Sunday, September 21, 2008

A day in the life of Jason Democrat

At 11:51 PM , Jason said...

[I've not got much to comment on in this particular stanza because it is is so obviously a "YOU MUST FEAR; FEAR THE LIBERAL AND GET IN ORDER!" argument that it's hardly worth reading.

“A Day in the Life of Joe Republican” was written in an alarmist style, stereotyping Republicans. Since my piece was a satirical take-off on the original hit piece, it was written in the same style. Blame the Democrats who wrote the original.

Yet still, I'd hazard to not Jesus's teachings of the Good Samaritan when considering that attack on "illegal aliens."

i) I see you favor the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. What, exactly, does the Good Samaritan stand for in your allegorical interpretation? Is the Good Samaritan FDR or LBJ? In any case, that’s very creative exegesis.

ii) Ironically for you, the parable of the Good Samaritan emphasizes private charity and individual intervention. The good samaritan doesn’t subcontract the job to a gov’t bureaucracy.

Certainly, they (illegal aliens) don't deserve to be slotted between sex offenders…

You dishonestly quote me out of context. Was I referring to illegal aliens per se? No, I referred to them in the context of free social services. Try again.

And the obvious hyperbole of "condom-vending machines in preschool." (sic)

Yes, I use hyperbole. Remember, I’m spoofing “A Day in the Life of Joe Republican.” Hyperbole is a basic feature of satirical writing. It’s used to make a point. Sorry you’re too illiterate to appreciate the genre. You must be a product of our public school system.

Dropping the hyperbole, I can make the same point literally. The only reason liberals insist on sex-ed for little kids is to indoctrinate little kids in alternative lifestyles. Brainwashing the younger generation to accept sexual perversion as the norm.

Perhaps, though, Jason is one of those “Christians” who thinks that sodomy and bestiality are valid forms of sexual expression as long as Joe is in a committed, covenantal relationship with his canine sexual partner.

[I was totally unaware that coffee was a controlled substance. Nor is there any legislation on the books for this. Hyperbole.]

If liberals have their way, coffee will indeed be a controlled substance.

In the liberal outlook, narcotics should be decriminalized while fast food should be a controlled substance.

And, of course, I was merely using coffee to illustrate the general mentality of the liberal food police:

As usual, Jason is too dense to follow the argument.

[In 2002, a Congressional commission found that Pharmaceutical companies were spending an average of $2.5 BILLION annually, not on litigation (not even the "frivolous lawsuits") but on Direct-to-Consumer advertising.

A diversionary tactic on Jason’s part. Yes, businesses spend money to advertise their product. They advertise their product to sell their product. That’s how they stay in business. Turning a profit on the products they sell.

Before 1990, Pharms were not allowed to market direct-to-consumer. Even today, only New Zealand and the US are the ~only~ two countries (dare I say it) foolish enough to allow this practice. Do you really think that the consumer, after a 30-second viagra/cialis commercial is ready to diagnose and prescribe for himself -as opposed, perhaps, to the medical doctor with all of her years of education, training, and experience? No way, no how.

Another diversionary tactic. Whether Jason thinks that direct-to-consumer marketing is good or bad is irrelevant to the cost of frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, and I mentioned 1990; guess what else has happened since then? You got it, med costs have skyrocketed. Gotta pay for that "free-market" advertising somehow, billions of dollars are a lot to make up.

When pharmaceutical companies pass along the cost of frivolous lawsuits, that adds to the cost of medicine. So if Jason were really worried about the cost of medicine, he’d be equally worried about the cost of frivolous lawsuits.

Last note on this (for now): Do you know how expensive good lawyers are? Well, you'd best start saving, because the Pharms can afford them, many of them

If they didn’t have to fend off frivolous lawsuits, they could afford to lay off some of their high-priced lawyers and thereby save the consumer the cost of having so many corporate lawyers on the payroll.

And you lawyer isn't going to get very far against them if you do get sick/maimed/killed from their drugs, let-alone if it was a "frivolous lawsuit."]

Notice Jason’s bait-and-switch tactic. Did I say that suing a company over defective products is frivolous? No.

Because Jason’s position is indefensible, he defends his position using dishonest tactics.

[LOL. Yeah, like unions generally allow garnishment of wages.

Jason is incapable of thinking for himself. If part of your wages is deducted for health insurance or membership in some HMO, then, yes, your wages are being garnished.

Nope. And before we assume such facts, why not offer back the supposed "lost wages" in exchange for the employees health care? I doubt there'd be many takers of that particular bargain.

Notice, too, that Jason, in his typically dishonest conduct, is disregarding my reference to “closed” shop unions, where employees have no say-so about where their money goes.

If Jason has so much faith in the popularity of unions, then he would support open shop unions where prospective employees have a choice in the matter.

BTW, liberals are also trying to deny union employees the right of the private ballot.

Oh, and on the other side of that argument (because I hear it so often from "conservatives"), what about the entrepreneurial employer who has created these jobs but really might just possibly create more but for the cost of insurance? While my mind does *almost* want to hear the violin you're playing for the employer, the fact remains that my heart isn't too fond of sweatshops.

A complete non-sequitur. If an employer doesn’t offer health insurance, that’s equivalent to sweatshop labor? Only a brain-dead liberal could segue from the one to the other.

Here’s a little history lesson for Jason: when I was growing up, public school teachers didn’t have health insurance. They paid for their medical care on a fee-for-service basis. Is that equivalent to sweatshop labor? Either way, it comes out of your earnings.

In another WWJD-moment: Does the master owe no duty to the servant? Who is in the better position to bear the burden? Honestly, if the cost of supporting employee health becomes too great, then the risks are too high -and that is an injurious or insolvent industry.]

Poor little Jason can’t think outside the box. Health insurance isn’t cost-effective. To stay in business, an insurance company has to take in more than it pays out.

If people can’t afford health care, they can’t afford health insurance either. Health insurance doesn’t make health care more affordable. It doesn’t drive down the costs. Indeed, it contributes to the rising cost of medical care. It’s just a shell game.

Jason illustrates the principle that a sucker is born every minute. Is the employer bearing the burden? If it’s withheld from your paycheck, then the employee is bearing the burden. How stupid do you have to be not to figure that out? (Answer: stupid enough to be a liberal.)

And casting the issue in slave/slave master terms is an unwittingly revealing admission about the welfare state.

[Waitaminute.... now you're attacking "limited liability laws?" I thought just a few paragraphs back the argument was against too many damaging lawsuits?... No. You wouldn't make that mistake. Nobody could flip-flop so fast that it looks like they're lying or confused...]

Yet another example of Jason’s bait-and-switch tactic. Did I say I was opposed to “damaging” lawsuits? No, I said I was opposed to “frivolous” lawsuits? Is “damaging” synonymous with “frivolous”? Not according to the dictionary.

Either Jason is lying or confused.

[Really? That's the argument? The Kyoto Protocol REQUIRES 36 countries to reduce their emissions. It does NOT, by any means or interpretation, cause other countries to contaminate to make-up or exceed that loss -honestly... where do this completely irrational distractors come from?

Another diversionary tactic. Did I deny that the Kyoto Protocol requires some countries to reduce their admissions? No. To the contrary, it clamps down on successful countries like the US while allowing third world countries like India and China to pollute the environment to their heart’s content.

If Jason had an honest argument for his position, he wouldn’t resort to so many sophistries.

Oh, wait... Bush? Yes, I do think I remember that. So, they're masters of lies (*ahem,* 'WMD's in Iraq?',

Yet another diversionary tactic. Notice how he manages to segue from Kyoto to WMD. Because he can’t defend his own position, he changes the subject.

Since, however, he introduces the red herring of the Iraq war, how is that supposed to be an argument for the Democrat Party? Here’s a partial list of Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq war:


Pro-Life [seen any change on the Roe v. Wade front? Me neither, but I'm pretty sure that was a platform.], etc. ad nausea... -please don't fall into their influence.

i) Is he playing dumb, or is just plain dumb? A prolife platform doesn’t overturn Roe v. Wade. Only SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. And the only way for SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade is for a conservative president to nominate conservatives whom a conservative Congress will confirm to the high court.

ii) And, of course, this is yet another diversionary tactic on Jason’s part. What does Roe v. Wade have to do with Kyoto? Nothing. Because Jason can’t win the argument, he has to change the subject to distract the reader from his losing streak.

Oh yes, and before you get all worked-up that I linked to wikipedia above, remember: Palin uses it. (Try not to get too distracted by her pretty picture on the site.)]

Thanks for illustrating your liberal sexism. I guess it’s okay to be a male chauvinist pig as long as you’re a liberal male chauvinist pig. It’s quite revealing how the Palin nomination has smoked out the real attitudes of the liberal establishment.

[Again; more hyperbole. Here's Mrs. Bush pointing-out that malaria was long-ago eradicated in the U.S.]

Yes, “long-ago.” Long before environmentalists were banning the use of pesticides.

[I'm sure that the kid with the matches had nothing to do with it. But, to address the argument as made, it's from a recent National Geographic article I think... Yeah, I read that one. I remember that it pointed-out that we keep putting ourselves in harm's way by moving right up to the edges of the forest. Good thing we don't allow the gov't to regulate that, huh?]

Notice how he spends a lot of time ducking the issue. When environmentalists refuse to thin forests, does that, or does it not, contribute to forest fires?

[Waitaminute... I must be reading this wrong, or it's happening again... Is this another flip-flop?
Public Transport = Good, because dad loved it.
Private Transport = BAD, cars and highways have ruined our "magnificent" option.
Public Transpot = BAD.

Since Jason suffers from liberal brain atrophy, let’s spell it out for him:

Once upon a time we had a private railway system. That was destroyed by the Federal highway system.

Was I referring to private transport, viz. cars? No, I was referring to public roads (e.g. Federal highway system).

Jason has his wired crossed. It would take an electrician to sort out his hopeless confusion.

Now that's two times... I'm starting to wonder. What was it Bush said? I think I might turn to him for guidance here. Oh, yeah... "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Nope. That didn't help. That didn't help at all.

i) Another diversionary tactic. Did I say anything about Bush? No.

And why does he constantly single out Bush on the Iraq war. Does poor little Jason suffer from amnesia? What about all the high-profile Democrats who voted for the war resolution?

ii) Oh, and remember all the Congressional Democrats who ran and won (in 2006) on an anti-war platform, promising to end the war if they were elected or reelected. Did they keep their campaign promise? No.

What about Obama? Has he sponsored a bill to pull the plug on the Iraq war? No.

So, yes, I’m starting to wonder. How many times can liberal politicians play a party line Democrat like Jason for the fool? Doesn’t seem to be any threshold to his boundless credulity.

[If they find the corporate tax-system, *ahem*, "usurious," then they could always incorporate as an LLC, and maybe even an LLP. Seriously, this statement shows a distinct lack of understanding of either A) corporate codes, or B) the word "usurious." It sounds more like the argument was provided by one of those "corporate-types." Again, they're sending-out pawns to do their dirty-work on the basis of misrepresentations and fear.

I realize that Jason suffers from liberal dementia, but when you tax a corporation, who pays? The corporation? In the end, doesn’t the consumer pay? The corporation simply passes the tab along to the consumer. What is it about the liberal mentality that it can’t see the obvious starting itself in the face?

As for "overregulation," (sic) weren't we just worried about "limited liability laws?" Isn't that a form of government regulation? Yep, it is. Must be a mistake. Another one.]

Another bait-and-switch. Is “regulation” synonymous with “overregulation”? No. Should we attribute Jason’s illiteracy to the fact that he received a social promotion in public school?

[No. It doesn't work this way. How many people do you know enjoying the high-life in Aspen on worker's comp? Hyperbole -utterly ridiculous if you take just one minute to consider the assertion. Not to mention, that's a great way to show faith in your common man. Would you do this? Then again, you might -you thought of it after all.]

Worker’s comp. fraud is a widespread and easily documented phenomenon. Jason offers no factual refutation—just evasive sophistries.

[Oops. The FSLIC hasn't existed since 1989. Another baseless claim? No way... but nobody would buy this, then!]

Look, dummy, I referred to FSLIC because the original article (“A Day in the Life of Joe Republican”) referred to FSLIC. If the fact that it’s become defunct (before the original article was written) make that appeal a “false claim,” then the original article made a false claim.

[Education is well-worth the cost.

Irrelevant to whether education is overpriced.

Loans are available to all.

Irrelevant to whether gov’t loans drive up the cost of tuition. And, of course, you only take out a student loan in the first place because the tuition is unaffordable.

Oh, and I'll let you know that universities are still extremely competitive, that's why our upper-education system is the best in the world.]

Jason turns a blind eye to the obvious: if gov’t subsidizes a college education, then colleges can charge more for tuition since Uncle Sam is footing part of the bill.

[Harvard-worthy GPA and SAT? Well, then Joe is not going to "community college." If Joe had the grades and SAT to get in to Harvard, then he's there.

Demonstrably false.

If all he had was his sense of entitlement -well, then, yeah... he may well be in community college. As for the second part of that assertion: Is that racism I hear? Being from the inner-city does not make anyone less human, no more so than being a Samaritan did in Biblical times. And I'm pretty sure that G*d still doesn't smile upon racism or classism.]

i) If you’re so opposed to racism, then why are you a liberal racist? Affirmative action is a liberal white idea. It’s not designed to help blacks. Rather, it’s designed to absolve white liberals of white guilt. That’s why black conservatives opposite it. To take a few examples:

Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

Do you think that Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele (to name a few) are racists?

Affirmative action is inherently racist since it assumes that certain minority groups can’t make it on merit alone.

ii) And let’s not forget that affirmative action pits one minority group against another. It discriminates against Asian-Americans because Asians are too successful for their own good.

[Alcoholism is a disease but it is NOT a defense for driving under the influence. Not in any state in the union. Don't drink and drive.]

I’m taking the liberal position to its logical conclusion. Of course, liberals are illogical, so I wouldn’t expect Jason to follow the argument.

[Awww... there's that bucolic countryside again. Damn those highways! Let's go back to public transport and REGULATE cars! Oh, wait... I think we know where that argument goes. Shoot.

Since Jason is such a dull boy, we have to explain the obvious to him: I’m responding to the liberal on his own grounds. “A Day in the Life of Joe Republican” is a heavy-handed attempt to parody the conservative outlook.

I, personally, don’t have to oppose public highways to answer the liberal on his own grounds. Nowadays it would be impossible to create the Federal highway system since deep green liberals would oppose the project with a slew of environmental impact statements.

Okay, what about this next part: "Urbanites" are evil. I keep hearing this. We had "inner city students" taking over Harvard from the more-deserving. Now we've got "urbanites" overunning the countryside. City-dwellers are really scary, apparently. Really? Why? Got any family or friends in the city? Are they pretty evil? By the way, as of 2005 80% of Americans reside in "cities or suburbs." That's a lot of evil. Oh my, it seems that 79% of Americans are Christian. Uh-oh.]

Once again, Jason is too obtuse to realize that I’m merely answering the liberal on his own terms. It’s liberals who traditionally attack “white flight” from the inner cities to the suburbs. They insinuate that “white flight” is racially motivated. I’m merely responding in kind.

[Yeah, wax candles are pretty quaint. But they can make the long-nights studying for that Harvard education rather brutal. By the way, how was this message composed and sent, anyway? Oh, wait, yeah... computers. Best get your quill ready if you're arguing for the end of electricity.]

Once again, Jason is too dim to realize that I’m merely answering the liberal on his own grounds. I don’t have a problem with modern technology.

But there’s a tension between technology and environmentalism. That’s a problem for liberals, not for me.

[I'm pretty sure that this is still ostensibly a free country, and that we can invest in any "compound interest-bearing account" that we choose.

Another deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote. When Jason can’t make an honest case for his liberal party affiliation, he’s tacitly admitting that his position is indefensible.

What was I referring to? In context, I was explicitly referring to the privatization of Social Security, which liberals oppose.

But we do need to choose to do so. Too bad you're not doing that but instead you're complaining. Funny thing too, what you're now pining for was initiated by Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat, as part of the "New Deal." I'm not sure that there was EVER a more liberal program in the United States. Shucks.]

Jason is such a dimwit. Was I pining for Social Security? No. I was plugging the privatization of Social Security, which is the antithesis of FDR’s New Deal program.

[Joe might want to get some more education then. Oh, wait, that's right. Joe's a Harvard-man (or at least, he would have been if not for "racial quotas." I'm sure he can think his way out of this one.]

Was I referring to “Joe”? No. I was referring to Joe’s “Dad.” Another example of Jason’s illiteracy. Another trophy of our public school system.

[Um... Are you actually arguing that the "wolves ate Joe's uncle's cattle?" Where's your homework? Did they eat that, too?]

I realize that Jason isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but here’s a newsflash for you: wolves are predators. They prey on cattle.

When wolves are classified as endangered species, or when the gov’t reintroduces wolves into areas where cattle ranchers try to eke out a living, then that’s a threat to the livestock—as well as the livelihood of the rancher. Try to do your own homework for a change.

[Uh-oh; another good for nothing animal making life hard for the workin' man. This is getting quite repetitive. Though I do find it kind of funny given the earlier attestation to life "in harmony with nature." Oh yes, and what about that nuclear plant from two examples prior... wasn't that providing the cursed evil of "electricity?"]

Once again, Jason is too thickheaded to realize that I’m merely answering the liberal on his own terms. I don’t have a problem with technology.

But today’s environmentalists would block rural electrification, since you’d have to dam rivers and cut down trees to make way for power lines.

Environmentalists oppose hydroelectric power. And Nuclear power. And coal. And oil. And shale.

[Salvation Army? Assistance? Liberal assistance! They work with alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other "undesirables of society!" Liberals! Christians! Liberals! Christians! Oh, my... I think they're both. What do we do with them?]

Notice, once more, Jason’s dishonest tactic of switching terms. Does the Salvation Army represent “liberal assistance?” No. It represents private Christian charity.

[That's right; make a servant-labor argument justify encouraging Life. This is just messed-up.]

I’m drawing attention to a basic, internal tension in liberal ideology: on the one hand, liberals favor a welfare state with generous benefits for retirees. On the other hand, liberals favor population control via abortion—which reduces the workforce needed to prop up the welfare state.

Is that my own prolife argument? No. But I can critique a position on internal grounds. Of course, it requires a modicum of intellectual sophistication of appreciate that line of argument, which is why such an argument is lost on a liberal airhead like Jason.

[Wow. The "liberals" sure sound like they're having fun! So, it was the "liberals" who came into your home and taught your family it's values?

No, they do that through compulsory public education.

Weren't there dinner-hours? Weren't there Saturday afternoons? Wasn't there Sunday School and Church?

If liberals had their way, they’d criminalize Christian education as hate-speech. And they’re trying their damnedest to shut down the homeschooling movement.

No, no, the failures are clearly not your own -they're "the liberals" fault! Oh, by the way, can you point me to where the liberals have published this mandate to escape the "onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents?" I have GOT to read that.

To take one example, remember when Dick Gephardt was complaining about how his elderly mom couldn’t afford to pay for her medications? Gov’t should pay for her medications. It didn’t even occur to him that he himself should dig into his own deep pockets and provide for his own mother’s expenses.

[Phew. I don't know if this diatribe counts as involuntary euthanasia. I think you may be being a bit too hard on yourself.]

Notice how Jason trivializes the very real threat of involuntary euthanasia. The movement is incremental. And it’s making headway. It’s been documented by bioethicists like Wesley J. Smith, viz. Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America; Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die.

[Yes, and what of the "liberals" who have fought, and died, for their country?

You mean, back when we had the draft? When soldiers were serving against their will? What about draftees who burned their draft cards and took part in anti-war protests? I lived through that era.

What about those fighting right now?

What about it? Don’t liberals assure us that young people sign up, not because they’re patriotic, but because military service is the last-ditch resort fo’ po’ folks that done lack all dem economic options? How did John Kerry put it? "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

US Troops serving abroad have contributed Six-Times as much to the Obama campaign as to McCain.

Of course, that’s a rubbery statistic since it’s based on a miniscule sampling.

Anyway, if we’re to believe what liberals say about the real motives for military service, then why wouldn’t most soldiers prefer a dovish, peacenik candidate like Obama? After only, they only joined the armed forces for supplemental income or free tuition.

What about those who have fought for us in the past for our glory and independence? How about retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak.

And do retired generals support Obama over McCain by 6-1?

And Obama has said, time-and-again, he doesn't oppose all wars, just "dumb wars, rash wars," and wars fought to distract us from real issues that cause real deaths. Does that sound like a call for disarmament? Does that sound like a, ahem, again, "commie lefty?"

He says he supports “aggressive diplomacy.” Sounds pretty commie lefty to me.

BTW, I lived through the era when liberals were clamoring for unilateral disarmament.

We are so concerned over abortion of infants, as well we should be, but what about the effective abortion of our young men and women over falsified reports of WMD's?!

Who do you think falsified these reports, anyway? Many individuals vouched for Saddam’s WMD program. Did George Tenet (DCI under Clinton and Bush) falsify the reports? Did James Woolsey (another Clinton DCI)? Did Scott Ritter, before he flip-flipped? Did Richard Butler (of UNSCOM)? Did David Kay (of UNSCOM)? Even Hans Blix was surprised by the absence of WMD in Iraq.

You need to stop getting your info from reruns of the X-Files.

BTW, what about the recent discovery of 1.2 million lbs. of yellowcake in Iraq?

As Christians, we have a compulsion to save all human life.

No we don’t. For example, we have a moral compulsion to execute murderers, rapists, and career criminals.

Obama is also, like you and I, against abortion.

That’s a bald-faced lie. He never met an abortion he didn’t embrace. He even opposed the Born Alive Act.

But he also knows that overturning Roe v. Wade is not in the power of the Executive, and he's not going to lie to you about that.

Jason is being duplicitous. The next president will be in a position to nominate one or more justices to SCOTUS. Depending on the judicial philosophy of the nominee, that’s a way of either retaining or overturning Roe v. Wade.

If it was in the power of the President, why didn't Bush overturn it? He's had eight years.]

Are he playing dumb, or is he just plain dumb? Bush can only undermine Roe v. Wade when vacancies on SCOTUS open up and he can nominate a conservative replacement.

[LOL. Gotta suspect anyone but FoxNews, huh? Yeah, that's trustworthy -only get your news from one source.]

Since I never referenced FoxNews, you’re burning a straw man.

No comments:

Post a Comment