Do Liberals Have Any Sense At All?
The New York Times is shocked, shocked! – that they have now determined President Trump’s new tax law will indeed save most people money on their taxes, and that this money will benefit the middle class, contrary to all of the tripe Trump-haters spread last year about only the rich benefiting from the new tax law. The ignorant people who run the New York Times appear to lack the ability to use their minds and remember, as Ronald Reagan proved, that the economy will improve when people keep more of their own money and that businesses will benefit and hire more employees when they are allowed to invest more in their operations and give less money to the government. And when government regulations are reduced, the owners of businesses can conduct and expand the business as they see fit, which is exactly what we are currently seeing from businesses who see a bright future for a change, after the eight years of Obama’s doom and gloom, massive regulations and dire economic predictions.
Along similar lines of liberal thinking, these New York Times people are part of the liberal leftist fools who told us in the 1980s that girls and boys have no real differences between them and that gender roles could be reversed if boys played with dolls and girls played with guns and Army soldiers. These same liberals seemed to be shocked, shocked!, when they finally had to admit that men and women are different.
Liberals have no ability to look at post-Castro Cuba and admit that Cubans lived better prior to Castro’s Communism destroying the Island nation. Similarly, they cannot see that the very wealthy nation of Venezuela is much worse off today than it was before it was forced to practice Socialism by Hugo Chavez. A lack of any ability to critically and freely think about events means that liberals will always make wrong, inappropriate decisions, as they prove to the nation daily with their actions and words.
And these liberals, who seem to lack the most basic common sense and ability to think outside the liberal box, are the same people who are America’s supposed thinkers, leaders, teachers, economists, journalists and trendsetters. God help us with these fools in charge. https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/01/do-liberals-have-any-sense-at-all/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
Another installment of Liberals are Stinky. Who would have ever guessed...
It's like going back to the playground.
You didn't expect a deep philosophical or in-depth analysis based on THIS article, did you?
Mainstream Non Inflammatory
Pathetic.
Well, it seems the voters have wised up to your liberal lies, corruption, and broken promises for the past few elections, and the stupid left wingers appear to looking way beyond the midterms.
The answer is yes, and certainly more than the author of this article...Thanks for asking.
God help us with these fools in charge.
...says the author of the article. I bet there are millions of US citizens thinking the exact same thing...in spite of their religious beliefs.
Something fishy about that third picture.
Oh Pelosi, Waters, Fienstien, Schumer.........................
That is a trick question right? I mean if liberals had any sense they wouldn't be liberals.
" And when government regulations are reduced, the owners of businesses can conduct and expand the business as they see fit"
First, it was the gypsy moth. In 1957, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked Congress for $2.5 million to eradicate an insect pest that stripped trees in northeastern forests – the gypsy moth. The plan was to spray up to three million acres with a mixture of DDT and oil. Within a month after the spraying started, residents on Long Island filed suit in federal court charging that the USDA planes were flying too low, were spraying too heavily and during high winds, and that the DDT was killing fish, birds, farm and garden crops. Later, it was reported that milk from cows in the area was banned from sale because of high levels of DDT.
The suit was denied, but in the process the Audubon Society and another governmental agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), got involved in the dispute. Audubon's 1957 annual meeting was transformed from maps of bird migrations to nonstop debates about the dangers of pesticides. The FWS, a part of the Department of the Interior, disputed its sister agency and proposed its own long-term research program about pesticides.
Then came the fire ants. The ants had been migrating from Mexico up into the South. There were conflicting reports about the damage the ants were doing. Some studies said that the pests didn't particularly bother farm workers and that land values were not affected. But other farmers – some of them with powerful political connections – complained that the ants built nests that created high mounds of dirt in the middle of fields and that their bites stung. Some claimed – without much evidence – that the ants attacked and even killed calves, pigs and chickens. The supporters found a case where one eight-year-old boy, who was extremely allergic to all kinds of insect bites, died from a fire ant bite.
Congress approved an eradication program in 1958. The USDA began seeding 20 million acres in the South with pellets of dieldrin, chlordane and heptachlor, persistent pesticides that were 40 times more toxic than DDT.
In response, the Audubon Society became even more engaged, calling the program a "chemical peril" to humans and wildlife.
In addition, the FWS used the controversy to convince Congress to approve a small research program into the long-term effects of pesticides. Even though their research was approved for only $280,000 when the fire ant program cost $2.4 million, for the first time there was a possible dissenting voice within the federal bureaucracy.
Then came the great cranberry scare, part one. Throughout the 50s, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been concerned with pesticide use by cranberry farmers. The USDA had certified the herbicide aminotriazole for use on cranberry bogs after the fruit was harvested. But too many growers were using the herbicide before harvest because it produced better yields, and so pesticide residue was showing up in FDA tests.
In 1957, the FDA confiscated 3 million pounds of berries for high levels of the herbicide. In 1958, incidents of contamination dropped.
Then came the "Delaney Amendment." Rep. James Delaney, a Democrat from New York, was a senior member of the House Rules Committee by 1959. He was concerned that cancer-causing substances – "carcinogens" like the aminoriazole on the cranberries – were getting into the nation's food supply.
In 1958, he was able to insert a simple amendment into a bill about the FDA – "No additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal." The sentence is short, simple, ambiguous … and sweeping in its potential consequences. For the first time, the FDA could ban any suspected carcinogen. Agriculture interests howled in protest. They argued that the USDA's registration process for pesticides under the FIFRA law was enough protection. But Delaney was too powerful in the House for them to overturn the amendment.
Some historians mark the end of the Golden Age of Pesticides at the passage of the Delaney Amendment.
Then came the great cranberry scare, part two. In November 1959, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare – the parent agency of the FDA – suddenly announced that some cranberry products on sale for the fast approaching holiday season were contaminated by aminotriazole, and that the FDA had evidence that the herbicide caused cancer tumors in rats . The Secretary advised shoppers to not buy cranberries unless they were certain about the product's safety – which no one could be. He based his action on the Delaney Amendment.
Farmers howled. The USDA howled. The food industry howled. Both Vice President Richard Nixon and his future opponent for the Presidency John Kennedy ate generous portions of cranberries for the press.
But by then, television news had taken up the story. In an average year, 70 percent of cranberry sales come during the holidays. In 1959, sales fell by two-thirds, and the industry lost $15 -20 million. The USDA, later, reimbursed farmers for about $10 million of that loss.
Then came Silent Spring. Scientist and journalist Rachel Carson based several chapters of her influential book on the gypsy moth, fire ant and cranberry controversies. As you'll see in the next story , her book brought the controversies into the public debate like never before.
At the same time, the traditional conservation groups – Audubon, Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation – were becoming increasingly radicalized. In 1959, the Audubon Society reported that the USDA fire ant program had killed up to 90 percent of some bird species in Texas . The newsletters and press releases of all three groups were more and more strident.
Finally, within the halls of the federal bureaucracy, there were now two voices – the Food and Drug Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service – often opposing the views of the USDA.
The Environmental Movement had begun.
What a shock, yet another attack article. Sickening and pathetic.
You might have to explain that to make sure EVERYONE here understands it.............
You're right...the cons won't get it..
Ahem..
.
The reason this makes republicans look stupid is because Katrina hit 3 years before Obama even took office. This is what fox news does to people.. ruins their minds.
.
Well ya got the Clinton News Network to watch. Dont forget to tune in MadCow also...........................
"And these liberals, who seem to lack the most basic common sense and ability to think outside the liberal box, are the same people who are America’s supposed thinkers, leaders, teachers, economists, journalists and trendsetters."
That is the enormous problem we face. They have a simple notion of what seems right or fair to them must over take the rule of law and be imposed on the people of this nation. They may not have "common sense" but what they do have is tenacity
roughly every 40 yrs or so a batch of kids come along that think they have it all figured out with a so-called "new way" which is just rehashed old BS... and then they get smacked down by those of us who have been here longer and know better.
this latest time around was unique in that other forces funded those nuts with some serious money and had some politicians and the biggest part of the MSM paid for and in the bag as well.
and they still lost
the truth is simple. the results predictable, and it always ends the same way...
spoiler alert: the socialist/communist dead beats get chased out of town.
(the end? nahh they will be back in another 40 or 50 yrs.. count on it.)