Well, Sarah, if you think Richard Armstrong did a bang up job, wait until you get a load of the bureaucrats that will surface under Obama's Universal Health Care.
We've seen a foreshadowing of such a problem with the Cash for Clunker's program. The administration was caught with its pants down and totally unprepared to handle the sales that would have been a piece of cake for a private enterprise. Then they drive the car dealers crazy by demanding dozens of forms being filled in and reject anything with a wrong "i dot."
A two page form should be plenty sufficient for a program like this, but then again a health care plan should not be 1100 pages either, should it?
Where's all this liberal tolerance that the liberal Left is supposed to have? Half the posts lately have been complaints about me. And it has gone further than that. Many of my posts have been flagged for no reason by people of extreme intolerance and one has been removed by the [Idaho] Statesman, evidently because of some direct complaint.
And what is the intolerant complaining about?
Is it because I call people names?
I never have called anyone a hypocrite, liar, idiot, moron, etc., as I have been called.
Is it because I use bad language?
No. My language is always "G" rated.
Is it because I have a different point of view than the majority here?
Because I have a different point of view that does not conform to the far Left I am called names, insulted, and wishes are expressed that I would just go away.
And if I did go away what then? Many days there would only be one narrow side presented to the discussion. We can't have that can we?
To bring a small amount of balance I therefore remain.
"Joe -- you think too much of yourself. Way too much! The comments regarding your post today circle around the fact that it has no bearing on the letters of the day. You should save your comments for the proper time."
You accuse unjustly. Sarah's post was about bureaucratic ineptness and that was the basis of my post.
Admit it. You are just intolerant of another point of view. If Fox News could be legally forced off the air I'll bet most Lefties here would acquiesce though I doubt any would admit it.
"Always a victim aren't you? What is with your persecution complex?
"Really? 'Unjust accusation'? That's a lot of drama! PMS?"
Always happy to attack rather than deal with anything of substance aren't you?
A mere stating of the truth does not a victim make. One has to feel like a victim to be a victim and I feel like I have the upper hand on you as well as much superior logic.
To call one a victim without cause is just a bully's method of escaping his own feeling of inferiority.
"You, however continually hijack the Forums, by failing to remain "on topic". I see that behavior as narcissistic, (one of the symptoms of Sociopathy)."
I would probably only make a post or two a day if I wasn't incessantly attacked by those insecure about an opposing point of view. I feel a sense of duty to defend my honor.
You might note your attack on me is not in harmony with any of the Statesman letters today, but my initial one concerning bureaucratic ineptness was right on target.
Reminds me of that old phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black."
"Upper hand? Superior? More drama! More defensiveness! More of your usual! Again, I laugh!"
Don't choke on your own euphoria.
"Joe -- sorry, but your detractors are right; you hijacked the Letters to the Editor into an anti-Democratic and anti-Obama administration claim, and failed badly."
You've got a lot of gall of accusing me of hijacking this forum when I am outnumbered at least five to one -- which is anti democratic if such is to be found. All I do is make a post each morning, as all are entitled to do, and then defend myself when I am attacked, called names and insulted. Without me here the majority point of view would not even be presented -- just a Leftist minority patting each other on the back.
"How you can criticize Richard Armstrong for anything, where the Republican...."
You need to criticize me for what I do say, not for what I do not say. Sarah was the one that criticized Armstrong and then I spoke of general bureaucratic ineptness that pervades all that government does. The problem here is that bureaucracy is a sacred cow revered by the Left and is not to be criticized.
"You hijacked a letter critical of state level government and did so with a political bent -- you made it R vs. D and I corrected you."
How in the world can you correct me on something I did not say or even think?
Both Republicans and Democrats support unnecessary and/or ineffective bureaucracies. I have said many times here I am not a Republican, but a Libertarian.
"Your errors in logic, rhetoric and forensics were in trying to extrapolate a Republican state government's failure onto a Democratic federal administration."
Another distortion. I was projecting Sarah's frustration onto the future bureaucracies regardless of party.
"You can't use an R state agency's failure to argue a D federal agency will similarly fail."
Again, you need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. A bureaucracy is a bureaucracy whether it is created by a Democrat or Republican and bureaucracies are predictable no matter who creates or supports them.
"Red," I cannot lose an argument that is made against that which I did not say. If you want to argue against me you ought to give an actual quote and comment. Then you would be arguing with what I do say.
Well, "Reality," I guess its up to us to provide some balance.
One thing that is irritating about these bellyachers today is they have the gall to complain about the rudeness of the Town Hallers. The disruption is overblown because the media searches for the negative on the Right and glosses over that of the Left.
Here are a few things the media has ignored:
Disrupting speech by Ann Coulter and throwing a pie at her:
Speech by David Horowitz silenced.
Horowitz needs as many as 12 armed guard to protect his life and limb when he gives a public address.
400 protesters had the nerve to go Justice Clarence Thomas' home and protest. Talk about terrorizing an innocent person's family.
The liberal "tolerant" Left also protests his speeches and tries to prevent him from speaking.
Then Leftists protesters went to Karl Rove's home and banged on his windows terrorizing his family.
The Left is again resorting to deceit and distortion in an attempt to discredit Sarah Palin. They are saying that her support of Alaska's "Healthcare Decisions Day" is the same thing as supporting a death panel making her a hypocrite.
Here's the real truth you will not hear on a Lefty blog.
Healthcare Decisions Day was merely an encouragement for people to make a living will. I personally am a big supporter of living wills, but that does not make me a hypocrite.
Her "Death Panel" was an entirely different thing. She says that under Obamacare there will just not be enough money to provide life saving help for all so Death Panels will have to decide who is worthy of the government's money and who is not.
This is totally different than a living will where our own money and resources are involved. It would do no good to make a living will under Obamacare because if your will says you want to live and there are no funds, then a death panel will have to deny treatment.
"Sarah Palin is not known for speaking the truth."
Only by the wild imaginations of the Left who think anything they do not like is not true.
"She discredits herself when one day she invents death panels and the next she backs off."
Can you give me the actual quote on this or are you just repeating lies from Lefty blogs?
"I say: Sarah is her own worst enemy. Darn tootin' wink wink dontcha know. She inflates rumors, ignores facts and preaches intolerance, except in the case of her own misdeeds."
Copy and pasting from Lefty blogs does not a truth make. Prove it.
"She's very adept at discrediting herself in the same speech. During her farewell speech she told the crowd to be wary of government handouts, when a few minutes earlier she was touting that the Alaskan government gave back to the citizens via an energy rebate."
The rebate given to the people does not come from taxing the people but payment from the oil companies to the State for using the oil rights. Because of this windfall Alaskans pay no sales or state income taxes.
She is to be credited with giving the surplus oil payments to the people rather than spending it on big government as many others would. This is a different animal than taxing the people to redistribute wealth.
Since the State does have a surplus I think they should reduce the fees and taxes to the oil companies so Big Oil can have more money to invest, but that's just me. Sarah isn't as kind to Big Oil as I am.
"Sure it bothers me, but I was just trying to make a point about Palin's hypocrisy, since that was the topic, as opposed to any other politician's hypocrisy. With respect to Obama, I didn't vote for him or McCain, though I like aspects of both candidates."
It was Ted Stevens that signed off on the earmarks, not Palin. If Palin actually had the power to introduce earmarks then I would hold her much more responsible. I hold Stevens about 99% responsible for any earmarks he introduced because he had the power to say yes or no and Palin did not.
As a mayor it is natural to think: "If the government is going to waste a bunch of money then I might as well take what I can get."
If the government sent me a million dollars it would be stupid and wasteful, but I would take it. Who wouldn't? At least I would make good use of it.
-- End Of Part One --
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog which can be read online at Idaho Statesman Letters To The Editor. These exchanges were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey to The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
Next article in series: Local Posts #36, Part Two
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved