The Dow Jones Industrial average dropped 486 points today. Predictable to say the least as scared wealthy white people privately made their fears known to the world behind computer screens clicking sell sell sell. "Hoard your riches the black man wants to raise the capital gains tax!!! the sky is falling!!!" they say to themselves in a chorus of silent fear. I bet this will continue through the middle of winter and the world will suffer for their greed. But at some point a few of these old time crusties are going to realize they can double down and start pumping their assets back into the renewable infrastructure boom and the market will emerge with new muscle. The sad part is that old time blue chips like Ford and GM are probably not going to exist as we know them in 12 months if this trend continues. At the grocery store last week there was a notice in the cookie aisle that mothers/archway had completely shut down and would not be making their frosted animal cookies, rocky-road, peanut butter, or any of their staples anymore. After 92 years they are closing up shop. This won't be the last of the traditions we loose in the coming months but we shouldn't get too upset. Change requires a walk through the valley of despair. Now is the time to try on some metaphorical hiking boots.
8 comments:
So how do you really feel about republicans?
First I am not a Democrat or a Republican. On this issue of political parties I agree with George Washington. He warned of the dangers of political parties and the detriment that blind allegiance to them would play in our nations future during his farewell address. These dangers have manifested and we have witnessed them play out through all the heated rhetoric of the Bill O'Rielys and Keith Olbermanns of this country (the culture wars as they are dubbed).
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discrimination, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."
Fraternal affection indeed. That is what we have lost and that is what we need to regain. Christians like to say "thou shalt not judge" but judgment is an inherent aspect of human nature. If I do not find a person's public social policies particularly favorable then I judge them as someone I do not want representing me, regardless of their political affiliation.
So, your question can not be answered in general but on a person to person basis. If the republicans you ask me about are Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln, or John McCain then of course I would have to say they are some my heros and I admire their legacys. But if you ask me about George W. Bush or Don Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz I would say that these are revolting idealogues that have effectively left our federal governmet in tatters and should be tried for treason by the supreme court for lying to the american people about the evidence for invading Iraq. you asked I answered and I would be happy to continue civil discourse.
Be good for goodness' sake, eh?
Yeah, I see you were following that mantra to the letter when you typed that totally ignorant title for this post.
Just imagine if some white person wanted to make some sort of derogatory and slanderous statement like that about a black person. How fast before he found himself dragged into court being sued for everything he owns?
I won't even begin to address all your nonsensical blathering in your reply to Anonymous. You mention in your profile that you enjoy studying history. Maybe you need to study it a whoooole lot more because you don't seem to have a clue yet.
Hi uh yeah - Indiana!
Thanks for your input!
In the words of Jermaine Clement - be more specific with your criticisms.
I take it from your comment that you do not agree with me. Great. But what exactly do you disagree with? My use of the qualifying adjective "white" to describe the individuals responsible for the Dow dropping last fall? Perhaps this was obtuse of me. I should have replaced the words white people with ass-holes but I was trying to keep things civil.
"Just imagine if some white person wanted to make some sort of derogatory and slanderous statement like that about a black person. How fast before he found himself dragged into court being sued for everything he owns?"
You may be right but that would be in a case involving a specific person or persons such as with Don Imus or that coach in the 1980's that commented on black line backers having more powerful thighs because they we bred to be that way.
I was talking about the generalized fat white people in America that are too lazy to participate in their county's government but still find the time to whine and complain when their side loses.
I would like to know more about what exact parts of history I have such a gross misunderstanding of I'm always eager to learn and improve my grasp of history. Please enlighten me. I will be the first to admit when I am wrong about something. And I apologize if the blog has historical errors. I'm just a human with a curious mind not established MSM.
Thanks and I hope we can learn from each other rather than scream so we can hear ourselves talk.
He who yells the loudest is usually wrong. That's why I didn't yell before, and certainly don't intend to do so now. So what tone will you take?
You have more than proven your ignorance by lowering yourself even more using vulgarities, rather than keeping this a 'civil discourse'. Maybe your memo here on the comment page should instead read 'If you don't have anything intelligent to say, curse.'
Like I said before, there's no reason to even respond to the idiocy of your previous reply or your second point by point. It would be a waste my time. Especially knowing how great an impact my opinions would have on yours.
(P.S. Yeah. That last line was in fact sarcasm just in case it somehow managed to slip by you while you were engrossed in a history book. Or even economics, for that matter.)
I'm really wanting to add some substance to this conversation but it seems like all you want to do is express your dissatisfaction with my word choice and that is it. Like you said, this conversation has no meaning and is a waste of both our time so far.
I apologize for using a bad word. Though the particular word I used was not technically a curse because it had nothing to do with God or religion or anything like that, but rather a vernacular version of an anatomical term used in an insulting analogizing manner. So if the only thing you want to talk about is what words should or should not be used in civil discourse I'm up for that conversation.
Who decides which words are "appropriate"?
I understand the need to shield children from these words in broadcast media. But people seek out blogs or stumble across them they are not force fed opinions like they are on FOX or even CNN these days.
"Especially knowing how great an impact my opinions would have on yours."
I find it puzzling that having read only a few pieces of my writing you feel qualified to know whether or not I am receptive to ideas contrary to my own. Please tell me one of your opinions and we can start a real conversation.
Since you want to get technical about the exact meaning of words:
vul·gar·ity (vul ger′ə tē, -gar′-)
noun - 1. the state or quality of being vulgar, crude, coarse, unrefined, etc.
vulgarity synonyms: n. - impudence, discourtesy, crudity, indecency; see rudeness.
curse word
noun - 1. profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger; "expletives were deleted"
synonyms: expletive, oath, swearing, swearword, curse, cuss
related words: profanity - vulgar or irreverent speech or action
Gee. So sue me for not using a word that was synonymous, but was instead merely 'related'.
civ·il (svl) - ADJECTIVE: Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
Silly me. I sure thought I'd be able to have an exchange with someone without them starting to throw around vulgar/irreverent/crude/crass/(insert whatever word suits your fancy here) language like proverbial drunken sailors.
And just out of curiosity, how many of your entries have I read? And how many must I in fact suffer through in order to get a fair representation of your receptiveness?
I can guarantee you I am not the first person with whom you have ever talked with whose opinions differ from your own. And I'm sure they have tried to get you to see their point of view and maybe even 'come over to the dark side'. That being the case, and them being unsuccessful, again there's no way I want to get sucked into a pointless spitting match.
What could I possibly say that hasn't been said by those who are much more educated than myself? By conservative political analysts/commentators? By maybe even one of your personal friends/acquaintances/family members who lean more to the right? If none of them can sway your thinking in the slightest, I can pretty much guaran-flat-tee you that my arguments will fall on completely deaf ears.
Now, feel free to label me as being judgmental, as all conservatives are so nicely called. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard it, and I've definitely been called worse.
фото пизд старух
минаев телки crfxfnm
реальные съемки секса скрытой камерой
смс секс
бесплатное порно регистрация
Post a Comment