RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
Renewable Energy Generation, a UK wind-energy company, lost almost $2M this year. The cause, they explained, "abnormally low wind speeds across the UK".
Politics and the US Economy
- Thread starter RightField
- Start date
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
*chuckle*
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
We need to send them more baked beans!
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
Obama's campaign to drive the cost of gas up so that poor people don't use so much of it is working. It just cost me $63.89 to fill up my tank and I wasn't even on empty...and I have a sedan, not an SUV.
You know that the reason for all this conservation is so that poor people will not use the precious gas that Obama needs to feed his jet and the jets of his friends like AlGore now and in the future. His philosophy is that all the poor people should just be good sheep and figure out a way to catch a bus to work so we don't have too much pressure on gas resources.
The part that I don't get is what AJ pointed out above, he prevents drilling in Alaska's tundra and prevents drilling off Florida and instead lets the Chinese, through the Cubans, tap into "our" vast reserves off Florida. Then, he goes to Brazil and makes happy with the Brazilians and lends them tons of money (more deficit) so they can drill for oil there. Then he decides to go to war with Libya to protect that source of oil. What sense does it make? Is it merely political decisions on his part? Did the rebels and the Brazilians promise him hidden political donations or large honorariums after he leaves the Presidency?
To be fair, I think the money lent to the Brazilians is probably a good thing because it will probably get paid back, but I hope that it's US private banks making the loans and not the US Government (why should our government continue to compete with our businesses even as they try to destroy our businesses?). But, the strange thing is, why is he facilitating Brazilian's efforts at oil extraction and keeping a moritorium on our companies doing in with our natural resources?
You know that the reason for all this conservation is so that poor people will not use the precious gas that Obama needs to feed his jet and the jets of his friends like AlGore now and in the future. His philosophy is that all the poor people should just be good sheep and figure out a way to catch a bus to work so we don't have too much pressure on gas resources.
The part that I don't get is what AJ pointed out above, he prevents drilling in Alaska's tundra and prevents drilling off Florida and instead lets the Chinese, through the Cubans, tap into "our" vast reserves off Florida. Then, he goes to Brazil and makes happy with the Brazilians and lends them tons of money (more deficit) so they can drill for oil there. Then he decides to go to war with Libya to protect that source of oil. What sense does it make? Is it merely political decisions on his part? Did the rebels and the Brazilians promise him hidden political donations or large honorariums after he leaves the Presidency?
To be fair, I think the money lent to the Brazilians is probably a good thing because it will probably get paid back, but I hope that it's US private banks making the loans and not the US Government (why should our government continue to compete with our businesses even as they try to destroy our businesses?). But, the strange thing is, why is he facilitating Brazilian's efforts at oil extraction and keeping a moritorium on our companies doing in with our natural resources?
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Yeah, if the effort is to save the planet, where we drill makes no sense at all...
Just NIMBY whining.
__________________
A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized.”
A_J, the Stupid
Just NIMBY whining.
__________________
A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized.”
A_J, the Stupid
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
School Choice = Good for Kids, Bad for Unions. Can't Politicians Do the Math?
By Dick Armey
March 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com
During my eighteen years in Congress, I only received one phone call from Air Force One. President Clinton called to tell me he would veto the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1998, a school choice measure I had worked on with Sen. Joe Lieberman. The president said he couldn’t turn his back on the National Education Association, the powerful teachers union, because it was standing by him during the lead-up to his impeachment.
Washington, D.C. schools are among the most violent and lowest-performing schools the country. Congress focused on the D.C. schools because of the severity of the problem and our oversight of the District’s operations. States and school districts across the country face a tough challenge in trying to improve performance on tighter budgets, and they can learn lessons from the nation’s capital. They need to do more with less, and school choice remains the best option in spite of union opposition.
While we were fighting for school choice in Washington, I also raised money to provide private scholarships for several dozen children. That hands-on experience showed me how much programs like this mean to children and their parents. In almost every case where we managed to secure a scholarship – none of which were full rides – the mother would take a second job to raise her share of the tuition. There was real sacrifice, and the kids were better off for it.
Congress eventually passed another school choice bill for D.C., which President Bush signed in 2004. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) created vouchers for D.C. students to apply toward private schools. The program was wildly popular and concerned parents finally had a way to get their children out of dangerous schools that were failing their kids.
However, during his first six months in office and under pressure from the NEA, President Obama moved to phase out the program. Never mind the students using vouchers had a 91-percent graduation rate compared to a 70-percent graduation rate among students who were denied vouchers. The unions don’t like school choice, so neither do Democrats.
Those of us who’ve actually been involved with children who have received the opportunity to go to the school of their parents’ choice have witnessed true transformation. When young people have a chance to break free from a bad school, the vast majority really take maximum advantage of the opportunity.
At a House subcommittee hearing on March 1, students and mothers of students testified in defense of the OSP. “This program has worked, is still working, and will continue to work,” Ronald Holassie, a high-school senior who received an OSP scholarship. “Now being a young adult, taking on my own responsibilities, I have certainly been greatly influenced by this program. I can look back and credit this program for my success.”
Sheila Jackson, a single mother whose daughter receives an OSP scholarship, credited the program with being “the difference between her having to attend schools that are not safe and are still underperforming to her now attending a school that meets her needs and where I know she is safe.”
There is unfortunate opposition from Republicans and conservatives, who say the government should not be involved in school choice initiatives, that we should leave it to the private sector. It’s true that organizations like the Children’s Scholarship Fund help thousands of kids escape schools that are failing them. However, while private money helps pay for private schooling, the failing public schools are still rewarded with taxpayers’ money. School choice creates incentives for public schools to improve that private charity simply does not create.
Speaker John Boehner has indicated the House GOP’s budget restores funding for the D.C. scholarship program. Pennsylvania lawmakers are making progress on a school choice bill. States like Wisconsin, which face serious challenges over education funding, are or should be exploring the option. It will likely bring protest and opposition from the unions that see school choice as a threat, but lawmakers must stand up to them.
The great hypocrisy of politicians who oppose school choice is that most claim allegiance to a party and philosophy that so often claims the moral high ground as defenders of the disadvantaged. Yet they callously oppose an opportunity to provide a better educational choice for children because they have a large constituency in unions. If education policy is truly about providing our children with the best opportunities possible, we ought to be enacting school choice everywhere we can.
By Dick Armey
March 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com
During my eighteen years in Congress, I only received one phone call from Air Force One. President Clinton called to tell me he would veto the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1998, a school choice measure I had worked on with Sen. Joe Lieberman. The president said he couldn’t turn his back on the National Education Association, the powerful teachers union, because it was standing by him during the lead-up to his impeachment.
Washington, D.C. schools are among the most violent and lowest-performing schools the country. Congress focused on the D.C. schools because of the severity of the problem and our oversight of the District’s operations. States and school districts across the country face a tough challenge in trying to improve performance on tighter budgets, and they can learn lessons from the nation’s capital. They need to do more with less, and school choice remains the best option in spite of union opposition.
While we were fighting for school choice in Washington, I also raised money to provide private scholarships for several dozen children. That hands-on experience showed me how much programs like this mean to children and their parents. In almost every case where we managed to secure a scholarship – none of which were full rides – the mother would take a second job to raise her share of the tuition. There was real sacrifice, and the kids were better off for it.
Congress eventually passed another school choice bill for D.C., which President Bush signed in 2004. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) created vouchers for D.C. students to apply toward private schools. The program was wildly popular and concerned parents finally had a way to get their children out of dangerous schools that were failing their kids.
However, during his first six months in office and under pressure from the NEA, President Obama moved to phase out the program. Never mind the students using vouchers had a 91-percent graduation rate compared to a 70-percent graduation rate among students who were denied vouchers. The unions don’t like school choice, so neither do Democrats.
Those of us who’ve actually been involved with children who have received the opportunity to go to the school of their parents’ choice have witnessed true transformation. When young people have a chance to break free from a bad school, the vast majority really take maximum advantage of the opportunity.
At a House subcommittee hearing on March 1, students and mothers of students testified in defense of the OSP. “This program has worked, is still working, and will continue to work,” Ronald Holassie, a high-school senior who received an OSP scholarship. “Now being a young adult, taking on my own responsibilities, I have certainly been greatly influenced by this program. I can look back and credit this program for my success.”
Sheila Jackson, a single mother whose daughter receives an OSP scholarship, credited the program with being “the difference between her having to attend schools that are not safe and are still underperforming to her now attending a school that meets her needs and where I know she is safe.”
There is unfortunate opposition from Republicans and conservatives, who say the government should not be involved in school choice initiatives, that we should leave it to the private sector. It’s true that organizations like the Children’s Scholarship Fund help thousands of kids escape schools that are failing them. However, while private money helps pay for private schooling, the failing public schools are still rewarded with taxpayers’ money. School choice creates incentives for public schools to improve that private charity simply does not create.
Speaker John Boehner has indicated the House GOP’s budget restores funding for the D.C. scholarship program. Pennsylvania lawmakers are making progress on a school choice bill. States like Wisconsin, which face serious challenges over education funding, are or should be exploring the option. It will likely bring protest and opposition from the unions that see school choice as a threat, but lawmakers must stand up to them.
The great hypocrisy of politicians who oppose school choice is that most claim allegiance to a party and philosophy that so often claims the moral high ground as defenders of the disadvantaged. Yet they callously oppose an opportunity to provide a better educational choice for children because they have a large constituency in unions. If education policy is truly about providing our children with the best opportunities possible, we ought to be enacting school choice everywhere we can.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Choice is best reserved for the murder of the helpless by the hapless.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
The irony of school choice is that most teacher have the best interests of the kids at heart and really don't care if they're in a traditional school organization or one that supports "choice". If fact, I'd bet that many would like the "choice" environment where parents take a more active role and enable better learning outcomes on the parts of the kids (and the teachers have an escalation path to a parent that cares).
It's the teacher's union management who are the ones pulling the strings in the anti-choice position.
It's the teacher's union management who are the ones pulling the strings in the anti-choice position.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
The Eyes of Texas Are Sparkling in the 2010 Census
By Michael Barone
The Census Bureau last week released county and city populations for the last of the 50 states from the 2010 Census last week, ahead of schedule. Behind the columns of numbers are many vivid stories of how our nation has been changing -- and some lessons for public policy, as well.
Geographically, our population is moving to the south and west, to the point that the center of the nation's population has moved to Texas County, Missouri.
That sounds like the familiar story of people moving from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, but that's not exactly what's happening. Instead, the fastest growth rates in the 2000-10 decade have been in Texas, the Rocky Mountain states and the South Atlantic states.
We're familiar with the phenomenon of people moving to the West Coast. But the three Pacific Coast states -- California, Oregon and Washington -- grew by 11 percent in the last decade, just 1 percent above the national average, while the South Atlantic states from Virginia through the Carolinas and Georgia to Florida grew by 17 percent.
In 2000, the South Atlantic states had 121,000 more people than the Pacific Coast states. In 2010 they had 2.8 million more.
What's been happening is that people from the Northeast and the Midwest have been flocking to the South Atlantic states, not to retirement communities but to Tampa and Jacksonville, Atlanta and Charlotte and Raleigh, which are among the nation's fastest-growing metro areas. The South Atlantic has been attracting smaller numbers of immigrants, as well.
Coastal California, in contrast, has had a vast inflow of immigrants and a similarly vast outflow of Americans. High housing costs, exacerbated by no-growth policies and environmental restrictions, have made modest homes unaffordable to middle class families who don't want to live in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods or commute 50 miles to work.
California for the first time in its history grew only microscopically faster than the nation as a whole (10 percent to 9.7 percent). Metro Los Angeles and San Francisco increasingly resemble Mexico City and Sao Paulo, with a large affluent upper class, a vast proletariat and a huge income gap in between.
Public policy plays an important role here -- one that's especially relevant as state governments seek to cut spending and reduce the power of the public employee unions that seek to raise spending and prevent accountability.
The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California's.
The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.
Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.
But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they've grown accustomed.
Slow growth is nice if you've got a good-sized trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don't start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.
The most rapid growth in 2000-10, 21 percent, was in the Rocky Mountain states and in Texas. The Rocky Mountain states tend to have low taxes, weak unions and light regulation. Texas has no state income tax, no public employee union bargaining and light regulation.
Texas' economy has diversified far beyond petroleum, with booming high-tech centers, major corporate headquarters and thriving small businesses. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans and immigrants, high-skill as well as low-skill. Its wide open spaces made for low housing costs, which protected it against the housing bubble and bust that has slowed growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The states, said Justice Brandeis, are laboratories of reform. The 2010 Census tells us whose experiment worked best. It's the state with the same name as the county that's the center of the nation's population: Texas.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
By Michael Barone
The Census Bureau last week released county and city populations for the last of the 50 states from the 2010 Census last week, ahead of schedule. Behind the columns of numbers are many vivid stories of how our nation has been changing -- and some lessons for public policy, as well.
Geographically, our population is moving to the south and west, to the point that the center of the nation's population has moved to Texas County, Missouri.
That sounds like the familiar story of people moving from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, but that's not exactly what's happening. Instead, the fastest growth rates in the 2000-10 decade have been in Texas, the Rocky Mountain states and the South Atlantic states.
We're familiar with the phenomenon of people moving to the West Coast. But the three Pacific Coast states -- California, Oregon and Washington -- grew by 11 percent in the last decade, just 1 percent above the national average, while the South Atlantic states from Virginia through the Carolinas and Georgia to Florida grew by 17 percent.
In 2000, the South Atlantic states had 121,000 more people than the Pacific Coast states. In 2010 they had 2.8 million more.
What's been happening is that people from the Northeast and the Midwest have been flocking to the South Atlantic states, not to retirement communities but to Tampa and Jacksonville, Atlanta and Charlotte and Raleigh, which are among the nation's fastest-growing metro areas. The South Atlantic has been attracting smaller numbers of immigrants, as well.
Coastal California, in contrast, has had a vast inflow of immigrants and a similarly vast outflow of Americans. High housing costs, exacerbated by no-growth policies and environmental restrictions, have made modest homes unaffordable to middle class families who don't want to live in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods or commute 50 miles to work.
California for the first time in its history grew only microscopically faster than the nation as a whole (10 percent to 9.7 percent). Metro Los Angeles and San Francisco increasingly resemble Mexico City and Sao Paulo, with a large affluent upper class, a vast proletariat and a huge income gap in between.
Public policy plays an important role here -- one that's especially relevant as state governments seek to cut spending and reduce the power of the public employee unions that seek to raise spending and prevent accountability.
The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California's.
The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.
Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.
But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they've grown accustomed.
Slow growth is nice if you've got a good-sized trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don't start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.
The most rapid growth in 2000-10, 21 percent, was in the Rocky Mountain states and in Texas. The Rocky Mountain states tend to have low taxes, weak unions and light regulation. Texas has no state income tax, no public employee union bargaining and light regulation.
Texas' economy has diversified far beyond petroleum, with booming high-tech centers, major corporate headquarters and thriving small businesses. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans and immigrants, high-skill as well as low-skill. Its wide open spaces made for low housing costs, which protected it against the housing bubble and bust that has slowed growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The states, said Justice Brandeis, are laboratories of reform. The 2010 Census tells us whose experiment worked best. It's the state with the same name as the county that's the center of the nation's population: Texas.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
All very predictable.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
We've become East Germany.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
Someone wrote the other day....
If what's going on in Libya is considered kinetic military action then
Jihad = Kinetic Islam.
If what's going on in Libya is considered kinetic military action then
Jihad = Kinetic Islam.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
*chuckle*
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
Lets say for a minute (no more than that) that LT, Luke, UD and the others of similar ilk are correct, that all our problems can be fixed by taxing the rich and if we do that, no one else will have to pay a penny and our economy will bloom like a flower in the desert after the first spring rain.
We've said that there isn't anywhere near enough money in the hands of the rich to pay for the many demands these guys make (more entitlements, Obamacare, greater public sector retirement benefits - or keep them the same anyway). When we make those points, we're usually met with blather and ad hominum attacks, you know, you've all seen it hundreds of times.
Here's an amusing video that deals with a large part of this discussion we've had. It's counter-argument to their point done by couple "down-to-earth" midwesterners and is called "Lets eat the rich" with the basic premise to take all the money that the rich have in order to sate the democrat demands for more manna.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/31/bill_whittle_on_eating_the_rich.html
The bottom line is that we're all going to have to pay a significant amount to repay all this debt that the democrats are spending and visciously defending in congress right at this minute. Prepare your wallets!
We've said that there isn't anywhere near enough money in the hands of the rich to pay for the many demands these guys make (more entitlements, Obamacare, greater public sector retirement benefits - or keep them the same anyway). When we make those points, we're usually met with blather and ad hominum attacks, you know, you've all seen it hundreds of times.
Here's an amusing video that deals with a large part of this discussion we've had. It's counter-argument to their point done by couple "down-to-earth" midwesterners and is called "Lets eat the rich" with the basic premise to take all the money that the rich have in order to sate the democrat demands for more manna.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/31/bill_whittle_on_eating_the_rich.html
The bottom line is that we're all going to have to pay a significant amount to repay all this debt that the democrats are spending and visciously defending in congress right at this minute. Prepare your wallets!
Last edited:
M
miles
Guest
Great video, but there's one big problem: he's presenting facts. We all know what that means.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
Great video, but there's one big problem: he's presenting facts. We all know what that means.
Does it mean that democrats won't understand it?
U
unregistered
Guest
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
It's only true when Michael Moore films it...
M
miles
Guest
They'll say it's a lie, and attack you as if you made it.
Facts are always lies!
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
RIGHTFIELD
The ignored paradox in the national livingroom is this: The wealthy fill Congress and the White House. Aint no cashiers or grease monkeys or maids in the guvmint.
The struggle for both political parties is: Spending cuts hurt the rich more than anyone, so whatever spending cuts we get wont amount to much.
The ignored paradox in the national livingroom is this: The wealthy fill Congress and the White House. Aint no cashiers or grease monkeys or maids in the guvmint.
The struggle for both political parties is: Spending cuts hurt the rich more than anyone, so whatever spending cuts we get wont amount to much.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,361
From Yuval Levin in National Affairs today:
"Nearly all of the dozens of small and large programs that compose our welfare state have come to exhibit similar problems: out-of-control costs, mediocre results, harmful unintended consequences, and by now a growing sense of inadequacy and exhaustion. This combination of problems is hardly a coincidence; it runs to the heart of the social-democratic project. The three key arguments in favor of this vision of the welfare state — its rationality and efficiency, its morality and capacity for unifying society, and its economic benefits — all turn out in reality to be among its foremost failings."
This strikes at the heart of what troubles us. Lets vote out the crazy liberals and their unworkable utopian dream and get back to our Constitution.
"Nearly all of the dozens of small and large programs that compose our welfare state have come to exhibit similar problems: out-of-control costs, mediocre results, harmful unintended consequences, and by now a growing sense of inadequacy and exhaustion. This combination of problems is hardly a coincidence; it runs to the heart of the social-democratic project. The three key arguments in favor of this vision of the welfare state — its rationality and efficiency, its morality and capacity for unifying society, and its economic benefits — all turn out in reality to be among its foremost failings."
This strikes at the heart of what troubles us. Lets vote out the crazy liberals and their unworkable utopian dream and get back to our Constitution.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it cannot be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises
Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Ahhh gentlemen, you seem to have missed the point entirely.
Socialist enterprises cannot be measured by such mundane tools as efficiency or degree of outcome, or even be criticized for the unintended consequences no matter how devastating those consequences may be. No gentlemen, the only acceptable metric that can be applied to socialist endeavors undertaken with the public's treasury is 'goodness of intent.' As long as they mean well, all must be forgiven and all must be supported.
Ishmael
Socialist enterprises cannot be measured by such mundane tools as efficiency or degree of outcome, or even be criticized for the unintended consequences no matter how devastating those consequences may be. No gentlemen, the only acceptable metric that can be applied to socialist endeavors undertaken with the public's treasury is 'goodness of intent.' As long as they mean well, all must be forgiven and all must be supported.
Ishmael
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
I have always maintained that they are wrapped up in the very best of intentions and fueled by the altruistic zeal that launched the crusades against the Musselmen...
__________________
A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”
__________________
A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”
