OT- political...only for republicans

On Aug 31, 8:02*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, jeff wrote:
On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, *wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...l?_r=1&src=me&...

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/08/26/AR201....

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? *but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. *again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." *I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). *I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. *And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. *Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. *The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. *Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. *Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. *Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades." *

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


Horse****.

Idiot.

g.