Mr. Mead is looking at the racial angle of recent riots and assaults here in the States, where the Tea Party (naturally) is getting blamed by the usual suspects.
In England, which has no Tea Party, fingers are being pointed at government spending cuts. Apparently leftists think cutbacks in entitlements is a legitimate argument for increased civil unrest.
Here’s the thing. The very same people also constantly try to expand the entitlement culture. Isn’t that…sorta insane? Do poor taxpayers get an excuse if they indulge in violence? If you honestly feel that people receiving government benefits can be expected to riot when benefits are reduced…isn’t that an argument to keep such people to a minimum?!
But wait, there’s more!
If you’re coddling nitroglycerin, you really want to keep things stable and predictable. Well I do, anyway. Does borrowing trillions of dollars…
…with no visible plan to pay it back…
…to expand entitlements and thus the pool of future rioters…make sense to you?
People on entitlements are more likelt to riot? To a W.O.R.M.’s ears, you’re arguing against entitlements. Even if we have to keep taking care of the current entitlees…
…THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SANE REASON TO LET ANOTHER SINGLE %#%*&#’ING NEW PERSON EVER RECEIVE A SINGLE ENTITLEMENT PENNY.
Well, I’ll listen to arguments as to why it’s a good idea. Could use a few laughs right now.