Do You Need Any More Proof

That liberals do not mean what they say or say what they mean?

Remember all through the '70's and '80's, how they kept hammering away at cigarette smokers?  They said it was for our own good.  They said it was for our health.  They said it was because they wanted us to live longer. 

 Nowadays, you can hardly light up anywhere without being treated like a criminal.  It was all a big lie.  They never gave a damn about our health or the health of anyone else.  The same goes for them trying to force us to eat "healthy foods" today.

The only thing liberals care about is forcing people to do things they don't want to do.  They just cannot stand to have people enjoying themselves.

Read the article below, and you won't be able to help but reach the same conclusion.  Now, they don't like the fact that we're living past seventy five.  They should have let us keep smoking.  I guess smoking's OK with them, as long as it's not tobacco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
source: End of The American Dream

Obamacare Architect Says Society Would Be Better Off If People Only Lived To Age 75


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75.  His new article entitled “Why I Hope To Die At 75” has the following very creepy subtitle: “An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”.  In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans.  This is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare.  Of course he never uses the term “death panels” in his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world.  To Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those that do not have a high “quality of life”.  So he says that “75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop”.
Emanuel believes in this philosophy so much that he says that he would like to die at age 75.  Of course he has no intention of committing suicide, but if he happened to drop dead once he hits his 75th birthday he would be very happy about that.  The following is an excerpt from his new article
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.
I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.
And so Emanuel plans to start rejecting pretty much all medical tests and treatments that will prolong his life once he reaches that age
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I'll go have a cigarette.

Elephants, Ivory, and Corvettes

Back in the late ‘70’s, when I was in high school and first started to really get interested in cars, I noticed something.  Almost all of the fastest Chevys around, were said to have Corvette motors in them.  This must not have just been a local phenomenon either, because so often cars featured in Car Craft and Hot Rod magazines reportedly had Corvette motors in them as well.


All this got me to thinking, if all these tales of Corvette powered cars were true, there must be quite a few motorless Corvettes out there.  This had the potential to be good news for me.  After all, back in the ‘70’s, a Corvette engine wasn’t all that different than a bread and butter 327 or 350.  All I’d have to do, is stuff a cam in one of them, top it off with a four barrel carb and intake, buy one of the countless Corvettes that had donated its engine to some hot rod project, and I’d be in like Flynn.


So the search for what had to be one of the supposedly countless Corvettes sans engine began.  I checked the local advertiser paper, and...   nothing.  I also noticed that every Corvette that I saw was capable of moving under it’s own power.  I even asked the local Corvette guy if there was any way I could find one of these motorless ‘Vettes.  He looked at me like I was some dumbassed high school kid (which I was), and told me there was basically, no such thing.  No one was going to pull the engine out of what was even back then, an expensive collector’s car, to use in some hillbilly hot rod.


So I learned something.  Ninety percent or more, of the Corvette powered hot rod tales were lies.  (As well as most of the other stories that go along with souped up cars, particularly if they were told by the owners of them.)  It takes more than valve covers with the Corvette script to make a Corvette motor.  You can still prove this for yourself today.  Just go to any car show with and check out the Corvette section.  You will notice that the vast majority of them boast having the original engine.


Well, that’s a nice little story to go along with all the other ones you have about how dumb you were (are), but what the hell does it have to do with elephants and ivory bans?


Everything. Both classic Corvettes and elephants are rare and desirable, and both have desirable, integral components which if removed destroys their value.  The difference is how either of them has been “protected” over the years and how successful those protections have been.


There is no law banning the slaughter of classic Corvettes for the sole purpose of harvesting their engines, yet most of the Corvettes that were around in the ‘70’s are still alive and well today.  A Corvette motor is very desirable and valuable, and would make a great power plant for a hot rod, yet few, if any are yanked out of their original engine bays.  Why?  Not because of any laws, as I mentioned before, but because the value of the whole is greater than the value of the items separately.  An intact, original Corvette is so expensive, that no one in their right mind is going to destroy one.


Now let’s compare that to elephants.  First of all, there are laws in place meant to prevent killing them, as well as laws in place meant to prevent the sale of ivory, yet the elephant population continues to shrink due to poaching, and ivory is easy enough to find and buy, if you want it bad enough.  The laws meant to protect elephants have only succeeded in increasing the price of ivory. (Which ironically enough, have only increased the incentive for poachers.)  Now, is a good time to read the below article that appeared in The Hill.


Banning ivory: The why and the how

By Judith McHale and David J. Hayes


A shocking new peer-reviewed study documented that 100,000 elephants were killed in Africa for their ivory from 2010 to 2012, and that a burgeoning illegal ivory market has continued to feed high, unsustainable rates of killing into 2013 and 2014.  Africa’s forest elephants are being wiped out, and the continued viability of the continent-wide population is now in doubt.
The potential extinction risk of one of the world’s most iconic species demands our attention, regardless of its context.  But there is more.  As the presidents of Tanzania, Gabon, Namibia and Togo candidly confirmed at the recent U.S.-Africa Summit, the international criminal networks that are orchestrating the killing, gathering, transporting and selling of ivory other wildlife parts are corrupting officials in their governments and funding terrorist organizations.  National security also is at stake.
ADVERTISEMENT
What can be done to stop the killings?  Clearly, as the administration has recognized, a comprehensive strategy that addresses the entire supply chain is needed.  It must begin in Africa by stemming the killings and working with local communities to protect their wildlife.  But so long as there is a strong market pull for illegal ivory in Asia, Europe and the U.S., criminal syndicates will find a way for the killings to continue.




The classic Corvettes are surviving, the elephants are not, and it’s all because elephants have no tangible economic value (except for those running wild game preserves, charging tourists to see them), whereas ivory (thanks in part, due to laws banning the sale and trade of ivory) has a huge economic value.


How do we solve the dwindling elephant population problem?  Simple.  Not with laws, (which we have all seen are not only unsuccessful, counterproductive and costly to enforce), but with economics.  We make elephants like Corvettes.  Make the entire intact unit have economic value.  How do we do that?


Unlike a Corvette, even with the best of care, all elephants will eventually die, and the value of the ivory from an elephant that died of old age is the same as that from one which has been shot.  All we have to do is sell the elephants to investors who are willing to wait for the natural death of the elephant they purchased before they can harvest the ivory.  Now the elephants will have intrinsic economic value, and they will be guarded just as closely as when a shopkeeper protects his wares.  Poaching would stop immediately, and we would have a free market for ivory.  No laws or law enforcement needed, any crime relating to this matter will be virtually eliminated, and over the course of time, the elephant population will increase dramatically.  Don’t believe me?  Name me one animal that is used  for legitimate economic purposes that is endangered.  Can’t do it, can you?  There are plenty of cows, pigs, and goats out there.  Even species that are harvested from the wild (fish) for human consumption have much better success rates through catch limits, than we are currently experiencing with the elephant population.


Finally, I would like you to google both the authors of the above article.  You will find that they are both liberals, and once again, we see that the only thing liberals understand is force, laws, and banning things (read limiting freedom), and that is one of the reasons that they and their policies almost always fail.


Basically, I Took the Whole Summer Off From Blogging

Now, can you guess what I’m gonna talk about?

If you guessed the topic is going to be “How freakin’ stupid liberals are, give yourself a pat on the back.

Today, we’re gonna talk about one of the top dogs of liberalism, Michelle Obama, because the following story is such an excellent example of how liberal minds (don’t) work.  Check this out from EAG News


Missouri, Alabama schools drop Michelle O’s lunch program

CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. – New federal school food regulations promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama are becoming a massive headache for many schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program.

dumplunch
And many, like Missouri’s Notre Dame Regional and Saxony Lutheran high schools, are taking matters into their own hands.
Those schools and numerous others across the country are ditching the federal regulations and the funding that comes with them to save their cafeteria programs, which have experienced a nose-dive in sales and skyrocketing waste since the new rules were implemented in 2012.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. – New federal school food regulations promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama are becoming a massive headache for many schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program.
“Kids will not eat what doesn’t taste good,”
A National School Nutrition Association survey also found food waste is up in 81.2 percent of schools nationwide, and a study by Cornell and Bringham Young universities estimates the waste at $4 million per day. Students in Los Angeles schools alone are throwing away $100,000 in food per day, ABC reports.


Now, how many of you are surprised by what you read in the above story?
Nobody surprised?  Of course not.  In fact, most of you predicted this outcome years ago, when you first heard about it coming down the pike.

What about Michelle, do you think she’s surprised?  After all, it was her pet program.  Surely she had her hopes pinned upon its success.  Certainly, she’s both surprised and disappointed.

Well, you know what they say about Michelle.  “She’s dumb, but she ain’t that dumb.”  She knew that the kids were going to react this way, every bit as much as you and I did.  The only thing Michelle is surprised about is that there were some school districts, and even states that have told her to take her mandates and regulations and shove them up her ass.  The only thing she’s disappointed about is that she ran out of ways to force them into force them into compliance.

OK then, if Mrs. Obama knew that her school lunch thingy was not going to be accepted by the people who actually had to consume the food, then why did she do it?  That’s where the liberalism comes into play.  You see, in her mind, this whole school lunch fiasco has been a rousing success.  

If you’re having trouble understanding that, it’s probably because you’re all mired down with that logical thought process stuff.  You probably judge the successes and failures in your life by the outcomes.  Silly you!  Who needs those undesired outcomes telling you that you were not successful.

If you are a liberal, you can judge how successful you are by your intentions-  If you had good intentions, you are successful, nevermind the outcome and nevermind that at least half of the people disagree with you.

Michelle knew from the get go, that the school districts wouldn’t want to serve her idea of what a school lunch should be, and she knew that the kids wouldn’t want to eat it, but that didn’t concern her.  She already had good intentions, and she had just the tool to make sure her dream became reality - FORCE - the only thing the liberal mind understands.

All she had to do is FORCE schools to comply by making it a requirement in order for schools to get federal money.  It’s easy to make people comply when you can force them to comply.  Then, the schools tried to force the kids into compliance by taking away any other options the kids may have had.  You can take away the kids vending machines, but you can’t force them to eat the shit you serve.  (At least not yet.)  Kids just ended up throwing out their lunch and pigging out after school.  How many fat kids do you think got skinny as a result of Michelle’s lunch mandates?  Zero?  Less than zero?

Like I said in the beginning of this piece, “I’m sure none of this is a surprise to any of you.”  but what I want you all to take away from this is the difference between liberals and conservatives:  Liberals are all about force.  It’s the only thing they understand.  Think about it.  Virtually any time liberals suggest bringing about some type of change they desire, don’t they always resort to backing it up with some type of force?  Be it a fine, a cutoff of funding, or some other type of penalty, force or the threat of using force is always there.  Do liberals ever stop to think that “If we have to force the people to do something, maybe they disagree with us, and maybe we should rethink what we’re trying to push upon them”?  I doubt if they ever stop to think about anything.

Also, don’t expect them to predict any realistic outcomes or try to anticipate any unintended consequences that arise as a result of their policies.  They don’t play that game.  Oh yeah, did I mention who’s gonna pay for the changes they want to make?  You know who’s gonna pay, the same people who always pay.

Compare all this to the philosophy of conservatives- “Just let the people do what they want.”  It doesn’t cost anything, and you don’t have to coerce people into doing what they want with threats of force.

Now which political philosophy do you want to claim as your own?









.

More Shark Jumping by the NFL

Look at the Drudge Report for Monday, 9-15-14.  You don't even need to read the stories, just the headlines.



I can't help but think that if the second and third headline are not currently related, they will be in  the very near future.

I'm telling you, the NFL's going down.  Isn't there anyone in charge at the NFL that understands the average traditional football fan?  They better wake up before they alienate too many of their loyal fans.