The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on July 14, 2011, 12:58:22 PM

Title: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: franksolich on July 14, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
You know, you guys on Skins's island are big, real big, about comparing this country with the waning days of the ancien regime in France, say circa 1789-1793, where the super-rich partied while the peasants starved; where the aristocrats fiddled while the country burned.

And then there's calls for the guillotine.

Fine, and I personally happen to agree that's a damned good analogy.

But it seems to me you're confusing the aristocrats as being the peasants, and the peasants as being the aristocrats here.

There's thousands of examples--the pages of democraticunderground are rife with them--name-calling George Bush as a "rich boy" and not name-calling your 2004 presidential candidate the same thing.  George Bush in 2004 was worth 5.6 million; John Kerrey in 2004 was a razor's edge from being a billionaire.

Or whining about the plight of $90,000+ teachers and other union workers in Wisconsin, while denigrating the plight of $20,000 workers in the Badger State.

I won't bother repeating other examples where you've confused the rich with the poor, and the poor with the rich; there's not enough bandwidth to do that.

But now this has come up.

The country is tottering on the brink, the closest to financial breakdown it's been in its history.

The day after we're scheduled to go broke, your Chosen One is having a big birthday bash in Chicago, $36,000 the price of a ticket; obviously an evening only the super-rich can afford.

I think you need to reconsider who you think the aristocrats are, and who the peasants are.

And thus, whose heads are going on the electoral chopping block next.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: Wineslob on July 14, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
 :clap:
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 14, 2011, 02:28:56 PM
Liberalism is without principles; it is raw, naked egocentrism. Therefore, all things governmental must be of the liberal, for the liberal and by the liberal.

Alas, liberals--as egocentric as they are--are also pretty damned useless. If they were self-reliant they would be conservatives with the most self-centered among them being libertarians.

Since they are not self-reliant they must co-opt terms from others.

That is why the argumant in favor of normalizing homosexuality is cloaked as "civil rights" and Supreme Court Justices who judge solely within the context of the Constitution are "activist judges." These are conservative terms created to preserve a civil society. As this preservation is mostly successful the liberal wants to plagarize those terms in the belief that messaging won those issues, not principle...the thing they lack.

That being said the liberals must now co-opt the French Revolution even though their side is the side with the Kennedys, Rockafellers, Kerrys, Feinsteins, Pelosis et al.

I'm sure they would lo-o-o-o-ove to call it a Bolshevik Revolution but that hideous Koch funded media channel FOX has tainted the US educational system into thinking the Bolsheviks were bad.

The French Revolution also has the "virtue" of being deeply anti-religious with such scrumptuous little morsels as Diderot claiming justice would never be achieved until the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

So liberals will pick-and-choose imagery that suits their interests and repeat the message ad nauseam until it is believed. None of it is based on any defined principle such as, "wealth is bad because it takes from others" because they love them some Soros, who as history will recount, damn near broke the British pension system for the working class so he could make *his* money.

So long as Soros uses his money to defeat the U.S. political party that wants to make people self-reliant for their retirement the DUmbasses will cheer his wealth so long as their pension is left in peace and if they have to call upon images of the slightly-less communistic but still brazenly anti-religious French Revolution, then so be it.

Fortunately for us they self-confine amid the granite rubble and intellectual ruin of DU where only they see their rantings. In fact, I would hazard a guess that were it not for sites such as CC or DUFU nobody outside the asylum would ever cross their sad scratchings. Give them the the attention they crave and the justice they deserve.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: FiddyBeowulf on July 14, 2011, 02:32:01 PM
I was going to post something like the above but SgtSB lays it out better than I ever could. ^5
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: true_blood on July 14, 2011, 08:16:50 PM
But now this has come up.

The country is tottering on the brink, the closest to financial breakdown it's been in its history.

The day after we're scheduled to go broke, your Chosen One is having a big birthday bash in Chicago, $36,000 the price of a ticket; obviously an evening only the super-rich can afford.

I think you need to reconsider who you think the aristocrats are, and who the peasants are.

And thus, whose heads are going on the electoral chopping block next.

Game, Set, Match.
Frank - 1, Primitives - 0.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: franksolich on July 14, 2011, 08:19:22 PM
Game, Set, Match.
Frank - 1, Primitives - 0.

It was weird.

I posted that.

And then about three hours later, I was reminded that today's Bastille Day.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: ExGeeEye on July 14, 2011, 09:47:29 PM
Sittin' at home with the wife this forenoon (I werk nights) watching the 1935 version of A Tale of Two Cities just because it was next on our list, when we suddenly realized, almost simultaneously, what day it is.

If that wasn't enough, we have Fat Man and Little Boy lined up for two days hence.

I assure you we didn't plan it that way...
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: Carl on July 14, 2011, 10:00:04 PM
It matters nothing to a primitive what someone else has...as long as that person promises to take from another and give it to them.

Lowest form of life on Earth they are.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: USA4ME on July 14, 2011, 10:49:56 PM
I like to remind the primitives that 15 years after the French Revolution, you got Napoleon Bonaparte.

.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 15, 2011, 07:42:45 AM
I was going to H5 just Coach and SSB, but everyone on this thread has a good point . . . and I haven't H5ed my neighbor in a while, anyway. :o

H5s to all.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: GOBUCKS on July 15, 2011, 11:00:41 AM
This story about the Kenyan's birthday bash reminded me of a similar event a few years ago.
Does anyone remember Emperor Bokassa?
(http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/gobucksnumbers/bokassa.jpg)
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: franksolich on July 15, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
This story about the Kenyan's birthday bash reminded me of a similar event a few years ago.
Does anyone remember Emperor Bokassa?
(http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac32/gobucksnumbers/bokassa.jpg)

Yeah, I do, the "emperor" of the "Central African Empire."

He lasted about five years, I think.
Title: Re: franksolich (ahem) has a question for the primitives
Post by: Karin on July 15, 2011, 12:09:46 PM
I just read up on him.  A charming, charming man. 

Aside from dinner,

Quote
a large number of elementary school students in Bangui and elsewhere in the country were arrested after they had protested against paying for and wearing the expensive, government-required school uniforms with Bokassa's image on them. Around 100 children were killed.[45] Bokassa allegedly participated in the massacre, beating some of the children to death with his cane.