Avid readers of my work may know that the fascist Congress of the Contract With America era is responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.
Many of these deaths were caused by the welfare "reform" law of 1996. Phil Gramm admitted as much (not like he had any remorse over it, as he is a sociopath).
There should have been nothing less than Nuremburg-style tribunals for Congress. Congress committed an atrocity against humanity.
If America was half as civilized as it claims, Newt Gingrich would be rotting in prison right now - gnashing his teeth in a cage like the rabid animal he is.
But does the media share some of the blame for the deaths? Yes.
Let's take a step back to 1996.
How many innocent Americans had already died needlessly from the state of the health care system even then? Quite a bit.
How many had died from receiving too much welfare? Zero.
How many died after 1996 from Congress not fixing health care? Quite a bit.
How many died after 1996 from Congress slashing welfare? Again, quite a bit.
We can blame not just our political "leaders", but also the media. If the media hadn't played up the right-wing hoax about "welfare queens", public officials would have at least been encouraged to tackle health care reform before anything else.
The media also refused to expose the election fraud that defined the 1994 "election" and the ensuing fascist wave.
We can rightly call it the killer media.
I stood alone among commentators at the time in calling the '94 "election" a fraud and in calling the Contract With America a crime against humanity. I'm proud that I called it what it was. But it's a shame that the media - in its quest to manipulate public opinion - never even entertained the thought of calling the "election" a sham or in bringing the assholes to justice.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Blood on the media's hands?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
For crying out loud Tim, you're not going to die because your welfare ran out. You don't need welfare. If you can blog all day and write a book you can get a job. You just don't want to.
ReplyDeleteSo where's your book, anonymous?
ReplyDeleteIf Bandit chooses not to get a job, that's up to him. Problem is he wants the government (taxpayers) to cut him a paycheck just the same in the form of welfare and he doesn't like it because there's limits on how long you can collect welfare thanks to necessary reforms of the '90s.
ReplyDeleteIf I was on welfare since the '90s, I would have used up my 5-year limit by now, dumbass.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say you were on welfare since the '90s. You don't like the 5-year limit because it means they've cut you off.
ReplyDeleteThen that kind of debunks those who say I don't have a job, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteNo. If you think you can get by on whatever you get from blogging and book sales, that's fine. But don't demand the rest of us subsidize you because don't want to get a 9-to-5.
ReplyDeleteFirst it was "BANDIT DOSEN'T HAVE A JOBB", now it's "BANDIT DOESN'T HAVE A JOBB THAT PAYZ GOOD, SO HE"S LESS OF A MAN"
ReplyDeleteBookman, if you don't want him being "subsidized", then you need to support legislation guaranteeing fair royalties for authors.
Bandit uses a print-on-demand service called Lulu to publish his book. He decides how much his royalty cut is per copy sold and it's part of what is a rather steep price for a paperback.
ReplyDeleteWrong. I lost my power to set a lower price when booksellers began demanding that we set the same price for online purchases that we do for bookstore purchases.
ReplyDeleteTake it to another publisher or publish it yourself.
ReplyDelete