What the heck is wrong with us, the American people? The politicians created this cliff we are about to go over, they voted on, and the President signed, legislation that was supposed to force them to reign in spending and find places to 'increase revenue'. They didn't. Instead they all campaigned to keep their jobs and we, the American people, sent most of them back.
Why the hell are we shocked that this is happening? They told us it would. History shows that they will not fix things, only make them worse.
Prediction: Grand bargain that pushes real decisions to the future...oh, wait...that is were we are NOW.
This is law, this cliff thing was created, voted on, and signed. IT IS THE EFFING LAW, since they did not do their jobs, were too busy trying to get re-elected, they now have to face the consequences, which is going to hurt this country.
Do they care about that? Maybe, a little. What they care more about is getting elected again, to not be seen as the party that allowed this to happen.
Let me clue them in: It was both parties.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Insanity
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/20/dutch-sex-therapists-legalize-virtual-child-pornography/
These people want to legalize child porn. Because it is a good outlet for 'good' pedophiles.
But...wait...I thought porn caused men to objectify women. Wouldn't this cause scum to objectify children?
I have an idea, let's kill the pedophiles, that way we don't have to worry about them messing with any kids and we don't have to even have this conversation.
These people want to legalize child porn. Because it is a good outlet for 'good' pedophiles.
But...wait...I thought porn caused men to objectify women. Wouldn't this cause scum to objectify children?
I have an idea, let's kill the pedophiles, that way we don't have to worry about them messing with any kids and we don't have to even have this conversation.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Sunsets and
As I frittered away minutes of my life, wasting time arguing with someone who used generalizations to prove non-existent points, I noticed the sun was setting. Did I grab my brand new iPhone and get a picture? No...I wasted more time showing that generalizations are useless in arguments, one can find generalizations about anything.
And now I have only the memory. But the memory is good. Perhaps someday I will be arguing generalizations and will think of the sunset and maybe, just maybe I will walk away from the useless argument.
And now I have only the memory. But the memory is good. Perhaps someday I will be arguing generalizations and will think of the sunset and maybe, just maybe I will walk away from the useless argument.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
I agree with the President
I listened to as much of today's press conference, the first in what? Nine months? as I could before I had to go to work. As I expected, it was mostly repeated campaign slogans about the 2% paying their fair share and the middle class...zzzzzz...
But then someone ticked him off asking about Susan Rice and her lies to the American People through the Sunday news shows 5 days after 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi. President Obama seemed to take offense that the reporter attacked this poor defenseless woman (where are the feminists?). The President told the reporter that if he had a problem with Ambassador Rice, he had a problem with the President.
I agree.
The President admitted today, in the press conference that he told Ambassador Rice to go on tv and LIE to the American People. He said that she was just relaying what the White House had told her. The White house at that time knew that this had been a terrorist attack and yet they had Rice tell us that it was over some idiotic movie trailer. So yes.
I agree that we have a problem with the President. A President that tells the Ambassador to the UN to go on television and lie to Americans should surely be taken to task.
And no one in the media will do so.
They are too busy asking him about General Petreaus and General Allen and a couple of women who enjoyed the company of men. Or about how he is going to make sure the fiscal cliff is avoided, but not on the backs of the middle class.
Oh, and for those of you who missed it. He did not say that letting the tax cuts expire on the rich was his line in the sand, he wouldn't say it. That means that he is going to kick the can down the road, as he has for the last 4 years (along with Congress), and the next President can whine about how she inherited this crappy economy from George Bush.
But then someone ticked him off asking about Susan Rice and her lies to the American People through the Sunday news shows 5 days after 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi. President Obama seemed to take offense that the reporter attacked this poor defenseless woman (where are the feminists?). The President told the reporter that if he had a problem with Ambassador Rice, he had a problem with the President.
I agree.
The President admitted today, in the press conference that he told Ambassador Rice to go on tv and LIE to the American People. He said that she was just relaying what the White House had told her. The White house at that time knew that this had been a terrorist attack and yet they had Rice tell us that it was over some idiotic movie trailer. So yes.
I agree that we have a problem with the President. A President that tells the Ambassador to the UN to go on television and lie to Americans should surely be taken to task.
And no one in the media will do so.
They are too busy asking him about General Petreaus and General Allen and a couple of women who enjoyed the company of men. Or about how he is going to make sure the fiscal cliff is avoided, but not on the backs of the middle class.
Oh, and for those of you who missed it. He did not say that letting the tax cuts expire on the rich was his line in the sand, he wouldn't say it. That means that he is going to kick the can down the road, as he has for the last 4 years (along with Congress), and the next President can whine about how she inherited this crappy economy from George Bush.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Just a quick thought
So President Obama won a second term, I didn't think it was possible. I was wrong. Now conservatives are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to win in four years. The most popular statement from those who claim to be conservative is to distance the GOP from the Tea Party. To take the GOP more to the center.
People. Chill.
The center is defined by the left, and you freaking know it.
50 years ago the center was against legalizing any type of drug, now...
50 years ago the center had pedophiles as criminals, not 'sick, and to be cared for'.
50 years ago the center considered welfare a bad thing.
50 years ago the center created the civil rights act.
Now? Hell, there is no right anymore. If you are not in favor of legalizing drugs, you are far right.
Abortion on demand, including partial birth? mainstream.
Providing jobs and college admissions based on race? maintstream
Free stuff from the government? mainstream
Do you get it now? The center is the new left, the far left extremists are the left wing of the Democrat party. It can't be argued anymore. Move-on, Dem underground, KOS, huffpo are considered mainstream. The communists and socialists hold rallies and they are called the 99%.
Conservatives don't need to move left, that is why 12 million people who held their noses and voted for McCain stayed the freak home this year, because the GOP is pandering to the left, to the new center, which is the old left.
Isn't it time to make the left move to the center? To take back the narrative?
It isn't immigration that conservatives are against, it is ILLEGAL immigration. Why is the media allowed to continue to report it with out the illegal part?
It isn't all abortions that the vast majority is against, just those that are used for birth control purposes (and many have softened on this point).
It isn't all social safety nets that conservatives are against, it is the 3 generations of people who know nothing but those social safety nets and are proud of it.
And conservatives are not against drugs, many of them drink and smoke. Conservatives are for the rule of law. Many will follow the law and smoke right along with you, but change the laws first.
Conservatives must stay conservative, those 12 million will come back.
People. Chill.
The center is defined by the left, and you freaking know it.
50 years ago the center was against legalizing any type of drug, now...
50 years ago the center had pedophiles as criminals, not 'sick, and to be cared for'.
50 years ago the center considered welfare a bad thing.
50 years ago the center created the civil rights act.
Now? Hell, there is no right anymore. If you are not in favor of legalizing drugs, you are far right.
Abortion on demand, including partial birth? mainstream.
Providing jobs and college admissions based on race? maintstream
Free stuff from the government? mainstream
Do you get it now? The center is the new left, the far left extremists are the left wing of the Democrat party. It can't be argued anymore. Move-on, Dem underground, KOS, huffpo are considered mainstream. The communists and socialists hold rallies and they are called the 99%.
Conservatives don't need to move left, that is why 12 million people who held their noses and voted for McCain stayed the freak home this year, because the GOP is pandering to the left, to the new center, which is the old left.
Isn't it time to make the left move to the center? To take back the narrative?
It isn't immigration that conservatives are against, it is ILLEGAL immigration. Why is the media allowed to continue to report it with out the illegal part?
It isn't all abortions that the vast majority is against, just those that are used for birth control purposes (and many have softened on this point).
It isn't all social safety nets that conservatives are against, it is the 3 generations of people who know nothing but those social safety nets and are proud of it.
And conservatives are not against drugs, many of them drink and smoke. Conservatives are for the rule of law. Many will follow the law and smoke right along with you, but change the laws first.
Conservatives must stay conservative, those 12 million will come back.
Friday, September 28, 2012
ObamaCare (PPACA) decision (finally posting)
(This post was stuck in the ether for months)
What a convoluted mess that decision was. Roberts ruled that in two ways the mandate was unconstitutional and a third that it could stand. The most insane part was that for the case to have standing, the mandate was ruled not a tax before ruling, then ruled a tax during the ruling. Huh?
So, for the case to have standing, the mandate is not a tax, but the mandate is a tax therefore the legislation is legal because congress can tax? Huh?
So now all congress has to do to get us (Americans) to do anything is to create a penalty collected by the IRS with our taxes. Getting too fat? Go to the gym or pay the penalty. Smoking? Stop or pay a penalty. Not eating enough (insert vegetable of the week), pay a penalty.
Some say that by ruling in this manner, Roberts limited the commerce clause. I call bullshit on that. He negated the commerce clause. The House and Senate can now ignore it by creating a penalty collected by the IRS, or, simply creating punitive taxes...which is illegal under Article I, Section 9. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The link in the above quote from the constitution is left intact to show that only income taxes are free from the rules set forth in Section 9. This tax, created by Roberts, will never be in proportion, there are too many exclusions and exceptions to the individual responsibility section of the PPACA. Now, there is the little matter of failing to pay this tax resulting in no criminal penalties, a favorite of my friends on the left. That leaves the civil penalties wide open folks, meaning that fines and fines and fines will be heaped upon those who do not pay the mandate tax.
Oh, and for those who are under the impression that this is a small tax, go read the text I linked above. The 'small penalty' bandied about by President Obama in his speeches is $695 PER MONTH, per taxpayer over 18. For those under 18 it is only $350 per month. So, a husband and wife with two teenagers who work (taxpayers) would be penalized $2085 per month for each month they don't carry the amount of private insurance that the government decides they must have.
And that, right there, is the problem folks. What happens when the Republicans take the Presidency, the Senate and the House? All the leftie's out there claim we republicans are in the pockets of big business, including the insurance companies, so why wouldn't the government simply force a family of 4 to buy $2000 of insurance every month? Sure, right now, a family of 4 can get insurance for less than $1000, but if the idea is to make money for the insurnance companies (as the lefties say), then the Republicans are going to kill us all, right?
Nope...look at the money in 2008, more to R than to D, but it was close. Thie year, however, it is leaning R. I say because the insurance companies see the R's winning and they want this mandate to live, to fatten the coffers of the Insurance companies.
Oh, and just for fun, President Obama received twice the money from Healthcare industries as did Senator McCain in 2008, and D's got more overall as well.
This whole thing is a mess, designed to put Americans on a so-called single payer system. That system is more unfair than that system we have now, it's just that it is more unfair to more people, which is why the democrats I know like it.
This is all about punishing success, it always has been with the democrats.
.
What a convoluted mess that decision was. Roberts ruled that in two ways the mandate was unconstitutional and a third that it could stand. The most insane part was that for the case to have standing, the mandate was ruled not a tax before ruling, then ruled a tax during the ruling. Huh?
So, for the case to have standing, the mandate is not a tax, but the mandate is a tax therefore the legislation is legal because congress can tax? Huh?
So now all congress has to do to get us (Americans) to do anything is to create a penalty collected by the IRS with our taxes. Getting too fat? Go to the gym or pay the penalty. Smoking? Stop or pay a penalty. Not eating enough (insert vegetable of the week), pay a penalty.
Some say that by ruling in this manner, Roberts limited the commerce clause. I call bullshit on that. He negated the commerce clause. The House and Senate can now ignore it by creating a penalty collected by the IRS, or, simply creating punitive taxes...which is illegal under Article I, Section 9. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The link in the above quote from the constitution is left intact to show that only income taxes are free from the rules set forth in Section 9. This tax, created by Roberts, will never be in proportion, there are too many exclusions and exceptions to the individual responsibility section of the PPACA. Now, there is the little matter of failing to pay this tax resulting in no criminal penalties, a favorite of my friends on the left. That leaves the civil penalties wide open folks, meaning that fines and fines and fines will be heaped upon those who do not pay the mandate tax.
Oh, and for those who are under the impression that this is a small tax, go read the text I linked above. The 'small penalty' bandied about by President Obama in his speeches is $695 PER MONTH, per taxpayer over 18. For those under 18 it is only $350 per month. So, a husband and wife with two teenagers who work (taxpayers) would be penalized $2085 per month for each month they don't carry the amount of private insurance that the government decides they must have.
And that, right there, is the problem folks. What happens when the Republicans take the Presidency, the Senate and the House? All the leftie's out there claim we republicans are in the pockets of big business, including the insurance companies, so why wouldn't the government simply force a family of 4 to buy $2000 of insurance every month? Sure, right now, a family of 4 can get insurance for less than $1000, but if the idea is to make money for the insurnance companies (as the lefties say), then the Republicans are going to kill us all, right?
Nope...look at the money in 2008, more to R than to D, but it was close. Thie year, however, it is leaning R. I say because the insurance companies see the R's winning and they want this mandate to live, to fatten the coffers of the Insurance companies.
Oh, and just for fun, President Obama received twice the money from Healthcare industries as did Senator McCain in 2008, and D's got more overall as well.
This whole thing is a mess, designed to put Americans on a so-called single payer system. That system is more unfair than that system we have now, it's just that it is more unfair to more people, which is why the democrats I know like it.
This is all about punishing success, it always has been with the democrats.
.
Insanity and language
"The package will recoup 30 billion euros ($39 billion) for the public purse with a goal of narrowing the deficit to 3.0 percent of national output next year from 4.5 percent this year - France's toughest single belt-tightening in 30 years."
The above is from this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-france-budget-idUSBRE88R0AK20120928 in which raising taxes to an incredibly insane percantage is considered belt tightening.
What? Oh, that's right, so they can 'recoup' 30 billion dollars.
Let's think about those two phrases. Recoup is "to regain something lost." for this to be the case one must start with the premise that all money belongs to the government, no matter what you do to earn it for your self. The work you do is simply done to borrow for a short time the money that the government someday might need to reclaim.
Secondly, belt tightening is defined by the free dictionary dot com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belt-tightening) as increased thrift and frugality, a reduction in spending.
Raising taxes is not reducing spending, and the money a citizen earns does not belong to the government to be recouped. The problem is, we allow our news media, our governments, to talk to us like this.
And we lose freedoms.
Every day.
The above is from this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-france-budget-idUSBRE88R0AK20120928 in which raising taxes to an incredibly insane percantage is considered belt tightening.
What? Oh, that's right, so they can 'recoup' 30 billion dollars.
Let's think about those two phrases. Recoup is "to regain something lost." for this to be the case one must start with the premise that all money belongs to the government, no matter what you do to earn it for your self. The work you do is simply done to borrow for a short time the money that the government someday might need to reclaim.
Secondly, belt tightening is defined by the free dictionary dot com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belt-tightening) as increased thrift and frugality, a reduction in spending.
Raising taxes is not reducing spending, and the money a citizen earns does not belong to the government to be recouped. The problem is, we allow our news media, our governments, to talk to us like this.
And we lose freedoms.
Every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)