Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Ironic rebuke

November 28, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

How ironic/paradoxical that one of Lawrence’s resident ideologues should lie so boldly about what he considers to be lies by those on the “left,” the president in particular. But then that is the nature of ideology, where facts are without warrant and honesty is not a necessary element of argument.

To Mr. Burkhart’s final question (Public Forum, Nov. 15), I have no problem at all turning the business of governance over to Barack Obama. He is certainly doing as good a job as Mr. Burkhart would do, along with the other folks on the “right.”

Dennis Dailey,

Lawrence

Comments

Scott Morgan 3 years, 4 months ago

Hang in there Liberty_One

Often libs scream what about moral obligations for our fellow man. My view after 45 years of social welfare experimentation we all need to take a step back.

Step back and see what the trillions upon trillions of transferred wealth bought our nation.

The land of the free, or the home of the handout. Didn't somebody once state.......ask not what your country can do for you...

I believe we have a moral obligation to stop the growth of socialism.

0

Agnostick 3 years, 4 months ago

"What we've observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party's arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama's first two years, universal healthcare."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-dickishness-of-the-gop.html

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

continued...

When it comes to roads, by the time cars and trucks became common, the government was already doing most of the road building. Early roads probably weren't suitable for big trucks, but we'll never know how private road builders would have responded to the changing traffic because they never got the chance. But looking at the example of the railroads, I think we can see that private road builders would build much more high-quality roads than people working under government contract would for the same reasons. Today's roads are constantly going over-budget and need to be repaved every few years because they use cheaper materials. When someone else is footing the bill, why make a surface that will last?

The simple answer for why the government got into building roads was that it is easier to steal money than to earn it. Why pay for something if you can get the government to pay for it instead?

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

It goes back further than WWI. The Whigs and later the Republicans followed Henry Clay's "American System" which called for protectionist tariffs, central banking and government spending on "internal improvements" which meant building canals, bridges, railroads and roads. The Democrats were very much against this because of the experience of many states with internal improvements spending. What happened was that states would allocate money for a railroad or something, and the railroad would get half built and the rest of the money would disappear. This problem was so widespread that almost every single state amended their state constitution preventing this kind of spending from happening again. This battle continued at the federal level for many years until Lincoln came along.

The southern states seceded for many reasons, slavery, the Northern states' lack of strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, expansion of slavery into the territories being some, but economic issues were also a major part, including the tariff and spending on internal improvements. Lincoln was in favor of it, the south was against it. During the Civil War with complete control of Congress, Lincoln got through many internal improvement spending bills (even at the height of the war they were allocating tons of money to this stuff) like building a transcontinental railroad.

Now the Republicans argued, as you have, that unless the government did such things it wouldn't have got done. But history shows us that James Hill built a transcontinental railroad without government subsidies that actually out-competed the subsidized ones. The reason why? His railroads were built far better, with better quality materials, lower grades, and straighter paths. The subsidized railroads were paid by the mile, so they didn't care about the quality of the rails, just that they be built as fast as they could. If you recall the first transcontinental railroad met in Utah in 1869, but it wasn't actually done until 1874 because it was so shoddy it had to be rebuilt in many places. For example, in winter time they would lay track over ice and snow knowing full well that was no good. Why? Because it wasn't their money, it was the government's, so they didn't care about the quality of the work. James Hill did care precisely because he wasn't getting paid by the mile, but by his customers who demanded reliable, high-quality transport.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Liberty, first off, let me admit that I haven't been following this "discussion" between you and Snakefist very closely. It doesn't appear to have been a pleasant one, at any rate (not that I have ever been involved in such "discussions" myself, of course).

However, from the end here, I do ask about your claim that privately built roads would have been sufficient had the government not stepped in to take over. While I do not claim to be any kind of expert on infrastructure history, didn't the government take over the roads because the cost was largely prohibitive for private industry outside of the most heavily travelled routes? Didn't this happen shortly after WWI, when the government had to rely on railways to transport goods to the coast? The early roads simply couldn't handle the weight of trucks, and by using government funds roads around the country were created on a much larger scale than private industry would or could have done, which would help in the rapid growth of industry in America. Isn't this accurate? At least this is how I remember it from American history.

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

Quick recap: Snakefist claims that it's impossible for roads to be built by private entrepreneurs. I prove him completely wrong by pointing out that thousands of miles of private roads were built before the government socialized the highways. Utterly defeated and embarrassed by his complete lack of historical knowledge. snakefist then decides to make straw man arguments and look even stupider when he claims that private road builders can only build dirt roads.

BTW Snakefist, many of the privately built roads were paved, for example the Lancaster Turnpike. Of course you ignorantly seem to think that they were all dirt roads. Are you getting tired of the taste of your foot yet?

0

hipgrrrrl 3 years, 4 months ago

"At least I can hold the government accountable for how it spends my money."

That's funny.

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

According to Snakefist, private roads can only be dirt roads. Who knows why. But according to him I'm also a Limbaugh-listening conservative too.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

Ooh, just noticed this one up above:

SnakeFist (anonymous) replies… "Hey, Liberty twins, do you see the kind of idiot your philosophy appeals too? Bruno, if you don't want government or taxes, move to Somalia."

Priceless. Just priceless, skippy.

I realize these sub-threads can get confusing, but you might have paid attention to the fact that bruno's post was indented the same as your own reply to the "Liberty twin". Looks like he was replying to Liberty, not you. If you'd bothered to peruse a few of Bruno's posts, you might have noticed that the person you just called an "idiot" actually shares your philosophy.

Again, just priceless.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

SnakeFist (hilarious) replies…

"You scoff at answer.com but cite wikipedia.com? You're a joke, Bubba."

Well, I tried to find something you'd understand, but I couldn't find a reference from Dr. Seuss for you.

But since you want something from an authoritative source, like Answers.com:

"Dictionary: post·grad·u·ate (pōst-grăj'ū-ĭt, -āt') adj. Of, relating to, or pursuing advanced study after graduation from high school or college." http://www.answers.com/topic/postgraduate

Which, gee, comes from Merriam-Webster. Still having trouble with the English language? How about a source from England?

"Postgraduate qualifications involve more advanced study in the area of your first (undergraduate) degree. They include honours and master’s degrees, postgraduate certificates and diplomas, and doctorates (PhDs)." http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/courses/key_terms.shtml

Hey, but what would they know. I'm sure you're right, as always [snicker].

"GPAs do mean something. Graduate school (not Liberty275's "post-grad" school, LOL!) only accepts above-average students, so it follows that graduate students have above-average GPAs."

So, skippy, I guess that would mean Liberty275 is one of these smarter people you want to lead you. Why are you trying to argue with him?

"The Liberty twins and I are trying to have an adult conversation"

In case you haven't been paying attention, little one, "the Liberty twins" are about as impressed with your "adult conversation" skills as I am. Which is to say not at all.

Seriously, kid. It really is painful to watch. I've been begging you, not for my sake (I can always use the extra laughs), but for your own, stop digging. If your purpose here is to try to prove your original point, that some people just aren't bright enough to know what's in their best interests, well, you do set yourself up as a pretty convincing example. But really, it's like watching a Buddhist monk self-immolate - fascinating in a horrific kind of way, but very sad when you realize the incredible waste of a life.

0

SnakeFist 3 years, 4 months ago

Sorry for the redundancy, but I posted the following response to Liberty_One, and I think its important that everyone see his eventual response to my question of how a limited government, no taxes Libertarian/Conservative would build and maintain public roads. Liberty_One has been a blowhard on this site for a long time, so I, for one, would like to see him answer that simple question.

Look [Liberty_One], its great that you volunteer at soup kitchens, house homeless people, and help old ladies across the street, but how do the roads get built in your utopia of limited government and no taxes? Workgangs of weekend volunteers? Answer that one question - how do the roads get built? You have two possible moves.

First, you could build them by voluntary direct contributions from individuals to private business. But that's naive: Short-sighted freeriders like Liberty275 would insist that he doesn't use the roads and so shouldn't have to pay for them (nevermind that his food comes to him over the roads).

Second, you could have private business build the roads and then charge tolls. But that's unworkable: What about neighborhoods and small towns that don't have enough traffic to generate enough profit to attract business, and what happens when the private road owners, realizing you have to use their product to get anwhere, charge exhorbitant tolls (a la American drug companies)?

You see, you have no workable answer, so you and libertarianism/conservatism are jokes.

Look, the average person has several thousand dollars in credit card debt and a mortgage he can't afford, never served in the military or earned a college degree, is divorced, and believes in fairy tale gods, so, no, the average person isn't bright enough to run a nuclear superpower with 350 million people. But the average person does have a well-developed sense of practical self-interest. So while he may gripe about government and taxes, the first time his child's public school closes for lack of funding, the bridge he's on collapses for lack of maintenance, his roads aren't cleared of snow all winter, or your beloved private business cheats him out of his retirement, he'll clamor for government regulation and gladly vote for tax increases.

0

Paul R Getto 3 years, 4 months ago

"This seems like a remarkably true observation. I'm of the opinion that if you receive any form of State or Federal assistance (welfare), you should not be allowed to vote! What do you think of that?" === heygary: I'll ditto jafs on that one. If we won't let farmers, businesses (does that include all their stockholders too?; retired folks, the poor on assistance, etc. vote, who is left?) I think your fears are unfounded, if they are pointed towards the poor. For the most part they vote in very low numbers and have given up. That's why the old folks and some of the fat cats who vote regularly are running the show. In state and local elections, this averages 10-12% of the total possible voting population picking the winners, and at the national level where presidential elections draw 'great interest' about 25% of the population picks the leaders. I'd rather have lots of people voting and take my chances with that. I do, however, agree with much of your analysis of the decline of civilizations. We are fat, lazy whiners from top to bottom and if we don't grow up and pay the piper we may well see a decline if not a collapse. This has nothing to do with the R's and D's and the TP's and a lot to do with our selfish natures and ignorance of history's great sweep.

0

heygary 3 years, 4 months ago

There is a long-held belief that democracies, in general, are a predictably doomed form of government.

In the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (Scottish history professor - University of Edinborough) used an analogy to describe "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years, during which these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

From my vantage point, Mr. Tyler’s observation has been unsettlingly predictive of the path of our own experiment in Democracy.

This seems like a remarkably true observation. I'm of the opinion that if you receive any form of State or Federal assistance (welfare), you should not be allowed to vote! What do you think of that?

0

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Many people do in fact want smaller government and lower taxes.

The problem starts when deciding what part of the budget to cut - there are many differing ideas about that, and no clear majority consensus about it.

It would be nice if we could simply do away with government assistance and individuals and the private sector would just take over those functions. But, whether or not that would happen is completely unclear.

It's sort of funny, really - libertarians hate politicians because they're corrupt, etc. and rightly criticize liberals for failing to see that. But, at the same time, they seem to think individuals not in politics are somehow different and superior.

The fundamental problem is that humans are capable of making choices ("free will") and thus will make a variety of them, some good and some bad, some generous and some selfish, some with integrity and some without.

And, I've known some libertarians - they are by no means all generous and giving people who care about the environment, etc. Some may be, just as some liberals may be, some conservatives may be, etc.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, we have all grown impatient with Obama's slow pace in cleaning up the mess from the most failed President in US History, George Bush.

0

kernal 3 years, 4 months ago

I thought the City of Detroit and Wayne County were tearing down some of those buildings as they now own them due to property taxes not being paid. There are no owners, other than various governments, for a good number of commercial and residential properties in that area and they have deteriorated so fast, they're being razed. The face of Detroit is changing and fighting for survival.

Sorry, Liberty275, but many of your ideas are not workable and have little substance. It's almost as if you are co-mingling quotes and statements you've heard on Fox News and read on the internet.

0

ksrush 3 years, 4 months ago

Pretty profound Nota. Time to get ready for bed, school on Tuesday

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

One more thing george, speaking of attacking people on a personal level, isn't that what you do with consistency? You have attacked me by calling me a "liar," you wrote a blog and called me and others "envious," and in another blog you called people "arrogant," and (my favorite) you claimed I was "a paid plant for the Democratic party." And it all started because you didn't agree with my opinion. You first made the attacks personal. You did. If you wish to censure someone for making personal attacks, well george, you should start a little closer to home.

I am more than happy and willing to discuss issues with you, but when you make such outrageous accusations on a regular basis, how can you be expected to be taken seriously?

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes george, it is noted that you would rather people not be called on making racist comments, and when they do that we just forget them right away. Got it. When "opinions" are just judgmental attacks, as you routinely do in your blog, I enjoy calling you on it. You take yourself oh so seriously. Funny how quickly your "passion" for attacking me, as you called it, has turned to asking me to leave. Well guess what george, I believe that isn't your call to make. I'll leave when I choose. It won't have anything to do with you.

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Don't you just hate it when you make a grandstanding call for "meaningful conversation" and the person you regularly berate and have very recently called a liar and made outrageous claims about shows up to call you on your b.s.? Hypocrite.

Bea

Your posts are rarely discussions. You state an opinion. If someone disagrees with you instead of reinforcing your opinion with fact you attack the individual who disagrees with you on a personal level (like raciest). You deserve censure. And I will continue to censure you (and return your personal attacks). Go address Arizona’s problems and let us Kansans address ours.

0

macon47 3 years, 4 months ago

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not." Thomas Jefferson

0

SnakeFist 3 years, 4 months ago

Notajayhawk: You clearly never went to college, and, as a result, harbor feelings of intellectual inferiority. The only way for you to ameliorate these feelings is to minimize the value of education and insist that your uneducated ideas have equal value. So I don't expect you to admit you're wrong.

But consider this: people aren't equally beautiful, physically talented, tall, or wealthy, so doesn't it follow that they're not all equally intelligent? And would you rather have a more intelligent person or a less intelligent person running the country?

I assume you recognize that an M.D.'s education makes him more qualified than you to diagnose illness, and a J.D.'s education makes him more qualified to interpret law, so doesn't it follow that a leader's experience, vision, and intelligence make him more qualified to set public policy? Unlike you (and Liberty_One), I think most people would rather not have Joe Six-Pack in the Oval Office, and would prefer their leaders to lead rather than govern based on polls.

0

SnakeFist 3 years, 4 months ago

Liberty_One: You're clearly an intelligent person. Unfortunately, your life is limited to posting to this site and your self-esteem is inextricably linked to thinking that you're right and that someone cares about your opinion (hence your blog and the incredible number of your posts). So I realize you'll never admit you're wrong.

The mentality of the libertarian (and the conservative) is that of an ungrateful child who is happy to take by can't or won't recognize the moral obligation to reciprocally give. You take from the system everytime you use the public roads, you take from the system every time you use water from a public reservoir that was processed through a public treatment plant and delivered through public sewers, you take from the system every time you use the police or fire department, and you take from the system everytime you use public education or rely on the services of someone who used public education or paid tuition with public loans. So you are an obvious hypocrite when you assert that the government that provides these things that you take is a corrupt criminal organization and the taxes that pay for these things that you take are collected at the point of a gun.

The only way to avoid this hypocrisy is to become a hermit living completely off the grid, which very few people are will to do. And that is why the majority will never accept your extremist, childish, and hypocritical libertarian/conservative notions.

0

roscoepoet 3 years, 4 months ago

I randomly sampled these random people who all said, "no thank you," when offered an opportunity to be president:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83731368@N00/5213809510/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83731368@N00/5211062576/

0

UNIKU 3 years, 4 months ago

Makes you wonder what Burkhart's employment record is....likely dismal, so he has to blame it on Obama....or the Pro-Choicers....pathetic...

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Left: I hate Bush

Right: I hate Obama

Left: Obama is wonderful

Right: None of the Above

Meaningful conversation???????

I wonder how people felt just before the civil war? Freight train coming and no way to get off the tracks.

0

HollisBrown 3 years, 4 months ago

If I hadn't taken your sex class at KU I wouldn't be the perve that I am now. Thanks, Denny!

0

independant1 3 years, 4 months ago

two words - 1. politician 2. honest

Should never be used in the same sentence.

For the most part we are still ruled by the landed gentry.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 4 months ago

And as always, in no way do I put the full blame on Barack Obama. We have had our congress headed up the past four years by two despicable politicians and the Dem party has been commandeered by the far-left. Americans are flatly rejecting O/P/R now that they've had a good taste of what they are all about.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 4 months ago

Mr. Dailey's two paragraphs are very exemplary of where they are placed: the opinion page. Anyhoo....... http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1924

0

grammaddy 3 years, 4 months ago

Everybody can complain and criticize. I tell my employees not to bring that mess to me without offering solutions. If you think he's doing such a poor job, why not offer an alternative? Because it's just so much easier to gripe.Most of those griping about Obama don't have any. They don't have a clue about what his job entails.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps they didn't teach that subject in Indonesia.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

I was taught in school why the government shouldn't simply print more money to solve the problems of inflation. Maybe Mr. Obama was sick the day they covered that in his Jr. high......

0

BornAgainAmerican 3 years, 4 months ago

Nothing here...the LJW must be desperate for LTEs.

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 4 months ago

No, he's not. A random person off the street would do a far better job of being president than Obama is doing.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.