Here’s why…

Death panels again… FOX, why?

That guy was filling in for Hannity, who is often as brazen as this guy was. But that wasn’t the point. The point was that FOX had that crazy Death Panels lady on there again even after she was humiliated in the last round.

Hannity’s job is to represent the hard Conservative side of things, and have fun doing it. Having a Nut Rocket on his show representing his side doesn’t help with that. I don’t know who the other lady was, the one defending the clause, but she didn’t do a very good job. She spent more time acting exasperated than she did calling the crazy out.

Like I always say: “Don’t argue with a crazy person. It validates their crazy.” It’s like arguing with a 9-11 Truther. You can’t.

They bring up the melting point of steel.

You tell them it’s irrelevant because steel has only to get slightly warm to lose half its strength.

They call you a sheep for believing everything your government tells you.

You stammer momentarily, trying to understand what they mean, trying to remember the last time your government told you anything.

They assume your pause and surprised look means they made a valid point.

It starts back a few days ago when Bill O’Reilly was on The View, a show where women talk inanely about issues. [no, I'm not saying every woman in the world is on this show] The group was thoughtfully discussing why Obama is having so much trouble with the American people.

O’Reilly was making the point that there exists between Obama and the average Americal a huge proverbial chasm separating how they see the world. His example of this disconnect was the mosque controversy in NY. Obama approached the issue as though it were one of freedom of religion – while 70% of Americans see plainly that building a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight is inappropriate because [and here it comes] Muslims killed us on 9-11. This statement caused Whoopy Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set (then walk right back on).

I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with “The Ground Zero Mosque”. And personally, I don’t like how Bill described his idea. I don’t think it actually offended any Muslims, but saying that sort of thing gives bitchy Liberals more little sticks to swing and unfairly further the crazy-O’Reilly-narrative with their Teabagger generalizing double-standard. He could have used better words, and the words he used distracted all the stupid people – the ones who need to listen – from the very true point he was making.

The fact is: Muslims did kill us on 9-11. There was a network of guys who pulled off an attack on our country and killed over 3000 people, and those killers did this based on ideas and motivations found in their sect of Islam. Also, one of the biggest threats to peace in the world right now is radical Islam. People know this. This is what people think. Bill said it too simply. He assumes American’s have good sense and don’t need crayons. He’s right. What other society would have had zero backlash against Muslims after 9-11?

The average American starkly sees why constructing a Mosque so close to the site of mass-murder by Muslims is offensive. These Americans aren’t interested in limiting the freedom of anyone’s religion, or keeping Liberal support for a political agenda. They just see this as common sense, best to avoid, find another spot, respect the victims’ suffering. The President has a different way of looking at the issue – apparently. That’s the point Bill was making before he stepped in it.

So since then Bill has been hashing over this whole big to-do, complaining about political correctness running a muck, how it’s wearing on the American people’s constitution for politeness. He is right. It is difficult to have this much needed conversation because everyone is expected to pretend that they don’t have any less-than-enlightened inclinations about Muslims – it’s just those other guys we have to reeducate.

So a couple days ago Bill is having a Factor debate, which includes a contributor representing either side. Juan Williams is representing the that-was-a-stupid-thing-to-say-Bill side, and someone else was representing the Muslim-problem side. Besides working as a contributor on Fox News, Juan did the same thing for NPR, until 36 hours after this debate. Here it is:http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4381309/factor-debate-over-danger-from-muslim-world/?playlist_id=86923

Now, Juan is a really likable guy. He’s friendly and honest. He’s one of those guys who you can never count on which side of the issue he’ll fall – but you can count on whatever he says, it will be sincere and thought provoking. He’s not toeing anyone’s line, in other words, and makes great points and always adds to the conversation. He’s my favorite kind of contributor. He makes me think and question my ideas.

Right off Juan concedes that Bill is right about one thing: Political correctness is run-a-muck. He also added that this is a bad thing because an over-adherence to political correctness makes needed conversation impossible because it forces people to ignore reality. He then went on to describe an example of the problem, that he himself feels uneasy when he sees people dressed in Muslim garb boarding his plane. He wasn’t advocating such feelings, he was making a factual statement, highlighting a problem he himself is part of, and went on to argue against Bill’s use of words, because they could further this problem.

So 36 hours later, after receiving pressure from CAIR (a Muslim civil rights group), NPR abruptly cans Juan over the phone, an employee of 10 years. The fool president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, claimed the reason for the firing was that Juan, as an NPR contributor/corespondent, isn’t supposed express opinion.

And this is where the fun begins. I swear, it’s like NPR forgot my birthday, just remembered, and felt guilty and got me something REALLY good.

1. Juan wasn’t expressing opinion. He was stating a fact, a helpful fact in countering Bill’s MuslimsKilledUs argument, and a necessary fact in the Muslim-American discussion.

2. There are numerous other correspondents and contributors for NPR on record making all kinds of offensive opinions at all kinds of venues. None have been fired.

3. Juan was holding up the pro-Muslim side of the Factor debate. So it’s obvious that those ninnies on NPR and the jerks at CAIR ignored the context of the statement, or didn’t even bother to read the whole transcript, and imprudently fired a very respected journalist in order to further petty political ends. They’ve been looking for a reason to cut this Fox guy out. Juan Williams, a black man on FOX, a FOX/NPR contributor, harms the Faux News narrative they try to spin.

Vivian Schiller then goes on TV and says that Juan’s opinions should be shared with his psychiatrist and publicist, not as an NPR contributor. Juan was also the ONLY black person on NPR – lol.

Now EVERYONE is pissed – across the spectrum. ALL the ladies on the View think NPR made a mistake, those morning idiots on MSNBC say NPR should hire him back, Bob Beckel [liberal political annalist] is forgoing his yearly donation to NPR in honor of Juan Williams, and the Fox people are PISSED their buddy Juan got screwed and are having a hard time keeping it professional [I love Megan Kelly]. The only non-anti-NPR report I read was a Times piece trying to present the controversy as a FOX-opinion-journalism vs NPR-fact-journalism debate… please… The Times and I stand in line together for food stamps…

Now it’s apparent that NPR REALLY stepped in the warm sticky shit. People are advertising their funding sources. A movement has started efforts to remove NPR’s Federal funding. It’s fund raising week – lol. And this whole thing has proven that NPR is a Liberal organization and has totally undermined their credibility.

Now I understand many don’t feel NPR is unfairly Liberal. That was my sentiment as well. I was kidding myself of course, just like you, but I can’t stay convinced any longer, not with this idiot Schiller at the helm, not with George Soros giving them 1.8 million dollars, not with this blatant double-standard, not with this obviously politically motivated knee-jerk vilification of a good man. And seriously – this was just a plain stupid move. It’s blown any credibility I personally had in the organization’s editorial choices – the opposite of the stated intention.

There’s more to come I’m sure. Schiller is going to get canned I bet. She may have ruined NPR. They might have to stoop to capitalism, or worse yet, STOP PLAYING PRAIRIE FUCKING HOME FUCKING COMPANION, or tone down their minimum three shows a day focus on something about homosexuals.

Happy Birthday to me.
NPR’s up a tree.
ACORN their funding dear congress.
He he he he he he.        

I usually have to keep a bag of salt handy when I watch Hannity. But this segment was good. He had Oliver North on and they were discussing what a former ‘associate’ of Bin Laden said recently about Al Qaeda’s assumptions about American reaction to the attacks they were planning for 9-11.

According to the associate they figured it would be a Clinton response but, “maybe 200 cruise missiles.” And apparently they were shocked as shit when Bush appeared in their back yard and started blasting them out of their caves. lol

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.

For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain.

For Professor Dove: My belief that Obama is trying to merge to two Americas is based on his background and political actions. Apart from a few token consessions, nothing he’s done has been for those with power and money. That’s basically the opposite of GWB. Obama’s pushing this current healthcare reform, which will be harmful to everyone except the 40 million uninsured Americans. The democratic goody-bag (aka economic stimulus) did little for businesses, and much more for “the little guy.”  And as to your comment:

“It does, however, appear that Obama is trying something drastic to help the poor.  But capitalism doesn’t exist without the poor.  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how America will look in 15 years as far as the inner city world, the well-off world, and how the overall economy will function.”

I have no idea how things will look. I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

? The war in Iraq was a success. Maybe you were too little to remember Dr. Dove, but it was the lack of an immediate victory strategy that got us into trouble. No one predicted Iraq would fold up like a paper bag and we had ‘control’ of the place before we were ready – which allowed the insurgency and made for hasty arrogant decisions.

I don’t want to talk about your odd idea that Bush had economic gain in mind for the war. That’s about as logical as Bush planning 9-11 or the outsourcing with cheaper foreign CEO idea.

The argument that Bush went in so as to stake a sizable military presence in the area – that’s logical. That’s what I figured would at least be the bonus affect of the war from its beginning. We need a presence there badly. The alternative was to keep two carrier groups in range indefinitely.

Regan did exactly what needed to be done. He stimulated business and we quickly emerged from the recession. He did the opposite of what Carter was doing, which was keeping us in the recession, AND IS WHAT OBAMA IS DOING NOW BUT WITH EXTRA ZERROS.

And I appreciate your compassion. But if you truly care about your fellow man test what you’re going to inoculatehim with first. This whole Liberal idea of pumping money into second America is the reason there still is a second America. As the standard of living in America grew, more people moved out of industrial areas – like Detroit – and many factories shut down and went elsewhere – probably due to union concerns.

The Lefties like Obama have the idea that “They’re going to hurt people with money, and they’re going to try to help those without it.” Now shit, if that actually worked, or if we didn’t know if it worked, I’d say give it a go. BUT IT DOESN’T FUCKING WORK, WE KNOW THAT. Trickling welfare into the ghettos is the reason we have ghettos and weird housing projects. When you give someone money you teach them not to try, especially when you give them just enough to keep living a miserable life right where they’re at – only able to afford the bare necessities and develop animosity. This same thing happens in small country towns. If they want more money the options are: Have a baby or commit crime.

“If that means greater government control of business, and less individual freedom, I think that’s sacrifice he’s willing to make.” What if the history of the last century isn’t all fables and analogies? Dr. Dove, the way to help the second America isn’t to taper down the success of successful people and trickle a bare subsistence onto the poor. It’s giving the poor reasonable jobs. And the way you give them jobs is to stop scaring the shit out of everyone trying to make something out of American.

Anything is better than this cycle of poverty Liberals love to create with their compassionate hearts. Even allowing people to become millionaires and hire away Democratic electorate.

Oh let me – let me.

Cap and trade will chase numerous factories out of the country, causing further flight from small towns and urban areas to commercial suburbs – creating new poor people and stranding them next to their closed former employer.

The new taxes will function similarly. Few millionaires will feel comfortable expanding their businesses and hiring people, which will keep the level of unemployment high. We will eventually see the two Americas merge in the sense that more and more Americans fall out of the job market and demand government aid, which causes government to increase taxes to supply the aid, which further harms productivity, and forces more people out of their jobs, and eventually out of the job market all together, where they are forces to demand government aid.

You might think the cycle would become obvious and politicians would stop the tax and make game, but they won’t, because they haven’t yet, not on the left anyway. The poor people who have no hope of finding work in the newly merged American continue electing whoever promises the biggest prizes.

We continue taking the millionaire’s millions and giving the poor their hundreds. Obama sees not everyone isgetting enough eggs, so he wants to slaughter some chickens to feed them (since some farmers have more chickens than they need anyway) – and assumes we’ll have the same or more eggs later.

The analogy is valid. Over taxing an evil millionaire takes away his ability to reinvest into his operations. This means – of course – less investment and less growth – less new jobs and fewer old jobs. Better to let the millionaire build his ideas and aspirations – which involves hiring people and training them with valuable skills. And if you want to help the dirt poor folks, lower the minimum wage. Stop cutting unskilled people out of the job market – which is what min-wage does. Get some operations near those poor areas to take advantage of the labor. The poor can finally start working their way out of those miserable ghettos, projects, and dead towns.

In other words, let the farmers keep more chickens than they need. What they’ll do is convert some of their egg production into making new chickens. Eggs will get cheaper and in greater supply. Then we’ll all have eggs.

It you want eggs stop killing the fucking chickens!!!!!

I think a better question to ask Dr. Dove is: How, using economic science, will these policies of Obama actually help anyone? Because even if wealth were a constant, and we took ALL the rich people’s money, there wouldn’t be enough to welfare the poor into middle class. So redistribution won’t work, even without counting the fact that it destroys the source of what it’s distributing.

OK, so I’ve finally gotten a free minute to think about something other than cancer. I’m back in the conversation.

…the main difference between Bush and Obama is thusly:  I truly believe that Bush sought additional governmental power for the soul sake of protecting us.  I once believed Obama would fall in that same category, but based on my observations, I believe he seeks government power to control us and industry.  Maybe that is too far.  I never once thought that Bush had an underlying political agenda other than to protect us, strengthen our military, and support long-term economic growth.  Obama, to me, has an underlying political motive that scares me, mainly because I am not sure what it is.  I can only guess.  My guess is less power for the people.

I appreciate Professor Dove’s sincerity. It makes having a thoughtful conversation with someone with a differing opinion much easier. Bush and Obama are both guilty of having an underlying political agenda. Bush’s was taking control (for our economic gain, of course) of one of the most oil rich countries in the world. He pretended like we needed to take over Iraq because they had WMDs. That wasn’t true, and the intelligence was cooked. If lying about your motivations for attacking a sovereign nation doesn’t count as having an underlying political agenda, I don’t know what does.

Regarding Obama:
There are two Americas. We all belong to the first. We’re part of a group that has a decent chance of gaining economic stability. Even though our high school wasn’t the best, it at least gave us the bare bones we needed to get into and through college. Health insurance is relatively easy for us to come by, because we either have jobs or have the intelligience to find alternate ways to get it. None of us has been shot at, our parents weren’t single and 17 years old when they had us, and our experience tells us that selling crack and basketball aren’t the only two ways to escape hell, and get money and respect. That’s the second America. The inner city is large, and millions of people live there. They have no hope, because they’re ignorant (schools are horrible…I went to college with a few for a couple weeks…not pretty…ill prepared for anything but 6th grade), poor, and desparate.

Obama’s goal is to help merge the two Americas. If that means greater government control of business, and less individual freedom, I think that’s sacrifice he’s willing to make.

Reagan couldn’t have cared less about the second America. Homelessness exploded under his economic leaderships, as did the number of individual millionaires. The Bonfire of the Vanities is a classic book abou thelater. Obama doesn’t think that’s right.

Obama’s going to lie about how his ecnomic plans will help everyone. They won’t. They’re going to hurt people with money, and they’re going to try to help those without it.

Whether or not throwing money at the problem is going to work (standard democrat logic) is a totally different question. Then again, the trickle down effect wasn’t exactly a success either. Kind of like the war in Iraq.