I am currently being considered for a well-paying career with a glamorous title, but it will mean a hellish workday and a great deal of travel. Obviously my blog would have to go on hiatus if the offer is ultimately made, because I will be forced to accept it.
I don't really want the job, but I can't afford to sit around and wait for the perfect one to come my way. In this economy, I'll be lucky to be employed at all.
The economy is becoming a matter of global security. In the New York Times today, we read:
"The new director of national intelligence told Congress on Thursday that global economic turmoil and the instability it could ignite had outpaced terrorism as the most urgent threat facing the United States."
As we now know:
"The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008."
Also, ""The breadth of job losses now surpasses the prior two recessions," said John Silvia, chief economist for Wachovia."
Florida is particularly hard-hit, and will be the slowest to recover, as our economy is largely based on tourism.
By now, many of you may find this topic to be somewhat dull and redundant. But for those who live in its shadow every day, it is anything but.
Many are hoping that the Economic Stimulus Package will help. For more details on this package, there is an excellent article in USA Today about it. But the problem, as I see it, is that jobs will be created for blue collar workers only.
Some Republicans believe in trickle down economics: Is this trickle up economics?
There is no doubt that our blue collar workers have been hardest hit, but this is of the government's making. The government has allowed the illegal immigrant in to take the blue collar jobs, and the government has allowed Big Business to send other jobs overseas. So this is obviously an attempt to fix some of the damage that the Bush administration has done.
I do know that something may be better than nothing, but is it enough? And what of the pork that has wormed it's way into the package?
Again, we see a government that gives more lip service than actual service.
USA Today says "The $789 billion stimulus bill moving toward final passage by Congress will not quickly solve the historic problems besetting the economy, but it could reduce the damage, while providing relief for the unemployed and the uninsured."
That's wonderful if you've hit rock-bottom. But what about those of us who haven't? We have struggled but managed to pay our bills. We aren't in dire straights yet, but it's because we're sacrificing and scraping by.
If they're not careful, we will be penalized for our responsibility, while irresponsible spending and behaviors are rewarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I would not call getting axed "irresponsible". In many places unemployment is higher than large cities in FL because the areas ONLY major employer lays off a bunch of people. Now if you were not exactly raking in the jack before - but getting by - you are not going to have this huge pile of savings at your disposal.
If you have not been in the job market for long (say you got your first "real job" only 5 or 6 years ago) you are not going to have a huge pile of savings to get you by.
And if you were only a couple of years from retirement - your investments are down and so if you dip into your savings you will have nothing to invest once this all turns around.
The fatal flaw in the Republican plan (which is more tax cuts) is that NOBODY is going to expand their business - no matter what tax cut they get. Trickle down is not going to work. But the Republicans have backed themselves into a hole, after close to 30 years of saying the same crap over and over. They have a core who believe them, and if they change now it will be over for many of them.
By the way, a lot of what is going on now is because of the trickle down theory. What you do with cuts at the top is pump a lot of money into investments - not consumer spending. The wealthy can typically get all the consumer goods they want. The "extra" money has nowhere to go but investments.
And if investing in China or India or South America will net you 10%, while America only gets you 5% - guess where your investment goes?
In the 80s, we saw outsourcing kick into high gear. The tax cuts were exported.
Also, at some point you get to the level where you have "mad money". Now some just go to Vegas with mad money. There ARE people who will buy millions in chips, and do not care of they lose it all.
Those types helped to drive UP the speculation market. Who do you think was buying 5 and 6 FL "investment properties" - which drove up the condo and house market to the crazy level it was at?
Not me. I could not even afford one! Because assholes speculating quickly drive me out of the market. $500,000 for a broom closet in a high rise? You must be on crack!!
Anyhow, for those who were getting the massive tax cuts, it WAS mad money. If they lost it - who cares. It was going to be "wasted" in taxes anyway. So this extra money went into high risk but high gain speculation markets - which put EVERYTHING in a bubble.
And now the working people get to pick up the tab, and suffer the worst of it.
So how about the job creation plan? Well these things HAVE TO work from the bottom up. You can not just create management white collar jobs. Who will you manage? Other managers? At some point someone has to do real work. That is who you want to directly target with these "make work" programs.
Another myth floating around is that the New Deal failed. It did not fail. If anything, it was not enough. MASSIVE government spending - the likes of which has never been seen again - took place in WWII. This created unlimited factory jobs, which in post war America caused a decades long boom. Of course, all those jobs are in China now. But your washing machine is cheaper! Of course it will not last 50 years either (like the old American union made ones would) but hey. They are cheaper so you can afford a new one every few years.
The Republican party really backed itself into a hole. A hole they can not get out of. And it is showing. The only plan they have is more of the same. Like it worked so well over the past 8 years - lets try it for another 8 years!!
But the fact remains. NO tax cut will cause a business to expand right now. NOBODY is going to hire more people if there are no customers. If your business is NOT growing, if sales are down - you are NOT going to bring more people on. You are going to lay people off. You have to.
What needs to happen right now is programs and economic packages designed to create more customers. Everything else will follow that. The quickest jobs you can create are labor jobs. Put blue collar America back to work - the ones who do real useful work - and the other jobs will follow.
It will take some time however. 30 years of piss poor policy will not be overturned in a week.
Thats why I'm praying I can keep my job...911 never closes.
Who is POV? Does that stand for
Perverted Old Veteran?
Pretty Odd Vegetable?
Pushes own Vehicle?
Probably Orders Vegan
Partially Oval and Verbose
Proud, Ostentatious and Victorious?
I give up
Lazy: I got axed from 2 jobs in one year and went broke. Darn tootin I didn't want to get axed, I was devastated. It was just a run of bad luck. The X called me "financially and emotionally irresponsible". To which I called him "pontificating, arrogant, soontobejobless Assclown".
Sorry saur, I just said ass
I think if I had to choose between a hellish workday with lots of travel and no job, I would live off the government's tit for awhile, especially now that Obama is in office and the democrats control Congress. Welfare benefits are sure to stick around for awhile.
I have a job and even though I don't love it I am thankful I have it and that we can keep paying our bills.
Although not a fan of welfare, I am not going to worry about what everyone else gets out of this and continue to be happy that I have a job and can pay my bills.
-Ange
What everyone else gets out of this??
You mean like a nice refrigerator box and a highway overpass to put the box under???
Now....who is going to buy that refrigerator. I have 10 people who would be interested in looking at the empty box.....
Everyone is against "welfare" until they need it. And then it is not "welfare" anymore.
Lazy:
Don't just blame Bush. You have a hefty load of Democrats that didn't offset his spending either. You talk like there were only Repubs in the House and Senate. If Bush's moderate policies and big government spending were the cause of what we are in, no way in HELL are we going to be helped by this 3.27 Trillion Crap Sandwich we're eating now.
Saur:
Please consider something. Instead of using Bush's name as a prejorative for bad government, look at the particular causes of this bad economy: runaway government spending. How many times has president Bush warned Congress of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's out of control loan disbursements? Two? Three times? To such warnings, Congress flips him the bird, especially Barney Frank/Chris Dodd.
How soon we forget and let the MSM do our thinking. (Yes, I'm pissed)
I'm not mad at either of you personally. I'm finding that "Porkulus" is the beginning of the end. God help us.
Ed:
Suckling on the Federal teats is not my idea of living. Man, when you see the result of welfare suckling, such as the burned out high-rise hulks of the Robert Taylor Projects in Chicago, you will shudder at the stark reality of tit-sucking. Egad man, I know you're stating these tongue in cheek, but this is bad.
YES, EVERYONE, I AM ONE PISSED U L!
Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac?? Are you still stuck in that old groove, UL? Sure, those two were problematic, but as we're discovering, they're only a small part of the problem.
The underlying problem has been a lack of federal (or any other kind of) oversight of our financial institutions, which has been "best" promoted by the Republican Party, who practically trademarked it with their zeal for deregulation. Unfortunately, in practice, the conservative mantra of "less government" has been realized (I think, inevitably) as anarchy instead, to the detriment (and expense) of the whole society. Barney Frank, and the Democratic Party in general, may have been enabling asshats, but you need to look to the GOP for the architects of the mess that's been built in the years since St. Ronnie's inauguration.
Republicans espoused "personal responsibility", but what resulted was "everyman for himself" (IGMSFU). Hell of a way to build a nation, huh? (no, but it's a great way to destroy one.) Of course, now that the "it's my money, I earned it" ringleaders (the ones whose millions, or more, made all those thinktanks, lobbyists, and campaign contributions possible) are in trouble because of their decisions, suddenly they all see the need for that social safety net which conservatives previously so disdained, but only provided it's exclusively used for billion-dollar institutions - welcome to Trickle-Down Welfare, folks! Did the Democrats participate in this? You betcha!
But imagine, if you will, who would raise the biggest fuss should the government, like any creditor, take possession of the bankrupt banks - who would howl loudest? And who has media minions with legions of loyal listeners ready to repeat whatever talking point is handed out this week? And the next? And the next?
So now the whole nation is reaping what only about half of us have wanted sown, so UL isnt the only one who's pissed.
Oh, and good luck with the job, Saur. Maybe it wont be so bad. If it's any consolation, I despise my job, and it's damaging my marriage, but it does provide relatively cheap health insurance and puts food in the house my wife's job pays for. Never mind that it has absolutely nothing to do with my college degree (and could be done by a highschool drop-out).
Wait, that sounds bitter, doesnt it? Dont listen to me, take the money, wait for things to get better. It beats turning your entire yard into a vegatable garden and selling the excess at the farmer's market.
And you can always blog from your hotel at night.
Rich People have the money. Poor people do not.
Cut Taxes on the rich and they will spend the money. Cut taxes on the poor and they will buy a computer.
Poor people do not pay taxes now and need all the services. Let's see, Liberals uses people's problems to get them to vote for them. How funny. They could care less about poor people. They just want their vote.The poor believe Obama is gonna save them. It is strange. Did you see that lady the other day?
Suppy Side works but that is for a longer post.
Hey Saur,
I am on the radio this morning at 8am-10am talking all about this.
www.wezs.com
You can listen online.
I will be blasting this pork bill.
Tom
Lazy, We agree on everything except for the part about how you define irresponsible. I do not say that people who lose their jobs are irresponsible.
However, the irresponsible people are the ones that took out home loans that were much bigger than what they could afford. They made stupid buying decisions. They spent like there was no tomorrow.
THAT is irresponsible, no matter what color, class, or income you come from. Of course I've always felt that way - the current crisis just emphasizes it, that's all.
Good point about welfare - but again I emphasize that anyone who needs a handout and deserves one has my fullest encouragement to ask for one. But some of these bailouts are for people who make irresponsible choices.
In other words, they got to buy that really nice house and car, because they were foolish enough to do so with no care for tomorrow. Those of us who have been saving and being cautious have to keep saving and being cautious... so that we can give them the lifestyle they'd like to grow accustomed to.
Doozie, Pov was first introduced here. It explains his name.
Ed, Great point, but I don't know if I'd qualify. I think I'm one of those that would fall through the cracks because I've owned my own company.
Ange, You'll have to worry if ultimately you or your children are taxed more to cover other people's irresponsible choices. Sad, but true.
Underground, You are right. Everyone is (mostly) right here, because we are all griping about differenct pieces of the same pie. In your case, Bush DID warn us of Freddie and Fannie. However, he also chose to stay in a ground war and spend oodles of money because 'reforming' Iraq was his pet project.
You know your Bible as well as I do, I'm sure, so you know that there is no reforming such a country unless Revelations is a lie.
This goes back to my saying Bush isn't a Christian. No Christian worth his salt would've bothered. Additionally, no Christian would have blithely gone against the will of the people he was elected to represent for so long. I'm not talking about just the war in Iraq here - I'm talking about the illegal alien problem, and others.
Bush had agendas that drove us to our knees.
Dave, Thank you. I'm so sorry to hear that your job is such a nightmare. I've been there/done that and it looks like I'm about to do it again.
You're entitled to be bitter, but it sounds as if you have reason to be.
Get your wife something extra nice today. ;o) *hugs*
Tom, Welcome! I had no idea you were reading my column.
(Everyone: Tom is a friend from the real world, and is very involved in the Republican world but he is not a neo-con.)
I certainly agree that trickle down economics is flawed at best. I don't think it's entirely without merit, but I also know that it is only a small part of the solution. I've found this to be true from both sides through bitter-won experience as:
1. Poor employee working for company (I wrote about my various experiences in "Selfish, Careless Bosses").
2. Executive working for company
3. Owning two companies, both of which have struggled like an antelope caught in quicksand.
You know how our industry has suffered lately, and it doesn't look as if it's getting better fast.
That didn't really explain why you ended up with "pov"
I'd like to welcome Tom to your blog also.
Please comment more often.
Saur on hiatus?
What will become of me?
I was just in Orlando for a few days and a cabbie told me that tourism was WAY down there.
Yes, it's interesting about the national security director's comments. At a conference I attended recently, a number of Pentagon officials said they were more cost-consciousness about procuring new weapons systems.
They don't want to pay a lot for this muffler. If we continue to decline, the U.S. is going to have to spend less money on the military and we are going to have to fight harder, when in war.
The Atlantic Monthly details the ramifications of procuring only half the F-22s that would make a strategic difference (300 or so as opposed to 183).... Our entire way of fighting wars depends on owning the skies, not fighting for them.
Happy Valentine's Day, Saur!!
But M@, why will we be in war with a need to own the skies? Because we need the oil. And because we need the oil, we need the military, so we can control the oil, because we really need the oil. So we spend our hard earned tax dollars, our soldiers' lives, and our childrens' futures on fighter planes, simply because we want everything to be really big. How crazy is that?
Doozie, It tells you that "Pov" was a misprint on a brochure he'd ordered to promote himself. The nickname stuck.
Uncle Joe, ;o)
M@ " If we continue to decline, the U.S. is going to have to spend less money on the military and we are going to have to fight harder, when in war."
Beautifully said. I couldn't agree more.
Green, Happy Valentine's Day!!!
Dave, You're only partially correct, IMHO. I believe that this war was not only for oil. I think that Bush also fought it as a revenge for Saddam's initial plotting against Bush Sr. Bush Jr. took that as a personal affront (understandably) and acted upon it (not understandably).
Additionally, the terrorism threat is genuine, but fighting over there has little impact on the trouble. Instead, we should be shoring up our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, as well as deporting them.
Saur:
A comment you made has made me angry, and I want to be civil in my disagreement with you. Here's what you said regarding this post:
This goes back to my saying Bush isn't a Christian. No Christian worth his salt would've bothered. Additionally, no Christian would have blithely gone against the will of the people he was elected to represent for so long. I'm not talking about just the war in Iraq here - I'm talking about the illegal alien problem, and others.
First off, you CANNOT and MUST NOT make that claim! Sorry, you don't know the man nor do you possess the clarity needed to make such as statement. You are simply repeating that what you heard and saw portrayed in our activist gonad-free MSM. Everyone, in embracing the Liberal MSM's narrative of the War in Iraq has COMPLETELY forgotten the context, without reason, but with a distinct purpose. Absolutely all context has been washed from their brains. It's pitiful. No one seems to remember the great fear had by all ranks, both Republican and Democrat, of the possibility of WMD's. No one remember's violation after violation of successive UN resolutions. NO ONE REMEMBERS! Everyone remembers the revision of events after the fact and the steady stream of "Bush lied, people died" without any mention of the numerous Democrats who ramped up the rhetoric in favor of the War. Seemed good for them politically at the time. Gutless cowards.
President Bush did make mistakes, BUT you and those you mimic are overreaching and I want to know why. You have several liberal bloggers that jump on that I'm sure LOVE to hear you repeat their mantras. I DO NOT.
Remember, to know means in classical sense, "to not forget." We have lost our ability to know, because we are given to agendas rather than the truth. We prefer to forget and help others to forget if it means this forgetfulness advances our agenda. Our activist cowardly MSM who neglects their constitutional role in our government, a fiduciary role that is essential for us to be informed citizens, by the way--opt for pushing agendas rather than finding the truth. If President Obama gets 1/10th the negative treatment that Mr. Bush got, he'd be pissing and moaning like a tenderfoot school boy. I did not find ANY description of the contents of the Porkulus Bill anywhere. Everyone was in such a damn hurry, no one bothered. This is the media we wanted. Well, we deserve the consequences, and boy will there be a lot of whining to come.
Bush made mistakes, but don't over-reach and declare him not a christian. That is a gross violation of charity.
Addendum:
If you care to, read the article at the American Thinker called Bush at the Stone Table.
Please give this some more thought, Saur.
Underground, Thanks for sharing your position with me. But no, I wasn't influenced by anything anyone else has said. I watch almost no TV at all. I DO listen to talk shows, but the talk show hosts are, in general, rabid neo-cons and would never make the assertion that Bush isn't a Christian.
I believe he isn't a Christian. In the Bible it says "By their fruits shall you know them." If the Bible is true (and I believe it is) then we can look at his actions and, as I said before, his actions don't indicate he is a Christian. As you know, genuine Christians are supposed to evaluate others who claim to be Christians.
What if no one demanded accountability from others? What if someone wandered into the emergency room and began to perform an appendectomy with no one questioning his credentials?
We need to stop being afraid to question other supposed Christians.
I looked over the article you referred to. Frankly, I believe that it's borderline blasphemous to compare Bush to Aslan (who is supposed to be representative of God himself). Additionally, I hardly believe Bush to be a martyr.
Bush chose to be and do many things because he was willful, not because he was some honorable man with a stiff upper lip and an agenda that would not waiver.
As I said, Bush didn't show any Christian love or charity even toward the electorate or he would've demanded a stop to the flow of jobs overseas.
He would've demanded that the nation's laws be observed instead of ignoring our illegal immigration problem.
He would've realized that fighting a war in the Middle East is to encounter something worse than a land war in Asia. Why? Because the Bible makes it very clear that the middle east will continue to house rabid, vicious anti-semites until the end of the world.
He would've encouraged true dialogue instead of stifling dissent. From the very beginning, he shut out anyone from the press who disagreed with him in a form of Les Majeste that outdoes anything any other President has done (besides FDR).
Oh, I don't doubt for one minute that Bush wants everyone to believe he's a Christian. And he's made plenty of lip service - but lip service is something that even the Anti-Christ will give. Lip service is something that many frauds have and do give every day. Lip service comes from hypocrites and makes the genuine article look bad.
I am sorry that you are angered, but I speak the truth - I do not believe he is a Christian.
Saur:
A break from blogging is a good thing. Especially as you seem to be collecting right-wing nuts like earrings over here.
UL:
I find your defence of Bush odd considering how badly he did at the job and just how long it took the American people to figure that out. But then I'm not surprised by your clinging to the trouser legs of the devil you know.
Tom:
Your analysis of tax cuts is as limited as the scope of your imagination and your political spectrum. You need to get past black and white absolute politcal thinking and move in the direction of shades of grey.
Daniel:
But look how boring this site becomes when left wingnuts like yourself are the only ones who comment. IQ's would sink to new lows! >:P
Don;t be silly UL, the right has the monopoly on ignorance, backward thinking and surpression of knowledge.
Please see the anti-intellectual regime of the past 8 years.
Underground, Please note that I'm not trying to deride or mock Bush. I think there's a fine line between stating a necessary truth and belittling a leader. I've been guilty in the past of belittling Bush, and I do believe that any leader deserves our respect, as tough as that can be at times.
I like Obama no better, but I am trying very hard to respect the position with the understanding that both men have been allowed to lead our country.
Daniel:
You typically assume the position of knowledge according to an ad populum fallacy. Your approach to politics as an actor may work with those who see you on stage, but it won't work with me. You merely express an opinion held by many based on an activist media who desired the destruction of GWB. It has successfully manipulated a majority who are not given to critical thinking skills, who cannot identify the fallacies used in the media's rhetoric and thus, are easily bamboozeled. Your thinking is a product of their propaganda. This is why ad populum is never a proof.
You also have swallowed the MSM's agenda, calling Bush BusHitler, etc. You have inadvertently FORGOTTEN the context of Hitler as you have deliberately FORGOTTEN the context of Bush. Why? Because the Left'$s socialist agenda serves to destroy Bush. You have been hoodwinked to adopt this same agenda and you participate in it.
Keep this up, I wonder if the new Sharia Socialist UK state will need your acting skills, Daniel. Given you penchant for rebellion, I wonder if you'd grow bored and restless performing the state sponsored plays you would do to promote the "Mother Country"? How unfulfilling...
What I see happening to our kulture falls is very sad. It is falling in line with what Socrates predicted over 2500 years ago in Plato's Republic. He describes the gradual deterioration of the democratic city into a dictatorship. Loose morals, rejection of wisdom and Truth. Read it. You will see what I mean.
Saur:
It is possible to see the fruits of men and determine what kind of tree they are. What I am suggesting is that, since you also have forgotten Context and replaced it with a new leftist narrative, for whatever reasons I cannot know, you are not using a good method of fruit inspection. As a result, you make outlandish claims you seem to think you can justify. Be that it may, I remain unconvinced and I guess that will have to do.
As to my anger, it is not directed at you personally, but as one whose opinion I usually respect, this is a disappointment. My fear is that you have employed an appeasement method that will undermine comments that have been clear and insightful. I am proposing this only. You may take it or leave it. Pax.
No christian should become "angry" at anothers opinion or position. No secular person should become angry at anothers position be it left wing or right. The injustice comes when each side belittles the other.
IF you believe in God/Satan....Satan doesn't care if you are upstream or downstream so long as you are EXTREME!!!
and for "UL"
You say saur doesn't "possess the clarity" to make those statements. And who says YOU DO????
I'm not against anyone of you people, I just tire of the relentless volley for control, and to prove oneself right. Arrogance is so unattractive, whatever religion you are.
Saur, no leader "deserves our respect" simply because he is a leader. He deserves our respect only when he has earned it. He may deserve our forebearance, he may deserve our second or even third chance, he may deserve that we withhold judgement for a time, but not our automatic respect. If this were not so, at least in America, then we would have remained a part of England, and continued "respecting" our king.
George Bush had his time, and it was an unmitigated disaster. Now he is gone from office, and we are free to judge him. Most do so harshly, and deservedly so.
Doozie:
What? No Christian should be angry? What is Christianity to you? I'll tell you what it is not...it is not a belief where stupid people smile at others with a vacancy sign flashing in their brains while the world tears itself apart and saying to it: "Would you like your pie a la mode?"
Christianity is extremely relevant to the world and the issues that are crushing it. We are rigorous in our analysis and commentary because we care for people. The Christian haters will see it differently, and cite extreme cases to provide a generalization for Christianity everywhere.
As to your statement where you say the proving of oneself as right is a sign of arrogance, is this a true statement or false? Is it true that those who try to prove something right is arrogant? If so, then aren't you trying to prove something true, which then makes you just as arrogant? Of course not, because you're nice; I'm not. You are in a position to judge me; I am not.
If what you say is true, then none of us say anything about the issues that matter. All we can do is act like dopes and say: "Sure, I'll have ice cream with my pie...and a cup of coffee to go with it."
UL:
Here we go again, thread rot ensues when you wade in with absolutes that you can't see make you come across as some sort of pompous ass.
Take Doozie's excellent point, instead of accepting that she is, to a degree right, be humble and accept that you are not the master of all truth, you simply wade in and attack her and make no effort to deal with her proposal, which in a nutshell was: what makes you so right?
Ypu've hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, all of this internet comment business is pissing in the wind and to see it as anymore than that is delusional.
Christianity is not relevent to the world UL, it's relevent to you and your belief system. Ancient thinking has little place left in the modern world, it holds it back rather than enables progress. As for Christians caring, you show little care in your comments, little idea of being humble and little suggestion of compromise.
Christians only wish to care for other Christians, which isn't everyone.
As fo rmy approach to politics, it's funny but I think that I'm the only one here who actually has any experience of working politicval views with real people rather than mouthing off on the internet.
I often have to construct political angles in order to convince with an audience, in order to stimulate change without alienating and my work as a local councillor means direct political engagement with people on issues that matter.
If I tried to postualte anything like what you come forward with, I'd be laughed at.
As for where my opinions and thoughts coem from, you've described yourslef UL not me, my politics are complex, grey rather than polarised and developed over actually doing politcal work rather than hypothosising; also, I don't watch TV, I don't listen to the radio, I read plenty and live plenty and these two guide my principles.
It is you who are the mouth piece for conservative, media stimulated non-thinking.
Quote me were I refer to Bush as Hitler, qote me were I push the MSM (I have no idea what that is) agenda. Quote me were I forget the context of Hitler (you seem to forget I come from German Jewish stock).
You can't becuase once again, you fail to grasp who I am, what I believe and know only attack.
Pathetic.
Your ideas of the UK are as backward as many of the other right-wing US idiots, who are scared of a world leaving them fast behind, who see their grand ideas reduced to dust and can only lash out at those who present genuine solutions. You have no allies.
Best if you leave.
Saur,
May I suggest that Talk Radio is in your future?
That is if the left doesn't cram the Fairness Doctrine down our throats.
Daniel:
Gee, I'm speechless. You have artfully described me in a manner, which no doubt comes from your very complex, gray, non-polarizing approach, and no doubt, a humble approach-- as a pompass ass; I come across as the master of all Truth; I am unwilling to compromise my Christian ideals; my ideas of the UK are as backward as many of the other right-wing US idiots; I am among those who are scared of a world leaving us fast behind; my grand ideas are being reduced to dust; I along with my right wing dinosaurs can only lash out at those who present genuine solutions; and, I have have no allies.
Shocker.
Since applause is ultimately what actors look for, let me be the first to do give you just that...
clap, clap, clap.
Thanks, now where did my comment go about Talk Radio not being a compliment?
Post a Comment