Jan 24 2006
The Ever Shrinking Left
When the moderates departed the Democrat Party for the independent middle, they left the Democrats with the poor, lost, classless liberals. The liberals who honestly think we have no need to go to war after 9-11, and that is our fault Arab and Muslim societies failed their people.
It took some time, but the liberals finally came out of their little closets to announce to the world what they really think. And it is shocking to say the least. And will end up destroying the Democrat Party. For this is now the voice of the liberal left, the majority of the Democrat base, but a small, small fraction of the American populace – and it is a liberal journalist in a liberal news outlet (all emphasis mine):
DON’T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
Liberals are obsessed with bodily functions. And only a liberal stalwart would put ‘urinate’ in the same sentence as our ‘troops’.
If you’re wandering into a recruiter’s office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
Another characteristic of the liberal-democrat is his need to denigrate those who make him feel insecure. Note the veiled insult in the word ‘wandering’, like wanting to defend ones country and family is some kind of mistaken path in life. And notice the reference to protecting the liberal where he wants protection, a clear acknowledgement that the liberal feels inferior to our troops. The liberal would like the security blanket for his needs, but to defend our nation is somehow a foolish thought.
Then comes the faux bravado, as the inferior liberal tries to look all big and bad
But I’m not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they’re wussy by definition.
Liberals are insecure on many fronts, which is why the lash out.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else.
Another liberal trick is to assume war is a desire, verses an unfortunate choice of those who wish to defend themselves. Pacifists wish that life would not highlight their unmanageable fear of confrontation. They are scared of confrontation – as we all are to some degree. But to avoid facing this fear, they pretend to themselves people who get beyond the fear and fight to survive somehow ‘want to’ do it. Pathetic really.
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day.
The guilt trip. The liberal’s lamest argument for why they must be superior. They hide their fear of confrontation on the idea people who decide to protect themselves, and those that give them support, must feel guilty for not being scared like a liberal.
Of course, if the liberal had to acknowledge the pride in the act of defending this country it would further drive home how inferior they are. Not only are they afraid, but the guilt over being immobilized by fear must be tremendous.
This person is living in a self aggrandizing fantasy. Note how the following illustrates a world were this poor soul is vindicated and everyone else is wrong. We are witnesses to a Walter Mitty day dream of a hero coming to the rescue of America – in his own mind
understand the guilt. We know we’re sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.
After we’ve decided that we made a mistake, we don’t want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.
Oh what a glorious end for are hero! The dust has cleared and he was right all along! BDS is a serious affliction for some. Apparenlty it causes hallucinations and visions of personal granduer. And notice how he shares the same feelings as these poor saps we call ‘troops’
do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I’m tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
Yes, clicking a link is as important and noteworthy as risking life and limb for an idea. What is so funny about liberals like this is they provide their own self-parody. The poor guy thinks he is equivalent to someone out defending the nation in Iraq. Can we not all see the desparation in this poor man’s need to be the equal of our brave troops. Can we not see his subconcience screams for relevancy. After all, he is a journalist, and that must be equal to a brave soldier!
He admits it himself
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn’t so much as served on jury duty for his country.
Our poor insecure liberal seems to not heard of the phrase ‘actions speak louder than words’. Especially when the words are pure, self indulging fantasy.
But it’s really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I’m listed in the phone book.
Insecurity. And inferiority complex. A realization his life is nothing in comparison. So what does this liberal demand of the country to shore up his ego and make him comfortable with who is he and what he is not?
All I’m asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.
And someone pays this insufferable bore for this tripe? So this is the majority voice of the Democrat party. Someone who cannot be bothered with a recognition of what others have done for this country. A sad, pathetic little man who is obsessed with himself, and who cannot be bothered by others.
This is the democrat party folks. Repeat it for everyone to see. I have said many times, if you want to beat a liberal at the ballot box – simply let them talk.
What a steaming pile of self-righteous horse manure. It no longer surprises me that suchlike infest the Democratic Party with the chief result being the loss one election after another; rather, it is the fact that our nation’s once proud dailies are riding such barn-sour nags into economic oblivion.
As the esteemed political philosopher Richard Pryor once noted, “even flies don’t be messin’ with horsesh*t.”
This is one of your best ever AJ.
You really strip the veneer off thie liberal and show him for what he really is. This explanation was very helpful for me.
The following quote was written for libs like this who suck at our freedom and never feel compelled to give anything back:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
(John Stuart Mill)
AJ–
Have you seen this article about upcoming impeachment hearings?
This is so insane.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm
Guess where I found this link? On a deranged blog that defends Ward Churchill and terrorists. That’s where! They were gloating about it.
http://tryworks.blogspot.com/2006/01/corporate-media-puppet-charlie-brennan.html
SNIP:
The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.
“A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment,” an administration source said.
Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush’s authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.
AJ: Here’s a commentary from an Ottawa attorney that says electing conservatives in Canada just might mean the end of Canada for good.
link
You have to read this screed. What is hard to understand is why the Chicago Tribune picked this commentary to provide opinion on the Canadian elections.
It’s always possible to find a nut case on any position. Just listen to FOX, or CNN. Read Blogs. Some people are seriously wacko. It’s true there is only one Political party in America at the moment. The Republican Party. Unfortunetly, the Republicans took over the Democrats positions on so much. Bigger Government, Higher taxes on the out group, lower taxes on the in group. (It shoud be obvious here that Republicans have LOWERED TAXES ONLY ON THE RICH, just as Democrats used to RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.), No fiscal disipline. Using Government to force others into your world view. Dems loved the poor, Reps love the rich. So now the Republicans take from the Poor and give to the Rich. Since when has being a fanatic on either side helped the US?
observer said Unfortunetly, the Republicans took over the Democrats positions on so much.
I suppose your statement is accurate. However, it is really George Bush that has made the polices of the Democrat party the policies of George W. Bush. He did this for 6 years as the governor of Texas. Governor Bush invited Democrats, who controlled the Texas legislature, into his office to mend fences to build effective legislation. Bush essentially put the policies crafted by Democrats into service by endorsing them in private and public. The strategy worked for the Democrats, but it really worked for Bush. Bush received all the credit. This is how he built the “uniter” label that he used to run for president.
It wasn’t all fun though for the Democrats in Texas. Their ideas were being passed into law, but it was the Republican Bush that was getting all the credit. During this time the Texas statehouse changed hands from Democrat control to Republican control.
President Bush has done exactly the same thing. Circumstances were different as the Republicans already controlled the House and Senate, but most of his policies are essentially verbatim copies from the Democrat Party playbook.
The single party in the United States is that of big and bigger government. Tax cuts and increases will fluctuate, but the size of government will continue to expand for as long as a growing number of people are interconnected to it via their own financial interest.
I think they’re trapped in a bubble–the democratic leadership, the far-left activists and the left-leaning media–and that their isolation and the fact that they listen only to each other has lead to this bizarre disconnect. It’s just crazy.
AcademicElephant : When was the last time the Democrat party did not control the White House, the Senate nor the House for two federal election cycles?
They’re going through withdrawl. They need a fix desperately. Their body trembles just waiting to rise to that level where they can inject themselves with power again.
I think they’re trapped in a bubble–the democratic leadership,
I think it’s trapped in a catch 22…they have to pander to the smallest, yet most radical element. Even they (elected ones) don’t believe half the crap their espousing.
They failed to make their case, so they’re stuck appeasing the extremist element out of fear (don’t wanna make the Kos kids mad) at the same time knowing they’re alienating the bloc of voters that any politician needs to win, swingers not to mention the moderates of their own party.
The Kos faction gained their grip when they dumped money on Dean. It was all about the money, not foresight. Think signing a deal with the devil. (AJ Dem money woes demonstrates the lack of foresight)
When Condi, who hasn’t even hinted at ambitions let alone the beginning of a campaign, garners better number than Hillary (the Hawk of the party!) you know you’ve got some problems deep within.
—(AJ Dem money woes demonstrates the lack of foresight)–
See AJ’s post on their money raising, OUCH.
September 19, 2005
“Bush understands money…†(HT Bogus Gold via Anchoress)
Click here: || RedState.org
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/19/111143/226
I, Heretic
By: Nick Danger · Section: Miscellania
Here I am going to spout heresy. I am going to argue that the fiscal policies being followed by President George W. Bush represent a breakthrough in conservative — yes, conservative — thinking. They represent good policy; and even better strategy.
I will suggest that President Bush understands money better than any President we have ever had. He understands it better than most economists. He understands it better than our illustrious pundits. President Bush understands money the way a financier understands money. He sees it as a force or a power that one squirts at the world to make the world change. He sees it as a weapon.
This is not how accountants view money, and it is not how most economists view money. And it is certainly not how any ordinary citizen could view money. But in the mind of a President of the United States, such thinking has the potential to lead to some rather revolutionary results.
(YOU REALLY MUST READ COMPLETE COLUMN – WILL ASSUAGE
YOUR DOUBTS)
AND THE BEST CLUE TO EVER, AS TO WHY THEY HATE! HATE!
HATE! GEORGE W BUSH.
Danger ends with these paragraphs:
So we do this our way, and yes, we spend some money – a fortune, frankly – to get it off the ground. Know what we’ll have when we’re done? People who want smaller government. Homeowners. With jobs. Why will they want big government? They won’t. And that’s how we win. But we can’t get there unless we make it happen; unless we exercise power; unless we spend money. We have to demonstrate to people that our ideas work.
We know where to get the money. It’s a Good Thing to get the money, because doing so weakens the Chinese and allows us to take care of survival in the face of some other people who are just as scary. And instead of sitting here quietly waiting for the next Democratic administration to come in and click the ratchet one more notch to the left, we can reverse some of the harm they’ve caused, and demonstrate that our ideas are better. This really does all play together. And it really is “conservative” in the strongest sense of the word. It’s just not the same old short-term thinking, like we’re used to from our politicians. It’s not “small ball.” It’s playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose.
ME: So, China is in same position as Shylock, cannot collect
debt without serious, perhaps fatal injury to their economy.
(END OF MY COMMENT)
Click here: || RedState.org
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/19/111143/226
September 19, 2005
“Bush understands money…â€
Sep 19th, 2005: 11:11:43
Prior to his recent speech concerning the rebuilding of New Orleans, President Bush was already being lambasted by critics from right to left for what appears to be some rather profligate spending behavior. There is pork in River City. There is the $500 billion prescription drug benefit. There is the War on Terror, involving huge expenditures in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are what Democrats call tax cuts, and what the rest of us must still call tax rate cuts even if revenues have risen. And now comes what sounds like two hundred billion more in federal spending to build a shining city in a bowl. This raises questions. Such as, for example, where is all this money supposed to come from? What about the deficit? What about the national debt? Why are we saddling our children with still more debt they will have to pay off? Whatever happened to small government? We’re spending like Democrats! Why? Whatever happened to fiscal discipline? How can anyone call this conservatism?To which the short answers are:
China. Well, China and Japan.
We are taking on debt. Ergo, a cash deficit. So?
It’s about where it ought to be.
We aren’t.
The public doesn’t want it. We have to teach them to want it.
How long, Oh Lord, will our side be on defense?
Who says we don’t have it? Do they know what they’re talking about?
Watch.Here’s where we get the money: our citizens earn it in their businesses or by performing their jobs. They spend it on things they need. A lot of those things are imported. The cash ends up in the hands of foreigners. The U.S. government borrows it back. Note carefully that our consumers now have the stuff, and our government has the cash. Is this a good deal, or what? What the foreigners have is a debt instrument. Good for them. Here is why we take on debt: He who has the cash makes the rules. If we have the cash, we get to say how it’s spent. Remember, money is power. It is a force you squirt at the world to make it change. We drive the change, when and where we want. What the foreigners get is a debt instrument. They are passive investors. Those are the best kind. This is especially important with respect to China. China is accumulating massive amounts of our debt. Good. Better that than they should have the cash, which they would probably spend on things that we would think are scary. Every dollar we can get them to loan us another dollar they don’t have for building battleships. Bush understands this. Too many people don’t. Here’s the deal with the national debt: Debt is about acquiring cash now, from somebody else. An institution should do that any time it thinks it can earn a return on the cash that is higher than the interest it must pay on the debt. In actual practice, people start to get uneasy if an institution’s debt starts to exceed a certain percentage of its total capital. For companies in the U.S., 50% debt is pretty high. In Japan that’s low; Japanese companies rely much more on debt financing than on equity when financing their businesses. There is no right answer to how much debt is the “correct amount.” It’s one of those things that “depends.” For a government, the question is sort of weird, because there is no such thing as owning “equity” in a government. At least, not in the financial sense. For a government, a better measure might be its ability to service its debt, i.e. how much of its actual cash revenue (taxes and fees) is needed to pay the interest on its debt? So long as that looks reasonable, no one should get too worried. Instead they should think about, as Bush obviously does, how we might invest the cash we get from new debt so as to produce a higher return than the interest rate on the debt. If we do that, we don’t care how large the debt gets. We’ll always be able to service it. Our children are not going to have to pay it back. Institutions are not individuals. For our purposes, institutions are immortal. If some of their debt comes due, they simply roll it over. They can do this perpetually. IBM probably has debt on its books that’s been there since the 1920’s. It’s been rolled over several times. No one cares. So long as IBM sees opportunities for investing cash that return more than the interest rate, they will never pay the debt back… they’ll just keep rolling it over. And then the Sun burns out. This can be a difficult concept for non-finance-types to understand. But it is crucial to understanding what’s going on here. So long as the U.S. economy keeps growing… so long as we have opportunities to invest cash in ways that earn a higher rate than we have to pay in interest… we should keep rolling over our debt, and adding more as we can, forever. All these people who moan about the chillrun do not understand this game. The chillrun aren’t going to pay it back. They don’t have to. They’re going to roll it over, and add more of their own. As will their children. Until the Sun burns out. Here’s why we don’t have small government: People don’t want it. They say they do, but when you threaten to give it to them, they vote for the Other Guys. It took Republican politicians decades to figure this out, and most Republican voters still haven’t figured it out. The fastest way to become the minority political party in the United States is to become the party of government frugality and fiscal discipline. Let the Democrats do that. We’ve been there, done that, and have Bob Dole to prove it. Besides, the Democrats are lying. The minute they got in, they’d start spending like, well, like George Bush and the Republican Congress are spending. But there’s a difference: they’d be spending it on their stuff. More social engineering. More government-dependency programs. More crosses soaked in more urine on more government grants. For decades, Republicans played defense with money. Tied to this idea about “small government” in a country where people didn’t want that, the best idea they could think of was to build speed bumps on the Road to Socialism. This while the Democrats got to call the shots because Republicans wouldn’t call any when they got in. They’d be “responsible.” They wouldn’t spend as much. All they did was conserve borrowing capacity for the next time the Democrats got their hands on the spigot. What the rest of us got was a ratchet that clicked left when the Democrats were in, and just sat there when the Republicans were in. Now comes George Bush to play offense with money. Folks, this is a new idea. Think about what we can do here. We get to call some shots. George Bush can see this, why can’t anyone else? Is our highest priority right this minute “small government?” Is it “reduced spending?” Is it “balance the budget?” I don’t think so. I think our first priority is to survive. There are some really crazy people out there who think we should all be Moslem, or dead. There are a lot of them, and they are nuts. They have a lot of money. They are very, very dangerous and thinking anything else is likely to be suicidal. So that’s priority one. We can quibble over the details, but spending money to survive is not a bad idea. So what’s next after survival? Can we now balance the budget? I say no. I say the next priority is to reverse the decline of our civilization. Surviving won’t have that much utility if we all end up as savages clubbing one another. We all just got a very clear demonstration of what that looks like. We’ve seen it before, too. In fact we’ve seen it almost everywhere that Democrats have had their way in imposing their values on citizens through government dependency programs. There is a message in this. It is that the “ratcheting” has to stop. Like it or not, we either spend money to have our values reflected in this society, or the Democrats will keep pushing us toward Lord of the Flies. Did anyone really listen to George Bush the other night? I did. I see that Rush Limbaugh did as well. Limbaugh has phrased it as, “You Democrats had 60 years to try it your way. Now we’re going to try it our way.” Is that worth doing? I say yes, as I will explain below. But let’s be clear: it’s going to cost a lot of money. We are going to have to exercise power to make this happen. Exercising power means spending money. It does not mean balancing the budget, reducing spending, or any other thing. We will get smaller government when people want it. No one alive today in the U.S. has ever seen small government. It sounds scary. Democrats, and their allies in the media, make sure it sounds scary. Grandmothers will be tossed in the street. Poor people will die of starvation. What a cold, cruel world these Republicans envision. People will only support a party of small government when they are sure that that stuff won’t happen. And the only way to make them sure is to demonstrate it. Paradoxically, because of our history since FDR, the only way to demonstrate it now is to spend a bunch of money to create a demonstration. Picture New Orleans 2.0, the shining city in a bowl. It’s a kind of town we have a lot of in the United States. Many people of modest means, but they own their own homes. Or at least it says they do on their mortgage. Someday the mortgage will be paid off and they really will own their own homes. They will be land owners. For sure their children will be. Think about that. Think about how different that is. They care about this place. They care about their homes. They care about their neighborhoods. They care whether their politicians are crooked. It’s no one else’s responsibility to keep things up. This is their place. They own it. So we do this our way, and yes, we spend some money – a fortune, frankly – to get it off the ground. Know what we’ll have when we’re done? People who want smaller government. Homeowners. With jobs. Why will they want big government? They won’t. And that’s how we win. But we can’t get there unless we make it happen; unless we exercise power; unless we spend money. We have to demonstrate to people that our ideas work. We know where to get the money. It’s a Good Thing to get the money, because doing so weakens the Chinese and allows us to take care of survival in the face of some other people who are just as scary. And instead of sitting here quietly waiting for the next Democratic administration to come in and click the ratchet one more notch to the left, we can reverse some of the harm they’ve caused, and demonstrate that our ideas are better. This really does all play together. And it really is “conservative” in the strongest sense of the word. It’s just not the same old short-term thinking, like we’re used to from our politicians. It’s not “small ball.” It’s playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose.
Just remember, there is always a perfectly acceptable YELLOW DOG for whom it is preferrable to vote than ANY Republican, ever.
AJ
You’ll find this Blitzer report, pulling straight from the DNC spin on the financial reporting. The irony isn’t so much about Wolf retailing the spin, it’s that DNC would even TRY and spin their dismal numbers. No matter how hard you try there is still no Lemonade!
http://media.nationalreview.com/088266.asp
AJ–
Missed you today!
On TV they are explaining how it is legal to listen to people in America talking to suspected terrorist targets in foreign countries.
If they decide to make the person in America a target, then they need a warrant.
It is exactly what you said.
MORE PROOF THE DEMS ARE DONE!!
Drudge Report
CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET
Most voters now say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 – while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.
CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won’t vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes – 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there’s no way they’d back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President – a step Rice has repeatedly said she won’t take.
END
SBD
Larwyn,
Your comment has piqued my interest! And I hate thinking about the economy and money things.
Thanks for the link. I’ll just have to grit my teeth and take a peek.
MerryJ1:
I was really facinated by the article and realized it makes
perfect sense.
Remember that Reagan wanted to “starve the beast”. Problem
is that then a Dem gets in and they tax and spend on entitlements
that continue to destroy the fabric of this country.
So once you realize that money is going to be spent – why be
the old penny pinching aunt who skimps to leave something to
her nephew – who then blows it.
The design of the drug program is horrible – but the basic idea
that these drugs will save expensive hospitaliztions is true.
Just too many weak kneed R Senators that do too much
compromising – Bush wanted to tie a test of school vouchers
and building of private schools in hurricane damaged areas – but
that has seemed to dissapear from plans.
Just know the article is one to think about and we will see
what next three years bring.
but the basic idea
that these drugs will save expensive hospitaliztions is true.
Yep, sort a like Welfare.
My biggest problem with both, cost of drugs and cost of hospital or other medical bills, is with the only suggested solution: Insurance coverage.
I see “insurance coverage” as the fundamental problem that has pushed the drug and medical costs so high, because insurance companies keep their costs under control by forcing price concessions from pharmacies, doctors and hospitals for ‘their’ insured.
Result, of course, is that the difference has to be made up somewhere, and the obvious ‘price-cost balance restoration’ point is the uninsured patient/customer.
The same principle is in action in legislative requirements for insurance providers to cover elective and cosmetic surgery, for example. It throws off the base calculations insurers use in setting group-coverage premium prices, raises their costs, which raises premium prices for employers, who pass it on to all group members, either by raising their insurance contribution on withholding salary increases or other workplace benefits.
Those wonderful insurance pharmacy cards, where a holder pays only a dollar, two or three, for each prescription? The insurer only covers part of the differential, brow-beating pharmacies into eating part of the loss to keep the business. That the $5 or $10 difference to pharmacies had to be pulled in somewhere else, resulted in prescriptions that should cost about $12 or $15, suddenly “fairly priced” at $35 or $50 for those without pharmacy cards.
The only solution I’d see as equitable, would be to require the insurance companies to pay for the benefits they and their policies state they’re covering, and prohibit them from passing their costs on to end providers.