Search My Blog

April 30, 2011

I tried

I enjoy reading The Huffington Post (HP) online and I am fully aware of their left leaning agenda. To be fair, and not present myself as a hard core conservative who will not listen to the viewpoints of others, there are some very good writers for HP who shed perspective on issues I may have already have an entrenched viewpoint who will cause me to step back and rethink my position. The reader comments, however, do not.  I have never read more vitriol and hate from some of the most ignorant and reason depraved people than I have on the HP online- from both sides of center.


I wanted to share an example of discourse from a recent Huffington Post headline Obama Birth Certificate Released where I decided to use reason, civility and facts instead of my usual posts consisting of snide, irreverent and sarcastic comments. I have tried former strategy in the past on similar message boards but was met with a barrage of name calling, ad hominem attacks and unhinged comments that could only have come from keyboard translator machines with monkeys banging away at the other end. I found out long ago that both the hardcore left and the right are like spoiled 4-year olds- you cannot reason with them, they will not listen to your logic and eventually they will perform the literary equivalent of throwing a tantrum.


I have no love for Obama but have blogged many times that I do not want him to fail- fail at a second term, of course, but not to fail as the President of (what was once known as) the most powerful country on the planet. The headline article peaked my interest and I knew there were going to be some battles, in fact over 4000 comments (as of this post there are 45k +) were left before I even read the article. I read some very well written comments by both sides and decided to try once more to write with a civil tone devoid of mockery and disdain. The following transcript of my comments and readers's replies follows. 


Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House

TKThis was never an issue for me as there are plenty of other things that cast doubt on Obama's legitimacy to hold the position of President of the United States. What is sad, even after listening to 9 minutes of bumbling to get to the point, is that there will still be people who will focus on this asinine birth certificat­e issue regardless of facts.
I think that is a well written comment with just a hint of displeasure towards Obama and his inability to just come out and say something. Without a teleprompter he fumbles for words like George Bush but with the oratory condescension of John Kerry. My last sentence was supposed to show my balanced viewpoints of the issue but sadly the jackholes who read my post never made it past my first sentence. 
schildpad:  Oh really? And what are these other things, pray tell? 
Qualificat­ions for presdident­: 
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constituti­on, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-fiv­e years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.  - US Constituti­on, Article II, Section 1
Barring the sarcastic overtones with the "pray tell" idiom, I was interested that the writer decided to go with the legalities of becoming president, completely missing the spirit of my original post. He must have thought I was a hardcore "birther" and that the birth certificate was a fake- despite my last statement condemning such a thought. 
TK: I was thinking more along the abstract lines of his lack of experience­, for starters. Little things that really qualify someone to hold the position, regardless of the laundry list of official qualificat­ions you present. Nice citation, by the way
Not equipped to handle reason and logic, schildpad desperately tries to assert his own.
schildpad: Unless they're up for a second term, no one has actual experience qualifying them for the office.
TK: That is an asinine conclusion and you insult your own intelligen­ce. You do not need to have experience as the President of the United States in order to be qualified to hold the position, however there are things that you can do that parallel the same type of experience a candidate should posess. This can be said about any new position someone is applying for - Not all CEO's were CEO's before they were promoted. They worked their way up in similar positions. 
Obama was a Senator for 2 years and did nothing noteworthy beforehand to prepare him for the Office he currently holds. McCain has decades of experience leading in politics. Unfortunat­ely, he chose a V.P. who did have experience in politics but was a complete idiot. To be fair, I suspect McCain would not have accomplish­ed anything noteworthy during his presidency­- much like Gerald Ford.
I can tell when someone is getting to the end of thier rope when I read the address in the next reply- snookie?:
schildpad:  Snookie, my conclusion is based on the simple fact that no other job in the world is like being president of the united states - and as you say, like Ford, McCain - for all his "experienc­e" would likely not have accomplish­ed much. Take a closer look at our past presidents­, we have had quite a few with little or no government experience­. Eisenhower was one of our greatest presidents (ever, in my opinion) and had he ever been in government­? Not exactly. Look at Lincoln - state legislatur­e, one term in the House and two failed senate tries. Not a whole lot of experience there either when you get right down to it.
I like the "fact" this person states, typical of someone who does not have the capacity to actually research anything related to their position. Schildpad must have taken some lessons in "making shit up to support my position" from Senator John Kyl (R-AZ). He is really taking a page out of the liberal play book by using "snookie" and other tolerant, mature phrases like birther and tea bagger.


I had the last word in this thread and never heard from schildpad again- either by the limitation imposed by HP comment structure or, what I believe, being bested by comments which caused him to curl up in the fetal position while watching marathon episodes of Bill Mahar. 


There was a very revealing comment directed to me by someone who clearly cannot take any criticism of his President and jumps to irrational and absurd conclusions by people who make those criticisms. It was made right after schildpad's first comment but has since been removed. It went something like "What, that he's black? Nice hood." 


Oh well. I tried.

April 23, 2011

Another "What is my political philosophy?" website

Whenever I see a new site that attempts to define my political philosophy by asking 10 questions I just have to take the quiz. They all end the same- lumping me into the Republican category. Regardless of how "in-depth" the quizzes claim to be, however, they all suck. They suck because they do not take into account the people who do not have a yes or no position. I think many people do not really care one way or the other about a great many things.

I do not care if gay marriage becomes legalized or not and there is not a political party for that. The quizzes strong-arm the quiz taker into a yes or no position with no grey area to spare. I find the same narrowing viewpoint with questions about US military action- if you support the military then you are auto-lumped into the group that thinks we are supposed to be International Meter Maids preemptively taking out any crazed dictator who claims to hate the United States. Smaller entities who threaten and kill Americans, like Somalian pirates, are paid no attention. Many of the Maybe/I don't care questions must be thrown away or given very little weighting.

I am labeled a capital purist/Social Capitalist but I wholeheartedly disagree with the last statement that says I believe in the economy the way it is. I don't think anyone believes that except the crooks and politicians (nay, I repeat myself).

Here are my scores:








































There is at least one point that I disagree with on every category- some very vehemently. Again, there is no party for those of us who appear weak to the opposition by not taking a stand or position on an issue. Some of us don't give a shit either way- gay marriage, pot legalization, levelizing tax burdens, flag burning, etc. We are honest enough to admit that Fox News and CNN are both culprits of reporting heavy handed agendas on either side. We recognize that fact and we seek out our own sources of information to make a well informed decision on the issues. We neither identify with Glenn Beck's insane point of views nor with Anderson Cooper's hypocrisy. We believe that people need government assistance but when that assistance drags on for generations for the same families then it is time to turn off the spigot.

If anyone knows of a political philosophy website that is actually worth a damn please let us know.

April 10, 2011

Shutdown averted; Triad fights for credit

I was in the military when the first shutdown of my lifetime happened in November of 1995. The shutdown happened the day before payday and many civilians struggled for a week while both sides bickered about which items they would negotiate with as little backlash for future votes as possible. 


The second shutdown happened in December of that same year and lasted almost a month. Needless to say, a lot of people suffered- but not the military! We were paid although I really wanted to see if the loudmouths in my division were really going to refuse to show up to work if we were not going to receive pay. I tried to remind them that we are not an autonomous organization and if we were asked to work without pay while pulling weeds naked with jockstraps on our heads then that is what we would have to do. 


Clinton was President and the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate, which is probably why the military continued to receive pay. I blame Gingrich and his asinine Contract with America for the delays.


The 2011 government shutdown was going to cost the military pay along with 800,000 government employees (plus National Parks, contractors and even delayed some tax refunds). Sounds pretty bad except that there were provisions for those same 800k workers to receive government assistance, i.e. unemployment. And not to worry if you are on welfare- your baby momma would continue to receive benefits. Only the military would be sucking hind tit.


Currently, the House is GOP controlled 241 - 193 while the Democrats hold the Senate at a 53 - 47 margin. Fact: 
No Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Balanced Federal Budget in 40 Years; No Republican President Has Balanced Federal Budget in 50 Years
That maddening quote is cited from the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget.   Even more maddening were some of the issues that divided both party's. What irritated me the most about the whole impending shutdown was the minuscule amount of money in question. 


The total amount of money requested for the 2011 budget was $3.83 trillion. Interesting that the word trillion is thrown around these days with such reckless abandonment. Let me write that budget figure out longhand: $3,830,000,000,000. To put that in perspective, the average salary in the United States is only .0000000156657963% of the 2011 budget.




The total amount of budget cuts causing such a fuss was $33 billion (proposed by the Democrats)- a mere .099% of the total budget. Chump change really.


With as much procrastination Obama displayed at the initial Gulf oil spill intervention, he finally intervened with the budget crisis and demanded resolution. For this he accepts credit for the (momentary) government shutdown. The Democrats accept victory because they gave up more than they asked for, which is exactly why the GOP is claiming victory. 


In the end the American people were shafted again, whether they know it or not. The tea partiers showed how a little determination can foster a radical change in government occupancy. I have decided that I will not vote for whomever is in office right now. I am not hardcore R or D but rather float either just to the right or to the left of certain issues, but I do know that if you are on the Trickish Knave Shit List you will not receive my vote:


Commander in Chief: Obama (D, Kenyan)
V.P.:  Joe "the" Biden (D)


Senate:
Diane Feinstien  (D) 
Barbara Boxer  (D)
Seriously, these two need to go just on basic principle.


House:
Dan Lungren  (R)


This guy is looking better every day.