Political Irony

G

gburner

New member
I've been watching the C-Span feed of the 'peace march' in NYC this afternoon. The march consists of an amazing amalgam of communists, socialists, gays, greens, Naderfolk, masked anarchists (who bugged out after torching a huge paper mache and wood framed dragon in the middle of the parade route), one worlders, left over flower children, hippies, yippies, peaceniks, hippie wanna bees and never wases. The crowd was overwhelmingly white and well nourished with a strong, vocal streak of victimhood and entitlement. Perhaps trust fund babies with more money than sense. Kinda like those folks who could always take off for 6 or 8 months to 'tour' with the Dead, dispite any visible means of support.

Most of the tone was 'Bush or Cheney is a liar, murderer, warmonger, oil baron, colonialist', etc. Incessant drum beats and circle dancing were featured along with tye dye, dredlocks on elderly white folk, scantily clad gays and the largest collectin of females in need of undergarments ever assembled. Kumbaya could be heard over the chant 'Fox news sucks'. This was not the ironic part.

The irony is that this parade is being conducted in front of the venue for the Republican Party Convention. The same party that these folks swear is opposed to free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. I saw no such gathering in July at the Dems convention in Boston. In fact, demonstrators were confined to a holding pen away from the venue. Kerry is apparently the one who is afraid of dissent, not Bush.

Several things come to mind...I haven't seen a march quite like this since the early 70's...4 1/2 hours, yet Bush is no Nixon and Iraq is no Viet Nam. The war on terror or islamofascism or whatever the nom du jure, has the potental to be the most lethal one to the average citizen since the Civil War (not because we choose to fight it but because the terrorists give us no choice), but these folks just don't seem to get it. Perhaps they are the font from which the idea that we should be more sensitive in our persuit of terrorists flows. Bush and the Repubs are winners for endorsing free speech and assembly AND with friends like this, Kerry really doesn't need any enemies.
 
Last edited:
Because they are not the ones who lost jobs recently, are they?
Click to expand...

Truth be told, it was hard for Bobby to convince the 7-11 manager to keep him on the crew after missing three days due to an infection from his nose-ring, but the last straw was probably calling him from a Seattle jail after getting busted for chucking a flaming trashcan through a Starbucks window. Mr. Whipple just didn't consider that an excused absence at all. :D

For what it's worth, though, the unemployment rate is low and falling. As long as it stays at one-in-twenty or less things are hunky-dory. Think about it: out of every twenty people you know, isn't one of them a deadbeat moocher who couldn't keep a job if he was chained to it and who probably sleeps at his parent's house?
 
According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the annual uneployment rate for persons 16 years of older was (in percent):

1992: 7.5
1993: 6.9
1994: 6.1
1995: 5.6
1996: 5.4
1997: 4.9
1998: 4.5
1999: 4.2
2000: 4.0

2001: 4.7
2002: 5.8
2003: 6.0

LNU04000000_2421_1093872498552.gif

The unemployment rate has been dropping, though, and it's now 5.8.
 
I'm pretty sure that most of the folks attending the parade are employed...as professional moochers, whiners and assorted other parasites who take an immense amount of inappropriate pleasure in defecating on the very country that defends their right to do so. Many appeared to be either college aged or older boomers who didn't make it around the maturity curve (don't eat the brown acid). These weren't folks who took to the street out of despiration over lack of housing, jobs or food. These were folks with way too much time on their hands and not enough gray matter in their heads. There was a STRONG communist/socialist/anarchist contingent among them, red banners, pictures of Che, etc. Not really the type to make 'employee of the month'.
 
Yeah, I checked with www.bls.gov before making my post.
Click to expand...

Since you people last changed Presidents, the unemployment rate went from 4.0 to 5.8 (not really valid, since 5.8 is a monthly number, depending on seasonal variations). So there's 1.8 percent of the populations who might be making an anti-Bush link. Think it's likely that any of those 1.8 percent (over a million people) would be protesting against Bush?

(Not saying Bush is a worse/better choice than Kerry, in fact I believe they are equally bad and not really even saying that Bush is the cause of unemployment. But, large amounts of people lost jobs on his watch. Yes, it is arguable whether it was his responsibility. But somehow, I doubt it it's their fault, either. Not having or having a job doesn't always reflect on the job bearer, in fact it doesn't more often than it does.

This 'If you are that smart, why aren't you rich' stuff is kinda... strange to my mind.
 
Micro...

Some points.

This 'you people' stuff betrays you as an elitist and is pretty annoying, especially from someone on the outside looking in. When you solve all of your ills, feel free to comment on what you percieve our ills to be. Considering that your country would cease to exist in short order without the US, a little respect is in order.

You're begging the question, setting up the strawman by implying that these poor folks marching in the parade were largely unemployed, then chastising us for our comments on your opinion of their alleged status. You don't know their employment status anymore than you know their individual hat sizes. I made comments based on their appearance, behavior and obvious political/social slant. Did you even watch the march?

The President as no more to do with how many people are employed at any one time than the Pope does. Economic conditions wax and wane. There are some people who get a great deal of positive reinforcement from being a victim and unemployment status feeds that mentality. Those who have lost their jobs and are not infected by the psychology of the culture of victimhood are spendng their time looking for employment, not marching, chanting and blaming some governmental boogy man.
 
The President as no more to do with how many people are employed at any one time than the Pope does.
Click to expand...

That would be a true statement if the government kept out of the economy for the most part. Unfortunately that's not at all the case.
 
Last I checked, there were three branches of government plus a whole host of unelected bureaucrats. The House can change every two years, the Presidency every four, the Senate every six. The Constitution doesn't mention a thing about employment being one of the Presdent's resonsiblities. There are also an infinite amount of domestic and internatonal variables that the President has ZERO control over which effects the economy overall and job growth in particular. Tarring ANY president, regardless of party, with that brush is inaccurate and unfair.
 
Think it's likely that any of those 1.8 percent (over a million people) would be protesting against Bush?
Click to expand...
Instead of going out and getting a job? Sure, especially if they are leftists who believe that the world owes them a living.

Not only that, but as gburner has pointed out, they could even walk right past my 76 year old father - up on a ladder pruning trees, or mowing some elderly person's lawn - and not grasp the irony that they could be doing that work and getting paid for it. The very fact that work quite often involves work would - to the casual observer - seem to be lost on them. It's not of course. The very attraction of leftist ideology is the idea that we can all have our pie in they sky and eat it too.

When that ideology is embraced by silly teenagers even the hard-hearted like myself kinda go "Awww they're so cute when they're young!", but when the twenty-nothing turns 40-something it becomes embarrassing, when the 40-something turns 50-couldabeen, it becomes stomach churning. :barf:

When they start singing one of their anthems like "Big Rock Candy Mountain"... well, that when I really want to hurl:
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain,
The jails are made of tin.
You can slip right out again,
As soon as they put you in.
There ain't no short-handled shovels,
No axes, saws nor picks,
I'm bound to stay
Where you sleep all day,
Where they hung the jerk
That invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountain. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
 
While you are at it Micro, do you mind chiming in about why it is that leftists either at www.democraticunderground.com or Democratic National Committee or at the John Kerry Campaign HQ can't abide any questioning of their ideology/beliefs/history?

If we ask questions over at Democratic Underground, we get banned.

If we ask questions of the DNC, we get stonewalled, or in the case of the Convention, caged.

If we ask Lt. (junior grade) Kerry to explain how he became the first person on planet Earth to receive 3 Purple Hearts from the United States Navy - without spending a single day in a hospital bed - we get loony-tune stories about how Nixon sent him into Cambodia a month before Nixon took office.

I'm sure that you will be able to provide a scintillating response as to why these fine upstanding organizations share this trait. I look forward to your pithy insights.
 
This 'you people' stuff betrays you as an elitist and is pretty annoying, especially from someone on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what I meant and I'm sorry if that's how you took it. Previously I used 'we' (as in 'We TFLers'), and I got flamed for that, too.

Considering that your country would cease to exist in short order without the US, a little respect is in order
Click to expand...

1948?

The President as no more to do with how many people are employed at any one time than the Pope does.
Click to expand...

You might be right and you might be wrong (remember that the President is in control of various stuff that affects the economy directly and indirectly), but my point is that psychologically, people tend to identify the Big Guy In Charge with the current state of their country, and blame BGIC for whatever is wrong. Whether or not the BGIC is actually responsible is a moot point.

Over a million people lost their jobs since the last election. Do you seriously believe that all of those people lost their jobs because they were lazy? If they were lazy, why did they have jobs pre 2000?
 
MicroBalrog,

Over a million people lost their jobs since the last election.
Click to expand...

No. You are misapplying statistics.

1.8% more, on average, of the employable population above the age of 16 have filed claims for unemployment this year than in 2000. Many, many millions of people have lost jobs since the last election. Many, many millions more have found jobs. Some jobs have gone away. Other jobs have been created. Using this simple yardstick for anything more than what it represents leads to flawed conclusions.

You cannot do hasty math off the BLS numbers and say "Well, this many people lost their jobs."

Out of curiousity, have you any experience in the workforce? Ever been terminated with cause or laid off due to restructuring, downsizing, or a merger? This isn't theoretical stuff, and firsthand experience helps grasp it. I'm honestly curious as to the basis for your viewpoint.
 
No questioning of the Democrat platform allowed, you say?

Kerry/Edwards Campaign site on the AWB

You want an AR-15? Then you also want freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, due process with all deliberate speed (does the term "enemy combatant" ring a bell?), freedom of the press, and all the rest. To me, the Bill of Rights is a package deal. If that makes me a Jeffersonian Democrat, so be it. But if gun owners are going to have rights, EVERYONE ELSE in America also deserves rights

DU member speaking out against gun control


Criminals 1, Citizens 0! You cant even defend your family anymore? I predict he will be charged and will serve time. Meanwhile, crooks all over the country are hooping it up and casing houses. Citizens of Great Britian beware, you are NOT entitled to defend yourself, only criminals are!


DU'er speaking about the 'guns made to kill' mantra

That is the frequent rant by gun controllers. They disparage analogies to gun deaths because "guns have only one purpose", or some similarly misconstrued thinking. So I guess we need to determine what uses we have for guns. Aside from "capping" bad guys, what DO you use your guns for?


And another eeevil, anti-gun Liberal...

Face it. All you anti self-defense liberals are being overtaken and outnumbered by those of us leftists who actually like guns--and who feel they provide an important bulwark against government tyranny.

SKS owners for Kerry

Liberal Newspaper talking about Kerry's position on guns

More evil liberals!
 
Out of curiousity, have you any experience in the workforce? Ever been terminated with cause or laid off due to restructuring, downsizing, or a merger?
Click to expand...

From age 16 to 18 I have worked as a tech support phone operator and freelance translator. Currently, I am unable to be employed, as regulations prohibit employment of off-duty military personnel without special authorisation.

Now, as to my question: The number of people employed has shrunk in the last four years. Therefore, there are at least some people who have suffered from the shrinkage. Is it their fault? Not necessarily. The resentment they feel towards the BGIC might not be justified, but it's reasonable.
 
So, ah, why wasn't there a conservative led protest march outside the Democratic Convention? Conservatives seem pretty upset about Kerry's existance, why not show it?


I imagine some Republicans might have had some vacation time on the books.


In terms of irony:
The war on terror or islamofascism or whatever the nom du jure, has the potental to be the most lethal one to the average citizen since the Civil War (not because we choose to fight it but because the terrorists give us no choice), but these folks just don't seem to get it.
Click to expand...
I'm told that I'm a reasonably bright fellow, but I also don't get the connection between fighting global terrorism and the deciding to topple a secular dictatorship. We have never had a problem with shiite Iraqi fundamentalists before the invasion, and our government reports no real connection between Sadaam and Bin Laden. I'm sure if the someone in the state department could outline the direct cause and effect knocking over Iraq and Muslim terrorism share Bush's detractors would have less to discuss.

But, to an awful lot of people, it does really look like a former 'oil baron' cabinet invaded an oil rich country based on two questionable premises (terrorism and WMD), at considerable expense to this country. A little nuts and bolts explanation of that process might make more sense to the largely working class Democrats than just writing them all off the as gays and communists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top