a question for the primitives

[franksolich]

.....which of course the pigs aren't even going to answer.....

While I was watching with a friend, old news-reels of the funeral of Charles de Gaulle in November 1970, a question for the primitives suddenly occurred to me.

What is the point of giving primitives anything, when no matter what it is, how much it is, they’re going to be ungrateful anyway?  In fact, they’re pretty likely to be more than simply ungrateful; they usually become hostile too.

The news-reels reminded me that in May 1968 or May 1969—I forget the year, and am too indolent to look it up—France erupted in lawlessness and disorder, mostly because “students” (quotation marks intentional) were angry that de Gaulle hadn’t given them “enough.”

One supposes history has since shown that probably de Gaulle gave them more than “enough,” far more than what they deserved.  They had no reason to throw a tantrum like that, nearly bringing the country down.

Fortunately, France survived, and in a subsequent referendum to approve, or disapprove, of de Gaulle, his political party won a landslide victory of a scale rarely seen in western democracies where the vote is honestly counted.

But one remains stymied; why are primitives so ungrateful to those who gave them much?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concurrently about this same time, the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, was having the same sort of problem; despite that he’d given them s-o-o-o-o-o much, he was having to deal with angry students, minorities, and the poor, who were ganging up on him, doing their best to get rid of him.

I remember all too well, the impression it made on me, a young person confused at what he was seeing.

Johnson had given all these special interests—students, minorities, the poor—more than any president before had ever given them, and in fact more than all previous presidents combined, had given them.  Of course, it was other people’s money Johnson so magnanimously handed out, but if he hadn’t done it, probably no one else would’ve.

It still perplexes me, that such people could be such ungrateful asses, and while of course Republican with no fondness otherwise for the late Democrat president, to this day I still feel a certain way about Lyndon Johnson that I felt in grade school; sympathy for what the poor man had to endure from ungrateful asses.

He shouldn’t have even bothered; he should’ve just told the jerks to **** off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And we had this same sort of thing recently, during the primaries to select the Democrat candidate for president.  On one side there was a certain woman who, when her husband had been president during the 1990s, had given Democrats, liberals, and primitives all they ever dreamed of getting, far more than they’d ever imagined they’d get—unlimited abortion, dependency-creating social programs, stultification of our national security and defense, indoctrination rather than education, total control over the news media, Hollywood, popular culture, and academia.

She gave them loads of stuff, and was willing to give them even more, although one’s stumped to think of anything “more” that’s possible to give them.

She was opposed by an old sourassed sourpuss whose claim to fame was his eccentricity and crankiness, not his ability to give people things.

And the old grouch came very close to defeating her for the nomination.

If I were Messalina Agrippina, I’d ask myself, “why did I even bother giving these asses anything, as ungrateful—and even hostile—as they’ve been?”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Being a Republican, I’ve been dismayed all my life with Republican presidents wishing to be president “of all the people”—the line-up includes Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, the second George Bush.

It’s a fine and statesmanlike thing to be, a president of all the people, but one can carry it too far, as every single one of the abovementioned has, bending over backwards to give things to the other side which, instead of being grateful, angrily bites the hand feeding one.

Even the evul Nixon and the more-evul Reagan gave Democrats, liberals, and primitives a lot more than they should have, and mountains more than what they deserved.

In fact, given the ingratitude and hostility about what they’re given, Democrats, liberals, and primitives shouldn’t be given a damned thing.  After all, presidents of their own party haven’t been known to give Republicans conservatives, and other decent and civilized people as much as a crumb.

What is the point of giving pearls to greedy ungrateful swine?

I hope to God Donald Trump remembers that old adage, "reward your friends and kick your enemies in the ass," because it's not going to do him any good being generous to Democrats, liberals, and primitives.

[I_B_Perky]

.....which of course the pigs aren't even going to answer.....

While I was watching with a friend, old news-reels of the funeral of Charles de Gaulle in November 1970, a question for the primitives suddenly occurred to me.

What is the point of giving primitives anything, when no matter what it is, how much it is, they’re going to be ungrateful anyway?  In fact, they’re pretty likely to be more than simply ungrateful; they usually become hostile too.

The news-reels reminded me that in May 1968 or May 1969—I forget the year, and am too indolent to look it up—France erupted in lawlessness and disorder, mostly because “students” (quotation marks intentional) were angry that de Gaulle hadn’t given them “enough.”

One supposes history has since shown that probably de Gaulle gave them more than “enough,” far more than what they deserved.  They had no reason to throw a tantrum like that, nearly bringing the country down.

Fortunately, France survived, and in a subsequent referendum to approve, or disapprove, of de Gaulle, his political party won a landslide victory of a scale rarely seen in western democracies where the vote is honestly counted.

But one remains stymied; why are primitives so ungrateful to those who gave them much?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concurrently about this same time, the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, was having the same sort of problem; despite that he’d given them s-o-o-o-o-o much, he was having to deal with angry students, minorities, and the poor, who were ganging up on him, doing their best to get rid of him.

I remember all too well, the impression it made on me, a young person confused at what he was seeing.

Johnson had given all these special interests—students, minorities, the poor—more than any president before had ever given them, and in fact more than all previous presidents combined, had given them.  Of course, it was other people’s money Johnson so magnanimously handed out, but if he hadn’t done it, probably no one else would’ve.

It still perplexes me, that such people could be such ungrateful asses, and while of course Republican with no fondness otherwise for the late Democrat president, to this day I still feel a certain way about Lyndon Johnson that I felt in grade school; sympathy for what the poor man had to endure from ungrateful asses.

He shouldn’t have even bothered; he should’ve just told the jerks to **** off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And we had this same sort of thing recently, during the primaries to select the Democrat candidate for president.  On one side there was a certain woman who, when her husband had been president during the 1990s, had given Democrats, liberals, and primitives all they ever dreamed of getting, far more than they’d ever imagined they’d get—unlimited abortion, dependency-creating social programs, stultification of our national security and defense, indoctrination rather than education, total control over the news media, Hollywood, popular culture, and academia.

She gave them loads of stuff, and was willing to give them even more, although one’s stumped to think of anything “more” that’s possible to give them.

She was opposed by an old sourassed sourpuss whose claim to fame was his eccentricity and crankiness, not his ability to give people things.

And the old grouch came very close to defeating her for the nomination.

If I were Messalina Agrippina, I’d ask myself, “why did I even bother giving these asses anything, as ungrateful—and even hostile—as they’ve been?”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Being a Republican, I’ve been dismayed all my life with Republican presidents wishing to be president “of all the people”—the line-up includes Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, the second George Bush.

It’s a fine and statesmanlike thing to be, a president of all the people, but one can carry it too far, as every single one of the abovementioned has, bending over backwards to give things to the other side which, instead of being grateful, angrily bites the hand feeding one.

Even the evul Nixon and the more-evul Reagan gave Democrats, liberals, and primitives a lot more than they should have, and mountains more than what they deserved.

In fact, given the ingratitude and hostility about what they’re given, Democrats, liberals, and primitives shouldn’t be given a damned thing.  After all, presidents of their own party haven’t been known to give Republicans conservatives, and other decent and civilized people as much as a crumb.

What is the point of giving pearls to greedy ungrateful swine?

I hope to God Donald Trump remembers that old adage, "reward your friends and kick your enemies in the ass," because it's not going to do him any good being generous to Democrats, liberals, and primitives.

The dummies remind me of my current crop of doggies in a way.  No matter how many treats I give them, they beg for more.  In another family, they would be lucky to get a treat period.  Having grown up from pups in the Perky household, treats and love are all they know. They really do not know how good they have it not having lived in another situation.  Dummies remind of these doggies.

On the flip side, I had a stray show up years ago.  Now that dog knew what it was like to be cold and hungry. No matter what I gave him, he was grateful. Never begged for more. Worked for his keep by keeping any and all critters out of the yard. People here remind me of that dog.

I personally think dummies do not know any better.  Never had to work for what they got and thus take it for granted... and want more, always more.  They could have a mansion, servants, a yacht, the whole nine yards and still would not be satisfied.

As for the current GOP politicians... maybe they should watch how Trump fights and never backs down. Quit being part of the DC establishment that hates them no matter what they do and will stab them in the back first chance they get.  Do what their voters sent them to DC to do. Take on the establishment and never back down.

[Carl]

They will always believe that the US treasury is just a vote away.