The first one, from a few days back, had the subject line:
FW: THESE PEOPLE ARE FLAT OUT EVILObnoxious ALL-CAPS and everything. The body had only one line:
Emails:And it looks like another line was added along the way, saying "There a lot of truth here." Because apparently Hitler wanted to get rid of Jewish pensions. Who knew? The rest was cut and pasted (and ridiculously highlighted, by "a conservative friend") from a Brietbart.com article:
Treasury drove cutoff of non-union Delphi workers’ pensions---can anyone say “Adolph”?
(How has litefart.com NOT gotten a brown-star award yet?!)
Now, check out the article. It very long on insinuation. Do you know what it's lacking in? That would be excerpts from E-MAILS showing how GEITNER DROVE THE CUTOFF OF NON UNION WORKERS AT DELPHI!
Now don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting it didn't happen. I have no idea. Thing is? Even after reviewing all these emails? Apparently neither does Matthew Boyle. This is Right-Wing Yellow Journalism at its finest. Make a lot of insinuations, supported by your assertions that this is not how things are supposed to be, and then throw it all under a "smoking gun" headline, before you even have a body.
And this isn't just me being a liberal. Because this was the kind of thing that used to piss me off when an amateurish (and ostensibly liberal) writer would try to do the same thing during the Bush administration. I'd see some post that said "BUSH'S SMOKING GUN" or some such sensationalist thing, and as a loud and proud Bush-hater, I'd click and look forward to seeing what would finally bring that red-neck DOWN.
And I'd inevitably be disappointed, finding no more than insinuation and the same old complaints that we've ALL had for YEARS. The Brietbart piece does the same thing. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals don't tend to engage in that sort of thing as often, probably because we're not so easily impressed (and led) by someone re-hashing the same old insinuation we've been making for YEARS. It's nice to have your political and philosophical ego stroke, but we want PROOF, damnit! The Right is happy enough with the stroking, apparently
BTW... Republican have been trying to eliminate public sector and union pensions for YEARS. Why is it suddenly "ADOLF" territory when it happens to some non-union folks? I mean... I don't want to see ANYONE loose their pension. But if anyone is on record going after PENSIONS, it's far and away the Republicans! (But then... their basic understanding of hypocrisy is, "IOKIYAR.")
The Second e-mail I'd like to share, form earlier today, had the subject line:
It's a Miracle! MUST SEE... ONE AMAZING MAN...BARACK OBAMA!Well, then: Let's see it! The body just said:
Do NOT miss this one! It IS all a "MIRACLE"!! 6 minutes!!And followed with a link to a YouTube video. And apparently the LENGTH of the video is every bit as exciting as it's contents. LOL. I PROMISE you that I will never email you about something I've written and end it by saying:
654 words!!It's from "Afterburner" with Bill Whittle. And it's yet another patently obtuse misrepresentation of Obama pointing out that successful businesses are not built by a single person acting on their own, in a vacuum.
A few interesting statements... First [Whittle] described the US economy as "5% of the World's Population producing 20% of it's GDP, largely through the efforts of small business men and women..."
You know, like Microsoft. Or Exxon Mobil. Of that famous mom-and-pop operation Google. Or that "small business" social networking site, Facebook. There no doubt that small firms (less than 500 people) employ just under half of the workers in this country. So I'm not dissing them. But he used the benchmakr of "20% f the World's GDP." On that basis, if this guy thinks we're number one in the world because of the Corner Coney Shops and NOT because of General Motors or General Electrics or Disney or Delta Airlines of the world? He's a damned fool.
He then shows Obama making his famous "You didn't get [successful] on your own" quote, which they LOVE to distort, but rarely provide context to. He provides... very little. And the goes on to ask "What do you say to that?"
Well, I SAY, "Damned strait!" The president, at the time, went on to explain (in the part that Whittle cuts out, BTW) that most of tease people were educated in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. (You know: That thing the Right keeps trying to get rid of?) That they depend on POLICE and FIRE FIGHTERS to protect the home, assets and personal safety. And that they depend on the ROADS and INFRASTRUCTURE that the Government built and maintains. Now, at no point did the President say that "being smart" or "working hard" wasn't necessary or to your credit. Oh, it's implied that he did. But he never said it. Those things are still necessary. The thing is? SO IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE!
And what's more, let put politics aside for the moment. Is anyone really so naive as to think you can build a business on good ideas an hard work and nothing else? Obama was even more right than he knew. Because every successful business person had OTHER PEOPLE that they needed to help and support them. Creditors and Investors, up front. Most had Partners and Angels along the way. Suppliers and a Labor Force to create the product. And CUSTOMERS to consume it! You know, CUSTOMERS? Who themselves have to have a source of income, be it from the Government, or a Union Contract, or even *gasp* a Salary that some OTHER "successful person" had to pay them, not to mention that they probably had to DRIVE ON A FUCKING ROAD to get to your business!
There is no ONE PERSON that makes a business successful. None. Ever. That's a myth. It's dangerous hero worship.
It actually a myth that these successful people want the rest of us to believe so that we won't unionize. We won't demand better pay and benefits. We won't elect a government that will regulate them, or prevent malfiesence, or tax them fairly. And they don't care in the least that this benefit for them comes at the cost of economic opportunity and security for everyone else. (Even though they should, becuase LOSING that security jeopardizes THEIR OWN business interests! But then, no one ever accused the Right of having long-term vision.)
He then goes on to accuse the PRESS of :"criminal negligence" in not fact-checking the story. (Obama's speech that is, not this clown's diatribe.) And follows with the same tired trope of trying to paint this frustratingly right-of-center President as a Socialist, buy tying to tie other people who they accuse of being socialist and Marxists. (Some admitedly are, to some extent, and many are not.) There more, but it's a lot of crap. Just the same bullshit that gets dressed up because the idiot spouting it happens to be wearing a suit.
Finally, I want to share what I think was by far the most truthful and genuine email I received this week:
It was form "Consuelo Fodor" and the subject line read (SIC):
Can I come over to your life?))
It continued (SIC):
You have not got any imagination what cool girl is all about if you have not relaxed in my company!
Name of mine is Consuelo and I'm so cool!
Ur personal page became my mouth water and so I decided to write you a letter and talk to u.
I wanna know more about you and maybe we could become friends, lovers or maybe even create some serious relations.
Information about me: I am 24 years old and I work as a seller in insurance company. I'm a brown haired and got first size of breasts.
What can you tell me about u?
LOL. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. At least there's no Republican propaganda in it!
All I can say about it is: YES, it's a legit email, copied and pasted exactly as I received it. NO, I have no idea where it came from, particularly because it was not receive in firstname.lastname@example.org, which I use on MANY websites (Other Blogs, MMFA, HuffPo, Porn sites...) to set up accounts as "Niceguy Eddie." THIS ONE was received in my personal email's in-box - the one I only use for E-MAIL.
Also, I'm not sure what the "first size" of breast is, but if you put the sizes in order, I can only conclude that they would either non-existent or grotesquely HUGE. I feel like writing back and saying,
Your seeming like nice girl, but sadly I am man that preferring third or even fourth size of breast. Also English is understanding: So I need it translating more!
What's the truth? Do the reaserch folks. Don't take my word for it, but for fuck's sake don't take theirs!