I saw this at The Daily Smug and this chick could really be:
"The Dumbest Person Ever"
Now here’s some interesting shit:
Here’s your chance to impress people with your knowledge of some little known, but important Thanksgiving trivia. Everyone knows about the first Thanksgiving feast, and many even know what year it took place. But when was the second Thanksgiving? Duh, a year later, right? Wrong! The second Thanksgiving, actually took place just a few days after the first.
Obviously, not all of the Pilgrims and Indians could make it to that original Thanksgiving feast back in 1621, because some had to go to their in laws and of course, some were gone deer hunting. So the very first Thanksgiving (alt.) (Alternative Thanksgiving) was held the following weekend. They would have had it the next day, but that was Black Friday and everyone was gone that day, trying to get a good deal on a flat screen TV. I bet that at this point, some of you are starting to get a little suspicious about this story. Everyone knows, they only had black and white TV’s back in those days. Trust me, it’s true. I read about it on Wikipedia.
One other thing. The reason many of the Pilgrims couldn’t make the original Thanksgiving was because they had to go show off their new babies to the in laws. Obviously these were some of the first people of European descent born in America. Since they were born here they couldn’t be called Europeans, so we refer to them as Native Americans and that's why to this day, we still refer to all people, born in America, like you and me, as Native Americans. That’s right that first Thanksgiving (alt.), not only had Pilgrims and Indians in attendance, but it also included Native Americans. I think that’s where some of the confusion about what some people call Indians comes from. Of course, they’re Native Americans too, they were born here, just like us.
Hey, why don’t the links work? Those aren’t links. I just used blue, underlined text here and there, because I thought it would make it look like I did some research. Nobody ever clicks on them anyway. I used to use a similar trick back in high school and college, when I was required to use footnotes on a paper.
What motivated George Soros to adopt a liberal philosophy? All I can do is guess, or analyze the guesses of others. Here’s one possible explanation from Red state. that I think is close to the correct answer, but for some reason, I don’t think that it quite nails it. Have you ever been in this situation? Even though you don’t know the answer, some explanations just don’t feel right to you, but you just know that you will be able to identify the correct answer, if and when you ever hear or think of it.
Probably the only people who could ever understand how Soros could think the way he does, are other multi billionaires, like Warren Buffet. For the average middle class person, it is tempting to lump all upper class people together and adopt an “us versus them” mentality, but in all reality, the average well-to-do business man has much more in common with your average Joe, in terms of lifestyle, income, wealth, and a personal balance sheet than he does with the uber rich.
The “rich” family who lives just down the road from you, probably has the same worries, and concerns as your’s does, it’s just that their incomes and expenses are multiplied by three to ten times. Yes, they have nicer things than you, and they might have their retirement plans taken care of, but they can’t just stop working tomorrow. Except for the numbers, and the additional luxury, their lives are very similar to yours.
When I say that George Soros “lives in a different” world, I am taking the risk that choosing such an overused cliche, will not fully convey my meaning. The world that Soros lives in couldn’t be more different than your’s, if it did not include gravity or some other basic principle of physics. He’s more than a millionaire, he has a million times more cash reserves than he could ever hope to spend on himself or his family. There’s never a situation where he could not immediately have any material thing you could think of, regardless of its cost. It’s called an absence of scarcity, and it is such an extremely rare circumstance that most people have never even heard of it, let alone considered it.
An absence of scarcity creates a bizarro world, where things that you have accepted as fundamental and natural laws of life do not apply. If you were thrown into such a world, you would be just as lost as if you were suddenly transported to some other dimension where gravity did not exist. Even though you knew that the laws of gravity no longer applied, You would constantly make the mistake of assuming that things would stay where you placed them, and you would retain the fear of dropping things and falling. If and when, you were ever able to overcome your innate notions and fears, you would no longer be able to relate to the people of the world from which you came.
Even after reading the last paragraph, many people would not be able to imagine what living with a absence of scarcity would be like. Read this from Capitalism, and you will begin to understand just how “Post Scarcity Economics” would set the world on its ear. Now this article considers what might happen if everyone was freed from scarcity, but it will give you some insight as to how an individual could change his thought process if was just he, who was freed from the reality of scarcity. That individual would become so far removed from reality, that not only could he no longer relate, his values would run counter to that of the average man.
Worrying makes up part the essence of being human. If all other imaginable things are taken care of, people will find new things to worry about, and one does not necessarily have to be rich to fall victim to this. I used to have lawn and landscape service, and many of my customers were old ladies. In general, they were my least favorite customers of all. Their houses were paid for, they had a comfortable retirements, and none of the worries of your average working person.
Average working people tended to be my favorite customers. They were just happy that they didn’t have to mow their lawn themselves. If you missed a spot trimming, they would usually say, “Don’t worry about it, catch it next week.” I loved them. They understood what it was like to work for a living, and that no one could be perfect, no matter how hard they tried. As long as they thought that you were honest, and trying to provide them with the best service for the money, they were happy.
Not so with the little old ladies. They had nothing to worry about but what their yards looked like. They had all day, everyday to find imperfections, and God knows, they found them. If they couldn’t find something wrong, they would invent something.
There was this one old lady that was a customer of mine for years. Her property bordered a wooded area. One fall, after of years of using my service, she decided that it would be necessary for us to rake the woods. She was concerned that the yearly build up of leaves would soon become overwhelming. Now between the weeds and brambles, such a thing would be impossible, but she insisted that it needed to be done.
I told her that a wooded area was a natural self-sustaining environment, that the leaves would take care of themselves, and if that was not so, the depth of the leaves on the ground in all forests would be ten to twenty feet or more. No one rakes the forests, and they get along just fine.
She wouldn’t believe me, and I was not about to have my crew rake the woods for any price that she would be willing to pay. That was the end of our business relationship, and it was all because she thought she knew more about property maintenance, and the real world problems and solutions involved with it, than someone who did it for a living.
The odd thing was, that even though the average working person had many more important things to worry about, as a whole, they seemed much happier than the little old ladies.
Soros actually has more in common with the little old lady than the average working person. He is so far removed from the realities of everyday life that he has become unable to relate, and his concerns and desires run counter to that of an average Joe. His thought process is more similar to that of a cranky old lady who happened to notice that you missed weed wacking around one tree, and thinks it’s more fitting that you have a crew now working on the otherside of town, come back and take care of it, than to just let it slide until next week.
That old lady may have thought that she won the battle, but she failed to understand human nature. She never realized that her petty demands only end up hurting her. Yeah, she may have got us come back to trim around one tree, but she never knew that when she needed that fallen tree limb taken away, she was charged for it, even though we were going to the landfill anyway. 30 seconds of labor, cost her $25. If the average working person who didn’t bitch about every little thing was in the same situation, we would have taken away the limb for free.
Soros is the same way. He is so far removed from reality and has so few concerns in his own life, that he invents imaginary problems and then advocates unworkable solutions. He is unable to view the world through the eyes of the common man, so he has lost confidence in the ability of a free people to manage the affairs of a nation and the world. He feels that only people of his caliber are up to the task, and they should be the ones to be in control.
This is the driving force behind people who are advocates of socialism and have the power to attempt to enact it, but at the same time, it is their Achilles heel. They see socialism as the solution to the world’s problems, but do not understand human nature.
Even though many of them may not realize it, most people value freedom and reaping the benefits of their own effort, more than anything else. By definition, socialism is the antithesis of freedom, and it certainly does not allow one to reap what they have sown.
Most people will react to socialism in one of two ways. Either they will do as little as possible, because they realize that they can not get ahead by means of their own labor, or they will turn to crime to satisfy their own desires and supply the demands of a public that a centralized government always fails to provide for. Both things undermine the socialist government, the system fails, and the socialist leaders wonder what went wrong.
So here’s my take on Soros. It’s not: “He made himself very wealthy, so he must have a good understanding of the world, and we should respect his opinion”, it’s: “He may at one time, had an understanding of the world and how people tend to behave, but he has long since become so far removed from the reality of scarcity, that he can no longer understand human nature or relate to the common man.”
Remember the 99% versus 1% thing, the liberals were talking about during the last presidential election? Actually they were a lot closer to being correct than most liberals or conservatives will ever know. You just need to add a decimal point and some zeros. Over 99% of that 1% they were talking about, share the same values, and concerns as the rest of us. The remaining .0001% which is made up of the uber rich, living in a different world, where none of the natural laws of economics that affect the rest of us, apply. Their opinions and views are not only incorrect, they do not deserve even a moment of our consideration or respect.
No one remembers anything from any vice-presidential debate ever, except for when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle that he was “no Jack Kennedy”.
Maybe Quayle wasn’t, but if you were to look objectively at both men’s political careers, up until the time that either one was on the ticket for a presidential election, you would have to admit that there were some similarities. Both Kennedy and Quayle were relatively young, and both only had 12 and 14 years Congressional service, respectively.
Both men served in the military. Kennedy served in the Navy during WWII, and Quayle served in the Indiana Army National Guard from 1969 to 1975, and here, for many people, is where the similarities end. Kennedy was considered by many to be a war hero, while Quayle is often accused of joining the National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to let both of these claims stand.
For liberals, Kennedy is the gold standard, to which all subsequent presidents are compared. Fifty years later, he is looked at as if he was perfect, almost godlike. Now it’s difficult to make any further comparisons between Kennedy and Quayle, because Quayle never became president, but I am now going to compare both of them, to someone who has.
So we all know that both Kennedy and Quayle both served in the U.S. military (in different capacities), both had 12 or more years of Congressional service, and they were both born in America. Barack Obama only served as a U.S. senator for four years. And to think that people questioned both Kennedy’s and Quayle’s limited experience when they were on the Presidential ticket. Obama never served in the U.S. military, in any capacity. Anything else? Oh yeah, did I mention that both Kennedy and Quayle were born in America?
Everyday, Obama supporters become more and more familiar with the phrase, “Nobody’s perfect”. Dan Quayle is not perfect, and despite what Democratic revisionist history may lead one to believe, Kennedy wasn’t either. On the other hand both Quayle and Kennedy are looking better every day when compared to our current POTUS.
Dan Quayle was pretty much scandal free. How do I know that? Because he was the most unfairly treated person in U.S. politics, until Sarah Palin came along. If there was even a molecule of dirt on him, the liberal media would have surely dug it up.
If you were to ask people what were some of Kennedy’s biggest scandals, almost everyone who would respond, would mention his womanizing and the Bay of Pigs. That’s it. Just two things. Not too bad, and I think that attempting to overthrow a leftist dictator is a good thing. Bill Clinton thinks womanizing is a good thing.
Now let’s compare the amount of scandals involving Kennedy, and Quayle (which we have already noted) to the amount involving Obama, and this is just off the top of my head:
- Fast and Furious
- NSA spying
- IRS scandal
- AP spying
- Selective law enforcement
- Abuse of executive order
No one loves Obama more than other former presidents. The sheer volume of his scandals and magnitude of his incompetence, causes even staunch conservatives to have trouble remembering what was so bad about Bill Clinton.
So allow me to modify Lloyd Bentsen’s quote: “I know of Jack Kennedy, I’ve seen a lot of movies about Jack Kennedy and read about him on Wikipedia, and you, Obama, are no Jack Kennedy, you’re not even Dan Quayle.”
I just checked out both The Golden Geese and The Huffington Post on Alexa, and wouldn’t you know it? The Huffington Post has more viewers than I do. How can this be? I got the links right there. Click on ‘em. Read some of each, and you tell me which is a better site.
OK, I know you didn’t click on the links. No one does, but trust me the Geese is better, and I can prove it simply by showing you this article written by Maxwell Strachan. It's typical of the crap you will find there. Max must not be waiting for his first idea to be implemented.
Max’s “ideas” are so stupid, that even if you are against the use of marijuana, you would have to admit that it legalizing it, makes more sense than anything else he has to say here. Everyone of his other suggestions, involves either taking people’s freedom away, or meddling with free markets, and he doesn’t make any mention of how we are supposed to pay for any of this nonsense. I know, I know. Tax the rich, right?
I’ll check again tomorrow, but I bet that the Huffington Post will still have more page views. How is this possible? I'm thinking that maybe I should just become a liberal, and get stoned all the time, but do I have to do both?
source: The Huffington Post
14 Genius Ideas The U.S. Should Seriously Consider Adopting
The Huffington Post | By Maxwell Strachan
You may think the U.S. is the greatest nation in the world, but let’s all admit it would be a whole lot greatester if we adopted some of these genius ideas, many of which are already law in other countries:
1. Marijuana should be legal. As is the case in the Netherlands, although in some areas pesky foreign tourists are barred from inhaling.
2. The minimum wage should be much, much higher. The minimum wage here? $7.25. In Australia? $14.50, and their unemployment rate is lower.
3. There should be a maximum pay rate, too. In Switzerland, a proposal came to a vote last week to limit executive pay according to how much the company’s lowest-paid worker makes. Swiss voters rejected the proposal, but the issue of a widening income gap remains a priority in the country.
4. Every person should earn an income. Another idea proposed in Switzerlandwould give “a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached,” according to The New York Times.
5. Vacation should be a basic human right. This idea comes from Europe, specifically the European Union, which in 2010 announced plans to subsidize vacations for those who struggle to afford them.
6. Assault weapons should be banned. After 35 people were murdered by a single man in Australia in the mid-1990s, the government banned shotguns and assault weapons, enacted stricter licensing rules and launched a number of gun buyback programs. Within roughly a decade, gun-related murders were down nearly 60 percent.
7. Public universities should be free. What used to be the norm at U.S. public universities still is in Argentina and many other countries.
8. The government should support artists. Anyone with an art-school degree in Germany can get government benefits, so long as they continue to apply for grants and scholarships, a decision that helps keep struggling artists afloat.
9. Big corporate boards should be diverse. A new proposal in Germany would require companies listed on DAX, the country’s stock exchange, to fill nearly one-third of “supervisory” board seats with women.
10. Cancer patients shouldn’t miss out out on pay. In both Norway and Luxembourg, a worker who must miss work for a 50-day cancer treatment gets paid for each one of those days, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
11. No one should work in the dark. Again, Germany. The country requires offices to have a “view of the sky,” according to The Telegraph.
12. Parents should get time off to watch their kids grow up. Over a child’s first eight years of life, Swedish parents receive 480 potential days off from work, in which they're still paid a significant share of their wages. While parents can mostly decide how to split the days between them, 60 of them are reserved specifically for dad.
13. Preschool should be available to all. It is in France, where all children age 3 or older can go for free.
14. And of course, soup slurping must be outlawed. OK, so technically New Jersey is in the U.S., but if they can criminalize this horrible practice, why can't we all?