SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (752416)11/12/2013 8:16:56 AM
From: Brumar895 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
longnshort
mel221
Tenchusatsu
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1577046
 



To: tejek who wrote (752416)11/12/2013 9:00:08 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577046
 
... President Obama’s declaration that ‘you can keep your doctor’ and that you ‘can keep your health plan’ is a perfect example of “2+2=5?. The National Journal makes the mistake of thinking that Obama’s lie is unimportant because all it harms is his credibility. “On history’s scale of deception, this one leaves a light footprint. Worse lies have been told by worse presidents, leading to more severe consequences, and you could argue that withholding a caveat is more a sin of omission. But this president is toying with a fragile commodity: his credibility. Once Americans stop believing in Obama, they will stop listening to him. They won’t trust government to manage health care. And they will wonder what happened to the reform-minded leader who promised never to lie to them.”

But they are wrong. The important thing about Obama’s “2+2=5? is not that it is a lie, but that it is a lie uttered in your face. It is a declaration of something, with as “light a footprint” as the Jolly Roger fluttering in the breeze. The New York Times goes to great lengths to argue that the president only “misspoke”; that he never “lied”.

“We have a high threshold for whether someone lied,” he told me. The phrase that The Times used “means that he said something that wasn’t true.” Saying the president lied would have meant something different, Mr. Rosenthal said — that he knew it was false and intended to express the falsehood. “We don’t know that,” he said.

That is precisely the point which the Times wishes to elide. The president knew it was false and intended to express the falsehood — and we know that. The trick is to pretend that we don’t know that because to admit the fact would be to accept his contempt for us, to see the Boot in our face.

Since Obamacare is a steganograph those in the “know” understand perfectly what it means. According to a report sourced on Kaiser Health News the unions are seeking — and getting — “relief” (strange choice of words) from Obama’s wonderful health policy.

Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting “certain self-insured, self-administered plans” from the law’s temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.

That’s a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.

One of the singular things about the Obamacare sales pitch is everyone is supposed to want it except for its creators, who are running from their handiwork as from the devil himself. But there is nothing surprising in this when you realize that 2+2=5 contains two messages. They hear the one; we hear the other. It is the equal sign that is the lie.

But of course we are just imagining things. Not only is there no lie, there is no liar either. David Horowitz explains how the Left contrived to vanish with the Fall of the Wall and reappeared in undetectable form.

I paid a visit to the New York intellectual, Norman Podhoretz, who … asked me why I was spending my time worrying about an isolated community on the fringes of politics. I should focus, he said, on liberals not leftists … The massive defeat they suffered in the fall of the Marxist states they helped create had the ironic, unforeseen effect of freeing them from the burden of defending them. This allowed them in the next decade to emerge as a major force in American life. In the wake of the Communist collapse, this left has become a very big thing—so big that by 2008 it was the dominant force in America’s academic and media cultures, had elected an American president, and was in a position to shape America’s future. …

Barack Obama, is seeking to “fundamentally” transform the United States of America. [Horowitz's book] records the progress of that transformation, documenting the changes of a shape-shifting movement that constantly morphs itself in order to conceal its abiding identity and mission, which, as these pages will make clear, is ultimately one of destruction.

Liberalism is the steganograph of the Left. It’s the pattern that conceals the underlying pattern. But Horowitz may be too late to warn us of its dangers. The real significance of Barack Obama’s 2+2=5 healthcare declaration is that he now feels safe to brazenly utter it; emboldened to the point where he doesn’t care who knows. Because perhaps the serried ranks of those leftist faithful who ‘never existed’ can now impose his will by sheer main force; through direct coercion.

Nor will the leftist faithful balk at their orders. They’ll elect Blasio; they’ll elect anyone who they anoint. Horowitz confirms what I have long maintained: theyexist and they are unthinking zealots. They warn about religion to hide the existence of their cult. Thus, you can never convince a liberal by logical argument; one can only convert them by religious counter-experience. Horowitz describes the inherently religious character of the Left.

Because the left is a religious movement that engages an individual identity at the deepest levels, there can never be a separation between the personal and the political. Members of the faith know very well the implications of doubt: to leave the progressive faith is to invite expulsion from its utopia and the fellowship of its community, and forever after to be shunned as a person morally unfit for decent company.

[ That's part of the purpose of the psychotic rhetorical hatred leftists pour out at conservatives .... it's purpose is to keep the other leftists cowed and fearful of straying from the fold. They're evil and horrid out there and If you join them, you're evil and horrid, they tell one another.


Lots of leftists know their policies are failures and usually counter-productive, making problems worse. They remain committed for emotional, religious reasons ... being leftist is their identity. ]

For that reason 2+2=5 remains valid until the moment it is not. Wikipedia’s article on the psychology of religious conversion notes that rational argument is useless in this department. People change when they are struck down by the facts as by a rock on the head. They only time they believe in the rock is when it arrives suddenly on their pate.

The classic religious paradigm for conversion is highly dependent on the idea of sudden conversion. The prototypical sudden conversion is the Biblical depiction of the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. Sudden conversions are highly emotional but not necessarily rational. In these instances the convert is a passive agent being acted upon by external forces, and the conversion entails a dramatic transformation of self. Emotion dominates this dramatic, irrational transformation leading to a shift in self and belief, with behavior change to follow. For sudden converts conversion is not a back and forth drawn out process, but rather happens in one single instance and is permanent thereafter. Typically sudden conversions occur in childhood and are exceptionally emotional experiences. Often sudden conversions are the result of overwhelming anxiety and guilt from sin that becomes unbearable, making conversion a functional solution to ease these emotions

Conversion happens when a paradigm breaks and has to be replaced with another. Because there are millions of people who can’t live without paradigms; can’t live without some imposed order to give meaning to their lives. And since they are too smart to believe in God, they believe in Obama.

Therefore the key component of every upheaval isn’t the words of men, but men riding in the wake of God (or Reality or the Creator or History) in what was once called the fullness of time. It’s reality that wakes people up. It may be objected that God doesn’t exist and thus cannot assist in conversion. Well that’s all right, since the Devil doesn’t exist either.

It is possible to imagine the Chairman of the Federal Reserve struck down on the way to the Eccles Building.

As he neared the Eccles Building, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Why, why, is 2+2=5?”

“Are you from MSNBC?” the chairman asked.

“No, I am Arithmetic, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go to the meeting, and you will tell them the sum.”

At the next meeting the other members were speechless; they all heard the sound of 2+2=4 but did not believe their ears. They got up from their chairs, yet could say nothing. So they remained quiet and did not go out beyond the Beltway. For three days they remained reclusive until they gave an interview.

“Two plus two equals four and you can’t keep your health plan. You can’t keep your doctor,” they said.

“What? What?”

Is it so hard to believe that reality will win in the end? Or are we conditioned to hope that if everybody repeats repeats 2+2=4 only then will it finally be true? Well perhaps not, for even if nobody says it, it will be true just the same.

pjmedia.com



To: tejek who wrote (752416)11/12/2013 9:07:12 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1577046
 
ObamaHut — A Future History of Housing in America (Part 1)By Clash Daily / 10 November 2013 / 4 Comments

Read more at clashdaily.com

Hey, if medical care is important and has to be provided by Big Momma government, ditto for shelter.

As the pace of fundamental transformation accelerates with every “let me be clear” from our philosopher king, any histories to be written of this period should probably be written now, while the lights are still on and the power button on your computer isn’t just a cruel joke. This “quick before it freezes” philosophy extends especially to things that haven’t happened yet, since by the time they do occur many of us will be too busy quarrying limestone in Northern Minnesota to worry about much of anything else.

Accordingly, for your consideration, a telegram from the not-so-distant future about government doing to your housing what they did to your health care.

In the aftermath of the rollout and implementation of the wildly successful Affordable Healthcare Act, and as a prelude to immigration reform (unaccountably stalled in the Senate over the question of how much to compensate “undocumented students/visitors/guests” for indignities visited upon them by “law-happy zealots”) it was felt that the next economic sector that could benefit from the Obama Midas touch was housing.

Accordingly the Affordable Sustainable Housing Act (or “ObamaHut” as it came to be known) was born.

The bill, whose preamble asserted the right of every citizen to an energy efficient home at no cost (memorialized on “Green For No Green” bumper-stickers everywhere) won wide bipartisan support when Republican consultants reminded their employers of the importance of the green vote, to say nothing of the growing constituency of individuals not inclined to pay their bills or honor their debts.

Among the many provisions contained in its twenty thousand pages (condensed to this size through the judicious use of six-point type and shorthand) some of the salient points that would so arouse the watchdog media — some of them in as little as five years — included:

– A mandate on all new houses to be 25% solar/wind powered with a sliding scale up to 75% in 2025
– A provision that grandfathered existing houses until they were sold or had “substantial” repairs, additions or renovation
– An annual penalty for non-compliance equal to 5% of the appraised value of the home
– A provision that no potential home buyer could be refused a mortgage irrespective of income or credit history
– A provision that all associated costs of home purchasing, mortgage, insurance and tax escrow payments would be eligible for government subsidies based on income level and “other circumstances”


As this new law worked its way through the legislative process, President Obama, in a breathtaking departure from precedent, went on the road to sell it with a flurry of speeches and town halls. Against a backdrop of poor people, indigents and an array of doe-eyed children, the President solemnly asserted that if you liked your home you could continue to live in it. The American people, with no reason to doubt him, took him at his word.

Perhaps the first indication of trouble came with the 50% decline in new housing starts in the the first year. It emerged that the market for over-priced homes with glass roofs and/or windmills in the front yard was softer than anticipated.

This, of course, didn’t apply to larger homes for the very rich whose purchasers simply absorbed the associated green penalties and constructed the same “stop the trolleys” energy sinks they always had. Ditto a surprisingly large group of constituents, who appeared to have nothing much in common except Harry Reid’s direct line on their speed-dialer, who were granted waivers.

Alarming also was the wave of bankruptcies and closings of virtually any business associated with home renovation or repair, since home-owners sensibly refrained from any improvement that would void their grandfather status. Unhappily, some either didn’t realize the scope of the law — and discovered that something as trivial as repaving the driveway had taken them off the happy path — or had no choice (when you need a new furnace, you need a new furnace). In either case, faced with large and unexpected expenses, and well outside eligibility for any subsidies, an increasing number of owners chose to sell their homes and get out while they still could.

President Obama denied, then apologized for, his previous promises and assured a nervous populace that the worst was over, America had definitely turned the corner, and he really, really meant it this time. Subsequent generations would note that no part of that speech, including the definite articles and punctuation, contained an atom of truth.

As we shall see in Part 2, they would also refer to a time when only some people lost their homes as “the good old days.”

Read more at clashdaily.com