The spiteful wrath of the ruling class
Posted by aogWednesday, 02 October 2013 at 14:12
TrackBack Ping URL
We have the amazing spectacle of the National Park Service shutting down open air mall sites that do not require any staff so that WWII veterans are denied access. Let it be clear that these sites have never been closed until now but suddenly, in the midst of a government slimdown, the NPS has the staff and time to put up barrycades. Can some one explain this as other than in effect, hostage taking by the Obama Administration?
In the same vein we have other parks being shutdown that have no dependency whatsoever on the NPS and indeed, in some cases being net revenue generators for the federal government. That means the Obama Administration, in the midst of the upcoming debt ceiling limit, is willing to forgo revenue in order to punish the public for not getting his way. Yet people claim Obama has the best interests of the citizenry at heart…
P.S. Meanwhile The New Republic is apparently calling for using tanks against the Republicans in the House of Representatives, while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recommends bypassing Congress. And schools show “I pledge to serve Barak Obama” videos. Where did all the civility go? Perhaps it’s never been there.
|Annoying Old Guy
Sunday, 06 October 2013 at 09:38|
a reality based approach would recognize that a good part of that spending would happen anyway. First, because ACA incorporated expenditures of other programs, AFAIK.
Well, as far as I know, that’s simply wrong. There was an attempt to shift about $500B from Medicare to the ACA, but that is unlikely to stick, so essentially most of the spending is new, that is in addition to current spending. Secondly I don’t use “control” as a synonym for “spend”. When the government decides what are valid insurance policies and forbids be to buy (and insurance companies to sell) anything else, that’s control, even if not a penny is spent by the government.
you’d need to erase up the slight majority of your country, who approve of and made ACA into law, to not spend anything more at all.
No. Every poll I’ve seen (for instance) indicates that a majority opposes the ACA. The House of Representatives is controlled by a party openly working to repeal it and won a once in a century political victory in 2010 to do this. When the legislation was being passed, there was a special election in Massachusetts on which it hung, and in a deeply Democratic Party loyal state, a Republican won by in large part opposing the ACA. I don’t understand how the above obvious facts are disregarded by so many people like you, Clovis. (Note which of us can provide actual evidence, and which doesn’t bother).
As usual, you don’t seem to be able to conceive of the reciprocal situation, these philosophical points you make you only apply to one side.
As for facts, what of this one?
Yet as the always dogged and perceptive Betsy McCaughey points out, since its passage and approval as a “tax” by the Supreme Court, the president has unilaterally and unconstitutionally changed the law.
Did Obama do that or not? Doesn’t that count as fact?
What about this one —
Obamacare agents of control will be left-wing “navigators” — not so coincidentally drawn from an army of left-wing labor leaders and community organizers from the SEIU to ACORN to Planned Parenthood. Left-wing activists who have access to every piece of confidential, private information of every American’s life — including, yes indeed, your voter registration. Crusaders one and all.
Will those people exist? Will they be drawn largely from MAL activists? Will they have access to that confidential private information? Does none of that count as facts?
What about another one —
It’s always worth reminding that the Tea Party came into being not because of Barack Obama but George W. Bush. It was Bush’s TARP response to what in fact was a government-induced financial crisis, on top of his spending policies, that brought the Tea Party to life.
Does that count as a fact?
As far as I can tell, your view is the article is delusional because politicians and political movements can’t actually be motivated by ideology, but only retail politics. When an article like this points out facts that support the ideological view, you claim
“those aren’t facts” because you’re “reality based”.
Sunday, 06 October 2013 at 18:35|
Clovis wrote: “It sets the world in black or white, electing great evils to be undone and a cause greater than life at stake. It fulfills a sense of purpose, of meaning to its believers. And whishes upon the hereticals the fire of purification. It is indeed your religion.”
Yes, yes! You’ve got it! We all all have our ideologies, our dogma, our “religion” if you wish to call it that, even you.
And like all religious wars, it should be clear that we will not back off until we’re either dead or win.
There is, of course, an alternative. It’s called federalism. Where the federal government is minimized, power is devolved to the states, and the states distinguish themselves by being more or less into regulation, taxes, and services. People vote with their feet based on what they want. More left leaning folks would move to California, New York, and Illinois. More laissez faire sorts would move to Texas, Wyoming, and Montana. We would then mostly leave each other alone and trade in peace.
But the MALists agenda/dogma/ideology/religion/etc. specifically includes controlling conservatives. Converting them, so to speak, in evangelical frenzy. As “religious” as I am as a sort of libertarian, can you really not see that Obama and his ilk are just as fanatical in their own way?
Or maybe they aren’t. After all, how could I really tell? Just because they look fanatical to me, doesn’t mean I’m capable of knowing that’s true. I may well be blinded by my ideology (or religion if you prefer). In which case you’re right: we’re the fanatics and are more than willing to destroy america if we have to live under what we believe to be the great evil that is the religion of the left.
There’s a fine line between strong preference, religion, and delusion. I believe I’ve identified my world-view as the first, but realistically, it doesn’t matter to me which it is. It probably doesn’t matter to anyone else either. My behaviors and actions are the same in any case.
Monday, 07 October 2013 at 14:56|
One by one:
> The NSA data gathering is illegal and could be prevented under current law.
This one got me laughing. It looks like every one involved with the NSA is laughing too, the differece being they are not only happy, but rich. Mostly with your taxpayer money.
> The employees at the NSA are far less likely to abuse the information and many fewer people would have access (see Kentucky)
I see, they at least are honest about that, right? How much personal information on you the NSA helds?
> The NSA does not have “absolute knowledge about everything possible to know”.
Ok, the phrase is surely not well defined. But I believe their eavesdropping possibilities very well include pretty much all hospitals and clinics that handle your health status.
I know you, being tech-savvy and all that, may well believe much of your personal info is well protected. Except, it is not. The genius in their method is not the ability to eavesdrop one individual point, but so many nodes at once connected to that individual one. IOW, they can know a great deal about you without ever bothering to break your criptographed personal data and communication. BTW, you probably know that much better than I do.
> I don’t expect to convince of you this, only to break you of your assumption that all facts are on one side and that anyone who disagrees must have no facts at all for support.
I did not implied you, AOG, have no facts (the criticism was about a ranting piece you linked to). You surely have lots of facts, many of which you make good use of. Others you distort, willing it or not, to fit an overall pattern that loosely correlates to your stated ideology. Up to that point, you are just like everybody else - only that, instead of promoting that distortion to fit religious views, or ecological views, or far-left views, you’ve directed them to some subset of far-right views.
> What else you think it could be, I don’t really know, you haven’t explained.
You got it right that I underestimate the ideological aspects of the clash. Not because there are no ideological citizens (there are many, you look to be one of them), but because a collection of ideological citizens do not necessarily imply an ideological movement. As you have basically only two parties in US, most people within those parties are distributed in too many subsets of ideologies. It leads to a final result which is often not that much ideological.
Taking a physical analogy, you can make a material with molecules that, individually, are highly polarized. But if they are arranged in domains of very anisotropic distribution, you do not end up with a good magnet.
The next thing then to dominate the dynamics is usually more powerful than most ideologies: power & money. Most politicias, and big political groups, follow dynamics better explained by this than any particular ideology.
Take you and most people in favor of this last Congress shutdown. I hardly believe you most profound thoughts are really ideologic. It is money. You are just really mad about paying the bill. It is just more elegant to say you worry about… freedom, or something like that.