The Brutality of Reason Example

By Ironcross One-One

Slicing and dicing things into pieces small enough
to be fed to Liberals, Kooks and Anti-Americans.
When feeding Kooks and Anti-Americans
I suggest a potato gun.

If you are the emotional liberal type, this mindspace will make you uncomfortable. If you think my logic or facts are faulty, lets discuss it. When your findings disagree with my findings, that is dialogue. But using rhetoric to disagree with science is demogoguery. No demogoguery! I usually refrain from insults, but occasionally, ignorance and liberal hypocrisy bring out the worst in me.

Location: Edge of Nowhere, Washington, United States

Military Jumper, Diver, Motorcycle Rider, Air Traffic Control and Demolitions Man. I build furniture and cabinets and can frame, roof, wire, plumb and finish a house. Can weld steel, drive heavy equipment, build pole barns and mortared rock walls. Have written one bad novel and one brilliant thesis. And I play the guitar.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Poverty of Character and Intellect

On television last weekend with Chris Wallace, Teddy Kennedy, (brother of Catholic Saints John and Bobby of Hyannisport) made the following statement:
KENNEDY: Your figures are absolutely wrong as we've had increase now in the last five years of the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of America increased by 1,700,000. We have 36 million Americans that are going to bed hungry every night. Thirty-six million Americans and 12 million of those are children! We've had the total number of people that have fallen back into poverty during this Bush administration. We have five million more people that are dropped back into poverty.
If I were a highly paid media guy, here's the questions I would have asked:
ME: You are saying that 12% of the country is going to bed hungry at night. How can that be possible after transferring almost 10 trillion dollars from the pockets of hard-working productive Americans to the non-productive poor over the past 40 years?

ME: I understand that the way poverty is defined is different than it was in 1965. Why is the definition of poverty different now than it was 40 years ago?

ME: If we used the 1965 standard, how many people are still in poverty?

ME: Shouldn't the government definition of poverty be static? For example, if poverty is defined as the least affluent 10%, there will always be 10% in poverty. Isn't that what we're doing when the poverty level is indexed every year?

ME: You've been in the Senate nearly all of those 40 years. Are you saying that you are a failure and need to be replaced?

ME: If we've made no progress in the war on poverty in 40 years, that sounds like a quagmire. But it sounds like you're still insisting that wealth transfers are the answer. How come "staying the course" in Iraq for three years is stubborn and inflexible, but staying the course for forty years in the war on poverty is wise and cogent? It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

ME: You are saying the number of poor is growing. How much of that is because of the change in the measuring standard?

ME: How much did poverty drop from 1989 to 1991 while the Democrats had control of the elected branches?

ME: Critics say that the homeless and the hungry are in those circumstances because of life choices but there are still programs in place to help them. Can you produce a hundred people that have gone to bed hungry that have applied for public assistance, have applied for private charity, and have responsibly used the assets that were made available?

Teddy doesn't believe this tripe. It is just his strategy for consolidating the power of the government. He wants people to be in poverty so they are dependent on government. He wants you to think poverty is a massive problem. He wants you to believe the government is the solution. He wants a world government. He resents the creative and productive masses that don't want or need his help. His power is distilled from your tax money and he wants more of both. Teddy is a liar. I don't have an fancy college degree but I'll debate him on this subject on national TV anytime and anywhere and I'll kick his ass from one end of the venue to the other.

You'll never see him debate this anywhere unless the environment is controlled in his favor. He is suffers from a poverty of character that cannot be rectified without a backbone transplant and a self-inflicted poverty of intellect that came with liberal overdoses of alcohol and liberal overdoses of liberalism. I'm afraid there's no prescription for curing that. Call Michael J. Fox and see if embryonic stem cell therapy might help.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright © 2005 Michael A. Breeden