Home / Culture and Society / Angry Liberals

Angry Liberals

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I’m really dating myself here, but years before Fox News and all of the other political shoutfests even existed, I used to watch a TV program called Crossfire. Airing nightly on CNN back in the 1980s and 1990s, Crossfire was perhaps the primodial political shouting match. And it featured two hosts, one each “from the left” and “from the right,” as the opening announcer intoned.

The regulars were liberal Mike Kinsley and conservative Pat Buchanan. Kinsley, then as now, was very smart but invariably mild-mannered. He seemed perpetually overmatched by the louder and more pugnacious Buchanan. I must confess that I loved Crossfire the most when Kinsley was away. Those nights, CNN usually had Democratic strategist Bob Beckel fill in. And mild-mannered, Beckel assuredly was not. He could easily go toe-to-toe with Buchanan.

I remember one night most vividly when Buchanan had clearly incensed Beckel. Beckel simply exploded, and unloaded on Buchanan with such intensity that Buchanan, yes Pat Buchanan, physically recoiled and shrunk into his seat in fear. At that moment, with Pat Buchanan throughly shut up, this liberal felt as if he had died and gone to heaven. Beckel’s performance that night convinced me that we on the left needed our share of angry loudmouths, too.

That night, now probably at least two decades old, came back to the fore recently watching the controversy unfold around Teamsters chief James Hoffa. In introducing President Obama in Detroit on Labor Day, Hoffa fired up the crowd. Referring to the tea party movement, he declared, “Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back and we keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these sons-of-a-bitches out and give America back to America where we belong!” Conservatives were immediately in an uproar.

Anger, in politics as in life, is a funny thing. Expressed in the wrong way, it can make you look like a hothead and certainly get you into a lot of trouble. But sometimes you need a little anger, expressed in the right ways, just to stand up for yourself and avoid becoming a doormat. After all, even the Dalai Lama is capable of defending himself and his countrymen when sufficiently provoked. When the Chinese invaded Tibet, His Holiness didn’t just sit there and let the Red Army sack his homeland. He sent an army of Tibetans out to the frontier to fight back in what became a bloody battle. Thousands lost their lives.

Let’s be clear. Hoffa was very explicit in talking about voting the tea party out of existence. He was not advocating violence. What Hoffa said didn’t threaten anyone physically. Not in the way Republican Nevada Senate candidate, Sharron Angle did, for instance, last year when she vaguely advocated for “second-amendment solutions” on the campaign trail, and then refused — like the coward she is, to even explain what she meant by the phrase.

Hoffa, by contrast, not only refused to apologize, he had the courage to come right out and say what he meant.

“We didn’t start this war – the right wing did. My comments on Labor Day in Detroit echo the anger and frustration of American workers who are under attack by corporate-funded politicians who want to destroy the middle class,” Hoffa says. “We’re tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas. This fight is about the economy, it’s about jobs and it’s about rebuilding America. As I said yesterday in Detroit, we all have to vote in order to take these anti-worker politicians out of office.”

That, in his statement Hoffa criticizes by name the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund many shadowy conservative caucuses, is particularly apropos, because right about the same time this week that Hoffa’s rant was becoming news, it was disclosed that Charles Koch may have referred to President Obama as Saddam Hussein. Either way, Koch readily admits to referring to the coming 2012 election as “the mother of all wars.”  I’m certainly hoping Koch wasn’t advocating any sort of physical violence, and I’ll assume he wasn’t. But if the right wants to turn the election into a war of rhetoric and ideas, so be it. We on the left simply will need more loud, angry liberals like Jim Hoffa and Bob Beckel.

God bless ’em.


Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • ST Y’all M

    Just reading this reminded me of Archie. Where is Arch? Him and that Warren Beatty bloke would have got on like a house of fire.

  • Me

    Liberals are idiots!

  • Citizen Ghost

    Hey Scott, you’re going to need more than angry liberals like Jim Hoffa and Bob Beckel. You’re going to have to call up some more dead people and get about 15 million illegal immigrants to vote in November if you’re going to win this thing. Just sayin’.

  • don rockey

    let me make something perfectly clear on the issue of which side is better both republicans and democrats alike are the blame for the state of this country it was the emergence of the tea party that has been the issue of interest to me because both sides have attacked them and why, because the republicans are for the rich and democrats is for the unions and big spending and the middle is the ones that have bore the weight of the problems because it is the middle that have lost jobs, lost homes, had broken homes and lives and when someone challenges either or in this case both sides they are the problem, and the reason they become the problem is because WASHINGTON DOESNT WANT SOLUTIONS THEY NEED THE PROBLEM ARENA TO MAKE THEM, THE ESTABLISHED PARTIES, LOOK LIKE OUR SAVIOR FROM THE OTHER SIDE. THE TEA PARTY IS NOT HOLDING THIS NATION CAPTIVE THEY ARE HOLDING THE MIDDLE GROUND ON WASTEFUL SPENDING AND CORRUPTION AND SCREAMING TO THE PUBLIC TO HELP THEM HELP US. IF WE AS A NATION ARE GOING TO BOUNCE BACK FROM THIS DEPRESSION AND LOST GENERATION WE NEED THE TEA PARTY BECAUSE WASHINGTON HAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE PROBLEM UNTIL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC STANDS UP AND TAKES OUR COUNTRY BACK BY CREATING CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS, THINK CONGRESS IS GONNA DO THAT, HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT HE SIGNS, ENACT A PRESIDENTIAL LINE ITEM VETO, STOP FORCING HARD WORKING AMERICANS TO PAY EXTORTION MONEY TO THE UNIONS AND CREATE A WORKERS BILL OF RIGHTS ENSURING FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY BASED ON PRODUCTION, ETHICS, AND EDUCATION, NOT SEX, RACE, AND PARTY.

  • LOL @ Clav…

  • Clavos

    I agree with you Doc.

    The US Democratic party’s ventures into social engineering make the Brits’ attempts at same look like the work of amateurs: American Democrats would have replied to your 10 million Londoners, “Well, OK, if you insist,” and dumped them in the cement as it was poured…

    Other European countries, however…

  • …jack up the price on gas to encourage public Transport

    Back in the 80s there was a celebrated British prime minister who did the exact opposite.

    Thatcher loathed public transport and her government actively worked to weaken it. Had she got her way (as she did on most issues), the UK’s transport infrastructure would have ended up looking a lot like the US’s. All railways except for a few key inter-city routes and the London commuter network would have been closed and the road system vastly expanded. There was one infamous proposal that would have seen Los Angeles-style freeways being constructed all over London. Fortunately, Londoners said “Over our 10 million collective dead bodies” to that one and it was quietly dropped.

    Oh, and did I mention that that last one would have necessitated the condemning and demolition of vast swathes of housing? I do apologize for that oversight…

    You guys put loggers out of work, then bitch about importing softwood lumber from Canada. you put miners out of work, and bitch about the growing ranks of the unemployed

    Did I further mention that the Maggie era saw the closure of almost all the UK’s shipyards, steelworks and coal mines? Or that Reagan greatly admired Thatcher and modelled a lot of his policies after hers? Sorry again.

    Perhaps all this is marginally relevant, but I just think that if you want to gripe about social engineering you’re barking up the wrong old growth tree.

  • Glenn, I’ve never seen a Left-winger that didn’t want to tear down Hydroelectric dams

    I consider myself centre-left – does that count? Personally I’d rather see as few new dams as possible being built in the first place. Yes, they provide clean energy, but the environmental and social damage involved in their construction often far outweighs those benefits – check out, for instance, the dams the Chinese are building on the Mekong and the effects they’re having on the countries and communities downstream.

    Demolishing dams that have already been built, however, I feel is like crying over spilt lake water. It’s also likely to cause more destruction that it would be worth. In a lot of cases, new ecosystems have developed in the affected areas above and below the dam, which would be destroyed if it were to be removed, and there’s no guarantee that the old ones would return.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Only temporarily – next month we’re flying out overseas and – God willing – we’ll be able to spend most of our time over there.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Glenn, you’re in Bremerton? My mother-in-law lives there. Cool!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    ‘scuse you, Cannonshop –

    Strike one:

    Not all progressives want to tear down dams…and even those who do, do NOT want to tear down all the dams…

    …and even then, this does NOT “dump money overseas”, because we want renewable energy HERE – solar, wind, geothermal (and I like nuclear, remember) – and we strongly oppose buying more oil.

    Strike two:

    “Jack up the price on public transport”???? Gimme some of what you’re smoking, Cannonshop, because WE want public transport to be as cheap as possible…and the only “jacking up” we want to do is to tax the rich like they SHOULD be taxed in order to pay for the public transportation!

    Strike three:

    When it comes to putting loggers out of work, we liberals are the only thing providing any kind of balance – it’s only because of us that there’s any kind of emphasis on managed forests, and that there’s ANY old-growth forests left!

    Three strikes – the first two were false assumptions on YOUR part and the third was due to your ignorance of just how important our efforts are.

    And the whole rest of your diatribe is packed chock-full of more false assumptions and wild accusations, almost like something off the Glenn Beck Show.

    And that makes me wonder how it is that you’d rather throw patently false accusations at us and vote back in the same people who brought you the Great Recession, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and state-ordered torture (which George Washington himself) rejected.

    You’ve got your priorities all mixed up, Cannonshop – and I’m still waiting for you to come on over to Bremerton with a reporter so you can expose me, since you’re SO sure I didn’t retire from the Navy. You’re just across the Sound – what are you afraid of? The media LOVE to expose someone posing as retired military! I’ll even drive the two of you on base so you can attempt to turn me in!

    Or are you thinking that maybe, just maybe you were wrong? Gotta watch those assumptions, Cannonshop – they’re not doing you any good at all.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s funny, too, because I used to think that some of my family members (“Lefties,” you know) were decent people. Now I know better. Now I recognize that that uncle of mine, the one who works in the forest industry, really wants to outsource all of the jobs and dismantle things for the benefit of…well, I haven’t gotten that far yet.

    Of course, my uncle probably just wants to “condemn houses” for sport. Hell, being a “Leftie” he probably even gets off on it.

    It’s funny. I used to be a “Leftie” until I came to this site and found out what I really stood for.

    Boy, was I shocked!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Wow, Cannonshop, I had no idea that all “Lefties” were so devious and vile. What do we do about it if we’re to survive as a species?

    Surely “opposing them” isn’t enough if our very lives are on the line.

  • Cannonshop

    Glenn, I’ve never seen a Left-winger that didn’t want to tear down Hydroelectric dams, jack up the price on gas to encourage public Transport, never saw a Leftie who did not think it was just grand to condemn whole stretches of housing or make life more expensive and less comfortable for those of us not gifted with a government or inheritance-based silver spoon.

    You people provide the stick that goes with the Corporatist Carrot in driving/luring industry offshore and promoting regulatory schemes structured so that only the big multinationals can play in a remarkable number of business types-mostly heavy industry business.

    Lefties do these things to “Save the Erf”, so they talk UNION, but they ACT in ways that hurt the sort of industries that Unions do the most good, the skilled trades, for instance, or Industrial, or oil/coal/gas/copper/steel industries.

    You guys put loggers out of work, then bitch about importing softwood lumber from Canada. you put miners out of work, and bitch about the growing ranks of the unemployed, you put in regulatory/legal schemes in states like Michigan, then wonder why nobody will invest there, and the industries that WERE there, are fleeing.

    YOU put working people out of work, then claim to represent working people’s interests.

    YOUR side attacks the property rights of anyone who can’t afford the million dollar corporate lawyers, your side, Glenn, attacks the mid-size businesses that might’ve been competitive with the bigshots, you tie them up in red-tape designed (poorly) to try and ensnare millionaires and billionaires who can afford the vig to get their exemptions put into the law…by YOUR politicians.

    When one gets past what the Left SAYS it wants to do, versus what it ACTUALLY DOES, the only answer is to oppose them for one’s own survival.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    I don’t know where you got the idea that progressives agree with dumping money into third world nations – we don’t. Progressives – and I am one – want to slash our military (and the scores of billions of our dollars that are spent overseas on our personnel and our bases). We want tariffs and restrictions that are reciprocal with what our exporters face. We want to take away the tax breaks corporations get for moving overseas. We want to take away the ability of the rich to move their money away from America and into tax shelters. Listen to progressive talk shows like Thom Hartmann or Ed Schultz, or better yet, Stephanie Miller (she’s really, truly funny). You can get her any weekday morning 6-9 on AM 1090 since you’re in Puget Sound. Any of these three progressive pundits say the same things that I’m saying above – albeit with a lot of other things that you probably wouldn’t agree with, like conservative politicians’ climate change denial, racism, homophobia, and all their other hypocrisy and idiocy.

    We also support fair trade – not free trade, but fair trade (again, tariffs and restrictions). We are for restrictions against companies that use sweatshops – after all, when have you seen anyone but left-wingers speak out against, say, Nike for using sweatshops? Every single day, Ed Schultz devotes some of his radio time pushing products made in America…which sorta goes counter to your “money-dumping overseas” claim.

    So I really don’t know where you got the idea that we’re somehow for ‘dumping money’ into the third world. If anything, your #22 would seem to indicate that you would be in strong agreement with us, rather than wrongly dumping us in with corporatists!

  • @ 19

    It’s not the schools, it’s the prevalent business model that’s being thought. The Ivy league business schools are only the grease which ease the good ole boys’ entry into business and politics at top echelon positions (via networking).

    Nothing sociopathic about that, just the ruling class maintaining and taking care of its own. Which is why explaining the problem away by appeals to deranged human behavior won’t wash.

  • Cannonshop

    #20 why do those foreign factories have lines of people trying to get in? even at low wages and ridiculous hours made viable because

    1) the employer isn’t interested in them as customers, and

    2) because fixed costs are low enough to make even the most inefficient methods viable, and

    3) because Uncle Sam paid for the movement of the production overseas, and has since 1972 at least, along with providing strong de-motivators to remain in the U.S.

    There are some places where traditional Democrats have it right: we need to stop this nonsense of “free Trading” wiht people who don’t reciprocate, stop paying corporations to take their production overseas, and maybe start insisting on a level trade playing field.

    y’know, where the restrictions are the same on both sides.

    Unfortunately, Progressives adn Corporatists tend to agree more with the idea of dumping capital into third world hellholes, even if their motives are cosmetically different.

  • Cannon, very helpful of you in #19 to demolish your own argument in #15 so that no-one else had to do it.

    Now I have more time to liken Rick Perry to a culture of toe fungus.

  • Cannon #15: If all of that were true why is it that many American corporations with factories and other facilities abroad don’t use the same parameters with those workers? Many of such places have been shown to be tantamount to sweatshops working people 12 or 16 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week often for only the equivalent of a few dollars a day. Are foreigners somehow different than Americans in their ability to work extended hours in far less than ideal environments for very little compensation?

    Absent unions or any entity representing the interests of workers, it is just human nature that will ultimately rule with compensation and working conditions diminishing and hours expanding.

  • Cannonshop

    #16 of course there is, look at where most management types start: the same schools that turn out our politicians (the ones that can’t do basic math or balance a checkbook), the ones that turn out the middle=management of our government (those folks who came up with zero-balance budgeting that pretty much requires an organization to spend-spend-spend, even when the tax base is shrinking, and where results are not coupled to inputs.)

    the fact is, mismanagement in government and business is done by people who hold very similar ideas, taught to them in very similar classrooms, and reinforced by very similar disconnection from the results of their actions.

    In that environment, Sociopaths tend to climb to the top, with office-politics taking precedent over real-world results, the endstate being that which we now have.

    The problems that made General Motors a candidate for buyout are identical in all but scale to the problems that plague Uncle Sam-because the methods, mindset, and behavioural rewards are basically the SAME between the two when you get up off the production floor and into the offices.

  • Britain still lags a bit behind continental Europe in that regard, and is closer to the American model. Nevertheless, even ten years ago (when I was last employed in Blighty) I enjoyed a 36-hour work week with a day off during the week. I did have to work every other Saturday though.

  • I should think the Europeans have long since tilted the balance in favor of “life.” It’s only the American working stiff (and those who haven’t tasted yet the dubious wages of prosperity and its fleeting state) that are still behind the curve.

  • Unfortunately, Mr Engineer, those industries are exactly where most of us work.

    The current buzz phrase, I understand, is “work-life balance”. And while a lot of employers are embracing the concept, corporate resistance to it is still stiff, as this recent court decision highlighted.

  • Cannonshop

    Except, Doc, that in the efficiency-obsessed climate of modern business, it’s fairly widely accepted that efficiency of the workforce drops exponentially after 10 hours. One of the main reasons employers accepted the40 hour work-week is that it is cheaper on the materiel and rework side, than NOT going to the 40 hour work-week.
    (this doesn’t even touch on liability issues, medical costs, etc. or the efficiency-damage curve of constantly training new people to replace the ones you broke through overuse, or the negligence/damage issues that come from fatigued employees working in hellhole conditions.)

    Now, I’ll accept that our business schools DO turn out crop after crop of absolute morons who go into management positions, but those morons making it past lower-middle-management without being a relative of someone higher up in the same organization is still relatively rare…

    and one of the key bases of the success of Unions in the past (not as much today, sadly) was that their contractual outcomes saved companies money in terms of perserving capital investments (Equipment), prevention of costly accidents (which damage facilities, stock-in-trade, and capital equipment) and efficiency (more work done RIGHT relative to materials and fixed costs like Energy, equipment, taxes, etc.)

    Of course, none of these efficiencies show up in white-collar or service-industry environments-but most of those can be done by interns or trained monkeys.

  • No, of course unions aren’t the only thing preventing the 168-hour work week. There’s always that good old conservative favourite, what do they call it now, ah yes, the Power of the Consumer. The idea being that there is a limit to the number of hours employers can compel their minions to work because said minions will simply refuse to accept a job with such unreasonable conditions of employment. Hey presto, the market wins and renders unions superfluous.

    Problem is, this is the same market that’s just gone down the gurgler (to borrow an STM-ism) along with most of the jobs that used to be out there and the rainy day savings that conservatives urge us all to have because, you guessed it, one of the other things they wish didn’t exist in this world is unemployment benefits.

    So the climate of the market now is such that jobseekers… sorry, consumers… feel compelled to accept the first shitty job that comes along because who knows how the fuck long it will be until they get another offer.

  • Cannonshop

    Certainly the controllers violated their official government oath…

    The same reaction, Glenn, happens when POLICE go on strike, and for the same reasons. I submit to you, sir, that Jimmy CARTER would’ve fired them-only, they wouldn’t have gone, because the Leaders wouldn’t want to make him look bad. (Party Unity Uber Alles).

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    You had your facts straight…but your “what happened” diatribe went right off the rails. Big business has ALWAYS hated the unions – and you know this – and they simply bought out the politicians who passed laws to attack the unions.

    Remember when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers? Of course you do. The unions did not suddenly get more or less corrupt than they’d ever been…but when Big Business bought out government to attack the unions, the unions couldn’t fight back.

    The proof? You can see it today, in what has happened nationwide after the 2010 elections when the newly-elected GOP governors began pushing anti-union and anti-collective-bargain bills…many of which were written for them by ALEC. (I’m in a rush or I’d provide a better reference)

  • Cannonshop

    #9 considering that most of the ACTUAL robber barons were associated with Government Contracts (see: Union Pacific and Credit Mobilier) that’s dead on accurate.

    But, the problem comes (has come) when the Union’s internal management is beholden not to the Members, but to factions in…

    Government, specifically “Big Government” and the Big Business it can’t afford to do without.

    FACT: Unions were strongest when American Industry was a world leader, there was a time when the number of Union WORKERS was close to 40% in the nation-amazingly, our government wasn’t NEARLY as much a percentage of the working-age-employed population, and we could afford to send a man to the moon (from nearly a dead standing start) in under a decade.

    What happened?

    Big Business and Big Labor both got corrupt, and stopped serving their customers (in the case of Unions, the membership, in the case of business, both customers, and stockholders), instead pouring their mutual efforts into growing Government and getting special protections, exemptions, and the like for themselves at the EXPENSE of union members, stockholders, non-union workers,etc. The price wasn’t difficult for them to pay, either-they had dues-paying memberships and investors to rook, and a government that would look on and wink at the improprieties, ripoffs, and outright corruption, in exchange for their political and financial muscle (both jointly, and separately).

  • zingzing

    i’d fuck over my own mother for a million bucks (well, maybe… i’d probably try to bargain to you up one and a half…). imagine what i’d be willing to do to people i don’t know at all.

  • What we’re talking about is simply human nature. Unions are no more nor less the source of evil than the big corporations. But what we’re talking about is balance. If unions are taken out of the equation, the balance is lost, and the corporations and government both will return workers to the days of the Robber Barons. To believe otherwise is, as I noted above, a fool’s game.

  • zingzing

    unions are just like anything else–there’s good and there’s bad to them. there are those that say unions protect all of us from the shady dealings of big business whose only bottom line is profit. and there are those that say unions hurt business and breed ineptitude and laziness in workers. both of those are right, but if only one is said, then they’re wrong.

    balancing union protection with business’ desire for productivity and profit is the idea. a lack of unions breeds exploitation, and everyone would be fucked, but too much union control breeds failure, and everyone would be fucked.

  • The chicken or the egg? Unions declined because manufacturing declined because of unions. The loss of union influence has already started us back on the road to that 168 hour work week. What most companies do today is hire mid-level white collar workers on a salary. No hourly wage. No OT. It matters not whether you work 40 hours or a 100 hours, the compensation remains the same. In many such companies, the only means to advance is to put in that kind of time, and in the end workers still wind up getting the axe when the company “decides to go in another direction.” Union bashers will ultimately find that the demise of unions will cost them dearly down the road. The blind faith that companies will treat their workers fairly and/or that the market place will magically protect them is a fool’s game.

  • Baronius

    Dread, you might be onto something. Scott didn’t say anything about reasoning, just anger.

    The union-backers in this country try to have it both ways. They say that the old days of questionable behavior are over. Then they say that they’re the only thing preventing the 168-hour work week.

    The truth is, unions were terrible bullies who did good things in the old days. Today they’ve got the occasional outburst of violence, but for the most part the movement has become co-opted by the “process”: management, regulators, unions, and lawyers who’ve created their own machinery which maintains the status quo and skims off the top.

    Union membership is declining, not because of Reagan or any Koch-inspired opposition. It’s declining because manufacturing jobs have declined, and one of the reasons for the decline in manufacturing is the unions. So they’ve focused their energy on white-collar non-management workers, and a good number of them are in government. The “process” completely seals itself off from accountability, because it’s next-to-impossible to measure the output of a teacher or a prison guard.

    Temper tantrums don’t change the reality of the economy. They just remind people about the worst trait of unions.

  • Scott, I do believe you have your first candidate. 🙂

  • And why is it that unions are so depleted? Because the Right has been running a vendeta against them for decades. It is so easy – and ignorant, I might add – to characterize unionists as “thugs.” It is a stereotype that holds very little water; especially in this day and age. Jimmy Hoffa IS dead and “On the Waterfront” is a 57 year old movie. It is unions that fought to make work environments safe. It is unions that fought for a 40 hour work week and the 8 hour work day. The list goes on. Without their efforts, 6 and 7 day work weeks, 16 hour work days, workhouses and sweatshops would likely still exist in profusion here in America.

    And what was the terrible crime that workers commited? They wanted to get a little ahead of the game. They wanted to live a little better than their parents. They wanted to leave a better world for their kids. Those filthy bastards!

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that both Arch and Baronius consider themselves to be more or less “middle class.” If I have that wrong, well, I don’t really give a rat’s ass.

    The dwindling of the middle class goes along virtually step for step with the dwindling of unions. America’s middle class is steadily being decimated and replaced with a widening gap between the poor and the very rich. Our society is well on its way to mirroring one more like that of India.

    India is an almost purely capitalist society with very little government regulation or involvement with so called “entitlements.” Everyone is pretty much on their own there. Is that the “ideal” that you right wingers aspire to? Do you not understand that unless you ARE very rich, that you and yours will likely end up on the same garbage heap right along with the rest of the great American unwashed who you hold in such disdain?

    It is YOU who are the dupes. It is YOU who are the ones falling in line like obedient prep school children, standing in that line, keeping it straight, praying you don’t piss yourself, while you march in lock step to the commands of the rich and the corporate mogels who are playing that marching tune on a continuously looped eight track tape.

    They have effectively blinded you into believing that they give a crap about you. They smilingly feed you bullshit about being good christians and standing on your own two feet just as our forefathers intended, as they deftly pull the rug out from under you while puffing on a $300 cigar and sipping 200 year old brandy.

    No, the Koch Brothers and their like are not “thugs” in the usual sense of the word. Yet, what they are doing amounts to violence beyond what the worst union bosses could have ever imagined.

    It is in their mindset that there is no such thing as being too rich. Wealth is all that matters. If you have a million, then you must have two. If you have ten billion, then you must go after another ten. They dazzle you with the blinding light of promised riches for you and your ilk, and you lay back with visions of owning rooms full of diamond studded 200 inch LCD TVs in multiple McMansions scatterd about the world, and having solid gold condums with which, you too, can fuck the poor with your wealth without having to actually touch them.

    It is neither unions nor socialism that will mark the downfall of this country. Rather, it will be the selfishness, the greed and the self righteous condescension of the Right and the contemptible religious moralists that will cause this nation to collapse into the fetid offal of obscene consumerism and sanctimonious bullshit.

  • Baronius

    …and jaw-busting 105-pound libertarian theorists.

  • Baronius

    Yeah, right, because unions never resort to violence. And Jimmy’s visiting his Dad at his retirement home in Arizona. The Koch brothers, on the other hand, hang out with thuggish chemical engineers and financial traders.

  • Arch Conservative

    Why is it that every loud mouth leftist moonbat and his mother claims to be speaking for the “working people of America” while advocating for unions despite the fact that unions make up roughly 7% of the American workforce.

    That’s less than one out of every ten Americans. Clearly Hoffa and the rest of the union goons do not speak for the “working people” or the middle class. They speak for the union thug set and no one else.

    They no their day in the sun is fading fast. Their anger and desperation, while amusing to behold, certainly isn’t winning them any new friends or converts.

    As I recall there were more than few ” loud, angry liberals” around the time of the midterm election. How’d that work out for you Scott?