169 thoughts on “American Bob: A Message To Young Liberals

  1. David says:

    […continued]

    “Abortion is About Saving Fetuses (bullshit…)”

    The issue of life is another that I'm not terribly decided on.

    On one hand, I've never heard any solid, scientific explanation as to why the right to life begins at the moment of conception.

    However, I sure as heck haven't heard anything CLOSE to a solid, scientific explanation as to why the right to life DOESN'T begin there.

    If a zygote is a human being, we shouldn't kill it. We all agree on this, right? So can we have this discussion? I've tried dozens of times but have never gotten anywhere with it. I just get called a hateful anti-woman bigot half the time (I was even called a 'black hearted monster' once. For QUESTIONING the pro-choice position!)

    ****

    “…it's about controlling women or you'd be pro-contraception”

    Yes, yes the contraception thing.

    I think this really, honestly, finally takes the cake for worst, most baseless, most retarded argument levied against the GOP/right wing this election cycle. Let Lee Doren say it best:
    http://youtu.be/acrUkXZiym0

    ****

    “America is a Christian Nation (massive, massive bullshit)”

    It was based on principles and values, largely taken from the Bible. Most of the founding fathers believed in some kind of God, mostly the Christian God.

    “But if America is founded on Christian values, why is it not REQUIRED that everyone be Christian?”

    Because that is actually one of the Christian values. Yeah, the Bible makes it pretty clear that the government should not do the work the Church should be doing, and that forcing people to be Christians is NOT okay.

    Oh yes, please, PLEASE do what you guys do every damn time and quote some cherry picked verse from the OLD testament, and please completely misunderstand the concept behind the New Testament.

    ****

    “The Welfare State is the biggest source of waste and fraud”

    Over one and a half TRILLION dollars in 2011 was spent on entitlements. You could eliminate our entire military and still run a deficit that year because of Social Security, Medicare and the like.

    And after all that, after trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars gets poured into these programs, what do we have? Contrast poverty today with poverty from the mid 1960's when the Democrats first 'declared war' on it. What has all that money gotten us besides a debt bigger than our GDP?

    Yeah, sounds pretty damn wasteful to me.

    [continued…]

    Like

  2. David says:

    […conclusion]

    “Racism is over”

    You're right; when millions of Americans were willing to vote for someone they barely know just because he's black, racism is far from over in this country.

    ****

    “Women aren't oppressed or discriminated against but laws that ensure that are bad”

    The 'good pro-woman' law The Lilly Ledbetter act just ensures that selfish, entitled women get the same pay as a man even if she is less productive and less profitable for the company, just because she has the same job title. While hard working, mature women get punished with the hefty lawsuit risk the Ledbetter act attaches to hiring a woman.

    ****

    “Global Warming is a conspiracy”

    People have been claiming the world is going to end for a long, long time. It's not a 'conspiracy' as much as it is people all subconsciously going along with the idea, because it gives them the feeling of being an awesome hero who's saving the world. And because it gives them a thing to attack political opponents with.

    Look, I'm not a scientist, but I AM aware that the world, on net balance, has not warmed or cooled very much in the past few decades. Oh, but the disaster will really kick in in 20 or whatever years, right? That's what they said 20 years ago. And 20 years before that.

    ****

    “Christianity is under attack, blah blah blah lies.”

    ****
    You can't really say that Christianity is not under attack in a post that attacks Christianity. And yes, atheism is under attack too.
    ****
    ****

    In conclusion: Thank you, sir, for at least making a well-written post that was easy on the eyes. Also, it had a nice, speedy flow that gave me the opportunity to break down almost all of the BS floating out there about Republicans right now all at once. So thanks again.

    Oh and thanks to everyone who, you know, actually read all this.

    Like

  3. RKissoon says:

    @David: Thank you for that essay. I didn't read the whole thing, because a snarky, condescending attitude is in most cases a red flag marking an overinflated, undeserved ego, but at least you made arguments, rather than crapping in your hand and flinging it at your computer screen like some commenters (i.e. James).

    But I must address one point: gay marriage is a civil rights issue, because the concept of marriage has been written into American law. For example, the Social Security system provides benefits to the surviving spouses of deceased American citizens. If a man pays Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes for the duration of his career, then dies, his spouse collects the benefits he would have received if he were still alive. That is, if his spouse is female. If his spouse is male, then that spouse gets nothing. That's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires that every citizen must be treated equally under the laws of the United States.

    @Libertarians: Stop acting like you're somehow smarter than the rest of us “sheep” for voting third party. If you really were smart, you'd realize that the only way to get libertarians elected to federal office would be to change election laws, starting with achieving proportional representation in the House. After all, the constitution says states' representation in the House has to be proportional to population size, but not that those representatives have to be from districts. If we change election law to abolish the district system, and achieve something closer to open party list proportional representation for state delegations, Libertarian candidates would be more likely to get elected to office (and we'd also solve all the problems of gerrymandering). I say all of this because I am a libertarian.

    @Everyone else: Yes, Bob comes off as dismissive and snarky. That's because he makes no effort to seem conciliatory or hide his partisan-ness. He takes a definite, conclusive, confident stand on politics, which we are no accustomed to in these times. We are used to people who try to seem non-partisan so they can reach a larger audience and keep their credibility. Most people are too afraid of seeming biased (and thus unworthy of being taken seriously) to actually expose their unequivocated positions, so when someone actually does that, it strikes audiences as hostile. Actually Bob did a Big Picture episode related to this titled “Fair Game”, which can be seen here:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

    That being said, I could understand actual hostility to conservatism. After all, it seems from the last four years that many conservatives are openly hostile to the things I care about, like strict separation of church and state. And when I say strict, I mean STRICT, as in I do not want any politicians making any decisions based on their religious beliefs. I am not against religion, or religious people holding office. But just as a CEO has to make decisions which are in the company's interests rather than his, leaders and legislators have to make decisions based on the constitution and what, according to the logic of actual science, is better for the country.

    Now, because I believe in openness, let me say who I am: I am a young, non-white, educated, secular, middle class person, which means the only way I can be more squarely in the “Obama Coalition” is if were female and homosexual. I'm going to vote for Obama. But I am in no way a “liberal”. After all, I also work on Wall Street, which as we all know, isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism.

    (And to the people who point out how much money Barry O got from Wall Streeters last time around: they did it because they were smart. They knew Obama would win, and on Wall Street we don't care about ideologies. We care about success.)

    However, I cannot in good conscience vote for republican policies. For me, as a pragmatist, rights and security are more important than lower taxes or religious dogma.

    Like

  4. Nixou says:

    American social liberals (either Dems or third party like myself) frequently look to Europe as an example of what we'd like the US to be more like, but if your economies are even more insolvent than ours

    Ok: first things first:
    the US public debt: 101,7% of the GDP
    EU's public debt: 83,4% of the GDP, and that's counting the Greek bailout which by itself costed us more than the US stimulus.

    Also, remember: when a US state has a problem with its budget, it sends its representative crying for help in Washington. When an EU member states starts having problems, elected officials and pundits in the richer member states start talking about using starvation to teach a lesson to the “misbehaving kids”. A lot of the european drama comes from the fact that what is done automatically in the US always demands a vote of both the heads of state/government and of the European Parliament.

    Buuuut, unlike what you seem to believe, the European Union has not been frozen and inactive: for instance starting 2014 the ECB will start to oversee every.single.bank in the Eurozone (that's 6.000 banking and investment institutions), which will give it an enormous influence over the non-Euro using european banks, and over the american banks owned by European consortiums.
    And you know the best part of it? While the wingnuts were busy calling Obama a radical marxist because of his very prudent attempts to somewhat reform Wall-Street, the conservative Chancellor of Germany demanded, the mosty conservative heads of states and governments of the Eurozone accepted, and the majoritarily conservative European Parliament voted for what may be the most powerful bureaucratic juggernaut ever made.

    Like

  5. Anonymous says:

    @ Dave

    See, yeah, that was me before. I am really impressed that you were able to lay out a counterargument to all of my assertions, and I appreciate you having done so.

    I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind, sir. You are an eloquent and (for the internet) extremely respectful interlocutor.

    But listen: I've read all the arguments you made before, and since I'm posting anonymously, I'm going to tell you what I think of them:

    I think that if you believe all the stuff you said, you're an asshole.

    Take just the gay marriage debate: if you oppose even the weakest version of the pro-Gay Marriage argument, which is that being allowed to get married would make gay people feel better, you're an asshole. There are better arguments, but they're not necessary, because gay people getting married does not disrupt your life, it just makes somebody else's better, and opposition to that is just pure douchebaggery. My mind cannot be changed. I really and truly believe that you are a kind of crummy person for believing what you believe, and I'm sorry that you have to go through your life being that way.

    Or take “supply side” economics. Yes, I totally called them “trickle down”…sorry to not, like, respect the most massively fraudulent, failed economic theory in American history like that, but it doesn't work. Here's why it doesn't work (I know you know this, I can't believe anybody really thinks it's a good idea): The way to get economic growth is to increase the velocity of money through increasing aggregate demand, which means that you need to put the most money possible in the hands of as many people as possible. Rich people are not useful for that purpose, because all they can do when they have a ton of money is invest it, and after awhile you start to see either a) diminishing returns, because nobody can buy the products made by the businesses in which they are investing, or b) investment overseas, which is why Bain Capital keeps outsourcing…oops, sorry, “offshoring” jobs.

    Also, read yerself some economics. I recommend Matt Yglesias. Do you know what they'll tell you? The war on poverty *worked*. Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved the health care of the poor and elderly. Social Security helps a LOT of old people. Food stamps help a lot of poor kids. And unemployment benefits…I mean all of them, not just the ones for veterans Republicans tried to cut, or the job placement for veterans Republicans blocked in the house, but literally *all* unemployment benefits for everyone (which Republicans also tried to stop)keep people from losing their shit and are helping people. That's not a source of waste and fraud, that's a policy victory, and the reason you don't like it is because, as a Republican, you are not a very good person, so you don't care about the people being helped, and in fact you're irrationally angry at them for getting free stuff even though the reality is that if they weren't, the attendant social problems would negatively impact your life. When was the last time you saw a neighborhood burn itself to the ground, my friend? When was the last time you saw a breadline? Stop knocking social welfare. You wouldn't want to see this country without it.

    Like

  6. Anonymous says:

    Ok, last thing, you asked me to make this argument so I could experience its futility, so I shall: I feel extremely retarded for thinking that women ought to be able to decide what happens to them when they get pregnant no matter what the cause of the pregnancy. I acknowledge that it must be a birth defect of some form that makes me think that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe, and that the Tea Party state legislatures across the country who have been trying to pass personhood amendments, destroy access to abortion using red tape, mandate ultrasounds, etc. are psychotically committed to this goal. The congenital brain issue that I have is similar to the one that fills me with contempt for your mindless position on Climate Change, because I also have looked at the science on sentience so I can tell whether or not abortion is murder (spoiler: it is not murder). Sadly, thanks to the warped neural connections I am forced to spend each day channeling my broken thoughts through, I can't help but believe that what Conservatives don't like about abortion (and contraception – sorry, but Rick Santorum said it and Romney supported the Blunt amendment, so that's their position) is that they don't like it when women have sex that they didn't give permission for. And to that I say, fuck you guys. Seriously. You're not good people. I sincerely hope you lose every election forever.

    Sorry about the name calling, it's just that I really can't stand you people.

    Like

  7. Jason McKenney says:

    I am SO tired of this.

    If you have $100,000 in college loans to pay back, do you seriously expect to have them payed back in 4 years? That's what Obama faced coming into office.

    Obama was handed a crisis that most people have compared to the Great Depression. It took FDR THREE re-elections to get shit straight. Obama's had four years. The expectations set for this man's presidency were just rediculously high more so than ANY president has ever faced. But that just isn't enough.

    This is a pointless election. No matter who is elected the same bitching and moaning is going to occur for another four years cause things still won't change. It took 8 years(really 20+ if you go back far enough) to fuck this country up, and it's supposed to take another four to fix it? Give me a break. It's going to take a long time for us to get back up on our feet, so no matter WHO is elected, they're going to receive the same shit as the last four years.

    Such pointless bickering back and forth.

    FTR, I'm voting for Obama. Not because of the “Supreme Court” or records with “kill lists or drone strikes”. No, because change is so slow in this country, I'm just voting for a scapegoat.

    Like

  8. Cyrus says:

    Speaking of FDR and his accomplishments, because my knowledge of history is a little hazy there: Did he get cockblocked in the House at every turn after only two years in office?

    @Nixou: I'm actually a little proud of our conservatives, that they're imposing at least some measure of accountability on the banks. Although I still take offense at the fact that the general population is paying for the whole mess by way of slashed social programs across the continent.

    Like

  9. Megabyte says:

    @Cyrus: I hate to put it this way, but when those first 2 years were basically “we have the power so fuck you” did you expect anything different?

    Of course I would also not be shocked based on that if least popular politician to the conservatives is NOT Obama, but Pelosi (hell that's how I see it)… but I think that's another story in it's own right.

    Like

  10. Anonymous says:

    Bob: still waiting for you to offer a defense of Obama's kill list, drone strikes, indefinite detention, civil liberties violations, and other things you'd be raking him over the coals over if he was a republican. Answer me, hypocrite. And don't give me this whole “he's leading me towards a more progressive future” bullshit you always spew. Progress does not have to entail innocent people suffering and dying.

    Like

  11. David says:

    @RKissoon
    ” the Social Security system provides benefits to the surviving spouses of deceased American citizens. If a man pays Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes for the duration of his career, then dies, his spouse collects the benefits he would have received if he were still alive. That is, if his spouse is female. If his spouse is male, then that spouse gets nothing. That's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires that every citizen must be treated equally under the laws of the United States.”

    Well what if that guy doesn't have a spouse? Is this nonexistent spouse still entitled to a monthly check? After all, the 14th amendment says ALL PEOPLE must be treated equally under the laws of the united states.

    Two guys go to court. One littered and the other hijacked a bus full of children. What happens to them? The first guy pays a $200 fine, the other guy goes to prison for three years.

    But wait, you can't do that; the 14th amendment said ALL PEOPLE must be treated equally under the law. Both those guys should get the same sentence.

    See what I'm getting at here? No one is forcing you to marry a member of the same sex, that's your choice. Not having a female spouse is your fault, not the government's.

    And before you say anything, please go back and read the marriage part my original post again.

    Like

  12. Cyrus says:

    @David: Do I have to point out how badly your “argument” is invalidated by a fundamental lack of internal logic or would you like to try again? This time without invoking vivid images of apples and oranges.

    Like

  13. Anonymous says:

    One final comment in regards to Bob's flawed “don't vote for Obama but vote against Romney” argument: The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

    Like

  14. Cyrus says:

    @Megabyte: Except that the democrats only held a filibuster-safe majority in the senate for about six weeks in 2009 (RIP, Ted Kennedy), so no, those first two years were very different from how you seem to remember them.

    Like

  15. Nixou says:

    I hate to put it this way, but when those first 2 years were basically “we have the power so fuck you” did you expect anything different?

    Ok, Megabyte is, unsurpisingly, lying.

    And no, I'm not saying that he is a poor hapless idiot repeating lies told by others without knowing better: I'm saying that he is deliberately telling bullshit to justify his vote.

    But enough about Megabytes himself, Allow me (or don't allow me, I'll do it anyway) to describe the extent of Bytes intellectual dishonesty and what it means in the grand scheme of things:

    ***

    Bytes claim is built on the premise that in 2009 by virtue of having a majority in Congress the Democratic party could do whatever the fuck he wanted.

    Aaaaaaaaaand
    That's Bullshit.

    Not only because as Cyrus noted The two years of super-duper-unbreakable-majority never happened in the first place, but also because Obama & co had the opportunity to actually browbeat the GOP into impotance for a few months, simply by increasing the tempo of Congress: give it a faster schedule, put on the floor the most important bills of their mandate as soon as possible, right them as ambitiously as they could, and hammer the GOP when Obama's popularity was at its peak.

    The irony is, had the Democrats really said “we have the power so fuck you“, more laws from their agenda would have passed (or the existing one would have passed sooner) causing less disapointment among the liberal base, leading to less loss in the midterm elections; and the stimulus could have been bigger, which would have meant less unemployment and no one talking much about the election today because Obama would be polling at 55% with the democrated party poised to take back the House.

    In fact, the liberal base has not been happy that Obama refuse to turn into the kind of Liberal Thaumaturgic Emperor people like Bytes like to pretend he was, something which actually caused Obama himself to snap at them.

    Now, to be fair, one of the reason the Obama administration acted the way it did was that at the time, the estimates availables did not grasp how shitty the economy was. Which makes in my opinion the blame the american left leveld at Obama slightly underserved: one can't honestly fault an elected official for not having a crystal ball.

    But at least, the liberals' complains about Obama was based on reality: they deemed the Obama administration deeds insufficient, but at lest they based their opinion of what had actually happenned instead of masturbating publicly about the evil Radical Marxist-Muslim Overlord who never existed outside of fiction.

    (end of part one)

    Like

  16. Nixou says:

    Part Two

    And not only was the Cockblocking of Obama was not a legitimate reaction to an abuse of power or an unacceptable display of contempt toward the minority, but it was among the worst case of cockblocking ever made in the US history.
    Not The worst: it did not reach the level of attempting a coup, or beating a political opponant within a inch of his life or commiting treason one's country in the name of the preservation of undue privileges, but it still was way worse that “politics as usual”:

    There was the numerous attempt to sabotage the government through blocking every nomination they could
    For instance here
    and here
    and here
    For some very obvious reasons:
    Advancing the longstanding GOP goal of undermining the public sector [and] weakening the ability of the Obama administration to deliver for voters in a national economic crisis and softening him up for an election defeat.

    Or even by not allowing the Senate commitees to debate properly: in this example effectively forcing US veterans to remain homeless for a longer time as a retaliation against Democrats for winning a vote on the senate floor. (Which, by the way, shows that a big section of the American public fetichize its troops in order to hide the fact that they do not give a shit about the actual human beings who form them: otherwise, there would have been an uprising of the conservative base against its elected officials)

    And it's not like stuff like this was caused by something in the water which turned conservative lawmakers insane: the conservative lawmakers have been subjected to unrelenting pressure from the right-wing punditry: “Debating is collaborating with the ennemy! Stop proposing amendments! Act like Jerks!“.

    ***

    But all of this is not really knew: of course, Obama attracks to his name even more hatred than the Clintons in their time because of his skin color, but, at the core, this is a pattern invented by Gingritch

    The problem of the political process in Washington is that it's not built on written rules, but on customary norms: the US Congress was intented to be filled with high-minded intellectuals who would gentlemanly work out their differences.
    And, for all these talks about the US government being about checks and balances, there is virtually no railling to stop a sociopathic demagogue from completely breaking institutions built on unwritten rules of good behavior.

    What you're seeing know is merely the later episodes of an decades long campain to turn the US into a bullycracy.
    Which actually explains to me why so many right-wing voters are repeating the bullshit spewed by the people they vote for: I daresay that the process is in nature similar to how a schoolyard bully build a small court of sycophants who take his side for fear that he would turn against them otherwise,

    Like

  17. Sofie Liv Pedersen says:

    @Anonymous

    Then what is the third alternative you speak off?
    Sit back and do nothing in protest? oh yeah.. that'll sure chance things a lot.

    @Andrew

    heh, nice! amazing to know there's more than ten people around knowing who I am X)

    Where does the money go? erh well.. honestly, it's impossible to convince any-body about you are saving money this way because it wont ever show up on any chards and no money will be returned persay to any box. Also while starting up, things gets exspensive.

    But here's the thing, here's how free health-care on a long term safe money.. It'll prevent a lot of permanent damage.

    Say.. what is a guy here called Pete, works on a factory, suddenly one day feels a pain in his shoulder. He decides not to go to a doctor because he cannot afford it.
    Then suddenly the shoulder pains get worse, and worse, until one day, he can't work any-more, finally he is forced to go to that doctor and we find out, he has gotten a tendom damage, and in all the time he has worked it has gotten worse and worse.. and now it cannot be fixed any longer, and he cannot work any-more.
    There-fore he is forced on a early pension and now the state has to pay for this pension of his.
    How-ever, this could have been prevented if he had gone the doctor much sooner, where they could have told him what is wrong, given him only a months vacation to recover and then let him work again.

    To let him go to that doctor and give him that vacation would be far cheaper for your country then in the end having to pay his early pension or just sustain him and so on.

    how-ever, money like that will not show up on float-chards, only common sense will get to that conclusion and you can't use it in political debates because it is not immediate money and it will be years before any-one will be able to feel any kind of effect, much longer than mere four years.

    I've been saying this for a long time.. but the way I see it your biggest problem is seriously all these ass insurance companies!

    You know what those companies are? Those are an unnecary third link between you and the hospital, ideally all the money you pay here, should go to the hospitals! but they don't, they'll go to the insuerance companies which will spend those money only on themselves.

    Here's the big golden deal I see by making health-care free.. You'll get rid of these insurance companies! you'll get rid of this third link, the money you spend on insurance wont go through that extra filther where they'll dissapear into rich mens pockets but go directly to the hospitals so more people can be treated in better ways.

    The only draw-back by getting rid of these insurance companies is a lot of people will suddenly see themselves without a job, which sucks even more because of the times where jobs are needed.

    But it's lesser evil compared to the huge evil that is going on here you people seriously need to get rid off! Who knows, with all that money before-hand going to office workers now going straight to the hospital, maybe those people could be hired as nurses and do some-thing actually good <_<

    Like

  18. Sofie Liv Pedersen says:

    Oh, one last note.

    Even all that being said.. about how having healthy people can safe you money.

    On a strictly idealistic moral standpoint.. Why the fuck even be concerned about money? Why aren't leaders of a nation more concerned about simply just have the people they are supposed to lead being healthy, happy and content?

    Like

  19. Cyrus says:

    As others have pointed out, a third presidential candidate will not win while the current electoral system is still in place. If you and the people dear to you (the latter being a rather flexible term, depending on your outlook on society) stand to lose absolutely nothing with either the democratic or the republican candidate in the White House, by all means, go for sending a message, rather than the pragmatic vote.

    In the end, the change you desire will only be brought about gradually through an increase of third-party senators and representatives. The good news is, that even a relatively small number should liven up the political landscape considerably.

    @Nixou: Earlier in these comments, we already saw the most insidious characteristic of such a “bullycracy” (I kinda dig the term): People will tell you that this is how it is and that you should just get over that fact … “like a grown man” or something.

    Like

  20. Nathan says:

    @Anon James(I'm not 100% sure its you because I am hearing the same arguments but they are without the insults so I guess that is at least an improvement from the James we have been seeing here and the youtube comments)
    Voting for a third party during a presidential election is the same as doing nothing or throwing your vote away. The electoral college is essentially built against any third parties and prevents them from getting any attention or steam behind them. No third party will ever have a remote chance of winning until that system is removed and replaced with a popular vote, and if enough of those third parties are elected into government positions for the media to include them into debates and the presidential discussion.

    Like

  21. Anonymous says:

    @Nathan: you only throw your vote away if you vote for a person you don't think will do a good job but are compromising your principles out of “party loyalty” or some other nonsense.

    Like

  22. Nathan says:

    @anon
    Who says I am compromising all of my principals if I vote for the guy who I think will do a better job and has a better chance of winning? It is easy to say that Romney and Obama are the same when you are clearly so devoted to third party cause. These two men are very different, and you have to at least in your own opinion believe one guy can do a better job between R and B. If I only voted based on people I 100% believed in I would never vote. The only way there would be a candidate that I completely agreed with is if I were to run for president. But since I don't plan to run I vote for the guy that I mostly agree with and is also more likely to win. There is not a single poll that shows any candidate from a third party that has even a remote chance of winning a state let alone the presidency. To vote for a third party is nothing more than a symbolic vote of stubbornness. It esentially means that you were stubborn enough to stand in line, and make a vote that won't even have the slightest impact in the election.
    Compromising is not this entirely bad thing. It just means that in this moment instead of trying to get what you want, you went for what was most practical.
    But like I said in my previous post, third parties are not a bad idea, they just don't have any relevance in this pres.election.

    Like

  23. Andrew says:

    @Sofie

    “Common sense” in the US is that people should look after themselves. If they don't, or can't, it's not the responsibility of the rest of society to look after them. Not everyone feels this way, but the majority regularly do. That's just a general cultural thing about the US. Collective welfare is not held as high as individual responsibility. And a lot of people view the very idea of collectivism in any form as akin to Bolshevism.

    Regarding “Pete”: There is no early pension for him anymore. New Petes today don't get pensions, they have 401k retirement plans that they have to pay into throughout their working life (automatically deducted from their paychecks, not unlike a tax), and which they can't usually touch until they're 60. If Pete injures himself and can no longer work, then he'd better already have enough stashed away in his 401k retirement plan or he's gonna have to find some other way to support himself. The idea that society at large will have to pitch in to support him is anathema to most Americans. Their feeling is that Pete is absolutely responsible for himself and his children, morally responsible for the rest of family, and, if he's a good guy (and can afford it), Pete can also take responsibility for his friends and (increasingly rarely) for his neighbors, though he doesn't have to. But if he's an adult, society at large is not responsible for him AT ALL. Unless his friends and family choose to help him out (as private citizens), he's screwed, and no one should be obligated to support him. That may seem cruel (and I'm not necessarily endorsing it), but that's that's how most Americans feel.

    The only exception to this general rule – and the only part of the culture that a majority of the country feels some collective responsibility towards and from – is the military. Joining the military is considered a duty to society at large, a way of “giving back” to the rest of the country by accepting some responsibility to the greater whole, and the popular feeling is that society at large has an obligation to support the military in any way possible.

    You can quote all the economic statistics you want about whether universal health care is more cost-effective in the long run. It's not gonna get you anywhere. This is a matter of VALUES, and you'll never win an election here by appealing to statistics (or details of any sort) over values. Never. And if these benefits are hidden, or the kind that you only notice when you don't notice them, it would be even harder to convince others that they should adjust their notions of “common sense”. As long as a majority of Americans (or voters at least) feel that individual responsibility trumps societal responsibility, or at the very least feels that THEY don't want to pay any taxes to support others, this isn't going to change.

    Private insurance companies aren't going anywhere. If anyone tried to get rid of them and FORCE people to turn to the government and the government only for health care, they'd get thrown out of office (one reason “Obamacare”'s single-payer option was never passed, despite the Dems controlling both houses of Congress). It would be seen as a clear threat to individual freedom, which is always going to win out over the welfare of society at large. Most people would rather deal with privately-owned insurance companies than with thegovernment; again, it's more of a values thing than anything.

    Like

  24. Andrew says:

    @Sofie, parte the seconde

    Why be concerned about money? Because most people HATE the idea of the government taking ANY MONEY from them, and you're not going to convince them that it's worth it, even if the statistics would prove that it's worthwhile to them.

    Example: I live in Seattle, in Western Washington, which is far more urbanized and oriented towards trade and manufacturing than Eastern Washington, which is more sparsely-populated and agricultural. For half my life, I've been hearing Easterners griping about how they HATE how their tax dollars are being spent in the Western counties, even though years of state financial reports state that far more tax dollars flow eastwards than westwards. But that doesn't matter: (some of) THEIR money is going west, and that's a clear sign of big government oppression by us big city folks. Values trump statistics. Alaska is the single-most heavily subsidized state in the country per capita (far away, small population, huge distances between cities and rough winters requiring massive infrastructure), all of which allow them to set their state taxes incredibly low. But how does Alaska feel about “big government”? They fucking hate it. It's oppressive. They want smaller government, and so they always vote Republican, the “small government party”. Why? Values say small goverment is always good, even though statistics show that they benefit from big government subsidies more than anyone else, and that if those subsidies dried up, their tax rate would have to skyrocket in order to keep the state functional (which of course they would also attribute to big government).

    People follow their values. And over here at least, self-interest (almost) always trumps any sense of responsibility for society at large. Government is bad, no one wants to pay taxes for anything (but they'll still take free stuff), and everyone should look after themselves or else. That's the prevailing mood here. Democrats campaign by promising voters free stuff for nothing, and Republicans campaign by promising less obligations at no sacrifice. They know what the voters want to hear.

    Like

  25. David says:

    @Mr. Anonymous Guy Again

    ****

    “See, yeah, that was me before. I am really impressed that you were able to lay out a counterargument to all of my assertions, and I appreciate you having done so.”
    You're welcome.

    “You are an eloquent and (for the internet) extremely respectful interlocutor.”
    Thank you very much! …I think. *looks up that word*

    Hmmm… *scratches chin*
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutor

    “But listen: I've read all the arguments you made before,”
    And I've read all the arguments you've made before.

    ****

    “I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind, sir.”

    Oh no, go right ahead.

    Everything I've said are not things I've decided on easily or quickly. Half the reason I talk to people online about politics is to get my own beliefs examined and tested against the opposition. The only reason I'm saying the conservative things I'm saying is because I've never heard a deal breaking argument against them.

    I am giving you–as I have many–the opportunity to prove me wrong. That's the other half of the reason I like to phrase arguments as questions.

    ****

    “Here's why it doesn't work: The way to get economic growth is to increase the velocity of money through increasing aggregate demand”

    Yes. The question is, who is going to make that happen, the government, or individuals?

    ****

    “which means that you need to put the most money possible in the hands of as many people as possible.”

    Again, who is “you”? This is kind of the heart of the economic debate; should each person be responsible for them self, or should a government body be responsible for their welfare?

    ****

    “Rich people are not useful for that purpose, because all they can do when they have a ton of money is invest it”

    …and?

    Here's a quick video discussing that very concern you expressed:
    http://youtu.be/o8A7LYtHnsk

    ****

    “and after awhile you start to see either a) diminishing returns, because nobody can buy the products made by the businesses in which they are investing,”

    Uh… why would rich people spend and waste their own money?

    Nobody can buy their products? Why? Because they're all coated in poop? Don't people generally LIKE having food, houses and iPads?

    There's some serious gaps in your logic, here.

    ****

    “or b) investment overseas, which is why Bain Capital keeps outsourcing jobs”

    Trying to understand your perception of economics as best as I can, you seem to believe in the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game. Am I correct? You may not consciously think that, but it's what your statements about economics implies.

    The idea that, if some guy keeps making more and more money, someone else must be making less and less. This implies a confidence in the idea that wealth cannot be expanded.

    [continued…]

    Like

  26. David says:

    […continued]

    “Also, read yerself some economics. I recommend Matt Yglesias.”

    I recommend Thomas Sowell.

    “Do you know what they'll tell you? The war on poverty *worked*.”

    And they'll tell you it didn't.

    ****

    “Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved the health care of the poor and elderly. Social Security helps a LOT of old people. Food stamps help a lot of poor kids.”

    Of course, when billions of dollars are spent on something, you're going to get a lot of that thing. But you've got to keep in mind that, when you're dealing with tax money, that that money came from somewhere, and it's money that could have been used for the same purpose.

    For example, let's say the government spends $200,000 in taxpayer money to make 10 tons of cheese. Well, therefore, government spending produced cheese. You can confidently and factually say this. But what if, had that money been left in the hands of private individuals, they spend the exact same amount of their own money and make exactly the same amount of cheese?

    See, even though the govt did something with other peoples' money, doesn't mean it's a good idea to give them more money. And it's not as though the above example was unrealistic. It's clearly documented and on display right now that people work much more efficiently and productively when their money is on the line. If you have a huge stash of other peoples' money to spend, you won't worry too much about doing a good job.

    ****

    “And unemployment benefits…I mean all of them, not just the ones for veterans Republicans tried to cut, or the job placement for veterans Republicans blocked in the house, but literally *all* unemployment benefits for everyone (which Republicans also tried to stop)keep people from losing their shit and are helping people”

    Link to all that, please.

    ****

    “When was the last time you saw a breadline?”
    Did you know of the breadlines they had in Communist Russia? Do you know of the Soviet Leader who went to America in the late 80's and wept at the sight of a grocery store?

    That was a country where everything was government controlled 'for the good of the people'.

    ****

    “…Climate Change, because I also have looked at the science on sentience so I can tell whether or not abortion is murder (spoiler: it is not murder).”

    Oh really? You've done research on these subjects? Fantastic. Now, for the first time, I can have someone explain to me when and how the right to life begins, correct? And I can have a concise, solid case for how, why and if the world is changing temperature, right?

    I'm not asking rhetorically this time. I actually have not heard a decent case for these two things yet, so please, tell me.

    ****

    “…and contraception – sorry, but Rick Santorum said it and Romney supported the Blunt amendment, so that's their position) is that they don't like it when women have sex that they didn't give permission for.”

    Pretty tall claims. Back that up.

    [continued…]

    Like

  27. David says:

    […continued]

    “Take just the gay marriage debate: if you oppose even the weakest version of the pro-Gay Marriage argument,”

    I do not.

    “…which is that being allowed to get married would make gay people feel better…”

    I did not say that I didn't.

    “There are better arguments, but they're not necessary, because gay people getting married does not disrupt your life, it just makes somebody else's better, and opposition to that is…”

    Opposition that I have not expressed.

    ****

    I think, maybe one time I was actually able to have a conversation about same sex marriage without someone thinking that I was staunchly against it. Even though, every single time, I make it perfectly clear that it is an issue that I am not decided on. Yet, you walk away from it thinking otherwise.

    I JUST want to talk about the idea of marriage as a civil right and what other kinds of effects gay marriage would have on society. To paraphrase what Bob said about Microsoft Kinect; that's not hate: that's skepticism.

    I'm going to be on the fence about marriage forever if people aren't willing to deal with someone challenging the idea and just talk about it, instead of just saying that I suck and hate gay people.

    Thanks again for reading.

    Like

  28. Nixou says:

    “Common sense” in the US is that people should look after themselves. If they don't, or can't, it's not the responsibility of the rest of society to look after them.

    Of course, for all their claims of being “rugged individualists conquering the frontier”, Americans have relied on the federal government since at least the introduction of railways.

    So while we get a lot of people pontifying about how the american public being against “collectivism” while polls after polls after polls show that in fact the American public is for the most part divided between a majority of closeted social-democrats who love every forms of policy defended by european left-wing parties but don't dare say it openly, and aminority of closeted jerks who want to enjoy the very same socialist policies but with the caveat of limiting these to their own little subgroup who try justify themselves with stuff like the “don't give food stamps to Welfare Queens” meme.

    ***

    Even though, every single time, I make it perfectly clear that it is an issue that I am not decided on

    Translation: “I have nothing against gay marriage but I don't have the balls to make a stand against the bigots
    Well, after all, this spineless position was the official position of the democratic party until last may.

    Like

  29. Sofie Liv Pedersen says:

    @Anonymous

    Well.. if you truly do want things to chance and make a difference.. would it really be realistic to vote like that? would it make any difference at all?

    And.. if Obama turned out not to be the next messiah, what are the chances any of these people will? what makes them so special and make you so sure having them in office will instantly make things better?
    politics doesn't work instantly, changing things is an agonizing hard slow moving process.

    People seriously, the people waiting for a president just to instantly fix things aren't waiting for a good president, they are waiting for the next messiah.

    I think bob phrased it wrong, but I kind of sort of got one of his points that you aren't voting for “One cool guy.”

    .. You are voting for the direction your country should take the next four years and beyond that, not the guy, the direction. And right now you honestly only have two directions to pick from that would make a difference, your politics are designed that way, and yes it sucks, but clearly you need to lay out a compromising tac-tic to shift things at all. All politics works like that.

    @Andrew

    Even so, it'll still be cheaper for you as a collected country to pay that damn first doctor bill and let him work for the remainder of his natural working life instead of kick him out on the street where your state money will go to shelters and its like.

    To top it off, having a hundred petes walking around down-town can't possible be a pretty sight for visitors now can it?

    I feel for you, I truly do, that third link of the insuerance companies are ass. I mean honestly, instead of you just going to the hospital you have to go to them, whom will consider whether it's worth going to the hospital for you (without being doctors themselves mind you.) and then at last goes to the hospital for you, and first then comes back to you.. to many steps! and in the mean-time you may have just gotten more ill so the medical bill will be more exspensive than the first time around.
    Do I need to say I am slightly disgusted?

    Call me a hippie, it's only fair.. but man oh man. That fear of not having enough. It sickens me.
    Politics currently are merely run on the fear of “Not having enough.” poeple act and vote out of the fear of “Not having enough.”

    Not enough what dudes? money? When do you ever have enough??? Seriously?

    And what the hell is the point of saving money if you don't even intend to spend on say maybe perhaps.. safe your country and fellow man?

    For a country relying so heavily on the church and christianity in particularly you sure are good at skipping the part that says.

    “Always help your next as you would help your brother, treat your enemy as you would treat your best friend, help does in need and don't get consumed by greed.”

    Nope, screw people around me, let them rot in the street.

    What's that you say.. Child abortion should be illegal because the baby has a soul?

    Okay, okay.. fine. But then also be prepaired to pay for that child and make sure it has a good life as it grows up society! you are half-assing your demandments here and pushing away all the responsibilities.

    Sorry am getting so annoyed, but dammit I am glad I life here in Denmark where my “hippie.” belives is some-thing actually be considered ones in a while.

    But man, if you pick Romney, long term my country will be dragged down with you, we are a global world that way.. so please.. god oh god, pick right.

    Like

  30. Sofie Liv Pedersen says:

    Oh yeah, the big golden trick about our tax's.

    Even if you don't know it, you are paying the same amount in “Tax's” as we do, the tax's we pay to goverment is money you end up paying any-way!

    Money you pay to hospital, your childs colleague, a wheel chair for granny.

    The deal here in my country is you'll pay the tax's and get all of that stuff for free.

    So on a longer term? whom paying most money here? whom is loosing most money as individual persons?

    here's a hint, it's not me.

    And it also sickens me that people claim permanent damages to be peoples own fault, as if it was some-bodies concious decision to fall down and break a hip or some-thing.
    “To bad, your own responsibility.”

    Shit happens, so we as human being so be able to take care about the more unfortunate people. Will some people miss-use this good-heartness?

    yes.. yes some will. But that is a small price to pay for those in actual need to get back on their feed so they can life a prober life again and suprise, continue to give to society and a healthy working life.

    When will people realise we have enough!

    There's enough to go around, food, resources, hospitals, we are not going to run out of these things, that's ridicoules. We just need to find a better system to delegate these things in.

    Like

  31. David says:

    “Translation: 'I have nothing against gay marriage but I don't have the balls to make a stand against the bigots'”

    I don't think people on the traditional-marriage side are automatically a bunch of bad people for it.

    If you refuse to even let your gay marriage position be questioned, just because I won't call your opposition intolerant bastards of hate… well who's really the intolerant ones here?

    Maybe someday, decades from now, I'll actually get someone to mothershitting TALK about the issue of marriage as a right, instead of pulling out some combination of a red herring or ad hominem.

    “Americans have relied on the federal government since at least the introduction of railways”

    Ah yes, out of all the fallacies and strawmen arguments, this is the one I hear the absolute most frequently:

    “Don't you want roads and bridges and police officers?”

    Yes: conservative =/= against all government! Roads and tracks for public transport is one of the legitimate functions of government. I should probably get it tattooed onto my face because I have to explain that every. Single. Time.

    Like

  32. David says:

    “There's enough to go around, food, resources, hospitals, we are not going to run out of these things, that's ridicoules. We just need to find a better system to delegate these things in.”

    Private charity works pretty well.

    Yeah all that time you could be spending campaigning for a politician who'll give X amount of tax dollars to the needy? Wouldn't it be much nicer to spend that time encouraging individuals to give X amount of their own dollars to the same?

    You'll be surprised how much a prosperous society will give.

    Bill Gates put like, what, tens of billions of dollars towards vaccinations? People as rich as he pay lots of taxes. Imagine, had he been taxed much less, how many billions more dollars he'd have been able to donate? How many more thousands of kids would have been helped by that?

    Remember, every single dollar that the government spends is a dollar that would have been spent somewhere else if it hadn't been taxed to them. There are cases in which this reduction of wealth is for the best (roads! Yes! Now you can't say it), but probably not so much in the case of healthcare.

    Like

  33. Sofie Liv Pedersen says:

    @David

    Erh.. every dollar the goverment gets is money the goverment uses on lets see.

    Sciense, rail-roads, public libaries, home-less shelters, military and so on.

    If the goverment doesn't have money to these things, they wont be fixed, whom knew, and with private investers deciding what the money goes to, only the visible things will be fixed and an imbalance happens.

    In my country we don't need private invensters to have such basic needs as our own people not going hungry and have roof over their heads covered.
    And people still get to be very rich do they have the right sort of job, that isn't any problem at all.

    Bill Gates is a very nice man giving a billion dollar to home-less shelters, gee, that's very nice of him.
    But just doing that ones well, maybe some-body builds that centre and that's very nice, but whom is going to sustain the thing after sheltre is build and the money is spend?
    If it was goverment based the goverment would have made a sort of plan and would have kept on sustaining the place in a steady flow using Bill gates tax money.

    And you know what, Bill Gates still get to be super rich and still get to have way more money than he will ever know what the hell to do with.

    And it doesn't change the fact there are also many rich people whom holds unto their gold as was it their little baby, goes to paris one weekend to shop clothing for their vegas party, have not a “Walk i closet.” but a “Walk in basement.” all-ready filled with that clothes, girls on sixteen that grew up in this enviroment kicking and screaming because the sports car they got at their sweet sixteen isn't fancy enough, and still these girls wont have to work one single day all of their life, and no, they probably wont be nice enough to spontanously give a million to the home-less centre.

    Is that fair?

    And now, a million they take in tax dollars is not necesarily a million that will be spend some-where else, it might be a million just hanging around on a bank-conti or… it might be that million our sixteen year old spend not in the US, but in French on that trip.

    Also, how selfish are you to exspect that one singel guy, Bill Gates, should pay for having all these problem fixed? the man probably has not to look at. Why can't every-body help paying the things that needs fixing? through, I don't know, tax money?
    That way every-body whom can is helping to get you a better country in the end.

    Like

  34. Cyrus says:

    The Gates Foundation lost all credibility in my eyes, when stories of schools surfaced, that had been coerced into choosing Microsoft products as a requirement for receiving funds. Fucking pricks.

    @David: Consider this: A lot of gay couples might be peeved about their inequality on principle alone and I would agree that no goverment should force a church to wed anyone they don't want to.

    But marriage has become a very secular institution and many benefits for couples are not a right, they are a priviledge derived from the service they provide to society: Raising kids. Gay couples may lack the ability to *have* kids by the most traditional means, but they are certainly equiped to *raise* them. This whole discussion could proably be sidestepped by turning many couple-related benefits into parent-related ones – although its still everyone's own business, whom they deem family enough for visitation rights, power of attorney, their inheritance, etc.

    @MovieBob: Your site needs a forum. 😉

    Like

  35. Nixou says:

    So on a longer term? whom paying most money here? whom is loosing most money as individual persons?

    Heh: I can even provide a detailed answer
    Yep, turns out socialized medicine cost waaaaaay less than the pre-ACA healthcare.

    ***

    I don't think people on the traditional-marriage side are automatically a bunch of bad people for it.

    Gay Marriage does not hurt traditional marriage one bit.
    The only sort of marriage “hurt” by it are the loveless marriages gays seeking respectability have been forced to endure for centuries.
    People honestly on the traditional-marriage side have no reason to oppose gay marriage.
    You know it, I know it, the bigots know it, and the only reason they're targetting Gays through petty attempts to forbid them to marry is because they cannot openly beat/rape/murder them and get away with it.

    And I don't have to pretend in the name of fake politeness to be blind about it.

    Opposition of gay marriage is about sadistic bigots who get off by harming Gays, and the sooner everyone stops pretending to give these perfidious thugs the benefit of the doubt, the sooner they will be reduced to a much deserved state of political irrelevance.

    ***

    Bill Gates put like, what, tens of billions of dollars towards vaccinations? People as rich as he pay lots of taxes. Imagine, had he been taxed much less, how many billions more dollars he'd have been able to donate?

    Had he been taxed “much less”, there would not be any hospital to distribute your precious vaccines.
    And by the way, what kind of vaccines are we talking about?
    Oh, yeah, Polio, you know, one of these viral diseases which were eradicated in the Western Hemisphere thanks to public campains of vaccination (the first polio-free country being then-communist Czechoslovakia).
    What a shame really, had the industrialized world decided to relly solely on private charity, polio would still be a cripling problem today in the US and Europe, and we could aaaaaaall be much more grateful toward the generosity of His Excellency Lord Bill of the Glitchy Window.

    Like

  36. Anonymous says:

    @Nixou Well, since you are so sure of cost, what about length of time to get needed care? What about quality of care? Or access restrictions?

    Also of note, do you think ACA might just be different enough to make your whole argument moot?

    —-

    Do you put everyone who isn't screaming “gay right now” in this category? Cause you just might be cutting a few who are thinking about it and trying to find a way to reach the correct goal (which gay marriage is) while looking ahead to prevent issues society being stupid WILL cause. I know this is my camp on the issue. For it, but willing to let it take a little while to see things done right with a little bit of idiot-proofing.

    ————

    This whole argument about more or less taxes depends I suspect heavily on how much the politicians want to take home in direct pay or personal benefits. Honestly, cut that and you would be shocked how much probably frees up.

    Like

  37. Nixou says:

    Well, since you are so sure of cost, what about length of time to get needed care? What about quality of care? Or access restrictions?

    Well, since I as well as my parents have lived in both France and the US, I can tell by experience what the difference is:

    when it comes to the overall quality of care, waiting lines and restrictions, France crush the USA in every category. The only “advantage” the US has is that if you're rich enough to afford the best premiums, you're allowed to cut the line, access private hospitals closed to the vulgum pecus and pretend that the system is faster and more efficient than it really is while in France you may have to spend 30-40 minutes in the waiting room with plebeans before seeing your pneumologist.

    Like

  38. Cyrus says:

    @Nixou/last anon: Not to mention getting an important operation without being billed for a cent or having your premiums go up. That's quality of life right there, not just having access to care but also never having to worry about being bankrupted by it.

    Constitutions of Western countries vary regarding their core tennants, but human dignity tends to come up in several. Not making a person beg for the preservation of their health is simply an extension of that principle.

    Like

  39. Jake says:

    about Bob getting bullied and people saying he should get over it: I don't want to be insensitive about this, but a 30-year-old man still haunted by the fact that he was bullied is not normal. He really needs to go to therapy, (I'm serious about this, I'm not trying to be mean at all.)

    Like

  40. Anonymous says:

    @Jake: I agree that Bob needs therapy, not just for the reasons you mentioned. He seems to have narcissistic personality disorder, and may be a borderline sociopath.

    Like

  41. Nixou says:

    a 30-year-old man still haunted by the fact that he was bullied is not normal

    Yeah, because Manly Men don't talk about it. Manly Men keep it to themselves and deal with the trauma by beating their girldfriend, or their wife, or their kids, or they reach a position of middle-managment and use it to tyrannize people under them, or they turn into internet stalkers, or start posting porn laced with mysoginistic insults on reddit. That's what Manly Men do, which is much more reasonnable and sane than, I don't know, being frank and open about one's bad childhood memories.

    Like

  42. David says:

    @The gay marriage issue
    Please present to me actual evidence of that.

    @The government spending issue
    Shitting on Bill Gates doesn't help your case.

    Anyway, onto the real issue:

    Bob Chipman's emotional problems. (Skip to 'the point' if you want to save time)

    As a follower of Bob's videos for almost three years now, I can say with some confidence that–at the very least–his political speech is motivated primarily by emotions; not logic or anything else.

    Sometimes, he's passive and quiet about it.
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5654-One-Day-in-November
    …and you wouldn't even be able to tell what side he's on. And then there's videos like THIS.

    And then sometimes, there's blog posts like this:
    http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2011/08/six-more-opinions-likely-to-be.html

    Not only does he claim people with faith in a God are mentally deficient, he attaches that label to… pretty much anybody he doesn't like.

    Like Transformers 3? You're functionally retarded and cannot operate a vehicle.
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/3634-Transformers-Dark-of-the-Moon

    Or, perhaps, are an undecided voter? Same thing. What's funny is I actually totally AGREE with the first part of that video. I believe most people who are 'undecided' are really just ignorant of politics and don't want to admit it.

    However I think that's just because, well, everyone knows politics are important and no one wants to be seen as uninformed. Yet, getting into politics can be hard: there's so much you have to learn about, AND more importantly, you'll have people calling you all sorts of names and likening you to a Nazi for daring to QUESTION their platform.

    That's why people dress up as 'undecided voters' (and maybe some do it to make themselves look nuanced and intelligent; that's reason number two.) I don't, however, feel the need to call everybody like that functionally retarded and hit them with petty insults.

    The point
    YES. Bob almost certainly has serious emotional problems. Again, from watching his videos, I have collected an assortment of clues.

    1: He went to a Catholic school from K to 12
    2: He was bullied
    2.1: He has said that his bullying STILL affects him emotionally
    3: He visibly despises Christianity

    It's not hard to guess what happened here.

    “That's what Manly Men do, which is much more reasonnable and sane than, I don't know, being frank and open about one's bad childhood memories”
    You and I both know there's a big difference between 'sharing your problems' and 'being an asshole to people about your problems'.

    Bob would do good, in fact, to follow his own guidelines on polite behavior:
    http://youtu.be/2fXqydQOz2o

    I, like many other people, DO ACTUALLY CARE about Bob and I think many of us really WOULD like him to get better. I love his commentary on culture, his voice is awesome and funny, and nobody likes to see someone this bitter.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s