Barbarians at the debate

By Tom Quiner

I guess I’m a barbarian.

Vice President Joseph Biden

Vice President Biden was explicit:

“This is a different kind of fight,” Biden said to union members. “This is a fight for the existence of organized labor. You are the only folks keeping the barbarians at the gate. That’s why they want you so bad.”

Teamster president, Jimmy Hoffa was equally eloquent in his derision of the Tea Party and conservatives:

“Let’s take these sons of a b*tches out.”

What is it that makes us so barbaric in the eyes of these elite?

Is it our desire for fiscal restraint? For balanced budgets?

Is it our desire for long term solvency of Medicare and Social Security? They’re going broke. The government tells us so. Republicans have presented solutions. Are the solutions bad? If so, how about if the elites present their own plan?

Is it our respect for the dignity of human life that makes us seem so barbaric in the eyes of the elite? But if that’s the case, how does ripping a pre-born child out of the mother’s womb qualify as being civilized?

Is it defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman, just as Jesus did? If that’s barbaric, tell them to take it up with Jesus.

Is it our call for fairness in squaring extravagant federal union perks with the economically-challenged needs of the working class families paying for those perks?

The elites know what’s best.

The vice president says so. So does a union boss.

Be sure to catch the “barbarians  at the debate” tonight at 7 PM central time on MSNBC to find out what makes them so uncivilized. If you learn what it is, let me know.


  1. Nick on September 7, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    What exactly did Jesus say about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? What did he say about homosexuality in general?

  2. BC on September 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Nick, I dont have a bible in front of me to double check, but i dont think He said anything about the definition of marriage directly. He also didnt specifically refer to homosexuality either, but He did refer to sexual sin which is a broader category defined within the Old Testament. That can be deduced to imply marriage between man and woman. If you’re looking for lack of specific coverage of homosexuality as a validation that the practice is okay, then you could also say that He didnt directly refer to bestiality, pedophilia, or incest either. The logic is flawed with the “because He didnt specifically state this one thing then it must be okay” paradigm especially with something thats easily implied within a broader category. An example is that the law doesnt specifically state that i cant drive in a ditch, but i would still get a ticket for reckless driving (a broader category).

    There are direct references in the New Testament against homosexuality, but none that are direct quotes from Jesus only from the disciples that He taught.

    To be completely honest, a sin is a sin is a sin. Basically, sexual sin is no more or less of a sin than pride, greed, lust, etc. All sins are detestable in Gods eyes, and we all carry our own assortment of sins.