TV Review: The Lost Child

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu   4/20/14
from The Inspector George Gently Series; Continuing Propaganda From the Left  •  For years, the public has been assaulted with dishonest homilies from the Leftist media.  My most recent encounter with such ethically challenged entertainment was The Lost Child from the Inspector George Gently series, presently, being broadcast on PBS television.

The show opens with the camera panning down an upper middle class street. It settles on a house in spotless condition with a verdant garden. Life must be good for those living there. Or is it?

The scenic calm is shattered when it is discovered that a baby has been kidnapped from the very house which had appeared so tranquil.

In march Inspector George Gently and his Detective Sergeant John Bacchus. During their interviews with the parents, the inspectors learn the child is adopted and has been with the family for less than a month. This being the case, the birth-mother becomes an immediate suspect and the inspectors trot off to the adoption agency. The agency, full of pregnant mothers and screaming babies, is run by a rather forceful woman named Ester Dunwoody. Miss Dunwoody has her own ideas about how illegitimate children and their mothers should be handled. And she carries out her ideas in an efficient and single-minded manner.

From the agency’s records they are able to ascertain the identity of the birth mother, named Susan. After some leg work, they find her and learn that she did not really want to give up her children for adoption but felt pressured by Miss Dunwoody to let two families adopt one of her twins, each.  She gave in on the little girl, but balked at giving up her son and bolted the agency.

Since Susan does not have the kidnapped girl, the inspectors begin to search elsewhere. They are sent on something of a wild goose chase when they hear, from the Groves, that someone is demanding 10,000 pounds for the return of the child. A drop-off is arranged and the police catch the man who extorted the money just after he receives the cash. It turns out that he has nothing to do with the kidnapping. He is just a cuckold seeking revenge on Mr. Groves who was boinking his wife.

The inspectors now begin to focus on the Groves as possible culprits. First they wonder if Mr. Groves murdered the child. He didn’t want to adopt her in the first place.  He and his wife have been married for over twenty years and are in their middle to late forties. In his mind it is too late for him and his wife to raise and infant, particularly one that is not their natural child.

After some sleuthing, it becomes clear that Mr. Groves had nothing to do with the crime. So the inspectors start to follow Mrs. Groves. It appears she may be having an affair with a younger man.  They keep an eye on her and she promptly gets into a car with a younger man who drives off.  After following the car to an abandoned windmill, the cops observe things from afar with binoculars. They believe the meeting is the end of an affair, but this is wide of the mark.

It transpires that the young man has kidnapped the girl and Mrs. Groves knows this. The young man tells Mrs. Groves the child is fine and says he will take her to the girl. As the pair are about to drive off, the inspectors rush in and confront them.  The young man, feeling betrayed, starts to choke Mrs. Groves and is given a couple of stout punches to the face by Sergeant Bacchus. He falls, hitting his head on the bumper on the way down, unconscious and badly injured. Unfortunately he has not told Mrs. Groves where the child is.  He had only said, that “she was in the last place you would want her to be.”  The young man is then taken to a hospital and we see him motionless in bed connected to a heart monitor.

Back at the police station, it comes out that the young man is the natural born son of Mr. and Mrs. Groves.  He was conceived just before Mr. Groves went off to war in Burma in the 1940’s.  Mrs. Groves, being very young and not Mrs. Groves at the time, was in a quandary as to what to do.  She did not hear from Mr. Groves and it was rumored he was dead. Under these circumstances she went to the same adoption agency run by Miss Dunwoody, and gave the boy up for adoption.  After this revelation, the scene shifts to the young man’s hospital room and shows the heart monitor flat line.

Inspector Gently figures out the kidnapped child is back at the adoption agency and picks her up. In the next scene, he delivers the baby to her birth mother Susan who is living with Miss Dunwoody’s former assistant at the adoption agency. She of course, also has an illegitimate child.

The show’s final two scenes are of the Groves in a melancholic mood digging together in their garden. And the hard-ass, resentful, working class, somewhat ethically challenged Sergeant Bacchus crying in his father’s arms because he has accidentally killed someone.

A perfectly neutral TV program which might not be Shakespeare, but it straightforward and pretty much reflects reality, right? Not quite.

To begin with, the script is written in such a way as to make adoption more bad than good.  And Gently, who is supposed to be a man of the world and understanding of human nature, clearly thinks children should stay with their mothers regardless the circumstances. I am not so sure that many children who have been adopted over the years, including some personal friends, would agree with the good inspector.

Miss Dunwoody is cast in a somewhat unsympathetic light and Bacchus implies she is selling babies. She rebuffs him by telling him she does no such thing, but people do give donations to the home as otherwise it could not be run. Understand that the agency is like a small hospice with rooms for the pregnant mothers and babies. It is not some shady operation where babies are secreted around in back alleys. Miss Dunwoody keeps meticulous records and clearly fulfills an important community need. But Leftists can’t help but take any small opportunity to take a jab at anything which is government run.

When going through the agency’s registry book, which contains the details of the birth mothers, children adopted and adoptive parents, Bacchus observes that Miss Dunwoody classifies children in all sorts of ways. To this Gently asks disgustedly, “like by race”, to which Bacchus replies yes. We can see that Gently is a morally superior man, as upon hearing this he is thoroughly disgusted and sneers as he turns away.

This is a particularly politically correct and dishonest scene, oh I repeat myself. To insinuate that it is wrong to keep records of a child’s race is stupid and misleading. In the U.K., the PC crowd has made the race of the child just about the primary consideration in adoptions. Unless the law has recently changed, English social services will only allow parents of the same ethnicity as the child to be considered for adoption.  I have an English friend who married an East Asian woman and they were told they could only adopt a child who was half East Asian and half Caucasian. Apparently this is to save the child from the trauma of looking different from his parents. As the series was written in 2012, the writers must have known this, thus they are fundamentally dishonest people.

Another scene shows Susan at the police station being questioned by Gently and Bacchus. She is asked the name of the father, but refuses to give it saying, “he doesn’t know he has a child.” Bacchus asks if the father doesn’t have a right to know. Then being terribly insensitive he suggests that perhaps the father and Susan might get back together, tut, tut.  A morally indignant Susan replies, “you must be joking”, she doesn’t want to have anything to do with the father. She would “never marry him because he is a half wit.”  Both Bacchus and Gently are duly chastened.  Nothing is mentioned about the good of the child or how Susan is going to support a family of three being an unwed mother without a job. Forget about the morals of living on the dole.

I particularly liked the scene after Gently drops off the little girl with Susan, who has decided to invoke the three month probation clause during which she can abort the adoption.(Miss Dunwoody had not told her of such a clause, but the good Mr. Gently did.) It is framed by two young women, about nineteen or twenty years old, sitting serene and secure in a pleasant, well appointed, clean room resting in large comfortable chairs, with their happy babies surrounding them. They are looking out a half moon glass window and all is right with the world. The feeling is one of subdued contentment. No future worries at all.  No council estate for them.

A more dishonest representation of single motherhood would be harder to find. Only in the minds of prurient ideologues could such a scene take place. No visible means of support? That’s ok, social services will take care of us and we can live like little ladies. If anyone seriously thinks this is the case, I would suggest they read any of Theodore Dalrymple’s books which deal, in great detail, with the sordid and sad lives of Britain’s single mothers.

All in all, “The Lost Child” is one of the more dishonest representations of a fairly dishonest genre, i.e. modern TV. One can only hope those who watch this program will have the brains to realize that just about everything in it is a lie.  This is the type of sludge which we must try to rid ourselves of.  Man the shovels. • (4782 views)

Share
This entry was posted in TV Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to TV Review: The Lost Child

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    That looks like it stars the same guy from the mini-series I reviewed: Apparitions.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Yes, it is Martin Shaw. He also portrayed P.D. James’ inspector Adam Dalgliesh, a role for which he was ill suited, if one has read James’ novels.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    For some reason, liberals seem to think that any abortion that could happen but doesn’t is a tragedy. And since the main alternative to adoption for many women is abortion, it follows that adoption is a Bad Thing. And naturally, the people who behave this way claim to really love people (even though they want to prevent them from being born) and insist that their concern is “reproductive freedom” (even though they’re trying to prevent reproduction). As usual with liberals, it’s all very Orwellian.

    • Rosalys says:

      The left loves humanity. It’s people they can’t stand!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, it’s a matter of people vs. The People. Incidentally, Victor Davis Hanson has an article on this subject today (available at NRO and presumably some other websites).

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another scene shows Susan at the police station being questioned by Gently and Bacchus. She is asked the name of the father, but refuses to give it saying, “he doesn’t know he has a child.” Bacchus asks if the father doesn’t have a right to know. Then being terribly insensitive he suggests that perhaps the father and Susan might get back together, tut, tut.  A morally indignant Susan replies, “you must be joking”, she doesn’t want to have anything to do with the father. She would “never marry him because he is a half wit.”  Both Bacchus and Gently are duly chastened.  Nothing is mentioned about the good of the child or how Susan is going to support a family of three being an unwed mother without a job. Forget about the morals of living on the dole.

    I thought the same thing about that scene. And the writers did their best to dump on Miss Dunwoody who was, after all, providing a service for ladies who couldn’t keep their legs closed and guys who couldn’t keep zipped up. She wasn’t selling babies out of the back room. She was trying to place babies with parents who actually wanted the children and could care for them.

    This was the first episode of this series I have watched. I might watch one more just to get a sort of triangulation of it (which, technically, would take three episodes, but I’m good at this). This episode was, first of all, too long. One hour was more than sufficient to carry the plot.

    And it was a moral mixed salad. Fine, have a point of view. But there wasn’t much coherence to this from what I could see. I did like the younger officer with the Beatles mop. Very well acted and written. He’s often the designated dupe. He says what I think are perfectly sensible things and then is castigated by Inspector Friendly (that’s Gently)…whatever. Martin Shaw is a bit of a bore in his role. His main job seems to be to lord his moral superiority over everyone.

    I got a kick out of the relationship between John Bacchus (the younger officer) and his father. His father was a union thug. He was a belligerent and unlikable man. He was putting his son down terribly. And in the background of the father’s home were a couple Communist-style pro-union posters. Unions nearly killed Britain until Thatcher came along. Britain is committing suicide once again. They can’t seem to help themselves. I don’t think Germany, if she were to try again for a Fourth Reich, would bother with Britain. It’s too degraded and corrupted.

    My younger brother recognized Mrs. Grove as Ross’ girlfriend from “Friends.” And he said she couldn’t act a lick in that series either. The only reason I would watch another episode is to see John Bacchus, played by Lee Ingleby.

    And I laughed when the guy hit his head on the bumper and died. It was, at best, a glancing blow. Heads aren’t that fragile. There would have been enough give in the body of the car that he would have simply had a good-sized knot on his head. It looked a bit like a Monty Python skit or that Saturday Night Live parody commercial of the Ford Pinto where another car comes along and barely dings its back bumper and the Pinto bursts into flames.

    I’m not sure what else to say. It was an above-average detective show for the first 45 minutes. But then it just became so methodically dull that it lost me.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      If a hypothetical Fourth Reich ignored Britain because it’s too degraded, where in Europe would they go? Certainly not France. Maybe they’d pick on the Poles again, since that used to be a national sport. (And even more so for the Russians, which is why — according to a friend of mine — there’s a statue in Warsaw to Felix Dzherzhinsk, first head of the Cheka, because he killed more Russians than any other Pole in history.)

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    They have season five of “Inspector Kindly” (that’s Gently) on Netflix. I thought I’d delve in and watch another episode. The one I just finished watching is titled “Gently Northern Soul.”

    This episode (season five, episode one) was by far the better than “The Lost Child.” In fact, for a British crime drama, I’m really surprised that it kept a good pace, without becoming overly complicated, for 90 minutes. This is a rarity for the genre.

    The gist of this episode is that some black chick gets killed. She, along with her friend, Carole, frequent a dance club where they play soul music. This place is a little bit shady and perhaps a little bit racist. I won’t tell you much more about the plot because I do think this is a worthwhile episode to watch.

    But politically speaking, it’s more of the same from what we saw in “The Lost Child.” Often you are hit over the head with simplistic “Dick and Jane” moralizing. Let’s just say that you can see how Britain set itself up for multicultural suicide: If you don’t believe in mass immigration, you’re a bigot. There is no in between.

    And the Left is propagandizing us with the same thing here. If you oppose people just wandering into this country illegally, you must be some kind of bigoted skinhead. There’s no in between. Why Britain fell for this is anyone’s guess. Why we are falling for it is anyone’s guess as well.

    And this all comes with the caveat that, of course, the kind of racism shown in this episode is despicable. But this simplistic “Dick and Jane” moralizing comes at a price…the price of truth. We now know, for example, that people pushing immigration in England back then didn’t care about the immigrants. It’s just that they hated native Englanders so much.

    The same theme exists in America. It’s not that the Left likes immigrants. It’s that they hate native white Americans so much. Racists, heal thyself.

    Nevertheless, I don’t begrudge the show for clearly showing the kind of propaganda that has been fed nonstop to the masses. What’s amazing is that this simplistic treatment of a much more interesting and complicated subject did not drag the plot down. You’ll have to see this one, Mr. Kung, and tell me what you think.

    But of particular note is, once again, the junior detective, John Bacchus (played by Lee Ingleby), who carries this episode on his shoulders while his boss, George Gently, stops by to pontificate now and again. Detective Bacchus goes undercover and, again, I won’t give away too many plot points. But his character and plot line are very well written and filmed. And Ingleby is completely believable in his role. This is good stuff….far better than the often vapid moralizing.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mr. Kung, I just finished my third episode of Inspector Smiley (Gently…whatevah). It was titled “Gently with Class.” They have season five available for streaming on Netflix.

    This wasn’t a particularly good episode. Where “Gently Northern Soul” was tight and interesting, this episode was much like “The Lost Child” in that it was loose, rambling, and not so interesting.

    And like “The Lost Child,” it seemed to exist as an episode simply to mock some attribute of society…in this case the upper classes. And it did it with all the subtly of a sledgehammer.

    And say what you will about the upper classes in Britain, they haven’t made a shambles of the place as the socialist lower classes have who are truly living down to their name. Where one built an empire the other is gleefully overrunning itself with foreigners and dancing on the grave of everything that made Britain Britain.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Brad, I saw another episode of Inspector Gently last Sunday. I found it much better that “The Lost Child”. I have seen a couple earlier episodes as well. I conclude that about every second episode is reasonably good. The rest, while better than the rubbish one sees on US TV, are not up to my expectations regarding British TV crime shows.

      I believe the British upper classes were basically creamed by the two world wars, particularly the first. Contrary to what many believe, Britain was never the great military power we are so often told. Their strength was in the Navy and the greatest strength they had was the intelligent way in which they played the balance of power game in Europe. This worked fairly well when dealing with a small group of rational people running countries. But as the populations of nation states became more involved with governance, and silly men (Kaiser Wilhelm) gained control of the reins of power, the balance of power game worked against them.

      The meat-grinder that was the Western Front was fertile ground for dissatisfaction and when the solders came home, the foundation was laid for the growth of the Reds.

      A great number of the aristocracy and other elites died in that war, leaving a huge void in future leadership ranks.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That percentage sounds about right, Mr. Kung.

        That’s an interesting point about the upper classes coming to their demise because of the wars. To some extent, there is poetic justice in that for the lower classes. Generally speaking, it’s not the farmer or baker who is itching to go to war over rather esoteric international offenses. And the way that upper crust young men threw themselves into WWI, in particular, shows the deeply misguided sense of nationalism that was reigning at the time.

        The European Union, of course, is meant to be the opposite of that kind of runaway nationalism. And creating what they have created, they have, of course, unwisely swung the pendulum back too far. Now national identities are being wiped out, to be replaced by the strong identity of Islam, if trends hold.

        Is it just Europeans who are cuckoo and know no sense of balance and reasonableness or is it all of mankind? I think it’s mainly a factor of mankind, although the Europeans do seem to make a habit out of it. That is why true wisdom and reasonableness are so scarce in this world. People are always running off to one cuckoo doctrine or another. It seems to be in our nature. The idea of the “baby bear just right” porridge is lost on most people. The idea of having a national identity but not to be too anal about it is not a popular idea. The same cuckoo extremism reigns in our environmental policies….and just about everything else these days (including libertarianism).

        And on this May 1st (May Day) we have the usual Communist yutes marching in Seattle. This, one could say, is the real flower of libertarianism, which you and I understand as just another kind of Bolshevism.

        And in the episode, “Gently with Class,” we see the “puppet string” effect of hackneyed writing. In this episode the junior inspector is turned instantly into a raving anti-monarchist. This is odd since he had been playing a sort of old-fashioned foil for Inspector Gently to show how hip and progressive Gently was compared to his young partner.

        This is why I call this the “puppet string” effect. They were just jerking this guy’s character and persona around to suit the plot. And although we understand that such stories are fictional, it does take some of the fun out of it if the story writers sort of break through that third wall and make us conscious of the fact that these are just puppets, not believable characters.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mr. Kung, I recently finished the fourth, and last, episode of season 5. It is titled “Gently in the Cathedral.”

    Gently is being framed by the illegal “fruit machines” (slot machines) syndicate. He had put away one of their members and now they are striking back.

    This is a strange episode. I had liked the John Bacchus character previously. But I guess it depends on which episode one has watched because his character changes. Again, it seems to be the puppet effect. Rather than writing to his character, they just jerk him this way and that according to the needs of the puppet masters, otherwise known as “TV writers.”

    I haven’t seen the first four seasons of this series, so who knows what his “real” character is. But it’s certainly bounced around a bit just in season 5. And in this episode, John Bacchus plays the dumb-ass. He’s completely taken in by the frame-up job being done on Gently — a frame-up so out-of-the-blue and airtight that you’d have to be a dumb ass not to be suspicious.

    And the writers (the puppet masters) are certainly having fun jerking this Bacchus character around. It’s revealed in this episode that Gently’s performance review of Bacchus (which had put the kibosh on a promotion he had been seeking) listed him as gullible and easily influenced. (Well, duh.) And this barely slips outside of being an inside joke because it’s the higher-ups who have offered him the prospects of a promotion (remember: gullible and easily influence) as they are trying to use him to get evidence on Gently. And they, of course, are the ones who showed him this performance review.

    And the final laugh is that when this episode winds up (well, there are some things to be wrapped up in the opening episode of season 6), Bacchus tells Gently that he knew he was innocent all along and was just going along with this higher-up group of cops to try to find out what was going on. And this was clearly a lie. And clearly Gently knew it was.

    I really liked Bacchus in “Gently Northern Soul.” But this isn’t the same brave man who appears in “Gently in the Cathedral.” Still, this was better plot-wise than “Gently with Class” and certainly better than “The Lost Child.” I’ll watch a couple more episodes if I can find them. But you’re right about this being a hit-or-miss affair.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Netflix notified me that season six of the Inspector George Gently series is now available for streaming. And that’s nice. But when I first viewed the series on Netflix, they had only season five. Now they’ve filled in with seasons one through four. So there is a good reason for a GG marathon.

  8. Bill Bligh says:

    The problem with this story is that it’s ridiculous, nothing more. The mother gives up her infant son for adoption when she fears his father has been killed in The War. The father returns, a year or two later, but he is never told of his son. Twenty odd years later, the now adult son looks up his mother, confronts her and wants to be part of her and HIS father’s lives. The parents have been unable to have other children, despite wanting them. Instead of happily welcoming her long lost son and introducing him to his father, SHE TURNS HIM AWAY? It’s at this point that story becomes absurd. What mother would turn away her son under such circumstances?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      You appear to think it absurd that a stranger popping up after twenty years and telling a woman that he is her son could not be problematic. This shows you lack appreciation of life’s complications. Love doesn’t alway conquer all.

      As for the rest, I wonder did you actually read my review?.

  9. Bill Bligh says:

    Touche’. My original post disappeared as I was attempting to edit it. That can happen to anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum. Maybe you’d care to reply to my most recent comment, which is more to the point.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Let me make a couple points about this subject that seem obvious but may not be:

    When I tune into a British period piece (Inspector Gently is set in the 60’s, in and around East Anglia), I expect such a series to show attitudes of the time. I may roll my eyes at the pro-homo theme, but if that’s the vibe that was running around then, then so be it. What makes any series more interesting and worth watching is if you can pick up a bit of history from them as well.

    But once in a while the characters in this series will sort of break out of the proverbial 4th wall and self-consciously debate a topic as if the show has come to a halt and they’re simply pontificating directly at you — as the very ideologically ugly and juvenile “Boston Legal” was prone to do. After the first season, that show became unwatchable. Instead of debating both sides of some issue, it just devolved to hitting you over the head with liberal half-truths and propaganda.

    Mostly, the Inspector Gently series does not do this. But, yes, every once in a while Gently or Bacchus will sort of break that 4th wall and self-consciously pontificate on a subject, such as “poofs,” the death penalty, and other such things which were a concern at the time and still are. A little bit is okay. Too much and it becomes quite obnoxious. It makes you then wonder if the point is education or indoctrination. But in the Gently series they tend to do this with a much subtler touch than the ham-fisted “Boston Legal.”

    Again, it doesn’t bother me to see libtard themes addressed in some series, especially if such themes were part of the landscape of the time and place. I love it, for example, that in the 4th or 5th series, DS Bacchus has a full-blown Beatles-style haircut and is often caught mussing with his hair while passing by a window. It’s very true to life of the time, from what I can remember, at least over here in America. And even though I’m not for Beatles hair, per se, it would be daft to exclude that from this somewhat historical series.

    But at some point all this can cross over from immersing yourself in the cultural attitudes of the time and place and veer into outright propaganda. And a lot of this commentary here won’t make sense to those who are deep inside the propaganda bubble and have literally known nothing else. But others have, and can see it for what it is. Also, those who have a wider view of things understand the the Left if heavily dependent upon propaganda to spread what is, in effect, their secular religion.

    It’s funny because if there ever was a “separation of church and state” as the Left demands, they’d be the biggest losers.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that the occasional cries (mostly by liberals) to get rid of books like Huckleberry Finn basically involve refusing to understand the nature of the period covered by the book. I remember something similar regarding Evan Mecham, whom liberals mocked as a racist because he supported using a reader that included a story referring to “pickaninnies”. For that matter, we have the FDR memorial with all those statues of its subject — not one of which shows him with his trademark cigarette holder. In true Orwellian fashion, liberals seek to airbrush inconvenient historical facts out of the picture.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Good points, Timothy. And the take-away from this can be that modern liberals are most illiberal. They are the true authoritarians, they of the too-puckered butt cheeks.

        It’s not conservatives demanding political purity. It’s the Left. And the left is only “liberal” to the extent they’ve disguised their Communist intentions behind that and so many other normally docile words.

  11. cindy tartt says:

    The biggest mistake you make is claiming that leftists sneer at anything government run. Eerm, no? Leftists want government. Why? Because big government is good. Big government is necessary: it’s the sign and signal of the best part of ourselves. Had a decent welfare system existed during the era of this programme, women would have been able to keep their babies -particularly the young woman who lost one of the twins; her son lost a sister in the adoption you consistently assume is “good”. Rightists, Christ, that’s what’s clearly wrong with Britain. Firstly, because you’re patently stupid (you get the history ‘wrong’) and secondly, because you’re, well, patently stupid. You completely ignore the fact (and it’s an established fact) that twins are better off together, not separated which, in this episode, you completely fail to acknowledge.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Dear Cindy,

      You write,

      The biggest mistake you make is claiming that leftists sneer at anything government run.

      I never claimed any such thing.

      You also make the faux-scientific claim,

      “it’s an established fact that twins are better off together, not separate which, in this episode, you completely fail to acknowledge.”

      This sounds nice on its surface, but in fact means very little. You fail to link to any such general study backing your claim, much less a study made of twins who where separated at birth by being adopted by middle class married couples and twins who are kept together in the care of a young unwed mother.

      You claim I ,

      got the history wrong

      yet provide nothing to show this to be the case.

      But your main argument is that I am,

      “patently stupid”.

      That’s a very strong argument on par with nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.

      Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or are a liar. Of course it is very likely you are both.

      To be called patently stupid by a dishonest leftist analphabet such as yourself is a badge of honor and a good sign that what I wrote must be correct. Reason and facts fail you. Thank you for the confirmation.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Why? Because big government is good. Big government is necessary: it’s the sign and signal of the best part of ourselves.

      My thought is that women, in particularly, are easily schemed by politicians. Government can be good, bad, or indifferent. But unlike libertarians, I do believe some government is necessary. How much and for what purpose is the question.

      But when I see a woman in here claim that government is good — with no other disclaimers — I know how and why we are lost.

      If it’s true that government can sometimes be the best part of ourselves (it clearly can), it can also be the worst part of ourselves (it often is). What you, and many other woman like you, Cindy, have done is to entirely wish-away that other aspect.

      The Founders of American understood that government was essential, but that because it was run by flawed people, there had to be limits and checks-and-balances on government.

      Obviously you’re either in a position where you have materially benefited from “free stuff,” have a government job, and/or have been heavily indoctrinated into the Progressive ideology which is naive, at best, and highly predatory at worst, for the most abusive acts often are instigate through government, often with the politicians and others claiming good intentions.

      Women need to smarten up. What you said is so naive that, at least to me, it is self-evident what a large portion of our problem in America is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *