Thursday, October 14, 2010

Chris Matthews: Conservatives would have let the Chilean miners die

As an adjunct to my post below, please see Always On Watch's blog HERE and watch the video.  This is the most stunning exhibition of biased stupidity I might have EVER SEEN.   You see,  MSNBC's Chris Matthews credit's Chile's President with having rescued the miners and suggests our Tea Party folks would have let the miners die rather than resort to government help.   When, in actuality, the rescue was a cooperation of Chile and many countries which came to help; the perfect Conservative situation, thanks to a Conservative president; NOT to rely solely on big government, but to use all expert resources available, right?  you really have to watch the video............it's kind of good for a laugh.
Thanks, AOW!

116 comments:

Misfit410 said...

I do believe Democrats would have had more knowledge on the subject than conservatives, I mean Barney Frank for one can relate, it's not as if he's never had 33 minors trapped in his hole for more than 60 days before.

Brooke said...

Well, Ducky should be along shortly to explain to us poor conservatives what Chrissy really meant.

Personally, I think that Matthews needs to be checked into a mental health facility.

FrogBurger said...

The guy's moron. Simplifying things like this shows how little intellect he has. The feeling up his leg must have gone to his neurones.

We all know the empathy and compassion of leftist regimes.

What a douche-bag.

Ducky's here said...

Matthew's is partially correct. You still have the issue of why, after several accidents and safety violations, this government allowed the mine to stay open.

They're making some noise, just like we did after our recent mine disaster, about tightening regulations ... want to put anything down on that probability.

So they'll spin the wheel again and hope the miners survive the next cave in. By being so cavalier you can say that the lives of the miners aren't their first concern.

Chuck said...

Z, be fair - Matthews is no more an idiot than your garden variety liberal. The one thing to take from this is no one was watching him so there was no one to offend.

cube said...

What a horrible thing to say. Republicans should be repudiating this today on every talk show that will listen.

Chris Matthews only has a show because he must have blackmail material on some MSNBC producer. How else can someone this clueless continue to have their own show?

Oh wait, there's Olbermann and Maddow... nevermind... MSNBS is living in the liberal bubble.

Anonymous said...

Seems I remember that it took some weeks for Hussein to accept help from countries that offered assistance. Can't you see him staying around for the duration of this ordeal? Besides, he'd have to have his TOTI there.

Cube is spot on. Matthews must know where the body is buried, as my late grandmother used to say about no-talent actors/actresses in film. Of course, the actresses had access to the casting couch. HMMM? He does get a thrill up his leg over you-know-who.

Silvrlady

JINGOIST said...

Matthews is becoming DERANGED! He's like Mikey Moore's skinier brother.

I heard his comments on the radio. What a f.o.s. schmuck!

Craig said...

Z,

I just watched the video and read the transcript. Matthews was clearly talking about the miners, not the gov. response. He was contrasting the miner's actions with the attitude of some on the right. If the miners had not cooperated, shared the sacrifice, but instead took the 'self reliance', everyone out for themselves philosophy of modern Conservatism, they'd be dead.

At no point did he say, "Conservatives would have let the Chilean miners die".

Personally, I believe Republican, Conservative, Tea Party Patriots wouldn't let the miner's die. At least not if the miners paid their Miner's Rescue Fee in advance. If not, too bad, miner.

Am I right, or am I right?

Z said...

Misfit, I'd delete you but it's too darned funny :-)

Brooke...you didn't have to wait, did you.

Ducky, Chile's not had a conservative gov't for years; for matthews to blame conservatives for this is just plain stupid. For you to is just sycophantic.


FB..it really does show he's a moron.

Chuck, that's true...wouldn't you think they couldn't FIND two morons THAT dishonest and biased in one interview??

Craig, you're asking me if Conservative miners would have "every man for themself"? That's such an insult I won't respond. And it's stupid; I don't take you for stupid or that unkind. ANd, trust me, I rarely call my commenters stupid....if ever.

By the way, I CLEARLY heard one of the miners come up and hug PInera and say "Thanks for your government direction..keep it up" That's a conservative miner; they all pulled together, as ANY Conservative would.
To transfer a love of SMALL GOVERNMENT to "Conservatives won't help others" is so idiotic.........
well, it pisses me off so badly I'd better not say more.
damn
I'll say one more thing I've never EVER said on my blog;

HOW F****** STUPID

Z said...

CRAIG: I'm just wondering: watch this idiotic video of O'Reilly having Goldberg and Beyhar leave the VIEW set because he said Muslims killed us on 9/11..He thought that the mosque in NYC is an insult and they had to show their OUTRAGE that he'd say THAT and the media's running with it with glee:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101014/en_yblog_upshot/goldberg-behar-walk-of-view-set-during-oreilly-interview

Matthews said the dumbest, most stupidly insulting comment about Conservatives going...where's the outrage?

Ducky's here said...

A capsule of a good article at JuanCole.com today, lots of links.

1. What were the miners mining? (A.: Gold and copper).

2. Did the high price of gold and the fact that the mining company was close to bankruptcy cause the company executives to cut corners?

3. Are the mine owners guilty of criminal negligence?

4. Why did the San Estaban mining company reopen the mine so quickly after an earlier tunnel collapse severed the leg of a mine worker?

5. Why is there no accountability for the mine owners?

6. Is George W. Bush-style deregulation of the mining industry by the Chilean government part of the problem here?

7. [pdf] What is the influence of big gold and copper corporations over US policy?

8. Are copper and gold mine owners stronger in relation to workers and have they escaped government regulation because the US engineered a coup in 1973 to destroy the Chilean Left?

9. Was the San Estaban mining company’s ability to marginalize the union and to disregard input from the workers rooted in American-imposed corporate privilege?

10. In other words, was the trapping of these workers in the first place Richard Nixon’s and Henry Kissinger’s fault?

Z said...

another good question, DUcky.

11. Are you nuts?

Z said...

I'm laughing out loud here! It's BUSH'S FAULT!
It's CONSERVATIVE AMERICA'S FAULT those CHileans got stuck underground!
it's OUR FAULT, folks, don't you SEE THAT?


Honestly, Ducky, I was a little ticked off from a long hard day; you really lifted me UP!!! Thanks! :-)

Anonymous said...

You know, I was going to defend conservatives, but I decided it's not worth the trouble. People like Matthews, or our new slightly bothersome gnat, Craig, aren't worth it either.

We conservatives know who we are, and have no need to explain ourselves.

The far left will not be happy until they're spoonfed and rocked to sleep by the nanny state.

The day they risk themselves to rescue anyone, or fight for their country, they will have grown up.

Until then, we'll have to listen to them whine and squeal like the children they are, while others clean up their mess.

Pris

Z said...

Pris, you give me hope in my fellow Americans again. No, nobody has to defend conservatives.

heidianne jackson said...

I will never understand how not wanting to allow the government to steal from me to give to people who are undeserving at best means that I believe in "every man for himself." when in fact, as history has shown us time and time again, people are at their most generous and socially supportive when they pay the least amount to the government.

there are necessary and justified services for the government to perform. jobs "creation", regulating what food I can eat, a war on drugs or "public" smoking (when it really takes place on private property) or poverty are not among those. in fact, when government involves itself in most endeavors, it drives costs up and availability down.

but on the other hand, it sure does make people like Chrissy and Craig and Ducky feel like they're better protected. of course there's no arguing with idiots - they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Anonymous said...

Z, my goodness, I was feeling too magnanimous when I excluded Ducky from the Matthews, Craig, sandbox crowd.

But, having found out he blames Bush, Nixon, and Kissenger for Chile's mine disaster, I think Ducky must have been taken to the nearest loonybin!

Pris

heidianne jackson said...

taken to the looneybin? nah, pris, he lives there...

Z said...

"he LIVES there" :-)

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

How about THIS:

The BIGGEST factor in saving the miners was CAPITALISM, insofar as the drill bit which holed their way to freedom was manufactured by a small company in the United States, from the Center Rock company in Berlin, Pennsylvania -- a business with a massive 74 workers.

That's right, those evil NON-helping Capitalists and Conservatives!

BZ

FrogBurger said...

Ducky, Aulinsky asked to ridicule your opposition, not yourself.

I think the accident is because of Allende, or maybe Marx, or maybe the Smurfs.

FairWitness said...

Ducky, you have just got to be kidding. I cannot believe you. What the hell does ANY President have to do with mining in other countries, let alone Chile.

It's not as if the USA invented mining, it's been around for centuries, before the world even knew there was a land that became America.

You are the most idiotic imbecile I have ever read comments from.

My God, man, you poor thing; you can fix stupid.

FrogBurger said...

Ducky, tonight, I will go confess to my local priest because I think it's my fault too. I stomp too hard in my apartment when I hear the left goons and it must have created some earthquake in Chile

Joe said...

Trust Ducky to make this about how it happened instead of about how it was solved. That way we can blame Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush-1 & Bush-2.

When BP's oil well blew up, President BO refused help from certain countries because they were not "unionized." Chile's administration accepted help from dozens of experts from other countries.

In my mind, President BO is ten times more culpable in a philosophical sense than all of the above. It is HE who has demonstrated by his actions how he would have handled such a crisis: wait 50 days, talk about it, make promises, then do nothing until nothing cannot be done any more.

beamish said...

Z,

Leftists quote Juan Cole when they feel extra gratuitous in their perennial efforts to convince the world that all leftists walking the planet right now are fucking morons.

Joe said...

BTW: Matthews has totally lost consciousness.

MK said...

If it had been up to the socialists, we'd be bringing up corpses by now. Just look at how many die in China when a mine goes bust.

Facts always get in the way of dishonest, smearing, leftist fools like matthews.

Craig said...

The BIGGEST factor in saving the miners was CAPITALISM, insofar as the drill bit which holed their way to freedom was manufactured by a small company in the United States, from the Center Rock company in Berlin, Pennsylvania -- a business with a massive 74 workers.

Hey Blov. Can I can you that?

I'm a Capitalist. That a small co. in the U.S. made that bit is awesome. That is what we on the 'left' have been fighting for. We don't make much stuff here any more.

I want to keep jobs here in the U.S.A. Good paying jobs. Conservative policies have lead to outsourcing and off shoring those jobs in pursuit of cheap labor. Please don't you tell me it's high taxes and regulation that drove those jobs away. Taxes have been cut drastically on business, capital gains and income on the ultra wealthy since 1980. Regulations have been neutered or shredded, too.

I'm a capitalist and if done properly, it should benefit everyone, not just those with enough money to manipulate the rules in their favor.

There has been a class war in our country and unless you're in the top 1/10th of 1%, you've already lost the war.

Why you want to aid and abet the destruction of our country by supporting these policies is beyond me.

BTW. In addition to that great U.S. co. contribution to saving those miners, it was NASA who designed the capsule. Pretty cool.

Ducky's here said...

About right

Glenn Beck's #1 Fan said...

So where'd all the Gulf oil spill oil go to, mr. ducky? Has the EPA found the other 80% yet???

Green Jobs R Us...drill baby, drill!

FrogBurger said...

Ducky you should come up with a new scam: the global earth vacuum effect, a phenomenon tied to over drilling the earth for oil that leads to more mine accident and potential holes on the face of the earth swallowing houses of poor people.

FrogBurger said...

Ducky check this article out.

Is it because of Bush, Conservatives or the Smurfs -- maybe the Tooth Fairy -- that Chinese are having so many accidents.

Anonymous said...

One could take the opposite tack of the leftists celebrating the event as they pretend it was because of the efficiency of the state managed rescue that everything worked out successfully. If that was the real reason the rescue was successful it would mark the first time any state managed event or "business" worked.

Somehow from the beginning something didn't seem quite right with so much coverage of the rescue covered by the media from every corner of the planet. I found it odd that before there as any assurance of success that the media was always there to relay the images, including many of those waving flags at the scene.

There's way more to the story than simply the mine rescue and the slobbering of Chris Matthews should make one look into the context of what they are really pretending, aside from successfully rescuing those miners.

The mine itself was run by a smaller company, which like almost any business anywhere on Earth would be regulated almost to the point of extinction by the state. The government of Chile decided that the company was too small to run the rescue operation, so it called in the state mining giant, Chile's largest mining company, Codelco to run it. This is an older state-run company from the days of Allende. As I recall Allende was overthrown by Pinochet who must have conveniently forgot about free markets and statism, since he didn't remove the company from ownership by the state. I would have thought that would cause the world's leftists to celebrate Pinochet rather than demonizing him later.

In this context it makes sense that the celebrations today by the world's leftists is about more than the rescue operation itself ... it gives them the opportunity to pretend useless government bureaucrats can do something useful.

Here's an interesting link discussing some of the winners and losers in this event which now seems to be turning into a leftist love fest to pretend socialism might actually work.

http://af.reuters.com/article/metalsNews/idAFN1322584720101014?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Waylon

Anonymous said...

There is a precedent of South American countries pegging their currency to the US dollar to guard against inflation. Runaway spending by the Obama administration has made the US dollar a poor guard against inflation. Gold, on the other hand, has kept its value. So, in light of Democrat spending, it should come as not surprise that the Chileans were pursuing gold rather than dollars. Which is what the miners were doing. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this incident was 100% Obama's fault.

tio

Anonymous said...

Z,
Are you familiar with Uncommon Knowledge? It's an internet video show where Peter Robinson interviews various people. This week he talks to Victor David Hanson. Thought you might be interested because the topic of exceptionalism came up. Hanson said that Europe is afraid to say that their way of life is better than the Muslim way, which is why they feel no need to assimilate. If interested, you can find the show on nationalreviewonline.com or powerlineblog.com

tio

Major said...

"Misfit, I'd delete you but it's too darned funny :-)


Don't you dare Z....what are we if we still are too PC to have a laugh at anyones expense who so mightly deserves it? So...in that vein...I will make my contribution too....However I have to admit...that Misfits comment made me soak my monitor with the coffee I just blew thru my nostrils.

One:

And how does all our "malevolent hatred" make Barney less of a crook, exactly?

Ok, I'm done poking fun at liberals (in this thread, anyway). I will now actually make a point. Yes, your sense that there is hatred here is absolutely correct. I hate Barney Frank. Hate him with a passion. I don't give a dam that he's gay. I don't give a damn that he has a silly voice (and, c'mon, he does). And I don't give a dam what political party he belongs to. I HATE him because it is because of him, Chris Dodd, and their corrupt cronies in Congress that our nation is is the midst of the biggest economic crisis of the past fifty years. Yes, I HATE him. For the pain his greed and arrogance and corruption have caused to so many. For his blatant lies, his malfeasance, and his corruption that are threatening to take down the beloved Republic that is my country. And for his utter lack of remorse or apology to the many Americans whose lives and livelihoods he has ruined for his own gain. I wish tar and feathers would make a comeback in American politics, for nowhere in our history is there a more worthy recipient of such punishment than Barney Frank.


Two:



Have you ever noticed that most queers insist on telling us that they're queer? It's almost like they have an agenda or something... I mean, do the heterosexuals go around screaming, "I'm heterosexual! I'm heterosexual!". No, they don't. Like this "Don't ask, don't tell" bullshit in the military. Anyone with half a brain can see that today a queer can serve in the armed forces. But that isn't enough for these fudge-packers. They insist on telling everyone that they're queer, and if we don't give it to them, then we're not being tolerant or diverse, or whatever else they want to call it. BEING IN THE MILITARY OR BEING A POLITICIAN IS NOT ABOUT RUMP-WRANGLING!!! Okay, okay. I'll stick to the theme of Barney Frank as a politician. He sucks! He's corrupt. He's in bed with Fannie and Freddie (especially Freddie). Fire his fat ass that most likely suffers from rectal collapse. Bye Barney the Sodomite/Catamite.


Now...these are examples of the way real people view Bwarneey Fwank.

Not PC? I've had it with PC. Is it "homophobic"?

Don't think so...most of us have no fear of homos...we are just revolted and repulsed by their deviant, immoral behavior. Humor...is the way we deal with it.

Have I ever been aware of of homosexuals in the military? Of course I have as have many of us....but we don't need to know. I know of no Marine, soldier, airman or sailor that wants to know or to be forced to accept them in the showers.

Major

beamish said...

I want to keep jobs here in the U.S.A. Good paying jobs. Conservative policies have lead to outsourcing and off shoring those jobs in pursuit of cheap labor. Please don't you tell me it's high taxes and regulation that drove those jobs away. Taxes have been cut drastically on business, capital gains and income on the ultra wealthy since 1980. Regulations have been neutered or shredded, too.

On the other hand, if you look at the operating premises of the mathematical stupidity by which the Obama Misadminstration concocts things for the Idiot-in-Chief to babble from a teleprompter, Bush "saved" around a BILLION American jobs during his 8 years in office.

Don't criticize my argument, you racist. Bush never saw a 7.9% unemployment rate, much less Obama's perennial 9.7%

Yes, I know there isn't even close to a billion people or jobs in the United States, but why does the left get all the fun being stupid?

What is driving jobs out of America?

I await your response. Please don't compose one on any equipment made in China.

Susannah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Susannah said...

Craig said: "I'm a Capitalist" First, I don't believe you, or you wouldn't say some of the silly stuff you've said here & @ other places.

And then "I want to keep jobs here in the U.S.A." I don't believe you here, either, or you wouldn't be in the whole 'tax the richest Americans' (that would be business owners, btw) crowd.
"Good paying jobs." Um...there's a little matter of UNIONS that is to blame for this...Demanding higher & higher wages for less & less productivity. Any company who doesn't seek cheaper labor elsewhere is foolish, & won't stay in business long.

And finally: "Conservative policies have lead to outsourcing and off shoring those jobs in pursuit of cheap labor."

Now, this is just silly, Craig. You tried it @ my blog, & I'm not letting you get away with it here either. Remember my response? No?

I'll cut/paste: "...businesses are under SOOOOOO much regulation by gov't & Unions that they HAVE to send their operations over-seas in order to stay in business.

You'll scoff @ that, but example: My brother used to be a VP for C.R. Laine Furniture in Hickory, NC. When things started going sour & furniture started getting out-sourced, the company's dire problem was that it became (listen, here) CHEAPER to send materials/supplies, management, support staff etc. overseas...set up factories, pay workers, box, and ship product back to the US by ocean freighter than it was to simply build it in their factories right under their noses in Hickory. Why? Gov't regulation & Union demands. Folks can blame greed all they want (& they're partly right), but if truth be told, our Govt & Union thugs drove business out of our own country."


Now, please. Don't try this again. I'd hate to have to follow you around cutting & pasting this same response to your inane socialist meme.

Z said...

Major,
Misfit's comment has nothing to do with PC, which I hate. Since when did good manners and decency go to the wayside so we don't have to appear PC?
I like Misfit, the comment was hilarious; it stayed.
I should delete it because my blog's better than that, frankly, but hey...I was so ticked off this afternoon I'd written the whole F word here till I came back and did F****....
I set a standard here and I appreciate everyone at least respecting it. Thanks.

Z said...

tio, very well said..it IS O's fault :-)
I've actually met Hanson and he's quite a thinker, isn't he. Very nice man, too, very shy but impressive.
I read another piece recently about that, tio...that the left's so scared silly to admit the Western Society is so good that they'll bend over backwards to accept all kinds of things rather than be exceptional.
Well, you've seen me ask Ducky 40 times "If we are not exceptional, by definition of the word, which country IS?" He always disappears till the next day, ignoring the question because he can't answer it.
I was with a group of women today and I told them CNN held a discussion this morning about learning foreign languages and one of the guys said "You know, we have to realize we won't be on top anymore and it'll still be okay to be America but we need to learn other country's languages because we won't be the super power.....kids need to know that .."
I was horrified. They were matter of fact. I think they're RIGHT, but that's another story.
You see, many young people don't even KNOW America as the great country it was because it's not taught OR the greatness is underplayed or rewritten.......


Waylon; but gov't only kind of supervised; they brought in private companies all over the place to help, mostly AMerican.

Craig "Why you want to aid and abet the destruction of our country by supporting these policies is beyond me."
I need honest trolls here and you're not sounding honest anymore, or like you're even thinking.
It's beyond me you could support a president who's bringing this country to its knees...and one who lied so much before you elected him.
Very conscientious, Craig...I fear and pity your poor little girl, what an America she'll get. Because of you.

Susannah....it's no use...they'll never learn.

Major said...

"Since when did good manners and decency go to the wayside so we don't have to appear PC?"


Like the good manners of Oberman,Maddow, Matthews, Behr and Whoopi?

Let's drop the charade. Frank, Dodd, Pelousy and Obama...do not deserve or have earned....good manners. It's well past the time to take off the gloves and fight dirty. And thats a message for O'Donnell, Meg, Bachman and Angle. Kick em in the nuts is what I say.

We've been polite enough.

Major

Z said...

Major, it's my blog. Anybody can be as rude as they want elsewhere.

Always On Watch said...

Z: I'll say one more thing I've never EVER said on my blog...

The left will cause one to curse. Really.

And thanks for the link.

Always On Watch said...

Duck must have a tingle up his leg for Chris Matthews.

Craig said...

but if truth be told, our Govt & Union thugs drove business out of our own country."

Susannah,

I've been to Hickory. Still got my Crawdads cap. It's cheaper to send production overseas because of our insane trade policy. N. Carolina is a 'right to work state'. They (you?) have the lowest % of unionized workers in the nation. 3.5%. I could be wrong, but I doubt Laine was a union shop.

As for oppressive regulation. Most regulation on business is basically, they have to clean up after themselves and provide a safe workplace for employers. I guess they could have been like Don Blankenship, who decided it's cheaper to pay some measly fines for his hundreds of violations of worker safety laws than actually comply. What's a few dozen dead miners when there's money to be made. That stuff doesn't happen in union mines.

So, what you're saying is, if just resign ourselves to living in an ever growing toxic cesspool and accept wages more in line with Mexico, China, or Bangladesh, we can get those jobs back.

Sounds like a plan.

Craig said...

Very conscientious, Craig...I fear and pity your poor little girl, what an America she'll get. Because of you.

Z,

In that that other thread you speculated that I wasn't older enough to remember the good ol' days in the 60's and 70's because I have a young daughter. She's 11, BTW.

I do. I'm an old fogey, 55, and I do remember. Those were the days when the top marginal tax rate was 91%, then dropped to 74% by Kennedy but he closed a lot of loopholes so the effective rate was actually higher. There was a much more progressive tax system, 15 brackets back then.

The top bracket started around $2M income.(I'm guesstamating here) Only income over that 2M was taxed at that level. Instead of paying that tax or trying to wiggle around the tax, most wealthy business owners plowed the $ back into their business. It wasn't a job killer, it was a job creator.

The % of wage earners in unions was 30% as compared to @10% now. They were a check on corporate power and they raised wages for everyone. The unions had their problems with corruption but they did clean it up. Union wasn't a dirty word back then.

What else. Oh, yeah. CEO's made 30-40 times what their average employee made and they didn't bitch about it. The Depression and WWII were fresh memories and they knew that paying their employees a living wage was not only good business, they could afford to buy what they were making, it was the right thing to do for America.

Today it's 300-400 times and they hide their dough in oversea accounts. Real Patriots.

(cont.)

Misfit410 said...

I understand ya Z, I tried to clean it up as much as I could while still keeping the punch line in tact.

Anonymous said...

Z,
As long as we're picking on you for being PC (tongue in cheek in this case--or is it fingers in cheek since I'm typying?) I'll take umbrage with this quote:

"Major, it's my blog. Anybody can be as rude as they want elsewhere."

"Anybody" is a singular pronoun. "They" is plural. "He wants" would be more appropriate than "they want," but that would have suggested male dominance.

More seriously...good point that showing manners and discretion does not mean you have bowed to PCism.

tio

Misfit410 said...

And to Ducky, if Liberal Democrats had been in charge during this disaster, their president would have played golf for 2 months, when the world offered up help they would reject it because the workers need to be unionized, then they would blame the long wait on a handful of Republicans in the Senate saying NO.

Luckily Chile does not have a political system like ours filled with dolts, they just called for help, when it answered they welcomed it gladly.. it was Americans who answered the call and we got the job done long before the estimated date.

Because America rocks, it's just our president that sucks.

Craig said...

(cont.) The govt. had strict, but fair, regulations on financial institutions. Not like the 90' and aughts when those regulations were stripped away and Wall Street "self Regulated" into a near collapse of the world financial system.

About a third of the people working in the late 50's, early 60's had benefited from the GI bill. College or vocational school, low interest home loans, etc. Huge govt. program that built the middle class in this country.

There's so much more. So, yes, I remember the good old days and I've watched the Conservatives dismantle it piece by piece for the last 30 years. I worry for my daughters future. It's a pity you can't see what's been done and where we're going if you get your way.

Craig said...

Hey Major,

I've heard the same rant from other self-hating gay men before. Just accept who you are, set yourself free.

Major said...

Hey Craig....SMD!

And stick your dime store analysis where the moon don't shine.

Major

Susannah said...

Craig~ "...our insane trade policy"
What policy would that be, Mr. knows-about-every-topic-no-matter-what-it-is-&-the-Left-is-always-correct??

Oh, & Unions are the reason that all is well w/ the Western world?? Sorry. No. This is a complex issue, bigger than my real-life example, your 'Hickory Crawdads' cap notwithstanding (as if that lended you credibility - heh.)

I submit that, in part, the issue is one of expectations. The gov't REGULATES companies, to force them to 'clean up after themselves;' Unions get in lock-step - driving up wages (b/c Fred can't be expected to actually WORK for that small pittance). And then EXPECT the Co. NOT to respond by providing fewer jobs for people who expect more $$... But now the 'worker' is entitled, see? (Because the Gov't/Unions/lawyers said so - nyah, nyah - AND b/c their kids HAVE to have the 3rd Generation ITouch, X-box 360 in 3-D, etc., etc. After all, they're American kids & they're entitled, even if their parents can't afford it; and never mind if I can't afford my kids -- I'll have another one if I want, b/c the Gov't will take care of me (true quote in my office years ago), b/c I'M ENTITLED!!...right?

NO! It's insanity, this pervasive ENTITLEMEMT attitude - on EVERY level of our society!!! If corporations are guilty of greed, then they're NO MORE GUILTY than American GOVERNMENT, no more guilty than UNIONS, no more GUILTY than American Media, lawyers, no more GUILTY than families, than the INDIVIDUAL who brings home the millions OR the INDIVIDUAL who covets the millions of the latter.

See, when you reduce it all down, Craig...when you siphon off all the surface arguments, the irrelevant (but arguably important) issues...what you distill it down to the very heart of the matter, what we have, dear Craig, is a SPIRITUAL PROBLEM.

We are a nation so far afield of our moral & spiritual center (aka GOD) that we "don't even recognize" that the LACK of God in our discussions is an issue, never mind the open HOSTILITY toward anything sacred. And the simple fact is, ultimately there's only one remedy...

I know...your response is gonna be some schtick about 'separation of church & state.' Go ahead...you'll just prove my point further. And I won't respond, b/c I'm weary of you right now.

My brother, the one who was a C.R. Laine exec? He's now the Pastor of a church in Hickory; started it w/ the support of AMIA (link on my sidebar).

THAT'S what I call putting your $$ where your mouth is.

Craig said...

What is driving jobs out of America?

Trade policy that opened the flood gates to corporations looking for cheap labor. And, yes, I blame Clinton. I bought it at the time. Ross Perot was right, it pains me to admit it.

Bush never saw a 7.9% unemployment rate, much less Obama's perennial 9.7%

The UE rate was 7.6% on Feb. 6, 2009. It was 4.2% when he took office. He said his tax cuts would unleash the market and create jobs and magically increase revenues. Results- 5T added to the debt, 0 net private sector jobs, losing 700,000 jobs a month and a deficit of $1.3T when Obama took over.

The trajectory was set and because Obama didn't stop it on a dime and reverse it immediately is somehow a grand failure? Every serious economist, right or left, said the economy needed an infusion of cash and the only way is to deficit spend. Too bad Republicans had already racked up $9 trillion in debt before him.

Also. On your obsession with Jonah Goldberg's (you're obviously just regurgitating his bizarre thesis) liberal= Socialist, Commie, Nazi, Genocidal, Distopian hellhole, here's a nice little critique I think you'll enjoy. It's by a Conserative. He is a Conservative so he might have Brain Power, if you so deign it.

As to your assessment of my Brain Power. I don't claim to be real smart, but I know people who are. Not one of them finds it necessary to virtually strut around the internet, constantly telling people how smart they are. Besides not having Brain Power, I'm not a trained psychologist either. But, if you are not a textbook case study of Dunning-Kruger Effect, may God strike dead right here and now.

I'm still here so either God doesn't exist or I'm right.

Susannah said...

...oy, Craig...

Who are you quoting? Certainly not me. And as for your armchair analysis aimed at I'm-not-sure-who...Your neat little "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is psychobabble for "human nature." So, if you're saying I (or anyone else here) is human, then - well - you'd be correct. And it doesn't take my therapist's License (I am one, see?) to proove that...

Nah, I'm not as smart as most of the folks on this blog - including probably you - but, Heaven help me, I am discerning. And more often than not, that's worth more than your "We Are SMRT" friends IQ points all day long.

Craig said...

Z,

I thought you would enjoy these nuggets from the good old days. According to you, the 50's, 60's, and 70's were some sort of conservative paradise?

A few planks in the 1956 Republican platform:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Craig said...

Here's more:

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;


There's more, but you get the idea.

I wonder how Ike would be treated by the Tea Party? (notice I didn't call them 'Teabaggers' even though that's what Tea Partiers called themselves, way back when. I understand 'Teabagger' is offensive to some and I wouldn't want to offend. So, no Teabagger from me). I always wondered why they chose to call themselves the "Tea Party" when the original Boston Tea Party was a revolt against a TAX BREAK for the East India Co. Strange.

Craig said...

Nah, I'm not as smart as most of the folks on this blog - including probably you - but, Heaven help me, I am discerning. And more often than not, that's worth more than your "We Are SMRT" friends IQ points all day long.

You should stop by there and say, Hi. I don't post there too often but the folks are friendly and you'd be welcomed and listened to. You are officially and cordially invited.

Craig said...

'Hickory Crawdads' cap notwithstanding (as if that lended you credibility - heh.)

Nope, just sayin' I'd been there. Great little town, great ballpark.

Who are you quoting?

beamish.

Craig said...

Major said...

Hey Craig....SMD!

And stick your dime store analysis where the moon don't shine.

Major


Maj,

If I swung your way I'd be happy to, depending on what you look like. Sorry, I only dig the ladies. Well, one lady. For 22 years!

You might try 'leather bears. com'. I think it's rough trade but I got a hunch that's right up your alley.

heidianne jackson said...

susannah, you said "what you distill it down to the very heart of the matter, what we have, dear Craig, is a SPIRITUAL PROBLEM." i could not agree more. check out this article at my site that discusses our laws and how they were put into place in OUR country.

Z said...

tio, as I typed it, I knew that..but didn't correct. you just can't resist, can you :-)

Z said...

Craig, great list...you really REALLY think all Tea Partiers would disagree with most of it? Even the one point on the list mentioned something about "Not by the gov't"..get it, Craig? Some of us trust in THE PEOPLE..did then and do now, even in an America whose leaders don't trust the people anymore.
By the way, NO REPUBLICAN ever thought entitlements would go as far as you liberals have pushed them; to the point where Americans actually are ENTITLED, are TAUGHT to be supported by those of us who work hard and then get a finger in the eye for it, too...
There were things which needed discussion and the Republicans offered them up.
Not all of them are good, maybe some here think none of them are the gov't's business....but I'm glad you posted it; Even I didn't think Republicans did everything right, nice to see you do.

beamish said...

Trade policy that opened the flood gates to corporations looking for cheap labor. And, yes, I blame Clinton. I bought it at the time. Ross Perot was right, it pains me to admit it.

Ross Perot? "Giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico? I guess all those Mexicans pouring into the United States are the "giant blowing sound" from the Nokia cell phone plant down there.

The UE rate was 7.6% on Feb. 6, 2009. It was 4.2% when he took office. He said his tax cuts would unleash the market and create jobs and magically increase revenues. Results- 5T added to the debt, 0 net private sector jobs, losing 700,000 jobs a month and a deficit of $1.3T when Obama took over.

The trajectory was set and because Obama didn't stop it on a dime and reverse it immediately is somehow a grand failure? Every serious economist, right or left, said the economy needed an infusion of cash and the only way is to deficit spend. Too bad Republicans had already racked up $9 trillion in debt before him.


Maybe you ought to go back to the drawing board with that noise. Today's news is that your boy is the problem. Maybe you'll dig a little deeper and find In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

All that money spent by Obama, and unemployment keeps rising? Unemployment has even
risen higher than Obama said it would if we did nothing and did not pass his "stimulus" package.


Clearly, on economics, Obama is a window-licking retard.

beamish said...

Also. On your obsession with Jonah Goldberg's (you're obviously just regurgitating his bizarre thesis) liberal= Socialist, Commie, Nazi, Genocidal, Distopian hellhole, here's a nice little critique I think you'll enjoy. It's by a Conserative. He is a Conservative so he might have Brain Power, if you so deign it.

And here's the lack of reading comprehension skills that typifies the left. You've never read Goldberg's book, obviously. It's even obvious you've not read nor comprehended the negative review you cite.

Come back to me when YOU have read Goldberg's book. In the meantime, if you want to know where to find the "liberal= Socialist, Commie, Nazi, Genocidal, Distopian hellhole" primer, try F. A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

Have a dictionary on hand.

As to your assessment of my Brain Power. I don't claim to be real smart, but I know people who are. Not one of them finds it necessary to virtually strut around the internet, constantly telling people how smart they are. Besides not having Brain Power, I'm not a trained psychologist either. But, if you are not a textbook case study of Dunning-Kruger Effect, may God strike dead right here and now.

I'm still here so either God doesn't exist or I'm right.


Don't exclude the likely middle - that God does in fact exist and prefers to kill twits like you en masse rather than "on command."

1956? Eisenhower? Weren't conservatives at each other's throats calling him a communist for green-lighting the Soviet invasion of Hungary then?

Z said...

Beamish. BRAVO. THanks SO MUCH for sanity and the links.

Meanwhile, the deficit's higher than they'd expected; It's just announced that it's 1.3 trillion dollars.

And, we're worrying about that and listening to Reid/Angle debates while terror chatter's higher than it's ever been ; Under Obama.
God help us.

Z said...

by the way, I'll bet you've never been thanked for your sanity before :-)

beamish said...

Z,

Thanked for my sanity? Is that my cue to denounce artistic pretention because it makes me seem deep? ;)

Nah. I've just seen the future, and it looks a lot like yesterday.

beamish said...

By the way, the consensus view of the Angle-Reid debate, even from left-of-center pundits, is that Angle "mopped the floor" with Reid.

FrogBurger said...

Have you noticed how Reid, Kuhn and Jerry Brow could all be in a German nazi uniform and really look the part? Not saying they're nazis but they do look good as authoritarian elitist nutjobs.

Susannah said...

Heidianne~ Thanks for the link. I went over & read & commented. Very thoughtful post, indeed. You do a nice job over there!

Craig~ Thanks for the invitation. I have been there, btw, & people were not so nice. A guy who used to visit my blog lifted something I said & offered it up to the SMRT crowd (in a comment) for ridicule. It was a statement of my faith, & I didn't much appreciate it when I found out. Not cool; disappointing -- not so much in the SMRT people, but in him. It's a shame, too, b/c I liked him & enjoyed his presence @ my blog.

Susannah said...

And also, I know you enjoy throwing minutia into the air to see where it might land, but I notice you totally ignored my earlier comment -- maybe b/c it pans back & takes a look @ our bigger human problem...?

Anonymous said...

Craig said:
---------------------
Hey Major,

I've heard the same rant from other self-hating gay men before. Just accept who you are, set yourself free.
---------------------

This reminds me of the observation of the inestimable Ann Coulter. Liberals claim homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and denounce conservatives as bigoted homophobes. And the first thing a liberal does to someone he disagrees with is call him gay.

tio

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Tio,

Or it could just mean Craig is not a "self-hating" gay, with his drag-queen Blogger avatar and all.

I have nothing but praise for the Democrat efforts to limit the number of faggots with power in Washington to their own party.

Z said...

TIO YOu said "Liberals claim homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and denounce conservatives as bigoted homophobes. And the first thing a liberal does to someone he disagrees with is call him gay."

That's Ducky..whenever he wants to really slam a Republican he OUTS him, gay nor not. It's hilarious, isn't it.

Beamish, I mean that your THINKING is so sane :-) "I have nothing but praise for the Democrat efforts to limit the number of faggots with power in Washington to their own party." the best!

FB...come to think of it, ya!

Craig and Heather said...

Susannah
but I notice you totally ignored my earlier comment -- maybe b/c it pans back & takes a look @ our bigger human problem...?

I thought your comment was perfect!

:)

Z said...

Craig, if you come back, make sure you check this out:

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20101014/NEWS/10140308

It goes along with the Dem voter fraud you say isn't happening...vote for food. And, the Dems will get away with it; wait for it. How disgusting.

Craig said...

Ross Perot? "Giant sucking sound"

Yes. Manufacturing jobs were sent to Mexico. Chrysler could pay workers 1/7th what they pay an American worker because Mexico has no protections for workers. Even the sad wages paid to migrant and 'illegal' pickers in California is about what Chrysler paid. It wasn't just NAFTA. It's the WTO and the admission of China. 6 million manufacturing jobs lost during the Bush admin.

Today's news is that your boy is the problem. Maybe you'll dig a little deeper and find In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public...

First. $1.3T of that "first 19 mos. was already budgeted under Bush. I'm not defending huge deficits but both Bush and Obama, the Dems. and Repubs. saw the economy in free fall and a large infusion of money was needed to stop the bleeding. What was the $9T in debt before that for?

Second. The bit about publicly held debt is so misleading. Reagan added more publicly held debt than all presidents before him. The writer then jumps over 3 presidents to say that about Obama. The fact is, the amount of publicly held debt has risen steadily, except for a couple years under Clinton, from Reagan till now. The same thing could have been said every year for all those 3 presidents. Except for those Clinton years. It's a meaningless statement.

What rose significantly under Reagan and doubled under Bush was foreign owned public debt. To our good friends China and Saudi Arabia, among others.

Unemployment has even
risen higher than Obama said it would if we did nothing and did not pass his "stimulus" package.


You're absolutely right about that. We've haven't seen these numbers since, well, Reagan.

Craig said...

Come back to me when YOU have read Goldberg's book. In the meantime, if you want to know where to find the "liberal= Socialist, Commie, Nazi, Genocidal, Distopian hellhole" primer, try F. A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

Have a dictionary on hand.


I'll pass on Goldberg's book. I can read your posts. I read Hayek in college, back in the 70's. Along with Keynes, Locke, Mills, Smith, Ricardo, Mise. All them guys. I even read Russel Kirk. Not only did I need a dictionary, but a handful of Reds (it was the 70's, after all). Booooring.

This great because we've kinda come full circle, back to Chile. I remember reading Hayek back when he was cozying up to Pinochet after his Junta. He, Friedman and the 'Chicago Boys'. This was going to be their laboratory to show the world how their economic would save the world. It didn't seem to bother them that Pinochet was a murderous, torturing, fascistic dictator.

As Greg Grandin points out, it sorta worked for awhile. Then,

With hindsight, however, it is now clear that the Chicago economists, despite the credit they received for three years of economic growth, had set Chile on the road to near collapse. The rebound of the economy was a function of the liberalization of the financial system and massive foreign investment. That investment, it turns out, led to a speculative binge, monopolization of the banking system, and heavy borrowing. The deluge of foreign capital did allow the fixed exchange rate to be maintained for a short period. But sharp increases in private debt ­ rising from $2 billion in 1978 to over $14 billion in 1982 -- put unsustainable pressure on Chile's currency. Pegged as it was to the appreciating US dollar, the value of the escudo was kept artificially high, leading to a flood of cheap imports. While consumers took advantage of liberalized credit to purchase TVs, cars, and other high-ticket items, savings shrank, debt increased, exports fell, and the trade deficit ballooned.

Sound familiar? (cont.)

Elmers Brother said...

I'm trying to figure out what idiot equates big federal government to community and cooperation?

Craig said...

(cont.)

In 1982 things fell apart. Copper prices plummeted, accelerating Chile's balance of trade deficit. GDP plunged fifteen percent, while industrial production rapidly contracted. Bankruptcies tripled and unemployment hit 30 percent. Despite his pledge to hold firm, Pinochet devalued the escudo, devastating poor Chileans who had either availed themselves to liberalized credit to borrow in dollars or who held their savings in escudos. The Central Bank lost forty-five percent of its reserves, while the private banking system collapsed. The crisis forced the state, dusting off laws still on the books from the Allende period, to take over nearly seventy percent of the banking system and reimpose controls on finance, industry, prices and wages. Turning to the IMF for a bailout, Pinochet extended a public guarantee to repay foreign creditors and banks.

Grandin is a Latin history prof. at NYU. It's worth the read. Scroll down past the fundraising stuff.

Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky where are your questions for the all benevolent Chinese government? They lost another 21 miners today.

I would also suggest a read of Arthur Brooks who demonstrated that conservatives outgive the libs by sometimes a factor of 27.

Craig said...

Craig, if you come back, make sure you check this out:

I checked it out and, surprise!, I agree. I don't think it's fraud, but it does push up against ethical boundaries.

I'll try and be as clear as I can about this whole voter fraud thing. Dem or Repub, any election fraud should be weeded out and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Beamish found a couple cases of Dems caught in vote buying and I linked to one. These are serious, but they're isolated.

It's documented, IG report and testimony from fired DOJ attorneys, that there was a 5 year concerted effort to find voter fraud, focused on Democrats. Using all the resources and power of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, they came up with 84 convictions. They were mostly results of clerical errors in registration or voting at the wrong polling place.

Yet, every election brings out the cries of massive voter fraud and Dems stealing elections. It's simply not true.

Here's a good study on the subject.

Craig said...

Susannah
but I notice you totally ignored my earlier comment -- maybe b/c it pans back & takes a look @ our bigger human problem...?

I thought your comment was perfect!


Susannah & Heather,

Is it the "fallen nature of Man" thing? OK, I'll address it. Yes, I think human beings are capable of being mean, ugly, violent, and 'evil'. Just read some of the stuff on this thread. In mean, what do you suppose caused such a deep seated, twisted hatred in Major? Or, why is beamish so insecure, he can't disagree with someone without calling them an idiot, or stupid, or retarded?

If you want me to believe it has something to do with a talking snake, a piece of fruit and a curse, sorry, I can't. I think people learn to be that nasty.

If you want me to trust God and not man, I don't even know what that means. We have no choice but to trust human beings and when they do the wrong thing, hold them accountable. Until Jesus is on the ballot, that's the way it is.

Craig said...

This reminds me of the observation of the inestimable Ann Coulter. Liberals claim homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and denounce conservatives as bigoted homophobes. And the first thing a liberal does to someone he disagrees with is call him gay.

I didn't call him gay, I merely speculated he was. How often have we seen sociopathic gay haters that turn out to be gay.

The punk's witty retort? SMD. He asked me to suck his dick. Brilliant.

Elmers Brother said...


I didn't call him gay, I merely speculated he was.


there's a huge distinction..LOL

Elmers Brother said...

like saying:

You're gay

You're gay, aren't you?

heh!

Z said...

Craig, after Holder dropped the New Black Panther party intimidation case which we all saw right before our eyes in videos, or how the Obama people intimidated the Hillary voters in Houston in '08, you really think anybody's going to talk about the sins of voter intimidation!? :-)

Craig and Heather said...



If you want me to trust God and not man, I don't even know what that means. We have no choice but to trust human beings and when they do the wrong thing, hold them accountable. Until Jesus is on the ballot, that's the way it is.


Craig,

I'm not going to presume to answer for anyone else and will try to keep my response short, as I've proved here more than once my own level of idiocy.

As it is apparent you are not interested in looking at a spiritually-oriented answer to what is wrong with people, it probably would be a waste of time trying to convince you. But it is important for those of us who do believe to point it out, because we recognize an eternal reality that exists outside of space and time as we know it. To say nothing to those who don't see it would be unkind, so say the least.

What you choose to do with Susannah's comment is your own business, but I am happy she said it.

H

Z said...

Heather, thanks for your remark.
I think that secularists actually think we're all born just believing and we're silly and naive and they wish we'd grow up. Sad, but I frequently get that impression......

It's not dissimilar to Dems thinking Conservatives just aren't up on the news, just don't want to see another side, they must not listen to anything but Rush LImbaugh and do no weighing/thinking/consideration on their own. NOne of which could be further from the truth in most cases.

This is a very new America where other opinions are not welcome and even besmirched and insulted...faith and politics. I think it's a dangerous place.

Craig said...

I think that secularists actually think we're all born just believing and we're silly and naive and they wish we'd grow up. Sad, but I frequently get that impression.

That's probably true for some secularists. I'll be honest, for me, belief in the supernatural is silly. I also acknowledge I could be wrong. So, I don't think those who do believe are necessarily silly for their beliefs. I do believe people can do silly things and use their beliefs to justify it. And, that's true for believers and non believers alike.
I hope that's not too convoluted. I'm not always clear in articulating my thoughts.

It's not dissimilar to Dems thinking Conservatives just aren't up on the news...

I think that goes both ways, don't you? I've been interested in political philosophy/ politics/ policy for a long time. I'm fascinated how 2 people can look at the exact same information, and come to diametrically opposed conclusions about it.

So, once in awhile I'll find a site like yours and toss in a different perspective. I don't do it because I think I'm smarter than everyone else but there are lots of times I see folks reacting to things based on low or false information. Take the NBPP you bring up a lot.

I'm going to C/P from a piece by Abigail Thernstrom in NRO so it's not just me saying this.

Abigail Thernstrom is the author, most recently, of Voting Rights – and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections. She is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Cont.

Craig said...

cont.

"So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case...Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off."

She has other problems with Holder, as do I for that matter, but this has gotten way over blown. The NBPP is as tiny fringe group of haters looking for publicity and, sadly, they're getting it.

Read the whole thing here

This is a very new America where other opinions are not welcome and even besmirched and insulted...faith and politics. I think it's a dangerous place.

Actually, it's not that new. Politics has been a nasty business going back to the Founding. I agree, these are particularly virulent times. Again, I'll refer you to your own blog. I'm not just wrong, I'm stupid and retarded. And not just me, everyone who shares a thought with me is A COMPLETE MORON.

That's a glass house you're living in, so, you know.

Craig said...

Just to be real clear, Abby Thernstrom is a credentialed Righty.

Craig and Heather said...

That's probably true for some secularists. I'll be honest, for me, belief in the supernatural is silly. I also acknowledge I could be wrong. So, I don't think those who do believe are necessarily silly for their beliefs. I do believe people can do silly things and use their beliefs to justify it.

You're right. People (all of us) can sometimes do incredibly foolish things to justify our beliefs.


One thing I find interesting about secularists is the frequent insistence that "religion is a crutch" for weak people.

I actually agree wholeheartedly and strenuously try to avoid being religious. But it's because the Christian faith is not a "crutch" by which a crippled person continues to limp along in his own strength. Knowing Christ is the miracle that revives a dead soul and enables a person to live in His strength. It's more like a stretcher--with life support. Those who don't recognize they are in need of this won't ever even consider what this means. Especially when there are plenty of cultural distractions like social justice, voter fraud and such to occupy the attention.

I'm not going to do the "what-if- you're-wrong-why-not-gamble-on-the- possibility-that-the-supernatural-exists" routine with you. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Maybe someday, you will. I truly do hope so.

Take care,

H

Craig said...

One thing I find interesting about secularists is the frequent insistence that "religion is a crutch" for weak people.

I don,t. I know too many strong, highly intelligent believers to think that. I do think, for a lot of believers, it boils down to fear or uncertainty about death. The idea that this life is all there is. If faith or belief brings people comfort or some sort of certainty when they have to contemplate their own mortality, that's great.

That's just my observation. I could be way off but I have no interest in debating it.

To me, everlasting life just sounds intolerable. In either place. That, and there's just no evidence for it.

Especially when there are plenty of cultural distractions like social justice

Really? Social justice is just a distraction to you? That makes me so sad.

I'm not going to do the "what-if- you're-wrong-why-not-gamble-on-the- possibility-that-the-supernatural-exists" routine with you. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Maybe someday, you will. I truly do hope so.

Thanks for not doing that. Because there's so many choices. Even each particular deity has so many different versions, I be afraid to choose the wrong one. Everyone, in each different variety of belief, claims to have the Absolute Truth.

Heather, are you positive you've chosen the right one? Isn't that the burning question. (pun intended)

Craig and Heather said...

Really? Social justice is just a distraction to you?

No, I didn't say it is a distraction for me. I care very much about doing right by other people. I meant it's a distraction to non-believers concerning their need to reconcile with Christ.

Heather, are you positive you've chosen the right one? Isn't that the burning question. (pun intended)

I don't claim to know "all truth".

Tell you what. If you ever find yourself with a "burning" desire to understand my perspective, you can stop by my site, browse whatever you like and leave a comment with your e-mail contact on the current post if you'd like to discuss. I'd be pleased to engage if you really want to know what I believe. :)

http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/

Z said...

Craig, odd that Ahmadenijad had a dinner meeting with such a silly little inconsequential group as the New Black Panthers last month in NYC, isn't it :-)
Keep slingin'.... just plain silly to suggest that. Anyway, I don't care if it was a couple of kindergarteners with night sticks, we don't do that in AMerica.
And you needn't remind anybody what journalists is Conservatives...we have a bigger umbrella than the left and we disagree with our own; even in public, on the air, etc.

Also, thank you for NOT getting too deeply into arguing faith here..... my site is "Christian" only as to the CS Lewis quote near the top of my sidebar. Others have particularly Christian blogs where they ONLY speak of CHristianity, and that's not mine.
I work subtly and earnestly at bringing people TO faith, I don't encourage the fighting that ensues the minute CHristians and other Christians or Christians and non-Christians start to differ. It's not why I built this blog.

Craig said...

Craig, odd that Ahmadenijad had a dinner meeting with such a silly little inconsequential group as the New Black Panthers last month in NYC, isn't it :-)

I doubt Ahmadinnerjacket would know who they were if Fox hadn't made them celebrities. Was Snooki there, too.

Anyway, I don't care if it was a couple of kindergarteners with night sticks, we don't do that in AMerica.

Agreed. That's why they were arrested immediately after it being reported. They weren't charged with voter intimidation because no one accused them of intimidating them.

And you needn't remind anybody what journalists is Conservatives

I don't think I mentioned any journalists.

beamish said...

Or, why is beamish so insecure, he can't disagree with someone without calling them an idiot, or stupid, or retarded?

I'm actually rather very secure. I know what I know and I believe what I believe, and I'm not afraid to speak on those things. I can even disagree with people who aren't idiots, stupid or retarded. I'll try to let you know when that happens, you idiot.

beamish said...

Social justice is just a distraction to you?

This wasn't addressed at me, but no, social justice is not a "distraction." Social justice is nonsense. A meaningless pairing of words.

There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone' - F. A. Hayek

beamish said...

I'll pass on Goldberg's book. I can read your posts. I read Hayek in college, back in the 70's. Along with Keynes, Locke, Mills, Smith, Ricardo, Mise. All them guys. I even read Russel Kirk. Not only did I need a dictionary, but a handful of Reds (it was the 70's, after all). Booooring.

My posts rarely if ever have anything to do with Goldberg's book, so you're not going to get a grasp on what the book is about from reading my posts or from shopping the net for negative reviews of it.

I realize this defies the endemic leftist difficulties with linear logic - that reading a book will lead to familiarity with its content - but that's the direction your first step towards intelligent discussion will take.

Unless, of course, you managed to damage yourself beyond repair popping Reds in the '70s and are permanently reduced to displaying your stupidity on the internet.

Craig said...

I realize this defies the endemic leftist difficulties with linear logic - that reading a book will lead to familiarity with its content - but that's the direction your first step towards intelligent discussion will take.

Even though I haven't read the book, I recognized the stench of Goldberg all over your 'argument' and I called it early. Turns out I was right.

shopping the net for negative reviews of it.

The challenge is finding a positive one.

Craig said...

This wasn't addressed at me, but no, social justice is not a "distraction." Social justice is nonsense. A meaningless pairing of words.

I know Hayek is all the rage with the righties these days. Be honest, beamish, you didn't have a clue who Hayek was until Glenn Beck sarted pimping him, did you.

His quote makes some sense in the context of his economic philosophy. The flaw is right there in his quote, "which in the market order ". He makes a lot of assumptions about labor, wages, productivity, resources, monetization, etc to arrive at an amorphous, organic, collective wisdom of "the market". This, of course, is 'spontaneous order'. And everyone gets a pony.

The one assumption he leaves out is reality. Everywhere his philosophy has been implemented, all the way with Chile's shock therapy or incrementally here and the U.K., it's failed miserably.

So, yeah, the market is amoral and social justice has no meaning in that framework. But, as we can see from reality, spontaneous order of the market is a fairy tale, it can't exist.

I will say Hayek wasn't a total heartless bastard.

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

He'd throw the losers a crumb but only enough to keep the moneyed interests safe from the riff raff.

beamish said...

I realize this defies the endemic leftist difficulties with linear logic - that reading a book will lead to familiarity with its content - but that's the direction your first step towards intelligent discussion will take.

Even though I haven't read the book, I recognized the stench of Goldberg all over your 'argument' and I called it early. Turns out I was right.

Not at all. I don't believe Goldberg has ever stated that leftists are incapable of rational thought and that the idea that they could be is absurd.

If you want to argue with Goldberg, email him. If you want to argue with me about his book, read it first you dope.

shopping the net for negative reviews of it.

The challenge is finding a positive one.

Yeah. Better stick to pop-up books, half-wit.

beamish said...

I know Hayek is all the rage with the righties these days. Be honest, beamish, you didn't have a clue who Hayek was until Glenn Beck sarted pimping him, did you.

I first read "The Road To Serfdom" in 1986.

Be honest, Craig. You don't have a clue about Hayek or anything else you're trying to talk about, do you?

Craig said...

I'm not a Hayek expert like you, beamish, but where have I misrepresented him. You haven't said anything about his jumping in bed with the totalitarian dictator, Pinochet. It didn't bother him that Pinochet murdered and tortured his political enemies as long as he got to play around with their economy. Chile went all in and it destroyed their economy.

Can you show me where his principles have been adopted and it worked?

Craig said...

beamish, I will give you credit for being the smartest of the brain dead cretins that gather here. So, you've got that going for you.

Z said...

Craig, you just got yourself banned from geeeeZ
"beamish, I will give you credit for being the smartest of the brain dead cretins that gather here. So, you've got that going for you."

I have a blog partner who will be watching and deleting if I'm not around.
Sorry for you and my site because I like arguing differing viewpoints....we welcome dissent here, we don't welcome insults.
Take care.

beamish said...

I'm not a Hayek expert like you, beamish, but where have I misrepresented him.

See your posts above. Hayek did not "jump in bed with Pinochet," but rather saw him as a champion of economic freedom who would dismantle the totalitarian apparatus of the Allende dictatorship and move Chile towards more economic freedom and democratic reforms.

Hayek's predictions largely came true. In 1989, Pinochet was replaced in a democratic election, leaving a nation in which private property and economic freedom for Chileans was secured. There still are state-owned industries in Chile heldover from the Allende days (Pinochet didn't go far enough) but Chile is vastly improved over the Allende days where there was no democracy or economic freedom to speak of.

The executions of 8000 or so communist insurgents in Chile under Pinochet is something of a tragedy in that most of those executions weren't caught on film to enjoy with popcorn. Still, I don't think a persuasive case can be made that Pinochet ran a terror state in which the Chilean people were oppressed and less free than they were under Allende.

Regardless, Pinochet brings the leftism vs. rightism body count to 300+ million vs. 8000. Hardly an indictment of right-wing bloodlust.

Can you show me where his principles have been adopted and it worked?

Can you show me you know what his "principles" were?

No, you can't.

Looks like you failed the Z test of courtesy.

I knew you were headed there when you balked at Obama being responsible for spending and raising public-held debt under his own administration and his party's control of Congress. That's a flashing neon sign of stupid pointing right at you. You'd have been better off admitting your stupidity rather than trying to declare that Bush (somewhere in Texas) still runs the government and poor widdle Obama can't help but sign off on spending priorities. You're probably the kind of idiot that holds that imbecilic view simultaneously with the view that Bush changed Clinton's budget and spent away a mythical "surplus" - which leaves you stuck in victim mode with an Obama that can't take charge of or responsibility for his own handiwork.

You weren't capable of intelligent comment to begin with. You won't be missed.

Z said...

It's not my test, Beamer, it's just plain decency, don't you think?

beamish said...

But of course, dear Z :)

I would never ask an intelligent person to admit that they are stupid.

Maybe I value honesty too much. These left-wing people come along under the pretension that they want honest debate, yet fail the sniff test when they want to quibble about their obvious lack of intellect.

Que sera...

Anonymous said...

and we all know that 'social justice' is a euphemism for redistribution of wealth

Susannah said...

Z, just want you to know I linked to this post in the piece I posted today...

Have a great day!