A man who doesn’t have a knee jerk reaction to other people’s beliefs but rather uses reason…
Thank You to the Snark Who Hunts Back for sharing this with me…
Monthly Archives: November 2011
A man who doesn’t have a knee jerk reaction to other people’s beliefs but rather uses reason…
So through various personal encounters and stories in the news (here here and here just as a for instance, sadly it’s only the tip of the iceberg) in the last week or so I’ve been meaning to write another blog on my rather deep seated dislike of militant atheists. What do I mean by militant atheists, I mean those people who want all the crosses at memorials taken down, all the nativity scenes taken away, freak-out about the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto? The people who feel that the mere existence of other religions is somehow a threat to their life, the ones who have the same attitude as wacky Christians who think gays marrying somehow affects their lives. Who need to insult every expression of faith at the drop of a hat with the zealousness of a member of the Westboro Baptist church talking about gays.
This behavior by atheists all strikes me as beyond petty. I’m a New Ager, a pagan, and I don’t find signs of other people’s religions offensive (unless it’s a religion that is dedicated to tyranny, suffering, and the denial of reason). I don’t believe in the absolute truth of the 10 Commandments (that idols thing is silly in some ways and the parents thing ignores that there are some people who don’t deserve to be parents)…but I’m not offended by their display. I don’t demand that images of pentangles be placed everywhere so that I feel included. So the fact that this attitude is what defines militant atheists is utterly perplexing and annoying to me.
First I think we need to establish a simple fact that is often overlooked. Atheism is a religion. A religion is a belief system based on an article of faith. The idea that there is no God is an article faith—it can’t be proven, and to base your beliefs off of that idea that can’t be proven makes the entire philosophy of atheism a religion. If you’re going to go with pure reason then you have to go with agnosticism—but since being an agnostic in practice prevents you from having any practical beliefs in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or politics, it’s a useless system. You have to make a leap of faith one way or the other. And it is bad philosophy and rank arrogance to say that in my leap of faith that there isn’t a God is better than your leap of faith that there is a God (especially since there is evidence that suggests there is a God and really atheists only have the weak argument of the Problem of evil .) And one really just has to look at the rabid proselytizing that atheists do and then compare that with the equally insane passion of some evangelicals to see that it’s not reason driving these people, it’s faith (and an irrational one at that).
It is a religion. In fact I recommend you not refer to it as atheism anymore, always refer to it as the “religion of atheism” and when the whiny atheists start saying that they’re not a religion ask them for their impossible to refute argument that there is no God. And if they fall for that trap they’re not only a whiner, they’re an idiot.
And it’s a vicious religion when you look at the way it is being dealt with in courts. It’s a religion that says we don’t like any other religions and demands that all evidence of those religions be removed. They demand that crosses placed in honor of fallen soldiers and police be removed. They demand that references to the majority belief in God (you know the belief that actually has some evidence behind it) be removed because it offends us. And if you’re a very special sort of asshole, militant atheists might even demand that the military stop offering chaplain services to the people who want religious counsel while putting their lives on the line so that you have the freedom to believe that there isn’t a God (despite the absolute lack of any evidence to justify that conclusion).
As it is a religion removing things because it insults atheists is actually favoring one religion over another in clear violation of the establishment clause. Slippery slope arguments are flawed by their very nature of being extreme and taking things to the worst case scenario but we use them because every so often the slippery slope does yield a Soviet Russia, a Nazi Germany, San Francisco. So if you begin to enforce the religion of atheism as the law of the land, what happens when atheism literally becomes the law, when all expressions of religion are outlawed? Well, off the top of my head I can think of only five countries that have outlawed every religion except atheism—those five would be France under the Terror, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Beside legally enforced atheism, what do those five have in common? Blood and genocide. I know of no atheistic nation in the history of the world that wasn’t genocidal. It’s as if when you deny the divinity of human life, human life becomes cheap and expendable. But this is an extreme argument. After all, other nations have legally enforced one religion to the exclusion of all others. However this is revealing point. Governments that enforce one religion pretty much fall into two camps, Christian and Muslim (the East has had smatterings of enforced religion but these are policies that tended to be on paper more than in practice, and in the West this kind of single religion is not the entire norm). Now Muslim countries (which interestingly enough also deny the divinity of the human soul) are also shit holes, although even these countries don’t usually meet that mechanical killing people by the millions in a systematic way that atheist nations seem to have refined to an art. Christian nations that have outlawed all of the opposing religions historically do not have the kind of atrocity in such a sweeping nature. Yes the Spanish in history are unjustifiable villains, but the English, the Italians, Germans, and French during the same period of time were able to still be relatively humane and still create advancements for civilization. Can you show me an atheist nation in history that did not commit genocide or that advanced civilization in any, way shape or form?
Now most atheists will say it’s entirely unfair to use the slippery slope argument and compare them to Nazis. But keep in mind that these are the same people who go to court and demand that every cross and nativity scene be taken down…why? Because of their slippery slope argument that it could lead to a theocracy. So much like their leap of faith being so much better than everyone else’s leap of faith, their slippery slope arguments are so much more valid than everyone else’s slippery slope arguments. Illogical stances like that can only be held by people who fervently believe in their religion to exclusion of all others, so don’t tell me that atheism isn’t a religion.
By now any reasonable person is realizing that most atheist arguments that displays or this or that emblem endorsing religion are kind of stupid, as removing them at the behest of another religion is simply endorsing that religion (in this case the stupid one that doesn’t even have anecdotal evidence to back it up). These court rulings always endorse one religion over another. There is no way to avoid that because siding with the atheists is siding with a religion.
So let me suggest some compromises.
First the question needs to be does the display hurt anyone? For 99% of these cases that’s a no. And I mean really hurt. Not your stupid feelings were hurt. If you’re upset that there are signs and displays out there of ideas you don’t agree with, this is so incredibly not the country for you. We have freedom of expression around here and what comes with that is the freedom to be absolutely offended by what others say or do…but not the freedom to stop them from saying what they believe.
Second, on the issue of public money. Has the money already been spent? If not, then no, of course you don’t want to erect new religious symbols, but if the damage is already done then be a grown up and get over it. Especially for symbols that have been up for years. Atheists, you too can be big boys and girls and not take every single word against you with all the maturity of a bratty 2 year old (I’ve yet to see it in practice, but I’m willing to be astounded by seeing it for the first time). If a community votes to take down a time honored symbol, fine, but the courts have no right to tell people to take down symbols of their faith that have been there for years.
As for memorials like crosses put out for fallen police officers or soldiers. It’s more of a question of what did the people we wish to honor believe. If they were Christians a cross is the appropriate way to honor them, and if you’re offended by someone putting up a memorial to honor a person who gave their life to protect yours…you’re an asshole. You have a first amendment right to be one, but I have a First Amendment right to call you (in fact I have an ethical duty to point it out). If members of other religions have problems with that symbol, and someone from their religion is among the ranks of those being honored, then just put up a symbol of that faith as well…taking it down is just insulting to everyone as it has the mentality of “If I can’t have my symbol all by itself, then no one can have a symbol” (which only benefits the religion of atheism).
Everyone should have the right to express their religion.
Some of this came out of my post of on the worship site for Pagans at the Air Force Academy. I don’t begrudge them their meeting place, as members of the armed services they are more than entitled to worship, and I have no problem that it’s on our dime as it’s being beyond a heartless creature to say that those who risk their lives for us shouldn’t have the right to worship as they choose. I was complaining how a $5,000 project cost $80,000. And I was complaining that Pagans who are always trying to gain some good PR weren’t too bright to let themselves be attached to this boondoggle of government waste. But they’re entitled to the worship as they see fit.
Which also bring up the atheist who wants a chaplain in the military. Is he entitled to one and should we provide one? Yes, that way we’re treating all religions fairly. Is this guy a complete ass who is just trying to mock other religions? Yes he is and then some…but he’s putting his life on the line for us so I say we give this complete asshole what he wants.
All religions need to be treated equally and this BS about secularism and removing religious display isn’t doing that. It’s favoring one religion over another. The fact that it’s a religion that has even less proof behind it than most and the fact that is in the running for most vicious religion in history should also give one pause.
So Krugman is at is again. This time the New York Times resident idiot is towing the new Democratic party line…I know it’s a shock to see Paul Krugman just have a knee jerk reaction to repeat Democratic talking points. Which talking point is it today…why what else we need to tax the rich. He even has a cute name for the article “Things to Tax”….hmm
You have the usual level of Krugman insanity, such as:
Nonetheless, at some point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought: How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?
That line is of course coming from the man who has been against all cuts to spending, who had incessantly beat the drum for MORE spending. But now he wants to reign in the deficit he helped created. But of course it has to be done by raising taxes. Which taxes? Well he suggests “taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.” Don’t you like how he broke out a 5th grade thesaurus and said “high income” and not “rich.” You’d have to be an idiot or a Democrat to think he wasn’t saying something cliché, but I repeat myself.
Try this quote:
“The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2 million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.
Well no, highway robbery isn’t “hard” to do when you have all the power…why worry about things like ethics. Did you notice how he mentions they have a trillion dollars? A whole trillion. Sounds like a lot doesn’t it? Which means that if we taxed every last cent out of the these evil greedy bastards who have no right to earn money from their labor and took their trillion dollars…well it still won’t pay for the $3.7 Trillion dollar yearly budget. (Won’t even cover the $1.101 Trillion shortfall…and let’s not forget that shortfall is calculated after the rich have been contributing a lot of money to the tax codes already).
But still it would raise lots of money.
For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis, restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007.
Ooooh, $78 Billion dollars! Wow, that sounds like a lot doesn’t it. That means if we had go back to 2001 and instead of cutting taxes raising them to Krugman’s level we would have raised $780 Billion dollars…ah hell I’ll say $800 Billion to account for variance from year to year. $800 Billion! So let’s see, Obama has raised the national debt by $5 Trillion which means that if we had raised that $800 Billion then Obama would only have a measly $4.2 Trillion increase to his name. Hmmmm…I’m not seeing raising taxes as being the salvation here. Maybe we might want to try cutting something from the budget? NO! What was I thinking I’m dealing with a Krugman article. The fact that math shows that raising taxes won’t help the problem has nothing, not one single thing to do with the moral imperative we have to tax the rich to death (and then spend the country into death). And clearly there would be not a single adverse effect to the economy because raising taxes has never hurt an economy (if you ignore every time in history taxes have been raised, but that’s minor caveat).
After all Krugman states
“what I get for the next decade is that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.”
Yeah cause we’re only raising the debt by almost a trillion and a half every year. So after a decade instead of having raised the debt by $15 Trillion, we’ll have only raised the debt by $14 Trillion. Clearly raising taxes on the rich will solve everything.
But then it gets really fun. Because Krugman deals with the people who claim we need to cut the budget. Read for yourself:
“It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?
“Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.”
Of all the cuts to spending that conservatives, libertarians, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, the GOP candidates have suggested…does anyone remember raising the age of Medicare as being a top one? No I don’t either. I have absolutely no problem with it. But it’s an odd one to pick.
How about this, here is a link to a proposed budget by Tea Party organization Freedomworks . Their budget cuts a $560 Billion in the first year and 9.7 Trillion over the next 10 years. Now I personally don’t think it goes far enough, but I’m willing to take 9.7 Trillion in cuts over the next decade over (which will probably be more because such behavior would spur the economy and bring in larger tax receipts) Krugman’s $0.8 Trillion in new revenue (which will probably be less as it would further depress the economy and lower tax receipts).
So I don’t know if Krugman is just stupid and doesn’t get that we need to stop spending and that spending cuts are bigger than his pathetic revenue increase.
But here is my favorite line.
So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.
Serious in this case meaning not slowing down the growth of the debt by even a little. And yes don’t believe anyone claims otherwise, they’re using that “evil math thing” and as all good liberals know you can’t trust math, or facts, or truth…because we have faith knowing that taxing the rich will solve all our problems and that Obama is the one true god and that Krugman is his prophet. Evil math can’t ever be trusted.
He also very competently deals with detractors with the following statement:
“But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests not” I have no clue what mystical evidence” he is referring to because it’s certainly not to be found ANYWHERE in the history of the world. But again don’t let facts get in the way of taxing the rich.
And then there is just the bizarre….
“And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions,” he suggests that putting a tax on the sale of stock could reduce bubbles and economic instability. Technically he’s right. Several people have advocated for such a thing, myself included …but as far as I know the only people who have ever seriously advocated for this do it as a part of a complete tax overhaul, usually demanding that the capital gains tax be radically lowered if not completely eliminated as putting two sets of taxes on investments would be somewhere past insane (but that kind of makes it right up Krugman’s alley). And to prove why we need this Krugman states, “and that among those who do are Hong Kong and Singapore. If some conservative starts claiming that such taxes are an unwarranted government intrusion, you might want to ask him why such taxes are imposed by the two countries that score highest on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.” Yeah let’s just ignore that while these countries have such a financial transfer tax (4.45% in Hong Kong ) that they have massively reduced tax burdens, no capital gains, no death tax, no payroll tax, no sales tax. Paul you can’t claim that Hong Kong has a good tax system in the second half of your article when everything else about the tax system in Hong Kong is absolute proof that the first half of your article was written by someone who is functionally retarded.
But to realize this little contradiction is probably beyond Krugman’s meager intellectual abilities. Remember he doesn’t even believe in math.
About a year ago, I spoke at a conference in Europe that attracted a lot of very rich people from all over the continent, as well as a lot of people who manage money for high-net-worth individuals.
What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.
Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.
As in riots, social disarray, plundering, and chaos. A non-trivial number of these people think the rioting in places such as Greece and England is just the tip of the iceberg, and they have plans – if bad things begin to happen – to escape to jurisdictions ranging from Australia to Costa Rica (several of them remarked…
View original post 694 more words
I have no problem with this. I personally don’t see the need for a particular place to worship as I find God to be everywhere equally, but I understand how some need a church, synagogue, temple or outdoor “worship center” and prefer a particular place to practice their spirituality.
I do however have a problem with the L.A. Times stating that pagans are “followers of an ancient religion that generally does not worship a single god.” Depends on your Pagan. However, most of those who worship multiple deities by name would probably argue that there is a central single force behind all of those gods. Judeo-Christians call them angels, Pagans call them gods. You say to-may-to I say to-mah-to. But the L.A. Times has often been a paper full of idiots, so this isn’t a major point.
What I do find a major point is that it cost $80,000. Are you insane? Look at it.
It’s some stones and concrete. A few bricks. They’re in goddamn Colorado the whole thing is nothing but stone. That means they should only have had to pay for the concrete and the bricks. That’s maybe a $1,000. And then there’s the work hours. First off, the pagan students at the Air Force Academy should have volunteered their weekends to put this together…and the more open-minded Christians should have helped. But if you have to get outside workers, low bid the thing. That’s maybe a couple thousand more if you do it right. That’s maybe another 4 grand…20 if you have to hire useless union workers. It should not have cost more than $5,000 to put something like that together…and even with all the absolute bullshit and waste of government spending that should not have cost more than $40,000….but look at that. Eighty Thousand. Are you kidding me.
This isn’t a story about pagans, if it was it would be very boring. This is a story about government waste. And the pagan students are not doing themselves any favors by allowing themselves to be tied to this travesty.
Another Wonderful look at Occupy and it’s complete lack of ethics and morality.
Okay, quick break from the Chakra meditations.
This last Thursday was Thanksgiving. Many of probably said we were thankful for a few things…but did we really, I mean really think about it? This week I want you to create a list of things you’re thankful for. It should have at least 100 items on it. And when you’re finished you should write the whole list out or type it up and keep it with you. Add things to it over time but be sure you are always carrying this list with you…and pull it out at any moment of stress or hardship to remind yourself of the good things in life. At least 100 things.
Goddamn American public education...how did I not know about this? And may say I love her statement “Abraham ‘F!@#ing’ Lincoln.” Not only did he scrap the Constitution and Declaration with his “for the people” BS, he got rid of a good holiday. I don’t how, but I am celebrating this day from now on.
What does it say about the world when I’m learning history from The Daily Show?
It’s the holiday season, which is supposed to be a season of giving. So below I have a few links to some charities and non-profits you might want to consider. I’ll be honest there are few of the traditional charities here because I see providing food and shelter and researching disease to be treating symptoms of problems that would be better solved through greater education…but to each his own. Just don’t ever money to the Red Cross, it’s possibly one of the most racist, corrupt and evil organization on Earth. And supporting veterans and their families is a bit of a no-brainer.
As far as I know these 11 organizations are legitimate organizations where your money will go directly to the cause they say it will. (Please inform me of any information to the contrary). If you gave $5 to each that would only be $55…is your budget so tight that you can’t spare $55? If so, then I hope this coming year finds more abundance for your life…if not…well it’s up to you.
Oh, and clear out all that spare change you’ve accumulated over the year by putting it in the Salvation Army cans. You know you should. It’s sad I need to remind you of this.
CIA Memorial Fund—23 stars have been added to the wall of fallen agents in Langley since 9/11…they have families too that we often forget about.
I usually don’t talk about the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) (primarily because my mother taught me it was wrong to make fun of people with a severe mental handicap)…but I couldn’t resist this one.
Today, on CNN she made the following statement…
“These are a field of Republican candidates so obsessed with one job, Barack Obama’s, rather than American jobs, that they even refused to acknowledge that it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”
Damn Right! He didn’t just sign a piece of paper giving approval, this man personally planned the approach and how the members of SEAL Team 6 would hit the compound, then he personally, personally I tell you, got on a chopper, went with the SEALs, calling every single shot, and fired the kill shot himself. “planned and executed the attack”
And he didn’t sign a piece of paper with a plan already pre-made by the generals and experts which it would have political suicide to not sign…no this is the man who told the CIA to start tracking this terrorist, because before him they were doing nothing, this is the man who trained the seals, who executed the surveillance, who led the brave soldiers into battle and who rid the world of evil. “it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”
And how dare those goddamned Republicans not give him credit. The way they’re acting you’d think all he did was make a no brainer political call that anyone in his position (okay, maybe not Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter) would have done and then just sat and watched it on the big screen TV with only slightly more interest than he paid to Game Seven of the World Series. How dare you!
“PLANNED AND EXECUTED THE ATTACK!”
How dare you treat this man as anything short of Jesus Christ, George Washington, Superman and Jack Bauer rolled into one. Shame on you Republicans.
It’s kind of telling that the point she goes to as his shinning achievement which he should be given credit for is one that must have taken immense character and courage to make such a unpopular choice.
Oh, and what is it with liberals and blinking (go on, click the link above and watch the video)…When we used to always go to Pelosi she would blink only when she would be making bad calls on the stock market (it’s amazing how well that woman can pick stocks…it’s like she had insider information or something)…but now we have this dingbat who blinks about 30 times a second.
Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?
It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:
maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…
Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)
Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).
Then there is her religion. Yes she went to a religious school for her J.D. and passed the bar…oh and then she got another Masters Degree from William and Mary…you try getting into William and Mary see how easy it is (all this while raising children).
But she’s religious! Yeah, so are a lot of people. Is she wrong in her opinion on the nature of homosexuality? Of course she is. But you’ll notice that unlike lunatics like Perry or Santorum she doesn’t feel the need to legislate it. In fact she said:
In New York State, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set. […]
That is up to the people of New York. I think that it’s best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it’s best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.
Yes, she has said that there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage…but you’ll notice that she only mentions that when she’s directly questioned, all she wants to talk about, given the choice, is the economy and national defense…and really do you think she’s so stupid as to think that such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? I doubt it. Listen to what she says, it’s a throw away line to keep the base happy, she doesn’t seem to put major energy into promoting it…not like the amount of energy the media puts into keeping this issue alive. And keep in mind I have very little reason to support a highly religious candidate (being a Pagan and all), so if I’m not worried about her religious beliefs, you shouldn’t be either.
And yes her husband is nuts. But we’re electing a President not their spouse…if we judged presidents by their spouses…uh…well that might not be best the policy…and don’t just think of first ladies for the last century…think of the spouses of some of the people who lost. If we choose presidents by how likeable and honorable their spouses were, we’d have President John Edwards right now. I want you to think about that.
But let’s see here what has she said that’s made sense:
Well there was:
“I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.”
Yes, not caring about “fair share” but actual justice, what a concept.
“I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.”
“Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost. “
“ So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure. “
Clear understanding of classical liberal economic policies…much better than any of the other candidates with maybe the exception of Newt.
“I will build it on the entire border, and I’ll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can’t afford that.
“ I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. “
“And every — every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen…
No tap dancing and a clear understanding what it needed to fix the problem.
She is also the only candidate who seems to understand the difference between what the President does and what Congress does. Other candidates make claims about what Congress will pass, they give specifics on legislation they will have no control over, this leads to some of her statements being a little vague, but only because unlike the rest of these losers she seems to understand the President is not a law unto himself (or herself). And she seems to understand what the Constitution says and what can be legislated and what can’t without first getting an Amendment.
She understands that Israel is our “greatest ally” and that the President of Iran is a “genocidal maniac.” Something the current occupant of the White House has no clue about.
Now I’ll admit that I have a bit of an issue rooting for underdogs. I wanted Giuliani because I found him to be the perfect mix of conservative economics, moderate social policy, and neoconservative foreign policy. But I can’t get that so what choices do I have left:
|Conservative Economics||Neo Conservative Foreign policy||Moderate Social Policy|
|Romney||Theory yes, practice ?||Yes||No|
|Cain||Yes||He doesn’t even know what foreign policy is||No|
|Paul||Yes||Hell No||Nothing about this man is moderate|
|Newt||Yes—kind of||Yes—kind of||Kind of, I guess|
|Bachman||Yes||Yes||Not really, but it doesn’t seem to be her main thrust|
And as Meatloaf said, “two out of three ain’t bad.” So I will continue to support Michele until I can’t.
But the fact that she wants to flatten the tax code ( I can’t trust Romney in this), remove regulations, overturn ObamaCare, abolish the Department of Education, drill for oil, close the border (I certainly can’t trust Perry for this), change anchor baby status, blow up the bad guys (Cain would screw things up, Huntsman would bow down to his Chinese overlords, and Paul would support starting up Auschwitz again), reform Social Security, and stay within the actual boundaries of the Constitution (I can’t trust Santorum for this). Michele is my candidate.
But please, if you think I’m stupid give me a reason. Show me why I as a fiscal conservative and foreign policy neoconservative should support any other candidate on ethical and policy reasons. I don’t want to hear about the fact that she can’t be elected, because she could be if people dropped the she can’t be elected argument. And I suspect that in terms of policy you have nothing but misogyny. But please prove me wrong. I dare you.
Let me repeat the best line in this reposted blog “each soldier is worth about 100 of the OWS protesters.” Probably more. A lot more.
Even though I expressed some support for the Occupy protesters the other day, I strongly reject their entitlement mindset.
So you can imagine how I found this image both humorous and accurate. Maybe I’m biased because a lot of my softball buddies are in the military or former military, but each soldier is worth about 100 of the OWS protesters.
If you like this type of humor, scroll down on this post.
Short version. Obama is perfect and is not to blame at all for economic debacle. It’s all those evil, evil Republicans.
Watch it here Breitbart.tv » Obama To GOP: It’s Your Fault.
Long version with my comments:
Good afternoon. As you all know, last summer I signed a law that will cut nearly $1 trillion of spending over the next 10 years.
To offset the 4 trillion of spending increase you’ve created in just 3 years.
Part of that law also required Congress to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion by the end of this year.
In September, I sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal. It’s a plan that would reduce the deficit by an additional $3 trillion, by cutting spending, slowing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid,
First off you’re not cutting spending. So lie one for you, but it’s a common lie in Washington that both sides engage in. What you’re talking about is saying that instead of growing spending by 13 trillion you’re only going to grow it by 10 trillion. Let me explain something to you, oh great idiot-in-chief, the American public, or at least those who actually have jobs and are the ones paying for all of this want you to not just slow the growth of government but to actually cut government. That if we’re spending 4 trillion a year now we should be spending 3 trillion next year and two trillion after that. We don’t want you to slow the growth of the debt we want you to start paying it off.
and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
Also may I ask what “fair share” is. Right now the top 10% of Americans pay about 70% of income tax. They earn a little over $4 Trillion dollars of a $14 Trillion dollars economy (2009 numbers) or it works out to about 31% of the nation’s GDP according to the Tax Foundation . Now income tax receipts were 1.4 Trillion in 2009 and the top 10% paid about 70% of that. So they make 28% of the money but they pay 70% of the income tax. Yes clearly they’re not putting up their fair share. But you say that a good portion of that GDP comes from corporations and they also pay obscene tax rates usually in the 30% range.(…unless they’re cronies of Obama, like GE or Warren Buffet’s firm…so why doesn’t Obama ask his friends to pay their fair share?). So the question is how much is a fair share? Should the rich have to pay half of their income? Should they have to pay all of it? If you try that I suggest you take a look at this…
In addition to my plan,
Which I don’t remember and a half hour search on the internet can’t seem to find…I think he’s mistaking his fantasy for reality again…but if any one has a copy of this mythical plan please forward it to me…
there were a number of other bipartisan plans for them to consider from both Democrats and Republicans, all of which promoted a balanced approach.
Again what the hell is he talking about? Republicans have cuts, ranging from slash and burn to a lot of the cuts suggested by Obama’s debt commission…you know the one Obama decided to ignore. Or is he referring to that joke of a budget he sent in February?
This kind of balanced approach to reducing our deficit — an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share –
There is that word again “fair share” it sounds nice, but does he have an actual number to go with it. What is my fair share Mr. President? Give me a number and I’ll tell you if it’s fair or not. Fair share…it’s along with statements like “Hope,” “Change,” and “Steaming Pile of Horseshit.” How is paying 70% of all income tax not a fair share? Should the top 10% pay 100% of all income tax…that doesn’t quite seem “fair”…how about the top 1% pays all of the income tax? Well that won’t work; tax receipts are about 1.4 Trillion in 2009 and the top 1% (3 million people) only made about 1.3 Trillion in 2009…and even that amount was putting us further in debt. Clearly the only answer is for the rich to pay 150% of all their income then they will be paying their fair share.
is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans –
Barrack, I hate to tell you this, those idiots out at Zucatti park are not the “overwhelming majority of Americans” I know you would like it to be, but no. The majority of Americans voted in Republicans two years ago, a lot of them Tea Party candidates, you can’t say they want more spending.
Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
Well here he is actually correct. Mainly because there are really liberal bastards who like to call themselves Republicans. John McCain for instance.
It’s supported by experts and economists from all across the political spectrum.
Ranging from conservatives (or at least what Obama thinks is conservative) like Paul Krugman to moderates (or at least what Obama thinks is a moderate position) like Karl Marx to liberals like the Obama administration.
And to their credit, many Democrats in Congress were willing to put politics aside and commit to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of Medicare, as long as they were part of a balanced approach.
Yes, they’re willing to put aside party politics, so long as it means raising taxes and not touching entitlements. Very moderate of them! Balanced seems to be a word like Fair to Barrack, it’s all dependent on what he wants. Fair is taxing all the people who voted against me to death and giving all the people who voted for me tax breaks and bailouts. Balanced is doing what I say without question.
But despite the broad agreement
Between liberals, socialists, communists, and rapists at OWS
that exists for such an approach, there’s still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington.
Yes they have only repeatedly suggested closing all the loop holes via the Debt Commission, the Ryan plan, plus other plans to close loopholes (granted not as many closed loopholes as in the Ryan plan or as many as I would like to see, but it was a start) …the democratic counter proposal was to find 1.2 Trillion in savings through 1.3 trillion in new taxes and 300 billion in stimulus. Yeah that’s balanced. Oh and they offered around $400 billion in cuts to Medicare. In the 2010 budget Medicare was 453 billion , so ignoring the fact it’s constantly growing that at about 9% of the next 10 years of Medicare’s budget…yes truly a significant cut for a useless entitlement program designed to keep people dependent on the government. Show me that in 10 years Medicare’s budget will be around $100 Billion and you’ll be making progress.
They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost,
You know I remember you pushing for those tax cuts too at one point…oh maybe because at that time you were willing to admit raising taxes in an economic downturn is about as useful as putting a loaded gun to your temple and squeezing the trigger. Did you forget that basic fact or did you just need a good talking point because you have NOTHING in terms of accomplishments to run on.
even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research.
First, asshole, stop using the education thing. More money does not mean better education. When you say education you just mean paying off your teacher’s union supporters. And medical research shouldn’t be a government industry; it should be done by the private sector. So please cut all federal funds for education and let the states handle education (you’ll see major improvement in the education field) and cut all medical research as well (you’ll see major growth in that sector too).
Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare.
Oh don’t tease me like that.
So at this point, at least, they simply will not budge from that negotiating position.
Just as you won’t budge from raising taxes which won’t solve the problem, but it will give you a nice class warfare talking point. I’m so glad your reelection is better than actually solving the debt.
And so far, that refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that has prevented Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit.
And your refusal to deal in reality that we have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem. The US debt is at $15 Trillion, our GDP is $14 Trillion. When you’re that far in debt you’ve got a spending problem.
Now, we are not in the same situation that we were — that we were in in August.
No the debt is even bigger now because you keep spending like a drunken sailor with no hint that you have any intention of stopping.
There is no imminent threat to us defaulting on the debt that we owe.
Until the next debt ceiling which isn’t that far away. Right now we’re financially sound…just like Greece, Italy and Spain.
There are already $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that are locked in.
Again countered against your $4 Trillion in new spending.
And part of the law that I signed
11 I’s and 3 my’s in a 5 minute speech. Everything has to be about him. The law he signed, the plans he proposed (whether they actually exist or not) the sun he causes to rise and set. This man sees himself as a God-King more than one-term president.
this summer stated that if Congress could not reach an agreement on the deficit, there would be another $1.2 trillion of automatic cuts in 2013 -– divided equally between domestic spending and defense spending.
Because we all knew we would get here, where both parties wouldn’t be able to compromise. That’s why there were automatic cuts, because we knew rather than dealing with the real problem you and the rest of the liberals would only recommend raising taxes. We put in a guarantee that ensures that you had to put in cuts.
One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s going to happen, one way or another.
Primarily we will do this by booting the big spender out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
We’ve got $1 trillion locked in, and either Congress comes up with $1.2 trillion, which so far they’ve failed to do,
Actually the law they came up with ensures it.
or the sequester kicks in and these automatic spending cuts will occur that bring in an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.
You mean you’re looking to find ways around it. And what we need is not a scalpel or a hatchet…what we need is a machete. The budget needs to be cut. Programs. Departments. Bureaucracy. It all needs to go.
My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.
I love that trying to appear big and tough and in charge we’ve got him defending what we want which is budget cuts. There is a beautiful irony to this, and he doesn’t get it.
We need to keep the pressure up to compromise –
This once again shows he knows less than nothing about our system of government. It was designed to do nothing. And if we the Republicans do nothing then they get exactly what they want. Oh by the way the Department of Homeland Security is where part of that 600 Billion in defense cuts can come from. The TSA runs a budget of 8 billion a year, so if we kill that useless organization and let the airlines privatize their security then that’s 80 billion over 10 years already saved. Our troops in Uganda is probably another 10 Billion. Killing the engine that Sen. Kerry forced on the Pentagon is another half billion. 90.5 Billion, 15% of the way there and it took me less than a minute to write that paragraph and I have not harmed the U.S. security in the least.
not turn off the pressure.
Actually Obama wants the pressure gone because this class warfare bullshit only works for so long and if this is his entire plan for next November (which it appears to be) it’s going to lose everybody but the idiots at OWS somewhere around May.
The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. That’s exactly what they need to do. That’s the job they promised to do. And they’ve still got a year to figure it out.
Why? The GOP has the cuts they wanted. The only thing we want now is more cuts and to close ALL the loopholes in the tax code and then lower the tax rates. But we won’t get that until this idiot is gone.
Although Congress has not come to an agreement yet,
Actually they did, the law you signed.
nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. They can still come together around a balanced plan.
We kind of have that now. We’re going to make cuts.
I believe Democrats are prepared to do so.
Only because you have no choice in the matter.
My expectation is, is that there will be some Republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place.
I hope not. Why would they want to do that?
And, as I have from the beginning, I stand ready and willing to work with anybody that’s ready to engage in that effort to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction.
But only so long as it only involves raising taxes on the people who didn’t vote for me and giving more loopholes and bailouts to the superrich people who support me.
Now, in the meantime, we’ve got a lot of work left to do this year. Before Congress leaves next month, we have to work together to cut taxes for workers and small business owners all across America.
That’s easy, kill all the loopholes and then lower the tax rate. You’ll find that more money will be coming in from the top 1% and 10% but mainly from your friends who try to avoid paying taxes…you know, like all of your cabinet.
If we don’t act, taxes will go up for every single American, starting next year.
This is the first time in history a Democrat has acted like they think that’s a bad thing.
And I’m not about to let that happen. Middle-class Americans can’t afford to lose $1,000 next year because Congress won’t act.
Well then cut, cut, cut. How about we start with your crappy medical law, then move onto all of your other acts. Then keep cutting away. Unlike Perry, I can name 8 Departments that should be eliminated.
And I can only hope that members of Congress who’ve been fighting so hard to protect tax breaks for the wealthy will fight just as hard to protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class families.
Actually they’ve been fighting for sound economic policy for everyone not just meaningless class warfare sound bites.
We still need to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges.
We still need to put our teachers back in the classroom educating our kids.
WTF? What the hell kind of hallucinogenic is he on? Teachers need to be laid off in. All the bad teachers, and there’s a lot of them, need to be given the boot and not enough have. That’s part of the problem. Lots and lots of idiots in the teaching profession need to be fired first before we even thing about hiring more teachers.
So when everybody gets back from Thanksgiving, it’s time to get some work done for the American people.
Namely working to make Obama a one term president.
All around the country, Americans are working hard to live within their means and meet their responsibilities.
So I don’t have to.
And I know they expect Washington to do the same.
Which is why they’re going to give you a pink slip.