Letter to liberals from my e-mail
we received this today and thought that it might be
worth sharing:::
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,
socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters:
We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake
of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has
made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated
each other for many years for the sake of future generations,
but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever
agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly
terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass,
each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but
I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.
After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective
representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops,
the NRA and the military.
We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and
you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You
are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle
big enough to move all three of them.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
You can have your beloved lifelong welfare-dwellers, food
stamps, homeless (except for the Vets), homeboys, hippies,
druggies and illegal aliens.
We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey-moms, greedy CEOs
and rednecks.
We'll keep Bill O'Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right
to invade and hammer places which threaten us.
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help
provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political
correctness and Shirley MacLaine. You can also have the U.N. –
but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.
You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach
the World to Sing," "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World."
We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to
give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name
and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other
like-minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not
agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you
might think about which one of us will need whose help
in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student, and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie
Sheen, Barbara Streisand and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.P.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English
when you call our country.
-- j, prompted by jlc
.
worth sharing:::
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,
socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters:
We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake
of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has
made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated
each other for many years for the sake of future generations,
but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever
agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly
terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass,
each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but
I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.
After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective
representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops,
the NRA and the military.
We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and
you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You
are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle
big enough to move all three of them.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
You can have your beloved lifelong welfare-dwellers, food
stamps, homeless (except for the Vets), homeboys, hippies,
druggies and illegal aliens.
We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey-moms, greedy CEOs
and rednecks.
We'll keep Bill O'Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right
to invade and hammer places which threaten us.
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help
provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political
correctness and Shirley MacLaine. You can also have the U.N. –
but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.
You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach
the World to Sing," "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World."
We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to
give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name
and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other
like-minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not
agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you
might think about which one of us will need whose help
in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student, and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie
Sheen, Barbara Streisand and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.P.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English
when you call our country.
-- j, prompted by jlc
.
Not exactly the same thing but 150 years ago something was tried in a similar manor. The South simply wanted to go its own way but the Federal Government was determined to kill them all rather than letting that happen. Contrary to popular belief, the South losing the war was the biggest blow to freedom this Country ever experienced. Most people do not understand that because they are taught it was all about slavery, when of course it was not. Slavery was an issue that the south was wrong on (and I think would have eventually changed) but the war never would have happened over slavery. It was because the South was tired of being controlled on everything, particularly the economic issues. If the South had won, the precedent would be set that States are free. As it is, States are totally subservient to the Feds and have no real freedom or control at all!
Looks like the Devil's Advocate Strategy is the most likely way to go. Vote for whomever will finish the destruction and start over from scratch.
Not enough cooperation too much pontificating. Too much preaching no plan of action.
I grew up in the South in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and even then, nearly a century after the Civil War (or the "War of Northern Aggression" as many called it) the widespread attitude by whites of their racial superiority was so strong that I believe a majority of whites would have voted to re-introduce slavery had it been possible. If the Confederacy had won, slavery in the South would have taken decades, and perhaps centuries, to disappear.
For a present-day example of culture overpowering economics (and common sense), consider the anti-drug laws and the extent of their enforcement.
Had the war not occurred slavery would have died and culture would have changed rapidly. There were very few slave owners and when it became unprofitable those would have switched or bankrupted (unless the GOP thought slavery would advance their power.) The culture would have undergone immense changes and by the 40s it would have been completely (and unpredictably) different. The war and reconstruction caused immense hostility in the southerners toward the north, and that adversely affected relations between blacks and whites. WIthout the destruction of the south in the war that effectively enslaved the southern survivors, the south would have adapted relatively quickly to the economic disadvantage of slavery. By the time you were born it would have been a different world. But that didn't happen because Lincoln wanted to enslave southerners to the nothern corporatocracy, and after murdering 600,000, Lincoln got his wish.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/what-...
http://civilwarhome.com/csaconstituti...
So “The government of the south is not a good example of the people of the south”? It looks to me like an overwhelming reflection of the white people of the south.
Lincoln was elected on the tariff issue that he and his supporters were well aware would likely cause at the very least nullification of the tariff by southern states. The tariff of abominations had been tried once before and South Carolina had voted to nullify it. They knew that South Carolina would vehemently oppose it, having declared the earlier version unconstitutional, and that other southern states would likely side with South Carolina. This was a traitorous political move by the looter Whigs and it caused the war.
All that said, I would also propose that the southern people were likely misled by the southern politicians catering to southern plantation owners, and the northern people were likely misled by northern politicians catering to northern manufacturers. That is what politicians do.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/march...
Also worth noting is that in 1860 the Democratic Party split into northern and southern factions, nominating separate presidential candidates and helping to facilitate the election of Lincoln. Was the tariff to blame? No, the issue that split the Democrats apart was – slavery.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/steph2....
Slavery was not a side issue.
Check your premises.
.
Old dino is a Bama boy.
Unfortunately, the libs want to control everybody.
Why?
They see themselves as our elite more than equal betters..
.
But +1 for knowing where I was coming from.
I'd give you a BRAND NEW CAR! if I quiz show could.
.
The more than equal pigs, though, I found unforgettable .
Now I often like to call libs, especially those in positions of power, "our more than equal elite betters."
Not what they really are but what they perceive themselves to be.
.
Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag."
I would personally add, "We will keep our borders secure. You are welcome to apply to immigrate to our country, but you had better come prepared to use English in official and business communication, and to work your butt off to get ahead. And if you do not subscribe to the tenants of freedom for every class of individual, irregardless of gender, race or religion...don't bother filling out the form."
Jan
.
" press 1 for English"
" press 2 if you are a liberal"
Upon pressing 2 they get a dial tone
Bollywood, anti-heroes, politically correct anythings, anyone who intones like Algore.
Too bad this couldn't happen because the useful idiot sector of the liberal sham would truly believe they had to save us from ourselves.
One problem - West America needs ocean access, and I'm not keeping California, Oregon or Washington. But this is West America - we the ones who are determined to solve problems, not make them.
.
After all the unwanted calls I have been getting over the past few years, I wish I had that option!
.
.
And the third division can be reasonable, liberty-loving people. Which will not actually include many "conservatives".
.
.
Ayn Rand illustrated capitalism and crony capitalism in AS and their differences. I don't recall if she ever stated whether or not Rearden Steel was incorporated, but Taggart Transcontinental had shareholders so it most likely was.
There are thousands of corporations and CEO's in the U.S. and the great majority are upright in their dealings and are quite responsible individuals. Don't let yourself get caught up in that liberal "all businessmen are bad evil capitalists" BS.
Corporations were fine until our country changed the ground rules in 1855 by limiting the liability of the shareholders. This is what makes it so irresponsible. If shareholders are owners and investors, then they should share in the debts as well.
You say there are many "upright" and "responsible" people running corporations, but I have been watching that change over the years because on the invisibility of who is running it and who to go to for solutions. Take for example all of the bankruptcies where no one is responsible for paying the corporations debts. So they stole from other businesses and no one is held accountable. This is just wrong.
I love capitalism and big and small businesses, please do not get me wrong. I hate what is happening in our country and I do blame corporations, not real businesses, (and I believe there is a difference), for a lot of it. Crony capitalism is a direct offshoot of limited liability corporations.
Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical example. ABC is a multibillion dollar car company with thousands of employees and shareholders, including grandma in her retirement fund. Now, the management and union bosses hammer out a contract that is quite lucrative to the union members, but increases the price of their product beyond what the market will bear. Sales slump, ABC can’t afford to pay its liabilities and goes belly up. Thousands of employees lose their jobs, including management and hundreds of small businesses dealing with ABC also go belly up and their employees lose their jobs. No one did anything criminal and cannot be held liable as such. The management and the union bosses may have been very foolish, but not criminal. As a corporation, the liability for losses caused by ABC’s bankruptcy is limited to the value of the assets of ABC and no further. In a free capitalist economy anyone working for, investing in, or doing business with ABC takes the risk that the leadership (management and union) of ABC will always make prudent decisions. They also take the risk that the ABC leadership may make a serious mistake in judgement causing them to suffer the consequences of an ABC failure. (Side note: There are other non-criminal reasons for a major corporation to go belly up. For example, it’s flagship product may become obsolete as in the case of Eastman Kodak.)
In your scenario, grandma, as a shareholder would be forced to cover all losses associated with her ABC shares even beyond the value of the shares, even if she had to sell her house, car, and whatever may be left in her retirement fund. How about if grandma held shares in Eastman Kodak? I say grandma’s liability ends with the value of her shares and goes no further.
Investing is not always a gamble. However, if you treat the market like a casino it will treat you as if it really were a casino.
I'm glad our lawmakers see incorporation as I do in this matter. If they ever change their minds and pass legislation as you see it I predict we will witness the greatest stock market crash in history. Our economy will sink faster than a lead brick tossed in the ocean and we all can experience living as in 1850 again.
if the unwise expenditure of bucks in the contract left some
people enriched just before the failure of the company,
the argument could be made that those enriched folks
should cough up the extra bucks to pay creditors during
the dissolution of the company. . What Say Ye? -- j
.
This isn't always the case. For example as Eastman Kodak was going under, the board brought in a new CEO, George Fisher from Motorola, to attempt to "save the company". To bring him on they had to offer a very lucrative contract (obscenely lucrative, IMHO) because no self respecting exec would want to sully his name with a catastrophic failure. Saving a fast falling multi-billion dollar multi-national company is no easy task and, as many expected, it went under in spite of any attempts to save it. George got his "golden parachute" contract fulfilled, which was not illegal in any way in spite of making some people angry over the size of it. [ Side note: Almost all the workers got pretty decent severance packages compared to other companies that went under.]
is like allowing people to buy a dog without having to keep it
on a leash, or pay for the damage if it breaks loose.
both LLCs and bankruptcies are also like that, leaving
the society in general to pick up the pieces and make up
for the defaults. . as a society, we should tighten this up.
and it pertains to immigration plus refugees as well --
if an individual offers more potential value than debt,
we are attracted and admit them. . no responsibility,
no admittability. -- j
.
makes me squirm with resentment. . the rest of society
must carry the burden of their defaults. . where's the justice? -- j
.
I used Eastman Kodak as one example in my conversation with ycandrea. In 1982 it employed 62 thousand people in Rochester, NY but by 2011 it employed less than 5000 and went bankrupt. If grandma was a shareholder, she lost her entire investment. Under your scenario the 57 thousand people who lost their jobs are entitled to everything grandma has. If I owned a machine shop supplying EK and it went under when EK went under, do I have a right to grandma's house?
Likewise, if grandma holds bonds in a failed corporation that I hold stock in, she and her lawyers might get the value of my shares, but will not be able to raid the rest of my personal wealth. THAT is the risk SHE took.
agreeing that bankruptcy will evaporate most, or all, of your
investment. . that's the squirm. . I'd rather buy gold. . and
I have. . but, propping up grandma when her investment
goes "poof " is a voluntary societal implication which
costs us all. . value for irresponsibility, not value for value.
that's the big squirm. . and no, grandma's house is not
in jeopardy. . employees and suppliers take risks like the
shareholders do. . still, there is the value-for-nothing squirm. -- j
.
Incorporation places a fire wall between an individuals unrelated personal wealth and the equity that individual has invested in the given enterprise. NOW grandma's house can't be taken if she owns stock in a company that fails, but if you change the law so that fire wall is taken away, then grandma's house will be up for grabs.
a mess of things and we in the rest of the u.s. must
make up for it. . like the GM bail-out paid for by us taxpayers.
there ain't no free lunch. -- j
.
scot-free with their millions, unscathed. . that's what the
taxpayers are funding, it appears to me. . golden parachutes
for mis-managers. -- j
.
If shareholders could push the boardroom to not be so generous with their money maybe some sanity can be restored in executive pay.
As for the taxpayer funding part, that argument (as I said above) is with the legitimacy of a Great Welfare/Bailout State in a supposedly free economy not with private enterprise boardroom decision making, as fine or foolish as it may be.
As a side note, I have traded/invested in numerous companies over the years and one of the criteria I look at is how much stock/bonds does the management carry in their own companies (by insider trading law this has to be public knowledge for public corporations). It is also important to check if they are buying or selling and why, especially for smaller companies. I am very reluctant to purchase stock in a company whose executives won't hold (or are selling) stock in it themselves.
for their actions;;; I do not resent anyone's pay if it doesn't involve
force or coercion!!! . this is a tough area in which to imagine laws
or methods of arriving at justice, isn't it??? -- j
.
What makes you think Rearden Steel was not a corporation? Taggart Transcontinental definitely was a corporation. DAnconia copper definitely was a corporation.
Let's say I invest $1,000 in a company worth $3,000,000. Let say over 5 years I earn $75 per year. That is a total of $375. Let's say there are 2,000 other investors who have invested $2,000 each, and each earning $150 per year totaling $750 each over 5 years. That is a total investment of $4,001,000, and total earnings of the shareholders over 5 years of $1,500,750. My percentage of the investment is .02% and the other 2,000 investors percentage is .05% each for a total of 99.98%.
Then let's say the company goes under, (because they have been paying a CEO $2,000,000 a year salary). Let's say the company owes $10,000,000 to vendors and banks in goods, services and loans. My share of what is owed is $2,500. ($10,000,000 X .02%). So even though I invested $1,000 and earned an additional $375, I still have to pay my share of the debt. And so do the other shareholders. What is so hard to understand about this?
and the shareholders get nothing. . that's the government way
of handling a bankruptcy. -- j
.
and D'Anconia were family-owned, like S.C. Johnson and Son
and the like. . check these out, for family-run companies:::
http://www.griequity.com/resources/in...
-- j
.
.
if you retain the author's name, please be faithful to the
content as it is. . Thank You!!! -- j
.
but it doesn't make me right!!! -- j
.
Pre PC dictionaries help. It helps when you use real definitions and not made up Political Crap
sarcasm, I believe. . and those in power are fascistic, IMHO. -- j
.
Liberal - lacking restraint, not bound by orthodoxy or traditional forms, progressive ideals, one who favors religious freedoms - We want it all and we want it now. Pragmatic.
From three different pre-PC dictionaries.
Of course the winner gets to rewrite the dictionary but going fifty years one can easily find the majority of the status quo conservatives are currently sitting in the White House and the Government Party (Democrats RINOS) of the Congress.
The outsiders wanting in are now the liberals. Progressive to them is re-instating the Constitution and Religious Freedom has nought to do with DNC/RINO Inc.
The point is those in power build castles to defend. Those not in power build battering rams
So those of you who are of the former liberal present day conservative persuasion.
Except when it comes to scamming and bilking the working classes.
It doesn't have to be along the so-called left/right ideological lines, but I would be okay with that. Following the Constitution, they'd have to have free trade with one another, but they could have their own rules. One side would be high-tech developers making Facebook, Google, Epic, and so one, biotech companies, nano-tech, alternative energy. Their schools could focus on creative and critical thinking. Their gov't could focus on charity-sounding programs like children's nutrition and job training. The other side could have the mining, paper mills, factories, agriculture, and so on. They would have schools that teach tradition, memorization, and reading/writing from Bible tracks, all the things people needed for the jobs of the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th century. Their programs would focus on keeping the poor and desperate segregated and strict legal penalites to deal with them they turn violent, programs that in no way smack of alms.
Both sides could carry on about how they will be so succesful in their own areas of interest. But they wouldn't fight. The liberal areas would still need to buy coal, paper, and textiles from the rightwing places. The rightwing places would still need new medical imaging/treatment systems, Google/Apple/Facebook products/service, and so on.
I don't care to predict who would be more successful. It's not a constest. It's about leaving people alone to live as they want to live.
If the conservative schools teach tradition, as in prioritizing the history of how this nation and civilization came into being and what it means to be part of it and keep it, rather than dwelling on all the tangential PC crap, then I'm all for it. If the conservative schools teach memorization, as in grade school basic addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables and how to use them as opposed to bogging them down in the bureaucratic procedural methods to do simple math found in common core, then I'm all for it. Your assumption that conservatives are all bible thumpers that would teach reading and writing from bible tracts is simply absurd. Saying a conservative must be a religious nut is equivalent to saying a white person who disagrees with an Obama policy must be a racist.
Traditionally, conservatives are personally charitable towards their fellow man and your innuendo as to how the conservative side would deal with the poor is unsupportable. The conservative side, however, would not create a giant government run welfare state.
In a sense, it is a contest, and the stakes are very high and if it's about leaving people alone to live as they want to live, then a choice has to be made whether to belong to the collective of the more liberal section or take ones chances as an individual in the capitalist conservative section.
which started this nation on the right track! . may the best
person win, in their area of expertise, and let them exchange
values at will !!! -- j
.
Keep it up Conservatives, you'll wake up in 2017 with the same kind of nonsense you've lived with for your lifetime.