So we’ve got a deal. (I guess. We'll see.)
And that’s good (I guess, we'll see) because I was planning out a “well, it was fun while lasted” -type post, lamenting our fall from our status as a great nation, and our new status as the trailer-park dead-beats of the world; basically the same kind of gun-toting, homophobic white-trash who don’t pay their bills that the Republicans rely on to get elected year in and year out. And I’m forced to wonder what the drama was all about. Apparently taxes aren’t going up – for anyone – and Social Security and Medicare are also safe - for now. A trillion in cuts over ten years is (apparently) planned, but I’ve heard that before. That’s theatre, nothing more. Seeing as how likely it is that some those cuts will have to implemented during a Republican Administration (either 2, 4 or 8 years from now) and given the Republicans propensity to complete forget about their fiscal principles of austerity and small government whenever they win the Presidency, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I’m also wondering what this new deficit commission will be able to do that the last 37 have not.
Whatever.
At the end of the day it was much ado about nothing on a tragically Shakespearean level. At the end of the day congress raised the debt ceiling, just like they did 11 times for Reagan, 7 times for Bush, and 74 times (if I'm counting right) since 1962 with nary a whimper. Not that the American public ever heard ANYTHING about ANY of those times – didn’t even know they HAPPENED – because, as Dick Cheney pointed out: Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter! (Yeah: WHEN YOU’RE A REPUBLICAN!)
And to think: Joe Lieberman was concerned that the cuts would affect defense too deeply!
*sigh*
That’s what you get when a Democrat thinks he’s a Republican. (Or is it the other way around?)
A Country facing default, Social Security and Medicare being threatened, deficits that are going out of control…
And he’s worried about defense spending that is currently double that of Russia, China, England and France COMBINED.
We’ll be safe, Joe. You great coward.
And what about the raw, naked, rampant, partisan, ROOTING FOR FAILURE on the part of the right here? I never put any amount of hypocrisy or unprincipled behavior past the right, but I truly never expected it would reach such absurdly transparent levels. And yet somehow? ONLY 60% of America is against the Republicans right now! I mean… THEY WERE LOSING SUPPORT OF BUSINESS LEADERS, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE! If BUSINESS LEADERS aren’t behind them, then WHO THE HELL IS?!
It’s insane.
My favorite – and one of the best examples of just how ignorant the average right-winger IS when it comes to all thins fiscal, monetary and economic – was probably Fox's Stuart Varney "Absolutely" agreeing with Andrew Napolitano that we don't deserve AAA Credit Rating as a nation.
Wow.
Way to hate your country there, Start! Can you IMAGINE what they’d be saying if a progressive had said ANYTHING even remotely like that?!
But here’s the thing…
A country’s credit rating is not based on its debt levels. Nor is it based on its economy. Nor is it based on their ability to balance a budget. All of those things (debt level, income, spending decisions) are what an INDIVIDUAL’s or a COMPANY’s credit rating is based on. But in a GOVERNEMENT’s credit rating, except in circumstances far more extreme than we’re facing now and likely will ever face, almost none of those things matter in the least. Why? Because Governments can do something that individuals and even companies CAN’T do when the cost of their debt gets too high.
RAISE TAXES.
Governments can RAISE TAXES! Individuals can’t do that! Companies can’t do that! And that’s why individuals and companies have to act very cautiously and very deliberately to maintain their good ratings. But governments? Can run deficits year an and year out, and have multi-years recessions and still have a AAA rating. And the reason is that, if they need to, they can RAISE TAXES to pay back their debts!
Now, in the mind of someone for whom that is simply unthinkable, I suppose I can see why they be panicking about our fiscal condition. But the only Government who DOESN’T deserve a AAA rating? Is one that is either unable or unwilling to raise taxes. If your population already pays an average 90% tax rate, and you’re still running up insane debts? FINE. YOU aren’t a AAA credit risk. If you raise taxes but (like Greece) have a national culture that simply doesn’t pay them anyway, as a point of pride, and in addition have lax enforcement existing of Tax laws? Then, yeah, you DEFINITELY don’t deserve a AAA rating. And, I guess, if you’re the kind of government that the average Fox viewer would be happy with – one that would never, under any circumstances, raising taxes including when their facing DEFAULT?
There’s no fucking way I’m buying your bonds!
Why would I?
You’d rather default than pay your bills? That’s not AAA! That’s TRAILER-PARK, DEAD-BEAT status!
But, maybe, just maybe, America will wise up to these hypocritical, self-righteous, uneducated, treasonous, traitorous, un-American SCUMBAGS on the Right is they keep routing for failure. It’s not likely, but I can dream, can’t I?
----------------------------------
(BTW… If I was more of conspiracy-minded person, I’d swear that this debt-ceiling “crisis” was cooked up just to bump the story Ruppert Murdoch’s criminal phone-hacking scandal off of the front page. Get us to forget about that. I don’t REALLY believe that, but it’s been a week or two since I’ve heard dick about it. Just sayin’.)
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reid. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Republican Propaganda Video that shows how STUPID Repubicans really are!
(Warning: The following contains some course language, even for this blog.)
(But read it anyway! LOL)
I'd like you all to see something. You may have already caught it (like syphilis) on YouTube. It was emailed to me but a *ahem* close relative. The email simply said "New Republican Video - Wow." I might say the same thing, although where he meant it to be complimentary, I would mean it like, "WOW, now isn't THAT a load of horseshit?!" Or, "WOW, you Republicans sure are stupid! I can't believe you buy into this tripe!"
So please... Take a look... and then humor me, as I destroy it.
Now right off the bat, I;'d like to say that I'd agree 100% with the first 1:18 of it... Assuming it had been put together by a LIBERAL that is.
First of all who's this "we?" WTF is with this "we elected you" shit, seeing as this nothing but is Republican / Conservative / Tea Party / Right Wing Propaganda?! Um, no, sorry Conservatives, but WE elected Obama. You lot voted for the Crusty old White Guy and Caribou Barbie. And it's a bit late to jump on the bandwagon.
And as for being disappointed? Yeah, you;re god damned right we are! Because the guy we elected and the Congress we elected has done everything humanly possible bar picking you up and carrying you into the room, to include you in every conference and every negotiation and has made concession after concession to you fools. I'd almost say "short of letting you write the legislation" but between the absurd and unnecessary (and unpopular) compromises and the actual (formerly) Republican proposals and the stuff that your former lobbyists - now Democratic lobbyists only because they saw which way the wind was blowing before you did - wrote? You assholes HAVE WRITTEN a disproportionate amount of the ACTUAL legislation! You just oppose it now because the other party might benefit if they pass... ANYTHING AT ALL. So stuff this "we elected you crap." No one involved with this video voted anything but a strait Republican ticket and YOU KNOW IT.
(Note: I truly though this at this point, but by the end I wasn't sure sure...)
It goes on to say that, in 2010, "You will lose." OK fine, rally the troops. It IS Republican Propaganda after all. Um... You DO know that President Obama isn't RUNNING in 2010 though, right? Well, whatever. You'll get back some seats back fine. Let's see what you'll do with them:
NO MORE TAXES.
Wow. And they say we're fiscally irresponsible! Oh my God.... Not "No NEW taxes" (they tried that one once, didn't they?) or "No HIGHER taxes" but "NO MORE TAXES." There people sure know how to over-promise don't they? I mean, if the promise THAT to get elected in 2010, don't they think their base might be a wee bit disappointed come 2012? Trust me, the Democrats are seeing right now what happens when you run on one thing and then deliver something else. Beside how will you pay for...
NO MORE SPENDING.
Oh.
I see.
Hmmm... No taxes... No Spending... Sounds like there's no goddamned government at all! Don't you people even want to "support the troops" or something? Hasn't all your concern about the deficit and social security and Medicare and Medicaid been because they'll "bankrupt the government?" Well... i guess you solved that. NO MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Great. Nice job.
NO.
MORE.
SOCIALISM.
This one may be a lot tougher than it sounds. See... at the moment? There's absolutely NONE. So... ANY AT ALL would constitute a failure here. 0 for 3 methinks. Three up, three down. And we're through the first inning. (Maybe what they lack in "socialism" they'll make up for in Anarchy?)
Moving on...
So scary stuff gets shown REALLY QUICKLY with hammers and sickles, followed by:
We tried to warn you.
Of... WHAT, exactly? Communism? A Soviet takeover of America? WHAT? I mean... how often can you predict the end of the world before everyone realizes, "Hey, they've been 'warning us' for, like, YEARS now, and the world is totally still here! These people are nut-bags!"?
But we "Wouldn't listen" so now "We'll pay."
Wait... I thought there wouldn't be any more taxes? Actually this "We tried to warn you" and "You wouldn't listen" so now "You'll Pay" stuff? Would play GREAT as something a LIBERAL might send to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. After they take they licks in November maybe? We should spam Sec. Gibbs in-box with that, no? Maybe they'll get the message. As for Conservatives... I haven't been exactly sure what world they've been living in since about 1992.
And WHY will "we pay?"
FREEDOM
Oh my God! You mean... You're going to protect abortion rights, allow gay marriage, legalize marijuana and guarantee everyone's freedom to practice our religion as we choose or to not practice at all and to keep our children free from other people, like teachers, forcing their religion on them?
You're a THREAT.
Oh... I see. You mean, "FREEDOM" as in "Freedom to live the way we let you." Sorry. My mistake. Please continue.
To our economy.
Wait... What about Freedom? What are they threatening again? What do you think will happen to "the economy" when there's "No more spending?" Don't you think some of those millions of people who will now be out of a job might be a bit of a drag on the economy? Especially with "no more taxes" being collected to pay unemployment benefits? In the words of Lando Calirssian, "This deal is getting worse all the time!"
(BTW... Democrats do a better job with the economy.)
To our health care.
Well, yeah... I mean, without the public option, the Health Care bill amounted to little more than massive corporate welfare for the insurance companies. But then... Oh wait... That was taken our to please you people... And yet you STILL couldn't get on boar!. Even though... mandatory insurance (for example) was a Republican idea. (Governor Mitt Romney-R, MA, IIRC) So... What the hell are you talking about? You people and you former lobbyists wrote almost the whole damned thing! So.. you might be right here... But, again, only if a LIBERAL made this video!
To.
our.
individual.
liberties.
Like... The liberty to not bear all the children God "blesses" you with? Of the Liberty to marry someone of the same gender? Or the liberty to smoke... Ah, never mind. We've been over this. You people better make sure none of your constituents (1) really take this seriously and (2) own a dictionary. Or you're in trouble!
You bet the farm.
When?
Government takeovers
Huh? Of what? General Motors? WTF are these people talking about? When Hugo Chavez performed a "Government takeover" of Chevron, do you think HE gave them $70 Billion? Buuuuulllshit! He just said, "it's mine now, fuck you." Now THAT'S a "government takeover." This? This was buying stock and guaranteeing loans in order to save about 30 Million jobs. And do you know what? It fuckin' WORKED. And GM will be making their IPO in just a few weeks. After which the Government will start seeing a return on their investment, after getting their money back. So... THANK GOD they bet the farm I guess, huh?
Bailouts
Um... the Bank bailouts were all Bush.
Liberal Policies
I've said it before and I'll say I'll say it again: WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICIES?! NAME ONE!!!
Wait... Maybe there's some coming up... I'm pretty curious to see exactly what Obama HAS done for Liberals myself, so let's watch:
TARP
$700 Billion
That was Bush.
Federal Stimulus
$1.2 Trillion
That was Bush.
Sure Obama had his too but... is it REALLY better to just let the economy collapse? Oh wait... yeah, that's right... according to your "No taxes / No spending" platform, apparently it IS. Wait a sec... Wasn't that the total cost of Bush's two wars? Or was that Bush's final budget Deficit? Because I though Obama's first budget deficit was something like $1.3 Trillion. Oh well.
Federal Reserve Rescue
$6.4 Trillion
THAT was Bush.
Holy shit. Maybe a liberal DID put this together!
Tax.
Spend.
Redistribute.
Riiiight. Because taxing the middle class and giving money to bankers, and multinational corporations is really LIBERAL policy. You know it's bad when just TALKING about STOPPING the UPWARD redistribution of wealth (and not really even DOING anything about it) is met with howls and cries of "COMMUNISM!" And you KNOW someone's really drinkin' the Vodka when BLUE COLLAR AMERICA keeps BUYING IT year after year!!!
We're BROKE.
News to me. We've been dancing to this tune for that past 30 years, save for two years under Bill Clinton. And there's been a Republican in the White House for 20 of them. (More on that coming up...)
Or did you mean the Republican National Committee?
Now... I almost spit my coffee out at the graph that came up next, from 2:11 to 2:16.
Pause it there for a second, because this is important. In fact... THIS, more than anything else, actually made me believe that a Liberal DID put this together, just to see how stupid Conservatives were. You see how it starts in 1980? The year RONALD REGAN WAS elected? And you see how the deficits pretty much just get bigger and bigger right up until about... 1992? When BILL CLINTON was elected? Then they start getting smaller and smaller until there's a surplus for several years? Yeah. And according to this very graph THAT gravy train ends... IN 2002! The VERY FIRST YEAR that GEORGE W. BUSH BUDGET was in effect!!! And after that we see some REALLY BIG DEFICITS! And the last bar on the graph? 2009? Yeah, you see THAT was ALSO a Bush Budget! Obama was ELECTED in 2008. He didn't take office until 2009, and at that time the BUSH Budget was still in effect! It doesn't include a SINGLE YEAR of Obama deficits! NOT ONE! That graph? It's DEMOCRATIC propaganda! And they don't even realize it!
Who's the fool here? Are Conservatives REALLY this stupid, or am I just slow to get our side's little prank? In any case, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're concerned about the deficit, for fucksake don't vote REPUBLICAN!
+10% Unemployment
Man. That's pretty bad, huh? Imagine what it might have been without all that stimulus money, huh? George W. Bush sure did leave under a pretty big shit-pile to dig out of, didn't he?
and now you want...
our health care?
I'll assume that this came out, like, a year ago, but how does stopping insurance companies from capriciously screwing over the customer to protect their own profits even as people literally DIE from lack of health care - and this in the most prosperous nation in the world- constitute, "wanting our health care." I'm not even sure I really know what that means. Because, yeah I "want our health care." As in: I want us to HAVE SOME. Oh well, moving on...
(Great picture of Harry Reid coming up at 2:27, BTW. I wish it was a little higher resolution. I'd blow it up, make it into a poster and hang it on my wall. Maybe I'll stick in the blog somewhere. LOL)
I'm sorry if I missed the joke, but the more I watch this, the more I think that a Liberal really DID make it, just to see if the Conservtaives would fall for it.
Backroom deals.
That was Cheney.
Payoffs.
That was Abramoff. (and Bush, and Cheney, etc...)
Blatant and Shameless Bribes
Well, yeah, you've got us there. But we had to do SOMETHING to get a Republican or two on board for the health care bill. So...
We've had enough.
I've had enough of this video. And of Conservative lies and of America's totally fucking ignorance and naivety regarding you people.
We're taking our country back.
To 1860?
From Radicals
Like the TEA PARTY?
Leftists
Name one. (OK, yeah, but no one really takes Dennis Kucinich seriously!)
And Liberals
[Up], [Up], [Up], [Up], [Home], [End], [Ctrl-C], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Ctrl-V]
We're coming after you
Well, you did LOSE, so you couldn't have possibly come BEFORE us. If you'd WON, we'd be coming after you. Inspiring stuff though. Love the music. Very "Hollywood trailer." All they needed was Don LaFontaine to narrate.
AMERICAN RISING
Well... here's hoping the Democrats finally wake the fuck up anyway. I'm not sure where they've been for the past two years. As for America? Probably more likely to take a nap for the next two years. They'll probably "wake up" sometime in late 2012.
November 2, 2010
(In case those senior citizens at the Tea Party rallies who want to keep Government out of Medicare forget the date.)
Now... the next part, from 3:06 to 3:11, I think, finally shows what the Republicans are REALLY offering, what they REALLY stand for. Don't you agree?
I'm sorry.
Did I miss the point of this? Or are Republican voters REALLY this fucking stupid?
(But read it anyway! LOL)
I'd like you all to see something. You may have already caught it (like syphilis) on YouTube. It was emailed to me but a *ahem* close relative. The email simply said "New Republican Video - Wow." I might say the same thing, although where he meant it to be complimentary, I would mean it like, "WOW, now isn't THAT a load of horseshit?!" Or, "WOW, you Republicans sure are stupid! I can't believe you buy into this tripe!"
So please... Take a look... and then humor me, as I destroy it.
Now right off the bat, I;'d like to say that I'd agree 100% with the first 1:18 of it... Assuming it had been put together by a LIBERAL that is.
First of all who's this "we?" WTF is with this "we elected you" shit, seeing as this nothing but is Republican / Conservative / Tea Party / Right Wing Propaganda?! Um, no, sorry Conservatives, but WE elected Obama. You lot voted for the Crusty old White Guy and Caribou Barbie. And it's a bit late to jump on the bandwagon.
And as for being disappointed? Yeah, you;re god damned right we are! Because the guy we elected and the Congress we elected has done everything humanly possible bar picking you up and carrying you into the room, to include you in every conference and every negotiation and has made concession after concession to you fools. I'd almost say "short of letting you write the legislation" but between the absurd and unnecessary (and unpopular) compromises and the actual (formerly) Republican proposals and the stuff that your former lobbyists - now Democratic lobbyists only because they saw which way the wind was blowing before you did - wrote? You assholes HAVE WRITTEN a disproportionate amount of the ACTUAL legislation! You just oppose it now because the other party might benefit if they pass... ANYTHING AT ALL. So stuff this "we elected you crap." No one involved with this video voted anything but a strait Republican ticket and YOU KNOW IT.
(Note: I truly though this at this point, but by the end I wasn't sure sure...)
It goes on to say that, in 2010, "You will lose." OK fine, rally the troops. It IS Republican Propaganda after all. Um... You DO know that President Obama isn't RUNNING in 2010 though, right? Well, whatever. You'll get back some seats back fine. Let's see what you'll do with them:
NO MORE TAXES.
Wow. And they say we're fiscally irresponsible! Oh my God.... Not "No NEW taxes" (they tried that one once, didn't they?) or "No HIGHER taxes" but "NO MORE TAXES." There people sure know how to over-promise don't they? I mean, if the promise THAT to get elected in 2010, don't they think their base might be a wee bit disappointed come 2012? Trust me, the Democrats are seeing right now what happens when you run on one thing and then deliver something else. Beside how will you pay for...
NO MORE SPENDING.
Oh.
I see.
Hmmm... No taxes... No Spending... Sounds like there's no goddamned government at all! Don't you people even want to "support the troops" or something? Hasn't all your concern about the deficit and social security and Medicare and Medicaid been because they'll "bankrupt the government?" Well... i guess you solved that. NO MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Great. Nice job.
NO.
MORE.
SOCIALISM.
This one may be a lot tougher than it sounds. See... at the moment? There's absolutely NONE. So... ANY AT ALL would constitute a failure here. 0 for 3 methinks. Three up, three down. And we're through the first inning. (Maybe what they lack in "socialism" they'll make up for in Anarchy?)
Moving on...
So scary stuff gets shown REALLY QUICKLY with hammers and sickles, followed by:
We tried to warn you.
Of... WHAT, exactly? Communism? A Soviet takeover of America? WHAT? I mean... how often can you predict the end of the world before everyone realizes, "Hey, they've been 'warning us' for, like, YEARS now, and the world is totally still here! These people are nut-bags!"?
But we "Wouldn't listen" so now "We'll pay."
Wait... I thought there wouldn't be any more taxes? Actually this "We tried to warn you" and "You wouldn't listen" so now "You'll Pay" stuff? Would play GREAT as something a LIBERAL might send to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. After they take they licks in November maybe? We should spam Sec. Gibbs in-box with that, no? Maybe they'll get the message. As for Conservatives... I haven't been exactly sure what world they've been living in since about 1992.
And WHY will "we pay?"
FREEDOM
Oh my God! You mean... You're going to protect abortion rights, allow gay marriage, legalize marijuana and guarantee everyone's freedom to practice our religion as we choose or to not practice at all and to keep our children free from other people, like teachers, forcing their religion on them?
You're a THREAT.
Oh... I see. You mean, "FREEDOM" as in "Freedom to live the way we let you." Sorry. My mistake. Please continue.
To our economy.
Wait... What about Freedom? What are they threatening again? What do you think will happen to "the economy" when there's "No more spending?" Don't you think some of those millions of people who will now be out of a job might be a bit of a drag on the economy? Especially with "no more taxes" being collected to pay unemployment benefits? In the words of Lando Calirssian, "This deal is getting worse all the time!"
(BTW... Democrats do a better job with the economy.)
To our health care.
Well, yeah... I mean, without the public option, the Health Care bill amounted to little more than massive corporate welfare for the insurance companies. But then... Oh wait... That was taken our to please you people... And yet you STILL couldn't get on boar!. Even though... mandatory insurance (for example) was a Republican idea. (Governor Mitt Romney-R, MA, IIRC) So... What the hell are you talking about? You people and you former lobbyists wrote almost the whole damned thing! So.. you might be right here... But, again, only if a LIBERAL made this video!
To.
our.
individual.
liberties.
Like... The liberty to not bear all the children God "blesses" you with? Of the Liberty to marry someone of the same gender? Or the liberty to smoke... Ah, never mind. We've been over this. You people better make sure none of your constituents (1) really take this seriously and (2) own a dictionary. Or you're in trouble!
You bet the farm.
When?
Government takeovers
Huh? Of what? General Motors? WTF are these people talking about? When Hugo Chavez performed a "Government takeover" of Chevron, do you think HE gave them $70 Billion? Buuuuulllshit! He just said, "it's mine now, fuck you." Now THAT'S a "government takeover." This? This was buying stock and guaranteeing loans in order to save about 30 Million jobs. And do you know what? It fuckin' WORKED. And GM will be making their IPO in just a few weeks. After which the Government will start seeing a return on their investment, after getting their money back. So... THANK GOD they bet the farm I guess, huh?
Bailouts
Um... the Bank bailouts were all Bush.
Liberal Policies
I've said it before and I'll say I'll say it again: WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICIES?! NAME ONE!!!
Wait... Maybe there's some coming up... I'm pretty curious to see exactly what Obama HAS done for Liberals myself, so let's watch:
TARP
$700 Billion
That was Bush.
Federal Stimulus
$1.2 Trillion
That was Bush.
Sure Obama had his too but... is it REALLY better to just let the economy collapse? Oh wait... yeah, that's right... according to your "No taxes / No spending" platform, apparently it IS. Wait a sec... Wasn't that the total cost of Bush's two wars? Or was that Bush's final budget Deficit? Because I though Obama's first budget deficit was something like $1.3 Trillion. Oh well.
Federal Reserve Rescue
$6.4 Trillion
THAT was Bush.
Holy shit. Maybe a liberal DID put this together!
Tax.
Spend.
Redistribute.
Riiiight. Because taxing the middle class and giving money to bankers, and multinational corporations is really LIBERAL policy. You know it's bad when just TALKING about STOPPING the UPWARD redistribution of wealth (and not really even DOING anything about it) is met with howls and cries of "COMMUNISM!" And you KNOW someone's really drinkin' the Vodka when BLUE COLLAR AMERICA keeps BUYING IT year after year!!!
We're BROKE.
News to me. We've been dancing to this tune for that past 30 years, save for two years under Bill Clinton. And there's been a Republican in the White House for 20 of them. (More on that coming up...)
Or did you mean the Republican National Committee?
Now... I almost spit my coffee out at the graph that came up next, from 2:11 to 2:16.
Pause it there for a second, because this is important. In fact... THIS, more than anything else, actually made me believe that a Liberal DID put this together, just to see how stupid Conservatives were. You see how it starts in 1980? The year RONALD REGAN WAS elected? And you see how the deficits pretty much just get bigger and bigger right up until about... 1992? When BILL CLINTON was elected? Then they start getting smaller and smaller until there's a surplus for several years? Yeah. And according to this very graph THAT gravy train ends... IN 2002! The VERY FIRST YEAR that GEORGE W. BUSH BUDGET was in effect!!! And after that we see some REALLY BIG DEFICITS! And the last bar on the graph? 2009? Yeah, you see THAT was ALSO a Bush Budget! Obama was ELECTED in 2008. He didn't take office until 2009, and at that time the BUSH Budget was still in effect! It doesn't include a SINGLE YEAR of Obama deficits! NOT ONE! That graph? It's DEMOCRATIC propaganda! And they don't even realize it!
Who's the fool here? Are Conservatives REALLY this stupid, or am I just slow to get our side's little prank? In any case, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're concerned about the deficit, for fucksake don't vote REPUBLICAN!
+10% Unemployment
Man. That's pretty bad, huh? Imagine what it might have been without all that stimulus money, huh? George W. Bush sure did leave under a pretty big shit-pile to dig out of, didn't he?
and now you want...
our health care?
I'll assume that this came out, like, a year ago, but how does stopping insurance companies from capriciously screwing over the customer to protect their own profits even as people literally DIE from lack of health care - and this in the most prosperous nation in the world- constitute, "wanting our health care." I'm not even sure I really know what that means. Because, yeah I "want our health care." As in: I want us to HAVE SOME. Oh well, moving on...
(Great picture of Harry Reid coming up at 2:27, BTW. I wish it was a little higher resolution. I'd blow it up, make it into a poster and hang it on my wall. Maybe I'll stick in the blog somewhere. LOL)
I'm sorry if I missed the joke, but the more I watch this, the more I think that a Liberal really DID make it, just to see if the Conservtaives would fall for it.
Backroom deals.
That was Cheney.
Payoffs.
That was Abramoff. (and Bush, and Cheney, etc...)
Blatant and Shameless Bribes
Well, yeah, you've got us there. But we had to do SOMETHING to get a Republican or two on board for the health care bill. So...
We've had enough.
I've had enough of this video. And of Conservative lies and of America's totally fucking ignorance and naivety regarding you people.
We're taking our country back.
To 1860?
From Radicals
Like the TEA PARTY?
Leftists
Name one. (OK, yeah, but no one really takes Dennis Kucinich seriously!)
And Liberals
[Up], [Up], [Up], [Up], [Home], [End], [Ctrl-C], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Ctrl-V]
We're coming after you
Well, you did LOSE, so you couldn't have possibly come BEFORE us. If you'd WON, we'd be coming after you. Inspiring stuff though. Love the music. Very "Hollywood trailer." All they needed was Don LaFontaine to narrate.
AMERICAN RISING
Well... here's hoping the Democrats finally wake the fuck up anyway. I'm not sure where they've been for the past two years. As for America? Probably more likely to take a nap for the next two years. They'll probably "wake up" sometime in late 2012.
November 2, 2010
(In case those senior citizens at the Tea Party rallies who want to keep Government out of Medicare forget the date.)
Now... the next part, from 3:06 to 3:11, I think, finally shows what the Republicans are REALLY offering, what they REALLY stand for. Don't you agree?
I'm sorry.
Did I miss the point of this? Or are Republican voters REALLY this fucking stupid?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Health Care Bill
Things have been busy at work the past couple weeks (the car makers must be making up for last year!) and I've hardly had any time to put my two-cents in over of MMFA lately. (Which is a good thing: in this economy, and in Michigan of all places, I'd rather have too little time on my hands than too much! LOL) So I was really rushed in this thread, so I wanted to come back and put my piece on the table regarding the pending health care legislation...
...and I don't suppose too many people, on either side of the issue, will like what I have to say about it. So let put a few "givens" out there, right up front.
1) I HATE insurance companies. We all know the multitude of ways that they screw people over, and I'm no different. My story? My two sons have autism. The insurance company paid for the diagnosis, but the minute they "autism" label was stuck on them, they wouldn't pay for shit in terms of therapy. (I came across THIS once, and it really hit home.) You know... Cause they don't get any better. (1) First of all: tell that to Temple Grandin. (2) Second of all, neither do AIDS patients or Diabetics or Schizophrenics or Transplant Patients or a million other patients who are on medication or medical therapy for life. But we all know that they'll throw any bullshit they can at you just to get out of paying. It doesn't have to be logical, scientifically correct or even make sense. They hold all the cards, so you're at their mercy.
So if anyone things I'm in the pocket of the insurance industry, I dare you to say it my face. (And I'd then advise you to them DUCK.) I HATE. HATE. HATE. those scum-sucking bastards. They turned their backs on my kids. So fuck 'em.
2) The Right, the Conservatives, The Republicans, the Insurance Lobby and Fox have all told so many lies about this whole issue, that I really don't even care what they have to say anymore. (I never really did, but it's less than background noise now.) They're so far out in Right Field it's not even funny anymore. It's pathetic and sad. Death Panels? Lie of the year. Deficits? Lie of the day, just depends on the issue you're discussing. Government Takeover? I only WISH. And I swear I'm going to punch the next person I hear crying about "socialism." So this in not, in any way, intended to argue with the idiots on the Right. 90% of them have no fucking idea what they're talking about, and the other 10% are lying for their paychecks. And even if every concession was given to them (and it basically has) they'd oppose it even if their own mother's life depended on it, just to see Obama and the Democrats "lose." They're despicable bastards without heart, soul or brains. So I'm done with them.
I want to take issue with the LIBERALS, who at this point are ready to jump ship on it.
Now... don't get me wrong. IMHO, the only PRINCIPLED, EDUCATED opposition to this bill, and anything in it has come from the Left. And I've laid out my own plan, which is about as close as you can get to single-payer, and yet not have the gov't run it, and still use market forces to keep costs DOWN, rather than UP as they do now. So you know I'm no libertarian when it comes to this issue. All that being said, in my humble opinion...
THIS IS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. THIS IS GOOD LEGISLATION. AND THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IT TO PASS. NOW.
I can't remember where I read it (and it may have been in this blog, so please forgive me if it was you and I forgot) but I recently read where someone call Health Care Reform the "New Deal" of our generation, and went on to call Gay Rights the "Civil Rights Movement" of our generation. I absolutely agree, 100% with that analogy, and that is exactly what drives my thinking here: The New Deal was not a single piece of legislation. Neither was 'Civil Rights.' Both represented sweeping changes in HOW WE THINK. They represented paradigm shifts in out whole legal, economic, political and social philosophy. They both occurred over MANY bills, MANY laws, and even MANY court cases, both in support of and in opposition to. And there was no point at which ANY single piece of legislation SOLVED THE PROBLEM. (We still have both economic instability and racial issues today, after all, and we probably will 100 years from now.) So you could take ANY piece of legislation, in either of those two cases - the first, the last or any in between - and find some fault with it. It doesn't go far enough. It makes too many concessions. It makes things worse. But just as well, in each case, each step had to be taken, as it was, because at each stage they had to take what they could get and keep moving forward.
And that's where I part with the idealists on the Left: I'm a pragmatist. Do I agree with Michael Moore, and Keith Olbermann and Dennis Kuccinich? In principal? Yes. But in practice, I do not accept the conclusion that this bill makes things worse.
Will the insurance companies profit from this? Yes, I'm sure they'll find a way to. They always do.
(I don't mind that they make a profit. What bothers me is that the currently profit more by denying care. That's the dysfunctional incentive.)
Will some people remain uncovered? Yep. A good 20 Million as I understand it.
(That's still half what it is now, however.)
Do I like the individual mandate? Not without a public option I don't.
(But whether or not it's constitutional, is a matter for the courts to decide, not a reason to oppose it.)
BUT... I also see this bill as a NECESSARY first step. We'd all like single-payer. Wasn't going to happen. Personally, I prefer MY PLAN. Not going to happen. (Wasn't even on the table. LOL) Public Option? Might have happened, if Harry Reid had any balls, Nancy Pelosi was worth a damn and President Obama wasn't the pragmatist that I figured him for when I voted for him, despite the Right's attempts to brand his as the most moon-bat liberal homo-sapient of all time. And while I'd certainly have have liked it, maybe even participated in it, I can live without it, even with the individual mandate.
Why?
Pre-existing conditions. If you want to force them to cover pre-exsisting conditions, (and we need to, with everyone switching jobs, getting laid off, etc...) and not let them totally jack up the premiums to cover them, and you DON'T want your costs to skyrocket, the only way to achieve that is to have EVERYONE pay-in. You need healthy people who right now, whether by choice or by circumstance, aren't putting in to ante up and get covered. And to all you wanna-be micro-economics majors out there, this is yet another instance where market forces work in strange ways. You see... It doesn't cost more to COVER more people. COVERING PEOPLE is a source of REVENUE. The increased demand for coverage does not necessarily lead to higher costs. What increases costs is more (and more expensive) CLAIMS being filed. Does universal coverage lead to more, and more expensive, claims? On average, per person, not really.
Remember - this gets a lot of currently HEALTHY people on board. That will only LOWER the [insurance company's] cost, on a per person basis. And all those uninsured SICK people? As I laid out in my earlier health care posts, right now they wait until their on death's door and then show up in the ER. And they then run up HUGE bills, that then don't get paid. Well, first of all: Guess who pays them? WE DO, though higher premiums, as hospitals try to recoup unpaid bills by soaking insurance companies! They don't just write it off, and even if they do officially, they still try to recoup it from US - the insured. Second of all, if these same people were covered, they'd go to the doctor EARLY ON, when [whatever it is that they have] can be fixed CHEAPLY and EASILY, with FEWER COMPLICATIONS and better PATIENT OUTCOMES. Which is exactly what we WANT THEM TO DO because it COST LESS THAT WAY! It's ALWAYS costs more, not to mention has more negative outcomes, to treat a disease in the later stages. It's ALWAYS better, and cheaper, to catch it and treat it EARLY. So the idea that we'll be paying for something that we're not already is misguided, no matter what model you're looking at.
Is this bill perfect? No. No way. Is it even good? Debatable, certainly. But is it NECESSARY?
Yes. I firmly believe it is.
And to some extent the details don't matter. (And I realize there are some doozies.) This will not solve all of our problems, but neither would a public option and neither would even single payer. But about the only idea I've heard that would make it WORSE was John McCain's '08 campaign idea to let people buy across state lines. THAT, and some of the more "free market" solutions I've heard, would make it WORSE. Much worse. And I just don't believe this bill does. Not in any BIG PICTURE kind of way. It has it's warts, but at this point, and really at any point, we need to take what we can get, celebrate the victory, and move on to the NEXT STEP. Because whoever succeeds Obama, and whenever that happens, will STILL be dealing with health care. No matter WHAT happens, or even might have happened with this bill.
I actually, honestly believe that we'll get to single payer eventually (though still I prefer my own model.) But we're not going to get there in one bill. (Shit, we might not get there in my lifetime!) This will be, and has to be a gradual process. And the necessary FIRST STEP, really the first two steps, has/have to be:
1) Everyone needs to put it / Nobody is allowed to opt out. (And help the ones who truly can't afford it.)
2) The insurance companies can't be allowed to refuse anyone, and can't be allowed to gouge anyone.
Now... we're not there yet. But this bill brings us closer. And we can't get on with the REAL reforms until we've achieved those first two steps. And come November? It's likely the Republicans will make some gains, and the already uphill climb will only get steeper. We need to take what we can. We need to start moving in the right direction. We need to get the ball rolling. And we need to do this as soon as we can.
We NEED this legislation, warts and all. I don't LIKE it... but I do believe it's necessary.
...and I don't suppose too many people, on either side of the issue, will like what I have to say about it. So let put a few "givens" out there, right up front.
1) I HATE insurance companies. We all know the multitude of ways that they screw people over, and I'm no different. My story? My two sons have autism. The insurance company paid for the diagnosis, but the minute they "autism" label was stuck on them, they wouldn't pay for shit in terms of therapy. (I came across THIS once, and it really hit home.) You know... Cause they don't get any better. (1) First of all: tell that to Temple Grandin. (2) Second of all, neither do AIDS patients or Diabetics or Schizophrenics or Transplant Patients or a million other patients who are on medication or medical therapy for life. But we all know that they'll throw any bullshit they can at you just to get out of paying. It doesn't have to be logical, scientifically correct or even make sense. They hold all the cards, so you're at their mercy.
So if anyone things I'm in the pocket of the insurance industry, I dare you to say it my face. (And I'd then advise you to them DUCK.) I HATE. HATE. HATE. those scum-sucking bastards. They turned their backs on my kids. So fuck 'em.
2) The Right, the Conservatives, The Republicans, the Insurance Lobby and Fox have all told so many lies about this whole issue, that I really don't even care what they have to say anymore. (I never really did, but it's less than background noise now.) They're so far out in Right Field it's not even funny anymore. It's pathetic and sad. Death Panels? Lie of the year. Deficits? Lie of the day, just depends on the issue you're discussing. Government Takeover? I only WISH. And I swear I'm going to punch the next person I hear crying about "socialism." So this in not, in any way, intended to argue with the idiots on the Right. 90% of them have no fucking idea what they're talking about, and the other 10% are lying for their paychecks. And even if every concession was given to them (and it basically has) they'd oppose it even if their own mother's life depended on it, just to see Obama and the Democrats "lose." They're despicable bastards without heart, soul or brains. So I'm done with them.
I want to take issue with the LIBERALS, who at this point are ready to jump ship on it.
Now... don't get me wrong. IMHO, the only PRINCIPLED, EDUCATED opposition to this bill, and anything in it has come from the Left. And I've laid out my own plan, which is about as close as you can get to single-payer, and yet not have the gov't run it, and still use market forces to keep costs DOWN, rather than UP as they do now. So you know I'm no libertarian when it comes to this issue. All that being said, in my humble opinion...
THIS IS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. THIS IS GOOD LEGISLATION. AND THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IT TO PASS. NOW.
I can't remember where I read it (and it may have been in this blog, so please forgive me if it was you and I forgot) but I recently read where someone call Health Care Reform the "New Deal" of our generation, and went on to call Gay Rights the "Civil Rights Movement" of our generation. I absolutely agree, 100% with that analogy, and that is exactly what drives my thinking here: The New Deal was not a single piece of legislation. Neither was 'Civil Rights.' Both represented sweeping changes in HOW WE THINK. They represented paradigm shifts in out whole legal, economic, political and social philosophy. They both occurred over MANY bills, MANY laws, and even MANY court cases, both in support of and in opposition to. And there was no point at which ANY single piece of legislation SOLVED THE PROBLEM. (We still have both economic instability and racial issues today, after all, and we probably will 100 years from now.) So you could take ANY piece of legislation, in either of those two cases - the first, the last or any in between - and find some fault with it. It doesn't go far enough. It makes too many concessions. It makes things worse. But just as well, in each case, each step had to be taken, as it was, because at each stage they had to take what they could get and keep moving forward.
And that's where I part with the idealists on the Left: I'm a pragmatist. Do I agree with Michael Moore, and Keith Olbermann and Dennis Kuccinich? In principal? Yes. But in practice, I do not accept the conclusion that this bill makes things worse.
Will the insurance companies profit from this? Yes, I'm sure they'll find a way to. They always do.
(I don't mind that they make a profit. What bothers me is that the currently profit more by denying care. That's the dysfunctional incentive.)
Will some people remain uncovered? Yep. A good 20 Million as I understand it.
(That's still half what it is now, however.)
Do I like the individual mandate? Not without a public option I don't.
(But whether or not it's constitutional, is a matter for the courts to decide, not a reason to oppose it.)
BUT... I also see this bill as a NECESSARY first step. We'd all like single-payer. Wasn't going to happen. Personally, I prefer MY PLAN. Not going to happen. (Wasn't even on the table. LOL) Public Option? Might have happened, if Harry Reid had any balls, Nancy Pelosi was worth a damn and President Obama wasn't the pragmatist that I figured him for when I voted for him, despite the Right's attempts to brand his as the most moon-bat liberal homo-sapient of all time. And while I'd certainly have have liked it, maybe even participated in it, I can live without it, even with the individual mandate.
Why?
Pre-existing conditions. If you want to force them to cover pre-exsisting conditions, (and we need to, with everyone switching jobs, getting laid off, etc...) and not let them totally jack up the premiums to cover them, and you DON'T want your costs to skyrocket, the only way to achieve that is to have EVERYONE pay-in. You need healthy people who right now, whether by choice or by circumstance, aren't putting in to ante up and get covered. And to all you wanna-be micro-economics majors out there, this is yet another instance where market forces work in strange ways. You see... It doesn't cost more to COVER more people. COVERING PEOPLE is a source of REVENUE. The increased demand for coverage does not necessarily lead to higher costs. What increases costs is more (and more expensive) CLAIMS being filed. Does universal coverage lead to more, and more expensive, claims? On average, per person, not really.
Remember - this gets a lot of currently HEALTHY people on board. That will only LOWER the [insurance company's] cost, on a per person basis. And all those uninsured SICK people? As I laid out in my earlier health care posts, right now they wait until their on death's door and then show up in the ER. And they then run up HUGE bills, that then don't get paid. Well, first of all: Guess who pays them? WE DO, though higher premiums, as hospitals try to recoup unpaid bills by soaking insurance companies! They don't just write it off, and even if they do officially, they still try to recoup it from US - the insured. Second of all, if these same people were covered, they'd go to the doctor EARLY ON, when [whatever it is that they have] can be fixed CHEAPLY and EASILY, with FEWER COMPLICATIONS and better PATIENT OUTCOMES. Which is exactly what we WANT THEM TO DO because it COST LESS THAT WAY! It's ALWAYS costs more, not to mention has more negative outcomes, to treat a disease in the later stages. It's ALWAYS better, and cheaper, to catch it and treat it EARLY. So the idea that we'll be paying for something that we're not already is misguided, no matter what model you're looking at.
Is this bill perfect? No. No way. Is it even good? Debatable, certainly. But is it NECESSARY?
Yes. I firmly believe it is.
And to some extent the details don't matter. (And I realize there are some doozies.) This will not solve all of our problems, but neither would a public option and neither would even single payer. But about the only idea I've heard that would make it WORSE was John McCain's '08 campaign idea to let people buy across state lines. THAT, and some of the more "free market" solutions I've heard, would make it WORSE. Much worse. And I just don't believe this bill does. Not in any BIG PICTURE kind of way. It has it's warts, but at this point, and really at any point, we need to take what we can get, celebrate the victory, and move on to the NEXT STEP. Because whoever succeeds Obama, and whenever that happens, will STILL be dealing with health care. No matter WHAT happens, or even might have happened with this bill.
I actually, honestly believe that we'll get to single payer eventually (though still I prefer my own model.) But we're not going to get there in one bill. (Shit, we might not get there in my lifetime!) This will be, and has to be a gradual process. And the necessary FIRST STEP, really the first two steps, has/have to be:
1) Everyone needs to put it / Nobody is allowed to opt out. (And help the ones who truly can't afford it.)
2) The insurance companies can't be allowed to refuse anyone, and can't be allowed to gouge anyone.
Now... we're not there yet. But this bill brings us closer. And we can't get on with the REAL reforms until we've achieved those first two steps. And come November? It's likely the Republicans will make some gains, and the already uphill climb will only get steeper. We need to take what we can. We need to start moving in the right direction. We need to get the ball rolling. And we need to do this as soon as we can.
We NEED this legislation, warts and all. I don't LIKE it... but I do believe it's necessary.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
WHAT sixty votes?
I’d like to thank the newly minted Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown for supporting the Democratic Senate’s Jobs Bill, breaking ranks along with two of the usual suspects, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and also Missouri’s Kit Bond and Ohio’s George Voinovich, two guys who, since they’re retiring, have nothing to lose and I guess figured that they may as well help actually govern the country a little instead of following the Party strategy of making sure that absolutely nothing good happens, public interest be damned. So to those five: Thank You. To our spineless leader, Harry Reid? Gee, you got four more votes than you actually needed. You think maybe you didn’t have to gut the bill to quite the extent that you did?
There is one thing I want to point out however, in DEFENSE of Reid. A lot has been made of the whole 60-votes thing. And I said awhile back that I didn’t think Brown’s election really changed anything. I’ll stand by that, and here’s why: The Democrats NEVER HAD 60 votes! And by that I don’t mean that the Blue Dogs weren’t on board, or they didn’t have enough party unity, or anything like that. I mean that at no point were there ever actually 60 Democrats in the Senate! Check it out…
Here’s the timeline: In January, 2009, the numbers in the Senate were officially 59 Democrats to 41 Republicans. That's how the 2008 election worked out, if you remember. And don’t forget: The Minnesota Governor refused to seat Al Franken. So really, they started out 58-41, with one open seat, by the official party count. Now… on April 28, 2009, Arlen Specter switched parties. This brought the tally to 59-40 in favor of the Democrats, but Franken still wasn’t seated, so no 60 votes. Finally, on July 7, 2009 Franken was seated. And the tally was 60-40… for 49 days, until Senator Kennedy died on August 25. So… they had “60 Votes” for all of seven weeks, and that’s before you take into account that the ailing Senator Kennedy hadn’t been present for a vote in the Senate since summer of 2008 – a full year before his death. By any practical measure, the numbers in the Senate were never better than 59-40, even with Franken seated and after Specter defected. At no point did the Democrats ever NOT need at least one Republican vote to reach cloture. And now, with Brown’s election? Well, the numbers are 59-41, and they need… ding-ding-ding!: ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, just as they always have, to achieve cloture.
And they just got FIVE. So I still like our chances, moving forward.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And BTW, I sincerely hope that President Obama does to the obstructing Republicans what President Bush did to US so many times, and just makes recess appointments for every single remaining unmanned post that the Republicans continue to block nominees for. The Right are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats never have a chance to accomplish anything. Well, they had their chance, and it’s high time that Obama leads the Democrats and they show the country what GOOD Government is really capable of.
There is one thing I want to point out however, in DEFENSE of Reid. A lot has been made of the whole 60-votes thing. And I said awhile back that I didn’t think Brown’s election really changed anything. I’ll stand by that, and here’s why: The Democrats NEVER HAD 60 votes! And by that I don’t mean that the Blue Dogs weren’t on board, or they didn’t have enough party unity, or anything like that. I mean that at no point were there ever actually 60 Democrats in the Senate! Check it out…
Here’s the timeline: In January, 2009, the numbers in the Senate were officially 59 Democrats to 41 Republicans. That's how the 2008 election worked out, if you remember. And don’t forget: The Minnesota Governor refused to seat Al Franken. So really, they started out 58-41, with one open seat, by the official party count. Now… on April 28, 2009, Arlen Specter switched parties. This brought the tally to 59-40 in favor of the Democrats, but Franken still wasn’t seated, so no 60 votes. Finally, on July 7, 2009 Franken was seated. And the tally was 60-40… for 49 days, until Senator Kennedy died on August 25. So… they had “60 Votes” for all of seven weeks, and that’s before you take into account that the ailing Senator Kennedy hadn’t been present for a vote in the Senate since summer of 2008 – a full year before his death. By any practical measure, the numbers in the Senate were never better than 59-40, even with Franken seated and after Specter defected. At no point did the Democrats ever NOT need at least one Republican vote to reach cloture. And now, with Brown’s election? Well, the numbers are 59-41, and they need… ding-ding-ding!: ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, just as they always have, to achieve cloture.
And they just got FIVE. So I still like our chances, moving forward.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And BTW, I sincerely hope that President Obama does to the obstructing Republicans what President Bush did to US so many times, and just makes recess appointments for every single remaining unmanned post that the Republicans continue to block nominees for. The Right are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats never have a chance to accomplish anything. Well, they had their chance, and it’s high time that Obama leads the Democrats and they show the country what GOOD Government is really capable of.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Bad words and PC nonsense...
I had hoped to find one with just George Carlin's part, but after watching this, I now think that Richard Pryor's part is equally important. Whatever. They're arguably the two greatest comedians that ever lived, so I'm not going to quibble...
Watch this a few times if you don't get it. No one makes liguistic points like Carlin and NO comedian has a better command of the word "Nigger" than Pryor. It's important stuff, so make sure you understand it before going on...
Now...
I want to voice my grievance at all the PC Bullshit being unloaded yeatserday and today on Harry Reid by the Right and Michael Steele by the Left. Steele for using the phrase "Honest Injun" and Reid for predicting potential electoral success for Obama because (and I'm paraphrasing here) "he isn't TOO black."
Let me say, UNEQUIVOCABLY, that I don't believe either statement was RACIST, and neither man owes anyone an apology. (OK... Reid to Obama maybe. By my prez is cool, and he understood and forgave. That's what makes him strong and makes him the man of charecter that his is.)
First of all, let me deal with Steele's case, becuase it's the easier one. There are PLENTY of GOOD REASONS not to like Michael Steele. There are PLENTY of LEGITIMATE things that anyone on the Right OR the Left might criticize him for. Personally? I think he's an incompetant baffoon. (And there's no one I'd rather have running the show for the Pub's, except maybe GLENN BECK!) But calling him out for this is NOT ONE of those GOOD REASONS or LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS. It's nothing more than PC bullshit.
First off... was there even a single Native American who was actually bothered by this? If there was I sure as shell didn't hear any! So he used an outdated coloquialism. Was this poor judgement? In this (ridiculous) day and age, perhaps. But RACIST? How? Unless they were discussing a proposal that negatively impacted Native Americans and he was trying to joke his way out of it, of he just said SOME OTHER derrogatory things, and he was saying this as part of his apology? It's just an outdated phrase. If this is the exent of your evidence of racism, then you'd have to also admit that RIchard Pryor, Eddie Murphy and Chris ROck must HATE balck people: They actually CALL them "niggers" ALL THE TIME! And of course, that's just absurd, because it's like that great sage Saint Carlin said: CONTEXT! CONTEXT! Otehrwise it's just a bunch of white liberals acting like the 'PC Police' that the Right always paints us as!(Why do we let them do this?!)
So for christ's sake, please stop attacking Steele with this PC bullshit. Not only do I hate having to defend the asshole, but it distracts from all the other REALLY STUPID SHIT he and the Republicans have come to stand for. I was arguing this point on MMFA earlier today. And I stand by my posts there, including both the fact that his apology was unecessary, but also that he showed no charecter at all for the way he gave it. It should be pretty hard to screw up something that you shouldn't even have to do in the first palce, but boy... HE MANAGED IT. (I TOLD you he was a bafoon!)
Now... Reid's statement is a little more "out there." I can definitely see why people get up in arms about this. But what is Reid really saying? Is it any more than what Dr. Bill Cosby said a few years back? Is it any less true? And - and this is the most important thing - is it REALLY about BLACK PEOPLE, or does it say as much if not more about WHITE PEOPLE? Seems to me that Speaker Reid is lamenting (rightly or wrongly) not only the state of Black Leadership today, but also (much more to the point) the divide between blacks and whites. In suggesting that someone who was [PP] more black would not be electable... Well, for one thing: HE'S RIGHT. (Look at the Rev. Jessie Jackson in '88, or the Rev. Al Sharpton. Think either of THEM would stand a chance? And it's not like they can't speak, or use ghetto slang. They're just TOO BLACK.) Now... Reid is a bit out of touch here, to say the least. I'm not completely heartless, after all! I think his remarks COULD be considered very dismissive of the likes Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Gen. Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice or for that matter Jackson or Sharpton, ALL of whom in some quarters, would be considered legitimate candidates by many people. Our first Black President? No, admittedly not likely. But Reid certainly missed the mark with all of them, luming them into the "Flavor Flav" category. OTOH... his larger point that what would hold them back is the lack of WHITE support that President Obama GOT (for whatever reason) is still valid.
In any case, he apologized to President Obama and the President forgave him. (Powell, Watts, Rice, Jackson, Sharpton and Keyes? Couldn't tell you. Probably not.) Funny thing though... Just as with Steele, it has not been THESE PEOPLE that have really been calling out Reid! It seems that MOST of the shouting has come from RW WHITE GUYS, and it has sounded pretty much like "If a Republican had said that (or if WE had said that) the Liberals would CRUCIFY him (or us)."
Here's the thing...
What Reid said: [he] "believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate" like Obama who is "a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect.'
OK... definitely not winning any sensitivity awards here, definitely not the most enlightened statement he's ever made, but I still think that DR. BILL COSBY would hear this and pretty much be nodding his head in agreement. (Bill, if you're reading this, I love you, man! If I'm way off base here, by all means LET ME KNOW!) And again, it's as much an admission of linergering racism on the part of whites a it is any kind of statement about blacks.
And the thing is... if someone on the RIGHT had said it, it would have probably sounded more like this:
[We] "believe the country might be ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, assuming there was one without that Negro dialect."
Or some such thing. And you know what? They probably think they were the same! Kind of like Rush Limbaugh saying that "the NFL and NBA look like the bloods versus the crypts" is somehow 'the same' as Rev Sharpton commenting on how sports has developed a "culture of violence."
The thing is: If a black person wants to take Reid to task? Fine. Go right ahead. If Obama was ticked. Thas cool. (I can't imagine it, but whatever.) Hell, if ANY liberal or someone with a relatively enlightened view on race wanted to call him out (or ME for that matter!) I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT!
What I don't need is some crusty old white guy, from a party which, for the last 40 some years, has brought into it all of the racist, white south following the civil rights movement, and who have a history of racially charged rhetoric and policy, telling ME or ANY LIBERAL or DEMOCRAT that they're being racist. What's next? Michael Vick telling me I don't walk my dog often enough?
Reid's words were poorly chosen, as were Steele's. But in and of themselves, neither is evidence that either man is a racist. The brouhaha over Steele shows just how PC and absurd some liberals are getting, and the Right calling out Reid is just another shallow attempt on their part to hide their own hypocrisy on the issue by distracting the attention away from them.
They do this A LOT. Projecting is all the Right is really any good at! It's their whole strategy. So DON'T LET THEM DO THIS! It's time we got over both remaarks and moved on. As I said before, there's plenty of things wrong with Michael Steele, and there's certainly no shortage of people on either side of the ailse who also think that there's plenty of things wrong with Hary Reid. But THESE STATEMENTS are not among these things!
Don't let the Right have their victory by projecting racism onto US, or by letting them portray US as the "PC Police." No good will come of that. Get over it. Move on. What's at stake is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than this.
Watch this a few times if you don't get it. No one makes liguistic points like Carlin and NO comedian has a better command of the word "Nigger" than Pryor. It's important stuff, so make sure you understand it before going on...
Now...
I want to voice my grievance at all the PC Bullshit being unloaded yeatserday and today on Harry Reid by the Right and Michael Steele by the Left. Steele for using the phrase "Honest Injun" and Reid for predicting potential electoral success for Obama because (and I'm paraphrasing here) "he isn't TOO black."
Let me say, UNEQUIVOCABLY, that I don't believe either statement was RACIST, and neither man owes anyone an apology. (OK... Reid to Obama maybe. By my prez is cool, and he understood and forgave. That's what makes him strong and makes him the man of charecter that his is.)
First of all, let me deal with Steele's case, becuase it's the easier one. There are PLENTY of GOOD REASONS not to like Michael Steele. There are PLENTY of LEGITIMATE things that anyone on the Right OR the Left might criticize him for. Personally? I think he's an incompetant baffoon. (And there's no one I'd rather have running the show for the Pub's, except maybe GLENN BECK!) But calling him out for this is NOT ONE of those GOOD REASONS or LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS. It's nothing more than PC bullshit.
First off... was there even a single Native American who was actually bothered by this? If there was I sure as shell didn't hear any! So he used an outdated coloquialism. Was this poor judgement? In this (ridiculous) day and age, perhaps. But RACIST? How? Unless they were discussing a proposal that negatively impacted Native Americans and he was trying to joke his way out of it, of he just said SOME OTHER derrogatory things, and he was saying this as part of his apology? It's just an outdated phrase. If this is the exent of your evidence of racism, then you'd have to also admit that RIchard Pryor, Eddie Murphy and Chris ROck must HATE balck people: They actually CALL them "niggers" ALL THE TIME! And of course, that's just absurd, because it's like that great sage Saint Carlin said: CONTEXT! CONTEXT! Otehrwise it's just a bunch of white liberals acting like the 'PC Police' that the Right always paints us as!(Why do we let them do this?!)
So for christ's sake, please stop attacking Steele with this PC bullshit. Not only do I hate having to defend the asshole, but it distracts from all the other REALLY STUPID SHIT he and the Republicans have come to stand for. I was arguing this point on MMFA earlier today. And I stand by my posts there, including both the fact that his apology was unecessary, but also that he showed no charecter at all for the way he gave it. It should be pretty hard to screw up something that you shouldn't even have to do in the first palce, but boy... HE MANAGED IT. (I TOLD you he was a bafoon!)
Now... Reid's statement is a little more "out there." I can definitely see why people get up in arms about this. But what is Reid really saying? Is it any more than what Dr. Bill Cosby said a few years back? Is it any less true? And - and this is the most important thing - is it REALLY about BLACK PEOPLE, or does it say as much if not more about WHITE PEOPLE? Seems to me that Speaker Reid is lamenting (rightly or wrongly) not only the state of Black Leadership today, but also (much more to the point) the divide between blacks and whites. In suggesting that someone who was [PP] more black would not be electable... Well, for one thing: HE'S RIGHT. (Look at the Rev. Jessie Jackson in '88, or the Rev. Al Sharpton. Think either of THEM would stand a chance? And it's not like they can't speak, or use ghetto slang. They're just TOO BLACK.) Now... Reid is a bit out of touch here, to say the least. I'm not completely heartless, after all! I think his remarks COULD be considered very dismissive of the likes Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, Gen. Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice or for that matter Jackson or Sharpton, ALL of whom in some quarters, would be considered legitimate candidates by many people. Our first Black President? No, admittedly not likely. But Reid certainly missed the mark with all of them, luming them into the "Flavor Flav" category. OTOH... his larger point that what would hold them back is the lack of WHITE support that President Obama GOT (for whatever reason) is still valid.
In any case, he apologized to President Obama and the President forgave him. (Powell, Watts, Rice, Jackson, Sharpton and Keyes? Couldn't tell you. Probably not.) Funny thing though... Just as with Steele, it has not been THESE PEOPLE that have really been calling out Reid! It seems that MOST of the shouting has come from RW WHITE GUYS, and it has sounded pretty much like "If a Republican had said that (or if WE had said that) the Liberals would CRUCIFY him (or us)."
Here's the thing...
What Reid said: [he] "believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate" like Obama who is "a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect.'
OK... definitely not winning any sensitivity awards here, definitely not the most enlightened statement he's ever made, but I still think that DR. BILL COSBY would hear this and pretty much be nodding his head in agreement. (Bill, if you're reading this, I love you, man! If I'm way off base here, by all means LET ME KNOW!) And again, it's as much an admission of linergering racism on the part of whites a it is any kind of statement about blacks.
And the thing is... if someone on the RIGHT had said it, it would have probably sounded more like this:
[We] "believe the country might be ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, assuming there was one without that Negro dialect."
Or some such thing. And you know what? They probably think they were the same! Kind of like Rush Limbaugh saying that "the NFL and NBA look like the bloods versus the crypts" is somehow 'the same' as Rev Sharpton commenting on how sports has developed a "culture of violence."
The thing is: If a black person wants to take Reid to task? Fine. Go right ahead. If Obama was ticked. Thas cool. (I can't imagine it, but whatever.) Hell, if ANY liberal or someone with a relatively enlightened view on race wanted to call him out (or ME for that matter!) I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT!
What I don't need is some crusty old white guy, from a party which, for the last 40 some years, has brought into it all of the racist, white south following the civil rights movement, and who have a history of racially charged rhetoric and policy, telling ME or ANY LIBERAL or DEMOCRAT that they're being racist. What's next? Michael Vick telling me I don't walk my dog often enough?
Reid's words were poorly chosen, as were Steele's. But in and of themselves, neither is evidence that either man is a racist. The brouhaha over Steele shows just how PC and absurd some liberals are getting, and the Right calling out Reid is just another shallow attempt on their part to hide their own hypocrisy on the issue by distracting the attention away from them.
They do this A LOT. Projecting is all the Right is really any good at! It's their whole strategy. So DON'T LET THEM DO THIS! It's time we got over both remaarks and moved on. As I said before, there's plenty of things wrong with Michael Steele, and there's certainly no shortage of people on either side of the ailse who also think that there's plenty of things wrong with Hary Reid. But THESE STATEMENTS are not among these things!
Don't let the Right have their victory by projecting racism onto US, or by letting them portray US as the "PC Police." No good will come of that. Get over it. Move on. What's at stake is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)