And the Mojave DESERT. Yes, that's the correct word. Desert. The irony is that deserts are not always by default hot places, they are just places that have an evaporation rate of twice the amount of rain that falls. Oops, looks like they just got about 80% of their yearly precipitation....as SNOW.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
By now, Rod Blobejevich (D-IL), the Governor of Illinois, is a household name. I boldfaced his party affiliation, since the MSM has been slightly less than coy with addressing that little tidbit, and I only bring this up since among blogs all over the blogosphere today, self-righteous libs incorrectly assumed he "must be a Republican't." Irony. As a Democrat, we would be too quick to assume he has become a household name through hard work, ingenious policymaking, diplomacy and politicking. No, in the typical milieu of the Democratic party, he has become infamous through scandal and failure. Around 6:30 a.m. today, he was arrested and indicted on charges of conspiracy, fraud and corruption.
From Yahoo news:
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges he brazenly conspired to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder as part of what federal prosecutors called a "political corruption crime spree." A federal judge later ordered Blagojevich released on his own recognizance.
Prosecutors did not accuse Obama himself of any wrongdoing.
Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.
The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics — that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.
"We were in the middle of a corruption crime spree, and we wanted to stop it," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said, calling the charges against Blagojevich "a truly new low." He added: "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
God damn! Have you ever seen this man's dopey eyes? How he could even conceive of this idea is amazing in the first place.
Additionally, Blagojevich himself sought to hopefully achieve a Cabinet position in Obama's administration, another fact that is being conveniently left out the majority of MSM reporting, for the fear of the negative associations with Obama's name and this political travesty, despite the fact Obama did not have anything to do with it.
More eloquence from Blagojevich:
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," he said of his authority to appoint Obama's replacement, "and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."
Blagojevich also considered appointing himself to the Senate seat, telling his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value, I might as well take it," prosecutors said.
And in his typical graceful, sophisticated manner, he was overheard complaining at one that Obama's people are "not going to give me anything except appreciation." He added: "(Expletive) them."
Wow, the pride this man has for his state is overwhelming. The true irony is that Blagojevich ran on a reforming platform after the previous Governor, Republican George Ryan, was arrested and given six years in the slam for racketeering and bribes related to drivers licenses.
Know how Libs always accuse of Republicans as being out-of-touch, wealthy elitists who don't care about middle-class America because they are too blindsighted by their quest for wealth?
Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.
In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.
Stick it up your ass, libs.
I'm interested in seeing how this is spun by liberal ass-tard bloggers and the media. My money is that they will instead focus entirely on the pressures of Blagojevich and the overwhelming expectations put on him to clean up the awful, big bad former Republican Governor's mess, and how given the circumstances, he isn't soooo bad. Then again, expecting a liberal to admit guilt or wrongdoing would require them to accept responsibility.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
What a crackpot numbnuts....although she is a woman (allegedly, appearance insinuates otherwise) so she doesn't have nuts.
Taken from the London Telegraph:
In teaser adverts promoting its "Whopper Virgins" challenge, the fast food chain describes how it sought out farmers in rural Romania, Thai villagers and residents of Greenland's icy tundra to compare its signature burger with arch rival McDonalds'.
Miss Sharon Akabas of Columbia's response?
"It's outrageous," Sharon Akabas of the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University, told the New York Daily News. "What's next? Are we going to start taking guns out to some of these remote places and ask them which one they like better?"
Yes Sharon, because that makes ANY sense? What's it like to be the only Ph.D in a department full of actual doctors? Maybe when you aren't playing softball, eating tofu or idolizing Martina Navriltiloba you can stop to take a second to realize you sound like you're from the moon. I understand when you hear the word "American," in a sentence such as, for example "giving starving people American fast food," your brain flags it as dangerous, because you hate America like the rest of the liberals, but I don't see giving allegedly starving people a free hamburger as something bad. It's not like we're giving Mama Cass a ham sandwich. What do you think the danger is? And what's wrong with guns? I see you're anti "The Constitution" now too.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Like a moth to the flame, one and the same...
For those (i.e. college liberals, underprivileged immigrants, 'tards) who enjoy the mass butcher, hypocritical, opportunistic douchebag Castro cuckold named Che Guevera, which I believe translated means "Scumfucker," I have just one question: why? You know he was as incompetent in battle as he was at life, right? In a capitalist society, how can anybody respect people who supported mobilizing the proletariats and forcing wealth redistribution? You should be executed for high treason for the very thought. If you aren't happy, or succeeding, in a capitalist society, the problem isn't the society. It's you. Bring your "ideals," and I use the term loosely as there is nothing idealistic about them, elsewhere. Every "revolutionary," which is another name for "self-promoter who seeks to compensate for personal inadequacies and misdirected rage stemming from a lifetime of perceived and often real failures, having a less-than-desirable background, and typically suffering from classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder" who ever tried imposing a communist regime left nothing but legacies that are historically closely correlated with media subjugation, oppression, mass murders, unrest and economic hardship and depravity on a national level. Don't worry; on Jan. 20th 2009 I can just substitute everything I just said with "welcome to America!"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who am I? I'm either a 3 year old or a self-entitled liberal. There's really not much to differentiate.
Another frivolous lawsuit: This was lifted from www.amren.com and in turn from an article of the Los Angeles Times.
In what is apparently the first legal action of its kind, an association of community-based organizations has filed a federal civil rights complaint against two of the three largest Wall Street rating firms, charging that their inflated ratings on subprime mortgage bonds disproportionately caused financial harm to African American and Latino home buyers across the country.
The complaint, filed by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, alleges that Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings enriched themselves by assigning high ratings to bonds backed by mortgages “that were designed to fail” because of “unfair payment terms and insufficient borrower income levels.”
The firms “knew or should have known” that subprime loans disproportionately were marketed to minority consumers—a process known as “reverse redlining”—and that those borrowers would ultimately default and go into foreclosure at high rates, according to the coalition’s complaint.
Fitch Managing Director David Weinfurter said the NCRC’s filing “is fully without merit, and Fitch intends to defend itself vigorously.” Moody’s had no immediate comment.
The filing cites multiple studies that found that African Americans and Latinos received a disproportionate share of subprime loans during the housing boom years. A Federal Reserve study in 2006 estimated that 45% of mortgages extended to Latinos and 55% of loans to African Americans were subprime—a utilization rate “three to four times that of non-Hispanic whites.”
Because the loans themselves often came with terms that increased borrowers’ probability of default—upfront teaser rates followed by unaffordable reset payment adjustments, no required documentation of applicants’ incomes or assets, plus hefty prepayment penalties—African Americans with subprime mortgages are projected to lose $71 billion to $92 billion through foreclosures, while Latinos are projected to lose $75 billion to $98 billion, according to one study cited in the complaint.
“Had subprime loans been distributed equitably,” the complaint estimates, “losses for whites would be 44.5% higher and losses for people of color would be about 24% lower.”
The civil rights complaint is the latest in a series of lawsuits, regulatory investigations and congressional criticism of the rating firms’ roles and conduct during the mortgage bond heyday years of 2003-05. In dollar terms, subprime and so-called Alt-A no-documentation loans accounted for 32% of all mortgage originations in 2005. Their share had been 10% two years before. Virtually all of those high-risk loans were sold to Wall Street firms for inclusion in complex bond structures that were resold, often in bits and pieces, to pension funds and financial institutions.
So, first they complain that the housing industry discriminates by making people meet "unfair" prerequisites, such as a "credit history" and "having a job." So...housing laws were changed to enable low and moderate-income, normally unqualified borrowers obtain $0 down, 100% financing mortgage, in some cases where they didn't even have to pay CLOSING COSTS. Talk about skewed reasoning. How are these people EVER supposed to be happy? You are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and if you're don't, you're a damned racist. Why do I feel that liberals love Catch-22s? If you say no, you're racist. If you oblige, you set yourself up for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression....and you STILL get called a racist! Gee, I wonder why FEMA isn't tripping over themselves to give you more handouts. You know, the reason that so many of you received NINJA and ARM mortgages is because you were already overextended and didn't meet any minimum requirements. Home ownership isn't exactly a right, it's a privilege. Kind of like health care, but I won't get into that. In any case, maybe some of these people should have stayed in an apartment until they saved a "down payment" or paid off their credit cards...but then again, asking them to live up to the same standards as everybody else is racist.
The thing that infuriates me the most about this flagrantly frivolous lawsuit is...aren't we already cash-strapped enough? Why flood the courts with a costly, asinine lawsuit that is just going to cost already strapped taxpayers, who are already paying so much in terms of higher taxes imposed by states to cover budget shortfalls due to decreased home values, and because of the bailout which was ultimately a result of these same peoples' poor judgment? Why is it always somebody else's fault when you get yourself into trouble and somebody else's responsibility to make it better for you? How can you still feel entitled? I'm just too racist to understand, living within my means and all, and not suing somebody for extra cash. The silver lining? At least these people are filing lawsuits instead of waiting outside Long Island Wal Marts ready to trample innocent employees to death because of their avarice and thrift.
"FEMA, whose name became a bad punchline after its botched job after 2005's Hurricane Katrina" is just one quote from a story entitled "Debris pile becomes symbol of FEMA delays."
Let's see. Poor minorities largely inhabit the Gulf Coast. Most of the Gulf Coast counties are rural on top of it. Hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast. Poor minorities don't buy insurance. Poor minorities got involved in subprime mortgages. The housing bubble burst, causing trillions of dollars of equity loss and derivative devaluation. THERE'S NO F*ING MONEY LEFT FOR FEMA TO DO ITS JOB, AGAIN. None of you people learned after the entire Hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005. There's no money left, and guess what? It isn't FEMA's fault. They are doing the best job they can with the resources they don't have and can't afford to buy after a.) you pulled this shit in 2005 and b.) um, the government spent 6 trillion dollars bailing out an economy YOU squandered because YOU borrowed the American dream on credit, credit you should never have even qualified for. Guess what again? Iowa, Missouri and Illinois didn't need FEMA during the 2008 floods. We didn't hear a thing about FEMA. Sure, counties applied for disaster relief, BFD. Those people did the work themselves. If you value your property so badly, stop trying to squat in houses you didn't pay for and get to work. I love the excuse of "well, the illegals are afraid if they apply for jobs people will find out they're here illegally." There's your first problem. Try...going home? Try going "through the proper channels"?
I don't understand why whenever something bad happens, "some" people automatically run under the assumption it is the government's job to help them. People are whining the government isn't doing anything to help Americans losing their homes. Maybe these Americans bought outside their means and need to learn a lesson they NEVER LEARNED AS CHILDREN. The passing the blame buck is so atrociously disgusting... we hear "well, the predatory lenders really pushed it on me." Grow a f*ing sack and say "no, I don't have the money, period." There's nothing difficult about that. You wanted to keep up with the Joneses except you made $30k a year, not $150. Do you know what the colloquial term is for a government that takes care of you from cradle to grave? A Nanny State. We're capitalists, not socialists. Fundamentally, when you get down to it, you are responsible for your own destiny. That's why we live in America. You reap what you sow. You can't reap somebody else's harvest because you didn't spend enough time planting. And you can't run to the government to ask for more when it turns out you didn't plant enough. It's not their job to baby you until you retire....whoa, I should stop myself, considering another headline on msn.com today was "Pension bailout next?" Get over it. You have to let things correct themselves naturally or things will never get to where they should be. Not everybody is going to come out winning. That's just reality.
Monday, December 1, 2008
-"Is the Right so pathetic that they are reduced to fabrications and lies?"
Um, I understand that you as a liberal have no regard whatsoever for the premises our country was founded on by people far greater than you OR Mr. Obama, but it's called the Constitution. He's spent $500,000 trying to make the issue go away but he hasn't adequately addressed it. His busted, obvious forgery COLB is not good enough to sate our desire for the truth.
-"Get over it! Can't you just let this man do his job? Aren't we all dealing with enough? We have to come together and work through this recession as one."
Yes, in typical Liberal Wonderland, your lovely idealism sounds fabulous. Too bad we live on "Earth," in "2008" in "America." Are you honestly insinuating that if, IF it turns out Obama is not qualified to have run for president, we should just "look the other way?" Are you crazy?! You actually want somebody who isn't an American leading America? How do you think America got to be where it is? Not through fraud and lies! Liberals don't understand the American Way.
Liberals - you need to get a clue. GET A CLUE. Use your own rhetoric and put yourselves in the other person's position. If Obama had lost you would be poring over every amendment to every law that ever was to find some technicality to diaqualify McCain. The Right (and we're called that for a reason) isn't trying to be petty or bitter. We're trying to make sure that this shady and ominous President-elect, which, by the way wasn't even an office until Obama decided to make it one in his typical narcissistic fashion, operates according to the Constitution and doesn't go down a road I think we all, deep down, kind of think he might.
Friday, November 28, 2008
In any case, The Root's "journalists" tried, a couple of months ago, to claim that the economic collapse due to the subprime mortgage industry's bust had nothing to do with Blacks or Latinos, and that insinuating otherwise is an example of cold-blooded racism. Let's see: pretty much every economist, literate person, and me all agree that yes, it was minorities' fault. I mean, why would the media want people to knwo the truth when reporters forge their careers feeding people certain facts to better gain control of the masses for the politicians who have them in their pockets (cough, Obama, cough)?
It's 3 a.m. and I'm high on tryptophan. I'm crashing, so maybe tomorrow or the next day I will find the actual statistics for the number of minorities who received subprime mortgages compared to the amount of defaults. In the meantime, google "race statistics for subprime mortgages." The results are telling and chilling. The overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages are a result of Clinton's minority-homeownership, no-criteria-needed home loans, further aggravated by Bush in his attempt to court minority votes for Republicans.
Now, the media, the NAACP and every other liberal organization (again, the media) is covertly accepting the blame through distraction and misdirection through turn-around. "Yes, maybe it is minorities fault by taking out mortgages with adjustable rates they wouldn't be able to afford, but it was the evil lenders' fault for pushing it on them. They didn't understand the terms." Well, learn to fucking read english and maybe you would.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
I don't know why Mr. McKinley looks like, nor should it matter...yet whenever I read about the EHarmony lawsuit, reading about this Eric McKinley, I can't help but imagine in my mind's eye some beady-eyed, frumpy, overweight balding homo who never got picked at the Bathhouse and had to waddle home alone with nothing but his crystal meth-induced illusions of self-worth and validation, causing him to begrudge heterosexual society, free of its image-conscious male oriented pressures. Never exceeding at the superficial, but never really having accomplished much in the way of anything else, and reduced to finding love on the Internet, Mr. McKinley (in my fantasy) sadly scours, and fails at finding love, at gay.com, then manhunt.net, then finally adam4adam.com, until he hears an EHarmony commercial softly playing from the television in the background as he sits in his computer chair in his white briefs with nothing but the computer screen illuminating the darkened room. On a whim, he tries it, but to his dismay realizes there are no gays on it. Knowing the ones on the other sites are out of his league, and this insult being the straw that broke the camel's back, McKinley acts out of rage, which is so typical of the gay community as of late (thanks Prop 8). From the West Coast to the East Coast, their self proclaimed liberal values have given way to bouts of infantile rage.
Anyways: Neil Warren founded EHarmony based on his experience as a doctorate-level educated professional with a career-spanning dedicated to studying heterosexual interaction. He founded EHarmony to foster the values and ideals of Christian marriage. Admittedly, he has said in the past, the main reason he doesn't have a section for homosexual compatibility is that he doesn't know enough about gay relationships. Is that a crime? I wouldn't be surprised if most gay people didn't know what a football was, but the NFL isn't penalizing them. This is a case of a frivolous, rage-mandated lawsuit at its best, or should I say, worst. Even if Warren had a burning hatred of homosexuals and wanted to found a solely, exclusive group for heterosexuals, we are in America - that should be his right and his prerogative. Now EHarmony has been forced to start a gay-inclusive matchmaking service. I doubt this will increase the odds of Mr. McKinley finding a partner.
I do want to discuss some of the disgusting ramifications of this lawsuit. This is imposing on freedom, fundamentally. There is such a terrifying move to socializing everything in America. What's next? An abortion clinic being sued for not performing vasectomies? Suing Chick Fil A for not serving veal? Suing the NBA for not allowing golfers to participate? The great thing about America is we have the freedom to express ourselves by the differences that bring us together. Yes: some people choose to embrace the things that set them apart, make them unique, and seek others like them. This is as annoying as women who demand inclusion to men's clubs. God forbid a White person demand to join the NAACP. Once we stamp out organizations that promote our individuality, we will all become the same, despite the fact we are not. Hegemony for all. Thanks McKinley. If it's so hard for you to meet somebody, maybe it's you, not EHarmony.
A letter to the embittered grotesquerie that is California's homosexual population:
Homos: you lost. Deal with it. The way you are all handling your loss is completely irrational. Typical of a liberal. Let me talk to you about some of the signs I saw when I went by the Daley Center's November 15th Prop 8 Protest.
"Equal rights for equal people!"
"You can't deny our rights!"
"We don't tell you who can get married!"
Sorry girls. You already have equal rights. Just go read a little thing about civil rights. Even the most right-winged Republican understand, respects and is willing to cede you your civil right to be joined in a union with all the same rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage with the partner of your choice. You are receiving equal rights. Marriage is a term steeped with religious connotation. In nearly almost every culture that ever was or is, marriage has been and is understood (and thanks to Prop 8, forever will be understood) as a union between a man and a woman before the eyes of God. I am against archaic interpretations of the Bible, but I think the writing's on the wall with this - it was pretty clearly spelled out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, largely with the intent to reproduce. I won't go into the varied sociopolitical benefits underlying the historic value of marriage, such as family alliances and ensuring paternity, because I think that's tangential.
Secondly, nobody is taking away any of your rights. A rogue Supreme court overturned a constitutional amendment 7 months ago, if that. Those justices didn't reflect the will of the people. I know there is this big clamor that the margin was so small, with a difference in pro/con votes something like 3 or 4%, but you can't blame the Mormons, or the Catholics, or the Blacks or the Hispanics or people who donated money to the campaign to pass Prop 8. If you really think advertisements have the power to challenge and change people's core beliefs, you are naive as...well as a liberal. This wasn't "do you want the courthouse's wallpaper to be pink or red." This was a matter of protecting conservative values...and I know it must have been earth-shattering for your conceptions of an ultra-liberal California and the inherent "enlightenment" of its denizens to be completely refuted, but this is something a lot of people take seriously. Don't punish them for having their beliefs. It's totally, completely and 100% against what you preach in your politics, to be inclusive and respective of everyone's opinion. Hell, your party has gone so far as to enforce things like affirmative action and special interest group legislation because you are "so tolerant" and think "everybody has a chance." I guess you're only for equality when it results in you being more equal than everybody else.
The saddest part of this, is their demand for unequal equality has caused the Director of an L.A. Film Festival, Richard Raddon, some of HIS rights. The irritated and upset homos accessed public donation records, and now, not only are they boycotting and threatening businesses (a genius move in a collapsing economy), but they demanded the resignation of Richard Raddon. Michelle Malkin has a great piece on the story right here. The barrage of protests and threats his parent organization, Film Independent (FIND), has received in the wake of the Prop 8 decision, Raddon has been coerced into tending a resignation. Does denying a man his livelihood, and forcing him to stop contributing to a field he is talented and passionate about, a devotion that has undoubtedly brought about enriching, untold creative productivity, make any sense, because you're bitter? Your rights AREN'T BEING infringed upon. You can have unions. The unions = the same rights as marriage. Everybody will treat you as if you are married. They already do. Nobody took anything away from you, but you respond by taking away from a talented visionary. This is so typical to me of the liberal agenda - stifling the productive members of society if they exercise THEIR rights - RIGHT to an opinion, RIGHT to believe in whatever they want. Liberals will clamor to give international terrorists more rights by calling for their release from Gitmo, especially that fat vag Rosie, but they don't condone an American's exercising of his freedom of thought. Bravo, two-faces. P.S. you're really starting to prove you aren't even responsible enough to handle adult affairs like marriage anyways...the Prop 8 outcome was obviously for the best.
I love all the clips of gays bashing Blacks and Hispanics in the aftermath of having JUST VOTED FOR A CANDIDATE WHOSE CENTRAL MESSAGE WAS UNIFICATION. The Republicans are learning that we as a party have to put aside arbitrary differences to unify on grounds of our common values, which are more powerful than the things that divide us. I suggest you do the same. You can't make everybody happy all of the time. You still have your civil unions; nobody would dare ever try to take that away from you. That isn't the logical "next step" after they "took gay marriage away" from you. You never really legally had it in the first place. The people have spoken, and they said the rights you have are enough. After all, it's the same rights they have. Everybody will treat you the same as if you were "married." The law recognizes you the same as if you were "married." And, MOST importantly, you love each other as you would if you were "married." Unfortunately, the word itself means "a union between a man and a woman." That is solidified by the Bible. For all intensive purposes, the Bible is God's word. We are one nation under God. Sorry, but God wins. If you're so steamed about not having your own word for it, call it Garriage. I doubt anybody will stop you.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama infused millions with his "hope," "change," and "new day" rhetoric. Then, he gets into office and what do you know? He's magically a centrist. If all "change I could believe in" encompassed was simply changing the scene back to 1992-2000, I may have believed in it! Obama's cabinet, transitional office and staff appointments are not the new, unseen faces he promised his constituency, but rather a rehash of the Clinton White House. How LBJ in the wake of Kennedy is he? Populating his offices with very well known Washington insiders, many of whom are doing the same job they had last decade.
Before I get too into this, I want to bring to light the fact that Obama is smart in a way - too often in the past, we always heard a politician promise something and renege. "Mark my words, no new taxes!" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "I will repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Bam bam bam, none came to pass. This time, he with his cronies, the media, are burning the midnight oil to make sure we know in advance he's probably going to be forced to renege on his promises and accept what he is classifying as irredeemable failures...however, he is luckily on the coattails of an outgoing administration with a 20% approval rating to use more than conveniently as a scapegoat.
Today we hear that the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. That doesn't bode well for the Welfare Whore who chillingly predicted she would no longer have to worry about paying her mortgage or for gasoline. P.S., to the liberals who defend this awful crackslut, no, I doubt that what she is trying to imply is that with Obama as president, she won't have to worry about not having the opportunities to be able to earn the money for these expenses, or she wouldn't have the little "if I help him out he'll help me" (so typical of their mentality) addendum. We also hear tales of the media saying "the problems facing Obama are so insurmountable, we can't hold him accountable if he fails." Well, he IS the Messiah. He's a miracle worker. He's of a higher plane, says Oprah and Chris Matthews. His path to the White House is of a "divine origin," therefore: we should be able to expect miracles. He promised change. Let's see some!
Now I will segue back into my second paragraph, about Obama's side-stepping politics. His shameless abandonment of the far left, the people that put him in office (well, along with the help of the idiots seen in the video here ) is not even being greeted with the fury it should be met with, at least not by as many people as it should be. Many far-leftists are furious. Even a few people at the Obama-can-do-no-wrong Daily KOS and that batshit crazy Huffington are crying foul. They feel alienated and used as mere props and puppets to get the extra millions of votes Obama needed, and rightly so. The second he got in, he laid down like a dog for Hillary and the established Democratic royalty. However, leave it up to the retarded, idealistic youth to help Obama gloss over his blatant and flagrant treason to his core constituency(I never once thought I would ever use the NYTimes to SUPPORT one of my points):
“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”
Nate Gulley, 23, who grew up in Cleveland and is also here as a Politicorps fellow, said too much was being made of Mr. Obama’s every move.
“It’s important not to get swept up in ‘Is Obama posturing?’ ” Mr. Gulley said. “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.”
Um yes Nate, it IS important to get swept up in it. He isn't a different kind of candidate. Your yellow-bellied candidate has proven himself to be just like every cuckold run of the mill politician. You voted for "change you could believe in." Your savior reneged on his promise to you. You are one of the reasons this potentially VERY DANGEROUS man holds the highest position in the land. Now you're sitting by, not with outrage but with neutered apathy and blind indifference. You're being naive, and hypocritical. He lied to you. Instead of realizing this, you're just saying "oh he had to do it, it's okay." What else? Once a liar, always a liar. When do you think it's going to stop? He abandoned you like a 16 year old Kansas boy would leave his pregnant inamorata at a Route 66 Wal-Mart parking lot. You're already making excuses for him.
To conclude, you can't make excuses for Obama so that he can never make a mistake. This isn't the CTA or Mayor Daley legislation. We've already seen plenty of mistakes. The media and Obama himself can't keep up this "oh well, even if I fail it's okay. If I lie, it's okay." It wasn't okay when Bush changed his mind. You can't enforce a double standard. Obama must be, and is going to be held accountable for all of his shortcomings, lies, hyperbole and bait-and-switching. There is one thing we should all be able to agree on. Whether you believe Obama's spectrum shifting is a result of being pragmatic and view it as necessary, or if you feel embittered and alienated by this two-face, one thing is for sure: Obama isn't the miracle-working Messiah you all thought he was. Period.
Friday, November 21, 2008
"Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
by Scott A. Hodge
Fiscal Fact No. 27
One of the biggest obstacles facing President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is the fact that America has become divided between a growing class of people who pay no income taxes and a shrinking class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the burden.
Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers. Tax Foundation economists estimate that for tax year 2004, a record 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return (one-third of the 131 million returns filed last year) had no tax liability after they took advantage of their credits and deductions. Millions more paid next to nothing. "
In 2004, a record 42.5 million tax returns – one-third of all returns filed – had no income tax liability because of the available credits and deductions in the tax code. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of zero-tax filers in just four years. In addition to these zero-tax filers are the 15 million individuals or households who do not earn enough to file a tax return. Overall, nearly 58 million taxable households are outside of the income tax system.
These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system. Are any future tax cuts, or even tax reforms, possible when the lion’s share of the tax burden is increasingly borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers who – at least on paper – appear to be "upper-income"? And will the expanding pool of non-payers demand even higher income taxes? These are questions lawmakers must begin to debate."
Wow. They were scared of this in 2004-2005. Now we have some idealogical socialist catering to the basest and most banal desires of the lowest common denominator who wants to shunt even MORE of the already ridiculous burden on to a fraction of the population who not only shouldn't be, but soon aren't going to be physically able to carry the burden. Why should the most successful people be ordained to carry the dead weight of everybody else? Society should reward them for their contributions, not ask for more out of them.
Oh - and um, I know that nobody is allowed to quote racial statistics anymore because on Nov 4th, racism "died," but choke on this:
"Race and Ethnicity
When we combine the populations of non-payers and non-filers and look to see what overall percentage of each group is not paying taxes, we find that: 50.7 percent of African American households pay no income taxes, 35.5 percent of Asian American households do not, 37.6 percent of White American households do not, and roughly 52 percent of Hispanics pay no income taxes."
Let's overlap with Obama's voters:
41% Whites voted for Obama
96% Blacks voted for Obama
66% Latinos voted for Obama
Wow...amazing to see that Obama's largest constituency were people who don't pay income tax. Shocking anyone? Shocking that people who leech off the teat of taxpayers for everything from their cigarettes to their baby formula voted overwhelmingly for a man who promised more free money?
Bye American work ethic. Maybe by 2012 the percentage of people who don't pay income taxes will increase from 31% (a historic high)today to 50% as people realize they are working when they don't have to.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Did you hear the one about the gay guy who beat, raped and killed his straight 23 year old intern? Me neither! Nobody has.
That's neither here nor there. The focus of this story is 23 year old, ironically named Jason Shephard, who, in 2006, was drugged, raped and murdered by 43 year old gay coworker William Smithson. Shephard, a straight, "nice Republican boy" from South Dakota who "liked to talk about his faith" had come to Delaware county, Maryland to intern at the East coast branch of his company. After turning down the advances of Smithson, who was known to have GHB (a date rape drug) and meth-fueled parties with the other homosexuals of the town at his residence, he was found 3 days after one such party wrapped in a series of sheets in Smithson's basement. The case just went to trial in Delaware county, where it has been pending this week.
I'm not going to get into the sordid details of this case. I'll post a link for you to find the story itself, since um, it's basically being completely glossed over by all media outlets except the paper in the small town the crime occurred, and a few other small regional papers. My question is: why? When this happened in reverse, i.e. a republican male beating and killing a gay democrat, America was forced to confront the horrible evils that result from small-town, close-minded conservative values. However, when a gay man brutally beats and murders a small-town religious conservative, the media just says "um, we're passing on this one." You know, maybe this will cause you to think twice and re-evaluate how badly you want your Fairness Doctrine reinstated. You might just have to start reporting both sides of the story.
Using the scientific method.
This is lifted from a regional newspaper called The Naperville Sun. It serves as a perfect example of how the liberal media pigeonholes any, and I mean ANY right-wing dissent with Obama as racism, as if there can be no rational, logical or political reasons a person might disagree with his policies.
Covert racism? Please translate...
on November 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
You know how forwarded e-mails work. There are hundreds of names piled on tops of hundreds more, with dozens of e-mail signatures, and occasionally a message from one friend to another.
Of course, you never know any of these people, except for the one who sent it to you. But, still, if you're like me, you find it interesting to read their very often ignorant and off-base comments.
This one, again from somebody I don't know, was at the bottom of the e-mail in which the Barack Obama-referenced photo of the week was attached:
If I remember correctly this man got 51% of the vote and for the life of me I canʼt find anyone who will admit to voting for him. I wonder if he would have gotten elected if you had to vote verbally while on national television?
So what, exactly, does this dude mean? Is this some thinly veiled racism? Or is the comment just too shallow (or could my mind just be too feeble) to pick up on the greater point?
No Patrick Ferrell. No, for as much as Obama's campaign paid the Naperville Sun (owned by the Chicago Sun-Times, a publication whose liberalism is rivaled only by the NYT) to espouse that any anti-Obama sentiment is caused by racism, there is a multitude of other reasons that this individual might not like Obama. I'll go over a theory I have why this man said what he did.
I think that most people can't admit to voting for Obama because maybe, upon retrospection, they realized they were driven solely by emotional reasons to vote for a person that ultimately, they knew nothing about whatsoever. Maybe they were having the conversation with a learned or politically knowledgeable person who explained that Obama wants to raise taxes for only the upper middle class, maybe they explained he favors granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, maybe they explained Obama wants to create a civilian standing army, maybe they explained Obama really doesn't have much proven executive experience, and that this is the first true election he ever even actually won, maybe they explained how Obama dishonorably had all of his opposition, including his mentor, disqualified from the 1996 senate ballot, maybe they explained how Obama is the only president-elect arrogant and conceited enough to create his own Seal of the Office of President-Elect, maybe they explained that Obama has no American pride, maybe they explained that Obama was a proven member of the New Party, the socialist branch of the Democrats in the 90s, maybe they explained how for any time in our economic history, raising taxes have ALWAYS either caused a recession or drastically exacerbated existing ones whereas tax breaks have always stimulated the economy, maybe they explained that Obama's policy to grant more economic stimulus packages and increase infrastructure spending were the exact approaches adopted by FDR during the Great Depression which dramatically prolonged the impact and duration of the Great Depression rather than ameliorate it.
Maybe, since any liberal you pose the question "why did you vote for Obama," 9 times out of 10 you hear back "Why wouldn't you!?" or "Bush is an asshole!" or "You want more of McSame?? you're stupid!" or "He's a wonderful man" or "he gives great speeches." Yeah...um...that basically makes him a motivational speaker, not THE PRESIDENT. Way to go. You don't vote for the leader of the free world because he's charismatic. You vote the 8th grade student council president in for being charismatic. P.S. - Know who else got a big majority of the vote through charisma? JFK. Oh, yeah, and Hitler. Thanks Bay of Pigs, thanks World War II. I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler - so don't use the opportunity to fucking call me a racist or say I am equating the two. What I am saying is history doesn't lie, and perhaps, just maybe, a few people now realize they were a little brainwashed or taken in by his personality and failed to evaluate him on his skills and qualifications, or lack thereof. Don't counter me with some Sarah Palin-is-stupid argument either - they weren't running for the same office, and no, she isn't. It's not being racist to argue that the majority of Obama's supporters know too little, or in some cases, nothing at all, about what he actually stands for. It isn't racist to argue that a substantial percentage of Obama's supporters lack a thorough understanding of American economic and political history, and it isn't racist to imply maybe they voted for him based on a trifecta of factors that have nothing to do with Obama's stance on the issues: the fact they hated Bush, couldn't or wouldn't consider the fact that our current economic woes are not automatically and by default caused by the incumbent party, and lastly, communally adopted a mob mentality and went with the guy with the reassuring smile. Sorry Patrick Ferrell. Enjoy Will county by the way.
This brings me to the question posed in my topic line. Conservatives are often labeled by liberals as hate-mongering idiots. Liberals love accusing conservatives of being old-fashioned, illogical, dumb, racist or any other a wide gamut of insults. This skews ironic as their party mentality is self-styled on premises of tolerance, acceptance and rationality. So far in this election, based on anecdotal evidence, blog comments, liberal media articles or video footage of the rallies, liberals are the angry ones, liberals are the ones screaming for Bush to be tried on war crimes, liberals are the ones calling conservatives hate-mongering anti-Americans. Liberals are the ones taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin for being from Alaska and speaking with a drawl, or John McCain being "old" or Bush being some Southern idiot. You know, um, that's more racist than any of the insults ever leveraged against Obama. Conservatives have NEVER made a character assault on Obama, insulted him or made an issue of his race. In spite of this, liberals started and never let up on the offensive, without any provocation whatsoever. Conservatives often have logical, historically-backed and factual arguments about why Obama is not the best answer for president, none of which ever insult his intelligence, heritage or race. Liberals respond not with a retort or counter argument, but by attacking the questioner, attacking Republicans, lambasting with character assaults, questioning intelligence, patriotism and intelligence, and fall back solely on high-powered emotional rants that lead to the invariable and inevitable conclusion that you are a racist for even asking, every time, without fail. I have yet to hear a liberal defend Obama's policies with a response framed by a logical argument, or by even answering the question. The most logical thing I have heard to date is "it can't be any worse than what we have now." That's the BEST they've come up with. What I have heard, ad nauseum, is a lot of Obama-worship, overzealous praise, swooning and fainting from exuberance, and a look of irrational rage and readiness to crucify anyone who dares question their dogmatic beliefs. They are the hate mongers, they are traitors to their party, they are intolerant, they are the ones who defend Obama not with reason but with daft propaganda-ridden vagueries like "yes we can," and "change we can believe in," writing off anyone who disagrees with his politics, not even him as a person, as racist. Conservatives were quick to congratulate Obama on his victory and be gracious in defeat, yet liberals are still quick to gloat, even when they don't know a thing about the person they put into office. 82% of Obama voters answered incorrectly when polled on Obama's political leanings, and instead of being concerned and maybe scared, they instead resorted to accusing the pollster of being, imagine this, a racist for even having the audacity to ask in the first place. Liberal teachers are looking the other way and allowing their students to eviscerate conservative students; liberal colleges are forbidding conservative guest speakers or professors to question Obama's competency and qualifications....and here of all places, the "land of the free," where you are guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. You're free all right...free to agree with the mob. If not, you're free to be ostracized.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
"Depressed working-class areas such as Thuringia also gave a strong Nazi vote, while the workers of the Ruhr and Hamburg largely remained loyal to the SPD, the KPD or the Catholic Centre Party. Nuremberg remained a party stronghold, and the first Nuremberg rally was held there in 1927. These rallies soon became massive displays of Nazi paramilitary power, and attracted many recruits. The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and who feared Bolsheviks more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Hitler's anti-Semitism, since they blamed Jewish big business for their economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in World War I and attracted by the Nazis' radical rhetoric, also became a strong Nazi constituency.
Despite these strengths, the Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The SPD and the KPD parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave the Nazis their opportunity, and Hitler's message, blaming the crisis on the Jewish financiers and the Bolsheviks resonated with wide sections of the electorate."
And let's play MadLibs...what I'm gonna do is swap no more than 10 words, adjust the syntax so the sentences make sense, and see what happens.
"Depressed working-class area also gave a strong Obama vote, while the workers of corporations and self-employed professionals largely remained loyal to Bush. Chicago remained a party stronghold, and the first Grant Park rally was held there in 2008. These rallies soon became massive displays of Obama's paramilitary power, and attracted many recruits . Obama's strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 2000s and who feared Republicans more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Obama's anti-Bush rhetoric, since they blamed Republican big business for their economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and attracted by Obama's radical rhetoric, also became a strong Obama constituency.
Despite these strengths, Obama might never have come to power had it not been for the 2008 Economic recession and its effects on America. By 2008 the American economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The Republican and Democratic parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave Obama his opportunity, and Obama'ss message, blaming the crisis on the Republican financiers and the upper class resonated with wide sections of the electorate."
P.S. Contrary to every liberal mind (oxymoron) on the planet, this does not make me a racist. It makes me studied in history and concerned about my country. Mass hysteria-induced crowds, drunk on "hope" never did any good for anybody. Last time a little place called "Europe" was decimated.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
When I was a child, I was very naive; naive with how the world works and naive in my idealism, as most children are. When I was about 10, I asked my mom why the U.S.S.R. was so bad, and why America didn't get along with them (they were still around then). I said socialism doesn't sound bad, it seemed quasi-utopian to me back then that everybody was treated equally and everybody earned the same. My mom explained it as this: "it sounds great in theory, but there is a big difference between what things look like on paper and how they play out in reality."
Two main problems exist with the government creating an artificially leveled playing field.
1. Not everybody is created equally. Anybody with respect for Darwin, evolution and intelligence realizes that not everybody has the same gifts or same intelligence. Some people are by default harder workers, some people are more apt to learn sciences such as medicine, others engineering, others math, others computers. Some people are good listeners; others are good at farming. Some jobs require more skill than other jobs: those jobs deserve to be compensated more. Work, in and of itself, can not be quantified as having equal value. How would you quantify that to begin with?
2. Human green, avarice and manipulation. People have a really hard time not forming castes based on any one of a million dividing factors. That's one of the reasons people chose to divide by income in a capitalist society. Secondly, as history as shown, there is always an urge to take advantage of the masses.
Mother knows best.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Michelle Obama is a batshit crazy extremist..it's no wonder they love each other.
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
-Michelle Obama, 2008
-Um, I'm not cynical, I'm American.
- Unlike the minorities who voted for him, I DO work, 50+ hour weeks. Then I do this blog for free, another 15 hours, and I design Web pages, mostly for free, for another about 20 hours a week, I spend about 10 hours a week volunteering. And guess what? I never needed an Obama-mandated high school volunteer (S.S. in training)program to make me do it. I have a work ethic. Most conservatives do.
- I'm not isolated; I am incredibly involved in my community.
- I'm a gay Republican, I have no comfort zone.
- A separatist minority-quota accepted (by her own admission)Princeton graduate whose thesis was nothing short of hoping for a White-free Black culture formed by the "ideals" of segregation and embraced by the Black community doesn't need to tell me I'm isolated and I need to be better.
-Uninvolved? Uninformed? What the FUCK do you call the liberal media? I actively pursue both sides of a story and question each side because I strive to be informed...I'm not simply content reading MS-NBC's Messiah-praising, one-sided stories, mass cover-ups and thinking that gave me a good gauge on understanding the world.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Emanuel brothers
"Talk about a trifecta: The brothers are hot-tempered, sexy and smart. Find out which one fought with Mel Gibson and which one put a dead fish in the mail."
Um, I'm sorry. They're not celebrities. They're politicians. Awful ones at that. This must be an example of the mind-blowing professional of MsNBC.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
How can liberals call conservatives hate-mongers? You know, maybe conservatives are labeling Obama as Hitler because any dissent we have is already being regulated, suppressed and punished. The true irony is that this election has been self-styled as the triumph of tolerance and equality and advent of a new age of a world without racism, brought to realization through a community that values liberalism and acceptance... yet a Black teacher can get away with throwing her student to the lions. When reporters tried confronting the teacher, she wouldn't answer the door, yet she had Obama signs all over her house.
I am all about equality, and even though I don't agree that Obama is Black, I would be willing to see Obama's victory as a symbol of equality, if maybe Blacks weren't now openly indulging their anti-White racist urges and getting away with it. How can people be immune to liberals' hypocrisy? Why is this going unexcused? The real tragedy here is for poor Gloria. She has put her college dreams on hold as a result of this fiasco, as Prince George Community College was the only place she could afford. Ah, a glimpse of things to come under a Leftist monarchy. The irony here is that if I were to say, call, Ayanna Watson a fucking black whore teacher, I'd be called a racist on the spot without a second thought and blasted to hell and back. Yet, she is allowed to tolerate her students calling a White student a fucking stupid white whore without any subsequent outrage or resistance from the community. So you listen Watson - you better be careful, because now people who are actually against racism are going to be watching you, you intolerant, ignorant woman. America's riding higher than a kite on the opiate named "YesWeCanoine" so maybe they're distracted from the blatant and flagrant injustice and double standard here. Then again, liberals love double standards, so I'm not surprised, and the media is already policing the entire information highway so truth is never seen or heard. What was your motivation? Do you feel justified and vindicated through your class' collective thought-policing, idiotic Jim Crow-era response as a valid manifestation to years of rage caused by Black oppression, and thinking because Obama fooled America into voting for him that you can get away with murder? Until now, conservatives have sat placidly by and tried to reason with liberals, but if this continues, maybe we'll organize a little march, sit-in or even better, protest until you have your ill-gotten job taken away from you...since God knows if the situation were reversed there would be hell to pay. Then again, a Republican professor would never impose his or her own beliefs on their students.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Patriot Act was a directive imperative to realizing the goals forced by Bush to realize by the American people. I doubt it had adverse effects on anybody who was a law-abiding American. If you want to talk about censorship, let's visit a little Orwellian concept known as The Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, popular in Jimmy Carter-era America, but declared unconstitutional shortly after its inception, dictates that media outlets must present opposing sides of a story with equal time and consideration. Basically it is in favor of liberals now because they fear (hate) conservative talk radio hosts. The irony of this is conservative outlets, with the exception of Ann Coulter, seldom do any hate-mongering or speak of things that aren't true or have the possibility of truth. I think the real victims of the Fairness Doctrine will be the liberal media, since they are prone to left-skewing bias and lambasting basically any conservative viewpoint. If you want to talk about a nanny state, look no further than the Fairness Doctrine. If the government doesn't have enough faith in the American people to draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions, why are we suddenly a great people again for voting for a "Black" (read: more White than Black) president? The great irony in that is he was voted in because people didn't read all the facts, ignored both sides of the story. They heard what they wanted and went with it. When they're being policed by the thought police in a few months, I wonder how they're going to make Bush responsible for that, too. I'm so excited for watching all the failures of the Obama presidency laid upon Bush. Liberals have already anticipated the fact people might realize their bullshit and are already propagating and seeding the media with ideas like "well Bush left the state of the country in such shambles, nobody is capable of fixing them." Make sure to cover all your bases and deflect blame onto anybody but yourself - it's what liberals do best.
Did anybody answer why Michelle Obama's Princeton senior thesis - about why Blacks shouldn't even want integration with Whites, and poignant and blatant statements about how she is obligated to use any of her resources, present or future, to elevating solely the Black community - was frozen to release until November 5th? A little suspicious. I wonder how much Princeton received from Obama's campaign funds to instate that policy.
When a well-respected, highly educated visiting professor to Loyola in Baltimore urged people to consider - not even to accept as fact, merely consider - that the income disparity between certain professions of Whites as opposed to Blacks might be a result of a disparity in intelligence and work output, he was silenced by the university amid a flurry of apologies from officials and the university. He had studies, facts and statistics to back his theory up too. Ironic, as academia is about the pursuit of knowledge, not controversy. God forbid a professor in academia asks a question and postulates theories. Kind of like how Copernicus and Galileo were silenced for thinking outside the box. Liberals have always tried to silence the pursuit of truth in favor of unfettered acceptance of dogma and mantra.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves."
William Boetcker, 1873 - 1962
Sorry Obama - I know you needed the disenfranchised to win an election, but um for the Americans living in America, we don't intend to lose things we earned that only God has the power to take away to the likes of you.
That makes me want to form a Segue blog. On the first day of Obama's presidency, the name of this blog will change to "Day One," to categorize the promises and reneges of Obama. That was a quote from the AP earlier today. This brings me to how liberals are shifty liars.
Liberals - the ultimate truthbenders and hypocrites.
When you confront Obama supporters with some of your fears about an Obama presidency, a wide array of responses come back - none of which do anything to allay the concerns that prompted you to talk about them in the first place. Here are the most common concerns I voice, and the answers I receive.
"How do you think it's morally justifiable to impose tax increases on society's top earners and using that money to reward its moochers? You do know many of the people benefitting do not even pay taxes, right?"
- There are more middle class people than upper class people, so it's our time for a break.
- Oh well, they can afford it.
- Well it's time to make the upper class pay for keeping everybody else down for so long.
- Oh well, the upper class barely pays any taxes. (see my last blog for how that's the opposite of being true).
- The government's job is about redistribution, the money has to come from somewhere.
- Poor people deserve stuff too, is it that bad to take a little off the top to make sure everybody gets equal treatment?
All of those answers have one thing in common - they show total disregard for the upper class; instead they show contempt and even disdain and disapproval. Nevermind the thank-yous for all of the art, science, music (those artists were patronized by the wealthy). Nevermind the thank-yous for living in a world with the largest economy. Brings me to my next point, the one I started this post with.
"Are you concerned that Obama's rise closely mirrors that of other 20th century autocrats and dictators?"
Some of the liberal-minded responses:
-Oh, you mean as opposed to the white dictator we have now?
(not an answer to my question, liberal hate-mongering)
-Regardless, we need some kind of change.
(so a tyrranical dictator is better than free-market democracy, just because we are in the middle of a recession which when viewed in the larger scope of American history will appear as nothing more than a blip on our radar if you stop blowing it out of proportion because the credit-generation has taught you to expect instant gratification and nothing less)
-You are a racist!
(no, I'm really not. I'm concerned personal freedoms are going to be slowly and imperceptibly modified and phased out, covered up by huge speeces and public spectacles, liberal propaganda drilled into us ad nauseum, until we notice in 8 years that Congress has done away with maximum term limits on presidents and Obama is wearing a crown.)
Friday, November 7, 2008
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $295,495 34.27%
Top 5% $130,080 54.36%
Top 10% $94,891 65.84%
Top 25% $57,343 83.88%
Top 50% $29,019 96.54%
Bottom 50% < $29,019 3.46%
Sorry - the top 5% alone pays more than half of all taxes. You lose.
Listen, I am not a racist. Far from it. I hate just as many white people as I hate blacks and latinos. Just kidding. I evaluate everybody on a meritocracy basis. Those people who exhibit values and motivations that I think are noble, I applaud and respect. When people are hard working, self-accountable and responsible, the color of their skin is as insignificant as their eye color. However, there are some who are too quick to quip "so, you look at them like they were a white person?" No, my evaluations of people do not lie on a White version of a Kinsey scale, with the most noble people being "Very White," somewhat flawed yet well-meaning people being "Somewhat White" and people with no motivations and a sense of entitlement being "Least White." Every type of person can have any types of values. I find it ironic that some Whites are accused of racism when they aren't categorizing on basis of color, yet minorities are the first to draw color line differentiation.
Obama is not a Black man. Obama is part Kenyan and part White. There are a couple of issues that are bothering me.
When Obama was running against Hillary in the primaries, his camp was on the preemptive to portray him in a White light. "Look at his White mom, look at his White aunt and White grandma, he identifies with his White family," etc. Obama himself realized the "fear" middle-of-the-road middle America might have with him ,when he used the word "scary" in his tirade of how "they," who I can only interpret as being conservatives, will try to make him look "scary." Don't be scared of The One - he's as White as white bread, as White as you and me. His color is a technicality.
Now that he is president-elect, he is suddenly blackitty black black, the first Black man to accomplish this, the first Black man to accomplish that. You know what - Halle Barry wasn't the first Black woman to win an Academy Award; Tiger Woods wasn't the first Black golfer to win the millions of tournaments he has won. All are the first biracial or multiracial people to have earned their respective accomplishments, a sentiment echoed by my biracial boyfriend, who was the first to say "I'm not black, I'm not white, I'm biracial. I don't categorize myself as either black or white." To stay in the spirit of my argument - what about Obama's White half? To claim him as Black, commodify him as part of the Black race and culture, to say "we have someone in the White House" is to deny the millions of Whites who not only voted for him and love him, but who relate to him on as many levels as Blacks do. To say he is the first Black man in office is not only to enforce the Civil War notions of quantifying a person's worth (vis a vis slave vs. freeman status) by their Black heritage percentage, but it is also as incorrect as if somebody wanted to try defining Obama as "the first White 47 year old man to become President." This brings me to my second point:
To make any differentiation on color lines is to enforce racism. To arbitrarily separate people or classify them based on their color is to enforce color lines and works against the idea of integration via blurring of color lines. For there to truly not be any racism, for this election to signal the death knell of racism, there would have had to have been no acknowledgement of Obama's race whatsoever. I think by constantly boxing and framing Obama as "the first Black president" goes way beyond a simple celebration of a cultural achievement, (such as Italians being proud of Leonardo di Vinci for example) since Obama does not identify with nor is part of the conventional Black culture, but rather by default negates White supporters from having anything to be proud of themselves. I guess the only solution to this conundrum would be to reclassify the Black race as a culture, since we do not say Italians are a race, or the French are a race, and it is obvious that there are as many or more differences between different mother nationalities of Black people than differences between French and Italians. In that case, we all have to sit down and say, for depriving their race from ever developing nationalism because they coerced them forcibly into crossing the Atlantic and becoming slaves, their compensation is that the can without hesitation identify with each other on a race level rather than a national one. From anecdotal evidence alone, I know of so many biracial or multiracial individuals say "I'm Irish and Asian" or "I'm British and Black." Well...there are as many "Asian" options are there are European ones, are you Laotian, Filipino, Thai, Korean, etc? Are you Nigerian, Libyan, Moroccan, South African, Sudanese? As mentioned above, it is unfortunate that due to horrible things that happened in the past, people were deprived from ever knowing in a sense, but if that is the case, it needs to be addressed instead of deferring to race as a panacea in order to identify with anyone you please.
To conclude, to say "Obama is the first Black president" is neither accurate, nor is it fair. By the fact that Black people keep claiming "in our lifetimes" and "we never thought we'd see it" implies they as a culture and a race have been defining themselves as different regardless of White attitudes, and are not interested in genuine integration and the cessation of racism.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Hail to the Grand Inquisitor.
"Keith Olbermann" is a liberal language term for "elitist, pompous, self promoting, acrimonious, anti-establishment, communist poosack douchebag." If Keith Olbermann were a pussy, he would be a bloated, gonorrhea-ridden, yeast infected one. Haha - oh wait, he is a pussy. How did somebody who made a career commenting on sports - by default, a profession that requires a certain vapidness or vacuous intellect and a lack of real journalistic ability, get into a position where his opinions were solicited by anybody? I'm sure he would find a way to put Mother Theresa in his "Worst Human Being Ever" for focusing on helping people instead of spending her time scapegoating the plight of Calcutta's poor on the century-before imperialism of the British empire. He probably wouldn't have even given her a thank-you. What a f*stain. Who is he to attempt to eviscerate any person, let alone conservatives? Mr. Olbermann claims that conservatives need to be dragged into the civil rights movement "kicking and screaming." Nobody is against civil rights. Obama's election is not a victory for civil rights. It's a victory for people with nothing original to say to say it charismatically. Maybe once Olbermann gets his new tax bill he'll be singing a different tune, although any organization that is willing to pay him more than $250,000 is one I hope was not assisted by the bailout.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20”, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
“That's true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, friends, journalists and all you tax-crazy, spread-the-wealth liberals, is how our tax system really works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere might be friendlier and the other beer drinkers more appreciative.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I got this gem from the Atlas Shrugs blog. It's funny, my dad and I were talking about an Obama presidency and he brought up the apocalyptic question "Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged'?" Such a poignant question, one I hadn't considered, but as soon as he asked it, the correlations became blindingly obvious. I'm not going to write a synopsis of Atlas Shrugged - but considering the substandard education (evidenced by the drone behavior and section 8 habitation) that is characteristic of so many of Obama supporters, it wouldn't come as much of a surprise if they had never read it. Needless too say, any society that penalizes the best, brightest, wealthiest and the ones who contribute the most "mental work," simply out of spite that they end up having more money as a direct result of compensation for their abilities and contributions, is doomed to fail. Try considering the option capitalism didn't work for you because you didn't try hard enough. You want to talk about outsourcing jobs to India and China? What happens when doctors, lawyers, MBAs, pharmacists decide that they are tired of having their incomes docked by hangers-on and the welfare class and pick up and move to countries that will reward them for excellence? I didn't think I'd live to see the day I'd find out. Thanks middle class!
Let me leave you with a little nugget from a man who actually did love his country and its ideals. Let me rephrase that - he loved these ideals so much, found them so noble, that he fought to be a founding father of a nation built on them. That's a real President, ladies and gentlemen, not this flaccid wolf in sheep's clothes. I'm sure he is absolutely thrilled watching the destruction of everything he fought for and believed in by somebody with no patriotism and even less experience.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his indstry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1816.