RE: History’s Greatest Monster

July 22, 2009 7:11 am

by Andre · 85 comments

Tuesday evening, the distinguished city council member from Macon, Georgia posed a question to the readers of this site.

Yesterday, Erick Erickson –the 69th most influential conservative in America– asked, “Does Anyone Really Care That History’s Greatest Monster is No Longer a Southern Baptist?

The question presented by Erickson was directed towards former President Jimmy Carter who, in 2000, left the Southern Baptist Convention after that body declared its opposition to women as pastors and called for wives to be submissive to their husbands [Sengupta, Somini (October 21, 2000). Carter Sadly Turns Back On National Baptist Body. The New York Times.].

Now let us dismiss for a second the fact that Erick Erickson is reacting to a nine year old story. Erickson proclaimed our nation’s thirty-ninth president, and one of only two Georgians to win the Nobel Peace Prize, “history’s greatest monster.” Regrettably, the freshman city council member from Macon didn’t provide a lick of evidence to support his audacious claim.

It is estimated that humans have inhabited the Earth for over 200,000 years. Throughout that time, we’ve had some truly terrible people on this planet. Some names that immediately come to mind are Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, The Boston Strangler; these folks certainly qualify in the top ten percent of history’s greatest monsters. Jimmy Carter doesn’t.

Dictionary.com defines a monster as “a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.” [monster. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 22, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monster]. The five people I just named excited horror through their wickedness, their cruelty, their malice and their hatred. Hitler, Manson, Bin Laden, and Dahmer certainly fit the definition of the word monster. Jimmy Carter doesn’t.

The five people I named are collectively responsible for the senseless deaths of millions of people. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, served in the Navy, brokered a peace deal between Israel and Egypt, helped put the United States on path towards fewer nuclear weapons and has fought for human rights around the world.

Fourteen years ago, then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton declared to the United Nations 4th World Conference on Women that it is “no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.”

“If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. ”

United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing. The White House. 1995-9-5. Retrieved on 2009-7-22.

Five years later, President Carter severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention after that organization decided to, in the words of Carter, “[quote] a few carefully selected Bible verses and [claim] that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, [and ordained] that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service” [Carter, Jimmy (July 12, 2009). The words of God do not justify cruelty to women. The Observer. Retrieved on 2009-7-22.].

Carter recently wrote in the British newspaper The Observer:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

While I do not want to put words in Erick Erickson’s mouth, it seems as if his proclamation that “[Jimmy]Carter wants to be free to live as he wants, not as God wants him to,” suggests that Erickson supports the Southern Baptist Convention’s declaration against women and women’s rights. Erickson’s own words suggest that he believes God wants women to be subservient and submissive to men. Which, of course, begs to question. . .

. . .If women must be subservient and submissive to men, then must Secretary of State Karen Handel –a Republican gubernatorial candidate endorsed by Erickson– bow to her husband’s wishes should he demand that she end her campaign for governor? If the word of God says women must be subservient and submissive to men, then would I not be completely within my rights as a man to demand a female have sex with me regardless of whether she wants it or not; would I be completely within my rights as a man to demand that my wife have an abortion regardless of whether she wanted to or not? Would I be completely within my rights as a man to kill my wife if I caught her cheating?

The answers to all those questions is a very loud no. Not just no, but hell no.

To do any of the things I just described would constitute a violation of not just women’s rights, but human rights.

So I end this very long missive with three simple questions for Erick Erickson:

1.) What evidence do you have that can verify your claim that former President Jimmy Carter is “history’s greatest monster?;”

2.) Do you believe women should be submissive and subservient to men as the Southern Baptist Convention does?; and

3.) If you do not share the same beliefs as the Southern Baptist Convention, then why raise a ruckus over Jimmy Carter leaving that group?

{ 84 comments }

Goldwater Conservative July 22, 2009 at 8:03 am

I am shocked. Should I be shocked though?

Aside from the history of the compiling of the Bible, which nearly all christians are oblivious to, why is a democratically elected official in the United States bringing this up?

Curious, where would Hitler rate? Eric Robert Rudolf? McVeigh? Are these men heroes to Erick Erickson?

Leave it to a right wing christian fascist to make such a claim.

Henry Waxman July 24, 2009 at 12:21 am

ANDRE, YOU ARE A RETARD!!! THIS IS A SIMPSON’S QUOTE.

Henry Waxman July 24, 2009 at 12:23 am
Henry Waxman July 24, 2009 at 12:24 am

ANDRE, YOU ARE RETARDED!!!!

GOPGeorgia July 24, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Is he retarded because he did not recognize an obscure quote from a cartoon for adults? I didn’t recognize it, but I don’t watch the Simpson’s either. Henry, do you spend all day watching cartoons?

Bill Simon August 3, 2009 at 9:19 am

If it is a “quote”, then it should be in quotation marks with the appropriate reference.

Mad Dog July 22, 2009 at 8:08 am

OH MY Gawd!

If only Carter hadn’t left the church! We’d be living in Utopia now! In other words, Eric wouldn’t have a political life.

Lifetime367 July 22, 2009 at 8:10 am

Thank you Andre for taking the time to respond so thoroughly and eloquently.

Jimmy Carter is, like all of us, a flawed human. His flaws are magnified because of the high profile life that he has lived the last 40+ years.

That said, to call him a monster is unconscionable. To call him “History’s Greatest Monster” is a complete joke and completely eradicates any credibility that Erick ever had as a blogger.

Romegaguy July 22, 2009 at 8:13 am

You assume he had credibility Lifetime

Dash Riptide July 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

What it does is to mark Erickson as the Jeremiah Wright of Georgia conservatives. If you’re running for office here you best not stand too close to him, lest his views be imputed to you. And he’s a little young to dismiss as a crazy old uncle, so you won’t even have that going for you. Carter has long been easy prey, but it helps to sound sensible and grounded when doing so. Just a theory.

Dash Riptide July 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

doing so = preying. Or something.

Kellie July 22, 2009 at 8:25 am

I’m no fan of Carter’s but I have to agree that Erick’s post was wrong.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

What I found amusing was the number of people in the comment section of that posting that agreed! with Erick’s little tantrum. Almost the same type of tantrum that the GOP has been having every time a highly visible moderate walks away from it — or stays and doesn’t do what the nasty Reich wing wants.

In short: the SBC and the GOP are going in the same direction. Shrinking… because of people like Erick.

macho July 22, 2009 at 8:31 am

Is there a reason, other than ego, that you didn’t post this as a response under Erick’s post?

heroV July 22, 2009 at 9:51 am

uh, so more people would read it? because he thought it was important enough to deserve its own post?

galiberal July 22, 2009 at 8:35 am

Andre!!!

You Go! Erick was stupid for saying that stuff! I put part of your post up on my blog, and I added a question to it! I am so glad there is at least one sane member over here that will call him out on his b/s!

http://galiberal.com/?p=964

Dash Riptide July 22, 2009 at 8:37 am

Now they’ll never fix your link in the Blogroll.

galiberal July 22, 2009 at 8:41 am

I know… lol. I’ve kinda given up on that, but Andre might can convince them to do so!

Icarus July 22, 2009 at 9:37 am

We update the blogroll every two years, whether we need to or not. Just be lucky you got in before the last update.

galiberal July 22, 2009 at 10:21 am

Lol, figures :-p. You should update more often!

Bill Simon July 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm

They leave it to folks like Jason Pye to do it, and he doesn’t have the time to tend both this blog and his blog.

But…since there is no “Icarus” blog, I’m wonder if that duty might fall to someone else….hmmm…wonder who?

Dawgfan July 22, 2009 at 8:45 am

Jimmy Carter is a world class a–hole!

Joshua Morris July 22, 2009 at 8:47 am

This article might help answer question #1:

Jimmy Carter’s Legacy of Failure
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/12/13/cstillwell.DTL

Question #2 calls for a debate regarding Bible doctrine. Most here don’t know and understand the Bible enough to discuss it with any authority.

I really could care less what Jimmy Carter or the Southern Baptist Convention does. I have no confidence in either.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 8:53 am

Carter still teaches Sunday school… complete with secret service people at the door.

Perhaps you should go down to his church and engage him one Sunday morning in Bible doctrine. I’m sure that at least one of you will come away smarter.

Mad Dog July 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm

I believe the little church that Carter attends, allows anyone to worship. So, one could, if one wanted, attend and listen to Carter teach from the Bible.

Just a thought for those without a thought.

John Konop July 22, 2009 at 9:17 am

Joshua Morris

Is it not rather ironic Jesus spoke out against the self-righteous in the Bible? How does the Good Samaritan parable even connect with your comment?

Joshua Morris July 22, 2009 at 9:30 am

Like I said, John, most here don’t know and understand the Bible enough to discuss it with any authority. The Good Samaritan parable has nothing to do with this thread. That’s not being self-righteous–that’s stating truth. The Bible has a lot in it, and it works together as an entire Book. Some people who haven’t studied it in it’s entirety like to bring up single verses or short passages without context to try to condemn people they don’t agree with. That’s mere misuse of the greatest Book ever known to mankind.

John Konop July 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Joshua Morris

Sorry I agree with you!

Lifetime367 July 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Joshua may not mean to come across as pious and arrogant, but he does.

fundy1611 July 22, 2009 at 8:48 am

“Monster” is definitely not an appropriate word to use for Carter. A treasonous enemy of America would be a better description. Carter’s denial of the Word of God is nothing new. Anyone who spends the majority of their time laboring for Allah is as lost as a ball in high weeds.

rugby July 22, 2009 at 9:09 am

“time laboring for Allah”

You mean the same Abrahamic god Jews and Christians worship? :/

Bill Greene July 22, 2009 at 9:13 am

No, he means Allah. :)

fundy1611 July 22, 2009 at 10:06 am

Just plain silly.

MSBassSinger July 22, 2009 at 8:55 am

There is no doubt Carter is not the “greatest monster”. He is a senile old man, who was at his best, incompetent as President, and generally a cluless anti-Semitic bigot. He certainly was the 2nd worst President of the 20th century (FDR holding 1st place).

Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro – these are the top 5 monsters of modern history. (Andre, I think you are off by just over 999,000 on Manson’s killing spree being in the millions.) Note also, that the killers of millions and thousands are all socialists or Communists.

Andre, you are also way off on what Southern Baptists believe, and what Scripture as a whole says, about the roles of men and women. What you wrote is 100% wrong. There is no “Southern Baptist Convention’s declaration against women and womens’ rights”. Making silly, uninformed and ignorant statements like that make your post no better than Erick’s exaggeration.

And, by the way, Erick is reacting to a recent resurrection of that Southern Baptist screed by Carter, not a 9 year old story. Please, Andre, try getting your facts right.

And ByteMe, the SBC is growing – not shrinking – unlike the liberal denominations.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 9:44 am

And ByteMe, the SBC is growing – not shrinking – unlike the liberal denominations.

You got recent stats to back your statement up?

How about this one?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-25-592529308_x.htm

Castro a monster?? Hah. He didn’t have enough people on his little island to kill them all and still match up with the genocidal monsters over on the African continent. Looking for a communist/socialist under your bed yet?

MSBassSinger July 22, 2009 at 8:56 am

I meant to type “top 6 monsters”. Sorry for the typo.

ecwoodrow July 22, 2009 at 9:00 am

To answer some of your questions:

1) The SBC declaration had nothing to say about rights, but is a recognition of the chain of command within the church and family that’s given in the Bible.

2. If women must be subservient and submissive to men, then must Secretary of State Karen Handel –a Republican gubernatorial candidate endorsed by Erickson– bow to her husband’s wishes should he demand that she end her campaign for governor? If the word of God says women must be subservient and submissive to men, then would I not be completely within my rights as a man to demand a female have sex with me regardless of whether she wants it or not; would I be completely within my rights as a man to demand that my wife have an abortion regardless of whether she wanted to or not? Would I be completely within my rights as a man to kill my wife if I caught her cheating?

Of course the answer to those questions is no, but you need look no further than the next Bible verse to see why:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church” Ephesians 5: 25-29

It’s funny to me how Carter (and liberals in general) accuses the SBC of cherry picking verses to give a reason to deny women rights, when it is he who cherry picks verses to prove that said verses deny women basic rights in the first place.

ecwoodrow July 22, 2009 at 9:02 am

I will say though that the term “History’s Greatest Monster” is way off. The man may pal around with terrorists, but he’s no “monster”.

GOPGeorgia July 22, 2009 at 9:05 am

Is President Carter the “greatest monster in history” becuase he had lust in his heart?

John Konop July 22, 2009 at 9:09 am

I am no big Fan of Carter but Erick was way over the line with his post! I disagree on many issues with Carter but it is wrong to call him a racist over policy disagreements.

MSBassSinger July 22, 2009 at 9:42 am

If you can ever get any of the Secret Service agents who were on his detail to talk off the record (and a few have), you’ll hear just how arrogant, dim-witted, and verbally abusive Carter was.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 9:47 am

And they spoke so highly of you!

MSBassSinger July 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm

How true. Conservatives envy me, liberals wish they could be me. :)

OK, now I am through imitating Obama. :)

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm

OK, now I am through imitating Obama.

That’s so white of you.

Bill Greene July 22, 2009 at 2:28 pm

RACISM! RACISM! CALL IN THE MACON CITY COUNCIL!

MSBassSinger July 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm

I have often wondered why libs are the ones who post racist comments, but not conservatives. What is it about liberalism that makes you guys react in such a racist manner?

I was clearly referring to Obama’s character (his arrogance, his narcissism, his Orwellian-speak, etc.). Surely you aren’t saying those negative personality traits are peculiar to black people, are you?

Holly July 22, 2009 at 10:20 am

With regard to the link that ByteMe posted, I want to say that Dr. Page is right as to how we Southern Baptists are often regarded. Some of it is our fault, and sometimes God’s word doesn’t appeal to our current culture. We must recognize which times are our fault and which times we must stand strong.

As the national divorce rate is so high, perhaps it is time to re-examine those verses in Ephesians. It does say “wives, submit to your husbands.” It does not say “bow down and let him make every decision.” The next verse offers “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” What it tells me is how to have a successful marriage. In a culture of “me first, me first,” it’s not perhaps popular to forge a holy partnership in which both people must take on distinctive roles, but most of the marriages I know that WORK (like my parents and grandparents) follow this kind of pattern. Did that mean that my mom and grandmom always did whatever dad and granddad told them to do, sitting around for the latest order? Not at all. But they did have ways in which they compromised with their spouses to run our family as a unified front. I’m lucky to have seen Ephesians in action in my home. I know those verses work when applied appropriately to a loving relationship.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 10:36 am

Since you brought it up, maybe you can fill in a gap in my knowledge.

When the Bible says “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church”, didn’t Christ die long before the “Church” was created, so how could He have “loved” them? From my understanding, Christ would have HATED the way most churches look and act in their current manifestations.

I know I do snark often, but this is a serious question on my part. Thanks.

fundy1611 July 22, 2009 at 10:40 am

The same way he loved you before you were created.

ecwoodrow July 22, 2009 at 11:02 am

In this instance, the term “Church” is referring to believers, not the institution.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 11:03 am

Thank you. Now it makes more sense.

I gotta stop taking the words so literally :)

Holly July 22, 2009 at 10:24 am

Also, I will naturally disagree with Erick on the issue of labeling Carter as history’s greatest monster. Like my denomination, my political party sometimes forgets that in order to be successful in its mission, it must attract people. Statements labeling a former president, duly elected by the people of this country, a monster are ridiculous, no matter how much you dislike the person.

And finally, I’ve had the honor of meeting Jimmy Carter, not in a political sense. But he was kind, well-mannered, and soft-spoken. I don’t agree with most of his political ideals, but I think him to be a decent fellow.

Jane July 22, 2009 at 10:27 am

Jimmy Carter, Enabler of the Iranian Revolution,
Enabler and confidant of Leonard Brezhnev, Seller of the American Canal in Panama, Father of stagflation, Father of Amy Carter, Friend of the PLO, Friend of the Sandinistas,

Erik was rather harsh, but us old folk remember how bad Carter really was. Obama is going to have a tough time dethroning Carter as the worst president of my lifetime. If Carter wants to join a church that agrees with his foreign and domestic policies he should become a Methodist.

Mad Dog July 22, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Among his faults … father of Amy Carter? Or, with the Capital F…

Thanks for making a point so opposite of your argument.

Goldwater Conservative July 22, 2009 at 10:32 am

Regardless of which party or ideology you ascribe, there are a few things that are undeniable about Jimmy Carter:

1) He was not the best President
2) He was not the worst President
3) He has accomplished more since leaving office
4) He is a good man

Joshua Morris July 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm

3) more than whom or what?

4) good at what?

Lifetime367 July 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm

again,… pious and arrogant

Look at the work of the Carter Center. Even if you don’t like the man’s politics, he has been an effective ambassador for democracy in third world countries for decades. He is an outspoken Christian in spite of his problems with the Religious Right.

So to answer your questions, (3)he’s accomplished more than a lot of people and more than most ex-presidents of the 20th century and (4) he’s good at heart and good in his intentions and as a result has accomplished many good things.

Bill Simon July 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm

He doesn’t appear to be a liar, a thief or an adulterer…except of course in his heart.

However…you may be onto something. He did take a paddle to a poor defenseless swimming bunny. HE’S A PSYCHO!!!

Terran1212 July 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I think Erick has his head so far up his ass he breathes fecal matter, and his idiotic attacks against Carter as an anti-semite show that Erickson has the intellectual depth of a fruit fly, but “history’s greatest monster” is a joke from the Simpsons about Carter.

IndyInjun July 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm

OK, I posted this on Erick’s rant, but it is in better company here….

——————–

My first vote was AGAINST Jimmy Carter when he ran against Hal Suit. I NEVER voted for that man.

However misguided he might be, calling him the worst monster, ahead of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler and Idi Amin, is ridiculous.

Simon is correct. Hannitywannabeitis has struck.

Erick cast his lot with the now-irrelevant, despite my pleading, and now is adrift trying to cast a grappling hook onto any passing salient issue, even to the extent of throwing hook, line, and sinker at phantoms.

John Konop July 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Erick

Seriously do you have any defense for the post?

IndyInjun July 22, 2009 at 3:24 pm

On second thought, Erick is not tracking Hannity, but Michelle Malkin.

ByteMe July 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Or Michele Bachmann.

Bill Simon July 22, 2009 at 5:52 pm

ByteMe,

Hey now, back off on the MILF attacks. You can hit Malkin, but not Bachmann.

ByteMe July 23, 2009 at 9:06 pm

So you’re saying “ugly and crazy” can be attacked, but “hot and crazy” cannot?

It would explain some people’s defense of Saint Sarah the Martyr.

Bill Simon July 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Good posit. Surely there’s a leftie Master’s student looking for a good thesis subject to study….

ByteMe July 24, 2009 at 5:47 am

It does sound like a “women’s studies” thesis, doesn’t it?

Why don’t women mindlessly flock to some of the hunkier guy politicians? Just helping fill out the thesis paper….

Bill Greene August 3, 2009 at 9:22 am

Hel-LOOOO, it’s wymyn’s studies….

Bill Simon August 3, 2009 at 9:25 am

Good point, Bill G.

Mad Dog July 22, 2009 at 4:24 pm

So now can we have an open thread every Friday to bash Eric?

kcordell July 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm

367…

I have to question your idea of pious and arrogance. I’ve been reading JSM on here for quite a while and I’ve had the pleasure of hearing him on “the Morning Show” here on our local radio many times. He does not come across as either pious or arrogant. He’s steadfast in his beliefs and expouses a conservative point of view as well if not better than a lot of people I know. Other than “Habitat For Humanity” and supporting every dictator in the world Carter hasn’t done much of anything. Having said that I don’t believe Carter to be a “monster.” Only irrelevent.

IndyInjun July 23, 2009 at 9:43 pm

The GOP fall has been hard on Erick. He was allied with the utterly discredited folks who destroyed the party. Like many, he has been cast adrift.

NONE of the GOP incumbents who voted with Bush and caused the banishment of the party from power are the future of conservatism, and Erick knows it.

His challenge and ours is to bring back conservatism.

Conservatism has not failed. It was never tried.

Taking shots like this one are reminiscent of “freedom fries” and other juvenile nonsense that the neocons and their tools perpetrated for 8 years, enraging true conservatives.

Eight years is enough time to grow up.

ByteMe July 24, 2009 at 5:45 am

Eight years is enough time to grow up.

Obviously, it’s not.

Conservatism will not come back until the “conservative elites” stop acting like obvious shills for the R-party and they stop their anti-intellectual bent.

Oh, and they let go of the “Myth of Reagan”. That’s stunting their ability to grow new ideas for the 21st century.

Icarus July 24, 2009 at 10:57 pm

I think I can claim about as many attacks on modern “conservatives” as anyone who is still willing to admit voting for our very broken party.

The “Myth of Reagan” is not among the problems we have.

The dumbing down of Reagan is damn near the top, however.

Mad Dog July 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm

We’ve heard this cry before. It takes many, many forms.

Bush was a second coming of Ronald Reagan and real conservatives … until he wasn’t.

I like the bit about “Conservatism has not failed. It was never tried.”

Taken literally, that could be slammed and debated until we puke.

Although I love bashing, it don’t get nothing done. And, I do like Bill Simons. He’s so hot.

The elements or features of our government that makes it work … is that it prevents singular ideologues from seizing power. [Can't wait to see that language parsed.]

In other words, it is very hard to move our government for many, many reasons. Some ‘conservatives’ don’ t get it.

Our government does come from ‘da people,’ and the people ain’t perfect. To continue seeking perfect conservatism will always be rewarded by perfect failure.

Just push for those parts of conservative ideology that have huge support in society. Then, you’ll see one or two truly conservatives anchored into government.

And, good luck.

Bill Simon July 24, 2009 at 5:14 pm

And, I do like Bill Simons. He’s so hot.

Lawdy, lawdy me! Why do I attract all the crazy ones like Mad Dog?

IndyInjun July 24, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Mad Dog,

You are right.

The people are now wholly dependent upon the government teat and content with the table scraps the Wall Street masters deign to throw their way.

ByteMe July 24, 2009 at 4:04 pm

You’re not part of “the people”?

And therein is the falacy of your logic. You are just as much the government as the next person. Go earn a billion bucks and you can have lots of influence behind the scenes. Don’t earn a billion bucks and you have to run for office (by sucking up to those who did earn a billion bucks).

Or sit and throw pebbles on an obscure blog about perfect conservatives that aren’t running the government you want and see how you’re just like the next person. Except maybe more unhappy with your government.

Bill Simon July 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Go earn a billion bucks and you can have lots of influence behind the scenes.

ByteMe must admire George Soros.

ByteMe July 24, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Did you read the word “admire” in my post? I admire inner city high school teachers more than I admire billionaires or politicians.

Mad Dog July 31, 2009 at 11:51 am

I hate being right.

“The people are now wholly dependent upon the government teat …”

I started to cut that to dependent upon the government. But, that wouldn’t exactly be your point. We are dependent upon counter-cyclical economic policy. Keynesian policy.

Although we could reach back into history and follow Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon. His policy in 1929 was to liquidate, liquidate, and liquidate his personal holdings. All while ‘rebating’ federal taxes to his own companies and the companies that his friends owned. I seem to recall it being about $3 billion.

Of course, Hoover had some interesting conservative policies. He spent several million on feeding Midwestern hogs. Nothing for public relief.

Was that the conservatism of the day? Feed the PIGS!

IndyInjun July 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Byte – I don’t “sit and throw pebbles,” I get in their faces and shove their abandonment of principle WITH THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR PERFIDY right at them.

If everyone were like me, they wouldn’t dare vote opposite from party creed and platform.

ByteMe July 24, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Oh. Well. As long as you’re happy :)

IndyInjun July 24, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Misery for me would be accepting their treachery in silence.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }