The following are excerpts from a Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times . It lists the lies told by Obama during the debt ceiling negotiations. What has been obvious from the beginning is President Obama firmly believes that lying is a normal part of campaigning; and he might have a point there. Many candidates campaign on promises they know they can never keep and Obama was not able to follow through with any of his promises, save Obamacare, which fell far short of Democrat expectations. The problem is the President has never stopped campaigning and continues to create his own reality that has no semblance to reality. Below are examples starting with what Obama said, followed by what really happened from an "insider"; a person intimately involved in the negotiations.
Obama “I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Insider: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”
Obama:“You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they've been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues.”
Insider:“The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said. Bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase. (Boehner: Obama moved the goalpost).
Obama“We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”
Insider: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric.”
Exasperated, Boehner finally said , "Listen, we've put plan after plan on the table. You know the House passed its budget. We had our plan out there. The House passed the 'Cut, Cap and Balance'. Never once did the president ever come to the table with a plan." Then he said to the Obama, " As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign"
Again, one of the column supports of socialism is always promise more than you can deliver; the socialist will look compassionate and the conservative will appear heartless. The lies will continue until, like Greece, a country you will be so deep in the hole there is no realistic way out, outside of begging other countries for help.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Democrats like their Jello Negotiator?
On Sunday, July 17th the Santa Cruz Sentinel published a letter I wrote commenting on the lack of commitment President Obama has toward anything he says. The Sentinel then printed a response by a liberal letter writer named John Beisner. Beisner gets his letters published 4-6 times a month and but always says exactly the same thing. This response is a typical example how Beisner and most Democrats really can't defend the big lie, they simply try to bury it in political rhetoric.
My letter
One has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for John Boehner as he stated negotiating with the President is like trying to nail down Jell-O. Never has this country ever had a President who's word means so little; it’s as if every statement by the President has a 12 hour expiration date. The President has claimed he will not engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Republicans in the most derogatory terms. The President has said that not keeping the Bush tax cuts would slow the recovery and now wants to wipe out the same tax cuts even though the recovery has stalled. Obama claims the deficit is a threat to national security, but wants to increase it by $10 trillion. The President said he will balance the budget including cuts in entitlements, but has never purposed any changes to Social Security or Medicare.Trying to get the President to commit to anything concrete only results in nails covered with green slime.
John Beisner
In response to Brad Goodwin's letter, one has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for President Obama since negotiating with John Boehner is like talking to a rock. Never has this country ever had a speaker whose position was dictated by a pledge to a private citizen Grover Norquist. Boehner has claimed he won't engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Democrats in the most derogatory terms. The speaker has said he wants to create jobs, but has yet to offer a jobs bill. The speaker has said the deficit is a threat to national security, yet offers no solution other than cutting spending. When offered a chance to negotiate cuts to entitlements along with revenue increases, Boehner refused. Trying to get Boehner to commit to anything is like talking to a rock.
Beisners response just didn't work. He tried to use my letter as a template, but he could not address the point that the Democrats have no plan, no budget and the President won't hold himself to anything he agreed to the day before. He then tried to make it a negative that Boehner is holding fast to his principals like a rock.
My response
One has to just shake their head and smile that Beisner is so oblivious of his own ignorance. First Boehner has never claimed to be non-partisan; he revels in his partisanship. Second, as a rock at least you know what he stands for, unlike Obama who stands only for Obama and the way the winds blow (do away with polling data and the President would be rendered mute). I, like Beisner judge politicians by the company and ideology they keep; Boehner listens to the like of Grover Norquists and the ideology of Ronald Reagen; Obama carries out the dictates of George Soros and Andy Stern; you make the call here. Poor Mr Beisner has also not yet figured out that there is no such thing as a jobs bill, government can not create jobs. However, every bill that keeps taxes low, reduces regulations and fees, shrinks government and/or creates a stable environment so small business does not have to face the uncertainty that the Democrats have created, will grow jobs; a jobs bill simply anything that gets government off the backs of employers. Further it has been said over and over, but Beisner does not get it; we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If the Democrats got their way and the Bush tax cuts were reduced to the Clinton levels, it would raise about $800 billion in ten years; the deficit is scheduled to increase by $10 trillion during the same time period; even a California High School graduate could do this math. Finally, as Democrats always do, he continually contradicts himself, sense all Democrat arguments are nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. In one sentence Beisner complains Boehner is holding steadfast to his positions (i.e. a rock) and the next he said Beisner won't commit to anything. What really stands out with Beisner reply to my article however, has nothing to do with Boehner or the Republican party. It is the fact that Beisner didn't dispute one point that I made in my earlier article. Even Beisner knows that he would look even more foolish trying to defend Obama and the fact that his word means nothing and there is no sincerity or honesty in anything; ANYTHING the president says.
I'll leave you with this. Which negotiator would you rather have on your side? Someone that is compared by his opponent as a rock, or someone that is compared by his opponents as Jello?
My letter
One has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for John Boehner as he stated negotiating with the President is like trying to nail down Jell-O. Never has this country ever had a President who's word means so little; it’s as if every statement by the President has a 12 hour expiration date. The President has claimed he will not engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Republicans in the most derogatory terms. The President has said that not keeping the Bush tax cuts would slow the recovery and now wants to wipe out the same tax cuts even though the recovery has stalled. Obama claims the deficit is a threat to national security, but wants to increase it by $10 trillion. The President said he will balance the budget including cuts in entitlements, but has never purposed any changes to Social Security or Medicare.Trying to get the President to commit to anything concrete only results in nails covered with green slime.
John Beisner
In response to Brad Goodwin's letter, one has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for President Obama since negotiating with John Boehner is like talking to a rock. Never has this country ever had a speaker whose position was dictated by a pledge to a private citizen Grover Norquist. Boehner has claimed he won't engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Democrats in the most derogatory terms. The speaker has said he wants to create jobs, but has yet to offer a jobs bill. The speaker has said the deficit is a threat to national security, yet offers no solution other than cutting spending. When offered a chance to negotiate cuts to entitlements along with revenue increases, Boehner refused. Trying to get Boehner to commit to anything is like talking to a rock.
Beisners response just didn't work. He tried to use my letter as a template, but he could not address the point that the Democrats have no plan, no budget and the President won't hold himself to anything he agreed to the day before. He then tried to make it a negative that Boehner is holding fast to his principals like a rock.
My response
One has to just shake their head and smile that Beisner is so oblivious of his own ignorance. First Boehner has never claimed to be non-partisan; he revels in his partisanship. Second, as a rock at least you know what he stands for, unlike Obama who stands only for Obama and the way the winds blow (do away with polling data and the President would be rendered mute). I, like Beisner judge politicians by the company and ideology they keep; Boehner listens to the like of Grover Norquists and the ideology of Ronald Reagen; Obama carries out the dictates of George Soros and Andy Stern; you make the call here. Poor Mr Beisner has also not yet figured out that there is no such thing as a jobs bill, government can not create jobs. However, every bill that keeps taxes low, reduces regulations and fees, shrinks government and/or creates a stable environment so small business does not have to face the uncertainty that the Democrats have created, will grow jobs; a jobs bill simply anything that gets government off the backs of employers. Further it has been said over and over, but Beisner does not get it; we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If the Democrats got their way and the Bush tax cuts were reduced to the Clinton levels, it would raise about $800 billion in ten years; the deficit is scheduled to increase by $10 trillion during the same time period; even a California High School graduate could do this math. Finally, as Democrats always do, he continually contradicts himself, sense all Democrat arguments are nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. In one sentence Beisner complains Boehner is holding steadfast to his positions (i.e. a rock) and the next he said Beisner won't commit to anything. What really stands out with Beisner reply to my article however, has nothing to do with Boehner or the Republican party. It is the fact that Beisner didn't dispute one point that I made in my earlier article. Even Beisner knows that he would look even more foolish trying to defend Obama and the fact that his word means nothing and there is no sincerity or honesty in anything; ANYTHING the president says.
I'll leave you with this. Which negotiator would you rather have on your side? Someone that is compared by his opponent as a rock, or someone that is compared by his opponents as Jello?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A Look at Liberal Pseudosciences
The following was an exchange in their blog about one of my letters that was printed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The letter was about, what I call pseudosciences, or belief systems that are portrayed as settled sciences so they can be used by government to oppress the citizenry. There were two themes in responding to this letter. The first and most common was most of the pseudosciences I called pseudosciences were not actually not a science. My response was I know that, that’s why I called them pseudosciences. The second was to argue climate change. Here I explained that climate change was far from settled; but regardless it is a pseudoscience because it is being used by governments to try and oppress the citizenry; it common knowledge that those who are zealots about protecting the earth from Anthropogenic Global Warming, referred to themselves as enviro- fascist and they profess the wish that a world fascist government be established so AGW can be properly addressed.
A look at pseudosciences
There are pseudosciences from eugenics to Karl Marx's inevitability of communism, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW and even Keynesian Economics. All of these pseudosciences have one thing in common -- they do not contain a method for proving them wrong. "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs". Research methods One of the basic truisms of science is that a theory is not scientific unless it passes scrutiny, but the proponents of these pseudosciences simply claim the science is settled. Eugenics says the superior races must reduce the number of useless eaters; Marx said all human endeavors must lead to a dictatorship and collectivism; AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide; and Keynesian economics believes in government-controlled economies, which fail only due to a lack of enough stimulus. So perhaps Marx was right, a least to the point that governments will use so-called settled science to control its citizenry and redistribute wealth for the purposes of social engineering.
Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz
scienceguy5: And with one swipe of the pen, Brad Goodwin has provided himself with an untestable psuedo-argument that allows him to use his own version of psuedo-science to gainsay anything he doesn't want to believe. Theories don't always have a built in mechanism that will allow them to be "proven" absolutely right or wrong. What scientists do is build a theory on empirical evidence. As long as the evidence supports the theory, the theory stands. When the theory can't incorporate new evidence, or new evidence flat out contradicts the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. That's how science works. Communism a science? Where did you come up with that? Eugenics was pure political racism, not a product of science. Economics a science? Not likely ... but I'd take a version of Keynesian over the trickle down, which has been proven BY THE EVIDENCE to NOT work (otherwise we would have been flying high after Bush, who oversaw a shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest which paled even Reagan's!). Asimov said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That says more about the observer than the technology. You've now added the corollary, "Anything I don't understand is a psuedo-science"
My reply: scienceguy5, you miss the whole point. No these are not sciences, but they are presented as science by government for the purposes of tyranny.. You apparently are not a student of history, or you would know that Communism and Eugenics were presented as social sciences at the time (making it the darling, even today, of progressive thought). I am also amused by your argument that if I say something you don't agree with then I am ignorant of the subject; this is always the rational of the left. BTW, I did not mention Keynesian economics in relation to supply side economics; I am simply of the FA Hayek thought that any attempt by the government to improve (ie control) the free market (other than reasonable regulations) will result in inevitable serfdom.
kitty-kitty46: No Brad, I don't think he missed the point. Lots of ideas are promulgated as "science" that are not. You were probably right about governments using pseudoscience to control the population, but that is hardly the realm of any particular type of government, or of governments alone. Denying that Marijuana has any legitimate medical uses based on "scientific" research, teaching "creationism" as science, or other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others. This is certainly not just a tactic of the left. Understanding complex issues is not easy, and belief is too often a substitute for critical thought.
My reply: kitty-kitty46, you say that scienceguy5 didn't miss the point, them you go on to agree with me. Yes, the marijuana laws (and drug laws in general) are ludicrous and undermining the security of our country. I will leave the government vs religion for another day. And it really doesn't matter if there are "other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others." It only matters if it is done by government, because government has the ability to forcefully control lives; it's called tyranny..
Steven Hauskins: Sorry Brad, when you make statements like this:
"AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide;"
You really don't understand what climate scientists are saying.
There is much evidence in support that human activity adds to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that in turn causes more heat to be trapped.
Do you think human activity has caused other issues in the earth's environment? Say air pollution, ground water pollution, ocean pollution. Poisons like DDT in the food chain I suppose just got their naturally. We also have the ability to turn the entire Earth into a radioactive ghost land. Humans have a vast ability to change the world physically, with that comes a great responsibility.
As to keynesian economics and eugenics those are not hard sciences.
jaj48: The global warmers have it backwards. The heat precedes the CO2.When Greenland was Florida east,the suv was unknown.
My reply: I will agree that scientists do not say all climate change is caused by AGW, but they believe it is significant enough that we need a fascists world government to stop the damage caused by man. I thoroughly believe that man is poisoning the earth, a fact that has been relegated to the back seat because of all the attention and money being thrown at AGW. My point is it doesn't matter if Keynesian economics and eugenics are not hard sciences,if government funds them and forces the concepts as settled sciences they result in tyranny; that is why I called them pseudosciences. Further, the concept that CO2 traps heat continues to be unprovable, based solely on proxy science with very questionable research data. as jaj48 said, it is reproducible that as the ocean warms it releases CO2, but it in not reproducible that increased CO2 traps and warms the ocean. Al Gore has been called on this so many times, that he now refuses to debate the issue anymore.
A look at pseudosciences
There are pseudosciences from eugenics to Karl Marx's inevitability of communism, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW and even Keynesian Economics. All of these pseudosciences have one thing in common -- they do not contain a method for proving them wrong. "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs". Research methods One of the basic truisms of science is that a theory is not scientific unless it passes scrutiny, but the proponents of these pseudosciences simply claim the science is settled. Eugenics says the superior races must reduce the number of useless eaters; Marx said all human endeavors must lead to a dictatorship and collectivism; AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide; and Keynesian economics believes in government-controlled economies, which fail only due to a lack of enough stimulus. So perhaps Marx was right, a least to the point that governments will use so-called settled science to control its citizenry and redistribute wealth for the purposes of social engineering.
Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz
scienceguy5: And with one swipe of the pen, Brad Goodwin has provided himself with an untestable psuedo-argument that allows him to use his own version of psuedo-science to gainsay anything he doesn't want to believe. Theories don't always have a built in mechanism that will allow them to be "proven" absolutely right or wrong. What scientists do is build a theory on empirical evidence. As long as the evidence supports the theory, the theory stands. When the theory can't incorporate new evidence, or new evidence flat out contradicts the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. That's how science works. Communism a science? Where did you come up with that? Eugenics was pure political racism, not a product of science. Economics a science? Not likely ... but I'd take a version of Keynesian over the trickle down, which has been proven BY THE EVIDENCE to NOT work (otherwise we would have been flying high after Bush, who oversaw a shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest which paled even Reagan's!). Asimov said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That says more about the observer than the technology. You've now added the corollary, "Anything I don't understand is a psuedo-science"
My reply: scienceguy5, you miss the whole point. No these are not sciences, but they are presented as science by government for the purposes of tyranny.. You apparently are not a student of history, or you would know that Communism and Eugenics were presented as social sciences at the time (making it the darling, even today, of progressive thought). I am also amused by your argument that if I say something you don't agree with then I am ignorant of the subject; this is always the rational of the left. BTW, I did not mention Keynesian economics in relation to supply side economics; I am simply of the FA Hayek thought that any attempt by the government to improve (ie control) the free market (other than reasonable regulations) will result in inevitable serfdom.
kitty-kitty46: No Brad, I don't think he missed the point. Lots of ideas are promulgated as "science" that are not. You were probably right about governments using pseudoscience to control the population, but that is hardly the realm of any particular type of government, or of governments alone. Denying that Marijuana has any legitimate medical uses based on "scientific" research, teaching "creationism" as science, or other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others. This is certainly not just a tactic of the left. Understanding complex issues is not easy, and belief is too often a substitute for critical thought.
My reply: kitty-kitty46, you say that scienceguy5 didn't miss the point, them you go on to agree with me. Yes, the marijuana laws (and drug laws in general) are ludicrous and undermining the security of our country. I will leave the government vs religion for another day. And it really doesn't matter if there are "other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others." It only matters if it is done by government, because government has the ability to forcefully control lives; it's called tyranny..
Steven Hauskins: Sorry Brad, when you make statements like this:
"AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide;"
You really don't understand what climate scientists are saying.
There is much evidence in support that human activity adds to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that in turn causes more heat to be trapped.
Do you think human activity has caused other issues in the earth's environment? Say air pollution, ground water pollution, ocean pollution. Poisons like DDT in the food chain I suppose just got their naturally. We also have the ability to turn the entire Earth into a radioactive ghost land. Humans have a vast ability to change the world physically, with that comes a great responsibility.
As to keynesian economics and eugenics those are not hard sciences.
jaj48: The global warmers have it backwards. The heat precedes the CO2.When Greenland was Florida east,the suv was unknown.
My reply: I will agree that scientists do not say all climate change is caused by AGW, but they believe it is significant enough that we need a fascists world government to stop the damage caused by man. I thoroughly believe that man is poisoning the earth, a fact that has been relegated to the back seat because of all the attention and money being thrown at AGW. My point is it doesn't matter if Keynesian economics and eugenics are not hard sciences,if government funds them and forces the concepts as settled sciences they result in tyranny; that is why I called them pseudosciences. Further, the concept that CO2 traps heat continues to be unprovable, based solely on proxy science with very questionable research data. as jaj48 said, it is reproducible that as the ocean warms it releases CO2, but it in not reproducible that increased CO2 traps and warms the ocean. Al Gore has been called on this so many times, that he now refuses to debate the issue anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)