Rock the Vote sinks to new depths of innanity with its bizarre line of youth-targeted "I <3 Social Security" gear. I don't see any thongs for sale, despite what Michael Medved said, but the t-shirts and hats are pretty moronic. It's stupid enough that RtV pushes ignorant kids to vote on issues they don't understand -- and always to the left -- but now they're encouraging us to "love" a giant, blood-sucking, government welfare program? Ridiculous. If any of these kids actually wants to get any SS money they should jump behind President Bush's reform package, but that's hardly the line RtV is spewing. Better yet, get a job you bums.
Get your Tim Geithner TAX CHEAT! stamps!
8 Comments
Leave a comment
The comment login system is acting strange. If you get an error message saying you aren't logged in when you are, just reload the comment page and try again. I'm trying to track this bug down, but it's not easy.
Would you have such a problem with RtV if they pushed ignorant kids to vote on issues they don't understand, but to the right instead?
Mark: I certainly wouldn't complain as much! But then I make no claim to advocate for an objective position. Ideally, extracted from reality, ignorant people shouldn't be encouraged to vote.
Ignorant people should certainly be encouraged to become less ignorant, and then vote. They should be encouraged to read both conservative and liberal spin on issues, events, and policy positions. The only way to avoid being captured by either conservative spin or liberal spin is to read both types of spin.
Is it too "objective" for you to call for Rush Limbaugh to apologize for accusing Democrats of forging a Terri Schiavo memo that was really created by the legal counsel of a Republican senator?
Is it too "objective" for you to speak out against Sen. John Cornyn's comments about violence against judges as pointed out in this thread?
Is it too "objective" for you to criticize the overreaching by President Bush and the Republicans in the Terri Schiavo case?
And is it too "objective" for you to criticize Pat Robertson for saying that "activist judges" are the biggest threat to this country?
Mark: Well, I don't agree that most of those things are outrageous, and the other things that appear outrageous on the face I have no direct knowledge of, and I doubt your characterization.
MW: Are they "outrageous"? No, not really... but things far less extraordinary or significant have been addressed by you.. so it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the things I've mentioned.
Everything I've mentioned is no less significant than anything you regularly comment on.
Mark: I thought you were saying that I should have addressed those issues because they were particularly important. If you agree that they aren't that important, then why are you suprised I didn't write about them? There an an innumerable number of not-that-important things that I don't write about.
MW: No, I'm saying that they are as important as anything else you write about... just not "outrageous". Many things you write about aren't "outrageous", but they're still important.