 Oblivious to economics itself (this is not Rockwell's idiom), current group under consideration does in fact secondhand the fullbird Marx like some chub and 'bruise-free-wistfulness' to a fading 'we-did-our-best.' In support, did you know, Jim C., that POTUS spoke at UofMichigan commencement where from the largest spending, debt and deficit government the world has ever known, he told the graduates that, 'America has always done well with limited government.' How and why, no one asked? Was that then an old lecture from UofChicago, POTUS? Is POTUS that daft to not see the disconnect and the unsuitableness of the very words that spew from his oral apeture. Yet no one called him on it. If only a single graduate or better a group and shot up and shouted out, 'Shut your mouth, you disingenuous baffoon'!!! They didn't (and this group has got to do better or it will drown in a Flip Wilson I-took-his-other-dollar reality. And then POTUS droned on and on, about reading Jefferson to his puppy and the need for the next government to be resilient and flexible (again and utter impossible given that he has led the current one to where it has arrived). He went on unchecked, unmitigated, uncensured, and serving up colossal spending even as he wistfuls good otherwise government. Axiom: regards the Office of the President of the United States, it matters not whether a president has ill intent or is colossally incompetent, both identify him as bad. The identifier can be set aside here as the identified so arrives in great clarity(William James). Given this situation, Jim C, then like you did, I'd grip the horns, but with different expected outcome or focus. Thesis: Marxist. Antithesis: Anarchist. Synthesis: Reaver'ism (or Capitalism parading as Socialism under the faux expectation and 'you're in' auspices of candy arse Marxism). Call Reavers the pillager academics who talked a little Marx to get POTUS elected. They are utterly divorced from the full bird Marxist project, and can thus only second hand the man's thought. Question for Marx: if the man doesn't correct the boy in front of his mother, does that mean Marx can topple the US without the death of 40,000,000 people? Intrude to crass so but recall also that the Russians shook their heads in admonition when the US first went into Afghanistan. To no avail and there's no need to talk politics with strangers. Nonetheless, that Marx post capitalism somehow arrives like a Marischino cherry after another Sunday without intense destructive struggle seems to be the fashionably implied open question, inuendo, and saving grace of what otherwise reeks of blatant, old fashioned, class warfare, made the more obscene because the top group doesn't even call the US home. You want limited government, JIm C? Me too and in trifecta. Launch it then cutting spending vastly, finding a way to address freakish class inequity, and then reorienting to a much sparser economic field. Even that is just to get in fighting shape. To actually just haul off and deck some clown who really deserves it, recall this country is the only nation on earth to fly a flag on the moon. It was a nation of engineers and lawyers, before politicians sided with the lawyers in a unilateral display of puss mouth. Why not call down God himself in support of a JFK Man to the Moon initiative regards America's future energy supply? Field change, sir - the economic field in which America does battle must change and America must declare intent here and then execute with extreme prejudice as if the existence of the United States itself depended on the success. "The Eagle has landed." That's what this nation needs to here about whatever form its new energy takes shape in. Then let the lawyers come in and make it all legal like and profitable. It's never too late to be this kind of fascism. This country historically (the history of its production POTUS not its talk show) has taken that energy and puts it to work. Where does it stop? Question amounts to mud under a large truck's tire. Somebody drop it in gear.  Commented 4577 days ago |
