RESPONSE TO AN ANONYMOUS RESPONDER FROM "THE RANT"

The following is a response to a response which follows from anonymous and my reference to liberal thinking is keyed to that type of person rather than several liberals in my life who I respectfully disagree.

http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2009/09/glenn-beck-louse-that-roared.html

If we truly wanted to improve the country, we would prioritize what we want to see such as 1. National defense - without a country, not much else matters
2, Economy - without a good economy we can't afford to do anything - California is proving that to be true - Paradise which would be the 8th, I think, largest economy in the world if it were a separate country and it has had a government which has it in horrible fiscal condition
3. Education - an uneducated voter is a danger to the country - need to be educated in how the economy works and have a background in analytical thinking so that thought, not emotion governs voting decisions
4. Up for grabs because we would then be up the Maslow's heirarchy of needs to start doing good things. We cannot take care of anything as a nation if we do not first take care of ourselves.

I have a rough start to a bi-partisan solution which I believe would fix one of our nation's major defects. Our politicians are the only employees I know of who can totally anialate what they manage and still receive full salary and benefits. I have made my proposal on a separate blog at http://peopleeatingthescraps.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-do-we-choose-to-be-pets-of.html


I posted this on my blog as well as the source of the person to whom I am responding. I will even put intelligent responses on my entries. This is an emotional without facts type of response and it shows what I think too much of the discourse between a lot of liberal and conservative thinking tends toward. I have a very close relationship with several liberal people who are intelligent, but who have very different views of the same situation and solutions to our country's problems. That is why I have the definitions mooreon and WIIer which I challenge people to tell me why I fit one of these definitions rather than the challenger.

The letters on my website are rough drafts with notes on facts and fears of what Obama would do to America. I underestimated his ability to appeal to the whining wooses who don't want to take care of themselves. I acknowledge that that is totally emotional and not necessarily based on an exact percentage of supporters.

>
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw (1944)



Not a new problem with an inferior class of humans (nothing to do with race or religion - mentality). This has gone on for a long time. Nature has a rule that the fittest survive and it improves the species. Some liberal supporters are the exception to the rule as evidenced by the quality of your anonymous response which follows.


No suprise that your letters to your children and grandchildren have> received no repsonse. Or (more likley) that their response didn't fit with> your "agenda", so you censored them.

My questions are, "Is this therapeutic or productive in some way?" Does this person actually care about the country improving? What value is this person's thinking?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of (their) folly is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer....... What have we here?