I published the second chart before; maybe Bill missed it, or maybe he doesn't care. The fact that I care makes me a bitter, gun-totin', religion-slingin', racist, doesn't it Bill?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Real Issues
To help out the likes of Bill Maher, here are some stats. Perhaps Maher is thinking the future is just peachy, with a "black man" in charge. Conservatives will take other things into consideration.
I published the second chart before; maybe Bill missed it, or maybe he doesn't care. The fact that I care makes me a bitter, gun-totin', religion-slingin', racist, doesn't it Bill?
I published the second chart before; maybe Bill missed it, or maybe he doesn't care. The fact that I care makes me a bitter, gun-totin', religion-slingin', racist, doesn't it Bill?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the point he's trying to make, or at least the point I'm trying to make is this: I've been bitching about this same stuff for years, but nary a notice from the Right. A democrat is barely in office for three months, continuing the same exact policies, and suddenly the Right is pissed off... NOW?!
Where was outrage from the Right when Bush pushed for the $700 trillion bailouts in October? The Iraq War? There was some, but not as much as now. There certainly weren't "tea baggers" then. Why not?
The whole thing just rings like partisan losers rather than honest dispute.
In other words, for me at least, it's same-old same old.
Rewind press play.
Nothing new that is proportionate with the new protests.
Martin:
So you are against the protesters, not the protest? OK.
What happened is that the tipping point was raced across. The frog was dropped into boiling water. They thought they had a voice before; it is now obvious that they don't. Further, the new government declares, We Won; go away; we don't care what you think.
But I don't think that is your actual issue. You have insisted on "proportionate" response before (Iraq vs abortion). Your personal moral outrage has not been matched.
But this doesn't seem to be your real issue. It is not enough for you that they demonstrate against the GOP now, it should have happened before and since it didn't, your resentment is secure and permanent. You seem to resent that which cannot be changed... something that has violated your personal "should have" moral imperative.
For some reason it is not enough that your side has gained members - usually an occasion for joy.
What are the options?
1. You resent the message;
2. You resent the messengers;
3. you resent the target of the message;
4. you resent the timing of the message;
5. you see the message as a personal threat;
6. you see the message as a violation of a personal moral position. Or the type of messengers represent a class issue for you.
Your resentment claim of being based on "nothing new" and being disproportionate is seemingly disingenuous in the face of all the "change" that is obvious to most everyone. Three lifetimes of national debt? Corporate CEO "firings" by the government? Socialization of everything Obama can get his hands on?
Surely something else is behind your lingering antipathy.
I see several possibilities here.
Perhaps you actually wish for a more elite crowd than the grass roots types showing up at the tea parties.
Perhaps you don't like the idea that peaceful demonstrations have come from the conservative side for the first time - an activity usually reserved for the left (and not so peaceful, not so grassroots).
Perhaps you see religious overtones that you resent in the demonstration for responsibility, restraint, and liberty over equality... seen as "absolutes" in a threat to your relativism.
Perhaps you harbor a residual, deep hatred for Bush and long for severe punishment for the Bush administration, a difficult position to take looking forward to the post-Obama period of re-adjustment.
Perhaps you are not so libertarian after all.
Perhaps none of these.
So exactly what is it that is turning you against the new members of the non-Republican, non-Democrat, libertarian side of the spectrum? You're angry with them, why?
By the way, "tea baggers" is a homosexual obscenity which the Left and you use to degrade; it is not pertinent, unnecessary and not appreciated. Denigration is not argumentation. (BTW, you might need to get real news and back away from Jon Stewart and Bill Maher and the rest of the professional denigrators).
Stan
Dangit. I think my comment was deleted. If it shows up, just delete this one. :)
Super short version of what I said:
Ben Bernanke is super-smart. Taught himself calculus and received a doctorate in economics from Harvard. He says government support is what will keep the economy from moving in the direction it did in the 1930s.
My position: I don't know. I have absolutely now way of knowing. For all I know, Ben may be a supervillain wanting to take control of the economy.
On the other hand, maybe he's right. He certainly knows a lot more about the economy than I do.
And even more on the other hand, other equally smart people disagree with his diagnosis.
I am, once again, agnostic on it. I certainly can't get passionate about it one way or the other. Looks like the Left's version of Iraq. Saving the country from a danger that may or may not exist.
I just don't know.
Well there are some things that we do know.
1. The amount of money.
2. The lack of accountability.
3. The necessity for taxpayers to pay for it.
4. The inability of a robust economy to pay for it, much less a weakened, centrally controlled economy.
Here's what we will never know:
1. Whether bankruptcy would have worked to resolve either the credit issue or the manufacturing issue.
2. Where all the money went.
3. How badly this damages the concept of personal responsibility as the culture of victimhood and nanny government progresses.
Post a Comment