Breitbartin’, here, boss

the individualist mandate

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

12 Comments!

  1. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 11:24 am |

    LOL! Thanks, I needed that.

  2. Freddie Sykes
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 11:25 am |

    I think The Big Cheese said it best: He did when they put him out.

    http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/2012/03/hot-topic.html

  3. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 11:53 am |

    Freddie (2)
    I think you missed the point.

  4. Susan Lee
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

    Beautiful, just beautiful, DougM.

    Thanks, Susan Lee

  5. Stilton
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

    DougM- Magnificent!

    Freddie(2)- Glad you liked the cartoon!

  6. Ironic in Denver
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

    Doug, I think the next pic you post should be of you taking a bow for this one. (no mooning please)

  7. Freddie Sykes
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm |

    DougM, there is your point which I and my white privilege agree with and there is historical context. I put this in the context of Booker T Washington vs W E B Dubois which was continued as Martin Luther King vs his supposed heirs from Jesse Jackson up thru Barack Obama. Dubois won and won big. Even though King differed from him wrt race, he agreed with Dubois wrt economic and government theory.

    It would be nice to live in King’s world but we are definitely going thru a Stiltonesque phase else why would you feel the need to remind us 50 years after the words were spoken.

  8. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

    Freddie (7)
    I reject racial arguments. When I mention race, I’m making fun of racism and racialism, I’m not making any value comparison. Racial considerations are an affront to reason and an attack on individualism. I don’t give a flying fig about WEBDuBois or MLKing or BTWashington or any other racial theorists’ ideas. I only used King’s quote to illustrate the Obamaniacs’ ironic contempt for individualism.

    I refuse to deal with collectivist questions about which races, ethnicities, or other identifiable groups are more evil, more virtuous, more victimized, more oppressive, more smarter, more gooder, or anything like that.
    That approach will never answer. It will never solve anything. It will never convince anybody of anything except that there’s a need to shout louder. All collectivist theories do this. It’s the “justice” of the mob. There can be no justice in collectivism.

    As long as society address racism in collectivist terms, there will be no real progress. Unless people are treated as individuals, their humanity is stripped from them; and they will be either unjustly crushed or shielded from justice.

  9. mech
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 7:46 pm |

    Instead teh precedent has two daughters a waterdog and wookie wif no hoodie.

    And a TOTUS as well as a multitude of czars and strings pulled by the likes of teh soros.

    What does that say about his character (without looking at his policies and actions?

  10. Freddie Sykes
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 5:11 am |

    DougM, I agree with your premise but also feel the need to address history wrt how we have come to this pass. The socialist Dubois won and carries with him the media, the academy, the left and much of the center. Obama is his heir and his agenda is to encourage resentment, a sense of unearned entitlement and the threat of and often the use of violence in politics.

    Booker T Washington’s agenda was based on education and hard work to raise up his people, then suffering under the real disadvantage of Jim Crow laws, so that they would become independent of and the equals to the other hard working members of society. His heirs include Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas.

    Justice Thomas is not unaware of the history of race in this country as is shown in some of his decisions:

    If history has taught us anything it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories.

    or

    There is a ‘moral and constitutional equivalence’ between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect and protect us as equal before the law. That affirmative action programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race.

  11. DougM (jackassophobe)
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 7:22 am |

    ^ And Justice Thomas is correct.
    Recognize the history, then reject it.
    Recognize that gov’t policies are more of the same, then reject them.
    Recognize racialism for the collectivist claptrap that it is and what it’s done, then bury it and treat people as individuals.

  12. Freddie Sykes
    Posted March 28, 2012 at 9:50 am |

    DougM, weak minded being such as myself need a greater foundation in history and philosophy to avoid drifting into a nebulous populism. I need to know enough history so I can ask the avant garde what makes them think their theories will work this time given that they have failed every time they have been tried?

    One of the reasons Andrew Breitbart was so effective in fighting multiculturalism was that he had a profound understanding of the evil fruits that naturally developed from the Frankfurt School.

target=