So, why am I writing about this? Well, because it annoys me.
Why is Elisabeth deemed an "annoyance?" Oh, wait, it's because she's not afraid to let her conservative beliefs be known. She's not afraid of Rosie or Joy Behar and she persists when she is berated and told her opinions are wrong.
I understand the headlines in the "People" section are meant to be amusing. But this particular statement crossed a line. It referred to a person's beliefs and values as "annoying."
This annoys me. It annoys me everytime someone who subscribes to the ideology of so-called "love&compassion" believes someone that fights for their beliefs is annoying or wrong or shouldn't have a "soap box" with which to express these beliefs.
It also annoys me when a person advocating what they deem a good program has to criticize the other side with viscious words such as:
"they are a pitchfork-wielding mob of hate-filled sociopaths who saw an opportunity to extract their pound of flesh from some random and defenseless family that had dared to align themselves with their political opponents. That's pretty sound as explanations go."
Here's a question posed by the author of the aforementioned article:
"What, for instance, would Bush, Malkin et al say to a woman in her 30s with an infant child and a husband who wants stay at home as the primary caregiver, but can't find affordable health insurance on the open market?"
My usual response to people on the left asking questions such as this is, well, if you are so concerned for families without (fill in the blank), why don't you contribute your own money and ask others who feel the same concerns to donate and then you can sponsor (fill in the blank) for the family.
My biggest problem with social programs such as the SCHIP is that it takes away money from people who have worked hard at their jobs and are therefore able to afford to insure themselves and it gives it to people who expect the government to give them handouts and are therefore unmotivated to work harder or to be personally responsible for themselves and their family. This misuse of the system ruins it for everyone, but it is nearly impossible to fix.
Continuing with the discussion of healthcare:
I found a post on the DailyKos saying that Democrats are more trusted and are believed to be able to do a better job with regard to healthcare. Here's a link to the results of the poll.
Let's take a look at the CBS News Poll, Sept. 14-16, 2007.
From 9/14-16/07, 42% stated they were very dissastisfied with the quality of healthcare BUT from 2/23-27/07, only 28% claimed by be very dissastified. This is a huge increase in the number of people dissastisfied with the quality of healthcare, a 14 point increase, actually.
Could this be because of the proliferation of healthcare coverage in the media? Could it be because the mainstream news media is tellling us to think about the healthcare system in America? Or could it be because the poll was skewed (I believe it is possible to make a poll say what you want it to)?
I honestly don't know. I despise insurance companies and their stupid policies and ways of doing business. But do I think the government should get involved? No. No matter who tries to fix it or what party is involved, the government will just screw things up worse.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
6 comments:
I think a lot of women watching The View agree with Mrs. Hasselback's views. She's pretty brave for sitting with those other yap artists on the show.
Also: She's pretty.
Elizabeth Hasselback would be annoying reading a grocery list. I doesn't matter whether she's liberal or conservative, her banshee-like screeching and inarticulate descriptions and dissections of current issues are an embarrassment to herself more than any singular group.
okay, well couldn't it be said that her "inarticulate descriptions and dissections of current issues" also refer to her conservative viewpoints?
" her banshee-like screeching and inarticulate descriptions and dissections of current issues are an embarrassment to herself more than any singular group."
I think you're referring to Rosie. Just hearing the woman talk drives me crazy. She's nothing more than a loudmouth who tries to talk over people during a discussion.
The thing that bothers most people aren't her conservative beliefs but her close minded attitude towards things.
You may not like Rosie, but she gets far more applause from the audience in one show than Elisabeth does in an entire season.
Elisabeth seems so naive about everything. She has strong opinions and is extremely narrowminded and unwilling to see anything but her ideas. The blog writer herself has the same issues.
You call her close-minded exactly BECAUSE of her conservative beliefs. The same thing applies to your comment about the blog writer. You say she's narrow minded because she's conservative. I can say you're narrow-minded because you criticize people's beliefs and refuse to listen to other points of view.
Remember one thing, you can listen to someone's point of view and STILL disagree with them. I think so many libs forget this when they resort to name calling.
And I hardly think your point about Rosie getting more applause from the audience means anything. I bet if Bill O'Reilly had a talk show, he'd get more applause than his guests because they would be like-minded people.
Post a Comment