More quotations are in order, I think.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
-Sam Adams, born 283 years ago today
Under no circumstances
Harvested squeezings from mirth's most irritated pore
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
(JavaScript Error)
Previous Posts
- "Higher gas prices are a sign of ...
- Cutest. Cephalopod. Ever.Can I keep him?
- Best. Beer ad. Ever.
- Fascism: n.1. A system of government marked by cen...
- Here's another entry for the I-Can't-Make-This-Shi...
- I did not know this:Ezekiel 16:48-5248 As surely a...
- Okay, here's the first possible draft of our forma...
- The New Yorker has must-read ecumenical version of...
- Avast! 'Tis National Talk Like A Pirate Day, me h...
- WARNING: Post may contain spoilers for Final Fanta...
9 Comments:
I think that this quote is more appropriate:
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan...
...But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait."
-John Lennon, "Revolution"
Lots of hate from the left right now, but no plan. It doesn't help to be on the right side of the issue if you can't show a solution. You can't convince anyone that your right if you tell the world you disapprove of everything a President has done, and this too. You have to say what's wrong, why it's wrong and what we can change to make it right. If you look at the polls right now, America wants to listen. We just want to see the plan.
CF
Oh joy, yet another sap who's fallen for the myth of the "angry Left."
Seriously, you people are the reason I keep not converting to conservativism. I mean, the Dems fumble everything they try, but you guys actually manage to be more dull and dishonest by trying to push these trite falsehoods...the "angry Left" is no more real than the welfare Queen, so how's about you quit milking the same pathetic tactics over and over and over?
Yes, "the Left" is angry. No, that does not in any way make them less credible. Only in Wingnut America, and in Tony Blair's head, does one have to be a Bush apologist to maintain credibility. You can look at our consistent anger as proof that we're just big meanies, or you can accept the fact that, in our opinions, we're consistently angry because this government consistently deserves it. When Bush stops being a fucktard, we'll stop bitching about what a fucktard Bush is.
I suggest you take a moment to read Adams' quote more carefully*, CF, and meditate on the fact that one of our Founders felt that an "angry" minority was crucial for the health of our nation. Our country was FOUNDED by the "angry Left" of their era, and I'm goddam proud to remember that...in my humble opinion, the only hope of this country ever recapturing its potential glory rests with the "angry Left." The "angry Left" needs to get louder, angrier, and more coordinated in their vocal disagreement with each and every fuckup we are being subjected to.
*NOTE: I hereby insert the obligatory disclaimer regarding the Founding Fathers. I am aware they were not perfect, they held slaves, they were sexists, etc etc etc, and I am not in any way implying that everything we do should be based 100% on quotes from the Founders. Please, don't anybody waste time going down that road.
A simple test of who's irrationally, stupidly angry: Who on this site leaps to accusing people of insulting the military? Who here accuses people of wanting the President of the United States to die? Who here insinuates that people's relatives are child molestors?
Of course that's not really applicable to philosophy, just political personalities, because there is no longer a true Right in this country, just as there's not been much of a Left. What you call the Right are the sheep who think the way to impose fiscal sanity (as if they'd recognize sanity, or not try to crucify it if they did) and limit the size and scope of government is to vote for Bush and for deputies for Lott, Frist, Delay and Hastert in *every single election*. Contrast his views (parroting of White House talking points about Katrina being a once in 500 years event, torture by the US military being the isolated fault of "a few bad apples", etc. ad infinitum) with the statements of the dying breed of true Conservatives such as McCain, Hagel and, say, David Brooks. "And sometimes in my dark moments, I think he's 'The Manchurian Candidate' designed to discredit all the ideas I believe in." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/9438988/
I'm not going to respond to Aleks, since there is no productive reason to do so, but I would love to respond to ZDK and TTYSI.
ZDK, I think you misunderstood my post or at least didn't respond to it's point. I'm in no waying saying it is wrong to be angry. You are absolutely correct that being "angry" is often right, just and appropriate. I'm just saying that it doesn't do someone any good to say "I disagree with everything Bush has ever done, he's a big liar, and he only cares about big oil companies. Therefore, I think he's wrong now." What point has been made? You have to tell me what's wrong, why it's wrong and what will be done to change it if you want me to listen. My point was simply that there is no plan from the anti-Bush crowd, not that the "angry left" is wrong simply for feeling angry. I prefer a country where some people are angry. It's the only way that positive change can occur.
TTYSI, I agree that there aren't detailed plans in place for all of those problems, but I can't see how they are all the Bush administrations fault. Maybe you can clear that up for me. I also fail to see why you feel those problems indicate that Bush should resign, so I'd love to hear that argument. I further fail to see why you feel the Democrats plan is irrelevant since that is what we will base our votes on in the next election AND since the GOP doesn't have a super-majority in the Senate, so they are forced to negotiate with the Democrats if they put forth a plan that the people of this country think is appropriate for the legislatively correctable problems you mentioned. You may be able to say "I think this party is failing so I'll vote for the other one." I am more apt to say "Which party is going to be worse, I'll vote for the other one." Without a plan, I have no reason to believe the Democrats will be better.
CF
Since he's now a "fiscal conservative" as well as "classy", "honest", "intelligent" and presumably a Knight Templar or whatever fantastic labels he's assigning himself these days, anyone talking to "NOT A SHEEP" is highly encouraged to ask why he thinks the way to restrain spending or push the Republican party towards McCain is to vote with 100% consistency for Bush and the deputies of Lott, Frist, Hastert, and Delay. I can only imagine it's similar to his way of rejecting Limbaughism by accusing his opponents (without ever a shred of evidence) of wishing for the President of the United States to die, of insulting the military, and of coming from a family of child molesters, but since he never managed a defense for those gems of his either, I can't say it's justified.
On another note, speaking of brush fires, my whole town seems to be on fire right now, and ashes are falling like November flurries. It's sort of pretty, really.
Play your cards right and you can get Bush campaign contributers billions of dollars in what used to be known as the taxpayers money to help you out. Of course if they hire any locals, they'll be able to pay them federal minimum wage. Fiscal conservatives once-in-a-while I guess.
I''m familiar with this subject too
Post a Comment
<< Home