This is one of the funniest lines I've ever read (funny like "REALLY?!" funny, no "funny ha ha), and to think the authors may have actually meant it:
Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html
This is the sort of delusional thinking that results from a belief that government is an effective tool to "get things done." This is the backwash of being one who believes that government can lead economies, and put just the right leverage on just the right point to "get the economy back on track." Better to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which, at least we know as part of that concept, is not real.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget.
Another laugher. Did these people study logic at all, ever? But of course, if you want to sustain an illusion, you must find compelling narratives to help yourself believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Bill and the GOP agreed on something, and then that caused things to go well, it caused the economy to boom, it caused therefore in increase in government revenues, and therefore - Bill and his agreement "caused" the "surplus."
Well, totally aside from the question of whether it may possibly not be an abominable abuse of power to ever have a government surplus, and totally aside from whether the "surplus" was real or an accounting gimic and a no-lose political talking point - by what rational basis could one assess causality? Out of the gozillion moving parts of an international economy, the best that could be said is that, as economic growth occurred while a man named Bill was President, he didn't do anything to fully interfere with said growth.
Mrs. Clinton does not show the slightest inclination towards bipartisanism, nor would it necessarily be good if she did. Both concepts - that she could provide leadership appealing to both major parties, and that such leadership would produce good outcomes - are absurd.
The entire structure of the current political system is based a result of an unrelenting, winner take all pursuit of power. The players of this game will say whatever it takes in order to win and retain office. It could be no other way. Those few purists who really want to have power to make things better are eliminated when they refuse to subject their principles to the over-riding imperative of the political wind.
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Matrix
These authors - they need to take the red pill.
Our political future has nothing to do with who the next president is and it does not depend upon "bipartisanship" (it is more likely that gridlock will help than bipartisanship - with gridlock, they can't accelerate the pace at which things grow worse). It is dependent upon whether some process restores the federal government to its rightful size and scope, whilst we are relieved of the burden of believing that our fate is in the hands of politicans.
No, I don't know how that can happen, aside from the obvious which is that it would only happen if politicians believe they must re-restrain the federal government or lose their jobs and influence. Yes, I'm essentially asking for a political red pill, have you seen any?
Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html
This is the sort of delusional thinking that results from a belief that government is an effective tool to "get things done." This is the backwash of being one who believes that government can lead economies, and put just the right leverage on just the right point to "get the economy back on track." Better to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which, at least we know as part of that concept, is not real.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget.
Another laugher. Did these people study logic at all, ever? But of course, if you want to sustain an illusion, you must find compelling narratives to help yourself believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Bill and the GOP agreed on something, and then that caused things to go well, it caused the economy to boom, it caused therefore in increase in government revenues, and therefore - Bill and his agreement "caused" the "surplus."
Well, totally aside from the question of whether it may possibly not be an abominable abuse of power to ever have a government surplus, and totally aside from whether the "surplus" was real or an accounting gimic and a no-lose political talking point - by what rational basis could one assess causality? Out of the gozillion moving parts of an international economy, the best that could be said is that, as economic growth occurred while a man named Bill was President, he didn't do anything to fully interfere with said growth.
Mrs. Clinton does not show the slightest inclination towards bipartisanism, nor would it necessarily be good if she did. Both concepts - that she could provide leadership appealing to both major parties, and that such leadership would produce good outcomes - are absurd.
The entire structure of the current political system is based a result of an unrelenting, winner take all pursuit of power. The players of this game will say whatever it takes in order to win and retain office. It could be no other way. Those few purists who really want to have power to make things better are eliminated when they refuse to subject their principles to the over-riding imperative of the political wind.
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Matrix
These authors - they need to take the red pill.
Our political future has nothing to do with who the next president is and it does not depend upon "bipartisanship" (it is more likely that gridlock will help than bipartisanship - with gridlock, they can't accelerate the pace at which things grow worse). It is dependent upon whether some process restores the federal government to its rightful size and scope, whilst we are relieved of the burden of believing that our fate is in the hands of politicans.
No, I don't know how that can happen, aside from the obvious which is that it would only happen if politicians believe they must re-restrain the federal government or lose their jobs and influence. Yes, I'm essentially asking for a political red pill, have you seen any?
No comments:
Post a Comment