How sweet it is!
It's a rare event when readers comments are quite so interesting.
My thesis was that IF "Bengazi operatives would leave the military if Hillary was elected" ... they would be total wus.
I expected some controversy, but what was received was not at all what I thought I might find.
Here's the most interesting response:
In line with what the Geek said. Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her. Those of us who might not have voted for her or supported her will have to fall in line and obey her. After all she will be the historic first female president. We might disagree with her policies, but we must respect her office and the process which put her there.
Whatever the genesis, I appreciate the opportunity to counter-argue.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bengassi, nor military professionals .. but something to do with National Pride.
In America, we support (with money) people who CAN WORK, but who WILL NOT WORK .... and we congratulate ourselves for our sense of social responsibility!(That's nothing unique about America, but it's interesting that we have moved toward the European Plan!)
Personal: As I am of an age when I found it better to gracefully retire, rather than to continue working at increasingly unproductive tasks, I retired a few years ago after having contributed to the economy for over 50 years. I live on my small social social security earnings, and have not yet accessed my much more renumerative pension plan (to which I have contributed for decades).
I'm old, and not as competent in the chosen profession as I once was; I found it better to retire, than to continue working at a job in which I could not perform to my preferable level of competence.
This makes me look like a sucker on the social teat; I admit that. But still, I have small respect for those who can work, but will not, because they do not feel the need to be productive.
Hillary (and other Liberals) support these non-productive, but able-to-work people because Liberals know that they will vote for any politicians who will vote for free benefits .. earned or not.
Back to the comment from a viewer:
Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her. Those of us who might not have voted for her or supported her will have to fall in line and obey her. After all she will be the historic first female president. We might disagree with her policies, but we must respect her office and the process which put her there.I reject this comment on many levels, and I suspect that the commenter offered the thought because he intended to elicit a comment; I will not disappoint him.
Fisking the comment:
Hillary might not make the most ideal president; however, if she is elected it will show the democratic process works and a majority of the American people supported her.No.
Americans vote for the people who best represent their own, private priorities. A vote for a Liberal Democrat is not necessarily a vote for the candidate; rather, it is a vote for that candidate's policies.
A vote for Hillary Clinton may very well be a vote for the (Liberal) federal policy of providing free money for unproductive voters. As it is much easier to be unproductive, than to be productive, there is a large voter turnout who will always vote for Free Money.
Alexis de Tourquiville predicted this three centuries ago
Men in general are neither very good nor very bad, but mediocre... Man with his vices, his weaknesses, his virtues, this confused medley of good and ill, high and low, goodness and depravity, is yet, take him all in all, the object on earth most worthy of study, of interest, of pity, of attachment and of admiration. And since we haven't got angels, we can attach ourselves to nothing greater and more worthy of our devotion than our own kind.We were not surprised when this philosophy was embraced by our European Friends, but we have not noticed yet that we have embraced it in our own country.
We cannot, in good conscience, condemn our fellow man because he has decided to take advantage of A Free Ride. (Well, we me WANT to call him a slacker, but that's not fair to slackers.)
The Sick, The Lame, and The Lazy
We have always coddled, supported, and accepted the Sick and the Lame.
We know that they cannot always contribute to the National Good.
But The Lazy ... they are a pestule to the National Good.
They do not produce, nor do they contribute. They require productive people to contribute to their continued benefit, even though they do not seem willing to provide to their own sustenance.
The worst, though, is that while they don't support themselves .. yet they can vote.
They vote for any measure, any bill, any law which supports their canker on the public good.
The Democrats think this is a wonderful thing; they love the lazy voter, because the lazy voter will invariably vote for any measure which supports The Public dole ... no matter how obscure it may be, the "Lazy Vote" will make the differnce between encouraging people to fend for themselves, think of the best for all people ... as opposed for any measure which will encourage people to vote for The Common Good.
A bill which supports freedom? Vote it down!
A bill which supports the rights of the Individual? If there's not a 'Welfare Rider', it will not be supported.
A bill which supports the Lazy Voter? Vote for it now, and always~
We have become a nation which is ruled by the Lazy Voter ... the person who benefits best from the Public Dole.
Alexis was right: If there is a way in which the "mediocre many" may benefit, that is a law which will pass. It matters not whether it supports 'the public good', as long as it supports mediocrity .. it will pass. Because free men will ALWAYS vote for mediocrity.
And that's the way it is.