Tom is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, single father, and long time resident of Oak Creek, who writes regularly about human interaction and perception as it relates to social issues, value fulfillment, and introspection. Tom encourages and challenges the reader to engage new perspectives; believing that through open and honest evaluation of all sides of a debate, conflicting parties can communicate with greater efficacy and more productive outcomes.
I relayed in a story yesterday that I have made a turn from finding efficacy to an all-out treasure hunt for logical thought. There seems to be more fecal matter chucked around some neighboring community blogs than in the monkey house at the Milwaukee Public Zoo.
Although I rarely; well, never agree with them, I read the blogs because I feel I’m not qualified to provide an objective point of view with any measure of integrity without FIRST listening to someone else’s point of view.
The problem I have is that there is just very little to listen to. Most of what’s published is links to videos or commentaries by others, with no measure of independent opinion short of condescending rhetoric.
It’s almost like the kids on a playground arguing over whose dad is bigger, and then one of them pulls out a picture of Hulk Hogan. Sure, dude.
Most of the time, the rhetoric is so junked up and far from productively functional that it might as well be the Edsel of editorial.
Yes, I’m the one being condescending now, but I’m not generalizing entire groups of people having lesser human value than myself as some of my peers do, I’m picking apart the underperforming brain of a singular person who represents himself as a spectacular journalist, but appears to be nothing more than just another loudmouth for Christian Conservative extremism.
(Watching that portion of their party implode is hysterical to liberals, who are tired of being stereotyped and drug across the airwaves as entitled mobs of miscreants; however it’s also sad in the history of our country’s democracy. The GOP used to be a great party; the first party - Abraham Lincoln - to really stand up for freedoms of ALL Americans instead of selectively choosing which ones should be guaranteed equality as today’s toxic version of the extreme GOP has become).
But, back to the point:
Cheese and rice; he couldn’t even come up with his own title for his article. There is absolutely nothing in a recent editorial of his that resembles any bit of his own thoughts, aside from two sentences he made in remark to one supporter:
“You know he’s giving away FREE healthcare.”
“Why wouldn’t 47% (or more) automatically vote for the guy?”
Let me breakdown, with both my own thoughts AND links, why his statements are dangerous, completely false, and should be concerning to us all.
First, the video he selected would seem to tie in nicely to his loving co-blogger’s particularly hateful distain for people unlike them and their narrow-minded circle of “perfect” friends.
With regards to the first comment about “FREE” healthcare, perhaps check your facts before spewing misleading, irresponsible statements driven by nothing more than a need to push a misplaced and conniving fear tactic on a group of voters. While pieces of healthcare may be covered (certain prescriptions, etc.); it’s not as if people are getting entire healthcare plans for free. In fact, individuals who do not purchase it are levied a special tax. Your statement that they get “FREE” health care is completely false. Check the Supreme Court Ruling; even though I know that conservatives who think at the extremes like you hate to have to reference the Supreme Court, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
(That fact seems oddly hypocritical when you appear to stand so proudly as a “patriot” of this country. Brush up on your history, and the laws in place that make us who we are, and what we are suppose to be about. Freedom, equality, and innovation).
Interestingly enough, the “FREE” health care thing already happens, right? If you walk into an emergency room they fix you up, even without insurance. There has been more than 20 years of Republican leadership in the White House among the last 5 presidents. If this has been such a problem, why have they done nothing about it? Tangential, but interesting to ponder.
Let’s also consider countries that have universal healthcare. There are more than 30 of them that do, and all but a few of them have economies stronger than ours, particularly Canada where the real estate market is in such a boom that the wealthy Chinese are buying up property there, which is sending many Canadian investors over the border to buy US properties at premium rates. I became a little tangential there, but it serves the point that universal health care does not kill the economy of a country.
Your argument (or, snide remark) fails in a logical argument. I can’t even give you an “A” for effort, because not much of your article was even yours. It was rhetoric. Am I surprised? No.
What’s really more concerning is your second comment; to repeat again, “Why wouldn’t 47% (or more) automatically vote for the guy?” So, as your co-blogger has made clear the definition of your value base; you, like those misinformed and ignorant extremists you support also mistakenly believe that the majority of this country is nothing but a bunch of freeloaders.
Included in that 47% you joke about are “entitled” veterans collecting disability after losing limbs to protect your freedoms, and also the families of spouses or parents killed while protecting your right to promote irresponsible thought. But, are the life-long pensions of entitled congressmen included in that 47% sickening slogan made by the GOP? Nope.
Skewing the story, short of providing factual information in attempt to very poorly communicate one’s point is irresponsible and quite honestly childish. It misinforms the public you try to represent, it’s narcissistic and it disqualifies any “major awards” you’ve won for journalism in my eyes.
Try bringing your own logical thought to the table, not just links to others’ points of view. And then substantiate them with facts and not rhetoric.
Although, referencing now for a third time your co-blogger’s recent assertions, I’m not sure that narrow box you live in could construct any view of integrity without internally combusting.