The Conservative victory in the UK augurs well for Republicans in 2016 (Guest Post)

By 85 Comments 3,018 views

The British center right party, the Conservatives, won a stunning victory upsetting all predictions of a hung Parliament. This makes the US the exception in the English speaking world of being the only government headed by a leftist, Barack Obama (whom I shall call oBUMa from now on).

John Key (New Zealand), Tony Abbott (Australia), Stephen Harper (Canada) and of course David Cameron (UK) are all leaders of center right parties and Prime Ministers of their countries. Will the growing conservative tide from across the Atlantic surge to the US?

The Conservative victory in the UK was stunning because for months, the Conservative Party and the centre left Labour Party were neck and neck in the polls. What made the victory even more amazing was the strong showing of UKIP, an even more conservative (with a small ‘c’) party which won 12.6% of the votes. If you add that to the Conservative Party’s 36.9%, you get 49.5% of conservative (with a small ‘c’) votes. There are some striking similarities (as well as differences such as gay marriage, which Cameron signed into law) in the politics in both the US and UK. The two most common and burning issues in both countries are:

1) Immigration.

2) The debate about growing the pie vs dividing the pie equally.

1) Immigration

The UK, like the US is awashed with immigrants at a time when a lot of people are not working. * In the US as in the UK, people who objected to unchecked immigration are labelled bigots. In the UK, most of the immigrants are legal  and from other European Union (EU) countries. In the case of the US, the problem is the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico. The Democrats, sensing an opportunity to gain Hispanic votes for decades want to grant them amnesty;

In the UK, the question of immigration is tied up with EU membership which allows untrammeled immigration from EU countries. The anti-immigration party is UKIP which wants to stop immigration by withdrawing from the EU altogether. Many Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) also feel that way and some even defected to the UKIP. Cameron made a last ditch appeal to UKIP supporters to “come home” to the Conservative Party.

They see their country’s traditions and identity being eroded. If you take a ride on the London Underground, you will hear a gaggle of foreign languages ranging from Hindi to Urdu, to Arabic, to Polish, to Greek to Spanish. David Cameron has promised to renegotiate with the EU to allow the UK to control their borders and to hold a referendum on British membership in the EU. In both countries, those who seek to maintain the cultural identity of their country and oppose uncontrolled immigration were accused of bigotry or racism.

2) The debate about growing the economic pie vs dividing the pie equally

Labor, the center left party in the UK, like the Democrats has been banging the drum of class warfare and social justice. They campaigned on higher taxes on bankers’ bonuses and a ‘mansion tax. This will pay for a guaranteed job program and greater health care spending. Labour has always portrayed the Conservatives as “heartless”.

This image stuck and even the Conservatives’ coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats agreed. Conservatives (or Tories as they are called in the UK), with their drastic cuts in government spending to balance the budget was seen as the “party of the rich” just as the Republican Party is in the US.

It is no wonder that the polls were wrong. All these accusations by opinion makers in the universities, news media made people afraid to tell the pollsters the truth. This phenomena of the “shy Tory” led to a serious under-estimate of their support.

The problem is that the cultural elite in Britain as in America are leftists who view their opponents as morally inferior to themselves. For example, Rebecca Roache, a lecturer of Philosophy at the University of London and formerly a researcher at the University of Oxford unfriended her Conservative friends in her Facebook. She said this in her blog:

So, unfriending. Is it okay? Well, the view that I have arrived at today is that openly supporting a political party that—in the name of austerity—withdraws support from the poor, the sick, the foreign, and the unemployed while rewarding those in society who are least in need of reward, that sells off our profitable public goods to private companies while keeping the loss-making ones in the public domain, that boasts about cleaning up the economy while creating more new debt than every Labour government combined, that wants to scrap the Human Rights Act and (via the TTIP) hand sovereignty over some of our most important public institutions to big business—to express one’s support for a political party that does these things is as objectionable as expressing racist, sexist, or homophobic views.

As in America, leftists have this feeling they are morally superior to those who disagree with. They are incapable of saying “let us be friends, even though we disagree”.  So it is no wonder that the Tories are shy. They learned to keep their mouths shut in social gatherings to avoid losing their friends. This habit seems to have carried forward to answering poll questions.

We can see a similar phenomena in the US. American conservatives are labelled by liberals as intolerant, uncaring for the poor and racist. The news media, universities and Hollywood are liberal bastions. Thus, America’s cultural elite keeps sending out the message that conservatives are somehow racist, uncaring and intolerant of gays.

For example, Chick Fil A was embroiled in controversy regarding its stand on gay marriage. There were threats to stop them from opening new restaurants in Chicago and Boston. Two students wearing Chick Fil A T shirts were harassed on the internet. This is what America and Britain has come to. People are afraid of expressing their views. The Left has succeeded in stifling free speech.

This is the likely reason why the polls in the UK were all were all wrong. They all predicted a neck and neck race resulting in a hung Parliament. In the end, the Conservatives won by a margin of 6%. There were people who told the polls one thing and did another in the privacy of the voting booth. The British press has dubbed such people as the “shy conservatives.”

Besides the immigration issue, there was the issue of growth vs economic justice. Like the British, Americans are intimidated by the liberal elite dominating the universities and news media. Another front where liberals are attacking is in regards to gay marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage are labelled as intolerant by the liberal elite.

If you expressed an opinion that the left disapproves of, you can expect to be harassed. That was also why US polls were wrong about the 2014 Congressional Elections. Looking ahead, I think the public scoldings from the media and academic elites in America has turned US conservatives quiet but also angry. To be constantly condemned for the traditional values of middle America like a belief in being rewarded for hard work as undeserved (oBUMa’s “you did not build that”), the desire for keeping illegal immigrants out as racist, support for the traditional family as being intolerant has angered conservatives. They may be intimidated from speaking out, but they will show their displeasure in the Presidential elections in 2016.

I predict that a Republican will win the White House in 2016, making it a clean slate of right wing President or Prime Ministers in all five English speaking countries.

*In the US, the unemployment rate is currently 5.5% as compared to 7.5% in the UK. The US is facing the question of 20 million illegal immigrants while in the UK, the immigration question is

(But the US figure does not tell the whole picture. The figure appears low  because a lot of people are discouraged from looking for work and are not counted. A more reliable number to look is the worker participation rate, which is currently 63.8%, or about the lowest since 1978. That is as bad as in Jimmy Carter’s time. )

A successful businessman and author, Robert H. Lee has spent years extensively researching the history of nations for his book Saving Democracy from Suicide. (LINK: A self-professed Americaphile, Lee resides in Singapore with his family, but he previous lived in the United States where he went to the University of Michigan for his MBA.

85 Responses to “The Conservative victory in the UK augurs well for Republicans in 2016 (Guest Post)”

  1. 51

    another vet

    @rich wheeler: Earlier you stated that she would take 65% of the female vote, a somewhat dim view of the intellectual capacity of those 65% of the women. But if that truly is the case, what makes you think Webb can syphon off all those women voters? I believe you stated here before that you served under him in VN so perhaps you have an insider’s view of what would make him so appealing to those women.

    As much as you bemoan HRC, if I recall you are an active Party member meaning you will support whoever gets the Party’s nomination. If they tell you to campaign for HRC, you’ll do so. In late 2007, two friends of mine told me that HRC was going to be the next POTUS and that it was a done deal. I told them that Obama was going to beat her in the primaries. They said no way and both of those individuals were black.

  2. 52


    @rich wheeler:

    Try and keep up RT. You’re the one who thinks her health issues could keep her out.

    Well, I must be way ahead. I’m the one that thinks her mental issues make her an ideal Dimocrat candidate. She fits right in with the brain dead. ” Where’s JIndahl?” like Cruz, and Rubio he’s not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible.

  3. 53


    @another vet: One comment here:

    I told them that Obama was going to beat her in the primaries.

    Technically Obama didn’t beat Hillary in the primaries. He only stole the nom from her in the Caucuses. (but that’s a minor point) kinda like LBJ stole the election for JFK in Texas in 60. I’m not sure why Rich is beating the drums for Webb, he hasn’t stated any intentions to run. Rich has said he wouldn’t vote for Shrillary, but he would. He has to be a good little party guy.

  4. 54


    I like this comment:

    ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Not to mention the murder of Vince Foster. Yep ole Bill and Hill are a ‘real couple’. That’s what our country needs, morality.

  5. 55

    Larry Weisenthal

    The only people who would base a decision on whether to vote for Hillary based on Paula Jones and Vince Foster are old people who’d never vote for Hillary for a hundred other reasons. Hillary’s opponent would have to come up with issues of contemporary relevance.

    I’m not sure you all remember, but Clinton remained extremely popular with the electorate throughout his Presidency despite 7 years of continuous allegations and investigations and despite his various sex antics — very popular, unlike, for example, his successor.

    Bill Clinton would be pushing 70 by the time Hillary was sworn in. He’s had serious heart problems and frankly looks to me to be quite fragile. Not exactly a major threat to White House women, however much he might dream about it. Paula Jones wants to bring back the good old days, when she was of political relevance to conservatives and felt important. Those days are long gone. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  6. 56

    another vet

    @Redteam: Webb is definitely giving serious thought about running. As I stated before, I’d like to see him run as third party candidate because I think he would do well. It would be a jolt to the two party system just like Perot was in ’92 which would be good for the country.

    As for Obama and the caucuses, we have to remember that the Democrats’ election process is different than the Republicans’. Whereas the R’s are winner take all, the D’s use proportional representation.

  7. 58


    @Larry Weisenthal:

    The only people who would base a decision on whether to vote for Hillary based on Paula Jones and Vince Foster are old people

    And what does it say about those that would defend a rapist? Someone that likely had an associate murdered? And knowing all those things about her beloved, she backed him anyway. I think if my wife found out I was hitting on every woman around me, engaging in sex in my office, raping those that went on a business trip with me that she would not defend me. Would not make excuses for me and she damn sure wouldn’t join me in my criminal ventures. But that’s what we have here. Defenders of criminals in the White House, wanting even more of them.

    I’m not sure you all remember, but Clinton remained extremely popular with the electorate throughout his Presidency despite 7 years of continuous allegations and investigations and despite his various sex antics

    and Larry, what does that say about those who idolized this kind of immorality and criminal behavior? Birds of a feather?

  8. 60


    @another vet:

    I agree. The younger voters are too young to remember the ’90’s.

    Those that don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it.
    I can’t understand the reasoning of a person that says that the fact that a person was a crook, supported her rapist husband, knows a lot about Vince Foster’s death, that just because those issues happended to them 20 years ago is not important, is somehow not a measure of who they really are. Using that theory, a person that commits murder should only be sentenced to less than 20 years because anything that happened 20 years ago is old news and is not important any longer. It’s not ‘who they are’ now.

    You just gotta admire the morals of these lefties.

  9. 61

    another vet

    @Redteam: I think it would be a far better strategy to tie Hillary to the failures of the Obama administration which are plentiful and ongoing. I’m sorry to say, too many Americans don’t care about the other points you bring up so emphasizing those would have little bearing on the election. Notice the lack of outrage when the current occupant of the WH blatantly lies and gets caught or the lack of outrage when he thumbs his nose at the Constitution.

  10. 62


    @another vet:

    I think it would be a far better strategy to tie Hillary to the failures of the Obama administration which are plentiful and ongoing. I’m sorry to say, too many Americans don’t care about the other points you bring up

    Maybe, it doesn’t matter to me either way. She’s scum back then, scum now. She supported and abated a criminal in his endeavors. It does matter to me. It doesn’t matter to the lefties. I wouldn’t vote for her under any conditions, even if Obama were running on the Republican ticket. I wouldn’t vote for him either.

    Notice the lack of outrage when the current occupant of the WH blatantly lies and gets caught

    That’s the same people that would vote for Hillary. Not concerned with morality and ethics. I can’t even imagine the thoughts of people that have no ethical standards at all.

  11. 63

    Larry Weisenthal

    Hi Red Team, Clinton was probably investigated more than any single individual in history. Firstly was the Starr inquisition, with an unlimited budget (wasn’t it something like $60 million they spent?) and time limited only by the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency, the only thing that Starr was able to turn up was Clinton receiving a few BJs from a legal-aged seductress who arranged to deliver pizza to him alone after hours and who then proceeded to flash her thong underwear at him. She was hardly “raped.” With respect to the old Broderick allegation, for goodness sake, three weeks after the alleged rape she attended and partied at a Clinton fundraiser. What truly raped woman would do that? Do you know anything about the Duke University Lacrosse case; and a thousand other cases where women with a grudge or with buyer’s remorse make allegations which aren’t true? As far as Vince Foster goes, that’s a kook charge that Starr investigated and Starr himself called it a suicide.

    Yeah, Bill Clinton — in his physical prime — had the very common alpha male sex addict problem. But he’s past his prime. Way past. Long gone.

    No, Hillary Clinton didn’t have that problem and was certainly not in any way complicit.

    And no one is going to not vote for Hillary Clinton because of Bill Clinton’s sex history, unless said voter did not already have a whole lot of other reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton.

    You guys still can’t believe that Kenneth Starr couldn’t come up with anything substantive and you want to bring back allegations going back decades which were never near proven. … oh, and with respect to Clinton being the most investigated human in the history of the world, there is also Richard Mellon Scaife and his teams of private investigators, scouring the country for any scandal at all. And they came up with Paula Jones.

    Quite honestly, that stuff is political fossil material. Why not concentrate on the present? If you can’t defeat Hillary based on the issues, why not try and make points with speaking fees from potential conflicts of interest and Clinton foundation donations and even Benghazi, if you think there’s mileage to be gotten.

    But … Vince Foster? And Bill Clinton’s famous zipper? Are you kidding me? Those things are going nowhere. Been there. Done that. Didn’t work the first time around. Sure isn’t going to work 20 years down the road.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  12. 64

    another vet

    @Redteam: If you take a recent college grad who probably has in excess of $50,000 in student loan debt and who is working a part time job making $10 an hour and an older person who hasn’t worked full time since the end of the “Great Recession”, what will appeal to them? Talking about the failure of the Keynesian economic driven “Great Recovery” and how getting back to Classical liberal economic practices would be better for providing for future economic opportunity or emphasizing the ’90’s and the Clinton’s dysfunctional marriage?

  13. 65


    @Larry Weisenthal: Justifying bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior is hardly a winning strategy. I’m not trying to defeat Hillary in the next campaign, she should be fully capable of doing that herself.
    I’m certainly not planning a speaking tour on behalf of anyone in either campaign. I’m now old enough that I realize that it doesn’t really make much difference which side gets elected, the downward slide is not going to be slowed. Oh, admittedly the slope is steeper on the Dimo side than the Republican, make no mistake, the slope is downward on both sides. None of the Repubs want a fence on our borders, same as the Dims. So does it matter which one? The repubs are serious about running illegal candidates (not natural born) such as Cruz, Jindahl, Rubio, etc. so how can they be trusted to do what’s right?

    Do you seriously think an investigation into the criminality of a sitting president is going to go anywhere? As long as the press is on the crooks side, it’s going nowhere. VF, ruled a suicide? That was a joke. Remember that guy LBJ had killed, he shot himself 5 times in the chest with his own rifle, it was declared a suicide. Well, admittedly much later, Mac Wallace was determined to have killed him, first degree murder, he got 5 yrs probation. So even though Slick was accused by several women of having raped them, you don’t believe any of it. You think Slick was of such outstanding character it was just those women with loose morals that were chasing after him, flipping their thongs at him? Did they have thongs back in the 90″s?

    oh, and with respect to Clinton being the most investigated human in the history of the world,

    Not true, the JFK assassination is certainly much more investigated and with the full efforts of the US government they have not been able to prove that LHO killed JFK. Well, since he didn’t, that does make it a little tougher to do.
    But Slick and his deranged accomplice have nothing to offer the world but that doesn’t seem to matter to the lefties, they only look up to their images and sing Hallelujah and Praise Bill.

  14. 66


    @another vet: Your point is not clear. Are you saying that the recent college grad with 50K debt and making 10 hr is gonna support Hillary because she’s gonna give him a dollar an hour raise on his min wage job and not worry about her being an accomplice to Slick and his shenanigans? I’d say that’s what the lefties are hoping for. We damn sure haven’t seen ANY and I mean “ANY” improvement in the jobs, employment situation under this great Marxist we have in office now and I don’t think Shrillary and her Marxism strategy is gonna be any better. I am still waiting for ANY person in the world to tell me one accomplishment of Hillary Clinton that is worthy of even being mentioned, just what has she done that qualifes her to be president? Lived in the White House? Yep, even had a separate bedroom. That description fits the White House cook also. So AV, if you were trying to make a point that there is ‘some reason’ to vote for Hillary, spit it out. Lay it on the line. Just what are her redeeming qualities?

  15. 67

    Larry Weisenthal

    Hi Redteam, I said that Bill Clinton was the most investigated person in the history of the world. I stand by this. The JFK assassination was an event, not a single person. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t investigated the way Clinton was. And Oswald was all post-mortem. He couldn’t be called to the stand. In addition to Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife, you had 35% of the nation which actively hated Clinton, and a nation of news media — and nowhere near all of them were interested in saving Clinton’s behind.

    Anyway, are there any other nominations for most investigated human in history? Clinton is certainly the most investigated politician in history, at minimum.

    Just one comment on job growth. If you look at graphs of GDP by year, what you’ll find is that it was growing steadily, then crashed downward at the end of 2008, just before Obama’s inauguration. This is where 750,000 jobs per month were being shed. Now, it took about a year, but then GDP started shooting upwards again, and it’s growing at a faster rate than during the pre-crash Bush years. Corporations are sitting on record cash. The reason for the wage gap is because of changes in the labor system. It’s not because of economic weakness.

    Prior to 1980, we had wages growing in tandem with the economy. And all income levels grew. This was in the era of the 70% marginal tax rate and the 50% capital gains tax rate. Businesses were incentivized to keep money in their businesses and give employees wage hikes — as they were effectively getting a 70% government subsidy on every dollar given to employees. In other words, it cost the employer 30 cents to give a one dollar raise — which bought a lot of employee job satisfaction and ultimately benefited the employer — whereas taking money out of the company was a poor investment, as the employer only got to keep 30 cents on the dollar.

    With the gutting of progressive taxation, there’s little incentive to give money to employees, when you can take money out of the business, keep most of it, and buy yourself creature comforts or diversify your investment portfolio.

    The way to bring back decent wages is to go back to the tax structure of the 60s and 70s, raise the minimum wage, and support the private sector union movement. This is not “socialism;” it’s old fashioned progressive taxation.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  16. 68


    @Larry Weisenthal: I notice you totally ducked the question about what Hill’s accomplishments are. As expected, since she has none.

    The way to bring back decent wages is to go back to the tax structure of the 60s and 70s, raise the minimum wage, and support the private sector union movement.

    And here I expected more out of you. Raise the min wage? Put more out of work? Support union movement? now that is just hilarious. So you’re saying that paying more for getting less done is the way to go? So you support crooked labor unions? interesting.
    Crashed at the end of 08, eh. So the election of Obozo was taken as a disaster, as it is. Unemployment is at the highest it’s been since forever and no prospects of any improvement. In fact, it’s actually getting worse every day. More dropping out of the job market entirely. Going to live off Uncle Sam, yeah, that’s an ambition.

    and nowhere near all of them were interested in saving Clinton’s behind.

    Only the ones running the investigation, and that’s all that mattered. So let’s be clear, you’re pretty sure that with all that many women claiming sexual assaults, that it was just all a witch hunt. Surely Clinton would have been beyond any of that kind of thing. Right? And Hillary didn’t do anything to cover it up. Really? You’ve got a real sense of humor, Larry.

  17. 69

    Larry Weisenthal

    Hi Red Team, Way too early to go getting into full on election mode. I’m not out front trumpeting Hillary’s achievements to date. She was a terrific political operative for her husband’s gubernatorial career and in the 1992 Dem nomination race; she was a decent First Lady; she was a decent Senator — praised by GOP colleagues as well as by Dems. Took a low profile; kept her nose to the grindstone; did her job. She was also a more than decent Secretary of State. Comparing her with the GOP candidates; she’s certainly as “accomplished” as Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Paul. I think that being a state governor is better preparation for being POTUS than most other jobs. I think Walker is highly qualified; so is Christie. Texas actually has a “weak” state governor system; so I wouldn’t necessarily give Perry an edge — accomplishment-wise or experience wise. Hillary has a lot of obvious problems; she’s got quite a public record; so she’s going to be a target. My own fantasy Dem candidate for POTUS would be John Huntsmann — he’d obviously have to change political parties, but it’s been done before.

    With regard to the economics, you can’t change facts … the facts are that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and got it turned around within a year and GDP has grown at a better rate than it did prior to the crash (which occurred BEFORE Obama beat McCain; so you can’t blame it on his election). GDP has grown robustly; but the people with the money have not shared it with their workers; and manufacturing is increasingly automated. POTUS can’t micromanage the economy at the level of telling employers not to replace workers with machines and to pay their employees more money, in line with their profits, and not to outsource. All POTUS can do is to create conditions conducive to decent GDP growth, which is what we’ve had.

    Anyway, I’m going to take another sabbatical from F/A. Just dropped in to say hi and let everyone know I didn’t die. I’ll be back for sure, once the campaign for POTUS is in full swing, in 2016. Have a great summer!

    – Larry

  18. 70

    rich wheeler

    @another vet:You are correct. Dems. used proportional representation in the primaries for the first time and this gave bho a narrow win. Caucuses played a very minor role.
    Webb can use the same tactics–stay close in the big blue states and win the red states. Also could use Repub crossover in open primaries.
    BTW I know many Repub. vets who will vote for Webb. He’s a fighter who can beat HRC.
    Repubs. need FLA and Ohio Rubio/Kasich best hope to pull an upset.

  19. 71

    George Wells

    @Redteam #63:

    ” Did they have thongs back in the 90″s?”

    Geez, Redteam, how long ago was your first stroke?
    Thongs became popular in the 1970’s.

  20. 72

    another vet

    @Redteam: The point I was making is that should she get the nomination, the Republican nominee needs to emphasize what a failure the current administration has been with regards to jobs and the economy, connect her to it, and then point out that Classic liberal economic thought, i.e. reduced government interference in the economy, lower taxes, balanced budgets etc., are the way to go. And that theme holds true for whoever the dem nominee is. There would be a lot more to gain from that approach as opposed to bringing out her dysfunctional marriage. People care about bread and butter issues.

    If the ’90’s were to be brought up, the emphasis should be on how two ’90’s policies- treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and forcing lending institutions to give out subprime loans, helped lead to the two events that defined the last decade- 9/11 and the housing market crash which turned what should have been a mild recession into a major one. That is something voters who don’t remember the ’90’s can relate to because they experienced the negative consequences of both of those policies.

  21. 74


    @another vet:

    People care about bread and butter issues.

    sure can’t disagree with that. Especially the food stamp crowd.

    I do agree that the Clinton crowd never did take terrorism seriously, even to this day. Hillary thinks Ben Ghazi is a superstar in a religious epic. She doesn’t have a clue. She does know how to illegally make money, but not for the common folks.

  22. 75

    another vet

    @Larry Weisenthal: Robust growth? Then how do you explain these food stamp numbers? 28,223,000 in 2009 to 46,536,000 in 2014.

    The recession ended in June, 2009. Specifically, what did Obama do between January, 2009 and June, 2009 that led to the end of the recession?

    This is not “socialism;” it’s old fashioned progressive taxation.

    Number 2 of Karl Marx’s means to “wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie”-

    “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

    The Communist Manifesto, Norton Critical Edition, p. 74.

  23. 77

    another vet

    @Bill: There is a solution to that. Change the way the GDP is calculated so the numbers can be revised upward.

    And it has happened before under this administration.

    Comparing current GDP numbers to past GDP numbers is like comparing apples to oranges now. Add in Obamacare’s impact on GDP growth and there you have the solution to REPORTING robust economic growth. Tweak the numbers upward and force people to buy a certain product or service. Imagine what past GDP growth rates would have been if past Presidents would have forced people to buy a $5,000 widget every year or pay a $2,000 fine. I could have sworn something happened around 1775/1776 in response to that type of “economics”.

  24. 78


    @another vet: most people don’t really understand the GDP deal, but consider unemployment. Let’s say that when you take office the unemployment looks like this. There are 1000 jobs, 1000 persons are doing those jobs. 100 people want a job but can’t find one. simple math says that the ‘unemployed is 10%” right? Well we obviously don’t want 10% unemployed do we? So we can create 25 new jobs and put 25 people to work and that then leaves us with 7.5% unemployed. OR, we can say that there are really only 90 people looking for a job. The other 10 have decided they would rather just go on welfare and not look for a job any longer. so now we have only 9% unemployment. Not bad. looking better. so next month, let’s take another off the looking for work category and put them on permanent welfare. Shazam, we now have unemployment down to 7.5%. Looking even better. Of course this can be continued, but suppose now that the work force is now cut from 1000 down to 950, wow, that means were are now at 75 + 50 without a job and only 950 working so that mean unemployment is now 125/950 =13%. Whoa……….how do we keep the number from going up to 13%, oh….I know…. let’s say that they are ‘retired’ and not looking for work and that another 25 have now gone on welfare so that makes unemployment what? 50/950 = 5.2% Wow, we are doing fantastic. only 50 unemployed and 950 working. That Sec of Labor and the Prez are sure doing a fantastic job. So of the original 1100, we now have 950 working and only 5.2% unemployed and so those other 100 are now on welfare and enjoying those food stamp benefits. That’s how you can make yourself look good. Just get a good numbers maneuvering guy and you’ll look like a champ.

    Most people can understand this. Libs won’t, but I couldn’t make it much simpler.

  25. 79

    another vet

    @Redteam: And sometimes, you don’t even need a good numbers maneuvering guy. Simply, say, lower the average temperatures for previous years so the recent years look like they were a lot hotter. Not that that has ever happened before.

  26. 81

    George Wells

    @Redteam #71:

    “don’t believe thongs were around in the 70s”

    Like every other fact you get exposed to, you examine it under the lens of your belief system and summarily announce your conclusion instead of bothering to check to see if it is your own mouth you are sticking your foot into.

    Thongs first “appeared” in 1939 when NY City Mayor LaGuardia ordered the city’s nude dancers to minimally cover up during the World’s Fair in that city.
    The first “thong bikini” was introduced to the fashion world by Rudi Gernreich in 1974.
    Thong swimsuits (on remarkably fit women) hit the beaches of Brazil big-time in 1977.
    Since you’re gay, I’ll give you a stupidity exemption for not knowing this, seeing how men didn’t start wearing thongs in public until much later. Some municipalities still consider buttocks to be sexual organs – which of course they are not – and forbid their exposure in public. Likely the laws against such buttock exposure are useful in preventing mass vomiting, particularly as obesity has become widespread.

  27. 82

    George Wells

    @Redteam #71:
    “don’t believe thongs were around in the 70s”

    You are REMARKABLY uninformed.
    Your “beliefs” have nothing to do with it.
    Look it up.

  28. 83


    @George Wells:

    Thongs first “appeared” in 1939

    Sorry George, you’re referring to G strings, not the same thing. I figured you would make that mistake, most people do. It was definitely in either the late 80s or in the 90s that women started wearing thong panties. I doubt you were particularly interested in what some chicks were wearing but I’m sure that if your boyfriend had come out with a thong you would have been very aware of it.

    You said:

    Since you’re gay, I’ll give you a stupidity exemption for not knowing this

    I’m quite sure you know I’m not gay, you haven’t seen me in your assless chaps have you? Are you saying your ‘guy’ won’t wear a thong for you? Darn, how sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *