And some Republicans wonder why normal people laugh at them!

PATRICK DORINSON: Government Motors — Coming to a Showroom Near You « FOX Forum «

Now I know Fox News is over the top – I still find it hard that people see it as anything other than a year round April fool’s channel – but still – we are dealing with GOPers, Republicans and Conservatives.

There are so many of them that will read the linked article – and it will be a matter of taking it at face value – make no wonder they love Palin.

Beginning next year, cars will only be available for members of the Politburo, er, I mean Congress and the federal government. Private ownership of cars will be decided by your local neighborhood Soviet, I mean City Council. Each state will have a quota on how many cars are privately owned and the quota will be determined by the current carbon footprint of the state in question. Sorry California, no cars for you.

The only real problem with Fox is that the American people lived through the last 8 years of a joke, and look what he did.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Blah!, Blogs, Comment, Conservatives, Democracy, Media, Personal Opinion, Personal philosophy, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, United States of America and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to And some Republicans wonder why normal people laugh at them!

  1. Matt says:

    So a liberal does something like this and it’s witty satire; a conservative does this and it’s over-the-top April foolishness…?

  2. museditions says:

    I do wonder about all that “socialist” talk coming from the right. What’re they so scared of?

  3. Matt says:

    Sorry to hear you feel that way, Will. I found it funny.

  4. leapsecond says:

    Except you guys have forgotten that the socialist experiment has failed time and time again because it squelches the liberty of the people. My advice for you: read Locke one more time. And Will, socialism is the ultimate move to “security over liberty”, that is, ECONOMIC security over liberty.

    The problem with socialism is that it’s simply unfeasible given human nature. The problem is simply that those in charge would hold all the power and money, and would then wield it irresponsibly, creating tyranny. C’mon Will, you read 1984.

    Also, another thing: individual rights are not protected in a democratic-socialist state, which means the mob rules. After that comes tyranny.

    Will, ideally, I’d like an enlightened despot to rule, aided by enlightenment philosophers who would advise him in ruling the people justly, as Voltaire suggested. But, again, we know that’s simply unfeasible.

    For now, our republic does damn fine. And we should enjoy it while it lasts, because political faction is splitting our nation…

  5. leapsecond says:

    Disclaimer: I am not in anyway endorsing this awful piece of “satire” by Fox News. I hate those idiots, and they’re a major part of the reason I think we’ve fallen from grace.

  6. Tina says:

    Fox News is good entertainment, but it’s scary how many people take that crap seriously. My sister’s mother-in-law quotes that nonsense. She quit inviting her over.

  7. jonolan says:


    To be fair, it’s more of a case of if those in power do something like this, it’s “witty sarcasm” and if those out of power do it, it’s “over-the-top April foolishness.”

    Yes, the Liberals are more likely seem to be “over-the-top” vile and insulting in their condemnation of such humor and/or satire, but I think that’s more because they “own” the vast majority of the American media / propaganda machine than because of any underlying difference.

  8. leapsecond says:

    Will, don’t make yourself look stupid by saying it was “free market economics” that brought down the world. Are you kidding me? It was a combination of the below:

    -Banks trading credit default swaps like crazy
    -Incentives provided by the government for banks to loan to “sub-prime” consumers, who carried poor credit and had an inability to pay back their loans
    -The promise of a bailout from the government, because, if they looked back into history, Continental Illinois National Bank collapsed and the Fed bailed them out. The banks now figured, “Hey, we’re too big to fail just like Continental Illinois! We’re gonna get bailed out even if we do a bad job here!” And they were right.
    -Financially illiterate populace doesn’t read fine print on bank contracts (again, leading to loans they couldn’t pay back) and an over-reliance on credit. Couple that with a culture that is based on consumerism, and you’re bound to have problems
    -Bankers who obviously are incompetent

  9. leapsecond says:

    Sure, free markets gave them the ability to do those things, but the point is, in the case of exploiting financially illiterate people, they GAVE them the consent to do these things. When there is consent – pure consent, without coercion – then I think people get what they deserve.

    Sure, it sounds mean-spirited, but I think the people have no one else to blame when they willingly allowed the bankers to do these things.

    The government is there to protect its people from crime – I don’t think signing a contract that one party doesn’t understand is a crime. Yes, I think it’s morally wrong, but I think that people should be adults and should be accountable for their actions. Don’t blame the bankers for exploiting your lack of financial knowledge; you should’ve educated yourself first. You signed on that line too, you know.

    Where the line gets blurred, however, is when these complex financial “tools” come into play, and the banks pretty much take bets out on people using them. I think they are the kinds of things that should be regulated. But all the regulation on the banks pulling that kinds of stuff isn’t going to do anything if the people don’t become financially literate. And I’ll concede that I wouldn’t mind some government program put in place to make people more knowledgeable about finance. Now THAT’S change I can believe in.

    I guess I’m not totally unopposed to social programs; but I am against the government swallowing up the means of production. If that helps, the latter is what I call “socialism”. Really regulating sectors that don’t need it is inefficient, but there are DEFINITELY sectors that need regulating (see pharmaceutical industry, food industry for huge examples).

    Whew, I’m done.

  10. jonolan says:

    Strange, Phil – when I enter into a contract I read it first. If I fail to understand a codicle in it, I ask questions and the other party either explains it to my satisfaction, removes it, or I don’t sign the contract.

    It’s called personal responsibility. I used to be a cornerstone of being American, but that seems to have gone the way of so many fine things…

    It’s really easy though to just blame those damn rich bankers though, isn’t it. Godwin’s Rule prevents me from pointing the historical analogy for thatsort of belief…

  11. leapsecond says:

    I guess where I run into problems concerning making writing contracts into “plain language” law is that who dictates what is and what isn’t “plain language”? A corrupt government/legal system could easily “choose” which contracts were and were not legal, and given the variety of judges in our court systems, I’d believe that they would all have different interpretations of the law – which will lead to inconsistencies.

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s