gdp's Comments

A Return to Common Sense : WARREN BUFFETT TAX PLAN: HYPOCRISY AND DUPLICITY ON DISPLAY YET AGAIN

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:20:03 +0000

Excellent comment JohnG... couldn't have said it any better myself!

A Return to Common Sense : OBAMA, TAXES & THE FISCAL CLIFF: HE IS NO BILL CLINTON!

Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:30:41 +0000

You're so right Ted. It's also an indication that emerging reports that a major schism has occurred between Bill and Obama are true. Details are emerging and we plan to cover it tomorrow... stay tuned!

A Return to Common Sense : Obamanomics: The Economic Truth Behind the Obama Keynesian Mythos

Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:25:29 +0000

Willis, please lay off your jug of fermented Kool-aid. First, Reagan inherited a good economy? Really? When it comes to the Carter administration, you take “white-wash” to a whole new level. Our economy was in a horrific state of stagflation and it was Reagan’s supply-side economics that completely turned it around. Stop reading liberal blogs that peddle Keynesian fallacies with no logical or historical facts to back up their claims – the economic data don’t lie. You also conveniently forget to mention the eight years of Clinton (post-Reagan). It was during this period that the seeds of our recession were sown – the housing bubble. Malinvestment – not supply-side economics – was responsible for the recession, which, by the way, ended three and half years ago (though you would hardly know that thanks to Obama).

Second, if demand creates jobs (and deficit spending creates demand), then Obama would have delivered on the low unemployment and stimulated economic growth he promised us. Alas, it doesn’t and he hasn’t. Furthermore, we don’t have a liquidity problem (there is plenty of money sitting on the sidelines) – we have a confidence problem predicated on tax, regulatory and healthcare policy… combined with our debt problem.

Third, you completely contradict yourself. If demand creates jobs, then tax reductions (regardless of who they are for) will logically and necessarily stimulate job creation – duh. Even John Maynard Keynes understood that. Classical Keynesianism (not the insanity peddled by Krugman that symbolizes “modern” Keynesianism) posits that you lower taxes and increase deficit spending to prime the pump and escape a recession – the exact opposite of your (and Obama’s) approach to tax policy. Government spending is ALWAYS less efficient than private sector spending… so why give them more private sector money to waste through taxation?

Fourth, for the love of God, please stop whining about what Obama inherited. The issue is not where he started (which we all agree was not a happy place), but, rather, where he (and we) are four years later. What has his Keynesian policies and confiscation of wealth produced? Answer: nothing (except soaring deficits, socioeconomic strife and economic stagnation – the inflation comes later thanks to Uncle Ben).

Finally, regarding your other comment (submitted later), we moderate comments not to censor legitimate comments but, rather, to eliminate pointless submissions that contain only profanity, ad hominem attacks and baseless rants – which we do get our fair share of (surprise!). As you can see, if you even make an attempt at a logical point (no matter how poor that attempt is or how much we disagree with it), then we typically post it – as demonstrated by your comment. We make no apologies for our comment moderation policy and feel it best promotes a useful public discourse for all sides and all opinions. If you don't like it, then you can always take your comments elsewhere -- that's the beauty of the free market system.

A Return to Common Sense : FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION TARGETS FOOTBALL COACH OVER CHURCH FEEDING HIS PLAYERS

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:05:02 +0000

Of course LRWC. That's the liberal mantra: Anything goes so long as we agree with it! They want the government to infiltrate every area of our lives (except of course the bedroom) so they can foist their free-thinking "religion" on everybody else. Forget about liberty... it's all about worshiping nature and humanity. It is ironic that a group calling itself "Freedom From Religion" is actually engaged in a crusade to replace one religion (which it does not like) with another religion (that it does like). They don't want freedom from religion... just freedom from religions they disagree with. So much for free thinking:)

A Return to Common Sense : Freedom from Religion Foundation Strikes Again Over City of Steubenville Logo

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:56:48 +0000

That's awesome! Great response and one that communities should consider repeating everywhere this type of religious bigotry and bullying occurs.

A Return to Common Sense : FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION TARGETS FOOTBALL COACH OVER CHURCH FEEDING HIS PLAYERS

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:45:00 +0000

I'm slightly amused at your thesis (viz., God and government don't mix) which ignores the entire history of our exceptional nation... including the reason behind the First Amendment. You have a very naive understanding of humanity. Religion will never die because we were designed by God to worship something. The object of our worship may change... but human beings will always worship something -- it is an inescapable condition of our human nature. America is a republic -- not a theocracy. However, that in no way means that religion is not at the heart of our political system -- on both sides of the aisle. Again, what each citizen worships may vary... but at the end of the day each and every one of us worships something or someone. Good luck trying to separate individuals from the spiritual vacuum inherent in each of us. The true danger comes in replacing the one true God with a counterfeit idol -- the disastrous results of which we have continuously witnessed since the Fall. Even Satan understands that he cannot eliminate the vacuum and seeks instead to replace God in the hearts of people with himself or another false object of worship. Ask yourself if atheists have really escaped "religion." No, they practice a faith just as strongly as any Christian, Jew or Muslim -- it is just a different variation of religion with a different object of worship. We are all "religious" and our personal religion shapes our values, virtues and actions -- including our understanding of government and its role. If God created the institution of government, then how exactly do you suggest the two do not mix?

A Return to Common Sense : FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION TARGETS FOOTBALL COACH OVER CHURCH FEEDING HIS PLAYERS

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:24:05 +0000

Give me a break M Bender. I could respond to the first half of your disingenuous question but I'll focus on the second. I call anybody who uses the threat of high-cost litigation to bully others (who can't cover the costs) into submitting to their will "litigation terrorists." Get a clue... a bully is a bully is a bully. We can argue the merits of the "wall between church and state" argument; however, there is no intellectually honesty in denying the unethical tactics this group employs to get its way. If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be arguing the exact opposite. That demonstrates you are not a defender of truth, justice and the Constitution... just your theological beliefs. Stop cloaking your true motivations beneath the veil of a "constitutional watchdog" and come out of your "religious bigot" closet.

A Return to Common Sense : Bob Beckel Bashes Chick Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy Over His Pro-Family Christian Faith!

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:19:12 +0000

Magster... I'm going to assume you're using IE (which does crazy things when displaying webpages). We don't have any "moving" advertisements and nobody else we've talked to or heard from seems to have any problems with this (or any other) page displaying properly. My suggestion for a remedy would be to try a better browser (e.g., Firefox, Chrome, etc.).

A Return to Common Sense : BENGHAZI – EMERGING DETAILS INDICATE GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:41:15 +0000

We completely agree Linda. Sadly, Obama once again was more concerned about offending Muslims than saving our people. He did nothing because he feared acting without the approval of the Libyan government. Though unbelievably despicable, it is entirely consistent with his multinational "lead from behind" anti-colonial ideology... and it cost us American lives. He doesn't care about the details (or the faces)... he only cares about maintaining the power to continue his transformation of our nation in according with the dreams of his father.

A Return to Common Sense : OBAMA INSULTS AMERICA, CALLS BENGHAZI TRAGEDY “NOT OPTIMAL”

Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:27:09 +0000

Pat Smith, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, has responded to Obama's statement on The Daily Show: "It's insensitive to say my son is not very optimal -- he is also very dead. I've not been 'optimal' since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell."

A Return to Common Sense : PRESIDENT OBAMA & THE ECONOMY: ARE AMERICANS STUPID?

Wed, 3 Oct 2012 03:00:42 +0000

This is a classic Left-wing response to inconvenient facts – call it “misinformation.” I’m sorry, which of the economic indicators that were released during the week and were noted in this article were false? As is typically the case, you failed to provide that information or any counter-facts to rebut them. You can’t argue with the economic facts… you can only employ logical fallacies to confuse and mislead the folks. Did the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis just revise second quarter GDP growth down to 1.3 percent from an anemic 1.7 percent? Has the manufacturing sector contracted for the third straight month? Is the PMI at its lowest level since July 2009 – the same month the recession officially ended? Yes or No? Just today, a CNN Money survey of top economists was released that found they now favor the Romney/Ryan pro-growth economic plan over the Keynesian model of Obama by a 3-to-1 margin – quite a change from the 10-to-1 margin in favor of Obama in 2009. Are you proposing that these economists – the very ones Obama repeatedly touted when they agreed with him – are now wrong or suddenly mistaken? There is a complete disconnect between a large portion of the public and basic economics. Our article merely asked the question: Why? You can disagree with our conclusions regarding the nature and causes of the disconnect but you cannot dismiss the disconnect itself and maintain any shred of intellectual honesty. However, we can agree on one thing: as we pointed out in our article, we absolutely encourage our readers to research the points themselves… that’s why we provided links for them. As for you, my advice would be to put down the Kool-Aid and pick up a good text on basic economics.

A Return to Common Sense : RON PAUL LEGACY: WHERE DOES THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE?

Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:50:18 +0000

Steve, clearly you are a purist. There's nothing wrong with that but you have to understand two things: (1) Not everybody else is and (2) it is not an effective way to govern a society. Compromising with others in order to put yourself in a better position down the road is not selling-out... it is called strategic thinking. While we respect your convictions, there are 300 million other Americans who hold different convictions -- views that span a very wide spectrum. You can not simply run a country based on your unique views while ignoring those of others. That's called a dictatorship -- not a democratic republic. Our founding fathers (who's views you claim to represent and defend) intended for our form of government to function by compromise. The entire story of the Revolution and the creation of our very Constitution were ones of compromise. Do you really think all the constitutional delegates got exactly what they wanted? Of course not. In fact, none of them got everything they wanted and yet, together, they (and we) got something better. By your definition they were all sell-outs to their convictions and principles. To me they were brilliant, effective leaders and true patriots. Rand Paul has not abandoned his principles nor sold-out... he has lived to fight for his convictions and principles another day... and to be able to do so from a position of greater strength. That's why the liberty movement has been utterly ineffective in affecting actual concrete change. It has seen every little battle as a must-win proposition rather than looking at the big picture and understanding its all about winning the war -- not a single battle. Washington lost many battles (some intentionally) in order to win the overarching war by a strategy of attrition. That was not counter-productive -- it was brilliant and effective. You cannot win a war in a democratic republic without working and compromising with others and realizing that you can't (nor have to) win every battle. What does it profit your convictions to win a single battle if in doing so you lose the greater war for liberty? Think about it. The country needs purists like you to frame and influence the debate. It is a critical and patriotic role. However, it takes patriotic realists to govern and affect change. This is why the liberty movement has been a tremendous success at awakening the sheeple and pointing them in the right direction... but an utter failure at translating that spirit and momentum into actual political and policy victories. We need both and your failure to recognize and respect this truth hurts the larger cause of liberty we are ALL fighting for.

A Return to Common Sense : RON PAUL LEGACY: WHERE DOES THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE?

Sat, 1 Sep 2012 00:28:04 +0000

Stan, I am by NO means implying that anyone is a traitor. I am simply exploring the options that are available on the table to those in the Liberty movement. Based on what you "have seen and know" about Obama, how would you characterize him? Because THAT is the question. I would argue that he represents the single greatest threat to every liberty our founding fathers established for us -- far greater than Romney or Ryan. We live in the real world and must choose between the real and imperfect choices we actually have available. They might not be the choices we would like... but they are the ones we have. Wishing for other options won't make them magically materialize before our eyes. So, the choice is (1) vote for Romney/Ryan, (2) vote for Gary Johnson/Obama or (3) stay home and help Obama. If putting the best interest of our nation is important, it appears to me that option one is the best choice of the three. It may not be the choice you want or the one you would prefer in a perfect world... but it is the best choice of the options you actually have available. That's the dilemma and that's the question I was asking: What choice will members of the Liberty movement make? There is no right or wrong decision... it is subjective and personal, and by no means a litmus test for true patriotism. But that doesn't make the question any less reasonable or significant.

A Return to Common Sense : RON PAUL LEGACY: WHERE DOES THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE?

Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:24:13 +0000

First, I was not insulting Paul supporters. You are free to use your own critical thinking skills and vote for the candidate you believe is best for you. I was merely presenting the logical dilemma they face and analyzing the possible choices and outcomes. No spin and hardly absurd. In case you didn't notice, that's what we do here! As we pointed out, many of your fellow Liberty brothers and sisters have expressed that they will return (did they ever really leave?) to the GOP Party and support the ticket. That is the fact. Are those ardent and faithful supporters of Ron Paul being absurd and offensive? Has half the Paul army sold-out the revolution? We would say no... they're simply using their brain and fighting smarter. It's one thing to insult me, the Tea Party, the GOP, the "establishment"... I get it. But to insult your own faithful brothers and sisters in arms and stab them in the back doesn't seem very libertarian or tolerant to me??? Second, there is nobody on the face of this earth who knows, loves and respects Ron Paul better or more than his own son - Rand Paul. Is he a sell-out for supporting his Party (and the Party of his father) and the Romney/Ryan ticket? Did he sell his father out? If you believe he did, then you don't know the Paul's as well as you claim. If you believe that he didn't sell his father out... then neither does any other American (whether they are Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, conservative, moderate, establishment, etc.) who makes the same choice. Third, yes, Gary Johnson is running for president. He has absolutely no chance to win (both because he is running third-party and because he is a weak candidate) and the reality (whether you wish to acknowledge and accept it or not) is that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama -- the very antithesis of the Liberty movement and its principles. But if that is the choice you feel is best for you and (most importantly) for our country, then, though I wholeheartedly disagree, I respect your right and liberty to vote accordingly. By all means, go pull that level and punch your ballet. However, I would note that voting for Johnson simply because he is "libertarian" rather than "GOP" is precisely what you seem to be criticizing others for -- a party-line vote? You are merely exchanging one political machine or "establishment" for another. Finally, I never told you who to vote for, criticized your logic or reasoning, or presumed to know how or why you support the candidate you do. So, why do you presume to know why Tea Party folks (which you are not) are voting for their chosen candidate? Just a tad presumptuous if you ask me. Why criticize those who share much -- though not all -- of your views simply because they understand how to effectively achieve their goals? You are about ideological purity (no different than Obama). However, the Tea Party is about practical solutions that restore America to greatness and impact the lives of Americans. There is a BIG difference -- one which you have failed to account for in your reasoning. It is one of rhetoric verses results. Americans are tired of rhetoric and hungry for results. If you prefer rhetoric, then vote for Johnson and elect Barack Obama to another term and four more years of rhetoric and socialist transformation. Will American Liberty be better or worse off for your decision? What would our founding fathers of liberty say about that choice? Liberty4all, Peace2all, Live Free is a nice tagline but words mean nothing if your actions don't back them up. Telling others that they are a sell-out because they respectfully disagree with your views and vote their conscience is not "liberty for all" nor "living free." Rather, it has more in common with the psuedo-liberty offered up and peddled to the masses by the "enlightened" modern liberal thinkers than with the liberty message of our founding fathers. You would be wise to remember that our founding fathers were not idealists or purists... they were realists who sought consensus and practical solutions. Had they been otherwise, our liberty may very well have still been conceived... but it would never have been delivered. Ours is not a history based on ideological purity. Rather, American history is one giant story of compromise predicated on practical consensus -- without which true liberty cannot exist..

A Return to Common Sense : AMERICAN ATHEISTS INC TO TAKE DOWN BILLBOARDS IN WAKE OF OUTRAGE!

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:44:39 +0000

This is the classic two wrongs make a right argument. Yes, there are a few Christians who engage in threats (though none have been verified in this case). However, most of those limited cases are from individuals who are not actually Christian. Regardless, there are also atheists who engage in hate speech. They are both equally wrong and neither should be defended or justified. Stop trying to justify wrong actions by pointing the finger at others. Because there are people who commit crimes does not justify others from doing the same. Bad argument based on flawed logic. Furthermore, I would point out that the problem here is not with Christians who object to contrary views. I have no problem with atheists promoting their faith as openly as they want. I relish the debate. No, the problem is atheists who feel it is appropriate to engage in hate speech for the purpose of attempting to insult and demean the views of others. In this case, it is the atheists who are intolerant of the views, beliefs and values of others. If you wish to deny God and live a godless life... by all means go ahead -- you will get no objection from me. However, if you want to be intolerant of my faith (simply because it is "contrary to your own"), then I'm going to respond. Get over it and quit whining. I never thought I'd find a group of individuals that is more hypocritical or whines more than the GLBT activist community but I stand corrected... the radical atheist community is by far a biggest group of spoiled babies in America today. Please show some self-confidence in your own views and stop worrying about everybody else!

A Return to Common Sense : Freedom from Religion Foundation Strikes Again Over City of Steubenville Logo

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:54:13 +0000

Thanks for the comment Cory and I couldn't agree more. To argue that you are sincerely offended by small cross on a city logo (one that is an actual historic part of the community -- not symbolic) is absurd. Some people (e.g., the Freedom from Religion Foundation) just need to grow up and get over it. There are plenty of legitimate things to get offended and upset over in life... this isn't one of them. It is hard to claim you are extolling the virtues of humanism and so-called enlightened thinking, such as tolerance, when you are engaging in intolerance and bullying.

A Return to Common Sense : Minorities Flock to Homeschooling, Rejecting Failed Liberal State-Controlled Education Model!

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:47:24 +0000

Thanks for your feedback Jim! We can only hope that Obama has awoken the sleeping giant (the American people) and that they are beginning to recognize the fallacies they've been sold under the banner of liberalism and so-called progress. Like you said, the growing movement towards home schooling -- to the dismay of liberals who still believe (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that their failed public education model (largely founded on the humanistic worldview of Horace Mann) is a triumphant success -- is a definite step in the right direction... one that should give us hope that all is not lost and that we can restore America to her first principles and greatness. It has taken generations to get us into this sad state of affairs and it will take generations to get us out of it... which is why the education of our youth (especially home schooling) is so important. The family unit is God's foundational institution and all change (good or bad) will always begin and end there.

A Return to Common Sense : Elizabeth Warren Gets Prime Time Speaking Slot at Democratic National Convention

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:00:35 +0000

This is why I asked for your sources... First off, I didn't feel stupid until I spent 9 minutes of my life that I will never get back listening to Rachel Maddow. I think I lost more brain cells than a college freshman on an all-weekend alcohol binge. You complain about Fox News and then use Rachel Maddow and MSNBC as your "source"??? You should feel stupid my misguided liberal hack. And Frank Phillips is as liberal a print journalist as it gets... using his story from the Boston Globe (a bastion of liberal journalism) to defend your position is mighty weak. I would add that the Globe has aggressively defended Warren (including deleting articles from their website archives that were unkind to her and replacing them with pro-Warren articles – same url) and targeted Brown. They have practically endorsed her. The Boston Globe is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party... owned by the New York Times. Renee Loth, former editorial page editor, characterized the Globe as follows: "The Globe has a long and proud tradition of being a progressive institution, especially on social issues. We are pro-choice; we're against the death penalty; we're for gay rights." Are you confused as to why they would defend the self-described godmother of OWS??? Maybe you should do your homework. Besides, even if I granted you the 1/32 Native American claim... this is not what affirmative action was intended to deal with. I don't care who was elected to a political position within a tribal government -- which involves more inside politics than a presidential race. By the same logic, Obama is whiter than Warren is Native American. And though he hasn’t released his college or financial aid records, I don’t think he got where he is by claiming he was white? She advanced her career based on an absurd ethnic claim rather than on her abilities and performance. She gamed the system just like all hypocrite elitist liberals do. That's pathetic no matter how you spin it. Second, and even more indicative of your lack of critical thinking, your "source" for Romney was a speech in which he was mocking Obama for saying "You didn't build that." Really? He was sarcastically quoting Obama -- not stating in agreement that he didn't believe small business owners personally built their business by their own blood, sweat and tears. I can see why you said we're done... you've got nothing. Try watching something other than MSNBC once in a while:)

A Return to Common Sense : ROMNEY TAX RETURNS -- OBAMA OFFERS BOGUS TRANSPARENCY DEAL!

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:34:03 +0000

lol... sad but true!

A Return to Common Sense : Elizabeth Warren Gets Prime Time Speaking Slot at Democratic National Convention

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:07:33 +0000

First, we accuse her of being a hypocrite. We LOVE capitalism... not socialists who use capitalism and then rail against it.

Second, nobody but Warren knows how much (if any) Native American she is... she won't release her records (sort of like Obama). What is known is that she used ethnicity rather than her abilities to advance her career... not something most Americans (except those on the radical left) would pride themselves in.

Third, our point was that Obama borrowed the phrase from a socialist... yet denies he promotes a socialist ideology. Not only does he "borrow" from her but he warmly embraces her ideology (including a prime speaking slot despite her campaign problems).

Fourth, you throw out a lot of supposed "facts" with no source to back them up (like she is 1/32nd Cherokee?)... please provide a link to back up your claim that Romney made a similar statement during a speech (i.e., "you didn't build that")

Finally, if you couldn't figure out the point of this article then you need to work on your critical thinking skills... oh, that's right, liberals don't have critical thinking skills... they only have ideologies! And yes... we ARE frightened that Obama might actually win on his platform of lies, division and class warfare -- something that should scare every real American. Are you not equally frightened of a Romney/Ryan victory my friend? We've never denied this will be a very close race and if you are suggesting something different... you are more delusional than I thought. Keep drinking that Koolaid and spewing that progressive propaganda my friend:)