could lead by example. He could take his share of that income and donate it to charitable causes.
Instead as I recall, he and his wife are among the “most suckiest” politicians at making charitable donations with their income.
He doesn’t think it’s unfair that HE earns 20% of the nation’s income. Only that OTHERs are equal. He wants things to be more equal so there will be fewer “equals” where HE is. He’s a real special kind of egalitarian.
I also wonder if he thinks it’s fair that 1% of the population pays 50% of the income tax revenue taken in. That seems a heck of a lot less fair to me.