MARK'S WORLD
I'll be blogging about my life, my opinions and the world as I see it.

A blog about News and Politics.
About motopoet


Gender:
male
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 20, 2008
Profile Views:
8063
Blog Views:
30599
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
It's MY turn!
Oh, Marie
Poor Rob's Almanac
You can't open a door that is already open
Will the REAL will please stand?
Reality check
Life is for the living
I'll relent..Just a little
It could be worse!
Forward or Back? It's up to us!
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


motopoet - > MARK'S WORLD -> Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

If I had one question I could ask every liberal I met, it would be "Don't you ever get tired of being mad"? It seems like I never hear anything but pessimism from them, even when they talk about their own side. When thing's don't go as I voted or feel, I don't claim disenfranchisement or cry foul. I don't cry at all, I just move on to whatever is next that will help my agenda next time I vote. Liberals are STILL grousing about the 2000 election! Get over it already! Even if the election was questionable, what good is it going to do to keep shouting your objections right now? The '08' election is just around the corner and you will have the chance to put your best foot forward again and I suggest you spend that time coming up with a better plan than complaining and fingerpointing. It didn't do you any good in '04' and it won't do you any good in '08'.

When Clinton was elected in '92' I was very disappointed because I knew what kind of man he really was, but I didn't get mad and I certainly didn't hold on to anger and feed off of it for eight years. I wrote conservative representatives, the RNC. I gave money. I did what I thought was my part to get Republicans back in office. Not just any Republican, but one who was ready to lead America in the direction I felt was the right one. Of course, you disagree with what I think is the right direction, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that I didn't mope in the meantime. I took action to see to it that my views were represented as best as they could be. You should be doing the same, but already you are infighting in congress and the candidacy. I was proven right as to what kind of man Clinton was, but I still never hated him for what I considered to be very poor leadership. I just helped my party vote defeat his progeny and I didn't do it by complaining. We had our chance in 2000 just as you will in 2008. I wonder if one of the things that keeps liberals so angry is the fact that they know they have no honestly electable candidates and no real solutions to the problems they are so quick to point out at every opportunity. To listen to the liberals, you'd think nothing was wrong in America or the world until February 20, 2001.

I don't believe the left has the stomach to lead America into, and through what is to come. They accuse the right of keeping their heads buried in the sand, of blind allegiance even as they live in denial of the threat of terrorism here at home. The terrorists aren't going to go away if a democrat wins, or even if we pull out of Iraq. Contrary to what they would have the public believe, Bush didn't piss the madmen off, America did, and THAT is who they are fighting, not the right or the left. It's not about politics or personal vendettas to them, it's about religion and culture. They would have attacked us in 2001 no matter who won. They planned the attack for five years and weren't about to say "OH! Gore won! Let's all go home"! They hate us for what we represent, not for who represents us and that will carry on against whoever is in office.

 

So, I would say that if the liberals insist on being pissed and bitter all the time, they should aim their venom at the REAL enemy and not a man who, no matter what happens, will be gone in 2008.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Politics, liberals, conservatives, Terrorism
posted by motopoet on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 258 times
33 comments from 9 users

1

posted by motopoet on Feb 11, 2007 at 08:35 PM

see..i told you guys Id post something to piss at least half of you off! You are SO easy!

As far as people who say they hate Dubya..Anyone who says they hate anyone they don't know or who has done nothing to them parsonally needs to go back to High School where such talk is commonplace. It's attitudes like that which cause the terrorists to have no doubt that they will win this war(not the one in Iraq, but the one that the left want's everyone to forget about).

Nothing is going to change my mind on the causes of, or solutions to, Global Warming.

Audrey..I don't. I made a post awhile back stating that. I don't hear anyone making the same case for conservatives. I am certainly not of the same mindset as extreme right wing guys like Michael Savage. I am more a Glenn Beck type of guy, but I get no recognition for that, I am simply lumped into the what the left so easily calls "Kool aid" drinkers. I know I'm not, so I don't take offense at the characterazation. The "Kool aid" statement is the lefts way of saying none of us are original thinkers, but I haven't seen anyone from the left side of this board say anything in defense of those who are thinkers. When I read the post of Dusty's about "You might be a conservative"..it lumps us all together and everybody thought that was funny. You may have seen the humor in it, but I'll bet most liberals didn't, even though I was referred to as a hypocrite by you. Oh, maybe not by name, but by association. You can't say it was referring only to "right wingers" because all conservatives are right wing. Some of us just aren't as far out there as others, just like your side of the aisle. There was no differentiation in the post between me and the abortion clinic bombers, which I certainly do NOT support. When I make a comment about the left, it is, as with all groups I refer to, a generalization. If it doesn't describe you, fine, but if the show fits...I am pissed. I haven't had a chance to play poker for two weeks, I haven't been on a decent ride since late October and I am not sleeping well because my shoulder hurts!

adam..You don't just voice your opinions..You try and shove them down our throats then when we try and calmy say we disagree, you tell us we ar "intolerant". Well, I don't have to be tolerant. It's my right to see things the way I like, to support what I agree with and disagree with what I like, no matter who's feelings get hurt. I don't shout it from the rooftops, I don't call you names if you disagree with me and I don't casually toss words like "hate" and "stupid" around. I hate(D'OH!) to beat a dead horse here, but again with the generalizations(see what I mean, Audrey?). I have never said I thought Clinton was a terrible president( I HAVE said it about Carter)but he was a man without integrity. I always contended he wasn't a very productive president. He slashed the military by nearly half, raised taxes to their highest levels in decades and rode the "dotcom" boom into a prosperous economy. That economy, like it or not, is still strong and it is due to tax cuts this time. You and I are never going to see eye to eye and that's OK with me. It's like I said in my post. I don't dislike liberals. I just disagree with liberalism and I don't believe I should be called names for it, generally OR specifically.

posted by NancyII on Feb 10, 2007 at 10:57 PM
And it has nothing to do with us being "Infidels?"  And that they perceive it to be their duty to rid the world of infidels?
posted by antiextremism on Feb 10, 2007 at 01:15 PM

Bakodon, let me make an attempt to explain why they hate us. Now please my conservative friends, I'm trying to explain why they hate us, not that they should hate us, or that what the terrorists are doing is by any means noble.

The first reason why they hate us is that we represent the figurehead for the west. They started hating the west during the Crusades when Euros came to their land. Then they hated the west when European colonialism hit it's stride. Iraq is a country because Britain drew lines in the sand saying "these are now your borders". Then they hated us because we gave the Jewish people control over what is now called Israel. They continue to hate us because we continue to be on the side of the Israelis.

Bin Laden started attacking American interests because we occupy Saudi Arabia, even though the Royalty there is okay with it as long as they can keep importing American western hookers while pretending to follow their religion. Thus Bin Laden hates them too, because they have defiled the land that is most sacred to their religion. Of course, Bin Laden gave the 911 terrorists a free pass from Islamic law when they went to the strip club on Sept. 10th. Hypocrisy rules there as much as here. Arab perception is that all we care about is the oil. Sectarian and tribal strife has been their way of life for millenia, it's how they roll. Unfortuantely, instead of looking to countries like Kuwait as a model, they think of Kuwatis as treasonous lap dogs of the west.

That is why it is paramount and to the interest of the American people to come up with alternative energy sources. Then they can keep their oil fields and continue their ways, but with much less money to hurt us. This will probably not occur until the oil companies themselves can profit from it, and the middle eastern violence will continue regardless of what we do.

posted by adampayne on Feb 10, 2007 at 07:08 AM
Motopoet, sorry many of us just don't subscribe to your "Panglossian" view of the world. Many of us on the left are tired of hearing what a terrible person Bill Clinton is/was/will be. We, on the left, recognize that his victory was a fluke of timing, and had Ross Perot not been on the ballot Bill Clinton would never have been elected. The country was pretty polarized in the early 1990s and the trickle down economic plan was failing. The economy was in the tank. Why do you think Perot ran and garnered so much support?

 Apply all the revisionist stuff you want on the 1990s but the fact was that our President actually got a lot of positive things done for our economy that helped lift the living standards of  most people.  We are not so much angry as dismayed over the  prevailing trends  of huge health care increases,  energy  price increases and huge salaries and stock options for a handful of chosen ones at the expense of the common laborer.

We argue our points of view to try and effect some change of attitude among our citizenry to promote the general welfare, as opposed to the general warfare now being waged on the average family by giant industrial robber barons. What is so depressing is that many churches and congregations have subscribed to this current pyramid scheme of profit at the expense of their flock by selling salvation with their demand for donation. We are continually alarmed at the Falwells,  Dobsons, Robertsons and Crouches comments and hypocrisy of lifestyles while preaching their peculiar faith-brand of capitalism.

If you are tired of our point of view and find our voices rising higher to try and quell the attacks on the disenfranchised and enslaved maybe you might want to re-examine some of your positions. Take a drive through the vast areas of blight that make up so much of the American landscape and snap some photographs of our new growth settlements, the shining gorged prison communities, to see our current trend line of prosperity.  Yes, Wall Street has done just fine.  The Energy  giants are doing just fine. Budweiser and Miller are doing just fine.  But all those laid off employees from Ford, GM, HP, Intel, Airline Companies,  and every other downsized cut-out industry  in this country  are not faring as well. You can choose to ignore the facts that the greatest concentration of wealth is in the fewest hands today than ever before, and that wages have declined for two straight years and that the nation is in negative savings while spouting that the economy is great. When foreclosures really begin to happen over this year you can extol the virtues of home ownership with your intellectual buddy George Bush and thank him for keeping every body in their proper place, away from the table.
posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 08:06 PM
There are some good medications out there for arthritic joints Audrey..your doc doesn't prescribe you any of them?
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 08:04 PM
Aleve is good.  Sometimes it's the only thing that works.
posted by tonyh on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:59 PM

Try "Aleve"

It works for my hands.

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:52 PM
Audrey..a knee..sorry..its part of the body that we use constantly.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:48 PM

My knee is so swollen that every step is an agony.  My doctor told me to stay off of it, but that's impossible.  I treat it with anti inflamatories and ice packs.    When I do go shopping for any length of time, I'm up all night with the pain. 

 

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:47 PM
They are so smart even at that age..they sense things I swear.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:46 PM

Dusty

How true. Grandma was starting to show her "mean face"  when he did an about turn.

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:45 PM
But I heard walking IS good for arthritis..even my doc says walking is good for me..and I ask how am I supposed to do it in pain..but you know what? after I warm up..I can feel the pain lessening..so its true! The physical therapist puts me on a walking machine..what are they called? god I feel stupid I can not remember the name for them.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:44 PM

Dusty

Since my arthritis flared up I can't take my daily walk.  It shows.

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Aw..just when you want to lock him in a closet..he comes over for love..they sense your done with them I think and they suck up :P
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:41 PM
My grandson's in his terrible twos. (with a vengence).   I spent yesterday with him.   He kicked me, hit me, threw dirt clods at me, tried to slam the door in my face, spashed me with water and so on.  Then this morning whien I thought I couldn't take any more he climbed up on my lap to snuggle.  AHHHHHH 
posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:37 PM
LMAO..oh hush..you don't look big in your current pic Audrey.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:36 PM
ARE YOU CRAZY!     If I did that the photographer would have to use the landscape setting to get all of me in the picture.
posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:34 PM
Audrey might I suggest that you look up towards a camera..and stand sideways..it thins us old folks out a bit.
posted by NancyII on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:34 PM

Heh Audrey..I didn't mean the facial expression in your picture.  I meant the lack of one on the written page.  I think that picture is great.  How old is the boy now?  It's a small picture but from what I can see you look like you did when we met...how long ago was that? 

 

Mark..sorry for hi jacking your blog.

posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:29 PM

Nancy

I want to change my picture to a more recent one, but no matter how I focus the camera I still look fat.  I guess I can pose with my grandson in front of me again.  He's a HUGE 2 1/2 year old.  

posted by NancyII on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:19 PM

Audrey..it's that lack of facial expression..and the fact that sometimes I'm just dense.  LOL.

You're a sharp cookie my friend.

posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:16 PM

Hi Nancy

I'm losing my irony touch I guess.  Cassandra's doing a good job.  She'll be awesome when she gets a few more blogging hours under her belt.

posted by NancyII on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:12 PM
Audrey..I didn't catch the irony til you mentioned it.   Then it was pretty funny.   :-)
posted by NancyII on Feb 9, 2007 at 07:10 PM

Unfortunately we all tend to generalize even when we don't mean to.    We also tend to lump people into one category because of most of their beliefs when the truth is we proabably all have some leanings the opposite way.  We all seem need to put people in a pigeonhole for some reason.  Maybe just so we can try to understand them.  Who knows?   I like what Tom always says.  We agree on so many issues but the ones we disagree on get the most responses.

 As for the anger part...when people type words on a page and their style is strident it doesn't necessarily mean anger..it usually means strong feelings.  We can't see facial expressions or hear inflections so a lot of times it comes across in a way we didn't plan.  I've been accused of posting in anger when I was sitting here calm as a cucumber.  And it's odd that if it's in agreement with someone it gets an "atta boy" or "yeah man" but when it's in disagreement with some beliefs it's called anger.

I honestly hope we can all meet for the blog get together one day so you folks will see what I mean.  Maybe it will happen at the reception for Ryan...that would be cool.

posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:52 PM

Cassandra

I was making the point that Mark's entire blog  (about liberals being angry)  sounded angry.  I was going for irony but I guess I missed my target.  However, I still stand by my main point that  until Mark meets every liberal in America he can hardly say that liberals (the implication being ALL liberals) are angry.

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:51 PM
I think you make a good point Audrey..Generalizations are never a good thing when speaking about a specific group of people.
posted by CassandraMcGowan on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:45 PM

touchy touchy, i never said anything about liberals being angry.  everyone is entitled to their opinion, don't take everything so personally jeez.  and he didn't say EVERY liberal, he said every liberal he's met.  BIG difference.  :-)

posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:40 PM

Oh! I get it now.

When you do it it's outspokeness, when a liberal does it, it's anger.

posted by CassandraMcGowan on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:20 PM
when i turned 18 i registered as a republican, but now i am registered as a non partisan because i don't feel strongly about either side and yeah it irritates me that people think the terrorists only struck because of Bush.  The terrorists struck because America got too comfortable in thinking it wasn't going to happen.  Bush may not have been the best president but he definately has some balls and for the way everything is going, it could have happened with any president, liberal, conservative or independent.  i think the reason we went to war was good, i think if we pulled troops out now it would just be silly...  it would make us look weak and like we were surrendering.  my fiancee was badly injured in iraq so you'd think i'd be the first to say PULL THE TROOPS, but in all reality, i think that would make the situation worse.  and by the way, my fiancee says, if given the chance, he would go back in a heartbeat.  oh yes and audrey, don't mistake the McGowan outspokeness for anger.....  we're just opinionated people.
posted by AudreyB on Feb 9, 2007 at 06:16 PM

Mark

Why do you assume all liberals are alike?    Do you think you're like all other conservatives?     Lumping all  liberals together takes away their credibility as original thinkers.  Give them the same consideration you expect  for yourself.

On another blog you pondered why people get angry at you.    Think about it.  You don't seriously expect them to thank you for assuming that they can't think for themselves. 

As for myself, I've mulled over most of these blog subjects a lifetime.  I came to my own conclusions about most of life's weighier problems without the help of a religious or political leader.   What I think may be incorrect, but you be sure that I did my own thinking.

By the way, you sound pretty angry yourself. 

posted by bakodon on Feb 9, 2007 at 05:50 PM

Yes they are mad.....just look at the response to my blog "new blood"  These people are sick puppies!

They truly believe George is their enemy!  They simply cannot realize the ones that wear rags do not like us-all of us!  Dems or us Republicans.  They would just as likely kill any Dem as any ol'e Republican.

I listen to all the talk show and can somebody please tell me why they are so mad, and down at the USA!

The best example I can give is the US economy-overall doing just fine for the vast majority!  Yet if you ask, they will tell you Bush has ruined the economy!  Huh????????

posted by antiextremism on Feb 9, 2007 at 05:08 PM
By the way. CSPAN televised the Congressional hearings on global warming last night. I know, I know, CSPAN is usually pretty dull. But if you get the chance to see it, I recommend it. Might change your view somewhat on the subject.
posted by antiextremism on Feb 9, 2007 at 05:02 PM

Yeah Mark,  but they especially hate Bush. Then again who doesn't. Geez, even Jaz McKay said he hated him, and he's two notches right of Sean Hannity. Except Bin Laden who wrote the script. He doesn't hate him because Bush didn't do any ad libbing and followed Osama's plan to the tee.

But you are probably right that they hate us regardless of who's running the show. Just wait until Hillary is President...A WOMAN PRESIDENT??????? That'll really piss 'em off.

Every President has their failures and foibles, but our current one is the poster boy for ineptness. But I'll try to be more positive by saying, I hope things get better when he's gone.

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement