Fluorescent Dreams Wax Cylinders - Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America (1/10): America Is Great, Washington Is Broken (part 2 of 3)

1st of September, 2011

7:51 - Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America (1/10): America Is Great, Washington Is Broken (part 2 of 3)

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Gov. Perry continues from the "We are fed up with a federal government.." with a series of paragraphs about what he says the American people are fed up with. I'll quote the first clause of each paragraph:

(23 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:dagoski
Date:2011-Sep-1 03:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah and I'm sick of fundamentalist christians preaching at me and trying to regulate how my wife and I live our lives. This is the same old crap about how God's America is great and anyone who feels left out of the process is lazy, shiftless and has questionable morality.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinnerc
Date:2011-Sep-1 03:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
>[...]portions of the book -- why he thinks [...]America is great --
>sang to me.

To be honest, I'd like you to expand on this particular point. I personally and honestly feel this nation has been on a down slide since around 1972. Of late I have taken to saying, "I always wondered how Churchill felt living through the decline of Empire. I no longer wonder."
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:merle_
Date:2011-Sep-1 03:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"We are fed up with a Department of Homeland Security that refuses to secure our borders"

To be honest, I'm more fed up with them having had the knee-jerk reaction to create such a silly department in the first place.

"[...] how many great things the people have done in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way"

Whoa. Anarchist a bit?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensterfox
Date:2011-Sep-1 10:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's not anarchy to wish government would stick to things it's good at, with the understanding that government isn't good at a whole hell of a lot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:merle_
Date:2011-Sep-1 11:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
True, but "if government will just get out of the way" sounds much more overarching to me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensterfox
Date:2011-Sep-1 11:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That might be - and this isn't a criticism, just a supposition - that you don't believe government to be, on a large scale, to be "in the way". Gov. Perry obviously does.
When someone is driving 10 miles an hour below the speed limit in the fast lane, you might wish that they would "get out of the way". That doesn't mean you wish they would stop driving altogether, only that they would stop doing what they are doing to impede you - either drive faster or elsewhere. Gov. Perry doesn't want the government to stop governing or go away, just to govern properly (which, in his opinion, does mean "a lot less", but there's a big difference between "a lot less" and "not at all").
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:songdogmi
Date:2011-Sep-1 05:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I actually have sympathy with his bits against Congress. I think Congress has been particularly dysfunctional since 1994, regardless of which party has the majority, and I'm particularly against the whole earmark system. I have to wonder, though, how many earmarks he rejected for his own state, or did he ever try to persuade the Texas Congressional delegation to shun them. I don't know, though I suspect representatives and senators from Texas do as those from other states do.

(Sorry for the duplicate notification; I posted this as a reply when it really wasn't intended as such.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensan_oni
Date:2011-Sep-1 06:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, let's see... his points... I think I agree with One of them. And I have a list! Oh yes I do, of why I disagree with a lot of what he says... However, I'll hold off on that. Not important.

I reserve real comment until after hearing his thoughts on the Tenth.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tuftears
Date:2011-Sep-1 06:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*peers suspiciously* To be honest, this sounds like he's following the standard Republican/Tea Party manifesto. What's the news?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:chipuni
Date:2011-Sep-2 01:38 am (UTC)
(Link)
Not necessarily much news. I'm actively trying to understand what Perry believes. I'm summarizing his most recent book.

(And I realized that I didn't have enough time to get to the final part of his first chapter -- about the Tenth Amendment.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tuftears
Date:2011-Sep-2 01:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, that's the thing; what if his book is mainly 'preaching to the choir'? I'd be more interested in knowing how he plans to solve things, than what he stands opposed to.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kevinjdog
Date:2011-Sep-1 08:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Activist judges are okay, though, when they suit his causes.

Rick Perry is a heartless asshole whose idea of "fixing" SS/Medicare is to get rid of it, and the devil take the hindmost.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensterfox
Date:2011-Sep-1 11:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"Heartless asshole", Alast... ahem, Kevin? Really?

I'd like to think that you have some rationale for calling him such other than "he has political opinions which differ from mine". And, of course, he's a politician, so he's not exactly going to be winning any Fine Upstanding Citizen of the Year awards.

But surely there must be ways for you to express your disagreement, however vehement, with his politics than with personal attacks. After all, one could easily construe your statement to mean that all people who agree with Gov. Perry's ideas are heartless assholes... even those who shake hands and talk with you at conventions and read and comment positively on your webcomic. Just saying.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kevinjdog
Date:2011-Sep-1 11:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I have my reasons based on what I've read and heard, and I'm not going to get into a political argument on Chip's blog. I've said my piece. I've been down this road before, it leads to a lot of wasted time. You won't convince me; I won't convince you.

My opinion of Perry specifically doesn't affect my opinion of others. If in someone's mind, "Thomas was a nice guy until he insulted Rick Perry..." well, that's the way it goes.

Edited at 2011-09-01 11:40 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensterfox
Date:2011-Sep-1 11:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't blame you for not wanting to get into a political argument on the Internet.

As for my opinion of you, I'll trust you have your reasons for feeling the way you do. Just so long as you're calling him out specifically, and not necessarily those who think like he does (publicly).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tracerj
Date:2011-Sep-2 01:49 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think Rick Perry is a heartless asshole because of what he thinks.
Person X thinks the same as Rick Perry.
Thus: I think Person X is the same sort of heartless asshole as Rick Perry.

I'm just not seeing a flaw in the logic here. (You know, independent of whether "heartless asshole" is a precise enough term for that sort of person.) It follows perfectly. So if Rick Perry can be called out publicly, why not those who think the same as he does? Did I miss a finer point here?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kensterfox
Date:2011-Sep-2 02:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Just slightly.

I think Rick Perry is a heartless asshole.
Rick Perry thinks Y.
"Rick Perry is a heartless asshole because he thinks Y" is a fallacious conclusion, because correlation does not imply causation.

Now, it may be that Kevin does think that Rick Perry is a heartless asshole because of what he thinks, and would therefore think such of anyone who agrees with Perry, but he never actually said as much, and that was what I was trying to clear up. Kevin said that he thought he was a heartless asshole based on what he's read and heard, but he never said what he had read and heard about, and it's not obvious.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:thraxarious
Date:2011-Sep-2 02:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
chit. I wrote up a big long challenge to all this and some mis-click made it all disappear.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:oliver_otter
Date:2011-Sep-2 03:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'll just add, a lot of these are just shorthand for specific incidents or very specific issues, not really meant to be read literally as overarching principles to live by. They're not even internally consistent if you take them literally.

For example, "We are fed up with a federal government arrogant enough to declare it knows more about our health than our doctor..." refers pretty much exclusively to Obamacare. And even more directly, I think, to the "death panels" straw man Palin made up. It's not real (yet), but the possibility of it still resonates, especially with issues conservatives rather than people who have any coherent ideological basis for their political leanings. (And probably even more importantly, with at least some independents who don't even have a political leaning to begin with, but can be scared if made to think of Granny being sent to Carousel because some anonymous Federal bureaucrat declared her paw gem was a shade too red.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:chipuni
Date:2011-Sep-2 01:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'll just add, a lot of these are just shorthand for specific incidents or very specific issues, not really meant to be read literally as overarching principles to live by. They're not even internally consistent if you take them literally.

Bluntly, then that's terrible writing.

He's taking a near-Anarchist stand on some issues. If he's not willing to defend the consequences of his stands, then he shouldn't have published them last year.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:oliver_otter
Date:2011-Sep-3 05:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
He wrote to his intended audience, in language they'd understand. There just should be a translation guide.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:orleans
Date:2011-Sep-2 03:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
I am personally fed up with the right ranting about activist judges, which always winds up meaning "judges who don't interpret the law exactly the way I do" or even "judges who don't completely ignore the law to rule on social issues according to my preferences".

I'm also fed up with people who rant about the bailouts to big banks and Fannie/Freddie Mae and don't rant against the business practices and deregulatory environment that allowed them to wind up in a situation where they needed bailing out. The bailout was merely a symptom and was probably necessary if the US wanted to avoid a severe depression.

I'm also fed up with people who see their government as nothing but a problem, without seeing how good government can help a country grow.

There are things I like about America, but I'm more pessimistic about it's future than I've ever been. It absolutely needs to ditch the hard right and its rhetoric and get pragmatic, constructive and optimistic again. (I'm not ignoring the fact that the hard left is also a problem, but they have less influence right now than they've had in a century, so they're obviously not causing the current problems.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:rowyn
Date:2011-Sep-3 12:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
and, guess what? America IS great.

Y'know, it really is. n_n
(Reply) (Thread)