You Break It, You Buy It
How any times did you hear that as a child, or say it to your kids? Probably more than a few, and the total will certainly rise as we enter the prime shopping season and tote the tots into the malls of America.
But have you really stopped and considered the simple lesson in the phrase? You are responsible for your actions (not me); you must pay for your own mistakes.
Children, of course, need to be reminded of this, as they learn how to be members of society and learn to be careful. But actions being louder than words, what do they see all around them? Do they see consistent evidence of personal responsibility… or passing the buck? Are they seeing the adults around them act like kids?
As an example, take the most primary thing we all “own,” ourselves. If you break you, it is your responsibility, not society’s. The diabetes level in the overall population is nearing 10%, and is almost a third for seniors. In Oklahoma, it was announced that there was a tripling of diabetes since 1995. But should society be responsible for obesity-related diseases such as diabetes? Of course not. You break it, you buy it. And no, we don’t need to pass any laws to protect you from you and your lack of personal responsibility. Nobody is forcing you to order the quart-size caramel whipped cream mocha latte each afternoon as a treat. And as long as cigarettes are legal, feel free to smoke; just don’t pretend you aren’t aware of what they can do.
How about the mortgage crisis? It is not our responsibility to repay your upside-down home loan. If you can’t afford the debt or the possibility of a (severe) market downturn, don’t buy a house, and for God’s sake don’t take out the equity as a line of credit. Take responsibility and make good on your obligations. Now some may subvert this by suggesting the government or the banking system did the breaking and should do the buying — in most cases that is just an attempt to place blame. While there is plenty of evidence that government policy encourages irresponsible behavior with regard to home buying (with debt), encouragement is far from a mandate.
Of course, this is all linked to freedom, especially as the knee-jerk reaction of the nanny state is to regulate and legislate away liberty to protect us from ourselves — a ridiculous notion in a free country. Society must demand individuals own up to their own mistakes, and stop allowing the government to come beyond like some giant pooper scooper and let people carry on without any accountability.
So when you are out shopping and you say or hear “you break it you buy it,” take a second and think about it — if you walk it like you talk it, maybe your kids will believe you.
Is there anyone who doesn’t recognize that the left NEVER takes responsibility for their actions, let alone their crimes? And their constant obsession with the collective, this group and that group, is precisely their method of divide and conquer, even as they pretend to care for the average man. As if. Poppycock.
Personal responsibility is eschewed like the plaque, for it is this reality and quality which pushes people toward self reliance and excellence. And a self reliant person is a non-compliant one, especially when the rules are anti-democratic.
So the left – in all its permutations – makes sure to convince others that they are the ‘good’ guys, and not the pyromaniacs that they are!
And leftist dogma is the same world over, as most free thinkers recognize – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/
By definition, leftists/progressive are repressive and destructive. Does anyone expect them to own up? Do pigs fly?
Yup: It’s Bush’s fault! Being a left/liberal never means being resposnible for one’s actions… that’s their whole schtick, everything is their enemies’ fault/cost/resposibility: in ideal that every supporter of theirs wants, until they wind up the “useful idiot” who’s outlasted his or her usefulness.
Personal responsibility is NEVER a factor or a defining component of their belief system. That is why all the takers flock to them. Who would not want to feel good all the time and blame the other guy for your misfortune. It is a lifestyle choice. Jesus Christ himself can not ever win an election when the majority fall into this camp. That is why the last election was so devastating for those of us in the freedom and liberty camp. Virtues and morality have gone out of style and we spit in God’s eye. Trouble and intractable pain are the only things that are going to make people wake up. You think the complete economic and societal collapse that is coming our way will change hearts and minds? I don’t and I think only the strong and the self reliant are going to survive. I know that I am making every attempt to get my own house in order for the coming calamity
There is something missing from this discussion. You knee-jerk Republicans still haven’t admitted what a disaster Bush was, and you still refuse to take responsibility for his actions (which you supported, at the time).
Bush didn’t win the popular vote in 2000 and only succeeded in 2004 because of 9-11. However, he did do better than the Republicans before (Bush Sr., Dole) and the Republicans since (McCain, Romney). There is no question that Bush’s policies and rhetoric were politically more attractive than other modern Republicans. The key question is whether Bush’s political tactics (policies) constituted a useful governing philosophy.
Bush’s approach to government amounted goodies for everyone, with no one expected to pay for anything. Hispanics got full-on pandering including over support for bilingualism, Open Borders and the promise of Amnesty. The rich got tax cuts paid for by nothing. Corporations got cheap labor, “free” trade, and unlimited outsourcing. The poor got food stamps. The elderly got Medicare Plan D. People concerned with education go the NCLB mirage. Construction workers and the middle class go the housing bubble. The aspiring got illusions about the “ownership society”. Wall Street got the license to kill (America) via financial deregulation. Neocons got fantasy wars to “democratically transform the Middle East”.
It was all very nice and popular. Handouts (of one form or another) for everyone. It even politically worked (briefly). As I have stated Bush may have never won an election other than by accident, but he did do better than other Republicans.
However, it was a substantive disaster and a massive one. In real life, Bush failed at home, abroad, and on the border. He didn’t just fail a little, he failed on a scale unmatched by any president since Hoover (Truman was actually less popular when he left office).
Why did Bush fail? It was all based on the idea that something for nothing actually works. Open Borders flooded America with poor people naturally aligned with the Democrats. Americans (of all races) were relentlessly forced out of the labor force (even before the Crash of 2008). The pool of committed Democrats expanded steadily. The Bush tax cuts did nothing for growth but expanded the national debt. Bush’s philosophy of outsourcing every job gutted the U.S. economy (and gave the Midwest to Obama). Bush’s determination to replace every American worker with a cheaper immigrant crushed millions of workers who might have voted Republican in 2008 and 2012. Food stamp dependency exploded under Bush creating at least 14 million “natural Democrats”. Medicare Plan D was never paid for (and still isn’t) expanding the deficit. NCLB failed (Congress can’t mandate achievement any more than it can change the Golden Ratio) but expanded Federal education spending.
Financial deregulation and the housing bubble ended with the worst crash since 1929. The economy has yet to recover and voters have yet to forgive the Republicans. Why should they? How many Republicans have even admitted that Bush’s policies brought down America?
Of course, Bush’s foreign wars were a debacle. A long story and beyond the scope of these comments. However, only a very delusional person could have ever thought that Iraq was a likely candidate for creating a liberal democratic nation committed to human rights, the rule of law, a market economy, peace with Israel, and amenable to large, permanent U.S. bases. It sounded nice, but ended in ruin. Of course, that was the norm for Bush.
If Bush was a disaster what is OweBama? A success? Good greif. You can’t fix stupid! Still blaming Bush and whining about taking responsibility…Oh wow!
That was the most mis-informed asinine comment I’ve read all day. You missed on every point. Libtard.
Dropped a bit of a flame there, but Ithink you do have a point, once you get past the vitriol and blame shifting…including the other responses to your flame.
Neither side is taking responsiblity for the policies and laws they promote and enact. Both sides claim to enact such policies and laws for everyone else’s own good. Both sides claim that only they are on the side of the angels, while realistically doing everything possible to limit the freedoms and liberties of others, both here and around the world. Both sides blame their own failures on everyone but themselves.
Well, you both broke it. Now, you’ve bought it.
I wouldn’t mind both sides paying the price. The problem is, everyone else, including myself, is going to pay the price for your follies.
Here, here. All the way back, government encroachment and control has been the goal. A century of meddling.
Four more years! Of blaming George Bush!
(Why do I think your knickers are still in a twist about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too?)
Talk about illustrating the author’s points perfectly…..bravo, Skeptical, bravo!
Pinkos hate Bush the way they used to hate Reagan. He must have done something right.
Unfortunately one does not have to be a pinko to despise George Bush. I wish that was true, but it isn’t. He, just as his predecessors and successor, trashed the Constitution some more while pretending that massive deficits and crushing regulation were for the good of the children. He now looks good only because Barack Obama is so much worse.
Financial deregulation and the housing bubble ended with the worst crash since 1929. The economy has yet to recover and voters have yet to forgive the Republicans. Why should they? How many Republicans have even admitted that Bush’s policies brought down America?
The economy collapsed because the chickens created by Democrat Party’s CRA came home to roost. Corrupt Democrats made millions from the Fannie/Freddie takeover of the mortgage market, and when the sub-prime mortgages they created went into default Republicans got the blame because Wall Street had sold (toxic) mortgage backed securities.
The “solution” to this problem created by government interference was more government interference ironically aptly named after the very people who were responsible for not dealing with the GSE sub prime mortgages which created the housing bubble. As a result of Obama’s banking regulations small businesses can’t get loans and we have a moribund economy.
Skep exposes one of the essential asshatic tenets of our time: “The rich got tax cuts paid for by nothing.”
I am always amazed by the sheer idiocy of the concept that every penny the government collects and spends is absolutely essential. Therefore, every penny of a tax cut costs the government money, even the “investment” of the child-molesting salary for Big Bird’s voice and rubbers for Fluke’s boy-of-the moment. And if the government plans an increase in taxes, any reduction of the desired increase must be paid for too. Sheer goofy of, by, and for the people.
Where do the ” so called” poor think the rich got their money to pay taxes? The same place the corporations do to pay 39% corp. taxes, if you don’t know who they are, go back watching Oprah or dancing w/ the morons.
Skeptical is half right. Government under Bush was in many ways indistinguishable from government under Obama: “goodies for everyone, with no one expected to pay for anything.” Check. “. . . the idea that something for nothing actually works.” Check. And foreign wars as “debacle.” Check. (Although one is reluctant to call them ‘wars;’ they’re more like ‘occupations in perpetuity’). But if one sees our national debt as the crux of our current crisis, what, pray tell, is the difference between a party that refuses to cut one hair on the head of a bloated government and the extraordinary costs that go with it, and the party that refuses to pay, i.e., tax the people, for the government that it authorizes and the people ardently desire? Are these not two sides of the very same coin? And do not both lead to massive debt? It is closer to the truth, I would submit, that we are governed by a political class that continues to want to bribe us with favors in return for our votes; that knows there is no easy way out of the current crisis; but that refuses to lead and make hard choices because it is interested almost exclusively in its own re-election. The most dangerous ‘interest group’ in America today is the government in Washington.
I agree about the wrongness of allowing a professional political class to form in the USA, however something needs to be said about this comment of yours: “…what, pray tell, is the difference between a party that refuses to cut one hair on the head of a bloated government and the extraordinary costs that go with it, and the party that refuses to pay, i.e., tax the people, for the government that it authorizes and the people ardently desire? Are these not two sides of the very same coin?”
To take the example of the double-trouble, socialized/private-insurenced Obamacare: (1) One party pushed it into law by “deeming it passed,” the other party opposed it. (2) The polls of the time showed that the majority of our citizenry opposed, not ardently desired, Obamacare. (3) The voters of 2010 gave the Democrats a “shellacking” that cost them the House, rejecting them and their works.
Yes, Fred, it is true that Obamacare was opposed by a majority of Americans, as it should have been. But Obamacare has really not cost us one dime to date (but stay tuned). In the meantime, those same Americans who opposed Obamacare love their Social Security checks, their Medicare benefits, their Medicaid assistance, and their various other “entitlements,” from student loans to disability insurance to a bloated government bureaucracy in Washington, including our military, all of which continue to come our way without our having to actually pay for what we get. So what do we want, folks? More government with much higher taxes? Or less government with fewer benefits? It’s one or the other, or some combination of the two. What we know for sure is that the current arrangement is not sustainable.
I really do wish people would stop referring to Social Security/Medicare benefits as ‘entitlements’. They/you are most truly mistaken. If you remember correctly, these deductions are not voluntary and were meant to SUPPLEMENT the elderly in later life. If our government officials (who DO live on the dole) would not have used SS to balance the budget or give these benefits away to those whom have never paid into the system, there WOULD be enough for our children/grandchildren to enjoy.
Dabigragu is quite correct. And, I would like to add, Social security is subtracted from all of our paychecks and is a forced issue, so we have every right to collect what we have paid into through our lives of employment. It’s our money! And, as far as Medicare is concerned, we seniors, at age 65, are forced into that, whether we want it or not. If we don’t do it at 65 and then down the line we change our mind, then we have to pay for it at great cost. It is sad to have to clarify things when those who are ignorant spew misinformation, on the subject. Please do your research people before you open your mouths. Thank you, Dabigragu, for helping to open the eyes of the ignorant.
Bush’s philosophy of outsourcing every job gutted the U.S. economy (and gave the Midwest to Obama)
Clever bastard, that Bush, inventing a time machine and starting the overseas flow of jobs back in the 1950′s. You probably aren’t aware of a time when US companies built radios and hi-fi’s and tv sets. By the 70′s most were out of business, right along with the steel companies (which left behind the rust belt.) In the 80′s the silicon valley built chips but the auto companies were conceding light passnnger cars to the japanese. By the mid 1990′s calif environmental law chased most of the chip builders to taiwan and thailand, and the most popular car brands in the US were no longer “domestic.” Bush did that, too.
The stranglehold of US federal legislation by the democrats since the 40′s had nothing to do with it.
Skeptical:
How exactly did Bush do all these things? Maybe you can explain. You appear to be a constitutional scholar as well as an historian.
Even assuming all or most of what you say is true, how does any of this detract in any way from the fact that Obama is an affirmative action fraud, malignantly anti-American, virulently racist, a pathological liar, an economic illiterate, a narcissist, a sociopath, a drug and booze-addled low-i.q. nincompoop who is destroying this country just as quickly and as gleefully as he possibly can?
That’s just wrong….he’s not gleeful…more like vengeful…or with alacrity…8)
George W Bush narrowly survived a Left/Media attempt to steal the election from him with 1) the November surprise of the DUI to reduce his support, 2) declaring Gore won Florida while part of the Republican-leaning panhandle was still voting 3) rejecting military ballots, and 4) changing punch card votes Chicago style in the recount. That blatant attempt to change an election using dirty tricks polarized the country.
The failure of George W Bush was that he is a nice guy. He did reach out to the other side despite being called illegitimate and a liar. He allowed too much spending and debt to stimulate the economy following the 9/11 terrorist attack. He failed to use his veto power. He did nothing to stop the creation of the ineffective Department of National Security and its spending excesses. When the left called Bush a racist, he backed down on attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie and he threw money at post-Katrina New Orleans.
Imagine an alternate history where George W Bush was a mean SOB like Rick Perry. Imagine a Republican President that would veto hundreds of bill, telling Congress to make better laws. Imagine a President that would treat the MSM like the enemies that they are.
I am tired of hearing the blame game on Bush. The president cannot wage a war, it belongs to Congress to vote to go to war. It is not the president that gets to pass laws such as tax cuts, paying for a war, medicare part D, etc…, IT IS CONGRESS THAT PASSES THESE LAWS. The president can submit bills and a budget but Congress passes what it wants, then he will choose to support it in the end for final passage. Go back to school and read how our government works.
Unless your name is Obama. Then, all you need to go to war is the ok of the UN and the Arab Defense League. Who needs Congress?
BTW, Obama, you broke Libya, you helped break Egypt, you are doing your level best to break Syria and Turkey by supporting the terrorist elements posing as freedom fighters to overthrow their governments. The bloodshed going on over there now: you own it.
I love watching fascist pigs keep trying to fly.
Blame Bush some more, nazi filth.
1) Learn something aside from talking points you don’t begin to comprehend.
2) Grow up.
What a laugh,you are the ones that brought us Vietnam,the boat people Pol
Pot Fast and Furious with thousand of Mexican dead,an=mong them high school students.The more recent one is Benghazi,the soapy waqtched by millions around the world.Just to mention a few.Always in league,and in bed with the worst criminals on the planet.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
George Bush is so yesterday. You knee-jerk left wingers still haven’t admitted what a disaster Obama is, and you still refuse to take responsibility for his actions (which you support, now). I agree Bush was a failure- but Obama makes him look better every day.
I still do not understand why everyone is blaming Bush when he had to deal with both a Democratic House and Senate while in office. These two parties placed into action much of what is being blamed on Bush. This is what the Democrats Pelosi and Reid were the center of. The main reason for the housing market issues again involve a few certain Democrats AND Obama in his short stint as a Senator. I think everyone should stop blaming, open up their eyes and realize we the people need to make better decisions and start to pay attention to whom we actually place in office. These people should also not be career politicians. Only 8 years then out. A small severance pay for serving, not a life of gratitude out of our pockets of the few tax payers that are out there. But, from the recent decision, not from myself I must add is that the term “Nothing is ever really FREE!” will be better understood in the next two years by all those whom have never experienced it or thought that was a hoax the hard working individuals in society say.
You just hit a nerve with me.When the value of everyone’s house increased in value and we all woke up richer,most people i knew borrowed against it to grab the cash!I owned some income properties at the time,sold some and paid off the one i live in now! No bills,,,,is that considered old school or did we just turn into a country of Obamas?
Re: Skeptical,
Well said. You’re wrong about immigration, but overall well said. Contrary to what’s voiced on Fox “News” or MSNBC, immigration policy does not dictate wages and prices; the marketplace does. But everything else you wrote was spot on.
I would expand by stating that the underlining cause of the problems in our society is the baby boomers. They are undeniably the worst generation in our countries’ history. Their election of Bush is proof of that. Yes Bush was the third worst president in U.S. history but he wasn’t just elected by Reb baby booms, he was also elected by Dem baby boomers. The baby boomer right in this country still doesn’t think they did anything wrong by electing Bush and the baby boomer left still thinks that they had nothing to do with electing Bush. Both groups wasted their votes and in effect both groups voted for Bush. And yet you never hear any baby boomer accepting responsibility for that mistake.
Apparently, boomers think that if they break something, their children and grandchildren have to buy it.
Skeptical = Mr. Independent? Only PJM knows, and they won’t tell. See, if I were going to agree with myself like a real sock puppet, I would mildly object to one of my points and praise all the other points as lights of reason. I guess I’m the one who is skeptical.
Skeptical’s grammer was better than mine. I’m more interested in debate and anyone who has read my comments over the years would know that.
I guess I haven’t read your comments over the years. That is, I’m sure, my loss, because I am also interested in debate.
Spelling is probably better, too.
“grammar”
I must confess, I ideas are usally brilliant but my spelling does ocassionally suck.
I recommend the book “Reckless Endangerment”by G.Morgenson.It helped me understand the housing problems caused by Dodd/Frank,Goldman Sachs,HUD etc.
A better book is Thomas Sowell’s “The Housing Boom and Bust.”
As an example, take the most primary thing we all “own,” ourselves. If you break you, it is your responsibility, not society’s.
Unfortunately this isn’t true. If you have no health coverage and you give diabetes to yourself everyone else pays for it anyway; obamacare just puts a bow on the reality and formality. Car insurance premiums for uninsured motorists is already a common concept. Health care isn’t any different.
This is still a horseshit argument anyway. Look at the fed budget with 25 to 30% of it being used on social security and medicare; entitlements to the elderly are by far the largest expense. Obamacare is how you pay for them. Obamacare won because nobody wants to be known for being anti-grandma or shutting off the old bat’s cash flow after her 4th bypass at age 80 (that she ain’t paying for.)
Don’t worry about that! Like the NHS, Grandmother in her 80s won’t be considered for her first let alone her fourth bypass. The operation won’t be cost effective so she’ll be put on a ‘care pathway’ (Google Liverpool Care Pathway). Unless she can pay for it herself of course.
Back to Bush: what would Gore have done to us? Kerry?
Please “take responsibility” for defining diabetes correctly.
The sufferers of Type 1 diabetes (inaccurately named childhood-onset) did nothing to trigger the disease in its more devastating form: it is genetic. Ironically, and, of course, the lifestyle-driven Type-2 disease is the one being lavished with attention and taxpayer largesse, for it is a jobs program for public health officials, whereas the genetic Type 1 does not lend itself so readily to activism on the public dime, and since it affects random victims, it doesn’t lend itself to identity politics, the ugly cousin of so much of medical policymaking these days.
To be entirely fair, there is a genetic component to the manifestation of Type-2, as well as to the likelihood of developing its most horrifying consequences. Age is another inevitable factor: so do we throw all the elderly under the same bus, when Type-2 diabetes often occurs in seniors who take good care of their weight?
And to be fair again, Michelle Obama’s much maligned Get Moving program and school lunch overhauls are probably the most cost-efficient interventional responses to obesity-driven Type-2 diabetes. I am not defending the “food desert” aspects of her crusade or other efforts to create activist infrastructure, but I’ve not understood the outrage directed at a popular First Lady for encouraging the people who admire and listen to her to get off their butts and get some exercise. That’s a pretty benign and personal responsibility-driven activity for a First Lady.
Gee, if I had a taxpayer-funded jumbo jet to fly me to Aspen to ski, or Italy to swim (and taxpayer-funded clothing allowance so I’d be properly dressed for my calisthentics) I could get off my ass and exercise, too.
I still see Michelle as a cross between Marie Antoinette and Lady MacBeth. She disgusts me, and it seems only logical, fair and right to despise her and her shallow sanctimony.
Tina Trent, I was going to attempt to explain this but then noticed that NanGee pretty much nailed it. It has nothing to do with policy, what’s economically sound, what’s right or wrong, or even what’s good for the country if it comes from an Obama White House. It’s all about the deep seated hatred that people have towards the Obamas rather than the rationales of their policies. As NanGee admits, “She disgusts me, and it seems only logical, fair and right to despise her and her shallow sanctimony”. But why such discuss towards Michelle? It’s not like her lifestyle is more extravagant than previous First Ladies.
Awhile back, I was visiting a blog called ReagoniteRepublican. The thread show the Obama campaign bus and a man flipping 2 birds as it drove by. The moderator dubbed the guy as “Patriot of the Year”.
Someone commented “there were two fingers. One for you. And one for your wife”. The moderator came back with “EXACTLY” in caps. I couldn’t get an explanation of how it’s patriotic to flip off the First Lady. She doesn’t set policy, sign legislation, or even vote in the legislation process. But, the response was “EXACTLY” correct that it was meant for her as well, as if the one commenting caught something that the others missed, or some meaning that flew over the other’s heads. If one wants to assigned some award for patriotism for saying “screw you” for the way one is running our government” or “the harmful policies someone’s implementing” or “what someone’s doing to our country”, I can at least understand their argument. But obviously, or perhaps “exactly”, that wasn’t the argument at all. The moderator never had the courage to address it.
Of all the animosity towards GWB, we never saw such disdain towards Laura. Ronald Reagan had his enemy’s but Nancy was respected. It’s as if the Obamas don’t deserve to be in the White House not because of their policies but rather because they are who they are. So yes, while Michelle’s Get Moving program is cost-efficient as well as honorable, it’s still a bad thing because, as NanGee explains, “She disgusts me, and it seems only logical, fair and right to despise her “.
Are you kidding?
Nancy Reagan was despised by the left (remember new china and seances?)
Laura Bush was derided as nothing but a librarian who knew nothing.
Neither one of them told me what to eat and when to exercise.
Neither one of them disliked the country until her husband was elected.
Jackie was beloved after Jack’s assassination. AND she married a gazillionaire and got her own personal island, and a yacht with whale penis bar stools. Perhaps we could convince Michelle to try that route towards personal fulfillment and popularity.
Of all the animosity towards GWB, we never saw such disdain towards Laura. Ronald Reagan had his enemy’s but Nancy was respected.
Actually, no, Nancy Reagan was not “respected” by liberals and left out of the political fighting. She was roundly ridiculed for having (too) expensive tastes in clothing, for being too little-woman-adoring of RR … and you must not remember the medium brouhaha, either. All that ridicule had nothing to do with her activism as FLOTUS; they slammed her for, as you put it, who she was. *Then* there was the whole “just say no” anti-drug campaign.
The revisionism of the Reagan administration years — specifically, how the press treated both RR and Nancy with heaping amounts of hostility and ridicule –has been going on for some years now (most notably going into overdrive when Reagan died). Those of us who were there & paying attention know that it’s a crock of sheet that all was golly-gee-gosh amiable back then. Either you unintentionally bought into the lie or you are intentionally peddling it.
Re: Laura Bush, she had a “soft” public personality, and her “thing” (coming from her background as a librarian) was encouraging kids to read. IIRC she did not push any particular content (which a FLOTUS should not, IMO), she just advocated improved literacy & literacy programs. Both her quiet demeanor & her sticking to a content-neutral form of a non-controversial (and universally agreed-upon) objective probably had a lot to do with her staying out of the political sniping.
Re: Michelle Obama, you are DARN RIGHT that much of the animus towards her has to do with who she is. As in, the woman who enjoyed an astounding amount of privilege (Princeton U … and track her spectacularly generous six-figure salary at UCH which, surprise surprise, rocketed upward as her husband’s political career advanced & he was able to send earmarks to UCH) who nevertheless publicly stated that the first time she was actually “proud” of this country was when her husband was nominated for president (after his having been in the US Senate less than two years). The words “hypocrite,” “ingrate,” and “political looter” come to mind re: the question of “who she is.”
So when the hypocritical, ungrateful political looter then inserts herself into a MANDATORY school lunch program that results in millions of American public school children going hungry — while her girls go to a posh private school with no such mandatory restrictions on the caloric content of the (expensive, gourmet) lunches served there — yeah, this does tend to rub a lot of people the wrong way.
“Rules for thee and not for me” is not a great way to win friends and influence people.
There’s really no comparison of the deep seated hatred and anger demonstrated towards Michelle than the others. I noticed no one went near that “two fingers, 1 for Barack and 1 for Michelle” comment. That’s rather telling.
I notice our President Kardashian fanboy and fangirl didn’t address a single point you made. That’s rather telling.
Let me see – when I was a youngster (1960s), I hiked a mile downhill to elementary school. Half hour recess of kickball, dodgeball, softball, basketball, or just running around (on an asphalt playground). Half mile hike (on the flat, thank goodness) to get lunch at the central cafeteria at the high school, another half mile back. Half hour recess again. Mile hike uphill at the end of the day.
Then some idiot in Washington (not Lady Bird Johnson, some other idiot, but almost certainly a _white_ idiot) decides that “America’s kids need to get fit”. So the school institutes physical fitness in the morning – twenty jumping jacks, twenty pushups, twenty situps, run about a mile around the playground perimeter.
Explained to my parents why I was consistently marked late for school. They were quite proud that I was able to recognize the BS even at age seven. Guess what – 45 years later, I can still recognize the BS – even when it is a black idiot pushing it.
Oh, by the way, that hill – not a nice Midwest hill, a Rocky Mountain hill. One you drove up by hitting 30 miles an hour on the flat in 4th gear, then geared down to 1st by about 100 feet from the top. Lots of fun when I was learning to drive stick as a teenager.
Here’s a good comparison of the class demonstrated by former First Ladies compared to Michelle Obama:
http://hillbuzz.org/class-vs-crass
Also, you need to lean the difference between “hatred” and “disgust”, especially when that disgust is justified. You may think Michelle Obama blowing thousands of taxpayer dollars on a pair of earrings for herself she only wore once is “not any worse” as Lucy Hayes commissioning new china for the White House, but that would pretty much spotlight you as an Obama shill, so surely you wouldn’t make that kind of comparison.
And no, Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush were not “respected” by your fellow travelers, and pretending they did doesn’t make it magically true. So you’re right: there is no comparison. The legitimate complaints that honest, decent people have regarding Obama doesn’t even hold a candle to the actual and open hatred leftists held for Reagan and Bush. Physician, heal thyself.
When I read both sides of a debate, I look for the unmentioned third way, what are we collectively missing? Sometimes, I find a seemingly unrelated fact that adds one piece in the puzzle.
Today, Fox News, reports the arrest of an educator, who allegedly institutionalized cheating on the certification exams for teachers, in several states, for perhaps 15 years. He arranged ringers to take the exam, with fraudulent IDs. An unknown population of cheating teachers are involved; investigators have not found the bottom of the barrel. One expert comments that today, people do not see any harm in this conduct.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/25/teachers-embroiled-in-test-taking-fraud-for-15-years-feds-say/?test=latestnews
I see harm. Tens, or hundreds, of thousands of students have learned, by example, that cheating is acceptable, and necessary in life. The respect for all teachers reflects, unfairly, this judgment.
The debate within our society, on personal, vs communal responsibility must acknowledge both are absolutely necessary. And, for any erudite citizen, it must be acknowledged that both political parties have competed on a race to the bottom, for personal gain, in the last generation, or two. Our choices, in the ballot, for both competence, and ethics, have been extremely poor. We must also acknowledge that forces outside of our nation, seek our destruction. How many times have you voted against a candidate, effectively choosing the lesser of two evils? The election results clearly show a very divided nation; there was no clear choice. Why? Chronically poor choices. Why is that? I hold that life filters out capable people, and ethical people, and the residual seeks power for personal gain, both in big business and big government.
George Washington was the largest whiskey distiller in his day. Would he have made it, in this generation, either in Walls Street or Washington D.C.? His greatest decision, a personal one, was to decline the popular demand that he be made our King. As a young student, he, by legend, chopped down a cherry tree and owned up to it. He accepted personal responsibility and saw the real limits of legitimate governmental power.
America has changed. These fundamental changes can kill us all.
All those lefties are going to have one big wake up call when the market bell finally rings and the loans come due. What oh what will they do? Don’t cut my welfare, housing, food stamps, O-Phones, medicare, medicaid, O-Care or social security, nor the military or federal workers’ and retiree benefits. But you can’t fit a square peg in a round hole and they isn’t enough money to pay for this spending binge. So everything WILL be cut because when the money runs out, cuts must happen. Probably the seniors who haven’t saved anything will be hit the worst. But remember, O-Bama and Miss Nancy never promised you health care, they only promised “coverage”, ie insurance. When you find out that you can’t get operations, or knee replacement, they’ll be long gone and enjoying their retirement (courtesy of you, of course). And when bread costs $50 a loaf, you can always get in line for “free” cheese.
Like most of the population, the author is not well-educated on Type 2 diabetes. The cause of both types of diabetes is genetic. Most overweight, even obese people, do not develop Type 2 diabetes…being overweight does not “cause” it. Conversely, you can be of normal weight and develop Type 2 diabetes. It’s a metabolic disorder and one of the earlier symptoms is often weight gain.
The only thing that I’ve found that gets my metabolism, weight, cholesterol and blood sugar under control is to limit my intake of starch and sugar. Read Gary Taubes “Why We Get Fat” for the best explanation of the relationship between a modern diet high in carbs and the obesity epidemic (and also diabetes).
Colon (sic) Powell, who is not my favourite general anymore said these exact words about Iraq. If you break it you bought it.
Every once in a while the liberals get one right. We suck at empire and we ought to either give it up go ask the British how its done.
Gee, did Powell say that to Obama about Libya? Nah, he did everything except slobber on Barry’s shoes to re-endorse him for doing such a bangup job.
yeah. but we can blame the spontaneous popular uprising if things go even more wrong in Libya.
If you discount the possibility of ‘winning’ in the middle east then the measure of success is body count.
In that case Libya is better than Iraq because we have already cut to the giving up phase while killing fewer soldiers.
If on the other hand there is some day a free Iraq and there could be then Bush was right and Colin was wrong.
I think thats all there is to the analysis myself. My bet is that the Iraquis will pull through and president Clinton – @2016 will get the credit. how Bush will get blamed for all the things Obama is doing now and will grin into his hat.
I’m just wondering: I bought my house twenty-one years ago for just under $77k, p&i are $477 a month. At one point, it was worth around $190k, now about $120k. With a glut on the market, I can’t sell it. With less than nine years left on the mortgage, if Obama’s policies cause it to be worth only $30k, can I blame him?
I know people who live their lives responsibly and maturely–as conservatives–but who vote liberal and advocate the most irresponsible and childish policies imaginable. And they see no contradiction–because they mean well and their advocacy is based entirely on emotion.
Obama has never taken responsibility for anything. He’d rather vote “Present” than take a stand. He’d rather issue an Executive Order than allow anyone to know who’s responsible for the gunn running that resulted in over 300 Mexican deaths and the deaths of our border agents. Etc, etc.
How many times did he vote present?