On Writing: Why Would I Want To Argue With Idiots?

In the past year, I have been critical of The Tea Parties because they formed only after Obama became President, when they claimed to be protesting an issue that started under former President Bush: the bailouts.
 
I did not support the bailouts of either administration, but I believed that the Tea Parties were just political smoke-and-mirrors.  Often times, when that happens, the followers just insert whatever unrelated opinion under the shroud of political altruism.
 
Steelers fan Rush Limbaugh for instance gets paid to exercise free speech.  Thus, he will and does say things on air that he normally would not say, thus his "free speech" is disengenuine. 

Even Mets fan Jon Stewart once suggested that he was just, "punkin' y'all," (Rolling Stone, 2004).  In that, the only purpose for his show is to create complacency amongst those with strong opinions, so that they don't act on those ideas.
 
The difference between Limbaugh and Stewart is simple, they both go along to get along, but Stewart seems to have more remorse about being a shill than Limbaugh does.
 
A shroud of political altruism is also why it is common to see the, "Free Mumia" kooks show-up for anti-war rallies.  I like to call it product placement.
 
No one is really sure as to what they're protesting, or they try to expand it in a way that does not make sense.  But when you don't have a job, or purpose in life, then I suppose it is a good way of killing time and/or getting out of your parents hair for the afternoon.  As Clint Black might say, their killing time is killing us.
 
And I guarantee like Joe Namath that many people whom showed-up for Tea Parties had a racial grudge against President Obama.
 
That is not to say that I have agreed with all of President Obama's economic policies.  I agree with health care reform, but after that, most of his economic policies are basically just plagiarized from the Japaneese government in the 1990s.  Policies that did not work.

They just hope that it works this time.  As we know, the financial inudustry is a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence.  But as Fed Chair Ben Bernanke once said to Milton Friedman (to paraphrase): You're right.  We (the Fed) caused the Great Depression, but thanks to you, we won't do it again.

And I thought the Federal Reserve wasn't political, yet they have an uncanny ability to break their promises.
 
And yet, the GOP is still reelin' in the years from their devastating losses in 2006 and 2008.  Now, the Whitehouse has flat-out stated that it is their opinion that FOX News is, "not a news organization."
 
Generally, I do not watch FOX, MSNBC, or CNN.  I don't feel *elitist* when I say that I watch the BBC, because I only did so when those organizations sullied their names with incessant coverage of Anna Nicole Smith, reality TV stars, and other pop-culture nonsense under the guise of news.
 
I remember the good old days of news ... when sports news was on ESPN, entertainment news was on E, brutal murders and ice cream socials were on local news (my way of saying, human interest stories) and national and world politics was on the cable news, or nightly news.
 
Nowadays, every psycho has a means to get famous by abusing children, committing murder, or just being the one who "gets to" be a self-indulgent POS.  From Casey Anthony to the Goselins.  And the news people talk about why we talk about such things.
 
Why?  Because lost and hallow people want to act like psychos in the, "material world."
 
Anyway, with many people unhappy about the direction of the country ... it is hard to imagine that there is no viable public option to vote for, instead of some wannabe-FDR who is consolidating power like FDR did. 
 
There is also a problem with trying to be FDR, it would require that you as President would remain in office for over twelve years.  Problem with that is, the Constitution bars a person from being President for more than two terms. 

But okay, in all fairness, we know that the Constitution has been turned into the proverbial butt-wipe by the Grafters of the Constitution.  So I'm not arguing that the destruction of the Constitution is a new political phenomenon.  It started *mostly* in 1960 when the US started to rely solely on television for information.
 
You get Democrats, Republicans, or a kick in the teeth for voting third party.

If you're Glenn Beck, you can argue with idiots.  Why on Earth would anyone bother to argue with idiots?  If you have already determined that a person is an idiot, then why would stoop to their level?  The reason why is that the person does not believe in their opinions, thus, they shout-down people into submission.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?