Conservative Logic:
Stop and think about this:
When government gets involved generally prices rise, results decline.
If that is factually correct, why do liberals/progressives want more/bigger government? Can't be because they truly want the best. Must be because they want more control and power.
Could it be because they actually fear freedom and independence?
If Democrat solutions cost more and accomplish less why have so many decided Socialism's failures are preferable to Capitalism's successes/productivity .
I daresay few liberals/progressives have read; "The Road To Serfdom.
Something else to think about.
The more ignorant we become and the less we know and understand about our blessed history the more likely we are to repeat its mistakes. Perhaps this helps explain why liberals and progressives favor programs that have resulted in government's degradation of our public school system and why they oppose charter schools. Maybe this is why the riots on college campuses, preventing the exchange of ideas, is now in vogue. Maybe this is why Secretary of Education, Betsy. DeVos, is hated by the left.
It is easier to control the ignorant than the informed.
Democrat voting blocs are less educated, more dependent and unemployed. Does this send a message they care about their constituents? Is this the America we want to create? If so then keep hating Trump, keep favoring obstruction and keep pursuing Obama's failed policies in the belief spending more money is the solution.
Nor am I suggesting Conservatism has all the answers. However, based on Professor Gruber's commentary about the ease with which Obama Care was passed because Americans have been dumbed down, conservative ideas find less favor among the dependent, less educated etc.
When it comes to the health care proposed bill and the attacks on the Republicans for being cruel, heartless etc. it is obvious when something is financially unsupportable and another group wants to take it away, logic goes out the window and hypocrisy and greed takes over.
Conservatives are always vulnerable (Newt Gingrich: "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.") when they try to correct what Democrats want or have legislated which is either not affordable or is a train wreck
In the case of Obamacare, obviously, it is a fiscal disaster. Republicans, in wrestling with this monstrosity, made the situation worse because their bill takes away Medicaid funding while subsidizing insurance companies, pre-existing conditions etc.
Government should be out of the healthcare business except in the case of assisting those who cannot afford health care. One approach might be for government to provide everyone below a certain income level, enough money to purchase a basic free market policy of their choice that is transportable and allow for collective grouping to increase consumer buying power so policy prices are reduced.
Also, pass legislation that reduces frivolous law suits which raises the cost of insurance doctors have to pay and which is driving many out of the practice as their income plunges, expenses rise and red tape chokes..
Then the government should get out of the way and see what happens.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is hysteria the pathological food source of liberals? (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Amazing how quickly the latest Democrat special election losses are no longer discussed etc.
Suppose the Republicans had lost? We would still be reading and hearing about it.
Resistance is not a strategy but Democrats do not understand this simple fact. Basically, Americans are a can do people. They are not turned on by "aginners."
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
COMMENTARY BY
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio show host and creator of PragerUniversity.com
What would have happened if a President Trump supporter had shot a Democratic congressman and other Democratic Washington officials?
The answer is obvious. The prejudiced media would have gone wild! Gone crazy!
The New York Times, the rest of the left-wing media, and the Democratic Party would have made the shootings the dominant issue in American life.
It is not possible to understand the left—and, therefore, the media and the current state of American life—without understanding how the left uses and relies on hysteria. Hysteria is to the left as oxygen is to biological life.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone.
From the moment Donald Trump was elected president, America has been drowning in left-wing hysteria, all fomented by the media and the Democratic Party.
The charge of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is hysteria. The claim that the president engaged in obstruction of justice is hysteria.
As I have pointed out, the charge of Trump’s election unleashing hate and anti-Semitism, which dominated American media for months, was hysteria.
If a Democrate had been shot by a Trump supporter, all you would be hearing and reading about is how much hate the Trump election has unleashed in America, how his election is threatening our democracy, and how he is unleashing fascism. The truth is just the opposite.
But it was a not a Trump supporter who attempted to murder a Democratic congressman, Capitol Police officers, a House GOP aide, and a lobbyist. It was a Trump-hating leftist who attempted to murder a Republican congressman and other Republican officials.
And, for that reason, what would have been the dominant issue in America today is already a nonissue.
The shooting took place on Wednesday. On Friday, the only article about it on The New York Times front page was about the “harmony” engulfing Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the shooting.
By Saturday, there was nothing about the shooting on the front page.
The “harmony” issue is worth noting. As sure as the sun rises in the east, had a Trump-supporting fanatic shot Democratic officials, the Democrats would not have said a word about the need for “harmony,” or the need to lower the temperature in American political discourse.
On the contrary, they would have greatly raised the temperature of their already blistering rhetoric. They would have attributed the shooting entirely to Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric having permeated conservative and Republican America.
But it was a leftist who attempted to slaughter Republicans, so it was Republicans who had to respond. And they did so by calling for harmony and lowering the temperature of political differences.
In other words, Republicans reacted with complete conciliation, whereas, the Democrats and their media would have gone ballistic against the right.
Now, why is that?
One reason is that Republicans have accepted the post-shooting narrative of there being some sort of moral equivalence between right-wing and left-wing hate.
That they have reinforces my belief that the great majority of Republicans and conservatives, whether in politics or in the media, do not appreciate how rotten the left is (the left—not traditional liberals).
Many really believe that calls for “harmony” and “unity” with Democrats and the left are meaningful.
But the only reason Democrats talked about harmony for a few days after the shooting was one of theirs was the shooter.
Even during the three-day “harmony” period, the left was busy furthering the falsehood that there is quantitative and qualitative equivalence between right-wing and left-wing hate.
As evidence, a New York Times editorial said:
And that is apparently equivalent to all the hate directed at Trump: calling opposition to him “resistance,” as if Democrats were the French resistance and Trump were a Nazi; Kathy Griffin holding Trump’s mock severed head with blood gushing out; Stephen Colbert saying on his TV show that Trump’s mouth would make a good “c— holster” for Russian President Vladimir Putin; and so much more unprecedented hate.
The difference between what has happened after these shootings and what would have happened had a right-winger shot Democratic officials is, in a nutshell, the moral difference between the left and the right—and between Democrats and Republicans.
And, for that reason, what would have been the dominant issue in America today is already a nonissue.
The shooting took place on Wednesday. On Friday, the only article about it on The New York Times front page was about the “harmony” engulfing Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the shooting.
By Saturday, there was nothing about the shooting on the front page.
The “harmony” issue is worth noting. As sure as the sun rises in the east, had a Trump-supporting fanatic shot Democratic officials, the Democrats would not have said a word about the need for “harmony,” or the need to lower the temperature in American political discourse.
On the contrary, they would have greatly raised the temperature of their already blistering rhetoric. They would have attributed the shooting entirely to Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric having permeated conservative and Republican America.
But it was a leftist who attempted to slaughter Republicans, so it was Republicans who had to respond. And they did so by calling for harmony and lowering the temperature of political differences.
In other words, Republicans reacted with complete conciliation, whereas, the Democrats and their media would have gone ballistic against the right.
Now, why is that?
One reason is that Republicans have accepted the post-shooting narrative of there being some sort of moral equivalence between right-wing and left-wing hate.
That they have reinforces my belief that the great majority of Republicans and conservatives, whether in politics or in the media, do not appreciate how rotten the left is (the left—not traditional liberals).
Many really believe that calls for “harmony” and “unity” with Democrats and the left are meaningful.
But the only reason Democrats talked about harmony for a few days after the shooting was one of theirs was the shooter.
Even during the three-day “harmony” period, the left was busy furthering the falsehood that there is quantitative and qualitative equivalence between right-wing and left-wing hate.
As evidence, a New York Times editorial said:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.A Republican putting cross hairs on vulnerable Democrat districts is the worst the Times could come up with.
And that is apparently equivalent to all the hate directed at Trump: calling opposition to him “resistance,” as if Democrats were the French resistance and Trump were a Nazi; Kathy Griffin holding Trump’s mock severed head with blood gushing out; Stephen Colbert saying on his TV show that Trump’s mouth would make a good “c— holster” for Russian President Vladimir Putin; and so much more unprecedented hate.
The difference between what has happened after these shootings and what would have happened had a right-winger shot Democratic officials is, in a nutshell, the moral difference between the left and the right—and between Democrats and Republicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment