Bill O’Reilly: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: “Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces.”
So in Dowd’s estimation, Ryan is in politics to harm the folks. He gets up every day and plots the personal damage he might be able to achieve.
This is now where we are in American politics. If Ryan’s reform vision will harm Americans, let’s hear some specifics. So far, under Obama, we have a sluggish economy, high employment and record debt. Sounds harmful to me.
But then again, I’m an extremist. (human Events)
If a person is to believe his media, he would have to accept that bringing discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, as Ryan has suggested, is like letting a Koch-funded plutocrat in war paint shred the social contract and throw it into a Klan-lit bonfire. Nearly every outlet, every interviewer, every reference about Ryan’s plan is imbued with a tone that asks, “Isn’t this nuts?”
But adding $11 trillion to the national debt, as Obama’s proposed budget does, well, that passes the levelheaded policy test. One day, perhaps when fact checkers take a break from crunching every uncompromising decimal point in Ryan’s budget proposal, they can explain how Obama’s plan is supposed to work and how spending without end ends — you know, for the kids.
If, that is, they survive. Medicare, as you’ve also heard, will cease to exist in its present form once free market jihadists storm the White House, abolish the program and exact their revenge on the elderly. And no, forcing Americans to participate in an entitlement mere years from its collapse is not a radical proposition. Rather, offering Americans who are 55 or younger a menu of (slightly more) competitive market options to drive down prices — funded at approximately the same level Obama proposes — can be forever referred to as “controversial.”
And when the president carves out $700 billion from Medicare as seed money for a new trillion-dollar entitlement project, we are keeping with our nonradical traditions, even if we have to force everyone to participate. When Ryan proposes similar cuts to extend the life of Medicare, he is a granny-starving Pericles.
Put it this way: Ryan’s plan injects the same reactionary idea into Medicare that the average American struggles with every day as he heads out into the marketplace to buy food or furniture or a phone — which, according to many Democrats, is the kind of social Darwinism that no decent person should ever be subjected to.
Which reminds me: If you happen to be attracted to some of the broader ideas in an Ayn Rand book, you, my friend, are an extremist for life. If, on the other hand, your ideological education was provided by an all-star lineup of leftist thinkers, you’re good. Certainly, no one is going to demand that you accept or repudiate the teachings of Frank Marshall Davis or Karl Marx in toto.
This is the world we’re in. In Washington, extremists stand (somewhat) firm on the idea of preserving decade-long tax rates in a terrible economy, whereas reasonable presidents have no qualms heading toward a fiscal cliff, as long as they have a class-envy tax hike to campaign on (for what is, in the context of spending, a pittance).
As it turns out, radicals provide budgets that curb growth by a few percentage points over many years, whereas rational politicians don’t even bother passing budgets.
Then again, Ryan the Unreasonable supported TARP, auto bailouts and Medicare expansions, so we can agree that radicalism does exist. It just depends, I suppose, on how you look at things. (human Events)
They generally shriek about “new tone” and “civility,” while trying to paint the Right as dangerous extremists, consisting of “hate groups.” The tolerance tyrants preach anti-”hate,” while being full of hate themselves. The shooting that occurred at the Family Research Council yesterday is further exposing this. And the media should be ashamed.
After first trying to sweep the news under their lapdog rugs, they then moved onto trying to spin it all away. (Michelle Malkin)
From The Washington Post news item:
Family Research Council security guard shot
A security guard a was shot and wounded after a scuffle with a man who expressed disagreement with the group’s conservative views.
Huh. Kind of like how Politico called SWAT-ting, a potentially deadly form of political terrorism, “an elaborate practical joke.” It’s totally hilarious when conservatives are put in harm’s way. What’s a little scuffle? It was simply a disagreement and stuff!
One of the Commentors on the Washington Post site:
Even Nazis like the FRC hate group should not be shot or murdered.
but the FRC is not just about self-righteous we are right you are wrong speech a la radio talk hosts.
It’s about advocating death and violence against gays and fomenting hatred spewing lies about gays such as that they are child molesters.
When will we ever learn that this can only continue in the climate of hate created by the incendiary words of the Tea Party, regressive Right Radio and Fox News. First Gabby Gifford, then Aurora and now in DC, disturbed people have reacted to the words of fear and hate shouted by the reactionaries. The only way out is to go FORWARD!
Incidentally, I consider this man’s action foolish and counterproductive. As a convicted felon he may not be able to vote in November. He would have been more effective had he chosen to vote to keep Romney out of the office of president where, if he reaches, he will try to repeal Rowe vs, Wade and doom poor women to seek back street abortions or raise undernourished, underprivileged and undereducated children doomed to do menial jobs for his rich friends and cronies?
But What do I bnow, I’m just another “extremist” after all… 🙂
FEAR IS HOPE
NOVEMBER IS COMING