Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Romney is Right...

In a transparent effort to drum up a controversy where none exists, and doing so in such a childish and petty way that it almost makes you pine for the days when REAL Libtard journalists, like Cronkite, Jennings, Moyers, Arnett, and Rather, knew how to lie at least half-assedly convincingly in defense of a complete loser asshole of a President who had a drunk chick's chance in a redneck bowling alley on two-for-one Coor's Lite night of pulling out a squeaker victory come Election Day.

Romney Gaffes! Screams one headline. Romney accidentally tells truth and admits to being a miserably rich bastard who hates poor people and puppies! furiously spins yet another third-grade-reading level-use-a lot- of-short words-so-the-college-kids-can-understand-you denizen of his mother's basement. Romney in Trouble! assures your local fishwrap, whose circulation is dropping faster than a Chicago schoolkid's chances of achieving basic literacy.

This assertion, that Romney is a rich patrician who hates the poor, women, minorities, senior citizens, college students, and welfare queens is being brought to you by the very same people who have attempted to spin the news every day in a feeble attempt to polish every one of the following turds dropped by Barack Obama over the last four years:

The economy is recovering. You're just too stupid to realize it.

We're winning the War On Man-Caused Disasters and Overseas Contingency Operations. You're just too stupid to see it.

We're winning against Iran. You're just not sophisticated enough to know any better.

We're not throwing away money like drunken sailor's on shore leave, we're investing in the future. You're a just a semi-literate, ungrateful douchebag if you can't see that $16 trillion in national debt is a social and  economic panacea.

Michelle is NOT a cast-iron bitch. She's the smartest, greatest, most compassionate woman, and the ultimate example of American Motherhood  in the world to come along since we lied to you and told you that Hillary Clinton was. You're just some hayseed from flyover country who wouldn't understand.

Obama is the Greatest Orator, evah! Outshining the likes of Churchill, Webster, Pericles, Demosthenes, Lincoln, Gandhi, and Cicero, mere shadows of men who had neither the silver tongue, battalion of speechwriters, nor teleprompters and coolness to recite a shopping list in the shower. You just haven't seen Obama's rhetorical greatness because you're a douche who expects people to actually mean what they say.

Republicans have thwarted the enlightened Obama policies at every turn, despite the fact that asshat got a Stimulus Bill and Obamacare, democrats controlled all three branches of government for the first half of Obama's Presidency, Harry Reid has all but held the Senate hostage, the Obamatards haven't produced a budget going on three years now. If you believe otherwise, it's only because you are dumber than dogshit.

Our enlightened, conciliatory foreign policy towards the Muslims World, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, failing to give any moral support to Iranian Dissidents, taking sides in the Libyan civil war, but refraining from doing so in the Syrian, attacking Al Qaeda targets with drones without regards to collateral damage (not that I care about that: Kill them  all, I say), insisting that obviously Islamic fundamental movements are simply another flavor of democrats (in one case they are similar to American democrats -- they're out for power over the lives of millions and don't care how many lies they must tell. or how many people they must kill, to get it). The attacks on American Embassies, the murder of American citizens, a renewed effort by the Taliban to infiltrate terrorists in American uniforms into our military bases, are NOT an indication of the failure of that appeasement strategy. No, no, no. Rather, they are the understandable responses of a people insulted by an obscure internet video, and Mitt Romney who looked extremely un-Presidential in giving his opinion on the matter, especially since it made the current President look small, stupid and in over his head Again.

The shocking revelation of Mitt Romney's 'secret' speech is that he's right; 47% of the sorry excuses for people in this country will vote for Obama, if only because they're too stupid or dependent upon government to know any better. That's what the media doesn't want you to think about. The possibility that Romney is correct in both his formulation and his numbers, doesn't occur to them. The only thing they care about is taking whatever Romney says and trying to present it to the American people in such a way as to make Obama look better by comparison.

Which is a losing battle. Because even if, as the media believes (and frankly, I sorta-kinda agree with them on this) 47% of the people in this country are complete boobs who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, they can be counted upon to understand at least ONE thing, The Price of Everything.

Under Obama, The Price of Everything has gone up. Gasoline. Food. Pork Rinds. Automobiles. Doritos. Tobacco. Health Care.Big Macs. Big Gulps (unless you live in New Yorkistan under Ayotollah Bloomdouche...errr...Bloomberg, and can't buy one).

In fact, under Obama the only prices that have dropped are property values, and while that is strictly not The  Won's fault, he hasn't exactly done much to improve things with his policies that favor the deadbeats over the banks.

Mitt Romney was making two very important points in that discussion, and one can fault his words, but the intent was clear enough that one doesn't need a professional liar...excuse me, translate them for you. They are:

a) We have spent enough time, effort and money in this country seeing to the needs of the Entirely Wrong Sort of People in a misguided belief that what the poor in America really need is vast piles of other people's money, carefully filtered through several hundred layers of city, state and federal bureaucracy. We've made the fundamental mistake of enacting a regime in which the oppressed are given all sorts of government 'benefits'  that are supposed to 'help' them advance in society, but only if they follow a Byzantine regime of rules and regulations which, more often than not, simply keep a union hack employed, and do little to change anyone's circumstances.

We've made the mistake of believing that you could use government in such a way so as to destroy the work ethic, destroy the nuclear family, sap innovation, pervert enthusiasm, to improve the lot in life of some untold millions who, in retrospect, are probably Irish Setter stupid and bound to fail, anyway, in the mistaken belief that if we at least 'make the numbers look better' (as they say in the business world) then we've actually achieved something, despite the fact that we keep defining achievement down, and spin abject failure as partial success.

Romney is right; in a country where that 47% doesn't pay any income taxes, why should we -- the 53% who do, or would, if we still had fucking jobs and incomes -- care about those who don't even care about themselves? Why should we spend one dollar more than what is absolutely bare-minimum to keep them happy? If you want to know why people are poor in the Greatest Nation on Earth, it's because they want to be that way. And because government has made poverty such an attractive career option for millions.

For professional poverty has become a career option for many, who navigate a system of social welfare and government handouts, and make a fairly decent -- by no means spectacular -- living without having to work one iota.

We have spent a trillion dollars in a War on Poverty which has worked about as well as anything else the Federal Government declares War on. It's been about as effective as both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, which have probably created more drug addicts and drug crime, and apparently more terrorists (if only because the Genocide and Scorched Earth policy this writer has advocated for since September 11, 2001 was judged inimical to the grand design of enlightened liberal statecraft, which is the development of future commercial ties with former enemies), so why shouldn't our War on Poverty have done less than to create new legions of poor?

The point is this: if you want more of anything, have a bureaucratic government run by complete ninnies declare 'War' on it, and then devote untold sums to it with no accountability.

b) Romney is absolutely right that the deadbeats and parasites in our country will flock to vote for the Obamatard, rounded up and stampeded into the polling places by the vast array of other entities and personalities who have a vested interest in keeping the welfare state afloat, for they too, earn their money from it.

The biggest stumbling block to dismantling the welfare state is not, as one might expect, the recipients, themselves. It is the bureaucracy that has been erected around poverty, the Community Groups and Program Directors, the Reverends, the Advocates and Lawyers, who are the main obstacle. For these people have drawn a very good living from Poverty. They might not actually live in it, but they certainly have their wallets and reputations fattened by it. If you think the masses will riot in the streets over a policy of tightening welfare requirements, wait until you see what happens when the Poverty Pimps feel their rice bowls threatened.

There's good money in poverty, you see, so long as you're not the one on the receiving end of the food stamps or housing allowance. If you're the GED-equivalent, passed-a-civil-service-exam-written-for-retards, government rubber-stamp clerk who makes $15/hour and can retire at 55 with a gold-plated government pension, then you love poor people and want to do anything you can to keep them in existence forever. If you're the Community Organizer who gets to skim a portion of the grant money from the neighborhood food pantry, then you love poverty. If you're the social worker who has been kept busy for decades with the by-products of poverty (crime, disease, child abuse, prostitution, drug and alcohol abuse) without having to show one positive result -- i.e. one persona 'saved' -- then you're wildly ecstatic about poverty (and probably deranged) because you have achieved the greatest of workplace goals; you get paid for doing nothing except chasing your own tail, and no one gives a crap.

If you're Barack Obama, you love it, because you have risen to the top of American Society, and you've never held a real job in your life. What sort of example is THAT? You don't need to work in America; simply ride the gravy train of sycophancy and racial grievance, and you, too, can be President of the United States! That's why that 47% will vote for Obama; they've had the clearest example possible of just how overrated work can be in the White House!

In the meantime, millions of people who might otherwise be productively employed (assuming we could get the economy turned around, and even in good economic times, there's never full employment) and paying taxes, or as I like to call it, pulling their own weight, are instead anesthetized by a government policy of paying them to be a net drag on the economy.

It's only fitting that the democratic party should set itself up as the champion of the poor and downtrodden: it's been so good at making them that way, in the first place!

All Mitt Romney has done is to make a distinction between himself and his opponents, about what he believes in and what he intends do. Now, the media types can spin that all day long as whatever they want; the question is, how many people will actually believe what they have to say on the subject?

My guess is...not that many. Mainly because we've had four-plus years of the American media selling us a bill of goods on Obama, already, and we're tired of the hard sell.

It just pretty sad -- for the media -- when Romney staking out a position you'd expect a republican to take is suddenly a shocking revelation to the media, and is presented as if aliens just landed on Earth and demanded all of our Mountain Dew and Cheetos.

It's also a clear indication of how much they fear for the future of President Marriott-Suites that they have to go to such extraordinary lengths, and employ such shrill voices, to paint a picture that does not reflect reality. I guess Chris Matthews' leg tingle has now spread to every so-called journalist's brain.

No comments: