is an Obama supporter, which kind of says it all about the loser mindset of Obama's voting bloc. Since Dr. Mason seems to be pro-socialist, I figure I'd spread his wealth around on my blog. I hated just about every word from Dr. Dork's article, so I'll just share the more salient points, such as they are.
Like Democrat former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, who famously tried to appease mass murdering North Korean communists with autographed basketballs, Mason commences his article by primarily blaming (or crediting, depending on your POV) George W. BushMcHitlerHaliburton for AmeriKKKa's decline:
Yet, in recent decades, particularly since 9/11, every aspect of this American predominance has faded....Obama at least partially restored America's international reputation [Mason's article was written before our ambassador to Libya was raped and murdered ] --which had been so badly battered by the George W. Bush administration with ...flaunting international law [it's only bad if USA thumbs nose at UN, but A-OK if anyone else, especially America's enemies, do the same], and the sanctioning of torture [enhanced interrogation, aka pouring purified water on the heads of mass murderers, is not torture....Al Qaeda slowly chopping the heads off Jews and Christians is] -- by ending the war [aka by surrendering to Pakistan's Taleban in Afghanistan and Iran's Quds force in Iraq]
Now, with Obama's feckless foreign policy, the US is neither loved nor feared, only ridiculed and bullied, just the way young Barry beat up and bullied a little girl back in school:
Since it's too late to surrender to the CCCP, Mason suggests that we preemptively surrender to the PRC before their population implodes and to Al Qaeda before their underwear explodes. Mason reaches into the wayback machine into the last century and quotes Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers":
Kennedy pointed to the U.S. federal debt, then at 44 % of GDP, as a worrisome consequence of "imperial overstretch"....The only other historical example of a great power becoming indebted in peacetime [the US was fighting against the Soviet Union during the Cold War at the time, minor detail] was France in the 1780s [leftists, going back to Jefferson, always seem to fantasize about a bloody French type revolution occurring in the US]...Today, Kennedy's concerns seem almost quaint, with the federal debt approaching 100 % of GDP.
About the only point I agree with is that the USA should reduce its debt. Of course, left-wing America-haters like Mason want to do this by raising taxes versus cutting spending, with the exception of gutting US defense.
Mason then proceeds to engage in moral equivalency between the Occupy Wall Street crowd, that was responsible for rape and violent crime, to the law abiding, peaceful Tea Party, which has nothing in common with the former except both are comprised of featherless bipeds.
The roots of fear and hostility in the Tea Party [we have neither, just a reverence to the US Constitution and America's founding documents] have much in common with those of Occupy Wall Street; both camps feel marginalized and helpless [no, we feel empowered as free citizens in a democratic republic, you socialist stooge].
Mason then proceeds with the standard leftwing trope against the 2010 "Citizens United":
allowing unlimited corporate contributions [as opposed to the previous unlimited contributions from labor unions and in kind contribution from the DNC media, thus leveling the playing field for the DNC] to political campaigns.
Mason then criticizes anyone who criticizes Obama as "polarized":
sharpened rhetoric and bitter invective (e.g. a congressman yelling "you lie" at President Obama during the latter's fall 2009 speech...) [So, Obama actually lying isn't considered bitter to Mason, only the person honestly calling Obama out on all of his lies is bitter]Mason then asserts a socialist, illogical non sequitur, but I repeat myself:
It is becoming increasingly clear that inequality hurts society as a whole. A recent global study by the IMF, for example, found that countries with strong economic growth tended to have greater income inequality than those with weak growth.
¿Qué? His example contradicts his thesis, unless he feels that economic growth is a bad thing that hurts society. Mason then proceeds with more standard socialist leftist mush:
Economic inequality is, in my view, the key to all other aspects of American domestic and global decline...the top marginal tax rate in 1963 was 91% but by 2003 it had fallen to 35%
The American Thinker debunks this old lefty bromide, pointing out that it ignores two major details: (1) Effective tax rate is lower when exemptions are calculated in (2) The US is competing for capital with other countries, both people, even lefty progs, can call Reich's bluff, pull up stakes and move, taking their dough with them, like Clinton criminal briber, Marc Rich's wife.
Mason continues with standard lefty mathematical slight of hand:
Over decades, inequality grew [who cares], tax rates declined [there's a difference between tax rates and tax revenues], poverty increased [so did its definition], and household and government debt mushroomed.
Addressing the first point, income inequality is only considered bad if you're a totalitarian socialist. As far as his second point is concerned, the left often falsely uses the terms "tax rate" and "tax revenue" interchangeably. For example, under GWBush, the tax rates were lowered, but the revenue, money coming into the IRS, increased. Unfortunately, government spending increased faster than revenue coming in, thus the budget deficit, and ultimately national debt, also increased. Of course, the left's answer to address this problem is never to cut spending (again, unless it's the military budget), but only to raise tax rates. Indeed, as Obama has stated, he doesn't want to raise tax rates to raise revenues, only to punish his political enemies, or the more palatably stated, for "purposes of fairness":
Mason then blathers on:
An even more difficult obstacle for most Americans is psychological -- recognizing and accepting that the US is no longer No. 1 in everything, and moving on from that. There are, after all, considerable advantages to not being No.1 internationally: less a target of resentment, blame, and anger; and less frequently expected to intervene on international or global quandaries
Again, ¿Qué? Mason's in the "blame the victim" and "blame America first" crowd. Jihadists resent us because we won't convert to Islam, becoming weaker will just make us a bigger target, muffin head, Mason. As Rumsfeld said, weakness is provocative.
Mason then shifts from red to green propaganda:
Becoming less voracious consumers will reduce America's substantial burden on global resources and the environment [whoopee, who cares? that's a "considerable advantage" we should care about?!?!]Mason then stumps, quite selflessly, of course, for more money for himself, as well as more money for the mystical, magical, wealth producing roads and bridges:
It is unlikely, for example, that America can restore its global economic competitiveness until fixing the educational paradigm [then lobby for school choice versus shoveling good taxpayer money after bad] and modernizing infrastructure.
Mason then triples down on his hippy anti-military tirade:
[America's] formidable military power is now mostly irrelevant, perhaps even counterproductive, in a world where the biggest threats to humanity come from [wait for it] climate change, terrorism [how does he hope to fight terrorism? Handing out old Hope & Change posters?], famine, and disease rather than from armies charging borders [tell that to our dead Ambassador in Libya, you idiot]
Oddly enough, Mason turns on his lefty comrades by attacking American soft power, as well:
And the "soft power" of consumer society, popular culture, and political schema has lost some of its luster as many other countries have emerged with hipper, more attractive, or more efficient models (like China [and their Potemkin villages], Japan [and their school girl porn], Germany [and their creepy hardcore porn], and Brazil [with their relatively tame porn]
Mason continues spouting Karl Marx talking points:
Harnessing all of this, once again, will require wise and dedicated political leadership, and a spirit of common purpose and compromise [as Limbaugh says, compromise is for losers]. It also will require policies that enable the capable yet provide for the poor [yes, it's called limited government free market capitalism].In conclusion, Dr. David S. "Droopy Dog" Mason is a total loser who has never accomplished anything of any note in any field of endeavor at any time in his loser life. He wishes for all Americans to commit collective societal hari kari so he can feel good about himself. If he can drag everyone else down to his miserable loser level, he'll be the tallest dwarf, versus just the ugliest.
Posts
No comments :
Post a Comment