Thought for today, week, month, year, decade, eternity: Your “Fair Share” Is Not In My Wallet!!!
Democrat Socialists / Progressives (but I repeat myself) have no other idea that “Fair Share” can actually mean that. In practice, the “Fair” part comes in second to “You Don’t Spend It The Way It Should Be” and therefore go ahead and the do the “Taxation is Theft” tantrum dance once again because that’s what we say about it. It’s ISN’T theirs, they may SAY it isn’t theirs, but then they whine (like my 4 year old Grandson when he can’t have that new Shiny Object even as we tell him it is somebody else’s) like they feel entitled to it.
Democrats keep missing that last part of the pre-school Object Lesson.
They won’t and don’t take NO for an answer which is about as good of a reason to either keep them out of office or get them out. Because if they don’t get what they believe is rightfully yours to spend on what they want, out comes the tantrum. And just like the Grandson, they have their own way of throwing a tantrum, like:
HIT PIECE! HATE SPEECH! STALKING!
So, like I used to do when teaching Sunday School, here’s a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. Steve wrote about one of his State Reps – Progressive Rosemarie Rung. You know, one of the four female State Reps that NH State Rep Jan Schmidt said was getting police protection because of us at GraniteGrok. We all know (and it is documented here on the site) that Schmidt just flat out lied. Made it up out of whole cloth – we have the RSA 91-A demand to prove it. And her words that keep changing her story once it looked like I was going to bring libel legal action concerning it. Still under contemplation. Not a threat, just contemplation but her changing words tend to bolster my thoughts on this. But I digress – back to NH State Rep Rosemarie Rung.
Steve put up another post about his elected Representative (Rung); (it’s what we do and what Rung doesn’t mention is that we do it almost as often to Republicans – because we hold them to a higher standard). What Rung is doing is that that the State HAS to take more money from others to “pay” for school vouchers for low income families’ students (and it takes $ away from the Democrat campaign coffers called the NEA and AFT). It’s the “Everything is connected to everything else” theory of money – yours, theirs, and mostly should be theirs. Financial Intersectionality,as it were. More, more, more, give me more!
What you DON’T see, EVAH, is a call from Democrats for “ok, maybe we should cut somewhere else. After all, we have priorities and given that money is a scarce commodity, perhaps we cut the lower ones”. It’s always more, more and more and Rung reinforced that message:
So Steve commented on it here (reformatted, emphasis mine):
So, Rung’s remark has nothing to do with defending taxpayers and everything to do with controlling resources for political gain. The government monopoly on education long ago stopped working to educate future generations for our mutual benefit. It exists to forcibly launder tax dollars through unions to Democrats while training your children to become good citizens of their Reich. From curriculum to cultural reprogramming, everything under that roof pushes students to the left. It is in the best interests of Democrats like Rung to oppose any program that diverts children or resources away from that purpose.
So instead of debating Steve…
Sidenote: OK, I’ll lay down the challenge to the four Merrimack Democrat female State Reps: Let’s debate – you four and four Groksters. How about we even raise some money for Charity at the same time – winner of the debate gets to donate it. When are you available to do this? We’re willing to meet you, face to face, in front of a crowd.
…she claims “HIT PIECE!” she’s unhappy that a constituent of the opposite political persuasion calls her out for being a Hoover vacuum “for Benjamins” (OTHER peoples’ Benjamins, I might add:
I'm getting messages from people, some I don't know, expressing support for me & disgust for Merrimack's @nhstevemacd. I don't read his gibberish, but he posted another hit piece on me. Steve, chill out and have a Merry Christmas! Life's too short to be so hate filled.#nhpolitics
— Rosemarie Rung (@rosemarierung) December 22, 2019
She seemingly hates the Free Speech of those that criticize her. Heck, I’m criticizing her, too – I can’t vote her out of office but don’t I have the ability to comment on her worldview which creates a negative impact on me by the kinds of laws she writes, sponsors, debates, and then votes for? Her reach goes beyond Merrimack and right into my home as well.
Sidenote: Glad to see that two other folks gave her a “what for” as well on Twitter.
But look at what she says – she calls it “gibberish” and a hit piece – always assigning mal-intent instead of looking for “well, why does he write those things”? I’m quite sure she’s never tried to ask, to find common ground – she just dismisses him out of hand, probably as “hate speech”. An amorphous term with no legal standing whatsoever.
Hate Filled? That’s all the come back you can use? Can’t even talk about the subject of the post, can’t rationalize your philosophy, can’t speak to the pros/cons? All you can do is run as quickly to the rhetorical Ad Hominem Cliff and jump off? All you can do is resort to the stereotypical Leftist attack of “the emotional response”? Talk about being “hate filled” – he talks at the policy level, at the financial level, and the private property level (as they are all intertwined) and you go for Character assassination and immediately hit the “Impugn Motive” button? That’s not debating – that’s simply saying “I got nuttin’ “.
Sorry, Steve is one of the calmest people I know. Hate? Hardly. But given the kinds of bills, she puts in and votes for, why SHOULDN’T he be writing about them and her? Go ahead, find ONE bill that doesn’t decrease an Individual’s Liberty or Freedom in some way or another?
And here’s one that is, thus far, absolutely unconstitutional – and I challenge her to prove me wrong:
HB1163: requiring schools to update documents and software to include the option of identifying a student as non-binary.
So, Ms Rung – who is going to pay for cost of this once it is passed? Why WOULDN’T Steve, or anyone else, be taking you to task over this. Can you even THINK of why you shouldn’t even be THINKING of being a sponsor on this? I await your answer – and the other sponsors are acting dopey on this as well so I wouldn’t expect them to give you the correct answer either.
You see, we have a saying here at the ‘Grok: Do or say stupid stuff and we’ll generally say something back. And the First Amendment and Articles 2, 4, 5, 22, 23, 30 provide for it . Articles 31 and 38, though, seems to be an issue for you, though.
So if you can’t stand the heat, resign and let someone else stand up. Remember, you are there to represent EVERYONE and not just those that agree with you – and that includes Steve.
Oh, by the way, Steve answered her back:
Yep, she hasn’t figured out the “say something stupid stuff” yet…