Victory! In my book, shutting up a teabagger is an occassion worth celebrating so, I've decided to write my first diary after 5+ years of lurking here on DailyKos.
My wife has an older cousin who is fond of posting on Facebook links to his favorite nutjob 'writers'. Although my wife isn't close to him, her Texas manners won't let her defriend him...."That would just be mean".
I usually just read the posts and laugh at his ignorance but he recently decided that Facebook wasn't getting the job done so he decided to BCC several people an e-mail with the "most important article" he had read in sometime. It started with these two paragraphs:
That was the most reasonable part of the article so I decided that I had to respond.
I e-mailed him back to let him know that he might want to lay off Rush, Beck, Fox News, and the WorldNetDaily because it was causing him to agree with authors that were clearly delusional. I also wrote a few paragraphs explaining the liberal view of the world, what OWS was protesting etc.
Apparently, he didn't like getting push back so he spent 3 days writing a response so full of BS that it was as if he had sent it over to Fox News to have them write it. He also let me know that he was appalled at my arrogance.
Here is his response e-mail and my response to it (names are changed to protect the ignorant):
Hi George. Everyone here in Austin is doing well and the children are growing up very quickly…too quickly. Glad to hear that Alexis and the kids are doing well.
Please know that I’ll debate politics all day long. I’d prefer not to debate the poorly written ramblings of a person who believes they can predict the future, but that appears to be what we’re doing. (http://web.archive.org/...)
By the way, I don’t think the movement you represent is the ultimate evil, nor is it the most destructive and offensive in the world. I believe this movement represents the ultimate evil - http://www.nytimes.com/.... Of course, Rush Limbaugh thinks that these guys are great because they are “Christian”, Obama is against them, and the people they are slaughtering are lowly Muslims. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/.... Fortunately for Rush, abortion is illegal in Uganda so when one of the Muslims is raped, they’ll have to deliver the baby….so that it can be slaughtered properly by the Lord’s Resistance Army.
For the rest of my response, I’ve put it in italics below. I’m sorry it’s so long but there seems to have been a concern if I skipped any point that was brought up.
Hi Jason,
Well . . . , the last time I received a reply from Austin concerning any “political” emails I was told in an insulting
and bitter manner that “I was now removed as a Facebook friend, my politics are the ultimate evil and I
represent the very movement that is most destructive and offensive in the world.” This is coming from someone
whose political party platform advocates the killing of babies in the womb?! Unbelievable! There was also something
in there about endless propaganda and religious diatribe. I believe it was the liberal philosopher, Voltaire who
said that he might disagree with what you say, but that he would “defend to the death” your right to say it.”
I don’t believe he added “as long as your opinion is in agreement with mine” to that quote. Anyway, I digress.
That’s an unfortunate situation with someone else.
Thanks for responding to my email. Right off the bat, let me get a few of your points addressed first. The author
is not referring to the 2008 election with her choice of the word “usurping”. That is a pretty far stretch to imply otherwise, but nice try. Read it again. She says “. . . since usurping the US presidency, rules and laws are for others . . . “ She is referring to, among other things, Obama’s appointment of approximately three-dozen “czars” where in most cases there are no confirmation hearings and they largely insulated from accountability to CONGRESS. The majority have left-wing affiliations. Speaking of ass-kickings, wasn’t that what happened
in 2010 not only at the federal level but also at the state level? I hear there’s another rumble coming in 2012. Last point: I do however agree with you for that “We-the-People" does include “left, right and middle.” However, I believe the conservative wing (notice I did not say The Republican Party) best reflects “hands down”, the spirit, purpose, principles and ideals our founding fathers established for this democratic republic. The Democratic Party has aobvious socialist plan and agenda for our country. To me this a no-brainer.
She is clearly referring to the 2008 election. She says “…since usurping the US presidency, rules and laws are for others…” Let’s put the definition of usurp in the same sentence and see how it works. “…since taking power illegally, rules and laws are for others…” Sounds like the election to me. So you’re arguing that Sher believes Obama is legally the President of the United States but it’s that what he’s done after taking the presidency that she’s referring to? If so, why has she written numerous articles like these:
http://www.renewamerica.com/...
http://www.renewamerica.com/...
http://www.webcommentary.com/...
She is a birther, pure and simple. That is enough for me to disregard everything else she’s written. However, in the interest of clarifying what the “left” believes, I’ll continue through her fantasy.
To continue, I’ll pretend that Sher has learned how to read a long-form birth certificate and that she’s referring to Obama’s appointment of three-dozen czars (such a scary socialist, communist sounding word!). That actually makes her dumber than she would be believing that Obama was born in Kenya. Strangely, I couldn’t find anything she had written about George W. Bush usurping power by appointing nearly four-dozen czars…most of whom were insulated from accountability to CONGRESS. http://www.factcheck.org/... Come to think of it, I don’t remember seeing an e-mail from you warning about George W’s use of czars. I’m assuming that one got lost in the mail.
You’re right about 2010, it was an ass-kicking. The difference is you didn’t receive any e-mails from me describing how Republicans usurped power. 2012 should be a close election…if Republicans elect Mitt Romney. Funny, but the only guy that polls anywhere close to Obama is the guy that used to be pro-choice (http://www.youtube.com/...), the guy who created the insurance model in Massachussetts that became the inspiration for “Obama-care”, and the guy who told Log Cabin Republicans that he’d be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.
As far as the Republican party best representing the ideals of the founding fathers, I’ll agree with you on two fronts. The first is that the founding fathers believed that only property owning white males had the right to vote. The Republican Party definitely has that one down. The second is that slaves only count as 3/5’s of a person. They’ve got that one down as well.
As far as Democrats having a socialist agenda…I’m afraid you’ve figured us out. We believe in major socialist institutions like the military, the police, the fire-department, the local elementary school, non-toll highways, public parks, museums, and public libraries. Whew, I almost broke into the Soviet Union national anthem while typing that.
Jason, from your email, I see you too, can be sarcastic but not in an angry manner. I appreciate that. Therefore if you feel a tinge of sarcasm in my reply to you, know that it’s a friendly jab to your liberal ribs. I hope I can do this while keeping my sense of humor in tact as well. Please note too that I said “liberal” ribs, because I believe there is a big difference between a leftist and a liberal. However the dividing line between the two is getting harder to distinguish every day.
The line isn’t hard to distinguish. It is only hard if the sources of information you rely on deliberately blur that line every day.
A leftist wants to “fundamentally transform The United States of America.” Where have I heard that quote from before?! A leftist is a Marxist, communist or socialist. You pick your poison. However, a liberal in my opinionthinks big government is the answer to most everything. They are more interested in group rights (special interests) rather than individual rights. Abortion is a prime example of this. The individual right to life of the baby is secondary to the group right of women to choose life over death. In my opinion that ungodly belief is “the ultimate evil and represents the very movement that is most destructive and offensive in the world.” When you or a political party such as the Dems get it wrong on this issue, then you’re on a fast slippery slope to get it wrong on a host of other issues.
I’m sure you’re referencing Obama’s speech 5 days before the election. If electing an African-American as president only 40 years after the civil rights movement didn’t signal a fundamental transformation of the United States, I’m not sure what would.
Let me tell you as a liberal that liberals don’t believe big government is the answer to everything. We didn’t believe that big government should start a war of choice with Iraq…and time has proven us correct. We don’t believe big government should give millions of dollars in subsidies to an oil industry making billions of dollars in profits. We simply believe that things like police, health-care and fire departments are better provided without being subject to a profit motive. We also believe that some regulation is necessary for capitalism to properly function.
I’ve already discussed that I believe the ultimate evil is raping a woman, forcing her to deliver the rapist’s baby and then having a militia slaughter the baby and the mother after birth. However, while we’re on the subject of abortion, let me ask you a question. Can you tell me which country has the lowest rate of abortions in the world? Give up? That would be the Netherlands…home of legal drugs, legal prostitution and extremely liberal abortion laws. Why is it so low in the Netherlands? Because they have integrated sex and contraception training into almost every level of their education system. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...
The whole of Africa, where abortion is almost universally banned, has a much higher abortion rate than the Netherlands. That’s because women without education and without access to contraception will likely become pregnant and pregnant women who don’t want a child will often turn to abortion, whether legal or not. In summary, sex education and access to contraception will greatly reduce the number of abortions. Democrats believe strongly in sex education for all children and believe in providing access to contraception when needed and Republicans believe the opposite. Now, which party wants to reduce the number of abortions?
Your party is anti-contraception and anti-education, thereby increasing the number of unintended pregnancies. Your party then wants to force women with an unintended pregnancy to have the baby. They then don’t want to provide a single penny to provide health-care, education or child-care for that baby…they want to leave all of that to the mother who didn’t want a baby (most likely because she couldn’t afford health-care, education, or child-care). If the baby suffers after birth, that’s the mother’s fault and the Republican party could care less. Republicans can call themselves pro-life but they are really just pro-birth.
One of those many issues is Obamacare and believing socialized health care is going to help that small child with leukemia any better. With Obamacare rationing is coming and that small child may not ever receive cancer treatment because it's just not cost effective. You want to trust the government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare? I'm not even getting into government meddling in home mortgages, finance, banking, etc. Do you want a European or Cuban socialist model that have been dismal failures vs. a free market solution? Our health care system needs tort reform that is continually opposed by trial lawyers and The Democratic Party. There is abuse of the system by illegal immigrants that have driven the cost of health care through the roof. The leftists and your party want to fulfill an unholy vision of an ordered society because liberty and freedom make them uncomfortable. We don't live in a perfect world and you are never going to create this utopia where no one gets sick.
First off, you ended with a great strawman argument…liberals want to create a utopia where no one gets sick. Point me to the story where any Democratic leader has argued for that. We don’t want a utopia, we just want a country where people don’t have to do the following to get care for their child:
http://www.giveforward.com/...
http://www.sparrowclubs.org/...
http://donatelife4jackie.org/
Yes, I believe that any of those kids, whose parents can’t afford private insurance, would get better health care with Obamacare than they would otherwise get. A person with no insurance has 100% rationing. Between the military, and those 65 and older, roughly 30% of the United States already has socialized health-care. I don’t see many people in those two groups pounding on the door to buy an individual Blue-Cross Blue-Shield plan.
Show me what your proof is that European or Cuban health-care models have been a dismal failure…and no, a statement where Rush, or Glen, or Sher say it has been isn’t proof. Here is the list of life-expectancy by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/... Almost every Western European country is ahead of the United States and Cuba is tied with us even though their standard of living is much lower.
Bottom line is that I’d love a European system because health-care should be universal, like fire-protection. To generate ever higher profits, private insurance has a vested interest in denying claims, dropping coverage, and rationing my care because that helps them make more money. If I don’t like it, I have to find a different company to work for because my employer provides one option. Even then, I won’t get coverage at the new employer because the insurance company wouldn’t want to take on my pre-existing condition at the expense of their shareholders.
Tort reform?!?!?! Fox can literaly throw anything out there and it will be swallowed hook line and sinker. You do realize that 30+ states have already implemented limits on tort awards, with Texas being one of them? Yet, insurance is no cheaper in Texas, there are more uninsured in Texas than any other state and my premiums keep going up at 10+% a year. I’m also sure that the unemployed person with cancer doesn’t have insurance because Jose the gardner went to the emergency room.
Big government is not the God I worship though for many it is. Obama is no Messiah. Only Jesus Christ alone can lay claim to that name. Our health care needs reform but the answer is in free market solutions. You did know that socialized health care in one of the main planks of The Communist Party platform?
Government isn’t a god…nor is it evil. Properly executed, it’s a body that provides needed services and protection to its people. If the free market is the answer to health-care, and the free market is what we’ve done on health-care for 235 years, why isn’t it working?
Wow, socialized health care is one of the main planks of an obscure political party? Well that almost changed my mind. What if I told you that socialized health care was actually implemented in every single other democratic, industrialized nation on Earth? Not just a handful…every single one. Not just the countries with left or center-left governments…every single one. The conservative prime-ministers in Canada and England had to calm their citizens by promising that they would not be moving to a U.S. based system.
Individual rights are key to our founding father’s first principles that are a gift from God, not the state. Principium Imprimis. Who has lost touch with the ideals that this country was founded on?! Just to remind you Jason those ideals are traditional families and values that are the foundation of our culture. You and Ginger believe in that from what I observe. Also “ individual” rights and responsibilities, free enterprise, limited government, religious liberty, constitutional authority over every branch of government, the rule of law, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Our founders established a democratic republic, not a democracy to ensure these founding principles or ideals.
The idea of traditional and values has constantly changed over time and that will never stop. In 1776, African-Americans were considered property and women couldn’t vote or own property. In 1960, our traditional vaules said that blacks couldn’t marry whites, they couldn’t sit at the same lunch counter with whites and that blacks needed to sit at the back of a bus. In 1980, a gay man or woman couldn’t defend our country in the military. In all of these instances, it was liberals who pushed the government to respect “individual” rights.
As a staunch defender of “individual” rights, I assume that you’re ok with gay marriage. Or, is that a case where it’s ok if big government restricts ‘individual’ freedom?
Jason, please don't be concerned about me. I am neither a truther nor a birther. We’re not going to move toMontana and join some militia group. I am a charter member of The Right Wing Conspiracy though. We meet at Starbucks every first and third Tuesday of each month. Saturday mornings we hang out at the gun range. Yesiree, I am also one of those Bible and gun clingers Barry speaks of though. I don’t see myself as bitter though. You’re right though, I do listen to Rush, Glen and even watch The Daily Show as long as the kids are not in the same room. Hey, did you
notice Johnny boy is still supporting the Wall Street useful idiots even after he said no one would continue to support them if violence erupted? It kind of reminds you of all those riots and arrests that happened at all the TEA party gatherings, right?!
I’ve seen the Daily Show do several segments on how the well spoken members of OWS are drowned out by the loons that are just there to have a good time or make trouble. I’d imagine he’s still supporting the vast majority of OWS protestors who are peaceful as it would be unfair to taint an entire movement by the actions of a few clowns. If an entire movement is defined by the craziest amongst them , then every tea-party supporter must be a nasty, disgusting racist. http://motherjones.com/... It kind of reminds you of all those disgustingly racist signs you’ve seen at OWS rallies, right?!
You can say all you want about the far left 99% lugnuts not being part of the mainstream of your party. You and I both can laugh at them. I see it totally different. They are the Democratic Party’s offspring. It’s the self esteem movement and entitlement programs coming home to roost. Also look at your leaders! They are almost all leftists. Senator Zell Miller was the last of the conservative blue dog Democrats. Is there such a thing as a conservative Democrat anymore? I don’t think for a second that you want to eliminate capitalism, corporations or the ideal of the American dream but your leaders do! There may be some rank and file members like yourself
possibly that don't, but the DNC has been taken over by the radical left. Again, to me that is blatantly obvious. Another no-brainer.
I didn’t say that the majority of OWS supporters aren’t part of the Democratic party mainsteam. For the most part, they are. They simply want a system that prevents too-large-too-fail banks from making risky bets that they have no ability to cover and they want to end tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations. It really disturbs me when I hear conservatives complaining that poor people don’t pay any federal income taxes but they have not a word of complaint when General Electric makes billions of dollars a year in profit and pays nothing in federal income taxes.
If you honestly believe the canard that Bill Clinton is responsible for the housing crisis because he forced the banks to write loans for poor people, I’ve got a bridge mortgage for you. Washington Mutual, CountryWide and Indy Mac were the three main banks responsible for the housing bubble and they weren’t covered by that law. Those banks kept writing crappy mortgages because housing prices were going up, up, up and they were making tons of money on high risk lenders. They were then quickly packaging those high risk mortgages up to sell to investment banks like Lehman Brothers, who weren’t doing due-dilligence on what they were buying because they were making so much money. The investment banks bought investment insurance from places like AIG who didn’t do any due-dilligence because they were making so much money. You had national banks, investment banks and insurance companies that could have all prevented this bubble but they didn’t do it because they were making so much money and the government, Democrats and Republicans, didn’t prevent them from doing it.
Supporters of OWS want a system where banks are prevented from being too-large-too-fail. They want non-investment banks to be just that. Back in the golden-era of the ‘50s, banks would provide deposited money to small-businesses in the forms of loans. They don’t do that today because there isn’t enough profit in it…particularly when they have no down side on insane investment bets. That’s why a recent poll of small-business owners showed that 50% of them support OWS. http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/...
I can rattle off plently of conservative Democrats…Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Heath Shuler, just to name a few. Other than Mitt Romney, name me one liberal Republican who’s been elected to office in the last 8 years. Ronald Reagan was far to the left of any Republican currently holding a seat in Congress.
Finally, show me the statement of one Democratic leader or the DNC saying they want to eliminate capitalism or corporations. Just one.
I don’t understand how anyone who considers themselves a capitalist can be part of the Democratic Party. I know that’s rather blunt but I’m just being honest. I would agree with you that these 99 per centers deserve derision and laughter. They represent the roughly 20% of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsidies and pay no income tax. This 20% has no vested interest in the cost of government and don’t care. This entitled
20% combined with the 10% of collectivist labor union workers and 5% malcontents and you have formed President Obama’s socialist constituency of ‘useful idiots” to use Lenin’s phrase. What these people really want in “redistributive justice” as Barry calls it and that would require the redistribution of income from the other 65% of American families who live on hard earned income, so that everyone can be equally impoverished. You and I are part of that 65%. That is NOT a picture of the American dream.
I respect your opinion but that opinion makes me believe you’ve been asleep for the last 50 years. From 1960 to 2000, Democrats held the White House for 20 years and Republicans held it for 20 years. GDP grew by 4.1% per year during Democratic administrations and 2.9% per year during Republican administrations. http://currencythoughts.com/... George W. averaged less than 2.3%. The stock market has been reflective of this as well…up wildly during Democratic administrations and down during Republican administrations. We Democrats believe that capitalism works best when more people are making money. Republicans believe capitalism works best when the 1% trickle money down to the rest of us. Actual numbers and history bear out the Democrat’s argument. But, as you know, facts have a well known liberal bias.
So I will “just work and support my family”, listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck , Ann Coulter, etc. and speak out against the leftist ideology that the President, Pelosi, Reed and others believe in. By the way, these commentators just confirm and restate what I was taught growing up. I was blessed and fortunate to sit at the feet of Allie Bates, a Goldwater/Reagan girl to the core. My Christian conservative foundation was set long before I even heard of Rush Limbaugh. I want better for my children and my country and I know you and Ginger do too. There comes a time when you have to follow the money and realize our country is on a downward spiral to economic ruin.
I’m glad the commentators you listen to confirm and restate what you were taught growing up. I was taught many of the same things you were by my very Republican father. However, as I got older, I went in search of other opinions and did my own research on things. I ended up agreeing with him on some things and very much disagreeing with him on others. If I believed everything I learned as a child in the Midland school system, I’d still believe that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
I have no ill will toward you, G or anyone else who I disagree with. I don’t get hyper-sensitive when someone may believe, say and write something that I don’t agree and let it offend me. However, for you tell me that I should leave the politics to the adults so to speak and “just-work-and-support-your-family?!" "Really?!" You never struck me as a patronizing and arrogant person. Maybe I was wrong about you. Talk about taking things to a whole new level In political discussions.
I believe we have here a classic case of pot needing an introduction to kettle. You sent an e-mail that is extremely insulting to liberals, Democrats and supporters of Barack Obama to a person who, through previous e-mails and Facebook entries, you know to be all of those things. The most infuriating part of the e-mail is where the author describes the left (that would be all three of the things mentioned above) as supporting riots, murders, uprisings and other chaos and mayhem reaped upon the “we-just-want-to-work-and-support-our-families” majority. As in, conservatives just want to work and leave everyone alone and The Left don’t work, don’t support their families and are actively trying to destroy America. In your mind, are we supposed to read this and take it as friendly politicial dialogue? If I, completely unsolicited, sent you an e-mail with an article saying the entire tea-party movement was racist and that the movement was designed as the natural follow-up to the Third Reich, would you not take offense?
So, I read this unsolicited, offensive e-mail and when I return a few of the words back, I’m patronizing and arrogant? The irony is that G and I were just working, supporting our family. We weren’t pushing our political views on anyone else, particularly on someone we knew to disagree with us. If I was patronizing and arrogant, it was only in response to an action that was highly patronizing and arrogant.
You mentioned the other family member who took exception to your e-mails and called your movement the world’s greatest evil. While I disagree with that assessment, be aware that if you send out unsolicited e-mails that describe a person’s political philosophy as devoid of logic and as eager to destroy America, you should expect that person to return fire. Don’t be the kid that calls everyone names but runs screaming to mommy when someone else calls them a name.
Listen, as I said above, I love debating politics and I’d be happy to continue debating them with you. We’re not likely to change each other’s mind but again, I don’t just seek out opinions that validate my childhood learning.
I welcome the debate on any issue and I appreciate your email. However, I am puzzled why you completely skipped over the radical influence of Marxists like Saul Alinsky and George Soros has had upon your Democratic Party. (That is actually what peaked my interest when I found this article in the first place.) With all this evidence I find it very bizarre when others who advocate capitalism, but in the next breath naively locks arms with such ungodly and evil people. It is those former persons who I am truly concerned about, but I still love them.
I skipped it because it’s a figment of Fox New’s imagination. Saul Alinsky helped organize the poor and minorities to gain some measure of leverage against the rich. I hate to break it to you but Democrats were doing those things long before Saul Alinsky came along (take a look at the front of a dime).
George Soros is anti-capitalism? You’re talking about the guy that made billions by running an investment fund? He’s anti-capitalism? The same guy that helped his native Hungary transition from communism to capitalism…he’s anti-capitalism? He’s anti-George W. Bush, but that’s not the same as being anti-capitalism.
I’ve said this to many a Republican but I’ll say it again….just because Glen Beck cries about it, doesn’t mean it’s true.
Y’all take care.
God bless,
George
P.S. Again, I welcome discussing things with you, G or anyone else. However, in the future I will not be sending anymore political emails your way. I honestly don't believe you want to hear another's dissenting political
opinion. I will respect your opinion but I could care less if we agree with one another. It's great if we do but I won't
lose any sleep over it. Many times I am looking for clarity and not necessarily agreement. I am confident and content in my own beliefs. God bless you and your family Jason. Tell all the Miller clan I said hello. Veritas Vos Liberati!
I welcome discussing things with you and I welcome dissenting opinion, particularly if it comes bearing facts. At work, I have to deal with dissenting opinion all the time and I’ve been known to be swayed by things that prove an answer different than my own. If that “proof” comes from someone who can’t read a birth certificate, I hope you’ll understand if I view it with skepticism.
Best wishes to you and the family.
Jason
So what did I get in response to all of these facts, links and questions? An e-mail from teabagger George saying that it was all really a joke and that this was the first time he had read an article from Sher Zieve. He also said that he was going to stop sending political e-mails and stop making political posts on Facebook. Victory!!! One less teabagger spewing his ridiculous thoughts!