Friday, February 17, 2012

Han Shot First

Culture Wars? It's On!
     Bill Whittle on PJTV

Excellent Afterburner video from PJTV up at You Tube right now.

While the 'Evil Child-like Socialists' in power, their codependent Hollyweird sycophants, and the 'entitled' parasites falsely claiming to be "the 99%" are waging open war against American civilization, it is nice to see some 'push back'.

Bill Whittle, once again, does not disappoint, and while I generally agree with Solomon at SNAFU! about the downsides of 'Act Of Valor',Whittle points out a 'positive' for the movie that cannot be denied. His observations about the making of 'Act of Valor' may not be precisely 'correct' but they are forgivable in the greater scheme of things.

I may get one of those 'Han Shot First t-shirts myself.


B.Smitty said...

Whittle needs to tone down the "elitist liberal" nonsense. I vote Democrat and, hell yes, Han shot first. (And yes, "elitist liberal parasite" President Obama ordered the Osama takedown.)

Lucas just fell off the deep end as he got older. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't blame everyone left of you for his problems.

For another old-school Han Solo moment, check out the last The Walking Dead episode "Nebraska" (filmed with real "liberal elitist" actors).

(minor spoilers below)

SMSgt Mac said...

Smitty. Notice though that I didn't use the word 'liberal' anywhere in the post. I have acquaintences who think some (very few) of my views are 'liberal'. Personally, I find Whittle's term of 'elitist liberal' polite code for far-left Socialist. If there were still enough 'Scoop Jackson' Democrats in elected positions (or the party in soem places) to make a quorum, I doubt the hard-core left would be able to hide behind the 'liberal' moniker. I've never voted straight party ticket in my life -I just vote 'the person' But since about 1986 I've found it has meant pretty much the same thing in these parts.
IMHO Obama giving the go ahead on OBL was a ideology-neutral. He knew it was a no-lose situation to say yes, with all downside with political fallout if he said no. It would have been the same for any President. My problem with the current 'regime' (and the term does reflect their behaviors) is as I noted in a thread over at Ann Althouse's blog today:
More interested in:
1. Economy/Unemployment news,
2. Global Destabilization
3. Stopping the US from unilateral disarmamant
4. 2012 elections.
Not neccesarily in that order, but what happens with #4 could be key to the other three.

B.Smitty said...

It was hardly a no-lose situation for the President. If the op went badly, it would reflect on him. Think Jimmy Carter and Desert One. Granted, the OBL op wasn't nearly as complex, but it didn't exactly go smoothly.

In any case, Obama is not 'evil', 'child-like', or a 'socialist'. That's just hateful language used by the far right.

I'm totally fine with the current 'regime' (another hate-loaded term) focusing on the economy and global destabilization. A strong economy is critical to this nation's health and safety. More critical than a few extra brigades or fighter squadrons.

And any President not focusing on getting re-elected in an election year probably shouldn't be President in the first place.

Just MHO

Polaris said...

Smitty's right

SMSgt Mac said...

No, I believe smitty can be shown to be wrong.
RE: 'Evil Child-like Socialist'
See David Limbaugh's summary at for a pretty fair summary.
Avoid the Circumstantial Ad Hominem - facts are facts, and the interpretation of the facts may reasonably lead to the conclusions of the author- and I believe the majority of adults.
RE: 'Regime' isn't hate-filled. It is neutral.
Attempts to Socialize the country make Obama's organization a Socialist Regime. Which is not neutral.

RE: Parallels to Carter and Desert One. There's not much there. Jimmy Carter's feeble Foreign Policy precipitated the hostage crises and he micromanaged the rescue attempt. The only other key failure was the insistence of going as 'Joint Op' as possible instead of using AF H-53s with better gear (air filtration and sensors) and crews with more experience doing ops deep in Indian country. Obama inherited an ongoing operation, and works to distance himself from military ops to keep from riling his base. I'm pretty sure he also knew that getting OBL would allow him to slouch towards getting out of Iraq before we should have without causing a stink - which so far has worked.
Related Reading:
"The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shales
"Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg
"The Thomas Sowell Reader" by Sowell and also his:
"The Vision of the Anointed",
"Economics Facts and Fallacies" & "Intellectuals and Society"

Polaris said...

The US is nowhere near being a socialist state. I know - I've lived in a few. To say otherwise is just delusional

SMSgt Mac said...

I've lived in one myself, I'd say they come in more than one flavor,and the Obama Fascist Brand is no more palatable in the long run than the rest. The idea is to not GET to the point where the US irreversably becomes a fully-fledged Socialist state. Right now I'd say even the dullest frogs in the pot should notice the water is beginning to boil. What the Dems are selling now as 'fair' and 'equal' is reminiscent Alexis de Tocqueville's reference to a 'depraved taste' for equality:

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty and, if they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would rather perish than lose it.

B.Smitty said...

How is it fascist or depraved to want the rich to pay the same tax rate as everyone else? Is the desire for nationalized healthcare really a sign of the apocalypse, as many on the right would want us to believe?

I think you need to take a step back, turn off Fox News and right wing radio, and get some perspective.

Obama is not a socialist or a fascist. He's no more "socialist" than FDR. At "worst", he's a social democrat. The problem is, the GOP has moved SOOO far to the right, they can't see the center anymore.

By some accounts, Obama is the most centrist candidate since WWII.

Granted, there are fewer data points for Obama than other presidents, but it hardly squares with the right's persistent assertion that Obama is some sort of radical.

If you want to look for a candidate with fascist leanings, how about Rick Santorum? He's willing to demonize anyone who remotely disagrees with him.

Polaris said...

Save it Smitty. Too much Kool-Aid for too long. I blame it on the Ailes noise machine and the deplorable educational system. You're right - no mention of the likes of Santorum. The Repubs are all for freedom for gov'mint until it concerns the bedroom

SMSgt Mac said...

Heh. You guys have descended into cliché, and in Polaris' case egregious, fact-free, cliché… at the 'neener-neener' (uber-lame) level Awww...and it didn’t take him long either.
At least Smitty tries with the 'rich aren't taxed enough' canard. Helpfully, he focused on one aspect: 'rates'.
I would counter with that the rate at which income is taxed in the US is among the most PROGRESSIVE (The ‘rich’ pay higher “rates” - to the point that the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of the income tax). Wealthier Americans do pay an effective lower rate on other incomes, especially dividend income and note that the tax law includes this feature for two reasons. First (or what should be first but is probably second in bureaucrat's minds) is that the income is based upon other income that had already been taxed and the objective is to avoid double-taxation. Second, the law promotes investment and re-investment of monies that actually create more wealth: new products to be made, new factories to be built, and new people to hire and pay: new sources of tax revenue for the nation at every level of transaction.
I do find this entire point of contention is delicious, because at its very core it is also pointless, in same sense that claims of an increasing gap between the Rich and Poor is without merit. Categories of ‘Rich’, ‘Middle Class’, ‘Poor’ etc. don’t actually represent real people. Real people tend to move between the categories over the arc of their lives. The income ‘Quintiles’ of 5, 10, 20 years ago have different people in them now. Once again, I recommend Thomas Sowell, this time in video.
Spend ~45 minutes to learn something other than clichés, of the class warfare vein or otherwise. Hope it doesn’t explode your head.

B.Smitty said...

I'm fine with the bottom 50% paying low rates. The bottom 50% is defined as a family earning less than $33,000 a year. They are living paycheck to paycheck. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Your argument that they only pay 3% of total taxes collected just goes to show NOT how little they pay, but the vastness of income and wealth disparity between top and bottom in this country.

Arguments that the rich pay enough already in absolute terms, or will just find loopholes around tax law, or are "job creators" is just baloney. We had some of this country's most productive years during the higher tax Clinton era and some of the worst years during the low tax Bush Jr years. The economy is far more complex than that. So-called "job creators" need demand to spur investment. Without it and they will just move that money somewhere where demand exists (not here).

Yes, people move between quintiles over their lifetimes. But that mobility has DECREASED in recent times.

Class warfare has been going on in this country since inception. It's just that rich win most of the time.

It was class warfare when Bush Jr gave the rich a huge tax break.

It's class warfare to allow the rich to donate unlimited funds to supposedly uncoupled Super PACs.

It's class warfare when, during deficit debates, the Republican candidates won't even consider a ratio of $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts (most of which coming from programs benefiting the poor).

(BTW, we may be on opposite ends on this, but I still do enjoy your blog.)

SMSgt Mac said...

Just like between myself and about a third of my family, we agree to disagree.