Some of you will have noticed that the comment sections of the Week in Greed has gotten a little … chippy of late. A number of conservatives are now reading the column. Good.
The left and right in this country are growing more isolated—and therefore alienated—from one another. Ask yourself: How many of my friends/acquaintances hail from across the aisle?
I felt it was important for Rumpus readers to hear what conservatives have to say for themselves. So I spent the past month interviewing a bunch, some in person (I found Angela, for instance, in the Denver airport, highlighting a Glenn Beck book), and some on-line. I apologize to them in advance for my severe editing and slight reordering. My goal was to capture the gist of what they had to say, not to argue with them. I’ve added brief editor’s notes with factual clarifications when necessary.
***
Angela, a financial analyst, lives in Eagle River, a small city outside Anchorage.
WiG: What does “conservative” mean to you?
Angela: Family, religion, and less government.
WiG: How do you get your news?
Angela: Fox News. I’m a semi-regular viewer.
WiG: Are you following the election coverage?
Angela: Not really. All they do is throw mud at each other.
WiG: Are you familiar with the platforms of either party?
Angela: Not really.
WiG: How do you know what the candidates intend to do?
Angela: It’s whatever I hear on those shows, and I might look something up on the Internet.
WiG: On what sites?
Angela: None in particular.
WiG: What gives you confidence that Mitt Romney will be a good president?
Angela: I’m concerned about the jobs, and preserving traditional values, and our foreign policy, protecting ourselves. I think it’s horrible what happened to the ambassador [in Libya].
WiG: Do you feel President Obama was responsible for that?
Angela: Of course. He said it was over a stupid video. And he didn’t put extra protection on the embassy even though it was the anniversary of September 11th.
WiG: What do you know about Romney’s specific plans to create jobs?
Angela: [Shrugs]
WiG: What do you know about his tax plan?
Angela: [Shrugs]
WiG: What do you like about Romney?
Angela: His religion. I’m Pentacostal, so I don’t agree with his views, but he seems to have more traditional values than Obama.
WiG: In what specific ways are his views more traditional?
Angela: [No response]
***
John, a father of two, works as a manager at Safelite, the auto glass company, and lives in Ohio. Both his parents were both teachers, but he was “politically clueless” until college, where he became a Reagan supporter. He was offended to hear people in a bar cheering because the President had been shot. He’s also troubled by paying too much in taxes, as he feels the government is a bad steward of his money.
John: I consider myself a conservative, probably a little more libertarian than Republican. The term to me means rugged individualism, pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness, and the freedom to be the biggest success or fuck-up I want to be.
WiG: I, too, remember Reagan being shot. I’m shocked people were cheering. Have Obama’s calls for political civility impressed you?
John: The president’s calls for civility are essentially a political inoculation against the same. Same as when Warren Buffett says he doesn’t pay enough taxes. When Rush calls Sandra Fluke a “slut” or when Bill Maher calls Laura Ingraham a “cunt,” that’s going too far. Politics is a blood sport and you play to win period.
WiG: Given your debt concerns, do you support measures such as closing loopholes for giant oil corporations? Or for millionaires?
John: Loopholes for corporations is kind of a straw man for me. Who owns these giant companies? In most cases it’s you and me with our mutual funds. If we tax these folks they will pass that cost back to the consumer, raising prices and making the business environment more difficult. For millionaires, you could do it, but they will lawyer up and figure out a way to not do it.
Romney’s recent dumbfuck move by saying that 47% don’t pay taxes is untrue. It’s 49%. When Obama says that “we are asking people to pay their fair share,” there is really nothing fair about it, because 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.
[Editor’s note: this statistic is accurate, and reflects national income distribution. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent of American households possess 34.5% of our national wealth. The top ten percent possess 74.5%. The bottom 50% possess 1.1% of our wealth.]
John: …As for entitlement programs, both Social Security and Medicare are set up badly, a weird blend of capitalism and socialism that will only end badly. I believe there are folks that genuinely need assistance. I believe there are a ton of folks who are scamming.
WiG: What do you mean by “folks scamming”? Are there non-partisan studies about such practices? I ask because the argument for limited government seems to assume widespread incompetence or malfeasance. As with “voter fraud” claims, the integrity of this argument resides in the evidence of such abuse.
John: I don’t have a study, but from a few sites found info that the federal government made improper payments of around $125 billion last year. I think that whoever is president should tighten that shit up immediately. Maybe “tons of people scamming” is urban legend, or I could just be plain wrong … I think Romney is counting on Reagan’s model of lowering taxes, revenues to the feds increase, folks start new businesses and hire more folks who pay taxes. Yep, trickle down, but it worked.
[Editor’s note: “Reagan’s model of lowering taxes” did not increase revenues. It increased the national debt by 186 percent over his two terms.]
John: I think Romney is some “Ozzie and Harriet” type corporate weenie, that the country needs desperately at this time. He seems adult and not cool, but a fixer of sorts and I would like to see him in there. My core values translate to them in getting the debt under control, reforming entitlements to get people working, creating an environment where business can flourish, and him making polygamy the law of the land. Just joking, one wife is enough.
WiG: What do you mean by “reforming entitlements to get people working”?
John: I mean put the work portion back in “workfare.” I think on your side it’s a sign of pride that we have 53 million people on food stamps. If people need it, I’m good with it. That number horrifies me, I want people to win and win big and buy a yacht.
[Editor’s note: The claim that Obama sought to strip the work requirement from welfare is untrue.]
***
Jack is a senior editor at a small public relations company in northern New Jersey, and is gay.
Jack: Mitt Romney isn’t the Reagan that at least half the country would like. But I argue that we don’t need another Reagan—that example was given to us already. All we need to do is imitate it … By the usual and accepted measures of economic health, Obama’s strategy of more government intervention, regulation, and top-down economic control has been a failure. The growth rate has limped along at about 2.2%. No recovery period in recent history has seen growth this weak. The unemployment rate has persisted at or above 8% for about three-and-a-half years running, which is also extraordinary for a recovery period.
WiG: Given that our economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month when he took office, what measures should Obama have taken?
Jack: I don’t believe he could have done anything about that particular problem at the time…
WiG: In your view, how and why did the economic meltdown of 2007 occur?
Jack: Contrary to the narrative that was pushed on us, “deregulation” was hardly the culprit. We can trace the problems back to Federal Housing Authority and HUD regulations, and the even more pernicious Community Reinvestment Act. The deregulation which followed was only at the margins … Of course, the emotionally satisfying explanation is that the whole mess was caused by Wall Street greed.
WiG: What should a President do when the economy he inherits is slumping? It sounds like you feel government should do as little as possible, and allow the free market to call the shots. Is that accurate?
Jack: In a perfect world, yes, that would be accurate. But we didn’t have a free market in the first place. There is no way a free-market solution was going to work in a decidedly unfree market environment…
As for my philosophical objection, the government cannot “create jobs,” nor can it “put people back to work.” These are not functions of the government as outlined in its charter, and the idea makes no sense in the first place. I want all politicians to stop claiming otherwise.
WiG: This morning, me and my kids walked past the elementary school they’ll go to, which is being rebuilt. There were about 25 guys working on the re-build, which was funded by taxpayers like myself. How is this not government creating jobs?
Jack: You answered your own question. Those jobs are funded by you, not the government. The government is merely the means by which your money is diverted to that project. Now building a school is of course a good and useful thing. But such a project does not represent an expansion of the economy—the resources used to build the school were diverted from another part of the economy. In fact, there are instances where rebuilding a school may not be the best use of resources. Believe it or not, there are times when it is more useful to renovate a chain of go-go bars, or build a new Wal-Mart.
WiG: Can you talk about your stances on social issues?
Jack: After the freakshow that was the DNC convention, I am quite honestly worn out by all the angry estrogen. But I will talk briefly about abortion. I was informed by a grad-school colleague of mine that until I have a uterus, I don’t have a right to an opinion about abortion (never mind the fact that I am thoroughly pro-choice). The stridency of these broads cannot possibly be making them many friends.
WiG: What do you mean by “angry estrogen”?
Jack: I prefer to let your readers chew on that one.
WiG: Honestly, Jack, you clearly pride yourself on being intelligent and precise, so what are you saying here?
Jack: …Sandra Fluke exemplified both the angry as well as freakish aspects of the DNC convention. She delivered her speech with a very large and secure safety net cast by her (extremely angry) handlers, as is always the case when she speaks publicly. Ms. Fluke was described by President Obama as “one tough and poised young lady.” He wisely left out the adjective “smart.” Insultingly, Ms. Fluke was foisted on us as some kind of intellectual powerhouse, an eloquent voice against the forces of white male patriarchy. Yet when Rush Limbaugh called her a rude name, suddenly she became this delicate little creature who was being bullied, and all rallied to her and cradled her precious little head and told her that Rush is, well, he’s just a big meanie. There, there now, child—it’s OK, Uncle Barack is on the phone, sweetpea.
… As for gun control, I am as staunch a supporter of the Second Amendment as I am of the First. The Left would have us remain as sitting ducks, relying on “Hate Crimes Legislation” to protect us from homophobes (or any other type of thug). I can’t imagine anything more “self-loathing” than that. While I am not actively against such legislation, I claim the right to arm and defend myself. I am convinced that if Matthew Shepard had carried a gun, he’d be walking among us today. As my friends at Pink Pistols say, “Armed gays don’t get bashed.”
… I won’t allow my blood to be spilled all for the sake of some vague, contradictory, and bossy opinions that others hold about “the common good.”
WiG: You believe Matthew Shepard would still be alive if he’d carried a gun. So was he a victim because he allowed himself to be? Given that we all might be victims of violent crime, should everyone carry a gun? Would this decrease, in your view, gun violence?
Jack: No, I don’t blame Shepard for his own death. But the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is of little benefit to either of those gentlemen now. I don’t argue that people should or shouldn’t arm themselves. It’s a decision that each individual will make for himself.
WiG: Do conservatives respect your sexual orientation? How do they express this respect? Is it in their policies toward homosexuals? Can you be specific?
Jack: Most conservatives I interact with respect and agree with my political point of view. As for sexual orientation, my mission on the Right is not to alert them to the virtues of hot man-on-man action. Of course many of them raise an eyebrow at my sexual orientation and romantic proclivities. But once we have a discussion about John Locke, the Rule of Law, the Founding fathers, the Constitution of the United States, and F.A. Hayek, I have made a friend for life. (A hearty laugh at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s expense never hurts, either.)
This is a discussion that is impossible to have with a Liberal. It begins and ends with the same not-very-original charge that I am like a Jewish guard at Auschwitz and do I realize that the Republican party hates me?
I have never received hate mail nor have I ever been the recipient of personal invective from a conservative. The totality of vitriol comes from the Left. A recent example of gay Leftist hatred came courtesy of the ever-repulsive Dan Savage. He called GoProud “house faggots for the GOP.” We point out to Savage that it’s better to be a house faggot for the Right than a field faggot for the Left. Who has a better shot at cutting the master’s throat while he slumbers? My money is on the house faggot.
***
Jack’s making a particular kind of joke here—one with violent undertones. It speaks to what John said earlier: that politics is “a blood sport.”
My intention was to allow conservatives to speak for themselves. I interviewed a bunch, and chose three voices that struck me as representative. My not-so-secret hope was to dig beneath the binary dogma—to unearth the hopes that might unite us. I was after solace.
That I failed, and so abjectly, should occasion any number of emotions. At the bottom of them all is helplessness.
No there is no way for me to reach these folks: Angela who regards “politics” as some vague source of paranoia, John, with his friendly need to make sure nobody unworthy gets their hands on his dough, and least of all Jack, for whom politics is an arena to strut his intellect and externalize his self-loathing.
But politics isn’t about projecting your pathologies into the public arena, and it’s not about hurting people. Its essential mission is to enact morality in the world, to make the rules by which we care for everyone, not just ourselves. What matters isn’t who “wins,” but to what human effect? Is the greater cause of justice advanced? Is opportunity expanded? Is the suffering of our citizens reduced?
39 responses
Steve, Steve, Steve,
First of all thanks for this, interesting perspectives.
Secondly, don’t despair, as John said, politics is in fact a bloodsport (politicians do say and do whatever it takes to win – yes Obama does/has/will flip flop as well)
Conservatives are not the boogiemen, but people, real people, with different philosophies about how to reach those very same lofty aims.
There’s no big bad evil here.
Calm Down.
BTW Editor’s note on Regan left out much of the story. Tax revenues rose greatly during his term, the economy grew by 1/3, real per capital income levels rose by 18%, unemployment dropped, poverty decreased, inflation halved, the stock market tripled and yes quite rightly defense spending rose dramatically – but then again, Regan military deficit spending ended the Cold War and avoided a bloody WWIII, not a bad outcome.
Reagan’s economic policies laid the groundwork for the financial crash of 2007. Also, ask your Catholic friends in Central American how they made out during the Reagan years. Nicaragua and Guatemala are still recovering.
This election is breaking my heart. The divisive tone, the ugly language and the ‘drawbridge up’ seems to guarantee the more we talk about it the worse the divide gets. People aren’t approaching this with an open mind and heart, they are aligning with their party and defending their candidate no matter how much shape-shifting goes on. This was a thoughtful and to the extent it could be, nonjudgmental article and I appreciate the chance to read it. It is hard not to judge people who vote without understanding the issues, or vote against their own interests because to do so aligns them with a group of monetarily successful people they admire and aspire to be.
Interesting article. If we looked at the demographics of democrats and republicans, where people stand on individual issues, we might find that we are not so far apart as you think, republicans believing in pro choice, gay marriage, gun control, and democrats believing in less government intervention, the right to bare arms. These are just some of the things that come to mind, but I wouldn’t stop there.
Labels can be dangerous things, and political labels are so polarizing and not necessarily representative of the people wearing them. It bothers me that people will judge me if I say I am a republican. It must mean I don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage, so many assumptions are made, and they’re wrong.
Maybe what we need is another political party for the folks in the middle of the general spectrum of issues.
Catholic Feminist, you tell more of Reagan’s story, but you also leave out some factors that affected the economy that he had nothing to do with. For instance, Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker to the chairmanship of the did a lot to get double-digit inflation under control, and that was doing a lot of damage to the economy. Reagan also did deals with Arab countries to increase our purchase of foreign oil which dropped fuel prices, giving a bump to working class people. It destroyed much of our domestic production in the process. Was it worth it? Depends on your point of view. The overall economy improved, but significant areas of the country took a beating that they have yet to fully recover from.
One thing to add about John’s comment on the 47% not paying taxes. Romney’s comment and John’s expansion are only accurate if you limit the discussion to income taxes, and even then they don’t tell the whole story. And to be fair, it’s reasonable to assume that Romney was talking about income taxes when he made his now infamous statement to his backers. But everyone pays sales taxes if they purchase things, property owners pay property taxes even if they don’t pay income taxes, and everyone with a job pays payroll taxes (aka Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid). So to suggest, as Romney did, that nearly half the population isn’t taking responsibility for their lives is not only inaccurate, it’s offensive. That was the real problem with his statement, not its accuracy or lack thereof.
My angry estrogen will continue to propagate the human race. I think I’ll be as angry as I want when people are threatening my health in the name of religion and a vague semblance of personhood, Jack. Call your mom.
Dear Brian,
As a student of Latin American history (it was my major) I am NO fan of US’ bungling attempts at fighting a “Communism” threat that wasn’t in Latin America. I admire the Latin liberation theologists tremendously – different strokes for different folks.
Just because I admire the results of the Regan Administration’s economic policies, does not mean that I think by any means he was a perfect man or president. Nor would I lionize anyone. We are all flawed, we are all doing our best with the imperfection inherent in all of us.
Catholic Feminist,
I didn’t bring up Latin America because it wasn’t relative to Reagan’s economic policies. All I said was that in some ways, Reagan got lucky as regards his economy–outside factors did as much or more to boost his economy than his policies did. And as Steve pointed out, it’s important to actually look at what his policies resulted in, namely higher national debts and yearly deficits and a weakening of the working and middle classes. In short, the big numbers looked okay, but on the individual level, not always.
S,
I’m with you. I don’t have angry estrogen, but I’ll do my part to fan it into the atmosphere and spread it around.
Catholic feminist,
Isn’t it a contradiction to admire both the largely communistic liberation theologists and Reagan’s economic policies? Liberation theology was, in part, a direct response to an aggressive American economic ideology.
I’m not sure they are separate issues, Brian. Reagan and his handlers were free market ideologues. Any resistance to that paradigm, in their view, posed a direct threat to the United States and needed to be annihilated. I don’t think you can talk about the American economy as separate from other economies. We are implicated in the global economy, and in a big way, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
“But politics isn’t about projecting your pathologies into the public arena, and it’s not about hurting people. Its essential mission is to enact morality in the world, to make the rules by which we care for everyone, not just ourselves. What matters isn’t who “wins,†but to what human effect? Is the greater cause of justice advanced? Is opportunity expanded? Is the suffering of our citizens reduced?”
As the parent of a child with severe disabilities, I am struck by your final paragraph and how it so perfectly describes the current conflict that is swirling around Ann Coulter and her denigration of the disabled. I feel, a bit, like this whole incident is emblematic of the entire election and what divides one of us from another.
Thank you for this eye-opening, albeit depressing essay.
Steve,
This fairly aptly describes some of our holiday dinners over the past few years, wherein progressive Seattle visits Republican south and hijinks ensue. Still, this election is heartbreaking. It feels as if America is losing its moral authority. The desire for personal wealth and status accumulation has superseded any desire to find a common ground and civility. I see such differences between our nation and Canada, where I grew up, especially in America’s need for some daddy archetype (God, Romney, Fox News) to save us, our old way of life, ways that are no more in this technological, values-murky, climate-changing world. Your people here seem like they want to rebel or align with this authority, and not that they are themselves the government. This has always been a violent nation but today, I don’t think our two parties even hold the same sense of what America stands for, a condition created by poor education and a population becoming more economically divided every generation.
It’s okay to use a racially charged metaphor to explain why it’s great to be a gay conservative?
I’m seeing a lot of “false equivalence” here, i.e. ‘Both sides are just as bad!’ They are not. You talk about the “left”– I see NO left in American politics today. The Democrats are now the moderate Republicans of the late 60s and early 70s. The current crop of Republicans are the John Birch Society in full flower. This is not an exaggeration: I am old enough to have seen this transformation as it happened. The so-called “Overton Window” has shifted so far to the right it’s about to fall off a cliff.
I read the above text on tumblr.cokm and am trying to find out if the gang at the week in greed are hoing or are expecting the Democrats to gain more seats in the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Pease respond.
S,
I am a woman, I love the sisterhood, and am a complete feminist through and through. I feel that women can be the complete masters of their own destines. That said, I think the Sandra Flukes “War on Women” strategy has failed utterly.
The reality of birth control is that it is widely available and inexpensive – Target/Walmart stock it OTC and 98% of women in the US use or have used birth control. Most people recognize that women that choose to use it do have access to birth control.
I respect the fact that Sandra Fluke is not Catholic, however I think myself and many people might question her choice of Law School. Why if you find the Jesuit Catholic position offensive and wrong, would you choose to go to Jesuit school, when there are so many secular law schools?
For the record, the Catholic birth control on this subject is education, communication and respect. Women and men are equally responsible for family planning and taught to understand fertility signals – cervix high & hard, not fertile, cervix low & soft fertile – it’s not rocket science).
Look, if you prefer to take hormones, more power to you.
But my answer to all of the “how dare the Catholics” out there is this. If you agree to limit “living” your beliefs to one hour a week, perhaps we’ll consider keeping the Catholic part of our lives in church.
Thankfully, the beauty of the 1st amendment is that neither of us *should* be forced to do that. A refresher:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And abortion, the old terrible question. Look I hate the idea of a young women and hanger just as much as you do. Horrible. Desperate. Avoidable. Abortion to me is the very sad conclusion to many many societal failures – not some hallowed “reproduction right.”
This idea that one of your natural rights as a human being is the right
to kill another human being doesn’t sit well at all.
We are mammals, we carry our young inside of us. When a woman is pregnant there are 2 bodies, no matter how inconvenient it may be, not 1. As to when this body is endowed with personhood, well how many human tragedies have played out over that same question – is this person really a person. Too many. And history has always answered with a resounding YES.
Loopholes for corporations is kind of a straw man for me. Who owns these giant companies? In most cases it’s you and me with our mutual funds. If we tax these folks they will pass that cost back to the consumer, raising prices and making the business environment more difficult.
Quite the logical mobius strip.
Alex:
I’m not an ideologue. I don’t believe in “the” single perfect solution. That’s a dangerous fantasy. Different problems call for different solutions.
Having lived in both places, I am comfortable asserting that Nicaragua and the US are hugely dissimilar, with very different problems and therefore it shouldn’t surprise that the approach should be different.
Regards,
@Catholic Feminist: You write, “We are mammals, we carry our young inside of us. When a woman is pregnant there are 2 bodies, no matter how inconvenient it may be, not 1. As to when this body is endowed with personhood, well how many human tragedies have played out over that same question – is this person really a person. Too many. And history has always answered with a resounding YES.”
But that isn’t, in fact, true. Societies have defined the start of life in many different ways over the centuries. The Bible, for one, does not back up your view (see Exodus 20, if you’re curious). In fact, the notion that life begins at conception and that the fetus represents a separate, autonomous human being is a product of the modern world. In fact, many societies have held that life begins at birth.
You are free not believe that, and of course, the church you belong to may not believe it, but to legislate in a country that values both the free exercise of religion and the separation of church and state is very troubling.
Appreciate the effort, Steve, but it left me feeling as you do: Hopeless. Here’s hoping, despite that feeling, that we do well in ten days, and that the Right crawls under a rock somewhere and stays there.
Biblical Scholar:
Many societies historically have had different prejudices about who does and those less-than-fortunates that do not deserve the rights associated with full personhood.
My point is that in every single case – every single one – history (humanity) has condemned societies that attempt to strip the rights of personhood.
As for the fact that we are mammals, well that’s just scientific fact.
I’m a Catholic, biblical scholar, the old testament is mostly a total mystery to me – not to mention that the little I know about old testament morality sounds really scary to me.
I’m a new testament kinda gal.
And I have no doubt that abortion will be a thing of the past – hopefully long before Roe V Wade is overturned, because society will awake to the reality that we can do better than this. We are better than this.
Don’t be scared of the Hebrew Bible (or Testament, if you prefer), Catholic Feminist. It’s not at all what you’ve been told it is. In fact, its moral vision is complex and fascinating. There really isn’t an “Old Testament God” of wrath who perfectly opposses a “New Testament God” of mercy. That’s interesting theology, but it isn’t reflected in the texts.
My point, though, is that assigning personhood to the not-yet-born is not an historical truth. It’s not even an historical Catholic truth. There are a lot of reasons for that, and certainly theology and beliefs should and do change over time, but even though we can agree that people should not be stripped of rights, it is not a logical extension of that comment to then claim that right for a fetus. You can believe in their personhood, but others can, with equal claim to history and morality, believe the opposite. Your belief is no more obvious and true than theirs. That’s why it’s dangerous to legislate from that position.
By the way, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. These are important topics. It’s good to air them in forums like this, that don’t devolve to name-calling and invective.
Heather…Hello from NYC. If the Democrats do not add to the US Senate and US House of Representatives, as well as return to the White House, then, as far as I am concerned, it’s all over. And I will do my best — legally — t get out of the US.
Steve, I think you wrote this to help yourself understand how it could be that other people don’t share your ideal of common sense. It seems so right to you, you have the facts, you did your homework, you must be correct about what’s best for America, right? It’s not about America for you. You’re wrestling with your own unresolved inner powerlessness regarding uncertainty. SO you venture into the weeds with a noble purpose to “clear it all up.” As if by putting a few random conservatives under the microscope, you’ll help fellow liberals everywhere understand what makes these freaks tick. What is really being communicated in your articles is, “Why the hell can’t everyone see what Steve ALmond can so clearly,” nothing else. I wouldn’t expect a guy like you, with such an imagination, to be so intolerant.
Think about this, written 2 years ago, in the context of the August 2011 debt ceiling debate and while thinking about the approaching “fiscal cliff”.:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/worse_than_a_depression.html
Whether conservative or liberal, you’d have to be an idiot to think that annual deficits of $1+ Trillion are sustainable. But unbelieveably, Oblabber seems to not be worried about it. One result to date:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PolNsDxUGY
I see Mitt and just automatically flash to scenes of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Then I breathe, and I refuse to buy into the fear and the hatred that the GOP is selling. I believe that we are seeing the last dying gasps of both patriarchy and the republican party.
Want to see a video worth watching? Here’s Alice Walker reading “Democratic Womanism” on Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/28/democratic_womanism_poet_and_activist_alice
See how well she reads when she’s starving because Oblabber’s policy of unrestrained spending causes the dollar to be worthless and we can’t buy oil to run the tractors to harvest food, or to run the 18-wheelers to deliver the food, or to heat our homes………………..now that’s going to REALLY be something to see.
Wooly Bully, do you imagine you’re convincing anyone to come to your position when you use terms like Oblabber? Or are you merely sticking up for your side in what you perceive as hostile territory?
Economic realities under Reagan:
http://www.thenation.com/article/158321/reagans-real-legacy#
BS,
No, I know with 100% certainty that most readers of this website are so closed-minded that there is absolutely no chance of persuading them to see the truths that I present to them. You can lead a horse to water…….
The term Oblabber is actually a scientific term describing our current president – a descriptive term based on his actions. He blabbers away meaningless tripe 24/7/365.
About 60 days until Oblabber’s Taxmageddon:
http://thewarningsigns.blogspot.com/2012/09/100-days-until-taxmageddon_21.html
O.K. – I visited the website American Thinker. Lots of fear, hate, and racism hiding in plain sight. No truths, only twisted reasoning. Even William Buckley (R.I.P.) would vomit.
American Stinkers is a more apt description.
Thanks to Steve Almond for showing us the three common types of people who vote against their own interests. But hey, people drink themselves to death too. It’s a free country. Go figure…
Harry, really, “No truths…”? Not even one? You lie, or, don’t read very well or much of what’s on that Web site. Or, perhaps more likely, you read it with your rose colored glasses on and can’t see the “truths.” I’ll bet it’s that one!
In fact, go ahead…point one out and MAKE MY DAY!
O.K. , I’m trying to respond to your confused request twinkletoes: “In fact, go ahead…point one out and MAKE MY DAY!”. I’m assuming I am being asked to point out a “truth” written on that reactionary website “American Thunkers”. Now mind you, your request is to point out a truth, as your poorly written response to my statement does not actually ask me to point out a lie. So in the spirit of goodwill I will admit there was one truth on that site in question….the day’s date. Bye-Bye!
Way to go “Harry Says!”
As I suspected, you’re the epitome of a narrow minded left-winger (though at least you had enough in you to check out American Thinker).
Pat yourself on the back that you haven’t proved your claim. Not surprising, actually.
Now, go ahead and follow the herd and continue reading what you want to hear instead of peeling away the left-wing hypocritical rhetoric and seeing who the real liars are.
Well well well…. Your boy “R”money lost. That’s right Wooly Bully, Twinkbait, et al. Now you trolls can crawl back under your bridge and cry.
Actually, I’m laughing my ass off!
You get, what you vote for; BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Did Steve’s “chippy” email sit in email limbo for a year?
One more, for the “Progressives”: http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-will-it-take/?
Love how my previous submission’s not been posted…censorship, by the lefties…? Hard to fathom, HA!
What I will say is, it’s great this is the first “black” president (not that race/ethnicism/religion/etc. should even count), but I’m almost willing at this point to bet, this might also be the first president to end up behind bars. We…shall…all…see…….
you all… are funny!
TRUMP WON!
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.