Quotable Quotes
Posted January 30th, 2008 by Da King
Courtesy of the Patriot Post.
Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:
“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane
Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):
“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily
Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken
I find the following comment very "stimulating":
“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman
Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?
“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue
Same as it ever was:
“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams
Economic dunce cap wearer:
“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times
They sure ain't conservatives, honey:
“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier
This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:
“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews
Der-da-der-der-durp:
“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”
If only he would heed his own advice:
“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton
Be careful what you ask for:
“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins
Lib vs Lib (and really funny):
“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry
January 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Can't wait to see how Vince somehow turns all of these great quotes into only D quotes. Vince?
January 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
D quotes ?
January 31st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Da King,
My experience is that their response when challenged generally falls in one of 4 categories
1. they ignore you
2. they ignore the message and attack the messanger
3. they dismiss the challenge by pointing out that someone or something on "your"(because you either agree with them or side with evil)side is worse
4. they have the moral highground therefore their lack of facts or the consequences are irrelavant. Putting it another way "because I am morally superior therefore it must be right and even it isnt trying to do the right thing is what counts".
January 31st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Fred writes of the liberal mindset,
"because I [a liberal] am morally superior therefore it must be right and even it isnt trying to do the right thing is what counts".
Objectively, it's a hoot when liberals try to posture themselves as morally superior. But their delusion is so great, many of them actually believe it. [This is one of the reasons why liberalism has correctly been called a mental disorder.]
But let's look at some of the behavior of these "morally superior" beings to see what's what. :
To the libs, it's moral to allow women to kill their unborn babies in abortion mills in the most ghoulish ways imaginable.
It is moral to keep blacks in a state of dependeny, rationalizing that it for the blacks' own good.
It's moral to mandate minority kids (and others) attend failed public schools. [Gotta appease those teachers' unions.]
It's moral to sell out allies (like they did in southeast Asia and are now trying to do in the Middle East) even when the sellout costs millions of lives.
It's moral to conduct class warfare and risk ripping society apart if it gains Dims votes.
It's moral to lie & cheat in electoral politics because the anointed ones on the Left (i.e., the Dims) have the "Vision" and to them, at least, the ends (earthly Utopia) justify any means for their attainment.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Vince, if you can read this, this is what liberal means: not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry and favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. Look at up.
In language that you can better understand, I might suggest the writings of Brian Elroy McKinley, who wrote:
Because Liberals fight to protect every citizen from having other people's values imposed on them, Conservatives like to label Liberals as being evil. The following list shows what Conservatives like to say against Liberals, and then goes on to show why such assertions are false:
"Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family.
However . . .
Conservatives want to define what your family should be
Whereas . . .
Liberals put you in charge of your family
Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression
Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business.
However . . .
Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all
Whereas . . .
Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow
Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion.
However . . .
Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others
Whereas . . .
Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family's religious choices
Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom.
However . . .
Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women's movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship
Whereas . . .
Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another's rights
Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality.
However . . .
Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality
Whereas . . .
Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another's morality
Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military.
However . . .
Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others
Whereas . . .
Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness."
Ok Vince, go ahead, start calling me names again. Sorry King, about taking up the blog with this, but his incessant name-calling and childishness is old and tired. It's people like Vince that are what's wrong with the Ds and Rs today.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Da Truth,
I cant speak for Vince but yes I have hard time reading and understanding because I am sure I do not have the intellect or academic credentials that you posess I got confused(the words were much to big for an uneducated redneck) after the statement about liberals are tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others. You said to look it up. Where do I look that up? Hopefully it is something that is not beyond my limited intellectual scope.
Would I be correct in saying that you your profound essay proves that conservatives are fascists and liberals are the true defenders of personal freedom? If not I apoligize for being so presumptive to assume something that is really beyond my scope.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
So much to deal with…so little time…
This…."It's moral to mandate minority kids (and others) attend failed public schools. [Gotta appease those teachers' unions.]"
…is ridiculous as well as mistaken.
Every family has the perfect right and freedom to place their children in WHATEVER school they want to….even teach them at home. It's their choice.
What conservatives are arguing for on education isn't conservative at all,….shocker, I know. They want the state to PAY for a family's choice to send their kids to private schools, when a public school has already been provided through tax dollars.
Voichers and charter schools are a conservative welfare program. The objective is to destroy the public education system, and privatize education altogether so that only those who can pay for it get a good education.
So yeah, Ghost, liberals ARE moral when they provide an education for all children. Conservatives are NOT moral when they try to eliminate that system through privatization schemes.
Just thought you might like to have that specific point, you know, cleared up.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
That's exactly my point, Fred. You are presumptive. You all are. And it's caused your party to abandon it's conservative principles.
My reply was intended for Vince. I like to fight with him because his idea of dialogue is calling all liberals names and making generalizations about anyone who calls themselves a Democrat. I haven't been reading this blog long, but in the short time that I have, I have on more than one occasion been able to have interesting discussions with da king because he is able to see that both parties( yes, even Rs once in a while) have their faults. Also, he is able to stick to facts, and although he and I are opposites politically, I see many of his points….and, on occasion, we agree.
If you wish to ask me a serious question, I would be more than happy to offer a response. If you choose to be like Vince, and call names and speak in generalizations, I won't respond to you. He's all the fight I can handle and way more fun. Although it is clear from this blog that da king and Vince are friends and agree on much, I think it speaks poorly of Vince that he doesn't respond to da king's posts with anything other than such nonsense. Based on the two posts you have on this blog, maybe you are like Vince, I don't know. I would hope you are smarter than him. Your original post was extremely stereotypical and generalized, and certainly not indicative of what da king was writing about. Other than when fighting with Vince, I don't generalize.
If you want to call it a moral high ground because I demand that people cite facts, stop calling names, and quit making everything so black and white (as in D=evil and R=righteousness), then so be it; it's a moral high ground. Whatever. But everyone who responds to Da King's rants, with the exception of Vince and maybe the Good Rev, know it's not that simple.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
da truth,
1. you made a statement and said look it up and I merely asked where to look it up.
2. what names did I call you?
3. what did I make black and white? If I did please explain my mistake
4. R= rightousness? when I did ever mention anyhting close to that concept
February 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am
Again, Fred, I don't quite understand your very vague points. As I have stated already, my post was intended for Vince which is made very clear at the beginning of the post. I never said you called me any names, I said Vince calls all of us on the left names constantly and it is his idea of debate.
As for your most recent post. The definition is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary; most dictionaries contain the same or a similar definition.
As far as I can tell, you didn't call me any names. However, I am confused by that question because I didn't say that you did.
As for what did you make black and white, I can only answer that with a question: what did you mean when you referred to "they"? Was it not a feeble attempt to categorize all liberals or Ds as being of one mindset?
And as for the "R=righteousness" point, again, that point was in response to your generalizations. If you, like Vince, believe all Ds are evil and all Rs are righteous, as your original post implied, I have nothing more to say to you, just as I have little to say to Ds who think that way. If you would like to engage in debate that is open minded, tolerant, fact driven and respectful, I look forward to a continued dialogue.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
fred,
Oh yeah ! I left out 'attack the messenger' as one of the liberal arguing tactics. Thanks for mentioning it. That's one of their biggies too. I don't know how I forgot it. Since I blame all mistakes and omissions on my age now, even though I'm not that old, that must be the reason I forgot that one. Works for me.
I try to make an effort not to use right wing sources all the time on this blog if I can help it (though sometimes I have to), for that reason.
Your list reminded me a little of Gandhi's old theory, that goes something like this - first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
da truth,
I'm going to stay out of this for now, since you are speaking to Vince, but I have more objections to Mr. McKinley's assertions than I can count.
And when you made reference to "da king's rants", I'm sure you meant to say "da king's astute and witty observations".
FYI - Vince and I don't know each other personally, but we do seem to agree on a lot politically.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Rev,
You said, "Voichers and charter schools are a conservative welfare program. The objective is to destroy the public education system, and privatize education altogether so that only those who can pay for it get a good education".
Since vouchers could be given to EVERY student, where do you come up with the "only those who can pay for it" part ?
Vouchers were designed FOR the poorer students, so they could go to better schools. Vouchers are the best answer I've heard yet to fix the educational system in this country. Since the public schools are the worst schools in the country, and the inner city public schools are the worst of the worst, the voucher system would enable the students with the least opportunity now the biggest gain. In turn, the bad schools would either have to shape up or go out of business, precisely the spark needed for positive change. All the Democrats really care about is garnering the support of the teacher's union. They care nothing about the kids. Gotta keep those poor kids on the Democratic plantation. Keep them votes a comin'. Yessuh. It's sickening.
And since public school children are already paid for by the taxpayers, vouchers are no more of a welfare program than what we have now. The only difference would be improved schools and better educated children.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Vince,
Don't forget the liberal "moral superiority" that allows them to take your money for the Social Security "Trust Fund" and then spend it all, leaving nothing but IOU's in the empty "Trust Fund". That "moral" move would be highly illegal if any private company tried to do it. And if you die before you get to retirement age, the government gets to "morally" keep all your money, instead of your family getting it as they should.
Then there's the "moral" liberal movement that would take away the guns from law-abiding citizens in violation of the 2nd amendment, leaving them defenseless against the armed criminals.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
King, I knew you would object to McKinley, and you know I don't see things as clear cut as that, it was merely intended as inflammatory material for your friend, Vince. And yes, by "rants" I meant fact-driven clearly defined points of view with only minimal name-calling included. As you know, it's his name calling that boils my blood. Once in awhile it would be nice if he would talk about the issues without resorting to that. I mean, even you have admitted when we dims are right about things…….and you have no problem calling out the Rs when necessary. We should all be like that.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
King,
Thanks for reminding me how the so-called superior liberal morality [dare we say immorality?] involves the attempt to disarm the citizentry.
And realize why it's done.
The libs want the citizenry disarmed because then it is easier for them to impose their big, intrusive, and arrogant government. Like their soul mates in Nazi Germany and communist Russia, the liberal-fascists want the people unarmed.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Vince,
Absolutely. They want the citizens unarmed and dependent on big government, on that Democratic plantation, like good little slaves, unable to function without the assistance of their benevolent masters.
Every piece of freedom the left takes away leads to that goal, step by step, spoon-fed communism, just as Kruschev said it would happen.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
You guys are something.