Ah. Well I’ll admit your allusion to the hypocrisy of the left eluded me.
Never mind.
>“Revoking aid to desperately poor women and children…”
Please- won’t somebody think of the children!?!?!? Is there a specific law they’re referring to?
>“provoking wars to increase profits for oil companies…”
I heard similar arguments with our Afghanistan campaign and haven’t seen any evidence of it there. How would a war with Iraq increase US companies profits? Doesn’t OPEC set the price per barrel? Can’t we currently purchase oil from Iraq via the Oil for Food program?
>“denying benefits to disabled veterans…”
Huh? Is this what they’re talking about? If so, it really is a stretch to call it “denying benefits”.
>“Criminalizing public dissent…”
Please turn on a TV and see Streisand/Sarandon running her mouth, or go to the Washington Post’s website and read Ted Rall cartoon, or just check out the NY Times Op-ed page and then tell me that dissent is illegal.
>“Shooting first…”
Who did we shoot now?
>“Until then…please don’t watch.”
Sums up my feeling of this film.
And it’s a terrible thing to waste. 
The intent was not to stimulate another Thought-Provoking Discussion of America’s Drug Problem. I was “alluding” (not quaaluding) to the tendency to have disdain for a particular class of people (the poor, law enforcement, etc.) and to express one’s feelings by dismissing entire efforts in a cause as being failures, if the problems they address haven’t been eliminated or largely fixed. I am not suggesting that there aren’t useful changes that could be made in our anti-drug efforts, or approach to poverty programs.
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around, Right and Left.
Please elaborate; surely you aren’t implying that one shouldn’t complain about any dissent being squashed until all avenues of dissent are squashed? It’s kind of too late at that point, isn’t it?
I’m not saying any dissent is being silenced, but your post seems to imply that as long as there is one method of dissent still open any refence to others being silenced deserved a rolleyes. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
So sorry to hijack, but what does that mean? I’ve heard it before, and it’s driving me nuts!
I think it’s a reference to my utterly non-sarcastic posts earlier in the thread. My namesake is August Derleth, someone who collaborated with H. P. Lovecraft on his Cthulhu Mythos horror novels. Sabbath mutilated the standard call to summon the Dead Dreamer (Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fthagan!) into a barb to get under my skin.
Needless to say, I giggled at it and went on. 
Holy cow. This guy is a fucking moron, and that’s all I can really say about that.
Makes me glad i don’t have any freaky conservative mustachioed relatives to see at Christmas.
I don’t see why you call him a “fucking moron” but hey, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. I posted the link as something that was very similar to the flash link but at the opposite end of the spectrum.
That aside, the guy DOES make some good points.
Come on, people. Try to but it in context and perspective. There are a fair number of perfectly reasonable, intelligent and informed folks who think that the national government is on the wrong tract in foreign relations and on any number of domestic policies. It’s not as if the direction Bush et. al. wanted to take the country was any great secret during the election, although some of it was hidden from the credulous by code words and euphemisms.
During the Presidential campaign it was no secret that the foreign policy think tanks backing Bush II were saying that with the collapse of the USSR and the impotence of Russia the US, as the only bigger than biggest great power did not have to moderate its behavior to sooth any other nation. It was pretty clear that a Bush administration was likely to pursue a foreign policy based on the adage that the big dog could do what it wanted and nobody could do anything about it. Circumstances (reality) has forced the administration to a least pay lip service to the idea of international consensus but the underlying view that the country’s foreign policy is to do anything we can get away with-and we can get away with a lot–is still the prevailing mind set.
Nobody who was playing attention thought that “compassionate conservatism” meant anything but fewer social services and a smaller safety net. This is perfectly consistent with what some people think is embroidered on the Republican banner. The motto is not “Excelsior.” The motto is “I’m alright, Jack, screw you.”
Was there any legitimate question that the environmental policy of the Bush administration would be to exploit natural resources and hang the consequences? There was no attempt to hide this one. A vote for W. was a vote for more oil drilling.
The every-man-for-himself-and-the-devil-take-the-hindmost view was manifest in the scheme to divert funds from the social security system into private investment. Why is it a surprise that this administration is not eager to expand social security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits when medical and pharmaceutical costs are increasing at an unprecedented rate? Because the administration is married to a mid-Victorian view of the obligation of government and of the social compact
The funneling of social assistance through churches, with an accompanying risk of a tacit religious test for public assistance was a major talking point in the Bush campaign. Only the black hearted would think that such a program might accomplish the dual ends of restricting the government work force and greasing the palms of some major Republican leaning denominations.
Did anyone think that tax cuts would not be a major fetish for a Bush administration? We have seen it-tax cuts are the sovereign remedy for all situations—good times, bad times, state of war, growing federal deficit, state of quasi-war. You name it; tax cuts, and especially upper bracket and capital gains cut will cure all. It’s the Lydia Pinkham’s Compound for all conditions.
Let’s face it. There is plenty for Americans to be uneasy about. All that the linked flash animation does is say it in an imaginative and amusing way. It may be an over statement – clearly it is an overstatement – but it sure got your attention, didn’t it.
Reminds me of a comedian I saw on TV once, talking about how he would call his coach “The Iceman” because he would use ice to cure everything.
“Coach, I broke my leg!” “Put some ice on it!”
“Coach, I have a bullet wound!” “Put some ice on it!”
“Coach, I got cancer!” “Put some ice on it!”
“Coach, I got frostbite!” “Put some ice on it!”
Wasn’t that Chris Rock?
But it was his dad, not coach. And Robutussium, not ice.
No, I’m familiar with Rock’s similar Robitussan bit, this was a different guy.
Can one compare the “War on Drugs” with the “War on Poverty?”
To me, these are two different things and I don’t see how it’s hypocritical to be all for one and against the other…
There are very many people that genuinely need our assisantance while they get back on their feet.
Get back on their feet.
a good bulk of the War on Poverty is quite simple to combat…
Get
A
Job.
I think we should help train you.
I think we should help you in a job search.
I think we should help you with day care.
I don’t think I should be footing the bill for you not to work if you are capable of doing so. My husband and I work very hard for our money.
For the disabled, those with very young children and other circumstances…different story.
The problem will never be solved by endlessly giving out hand-outs. It’s better all around for people to become self-sufficient, and I believe we have a responsibilty to help people become so, not hand them a check once a month. Only then will we see any sort of improvement in the “War On Poverty.”
IMHO, of course.
Oh right! Why didn’t I think of that! It’s so simple!
:rolleyes:
Just a little out of context. How sporting.
And so is assuming that the vast majority of those who are poor and need assistance are that way because they are lazy.
Where did I say anyone was lazy? Or are you “assuming” I feel that way?
Why don’t you go back and read the largest portion of the post, you know, the part where I talk about how I believe we should provide the tools needed for them to obtain success before, during, and after their job search. Oh yeah, and that part about how I said I certainly didn’t feel everyone, regardless of circumstance, should take part in a such a program. Oh, and such aid would probably run as much as what we’re shelling out now, but would serve a much better purpose.
I suppose you think it’s more kindhearted to provide people with no hope and no future? No chance to better their lives, and their children’s lives?
How compassionate.
You know what? You’re right, I overreacted. I appologize.
The only explanation I can offer is that I’m scared shitless about not being able to find a job. It’s not that I don’t have the resources, or the skills.
It’s that there aren’t any available-except for more jobs like the one I had to quit because it was ruining my health.
Then of course you deserve resources from the government. It would be silly (IMHO) to feel otherwise. I really hope things work out for you.
I got testy as well Guin, and I apologise as well. I genuinely would like to provide everyone with what would truly benefit them most(dream on girl) but I may have come off a whip cracking uber conservative.
ew.