Tag Archives: Democrats

My Problem with The Tea Party

First of all, I haven’t written forever.  It isn’t that I don’t WANT to write, it’s just I’m being pulled in fifty different directions.  Sadly (for me), I have 12 unfinished articles that I’ve started since my last brilliantly written article, which will never see the light of day.  This one was the closest I had to being finished.  I wanted to post something.  So here goes.

For fun I’m going to include three misnomers: 1- “Affordable Care Act”…It isn’t. 2- “Obamacare”…He doesn’t.  And 3- “My Problem with The Tea Party”…I don’t.

“But Danny,” you whine “why the title?”  Apparently I have some ‘splainin to do. The state in which I reside has a dominate religion.  IT DRIVES ME CRAZY, absolutely bat nuts, when I hear someone complain about “the church” when in reality they are complaining about an individual/individuals within the church.  To me it is just fundamentally wrong to lump a whole group of people into a category that should be reserved for a few.  Does that make sense?  So, with our mutual understanding and 100% realization of my rank hypocrisy, I’ll plow forward.

Don't Look Back

As you may or may not be aware there is a midterm election coming up in about 8 weeks.  There is a lot up for grabs this election.  Congress’ approval is at an all time low, but shockingly, incumbents traditionally win.  We “The People” hate the group, but like the individuals within the group.

Currently, Mitch McConnell is fighting to keep his seat as a Republican Senator for Kentucky.  Now, I’m not advocating for or against him.  I just know many Tea Party-esque people have accused him of being a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only.)  Again, I don’t follow his voting record that closely.  I know he isn’t a screaming liberal but apparently he isn’t a staunch conservative either.  What I do know about McConnell is that as the Senate Minority Leader, under what had to be intense political pressure, he was able to keep his party in line and not have one affirmative vote from the Republican Party for Obamacare.  Under his leadership the Democratic Party owns the Affordable Care Act – again, it isn’t “Affordable,” it isn’t “Care,” it’s just an act.

If the voters in Kentucky, decide it is time for McConnell to retire, I don’t have a problem with that.  My problem is with the “I would rather stay home and let the democrats win than vote for someone who only agrees with me 80% of the time” people.  Those people kill me, and are idiots.

Even I, your humble narrator, have been accused of not being a “true conservative” because I failed the litmus test of not seeing the wisdom in the legalization of marijuana (spoiler alert: there is no wisdom in the legalization of drugs).

Demonizing your ideological opponents is a lot of fun, if you’re brave enough to do it, and has been the modus operandi since the beginning of time.  Pointing out the dumbassery of the Democratic Party is something I’ve been accused of doing (I’m talking about the Party here – not individuals – so my “butt hurt” liberal friends, please take it down an octave.)   Every Presidential election the Democrats start with around 246 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.  The Democrats barely have to show up and BOOM 246 electoral votes.  The Republicans have to work for everything else. To me it is almost funny the Democrats demonize Republicans at all.  I understand why they do…but still.  The sad truth is that the Republican Party needs new members, it needs converts.  The Democratic Party doesn’t.

Freedom

That’s why when, a month or so ago, Sarah Palin, whom I normally kinda dig, was banging the “Impeachment drum” I rolled my eyes.  America is NEVER going to impeach Obama.  Yes, he is grossly incompetent, arguably the Worst President EVER.   That isn’t an impeachable offense.  He may be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.   Even if, America still isn’t going to do it.  All banging that drum, or drums like it, does is give Democrats ammunition to fire toward the Low Information/Yahoo News reading voters.

I think the sainted Ronald Regan nailed it when, in March of 1975, he said:

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers…

“I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

“Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

“Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

“It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view.”

The problem is the Republicans don’t have the balls to do it. Well…that’s not entirely fair.  They talk about limited central government, but they lack either the confidence or the ability to explain its benefits.  They have bought into the Democrats’ core, condescending belief, that the world is just too darn complicated for you and me, the ordinary folks, to make our way through without bureaucratic instruction and hand holding.

Capitalism

Because the concepts and benefits of a limited government don’t fit on a bumper sticker we are left with a system that is going to implode.  It’s not a question of “if,” it will implode, it’s a question of “when.”  Everyone with half a brain stem knows it.  But still, Republicans are too scared, or maybe too content, to advocate the dramatic change that could save us.  Instead we are too busy cannibalizing ourselves.  I’m not advocating the status quo.  I want change.  I think we, as a party, should have a robust debate, but then the primaries are over, be involved.  VOTE.  Even if you have to plug your nose to do it.   Then we need to hold our elected leaders feet to the fire to ensure they do the right thing.

“Divide and conquer” maybe an effective strategy in war, but doesn’t work in a representative democracy.

 

LIFEZILLA: It’s the website our forefathers would have subscribed too.  That is if our foremothers would have let them.

 

Big Gov

Offended

No Strategy Yet

The Straw Man President

By Josh Loveless 2014 Candidate for U.S. Congress (State of Texas, 3rd District)

Josh

Many who don’t know me well might be surprised to learn that in high school I was quite the accomplished debater and orator.  I have box full of local, state, and national awards, trophies, and medals somewhere in storage.  And that doesn’t include the ones that my team mate and I earned while practically refilling an entire trophy cabinet by ourselves over two years.

For those who’ve never tried it, debate is an art form.  It is built on logic, but is effused with human emotion.  It can be both highly infuriating and highly rewarding in the same moment.  I had a formidable reputation as a result of having brought some of the best debaters in the state to tears.  Sometimes these were tears of frustration, and at other times tears of laughter.  But I learned something very important during those debates:

Truth, logic, and right thinking don’t always win the public.

It’s a sad, but a true fact.  The best debaters learn very early on that even though facts and logical argumentation are important, they’re not nearly as important as style, dramatic presentation, and conveying conviction.  It’s something you are forced to take into your core.  This is because you will be forced (and often) to defend a position you do not agree with, one that may even be diametrically opposed to your beliefs.  It was in these debates that I am sad to say I was the most effective.

I did this by creating very specific arguments that were intentionally infuriating logical fallacies, so effective that they could not be ignored.  My opponents would then attack these arguments while ignoring certain facts, or making themselves look ridiculous.  In debate, or in philosophy, this is known as a straw man.  The Brits across the pond call it an Aunt Sally.  The structure of a straw man goes like this:

You take position 1 (For example: Excessive eating of calories can lead to obesity, therefore we should limit the number of calories we eat).

Opponent takes position 2, an intentionally distorted version of position 1 (For example:  If people don’t eat enough calories they could starve, therefore your true desire is to starve people to death).

There are many ways to make this work, this is just the most basic example.  You can read more about straw men arguments in all their flavors here on Wikipedia.

The Scarecrow scared

Notice that in the straw man used above your opponent never actually addresses your contention or conclusion.  The facts and logic are ignored and the argument instead becomes about you, or your fight with an imaginary opponent.  That is the real trick to winning with straw men.  When you know you are using a logical fallacy to win, you have to make that fallacy so personal, so salacious, and so insidious that your opponent appears to have no choice but to address it.

If you let it stand that you wish to murder people by limiting what they eat until starvation, well then everything else you say for the rest of the debate is suspect.  Thus you end up attacking something that isn’t real, or in other words a man made of straw.  The more calm, cool, and collected your opponent is when delivering the fallacy, the more likely people are to believe it is true.  The debate then becomes a matter of emotion, while fact and logic are forgotten (at least until it is most convenient).

You’ve probably recognized straw man tactics before in our national discourse.  It’s the oldest trick in the politician’s playbook.  Make no mistake, this tactic is used by both sides of the aisle.  However, I am shocked by how excessive the use of straw men has become, especially by our president.

Barack Obama’s entire 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney was a series of straw man arguments that were propped up by the press.  Here’s an example:

Mitt Romney chooses not to release complete versions of his tax returns for a small number of years.  The Obama campaign (and surrogate Harry Reid) first says this is dishonest, and then begins to ‘calmly’ imply that the reason is clearly because Romney is a tax cheat and a felon.  Instead of debating the merits of Romney’s proposals, or Obama’s record, the national discussion turned to Mr. Romney’s supposed crimes.  It even went so far that media elitists issued rewards for anyone willing to release Romney’s financial documents or implicate him in a crime.

Since winning the election the logical fallacies have not been mitigated, instead they appear to have multiplied.  The President has made straw men out of nearly every major issue facing America today.  His entire Inaugural Address was a series of these types of arguments, even sometimes contradicting himself.  The following quote is merely one example:

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit (true). But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future (fallacy),”- Barack Obama (parenthetical comments were added by me).

This argument implies that his political opponents have taken a position stating we must in fact choose between our children or our grandparents; that conservatives are ‘chomping at the bit’ to sacrifice one for the other.  This entire premise is false.  Congressional Republicans are not currently seeking any repeal of entitlement programs with the exception of Obamacare.  They are however suggesting that we must shore up the weaknesses of these programs; reign in the spending, and make them more effective.  Or contrariwise we can do nothing and watch them fail.  That is the real argument facing America.

As a seasoned debater I can tell you there are typically three situations in which someone will use a straw man argument:

  1. You do not understand your opponent’s argument, or have no logical or evidentiary counterargument that can stand on its own.  You strongly believe you are right, but don’t know how to back it up.   To win you must instead crush your opponent by making him or her so emotional that no one listens to the actual argument.
  2. You wish to distract your opponent.  During the distraction you may submit an occasional, potentially valid, position (usually some sort of heavy disadvantage) that is lost on your opponent because they are too focused on the insidiousness of the straw man.
  3. You are forced to defend a position you don’t believe and you know what you truly believe is unacceptable to the judging party.

It is my opinion that all three of these reasons are the drivers behind the way Obama addresses his opponents.    It is his intention to crush Republicans and win the argument, regardless of the consequences.   The ends justify the means.

Despite their potential effectiveness there is a serious danger in using straw men.  If your opponent or the judging party is trained to recognize these types of attacks you lose complete credibility.  You in fact become a man made of straw to them because you clearly have no valid counterargument, you clearly do not express your core beliefs.  Any straw man can be easily burned to the ground or blown away.

Barack Obama is a man clearly made of straw arguments.  Not in his two campaigns, nor in the last four years, has he offered a single acceptable plan for tackling our nation’s biggest problems (even to his own party).  The U.S. Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over four years.  That doesn’t mean it hasn’t debated a budget.  The White House has submitted a proposed budget each of these years, and each year it has been so thoroughly rejected by both parties that it is a running gag.  In fact, Obama’s last budget proposal was rejected by the Senate 99-0.  Not a single vote in the affirmative, not even from Harry Reid.

Republicans need to learn how to address these straw men in the correct way.  To win against these kinds of tactics we first have to learn to recognize them.  Once we see the straw man we must never, ever, take the bait and debate the fallacy.  Instead we need to clearly point out that the President has said nothing.  That he has not addressed the problem surrounding the argument, and has clearly offered no plan to abate it.  We need to show the people what is actually in the President’ proposals, calmly and coolly, and then let the American people decide if they like them.

I think if we took this approach, never allowing the debate to become personal, I believe Obama’s policies would be rejected by the majority of Americans.  Instead, by attacking Obama personally, by getting overly emotional about our declining rights and values, we play right into his hands.  When we play into his hands the media is sure to make us look like the illogical, dangerous, fanatical, racist, war mongers his party has painted us into.

Straw Man 1

ryanplan

 

You Didn’t Earn That: Minimum Wage

You Didn’t Earn That: Minimum Wage

 The Misses and I have used “Dish Network” for several years.  We have always been happy with their service.  A week or so ago we were watching a recorded show when the screen froze.  LOOOONG story short we needed a new receiver.  Because I called after hours on a Friday night, the replacement wouldn’t ship until Monday and we wouldn’t receive it until Wednesday.  That’s right, almost a whole week without TV.  BLUH!! It was HORRIBLE.  We actually had to resort to talking to each other like cavemen…er…cavepeople (sorry).  I don’t recommend it to AN-KNEE-ONE.

Because we didn’t have the means, I was unable to watch the President’s State of the Union Address.  This simultaneously both irritated and thrilled me.  I had all kinds of intentions of watching the speech the next day, but didn’t, and I haven’t yet.  All I know is he talked about minimum wage, education and immigration (shocker).  These three things are the trifecta of Democrat dumbassery.   Hold on.  That’s not entirely fair.  They are the trifecta of Republican dumbassery as well, but for completely different reasons.

29 Programs

Democrats only have a few really good cards in their deck.  “Caring” and “For the Children” are their favorites.  The other most used is “Warmongering, racist jerk.”

Republicans, on the other hand, have the challenge to explain complex issues into a sound bite, which they know will never be played on Network Television.  And you can’t explain a complex issue on a bumper-sticker.  So Republicans are pretty much outta luck.

So even though it will bore me to tears, I’m going to TRY to get my thoughts down about these three issues.  I’ll start with Minimum wage.

If you don’t know, the President wants to raise the national minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I can see the President wanting to do it is for only two reasons.  The first is that it appeals to his base.  He gets to look like a knight in shining armor, swooping in to help the poor (for those who think it all the way through he looks more like an idiot in tinfoil).  The second reason is, it demonizes the Republicans.  They would look like a bunch of heartless meanies for not wanting to help.  If they don’t cave, like they normally do on this issue, the President can sob, saying the Republicans just oppose raising the wage because HE suggested it (see racism).

It’s a win/win for him.

2009 State of the Union

The fact of the matter is most Americans make well above $9.00 an hour.  So the issue is about other people.  It is super easy to get behind it.  “It doesn’t affect ME at all.”  So, as a country, we tune it out, go back to watching “Dancing with the Stars” and don’t think about the logic behind the regulation.  It is easier to bow to the social pressure.  After all, we don’t want to come across as uncaring.  Right?

So if it is a small, small percentage of Americans who make minimum wage, and everyone knows if you work hard you can demand more than minimum wage, is the extra $1.75/hr going to help the country as a whole?

I guess that’s my question.  Why just nine bucks?  It seems almost silly. Sure it’s a 24% increase, but in the real world it’s a buck 75.

Quick hypnotical: what would happen if Republicans demanded a substantial minimum wage?  Why $9.00/hr – which will help a very few – when you could raise it to $50.00/hr which will help a whole ton of people?  Sure, in a few weeks a loaf of bread would go from $3.50 (for a decent loaf) to $25.00, but at least we’ll be spreading the wealth around.  Right?

My guess is the Democrats would backpedal.  They know it would kill the economy quickly.  They prefer to kill it slowly, so they won’t get the blame.

Most employers (all of them) go into business to make money.  The more profit they make, the more goods or services they provide, the more people they hire, etc, etc.  When faced with a payroll hike they have one of four options: 1) Raise the rates to the new minimum, 2) Let employees go, 3) Downsize their jobs (employing them for fewer hours),  or 4) Raise the prices on their goods or services and hope people will still use them.  If you think about it, the forth option is really a hidden tax.

Most employers will do one of the four and then invest in goods to make labor more productive, so they can hire fewer people down the road, or shift their production overseas.  The effect on employment is still there, it just isn’t “in your face.”

It will never happen, but imagine if Republicans grew a pair and ‘upped the ante’- if they demanded a substantial raise.  At least it would force the country to have a grown-up conversation about it.

At the risk of sounding heartless, the sad truth is if an employee is worth more than $7.25 an hour and they are not being paid more, it is up to them to find work somewhere else.  If they can’t find it, they are probably only worth $7.25.  Having the government dictate that the employer pay $9.00 for $7.25 worth of work not only creates high unemployment for teens and unskilled workers, it is also intellectually dishonest.  If someone is having a hard time understanding this, have them explain why we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour.

 

LIFEZILLA:  Not entirely sure what a “Propriate” is, but apparently I’m sometimes in it.

Free Stuff

U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama walk through a gate in the Columbia Parc Development to visit newly built homes in New Orleans

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

I don’t even know where to start.  It is days like this where I feel I wasn’t born with nearly enough middle fingers to full express my annoyance. I’m sincerely at least four middle fingers shy.

I just read a couple of articles.  The first is from the New York Post.  It bugged, bugged, bugged me, but not a “New York Times” kind of bug. After reading almost any article from the “Times” I feel like I just threw up in reverse.  This “Post” article just really ticked me off.

Apparently the New York Post, though the Freedom of Information Act received a data base of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) records from January 2011 to July 2012 and found dozens of cases were the Welfare recipients accessed their tax payer funded EBT cards for such lifesaving purchases as “liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs.”

We Accept Food Stamps

Oh yeah, you read that correctly.  People are using their EBT cards in Strip Clubs. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute was quoted as saying, “This is morally scandalous.”  He continued, “I have nothing against strip clubs, but that’s not what benefits are for. I don’t blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it’s a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this.”

Ya think?

Now as a rule I do not judge other people (unless, of course, they’re stupid, ugly, smell bad, wear shoes with individual toes, listen to crappy music, or drive a smart car), but I sincerely think that unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, and you knowingly and willfully shift the burden of supporting your worthless ass to someone else and spend the taxpayers’ money on things like, oh I dunno, STRIPPERS and stuff, you’re a piece of crap.  I don’t want to necessarily quote myself, because it comes across as cocky and arrogant, but several months ago I wrote what can only be described as a brilliant article that touched on welfare abuse and government waste.  You can access the brilliant article HERE.

Entitlest

According to the article (the one from the Post), “Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance — meant for housing, utilities and household necessities — can be accessed at ATMs.”

In a COMPLETELY unrelated article from the “Wall Street Journal” Speaker of the House John Boehner said that at one point when he was talking to the President about the Fiscal Cliff the President said, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Apparently the President believes the country just doesn’t have enough revenue (read taxes) coming in.  It makes me wonder who paid the bills in the Obama household before he became President.

Several months ago a Facebook friend of mine said this “I think the mistake most conservatives make is in thinking that austerity has ever worked once. It never has, the great depression was lengthened by austerity.”  It confused me at the time, because it went contrary to what I thought the word “austerity” meant.  I did a quick Wikipedia search and it turns out I did know what it means.  “In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to try to reduce their deficit spending and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.”  My question is in the last several years have we, the United States, ever tried deficit cutting?  I’m going to go out on a limb and say NO.

Here is food for thought: in a time where it is clearly acceptable for a news agency to post things like a map of law abiding gun owners imagine the uproar if a news agency did the same thing to welfare recipients?  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the names, amounts and locations of the funds being spent?

I think raising taxes is a mistake.  But it happened.  Why aren’t the Democrats even trying to come to the table with entitlement reform?  Every year the number of Americans who receive government assistance increases.  President Obama is the “Food Stamp President.” But we are told we are in the middle of an economic recovery.  So why the increase in assistance?  Could it be to mask the pain?  If everyone has assistance and is able to “get by” wouldn’t they be less inclined to notice pesky things like food prices?  I don’t have a problem with a “hand up.”  I don’t have a problem with a safety net, I just don’t think it should be a hammock.

 

LIFEZILLA: If I typed as carelessly as I spoke then ;lksdafjk nh; ‘&8jjfsjkladfjsdf

1934 Cartoon

 

34E75D64-7E4A-402B-B527-9EE89BF711CA

 

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Something Wicked This Way Comes

You would think I would be over it now, but I’m still a little bitter about it.  I just still can’t believe how stupid the American Electorate is.  Now everyone is screaming about how the Republicans need to ‘reach out’ to this group or that group.  They need to ‘evolve.”  And you know what?  That may be true.  In fact, let’s say (for sake of argument) it’s 100% true.  Still.  We had one chance to steer the country away from a fiscal Greece-style cliff and what did we do?  We hit the gas.

Why?  Because of “birth control, binders and Big Bird,” oh my!!!

 As you can imagine, many of my more liberal friends have been teasing me this last week.  I can take it, bring it on.  What is…well…I don’t want to say its “sad,” because it is just part of the gig.  What’s “kind of sad” is that an uninformed vote means just as much as an informed one.  Don’t get me wrong; I get that people have different points of view. If President Obama is your guy and you can list off the reasons why, I have nothing but respect for that.  But, if your only two reasons are (and I honestly heard these) “He is just trying so hard, I just feel we need to give him a second chance,” or “Bush was just so bad,” you should just go back to watching “Dancing with the Stars” and let the grown-ups talk. (FYI, I really enjoy watching DWTS.)

As I look back at it, what REALLY gets me is things like this:

This is honestly one of Obama’s super-charming campaign slogans that (apparently) many single women took to heart.  But let me let you in on a little secret: nothing about this election had anything to do with your “lady parts”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a HUGE fan of “lady parts.”  HUGE FAN.  I’m a huge fan of women.  I look at my wife (who, four kids and twenty-one years later, is still SMOKIN’ HOT) and all she does: cleans, cooks, full time job, volunteer work, she works with the Young Women at our church–she amazes me.  I firmly believe all women should be put on a pedestal, I really do, for all those reasons.  Plus, when you put a woman up on a pedestal, it is easier to look up her skirt (wicked grin).

To me it is ironic that women, who supposedly are strong, voted to be taken care of by government.

“But Danny,” you whine, “what about contraception?”  Either way the election went, nothing would have changed in the realm of contraception.  Nothing, zero, zip, noda, regardless of who won.

“But Danny,” you continue to whine, “what about abortion?”  It amazes me that abortion rears its ugly head every election.  It is one of those divisive issues that doesn’t mean a thing.  Regardless of your personal thoughts on abortion, for it or against it, the fact Roe v. Wade was brought about judiciously, took that debate entirely out of the legislative arena. In other words, you cute little bugger you, no president or Congress could pass any laws to undermine it as long as that precedent stands.

Yes, it’s true: Romney could have appointed Supreme Court justices that might overturn that precedent (though I doubt it).  But even if he did, NOTHING would have changed. Congress has codified the principles of Roe v. Wade into federal law, so the only way to completely overturn it would be, the Republicans would have to control the White House, Congress, and 60 votes in the Senate (something that has never happened in the history of the republic), and that is assuming all Republicans are pro-life.

Now I’m well aware that I’m being completely hypocritical with this next statement.  I get it.  I just can’t believe anyone would base their vote on ONE issue.

The biggest threat to anyone’s “lady parts” is the fiscal solvency of your nation.  That threat is actually real.  The made-up bull crap about abortion and contraception is just that: Crap.  How could anyone vote for anything based on phantom stories when we have a very real and compelling prospect of an irrecoverable economic disaster?  Un-be-freaking-lievable.

In case you can’t tell, I’m still amazed, and a little peeved at the election results.

 

LIFEZILLA:  I don’t know about you, but I could really go for a punch in your face right now.