Lo digo Yo..NO es los extremos politos o conceptos de estado y economias que aplican los gobernantes.. Es .. JR Comenta.

Capitalismo o Socialismo o Como mas llamarlo...

 La foto y los hechos son marcan de una verdad que Yo la entiendo en concepto de que calidad de vida que los gobiernos y sus gobernantes le dan a la nación  No es llamar aquí Capitalismo y Socialismo es ver la calidad de vida que se quiere tener y dar. TODOS tenemos acceso a lo mismo en los dos estados y las mismas oportunidades de Educación y Desarrollo. Como queramos vivir es otra cosa. 

Usamos y se escucha mucho que dicen y o decimos que en los gobiernos dictadores de la derecha el pueblo sufre de hambre y no tiene acceso a la educación y a la salud y al trabajo. Decimos q en los Gobiernos de izquierda el pueblo tiene todo menos el acceso al desarrollo privado. Siempre digo vayamos y miremos y no escuchemos que dicen pues las voces son amplias y los ojos miran de manera distinta las cosas.

Lo que si es cierto es que los unos provocan a los otros y el circulo comienza. La historia del planeta lo dicen en cada paso que por generaciones hemos vivido. Roma. Grecia y China. Rusia y Cuba y Chile y Argentina y Brasil y Nicaragua y . y podría seguir. Suben unos y bajan otros que solo la meta de poder tienen y las arcas personales aumentar.

Buscamos en palabras como Derecha e Izquiera la disputa y entre capitalismo y comunismo o socialismo esconder la verdad. Todos queremos el bienestar y el desarrollo de todos. Unos hacemos falta y otros aportamos y otros somo parte de y otros hacen parte de, pero todos somos una nación donde quiera que vivamos. La diferencia es la calidad de vida. Los sectores económicos establecidos y sólidos en un país son basicos y parte del desarrollo de una nación y al cual  por su industria permite una fuerza laboral que da por tu trabajo la capacidad de educación y vida. Vida digna digo yo al permitir que todos mejores su calidad de vida. Todos alcancen el nivel de educación Y todos su acceso a los servicios de salud. Todo tiene un valor y  por ello todos trabajamos o generamos trabajo..

Los nuevos lideres necesitan dar un enfoque en el cual el rencor armado por politiquería oportunista y separatista hoy en día nos abriga. Necesitamos lideres que le den el valor a lo trabajado y al compromiso al trabajador. Una sociedad comprometida en el desarrollo participativo y equitativo y realista.  

Un líder que abra los espacios del rencor y de las diferencias sociales o niveles de vida... Un líder que con conceptos claros y lógica social integre los valores sociales y modere la justicia. NO es de derechas o Izquierdas .. NO es de capitalismo y Socialismo. es de Calidad de vida.

Doctrinas y Mensajes equivocados que confunden a las personas sin contemplar su necesidad única de vida. Promesas de economías viables y claras que no permiten el crecimiento y desarrollo total de una país. Alimentar al mas necesitado no es desarrollar una nación, es como sembrar en campo árido. Educar sin el recurso de trabajo es como un libro en distinto idioma.
Las revoluciones de Izquierda o Derecha a donde han logrado llevar y llegar .. Alimentación  Educación , Vestir, Vivir todos son elementos necesarios de vida y desarrollo y quien los provee.. La industria, Los centros de estudios, las fabricas y los desarrollos. Y quien los fomenta.  Los sistemas de economía fuertes y estructurados y bien administrados. Y quien se favorece.. TODOS.  para una mejor calidad de vida y condiciones Dignas.




Canon EOS 7D 18.0MP Digital SLR Camera - Body Only (Google Affiliate Ad)

For Democrats, there's no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else's birth control...Do Republicans really want to take contraception away from American women? JR Topics

Goldberg: Birth control agitprop

For Democrats, there's no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else's birth control.
By Jonah Goldberg

In 1984, Mario Cuomo pioneered the argument that one may be "personally opposed" to abortionwhile supporting abortion rights.

Ever since, this convenient locution has become a staple for countless Democratic politicians, particularly Roman Catholic ones.

Cuomo's argument was a mess. For instance, in order to buttress his argument he touted the (alleged) refusal of American Catholic bishops to forcefully denounce slavery. The bishops "weren't hypocrites; they were realists," Cuomo explained. They offered a "measured attempt to balance moral truths against political realities."

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS: Presidential Election 2012

As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in "The Party of Death": "It is a mark of the strength of contemporary liberalism's commitment to abortion that one of its leading lights should have been willing to support temporizing on slavery in order to defend it."

I bring this up because according to the logic of Democratsthese days, Cuomo and politicians who think as he does must want to ban abortion. It doesn't matter that they support abortion rights, in word and deed. They are personally opposed to abortion, usually as a matter of faith, and so they must favor banning it.

That's the upshot of the shockingly dishonest propaganda being peddled by leading Democrats and media outlets about the Republican push to "ban" contraception.

Part of the problem is simply psychological projection. Because many liberals believe there's no valid limiting principle on government's ability to do "good," they assume that conservatives believe there's no valid limiting principle to do "bad."

Rick Santorum, who unproductively helped inject birth control into the GOP primaries, nonetheless explained the flaw in this thinking. "Here's the difference between me and the left, and they don't get this: Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it. That's what they do. That's not what we do."

But don't tell that to the Democrats who are desperate to accuse the Republicans of Comstockery.

"Let's admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to "the Dark Ages … when women were property that you could easily control, trade even, if you wanted to."

The Obama campaign insists that "if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women's healthcare decisions for them" and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.

It's all so breathtakingly dishonest. Rather than transport us to President Franklin Pierce's America, never mind Charlemagne's Europe, the Blunt amendment would send America hurtling back to January 2012. That's when women were free to buy birth control from their local Ralphs orWal-Mart, and religious employers could opt not to subsidize the purchase. What a terrifying time that must have been for America's women.

To be sure, Republicans invited some of this madness upon themselves. But it was President Obama who started this mess by breaking his vow to religious institutions to allow them to keep the same conscience protections that evenHillary Rodham Clinton's proposed healthcare reforms in 1994 recognized as essential.

The lying demonization of Republicans isn't nearly so offensive, or at least surprising, as the extremist policy assumptions liberals are now using to defend Obama's "accommodation" of religious institutions. They argue, in short, that if employers and the government — i.e. taxpayers — do not provide birth control (and an abortifacient), for "free," then they are banning birth control. Taking them seriously — no easy task — Democrats are saying that there's no legitimate realm outside of government.

In other words, there's no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else's birth control. That means the people who want birth control to be a personal matter and no one else's business are demagogically fighting for a policy in which your birth control is in fact everyone's business, starting with the government's.

Nikon D3100 18-55mm VR Lens 14.0 MP Digital SLR D3100KITOM (Google Affiliate Ad)

As the nation ponders how to stop the next mass shooting, the gun rights movement offers a straight-forward formula, laid out famously by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. JR Topics.

Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman

by MARTIN KASTE

As the nation ponders how to stop the next mass shooting, the gun rights movement offers a straight-forward formula, laid out famously by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Nikon Coolpix L810 16MP 26X Optical Zoom Black Digital Camera (Google Affiliate Ad)

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said last month, as his group responded to the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

One Man's Story

In Washington state, one such "good guy" — a private citizen who drew his gun in defense of others — paid a heavy price.

Dan McKown is a comedian. He used to do stand-up, and he has a performer's habit of always being just a little bit "on."

He always has a joke ready — even when he's recalling the moment he locked eyes with a mass shooter.

"The first word that honestly went through my head was, 'bugger.' Clearly, too much British TV," he says.

Enlarge image

Dan McKown, who confronted a gunman at a shopping mall in 2005, says he doesn't regret his actions, although he was shot five times and is now in a wheelchair.

Martin Kaste/NPR

It was 2005, at the Tacoma Mall in Washington state. McKown had been chatting with friends when gunshots rang out. Everyone hid; but McKown had a pistol. For years, he'd carried a legal concealed weapon, with the thought that someday he'd protect others. Now it seemed that moment had come.

Gun drawn, McKown scanned for the shooter. But the gunshots stopped. Unsure what had happened, McKown tucked his pistol back under his coat — just as the shooter walked right in front of him.

"So anyway, I'm standing there like Napoleon Bonaparte, with his hand, you know, in his jacket," he recalls. "So I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.' "

That moment of vulnerability gave the other guy just enough time to shoot McKown. The bullet hit his spine, and he found himself unable to aim his own gun.

"I prayed the most un-Christian prayer of my life, which was: 'God, please let me shoot this guy before he kills somebody else.' Because I was sure I was dead," McKown says. "Then he hit me again, again, again. And he spun me like a pinwheel."

'Lethal Force Now'

So what did McKown do wrong? At the time, that was a hot topic among concealed-carry advocates. Some said he should have stayed behind cover. Others said his mistake was drawing against someone who was already pointing a gun at him.

At a shooting range in Bellevue, Wash., a company called InSightstrains civilians to prepare for "active shooter" situations. Instructor John Holschen thinks McKown may have been a victim of his own sense of fair play — especially when he gave that verbal warning.

"The right thing to do tactically in that situation, legally in that situation, and morally in that situation," he says, "is end the shooter's ability to keep shooting. And that means apply lethal force now."

InSights offers classes like "Tactical Handgun" and "Advanced Confrontation Simulations." But most gun owners never get this kind of training. In fact, in some states — like Washington — a concealed-carry permit requires no training at all. And that's why the prospect of armed civilian "good guys" can make police uneasy.

"Good intentions don't get you to the justifiable and safe end point," says assistant chief Jim Pugel, a 30-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department. He doesn't oppose responsible gun ownership, but Pugel says civilians need to understand what it takes to use one in public.

"The ability to safely handle and use a gun in a lawful manner is a perishable skill," he says. "If you don't practice on a regular basis, psychologically, physiologically, you will likely not respond properly."

Buying Time

But cops can also recognize the potential value of armed "good guys" — particularly in emergencies involving a madman.

"What you want to do is interrupt their thought process," says Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. "Once you interrupt their thought process, then it buys time."

Lomax says that in active shooter situations, the old rule was to secure the location and wait for SWAT.

"Well, in Columbine they waited for like 45 minutes, and in the meantime, numerous kids were shot and killed," he says. "So, post-Columbine, they looked at it and said, 'We cannot wait.' "

Police now believe an early challenge, even an unsuccessful one, by a cop or a civilian — can rattle a mass shooter. It can push him to a different course of action.

And that brings us back to Dan McKown, shot five times, lying on the floor of the Tacoma Mall.

"At the time, I thought that I screwed up," he says. "And that I failed."

But maybe he didn't. Because right after the confrontation, the shooter stopped spraying bullets. He ducked into a store and took hostages, and eventually gave himself up.

No one was killed in that incident, but seven people were wounded, and McKown's injuries were the worst. Today he's in a wheelchair and lives with excruciating pain. But he doesn't sit around asking, "Why me?"

"When people say, 'Why me?' — well, in my case, I know the answer: I went after a guy with a gun," McKown says.

It's not a course of action he recommends for everybody, but McKown says it's a choice he does not regret.