Tag Archives: Daily Kos

YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS – BUT MAYBE LIBERALS CAN

Again, a liberal Facebook friend posted a link to an article in liberal publication Daily Kos. The headline read: “Tough guy Chris Christie wants to beat up on disabled, elderly when he’s president.” No matter what your political persuasion is, always double check, especially when you see something as “sensational” as this headline.

I can honestly say that since the Internet has come of age and I have been following politics and current events on the Internet, I’ve only seen one conservative post where the quote of a liberal was taken completely out of context and I commented back that it was. Also, there have been many times that a conservative article or headline sounded harsh and upon checking I found it not as bad as portrayed. I’ve seen a lot more on the liberal side where liberals either out and out lie or stretch the truth to the nth degree. A number of posts on this website illustrate just that.

According to this article in the Daily Kos, Governor Christie, speaking at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, called for reduced Social Security benefits for retired seniors earning more than $80,000 and eliminating the benefit entirely for individuals making $200,000 and up in other income, along with raising the retirement age to 69 from 67.

Are the liberals squawking or what?

Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont and avowed socialist said the following, “What Governor Christie is saying is just the continuation of war being waged by the Republican Party against the elderly, against the children, against the sick, and against the poor, in order to benefit millionaires and billionaires. It is an outrage.”

I only have a bachelor’s degree plus I’m southern, conservative, white, and Christian. According to liberals, this makes me an unenlightened oaf which I readily admit that I am.

Isn’t it the liberals that hate the “well off?” Isn’t it the liberals that believe in re-distribution of wealth? Isn’t it the liberals that believe our economy is a zero-sum game and if you are doing well, you must have cheated to get there and should be punished by perhaps, stripping you of your wealth?

What Chris Christie is proposing is indeed re-distribution of wealth/punish the rich. Even though Chris Christie is a Republican, what he said is straight out of the Democrat playbook.

The purpose of this post is not to debate Chris Christie’s ideas about Social Security, but to expose liberals for what they are and to remind them of some things. Though, in the past, they have, on many occasions, proven that they are not capable of reading comprehension. I’m going to try anyway.

You liberals are for expanding the federal government, you’re for increased entitlement spending even when there is no money available. You’re response to this is, “tax the rich.” You resent people who work hard just to have something. You hate corporations who employee millions of people, produce goods and services, and create wealth. You want to take from those who have and give to the have-nots. Your top elected officials discourage the work ethic; and instead encourage folks to follow their dreams and not to worry about stuff such as health care. The government will take care of you. Your goal is to make as many folks dependent on government as possible.

So when Governor Christie suggests reducing Social Security benefits for those making over $80,000 and eliminating Social Security benefits for those making over $200,000, you should be applauding. I know you liberals have trouble understanding what you read, even though the academic elites are in your corner, so I’ll take it slow.

Social Security is not an entitlement, employees and employers alike contribute to Social Security with the understanding that one of these days they will get some of that money back. If you can grasp the fact that those senior citizens earning over $80,000 have put money into the pot and Governor Christie is wanting to take the pot away from them, you should be on his bandwagon, shouldn’t you?

But this is what you liberals are all about. You’re okay the pot calling the kettle black. You’re okay with telling lies and you’re okay with being unethical. Most of you refuse to have reasonable discussion with conservatives because you know you can’t win. Instead, you hurl insults and do your best to get off subject. I have a hard time calling you stupid because so many academic elites are in your corner. Maybe your intelligence level is that of a genius and you have no common sense.

You know what I really think. You do these things because you can. No one holds you accountable. The press, except for Fox News, which you hate, is on your side.

Even though the headline of the Daily Kos article indicates Chris Christie wants to beat up on the disabled, nothing is mentioned about Social Security disability benefits in the body of the article. So, I’m going to say it with no regrets, the Daily Kos is a worthless idiotic liberal publication and the people that work there sure give the appearance that they are worthless idiots also.

Facebooktwitter

JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS?

On Thursday, March 26, Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Following the signing, many politicians, celebrities, and journalists were outraged, saying the law was a license to discriminate against gay people. Liberal rag, Daily Kos calls it a hate law and Indiana’s new right to discriminate law.
According to weeklystandard.com, the first RFRA was a 1997 federal law that signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representative where it was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer. Then it sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law re-established a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases. The law allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

If there is already a federal law in place, then why would any state see the need to pass its own RFRA? According weeklystandard.com, in a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. When Senator Schumer was asked to comment on Indiana now passing RFRA, the Senator declined.

It certainly doesn’t appear that Indiana’s RFRA grants a license to discriminate. In fact, twenty-eight other states have enacted their own RFRAs. These states, including Indiana, have never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations.

As a free market capitalist, I do believe that a private business owner or owners do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone on any basis. I can just hear a liberal asking me the following, “So, you believe it’s okay to discriminate?” My answer to that liberal would be no, it is definitely not okay to discriminate. I should have that right, though.

I’ve used this example many times and I’m going to use it again. I have a cake-baking business located in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I’m an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and will not bake Auburn cakes. Is that a smart business plan? Absolutely not and I will probably go out of business soon. But ultimately, I should have that right. I’ll give you another example. I own a restaurant. Do I have the right to refuse to seat Blacks? Yes, I have that right. Is that a smart business strategy? No, and I will probably go out of business if my restaurant’s not burned to the ground first. I should have that right, though.

I’ve always said this, “Just because you have a right to do it, doesn’t make it right to do it.” This is something the tolerant left doesn’t seem to understand. They can’t seem to make the distinction. Aren’t they supposed to be so smart? They do have the academic elites in their corner. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend one time. The discussion accelerated to the point that I did raise my voice. Actually, I think she did understand, but just wanted to be whiny like a lot of liberals.

Why are liberals making such a big deal out of Indiana’s RFRA law? Like I’ve said many times, liberals don’t care about facts and while they can read words on a page or on a screen, they are incapable of understanding what they read (at least that’s been my experience). Since they don’t care about facts, they’re not going to take the time to research anything. If they can twist something a conservative does to make that conservative look like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a hater of any kind, they’re going to jump on it.

Facebooktwitter

DEFINITION OF HATER

I’ve often said that it seems the liberals/Democrats change the definition of racism to suit themselves. When they can’t win an argument with a conservative, which is well over 90 percent of the time, they begin hurling insults at you and one of those insults is usually racist, even if your discussion did not even touch upon race. My conclusion regarding this is since the current President of the United States is half black, if you disagree with his policies, you’re a racist.

Well, now it seems that if you disagree with the current President’s policies that you are deemed a hater. I’ve told this story many times and I’ll tell it again and again. When I was a little girl, the cold war was raging and Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, declared to American parents that their children would live under Communism. I didn’t know what Communism was, but knew it was bad. When I was about five, I asked my grandmother about Communism. I don’t remember that much about the conversation, but I do remember my grandmother telling me that here in the United States, if you didn’t like or disagreed with your elected officials, you could say it right out loud. In the Soviet Union and other Communist nations, you couldn’t say bad things about the government. Even though I’m sure that my grandmother talked about free elections and other things, being able to say that I didn’t like what the government was doing stuck with me. As you know, I do exercise that right.

Hate is a powerful emotion and we should not hate. I can remember my mother, whenever I said that I hated someone, would remind me that it was a sin to hate. Instead, Mama told me that I should say that I didn’t care for someone.
I remember all the hate that was directed to former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. When I saw liberals depicting President Bush hanging from a tree, I would wince. When I saw the left depicting President Reagan as a clown, I would wince also. But you go on with your life, it’s politics. Now, it seems that if you disagree with the current President on policies that you are automatically dubbed a hater.

In a Daily Kos article dated January 4, 2015, Bernard Pliers wrote an article entitled, “Dear Obama Hater – You Just Wasted a Decade of Your Life.” I’m not sure if this article was directed at someone like me. I do not agree with this President politically and there is not a single issue on which I agree with him. I believe that he is a racist, a bigot, an Islamic terrorist sympathizer, and a socialist bordering on communist. I agree 100 percent with Rudy Giuliani that this President does not love the United States of America and has as his ultimate goal, the substantial weakening of this country. He is certainly not a President to all Americans and doesn’t care at all about the middle class. But, he might be fun to party with.

With regard to the above cited article, Mr. Pliers trashes conservatives and Tea Party members and indicates that they have wasted ten years of their lives and have nothing to show for it. Mr. Pliers goes on to chastise those who he deems Obama haters, indicating that while they wasted time hating the current President, they could have accomplished many things such as getting a college degree, writing a book, running their first marathon, and learning a foreign language. Now, I earned a college degree quite a few years before the current President was first elected and inaugurated. But I did write book during his administration and hope to have several more while he is still in office. I’ve also started a business, even though, according to the current President, I didn’t build it.
Then Mr. Pliers infers that we conservatives wouldn’t have done any of those things anyway because we were waiting for impeachment and for the GOP candidates to “take off the gloves.”

Mr. Pliers, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a political junkie, nothing wrong with keeping up with current events, nothing wrong with disagreeing with your elected officials and letting them know it. In fact, that’s what our country’s forefathers intended us to do if we were to preserve our freedoms. Mr. Pliers, I’m not going to accept that the ACA was jammed down our throats utilizing every legislative trick the liberals could possible use. I’m not going to accept that this President or any President can, with the stroke of a pen, grant benefits to illegal aliens, change laws passed by Congress, shut down commerce, etc. I don’t like executive orders and think that they should be used sparingly, not when the President knows that something can’t get through Congress.

Furthermore, Mr. Pliers, I have a computer, in fact, I have three, and I have word processing software. I intend to make my feelings about our government officials known, whether I agree with them or not. I also hope to convey knowledge along the way. As Americans, we must hold our elected officials accountable, we must not accept everything they say and do. We must question all of them. Anyone that runs for public office should be prepared to answer questions and be held accountable. In fact, he or she should expect to be grilled and should welcome it.

You ended your article with this: “And the next time there is a GOP president, just remember that there will be fatal embassy attacks under the GOP president, just like the dozens of fatal embassy attacks that occurred under previous Republican presidents. Except Democrats won’t be working themselves into a frenzy of conspiracy theories when it happens, they won’ be cheerleading for the terrorists, and they won’t be trying to overthrow the U.S. government every time something happens.

Yes, Mr. Pliers, there will probably be additional embassy attacks, but it is my hope that any President, if embassy attacks occur under his or her watch, will be engaged and will take all precautions necessary to prevent the attack. If the attack does occur and Americans are killed, call the attack what it is and authorize the appropriate investigations into why the attack happened and how to prevent such attacks from occurring in the future. And then don’t lie to the American people about what actually caused the attack. If the current President and the “then” Secretary of State has been fully engaged before and after the attack and had not lied to the American people, telling them it was caused by a video, I doubt that many people, Republicans or Democrats would have said much of anything.

Conservatives are not cheerleading for terrorists. I don’t know where you got that from, but you are telling a lie. I don’t recall anyone making a prominent case for overthrowing the government. Again, that’s a lie.

Instead of trying to convince people who don’t agree with you, like me, with facts and statistics, you, like other liberals can only hurl insults. There are so many untruths in your article and I have only been able to get to a few of them. Hopefully, I will be able to address them in the future. Meanwhile, I have many other things to do, such as run my business, work on my next novel, and market my just released novel.

Facebooktwitter