Left Wing Kook alert: Linda Rondstadt

on Nov 18, 2004

Yeah, that's it..... you're not a moron. You're just selfish.

Want to compare how much each of us gave to charity last year?

Draginol: Elton John bashed the President too. Is that your next article

Only if Elton John writes that anyone who supports Bush is a Nazi or a moron. If someone wants to criticize (or "Bash") an elected official that's their first amendment right. I don't care that Linda R doesn't like Bush. However, for her to argue that those of us who made an informed, educated choice when we voted for Bush are someone misguided or "little Hitlers" then that's unacceptable.

17

Rightwinger

on Nov 18, 2004

That's why you keep losing. You guys have this unearned sense of intellectual superiority. An unearned arrogance that really alienates millions of Americans.

Very true. Undeserved intellectual arrogance of the Left is a big turn-off for many.
But then, it allows washed-up losers like Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo to shore up their flagging careers by posing as political pundits.
It's a good thing they have acting experince; they can use their talents to act like the real journalists the Right uses.

18

cactoblasta

on Nov 18, 2004

Want to compare how much each of us gave to charity last year?

C'mon Draginol, you can do better than that. Everyone knows you're loaded. It's kind of childish to rub it in.

But on the point of your article I agree in some ways. As what would in America be called a liberal (ie I believe in Keynesian economic policy and traditionally liberal human rights) I definitely think I'm superior to some of the people who probably voted for Bush. I reckon I'm better than some of the people who voted Democrat. I find it difficult not to make such value judgements - isn't claiming equality stretching it when you have a good education and you're being matched with a junkie who's bribed into votinng?

Linda takes it a bit far by saying that the few who are driven by their bloodlust are naturally influential on the government, but I doubt she's wrong that there were some who voted for Bush on the basis they would get to see a little more violence inflicted on 'the towelheads'. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but I can't see a line where she claims all Republicans are like that; was that in another article you read?

19

Draginol

on Nov 18, 2004

C'mon Draginol, you can do better than that. Everyone knows you're loaded. It's kind of childish to rub it in.

That's my point though. The argument is that people like me are either morons or selfish or both. Well, she made the assertion. Yes, I'm "loaded". So what? We're both human beings. Why am I to be demonized simply because my philosophy on the role of government is different than hers? Don't I contribute a great deal to society? I've worked hard. I create jobs. I provide this website free of charge. I give quite a bit to charity each year. I spend a lot of effort trying to be a good dad to my kids and being a good husband to my wife. And I think most people would agree I"m pretty informed on the issues.

Why can't liberals accept that their way isn't the only way. That people can honestly look at the data and come to a different conclusion as to what that data means? And that conclusion can be just as educated and informed as theirs?

Sure, there are probably racists who vote for Bush. There are racists who vote for Kerry. The difference is that it's the left wingers who go around impugning the character and intelligence of ALL their opponents.

LIke you pointed out, I'm "loaded". Wouldn't it make more sense for me to be the one to argue that those who disagree with me are flawed? That those who have different philosophies on life are misguided because my philosphies have led to success and happiness that by any objective measurement is far beyond most of those who oppose my point of view? That my philosophies have not changed simply because of my economic status and therefore the path to wealth, success, and happiness is to follow my lead? And therefore, since I voted for Bush that those who don't vote for Bush are clearly on the "Wrong" path? I could even point out that most self-starting successful people probably voted for Bush. You won't find many Democrats at an Entrepreneur of the Year banquet. I mean really, if you want to get right down to it, I could crank up the snob meter and say that Kerry supporters, since they're on avarge less poor and I bet if you polled them, less happy, less satisfied with life should really ask whether they are truly enlightened after all?

Heck, if you really want to get nasty about it. There is scientific evidence showing that poverty and low IQ are related in the United States. And overwhelmingly people who are poor vote for Democrats. So in a pinch, you could make the case that dumb people are much more inclined to vote for Democrats.

But that would be pretty damn snobby, right? But I don't feel that way. I believe there are an infinite number of paths to happiness. And I believe that those who don't agree with me may be just as "enlightened" as I am. Why is it the left, which claims to be so tolerant is, in actuality, really so intolerant on intellectualism?

I'm not asking for people to agree with my views on politics. I am just asking that people have basic decency. To have a little respect for other points of view.

20

cactoblasta

on Nov 18, 2004

I'm sure you do make a big contribution to society. But asking whether someone with much less income than you wishes to compare monetary contributions smacks of 'piss on the wall' insecurity. It's beneath you.

Why can't liberals accept that their way isn't the only way. That people can honestly look at the data and come to a different conclusion as to what that data means? And that conclusion can be just as educated and informed as theirs?

In historical terms this is an interesting idea for an engineer to have, and I'd be surprised if it's a common view amongst the stereotypically hard-headed right. True, liberals are stereotyped as being open-minded, but as you've discovered I don't think it's very fair. I'm only 20 but I've already reached the age where most of my views are fairly well settled. Time will swing them slowly to the right, as happens to all ageing people, but for the moment I and most people my age or older are highly unlikely to make any radical changes to their philosophies without a serious reason.

If you mean that people should be polite towards the perceived delusions of others then I'd agree. Rudeness is always the weapon of the intellectually stilted. But the problem there is that there are a lot of intellectually stilted people in this world, and some are almost certain to stumble near to you at some time or another. It's better to reject them as lunatics as a mass rather than take their actual views into account and in doing corrupt your own view of more informed people who hold the deluded's opinion based on facts, not fairy tales.

21

Draginol

on Nov 18, 2004

Cacto - if someone is going to assert that I supported Bush because I'm "selfish" (and they, by contrast are not selfish as evidenced by their non-support of Bush) I think it's certainly fair to ask who gave more to charity. If I make more money, the question then should be, why? I bet I grew up as poor if not poorer than anyone else in this thread.

22

Rightwinger

on Nov 19, 2004

As what would in America be called a liberal (ie I believe in Keynesian economic policy and traditionally liberal human rights) I definitely think I'm superior to some of the people who probably voted for Bush. I reckon I'm better than some of the people who voted Democrat

----cactoblasta

But isn't it the liberal "cultural diversity" rhetoric that claims that ALL people and cultures are equally valuable? None is better or worse than any of the others?

You seem to be especially arrogant, even for a liberal. Are you a celebrity?

23

Rightwinger

on Nov 19, 2004

But the problem there is that there are a lot of intellectually stilted people in this world, and some are almost certain to stumble near to you at some time or another. It's better to reject them as lunatics as a mass rather than take their actual views into account and in doing corrupt your own view of more informed people who hold the deluded's opinion based on facts, not fairy tales.

Man, cacto, this is very nearly the kind of reasoning the Nazis used for their hatred of everyone and everything that wasn't "Aryan".

You know,I don't like everyone I meet here, but I do respect their right to their views, no matter how moronic I consider them.

Don't be a Hater, cacto!

24

cactoblasta

on Nov 19, 2004

No I'm not a celebrity. I just see no reason to believe that every single person on this planet is my equal in everything despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unlike socialists and some liberals I don't believe that everyone is of equal value; in that my views are somewhat more classically conservative. I think people should have rights and freedom, but that doesn't mean I consider everyone to be an equal. There's no point pretending anything because I have no intention of treating them in any way other than with benevolence. I'm only liberal by American standards because the term has been warped into some all-encompassing behemoth. It's actually difficult to not be liberal if you consider the ordinary, non-American definition and the American definition at the same time.

Draginol - perhaps it would make sense if you put it into percentages of income based on relative spending and comparative costs, but noone rational would make a statement like Dabe did and be capable of being persuaded by argument. If you want to focus on this point rather than what I argued earlier then I'd rather leave it there if that's fine with you.

25

dabe

on Nov 19, 2004

He is so selfish that he provides this website for free so that people like you can come on here and say nasty things to him. Yet, for some reason you think that is OK?He's also so selfish that he looks at ways to increase the employee head count at his company even if we don't need everyone. I'm glad he's so selfish- it has provided me with a stable, well compensated job that I have enjoyed for over 9 years.

Thanks, and I am sorry for not being more specific. I am sure that drag is so unselfish. He's basically a wonderful person. Drag, I'm sorry I insulted you. I'm sure you're not selfish. At least, not in your immediate circle. KarmaGirl certainly pointed that out. My beef, however, with people who advocate tax cuts, particularly in spite of raging deficits, loss of services, health care, environmental support, etc. not to mention during wartime, for the sole reason that it's good for business, is exhibiting a social selfishness that I just can't understand. Trickle down economics are a proven failure. Cutting taxes on rich people only gives money to rich people. The poor, which is a rapidly growing segment of society, for reasons completely beyond their control, just get shafted, and any such tax cuts do absolutely nothing to benefit them. Trickle down economics is a fallacy that is perpetrated on the public to "enhance" the economy. This is why I used the word "selfish". In that respect, I stand firm.

Also, I do not think LInda Ronstadt is a kook. She is articulating what almost 50% of Americans believe. Bush is a disaster. Time and history will not judge him kindly.

26

dabe

on Nov 19, 2004

One more thing. I'm sure you, drag, gave more to charity than I did. I do not have the money to give any such amounts. That does not make me more selfish than you. Besides, charity is not the panacea that will cure America's ills. That will have to come from the government, itself, in social support, health care, education, etc.

On another note, I'm sure jealous about that new Dell.

27

Dr Guy

on Nov 19, 2004

Also, I do not think LInda Ronstadt is a kook. She is articulating what almost 50% of Americans believe. Bush is a disaster. Time and history will not judge him kindly.

Not even close. First, about 52% voted for Bsuh, second not all Kerry voters are as stupid as the above statement. There are actually some liberals who are intelligent and can debate issues without name calling. I would guess comnservatively at least 1/4 of them., so that means 65-70% of the people are not bigotted and stupid.

But that is just me.

28

Draginol

on Nov 19, 2004

Thanks, and I am sorry for not being more specific. I am sure that drag is so unselfish. He's basically a wonderful person. Drag, I'm sorry I insulted you. I'm sure you're not selfish. At least, not in your immediate circle. KarmaGirl certainly pointed that out. My beef, however, with people who advocate tax cuts, particularly in spite of raging deficits, loss of services, health care, environmental support, etc. not to mention during wartime, for the sole reason that it's good for business, is exhibiting a social selfishness that I just can't understand. Trickle down economics are a proven failure. Cutting taxes on rich people only gives money to rich people. The poor, which is a rapidly growing segment of society, for reasons completely beyond their control, just get shafted, and any such tax cuts do absolutely nothing to benefit them. Trickle down economics is a fallacy that is perpetrated on the public to "enhance" the economy. This is why I used the word "selfish". In that respect, I stand firm.

Also, I do not think LInda Ronstadt is a kook. She is articulating what almost 50% of Americans believe. Bush is a disaster. Time and history will not judge him kindly.

Thanks for the apology. Let respond to some of your points:

1) As a generalization, what I object to is having my political beliefs attacked as somehow being immoral or ignorant. I have different views than you do. Not inferior ones.

2) You provide tax cuts to people in order to stimulate the economy. It is recognized that government taxation is a drag on the economy. The US was in a recession. The government can't do a lot of things to help but one thing it can do is lower taxes so that consumers and job creators have more capital to purchase things and invest. Doing that will cause a deficit for sure. But I would argue that had Bush not acted, we would now be in a steep recession if not recession. Having the Dot-Com bubble burst and 9/11 happen at the same time was far more traumatic than the 1929 stock market crash in my opinion. The money we saved in taxes went to hiring more people. In fact, we've hired SIX people this fiscal quarter already and it's only November. That's new jobs that helps everyone.

I advocate tax cuts when anyone is paying more than 1/3rd of their income to the federal government. I don't think the federal government provides enough bang for the buck. I would rather see the federal government cut taxes even further and the states raise their taxes.

3) The poor is not a rapidly growing segment of society. And of course tax cuts do nothing to benefit them -- they don't pay taxes. You say trickle down economics is a falacy what experience do you have at it? My taxes were lowered. I then turn around and hire more people. This site, JoeUser.com, would not have existed without that tax cut because it allowed us to hire an additional IT person and this site was the first project he was put on. This site existing is evidence that trickle down (supply side) economics works. You can use negative terms like "selfish" all you want but that doesn't make it true. To me, it just shows an intolerance for other views and experiences. I think you would agree that I have more economic experience than you do. I recognize how tax policy works.

Besides, if you want to talk about selfishness, talk to John Edwards. He didn't pay federal income taxes. Instead, he made himself an LLC. He then paid himself with dividends from his LLC which is only taxed at 15%. In 2002 I paid more in federal income taxes than John Edwards did I believe even though he "made" $20 million and I made far far less than that. That is another reason I object to increasing income taxes because people like John Kerry (who barely pays and income taxes - 12% in 2003) and John Edwards weazel out. The "Selfish" Bush paid 29% of his income in federal income taxes. We need to change the tax rules but the lawyers, who control the Democrats at this point, won't let that happen because they're the ones who mess with these LLC rules that let rich guys get out of paying taxes. This is something almost every business owner or "loaded" guy like me knows about. But it gets little coverage because it's "complicated". Income taxes are easy to understand. LLC shell companies aren't.

4) Anyone who refers to people as "little Hitlers" because of who they vote for is a kook. I don't care which side they're on.

I think time and history will judge Bush well. His work in Afghanistan alone would put him in a good light. Iraq is still up in the air, we'll see. His handling of the economy though was masterful and the No Child Left Behind act is making dramatic changes to our problematic public school system.

29

Rightwinger

on Nov 19, 2004

She is articulating what almost 50% of Americans believe. Bush is a disaster. Time and history will not judge him kindly.

You folks said the same kinds of things about Ronald Reagan, and he's been out of office going on 20 years.
He's as popular now as he was then, or did you miss the huge outpouring of emotion when he passed away? History is showing that he just may wind up in the pantheon of our greatest leaders. Bush may not even nearly be in Reagan's league, but I'll back him anyway.

30

Rightwinger

on Nov 19, 2004

The insult of begrudging a "selfish" businessmen, who provides you a forum at no charge for you to express yourself, highlights how the left chooses to engage the pressing political & social discourse of out time: by name calling.

Though I agree with you, hitparade, the fact that he graciously and altruistically provides this free forum should have no bearing on one's right to express him/herself. That's why the forum's here.