Today on Blogcritics
Home » Five Reasons Liberals Should Detest Welfare

Five Reasons Liberals Should Detest Welfare

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!”

If you know anyone who is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who don’t know, I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.

Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their moral value of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?

It seems logical that people should be able to choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:

If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone!

You self-righteous sons of bitches. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readers of this article to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep. Liberals shouldn't worry about conservatives not giving enough money to the poor. However, I (and I'm sure many conservatives would agree with me) would be willing to trust the libs will give a fair share to charity if it meant ending the government mandated welfare state.

2. “Freedom of choice!”

One liberal argument goes like this:

I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.

Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good human's responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.

I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.

This flies in the face of facts and history since the government has spent trillions on welfare and hasn’t put a dent in the poverty levels.

3. “Don’t be simpleminded, be nuanced like me…”

How many times have we heard the libs say Bush’s arguments are simpleminded and ignore the nuances. Sometimes it gets to the point where it is comical. One man’s nuance is another mans nitpicking I suppose. Sometimes I think liberals just like the word “nuance”. I can understand them – I like it too.

However, there is no case of ignored nuances more prevalent in American politics than in the way we treat poor people. The liberal line of logic goes something like this:

Rich people have money. Rich people can use money to buy things. People like things. Poor people don’t have money. Poor people can’t buy things. Poor people are sad. Poor people need money.

It goes something like that anyway. Whatever the line of logic, it ends with poor people needing money. That is why welfare – the main way the government helps the poor – involves handouts. After all, poor people need money, so let’s give it to them.

Thankfully, I, along with many nuanced conservatives understand that this is false. You know the problem with poor people? They have freedom of choice – that is the problem. As long as people have the freedom to make bad choices, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to drop out of high school, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to get pregnant with no husband to support them, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to abuse mind-altering substances, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to refinance their homes every six months, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy cars that are above their means, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy 30 lottery tickets a week when they can barely make rent, poverty will exist.

The fact is that most poor people have made big mistakes in their lives – and more often than not, they repeat those mistakes.

4. True compassion…

If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.

One sentence KO.

5. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

More liberal logic:

George Bush has too much power and he is abusing it.

My simpleminded foes. Here is a line of logic that makes sense.

Money = power. More money = more power. Power will corrupt. The more power one has, the more corrupt they can be. Therefore, more money = more power = more corruption.

If you want a less corrupt government, take away their money. That is the only way. You cannot reform government to be subordinate. It is an untameable monster. This is why the founding fathers (in their infinite wisdom) pushed for limited government. Since welfare essentially makes up half of the 2006 2.6 trillion budget, it’s a logical target when wanting to curb government power.

 

Rather than just being another asshole critic, I will support what I have said with answers.

1. Pushing morals on others unnecessarily is a real issue. One way to avoid this in our welfare state would be to allow people to opt out of Social Security, and put that money in their 401k.

I know the arguments against this, but if you can honestly claim that you feel safer with Social Security than a 401k, then you are a retard. The fact is that no one actually believes the stock market is too risky to invest in. That idea is rhetoric used by Democrats to feel better about the fact that they have taken an anti-freedom stance on this issue. Every single Democrat in the House and Senate has money in the stock market. When they pull their money out, I will start to believe them when they say privatizing Social Security is risky.

2. Choice is the key word here. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the government said that we have to give ten percent of our money to a certain type of cause. If one person was helped by a soup kitchen when they were down and out, they could give all their charity to that soup kitchen. If others thought that their college was responsible for their success, they could give their ten percent to their school or to a fund to help students pay tuition.

The beauty of choice is that when it turns out that soup kitchen or that college was found wasting money, funds would immediately drop off the next year. No one would continue giving their money to a cause that was careless with their money. The result would be a strong checks and balances system against fraud and waste.

And hey, just to make the libs happy, we would even let people still give their tax dollars to current government programs – like food stamps. Hurray.

3. Wake up.  We are never going to end poverty. With freedom comes responsibility. The best thing we can do to end poverty is to improve education.

Let’s stop teaching hocus pocus global warming BS to the kids and start teaching them how to shop for a mortgage, the benefits of buying a house while you’re young, and about personal finance. Not to mention how to speak, read and write English.

4. Admit it, the best place to go for help is to family and close friends. That is what life is about. Making personal relationships with people you care about, then depending on each other when things get rough.

5. I don’t even know what to put here. Most liberals can’t admit that their welfare system creates a powerful government. Let me appeal to you now. There is a reason that wars like Vietnam and Iraq didn’t happen until government got bigger… frankly, governments had no money to fight wars before then. You could also make the argument that having a large peacetime military has a lot to do with it, but that argument is for another day. Fact is, more money = more power, more power = more corruption, and all of this means less freedom.

Powered by

About Media Tycoon

  • Clavos

    Heh. Gonna get me a beer and pull up a chair. This is gonna be fun to watch.

    They’ll be coming out from under their rocks any minute now…

  • STM

    Yeah, me too … a couple of coldies and a front-row seat. Watch out for the blood spatter

  • http://www.myspace.com/135553418 Anthony Grande

    People who support welfare aren’t true liberals…they are power hungry hogs who think they can gain personally by exploiting the poor.

    AG

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    Reminds me of a hilarious bumper-sticker I once saw: “Work harder! Thousands on welfare depend on you!”

    Is it any wonder that liberals champion the layabout lifestyle? After all, lazy in body, lazy in mind, lazy in soul. After years of just sitting around, your average welfare recepient will believe anyone spewing any old crap about helping the poor and waging a “war on poverty.” This is because his brain has been addled by too much drink and McDonald’s food, and too much lying around slack-jawed in front of the TV. So now the unfortunate individual in question no longer has the ability to think for himself, due to the brain-wasting disease called government dependency, and he seriously believes that the government is on his side as he keeps collecting check after check after check. Nice “work” if you can get it. And, if you don’t try hard enough, you can! All are welcome to feed at this trough.

    And, isn’t it funny how all the concerns that liberals have about overpopulation suddenly go completely ignored when it comes to women breeding on welfare like rabbits on speed? Extra cash for extra brats? You betcha! That’s a whole new generation that will grow up imprisoned by the liberal ideology! And that, my man, is the reason why liberals will never oppose welfare. It is simply too tempting a form of entrapment.

  • http://www.gimpchronicles.com/ dirk

    welfare leads to war that a new one,boy what a genius you are…
    the facts are its the corporations and the elites who profit the most from government
    corporation are attached to the public tet like parisites
    free trade is an illusion for fools,propagated by big business
    you got it backwards my dear fellow.If you read Karl Marx you will notice big government grew with capitalism,the society Marx envisioned is about associations of free producers,the anti-thesis of big government
    even many socialist have a warped idea about what Marx was really talking about

  • Maurice

    If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.

    Amen. As someone that has lived on welfare and still has many family members on welfare, I repeat, Amen.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    lol…I guess the libs know they have lost.

  • zingzing

    lost? welfare is nearly intractable. let’s see the republicans get rid of it. (that means social security, medicaid and medicare as well, mind you.)

    it can’t be done without losing shitloads–i mean SHITLOADS–of votes. the party that actually kills it off, instead of just throwing up a few words on a website or giving lip service to the idea in congress, will lose power for years to come.

    try it out. think about it. welfare (shit, it’s basically all the government can afford to do these days) is what the gov’t has become.

    it’s a shitty situation. i’ve never used welfare
    (nor social security, which i doubt i’ll ever get to use, nor medicare or medicaid, as i really don’t qualify), but i’ve known people on it, and it’s no fun. you basically get enough for rent, and can’t have no goddamn fun.

    what’s more anti-liberal than no goddamn fun, them fuckin’ decadent bastards?

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Lost the argument, not an election (obviously). Your post proves my point I suppose because you haven’t argued against what I have said, but rather what would happen if someone tried to take away welfare.

    I think if responsible reforms were put in place, no one would lose power, and in fact, the party that did so would be rewarded with more elections. This happened during the last reform the Republicans did in the 90’s. They should have done more when they had the chance.

    Anyone who opposes the privitization of Social Security is either an imbicile or hates freedom. There is no other reason to be against it. My dad, who doesn’t have a college education, knows nothing about the stock market, and is in fact a little skeptical of the stock mareket (or at least WAS) made 17% last year with his 401k. Social Security is a nationwide piramid scheme that is waiting to colapse. Privitization would change that and make it legit once again.

  • Liberal Straw Man

    Help! I’ve been knocked down!

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    #10 lol

  • Nancy

    Actually, the biggest ‘welfare’ going in the US today is corporate welfare. Arch, MT et al, 90% of your tax dollars are expended on supporting & handing out bales of money to megacorporations (which DON’T need it) via special subsidies, tax breaks, etc., thanks to your buddies & Fearless Leaders, Dubya Bush & Dirty Dick Cheney, the ultimate corporate welfare pimps.

    I don’t hold much with unlimited welfare; and not at all with women who breed while on welfare. IMO such persons should be forcibly sterilized, along with mental defectives, all neocons, the religious right, the Bush twins, Cheney’s daughter, & Ted Kennedy. I think the revised “workfare” program is much better, & I’m glad to see it growing among various states. However, I’m also not stupid enough to think that cutting off Mama doesn’t effect the kids, who are after all innocent. What are you gonna do – let them starve & die? Here on the streets of the US? Have them live in cardboard boxes in alleyways like strays? First off, that’s not going to produce useful, working, productive citizens. All it’s going to produce is pimps, drug addicts/dealers, and other such dregs. I sometimes think it might be better to take such kids & give them the best possible free education via boarding schools to get them away from the culture of criminality & failure. I think about some cousins of mine & figure they can’t possibly have had a worse life at a boarding school than they had with their ‘natural’ parents. But then we’re getting into socially mandated government interference with The Family, I suppose.

    BTW the only straw man that got knocked down was your own; you’re just too dumb to realize it. Hoist with your own petard, & in ignorant bliss about it.

  • Clavos

    Arch, MT et al, 90% of your tax dollars are expended on supporting & handing out bales of money to megacorporations (which DON’T need it) via special subsidies, tax breaks, etc.

    Oh please, Nancy. Not even you believe that. 90%? What about all that money being spent on Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Veterans healthcare and benefits? Federal employee benefits and retirement? etc., etc?

    I don’t hold much with unlimited welfare; and not at all with women who breed while on welfare. IMO such persons should be forcibly sterilized, along with mental defectives, all neocons, the religious right, the Bush twins, Cheney’s daughter, & Ted Kennedy. (emphasis mine)

    “Forcibly sterilized, eh? So you must think Hitler was a pretty good guy, huh?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    In Nancy’s mind when a government office contracts with Dell to buy new computers that’s ‘corporate welfare’.

    Dave

  • methuselah

    As of 3-4 years ago the Senate/House Joint Tax Committee reported annual people welfare at about $30billion/year and corporate welfare at $170billion/year. More recent numbers are about the same for people with corporate going to $320b.

    This administration has increased government size about 40%.

    Social Security is not welfare, but rather a pre-paid insurance system which actually produces a surplus every year. Indeed, this administration ‘borrows’ about $53b each year to spend on it’s excesses. The SSA gets ‘special’ T-bills that only the government can redeem. Privatization schemes have failed to address the problem of redemption, leading many to believe that redemption will be simply forfeited, which many regard as simply theft.

    The preponderance of welfare is taken by large corporations, not welfare queens. Besides the cost to taxpayers, handouts to companies defeat the competitive benefits of free markets by favoring one competitor over another. Fixed price and no-bid contracts are especially negative since the overhead of private operation is about 30% vs. 3% for federal government administration (cf. SSA vs. private health plans).

    All enemies of welfare should turn their attention to the excesses of federal handouts to major US companies. The bloat is there, not some bum who’s on Workers Comp.

  • zingzing

    mt: “Your post proves my point I suppose because you haven’t argued against what I have said, but rather what would happen if someone tried to take away welfare.”

    so reform it, then. it hasn’t fucking changed. why is it still such a large part of the budget? got any ideas on how to really get rid of it?

    methuselah, you are a saint. there you go conservative strawmen, suck on that.

  • Nancy

    Thank you, Methuselah, ol’ bean. I appreciate the stat support. I just know what I read in the WP, NYT, & WSJ. Dave – it’s amazing you KNOW what’s in MY MIND????!!!!! Shit – next time I can’t figure out where I left something, I’ll email you so you can read my mind & tell me where it is. No, I DON’T consider that corporate welfare. You know damned good & well what is corporate welfare & what is normal corporate business. I shouldn’t have to define it for you – or anybody else with enough burnt-out braincells to frequent this site.

    Clavos – I wuz being facetious, sorta. I still advocate forcible sterilization of BushCo & neocons, tho. Maybe I should have specified “moral defectives” instead of “Mental Defectives”.

  • methuselah

    Corporate welfare SHOULD be reformed, lest we become paralyzed by the heavy burden it places on all our citizens and all our markets.

    Usually the federal government does not eliminate a superfluous or expensive benefit to business, but rather it creates compensating handouts.

    For example, when interstate trucking started to become a significant business in the early 20th century, the truckers complained that they were at a competitive disadvantage WRT the railroads, who had been substantially subsidized by the feds, whether in outright land grants for right-of-ways or ongoing subsidies in the form of federal shipping contracts and special tax breaks. Rather than simply eliminate the ongoing rail subsidies, the feds chose to create favorable rules and taxes for the truckers AS WELL, imagining that this would level the field. That’s why diesel fuel taxes were unreasonably low and roadways were built to carry heavy axle loads and overpasses to clear big trucks. All of which were unnecessary for the passenger cars of the motorist/taxpayers who were paying for it with high gas taxes and personal income taxes.

    Imagine the consternation of airlines which came along to discover that railroads and trucks had huge subsidies that put shipping airlines at a ruinous disadvantage. Again, the feds, afraid to upset their patrons in rail and trucking, chose not to revoke those favorable subsidies, but rather to create new favorable subsidies for airlines, e.g., subsidized airports and airmail.

    The net effect of these subsidy/welfare schemes has been to shift cost burdens to under-represented individual taxpayers and at the same time to shift government outgo to corporations. Indeed, for many corps their principle customer is some government and most large corps look first to government for rescue instead of markets.

  • JustOneMan

    Nancy,

    You have the balls er…ovaries to make claims about corporate welfare…you the “hard working” government employee = WHO WASTES OUR TAX DOLLARS BLOGGING ALL DAY LONG!

    Your a disgrace… you make the case for privatization of all governement jobs!!

    NOW GET BACK TO WORK…

    JOM

    PS Dave, she has a mind???

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Social security ($544.82 billion)
    General Family Support ($25.62 billion)
    Aid to Low-Income Families ($206.78 billion)
    Medicare ($345.76 billion)
    Non-Medicare Health Spending ($253.32 billion)
    Unemployment compensation ($39.33 billion)
    Education ($64.07 billion)

    We may or may not spend $170 billion in corporate welfare, but I still consider all this other crap welfare too. I don’t know why people always bring up corporate welfare when someone argues against social welfare. As if I would be for corporate welfare. LMAO. MORON. Of course I am against corporate welfare. Get rid of it all. Problem is, most of you bring up corporate welfare as a desperate attempt to keep your Nanny State in place. Fact is, if you like any type of welfare, then like to control the lives of others and hate freedom. Pure and simple.

    As for how to solve SS…its simple. Bush already came up with the best plan to do the job. Everyone who wants to op-out…let them. They then get to take that 6% they would normally pay in SS tax and use it for their own personal retirement account. The matching funds their company pays continues to pay to the SS slush fund/black hole and pays for all those who are already collecting SS or still want to collect. Will we come up short on the amount of money we need to collect…probably, but we have no other choice if we value freedom of choice and the freedom not to be tied to pyramid/retard scheme.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I still like that no one has actually addressed any of my points. It was pretty slick of methusela to bring up corporate welfare…even though that’s not what this article is about. You may as well bring up Iraq. Here I’ll do it for you…

    “If you REALLY cared about cutting spending, then you would be against the war in Iraq because Bush sucks and I hate him.”

    Yes my liberal know-nothing friends…I know you like the back of my hand. I know what you are thinking before you think it. Give up now and submit to my way of thinking. It is superior and I smell better than you.

  • Clavos

    MT,

    Don’t you read your own threads?

    The first to bring up “corporate welfare” was Nancy (in #12).

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Methuselah, your figures in #15 make no sense at all. Perhaps you could lay out for us just what you think corporate welfare is, since to get the number you’ve reached you’d have to be including a great deal of normal government spending.

    True corporate welfare – bailouts and subsidies – is actually a fairly small amount and is even shrinking a bit.

    Dave

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Yea I saw the #12 post, but I have to WORK during the day and was unable to respond until after I got home.

    And just to clarify here. I am talking about federal spending. I am sure theres tons of corporate welfare at the state and city level. The federal level just doesn’t see that much CW. The biggest examples of CW in the federal government are probably the farming subsidies. Other than that, I wouldnt consider paying a contractor lots of money to build a federal building corporate welfare. You might, but I dont see any other way you could reach $170 billion in CW spending.

    Not saying it doesn’t exist, just that I don’t know about it. If you break down the numbers for the federal budget, there isn’t a lot of room for CW.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    LOL…well that was a good argument.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro nicolo

    My friend is a successful financial analyst representing many countries. He’s apolitical and always found it annoying how partisanship distorted figures. That said, when asked who he thought were the worst offenders he said, “liberal no doubt. They are hopeless when it comes to interpreting numbers and basic economics and finance.” Socialists/liberals (well, they aren’t really liberals they are pseudo-liberals), in their well-intentioned attempts to improve humanity, simply have swept the vices of our ways under the rug. They have not solved anything – in fact, probably made it worse. Here in Quebec the truth is all around us but no one dares question the social/welfare programs (well, except for the ADQ party) that cost an arm and a leg and are always running into problems. The public health system in Canada, for instance, is inefficient in parts because something like 75% of the funds go to LABOUR and the UNIONS. Of course, this is all a right-wing conspiracy to those who ironically want to prevent true changes to Canada’s health care system. Our hospitals are sick – excuse the pun. And not because of the talent or care but because socialist jackals (and a hopelessly intellectually depraved journalist class who spew complete nonsense about privatization and its alleged evils) are preventing us from fixing it. The average Canadian does not see this as a liberal/conservative fight. They just want access to good care in a reasonable amount of time. They aren’t stupid. They see they are taxed for it and feel they are not getting the proper services in return. The people are speaking. And the kicker is that one nationalists claims that no one jumps the line in the Canadian public system. True. Unless you are a gutless shyster politician or athlete. Now that’s egalitarianism, eh? Nancy, for all your hatred of Bush let me tell you I think it applies to many politicians of any stripe. None are speaking for the people. How about the Quebec government and their obsession with legitimizing gambling with their Lotto machines and tickets? Heck, they are far worse than the Mob. At least the mob had the sense to have pay outs. We have a social imbalance in this province (people working versus on welfare) and all this does is suck the poor into gambling. It’s shocking in its immorality. Yet, no one questions it because we are apparently a compassionate society. We’re not. We’re a misguided one. I know this veers off a little from the post but it ties in. Which brings me to the statement MT makes about being loved by a family member: absolutely. Absolutely. Either you believe it all starts from within or you don’t. With their presumptuous postering it seems like contemporary Liberals don’t have faith in mankind – or they lost it. I think they do believe in accountablity and responsiblity but want the government to help out while the family whithers. And that may not be the best way. Ooo, Magnum PI is on. Gotta run.

  • Nancy

    I entirely agree about politicians of ALL stripes. If you’ve ever read a selection of my political rantings, you’ll see me as often lambasting spineless Dems as I do venal GOPs – & urging that we all rise up & hang the lot of them, as a warning to future would-be pols. It’s just that I consider Bush/Cheney to be even more egregious about their sins than the common run of political maggot.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Alessandro: For fuck’s sake use paragraphs will you? Git!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh, and having just read the Media Tycoon’s article above, it’s pretty obvious that he has spent entirely too long in his “Conservative Bastion” and desperately needs to talk to some more open minds in order to avoid seeming like an entirely-too-pleased-with-their-own-intellect stereotype.

    I can’t actually relate to the article at all as it seems to consist entirely of oddly chosen and dishonestly framed issues in which both the problems highlighted and the alternative solutions suggested fail to conform to the reality of contemporary life in any way.

    If it had been written in the late 60s or early-to mid-70s, this time-warped tycoon might have had a valid point or two. As it is, this was entirely made of straw men, off the point “solutions” and the kind of one-dimensional thinking – “Liberals bad, Conservatives good!” – that ought to have been left behind in the 20th century…

  • Clavos

    Would “right bad, left good” work for you Chris?

    That certainly seems to be a more progressive, forward looking, twenty first century way of thinking.

    “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

    Humanitarian and just, right? (or is it just right?)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: No, it wouldn’t work for me.

    I thought you already knew that I don’t work along political, social or spiritual lines of dogma?

    Though I would reluctantly admit to being a part time pragmatist…

    ;-)

  • Clavos

    No, I know you give lip service to your “non-aligned” stances, Chris.

    Nonetheless, the opinions you express on these threads are invariably “progressive” left wing POVs with more than a soupçon of socialism folded in.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Clav, the essential thing in understanding Chris’ appearance of being left-wing or even socialist and yet denying it vociferously, is to realize that he comes from such a peculiar and limited eurocentric worldview that he’s really not talking the same language as those of us who have a more general perspective and especially not those of us who come from a US viewpoint.

    From where he sits what we see as obviously socialist is merely the moderate, non-aligned ‘norm’. For him statist autocracy has become such a given taht he isn’t even aware of its existence, and assumes that anything which challenges that kind of authority as the best basis for government is dangerously radical.

    Makes it weird trying to discuss things with him.

    Dave

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro nicolo

    CR, look how long it took me to master the URL, I promise to be more diligent next time! Git! Whatever that means.

    Nancy: point taken, thanks.

    CR, I see myself as moderate. Once upon a time our social safety net made sense to me. Now, as I grow older I see the cracks and it annoys me that we have no true debate on the matter. People have limits and I think you’re seeing that here. Many simply believe in limited government. The minute one side posits something it’s dismissed as left or right wing even if it isn’t. That’s a problem. I’m not so sure it’s a right/left thing. It shouldn’t be anyway.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    LMAO @ Christopher Rose…you seriously mean what you say don’t you. Everyone is aligned to a political ideology and everyone is blinded by his or her convictions…except you that is. You my friend are the typical self-righteous liberal. You really are. You classify all conservatives as people who don’t “branch out”. I would bet my life that I have more Liberal friends than you have total friends. In fact, I only have a couple conservative friends. Thus is the average life of a young person in America. Most kids are liberal. Once they grow up, they see that people put themselves in the positions they find themselves in. As they are exposed to reality, they become more conservative.

    Churchill said it best…“If you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart. If you are a liberal at 40 you have no head.”

    Thankfully I became a conservative when I was 20.5. LOL

    Again…you haven’t directly argued against anything in my article. Until you do, I suggest you keep your mindless liberal banter to yourself.

    As for me being conservative…I consider myself a true conservative (a religious libertarian). However, most people probably wouldn’t consider me that conservative at all. You need to grow up and actually read my blog before you mouth off on your personal attacks. Attack my ideas in the article, or shut up.

    PS My mind is more open than you could possible imagine. If anyone here could make the most feeble attempt to counter anything that I have said in my article I would consider retracting it.

    NO ONE HAS EVEN TRIED YET.

    Do you know what that tells me? No one can. Prove me wrong.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    By the way…my arguments were liberal arguments…I don’t know if I need to say that again.

    Don’t shove your morals down my throat…

    Freedom of choice….

    We need more nuance…

    True compassion…

    and Bush has too much power…

    its all garbage, but it’s easy for the liberal mind to digest…at least that’s what I thought. STill, no one has been able to come up with one argument against what I wrote. The best attempt was…

    LETS STOP CORPORATE WELFARE….

    good try, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

  • STM

    MT said: “Churchill said it best…”If you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart. If you are a liberal at 40 you have no head.”

    Churchill didn’t actually say that, old boy, or anything like it. It’s a common misquote. Please do your bloody history homework when trying to use quotes from a great Briton for your application of misguided American right-wing reasoning (oxymoron?) in such a feeble attempt to tip a bucketload of sh.t over one of Sir Winston’s perfectly reasonable and moderate countrymen :)

  • sr

    Has anyone heard from Jet lately and how he is doing. Just wishing him well. Thanks.

  • STM

    Yeah, SR, he seems to be doing OK. You can find him on the BC Forums (go to BC main page and click on BC Forums in the top left-hand corner).

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Regarding the spurious Churchill quote, E. B. White has a quote along those lines which is a bit more insightful:

    A man’s liberal and conservative phases seem to follow each other in a succession of waves from the time he is born. Children are radicals. Youths are conservatives, with a dash of criminal negligence. Men in their prime are liberals (as long as their digestion keeps pace with their intellect). The middle aged … run to shelter: they insure their life, draft a will, accumulate mementos and occasional tables, and hope for security. And then comes old age, which repeats childhood—a time full of humors and sadness, but often full of courage and even prophecy.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: Re your #32, if you’re not going to take me at my word and you won’t accept that you and Nalle, as he so eloquently proves in #33, are the ones with the old fashioned, indeed regressive, political views that are offset to the right by the fairly unusual political conditions in the USA, I really don’t see how we can communicate that well. I think I’ll confine myself to simply pointing out the many lunacies of the bizarre world of US politics on both the left and the right.

    Dave, you are rapidly becoming such a prisoner of your own limited world view as to lose all credibility. If you can’t even think straight anymore, to the extent that you seem to sincerely believe in the infallibility of your own thinking,all you do is cast your self in the role of perpetual juvenile. Do let us all know when you finally mature…

    Media Tycoon, when you’ve finished picking your arse up and have cleaned up the mess, wake up and smell the coffee!

    You’re the one that professes to be in a conservative bastion, so you can’t blame folk for taking that seriously. Furthermore, the article you wrote was full of cliche in both the problems and your proposed solutions. If you don’t know that, you have way more problems than you may know.

    Churchill wasn’t actually that great a politician, that’s why, to his surprise, he got booted out of government when WWII was over.

    The quote is often used by people, mostly ageing conservatives, to justify their calcified views. Personally, as neither a conservative or a liberal, I find the remark simply trite. The White quote Dave has added seems similarly forlorn and untrue.

    I was responding to your article above quite directly and didn’t make a personal attack at all. Please try and track reality a bit more closely if you want to be taken seriously.

    As to you being a “true conservative” or “religious libertarian”, I’m frankly baffled. How could a prisoner of dogma, as all faithists are, also claim to be a champion of freedom? At least Dave has freed himself from the faithist burden…

    Finally, you might want to back off a bit with the rampant egomania. I clearly engaged with and rejected your weak arguments in the article above yet you have done nothing but belittle me and my views, failed to engage with my ideas and made several attacks on me personally. I find that neither Christian nor libertarian and frankly lacking in signs of intelligence life.

  • STM

    Chris wrote: “Churchill wasn’t actually that great a politician, that’s why, to his surprise, he got booted out of government when WWII was over.”

    And then re-elected a few years later after Britons realised Churchill was right about Clement Attlee.

    In a famous quote, Churchill, when assured that Attlee (his number two during WWII) was a modest man, replied: “He has much to be modest about”.

  • Clavos

    @#41:

    …you won’t accept that you and Nalle, as he so eloquently proves in #33, are the ones with the old fashioned, indeed regressive, political views that are offset to the right by the fairly unusual political conditions in the USA

    Chris, Chris, Chris, you so totally misread me it’s laughable.

    I can’t and won’t speak for Nalle, but I have NEVER said my political views are not old fashioned; that is after all, what conservatives DO, no?

    As to my views being to the right: again, when have I EVER said they weren’t? OF COURSE they are to the right; I abhor and abjure the left, politically speaking.

    I should have thought that would have been obvious from both my posts and my comments.

    My comment to you had more to do with the charade of non-alignment you profess, while all the while consistently coming down on the side of left/socialistic ideas.

    You can be a lefty all you like; Lord knows (sorry!) you’re in copious, if not righteous, company.

    But your pretense of “independence” is laughable

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro nicolo

    CR, Churchill wasn’t a great politician? I’ve always found it curious how he was booted out.Before the war he warned about Germany while everyone else had the heads up their arses. Sounds quite familiar. He was ignored. Ah, but seeing the error of their insipid ways and seeing that they were fooled by a conniving madman, during the war they looked to the sot to save Britain and Western civilization. His reward? He got booted out. Churchill was always too smart for the commoners. Rubbish as they say in jolly old..

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    A great war politician is a very different critter to a peace time one.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro nicolo

    So in peace you can allow yourself to be fleeced?

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Christopher Rose…

    You are obnoxious above all things. You really are…

    You have not directly argued against any point I have written on. All you said was that it was “cliche”. That is not an argument.

    You also said…

    …you have done nothing but belittle me and my views, failed to engage with my ideas and made several attacks on me personally. I find that neither Christian nor libertarian and frankly lacking in signs of intelligence life…

    this was right after you said…

    How could a prisoner of dogma, as all faithists are, also claim to be a champion of freedom?

    You are retarded, as all liberals are. It is your nature. You can’t help it. So I won’t get mad.

    It is not your fault that your pea-sized brain has led you down the path of intellectual nonsense.

    Faithless heathens are all the same. You declare your freedom from “dogma” and replace it with a dogma that is just as oppressive, but simply lacks divinity.

    Communism killed more people than any other form of government in history. Forgive me if I pass on your godless lifestyle.

    As for the Churchill quote…I am willing to accept that it may be a misquote. Unfortunately, he is misquoted all over the internet, and that does make it hard to check what is a true quote and what isn’t. My ignorance on one misquote by one man in history does not reflect on my grasp of history. Your mischaracterization of one misquote, however, may illuminate the fact that you are self-righteous egomaniac…which may be why you keep saying that I am one.

    You know the old say – it takes one to know one.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx foolkiller

    The original poster proves himself a complete Fool and part of the problem when he writes – “You are retarded, as all liberals are.”

    Thus demonstrating not only blatant partisan agenda and a completely closed mind, but irrational prejudice towards those he does not agree with politically in broad brush way, rather than dealing with individuals and issues.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Sorry if you are too dense to understand the point I was making. Let me spell it out for those who are not as smart as I or Christopher Rosie…

    CR said:

    How could a prisoner of dogma, as all faithists are, also claim to be a champion of freedom?

    What I said was obviously a mockery of what he had said earlier. Sorry if you thought I was an intolerant boob.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave, you are rapidly becoming such a prisoner of your own limited world view as to lose all credibility. If you can’t even think straight anymore, to the extent that you seem to sincerely believe in the infallibility of your own thinking,all you do is cast your self in the role of perpetual juvenile. Do let us all know when you finally mature…

    This in response to my entirely neutral post quoting E. B. White? How does that follow?

    That’s not even my opinion, it’s his.

    Grow up, Christopher. You’re not doing yourself any favors by this petulant and aggressive behavior.

    Dave

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I really should have used the “close-minded” argument in this posting. That is always a liberal favorite. A liberal who belittles a conservatives view is “passionate”. A conservative that defends himself against liberal personal attacks is “close-minded”. Figure that one out.

    The close-minded argument has always baffled me. When did that become a legitamite point to argue. Even if someone is close-minded, it doesn’t make them wrong. Argue the facts.

    From now on, when someone doesn’t agree with me, they are close-minded.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Dave –

    You are a slave to your ideology. Please think like me or you will forever be close minded.

    Love,

    Media Tycoon

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I know, MT. It’s a terrible problem. I’ve hardly even commented on this thread, but my close-minded posting of a mid-20th century writer’s opinion on politics and maturity has damned me forever.

    Let me share another quote from White:

    “When I was a child people simply looked about them and were moderately happy; today they peer beyond the seven seas, bury themselves waist deep in tidings, and by and large what they see and hear makes them unutterably sad.”

    More to come. He was a sharp guy and philosophically and politically he was a positivist.

    Dave

  • STM

    MT said: “My ignorance on one misquote by one man in history does not reflect on my grasp of history. Your mischaracterization of one misquote, however, may illuminate the fact that you are self-righteous egomaniac… ”

    It was me who pointed out the misquote, old boy, not Dave … although he may have taken advantage of it to point out some flaws in your arguments.

    And Chris Rose is right about Churchill: he was a good soldier, and a brave one, and a great wartime leader but an ordinary peacetime politician. However, his wartime Prime Ministership DID set the stage for the process that led to the dismantling to a certain extent of Britain’s centuries-old class system – of which Sir Winston himself was a beneficiary.

    I don’t think he was ever a liberal in the sense you use the word. His wife, however, was.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro Nicolo

    Thanks CR and STM. I now know a little more about Churchill.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Media Tycoon: As I’m the Comments Editor, I’m not going to edit out your personal attacks on me but if you keep doing it, I’ll have no choice but to ask one of my colleagues to do it for me. Please try and maintain a basic level of courtesy so I don’t have to…

    As to the “substance” of your comment #47, I can’t actually find any so I’ll simply move on.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Yea I’m crying for you. You are the one who started the personal attacks. Just stick to the topic and argue the ideas or stop commenting.

    As for the statements about Churchill, I would go farther than anyone else here. He was actually a narcissistic weirdo. Very much like LBJ. The only reason I used that quote is because I think it’s funny…not because I like him.

    One more thing…as for the “substance” I probably shouldn’t have responded to anything any of the detractors here have said. The only thing that any of you have said that is of substance is that my Churchill quote was a misquote.

    Every other comment was just nonsense. That or hatred – as displayed by CR towards people who choose to have any sort of spiritual faith. It’s too bad that I can’t make a passing comment about my faith without being personally attacked. I expected more from compassionate liberals. :(

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Media Tycoon: I really hope your self-appointed title is ironic because any media you’re a tycoon of must have some really scary subjectivity going on.

    I doubt very much that I’ve said anything that goes outside the comments policy but, if you think I have and want to take it further, let me know exactly what you have a problem with and I’ll refer it to the site owners.

    I am quite compassionate but I’m certainly not a liberal. I also don’t accept that I displayed any hatred at all towards any faithists, yourself included. If anything I feel a mixture of compassionate sympathy mixed with regret for all that misplaced emotion.

    Any time you want to make a serious case for your spiritual views let me have a substantive argument which starts by coming up with some compelling evidence for the existence of any gods at all.

    If you can actually do that, I might even sign up for some worshipping. I suspect you won’t be able to do that as no faithist I’ve called on it has been able to – yet!

  • Clavos

    I am quite compassionate but I’m certainly not a liberal.

    Riiiiiight…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: for the last time, if you continue to assess my remarks in terms of your American political understanding, you’re going to continue misunderstanding what I say. I’ll leave it up to you to decide who that makes look like a dork…

  • Clavos

    No, Chris, I understand what you say perfectly, juvenile American viewpoint notwithstanding.

    However, even with understanding, I disagree with 95% of it.

    I’ll leave it up to you to decide who that makes look like a dork…

    That would depend on the observer, wouldn’t it?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    No you don’t!

    And, no, it wouldn’t.

  • Clavos

    The implication, being, of course, that because I don’t agree with you, I don’t understand?

    Is that not just a tad presumptuous?

    I’m reminded of the old cliche about everyone in the parade being out of step…except for you.

    Heh.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    It’s funny…I leave for months and come back to BC only to see Christopher Rose still trying to deny that he favors the left in all things!

    Good luck with that Lie CR…maybe someday you’ll find some gullible little boy to believe you…the same ones that believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny!

    One of the worst things BC ever did was put someone as liberal as you in charge of the comments policy! It’s also one of the main reasons I left!

    I think you might actually be more anti-American than the Taliban!!!!

  • gonzo marx

    et tu, Andy?

    you might want to search the site for “Vox Populi”

    (this one was just for Andy, since he missed so much… *gonzo* is still out of here)

    Excel….aww…fuck it.

  • Nancy

    GONZO – ! YOU’RE BACK – !!!!! AS Gonzo, too! I thought perhaps the famed Me. mosquitos had taken you to the beach & eaten you. Nice to see your name again.

  • Nancy

    Give my regards to JuJu.

  • MCH

    Andy;
    You forgot to remind us about your 20 years in the Navy.

  • you know who

    not back, Nancy..skimming, and saw Andy…realized he would not know “D’oh”…and wanted a parting shot.

    JuJu returns the greetings and reminds you to bring peanuts.

    Be Well

    30

  • Nancy

    Oh, I know; but I missed “Gonzo” anyway. He was/is a lot snide-er than D’oh. Sharper tongue & all that. I’ve missed him – AND JuJu, may his tusks never yellow.

  • MCH

    “Dave, you are rapidly becoming such a prisoner of your own limited world view as to lose all credibility.”

    Dittos! But what else should we expect from someone who lives in a fortified compound and kills stray dogs for excitement?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Yeah MCH and you forgot to remind us what you think of career military types…you remember…come on…share with everyone your support of our military…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    nice to see you gonzo!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos: I’m running out of things to say to you! I don’t know if you agree with me or not because we’re not debating an issue but your understanding of my political perspective. I think it’s more a case of you don’t understand me and won’t accept what I’m telling you. Must be that national juvenilia that keeps you insisting you’re right… ;-)

    Oh and look, right on cue here’s another, from the navy this time. Spookily, I was just wondering where you’d got to you a couple of days ago, Mr Marsh.

    I need a good laugh so please tell me, what exactly have I ever said that gave you the impression I’m anti-American? Please try for an answer that is a bit more serious than your Taliban remark too whilst you’re at it.

    As one of the great distinguishing characteristics of the USA is its commitment to freedom of speech, why do you object to someone who is very tolerant editing the comments?

    Would you prefer it if there was a party line, like at some sites, that would automatically block any dissenting opinions? I hope not.

    Anyway, for absolutely the last time, today at least, i don’t go along with party political lines. I believe good ideas, and bad ones, come from all areas of the the political spectrum. The rght has some and so does the left. Come to that, so does the centre ground too. Hell, even you! lol

    All together now, “In the navy, everything is fine, in the navy you can have a good time”. Sorry, giddy!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh, Andy, as a rare diversion from my normally tolerant-to-all-sides approach (think of me as the Switzerland of comments if it helps), I’ve introduced the “MCH Exception”. He’s not allowed to say that anymore -and it’s also perfect for any other one trick ponies that may come along. Just look how MCH has widened his repertoire too!!

  • MCH

    By the way, Marsh, how’s your invasion/occupation going?

    $369.5 BILLION…
    2,562 killed in action…
    23,677 wounded…

    (and counting…)

  • MCH

    Chris;

    I thought the “MCH Exception” only applied to Chickenhawk comments? Andy was asking about how I felt about some of the lifers I served with, who couldn’t make it on the outside and got away with sucking the government titty long enough to get a pension.

    You know, guys who needed someone else to provide them room board; and didn’t mind being told when they had to get up, when they could eat, when they had to go to bed, when they could take a shit…that sorta thing.

  • Nancy

    Christopher, you’re European, aren’t you? If so, why should you be required by anyone to be 100% pro-American?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh yeah, sorry MCH, I misunderstood. Told you I thought of that line as soon as I heard your name! Anyway, I think you’ve said that one enough times now that Andy thinks of it automatically too. See what an affect you have on people?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Stray dogs??? I thought it was cats…if it’s dogs…you’re an asshole nalle!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Damn! I’ve just stood up for someone who’s busy dissing me. Life!!

    Nancy: I’m just staggered that folk like Andy et al come up with such a ludicrous idea. It’s obvious to anyway with a brain that I care a lot about the USA, which is undoubtedly one of the top countries in the world. But, it seems like you can’t say a word of criticism about the USA without some folk overreacting wildly.

    Now, where’ve I seen that charming if frustrating mixture of pride and vulnerability before? Oh! Of course!! Adolescents!!!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    CR – I’m sure i could poke around and find one of the many “juvenile” statements of yours…but I really don’t care…I just find it amusing that you always seem to be defending yourself against this one particular opinion…for at least a year now!

    I did a write up a while back on a book called the Political Junikies Handbook. I didn’t see any bias in it but those on the left really picked it apart…the book I mean…

    So…I guess it’s a matter of perception…sort of like how I perceive MCH to be a complete and total asshole…of course this is only my perception…I could be wrong…he may not be complete yet!

    have a nice day!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I am quite compassionate but I’m certainly not a liberal.

    In American terms he’d have to move considerably to the right to be considered a liberal.

    Christopher, you’re European, aren’t you? If so, why should you be required by anyone to be 100% pro-American?

    Nancy, even Americans shouldn’t be expected to be 100% pro-American. I think all we’d ask of Christopher is that he not be anti-American on the basis of total irrational whimsy.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Dave: Please do us all a big favour and stop using “we” when you mean “I”. It’s incredibly fucking irritating and is a really cheap way of framing a conversation.

    Another is arrogantly categorising somebody’s views as “total irrational whimsy”, or even ruder expressions such as I had to delete yesterday, just because you disagree with them. As Eric Olsen has said, as recently as today, we ought to be treating people with respect even when we disagree with them.

    It’s particularly bad when you start it, as you just have and frequently do, because that then makes it okay for other non-editor types to do the same.

    That out of the way, I kind of have the impression in American politics that when people slam “liberal” views, they quite often mean “tolerant”. Obviously it would sound absurd to slam tolerance so I think they sometimes use the word liberal instead. Any plausible thoughts on that anybody?

  • Nancy

    Oh I agree; no one is required to be a jingoist, nor do I think Chris is anti-American. So I am puzzled as to why anyone else thinks you [he] are [is].

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave: Please do us all a big favour and stop using “we” when you mean “I”. It’s incredibly fucking irritating and is a really cheap way of framing a conversation.

    I’ll keep in mind that it irritates you. Might be some value to that.

    Another is arrogantly categorising somebody’s views as “total irrational whimsy”, or even ruder expressions such as I had to delete yesterday, just because you disagree with them.

    Since I don’t pay attention to what you delete, maybe you ought to email me these supposed rude phrases that I have no recollection of to remind me of what they are so that I can avoid them in the future.

    As Eric Olsen has said, as recently as today, we ought to be treating people with respect even when we disagree with them.

    Even when their actions show that they don’t deserve respect and when they show no respect to other users? Is there a limit?

    It’s particularly bad when you start it, as you just have and frequently do, because that then makes it okay for other non-editor types to do the same.

    Trying to compare my comments to those of the more abusive commentors here and suggesting that I set that tone is incredibly insulting and reinforces my growing belief that you are too out of touch with what goes on in the comment section to do your job effectively.

    I’ve also read a couple of comments from users recently which suggest that YOU are engaging in personal attacks, provoking others and not being policed or held accountable for it. And for the record these comments aren’t just coming from the people whose comments you’re deleting.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    That out of the way, I kind of have the impression in American politics that when people slam “liberal” views, they quite often mean “tolerant”. Obviously it would sound absurd to slam tolerance so I think they sometimes use the word liberal instead. Any plausible thoughts on that anybody?

    It’s more like the exact opposite.

    Tolerance and Liberalism aren’t really far apart conceptually, so if they are using ‘liberal’ in place of ‘tolerant’ then they aren’t being all that inaccurate.

    What people actually do in the US is use ‘liberal’ as a blanket term for anything left of an imaginary middle line, which some of them draw quite far to the right of where you’d expect. This is true for both those on the left and the right. The left likes to claim it is liberal even when many of their beliefs are incredibly illiberal and intolerant, and the right has taken to calling anything they don’t agree with liberal even when it’s anything but.

    In the US the term liberal has essentially lost its meaning as a definition of a specific political philosophy and has instead come to be applied to a particular political allegiance.

    And the fact that you could ask this question the way you do is another reminder of how clueless you are about the US, despite your willingness to judge and condemn it.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Please note, gentle readers, how Dave just can not give way, even when he is demonstrably wrong.

    I’m not emailing you anything, you can remain with the very slack confines of the comments policy that Eric Olsen wrote or get edited just like any body else.

    If you can’t show respect to to other people, people who hold their views with just as much passion as you, why would they then do the same to you?

    If you exercise some self control, I can then back you up. If you won’t, then you’re no different to anybody else here, just a guy with an opinion, no better or worse than anybody else.

    You do set the tone because, laughable as it may seem to you, you are the figurehead of the politics section and, for all your protestations that you don’t care about the comments, you’re easily the most frequent poster. If others see you being disrespectful, of course they’ll do the same.

    As has always been the case, I too am bound by the comments policy and if anybody at all has any kind of problem with the way I do things or any editing or deletion I may do, they are welcome to bring it to either my attention or any of the Messrs Olsen, Winn and Berlin.

    Nobody has done that recently, a thing that can’t be said of you funnily enough, so I don’t much care what you think of my competence to do the job. If you have ANY plausible grievance, you too can bring it up with the troika and I will be most happy to comply with their wishes.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And let me add to my last comment, that the fact that you suggest that the condemnation of the left under the liberal misnomer by some on the right in America is a condemnation of tolerance, shows very clearly how strongly prejudiced you are against America and particularly against the American right, for more than just your intolerance of religion – which I sympathize with – perhaps mostly because you just don’t understand the principles and beliefs this country operates on.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Please note, gentle readers, how Dave just can not give way, even when he is demonstrably wrong.

    And note how Christopher cannot give way and admit I’m right no matter how much the evidence is stacked against him. We’re like brothers from two differnet mothers.

    I’m not emailing you anything, you can remain with the very slack confines of the comments policy that Eric Olsen wrote or get edited just like any body else.

    Emailing deleted comments to me was not a serious suggestion. As far as I am aware I have almost never made a comment which violates the policy as written, and certainly not recently. The fact that you claim to be editing my comments intrigues me because I’ve been unable to find a single one, not just because of my lack of recall about comments, but because after going through them I don’t find any of your usual editorial comments or insertions. So you’re either deleting entire comments I’ve made or not making a hell of a lot of editorial deletions in my comments.

    If you exercise some self control, I can then back you up. If you won’t, then you’re no different to anybody else here, just a guy with an opinion, no better or worse than anybody else.

    The consensus remains that I’ve exercised self-control above and beyond reasonable limits. At one point I recall you even agreeing with this, so don’t change your tune out of convenience.

    Dave

  • you know who

    the last few comments say everything that needs to be said around here

    This says it all and clearly demonstrates the sad state of political discourse in 21st century America

  • MCH

    “By the way, Marsh, how’s your invasion/occupation going?
    $369.5 BILLION…
    2,562 killed in action…
    23,677 wounded…
    (and counting…)”
    – MCH

    “…sort of like how I perceive MCH to be a complete and total asshole…of course this is only my perception…I could be wrong…he may not be complete yet!”
    – Andy Marsh

    Whoa, a touchy subject perhaps, Marsh? And so much for Eric Olsen’s “Andy’s very good-natured” assessment…

  • Lumpy

    I think the analysis above of the confusion over political terminology may miss something. The issue is really further confused by the fact that the elites in the US and the rest of us hqve very different political mentalities.

    The elite have a lot more in common with the euroglobalist worldview and we plebes have a view that’s 2 or 3 or even 5 generations ‘behind’, which I don’t see as a bad thing. It just means there’s a big mass of silently conservative folks who are often ignored but probably shouldn’t be.

    My impression is that the same situation exists in many other countries, but it shows more in the US because we’re such a populist society and the people here identify less with international elites.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’m usually pretty good natured…but you’re just a dickhead MCH and there’s no way around it!

    Sorry CR…but there’s no nice way to put it…how ’bout I call him a penis head…is that more exceptable?

    and those numbers you keep putting up on media tycoons post have absolutely nothing to do with the subject…just more proof that you really are a penis head!

  • Clavos

    Jeez, Andy!

    He’s just a stalker, trying to do his bit to make the world a better place for cretins.

    It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.

    How about a little compassion, huh?

  • methuselah

    Andy: “…you’re just a dickhead MCH …there’s no nice way to put it…how ’bout I call him a penis head…? …you really are a penis head!”

    Why this belligerent preoccupation? Do you really find a penis association to be derogatory?

  • STM

    And wrote: “It’s funny…I leave for months and come back to BC only to see Christopher Rose still trying to deny that he favors the left in all things!”

    Bloody Yanks … bunch of Amero-centric adolescents. Seriously though, I don’t see how you can see Rose’s views as being way to the left. They don’t come across to me as anything more than moderate.

    Perhaps it’s just that American politics is set way to the right of anywhere else in the developed world – and that includes its Left.

    Stop peering up your own blurters, or you’ll disappear.

  • Clavos

    I don’t even want to ask what a “blurter” is, Stan (actually, I think I know).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx you know who

    Clavos…meet Andy.

    You two should get along just fine.

    Andy, your task is to lay the gnostic smack down on Clavos.

  • STM

    “I don’t even want to ask what a “blurter” is, Stan (actually, I think I know).”

    Lol. You’ve been around us Clav, so you know how we think (badly, mostly). Hope you weren’t scarred for life, old boy!

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I don’t know what the hell you are all talking about…

    Anyways, I don’t care about what anyone says. This is the internet. If I was offended by what someone said, I would leave. I wouldn’t complain. I am a true libertarian. Not some bitch that complains when someone says something that is “mean”. When I go on the internet to argue my views, I expect hatred from heathens like Chris Rosie. It makes me stronger.

    As for trying to convert you to my faith…hahaha…you wish. It is people like you that make me want to believe in hell.

    In all seriousness. I admit when I am wrong. I write to get people thinking. The idea is that hopefully they will come up with something smart and teach me something. It hasn’t happened yet after this post.

    If you knew me personally, you would know that I have gotten decisively more liberal since I started my blog this past June. I am the DEFINITION of open-minded. Almost to the point where you could call me a flip flopper actually.

    The difference between me and someone like John Kerry is that I am 23, and he is 90. He should have made up his mind on all these issues 75 years ago.

    You also have to learn that almost everything I say is meant to be funny…even if just slightly.

    Well I hope you all have a good day. I am off to pollute the world, oppress gays, and exploit the poor.

    love,

    media tycoon

    ps my pseudonym is a joke too. lighten up.

  • STM

    MT wrote: “The idea is that hopefully they will come up with something smart and teach me something. It hasn’t happened yet after this post.”

    Well, mate, hopefully you did learn to check and double quotes from Sir Winston you’ve hunted down on the internet to support your arguments, lest they be spurious … the quotes, AND the arguments, that is

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I didn’t search at all for that quote. It was something I had read and heard dozens of times. The quote didn’t make or break my argument. I added it because I thought it was funny. The fact that it was incorrect changes nothing. People misquote others all the time. I admitted I was wrong without even looking it up. I did that because it wasn’t that important.

    As for my arguments being spurious….that is something that no one has really addressed. You have Chris Rose crying about me calling him names after he calls people of faith prisoners of dogma…and you have a bunch of other people who are prisoners of stupidity playing yes-men without saying anything of substance…but that’s about it.

  • MCH

    “…sort of like how I perceive MCH to be a complete and total asshole…but you’re just a dickhead MCH…how ’bout I call him a penis head……just more proof that you really are a penis head!”
    – Andy Marsh

    That’s the best you got? That sounds like something ol’ GW Bush would say, back when he deserted the Guards and was snorting coke everyday.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    The thing about dickheadism is that it comes and goes. I, for example, am a huge total dickhead every morning, but luckily it passes after a few minutes ;-)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Maybe for you CR, but I think MCH’s is terminal!!!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Well, I’m an optimist Andy, so I like to think there’s hope for us all…

    How am I doing by the way? ;-))

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I’m surprised by how many comments of mine have remained intact! So…I’d say you’re doing pretty well!

    I’m starting to realize that MCH is just happy that someone is actually paying attention to him…the problem is, that old saying about leaving him be and he’ll just go away doesn’t seem to have worked for me. I left him alone for quite awhile…but like one of those annoying zits on ones’ ass…he just wont go away!

    maybe if I just put some cream on it…

  • Clavos

    Damn, Andy,

    Wish you hadn’t said this:

    but like one of those annoying zits on ones’ ass.

    Now we’re going to get the Rush Limbaugh post again…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    MCH was the annoying pimple on limbaughs’ ass??? Well I guess if you have to be a pimple on an ass…it outta be a well known ass!

  • MCH

    I’m still trying to figure whose head is fatter: Marsh’s or Limbaugh’s…?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Keep working on it…it’ll come to you eventually…

  • MCH

    “One of the worst things BC ever did was put someone as liberal as you (Christopher Rose) in charge of the comments policy! It’s also one of the main reasons I left!”
    – Andy Marsh

    I call horseshit on this one, Marsh. I’ve seen lots of people come and go on BC in the last 3 years, and one of the most common chickenshit excuses to “leave” is to blame someone else.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    MCH: I think, if you refer back to Andy’s comment #108, he’s already slightly changed his mind on that point.

    What does MCH signify for you anyway?

  • MCH

    Re 108;

    “I’m surprised by how many comments of mine have remained intact!”

    Now, unless I’m reading it wrong…if you allow namecalling (“asshole”, “dickhead”, “zits on ones’ ass”, etc) you’re not too liberal and won’t run people like Marsh off…?

  • MCH

    “What does MCH signify for you anyway?”

    Well, “Vox Populi” was already taken…besides, “The MCH Exception” has a much better ring to it than “The Vox Populi Exception”…

  • Clavos

    Funny

    /snark

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    “my pseudonym is a joke too.”

    It matches your writing.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    It matches your argument… Dumb people with letters for a name aside, my writing is supposed to be funny in an ironic sort of way. Here are all the liberal fallacies rolled into one blog posting and used against them.

    I love it. This posting is a joke…and the jokes on you moron.

  • Alicia

    Currently working on an Economics class persuasive essay concerning the liberal and conservative views on welfare, I generally sided with the liberalists; agreeing to their high moral standards, but once I took the time to read your brilliant article, you could say, “I saw the light.”

    ‘It seems logical that people should be able to choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:
    If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone! …Liberals shouldn’t worry about conservatives not giving enough money to the poor.’

    After reading that particular section of text, I realized that although I strongly support the “every man for himself” concept, it would not be total hipocracy if say, I volunteered for The Salvation Army.

    Finally, a side that has a healthy outlook on the whole issue. A tasty concoction of freedom and morals! Thank you for your entertaining article!

  • bliffle

    Alicia,

    You’re making the common error of amateur economists: confusing morals and economics.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    Yes, people who allow economic policy to be swayed by their moral beliefs by helping the poor are indeed amateurs. There are ways to help the poor without enforcing your morals on the entire tax paying population. Conservatives understand that better than liberals which, I believe, is why they give more to charity.

  • Big T

    There are many problems in the welfare in this nation. There are also many solutions to solve these problems. One way to do it is to create a program in which people are allowed to be on welfare for only 2 to 3 years. After that time they have to apply for an extention in order to keep receiving aid. The people on welfare also are required to find a job within those 2 years or they will become cut off.
    They would have an officer, similar to a PO, to monitor their activities such as trying to find a job. These officers will have the ability to monitor the people’s job search electronically.
    An education program should also be created for the children of the parents on welfare. Welfare runs in the generation. If the parents are on welfare, what are the children doing all day? They are sitting at home playing video games. If these kids were placed in a program to educate them, then our welfare problem will decrease, not disappear.

  • Big T

    I don’t understand also why everyone is namecalling. You people are just immature. I hope you are not all important people that I gave to depend on because if you are, we’re screwed. All you guys are concerned about is kicking each other in the face with a stupid ass comment. So if you want to continue this, then you better have great insults for me or I will feel left out.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    The idea that any “professional” economists are posting comments here is laughable.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Big T, #123:

    That is pretty much the way the TANF (formerly AFDC) program works, except that the timeframe is five years, not two. More precisely, there’s a 60-month lifetime allowance: once you’ve used that up you can’t receive any more welfare, although your kids can continue to do so until they’re 18.

    Also, you have to pursue internships and/or job searches or demonstrate a damn good reason why not. Failure to do so will get you sanctioned (cut off) until you comply. Again, though, your kids won’t get penalized for your screw-ups.

    You’re also responsible for ensuring your kids stay in school, or again, you get penalised. This time, it’s the kid who gets cut off.

    Another restriction is that if you have another kid after having been on welfare for 10 months or more, your grant won’t be increased. This rule was introduced during Clinton’s second term as a nod towards the (rather absurd, in my view) notion of ‘welfare babies’.

    Finally (and this is where a lot of misinformed folks get hot under the collar) you CANNOT get TANF if you are an undocumented/illegal alien. You must be a citizen or a legal resident.

    In a nutshell, the whole system is geared towards weaning people off the welfare teat.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    There are too many freedom hating socialists on this board for there to be anyone with any serious understanding of basic economics. I wouldn’t worry about that Big T.

  • Big T

    Oh I’m not worried at all. I was actually looking forward to seeing what these no-talent assbags could come up with. I just found this site the other day and could not stop laughing at some of the comments that were said. I just want to come in this gathering and put some knowledge in your ears, or eyes in this case. I want see what other ideas people have to fix our problems and see what other insults could be said because I have a whole arsenal of knowledge and insults just waiting to come out.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The idea that any “professional” economists are posting comments here is laughable.

    Does being paid to teach economics make you a ‘professional economist’?

    Dave

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    Technically it makes you a teacher. ;)

  • Big T

    If a basketball player gets paid for playing basketball, what does that make him, Dave? I believe it makes him a professional basketball player.

  • http://canadiancinephile.com/ Jordan Richardson

    If he gets paid for TEACHING basketball, however, it makes him a coach (or whatever).

    I have to be honest, my original comment was a joke that I’ve long since forgotten. Perhaps my explanation will come to me later and I’ll clarify what I meant. I can tell you (Dave) that you were on the wrong track with my intention and my post had more to do with who the disparaging tone of the discussion than anything else. Apologies for any offense.

  • Monica

    These numbers are stuff is not needed. It’s simple, those who work and TRY to make ends meet, deserve welfare. Those who are lazy, take advantage of it, trade in food with money for drugs.. now those can live outside bc i’m not supporting your habit! I’m 19 and I work at WALMART for god sakes and I can afford a brand new 2009 hyundai, my car insurance, health insurance, bills at home (phone, cable, food, clothes, anything I need) Yet there’s people who DONT WANT A JOB, having kids just to get free money.. and their not even feeding their children. Their getting drugs like the junkies they are. [edited]

  • Tim Johnson

    Yeah but who the heck is going to look up moral values fallacy?

  • Igor

    Welfare is good for the economy because it shifts spending decisions from the rich to the poor, where the high Marginal Propensity To Spend results in much higher Economic Multiplier and thus higher money velocity in the economy. More money is spent, mainly on consumer goods. Our GNP is 70% consumer goods.

    It’s the corollary of the “Thrift Paradox”.

    Our resident Econ expert, Dave Nalle, can back this up.