John Baker <
nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:48:50 -0800 (PST), Ilya Shambat
><
ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 2, 7:13 pm, John Baker <
nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:45:55 -0500, "news" <
n...@news.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Ilya Shambat" <
ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:389f61e6-dee4-47bc...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> Many conservative leaders have been attacking Julian Assange,
>>>
>>> >He's a smug self-serving asshole.
>>>
>>> So he's a Republican, then...
>>
>>Interesting take.
>
>Just a sarcastic one. In my experience, the phrase "smug, self-serving
>asshole" sums up the average Republican in a nutshell.
>
I used-to-wonder about Bill O'Reilly always taking the part of Big
Business; while never EVER seeing that Big Business left uncontrolled
is fully as bad as Big Government left uncontrolled, when he CLAIMS to
be "Fair and Balanced" (TM).
Of course, any idiot can see that no matter how extreme you are in
politics, religion, or any other controversial issue, there's always
somebody even further to the right, left, or over-the-cliff; so Bill
just can point to THEM, and say, "In comparison, I'm a moderate!"
And, sadly, he'll be right. (Pun intended.)
Yes, it happens with the Left, as well.
Then, the other day, I had an epiphany.
Of COURSE O'Reilly thinks that way!
It also readily explains why most politician (Yes, both Democrats AND
Republicans) have similar attitudes.
And, surprisingly, it ain't because of all the Big Business lobbyists
paying off those in power (though I doubt much that they object very
much to being paid, promoted, or having their campaigns financed by
people trying to get them to do what they'd do anyway).
It's that Bill, along with just about ALL of those people in Congress,
are relatively RICH. Oh, not so many smokingly-rich like the
Kennedys; but probably 90% or more are in "the one-percent" so often
brandied about.
The POINT is: Those people don't have their money in a bank.
They (usually)don't run companies and earn money that way.
So ... Where *IS* all their money ... The money they live off of
day-to-day and buy their luxuries with.
It ain't bribes from lobbyists.
It ain't jobs like being lawyers or doctors or whatever else GOT them
rich.
It really ain't their pay as congress-critters either. Most of THAT
actually goes into supporting their positions.
DUH!
They (almost all) have rather obscene amounts of money (Obscene to
most of us living paychect-to-paycheck; not obscene if we're making a
decent living and working to get that rich ourselves) stuffed away in
the logical place for people WITH money: Stocks, bonds, gold, and
Real-Estate. Mostly stocks.
So ... Think about it:
If the stock-market goes UP, then people like Bill O'Reilly make lots
of money. If it goes DOWN, then they LOSE money. Therefore
(obviously) anything that improves the Stock-Market is GOOD for Bill;
and therefore MUST be good for the country! It only makes sense!
After all, don't MOST pepople think, "If it's good for ME, then it
must be good for the country too!"
I suspect THAT attitude goes with close to 95% or more of people.
So, Bill O'Reilly isn't all that far off in thinking he's just like
the rest of the country in his attitudes.
Well ... OK ... If you carefully PICK which attitudes.
>
>>I was actually using arguments of the conservatives
>>to argue in favor of Julian Assange: Namely that he is informing the
>>taxpayer of what's being done at his expense.
>>
>>Conservatives who laud people who expose fraud in the government, but
>>howl about someone who exposed fraud in government's biggest, most
>>expensive and most wasteful bureaucracy, are obviously a bunch of
>>logically challenged hypocrites.
>>
>>If it's right to expose fraud and corruption in civil government, it
>>is also right to expose fraud and corruption in the military. And a
>>conservative who is actually true to his creed would support someone
>>who does that.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_