Progressive Utopian City of Detroit Without Power Most of the Day; Rio de Janeiro Barrios Report Full Services

Presented with no comment. Detroit Free Press.  The Rio Times.


About GruntOfMonteCristo

Fearless and Devout Catholic Christian First, Loving Husband and Father Second, Pissed-Off Patriot Third, Rocket Engineer Dork Last.
This entry was posted in Obamanana Republic. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Progressive Utopian City of Detroit Without Power Most of the Day; Rio de Janeiro Barrios Report Full Services

  1. yoni says:

    this started on bush’s watch friend. from there it was enevitable

    • How did Detroit’s downfall start on Bush’s watch?

      I’m no real fan of Bush. He spent us into oblivion almost as much as Obama has. And I also get your assertion on the other thread that conservatives can be just as bad as progressives. That’s certainly true, and that’s why we’re undergoing a conservative rebellion in America. More on that later, along with some disagreement about how you characterize the Tea Party.

      But about Detroit, I don’t see how its bankruptcy and utter devastation can be attributed to American conservatives whatsoever. The city has been run exclusively by Democrat political machines for many decades, and recent interference by Washington (the government takeover of GM) has been a strictly Obama enterprise. Are you saying that the demise of all U.S. cities is inevitable because of Bush policies somehow?

      And about the Tea Party. You mention that you think it’s chief position is to be crazy and uncompromising, but I don’t see it that way. Certainly that’s how both parties and the news media characterize it, but you surely know that reality is rarely the way the craven press portrays things. The rise of the Tea Party, like the UKIP in the UK, is primarily the result of a dissatisfaction with the establishment parties and a desire to start respecting our Constitution again. To return to being a nation of laws. Not a nation run by criminals. Is that crazy?

      I would think you’d want that, because our current criminal regime has been funding Hamas and ISIS against the will of Congress and the American people in their war against Israel. Our President is literally, and with gusto, trying to get every man, woman and child in Israel slaughtered. How do you compromise with that?

      Please be assured, Yoni, that I’m only asking these questions in good faith to clarify and understand. I don’t mean to be hostile. Please be at ease about responding.

  2. yoni says:

    Detroit, as you say, might as well be GM, so i’m not sure that the city council had anything to do with the cities downfall. The industry bankrupted before Obama came to office, and it was bush that signed the bailout plan. Personally, I would have found a panel of execs and had young entrepreneurs submit business plans, and broke up those subsidiaries that could function independently. I might, in the course of this, broke up the other motor conglomerates as well, but certainly there where great complaints at the time of “siphoning taxpayer monies into the pockets of billionaires”. a favorite habit of the “conservatives”. (witness one of the stupider ideas of our century, privatizing space flight. it’s still just too expensive to make a decent profit, and business models don’t work well for anything that isn’t profitable. We’d be better with nasa offering contracts for novel ideas or making huge space fairs with the most practicable ideas receiving grants for proof of concept. Instead we’re contracting out nasa’s responsibilities, and not really getting too much return on it as far as I know.)

    regarding the teaparty, any claims that the government is not obaying the constitution i find suspect. as a student of a system of law, language in general is extremely vague and subject to interpretation. let us, for moment consider the secind amendment. the reason stated is that a well armed malitia is neccessary for the preservation of liberty, and i think it escapes most that a militia is a kind of army, hence this amendment implicitly authorizes *someone* to maintain standing armies, and explicity states that arms may be procured, maintained and trained with for said purpose. That means the second amendment does not entitle you to own a sawed off shotgun, but F22s, M! tanks and M2 bradlys, APCs howitzers etc. Not any random gun you ever felt like buying. Nor does it specify who is entitle to bear arms ie maintain them. a comunal armory? the state? individuals?
    needless to say, the war of northern agression (and that is what it was, slavery was only a motif in that war) blatantly violated that right, and the silence of the supreme court validated a reinterpretation of the second amendment to mean that individuals are entitled to maintain weapons for self defense. Something which boggles the mind in context, and really just means that the second amendment is not that different from the laws banning people from keeping icecream cones in their back pockets. If we were realy serious, we’d recodify it. We don’t, not that it matters.
    The founding fathers preferred a dysfunctional government to one which had the time to oppress the common people, and we see on a daily basis how well uncertainties and vagaries were incorporated into the constitution to reinforce that point. So from the first I approach the claims of reclaiming the constitution to be dubious at best, suspicious or even treasonous at worst. Especially when they eminate mostly from one side of the isle, complaining about the actions of the other side, when they themselves do the same whenever it suits them (one thing that angered me about obama recently, despite his correct comment that there was nothing unprecedented about his actions).

    If we want a nation run by laws, the first thing we will have to do is ban all donations to our congressmen and president, aside from their regular salary, and declare the lobby groups retroactive traitors. With that we need to ban lawyers from getting into the other two branches of government and restrict them to the judicial branch only (so as to preserve the seperation of powers). after that, we’ll see a quick improvement in our government. but good luck seeing that happen!

    • I’ve only had a short chance to go though some of your ideas here, but I see many ideas that I like and some I don’t.

      As for Detroit, I think it’s more accurate to say that the (Demo-supported) auto workers unions bankrupted the auto companies, and the (Democrat) politicians bankrupted the city. However, I concede enthusiastically that the corporate executive management mistakes and greed made it all possible. So, in that sense, I agree with you. But speaking as a former union member myself, and in view of the enormous benefits that the Ford Motor Company originally (and voluntarily) provided for its employees in the early days of Detroit’s ascension, and with full knowledge of the thorough and capricious communist and criminal nature of the labor unions in this country, I would place the great majority of the blame on them. The auto companies never had a chance. And to blame Bush’s admittedly lame bail-out is weak, at best.

      But your observation about the habit of establishment conservatives lining billionaire’s pockets (“corporate welfare”), is completely right. That’s why we’re at war with establishment “conservatives.”

      About the stupid idea of privatizing space flight, I completely agree with you.

      As for the Constitutional complaints being suspect, we have an argument there, and I’ll have to continue that extensive conversation later when I have more time. From what I’ve seen upon glancing over your views on that subject, I see absolutely nothing I agree with. Oh! Except your comment on the War of Northern Aggression. That part I agree with.

      • yoni says:

        unfortunately without unions and labor laws, we would likely return to the turn of the twentieth century in terms of prosperity. That said, I wont pretend that unions are any less greedy than the bourgeoisie that employ their workers. Its just Bourgeoisie mark II (witness communist russia), however, instead of fighting unions the republicans could have pushed, any of a number of times, limits on them instead of pulling down the new deal altogether, and that isn’t what they did, so it takes two to tango and as I said before, I don’t see this as anymore one side’s fault than the other. The conservatives cry like spoiled brats and want everything their way, and liberals pretend that everyone is the enemy of the poor pathetic poor (and don’t forget higher ed for all as the solution to our woes. when I was in college I was appalled at the quality of the students and course work. we’d be better letting this kids get a better highschool education and make something of their lives at 18 than encouraging them to play for 4 more years. there aught to be a law against requesting a degree when it has nothing to do with the job in question) and the solution is to coerce everyone to act like they like each other.

        oh, and television. We need to amend the first amendment to state that “the freedom of the press pertains only to printed mediums, and verbatum replications on internet news sites, 24 hours after initial publication”. That, more than anything else, would set us on the right track. I’m extreme, but in my opinion the tea party is just another lets cry bandaid.

      • yoni says:

        and as a further addendum, just because I’m thinking about it and spilling random ideas on paper, lets do the math: how much money does uncle sam spend to make day care affordable? then lets propose an experiament: any mother (or father) who desires to be a stay at home mom, can take a limited number of courses (psychology, etc) which should reasonably lead to being a more informed mother, commit to various obligations (teaching kids to participate in civic obligations, etc) and receive a paltry salary for taking care of their own kids. (on account of the fact that uncle sam doesn’t have to pay someone else to do so for her.) Not only do they now not have to pay for daycare, they have a little bit of extra money to put into pocket. Put bonuses for participating in various journals and research activities on how to be better parents, trained nurses and doctors teachers etc, giving free services for a number of hours a week (just so that first aid, tutoring is readily available) for a modest increase in that salary, and boom, single income households without appreciable increase in economic burden, because let’s be real, a house wife is an economic powerhouse, just one that is hard to measure.then when the kids are older, she can join the workforce without any need to feel that she’s compromising on her kids education, and without an employer feeling the need to drive himself nuts with maternity leave.

        But the point, as I said, is not solving problems but pretending to solve them and then blaming someone else when the pretend solution fails while the tick makes it off with a killing in bribes and a future as a lawyer teaching people to get around the law. (its a bipartisan effort, it really is)

    • This speech by Mark Levin speaks to this.

  3. Yoni,
    I’ve been stuck working on the road recently, but I’ll try to comment gradually about your thoughts. Sorry about the long delays.

    1. “Constitution language is vague”:
    Perhaps, in some places that needed to be vague. In others, like the 2nd and 4th Amendments, it is exceedingly precise and crisp. Let’s look at the 2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [comma – end of justifying clause – begin principal statement] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    What is not clear about this language? You may struggle with how a militia is defined, but Americans should not. It is a bomb-proof fact of our early struggle for independence that the militia was composed of citizens willing to fight as soldiers separate from the regular army. They were rarely very organized, wore no uniforms and came and went as their family lives demanded it. Their weapons were their own, and they left weapons at home with their wives and children to protect themselves with. Have you seen the movie The Patriot? Those were militia.

    This statement indicates that the necessity of being able to form militias from common folk requires that they be, always, in a position of being armed already when that need arises. And how is the word “people” vague? At the very most, one might question whether “people” included women and slaves, originally, but it certainly must have included, at the very least, all able-bodied free men. And what part of “shall not be infringed” do you interpret as vague? I assure you that I find nothing shocking about the notion that every single free man or woman in a country would have the right to buy and possess virtually any conceivable weapon that they can afford. Even an F22. Clearly, many people don’t agree with me on that, though.

    No, the problem here is not the language. The problem here is that some have lost the ability to read or hear plain language and accept what is said without projecting the opposite meaning because they want it to be so.

    Next, the 4th Amendment…

  4. On the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Wikipedia mentions that “Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.” These 5 major exceptions don’t sound like much, but the truth is that “no knock” raids are now approved routinely for breaking down the doors of people’s homes and shooting their dogs and possibly also shooting small children present in their own bedrooms for the pathetic excuse that a tip has been received indicating some sort of drug violation or domestic violence situation, and these number in the hundreds of thousands every year. Security in “persons, houses, papers and effects” clearly does not exist in any way, shape or form. And no, that language is not the problem in this case.

  5. “The founding fathers preferred a dysfunctional government.” I agree, and since the Tea Party requests only that the government return to this state, so that it is preoccupied and can not constantly harass and confound its subjects in their reasonable occupation with making a living and being left alone, I fail to see why you are so hostile to the Tea Party ideals of limited government.

    On claims that we need to return to the Constitution emanating from only one side:
    During the Bush years, those same complaints were made by the other side. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were equally skeptical of them at that time as you are of us now. But that would only make you even handed in your skepticism. It could also be that you are wrong to equally dismiss all complainers. Some might actually have a point. You should at least keep that option open, should you not? You don’t seem very interested in doing so. I believe that, objectively, we are right to object, when we do, and that the facts bear us out, and I’d argue that they are often dishonest and wrong when they do. In fact, we just had a national argument about the use of torture in dealing with terrorist prisoners, and the discussion showed pretty clearly that conservatives care about the Constitution, even when we’re in charge. Bush’s administration followed all requirements of Congress and the Constitution during his tenure. During 6 years of Obama, he has done nothing but disregard and circumvent both while being protected by a fawning press.

    “Nothing unprecedented in his actions”:
    Huh? I am unfamiliar with any U.S. President who ever acted without Congressional approval for so many long-term military actions, and especially, acted to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens over the objections of Congress and the people. He has sworn to uphold the law as the chief executive. He is not supposed to cancel laws. I do not think the few examples of minor incidents in the past can compare to what Obama has done recently. Can you name any that compare? I guess Truman might have come close. And FDR’s Social Security mandatory rapage of the public is very similar. Ok, you may have a point here. 🙂

    About your ideas on restricting lawyers and lobbyists from pubic service, you might be onto something there! That I could get behind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s