TheAgitator.com
Drowning in Blueberry Syrup
Sunday, February 15th, 2004It’s not technically Bush-bashing if I just link to someone else who’s Bush-bashing, right?
21 Responses to “Drowning in Blueberry Syrup”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
How is this Bush bashing?
Looks to me like a classless parody of national guard service.
Comparing a 6mos Army reservist to a Guard trained fighter pilot isn’t exactly a reasonable comparison. Bush’s “questionable service” is an issue only because of the liberal press continues to beat that drum. Geez Radley,being an equally oportunity Bush basher, your oblique use of an intellectually dishonest debate certainly doesn’t move the ball forward in the arena of ideas and policy. What happened the alleged “Bush bashing sabatical” ?
Isn’t the daily assault on Bush from the major media sufficient?
meek
Meek writes: “Comparing a 6mos Army reservist to a Guard trained fighter pilot isn’t exactly a reasonable comparison”
Unlike a “6mos Army reservist”, Bush pissed away a million dollars’ worth of taxpayer-funded training because he got bored.
Bush “squandered a million dollars” worth of F104 training because the aircraft was an antique and was taken out of service, near the end of Bush’s tour of duty. Is he to be criticized because he chose to not extend his tour of duty? Or is the point to just criticize him, regardless of the actual facts? Apparently the old saw “repeat a lie or exaggeration often enough and it becomes fact” is still in solid standing
Radley, nice to see that, unlike the dems, you’re standing above the fray. For those of us who don’t know, what gives you the credibility to trash a trained fighter pilot? I guess it’s your vast experience in the military.
If we’re going to bash Bush, let’s do it on the only issue that counts: economic slavery. So what if Bush made tiny little tax cuts that will only be made up for in future years when the chains all the achievers wear are retightened.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Bush’s service then. It’s his service now that’s killing my freedom. No taxation without representation.
When the people paying for everything have no representation, it’s time to stop playing games over which is worse, the Democratic thief in office, or the Republican one.
I like Larry David and respect his work on Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm but this op-ed piece seems very amateurish and poorly thought out. I would expect a funnier and more intelligent Bush bashing piece from him.
dear fanatic,
i am very curious to hear how GWB’s current service as Prez is “killing {your} freedom.” perhaps you would care to elaborate. and out of curiosity, are you a card carrying member of the ACLU or some like minded-cry-baby-blame everyone-but-myself-for my woes organization? certainly sounds like it to me.
michelle
I love how the ACLU has become the whipping by for conservatives. They defend ANYONE who’s rights are threatened. I know, it’s often “liberals” who get defended, so the ACLU must be evil, but come on! They are a group that defends the PRINCIPLES our country is founded on, regardless of the specific details of a case, which are admittedly often distasteful. Give them a break
Richard, there’s a fine line between liberals and socialists. Unfortunately, the ACLU has firmly aligned with the socialists.
They’re certainly no friend of capitalism and certainly promote the “good” of government (mostly to prosecute business that don’t adhere to their dogma). Their army of lawyer’s are a threat to anyone they train their sights on!
meek
Bobby, on the contrary I find this piece a brilliant and hysterical piece of Bush bashing.
Richard:
While it is true that the ACLU defends even the distasteful, Meek’s view rings true:
They tend to defend those that work against the values that have made this nation work — whether that be socialism or Nazism. I assert that, in the minds of many in the ACLU, this is their way of proving that they are “sophisticated” and “free-thinking” to their peers; OTOH, defending those who support “traditional” values does not fufill this Leftist litmus test.
I might change my tune when I see the ACLU come down on the side of non-violent abortion protesters …. or see them defend corporations and rich people from predatory/discriminatory confiscation of their earnings, by a majority that is misled by their own greed and wealthist prejudice.
Fanatic — you bring up something that too many in this nation simply do not understand.
Our tax system has become so “progressive” that the majority of voters pay little or no taxes.
Where is their incentive to hold down spending — or make government more efficient — or keep government away from areas where its actions are ineffective?
… especially when many of our leaders keep telling this majority that the government exists to help them meet every need … and that this majority simply “deserves” what the minority has, regardless of how that minority acquires or uses those monies … and that the minority is out to get them, unless we take their money?
I wonder if, in addition to “no taxation without respresentation”, we should also institute “no representation without taxation” — somehow weight our votes based upon the taxes we pay into the system.
However, that is an extreme that needs a lot more thought before even considering its implementation — for it could also take “buying votes” to a whole new level.
Actually, the best system of taxation I have seen is described by Americans for Fair Taxation. Check it out — for it can reconnect the masses to the true cost of government, while still maintaining a mildly-progressive characteristic.
Wallstreet,
He compares apples and oranges in his attempt to , although semi-comically, compare the president’s situation to his. The fact is one had to be in active service for over 2 years of flight training while the other seems to have had cushy assignment throughout his enlistment. The only comparrison that I can see that makes sense is that both joined guard to avoid service in Vietnam.
I was only slightly ammused by the article which would be good enough for most op-ed writers but someone of David’s stature could have come through with a much more comical piece. Either was it’s irrelovent and not really worthy of further discussion. David obviously and publically opposes Bush and that is his right I just think he could have done a better job comedically.
opps my last post should be directed toward Wallster not Wallstreet, my bad
Ok, Bobby, your points are valid. I got a good laugh out of it, anyway.
Do you think Wallstreet is a better tag? I’m intrigued. Probably not, though, it kind of sounds like I’m trying to pretend I’m some big shot financier.
Rich C., I assume you are referring to non-working, WIC/foodstamp/welfare/free education and health care receiving, voters when you refer to the “majority of voters” who “pay little or no taxes.”
I agree.
This is why when I ask my own mother why she votes Democrat, she responds “because the democrats are for the poor people,” and I always reply to her by saying “yeah, they’re for keeping the poor-people, poor.” The sad thing is my mother is a hard working 51 year old independent woman who doesn’t understand that her hard earned dollars are helping someone else stay at home on his/her lazy arse instead of gettin up and working 12 hour days as she does in order to support herself.
Personal rant over.
Ms. Dani:
While the “non-working” you refer to are part of the majority I describe, they are far from all of it. Many working-class people are in this majority, as well.
96% of the income taxes paid in America are paid by only 50% of the people. The much-villified “top 1%” pay a THIRD of the income taxes.
Now, working-class people do pay more of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (as they are only levied on the first $85k or so of income) — but those are not “supposed” to be used to cover all the other spending the government does. The costs and benefits for these programs are more closely tied to the actual taxpayers — but the shell games played with the money still make these ties tenuous.
The bottom line: many Americans do not perceive the true cost of government, but see it only as the vehicle to get “what they deserve” from those greedy SOB’s who have more (and have it “probably by cheating us”).
They do not see the loss they themselves suffer when resources are removed from the hands that (in nearly all cases) can use them more efficiently and effectively to create prosperity for all. They only see that they are “something”.
Last line of the post above should read:
They only see that they are getting “something”.
We could have a new tax code within 6 mos with one simple bill passed by Congress: get rid of payroll witholding, so every tax payer would have to write a check for the entire tax bill for the entire year on Apr.15. When people see what govenment is really taking from them, a revolt would ensue.
meek
Meek:
So true — and I think that seeing what they pay in, in one lump sum, would even shock many in the “low”-paying majority. (Of course, those who get back MORE than they pay in, through the Earned Income Tax Credit, still might not see the problem).
Check out the Americans for Fair Taxation website. Here’s the new tax code that I think should be the replacement … for it puts the cost of government in front of the people, every time they make a purchase.