Wednesday, November 7, 2012


From celebrities and media personalities both left and right, the most troublesome remarks I've heard regarding last night's election.

Michael Moore:

“And you, Mother Nature, with all your horrific damage, death and destruction you caused last week, you became, ironically, the undoing of a Party that didn’t believe in you or your climate changing powers.”

The Donald:

“This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”


“Pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters hav a president to destroy America.”


And saving the best for last... I know he has since apologized, and I know he said some other stuff before this came out of his pie-hole, but let's be honest. This is the real Chris Matthews.

The other interesting point to be made here is that many on the right (including this blogger) have said the media is guilty of corruption for not treating the storm with the concern it was due for the sake of the victims, with the perceived desire of protecting their partisan political interests.

So in some twisted way, I suppose we owe Tingles a debt of gratitude for making our case.

The best of America will rise above the rhetoric and affect positive change, for love of country. We should always hold our principles as the standard by which we judge the actions of our elected representatives. If we are doing this correctly, there is no need for any of this rhetoric.


Anonymous said...

Hello. Devil's advocate here. I heard you call so I thought I'd answer.

The best of America, of course, is this woman and her regurgitating of each day's talking point. In this clip she spews on about "free stuff."
I voted for Obama and I don't want "free stuff." Please explain that one to me .

And this from the FOX News voice of opinion, Bill O'Reilly, about 50% of America wanting "things" and "stuff.
Again, I voted for Obama and I don't want "things" or "stuff." Please explain this to me .

And, the comment about the "white establishment" being the minority in America? Really? I'm white and I'm not part of any "white establishment." Please elaborate, Mr. O'Reilly. What did you really mean by calling We The (white) People the "white establishment?"

Want to know what's wrong with America? Take what you've posted in this particular blog entry and add the rebuttals posted above. That's what's wrong with America. We're not the same America that we were 200+ years ago. It's time for people to stop thinking that we are.

- Your brother

Soloman said...

1 of ???

Buenos Tardes, ‘Advocate’ para El Diablo,

I’m not going to speak for Bill O’Reilly or Sarah Palin. But I will speak for myself, and I believe both Palin and O’Reilly made statements that are inaccurate but based in some truth, just like Mitt Romney when he said something about nearly 50 percent of Americans being dependent and they were not who he should be targeting as a voting group.

Romney didn’t understand the truth of the “I am the 53%” idea which led to the “47%” talking point, and O’Reilly and Palin are more or less in the same position because they are elitists, just like so much of the media, so many politicians, and so many celebrities.

The “I am the 53%” movement was in reaction to the “99%" message created by the occupy movement, and it was based on the idea that we, the 53%, want all Americans to have skin in the game. The 53% number was derived from headlines stating that 47% of Americans were receiving some sort of government assistance. The problem comes in when you begin to honestly discuss government assistance, because there is that which is legitimate and very much needed, and there is that which is steeped in fraud and abuse. Those in the "I am the 53%" movement were speaking back to the masses in the occupy movement, which were largely a bunch of people who wanted free stuff, even though I believe the movement may very well have started with honest intentions.

There were plenty of "man on the street" interviews done that showed that to be true. Hannity even had one of the occupy organizers on his radio and TV show and offered him a job; the guy would not accept a job unless he was making some astronomical amount... I want to say he expected to make at least $80K. He was not working… said some types of work were "beneath" him. But he wanted free school, a free home, a free car... felt the government should give us all those things.

I believe that working toward one’s own security and success is what makes an individual stronger. I also believe that if we are given everything, we have no drive… no purpose. I believe if given the opportunity man will become lethargic, soft, and wasteful of his time and resources. And certainly you have heard what becomes of idle hands, Mr. Devil’s Advocate…

Soloman said...

2 of ???

And by the way – that bit of my belief system took me a long time to develop. As you may have noticed lately, I’m getting more comfortable with admitting my flaws both past and present, and one of my personal flaws for a long time was finding motivation. It took being destitute and nearly dead to help me figure out that is all up to me what I make of myself. I kept waiting for success to just kind of fall into place. I was, in a sense, everything I saw in that occupy organizer. It’s been quite an awakening, let me tell you… and I’ll also tell you that Barack Obama and the Democrats expressing so much empathy for “occupy” while literally mocking “teabaggers” has a lot to do with my animosity toward the American political left.

Anyway, back to your question… I’d say Palin and O’Reilly are saying half the nation wants free stuff because they are oversimplifying the issue to try to make their point. That’s a lot of what goes on in political media on both sides, true?

Certainly you know as well as I that there are people who literally voted for Barack Obama, and voted to reelect him, almost exclusively on the premise of “free stuff.” Most recently there was the “ObamaPhone” woman in Cleveland… certainly you must have heard about her. Back in 2008 there was the woman who was so happy because she believed she wasn’t going to have to pay for gas or pay her mortgage anymore, simply because Barack Obama was possibly going to be elected President. Then after he was elected, there were the women in Detroit waiting in line for government assistance. When asked where the money came from that they were asking to receive, they said, “Obama.” When asked where Obama gets the money, they said, “I don’t know. His stash?”

If you’ve not seen or heard the aforementioned clips, let me know and I’ll send links to you. It is very important that you know I am not making this stuff up. And it’s also important we quickly discuss the racial issue, because in each of these instances the example is a Black woman, but the race and gender of the people discussed has absolutely nothing to with my using them as examples; they’re just the most prominent ones. I’m very sure there are plenty of white people out there who also don’t have a sound value system, who hope someone will give to them everything they believe they need, and give it to them free. None of these people likely understands that nothing is truly free because ultimately somebody is paying for it, and when they accept “free” stuff they too are paying, just in an entirely different and much more harmful way. Ignorance is color and gender blind.

Those examples are the extreme, of course, but it is from the extreme that the talking points begin. I never said it makes the talking points right.

I am smart enough to understand that not all who voted for Barack Obama want free stuff. But I am smart enough to understand that Barack Obama comes from an upbringing in which he was taught to appreciate a system of government that does indeed take from one class of people and give to another class of people. If you have done any research about Barack Obama’s religious denomination, you know that “Black Liberation Theology” endorses those same tenants. It is class warfare, in my opinion; those who do not have, believe it is perfectly acceptable to take from those who have, by means of a government that mandates it through taxation. It is forced redistribution of wealth. I consider it to work completely against the ideals our nation was founded upon, because I believe America was founded on the idea of individual responsibility creating success, inspired by the freedoms protected by The Constitution.

Soloman said...

3 of 3...

That is, in large part, what our ‘progressive’ taxation system is based upon. Our taxation system was created by the original American ‘progressive’ movement, which as I trust you know is far-left of the left in the American political landscape. True progressive policies from the original movement are actually more like communist policies than anything close to real progress, but the word “progressive” sounds good… like we’re making progress and becoming better… so the modern left picked up on it when “liberal” started getting a bad rap. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the Obama campaign slogan “Forward,” which was actually a term used by European Marxists in the 19th and 20th century. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder… people who believe Obama is taking us in a good direction won’t want to hear about the truth of his campaign slogan. Those who hate him will rail on about it. I don’t care about slogans, except that I really do like “For Love of Country,” because I do what I do for love of country. That is why I appreciated Romney using that phrase in reaction to Obama’s ‘revenge’ statement, and why I have continued and will continue to use it.

Anyway, I’m rambling… our government abuses us with the tax code by flexing and shifting it into whatever works best for them. That’s why a flat tax or ‘fair tax’, or at least a simplification of the rates and allowed deductions would serve us better. That’s what Boehner alluded to in his comments yesterday, and I believe he is correct. If we really want things to be “fair” for everyone, then the playing field needs to be leveled so that the wealthiest and best ‘connected’ of us are not able to abuse the system simply because they have the wealth or access that allows them to do so.

Regarding “White establishment…” again, it’s an oversimplification. However, it is true that America has become a more diverse nation with regards to skin color. But to make an issue of that is not productive. What is productive is to understand that America is still the beacon of freedom for people from around the world, regardless of their skin color, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic heritage, sexual orientation, or any other mitigating factor. What is productive is to remember that we are seen around the world as salvation for the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses.

And what I believe is extremely productive is to teach to all who will listen the true intent of our nation. And it is there I will speak loud and proud to individual responsibility, liberty to pursue individual success and happiness, freedom from tyranny and religious oppression, the right to self defense, the faith our nation will protect us from those who wish to do us harm, and the idea that we are fifty states working together as a team for the betterment of all yet maintaining sovereignty as individual laboratories of social and political experimentation.

Have I come close to answering your question?

I need you to trust I am intelligent enough to do the same as you told me you do; seek many sources and find the truth between them all. I worry you believe I’m locked and loaded as a Fox News “zombie,” but you gotta know I’m smarter than that… and in the coming days and weeks I think you’ll start to get some proof.

My love to you and your family… and thank you, so very much, for inspiring me to work harder and harder at this. You do exactly what I ask in the little blurb above the comment box... you enhance my wisdom. If you don’t already know it, that’s exactly what you are doing. I appreciate you when you agree and I appreciate you more when you push a button and make me state my case clearly, as you have done today and in many days of late. I hope I am beginning to speak more clearly.