There’s a kerfuffle going on, particularly in the Right Blogosphere, but extending beyond it into the media over this statement from a recent speech by President Obama:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
The president’s opponents have been quick to leap on the last two sentences, sometimes in amusing fashion. The president’s surrogates and defenders say that he’s being quoted out of context and that he didn’t really mean what his opponents say he meant. James Taranto makes a pretty good argument that the president meant exactly what his opponents claim he meant.
I agree with Aaron Blake’s take in the Washington Post—the president has handed his opponents a club to hit him with. See also the graphs in Aaron’s post: dis-ease with the president’s views on the role of government is not merely a partisan talking point but a factor for independents as well.
That’s significant. The facts of American politics today are that presidential candidates are nominated by their most partisan fellow party members but elected by independents.
There’s an amusing speech uttered by Jimmy Stewart’s character in the movie Shenandoah, possibly the most impious grace in cinema history:
Lord, we cleared this land. We plowed it, sowed it, and harvest it. We cook the harvest. It wouldn’t be here and we wouldn’t be eating it if we hadn’t done it all ourselves. We worked dog-bone hard for every crumb and morsel, but we thank you Lord just the same for the food we’re about to eat, amen.
It’s possible that’s how some Americans see themselves in their imaginations. I think those who honestly see themselves this way are very few, indeed. The question is where do you draw the line?
President Obama isn’t a Little Red Book collectivist. Mitt Romney isn’t a rugged individualist, anarcho-capitalist, or even a minarchist. If anything Mitt Romney is as close to an old-fashioned Nelson Rockefeller Republican or country club Republican as you’re likely to find today. Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Romney are at the extremes at which their detractors would like to place them.
George Will once wisecracked that American politics was like a game of football played between the 40 yard lines. Although the transition from catch-all parties towards programmatic parties on the part of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has made that less true than it was, say, 20 years ago, I think it remains true. Still, I’d like to know where President Obama and Gov. Romney each draw the line on the role of the federal government. In this election which threatens to be one of solely negative campaigning under conditions in which many Americans fear for their futures, I doubt we’ll get that sort of substantive dialogue.
@Dave Schuler
… If anything Mitt Romney is as close to an old-fashioned Nelson Rockefeller Republican or country club Republican as you’re likely to find today. …
Amen brother. This seems obvious to me. Romney is a big government “conservative”. I suspect his definition of business is big business. His definition of small business is probably much larger than most people think of as small.
… I doubt we’ll get that sort of substantive dialogue.
For this issue and others, we will never get much substantial from politicians. A politician needs to get 51% of the voters to agree with him. This is probably impossible. A position on certain issues (or combination of issues) will instantly disqualify them to some voters. By being vague, a position will be assumed by the individual. The base will assume he actually agrees with them, but he must appear to take the opposite position. A recent example would be President Obama on gay marriage.
Anybody who wants to be able to trust a politician further than they can throw them should hit the gym.
Obama denigrated individual effort in favor of collectivist action.
The text fails to capture the sneering tone of his remarks, the sheer arrogant smugness. He went beyond merely saying “it takes a village” to denigrating individual effort. And lest sam call me a liar again for bringing this up, here’s the link.
Too bad my father is dead. I’d love to tell him that he didn’t build the roads and the bridges – he didn’t do that. I honestly don’t know what his reaction would be. But I’m sure he would wonder what the Hell he had been doing all his life.
Anybody who wants to be able to trust a politician further than they can throw them should hit the gym.
Alternately, only elect ‘little people’.
Alternately, only elect ‘little people’.
I did not want to be accused of being a “heightist”.
I think the observation that Obamas remarks were not taken in their totality are fair. However I have no sympathy. The Obama team are the masters at dishonest spin. Just awful.
Second, I think icepick makes the correct observation. Look at the tone and spirit. Look at the demagoguery he alway engages in. Look at the pathetic pandering to narrow interest groups. And look at the utter dishonesty of pandering to the big banks and people like GE, while claiming now to be a man of the people. Obama has no cred. None.
As to the substance, his comments are idiotic. Every business has a road in from of it. So does every residence. They also have fire and police protection. Everyone had a teacher. It does not follow that everyone can just waltz in and create a successful business. Some
have the talent and gumption. Some don’t. It is absurd to claim then that because person A is a parasite on society, but person B creates a successful business that it is due to government or some collective effort.
It’s just plain and simply absurd. This is our President?
The part I object to the most is,
He makes it sound like it is the result of a grand scheme or plan. To that I say bullshit. It is the market economy, and market economies are more of an example of spontaneous order, people coming together and even though they don’t intend to explicitly, end up working in a way to make all better off, generally speaking.
If anything our “system” is the result of millions and millions of people today and in the past doing things for their own benefit that also has benefits for others as well. Trade is a great thing in that the underlying notion is that both parties are engaging in the trade to make themselves better off.
Can government help that along? Sure. But Government can also hinder it as well. Providing a solid and reasonable legal system helps. Providing public goods can help. Promoting activities that have positive external benefits helps. Implementing incentives to curtail activities that have negative external benefits helps. Doing all of the above and only that would result in a government vastly smaller than we have today.
The implication I find so annoying and frustrating is that our current system could be created by technocrats and policy makers. That notion is just ludicrous. The reality is that the technocrats and policy makers, if anything, have been working against the market economy than to help it. This is why we are still mired down with anemic economic growth, a crappy job market, and expectations that are at best described as “meh”.
A similar ‘kerfuffle,’ over a recent Romney comment, was introduced over at OTB, Steven Taylor’s recent thread, “Politics of Wealth,” which parsed and played with the sentence, “We’re the party of people who want to get rich.” Here there was a continuation of the left’s manta of money being the Holy Grail for republicans, along with a slanted view of them as primarily interested in amassing their own personal wealth, while neglecting the welfare of others.
Never mind that there are more well-heeled democrats in Congress than republicans; that most of the hyper wealthy charitable foundations have 2nd/3rd generation heirs and/or people on their current boards who favor left-wing causes; that limousine liberals, Hollywood celebrities, the over-paid entertainment industry, in general, comprise the donor lists and fan clubs of the left-sided democrats; that fickle wall-streeters, along with oil companies like BP, contributed more to Obama’s campaign coffers than to his ’08 republican opponent — the arrows, nevertheless, seem to be pointed at small business and corporate republicans as being the big, bad, rich guys, with Mitt Romney now carrying the mantle of discontent for those deemed as the unsympathetic, out-of-touch, wealthy “1%” crowd.
Consequently, democrats have attempted to ravish Romney’s successful business record, making issues over his passive investment tax brackets, nitpicking his tenure at Bain, and sowing seeds of ‘what is he hiding,’ when he draws the line as to how many tax returns he wants to release, which would give them even more fodder to distort. Ironically, though, this mainly partisan assault bookends the recent issue of Obama’s AG F&F debacle, where there were 140,000 documents generated, 80,000 of which were given over to the Inspector General, of which only 7600 (highly redacted ones) were reluctantly handed over to Issa, before the door was finally closed on the subject by Obama’s EO. Why isn’t there a greater democratic call questioning what the AG is ‘hiding?’
Conversely, Obama’s statement, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help…”, no matter how innocent it may have been, lands on a sore point plaguing his administration, almost from the onset. His policies have been viewed as restricting growth, unfriendly to the business community and/or individual endeavors versus collective one, and in some circles demonstrating an ‘imperial’ presidential attitude to the private sector who are trying to simply make it on their own, without the help or meddling forces of a paternalistic government. It has hit a nerve, already stressed by the ambiguities of Obama’s lack of business acumen or experience, and simply exploded onto a populace growing increasingly disenchanted by an Amateur Hour of Bureaucratic amateurs.
Furthermore, some people feel, such a benign comment, was really a pulling down of the covers hiding Obama’s real distaste for rugged individualism — the driving factor creating this country, in the first place. No matter what was intended, it seems to have become a salvo, an opening shot, piercing the rumblings of dissatisfaction festering among those directly affected by and concerned about the malaise and direction this country is headed.
Somehow, this part of the speech never gets quoted.
“And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try.”
Having spent my formative years in church or on an athletic field, then going on to the military, the speech sounded like a thousand others I have heard about teamwork and working together. That said, I think every politician’s speech is a Rorschach test. People see and hear what they want to hear. They selectively quote the parts they want to quote. For my part, having read the whole speech, I assumed the “that” in the infamous sentence referred to roads and bridges. It never occurred to me to interpret it the way the right did until I read their critiques.
Steve
“to ravish Romney’s successful business record, making issues over his passive investment tax brackets, nitpicking his tenure at Bain, and sowing seeds of ‘what is he hiding,’ when he draws the line as to how many tax returns he wants to release, which would give them even more fodder to distort.”
His business expertise has been his selling point. He avoids talking about his time as a governor. That means it has to be examined. I really cannot think of may things more important to look at than how someone made their money if you want to know about their character. If he wants to keep that secret, he should go back to Bain.
“rugged individualism ”
🙂
Steve
@Drew
… And look at the utter dishonesty of pandering to the big banks and people like GE, while claiming now to be a man of the people. …
When he goes off the teleprompter, he is expressing his real beliefs. The special interest groups helped to elect him to get their “foot in the door.” The script on the teleprompter is for these groups. Outside of each group’s interest he is able to implement his policy.
I suspect Obama intends to implement his agenda in his second term, and the special interest groups suspect this. Hence, the campaign money has dried up. Note, the small donations from “the people” have stopped. This was touted as proof of “the people” supporting him. Where have they gone? Also note, one technique for money laundering is to use hacked computers as a conduit. Small donations are made to a cause, but the computer owner is unaware of their “donation”.
Of course, I could be wrong, but in my experience, “the man” is still working for a higher “the man”.
Jan
Nice comment.
IMHO Taylor is the lightest of the staff over at OTB. Not very interesting or insightful.
The real issue about Obamas comments is not to parse them with a fine tooth comb. It’s a broader issue, is he a national leader, speaking for all the people, and championing with a positive message an effort to propel the economy forward? Or is it to pander to people who perceive themselves as aggrieved individuals, all for Obamas personal political gain, while castigating t he job creating class.
It is simply class envy politics. It’s what you do when you have no record to run on. Polarize.
Sure, that might be a reasonable interpretation if that is what he said, but the President did not.
He said, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Maybe it was just Obama being inarticulate, but it is quite clear. Obama did not say, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build it alone. Somebody else helped, at least indirectly, and that is how it happened.”
If he had something like the second quote, I’d agree with you. But. He. Did. Not. In fact, he said something very, very different. He completely, 100%, discounted individual effort in that quote. Granted, elsewhere he says exactly the opposite…so your best position is he was incoherent.
HTH, HAND.
“His business expertise has been his selling point. He avoids talking about his time as a governor. That means it has to be examined. I really cannot think of may things more important to look at than how someone made their money if you want to know about their character. If he wants to keep that secret, he should go back to Bain. “
Romney has put up his so-called record in MA, comparing it to Obama’s, on web sites. I’ve heard him reference his time as governor in speeches. But, those comments haven’t been picked up by the MSM, who determines contextual content on the airways and in many news publications. I wish more would be made about that 4 years too, as they seem to be an exercise in overcoming demographic obstacles, in as much as he had relatively little conservative political or constituency back-up available to him, or rooting him on. The fact he was able to get unemployment down a bit, balance his budgets, develop some kind of HC plan that got the state out of it’s medical dredges, without medicaid being taken away (as the government threatened it would do, if such a plan was not implemented) may not be illustrious, but is at least commendable, in my book.
As for Romney’s tax records, his income has been derived though passive investments and in a blind trust for around 10 years. And, it’s his money. Do you think he got it from the mob? I guess, though, you could lambaste him because of the quantities of it. But, as for me, this concerns me far less than what Romney is going to do with the money made by others in this country.
In the meantime you might want to read about the implications of Obama’s latest tax plan:
Obama’s taxes could hit blue states the hardest
But even more than how it would adversely effect states such as the already debt-ridden state of CA, or NY, CT, NJ and MA, it could also result in this:
Drew,
Thanks! I enjoyed your comments as well, as they don’t mince words, and simply get to the crux of the problem.
“Somehow, this part of the speech never gets quoted.”
Steve, how many parts of Romney’s comments or speeches either never get quoted or misquoted? There was that gaffe about poor and rich people made on a plane, or another one about ‘firing’ an agent who wasn’t doing a good job, that were totally taken out of meaningful context and then promptly discolored by the left and their press. IMO, this has happened more often to Romney than to Obama, as the MSM continues to prop “their guy” up the best they can by either omission of news or buffering his policy stances more by softer rhetoric in describing it.
Furthermore, Obama’s taken out of context words actually reflect his policies, ones that put tack strips down for so many small and bigger business operations rather than attempting to help them stay in business. Just look at the Obama Administration’s biased treatment of Gibson Guitar (a non-union shop) versus Bender ( an Obama supporter, union shop).
Obama didn’t renegotiate the free trade deals he promised to,
and is at best only marginally more pro-worker/
economic nationalist than Romney now pretends to be.
“but for me it’s what he’s going to do with others money etc.”
Exactly. All the rest is diversionary politics. Do we care about the people, or a man?
Also, I didn’t get to where I am being a wilting flower. In my business you are direct, researched, considered, confident and analytical, or you fail. I’m the number two partner in my firm, and we represent serious money for serious institutions. I have people’s retirement funds in my hands. It sobers the mind. It’s not sport, its not just blogspeak, it’s serious business. I can’t afford to engage in idyllic theories of how business or the economy should work. I have to perform.
Woudth that our President and certain commenters had a similar attitude.
Steve V- Read the whole thing. I think he is talking about bridges and roads. I think my best position is that people see what they want to see. I think my interpretation makes sense. Your interpretation, given the preceding lines, does not. Even as a stand alone it does not make sense. If you have a business, you probably did build it. I guess you can join the right wingnuts claiming that Obama is stupid, but that is the only way you get there.
@jan- I dont join in on the gaffe attacks, or grammar attacks. I agree that Romney has stuff taken out of context also. You wont find me harping on “I like to fire people”. I think I know what he meant, so I am not bothered.
“As for Romney’s tax records, his income has been derived though passive investments and in a blind trust for around 10 years. And, it’s his money. Do you think he got it from the mob?”
I have no idea how he made his money over the last 10 years. Neither do you. That is why we look at their tax returns. It tells us how he made his money, and to a certain extent, what he spends it on. I am not inclined to take his word on the matter. YMMV. So, far, when it has been totaled, Romney has gotten more positive coverage than Obama. (Reference if you want.) That may be a holdover from the primaries where he was running against a lot of fruitcakes, so that could change.
Just FTR, if I thought Romney would govern like he did in MA, I might vote for him, if I could forget about foreign policy. My gut feeling is that he is mostly a pragmatic problem solver and not an ideologue.
BTW, your rant about wealthy elites, limousine liberals, etc. is a bit off.When studied, the wealthy vote GOP.
Steve
Read James Taranto’s analysis. The expression is either poorly constructed and ungrammatical or he actually meant what his opponents are saying he meant.
BTW, Romney’s retort was spot on: as said it’s an attack on private property. Locke’s Third Treatise outlined the theory of property in summary as the idea that you have a right to the fruit of your labors. No such right, no private property.
Just a casual reminder: I vote for president on foreign policy and defense. Mr. Romney would have to improve his foreign policy game enormously to get my vote. Not that I like President Obama’s, either. This election is deeply distasteful to me.
PS
And confrontational. Which pisses people off here and at OTB. Sorry.
These issues aren’t tiddly winks.
PS. PS
And even if I piss people off and disagree, please know that I wouldn’t even be here if I didn’t respect the alternative views, and take them under consideration.
Life is a journey.
Don’t go all mellow on us, Drew.
steve, I’ve read the whole thing and the more you read, the less it could be about roads and bridges. Right before the quote, he says:
He’s clearly preaching about the vanity and hubris of some wealthy, successful people (those who don’t support his tax policy) thinking they are better than someone else because they merit their own success. I think Dave and yourself correctly point to the religious overtones. Christians believe what we have of value* is derived at least in part by the asssistance of the grace of G*d.
The whole speech wasn’t pernicious; he just hit an off-note on the line about successful business owners because I believe he has almost no experience with starting business. He and most likely most of his friends and peers are insitutional people. They got their graduate degrees and joined existing financial and professional institutions. They did not build that. He’s been in government or involved in government his entire adult life, and when someone wants to start a business in his experience, they’ve call him for a government loan or regulatory preference.
“Read James Taranto’s analysis. The expression is either poorly constructed and ungrammatical or he actually meant what his opponents are saying he meant.”
I had read his piece. It is not an analysis. If you want to analyze it, you have to accept that it makes no sense. Obviously, many people built their own businesses. That is common knowledge if you read newspapers or have some minimal reading of history. I suspect Obama has that basic knowledge. The only thing that makes sense, especially coming from a guy who says that the central value of our country is that you can make it if you try (points off for stealing from Mary Tyler Moore) , is that he was alluding to the roads and bridges he had just mentioned.
Romney’s retort is not spot on. As said, it is nonsensical. However, as I said earlier, I dont put much weight on these grammatically incorrect sentences or statements taken out of context. A lot of people do because they can use them to bash the other side.
Steve
Is there a point to continue the discussion when you make a statement like this. It was pretty obvious what he said, and it was at best incoherent, at worst it is collectivist drivel.
And I’m not alone….or is Dave a member of the Right Wingnuts too? Either Obama meant it, or he can’t speak well. And if we assume he merely misspoke, then it was a stupid mistake. As has been pointed out before, he just handed his opponents a club to beat him with. It is about as bad as Gore’s gaffe on the internet.
Steve,
The political myth is that the wealthy vote GOP. Maybe the typical “Millionaire who lives Next door” is more apt to vote republican, because, when analyzing both party’s fiscal policies, the less ostentatious monied right is more prudent with their earnings/expenditures, approving of less spending than the left (D party), when the money is simply not there.
However, I stand by my original rant.
For instance, David Horowitz has a new book out, researched beyond belief, enumerating who is behind the really big foundations, and who they financially support. It is staggering, simply staggering, making the Koch Brothers look like paupers, with only their hundreds of millions of support for conservative causes, when measuring it against the billions available on the other side. These liberal foundations (such as Ford, Tides), have no oversight and are in place for perpetuity. It’s actually depressing, as there is a tidal wave of funding that is quietly controlled and funneled to the left, making conservative advocates appear like they merely have thimbles holding money sourced to their causes.
The same holds true when researching the wealth of democrats in congress, the glamour industries, such as entertainers, sports figures, writers, producers, and least we forget the muscular union dollars. Non-union blue collar workers, rural communities, small business owners, the self-employed, and real live, working taxpayers comprise much of the demographics of the R party. Those who want to get ahead by their own means, are also more likely to belong to either the R or I party. Then you have the splash of billionaires who add to the pot, but get most of the billing on the left defining the R’s as the wealthy party.
Drew,
I have always been a fan of your comments. They deliver honest, clear opinions, along with educational tidbits reflecting what you do in business. They are unfettered by espousing ‘theory’ versus one’s own experience, nor do they have a rich person’s guilt complex which is so hypocritical, IMO.
PD- You really think you can make it through high school, or college without realizing that a lot of people build their own businesses? Restaurant owners, landscapers, hotel people, law firms, etc.? When I worked in West Philly, the owners of small businesses there always let you know how proud they were of their shops, their garages, whatever. I just dont find this line of reasoning real credible. I guess if you already think Obama is Marx Jr., maybe, but heck, even Marx knew that people built their own businesses.
Steve
Either Obama meant it, or he can’t speak well.
Not just that, but that means that Obama and his speech writers are grammatically incompetent.
…
And Schuler missed the BIG STORY in Taranto’s piece, which is that Vladimir Kramnik played the King’s Indian Defense at Dortmund. He’s been the destroyer of that opening since he hit the scene 20 years ago – in large part he’s the reason the mighty Kasparov (the G.O.A.T. in chess) gave up the opening that had served him so well. Anyway, Vlad was the Incredible Hulk that day. Unfortunately he turned back into Bruce Banner since then….
Dave
Believe it or not, I’m a mellow guy.
You really think you can make it through high school, or college without realizing that a lot of people build their own businesses?
If you’re out of your mind on pot and cocaine and raised and educated by Marxists, sure. I knew plenty of people like that in college. Hell, my wife had classes with a small business owner that was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of the USA. And he spent a lot of time bitching about his employees! It was truly and incredible display of cognitive dissonance, but I guess all the Lacan and Derrida and Foucault probably helped with that….
@jan
… It’s actually depressing, as there is a tidal wave of funding that is quietly controlled and funneled to the left, making conservative advocates appear like they merely have thimbles holding money sourced to their causes.
All these groups want to increase government influence, and it makes sense that one side is much more heavily represented. What is more depressing is that there is no groups wanting to decrease government influence, but this also makes sense. A group trying to influence government to stop being influenced by groups trying influence government kinda negates itself.
… Those who want to get ahead by their own means, are also more likely to belong to either the R or I party. …
I would include those who just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, there is no I party. As above, an anti-party party is self negating.
I would give the R’s an edge over the D’s, but I do not trust either. What I find amusing is the one example of shrinking the government was done by a Democratic President, but a Republican President with a Republican Congress was only able to increase the government.
steve, I would point out that when you took the “Andy test”, you scored quite high on breadth of personal life experience, probably much higher than peers of your age. So I think you are extrapolating something from your experience that is not common, particularly those younger than you.
I’m from Peoria originally; almost everyone I knew growing- up, worked for CAT or government. My dad worked for an insurance company. I can’t think of any people I knew growing up that started a business. My dentist got his practice from his dad (and when he retired gave it to his son). In college, I think all my friends’ parents were employees at corporations like IBM. My primary experience with entrprenuership is with clients who are; I am an equity partner, but I never built a business, though I hope I’ve helped now and again.
If your interested in what Presidential candidates did for a living, you probably already know that Obama was unique among his Harvard Law School classmates in not going into government or Big Law Firms upon graduation. Do you think any of his classmates ever started a law practice? I think its highly doubtful. Maybe if he had went to a different law school. But his classmates almost certainly went to Big Law, government and teaching.
I was in grad school with the first guys to design a handheld that played a credible game of chess (they also were heavies in the supercomputer chess program world—don’t know what they’re up to now. Working at Argonne?). That’s about as far as my interest goes.
I think at best it was a mispeak. But in a carefully coreographed campaign one wonders if it’s a window of truth into his worldview in the way Romney’s “couple if Cadillacs” and “I know some team owners” are for for him..
or “not concerned about the very poor”
or bitter people with their guns and their god
or “the private sector is doing fine.”
Funny thing is that you could identify who said these mistakes or whatever you want to call them.
@jan- Horowitz is a conspiracy guy. I am always surprised to hear anyone quote him. My long time anarcho-capitalist buddies consider him a laughing stock. If you want to go past conspiracy theory and look at actual statistics derived from real numbers, Gelman is much better. A brief overview at link if you want to see how people actually vote, not looking for cherry picked groups.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/presentations/redbluetalkubc.pdf
Steve
“Horowitz is a conspiracy guy. I am always surprised to hear anyone quote him. My long time anarcho-capitalist buddies consider him a laughing stock.”
Steve, I almost didn’t identify Horowitz as the author of this book, detailing the background and political sway of these big charitable foundations, for the very reason that you came up with — “Horowitz is not to be believed because he is ______ (fill in the blank). However, I view Horowitz’s contributions differently than you do…so, I toughed it out and attributed his name to the comments I made, awaiting the flak that was sure to come.
Horowitz, as you probably well know, was a big liberal guy, coming from a liberal, Communistic-inclined family. I like this about the man, as he has been on both sides of the political spectrum, and probably knows the game played better than most people.
The same reasoning goes for choosing how to protect your home from a break-in — get the advice of a former criminal. They know the ins and outs, weaknesses and strengths, much more so than a guy who has never been in the trade or in the slammer.
When I was in the addictions study program, my best friend was a former 20 year heroin addict. She was the best mentor/teacher, honest person one could ever have.
So, Horowitz, is someone I don’t discredit, like you do, and others probably would do at the OTB site. He’s been there, done that, and I listen, throw out what doesn’t sound right to me, and process and take in what has credibility.
Dave, please delete the first rendition of the above post. It didn’t come through, so I re-created it, and now there are two. Sorry about that.
@jan
David Horowitz is a heretic, and as such, he must not be allowed to be taken seriously. I am not familiar with his work, but I heard about him many years ago. If I am not mistaken, his parents were “card-carrying” communists, and he may have been as well. In any case, he was one of the faithful, and I think he was actively testifying to convert the unenlightened.
You, on the other hand, are just a delusional fool, but with some work, you could be brought to understand the truth. “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”
Tastybits:
“You will be assimilated.â€
Never! I am far too stubborn. LOL