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
.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
What makes you think Rearden Steel was not a corporation? Taggart Transcontinental definitely was a corporation. DAnconia copper definitely was a corporation.
.
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
.
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?
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.
makes me squirm with resentment. . the rest of society
must carry the burden of their defaults. . where's the justice? -- j
.
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.
Bollywood, anti-heroes, politically correct anythings, anyone who intones like Algore.
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.
And the third division can be reasonable, liberty-loving people. Which will not actually include many "conservatives".
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.
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
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...