Skeptic Project

I found this blog entry from an internet radio show a close friend of mind linked me.

http://www.ejandthebear.com/

"In my house, we provide for our children. They pay for nothing. They get free room and board (and a fare share of toys). They have their transportation for free as well as their entertainment. Children are expensive.


They have all of this but do not get a final say-so in what happens under our roof. Can you imagine if they had an equal vote? It would be ice cream and cookies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We would never be able to pay our bills because we would be out-voted to do "fun things". Who needs electricity, but we certainly need a new, huge flat screen TV. Go to school? Why, Spongebob is on!


Now, when it was just my me, my wife and oldest son, there could have been some order. Sure, I would have been the stickler more often than not. My wife would have given in to small demands to make the little guy happy. Ultimately, on serious issues (bill payment), the adults would have outvoted the one child and the best, rational, mature decision would have been made.


But then came the twins. If we were in an equal vote world, forget it. Our house would be foreclosed on and we'd be bankrupt in no time flat. The children would outvote us every time, no matter how much we tried to rationalize with them. They have no clue what it really takes to earn money, because it has always been free for them.


My children will have their own say when they have jobs and move out of the house. If I am paying for their school, I still have a say so in their lives. Only when they are financially independent from the parents will they be able to truly make their own decisions.


If, for whatever reason, they have to move back in when they are adults, they will once again have to abide by the rules set by the parents. They were obviously not capable of making it on their own, so they would have to follow the house rules. If the situation is reversed and the parents have to stay with their adult children, then the parents have to follow the rules set by their kids.


The people who support others are the ones who must make the decisions. They have the greatest amount of effort and money involved and it's their butts that are on the line.


Now I ask, what makes government welfare any different. These people (and companies) are the equivalent of the taxpayers children. They do not have a clue what it is to earn money, so therefore they will spend it recklessly and demand more and more of it. They have no stake in the game. They are obviously financially inept. That is a fact. If you have to rely on others for financial help, you are financially inept.


Yet, their vote counts as much as those who pay for their existence. It wouldn't work in your household, so why should it work in the household of the country? Keep in mind, people who pay for their own children actually plan their finances around their children. Therefore, they have one or two kids because that's all they can afford. If you don't have to pay for your own children, then have a whole bunch of them. Why not, they're free, right?


That leads me to my next point... since their vote counts as much as those who support them and they have more children than their taxpaying counterparts, it is inevitable that they will get to a critical mass (if we aren't already there) where you will ALWAYS be outvoted by the children. It's kind of like a reverse investment plan in the collapse of the country.


This applies to ALL welfare (poor and corporate). If you need other people's money to exist, you should not get to vote... PERIOD!!!"

I honestly had slight trouble navigating to what exactly was the point. Then again, I was never one with good comprehension skills.

Glad to be back and like the new outlay of the show.

Quote from Wolf Bird

I think what he wants to do is take away the right to vote to anyone who doesn't have a job or some income stream of their own. Yeah...that'll certainly solve all the country's problems.

I hate it when people try to compare running a household to running a country. It is not the same thing, and I frequently see this, usually from the right. This sounds to me like another far-right meme taken to its extreme (don't let poor people vote). And yes, some far-righters have called for that (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html ).

By their logic, no one should vote, since everyone tends to vote for things/people that will benefit them. I guess since rich people want complete tax exemption as law (their wet dream), we shouldn't let them vote either. The ideology of disregarding the contribution of the working class to the economy (and society) accompanying this faulty logic also sickens me, as it completely half assed.

I have a hunch this is a cheeky and underhanded way of hiding racist tendencies, since minorities are poorer than white people in the USA.

To test, I'd ask them if poor white people deserve to vote.


Also, what the fuck happened to Civil Rights? Is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all not contemporary American ideology anymore? Are poor people not allowed to be given a voice in politics? Fuckin' "taxation without representation" comes to mind here.


More and more, I've been thinking about how Un-american wingnuts are. This really closes the mental decision for me to label them that.

Are we supposed to put the period between the ellipsis and the needlessly high number of exclamation marks? I'm starting to understand why the guy has an audio show.

It's worse than that.

I've listen to a lot of blog talk radio shows, from conservative to liberal , entertainment to comedy but having to listen to thirty minutes from three shows this one takes the cake on two things that make this a garbage , waste of time show.

First off...

It's a Libertarian (I'd say neolibertarian based on the mouthpiece of the show) and Ron Paul suck and phuck fest. The constitution is the bible to these two and if it's not for or from the Constitution it's either dumb liberal propaganda or Right-wing nutso rhetoric. So in short, expect these two take articles from various sources including blogs from the darkest corners of the internet etc. With a little bit of conspiracy theism sprinkled here and there with the ever loving notion that economic collapse is right around the corner.

Like Pro-conspiracy videos on youtube, these shows outnumber the liberal, moderate and conservative shows by a big margin. This is some what on the fringe level, but no where near the just unbearable stuff.

Second of all...

It's hacky as hell. Take morning zoo radio names, take a few "edgy", cringe inducing few lines and harsh language from shock jock shows like Opie & Anthony, Howard Stern and wrap it up in a blanket of Libertarian "we're always right and YOUR wrong" you have the EJ & The Bear Show. These two clowns will not only annoy you with their hookie(?) but their very naive notion on how the world works will also leave you rolling your eyes and sighing with disgust.

Here's one episode as an example, see if you can make it up to the 10:00 mark
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ejandthebear/2011/10/26/two-hours-of-bs-with-ej-and-the-bear-feat-oompaloompa-pete

Quote from Agent Matt

Everything on Blogtalkradio is pretentious amateur shit.

Fixed from personal experience.

Quote from CyborgJesus

Does he have ponies on the show?

What the fuck is this?