Amateur Megalomania

By Steven on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply

Compassion?
Charity?
Kindness?
Altruism?

Of their own free will, of course….

By Todd W on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply

Compassion, charity and kindness doesn’t conserve water bottles for those that are in true need.

By Dave on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply

Why would they bother rebuilding such a cess pool anyway. It is a tragic loss of history not to rebuild but sometimes you just have to let go. After
all what will be missed a dirty, corrupt, college and drunk party town so in the end there are better things to do with the money we work so hard for. I agree with Todd we are in a free will society where for the average person it is about what they can get out of something. While I may like to help why would I go down there to rebuild for less or the same money I make here and risk disease, and sickness as well as what are sure to be poor working environment while leaving my family. If on the other hand I could help them while making more money to help my own family then I could weigh the risks. Just imagine the disease and sickness they are going to be spreading by removing these people and putting them in other areas without out proper quarantine. After all they are living in sewage, chemicals, and who knows what not to mention one of the dirtiest cities in the country before this. While it is sad to say I think all those exposed to the flood waters should be quarantined and treated in camps before releasing into the general population.

By Danny on Sep 7, 2005 | Reply

I’ve known John Stossel to be an arrogant prick for quite some time now. But as for you, Todd, I’m a bit surprised by your attitude. You piss and moan about social programs being a form of slavery. You’ve decried any and all forms of tax as slavery. And yet you support our president and his war on terror. Wait, sorry; I think now we’re supposed to call it the “Global Struggle Against The Enemies Of Freedom.” You and your parrot, Mike, say you trust Bush to protect homeland security, and that issue (for Mike, anyway) was the number one issue that led to you placing your votes for George W. Bush last November. Now, when the elected Governor of Loisiana calls a state of emergency, where is your beloved protector? For the first three days, it’s Crawford, Texas. On the fourth day, he travels out West for a couple staged townhall meetings on Medicare. On the fifth day, he returns to Crawford, Texas, for one last day of vacation (because four-and-a-half weeks is just never enough). Six days after the governor’s plea, Bush returns to Washington and states that nobody predicted the breach of the levees. (Bush, by the way, was one of those “nobodies.”) One full week after, Bush finally makes a trip to New Orleans for a photo-op showing tons of equipment in the disaster area ready to fix that place up, which is nothing short of slavery in your mind. Apparently your President shares this belief, too, as all the equipment (aside from one piece) was taken away immediately after the President got his propoganda filmed.

Yes, our president is one hell of an expert on ensuring that our humble nation is kept safe.

By Dave on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply

The whole Middle East should be a huge sheet of glass by now from our NUKES. There is nothing there anyway and the radiation will not hurt OUR oil anyway.

By Danny on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply

I’m not even going to waste my time on a response to that, Dave, as I can accurately assume that your reply was made just for the sake of ruffling feathers. Or possibly you are white supremesist hell-bent on American domination of the world, but I won’t make that kind of judgement quite yet. Besides, your use of all caps in “OUR oil” and “NUKES” suggests that you take what you type as a joke. If any extremists really did think that way, they wouldn’t bother to stress the particularly startling terms like that because they wouldn’t see such offensive talk as extreme or offensive at all. Thus, I conclude you are simply trying to present yourself as a radical that doesn’t approve of sound, logical judgement. In that way, you do share some similarities with your President.

By Dave on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply

Let me elaborate on my comment, yes it is somewhat of a joke. While I do agree with some of our President’s actions mainly the retalliation for 9-11, it is time we have someone who will do something. I do however believe to some extent that the acts of terrorism are our own fault. We have become the Communists of a new age for years we scolded the Communists for pushing their doctrine on others throughout the world. But are we not the same for pushing Democracy throughout the world along with Christianity. This country has become hell bent on making all others just like us. It is not our job nor right to push our form of government or main religious belief on anyone else. Just as we chose to stand up and fight the British for our own democracy I say let these people do the same if they really want it, instead we have become the warriors of democracy for them. Terrorism is a true act of cowardice and not war, warriors deserve warriors but these people choose to harm innocents. For years we have chose out of all the middle east nations to favor Israel the big bully on the block because the like ourselves push their ideals on the rest of the middle east, while we are giving them steak the other middle east countries are getting scraps from us and then Israel takes that from them. It is no wonder that we are the enemy. It is time that the US pull out of these countries around the world and let them fend for themselves, if they choose to harm our citizens then the retalliation should be swift and extreme but if they do not bother us then we should not bother them. This is true free will society where if you choose to be a democracy then you stand up and fight for it yourself not have others tell say you need it and do the fighting for you. I agree with Todd in the free will doctrine but for it to work there must be some basic laws or you would have utter chaos. The basic judo-christian commandments are the only set of laws you need. Do not kill, steal and the like. All of these commandments mean you can basically do as you please as long as you do not harm, take, or cause loss or harm to someone else. But to work the punishment would need to be severe and swift non of this pansy crap we have now. For example use New Orleans we have the looters, yes they can chose to help or stand around that is free will but to steal a television is ludarcris and of now purpose they should be delt with swiftly, if caught shoot them right there. These are not people in society who matter instead they are drudges who look for every opportunity to get what they want at others expense. I do not harbor ill will to those stealing for food or water because it should be our privelage to help those in need. The problem is that for many years now people have abused and mocked any form of good samaritan acts, people have even been sued for such acts. It is our god given right to chose to help or not but those who desire to gain from such as this at the expense of others should be punished. We are not trully a democratic nation if so then we could chose to pay taxes, send money to others, make our laws and the like. Why should my money go to take care of roads if I do not own a car, or why should I pay for public school when my child goes to a private school. But in the end as Todd says these are just rantings because nothing will happen in the end anyway. The US will continue to push it’s doctrines on the rest of the world, we will continue to reward the lazy and dredges of society while paying taxes and getting little reward. At least until we fall like all the major empires of history of whoms footsteps we follow, Rome,Greece,Russia,Egypt, the Natzis all were no better or worse then we are and as such when we have spread ourselves too thin we will fall too.

By Todd W on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply

Danny,

First off, Bush isn’t ‘my beloved’. I voted for him, but he still is not my favorite president.

Second, you might want to take a look at this.

Blanco declared a State of Emergency on 8/26, which you can read here, and note it does nothing more than mobilize state resources. It doesn’t activate Federal resources.

Bush signed a disaster declaration on 8/28, before the hurricane hit. You can read that here. This DOES activate federal funds, but does not automatically dispatch the national guard.

The national guard request was made on Wednesday, by Blanco. Those troops began to arrive after the request.

As for Bush showing up in New Orleans, I thought (and still think) it was a dumb move, taking valuable resources away for a political stunt. But I guess I can understand it when the legions of weak minded Americans look at him like a father or something. The President isn’t personally out there handing out water or shoveling muck. It isn’t part of the job. So he should have stayed away. The same goes for Clinton and his bottom-lip-biting tour of disaster sites during his term.

I have no problem helping these people in the short term. I would rather see us cut a check for the entire value of New Orleans and let these people relocate than waste money rebuilding something that will flood again and again. Topography can’t be ignored. What irritates me are those that either refuse to be properly insured and/or insist on living in high risk areas while expecting taxpayers to bail them out.

Not every problem is a Federal problem. Few problems actually ARE Federal problems according to the Constitution. We have grown, incorrectly, to expect the Feds to handle ALL things, and that is a significant problem for freedom.

By Chris Gidman on Sep 8, 2005 | Reply

Can’t — Can’t we all just get along?

By Danny on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply

Well, as Todd has said again and again, why should we get along and help each other? It’s unconstitutional!

Besides, dissent is patriotic, and I will make my dissenting voice heard as much as I damn well please. I’m pretty sure there is some kind of stipulation in our Constitution that explicitly allows me this right.

By Todd W on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply

It isn’t unconstitutional to get along. It is unconstitutional to FORCE people to get along.

Inversely, it is quite proper to act to prevent people from harming each other, so while we can’t force them to get along, we can and should prevent them from violence.

Just wanted to be precise.

By Chris Gidman on Sep 9, 2005 | Reply

Danny said:
I will make my dissenting voice heard as much as I damn well please.

It seems to me that an attitude of cooperation would go along way toward making this a better country. I don’t mean that you have to agree or that you cannot express a differing opinion. I respect your privilege in that regard. It is the attitude with which I disagree.

You take your cue from the News media and misguided individuals like Michael Moore. You bash instead of being constructive. You point out flaws instead of offering solutions. In fact, rather than dissenting, I see that you tow the party line religiously. Perhaps you would be well served to look an issue from both its face and its obverse and make real decisions for yourself instead of spewing the latest media hype.

Ultimately bashing is harmful. It is similar to flaming in e-mail. The only thing that changes is that people get angrier. If we discuss things rationally, perhaps we can avoid attacks based on feelings and come to real solutions.

Perhaps we can learn that the others really do have an genuine interest in what’s best for all. But we can’t learn this if we get pissed off the first time somebody says or does something we don’t like or that hurts us.

Chris.

By Danny on Sep 10, 2005 | Reply

Chris, believe you me, I do not tow the party line. One example: A couple months ago, Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton unleashed her plan to crackdown on violence and sexual content in video games, saying that exposure to such images encourages violence in America’s youth. I was not blinded to the truth on account of my Democratic ties. I saw right through that. Not only was she distorting the facts, she was also advocating limits on video game makers’ right to freedom of expression. I was angry.

Also, in the last election, John Kerry spoke out against same-sex marriage. This infuriated me. Why should anyone give a damn about two people celebrating their love? Either he was a man of discriminating taste or he was saying what the majority of voters (unfortunately) wanted to hear. I placed my bet on the latter.

Elections are circuses, afterall. Candidates will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office, it’s back to their left- or right-wing base. President Bush made a campaign promise to get broadband Internet access into every home via our current electrical cables, an idea that some regions of the U.S.A. have implemented successfully. Have you heard him say another word about this issue since his reelection?

I rest my case. (And please don’t resort to implying that I’m being frivilous in asking for him to follow up on this promise when “we’re at war, for goodness sake,” because that is no excuse. If Bush didn’t want a war getting in the way of domestic policy, then he shouldn’t have started that war.)

And say what you want about Michael Moore, but just remember that he’s the one down in Camp Casey III providing food, water, diapers, lotion, sterile gloves, and canned food to those who are suffering and dying. I know already where this is headed, of course. Somebody here is bound to say “Oh, yeah, like he’s doing it out of the goodness of his heart. You know it’s all some big publicity stunt for his next documentary.” Maybe yes, maybe no. Who’s to say? The point is he’s doing something. Yes, Todd, the law should not and does not force him or anyone else to help out like this, but he’s doing it anyway. You don’t have to thank him, but it would reflect poorly on your character to criticize him for this. I’m not putting words in your mouth; I realize you haven’t criticised him… for that… yet. But something told me it was coming, so I decided to soften the blow.

Chris says You take your cue from the News media and misguided individuals like Michael Moore. You bash instead of being constructive. You point out flaws instead of offering solutions [...] you tow the party line religiously. Perhaps you would be well served to look an issue from both its face and its obverse and make real decisions for yourself instead of spewing the latest media hype.

If you look back on some of the other comments I’ve posted to Todd’s blog, you’ll see that I’ve done this on plenty of occasions. Far more occasions than are immediately visible, as Todd’s old blog has, from what I can tell, been completely erased. Yeah, that comment you responded to was predominantly for bashing purposes. If you were me, trying to bring some balance to this otherwise entirely right-wing oasis, you too would lose your patience from time to time.

As for Todd, I’ll give him one thing: I was very glad to hear that he voted against the amendment to define marriage as solely a “one man, one woman” deal. I couldn’t even get my own father to do that. However, I do take some amount of credit in persuading him to vote for Kerry/Edwards. His own words: “I think that’s the first time in my life that I’ve voted for the Democratic nominee.” This tells me that people can change for the better. Sadly, the stubborness my posts have met with on Todd’s blogs tell me that my efforts are going to waste here.

By Mike J on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply

I, for one, appreciate the “Danny” comments. I do wonder what in the world this Camp Casy III is. If it’s as big a deal as say Star Wars, Episode III then maybe it hit the news. Is that annoying woman and her handlers still around? I was hoping they would get even more press coverage. Katrina is a tragedy in so many ways, and taking oxygen away from that exhibit of “liberalism” is just one of them.

I’m wondering why you think we care enough about Michael Moore to point out his many flaws constantly? I think we beat that horse to death on previous iterations of Todd’s blog. He’s your hero, not our nemesis.

Party politics: It doesn’t matter what the party line is. It only matters who we are voting for and what they will do when in office. I am pretty sure both of those were the deciding factors for most people in the Presidential election of ‘04. The American people chose to back Bush. I wonder why your father voted for Kedwards?

On the topic of stubborness and your purpose in commenting - Why do you comment here? I’m sure you enjoy it or you wouldn’t be coming back. Though being constantly assaulted and proven to be simplistic and incorrect must get annoying. I suppose it has to be the desire to feel validated by negative reinforcement? Since you despise us, our contrasting views fuel your sense of self-importance. I’m sure many people would post for the same reason to the Democratic Underground if they weren’t against free speech.

By Danny on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply

Mike Mike Mike,

You may want to scroll up for a moment to Todd’s comment. He called me out, and rightfully so, for overplaying his level of affection for his president. I said that Bush was his ‘beloved,’ and he called me out on that.

Now you’ve given me the opportunity to do the same. I never, ever insinuated that Michael Moore is my hero. That was all you. (Same thing when you say that I despise you all: 100% your words, not mine.) However, I very much admire Moore as a both a filmmaker and humanitarian. I believe he was instrumental in my effort to convince my father that Kerry was a much wiser choice. I took him with me to see Fahrenheit 9/11 the day it opened. I did this intentionally because I knew the theater would be packed and that the two of us would be surrounded in Leftists. After we left the theater, I asked him, “After seeing that, do you think you can vote for Bush.” He responded quite quickly: “No.”

Now, you don’t know my father. So I should mention that he is an honest man, and a very careful decision-maker. He would not have replied like this if he was still unsure.

And in response to your last paragraph, where you asked why I continue to post here when my comments are often met with stubborn resistance: As I said before, dissent is patriotic. I began posting roughly a year ago, at Todd’s request. In that time, I have not seen any other person regularly supply a dissenting voice. That’s dangerous to Democracy. So while I don’t enjoy being assaulted (like you said you are sure I do), I consider it part of the territory. Like when Jeremy Glick went on The O’Reilly Factor, at the request of Bill O’Reilly himself, I highly doubt he enjoyed having O’Reilly shout at him and put words the mouth of Glick’s mother, a newly greiving widow, he tolerated it, because he knew that it came with the territory of voicing dissent, however well-reasoned and sincere his dissenting opinion was. It always meets with stubbornness. For Glick, he had to endure getting berated by O’Reilly. For me, I have to endure a lot of verbal assault from the likes of you. I don’t enjoy it, but my spirit is strong enough to usually take these assaults in stride. As Dr. Albert Einstein once said, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” How unfortunately true these words are, even all these years after the man’s death.

By Steven on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply

Well said, Danny - respectful, succinct (relatively), and without the usual partyline digs.
I mean no sarcasm there, despite the comedic rant on the subject elsewhere.

I would personally like to get to the heart of the mindset of a rational democratic liberal - to understand that point of view from THEIR point of view. The from of this comment is a baby step in that direction.

By Mike J on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply

Danny is my hero. Really, what a brave person to be so patriotic in this most unpatriotic of places. Posting comments on a blog is what I call patriotic dissent. Not quite as patriotic as saying the President wants to kill poor innocent volunteer soldiers like Cindy has been doing, but still noble.

I wish I could try to sound reasonable with you, but I can’t win an argument based on reason with you since you base your views on emotion. I don’t care to fight over politics, and the things I vehemently disagree with you over are not politics but principles. It is those principles, like equality of outcomes, that lead to the political issues we superficially fight over.

O’Reily doesn’t matter, he’s just entertainment. So is Michael Moore. Occasionally they brush up against things worth fighting over, but most of the time both of them are totally polarized. They just attack without a basis in reason.

I’m still waiting for you to write a treatise on why you believe the way you do, as Todd has done at least once on all three incarnations of his blog. When you can do that instead of sniping at small things you will truly be able to say you supply the readers of this blog with “dissent.” Positions that you take are backed up by emotion rather than reason. By intentions rather than outcomes. I know why and can understand why Todd believes as he does. But why do you believe as you do? If the Left is so obviously the only proper choice, tell us why.

By Todd W on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply

The views expressed in the Comment section, when not authored by me, do not reflect my views or opinions.

Good luck.