TAG Blog: Inevitable

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Inevitable

You have my promise this is the last of these I will post.

I can't speak for anyone else, though.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...: How is this even slightly related to this blog? Because it's animated? Then why not but FrankenBerry commercials on here - they are animated as well. As difficult as it may be for those in the offices of the union to understand not every member is in lock step with their political views and posts like that are insulting.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:42:00 AM
beckstinks! said...: I couldnt agree more with anon @ 11:41.
However, we can't just dismiss the toxic influence Beck and his ilk exert on the population. That's how Bush ended up being president.
The best way to combat their twisted ideas is through education, and for people to develop some critical thinking.

glad to see Im not the only one who finds Beck to be an insuferable prick!; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:16:00 PM
Stevenem said...: I could see complaining if Becks words were somehow misrepresented or distorted, but we are listening to him verbatim. Even if you are right wing in your political orientation, it doesn't mean that every spokesperson who shares your point of view is somehow sacred, like clergy.

A cartoon character reacting to Beck's demagoguery is a brilliant way of demonstrating what a cartoon character he is.

And, oh yes, this is a labor union blog-Duh!; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...: 10:42 hit the nail on the head, not everyone who is a member of the Union votes for those with a big D after their name on the ballot.

I do think its telling that the rants from the Beck haters are using inflammatory terms, (toxic, twisted, insufferable prick). The party of tolerance (will tolerate you until you disagree with their POV) then you are just a delusional paranoid off your meds...; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:40:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Glenn Beck is popular because of his honesty and love of country - two qualities the left apparently despises. Or fears.

And you know, using Walt's characters to express a leftist point of view is a bit disrespectful of him and the characters. But I guess the only way the left can express its deep, intellectual outlook on life is via cartoons...; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:52:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Because unfortunately the radical right is a cartoon.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:08:00 PM
Woodrow said...: I love these. Please don't stop. I wish I had as much creativity and time and the people who do so much to entertain me. Thanks for the posts.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:22:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Beck is honest??

This is a man who uses his show to propagate a wacko conspiracy theory that Obama and George Soros intentionally blew up the oil rig in the Gulf. This is a man who claimed Obama was setting up FEMA concentration camps to imprison conservatives. Not to mention death panels.

This man wouldn't know truth or honesty if they bit him on the head. The fact that conservatives take this self-described clown seriously reveals how we should the quality of character and intellect of conservatives in this country. Suffice to say, the bar is now pathetically low.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:17:00 PM
Anonymous said...: **Because unfortunately the radical right is a cartoon.**

That's how the left sees anyone who disagrees with it. Plus, it believes that it has the right to slur and slander because it sees itself as being on a higher intellectual and moral plane. Reminds me of the words of the evil witch in C.S. Lewis' Narnia series: "Ours is a high and lonely destiny." Really, that's such a fitting description of the left in general. It's usually high and, well, the loneliness goes without saying.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:21:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently some people think this is an animation fansite. It's not. It is a blog dedicated to worker's rights within the animation profession. Given that rightwing ideology favors business owners rather than employees, it stands to reason that there will be conflict here against rightwing positions.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:24:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "Glenn Beck is popular because of his honesty and love of countr"

That is a lie at worst, and an poor opinion at best. But it is not a FACT. Breath deep--I know it's hard for you to understand that.

beck actually HATES this country---that much is obvious. And he's very far from honest.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...: You say that "the left sees itself on a higher intellectual and moral plane.". Well...is this without reason?

On the intellectual front, when the right embraces those who are proudly anti-intellectual, such as Sarah Palin, Beck, and Christine O'Donnell, it brings this charge upon itself. Certainly not all conservatives are such, but it would seem that lately, a troubling and growing trend has emerged from the Tea Party movement to embrace candidates who sneer at higher education as "elitist," and revel in their over-simplistic outlook.

As far as morality, the track record is clear and shameful. Going back to the Civil War, conservatives have been on the wrong side of virtually every bit of social progress in this country. Liberalism inherently seeks to bring legal equality to the despised, the different, and the downtrodden, while conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo in favor of the privileged and/or majority (ie. "tradition"). To wit:

* The abolitionists were liberals. Those who wished to keep the status quo, and used Chistianity to justify it, were conservatives.

* The women's Suffrage movement was supported by the left liberals, and opposed by the rightwing conservatives.

* The creation of Social Security, which has been incredibly beneficial for millions of Americans, supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* The Voting Rights Act, ensuring black peoples' right to vote, supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* De-segregation, supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* Medicare, beloved by seniors everywhere, supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* The 8-hour workday, overtime laws, and prohibition of child labor--all supported by liberals, all opposed by conservatives.

* Anti-discrimination laws for race, gender, etc. Supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* The right for gays to form Civil Unions. Supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

* The current fight for gays to marry/serve openly in military. Supported by liberals, opposed by conservatives.

And there are many others, but the pattern is clear. It is no accident--it is inherent to conservative ideology and mindset to divide people into classifications, and have disgust toward those who vary from the privileged "norm.". They have worked hard to preserve privileged status for those like themselves, and fought to kick others off the mountain,

These battles have all been long and hard-fought, and eventually the conservatives always lose. But like we see with the current fight with gay rights, they will throw up obstacles as long as they can, on their way to inevitable defeat. But the moral correctness of the left liberals remains steadfast, as conservatives choose the wrong side yet again.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:29:00 PM
Anonymous said...: ^Ah, the misinformation freely spewed by the left. That was an impressive list of nonsense. But here's some REAL history:

The Republican Party, organized in 1854, grew out of a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soil Democrats who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress, a bill which repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise prohibition on slavery north of latitude 36° 30' in the old Louisiana purchase territories, and so was viewed as an aggressive expansionist pro-slavery maneuver by many. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a radical vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true republicanism—this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology."

It was the DEMOCRATS who supported slavery at that point in time, and the REPUBLICANS who opposed it, and also supported free-market labor which gave freed slaves a chance at economic freedom and hence the American Dream.

It is LIBERALS who have, through onerous government programs and government-mandated social engineering, kept minorities dependent upon a new slavemaster: the Federal Government. Government housing resulted in slums like the Projects; Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" created a subclass of people known as the "disadvantaged" who are still struggling to throw off that label and enter the marketplace as true economic equals. Unfortunately, the Democrats have, for decades, successfully kept certain ethnic groups slaving away on their political plantation. It is the true Republicans who offer those minorities a chance to break free of their dependency on government largesse, recognize their own worth and enter an economic environment that will allow them to thrive alongside every other culture that makes up the Great American Melting Pot. Liberals, in short, offer only dependency. Conservatives offer freedom, with all the risks and rewards it entails.

And it is the LIBERALS who are going to lose this November.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:08:00 PM
Anonymous said...: OH? The Conservatives always choose the wrong side? And you think you know your history! Here, educate yourself:

"The Republican Party was first organized in 1854, growing out of a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soil Democrats who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress, a bill which repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise prohibition on slavery north of latitude 36° 30' in the old Louisiana purchase territories, and so was viewed as an aggressive expansionist pro-slavery maneuver by many. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a radical vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true republicanism—this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology."

In other words, the Democratic Party supported slavery at that point in time, and the Republicans opposed it and, furthermore, supported a free market system that would allow freed slaves to enter the marketplace and enjoy the economic freedom to partake in the American Dream. Today, liberals want to keep minorities dependent on the government and thus force them to slave away on their political plantation. It is the conservatives who want to create an economic environment that will allow minorities to throw off the shackles of dependency and achieve their goals, alongside every other group that makes up the great American Melting Pot.

And it is the LIBERALS who will be on the wrong side this coming election cycle.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:16:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Conservatives believe it is wrong to discriminate against, or give benefits to, anyone based on the color of his skin. In other words, Conservatives believe in a color-blind society.

Liberals, on the other hand, see color very clearly - as a way to marginalize, label, manipulate and enslave minorities and keep them in line so as to guarantee perpetual dependency and thus a reliable voting block. This of course is also the reason liberals are so "sympathetic" to the "plight" of illegal immigrants - for the bonanza of future votes they could offer.

As for gays, it's a dangerous game liberals are playing with that group. Are they prepared to defend the "rights" of polygamists or the practitioners of other forms of sexual deviancy? Sure looks like it. Look at the ACLU's support of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's liberal excess at its worst.; Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:26:00 PM
Anonymous said...: O.K. Righties, two points for the 19th century and the origins of Republican party. Even so, portraying the Republican Party as a conglomeration of abolitionists or libertarian idealists is historical revisionism raised to an art form. Lincoln only wanted to win the war and keep the union together. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tactic. Lincoln made it plain that he was indifferent to abolition. The EP, in fact, actually only freed the slaves in the southern states, not the north.

The rest of your diatribe consists of a litany of vague platitudes and ridiculous analyses of liberalism without a single specific example. Exactly how specifically do liberals "keep" minority groups dependent? (Not to mention, why?). Yes, let's starve people into wealth and prosperity. Who would have the incentive to succeed when there are all those "cushy" initiative destroying entitlements "imprisoning" minorities? Give me a break!

This is the world series of rationalizing. It's amazing to what lengths conservatives go to cover up their blatant indifference, greed and racism with a veneer of phony idealism. Talk about elitists!; Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:08:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Well said.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:31:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sadly, Mr. Conservative, your sleights of hand won't fly here. Note that I NEVER mentioned political parties, I stuck with the original discussion of liberal/conservative ideology.

Political parties change ideology over time. But ideology itself is fairly constant.

Liberalism has ALWAYS fought for the legal equality of unprivileged groups. That's why it's "liberal." Were the Southern Democrats (also known as Dixiecrats) who desired slavery and fought civil rights, liberals? No, they were social conservatives! Conservative Democrats.

In the 60's, when the parties had switched ideologies on civil rights, these Dixiecrat conservatives no longer felt welcome in the now-liberal Democratic party, so most of them switched sides to the party that was now the social conservative party--the Republican Party. This is why Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and a host of other southern conservatives became Republicans. Nobody would accuse Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms of being liberals, would they?

Since the 60s, the Dems have remained the social liberals, and the Repubs have remained the social conservatives. It is a sad commentary that the party where the racist Dixiecrats felt most at home is the modern conservative Republican party. That should tell you something.

The record is clear--liberalism has ALWAYS fought for the despised and underprivileged, while conservatism ALWAYS tries to "keep them in their place". They have switched political parties over the years, but the ideology remains constant. Abraham Lincoln wouldn't recognize the modern Republican party, having little in common with its liberal beginnings.

As for gay rights, you reveal the typical conservative ideology here with your suggestions that it is "dangerous". You try to equate it with polygamy and pedophilia, but I don't see what either of those have to do with two consenting adults, which is what gay marriage is about. A common trope of the conservative ideology is the "slippery slope" fallacy, which doesn't pertain to the issue at hand. The issue is only whether two gay adults can legally marry--no more, no less. And we've seen how conservatism has responded in its usual historical way.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:21:00 AM
Anonymous said...: The only " choice" republicans gave slavery is the choice to own slaves or not. They claim "states rights, " but only to choose whiter or not they would own slaves.

Remember, bush and co. were asleep at the wheel and let 9/11 happen. Then they lied to get us into Iraq, paying their buddies in private contracting 10 times the salary of our Soldiers to do a job less well, depriving them of pay raises, and costing the taxpayer a LOT more-- leading to the largest tax hikes in U.S. history since reagun's in 1982.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:49:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Not to mention republikans penchant for attempting to control individuals private lives by legislating morality.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:52:00 AM
Anonymous said...: The great Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:20:00 AM
Anonymous said...: The great Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

What always gets me is when people fight along party lines and don't do any research for themselves. Think more independently, you are an individual and don't have to be part of any borg collective. And if you do your research and really learn about candidates and history you may suddenly find yourself voting for someone other than the party line.

I went independent years ago because if you just vote party lines you will never do your own homework and find out which of the two lemons do I vote for? Find out and choose from which one is closer to what you think matters, whether its from morals to a dictatorship. And you will likely regret you voted for that person if you didn't know who they really are or their background of where they came from and how they voted in the past. The media has become a sad joke and if you get all of your news from a one sided channel whether its NBC, NPR or Fox. You need to dig deeper.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:46:00 AM
Anonymous said...: When the nation's security and economy are at risk, Americans turn to Republicans to fix the mess. And when Republicans stick to true conservative principles, many problems are tackled and solved. It's when Republicans imitate liberals via excessive spending and government growth that they fail.

Hopefully the Repubs will stick to conservative principles this time. The Dems are already a lost cause. For this reason, this independent is willing to give Repubs another chance this November. At any rate, I want the Dems out of power and that fool President out of the White House. Before too much damage is done.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:06:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon 11:06, you are very muddled. Our best economy in recent years was under Clinton. In fact, for the past century, America's economy has done much better under Democratic presidents than Republicans. It was Hoover that got us into the Great Depression, FDR who got us out. Bush II (the most conservative president since Hoover) who got us in, and we're still dealing with his mess. He gave trickle-down economics its greatest shot, and proved once and for all that, unsurprisingly, only the wealthy benefit from it.

Reagan's economy was terrible until he raised taxes eight times, and grew the federal government. He even signed the largest tax increase in American history, and our economy was better for it.

In terms of security, Republicans only know how to escalate problems, not to diffuse them. We are in a mess today because of Bush's meaningless invasion of Iraq, a country that had done nothing to us. We've spent a BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK for that mess for nine years, and you want to claim fiscal responsibility? What a crock. How much good that money could have done for our own people here, or balanced our budget.

With few exceptions, conservatives are people who continually make the wrong choice in a given situation. From being anti-evolution, to civil rights, to falling for the ridiculous trickle-down theory, they just can't get it right.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:22:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Clinton had a republican congresss. Check the reasons why the economy prospered.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh I have, thanks. Clinton paid down on the deficit each year, to the howls and laughs of the Republicans. By the end of the 90s, we actually had a surplus.

It only took Bush a couple years to squander that.

Clinton's fiscal prudence, and common sense governance, along with new technology sectors, grew the economy. Tax levels were higher than they are today, yet all income classes rose--the working class, middle class, and the wealthy.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:35:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes. President Clinton forced them to do his will. republicans depleted the SURPLUS he left in less than a year.

This is why most Amercans miss President Bill Clinton.; Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:46:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, all Republicans are angels and only want everyone to prosper. They fight against all the horribly nasty Democrats to make this country a better place. We all know that if only the GOP was left to their own devices the country would be so much better. They are selfless and think only of their constituents and ignore the lobbyists and corporations that feed them money. They want nothing more than to help the middle class...; Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:37:00 PM
Fed-Up said...: "Clinton had a republican congresss."

Until he didn't. Even so, he always had the power to veto anything he didn't approve of. There's a perfect example of conservative hypocrisy: Clinton doesn't get the credit for what he accomplished, but Obama gets the blame for what he couldn't accomplish because the Republicans in the Senate filibustered 400 bills that were passed by the House. They blatantly shoved it up the ass of the American public just to manufacture anti-Obama election propaganda fodder.

Under all their vague, over-heated pseudo patriotic, pseudo religious bloviating, they are heartless and soul-less. And Beck is their Poet-Laureate. All their sound and fury can be boiled down to a simple Pink Floyd lyric:

"Keep your hands off of my stack!"; Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:27:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I feel the love love love lone down in my heart...down in my heart, down in my heart....; Friday, October 15, 2010 8:55:00 AM
rufus said...: It's the right who vilifies the gay community on the basis of their moral standarts.
Like I said before, you either want an inclusive society or you don't. You either want freedom, or you don't.
The right is running out of arguments. Notice how they ALWAYS resort to comparing gay behavior to pedophilia and bestiality,that is nothing but a pathetic atempt to provoke(I'm looking at you, O'Reilly!!). I'd ask them to grow up. We're not in highschool anymore!

rufus; Friday, October 15, 2010 9:08:00 AM

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Inevitable

31 comments:

Search This Blog

Links

Labels

Previous posts

TAG member blogroll

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Inevitable

31 comments:

Search This Blog

Links

Labels

Previous posts

TAG member blogroll

Subscribe To