So, yes, some of their topics are worth discussing and often I would change the wording of said topics. It is the axioms they use that I wish to eschew. So, I do. >>Orn
Understood, and they are not the only ones. On Sep 26, 5:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “So I'm wondering if you think that because the foundation is less > than, in your opinion, a viable source of information, that the > examples presented, at least the top ten, are not worthy of > examination and public concern.” – SD > > Slip, I think it is ‘viable’ if a person has specific goals, interests > and appetites. I think that everything is worthy of examination and > much is of public concern. I just discriminate when it comes to which > attitudes I chose to place my attention on and/or receive impressions > from. One criterion I use is what is the ‘bottom line’ for the person/ > group involved. I find that the bottom line for The Heritage > Foundation is just that, the bottom line, money. And, as much as money > is of interest to most of us, it is not of primary importance to me. > Nor is the tunnel vision and dogmatic approach this particular group > uses. > > “I wouldn't doubt that the DD wasted $100 million on unused tickets. > I think there is so much money > flowing in that they just act irresponsibly as a matter of course. > People struggle to survive by living within austerity budgets and > these A holes are just throwing money away, to the tune of billions.” > – SD > > Slip, the DOD has been near the center of US economic policy for > centuries. This is not questioned by most people and is verifiable. I > and most people I know wish a different focus when it comes to what > drives the economic wheels of this culture. To that end, I and many > friends not only chose not to support the given complex but place our > attention elsewhere on the whole. Only when institutions lose all > support do they wither and die. Every ‘hit’ to the Heritage Found > webpage just makes it easier for them to solicit funds. I do not wish > to support their views and propaganda in any way. > > So, yes, some of their topics are worth discussing and often I would > change the wording of said topics. It is the axioms they use that I > wish to eschew. So, I do. > > On Sep 26, 7:25 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So I'm wondering if you think that because the foundation is less > > than, in your opinion, a viable source of information, that the > > examples presented, at least the top ten, are not worthy of > > examination and public concern. I wouldn't doubt that the DD wasted > > $100 million on unused tickets. I think there is so much money > > flowing in that they just act irresponsibly as a matter of course. > > People struggle to survive by living within austerity budgets and > > these A holes are just throwing money away, to the tune of billions. > > > On Sep 26, 4:26 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “Yeah, maybe so. But at least mine's not flavored with cyanide!” – DJ > > > > Nope, oil perhaps? ;-) > > > Regardless, it appears to even more acerbic than cyanide. > > > > On Sep 26, 2:04 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We > > > > all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. -orn > > > > > Yeah, maybe so. But at least mine's not flavored with cyanide! > > > > > dj > > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “…I think the more measured and scholarly approach to > > > > > solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more > > > > > sense….” – DJ > > > > > > Sense, perhaps…wisdom, no! Personally I find any blind use of dogmatic > > > > > social philosophy to be anathema, even more so than simple fantasy > > > > > and/ > > > > > or hyperbole. The latter can show clarity while the former can not. We > > > > > all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. > > > > > > On Sep 26, 12:56 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'trust' them but I definitely > > > > >> respect them. Like you say, they aren't shy about stating their > > > > >> purpose. They have some sound opinions on the health care bill that > > > > >> make a lot of sense to me. Naomi Klein, on the other hand, comes > > > > >> across as your typical purveyor of agitprop. I remember when she was > > > > >> instrumental in playing the race card after Hurricane Katrina. > > > > >> Writing some hogwash about Bush deliberately putting blacks at risk > > > > >> while saving whites after the storm. Just silly. She has a history > > > > >> of > > > > >> fabricating truths and exaggerating evidence to support her own sick > > > > >> fantasies. I think the more measured and scholarly approach to > > > > >> solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more > > > > >> sense. > > > > > >> In a completely unrelated matter; why do so many 'activists' hide(or > > > > >> at least obscure) their true ideologies? People that live and breath > > > > >> a Marxist doctrine will look you straight in the eye and tell you > > > > >> they > > > > >> aren't a communist. Do you think they're ignorant, stupid or are > > > > >> they > > > > >> trying to put one over on us? Not that there is anything wrong with > > > > >> being a communist... I'm just curious what some of you think of the > > > > >> often un-clever attempts of some journalists to muddy their political > > > > >> leanings. Do they think we're all stupid or something? > > > > > >> dj > > > > > >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:23 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > Around the time of the formation of this organization (The Heritage > > > > >> > Foundation) I had begun to become politically and economically > > > > >> > aware. > > > > >> > Quite quickly I learned to study who funded and ran such ‘think > > > > >> > tanks’. Their stated mission: > > > > > >> > “Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think > > > > >> > tank. > > > > >> > Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public > > > > >> > policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited > > > > >> > government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a > > > > >> > strong national defense." It is widely considered one of the > > > > >> > world's > > > > >> > most influential public policy research institutes.” > > > > > >> > …sounds innocent enough, no? And, they do come right out and state > > > > >> > their political and economic dogma. > > > > > >> >http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation > > > > > >> > Further down the page, on the above link, one can find the primary > > > > >> > corporate funders of the foundation, big-pharma, tobacco, insurance > > > > >> > companies, military contractors. > > > > > >> > They, along with the Cato Institute and others who manufacture > > > > >> > consent, are anathema to anyone other than the top 1% financially > > > > >> > in > > > > >> > the US and similar people worldwide. > > > > > >> > From an article by Naomi Klein a year or so ago: > > > > > >> > “But, you know, I was interested that yesterday the Heritage > > > > >> > Foundation, which has always been a staunch Friedmanite think tank, > > > > >> > that they came out in favor of the bailout. They came out in favor > > > > >> > of > > > > >> > the bailout; they said it was vital. And what’s interesting about > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > is, of course, the bailout is creating a crisis in the economic—in > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > public sphere. It’s taking a private crisis, a crisis on Wall > > > > >> > Street, > > > > >> > which of course isn’t restricted to Wall Street, and it will affect > > > > >> > everyone, but it is moving it, moving those bad debts, onto the > > > > >> > public > > > > >> > books.” > > > > > >> > Her website:http://www.naomiklein.org/main > > > > > >> > …some of her views on the Heritage Fondation: > > > > >> >http://www.naomiklein.org/search/node/the+heritage+foundation > > > > > >> > The most recent ‘Research’ by the Heritage Institute: > > > > > >> > September 25, 2009 > > > > >> > Defunding ACORN: Necessary and Proper, and Certainly Constitutional > > > > >> > by Hans A. von Spakovsky > > > > > >> > September 25, 2009 > > > > >> > The Baucus Individual Health Insurance Mandate: Taxing Low-Income > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > Moderate-Income Workers > > > > >> > by Robert A. Book, Ph.D., Guinevere Nell, and Paul L. Winfree > > > > > >> > September 25, 2009 > > > > >> > The Baucus Health Bill: A Medicare Physician Payment Shell Game > > > > >> > by Dennis G. Smith > > > > > >> > The above is from their own site. > > > > > >> > I have never trusted this organization when it comes to helping > > > > >> > humanity. They clearly continue to push the same old economic dogma > > > > >> > that produced our current situation. I guess one gets what they pay > > > > >> > for, no? > > > > > >> > On Sep 25, 5:24 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> April 2005 > > > > >> >> Top 10 Examples of Government Waste > > > > >> >> by Brian M. Riedl > > > > > >> >> President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly > > > > >> >> reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective > > > > >> >> programs. > > > > >> >> This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway > > > > >> >> spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In > > > > >> >> less > > > > >> >> than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect > > > > >> >> Social > > > > >> >> Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to > > > > >> >> make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that > > > > >> >> will > > > > >> >> follow. > > > > > >> >> The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, > > > > >> >> fraud, > > > > >> >> and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its > > > > >> >> constitutional > > > > >> >> duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly > > > > >> >> refused to > > > > >> >> address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an > > > > >> >> attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R–IA) to > > > > >> >> address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of > > > > >> >> Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget > > > > >> >> Committee Chairman Don Nickles > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
