Really, I'm over it. It's bad enough the Parties Of Treason are running self-caricatures for the Oval Office; there's no need to add to it with the kind of name-calling that makes third-graders giggle. If you can't comment here without saying "Drumpf" or "Hitlery," please Go Away. Both of them have various idiotic polices and positions, both of them say plenty of foolish or terrible things, and you can damned well do your homework and point to that kind of stuff when you want to underscore your distaste.
Likewise, if you genuinely believe It's All Over if the wrong lizard wins this go-round, why are you even on the computer instead your rooftop -- or an airplane bound for Elsewhere? Seriously, it's been over; the knee of the curve from "republic" to "empire" was, in my opinion, around 1913. Empires generally last a long time; it's a smooth, gradual slide and crossing the Rubicon is really barely a bobble. Short-term, things will waver between "kinda good"and "kinda bad;" long term, there are centuries before wolves and barbarians (but I repeat myself) go howling through the empty streets of the Capitol. Preachings of Imminent Doom are risible. Small-scale doom, especially if you happen to live in the wrong neighborhood? Count on it. But it's been happening; you just didn't notice as you drove past.
And as for the assorted morons stealing campaign signs from people's yards, I'm in favor of caning and would not be too horrified at paintballs (even if it was the Worse Lizard's sign). You don't like the person somebody put up a sign for? Don't rip it down -- go home and put up two signs for the candidate you prefer!
Grow up. Put on your big-boy pants and go wave Hi to the neighbors. They vote for the wrong lizard, they have no idea of the right hues to paint a house and their groundskeeping is, frankly, inept; but they are indeed your neighbors, breathing the same air, and you're going to have to get along or move out. Standing there on the sidewalk with your thumbs in your ears going, "Nyah-nyah!" isn't a useful move.
Inept groundskeeping? Them's fighting words! True, but nonetheless...
ReplyDeleteInept groundskeeping? Them's fighting words! True, but nonetheless...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInept groundskeeping? You're cordially invited to come over to my house and do it better then. :D
ReplyDeleteAll that effort and the only notice I have insulted their lawn mowing skills!
ReplyDeleteDoes this include "Cheeto Jesus"? That's funny...I don't care who y'are.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I've always thought if you're not in lower primary school, calling other people names is an indicator that you're fresh out of valid criticisms,
I'm interested to hear why you say 1913. I'm probably not as versed as I should be in that pre WWI era and am curious. The government response to the Bonus Army and the actions taken under the New Deal have always seemed a bit of a turning point to me. Though thinking of what industrial response would have been available for WWII without all those dams is an interesting exercise.
ReplyDeleteIncome tax, the FDA, and the regrettable Woodrow Wilson.
ReplyDeleteName calling is inevitable but it should at least aspire to the level of "Parties of Treason " .
ReplyDeleteName calling must be original and for one time usage .
Glenn
I don't mind clever name-calling, especially if it provides insight and is not overused. Idiocy like "Obummer" and "Bushitler" doesn't pass that test.
ReplyDeleteOne can make a good case for 1913; there are plenty of indicators. Me, though, I say it went south in 1794, when what did not happen was the dumping of Alexander Hamilton's bullet-riddled corpse on the front steps of the Executive Residence with a note pinned to it reading, "Dear Gen'l Washington -- With all due respect: don't do that, sir."
ReplyDeleteI think that 1913 is valid, as far as it goes. Then again, the case could be made for several other dates, the one that comes to my mind is 1860. Things before that and after that were quite different, and the resulting change in the way that the Federal government viewed the states was quite marked.
ReplyDelete1913? I'd go for June 21, 1788 myself, but I have a tenancy to be a purist.
ReplyDeleteJust another example of why I like you so much, Roberta.
ReplyDelete