Mark writes a letter (you might want to read the letter before reading this post!) where he declares that "I am respectfully providing you with seven simple reasons why I could never vote for you."
He starts the letter out very respectfully by pointing out the fact that Barrack is not "the messiah." Classy. Real classy. I am sure none of Gregg's readers infer the connection to Obama being the Anti-Christ. I am sure Gregg is not inflaming the apocalyptic temper of the religious nut jobs who can't wait for the end of times.
Gregg then proceeds to enumerate the reasons for not voting for Obama.
Reason # 1
Obama picked an experienced, smart, worldly Senator who is known on both sides of the aisle to be a "decent family man and not an Arab." (Actual John McCain quote about Barrack Obama).
Gregg would like us to believe that Obama is a "hypocrite" because Obama campaigned on the mantra of change. And then Obama went and picked himself a liberal, inside-the-beltway Senator.
I sure don't understand the criticism. I guess the confusion occurs to Greg and this years spate of Republicans easily because none of them seem to know what the Vice President does. The Vice President does not run things. That will be the Presidents job.
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT MEAN THING ABOUT REPUBLICANS NOT KNOWING WHAT THE VICE PRESIDENT DOES? THAT WAS MEAN!
Well we know Dick Cheney doesn't know what the VP does. He has been running the show in Washington for the last 8 years. I don't know that even a hard core Republican could dispute that. If you want to dispute that fact, try watching The DARK SIDE. I know it comes from PBS. But just watch it anyway.
Of course Sarah Palin famously does not know what the VP does. She has been asked that question 3 or 4 times by reporters and she still has not given the correct answer.
I know you Republicans love to make up the rules as you go, but the Constitution to the Unites States of America provides the only legitimate delineation of the powers and scope of the office of the Vice Presidency. I did not read in the Constitution where the VP could get all hockey mom in the Senate and make policy changes. I think you get to Vote if there is a tie or something. Yeah, I seem to remember that.
The rebuttal point (to point number one) from Gregg is that the President will be making decisions, not the VP. Unless Dick Cheney is still VP. Because of some kind of economic crisis that allows the Executive to order the cancelling of the vote. But that could not happen. I mean it's not like Bush signed an executive order giving him permission to do that. Oh. I guess he did. No worries. I am sure that won't happen.
The rest of paragraph has nothing to do with reasons not to vote for a Democrat. The rest of the paragraph deals with why Obama has attacked Sara Palin. Even though Sara is hot and totally awesome with her "maverickiness" and her "gettin' all them quagmires out of the Alaska" and all.
Gregg states that Obama has "slammed" the McCain ticket over the choice of Palin as VP because "she is NOT a Washington insider."
No. The Obama campaign has slammed the choice of Governor Hockey Mom "If it moves I shoot it" because of her lack of experience, because she is an ultra-right wing religious nut job that is rabidly opposed to abortion rights-but supports a witch hunting preacher, because she seems dumb, and because she "looks out at her back door in Alaska" and sees the floating head of Putin. I worry. I worry that Palin makes George W. Bush look like a Mensa member.
Reason #2
Reason number 2 starts out with a lie. Greg falsely claims that "Obama has single most liberal voting record in the senate." I'm sorry. That statement is so blatantly misleading, and such an obvious lie, that only an ignoramus could miss it. Mr. Obama is no where near the most liberal Democrat. I wonder how our dear Ted Kennedy would feel about being considered less liberal than Barrack. Or perhaps Mark forgets the dearly departed Paul Wellstone. Other than the National Review (which now admits to flaws in their study) Obama is ranked as the 10th most liberal Senator in the US Senate.
"This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation."
Wow.
"I am not racist."
Okay.....
Just being a liberal means you can be labeled angry? And I guess being very liberal really just means what that you are an ANGRY BLACK MAN. I have to ask Mark. Why did you say ANGRY BLACK MAN? You could have said an angry man, an angry liberal, but you didn't you said an ANGRY BLACK MAN.
I mean let's not even cover the fact that you assume all liberals to be "angry." That's just silly. Are all Conservatives angry? Maybe you mean radicals and not liberals. I don't know. Are all radicals angry? I guess you would say so. But I still don't see the reason you mention that he is an angry BLACK man. Maybe he is just "upset."*
*Being upset over injustice might be a good thing. Let's think of it as the opposite of being apathetic. Oh, I am sorry about the footnotes. I hate footnotes too!
I mean I know why I might mention that he was an angry black man. Angry black people scare me too. I mean I know that black people have a lot to be angry about with slavery and all. I guess you could add Jim Crow laws and segregation. If you were a Republican you could even add the soft bigotry of low expectations from liberals and I think what you called "the veil of self-imposed prejudicial bondage."* I don't know what that is, but it does not sound like something I want. I was glad to hear that after your family met you they were able to 'de-cloak' themselves from the misty veils of self sabotage and false consciousness.
*You can't go stealing ideas like False Consciousness around a Marxist like me without at least some kind of attribution. I mean Karl Marx thought of that first. Let's give my man his due. MmK? Just another quick question Mark, just how is it you know about False Consciousness since it is a totally communist bit of propaganda? Did you go to college?
So I guess Black people have a lot to be angry about. Probably not as much as American Indians. But we took all their land and killed them just so we wouldn't have to think about them.
It was not enough for Mark to call Barack Obama an "angry black man." He had to call Mrs. Obama an angry black woman. Mark is mad because Michelle Obama forgot how we saved the world from the Nazis.
For the record, I want to say that I too am glad that we killed the Nazis. Also, I think we should only look back at American history and talk about the good parts. We should skip all the bad stuff that might speak to an "angry black person" so that when she speaks about being proud of America (as a black person**) that all of us getting past our prejudices and electing a black man might just be one of the greatest accomplishments this country has ever achieved, (not better than going to the Moon) and we could hold that shit over Europe for a long time, because even though Euro's will elect a woman (god I hope not here!) they sure as shit won't vote a blacky in.
Nah. We should just stick to admonishing anyone who doesn't whitewash* our view of history. I say love it or leave it baby. Stop trying to make us better, I like America the way it is.
* Pun intended.
** get it? she was saying "as a black woman" there ain't much to be proud about a country that had you in chains, but then she said she could be real proud of how we white folk turned it around by taking the Obamas so serious like. that was mighty nice of her (also mighty uppity of her.)
REASON NUMBER 3
I like reason number three the most because you claim "the bible" (though you don't tell us 'which' bible or even what part of the bible) says that poor people should starve to death.
I looked it up and I think you might be right* on this one.
*Bible says lots of funny things. Like I wonder if your wife was a virgin when you married her. If she wasn't I will gladly help you to stone her to death so that you can get back in God's good graces. Oh, I might add that I looked it up and you are wrong. Jesus says that you need to give me all your money, carry my coat, and let me slap you in the face. And if you don't like me making fun of Jesus then you have to forgive me, cuz Jesus said so.
REASON NUMBER 4
In question 4 you bring up the Reverend Rick Warren. You say that he isn't a Reverend? Can I still call him that?
Mark in reason number 4 then you mention something about pay grades and I can only guess that was to show off all your expertise on obscure federal labor rules regarding pay scales and seniority. I have read your point a few times and frankly I am as confused by it as I am confused by doing my own taxes.
Either way I am not too sure that the President of the United States needs to be able to articulate a position on the metaphysical existence of the soul in clumps of cells the size of a period.
But I guess people like you really need that. What you are really saying in your cowardly bureaucratic jargon is that abortion is wrong. I get that. But just say it. Abortion is wrong. Abortion is murder. Kill the killers.
I mean I know that you know that Laura Bush had a secret abortion (I read about it on the internets) and you also know that most people don't want to outlaw abortion-even if they think it is despicable or immoral. I think you might even know that Obama is pro-choice and has never wavered in his support of choice. I am not exactly sure where the secrete agenda is that you have found hidden in Barrack's refusal of Warren's gamesmanship. But I am sure it has something to do with implanting the mark of the beast in every newborn child's hand.
Can I just say that I think Warren is fat. I don't know why his fat bothers me and my own does not. Maybe because I blame the media or giant corporations for all the ills of the world that happen to me and I blame Rick Warrens fat on gluttony which I heard was a sin punishable by stoning.
REASON NUMBER 5
Reason number 5 brings up the Nazis again. Mark suggests that Obama's defining characteristic is one of appeasement. Mark says that we can't have no appeasement like back in 1932 or whatever because appeasement was what got us that no good Hitler.
I will again say to any who will listen that I don't like Hitler. I especially thought his treatment of Jews was "uncool" to say the least.
Of course what is worse appeasement or support? George Bush's grand pappy was fined for helping the Nazis. Ronald Reagan created the modern jihadist movement when he battled communism and took down the Ruskies in Afghan in that movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think it was Rambo III. It was a good movie, but I don't think it was worth all the trouble they've been causing us since then.
I guess we could also mention how much the Bush's love them some Bin Laden. Of course if I remember correctly the last attack from Al-Queda came from 15 guys with box cutters. I say we can take'em. I know the current administration does not believe that. I guess that is why they let Bin Laden get away from us when we had him surrounded. I guess that is why Bush said he doesn't even care about Bin Laden that "he doesn't lose any sleep over him" (another real life quote!)
"But that ain't McCain!" You scream. That's Bush. Bush loves Osama not McCain.
That's right. McCain has a secret plan to get Osama Bin Laden that he has not shared with the government and will not share with Barrack Obama if Obama wins the election. He's actually said that.
Well he said he had a secret plan. So I gotta ask why he has not told someone in the Army this. I would love nothing better to get that guy. But I guess McCain would rather win an election that kill the biggest mass murderer of Americans by terrorism. Talk about your Country First!
REASON NUMBER 6
"You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me."
Mark, you've figured it out. We secretly believe that a nurse should have the ability to hand out Tylenol to a student only if the parents sign a permission slip. We also believe permission slips should be needed for things like chocolate milk, soda, and attending seminary classes.
We never tell the world that school nurses are trained professionals and we are confident in their ability to administer over the counter medication. How can I be upset that you are on to this part of the plan we Dem's have?
I am upset that you discovered our little plan to save some money via universal healthcare and allow school nurses to "wisk" your children away to the janitorial supply room with a coat hanger to rip out your child's unborn. I can tell you from experience that coat hangers are cheap, but messy. I am sure very few Democrats support things like getting doctors or judges to sign off on abortions. We democrats know that you can always get your parents permission to abort one of the mongrel offspring you implanted in your child. Because daddy should get to visit his baby's vagina first.
REASON NUMBER 7
Up till this point, Mark, I thought you did a good job of hiding how stupid you are. But then you just had to go and let it out. Point 7 has something to do with how Obama is worrisome, because a few of his supporters(out of his millions) cozy up with the likes of people like Hugo Chavez.
We can't have that. We cannot have people in the country cozing up to vicious killers. I mean it's not like the government of the United States of America has ever propped up dictatorships. We over here in the good ol' USA would never support regimes like Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, The Shaw of Iran, or the countless brutal and authoritarian governments that we have set up as proxies in Central America and around the globe. I mean I am sure we were the first government to get all of our money out of South Africa because of the practice of Apartheid.
Oops. I guess we didn't. My guess is Republicans don't like Hugo Chavez because unlike Republicans he gets elected to office. I know how you guys hate democracy and all. You are far more comfortable with being appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court.
IN CLOSING
I am sure none of the reasons you listed have anything to do with race. But they also have nothing to do with reality, or the truth. You racist pig and supporter of fascism!
Yours Truly,
Romius T.
5 comments:
RT: I've probably studied the Chavez years in Venezuela more closely than most on the American blogosphere, anyway.
I've made the same case over and over again that Hugo Chavez likes a good joke, but he's not a dictator nor is he a socialist nor a communist. If anything, his economic policies lean a little right in terms of the macro-economy and left in terms of social policy. His budget surplus allows for all sorts of aid to the poor without inflationary effect. Obama has been needlessly aggressive in his rhetoric about Venezuela in my opinion.
But I don't discuss complicated concepts like eocnomic policy with rigid people.
I want to get some clarification here on his REASON #7.
* Who in Hollywood has "cozied-up" to Hugo Chavez?
* How does one "cozy-up" to an important world leader, anyway, if you are a Hollywood star or just Joe-The-Mark-Gregg?
* I live real near Caracas, am in the world of business and finance, have plenty of political connections and could never in my wildest dreams "cozy up" to Hugo Chavez even if I wanted to, which I don't. What gives?
I really fucked up 6 and seven. I wrote them wore out after a couple of hours of writing.
I wish I were more productive, or had a natural talent for writing. I think I am somewhat more creative than the average blogger, but that is because my view is askew (if you know what I mean)not from being a gifted writer. I really have to struggle to get down on paper what I want to say. Ideas come to me in general forms and I leave lot of the details and form of what I mean to say--geez here I go again not able to explain what I mean to say. I get flustered ...I have some kind of geeks disease where I have a hard time communicating.
this has nothing to do with what you said...
I assume you know what I am talking about because you can read my mind but other I bet don't
I need to learn some skillz.
I think the whole cozy thing is bullshit but right wing and middle America can't stand socialists even though they don't understand socialists
They have no idea how much capitalism is built on it.
Talking to people the press labels as bad makes you scary in the minds of frightened children
you are right to be frustrated about discussing economics with close minded. I am working on a way to redefine the debate like they way the right did on the late 70's and early 80's under Reagan.
Their is a metamorphosis here. it is percolating just under the surface we are bringing it forth bit by bit as we communicate now.
I am confident very soon I will be able to demonstrate for the common man why they are wrong on so much on their own terms.
WELL, RT, THAT'S WHY "HE HATE ME"!
This is what we do over and over again at THE PITCHFORK. We try to discuss business, economics and finance from a pro-capitalist but left-wing perspective, a "city capitalism," if you will as opposed to a "suburban" (laissez-faire Reaganism) or "bible-belt capitalism" (Fascism).
This is what you were also getting at in a way in your "It Is A Well-Documented Fact...." post. It's better that a lot of well-meaning gringos vote for Obama and if part of that is creating paranoid fantasies about "the rich" or "the international banking conspiracy" than that they don't vote or vote for McCain. But the work has hardly begun.
Go re-read the most Classical of Classic Economist's magnum opus, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith. People distilled a masterful discussion of capitalism and the modern social contract, a work which very much informed Marxist thinking, down into one two word metaphor from a book of 1000s of words: "INVISIBLE HAND."
There are not shortage of PhD dissertations written in which the candidate read portions of Adam Smith and David Ricardo's writing aloud to a random sampling of self-identified American "free-market capitalists" and "anti-communists." When asked to identify the writer of the passage, nearly all subjects answered "Karl Marx" "Lenin" "some Black Panther" or "Bill Clinton."
In certain -- ahem (fuck you very much you know who you ware) -- circles "capitalism" and "socialism" are dirty words like "cunt" or "suck my dick." I'm Jewish buddy and I only know two curse words "cancer" and "Hiitler". "Capitalism" and "Socialism," "cunt" and "suck my dick" aren't stuff I have any trouble saying.
As philosophers, Keynes, Veblen and Chomsky found a lot to like in capitalist and communist thinking and all three arrived at different syntheses of a transparent, regulated capitalism which bore many of the INDIVIDUALIST as opposed to INSTITUTIONAL aspects of capitalism and the broader more compassionate social contract of communism. Their philosophical blends indeed involved an "intellectual dialectical materterialism" but one which didn't insist on total surrender of one class or another.
I'll surprise the hell out of you here. Did you know that Michael Milken's views of money and markets, war and peace, were far to the left of those of Barack Obama? What I like about Obama, though, is that he himself has read all this stuff and is willing to have these conversations within himself, among his closest advisors and will occasinally give the public a paint-by-numbers version of it.
But Obama is only a tiny part of the idea. This conversation should be accessible to most people. If you can play poker, you can have this conversastion. You don't have to be an options genius or anything.
Now, the reason I'm up for the "HE HATE ME" AWARD is that he, indeed hate me, on left and right blogs for bringing this stuff up. For asking where along the line did America conflate the presence of the DEATH PENALTY and lack of a system of socialized medicine with the practice of free-market capitalism?
Kelso
I actually knew that Milken's take on economics is to the far left now, he along with many fortune 500 CEO's take positions that would be considered elitist if broached by commies/
I have read a snippets of Smith who should be known more for his work on morals than his economics.
It is very true that marx's economics is grounded in the classical economics of smith and ricardo (and who knew anyone other than a marxist would throw around the name ricardo like we were all supposed to know who he is, but of course he is the founder of value theory and nobody care about value theory anymore.
I place myself in the market socialism category if I must place myself in a category (no matter that the term itself seems nonsensical!)
I don't expect everyone to know who David Ricardo is. I hardly expect anyone to know it. I do, however, expect a country's political and financial leadership to know or at least to have their staffs start their research with Wikipedia and go on from there before any "leader" opens his or her mouth on such subjects as Social Security, Medicare, or inflation.
Post a Comment