Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.
Your drive-by opinion needs some proof or evidence other than your "perception."
Is ego not a portion of courage? Most of the "great" men of history would be perceived as being driven by ego. Are you implying that ego is bad? Perhaps you perceive that your opinions or actions are devoid of ego. Perhaps your own arrogance blinds you to those perceptions and opinions of others as if what you propose without some proofs is obviously true. That is ego and arrogance of a high order.
And "political anarchy"? What we have now is an anarchy. Our government does not operate by consistent principles, and it has abandoned the constitutional structure which provided those principles. A structure which provided the rule of law rather than rule by men. Rule by men rather than law is anarchy. What Cruz is attempting is a restoration of principles that promote individual freedom and the rule of law, not anarchy. See this article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1
A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.
Public opinion can be a useful guide in deciding legislation, but only if it is informed by principle and truth, not misguided by spin and lies. Cruz's behavior is backed by principal and constitutional order. If that makes him an attractive candidate for President, I say hooray!
Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.
Yes, by definition, it gives you more to spend. And the U.S. Gvt. takes in monthly enough to pay current bills. But the constant expansion of government has constantly required more money. And the need to abandon budgets and the borrowing of more money. And the debt that has been accrued by constantly borrowing has become impossible to pay unless the borrowing stops.
And your perception of Tea Party "threats" are perceived by them as means to fiscal and legislative sanity. If sanity is a threat, so be it. Wasn't the so-called government "shutdown" a threat to avoid any compromise?
As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.
-spence |
I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting that those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.