... why sacrifice in ways that plump federal coffers or reduce federal obligations when Washington can’t be trusted to make anything better or get anything right?I think Bruni disturbed himself when he coughed up that argument for the other side. He had to distance himself with this introductory phrase:
And cynicism about the intentions of politicians and the effectiveness of government has become an easy out: ...Oh, so only cynics and intellectually lazy characters go with that question? All right then. I'll ignore it and move on to your other musings about "[your] own trust issues," which could be "lessened considerably" if only some candidate would say that "pain is a precursor to healing; and that it’s time to take our medicine."
No, I won't! It was a great question, and I have my own trust issues that would be lessened considerably if you wouldn't put a sign in front of us saying only lazy/cynical people ask it. I could just as well say that it's the cynical, easy way out to say that it's the cynical, easy way out to ask that question. That is the question!
Posts
28 comments:
Arguing with the NYT is not healthy.
Stop it,...
"Sacrifice" is presumably that Bruni wants me to "sacrifice" so that Bruni can geet things his way.
But I do not want the country - or me - to be governed Bruni's way, and I do not think "sacrifice" is the way to go in any case.
What we want is to make things get better, and that does not involve "sacrifice." How can I be "sacrificing" anything if I am better off?
More meaningless minutiae as media ran out of significant topics to talk about some time ago.
The debates will not be relevant other than to reinforce what voters already think.
Indeed, media has changed drastically since 1980 when the last Dutch/Carter debate was a game changer. Now spin meisters rule the day, much like Althouse "attempts" to do daily ...
Bottom line, the expectations are so high, the debates can only disappoint as a news event. Unless Willard totally implodes!
Non-lazy/cynical folks (aka cons) know that Bruni (like all librul lamestreamers) is a 47% taker/victim. Wisdom.
There will be no sacrifice until Bruni and his ilk acknowledge there are two types of sacrifice:
1.) Giving up something I already have in order to advance the agenda determined by the political class; and
2.) Giving up something the political class has offered to take from someone else and give to me in order to get my vote.
Anybody who has been paying attention knows, one way or the other, there's a lot of sacrifice in store.
Sad to say, a lot of the others are either voting for Zero or can't make up their minds.
shiloh said...
More meaningless minutiae as media ran out of significant topics to talk about some time ago.
Yeah, all that stuff overseas is just "noise".
The debates will not be relevant other than to reinforce what voters already think.
Indeed, media has changed drastically since 1980 when the last Dutch/Carter debate was a game changer. Now spin meisters rule the day, much like Althouse "attempts" to do daily ...
Well at least the little weasel admits they're in the tank.
Bottom line, the expectations are so high, the debates can only disappoint as a news event. Unless Willard totally implodes!
Or Zero.
"You didn't build that"
"Just a few bumps in the road"
"The private sector is doing fine"
"That's above my pay grade"
"We tried our plan... and it worked"
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
Non-lazy/cynical folks (aka cons) know that Bruni (like all librul lamestreamers) is a 47% taker/victim. Wisdom.
More like truth.
Wait, shiloh is complaining about people who keep on talking even though they "ran out of significant topics to talk about some time ago"? Oh, I get it! It's completely different. shiloh never ran out of significant things to say the same way I never ran out of Krugerrands: I don't have any now, but I never had any to begin with.
"[P]ain is a precursor to healing."
What a woefully unhealthy worldview. Should we be worried about Frank cutting?
Weevil, Althouse is my guilt pleasure, much like cons watch American Idol er reality tv religiously.
The ad nauseam whining of cons is somewhat entertaining if taken in moderation.
Yeah I don't mind sacrifice for a worthwhile reason, but I also look at taxes like this: 50,000 families like mine (not in the 47% and not in the 1%) paid a year's worth of income tax for that adventure. That wasn't sacrifice, that was waste and corruption.
We at the WH love Bruni. He is of course very much like Andy Sullivan in his life-style choices. We have the vote from him and others in the NYT. Their jobs are to make sure voters do exactly as they are expected.
THANKS Bruni. YOu will be welcome to the WH in the 2nd term.
Good points Ann.
On the one hand, it seems that there is a willingness to sacrifice by the American people in certain situations. Those we deem *deserving* victims sometimes receive an outpouring of support, financial and otherwise.
On the other hand, almost every message from politicians and advertising is that you shouldn't have to sacrifice a bit: (Think heated car seats or losing weight with pills instead of diet/exercise.)
How will these elements be harnessed/overcome to make a sustainable future?
Seems like a huge challenge, but also an opportunity for a credible and imaginative politician.
"Sacrifice" = "Tax"
Adventure= Solyndra
"why sacrifice in ways that plump federal coffers or reduce federal obligations when Washington can’t be trusted to make anything better or get anything right?"
This statement and the thoughts about impending pain implies that Bruni may have some idea that things aren’t going well in terms of the economic health of the country, but he doesn’t really want to answer the question above. So, you are right to suggest that he is also cynical/intellectually lazy. And in denial. He wants to think that a little more sacrifice - a few more taxes (only on the rich, of course) will ultimately solve the problem. But, that can’t be the answer, unless it also successfully answers the above question. Thus, the hand-waving about it.
Either Bruni is in a linguistical rut or is stuck in the bygone era of his youth. I'd say most of those who entertain that question graduated from cynicism and moved on to pragmatism, oh, about ten years ago.
Maybe he's talking to/about Democrats. They're a little behind on that evolutionary process.
As if sacrifice was going to remain optional.
Wasn't Sinead O'Connor just beautiful when she sang It's No Sacrifice. She could really get her voice up there and bounce it along like a little bubble
Oh it's not sacri-fi-i-i-ice. Squeak that out.
And everybody's in their car singing along making their voices go up there and bounce along like a little bubble, and they do get it up there and they do bounce along like a little bubble with Sinead O'Connor and they're sitting there driving and thinking, "Damn, Sinead O'Connor and I are great!" Through her leadership singing Sinead O'Connor helped everyone feel great.
Wrongly. They'd try it out with someone else in the car, and the passenger is all, "Will you please stop it? "
You're wrecking the song for every one else because you can't sing.
" We at the WH love Bruni. He is of course very much like Andy Sullivan in his life-style choices. We have the vote from him and others in the NYT. Their jobs are to make sure voters do exactly as they are expected.
THANKS Bruni. YOu will be welcome to the WH in the 2nd term.
9/30/12 11:14 AM
Blogger PWS said...
Good points Ann.
On the one hand, it seems that there is a willingness to sacrifice by the American people in certain situations. Those we deem *deserving* victims sometimes receive an outpouring of support, financial and otherwise.
On the other hand, almost every message from politicians and advertising is that you shouldn't have to sacrifice a bit: (Think heated car seats or losing weight with pills instead of diet/exercise.)
"
By sacrifice, the lefties mean raising taxes. They say on "the rich" but we know better. They say the Republicans turned down an Obama deal of "10 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar of tax increase." They think we are Charlie Brown who always tries to kick the ball that Lucy always snatches away. He never learns.
We have seen this movie before. The taxes got raised by Reagan and Bush but the spending cuts never, ever happened. HaHa. "You fucked up. You trusted us."
That's Animal House, not politics.
Been there, done that for $128.50 a month and not all my peers returned alive or whole. Then our government abandoned the South Vietnamese to the tender mercies of the North. They trusted us, and how did that turn out?
You're asking me to sacrifice for this government? Really? I am not that slow a learner, Mr Bruni.
Bruni needs a dictionary. The word he's grasping for is "realism", not "cynicism".
This is just not true.
Everyone wants to sacrifice so the oh so deserving poor can get their Obama phones.
Anything else would be racist tomfoolery.
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Why doesn't Romney?
Because the press will report that he wants to kill virgins.
...and don't laugh because you know they would.
It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Sofa King,
You said masters and slaves. That's racist!!! Hahaha
O God.
Oh, and the repetition is hypnotic, Sofa. See how easy this is?
Bruni and his buddies Paulie The Beard" Krugman and "Chinese Tommie" Friedman and Maureen "The Manless" Dowd are some of the reasons I have no respect for the NYT (sometimes referred to as Pravda).
Sacrifice seems to be the codeword for redistribution.
Post a Comment