Freedom of Choice

I have been posting for a little while now, and I have come across many other opinions, some agreeing with me, and some not so much. Some have been truly vindictive (probably evidence of poor breeding), but this has not, nor will not deter me from presenting my viewpoint as I see it. This is a part of free speech, and also a part of our freedom of choice- we can choose to say something, or abstain from speaking. They are also free to go to another site if they wish. It’s all about the freedom here.

As the days of this “revered leaders” term winds on, the term “Freedom of Choice” will increasingly be under fire from all quarters of the liberal front, as these socialists seek to make us all into “good people”. This would mean, of course, people who blindly agree with their nutjob socialistic thinking.

But to do this, they have to subvert the little roadbump in the road called the Constitution, and they have found ways around this.

A good example is the First Amendment, which details freedom of speech. Well, they can’t get past that one, can they? Oh yes- by two different ways- first is a little innocent thing called “localism”, whereby a radio station could be forced to put on “local” opposing views to counter the talk radio. The trouble with that is, first, the opposing views would not have to pay for their time, so stations would lose money on these “views” (comments from the Commissar, perhaps?). The second problem is that IF these views were popular, they would already BE on the radio. The failure of liberal Air America radio proves there is no market for their drivel.

The second step in the battle over freedom of speech is what is known as “diversity of ownership”- where certain stations would be stripped from the rightful owners, and given, in the name of “diversity”, to others with the politically correct viewpoint. I’m not saying that Barama is Chavez, but he’s looking “Chavez-ish.”

The restrictions on the Second Amendment are, in part, thanks to the comedian Chris Rock who made the suggestion of pricing ammunition at $1,000 a bullet, and so there will be onerous taxes on the ammo- that’s not the only way around the Second Amendment, but mark my words, that is at least one of the ways they will go, because they need the money, their printer is about out of ink.

Green jobs will make us less prosperous, because as a study of the Green industry has shown in Spain, 2.2 jobs are lost for every 1 job created by green technology, and subsidies for companies put many utilities out of business, causing the others who survived to be monopolies and able to charge what they wished, and it was not cheaper for the consumer.

We will have less freedom in our job choices, because the government wants to determine just what THEY determine you are worth. Keep in mind, this is the same people who tout the 7.35 minimum wage as a step forward- Bulls**t! The minimum wage should have been tied to the yearly rise in inflation back in 1970, but nooooooooo. So now the government wants to look at other wages? Might they do as poor a job on these as they did with the minimum wage. One might think so.

Small businesses will not be able to grow as they might in a capitalistic society- many people forget that Bill Gates was a small businessman once. But under Barama, you get just so large, and you will be punished for your success, taxed to within an inch of your life.

Because of the hybrid technology, and the blind refusal to drill off of our coasts, our choices for transportation will be severely restricted to p**spoor electric and wimpy little tinfoil cars that can’t carry a driver, much less a real- life load for work. And of course less choice in auto maker, because only a fool or a Russian buys a government- made car, and I am neither.

There is already less choice on schools- Congress, in its infinite stupidity, cancelled school vouchers for Washington D.C. schools, so Barama’s children, I guess, wouldn’t have to mix with the riff- raff of common people. They will continue this pattern for the rest of the states, and that runs counter to the Tenth Amendment, pertaining to state’s rights, but they’ve done so many end arounds on the Constitution that they probably feel they can do it all.

And finally, there will be less choice in terms of social services and infrastructure, because of B’s onerous taxes, there will have to be less. All the people making or having enough money will find ways around taxation, even if it meant moving somewhere in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands. This puts the burden on the captive people,those who can’t move, and these people will be taxed to the max. Streets, which already look like those in Iraq, will go longer between repaving, but it will all work out, I am sure, because we will not have the money to drive anywhere, nor will we have a car that would be able to navigate the potholes in order to get to a sub-standard school.

We will, however, be able to sit in the car and listen to the local Commissar rant.

It will be SO much fun.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “Freedom of Choice”

  1. Big Dog says:

    Funny, Obama wants high CAFE standards but he rides around in an armored vehicle that gets a few miles to the gallon.

    I don’t want to hear the argument that he deserves it or that he is in charge. They chose a heavily armored inefficient car for him.

    You should be able to choose what YOU want to drive. If you can afford the fuel then you should drive what you want. You pay for your fuel.

    You also pay for his.

  2. Darrel says:

    “If these [liberal] views were popular, they would already BE on the radio.>>

    DAR
    Right-wingers buy stations (sinclair, clear channel) and use our public airwaves for uncountered propaganda. Limbaugh’s show was given to stations for free. They can do this but it is a little tiresome and more than a little embarrassing when adults from grown-up countries come to visit.

    A little sample from rightwing radio:

    “Clear Channel hosts likened African outfit worn by Obama to “the kind of garb you often see Osama bin Laden in” and to “Somali warlord garb”

    Cunningham alleged that “Obama wants to gas the Jews”

    In the days before the election, media figures have repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler

    Newman: “[T]here will be an invasion of Muslim terrorists” if Obama becomes president”

    Radio Sickness: It’s not Just Limbaugh>

    DAR
    Air America is on the air and doing fine. They have some excellent programming (Thom Hartmann) and lots of crap.
    They had some birthing troubles because some lunatic libertarians owned it and it was very poorly managed at the beginning.

    Rightwingers can have their AM talk. It has become farce. It obviously didn’t keep the GOP from falling off the cliff and probably helped push it. The “Fairness Doctrine” (oh my, “fairness?” you mean there is more than one side to these issues?) is going no where and is a rightwing bogey man. On a level playing field where free exchange is allowed, such as the internet, right-wingers can’t keep up. They can’t even compete.

    BLK: “where certain stations would be stripped from the rightful owners,..”>>

    DAR: Where do you get such nonsense? Your bottom or perhaps… the radio? It’s not helpful to have a nation being constantly lied to by blowhards with microphones. You are perfect example of this. You may be a perfectly sensible on some topics but with regard to politics, your beliefs are irrational, indefensible and you are devoted to them with a cult-like faith.

    BLAKE: there will be onerous taxes on the ammo…>>

    DAR
    Impossible. It’s too easy to make at home. Like pot.

    BLK: Second Amendment,>>

    DAR
    Gun issues are dead for now. Not going anywhere. The American bloodbath will continue (the gun issue is a bit of a specialty of mine).

    BLK: But under Barama,… taxed to within an inch of your life.>>

    DAR
    Then Reagan was a Pinko Commie because we had higher tax rates under him. See it all detailed here:

    “Pinko Commie Reagan had higher tax rates”

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5648#p18109

    BLK: …the blind refusal to drill off of our coasts,>>

    DAR
    We drill off of our coasts. The Gulf alone has right now about 850 manned platforms, not counting the unmanned ones. We are squeezing the last drops from our nations reserves. All the easy stuff is gone. You are profoundly misinformed about our planets situation regarding oil.

    Take a few moments to get informed:

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5106&start=0&hilit=peak+oil

    This is more specific:

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&hilit=oil#p9277

    BLK: B’s onerous taxes,>>

    DAR
    More delusion. He lowered taxes on the vast majority and went back to the level’s we had under Clinton. The rich (and everyone else) did far better under Clinton than they did under Bush. If the stock market increased under Bush at the rate it did under Clinton, it would be at 35,000 points today. It’s not one fourth of that.

    If the S & P had increased under Bush as it did under Clinton it would be well over 4,000. It closed at 887 Friday.

    Every measure that we use to judge the success and health of our country was better under Clinton than Bush. Bush left each category worse. See it all laid out here:

    http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3475

    Thanks for the post Blake.

    Darrel.

  3. Blake says:

    D- ammo wouldn’t be easier to make at home because it would be taxed also- the various components, like gunpowder and primers, right?
    We do not drill off of the east and west coasts, and we should- there is a pool of oil thought to be very large off of California that we cannot drill for. Same for off of Jersey.
    Taxes are not just income taxes D- you can tax someone by adding taxes to what they must buy such as gasoline.
    Then there are the cigarette and soda taxes- because lets face it D- people make bad decisions, but then they should not be punished by the government for making those bad decisions. Its called freedom of CHOICE.
    I do not listen to any radio, D- I make my own mind up, using info from several sources, including Books- you know, old school- try it sometime instead of the same old tired free thingers web site.

  4. Darrel says:

    We will be getting all of the oil. Every drop. California says right now it doesn’t want to drill offshore. You’re for states rights, right?

    In the coming years, as the value of oil tends (and spikes) upward, this will probably be seen as a very smart decision.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      The problem with that, D, is that it takes some lead time to get rigs up and running. First you have to order the rigs- they don’t have a Rigs r Us anywhere- then tow it to the site, and this would probably mean transiting the Panama Canal- then set up, and drill. But before that, there have to be bids on the sites, and the key is location, location, location.
      Right now we don’t even have a bidding process, and all this takes time. not to mention the surveys, which were halted in the ’80s.
      There might be even more oil than we know, because we have to use the info from the 80s to draw our conclusions.

      • Darrel says:

        California doesn’t want offshore oil rigs (yet, they may at $150 per barrel).

        Who should overrule them?

        • Blake says:

          If they want our oil, they should do some of the heavy lifting- I despise the liberal “it’s ok to use Texas’ oil, but WE don’t want this in our backyard- Hypocrites.

      • Darrel says:

        You didn’t answer the question.

        • Blake says:

          Just don’t sell them the oil. If they want to use their legs and walk, let them. But until they want to participate in our country, perhaps they should not receive the benefits either.

        • Darrel says:

          Oil is a very fluid commodity Blake, traded worldwide. Saying “Just don’t sell them the oil” is so silly it’s not possible to make fun of it.

          California tried to raise their efficiency standards years ago. Bush and Co. wouldn’t let them. How bizarre.

          Obama is changing that. So now we will have more efficient vehicles.

          D.
          —————-
          Q Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

          MR. FLEISCHER: “That’s a big no. The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we’re able to get those resources in an efficient way. . .”

          –Ari Fleischer, Press briefing, May 7, 2001

          • Big Dog says:

            It is foolish for individual states to have different fuel standards and that is why it was rejected. The auto companies can’t do things right now without having to worry about making different standards. I know the argument is to have them make all to CA standards. What gives CA the right to dictate to the rest of us.

            If I owned an auto company it would cost a lot more to buy a car there than elsewhere to recoup costs, if I sold them there at all.

        • Blake says:

          Well, I will ponder your words as I wander aimlessly around the countryside in my carbon- emitting pickup, with no where particular in mind, just cruising, because I can.

        • Darrel says:

          You still didn’t answer the question.

          Should Texas start a unilateral trade war and not sell oil to California? That would be really stupid and wouldn’t accomplish anything because of world markets (and isn’t going to happen).

          Or should the Fed step in and make California drill against their will?

          So much for states rights eh?

          Those are your choices. Why won’t you decide?

          Neither matters much. The US doesn’t have much oil left. Keep that truck running. Your grandchildren will be proud of such behavior.

          When did waste and excess become a patriotic thing to do? It’s profoundly against the interest of the country which would seem to make it most unpatriotic.

        • Blake says:

          As you have pointed out, we can’t compel Cal. to act intelligent, any more than I can explain logic to you- there’s more oil than yo think- I agree that oil is a finite resource, but to NOT use the existing technology when it is in our backyard is stupid, no other word for it.