What's the problem with America?
That's easy to answer, a dearth of honest scrutiny.
OH, there is plenty of scrutiny, that's easy to find. But honest scrutiny? It's harder to find than the charitable giving of those that say the answer is to tax the rich.
That's intended to show I'm not above my own criticism. But I look for the other side everyday, I want to uncover what I don't know. I want to understand why half of America believes in one party, while the other half believes in the other party. I don't believe in either.
Likely I have an audience of one at this point. Or two.
I read a post from a friend that quoted Cher.
"If Romney gets elected I don't know if I can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters." (all typos, capitals, and missing definite articles are in the original source, or not)
I think this is one of those quotes that changes every four years to damn the Republican, erase Bush, insert Romney.
Of course, if you haven't heard how Obama wants to destroy America by now, email me, I want to find out where you've been.
I'm not fighting the battles for Romney or Obama, I have my preferences, which isn't hard to discern. I try to be civil, which isn't easy to sustain. Everyone is so sensitive.
I watched an opinion video, with all the bells of whistles of authenticity, save the disclaimer that it is a farce, that compared the Tea Party to the Taliban.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY&feature=share
Scrutiny, or lack there of.
Liberals love to point out the mean and nastiness, the cold-hearted one liners of Tea Party luminaries, but what they fail to understand is that in this nation of two party domination, the Tea Party is the only faction applying scrutiny to the Party nominally on their side.
The critics of the Tea Party love to extract instances of anger and animosity and wrap the whole movement in it.
But you do that to the liberals or Obama, and they are calling you a racist.
Contrast the two grass roots movements within the two parties, and there is no comparison. One wants to reduce the size of government to manageable levels, the other wants to tax more. One side peacefully demonstrates while the other side demonstrates its non peacefulness.
I reckon, that if the Tea Party ever garners the power the left fears, the first beneficiaries of that influence, which would be a leaner, less debt ridden government, would be the left.
But because there is no honest scrutiny, both sides have no real sense of what motivates the other side.
Liberals are often quoting Jesus, and casting Republicans as hypocrites because they want to reduce government. But I can play the over generalizing game and point out that as a matter of record, the Republicans running for President over the last twenty years have out given, donated more, than their Democrat opponents each and every time, therefore the Republicans aren't hypocrites, the Democrats are.
Its not about not helping the poor, its about how to help the poor. More government, or more personal.
I'm not a government guy, and that doesn't make me an American Taliban, nor at odds with helping the poor.
Where is the proof that more government is helping the poor, more to the point, where is the proof that more government has alleviated the need for more government? Which to me is the ends to the means. Helping the poor with more government when more government hasn't helped to lessen the poor seems a little like wishful thinking to me.
There is certain hypocrisy from the left when their Presidential candidates have been exposed as stingy givers all the while pushing the idea that their opponents don't do enough.
Pushing more government isn't equivalent to adhering to the word of God, and by implication, not advocating more government doesn't put you at odds with helping the poor.
Check out the charitable giving, that ought to give a better idea of where these politicians stand on the poor.
p.s.
I'm looking everyday, the right is sometimes kooky and paranoid, just as the left. But the prize for nastiness and incivility is given to the liberals. It seems endemic to them, but they wouldn't scrutinize themselves would they? I've been looking for that too, but there is no subset, like the Tea Party, on the left holding the liberals to honesty.
That's easy to answer, a dearth of honest scrutiny.
OH, there is plenty of scrutiny, that's easy to find. But honest scrutiny? It's harder to find than the charitable giving of those that say the answer is to tax the rich.
That's intended to show I'm not above my own criticism. But I look for the other side everyday, I want to uncover what I don't know. I want to understand why half of America believes in one party, while the other half believes in the other party. I don't believe in either.
Likely I have an audience of one at this point. Or two.
I read a post from a friend that quoted Cher.
"If Romney gets elected I don't know if I can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters." (all typos, capitals, and missing definite articles are in the original source, or not)
I think this is one of those quotes that changes every four years to damn the Republican, erase Bush, insert Romney.
Of course, if you haven't heard how Obama wants to destroy America by now, email me, I want to find out where you've been.
I'm not fighting the battles for Romney or Obama, I have my preferences, which isn't hard to discern. I try to be civil, which isn't easy to sustain. Everyone is so sensitive.
I watched an opinion video, with all the bells of whistles of authenticity, save the disclaimer that it is a farce, that compared the Tea Party to the Taliban.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY&feature=share
Scrutiny, or lack there of.
Liberals love to point out the mean and nastiness, the cold-hearted one liners of Tea Party luminaries, but what they fail to understand is that in this nation of two party domination, the Tea Party is the only faction applying scrutiny to the Party nominally on their side.
The critics of the Tea Party love to extract instances of anger and animosity and wrap the whole movement in it.
But you do that to the liberals or Obama, and they are calling you a racist.
Contrast the two grass roots movements within the two parties, and there is no comparison. One wants to reduce the size of government to manageable levels, the other wants to tax more. One side peacefully demonstrates while the other side demonstrates its non peacefulness.
I reckon, that if the Tea Party ever garners the power the left fears, the first beneficiaries of that influence, which would be a leaner, less debt ridden government, would be the left.
But because there is no honest scrutiny, both sides have no real sense of what motivates the other side.
Liberals are often quoting Jesus, and casting Republicans as hypocrites because they want to reduce government. But I can play the over generalizing game and point out that as a matter of record, the Republicans running for President over the last twenty years have out given, donated more, than their Democrat opponents each and every time, therefore the Republicans aren't hypocrites, the Democrats are.
Its not about not helping the poor, its about how to help the poor. More government, or more personal.
I'm not a government guy, and that doesn't make me an American Taliban, nor at odds with helping the poor.
Where is the proof that more government is helping the poor, more to the point, where is the proof that more government has alleviated the need for more government? Which to me is the ends to the means. Helping the poor with more government when more government hasn't helped to lessen the poor seems a little like wishful thinking to me.
There is certain hypocrisy from the left when their Presidential candidates have been exposed as stingy givers all the while pushing the idea that their opponents don't do enough.
Pushing more government isn't equivalent to adhering to the word of God, and by implication, not advocating more government doesn't put you at odds with helping the poor.
Check out the charitable giving, that ought to give a better idea of where these politicians stand on the poor.
p.s.
I'm looking everyday, the right is sometimes kooky and paranoid, just as the left. But the prize for nastiness and incivility is given to the liberals. It seems endemic to them, but they wouldn't scrutinize themselves would they? I've been looking for that too, but there is no subset, like the Tea Party, on the left holding the liberals to honesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment