Atlético de Madrid vs Sevilla 25/11/2012 - Gol de Falcao

Surprise! Jobless Claims UP mostly PA & OH!! OOps...Captain GORE to the rescue....El gobierno y su Computadora

Surprise! Jobless Claims Up 78,000 Week After Election; PA, OH Worst Hit

by Joel B. Pollak 15 Nov 2012

The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the "lowest level in more than four years." Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy.

From the Department of Labor press release this morning:

In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 372,000.

Some of the new claims, especially in New Jersey, were due to Hurricane Sandy--but these were offset by a decline in claims filed in New York. The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries.
Both states had been targeted by the presidential campaigns. President Obama highlighted his record of job creation in Ohio in particular, focusing on the automobile industry. The state reported 6,450 new jobless claims in the week after the election--second-highest after Pennsylvania, which recorded 7,766 new claims.

PERSONAL CREDIT REPAIR ONLY $249

Does Al Gore Think He’s Captain Planet?

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
November 15, 2012

On the heels of Hurricane Sandy and the re-election of President Obama last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report entitled, “Offsetting a Carbon Tax’s Costs on Low-Income Households.” The Associated Press reported that both the liberal Brookings Institution and conservative American Enterprise Institute think tanks are also revisiting the U.S. carbon tax with discussions and reports of their own this week. California’s first cap and trade bidding on carbon emission credits took place yesterday, despite a lawsuit filed by the state’s Chamber of Commerce.

Right on time, Al Gore premiered another 24-hour online global warming scarefest last night entitled, “24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report” aiming to promote “climate reality.”
It would seem the U.S. carbon tax is alive and well and, if climate change alarmist Gore and his globalist friends have their way, it’s coming soon to a bank account near you.

Gore’s latest “24 Hours of Reality” fearmongering stunt came complete with a faux commercial featuring a weatherman forecasting obscenity-laced imaginary 110-degree temperatures and skyrocketing grocery prices due to global warming.

As part of Gore’s initiative, he asked people to visit his Climate Reality Project website to “change the world” by taking the climate reality pledge and signing up to become a “Climate Leader” who will help educate on environmentalism. The project, which boasts 5 million members worldwide, claims “dirty energy has created a world of dirty weather” and assures us “Climate change is not your fault for the car you drive, the lights you turn on, or the food you eat. The climate crisis is our problem” (emphasis added).
In his personal video announcement of the event, Gore doesn’t forget to thank globalist organization the United Nations and known-eugenics operation the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So join the frightened enviro-herd because, apparently, we can fix our problem together; all it’ll take is forking over money to Gore via the carbon taxes you can pay him on your personal CO2 emissions (otherwise known as breathing). READ MORE

NECESITA DINERO DE EMERGENCIA? BANCO SOCIAL...$500 en 4 cuotas! YA!

¿Le confiaría Ud. su computadora al gobierno?

Amy Payne

¿Confía Ud. en el gobierno federal para que proteja sus datos personales? ¿Y los archivos de su empresa y sus secretos profesionales?

Si Ud. respondió “no”, tiene Ud. toda la razón: el gobierno federal ha tenido 13 brechas y fallas de seguridad en sus propios sistemas de seguridad informática solamente en los últimos seis meses.
Sin embargo, el presidente y sus socios del Senado mantienen su empeño por regular las actividades informáticas de Estados Unidos, sin ninguna pista de cuánto nos costará eso o de cómo funcionará.
Esto se ha convertido en la regla del presidente: si el Congreso no lleva a cabo sus objetivos, lo sortea con órdenes ejecutivas y regulaciones federales. Y lo ha vuelto a hacer: el Congreso no aprobó la ley de Ciberseguridad de 2012 antes de las elecciones, de modo que el presidente ha hecho público el borrador de una orden ejecutiva para llevar a la práctica gran parte de esa legislación sin la votación previa de los legisladores.

Y no hay que olvidar que el líder de la mayoría en el Senado, Harry Reid (D-NV), puede que intente otra votación sobre este proyecto de ley antes de final de año, hay quien dice que esta misma semana.
Si la idea de la ciberseguridad (tratar de proteger todos los datos y redes informáticas sensibles del país) parece abstracta, es porque lo es. De hecho, es tan abstracta que la legislación y la orden ejecutiva que nuestros líderes políticos están defendiendo ofrecen pocos detalles acerca de qué harían realmente, salvo cargar a las empresas con más regulaciones confusas.
Cuando se piensa en ello, resulta bastante divertida la idea del gobierno federal tratando de ser innovador en temas de seguridad tecnológica. Como observa el analista de la Fundación Heritage David Inserra:

Para exponerlo de manera sencilla, normalmente se necesitan entre 24 y 36 meses para completar una regulación gubernamental, mientras que la capacidad de las computadoras se duplica cada 18 o 24 meses. Eso significa que cualquier norma que se desarrolle estará redactada para unas amenazas que tienen un desfase de dos o tres generaciones de computadoras.

Un gobierno federal que se queda atrás sin remedio y que ni siquiera puede proteger sus propias redes informáticas no es que inspire confianza precisamente. Pero ¡ah, sí puede regular!

La orden ejecutiva del presidente otorgaría nuevos poderes a múltiples agencias federales para regular a las empresas. Esta funcionaría de forma muy parecida a Obamacare, que fue aprobada con pocos detalles pero que les dio a agencias como el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) un cheque en blanco para elaborar regulaciones. Uno de los incentivos que puede que se use para mantener bajo control a las empresas es el favoritismo a la hora de conceder contratos federales: las empresas que cumplan con las reglas de seguridad informática del gobierno se podrían poner las primeras en la lista.

Paul Rosenzweig, analista invitado por la Fundación Heritage, explicará en una nueva Reunión Temática prevista para mañana que “probablemente esta orden será muy significativa y muy costosa aunque no proporcione ninguna solución importante de ciberseguridad, como es el compartir información de modo efectivo”.

¿Cuánto les costará a las empresas acatar todas estas nuevas (aunque perpetuamente obsoletas) regulaciones? No lo sabemos.
¿Las reglas serán voluntarias u obligatorias? Tampoco se sabe.
¿Pueden las compañías compartir información acerca de las amenazas informáticas que hayan detectado, con la confianza de que su información sensible estará protegida? No hay garantías de ello.
Con tantas preguntas sin responder, la orden ejecutiva (o la legislación) crearía unos enormes quebraderos de cabeza a las empresas y podría obstaculizar la innovación. Justo lo que la economía necesita.

Conservatives explained with Quotes

WHAT CONSERVATISM MEANS

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built."
Sarah Palin

"If I were ever prosecuted for my religion, I truly hope there would be enough evidence to convict me."
John Wooden


Click Here! "Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people's bills."
Margaret Thatcher


"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."
Mother Teresa


“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.”
Walter Williams


"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
Benjamin Franklin


“Perseverance is the hard work you do after you get tired of doing the hard work you already did.”
Newt Gingrich

"You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are; but take good heed not to judge me ill, because you would put yourself in great peril."
Joan of Arc

"Most Christians are being crucified on a cross between two thieves: Yesterday's regret and tomorrow's worries."
Warren Wiersbe


"Beware the barrenness of a busy life."
Socrates


"Private victories precede public victories. You can't invert that process any more than you can harvest a crop before you plant it."
Stephen Covey


"Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."
Ronald Reagan


"When fate hands you a lemon, make lemonade."
Dale Carnegie

"Winners never quit and quitters never win."
Vince Lombardi


"Building a better you is the first step to building a better America."
Zig Ziglar

"Infantile people complain and say that God is cruel or that there is no God. Mature people, however, know that there is wisdom and sometimes an eternal kindness in God's refusals."
Norman Vincent Peale


"Today is a most unusual day, because we have never lived it before; we will never live it again; it is the only day we have."
William A Ward

"Labor disgraces no man; unfortunately you occasionally find men disgrace labor."
Ulysses S. Grant

Conservatives: How do we see life?

Conservatives in QUOTES

"If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well."
Martin Luther King Jr.

"Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow."
Benjamin Franklin

"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight."
Theodore Roosevelt

"Regardless of who you are or what you have been, you can be what you want to be."
W. Clement Stone

"There may be more poetry than justice in poetic justice."
George Will

"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
Dwight D. Eisenhower


"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."
Thomas Sowell


“There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.”
Sam Walton

“To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering.”
Barry Goldwater


"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln

The Perfect Shake

How Conservatives with Focus on Principles will WIN!

How Conservatives Can Win in Blue-State America: Lessons from South Africa's Opposition

by Joel B. Pollak 11 Nov 2012

The new conventional wisdom in the aftermath of the 2012 elections is that Republicans face two challenges: first, that the United States is no longer a center-right nation, but a center-left one; second, that the country’s demographic shift away from whites will make it tougher for Republicans to win votes. The proposed solution is that Republicans must compromise on the party’s core policies, from immigration to taxation to social issues.

The conventional wisdom is wrong.
I once worked in South Africa for a centrist party, the Democratic Alliance, which faced the same challenges as Republicans do, only far more extreme. Though it had opposed apartheid, its leadership was predominantly white, in a country that is nearly 80% black. Moreover, it supported free-market economic policies in a country whose political culture is dominated by socialist and nationalist ideologies.
The party had worked its way up from receiving less than 2% of the vote in 1994 to just over 12% in 2004. It had become the leading opposition party, but seemed to have hit a ceiling. If it could not grow, it would die. How could it broaden its appeal to black voters without losing its core constituency of white voters? And how could it advocate for the free market when large portions of the electorate demanded massive redistribution?

I joined the team that helped elect Helen Zille mayor of Cape Town in 2006 (she is now the premier, or governor, of the whole Western Cape province). It was the first time an opposition party unseated the dominant African National Congress, and the first time a white politician was chosen by a predominantly black electorate in post-apartheid South Africa.

Our success could offer lessons for the Republican Party as it seeks to refocus.

1. Do not compromise basic principles; instead, show how they are relevant to all. You don’t gain trust from voters by becoming a “me, too” version of the majority party. It makes sense to adapt your policies when the other side’s policies are objectively better, as the Democrats did in the 1990s (a legacy Bill Clinton has now, sadly, disowned). It is impossible to find even one example of a successful Democratic policy worth copying.
The task, then, is to show how Republican policies work--especially for constituencies that Democrats currently take for granted. School reform is immensely popular in both black and Hispanic communities, for example. Right-to-work laws are better for jobs than laws that force workers to join unions and pay dues--and which push employers to leave. Lower taxes may help the rich--but they help the poor more by creating jobs.
We did this in South Africa by pointing out the failure of the ruling party’s affirmative action policies. Though ostensibly intended to help blacks, in effect the policy allowed the ruling party to help itself and its cronies. Most black people were excluded from the benefits, while a few billionaires were re-“empowered” over and over. Putting merit first was an attractive policy alternative for at least some black voters and communities.

2. Take the fight to the opposition’s turf. Rumor has it that Paul Ryan wanted to take the Republican argument to inner cities and make the argument for individual freedom--as his mentor, Jack Kemp, once did. The Romney campaign was cool to the idea, since most of the people in the audience would vote for President Barack Obama anyway. But  they should have listened--and Republicans should do more of what Ryan proposed.
There are three reasons to take the conservative case to liberal areas. One is that some people, even if just a few at first, will actually be convinced. Another is that it assuages the doubts of white Republicans who are afraid of being associated with the bad labels liberals affix to the party. And, finally, Democrats have been making the liberal case on conservative turf, aggressively, for over a decade. It’s long past time to return the favor.
Occasionally, that requires courage. Both before and after being elected Cape Town’s major, Zille had to face physical violence in some of the communities that she visited. She kept returning, to show she was not intimidated, and that she would stand up for local party members--who sometimes suffered isolation, and worse, from neighbors. There are few such dangers in the U.S.--and therefore few excuses not to do the same.

3. Highlight candidates from minority groups. Republicans do this very well already. The hurricane-shortened Republican National Convention featured a slew of Hispanic elected officials--Republicans have far more than Democrats--and a fantastic speech by former congressman Artur Davis, a new convert to the cause. (Shame on the media for ignoring and downplaying the role these minorities are playing in the country’s future.)
The party can do even better, however. Conventions are every four years; the political fight goes on every day. Republicans should recruit minorities to serve in public roles beyond political office. As effective as he was at times as a campaign surrogate, former Gov. John Sununu likely won more arguments than voters during the 2012 campaign. Democrats will trot out accusations of “window-dressing”; they should just be ignored.
In Zille’s 2006 election effort, great care was taken to promote candidates from diverse backgrounds to prominent positions as the party presented its election platform and its candidate lists. Among those candidates were future leaders who could make the case in the media more effectively, at times, than the party’s leadership. That did not end the false charges of racism, but it blunted them and improved the party’s self-confidence.

4. Don’t forget core white voters. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal points out, the Democrats’ glee over America’s demographic shift risks alienating white voters, who still form a large majority of the country. Mitt Romney won the white vote handily, but failed to encourage millions of white voters to come to the polls--partly because his get-out-the-vote effort was a disaster, and partly because they could not relate to him.
Many white working-class voters feel alienated from the country’s political and popular culture; they have simply given up hope. Pandering would make the problem worse. Giving in on amnesty for illegal immigrants, for example, would likely win only a few Hispanic votes, while losing a great many white votes. Rather than adopting divisive stances, Republicans should focus their efforts on finding areas of common interest.
In South Africa, the challenge was to keep Afrikaans-speaking white voters engaged in politics. They had lived through the collapse of a political system that favored them; the country’s new political culture despised them. But they equally deserved a political voice. We won their support not by stoking their frustration, but offering them a chance to be a part of something bigger, more inclusive and yet respectful of who they are.

5. Use coalition politics to cobble together a winning team. One of the most glaring omissions from Mitt Romney’s campaign was the use of coalitions. Whereas the Obama campaign created all kinds of sub-groups (“African-Americans for Obama,” “Latinos for Obama,” etc.), and promoted them aggressively, the Romney campaign’s coalition effort was woefully weak at best and virtually non-existent in key swing states such as Ohio.
The importance of coalitions is illustrated by the contrast between Jewish and Asians. The Republican Jewish Coalition helped Romney improve his result among Jews to 32%--one of the strongest performances ever by a Republican. Meanwhile, Obama won Asian-Americans--a naturally conservative constituency--with a whopping 71% of the vote. The difference was the lack of serious outreach to the Asian-American community.
In the Cape Town effort, I was put in charge of devising the policy platform for the party. It was clear to me from the start that I could not simply play the wonk. Instead, I sat down with leaders from various the various ethnic and political factions in the party, adapting their ideas into a cohesive program. That approach continued after the election, when Zille put together a governing coalition with several smaller parties.

The Perfect Shake

6. Develop clear policy alternatives. Mitt Romney came up with a 59-point plan for the economy, then a 5-point plan that seemed to change slightly from speech to speech and from debate to debate. Conversely, the best move he made during the campaign was nominating Paul Ryan as his running mate, since Ryan had made his reputation by proposing effective and bipartisan solutions to the country’s pressing fiscal problems.
Republicans have been vulnerable, repeatedly and inexcusably, to the charge that they have no alternative plans on the economy, on health care, and so on. That is partly a feature of our political system, where each party incubates many diverse views. It is also a strategy to avoid Democratic criticism of specific proposals. But the lack of alternatives makes it harder to convince voters Republicans really would do a better job.
Our plan in Cape Town was simple, and forward-looking. It was oriented around five clear points, each of which addressed flaws in the ruling party’s record while striking an optimistic outlook towards the city’s future. During the campaign, when the city was hit by power failures and an uncontrollable forest fire, the need for alternatives became clear to all--and we already had plans ready to address the administration’s failures.

7. Pursue incremental changes, not sweeping ones. The great lesson of the state labor battles of the past two years is that small changes are better than big ones. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich passed reforms that included every category of public sector employees--and his policy was overturned in a subsequent referendum. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms exempted public safety workers--and survived recall efforts.
President Obama’s own record offers similar lessons. He eschewed incremental change to health policy--and promptly suffered a colossal defeat in the 2010 midterm elections. And in the 2012 campaign’s closing days, as Mitt Romney began to offer a message of “real change,” it is possible some voters felt more comfortable with the devil they knew than the one they didn’t, particularly after years of political and economic instability.
In our effort in Cape Town, we kept our proposed changes clear, targeted--and effective. Though the many in the party were philosophically opposed to affirmative action, we did not propose to remove it root and branch, but to change the how it was implemented. Many of the Romney campaign’s more successful policy arguments--such as Medicare reform, which turned out not to be a liability--adopted the same incremental approach.

8. Create flagships of policy success. We heard relatively little from the Romney campaign about the candidate’s successes as governor of Massachusetts. That was partly because his crowning achievement--universal health insurance by way of an individual mandate--was anathema to conservatives, and the same policy that the Obama administration pushed. It was, in hindsight, the wrong example for the times.
However, Republicans now can boast several key examples of success--states in which they have pursued clear alternatives to the Democratic agenda, and enjoyed both policy and political success. Wisconsin saved money, and public sector jobs, by curtailing collective bargaining for public sector unions. Indiana has reformed property taxes and passed a right-to-work law. These should be the model for the party’s national agenda.
Likewise, in South Africa our strategy had been to turn Cape Town into an example of success that would convince voters to support it more widely. After the first year of Zille’s tenure, she increased black participation in city contracts by 10%--by cutting back on affirmative action. She went on to lead the entire province--where she repeated her success, expanding housing swiftly by giving communities control of housing funds.

Mola Sneakers

9. Organize by drilling activists in the basics. There is no doubt that the Obama campaign’s sophisticated data-mining operation helped it identify voters and potential donors. But the heart of its get-out-the-vote effort was old-fashioned basics: knocking on doors, checking voter lists, offering rides to the polls. Romney invested in sophisticated (failed) technology rather than training real, live volunteers in the basics of voter turnout.
Yes, Obama benefited from legwork by union members, who form a permanent corps of organizers (and one that is often subsidized by taxpayers). That is a permanent, and unfair, advantage. But Obama added to that infrastructure, both in 2008 and in 2012, by holding training camps and seminars for volunteers. By Election Day, they knew what they had to do, and they did it--while Romney volunteers waited for orders from Boston.
The get-out-the-vote effort we ran in Cape Town had none of the new technology, and all of the legwork, of the Obama effort. Yet it did have training, which happened over several weeks of canvassing throughout the city’s many and diverse wards, focusing on those areas of likeliest voter turnout. And every member of the party, from top to bottom,  was expected to put in time going door to door, or calling voters on the telephone.

10. Prepare for the politics of the long haul. Selling conservative policies to a blue-state electorate, and to minority communities, is not going to yield instant results. The best that Republicans can hope for in the short- to medium-term is to lose by closer margins, not to win outright. That is especially the case in communities that would see initial Republican efforts as motivated by opportunism rather than sincere commitment.
Jack Kemp did not enjoy immediate political rewards from inner city black voters. But neither did Democrat Cory Booker, who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Newark and challenged the local party machine for several years before finally breaking through. It also took years for Democrats to break through to white suburban voters; now they are a critical part of the coalition that elected and re-elected Barack Obama to power.
That was the same commitment that the Democratic Alliance made in South Africa. It is not yet clear whether it will succeed, but it is slowly increasing its support among black voters, and has solidified its earlier gains.
The United States has a less troubled recent history, and the Republican Party has a long civil rights tradition of which it can be proud. There is no reason it should not expect similar--and greater--success over time.

Conservatives Economics in Quotes!

Explaining Conservative Economics in 25 Quotes

•   John Hawkins
  
  

1) "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin

2) "The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world." -- Milton Friedman

3) "Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property." -- Milton Friedman

4) "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." -- F.A. Hayek

5) "Either immediately or ultimately every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation. Once we look at the matter. In this way, the supposed miracles of government spending will appear in another light." -- Henry Hazlitt

6) "The larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble." -- Henry Hazlitt

7) "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." -- Robert Heinlein

8) "The prudent capitalist will never adventure his capital... if there exists a state of uncertainty as to whether the government will repeal tomorrow what it has enacted today." -- William Henry Harrison

9) "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." -- Thomas Jefferson

10) "A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats." -- John Kennedy

11) "The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment--and thereby the tax base--by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities. The arithmetic effect always works in the opposite direction from the economic effect. Therefore, when the economic and the arithmetic effects of tax-rate changes are combined, the consequences of the change in tax rates on total tax revenues are no longer quite so obvious." -- Arthur Laffer explains the concept underlying the Laffer Curve

12) "What pays under capitalism is satisfying the common man, the customer. The more people you satisfy, the better for you." -- Ludwig Von Mises

13) "With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses." -- Rand Paul

14) "Don’t knock the rich. When did a poor person ever give you a job?" -- Laurence J. Peter

15) "America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." -- Ayn Rand

16) "We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -- Ronald Reagan

17) "Companies are not charitable enterprises: They hire workers to make profits." -- Paul Samuelson

18) "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith

19) "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality." -- Adam Smith

20) "Four things have almost invariably followed the imposition of controls to keep prices below the level they would reach under supply and demand in a free market: (1) increased use of the product or service whose price is controlled, (2) Reduced supply of the same product or service, (3) quality deterioration, (4) black markets." -- Thomas Sowell

21) "Politics offers attractive solutions but economics can offer only trade-offs. For example, when laws are proposed to restrict the height of apartment buildings in a community, politics presents the issue in terms of whether we prefer tall buildings or buildings of a more modest height in our town. Economics asks what you are prepared to trade off in order to keep the height of buildings below some specified level. In places where land costs may equal or even exceed the cost of the apartment buildings themselves, the difference between allowing ten-story buildings to be built and allowing a maximum of five stories may be that rents will be twice as high in the shorter buildings. The question then is not simply whether you prefer shorter buildings but how much do you prefer shorter buildings and what price are you prepared to pay to mandate height restrictions in your community. A doubling of rents and three additional highway fatalities per year? A tripling of rents and six additional highway fatalities per year? Economics cannot answer such questions. It can only make you aware of a need to ask them." -- Thomas Sowell

22) "In a small town, an idiot breaks a shop window. He’s called a vandal, until someone points out that a window installer now must be paid to replace the window. The window installer then will have enough money to buy a new suit. A tailor will then be able to buy a new desk. And so on. The whole town apparently gains from the economic activity generated by the broken window. Of course, if this made sense, cities should hire people to run though town, breaking windows. But it doesn’t make sense. It’s a fallacy because the circulating money is seen; what is not seen is what would have been done with the money if the window were still whole. The shopkeeper, instead of paying the window installer, might have expanded his business, or bought a new suit or a new desk. The town is worse off because of a broken window." -- John Stossel

23) "A thousand restaurants close every month. They re-open, and that's good for America. Nobody's rescuing them. They employ people, too. If we let them go bankrupt, the factories don't go away, the creative people don't go away. They get employed more productively by others." -- John Stossel

24) "Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there’s the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won’t receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me — spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you’ll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 — what the job was worth to you. There’s a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it’s my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs." -- Walter Williams

25) "How many times have we heard ‘free tuition,’ ‘free health care,’ and free you-name-it? If a particular good or service is truly free, we can have as much of it as we want without the sacrifice of other goods or services. Take a ‘free’ library; is it really free? The answer is no. Had the library not been built, that $50 million could have purchased something else. That something else sacrificed is the cost of the library. While users of the library might pay a zero price, zero price and free are not one and the same. So when politicians talk about providing something free, ask them to identify the beneficent Santa Claus or tooth fairy." -- Walter Williams

The Perfect Shake

 

Rush Limbaugh speaks of Mark Levin's "Freedom vs Tyranny" - Video Dailymotion

Rush Limbaugh speaks of Mark Levin's "Freedom vs Tyranny" - Video Dailymotion

Lets prepare to Debate liberals!

Intro: The Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal

A mere year ago, I was a liberal Democrat. I fell under many of the things I describe below, and I used many of the tactics that I describe below. After my ideology changed (to Republican), thanks to much research and being realistic on my part, I realized that many conservatives simply cannot engage liberals in debates very well. Not because conservatives aren’t right- because I truly believe that they are- but because liberals are very good at playing politics. And included in politics are their tactics in debates.

I now present to you the following guide, on how to defeat liberals in debates. I’m pretty confident I would have shredded myself apart from a year ago if I tried to debate myself using this guide, and I think you’ll make good use of it as well. E-mail me at sunnyd1182@yahoo.com if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Sunny S. Sidhu

Former Liberal Democrat, Current Conservative Republican, Future Conservative Republican

---

Section 1: The Liberal Mindset

In order to debate liberals, we must first understand their mindset. Why they think the way they do, why they believe in their particular stances, and, generally, their world view. This can be summed up rather easily by looking at the types of people who ARE liberals. There are two key groups we must look at (note, however, that there are many exceptions in these groups, but in general, most liberals will fall under at least one of the following categories)

The “Intellectuals”

• College Students, especially those in Ivy Leagues
• College Professors, especially those in Ivy Leagues
• Other teachers, education administrators, and education policymakers
• Journalists and Media personalities

The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”

• African Americans, Latinos, and other “minorities”
• Senior Citizens
• The poor and middle class, especially those who live in urban areas
• Feminists
• Environmentalists

Now, there are undoubtedly other groups that could be considered key players in the Democratic/liberal movement, but the above are the most often cases you will run into. There are distinct reasons for why the aforementioned two groups exist; and these reasons must be understood if you are to properly engage a liberal in a debate. For, once again, we must understand their mindsets.

The “Intellectuals”:

The “Intellectuals” are an interesting group of people. They’re typically your academics, people who have very strong academic accomplishments, or believe that they do (these can be interchanged). They often think of themselves as smart people, and associate with like-minded “smart people.” They’re especially found in Ivy League colleges, though this phenomenon easily exists in non-Ivy League schools as well. It extends beyond just the college and university scene, however; other education institutions have similar groups, and the media is full of such people.

These people are usually fairly responsible, fairly intelligent, and are going in a good direction in life- at least academically. However, all of them fall victim to one trap: they believe that everyone else is just as responsible and intelligent as them. Thus, they fall into an ideological world view, which believes that everything can be perfect, and that cases of “human nature” such as greed simply do not exist. (This explains why far left liberals supported communism- they thought people would be happy with “to each according to their need”…clearly, that did not work)

These people believe that things like abortion should be legal, because people will be responsible with it, and not take advantage of it. These people believe that drugs should be legalized, for the same reasons. These people believe that children should be exposed to sex and violence (including things that can be seen as the promotion of them), because children would be responsible with such matters. These people do not think things on television and mass media should be regulated, thinking that all people are responsible enough to handle indecent material. They believe all criminals can be “rehabilitated” and become responsible like them, and thus they oppose things like the death penalty. The list goes on and on, but the key thing you must know about these people: they’re frequently not in touch with reality itself- they’re like bookworms. They don’t realize the problems in the world for what they really are, but think they do.

Therefore, they fall victim to an ideological world view which simply does not work in reality: liberalism.

Everything these intellectuals do now has been done before, in essence: Karl Marx once presented an ideological leftist world view. It didn’t work, but it sure sounded great when he presented his ideology. What looks good on paper may not look good in reality, and that is one thing the “intellectual left” does not understand.

These people also fundamentally believe they are right, and will refuse to argue with anyone who they think is of “less merit” than them; they’re very elitist to a sense, and therefore blindly hold to their ideology despite any arguments thrown at them. It is Ivy League arrogance, journalistic elitism, and whatever else you can name, at its finest.

The “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck”

This group makes up the core of the voting element as far as the Democratic Party goes, and thus helps the most to promote the liberal cause. These are the people who think they’ve been wrong or disadvantaged, or have been told that they’ve been wronged or disadvantaged. They’re also being told that the opposing parties (Republicans and conservatives) are out to wrong them and disadvantage them even further.

These are the things commonly referred to as “playing the race/age/gender/class card.” This is used VERY often by liberals, so get ready to hear a lot of it. It works, it is effective, and this second group of people- the victims- falls for it very easily. As a result, they become slaves of the liberal mindset.

Look no further than how the Democrats try to scare African Americans into believing that Republicans are “holding them down”, how the Democrats try to scare middle class Americans into thinking Republicans are “hurting the middle class,” and how the Democrats try to scare women into thinking Republicans are “against their rights.” Democrats also frequently try to scare Senior Citizens into thinking Republicans want to “destroy Social Security.” Look at the key words mentioned in these accusations; against,holding down, hurting, destroying.

In essence, it is fear mongering targeted at certain groups of people in society, and it works. These Democrats and liberals attempt to spin the issues into backing up this fear mongering, and people listen to it. And as a result, this entire second group is formed- the “victims” of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.

These people often do not know much about the issues, especially as far as fact and reality goes. What they DO think they know, however, is that Republicans and conservatives are completely against them and trying to hold them down (or their issue) in general. They believe the way they do, because of the total spin and fear mongering they hear from Democratic and liberal leaders. They then go out and vote for these said Democrats, and become strong liberals, mostly out of fear and loathing of the other side- values instilled into them. Furthermore, they become very likely to start calling conservatives “bigots” and “racists” because of the lies that the liberal left has drilled into their heads.

Key Liberal Characteristics

Based on the previous two groups, you’ve got one group of people that is ideological, unrealistic, and elitist. Then you’ve got a second group that is fearful, angry, resentful, and therefore has a closed mind towards reality- or any other person’s opinions if they differ from their own.

---

Section 2: Liberals and their Tactics

 

Now that we understand the two key elements of liberalism, we can now move on to debates themselves. In debates, liberals tend to use a select few “tactics” very frequently; no matter who the person is, if they’re a liberal, they always make use of the same arsenal. This is likely due to the fact that they’re all promoting the same unrealistic philosophy, liberalism itself, and that liberalism can only be argued effectively in one manner: through the use of these tactics.

The reasoning will be obvious once we are done looking at the weapons themselves. Here they are, in no particular order:

Tactic Number One: Interruption

This one will be used often, throughout the span of an entire debate. If you, as a conservative (or even moderate), are attempting to make a point- especially if you have numbers, facts, and figures to back your point of view up- the common liberal will use this weapon often. Why? Because it stops you from getting your point across- and if you don’t get your point across, you cannot win a debate.

The liberal sees this, the liberal knows this, and thus the liberal will interrupt you often. If the liberal has no numbers, facts, or figures to prove their point with (a common occurrence), the liberal will use the interruption tactic even more. The interruption tactic can be used in combination with another rather strong tactic, bomb-throwing, which we cover next.

Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing

This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to do three things:

• Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong
• Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural human impulse on your part)
• Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional

Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it. Conservatives are also generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered than their liberal counterparts, so they often do not know how to respond to such viciousness. This trend it starting to change as conservatives have “rebuilt their defenses,” but many still fall for this liberal trap of bomb-throwing.

Tactic Number Three: Raising the Volume

 

This is yet another tactic that is geared at conservatives in particular, and preys off the fact that conservatives are generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered people than liberals. This one makes use of another fact: conservatives are quieter people than liberals, and not anywhere near as fierce. Liberals realize this, and they use it to their advantage when it comes to debate.

Essentially, they raise the volume. They’ll yell, scream, talk aggressively, and be particularly fierce and provoking throughout the debate. They do this to anger their opposition and try to throw them off, and they also do it to try to weaken the conservative’s resolve. They also want to engage the opposition in a “shouting match,” as this plays to a liberal’s favor, since they already do it (and since it makes the audience think of the opposition badly). Additionally, this tactic serves another purpose: it motivates other liberals and gets them pumped up, to the point where they might even get involved in the debate (see tactic five).

Tactic Number Four: The Populist Bomb

This one is a tactic that seems to have been developed by one group of liberals to promote the growth of another; essentially, the “intellectual” left employs the Populist Bomb often to get people to join the droves of the “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck” group. Of course, these said people do not realize they’re being dragged into such a group, but the liberals know it, as they’re trying to get more people on their side.

So what is a Populist Bomb? It’s something known as “telling people what they want to hear.” It employs frequent use of the race card, the class card, and all sorts of other things that we covered earlier- the same very things that created the second group of liberals, the “Victims of the Democratic Playing Card Deck.” It frequently attacks Republicans and any other opposition for the “screwing over” of certain groups (even though these attacks are usually totally false), and it also makes excessive use of “spin.”

By “spin” I mean the Populist Bomb will present some sort of god-like plan to give people some benefits, such as health insurance, while also saying things about how taxes won’t be raised. While these two things contradict each other when one looks into the finances behind such proposals, common people don’t know this, and therefore they’ll believe both statements, and will applaud the liberal who presents them- the Populist Bomb at its finest.

The Populist Bomb is a tactic used by liberals to get people to think they care about the common man and other select groups, and it often is unrealistic and can be countered strongly. It is “pandering to the crowd,” and liberals use it often to make themselves come off as genuinely caring about the public- when in reality it is merely intended to get more votes and support over to their side.

Tactic Number Five: The Liberal Army

This tactic is one that is employed almost everywhere you’ll go, almost in any debate you get into, unless you control the environment of the debate. This tactic speaks volumes about liberals and how truly wrong their philosophy is- yet it is a tactic that is so effective because of sheer numbers.

The “Liberal Army” tactic is simple: you’re in a debate, trying to make your point, and liberals outnumber you and shut you down. They will often try to surround you and put you in the center of the debate, so they can gun you from all angles. They will combine all of the previously mentioned tactics (especially interruption, raising the volume, and bomb-throwing), and since they have the numbers advantage, you will be unable to respond or make any of your points. It is a “pile on top of the ball carrier” tactic that has a 99% success rate, unless the conservative is prepared.

Often, the conservative is not, and they lose the debate out of being totally and completely overwhelmed, as long as being shocked and dazed after being attacked from so many sides.

---

Section 3: The Counterattack

As with any tactic, there are counter-tactics. Conservatives can easily win debates with liberals, but they must first know about the liberal tactics, which we have just went over. Not only this, but they must know how to effectively respond to the tactics. It is what occurs in response to liberal tactics that leads to liberal victories in debates; it is NOT the liberal’s tactic in itself. Liberal tactics are designed to get conservatives to make mistakes; therefore, conservatives can, with a proper response, eliminate this possibility and take away the liberal’s advantage.

 

Counterattack to Interruption:

This one is simple, and will really make the liberal come off as unprofessional, and immature. It could even make the difference in who holds the upper ground in the debate, and may shift an entire audience’s views regarding the people in the debate.

Essentially, you must let the liberal finish their points (or lack thereof), and then respond. When you respond, they will attempt to interrupt you often as we’ve already mentioned; let this happen a few times (ask them to stop interrupting if you want), and then when they do it again, step up and say “listen, if you’re going to continue interrupting me and preventing these people [the audience] from hearing both sides of the story, it is pointless to debate anything with you.”

You can also throw in something about how the liberal is preventing the audience from hearing facts, figures, and numbers that the liberal is probably afraid of letting them know about. Challenge them. Say “Are you afraid of my point? Are you afraid of the truth?” They will respond with a “no,” to which you say “then let me finish, and then you can have your chance.”

Do not be particularly aggressive; do not throw around attacks, stay calm, cool, and professional throughout. This will give you the upper hand over a liberal every time- especially when there’s a good open-minded audience.

Counterattack to Bomb-Throwing:

Bomb-throwing is something that’s hard to deal with, as it tries to trick the audience AND you at the same time; it tries to make the audience think of you in a negative light, and it tries to get you angry and to throw you off. It may actually be one of the hardest tactics to respond to, and liberals realize this. This is why they use it.

The response, however, is simple when you think about it. You must turn the bombs around, by staying calm, collected, and cool. You must turn the bombs around, by questioning why the liberal is throwing them in the first place. A relaxed response is something liberals do not expect; when you respond in such a professional manner, the bomb-throwing tactic is immediately nullified.

It is further nullified when you ask why the liberal is throwing the bombs; even speak directly to the audience and say “I question why my opponent here says these things about me, when they have no proof, evidence, or fact to back up their statements” and something to the sort of “I believe everyone should remain professional and relaxed in a debate, and speak about the issues, instead of attacking one another.”

The latter statement is very effective with the audience, and actually turns the bomb-throwing tactic around, flinging it right back at the liberal. The bomb-throwing tactic is immature and unprofessional in the first place, and by responding to it in the above described manner, the audience immediately realizes the liberal is immature and unprofessional.

Counterattack to Raising the Volume:

 

The entire reason for liberals to use the raising volume tactic in the first place is to anger you and engage you in a shouting match. Liberals are used to shouting, yelling, and screaming, and responding in such a manner shifts the debate into one that is on their terms; this leads them to victory. It makes you look like a hothead who cannot handle pressure, and the audience starts to see you in a negative light.

 

It also makes the liberal look bad, but they try to counteract this by using the Populist Bomb, combined with this tactic. Therefore, they make it seem like they’re yelling, not because they’re immature, but because they’re “yelling for the people.” It is a very effective trap.

The response? First of all, do not lose your cool. Do not yell back, do not raise your voice, and remain calm and collected. Let them scream and yell. Secondly, “defuse” their Populist Bombs (see next counterattack), remaining calm and collected the whole time.

The result will be obvious: without the Populist Bomb to legitimize the liberal’s yelling and screaming, the audience will start to see the liberal as unprofessional and immature, and as a total hothead, similar to Howard Dean or Al Gore himself. The tactic is thus nullified, but if the liberal continues to use it, it will only make them look worse.

Counterattack to the Populist Bomb:

The Populist Bomb, while daunting at first (since it turns the audience effectively ‘against’ you), is easy to diffuse. First off, remain calm and cool, and do not get overly defensive. Defensiveness signals weakness, and makes the audience think that the liberal actually is right, which they are not.

The best response is to take the Populist Bomb, and make your own modification to it. You’re going to take the Populist Bomb and turn it into a Realistic Republican Populist Bomb of your own. How can you do this? Simple. You take the strengths of the liberal’s Populist Bomb, and you apply your realistic philosophy and knowledge upon it. This can best be illustrated in an example:

***

Liberal Populist Bomb: You Republicans do not care about Social Security, and you’re going to destroy it, at the expense of every senior citizen in America. You want to privatize it so that big business and the stock market can get more money, while playing games with the American people’s tax dollars, tying it into the market. You are messing with people’s retirements! We will not let you Republicans destroy people’s retirements!!!

Liberal Populist Bomb Finale: Quit robbing senior citizens and Americans of their social security money! Stop messing with people’s futures for the sake of your own benefit! We will not let you succeed!

Conservative Response: Every American citizen should have the best possible opportunity for a strong and stable retirement. The current Social Security system gives senior citizens money for retirement, but I ask you all: can their retirement funding be improved? The answer is a resounding yes: let people control their own social security money in a private account, which the government can never mess with; let people invest that money in the stock market if they CHOOSE to. This gives people an opportunity which they never could have had before: an opportunity to have much more money for retirement than what plain old basic Social Security gives them! Current Social Security only yields a 2% return on investment once a person retires; privatization could raise that amount exponentially!

Conservative Response Finale: It is your money, your retirement, and you should be able to do with it what you please- and when you’re done with it, pass it on to your heirs- something you cannot do under the current system!

***

Observe how you’re taking the strength (the benefits for senior citizens and Americans) straight out from the playbook of the liberal’s own Populist Bomb. You’re taking the same emotional and idealistic plea out of their statement, and putting it in your own. However, instead of going on the offensive and throwing around attacks (something liberals will often do in these bombs – remember their use of the “playing card deck”), you’re going to be positive. You’re going to present a realistic, strong case. A perfect Realistic Republican Populist Bomb. Heavy artillery!

Counterattack to the Liberal Army:

The first thing you probably ask to yourself when this comes up is “how am I supposed to outdebate ten people at once?!?” That is a good question, and there really is no good answer, unless you happen to be Ronald Reagan himself, who probably could have outdebated the entire Democratic Party back in his time. But for us common folk, there is a solution, albeit a simpler one:

Change the environment.

What does that mean? Well, you need to make sure you’re NOT outnumbered to begin with. When you engage in a debate, set the terms that it is one-on-one early; this negates the advantage of the “liberal army.” If liberals violate these rules, walk out and refuse to debate with them until they comply to your one-on-one request. If they refuse to, ask if you’re allowed to bring in more conservatives to back you up. If they challenge your strength and resolve, challenge their strength and resolve; after all, they already have the numbers advantage. If they’re so right, why do they need it? Ask them that. Challenge them.

Liberals have large egos and are provoked easily. When you challenge them and imply that they’re being cowardly by not debating you one-on-one, they will likely respond by accepting your challenge of a one-on-one. And if they don’t, well, they prove your point that they are being cowardly. It is simple.

You can even try to ask for a moderator to make sure your debate stays one-on-one, and that it remains under control. Moderation negates many liberal tactics, and gives you the edge, just like a one-on-one debate does.

---

Section 4: Conclusion, and Good Luck!

Taking all you’ve learned in the above sections into account, you are now well-armed to outdebate any liberal. You now understand their mindset, their tactics, and how to counter those tactics. However, there are a few final universals that you should remember, and they are listed below. Good luck in your debates, and prove to the world how wrong liberals truly are!

• Do not get angry, ever
• Remain calm, cool, collected, and relaxed
• Be professional
• Use facts, figures, and statistics, but never excessively
• Use a decent amount of emotion- show people you really do care
• Be realistic- always imply that you’re the more realistic one, because you are

Habitante de la calle da catedra de historia a turistas: toma del palaci...