Nice Guy Eddie's Political Blog
Am I missing something Eddie? What is the purpose of that article? The guy rambled so much I had to stop reading before reaching #4. I thought it was going to be a put down on rich people, but the first story for #5 seems like exactly what the "American Dream" is ... so to say. Wayne Root took his life from virtually nothing to being 'one of the evil 1 %rs' (if I read that article correctly). If the article was meant as that, then they missed the mark on that guy .... IMHO. The many ... many "implications" the author had were all unrelated to the guy who they made the poster child for reason #5. Sure the pay structure between one job and another are way out of kilt, but using Root as an example didn't seem to make the author appear very smart. Even less so when he referred to "poetry" as "hard work".If that is an example of "another excellent" article from that site, then you have your expectations set way too low. Which would explain why you let me post here, too. ;)
*sigh*If you don't recognize right-wing, class-warfare, supply-side, anti-tax talking points when you see them, then I can't help you.The article took up every one of these - all of which I've heard anytime the adults in the room start to talk TAX POLICY - and showed why they're all bullshit. Now because this mag seems to have a fear of appearing too liberal (which these days just means "halfway fucking intelligent") they paid some credit to why these may alss have a point, from a certain POV. Of course at the end of the day, they're all still BULLSHIT, and the article shows why.If you can't see that? Well, you're entiteld to your opinon. You've said before that you'd rather be wrong than liberal.Also? The IS no "evil 1%." That's a rhetorical flourish. The issue here isn't one of good vs. evil or even rich vs. poor. It's of STUPIDITY versus MACROECONOMICS. The top 1% will ALWAYS be rich, but they were doing better before Reaganomics, and so was the rest of the country.And BTW... I let you post here becuase EVERYONE is welcome to. I take all comers. I've said it before: It's good for business. And I'll even expand that a little: if you're ever in the Detroit area, shoot me an email or leave a comment. We'll hook up and go out for a few beers and talk politcs (or whatever) for a while. (Because, I'm sorry... when I come to a thread and you and Conchobhar have already left 25 comments on it, there's not much I can really add at that point. I was used to getting 2 or 3 comments at a time before you showed up, and now I can barely keep up with all of them! But I'd LOVE to throw down face-to-face with you, over a couple of beers, though!)That offer's open to any of the guys here, BTW. Conch? Classic? Steeve? Oki? First round's on me! (Sorry, Ladies, but I don't think DW would approve of me meeting up with women that I've met on the interent! That would be a little wierd! LOL)
I'll take you up on that, Eddie. Just let me know when you're headed East.
"The article took up every one of these - all of which I've heard anytime the adults in the room start to talk TAX POLICY - and showed why they're all bullshit."Which explains the section on Wayne Root in what way?"But I'd LOVE to throw down face-to-face with you, over a couple of beers, though!)" Liberals are too violent and incoherent, they wouldn't be able to discuss in real life ... they depend (no require) the internet so they can stay anonymous and hidden from those they attack. There ain't no way I'd willingly put myself in that kind of danger by sharing beers with you or any of the other posters you've had show up.
In addition to an ignorant, misinformed, faily dull-minded, hypocritical biggot you have now revealed yourself to be a coward as well. Well done.WHO's the one who "[requires] the internet so they can stay anonymous and hidden from those they attack"? I'm happy to sit down with anyone who's ever in town. You the one who chooses to hide out of fear.
Eddie, that's not very nice of you. Should someone be called a "coward" for refusing to associate with dangerous people? If so, you are correct.And, actually, I am very well informed, and not so ignorant. Maybe a little dull-minded, but certainly not bigoted ... opinionated maybe, but not bigoted ... just like you.
"WHO's the one who "[requires] the internet so they can stay anonymous and hidden from those they attack"? You the one who chooses to hide out of fear."You're not insinuating I'm anonymous, are you? Because I am NOT anonymous in my postings, here. My website, name, address and phone number are all a matter of public record for you or any of the other dangerous liberals to find and use as they see fit. I fear no liberal, but I respect the danger they are. Just like you put all conservatives in the same box, I put all liberals in the same box. But I don't deny doing it or say I wouldn't do such a thing while doing that. BTW, I was in Kalamazoo in early Feb (Dad's funeral). I saw live snow for the first time in 15 years, but it melted within a day or two.But, if you ever get a chance, you could address the concern I had over the use of Wayne Root in the article you linked. I asked that earlier, but you keep changing the subject and avoiding that question. You said something about "class-warfare" and "anti-tax talking points" but I do not see how that even came close to my question about Root or even relates to his financial situation. If those are the "facts" you read into every article by left-wingers, then it is no wonder you have the opinions you do. If you don't know, all you have to do is admit it and all is good. But, if you're going to carry on like everything you do is correct no matter what and no one should dare have the nerve to question you then what was the point to even bring the link you brought?
So... you take a two-page article, with six points in it - all fully fleched out and explained - and decide to mypically focus in on ONE LINE containing ONE QUOTE from ONE GUY. (Oh, and a photo. Wow.)OK, I'll humor you. The POINT was one of six things that the wealthy need ot stop saying. In this case: "Hey, I Worked Hard to Get What I Have!"Or, as WAYNE ALLYN ROOT said it in greater detail: "I became a self-made millionaire by the age of 30 by working grueling hours, being relentless and risking my own money. My success was earned with blood, sweat and tears."As the article poitns out, what they THINK they're saying is: "I'm not Paris Hilton! I work 70-hour weeks to make this salary!"But what 99% of the World HEARS is, "The only reason I have a hundred times more money than you is because I work a hundred times as hard!"Um... What's your problem with that, exaclty? That's pretty much a truism.At no point was Cracked suggesting that Mr. Root DIDN'T work hard. The problem here is that success involved a LOT more than just HARD WORK, and it's quite common with the self-employed to WORK HARD right into failure and bankrupcy. (It' sthe NORM, actually.) If you think Mr. Root got where he was by HARD WORK ALONE? You're simply a damned fool.But let's look at all his "hard work..." You know, just to be fair and all (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root):1) He was a sports handicapper in Vegas (that sure sounds like hard work)2) then a Television producer and "personality" (oo! my aching back!)3) An author, of a couple books about gambling, and a couple others about right wing ideology. (more on that in a moment)4) And a finacial adviser, who's a spokesman, board member and Senior Economic Adviser to Wealth Masters International ("WMI"), a global financial services firm banned in Norway forbeing a pyramid scheme, and Root is named in their findinsg. (I'm shocked.)Ok... which one of those jobs has him working harder than, say... A teacher? Or an engineer? Or an auto mechanic? Or a machinist? This is the guy you're holding up as the great hero? A gambling expert who schills for a ponzi scheme? I don't see "hard work" alone in proportion to what he's been paid. I see a slick motivatonal author who you've apparently been taken in by, but who's bullshit I ain't buyin'.You know what? In his letter to the editor, that the cracked quote comes form, he talks about losing his savings - HOW? Gambling? Or in the Pomnzi Scheme maybe? Where was he "risking it all?" Winning Edge International - his handicapping agency? REALLY? He says he's "not connected" but he's been on TV (that's connected) worked as a TV producer (that's connected) and he sits on athe board of a finacial company (that's connected.) I don't know Will. I'm not seeing the problem here. 16 hour days? In Vegas? Or on televison? Or writing books about your hobbies and political musings? (Shit, I do that!) I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing "hard work" enough to make a guy a multi-millionaire. I'm sure he worked hard, but in claimning that it's all about HIM, he dissing a lot of other people who ALSO worked ahrd FOR HIM, and who work a lot harder for a lot less pay.So... backatcha. Why don't YOU tell ME a little more about Wayne Allyn Root? Because I don't see the issue here, expecially given the very contest of the article! Which was not about demonizing the top 1% ANYWAY, but rather about letting them know that their talking point need some tweaking.I'll admit that I knew nothing about Root until you challneged me, but it sure didn't take me long to see their point.
You know what? Fuck all that. You goaded me into attacking Root, and I was stupid enough to fall for it. The article doesn't attack Root, and there's no reason I have to. I'm sure 99% of everyone else who reads the [entire] fucking thing will see that their point (which is NOT 'Root is an evil lucky, bastard' BTW) is self-evident. If you can't see it becuase they poked at your hero a little, too bad. That's your problem. I'll leave up my comment above, becuase otehrwise you'd say somethng like, "I don't know anything abot him, so 'you win'" or some other absurd claptrap, but in asking me to justify the inclusion of Root in the article, it is clear that YOU missed the point enitrely. (Why am I not surprised?)
"As the article poitns out, what they THINK they're saying is: "I'm not Paris Hilton! I work 70-hour weeks to make this salary!" "That's what I thought you'd say. I guess you have the opinion that people should be given money until all have the same amount? Wow, never heard that idea from a liberal before."Ok... which one of those jobs has him working harder than, say... A teacher? Or an engineer? Or an auto mechanic? Or a machinist?" Well, the answer would be 'engineer'. I can't think of any other profession where someone would work even less. It must be tough typing away at the computer making images appear and disappear.And then you bring that CRAP that Root hired people to work for him? Didn't you just get done saying that conservatives don't hire people (in that wonderful Mediamatters article you reprinted). I thought only liberals created jobs, not conservatives."So... backatcha. Why don't YOU tell ME a little more about Wayne Allyn Root? Because I don't see the issue here, expecially given the very contest of the article! "I don't know anything about him other than what I read in your article. Too bad you think the American Dream is to be given money until all are evil/rich/conservatives. I expect you to not see the issue with including people in a 'hated conservative' article who actually worked for their money. Did he inherit the money? Did he win a lottery? Wait, I'll bet he gets $400 hair-cuts, that should make him a hero of the liberal. Maybe he married a condiment queen and became rich that way. I didn't see that guy in the list. Oooo, that's because liberals are justified to hoard their money and not give it away. THEY are considered hero's for those actions. But don't be a conservative and do that, you'd be considered a bane on society. Excellent ideology there.Good job of defending your liberal viewpoints on who deserves to be rich and who doesn't and why.