Message to any winger trolls

It seems like any time any one I know writes a letter to the editor, calls in to a radio show, posts a diary here, or really expresses their self in any way politically, they get some sort of email, letter or call back, from republican "patriot", calling them names and accusing them of hating America.

I just read Mike Stark's recent diary, which he updated to include a little bit of badgering he's received, and I want to say something, just to get it out there, just in case anyone with a shred of decency or half a brain in their head still wonders.  For all the other folks, the wingnuts who want to intimidate us, I have a message too.

Liberals do not, DO NOT, NOT hate America.  Fuck you if you think that.  Fuck you if you think we should all be deported to Russia, or France, or even Canada.  Nothing against Canada, or, hey, even France or Russia, but this is my home, just like it's the home of millions and millions of other progressives who are not traitors, who aren't America-haters.

Progressives and liberals DO NOT want the terrorists to win.

We DO NOT hate the troops.

We DO NOT hate the rich.

We DO NOT hate life.

We DO NOT want to turn you gay, or wipe out your religion, or make you have an abortion.

So stop saying it.  And fuck you if you do, fuckers.

What do we want?

We want a fair shake for everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.  Some day, I'll get sick.  Really sick.  I don't want to have to be wealthy in order to afford treatment.  And I want the doctor who treats me to be the best doctor available.  I don't want the best doctor in the world to be sitting in jail somewhere, or working at Denny's, just because they happened to be born poor, or black, or female, or, god forbid, gay.

We want to be able to drink the water and breathe the air.  When I lived in New York City (I was there on 9/11, so don't you even fucking start with me, wingnut.  I saw it.  I saw the smoke and the fire, and the big empty hole in the sky, and the posters of lost love ones like wall paper everywhere you looked until you wanted to scream and cry and personally rip Osama's head off, so don't even fucking start.) every summer, they issued a smog advisory for the day.  If you were old, or young, or sick, you weren't supposed to go outside.  That's idiotic.  God gave us the world, you say, to do what we will.  Well ownership implies responsibility.  If your dad gave you a car, would you trash it, or would you change the oil every 3000 miles?

We want to be able to say what we believe, and not have you folks act like fucks.  An awful lot of you right wingers seem to want a Christian state, complete with the death penalty for heretics and gays and Jews and all the rest.  That DOESN'T WORK.  Look at Iran; look at Europe during the middle ages.  It's ALWAYS A DISASTER.  As soon as you wipe out all the liberals and heretics and gays, you'll start in after each other.  You'll kill and kill and ten, or a hundred, or five hundred years will pass, and people will look back and wonder how you could have been so stupid.  You want hell in America.  You're not going to get it, because of one last thing that we are not:

We are not wimps.

Wingnut, my family has been in this country longer than yours.  I guarantee it.  My family has lived in the exact same place for thousands of years, and I'm not giving it up.  We were sent on a long walk with small pox-infected blankets.  We came back.  We were shot and killed, and hunted for sport.  We held on.  Along the way, some of the toughest, meanest, orneriest folks in the history of the world married in.  I'm Cherokee, German, Scotch, Irish, and African, black, yellow, brown, red, white, and fucking blue.  I am an American.  I am a patriot. I am not afraid of you, wingnut.  WE are not afraid of you.

I will not give up.  I will not back down.  I will not move to Canada.  I will stay on my mountain, and I will fight for the America I love, the one that stands for freedom, the one that is a shining beacon to all the world, showing a new way, a way out of medieval bloodlust and ethnic and tribal violence.  

I don't hate America, wingnut, you do.

•  Woo Hoo!

  You go! (girl? heh)

  I like how you built up to the payoff. Nicely said and I thank you!

  by Bexley Lane on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:09:27 AM PDT

  •  Speak for Yourself

    I love America (though I despise American Imperialism) , but I also hate the rich and I definitely want to turn some of those guys gay and wipe out their stupid religion.

    As Jefferson Airplane once said "We are the forces of chaos and anarchy/ Everything they say we are, we are"

    by Christopher Day on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:31:43 AM PDT

    •  i don't want them to turn gay...

      ... i want them to admit it to themselves.

      And don't hate the rich.  That's pointless and silly. Instead, hate the System that reinforces class imbalance, and prevents those with the misfortune of not being born rich from getting rich.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:50:44 AM PDT

      •  I hate the rich

        Oh and BTW 100k per year isn't rich.

        It's working class.

        Anyone that needs to work for a living is working class.

        Rich people don't have to acquire wealth they just do.

        The fortune passed down to them isn't enough to feed the greed.

        I hate the rich.

        I pity those that think they are, or will be rich, and think themselves beyond the class system.

        The rich have divided us using bribery. Those will a little more have abandoned those with a little less.

        Go team go!
        

        by AnonymousArmy on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:29:43 AM PDT

        •  as someone...

          who has never earned more than $28k a year - and only reached that threshold two years in a row, and I've been in the workforce 25 years now - $100k ain't working class.

          by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:38:14 AM PDT

          •  agreed

            I earn more now, but for a long time I was in the under-25k set, and people earning 40k seemed rich to me.  I was excited to have an apartment without roaches and a Ford Escort to drive around. And I considered myself lucky, as others I knew had kids, rendering them downright poor at 22k.

            Having said that, for political reasons, it probably is good for Dems to publicly draw a line between the ultrawealthy and the working upper-middle class.

            by decembersue on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:51:21 AM PDT

          •  Maybe so

            But, near as I can tell from as far away as I sit, it ain't rich either. Those folks are getting kicked in the teeth with the shifted tax burden too. Many of them, for whatever reason, are mortgaged to the hilt, and a downward shift in real estate prices or a few months of joblessness will have them at the precipice too.

            I'm a whole hell of alot closer to you, snookeybeh. Moreso than I'd prefer to own up to. Still, these 6-digit income folks are getting abused. Too sad too many are too distracted to notice.

            by wystler on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:54:51 AM PDT

            •  and I'm not saying...

              that they're not getting abused by this administration. And I'm not saying they're rich, or that they don't work hard.. I'm just saying - "working class" is not the same thing as "middle class," and just because someone has to go to work every day doesn't make them "working class."

              Look, prior to this year (I quit my job last year and am still unemployed, so my income for last year was only about $17k), I had two years in a row where I made about $28k. And, because I'm single, my mortgage payment is only about $250 a month and I have no other debts, I felt almost rich. But I know damn well that I'm not, and I really can't imagine what it would be like to earn $100k a year.

              by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:14:22 PM PDT

              •  Yeah, you can

                it really isn't much different than 28k.  You still can't just go buy a car or a house without thinking about it.  Of course, a lot more of my income is probably going into investments and savings than someone making 30k.

                by unterhausen on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:55:12 PM PDT

                •  Wow!

                  You need to think awhile about what you're saying. I won't say what I'm making, but it's definitely upper middle class. I don't worry a second about not being able to pay bills. Nice house, not mortgaged to the hilt like other idiots in my earning bracket. My biggest worry is if I can buy the toy I want now or if I should wait 6 months. Should I buy a chevy or blow my wad get a BMW or Audi. Folks making $28k have very modest homes, they worry about keeping a running vehicle on the road. Buying medicine they need is a hardship. Going on a nice vacation is a luxury they do without. How do I know? I"ve been there, and through hard fucking work and lots of great luck I have busted through to the promised land. Get ahold of yourself. Think about what a difference there is between grossing $540 a week and $1925 a week. I don't remember what taxes were like at the $28k level but I'm guessing the take home is say $350 a week with deductions vs. say $1300 $1400 a week depending on your state and local tax ( I don't have a state income tax here). Holy fuck, there's a world of difference. You're talking more take home a week than that other guy is getting a month!

                  by Dave B on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:24:46 PM PDT

                  •  used to know

                    the feeling.  My best year I PAID more in taxes then I made in a year in my first "grownup" job!

                    But regretably... that did not last long.  I got sick and was only on that great job for about 3 years.  Long enough for me to buy a house and dump a bunch of money into it, but not enough to finish the work...

                    So I am back to being a schlub again, and if I am lucky I will be able to get my SS disability...

                    by skippythebox on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:47 PM PDT

          •  Not trying to offend you

            But how does your being able to manage living on 28k invalidate my point?

            The 100k types have been given more toys to play with so they won't fight for your causes.
            

            by AnonymousArmy on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:56:07 AM PDT

            •  I guess it depends...

              on what a person means by "working class," but when I hear someone say that someone making $100k/year is "working class" I think of the congressperson some years ago who claimed that people making $200k were "middle class."

              When I hear "working class," I think of people who do physical labor, work in factories, work in hospitals (for hourly wages), work in cubicles, teach our children, deliver our packages, wait on our tables and serve our drinks, etc. I think of the people who maybe qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. I think of people who have to think about whether they can get away with going out to eat that night, instead of just automatically doing it. I think of people who are maybe just at the bottom edge of the "middle class." I think of people who are maybe one or two paychecks ahead of homelessness.

              Just "having to go to work every day" doesn't make you "working class." I'm sorry, I know that doctors, lawyers, upper level managers and such work very hard, and I respect them, but they are not "working class."

              Maybe what I'm talking about should be called "working poor," but I don't really feel poor.

              by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 12:46:06 PM PDT

              •  In some countries

                Doctors and plumbers live on the same street and golf at the same club.

                You're comparing easy vs. hard work. But it is work.

                Bush didn't have to work.
                

                by AnonymousArmy on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:25:18 PM PDT

                •  actually...

                  as I say in another comment, I'm not even talking about "easy" work versus "hard" work. I know damn well that doctors, most of them anyway, work damn hard for their money. Probably lawyers, too. At least the couple of lawyer friends I have work hard.

                  I'm talking only about income levels. And I've always heard that, when you talked about "upper class" and "middle class" and "working class," "working class" was considered to be below "middle class," or maybe on the lower reaches of "middle class."

                  And hell, I definitely wasn't talking about Bush. Not only did Bush not have to work, I'd venture to guess he's never worked an honest day's work in his entire life. hell, he's probably working harder now than ever.

                  At least, he say's it's hard work.

                  by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:39:17 PM PDT

            •  Well, shit

              I've been Ann Arbor rich (300k in one year) but never Marina Del Rey rich.  The yachts at Harbor Springs would be lifeboats for these boys.  The cat in the Mercedes roadster thinks he's cool, but here comes a V-12 roadster to show him up, and then at the hotel, an AMG SL55.  A couple of Rolls' wheel around tonight, but it's the guy in the Bentley Mirage that has the upper hand on exclusivity.  The 12-door stretch Hummer in black?  Please.

              I am in the "executive bracket" according to the executive search firms (above 100k), and my house would be worth 1.2 mil - if it weren't in Michigan and were instead in Los Angeles.

              I had a full year of zero income while I struggled to overcome the effects of my brother's murder, and 2.5 years off up until about 2.5 weeks ago.  All in all, the average is better than a lot of people.  But it certainly changes.

              I don't necessarily hate the rich as I hate abusers.  People like Ma Barker.  People who say they won't give up a dime to those who "haven't earned it."  Hello?  Those who've earned it don't need it!  And I had a big problem with people who bought gold chains while they told me they couldn't possibly spare a dime for the Kerry campaign and the last chance to save the fuckin world.

              I'll tell ya what I did, though.  I brought some cash with me to Cal, and somewhere in the New Mexico desert, a clerk at a ripoff gas station said, "can you believe that?  That guy wanted me to give him free gas!  I gave him 33 cents, cause that's all I had to spare."  Well, I had just about 20 bucks to spare.  I caught up to the guy next to his rusty station wagon and gave it to him, and I said, "no, you don't have to thank me.  Just remember it was a Democrat who came through for you."  I pointed to my Kerry sticker, and then I split.  Little bastard does just under 135.

              by moltar on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:15:59 PM PDT

          •  Yes, it is

            As someone who has $100K a year, I can tell you that I still had to work. I only had two weeks vacation, so I wasn't off enjoying my "wealth".

            Trust me, $28K or $100K, if you have to show up to a job every day and work because you have to work to survive, you ARE working class.

            by xtu on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 12:23:12 PM PDT

            •  no offense...

              I'm not implying that you don't work, or that people in your income bracket do not work hard. But that's not the same thing as "working class." See my post above to understand what I'm talking about.

              by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:06:20 PM PDT

              •  Predefined categories

                snookybeh, i think you are confusing the intent of the original comment.

                rather than define "working-class" by type of labor, income level and social status, as has been traditionally been done, the comment was trying to give a much broader definition of the term.

                coincidentally, i had the exact same thought in car on my drive home this afternoon and i was thinking this: if, in order to maintain their standard of living, a person has to perform labor of any kind, be it coal-mining, telemarketing, brain surgery, rocket science, or waiting tables, then that person could fairly be labled "working-class," because they have to work to survive.

                it's not a matter of income, but of necessity.

                suppose i had $1 million sitting in the bank. without a job, i could live with an effective income of about $2700/month for 30 years. since i don't have to exchange labor for that money, i could no longer be considered working class. the stresses that come with "how will i pay for this?" don't apply.

                by defining the term more broadly, we can re-frame it to appeal to those don't consider themselves "working class" because they are able to earn 3 figures, even though if they were to stop earning those figures, their lifestyle would collapse.

                by internik on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:22:49 PM PDT

                •  well...

                  I went back and looked at the original comment, and I guess I'm just a little slow, because that's not how I saw the intent. I shoulda stayed in school, I guess.

                  I don't think "working class" was perhaps the right choice of words for the intention of the comment? Because if you use the word "class" preceded by the word "working" it really connotes income levels, at least to me. As in, "working class," "middle class,"  "upper class," etc., and all their various permutations.

                  when John Lennon wrote "Working Class Hero," I don't think he was thinking about people making the equivalent of $100k, who would probably be considered "the folks on the hill." I think he was talking about the people who worked for them.

                  by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

                •  I have a trust fund with

                  about $2 mil in it. I get the income of about $53K per year from it..that's before taxes. I didn't get my trust until I was in my 40's. Before that, I had one that yielded about $200 a month..enough for me to work on the track and still make ends meet. I got my first job at age 17, waitressing, then worked as various types of clerk, dry cleaning, drug store, etc. I went on the track at age 22 and spent almost 25 years grooming and galloping. I have worked hard all my life, at jobs considered blue collar. I still do. We have eight, soon to be nine horses(one mare in foal due soon). My husband and I do all the work for them, mucking, feeding, etc. Our one luxury is paying a kid $10 an hour to come in one day a week to muck out so we get a day off from it. Just because someone has a trust fund and unearned income, doesn't mean they don't work. It just means they don't get paid by someone else for it. We have a tight budget because we not only support the horses and ourselves, but we also give to our favorite causes, help out friends who are having money problems, and pay tuition for kids with partial scholarships. Just because someone has money they didn't have to work for doesn't mean they aren't working or aren't responsible members of society. We don't go out much, if we do, it's to dinner in town where we spend a whopping $40 on dinner for the two of us. If we didn't give to the things we give to, pay tuition, etc. we could afford full time help to do the horse work and all we would be doing is the fun stuff. But we have a sense of social responsibility, so we give up some things to help make life better for other people. That is what I was taught by my grandmother, who left me the trust, is how one behaves if one has money. She used to tell me that when you leave this world, the most important thing was to have made a difference.

                  by Demfem on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 07:00:25 PM PDT

                  •  I think you've illustrated my point

                    i wasn't trying to say that having a high net worth automatically excludes someone from being "working class," but rather the opposite.

                    in your particular example, you've chosen a lifestyle that, despite the existence of a trust fund, requires additional labor for support and i think it's great that you've chosen to live socially responsibly.

                    but my point was that it's a matter of expenses rather than a matter of income. if the things a person wants to do in life requires them to work in order to afford it, then that person can be considered working-class.

                    to use figures from your example, $53K/year is a large enough sum that someone could live a modest, comfortable life without having to work, should they choose a modest, comfortable lifestyle.

                    but it seems that as income grows, so do expenses, as people feel they can spend more, and thus they remain "working-class." it's a bridge liberals can use to frame financial issues with people who don't think they're "working-class" just because the earn more than a certain amount.

                    by internik on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:34:25 PM PDT

                    •  Thank you for taking the time to explain

                      Class warfare, like every single Orwellian turn of phrase Republicans use, has been so successful in the US that we are arguing among liberals who we should include under the working class umbrella.

                      The notion of nobility is so hidden in the American Dream propaganda that the possibility of riches blinds people to the infrastructure set up to marginalize them economically, and politically.

                      by AnonymousArmy on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:27:02 PM PDT

                      •  good point

                        it is actually far more important to fight against assholes with money then decent people with money.

                        concentrate on fighting assholes and you can't go wrong.  

                        Tough to frame, but still...

                        by skippythebox on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:05:25 AM PDT

                        •  You're right...

                          ...the best thing to focus on is values.

                          by sundog on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:16:53 AM PDT

                    •  Not quite

                      I'm all for building bridges to help Americans understand the experiences that most of us share (such as working for a living), but your formula doesn't do that.  Instead it blurs together everybody's economic life.  If you factor in expenses, you end up including everybody under the "has to work for a living" rubric.  After all, people tend to spend more or less in accordance with their means:  Maybe I fly accross the country for the best doctor, or maybe I make the 10 dollar copayment to visit my local clinic; maybe I spend a couple hundred bucks to enjoy canoeing, or maybe I drop $10 million of a yacht.  If everyone is "working class," then the far right is right: we're living in a classless society.  But, of course, they're not right.  And they're waging class war to prove it.  Let's not be so inclusive that we forget who's screwing whom.    

                      by sundog on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:03:05 AM PDT

                      •  If only the millionaires vote republican

                        then they don't win elections.

                        i grant that my argument may be too general, and there's no easy way to account for the "super-rich," but my true objective was to recast the term in order to court people who think they are rich just because they can afford a BMW, when really their social-economic status has much more in common with people in lower tax brakets and that their lifestyle isn't being served by their voting patterns.

                        i know that's a tough fight (convincing people they aren't as rich as they think they are), but  populist rhetoric would be more persuasive to a larger part of the public when those who are slightly better off realize they benefit more from Democratic principles than Republican ones.

                        by internik on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:44:31 AM PDT

              •  Everyone's missing the point

                It's not about the size of the salary you earn but your relationship to capital.

                It's true, a lowly line worker and the CEO both make a salary, but not all types of salaries are equal. The person on the assembly line or bagging the groceries are providing a service and adding and creating value to things and products. It is productive labor.

                Salaries drawn by, say, executives and lawyers on the other hand work to maximize profits and market share and squeezing the most from surplus revenue created by productive labor. They're not adding anything to the value of the product or service. Essentially, although exercutive and lawyer types are earning a salary, they are not working class.

                by Frank Roberts on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 07:02:52 AM PDT

                •  Oh, and one other thing

                  The capitalist class must LOVE it when any talk of the working class turns into a pissing match over salary teirs, 20K vs 40K vs 100K vs 400K.

                  It totally divides and distracts from the real issue, which keeping the working class ignorant and divided so that they can not come together for a better future.

                  by Frank Roberts on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 07:07:51 AM PDT

            •  oh, and...

              I'm not implying that you're wealthy, either. You do have more money than me, but I know that doesn't make you wealthy, and I don't resent you for your money or anything like that.

              by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

            •  I Think the question for you is

              How did you feel about your tax cut and what did you do with it?

              My feeling is that with wealth comes responsibility. It's a lot easier for me to comdemn Larry Ellison, who spent nearly 100 million dollars trying to win the America's Cup, than it is to speak ill against Bill Gates who has given a lot of money to fight disease in Africa and in support of public libraries. I feel the same way about George Soros and to a lesser extent Warren Buffet. They should use their wealth in a responsible way.

              If you do that, I don't care how much you make. If you don't I'd like to see you get a visit from Mr. Castro. BTW, all the members of Rage Against the Machine are stinking rich as is Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen.

              I wish I was like them because I know I could do a lot of good with the dough. As the great Jamie Kennedy once said in a movie: "Don't be hate-in."

              by TheChanMan on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:35:26 PM PDT

          •  the hell it ain't!

            My household income (two earners) is around $150k. After mortgage (on a century-old 1800sqf house), student loans, car payments, classes for kids (tae kwon do and dance), insurance, retirement savings, and what not, we're... comfortable.  We get small luxuries here and there.  We don't own vacation property, don't send kids to private school, don't drive luxury cars (my Subaru has over 100k miles, but it's paid for!), etc.  

            We're at the comfortable end of middle class, because we're a two-income household.  That's it. If one of us quit working (wouldn't that be nice?), we'd be barely hanging on.  At this rate, we're fortunate enough that i may be able to retire six or seven years early, my wife ten or twelve years early, and we can afford to send both kids to good colleges.  

            Supporting a family on less than $30 is POVERTY.

            by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

            •  well, everything's relative, I guess

              the couple next door to me, with two kids, had some kind of late 70s/early 80s beater - maybe an old LTD? - with more rust than paint. He lost his job when he finally couldn't keep the thing running anymore, and couldn't get to his job by bus. She takes a bus to her service industry job.

              They cut the bottom out of an old milk crate, nailed it to a telephone pole, and the kids play basketball with it.

              I doubt if they think of themselves as living in poverty. Everything's relative.

              by snookybeh on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:55:15 PM PDT

              •  Blue State Blues (Relativity)

                Indeed. Remember where many of these Kos'ers live - where their jobs are. Metro DC, Metro NY, Boston, San Francisco... $100k just ain't what it used to be  in those places.

                Where I grew up (Alabama) $100k would be fabulous wealth; but here in Montgomery County Maryland the median home price is now $660k, and $100k doesn't look so great.

                by hndrcks on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 04:33:38 AM PDT

              •  Here's what Repubs are good at...

                They have convinced the middle class that they already are wealthy.
                The have convinced low wage earners that they might someday become wealthy.
                They've convinced both groups that democrats just want to take that money, or soon-to-be money, away from them...to give to the "immoral" so they can be gayer, engage their children in pornography, and have more abortions on their dime.

                I have lived in four different states (some red, some blue) in five different houses (on the current market costing 150K to 1.5 mil), so I have some basis to say the above.  Every place I've ever lived, people are amazed at their good fortune and believe they are a part of the American Dream.  That's nice, but the repubs have been better at spinning that into "look how we create wealth for you".

                Perhaps Dems should spend some time sending the message "you're welcome" for those nice wages, medical, dental, life insurance.  And "you are so very welcome" for sending your kids to schools instead of factories.  

                It does no good to have an opinion about what the "wealthy" (however you define that) do with their money, but rather, how the general public feels about their own quality of life.  The only thing that matters, as it relates to this forum, is getting the message out.  I think that message should be "You're Welcome"

                Don't forget to :-) while sending that message.
                

                by lam2b2g on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:59:47 AM PDT

          •  I disagree...

            It depends on where you live in this country.  My husband and I together bring in just over 100K, but we live in N.J.  Look at what rent and real estate cost in N.J. and you'll see that 100K doesn't go that far.  We don't have a luxurious home or cars and still seem to just "make it." I buy clothing at thrift shops.  Location makes a BIG difference.  I'm sure if I lived in TX or something 28K would carry me.

            by buddythedog on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:36:00 AM PDT

            •  I forgot to mention...

              Property Taxes in NJ.  Astronomical!  I pay $4000 a year for a 1,100 sq.ft., 40 yr. old ranch and my town has comparatively low taxes (no police force, no utilities).

              by buddythedog on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:43:47 PM PDT

          •  I have to agree

            I was stunned to find myself close to 80M my last year before they laid me off (and I would have settled for a lower salary to stay!), but most of my working days were for a heck of a lot lower pay.

            by glitterscale on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:25:25 AM PDT

        •  I don't hate the rich, but I don't worship them

          I know plenty of rich people. Some of them are rich because they're smart and work hard. Even these people, however, are often smart about making money, but not about anything else.  Others are rich because they're ruthless crooks. Some rich people are just plain lucky, and finally there are those people who are rich because of a combination of smarts, hard work, dishonesty, and luck. I don't hate them, but I sure as hell don't respect them, at least not until I learn how they became rich.

          by chimpwatch on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:49:11 PM PDT

          •  It's not the rich or poor; it's the gate

            between them. This was the essence of the "Lazarus story" told at the beginning of Lent and trotted off to DC by the Sojourners/Jim Wallis group, who tried to meet with Frist about Bush's immoral budget but were rebuffed. (They did have a successful meeting with Harry Reid.)

            Some people live engaged with a large circle of the world, keeping their eyes and hearts open. Others - and here I include many rich people, lots of Republicans, and even members of my  own family - retreat behind gates. They stay inside, don't offer water to the thirsty man outside, and indeed blame him for his own condition. Eventually they hire security guards to escort him away. Once he's out of sight, he's not their problem any more.  

            It is these people we have to fight.

            by Alna Dem on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:44 PM PDT

          •  Let me say this about that

            I worked in financial services for a while, with some clients who were multimillionaires.  I guarantee you that if someone on a chat room or board claims to be "really rich," he's lying.  The rich do not type.  No more than they would use an adding machine or a socket wrench.

            by moltar on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:19:48 PM PDT

        •  I hate consumerism and obsoletism

          and the rich who want to get rich just to be rich
          and have more than they need!

          by JackAshe on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 06:59:14 PM PDT

        •  It really isn't about the money you make

          it is about your philosophy of life. I have been rich and poor and there is really very little difference at least for me.  It has to do with what is enough. I live the same at 20K as 120K, drive a 18 year old car, live in a modest older middleclass neighborhood, etc., other than paying my bills on time no significant difference.
          I have enough and I live in a philosophical space of personal plenty regardless of my bank account. Since I have enough, plenty then sharing comes naturally, wanting and really needing others to have enough, plenty is a normal way of being.

          by ghengismom on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 06:50:46 AM PDT

    •  You love America

      but apparently despise some of the things that make America the place that it is, like freedom of religion. You hate the rich? thanks alot. Lucky for you we don't hate you in return. Do you hate the rich because you aren't rich, perhaps? Bet you would change your tune if you won a big lottery. And the Democratic Party doesn't want to be the "forces of chaos and anarchy", we believe on good government, for the people and by the people, as laid out in the Constitution. We believe in the rule of law, not of emotional or religious fervor. We believe that the rich have an obligation to the poor, to help make their lives better and increase their opportunities so that they won't be poor any more. Not charity, but help in gaining economic ground. Education, health care for all, and an equal tax burden, tolerance for differences are all things the Democratic Party would like to see in this country. And just so you know, you can't turn someone gay..evidence shows that one is born gay. So if you are born that way, it must be God's will, right? I always mention that little bit of information to gay bashers..it usually stops them cold. Try it, it works better than ranting at them.

      by Demfem on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:59:59 AM PDT

      •  I don't think that post was meant seriously. nt

        nt

        by A Citizen on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:10:07 AM PDT

    •  and we are very proud of ourselves nt

      by weeping for brunnhilde on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:23:20 AM PDT

    •  Those 1's

      (which are no longer troll ratings) are STILL inappropriate. "Unproductive," how, exactly? You happen to have spoken your truth in a flippant way, but you are definitely NOT alone in your sentiments.

      So, for whoever saw fit to give Christopher Day 1 ratings...

      Better give me 1s, too. Because I think capitalism is a grotesque mockery of how we as humans ought to live. And, frankly, I cannot WAIT for the wingnut gene to die off.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:30:43 PM PDT

      •  Unproductive

        "I hate the rich." Me, too, from Ann Patchett to Alice Sebold to JK Rowling, from Michael Moore to Teresa Heinz Kerry to Ted Kennedy, from Al Franken to Jon Stewart to the doctor who operated on my mother. This statement isn't merely stupid--it's also ignorant.

        "Turn some of those guys gay." Okay. What? First, some of those guys are gay, and second ... what? Huh?

        "Wipe out their stupid religion." Stupid, ignorant, and dangerous! Yay! Trifecta!

        This statement was most certainly productive, no argument there--but I'm not sure it's defensible. And I'm also not sure that anyone who speaks her or his truth and is not alone is necessarily productive.

        by GussieFN on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 05:25:53 PM PDT

        •  It's a political statement.

          "Eat the rich" -- that sort of thing. At least, in my lexicon it is.

          No matter. I can't work up the energy to argue anything lately.

          by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 06:30:16 PM PDT

          •  On the other hand

            I got in a fight with my brother for putting the stress on the second syllable in 'Subaru' the other day. So, um, maybe I need a little of whatever you got.

            by GussieFN on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:13:11 PM PDT

        •  Why not hate the rich?????????

          Overall, where hasd Rich gotten us?
          Religion, overall where has it gotten us??
          It may be a silly statement, but hey
          Delay has it out for certain people
          They are out to not just dominate but destroy.

          by JackAshe on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 07:02:01 PM PDT

    •  I don't hate the rich

      But we are all interdependent and the gap between rich and poor is waaaaaay to wide

      by Little Hamster on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 07:18:56 PM PDT

•  Recommend this diary

  We need more defiance displayed here.

  Good job on this diary.

  by PaulVA on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:13:58 AM PDT

  •  Other defiance

    I wish there was more defiance to all the rethuggery on language.  If liberals are "evil," then why do the wingnuts shroud themselves in "liberty."  Why did we "liberate" Iraq (and we saw how it was liberation only when the WMD farce failed).  Ironically (or hypocritically, depending on how you look at it), by their own use of the word, we liberals are the patriots, lovers of America.

    Some interesting definitions:

    terrorism and conservative and liberal

    Most interesting is the language in the definition of terrorism:  coercion, intimidation, threat/use of force, political goals, politically motivated, etc.  Check the synonyms of liberal.  It's all in the definitions!

    Now, can't it be argued that the GOP in control practices intimidation or threat of force ("activist" judges) for politically  motivated goals (wingnut agenda)?

    This begs the question...based on the definitions above, who truly hates America: the liberal or the conservative, the Republican or the Democrat?  

    by rebirtha on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:13:08 AM PDT

    •  About that definition of "conservative"

      You link to:
      

      con·ser·va·tive
      adj.

         1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
         2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
         3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
         4.
               1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
               2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

      In what sense are the Constitution-smashing, environment-stomping, foreign-adventuring wingnuts "conservative"? There is much worth conserving, but they aren't doing it.

      by technopolitical on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:45:34 PM PDT

    •  Defined by a proud liberal

      While at work a wingnut stated that liberals don't like to work and are generally lazy. Usually I let stuff like that slide (I work on an oil rig, less stress is best) but this time I grabbed the dictionary, handed it to him and asked him to look up liberal. Confounded by the definition he told me that all the liberals he knew wanted to vote in higher taxes so they didn't have to work. I noted that he lived in Louisiana, worked on an oil rig and was an evangelical Christian...how many liberals could he possibly know? He conceded my point and I asked him to let a liberal define what we are for him instead of Faux news.

      Another aside.... I just love when wingnuts assume liberals aren't tough. I would relish the opportunity to set any Toby Keith listening, W sticker having jackass straight about the notion that being a liberal has some how invalidated my man card. Driving a dually with a magnetic yellow ribbon on it doesn't make you a tough guy, having the balls to stand up for what is right when it's not popular makes you a tough guy.
      

      by deckside on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:15:30 PM PDT

  •  We don't need anymore reasons

    All we need to do is look back to the 2000 election, and the cam"pain" to see that the country was getting ready to take a huge dip. George Bush was buying votes from the average person by telling them if elected he would give them $600.00.
      He said, that he would put Social Security in a lock box. The problem was that he kept the key. In his first term he took 1.5 trillion, or 438 million everyday for four years. This was to take care of that tax cut he promised the people, and to help fund that little scermish in Iraq. I could go on and on and on, but you get the point.

    by american badass 607 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:48:34 AM PDT

•  Great rant,

  may I steal some of it?

  by spartan68 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:14:16 AM PDT

  •  Steal away

    I was worried I got off track.  I'm glad the rant is appreciated.

    by ignatz1138 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:20:33 AM PDT

    •  Really disturbing though

      How many people are voting "What's the difference".

      Oh it's a great rant and I second, third, fourth, fifth (ad infinitum) what everyone else is saying

      EXCEPT

      Republican != Religious extremist (or terrorist).  ( != means "not equal to for you non-geeks).

      (Saying that is being as bad as the f***ing wingnut trolls.)

      Thank you for writing this.  Recommended.

       

      by MH in PA on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:41:01 AM PDT

      •  I have to disagree with you

        Republican = = Religous Extremist.

        Note that Conservative ! = Religous Extremist, and that Conservative ! = Republican.

        If you want balanced budgets and sound fiscal policies, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you want smaller goverment, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you support civil liberties, and think the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you support the police, and wish to see more of them on the streets fighting crime (oh, and, along with the firemen, being the front lines against terrorism and the heros of 9-11), these days you vote Democratic.

        If you want a better economy, a more robust stock market, and support for small business, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you actually want the number of abortions going on to go down, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you support the troops, and want to see them given the tools needed to do their jobs, see their wounds treated, their dead honored, and their sacrifices not wasted, these days you vote Democratic.

        If you really are an Eisenhower Republican and are not stupid, these days you vote Democratic.

        In 2000, you could claim you were duped.  But if you're still supporting Bush and the Republicans at this point, you are knowingly supporting anti-American religous extremists.  Lie down with the dogs, wake up with the fleas.

        by bhurt on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:04:43 AM PDT

        •  Bu$hCorp != Republican Party

          Well, okay, they're doing a damn good job of taking over. But my point is only that some people who still have the "Republican" box checked on their voter id, are not anywhere near being the religious wingnuts the diarist is ranting about.  For various reasons these people are uncomfortable with being Democrats. That DOESN'T mean they subscribe to the wingnut wing of the Republican Party. I believe some of them really want to take their party back from the nuts, too.

          My saying that it makes us just as bad, is that when you stereotype like that you are being as unfair to moderate republicans, as the trolls are being to us when they say that all "liberals" are communists. And yes, some people on this board are communists, or at least they answered that way in a poll I posted. While reserving discussion and judgement of communist philosophy for a different place and time, I still don't want to be lumped in with them just because I have some liberal beliefs, and have a 'D' on my voter reg card.  So, I think we should be similarly respectful of the existence of non-wingnut Republicans.

          by MH in PA on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:16:02 AM PDT

          •  Not a valid comparison

            If the Democrats nominated a Communist as their Presidential Candidate, I wouldn't support him.  And I'd probably stop calling myself a Democrat as well.  If my choice was an Eisenhower (moderate) Republican and a Communist running on the Democratic ticket, damn straight I'd put my check in the 'R' column.  Fortunately, the Democrats have never gotten anywhere near that extreme (and no, getting labeled a Communist doesn't make you one).

            There are some things I hold above being a Democrat- such as being an American.  Democracy in America is not open to debate.  The rule of law is not open to debate.  Freedom is not open to debate.  In this way, I do not hold the Republicans to any standard I do not also hold the Democrats.

            As for the Democrats sounding "extremist", how's that working out for us?  We've been bending over backwards to "moderate" our positions, to "appeal to the middle".  Which explains why Al Gore is entering his second term with such a mandate.  Hint: what the Democrats look like is not sane or moderate, but wimps.  The moderation of the Democrats has allowed, even encouraged, the extremism of the Republicans.  Personally, I think it's time to hit back.

            If you beleive that abortions should be outlawed, that doesn't make you anti-American in my book.  The heart and soul of America is debate and dissent.  I disagree with you, but holding that opinion doesn't make you anti-American.

            If you beleive we were right to invade Iraq, that doesn't make you anti-American.

            If you think that the votes of certain people shouldn't be counted, that makes you anti-American.

            If you beleive that the rule of law does not apply to some people, that makes you anti-American.

            If you beleive that dissent is treason, that makes you anti-American.

            If you beleive that the Consitution should be replaced with a "biblical" goverment, that makes you anti-American.

            And I will call you on it.  And if that hurts your feelings, tough.  Speaking truth to power is always uncomfortable- especially for the power.

            (as a side note, in both this and my previous post is the "generic other"- from your posts it's obvious to me that the MH in PA "you" are a fellow American.)

            by bhurt on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:14:19 AM PDT

          •  No, you're wrong

            Bu$hCorp == Republican Party, until its control is wrested from them and their cabal of ChristoFascist-pandering greedheads.

            That's the message, and it's the truth.  The moderate Republican is silently assenting.

            by beemer on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:15:07 AM PDT

        •  Eisenhower...

          "If you really are an Eisenhower Republican and are not stupid, these days you vote Democratic.

          Just as his son did this past election.

          by Donna in Rome on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:16:51 AM PDT

        •  Awesome Email Forward Fodder

          Between this excellent diary and your awesome post, I have some fantastic cut-n-paste bullets (aka Talking Points) to use.

          I live in Georgia.  It's necessary.

          OK by you?

          by vmibran on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:18:20 AM PDT

          •  Ain't it great

            Being a member of this community and being able to 'steal' from the brain pool?

            by gabie on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:09:01 PM PDT

            •  Direct -vs- Indirect

              Indirect:  Not steal.  I may appropriate, borrow, enhance, immerse, involve, lift, ascribe, earmark, approbate, affirm, favor, or endorse, but never "steal."

              Direct:  Yeah.  It's fuckin' awesome.

              by vmibran on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:14:31 PM PDT

      •  I think the people who answered

        what's the difference? are using the "duck rule". If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. Well, the Republicans have lined themselves up with and are pandering to the religious extremists. So much so, in fact, that it is hard to tell the difference between them. When the Majority Leader gets up in front of a religious group and says the judges who voted against their point of view will get what's coming to them, it makes the Republican Party look and sound like a bunch of religious extremists. So if they look like extremist and talk like extremists, how are we to tell they are not extremists? If they don't want to be viewed as extremists, they should definitely change their tune and stop pandering to every Rapture nut that comes down the pike.

        by Demfem on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:07:23 AM PDT

        •  Quack

          quack, quack.

          

          With any luck, 2006 will look like this.

          

          At the risk of mixing my metafowls, let's make sure their goose is cooked.

          by justme on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

          •  Hahahahahhahahahahahaha!

            Thanks, I appreciate this!

            by deminmarineland on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

      •  Republican != Religious Extremist?

        That used to be true. No longer. This is now the face of the Republican party.

        For those too lazy (or busy) to click the link, that's where the Chief of Staff for Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) says:

        "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!"

        This on the heels of Delay and Cornyn hinting at the acceptability of violence against judges pretty much confirms that your equation is no longer true.

        by nuttymango on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:21:05 AM PDT

        •  By the way

          also don't forget that at the same time they are attacking the judiciary and control all branches of government, they are now on a crusade to get conservative control (or "balance") in the universities!  They are out to control EVERYTHING.

          by kathika on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 12:41:17 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        I was being facetous with the poll.  I probably shouldn't have done it.

        by ignatz1138 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:49:24 AM PDT

    •  Side comment

      Are you related to the Ignatz that created "Crazy Cat"?
      

      by nolalily on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:49:23 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        George Herriman created Krazy Kat. Ignatz was the name of the mouse that repeated threw a brick at Krazy, striking her in the head. KK, of course, took that as a sign of true love.

        see http://www.krazy.com

        by wystler on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 12:06:34 PM PDT

        •  Thanks.

          Got a little confused.  Did you know that Herriman was from New Orleans?
          

          by nolalily on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:04:02 PM PDT

          •  Did You know that ...

            Krazy Kat and Betty Boop were rare - two single female leads in early comics/cartoons (most other well-known single females were in supporting love-interest roles)

            by wystler on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:30:40 PM PDT

    •  Rock ON!

      Glad to see I am not the only one that will not let the country go without a fight.

      Fuck the right!  

      And yes I know intellectually that not all republicans are wingers..  but you know what?  IF they enable the wingers, if they rely upon that evil for their power, and if they continue to advance the winger agenda?

      Burn 'em.  They either stand WITH America and her constitution or they stand against her and for a theocracy.  Certainly we should put a hand out to them, but we should not hold it out for long.

      Their fate is in THEIR hands and the fate of nation is in OURS.  

      by skippythebox on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:00:37 AM PDT

    •  Love it

      I wish this was printed in 18 point type in a full page ad in every paper in the country. This is everything I've been trying to articulate for years but haven't been able to calm down enough to say. Thank you.

      by eodell on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:07:22 AM PDT

    •  There ARE left wing trolls, though

      Some who refer to our army as "the killbot factory".
      Some who want the abolition of all corporations.
      Some who want the elimination of all religion.

      Fortunately, a lot of these people get troll rated and don't get respect on kos. But unfortunately, any real life character of this persuasion gets inflated by the corporate controlled media, and is used as red meat to galvanize the right, and push moderates away from the Democratic party.

      (No, I'm not talking about Michael Moore. I don't think he pushes moderates away -- he loves the troops and criticizes corporations on accountability, not wealth. I'm talking about people more fringe than that.)

      by danthrax on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:33:35 PM PDT

      •  The difference ...

        The difference between left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists is this: The left-wing does not put any of it's extremists in the White House, in Congress, on the bench or on news stations 24 hours a day.

        Believe me, it's a big difference.

        by Tony Seybert on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:50:22 PM PDT

      •  "The Killbot Factory" was Kent Brockman

        "The government calls them the 'army' -- but a more alarmist name would be, 'The Killbot Factory'!"

        by iconoclastic cat on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 02:42:30 PM PDT

      •  Hey thats ME You're talking about

        I've never used the term "killbot factory" but I'm going to start today

        I'm totally down for the abolition not only of corporations but of private ownership of the means of production (personal property is another matter).

        AND

        I think religion is a shackle on human evolution that must be eliminated (through persuasion and ridicule rather than coercion).

        Does all that make me a TROLL? I don't think so. I don't come here just to pick fights, I try to be not just respectful of differences of opinion but to learn from what people I disagree with have to say. By defining more radical views than your own as automatically trollish you really drain the term of its substantive meaning. There are plenty of middl-of-the-road trolls out there. Crackpot realism is far more prevalent than either far-right or far-left opinions in the U.S. of A.

        by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:11:01 AM PDT

        •  Not necessarily talking about you, but...

          In that 89% of Americans believe in God, and even 70% believe in hell, I don't think that the Democratic party is about to take an anti religious stance. No, if anything, it should be trying to build coalitions between religious, spiritual agnostic, and atheist liberals.

          In that free enterprise and private ownership are practically synonymous with America...

          In that liberals and Democrats are being accused of "hating the troops", and it's at least a small reason why we lost the most recent election...

          I just don't think any of your stances are productive. Not saying you're mean spirited, or even poorly reasoned. But I'm not sure there's any place for you on a blog for Democrats.

          by danthrax on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:08:05 PM PDT

•  Absofuckinglutely

  n/t

  by confusedintexas on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:17:22 AM PDT

  •  except

    I noticed you did not capitalize God, as in "god forbid, gay."

    this is enough of a slight for wingnuts to attack.

    What a bunch of assholes they are

    by Liberal4ever on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:53:16 PM PDT

•  Great

   smack down, loved it. Makes me want to bitch slap some repugs. Of course, I always feel that way.

  by mpc 12 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:23:13 AM PDT

  •  speaking of bitch slap

    Speaking of bitch slapping republicans...

    Why is it that even when they try to call you names, they don't know what the hell they are talking about or saying?  And pull crap straight out of their @sses.

    Did you read the email rant from a winger to Mark about his post on the NYC videotapes?

    He called him a "PANTSY LIBERAL".... (I can picture the finger wagging)

    WTF is a pantsy liberal exactly?  

    What....are we being accused of wearing the proverbial "pants" in the american family here...why, of course we do!

    What...are we hoarding fashionistas and have lots of pants?...

    ...or are we known for our fancy pants? LOL!

    these nutjobs are LOSERS!

    by MFL on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  Your sentiments have been echoed over and over on this site.  You just happened to put them in a way which couldn't be clearer.

  I, too, love America, not just as it is but what it can become.  A country which exemplifies the ideals that its founding was based upon.

  The trolls also love "America', but the Anerica they love is a narrow twisted distortion of what we are meant to be.

  Like you, I will not leave, but will fight for this country and what it is menat to be, and if any troll wants to email me with some hate-filled diatribe, go to it.

  by JAPA21 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:25:20 AM PDT

  •  I'd put it differently

    You say:
    

    I, too, love America, not just as it is but what it can become.  A country which exemplifies the ideals that its founding was based upon.

    The trolls also love "America', but the Anerica they love is a narrow twisted distortion of what we are meant to be.

    
    I'd say:
    I love American for what it has been, is still and could be.  The freedom for all people to be who they are and speak about what they believe, the strength to defend ourselves from those who would take away those freedoms, and the safety of a system that values freedom and diversity over specific beliefs or specific persons. We value universal and high-minded principals that apply equally to all and guide the Law and would rather tolerate the guilty escaping justice than the innocent be punished... and we are willing to sacrifice what we hold dear to achieve and maintain those goals.

    The Trolls (and their Idols) love an idealized American version of Nazi Germany, a Christian variation of Iran, a US version of what North Korea claims to be.  They love the freedom to be like themselves and to hear what they believe, the strength to impose their will on others, and the safety of a system that values what they value.  They value strong authority and minutely specified laws proscribing exactly what is legal, for who and in which circumstances and would rather see innocents punished than guilty escape justice... and they are willing to sacrifice what others hold dear to achieve their goals.

    by mik on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:03:30 AM PDT

    •  well said

      I'd put it differently

      Well, I'm now going to put it just like you did.

      by brillig on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:42:06 AM PDT

  •  DO they love America? really?

    do they love the constitution - you konw, the one that sets up the separation of powers and calls on judges specifically to be unaccountable to anyone?  do you really think they love this?  what about the part of the constitution that explicitly states that congress shall make NO LAW respecting any religion - think they love that?  how about the total failure of the constitution to refer to God - think they love that?  do they love the part that says everyone is free to express themselves however they like?  they don't seem to "love" it when people with viewpoints different than their own avail themselves of this BASIC AMERICAN RIGHT.

    do they love the part of the constitution that recognizes the equality of all people, by prohibiting discrimination?  do they love the "melting pot" aspect of America - the one that tacitly, if not explicitly, encourages immigration here?  do they love to look beyond our borders, to show how great we are by comparison?  they seem not to.  do they love how everyone is supposed to get to vote?  do they love the freedom of association, and how that sometimes leads to unions?  why does their holiest-of-holies free market theory fail to recognize that unions, themselves, ARE a market force?  

    they love to love America.  America itself?  they really don't seem to care too much for it, with it's flag-burning gay married terrorists who are getting abortions.  

    by LegalSpice on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 11:36:22 AM PDT

•  great post, until...

  i thought the body of your message was great, but then the poll appeared.  i think the whole point is that neither left/right, dem/repub, etc. should be accusing the other -- at least as a whole -- of hating america.  don't sully your arguments by using a right-wing tactic.  

  by The Green Monster on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:26:00 AM PDT

  •  that comment

    You have a point...but I read the poll as an over-the-top joke.  I guess it's a good thing that we second-guess our outrage, even when it's directed at blathering idiots.  Our strength as liberals is that we challenge one another and ourselves.  

    by markymarx on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:55:29 AM PDT

•  They don't know how to change the oil

  They are the people who drive it till it breaks, and then dump it by the side of the road. Who throw cigarette butts out the window. Who litter. Who think the rest to the world should kow tow to their point of view, because they know all. We have to pick up after them. I'm a little sick of being the designated adult who actually thinks of the consequences of their actions.

  by jancw on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:26:01 AM PDT

  •  It's time for the adults to take over?

    That was what I thought after our dear president started the Iraq debacle. That the adults were going to have to come in and clean up come January of this year. But, seems like the fratboys sent the RA's out of the room to continue binge-drinking for the next four years.

    by Sunqueen212 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:54:05 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, the adults...

      Look what a wingnut "friend" of mine e-mailed me a couple of years ago during the build-up to the war in Iraq. We were long-distance debating the pros (?) and cons of going to war, and it was like talking to a wall... and a very condescending wall, at that. This is what she wrote at one point:

      Get comfy in your PJs tonight and jump into bed.  Don't forget to put fresh sheets on during the day, today..  Get lots of fairy tales and good story books and spend the next week in bed reading and dreaming.  Then, in a week, after the grown-ups have taken care of things for the children, go on with your life in peace and freedom.

      I don't want to die of pneumonia, anthrax or small pox.  I think this is something crucial that the UK and US are doing and I thank God that we have leaders that get it.

      I think I did write her back to let her know that none of the three potential disasters she mentioned at the end had anything to do with Iraq (the pneumonia she mentioned was the SARS outbreak in China and not planted by terrorists; the anthrax incidents were homegrown; the potential small pox problem would have had to do more with the fact that the U.S. was totally unprepared as far as vaccine supplies were concerned), but then, needless to say, I stopped discussing the matter with her. It was useless. My masochism only goes so far.

      But then came the Nov. '04 election time; I thought that by then (considering the war hadn't ended in a week as she had believed) she might have changed her mind. No way; if anything, she was even worse. In her mind, she was living in the reality-based community, and I was a naive, childish dreamer. She even thought a list I had sent her of links to articles by and about prominent Republicans and conservatives who were endorsing Kerry was a joke from The Onion!

      And this is a woman (now a lawyer) who once upon a time (at least back in high school) had a brain.

      by Donna in Rome on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:55 AM PDT

      •  she might be very surprised

        if she actually read some real fairy tales once in a while -- the kind that were used to air themes of social change and redress injustice.  

        It's so ironic that people who say things like that are expressing inverse thoughts: fairy tales have a long history as a framework to discuss and resolve issues causing social tensions, and it's really your friend who doesn't want to have to think about the issues and decide for herself, so she abdicates responsibility to "the adults" and swallows whatever stories are presented to her by the media machine.

        by zinfandel on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM PDT

        •  Good point. Everyone should

          read "The Uses of Enchantment," and then reaquaint themselves with the unsanitized versions of their favorite fairy tales.

          by jane 2000 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 04:53:42 PM PDT

  •  Random story

    Because of you mentioning throwing cigarettes out of the window...

    I was probably 7 or younger and my family, one fine summer morning, left by car for the grocery store. As we exited our driveway onto Route 7 in northeastern CT (a forested area) we saw flames just beginning to grow in the woods on the opposite side of the road.

    Five minutes earlier, we probably wouldn't have seen it, five minutes later and who knows if we could have put it out.

    Dad stopped the car, we all jumped out and my mom, my dad, my sister (and I think my brother and maybe one of his friends?) began beating and stamping out the fire. I was determined to help despite my mom's best efforts to keep me away. (I'm the youngest in the family by 11 years, FYI, which means my siblings were in their late teens.)

    Fortunately, we were successful in putting out the fire.

    At some point a state trooper came along -- don't know whether other cars passed us called the fire in or whether he came along randomly -- and stopped to check the situation out.

    Then began a long wrangle between my dad (not always the most patient of men)* because the trooper figured we were the most likely suspects. I guess firefighters must have eventually arrived because someone convinced the trooper that it was started by, yes, a cigarette butt.

    (Don't remember how the entire resolution played out because my mom pulled me away and back to the house)

    I also remember, maybe 5 or 10 years back, when they arrested someone driving (on the thruway through PA?) their car after they'd had a blowout. They were riding on the rim of their tire, and sparks were shooting up, igniting fires all along the way.

    Funny -- I hadn't thought of this story in a while. I'm now realizing that it probably explains why, to this day, I grind lit cigarette butts out when I encounter them -- even if it's in the middle of a NYC sidewalk where it's highly unlikely to start a fire.

    *Note: severe understatement

    by renska on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:12:28 AM PDT

    •  Could do it

      It's surprisingly easy to start a fire in the city, what with all the litter blowing around.  I'll consider you and your stomping personally responsible for my never having a buring piece of garbage fly at my face.  

      by ignatz1138 on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:16:06 AM PDT

      •  It's less of a stomp

        and more of a step on it, do a little grind/swivel with my toe, and then continue walking. It doesn't even interrupt my stride at this point.

        Anyway, you're welcome... ;-)

        by renska on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:52:56 AM PDT

    •  You've touched a nerve, baby!

      People throwing cigarette butts out of their car windows!  These are not biodegradable folks!  It's litter...would you throw a soda can or empty chip bag out of your car window!???  

      My dream is to see someone getting pulled over by a trooper and getting a ticket for throwing a butt out of a window...oh, if it ever happens...I think I'll pee my pants out of joy!

      by wry twinger on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 09:43:27 AM PDT

      •  I read a story...

        ...about a woman in Mississippi who was pulled over for littering [throwing her cig butt out the car window]. She unsuccessfully tried to argue that a cigarette butt doesn't count.

        Smokers breath that stuff into their lungs; what's the issue with just leaving it in the car ashtray a little while?

        by PanzerMensch on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 10:05:09 AM PDT

      •  ICAM

        While I'm in the mood to share random stories, let me share this one (it's not a story about cigarette butts, though. sorry to disappoint.)

        Last winter I took a trip up to VT for some snowboarding and found myself frustrated during the drive -- particularly after I was on I-91 and it becomes a two-lane highway -- because SUVs kept parking themselves on my tail. And it wasn't as if I wasn't a) keeping up with traffic or could b)  easily switch to the right lane because there were, hey, other cars there. (holiday weekend/heavy traffic).

        [That drive is the reason why I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of SUV drivers are assholes because it was incredibly consistent behavior...]

        Anyway, later that weekend we're leaving late from a bar and making our way home (we were staying at with a friend who lived an hour from Killington). It was snowing. So I'm driving slow. Guess what happens?

        SUV driver parks himself on my tail.

        I put on my hazards, tap my brakes, try to dissuade him from being such a moron -- di